Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 04/08/1985 AGENDA - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL • Regular Meeting April 8 , 1985, at 7 : 30 P.M. Atascadero Administration Building Call to Order Pledge of Allegiance Invocation Roll Call City Council Comments Earthquake Preparedness Week Proclamation - April 15 - 20,- 1985 Child Protection Month Proclamation - April, 1985 A. CONSENT CALENDAR NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC All matters listed under Item A, Consent Calendar, are considered to be routine, and will be enacted by one motion in the form listed below. There will be no separate discussion of these items. If discussion is required, that item will be removed from the Consent Calendar and will be considered separately. Vote may be by roll call. • �T Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of March 25, 1985. -, -2. 1985-86 Proposed Budget Calendar B. HEARINGS, APPEARANCES, AND REPORTS 1. Proposed Resolution 25-85 - Public Hearing Considering the Adoption of the Housing Element to the Atascadero General Plan 2. Appeal of Planning Commission approval of Conditional Use Permit 29-84 (Christian Home) 3. Friends of the Library Presentation - Results of Application for Federal Funding 4. Proposed Resolution 23-85 - Approving Annexation of Territory (Annexation Number 3) to the City of Atascadero ("Holiday Inn") C. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Proposed Resolution 22-85 Adoption of Salary/Classification . Schedule for Fiscal Year 1984-85 (Cont'd from 3/25/85) l 1 2. Proposed Resolution 24-85 - Revocating Revised Resolution -� 11-85 which Approves General Plan Amendment Changing the Land Use Designation at 8800 El Centro (Lot 24/Block4) , from Moderate Density Single Family Residential to Low Density Multiple Family Residential (GP 1C-85: Yeomans) 3. Cost Estimate to Validate Signatures and hold a Special Election (In response to referendum to Proposed Ordinance 100, Yeomans) - City Clerk —Verbal 4. Proposed Revised Urgency Ordinance 101 Municipal Code Amendment Regarding Reorganization of the Planning Commission and Recreation Commission (Only One Reading Required) (Cont'd from 3/25/85) 5. Police Facility Acquisition - Listing of Alternatives 6. Mid-Year Budget Adjustments - Confirmation (Cont'd from 3/25/85) D. NEW BUSINESS 1. City Employee Picnic E. ATASCADERO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT 1. Proposed Resolution 26-85 - Authorizing the City Manager as Representative Regarding the Environmental Protection Agency 2. Proposed Resolution 28-85 - Public Sewer Service Extension to Lot 44C, Block NC - 5660 San Jacinto Public Comment F. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION 1. City Council 2. City Attorney 3. City Clerk 4. City Treasurer 5. City Manager Note: There will be a closed session to consider property acquisition and personnel matters. An announcement is not anticipated after the closed session. 2 P R O C L A M A T I O N EARTHQUAKE PREPAREDNESS WEEK APRIL 15 - 20 , 1985 WHEREAS, California is experiencing a period of increased seismic activity which is likely to produce more earthquakes of damaging intensities in the future; and WHEREAS, emergency preparedness measures taken before, during, and after a damaging earthquake can reduce loss of life and property, ease fears, and lessen the confusion which follows a tremor ; and WHEREAS, during the week of April 15, the Governor ' s Office of Emergency Services, with the assistance of governmental agencies, service organizations, elementary schools, major corporations, Neighborhood Crime Watch groups, Girl Scout chapters, and private citizens, will work to inform and educate all California residents about such earthquake preparedness measures; and WHEREAS, this year California officials will be assisted in their efforts to "get California quake safe" by the enthusiastic, popular character, Yogi Bear; and WHEREAS, it is important that " earthquake safety `information distributed during the week of April 15 be studied and observed throughout the year ; NOW, THEREFORE, I, ROLFE NELSON, Mayor of the City of Atascadero, do hereby proclaim April 15-20, 1985 as Earthquake Preparedness Week and urge all citizens to learn proper safety measures to follow before, during, and after an earthquake to prevent injuries, loss of life, and property damage. ROLFE NELSON, MAYOR City of Atascadero, California • ! • PROCLAMATION A PROCLAMATION OF THE ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL • ACXN011LEDGING APRIL AS "CALIFORNIA CHILD ABUSE PREVJi;NTION MO-NT:q" WHEREAS, Children are the most precious resource of this state; and WHEREAS , The problem of child abuse is raoidly growing both in size and severity; and WHEREAS, Persons abused as children are more likely to commit violent crimes as adults; and NHEREAS , Child abuse prevention and intervention programs help protect children, stabilize families and contribute to a reduction in crime; and WHEREAS , Effective child abuse prevention programs can save children' s lives and prevent physical and emotional suffering; and WHEREAS, The California Legislature is deeply concerned about the plight of the victims of child abuse in the state, and has made a committment to combat child abuse; and IHEREAS, The Atascadero City Council is dedicating its efforts to making the City of Atascadero a safe place to live for all children; NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Atascadero does herebv resolve to officially acknowledge April as "California Child Abuse Prevention Month. " NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Atascadero does hereby further resolve that this Proclamation shall take effect immediately. ROLFE NELSON, Mayor • MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITOCOUNCIL 00UNCIL MFETINO: 4/8/85 Budget Session AGENDA ITEM NO. : A - 1 March 25, 1985 7 : 00 p.m. Atascadero Administration Building 0dget session was called to order at 7 p.m. by Mayor Nelson. Present: Councilwoman Mackey, Norris; Councilman Handshy, Molina; and Mayor Nelson. Budget reviews and adjustments were presented by: Mike Hicks, Fire Chief; Henry Engen, Planning Director; John Wallace, Contract Engineer, Bob Best, Recreation Director; and Bud McHale, Police Chief. Mayor Nelson stated that he had given the Council a proposed salary increase cost at mid-year of 3%-5% for employees. MOTION: By Councilwoman Mackey, seconded by Councilwoman Norris to bring all of the proposals including the 5% salary increase for per- manent (regular, management and probationary) employees back to the next Council Meeting in resolution form for approval. Passed unanimously by roll call vote. Meeting was recessed at 7 : 35 p.m The Regular Meeting was called to order at 7 : 40 p.m. by Mayor Nelson. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. Invocation was given by Rollin Dexter of the United Methodist Church. LL CALL resent: Councilwoman Mackey and Norris; Councilman Handshy and Molina; and Mayor Nelson. Absent: None STAFF Mike Hicks, Fire Chief, Acting City ,Manager, Acting Finance Director and Acting Public Works Director; Allen Grimes, City Attorney; Grigger Jones, City Clerk; Georgia Ramirez, Deputy City Clerk; Bud McHale, Police Chief; Henry Engen, Planning Director; Bob Best, Recreation Director; and John Wallace, Contract Engineer. PUBLIC COMMENT Those speaking from the audience were Joe Nile, Art Cunningham, Robert Gummar and Terry Graham. Mr. Cunningham presented the City Clerk with a referendum petition with over 2, 000 signatures against Council Resolution No,. 11-85 which amended the general plan to permit the Yeomans Project. COUNCIL COMMENT None • -1- 1` March 25, 1985 - Counci&eeting A. CONSENT CALENDAR 0 1. Minutes of the Regular Meeting of March 11, 1985. 2 . Minutes of the Special Meeting of March 18, 1985. 3. Treasurer' s Report - February l - 28 1985. (RECOMMEND APPROVAL) 4 . Finance Director' s Report -- February 1 - 28, 1985. (RECOMMEND APPROVAL 5. Tentative Lot Line Adjustment 13-84, 14405 Santa Lucia (Lots 13A and 15A, Block 85) , Tenneco Realty Development/Kennaly (RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION) 6 . Tentative Lot Line Adjustment-1-85, 8400 Atascadero Road (Lot 5, Block 6) , Watson/Kennaly (RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION) 7. Tentative Parcel Map 28-84, 9095 La Paz Lane (Lot 20, Block 66) , Dunham/Stewart (RECOMMEND ACCEPTANCE OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION) 8. Tentative Parcel Map AT821108 :1, 7805 Santa Cruz (Lot 16, Block 51) , Mecham/Associated Processions (RECOMMEND ACCEPTANCE OF PLAN- NING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION) 9. Tentative Parcel Map 3-85, 8870 West Front Road (Lots 8 and 9, Block 10) , Campbell/Bethel (RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION) MOTION: By Councilman Handshy, seconded 'by Councilwoman Mackey to approve consent calendar items A 1-9. Passed unanimously by roll ca-ll vote. B. HEARINGS, APPEARANCES AND REPORTS 1. Special Requested Animal Control Sweep - Verbal Report by John McKeon, County Animal Control Department John McKeon from the County Animal Control Department reported that 64 special patrol. hours were devoted to the sweep. During this time 16 citations were issued and 12 impounds of animals were made. Continued sporadic sweeps will be made. 2. Downtown Revitalization Presentation —Verbal by Engen/Wallace Henry Engen, Planning Director and John Wallace, Contract Engineer, gave staff reports with Mr. Wallace advising that the cost of the Lewis Avenue Bridge would range from $350, 000 to $500, 000. Henry Engen and John Wallace will meeting with a Chamber of Com- merce Committee which Floyd Anderson is chairing to develop the project concept. Then they will look toward retaining appropriate consultants to help guide the City as to what is the most feasible � . way of implementing these improvements . -2- t March 25, 1985 - CounciWeting C. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Proposed Ordinance No. 99 (Zone Change 2-85) - Request initiated- the Planning Commission to Revise Zoning Ordinance Section 9-4 .1 and 9-141a to Allow Grading Permits on Slopes in Excess of 300 to be approved Through a Precise Plan Approval by Staff. Request also includes Correcting a Printin Error in Section 904 .141a. (SECOND READING) (Continued from 3/11/85) . Henry Engen, Planning Director gave staff report. MOTION:. By Councilman Molina, seconded by Councilwoman Mackey to read by title only. Passed unanimously, Mayor Nelson read Ordinance No. 99 by title only. MOTION: By Councilwoman Mackey, seconded by Councilman Molina to adopt Ordinance No. 99. Passed unanimously by roll call vote. 2. Proposed Resolutions 58-84 and 59-84 - Acceptances of Portions of Los Altos Road and San Marcos Road into the City Street Maintenance System (Cont'd from 3/11/85) Staff report was given by John Wallace, Contract Engineer. MOTION: By Councilman Molina, seconded by Councilwoman Norris to approve Resolutions 58-84 and 59-84 . Passed unanimously by roll call ,vote. 3. Proposed Ordinance No. 100 (Zone Change 7-84) - Amend Zoning fro RSF-Y Single Family Residential to RMF" (6) PD Multiple Family Residential Planned Development Overlay (24' dwelling units) 8800 El Centro Ave.:; Yeomans/Lindsey '(SECOND READING) (Cont'd from 3/11/85) Henry Engen; Planning Director, gave staff report. He stated that in realization of the receipt of the referendum he has been advised by the City Attorney, Allen Grimes, to hold in abeyance the effec- tiveness of the General Plan Amendment which was to change the property to low density, multiple family residential. We don' t know at this time if the referendum has sufficient signatures which must be verified by the City Clerk' s office. The appropriate thing to do rather than act on it this evening, would be to con- tinue it until we know whether or not the plan is in effect or not. This would be brought back at a future date for consideration. Allen Grimes, City Attorney, said he concurred with Mr. Engen. MOTION: By Councilman Handshy, . seconded by Councilwoman Norris to hold this over until the consideration of the report of the City Clerk on the status of the referendum. Passed unanimously. 4 . Proposed Ordinance No. 101 - Municipal Code Amendment Regarding Reorganization of the Planning Commission & Recreation Commissio (FIRST READING) (Cont'd from 3/11/85) -3 March 25 , 1985 - Council eting Henry Engen, Planning Director, stated that in Sec. 2-9. 03 he felt instead of "constitutes the voluntary resignation" , etc. it should state "shall be reported to the City Council by the Planning Direc- tor for consideration for removal from the office" . Councilman Molina stated he felt that five members were better than seven for the Planning Commission. Councilman Handshy said he felt that seven members gave more re- presentation. Councilwoman Norris said he felt that it should be left at seven members. Mayor Nelson said he felt that five would be better than seven. Councilwoman Nackey said she felt that seven would be the best. Mayor Nelson said that from the comments that had been made by the councilmembers, the commissions should remain at seven instead of five. Mayor Nelson asked staff to make all the changes that were discussed and bring back Ordinance No. 101 at the next countil meeting. E. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION 1. City Council Councilman Handshy and Mayor Nelson discussed the issue of the recall with Terry Graham from the audience. City Attorney Allen Grimes, City Attorney, stated he had handed out meeting notices of the Committee of the. California Legislature. The legislature is still studying the subject of property tax exchange for city incor- porations. The matter that we still have under concern with the county of San Luis Obispo with respect to property tax allocation. City Clerk Grigger Jones, City Clerk, said that concerning the referendum, there will be a cost of approximately $600 to $750 to check the signatures. At the next meeting he will be advising the council of the exact costs and asking for a transfer of monies from the contingency fund to cover these costs. City Manager Mike Hicks, Acting City Manager, said the Zoological Society is in the process of forming a committee to prepare a master plan for the Atascadero Zoo. He asked the Council to appoint two members to this committee. Mayor Nelson asked Marge Mackey to serve on this committee and he will ask Jim Porter from the Parks and Recreation Commission to appoint some one from the Parks and Recreation Commission to also serve on this committee. -4- March 25 , 1985 - Counci0eeting Ray Cassidy has been hired as Interim Finance Director as of last Monday. The position for Public Works Director closes on March 29, 1985. There are 13 applicants as of now. The City has received the Re-Classification Survey. A report will hopefully be to the Council by the next Council Meeting. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9: 24 p.m. RECORDED BY: GR GER J E , RK OUNCIL MFFTING 4/8/85 GENPA ITEM NO, A 2 • D R A F T FISCAL YEAR 1985-86 BUDGET CALENDAR MONTH OF APRIL Revenues estimated by Finance Director Estimated expenditures prepared by Department Heads and reviewed by Finance Director and/or City Manager Preliminary budget prepared for review by City Council APRIL 22, 1985: * Council establishes schedule for study sessions and public hearings. MONTH OF MAY MAY 31, 1985: Publish public notice of public hearing for revenue sharing. MONTH OF JUNE June 10, 1985 * Public Hearing for revenue sharing; adopt final budget. June 24, 1985 * Adopt final budget resolution * - Scheduled Council Meetings FISCAL YEAR 1984-8.5 BUDGET CALENDAR �i 2/14/84 Budget call to Staff 3/12/84 Initial estimate of revenue Initial review of department inputs 4/02/84 Publish and distribute preliminary budget #4/09/84 Council establishes schedule for study sessions + and public hearings `t 5/02/84 Publish public notice of public hearing for. . c{ revenue sharing #5/14/84 Public hearing for revenue sharing; *adopt final budget r #5/28/84 Adopt final budget resolution 6/11/84 Publish the final budget 6/15/84 Distribute final budget t #Scheduled Council meetings *Contingent upon status of revenue information form State and completion of employee negotiations. May have to hold at this point. 2- 9t 3 f 3' 3. 3` 3, . • 3, 31 C C�[JNCI L MEETING : 4/8/85 GENDA ITEM N0, B 1 M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council April 8, 1985 VIA: Mike Hicks, Acting City Manager FROM: Henry Engen, Planning Director 4 SUBJECT: Proposed Housing Element of the City' s General Plan BACKGROUND: California law mandates the adoption of a housing element as part of a city' s general plan. The purpose of a housing element is to identify housing problems and develop policies and programs to address them. A draft housing element was prepared and circulated in December of 1984 and was heard by the Planning Commission on January 7th, January 21st, and February 4th, 1985. At the February 4th meeting, the Commission recommended approval of the accompanying draft element to the City Council. Prior to Council' s being able to act, however, the element had to forwarded to the State's Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for comment prior to being heard by the Council. Comments have been received (see attached letter of March 21, 1985) . Hence, the Council can now consider adopting the Housing Element. RELATIONSHIP TO CITY'.S COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT: One of the conditions of the 95 unit senior citizens congregate hous- ing project is that the City Council has to adopt a Housing Element before land acquisition funds can be drawn down. Initially, we had been advised that action by the Planning Commission would meet this grant requirement. Subsequently, the Department of Housing and Commu- nity Development reversed themselves and now require Council approval before the land can be acquired for the senior citizens project. HOUSING ELEMENT CONTENT: As part of the appendix to the Housing Element, the pertinent section of State law outlines the content required of a housing element. Also enclosed is HCD' s critique of the housing element which suggests a number of areas for provision of additional information. Without get- ting into detail, we would note that much of the data requested by HCD is information that is contained in the land use element of the City' s General Plan. With respect to HCD comments, it is staff' s recommendation that the element be considered as recommended by the Planning Commission. Future revisions to the plan can address, on a point-by-point basis, • the items raised by HCD. • 9 With respect to the draft, the text is organized to explain state re- quirements, present extensive data on housing and population charac- teristics pertaining to housing in the city, reference the County' s regional fair-share housing allocation target figures, and outline proposed goals, policies and programs to address the housing problems of Atascadero. In staff' s view, this section is the critical one to this general plan document in that it provides policy direction to the city and staff on issues related to housing. Altogether , some twelve problems are identified and direction for city response to those prob- lems follow. Enclosed are excerpts of the minutes of the Planning Commission' s review and discussion of the document. It should be noted that the areas that attracted the most discussion were proposed program 4. 1 (page 20) which suggests that the City "consider adopting a development fee surcharge schedule to generate funds needed to pro- vide for the capital project needs of the community" , and 11.1, " . . . . provide for a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet for single family homes within the sewered area when compatible with residential neighborhoods. " RECOMMENDATION: Adoption of the attached Resolution adopting the draft Element with any amendments the Council deems appropriate following public hearing and discussion. HE:ps ATTACHMENTS: Draft Resolution No. 25-85 March 21, 1985 Communication - Department of Housing and Community Development Planning Commission Minute Excerpts - 1/7/85, 1/21/85 and 2/4/85 Separate Cover - Housing Element - February 4, 1985 4 l� s • RESOLUTION NO. 25-85 A .RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO APPROVING ADOPTION OF A HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE ATASCADERO GENERAL PLAN WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held public hearings on January 7th, 21st, and February 4th, 1985, on the housing element in accor- dance with California Government Code; and WHEREAS, the City Council has received the recommendation from the Planning Commission supporting adoption of the housing element; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered public testimony and technical information prepared by City staff covering goals, policies and programs based on analysis of the City' s housing stock, population characteristics, fair-share housing allocation, affordability, and effects of city development review procedures; and WHEREAS, the City Council has evaluated testimony given at both the Planning Commission hearings and before the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council intends to re-examine this housing ele- ment periodically to evaluate the effects of the proposed programs and consider new information and city needs; and WHEREAS, the City Council concurs with the determination of the Planning Commission that the housing element be granted a negative declaration from environmental impact. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Atascadero does resolve as follows: 1. The housing element dated February 4, 1985 attached hereto as Exhibit "A" is hereby adopted. 2. The Planning Director shall publish and make available to the public said element and distribute copies to appropriate mem- bers of city government and to the California Office of Plan- ning and Research, California Department of Housing and Com- munity Development, and to local libraries. On motion by and seconded by ' the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: DATE ADOPTED: CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA By ROLFE D. NELSON, Mayor ATTEST: ROBERT M. JONES, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: M CHAEL HICKS, Acting City Manager APPROVED A TO FORM: .. ALLEN GRIMES Cit Attorney y 4. V ' U- rr STATE OF CALIFORNIA ` • GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN Govemor DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 921 Tenth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 445-4775 MAR Z 5 "5 CITY MGR. March 21, 1985 Mr. Mike Hicks Acting City Manager City of Atascadero P.O. Box 747 Atascadero, CA 93423 Dear Mr. Hicks: RE: Review of Atascadero' s Draft Housing Element Thank you for submitting Atascadero'.s draft housing element received February 8, 1985. As you know, we are required to review draft housing elements and report our findings to the locality (Government Code Section 65585(b) ) . Telephone conversations on March 15, and 18, 1985, with Henry Engen and Doug Davidson of your staff have facilitated our review. This letter and appendix summarize the conclusions of those discussions. Atascadero's draft housing element is well written and contains much useful information regarding local housing needs. However, in our opinion, certain revisions are needed for the element to comply with State law (Article 10.6 of the Government Code) . The needed changes are summarized in the appendix to this letter. The Community Appearance and Standards Element of the General Plan appears to present a major constraint to the development of housing in the City in that the maximum single family lot size allowed is 1 unit per 1/2 acre. While we note that the City has included a program to allow some 10,000 square foot single family lots, the impact of the above standards need to be analyzed as an actual or potential governmental constraint to the development of housing for all economic segments in the City. r � i Mr. Mike Hicks Page Two We appreciate the cooperation and assistance of Messrs. Engen and Davidson during the course of our review. We hope our comments are helpful and if you have any questions regarding our comments please contact Camilla Cleary of our staff at (916) 323-6174. At their request pursuant to the Public Information Act, we are forwarding copies of this letter to the persons and organizations listed below. Sincerely, A.A Ralph Qualls, Jr. p Chief Deputy Director RAQ:CC:bt Attachment cc: Howard Mankins San Luis Obispo Count and Cities Area Planning P County 9 Coordination Council Henry Engen, Atascadero Planning Department Doug Davidson, Atascadero Planning Department Bob Katai , Governor's Office of Planning and Research Tom Bannon, California Building Industry Assocation Dave Williamson, Small Cities CDBG Program i APPENDIX City of Atascadero The following are changes, which in our opinion, would bring Atascadero's draft housing element into compliance with Article 10.6. Following each recommended revision we refer to the applicable provision of the Government Code. The particular program examples or data sources listed are suggestions for your information only. We recognize that Atascadero may choose other means to comply with the law. We have sent 1980 Census data, under separate cover, to assist you in your analyses. A. Housing Needs, Resources and Constraints 1. Analyze employment trends and quantify Atascadero's existing and projected housing needs for all income levels including the City's share of the regional housing need (Section 65583(a) (1) ). The regional share projections in the San Luis Obispo County Housing Needs Plan report do not take into account new employment opportunities. We suggest the City analyze the impact of employment on housing, particularly if new jobs will be created, over the planning period. The City's new construction need should be shown for the planning period (1984-1992) and should be disaggregated by income group. 2. Analyze the number of lower income households (i .e., those earning i less than 80% of the County median income) that are overpaying for housing (Section 65583(a)(2)) . 3. Quantify the number of housing units that need to be rehabilitated or replaced (Section 65583(a)(2)) . 4. Identify the zoning of the vacant sites shown in Table 14 and discuss the public facilities and services available to the sites (Section 65583(a)(3) ). 5. Analyze potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including land use controls, building codes and their enforcement, site improvements , fees and other exactions required of developers, and local processing and permit procedures (Section 65583(a)(4)) . For example, the City might wish to analyze the impact of the land use "Colony Goal ," which aims at a city of primarily lower-middle to upper-middle income households, on the development of affordable housing. 6. Analyze nongovernmental constraints upon the maintenance, . improvement, or development of housing for all income levels including the availability of financing, the price of land, and the cost of construction (Section 65583(a)(5) ). For example, the City may wish to analyze the impact of varying mortgage interest rates or the per unit cost of land on the affordability of housing. 7. Analyze the special housing needs of the handicapped, elderly, large families, farmworkers, families with female heads of households, and families and persons in need of emergency shelter (Section 65583(a)(6) ) . For example, the City may wish to discuss the incidence of poverty among these special groups. B. Quantified Objectives Establish the maximum number of housing units that can be rehabilitated and conserved over the planning period. For example, Atascadero may wish to quantify the mobilehome stock that could be conserved through more stable zoning. C. Housing Programs 1. Establish a seven-year schedule of program actions, including the time frame for implementation of each action and the City agency responsible, which the City is implementing or intends to implement (Section 65583(c) ) . i2. Identify adequate sites which will be made available through appropriate zoning and development standards and with public facilities and services needed to facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels (Section 65583(c)(1) ) . 3. Include programs which demonstrate that the City will use its local powers to assist in the development of housing for low- and moderate-income households (Section 65583(c) (2) ). For example, the City may wish to include as a program action the new senior complex that is to be developed with the aid of CDBG funds. 4. Include programs to address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental constraints to the development of housing (Section 65583(c)(3) ). For example, the City may wish to offer fast-track processing to developers utilizing the density bonus program. 5. Include programs to improve and conserve the condition of existing affordable housing stock (Section 65583(c)(4) ) . For example, the City, in cooperation with a nonprofit housing group, could apply for State and Federal or Farmers Home Administration funds to assist low- and moderate-income households in rehabilitating the housing. c. { a 6. Include a program which will promote equal housing opportunity (Section 65583(c)(5)). For example, the City could designate and publicize an agency to provide information on fair housing laws and refer complaints of housing discrimination to appropriate State or Federal agencies. D. Public Participation Describe the City's efforts to achieve participation of all economic segments of the community in the development of the housing element (Section 65583(c) ) . Minutes - Planning A mission - January 7 , 198 Mr. Strong - felt that-- alternatives toward this issue should —Ne7 defined. He noted that Phase I is a redevelopment process aid; improvement to circulation and access and further stated at Phase 4.I would add half the number of required parking space He suggested that the driveway which would provide access t South Mall Extension could be eliminated and build the brill towards construction,_of Phase II. Mr. Strong further stated at it is critical that the theaters be allowed to be put in a that a por-. tion of the retail development could possibly be de erred for now and felt that Conditions #11 and #13 should be ree ned rather than table the whole projet. Jim Harrison, representing El Camino Associes, elaborated on the background of his involvement with the ceder noting that during the last several years, the center his been left to deteriorate . in its appearance. He statedthat the center is in a central sec- tion of Atascadero and spoke at le gth about the redevelopment plan incorporated into Phase` Dr. Harrison felt that this project should not become the sc.ape goat with regard to resolving the bridge issue, and felt that to unconditionally table the mat- ter at this time is unfair I could kill the project. Further discussion ensueyl among the Commission and Dr. Harrison concerning possible modifications to Phase I that would be fea= sible at this time. MOTION: Made by Commissioner Lilley, seconded by, Commissioner I Carroll and carried unanimously to certify a Negative Declaration and to approve Conditional Use ``-Permit 26-84 witch approval limited, to Phase I only with building per " Writs for Buildings I and K to be conditioned on, a spec17 fic agreement to participate in the traffic signal and construction of the bridge (Conditions 11 and 13) . \'-,% Vice Chairman LaPrade called a recess from 9:15 to 9 :30 p.m. 3. Housing Element: Public hearing to consider adoption of a new updated Housing Element for the City of Atascadero in conformance with Gov- ernment Section 65580 of the State of California Planning and Zoning Law. The Housing Element contains overall goals, ob- jectives, and policies in order to provide for the housing needs of the community. Copies of the draft Housing Element are available for review at the Administration Building, 6500 Palma Avenue, the City Library, and the Chamber of Commerce. Copies may be obtained for the cost of reproduction at the Planning Department at 6500 Palma Avenue. Mr. Engen summarized the draft document noting that this is State mandated and that its adoption has become a prerequisite for the approved C.D.B.G. program for the senior congregate housing. He further explained that after the Planning Commission has recommen- ded approval of the document, the requirement will have been met according to State HCD staff. 4 Minutes - Planning 91mmission - January 7 , 1980 With regard to the Availability of Public Services listed in Page 18, Mr . Engen noted a letter received from the School District in response to the existing impact on -the schools. Commissioners LaPrade and Lilley commended staff on the timely manner in which the report was prepared and felt the document was a good one. Commissioner Lilley expressed concern with regard to turn-around time for building permits and commented on the quality control of building materials. He further stated that he would like to see some current figures on the cost of land as opposed to cost of construction for moderate family homes Vice Chairman LaPrade spoke on the possibility of allowing 10,000 square foot lot sizes for single family residences. Commissioner Carroll felt the cost of land should be cut down and commented on the open space issue. -Mr. Engen stated that many of the factors that are going to deter- mine what happens is beyond the City' s control. Ted McCarty, representing the School District, noted he has avail- able for any questions. Ted Young spoke on the issue of adding additional monies to the cost of building permits and noted that the State bond issue has passed and asked why the developers should pay. He also noted that tract homes would be a feasible alternative to affordable housing. Judy Young stated she feels there is a lack of affordable housing and expressed concern that this documentbeadopted as soon as possible as it is delaying her 95 unit senior citizen congregate housing project. Marge Mackey asked a number of questions concerning the Element and felt there were a number of contradictions within the document and that there needs to be some tightening up before the Element is adopted by the City Council MOTION: Made by Commissioner Lilley, seconded by Commissioner Carroll and carried unanimously to continue the hearing on this matter to the meeting of January 21, 1985. _ADDITIONAL AGENDA ITEM - Conditional Use Permit 3-84 Vice Chairman LaPrade asked Mr. Engen to provide-background infor mation on the Use Permit and building-,permit. Judy Young explained the situation in -which the pre-school i ready to open but that the building has not yet -been completed She noted that the State has given its approval to utilize th !adjacent residence as a temporary _location-___for _a .sho_rt._-_peifl -4 5 n Minutes - Planning Amission — January 21, 1980 In response to a p question from Commissioner Lilley, Joel Moses indicated the Fire Department had reviewed the precise plan:-and: setback. _ s Don Messer advised further that there was- a three foot setback fore drainage improvements and that it would be virtually:,impossible to reduce the full building height to twelve feet without going to a flat roof. He noted that Mr. Babcock has high -density residential zoning on his property. MOTION: Made by Commissioner Moore, seconded by Commissioner Wentzel to uphold the appeal based on the specific lang uage in the ordinance and revoke the approval of Precise Plan 47-84. E AYES: Commissioners Moore, Wentzel, Lilley and Chairman ; Summers NOES: Commissioners LaPrade, Sherer, and Carroll (Note: Commissioner Carroll-'_s vote was changed from an aye to a noe upon'clarification of the intent of the motion. ) i MOTION: Made by Commissioner Lilley, seconded by Commissioner Carroll and carried unanimously to direct staff.,to initis ate a change to amend the zoning ordinance to-..,- o-.., permit waiving the rear yard setback where building heights of, • up to twelve feet are proposed within a ten foot setbacl 1 i ne. i 4. Housing Element: Public hearing to consider adoption of new updated Housing Element for the City of Atascadero in conformance with Gov- ernment Code Section 65580 of the Planning and Zoning Law. The Housing Element contains overall goals, objectives, and policies in order to provide for the housing needs of the community. Copies of the draft Housing Element are available for review at the Administration Building, 6500 Palma Avenue, the City Library, and the Chamber of Commerce. Copies may be obtained for the cost of reproduction at the Planning Depart- ment at 6500 Palma Avenue. Henry Engen advised that this was the second hearing on the draft Housing Element to the City' s General Plan. He noted that the agenda packet contained a proposed addendum to Page 18, Problem #2 which quotes a California Housing Task Force Report showing how the price of land and interest has led the way to increased price of housing and construction costs have actually declined since 1949 as a percentage of the total cost of homes. Additional in formation included a School District communication of January 7, 1985 and monthly rent information submitted by Commissioner LaPrade. 5 Minutes - Planning Ommission - January 21, 190 Staff noted that the headline in the Atascadero News covering the first hearing on the Housing Element was erroneous in that it stated the State could require the City to zone for smaller lots. It is staff' s feeling that city zoning practices do meet State mandates with respect to providing for a wide variety of housing types and any refinements are a city, not state-mandated, option. Myron Arnold, local resident, expressed concern over allowing 10 ,000 square foot lots without knowing more about the City ser- vice impacts and the school impacts. Engen responded that the general language in the proposed Element speaks to restricting the 10,000 square foot lot to areas within the Urban Services Line which are- largely subdivided at that size. He also noted it was important to not open up the whole city to that size lot. At present, the only lots that can generally be created in the city are one-half acre minimums with the next highest density being ten units to the acre. Eric Cook stated he had bought a 26,000 square foot lot and built a home with the objective of allowing a second parcel to be crea- ted in the future. He hopes city zoning will allow him to do same. Ed Young expressed concern over delays of the housing element which is a prerequisite for their obtaining a $600,000 Community Development Block Grant for the seniors housing project. Commissioner Lilley indicated he was pleased with the addendum and would like it incorporated into the Element, and stated that there is a need to do something about land costs. The planned unit dev- elopment approach-such as was proposed in the Yeomans project-is appropriate. People making $18,000 per year are unable to afford most housing and there is need to carefully select appropriate locations. Commissioner Moore questioned whether the 25% density bonus was State-mandated and staff responded affirmatively. With respect to the School District concerning development fees, she felt that they should look more to going from nine months to twelve months. This would increase the District' s capacity by 25%. Chairman Summers agreed but felt there is a need for development fees which need not be mentioned in the Housing Element. Commissioner Carroll indicated that in order to bring the cost of lots down, the size of lots would have to come down. He wondered whether state aid through such avenues as the lottery might resolve the school issue. He did not want to get into the situa- tion such as Paso Robles where fees are excessive. Commissioner Wentzel said that the District should check with San Luis Obispo which has some year-round schools. He indicated sup- port of the planned unit development concept. 6 Minutes - Planning *mission - January 21, 198 Commissioner Lilley indicated that there is need for close cooper- ation with the School District and City Council and that develop- ment fees might be more discriminatory than the parcel tax. Commissioner LaPrade was concerned with the affordability of hous- ing if thousands of dollars are added in the way of development fees. He supported planned unit developments for smaller than 10,000 square foot lots such as Monterey Court which is a custom development and noted his support of the Housing Element draft. Engen advised the Commission that development fees is one of the probable agenda items at their joint meeting with the Council on January 28th. Council has appointed a committee to meet on a reg- ular basis with School District counterparts on this issue. In the past, Commission has expressed concern over equitable cost-- sharing for matters such as the Lewis Avenue- bridge and traffic lights and with Proposition 13 constraints on taxing, proposed development fees are being researched and prepared for recommenda- tion to the City Council. Atascadero is the only city in the County that does not use this funding source. MOTION: Made by Commissioner Lilley and seconded by Commission- er Sherer and carried unanimously to continue the hearing on the Housing Element to the next meeting (February 4th) to permit review of the matter with the City Council at the joint study session on January 28th. E-. NEW BUSINESS T\ Consideration of staff report for a time extension on,,-"Tenta- tive n�fTentative Parcel Map AT 810930:1 (Jerry Frederick)`at 2455 E Camino Real, also known as Lots 11,12, and 13 of,-Block 22. i Joel Moses ecited the history of this tentative,,parcel map whic was approved `in 1981 and has had two time extensions. There ar grading violations,on the site and staff is_,-eecommending continu ing any considea ration -of the request for time extension for 6 days to permit the applicant to rectify- the grading situation. MOTION: Upon discussion,motion was made by Commissioner Car- roll, seconded by Commissioner Lilley and carried unan- imously to continue_-cons deration of the time extension request for sixty-`days. D. INDIVIDUAL ACTIONS AND/OR DETERMINATIONS 1. Planning Commission There was nothing to report at this time. Planning Director i Minutes - Planninoommission February 4, 105 commissioner -Lilley- felt that-Wth-e-ptimary- issue wifh regard--td this amendment involves the roof line. He concurred with Mr Chidlaw that the wording should be modified to provide that portion of the building shall exceed more than 12 feet-within 10 feet of the property line as the rear setback and suggested amend- corporating this by resolution. He felt that the issue of rector-- ing the setback should be reviewed separately. Commissioner Moore felt that safety is a primary factor and that access for fire vehicles is secondary but stated she does not like, to see the property wasted with useless space. j MOTION: Made by Commissioner- Lilley, carried by Commissioner Sherer and carried ' unanimously to approve Zone Change 1-85 to add the following wording to the first sentences "within 10 feet of the rear property-.line. " r Mr. Chidlaw asserted that the public hearing 'notice was not !descriptive . -enough and should be re-advertised. '--- Engen read the notice, and the Commission consensus was that it _�adequately, described the matter before them. hairman Summers called a recess from 9: 05 to 9:15 5. Housing Element; Continued public hearing to consider the adoption of a ne� updated Housing Element for the City of Atascadero in confor- mance with Government Code Section 65580 of the Planning and Zoning Law. The Housing Element contains overall goals, ob- jectives and policies in order to provide for the housing needs of the community. Copies of the draft Housing Element are available for review at the Administration Building, 6500 Palma Avenue, the City Library, and the Chamber of Commerce. Copies may be obtained for the cost of reproduction at the Planning Department at 6500 Palma Avenue. Mr. Engen explained the background involved with the previous hearings on the Housing Element and briefly noted one of the primary issues concerned the feasibility of incorporating develop- ment impact fees into the Element. Doug Davidson pointed out that Eric Michiellsen had submitted a report on market statistics for the City of Atascadero. Eric Michiellsen, local resident, spoke on the statistics report for averages on costs of houses, acreage, lots, etc. and thought it would be of interest to the Commission. He noted his support for smaller lot sizes and felt there would not be large subdivi- sions that would be developed because the land just is not there. 6 0 Minutes - Planningoommission - February 4, 1 Myron Nalepa, local resident, stated that there is not enough affordable housing and suggested a reduction in the cost of the land but advised that a minimum lot 'size of 10,000 square feet will not result in drastic reductions in the costs of a lot. He also pointed out that with the creation of smaller lot sizes there would be an increased impact on many of the services such as police, fire, schools, etc. Mr. Nalepa spoke on state mandated' density bonuses for low income housing and felt that the Self-Help Housing located in San Luis Obispo would be able to provide fig- ures for projected housing in Atascadero. Commissioner Lilley suggested the use of planned unit developments that could be considered as a feasible alternative in providing affordable housing. Chairman Summers noted that prior to incorporation, Atascadero' s minimum lot size was 10,000 square feet and that a lot of existing lots still are 10,000 square feet. With regard to density bonuses Chairman Summers noted there is provision for density bonuses in the zoning ordinance. There was further discussion between Mr. Nalepa and some of the Commissioners concerning previous Self-Help housing projects that exist in Atascadero. Judy Young noted that one benefit that may be helpful would be tax-exempt bonds and explained how this works. Doug Lewis spoke on the energy conservation issue listed in the Element. Commissioner Moore noted she shares concerns of Mr. Nalepa concerning 10,000 square foot lots within the Urban Reserve Line but would be more comfortable in achieving this within sewered areas and discussed problems with septic systems, etc. with smaller lot sizes. Commissioner Lilley expressed concern over 10 ,000 square foot lots in that this may not solve the housing problems. He noted that smaller lot sizes may not necessarily be compatible with the sur- rounding area as it concerns density, drainage, suitable building sites, etc. Commissioner Carroll pointed out that the State is requiring cities to provide low-cost housing. Commissioner Lilley further commented that there is a tremendous shortage of buildable land and strong competition for available land. He stated is a strong believer in the planned unit develop- ment concept and felt the proposed Housing Element states the problem but does not present a feasible solution to the problems. He stated the Commission needs to make a commitment to a partic- ular general kind of solution, and to develop the criteria neces • sary and make that commitment in the Housing Element. 7 . . 2 Minutes - Planninoommission - February 4, 05 Commissioner Carroll concurred with the statements made by Com- missioner Lilley and spoke on the issue of price control for lots Discussion ensued among the Commission concerning development fees, the cost of lots and building materials, as well as what types of criteria could be established for prospective developers. Commissioner Sherer noted he was in opposition to promote the idea . of adopting development fees, at least until there is more infor- mation available as to how costly those development fees should be and for what purpose. MOTION Made by Commissioner Moore, seconded by Commissioner Lilley and carried unanimously to adopt the Housing Ele- ment draft with the following modifications: Page 19 under Program 4.1; "Consider adopting a dev- elopment fee surcharge. . . . . . . . . . . " Page 29 - delete Policy #3 under Competition for Avail- able land. Page 21 - under Program 11.1: change Urban Reserve Line to read "sewered area" . Mr. Engen noted that the draft would now go to the State for its 90 day review period and then will be transmitted to City Counci for their review and consideration of the Element. -.;INDIVIDUAL ACTION AND/OR DETERMINATION 1. ` Planning Commission There was nothing to report at this time. f 2. Planning Director a. Follow-up on Planning Commissioner 's request: Status of Valley Speed and Marine and Filipponi projects at the north end of El Camino- Real. Mr. Engen referenced the status report on this matter that' Commissioner Sherer had requested.- ---Commissioner Sherer felt that a sewer extension shouldbe encouraged to take place. b. Planning Commission By-Laws Mr. Engen noted that ' a copy was distributed to the'-Commission for their information. \ 8 O[JNCIL MFETIPSG : 4/8/R5 GENDA ITEM NO, B - 2 City of Atascadero • STAFF REPORT FOR: City Council Meeting Date: 4/8/85 BY: Doug Davidson, Assoc. Planner Trainee Project Address: 8455 Santa Rosa Road (Christian Home) SUBJECT: To consider an appeal by neighborhood petition of Conditional Use Per mmit 29-84. This use permit, approved by the Planning Commission on March 4, 1985, allowed for an additional sixteen cottages, an adminis- tration building, and a chapel to the existing residential care facil- ity for the elderly. BACKGROUND: This proposal was first heard at the Planning Commission meeting of February 4, 1985. This original proposal was to be phased over a ten year perid and included a skilled nursing facility, a new board and care facility, twelve additional cottage buildings, an administration building, and a chapel. Total density proposed for the entire devel- opment was 375 people. The matter was continued to the February 19th meeting due to the concerns of the neighbors and commission members over the density of the project. In response to these concerns, at the February 19th meeting, staff recommended eliminating the skilled nursing facility to reduce the size of the project, while still allow- it to function as a continuing care facility for the elderly. The density for this revised proposal was reduced to 279 people. The feelings of the neighbors and the commission was that the project was still too intense for the area. The item was continued to the meeting of March 4th to consider the possibility of a revised site plan. The submitted revised site plan eliminated the skilled nursing facility and the proposed board and care. This request for an addi- tional sixteen cottage buildings, an administration building, and a chapel was approved by the Planning Commission at the March 4th mee- ting. Density for the approved project will be approximately 103 people. STAFF COMMENTS: The letter of appeal from the neighborhood citizens group covered sev- eral issues. The major concerns throughout the three hearings were the proposed density of the project and its impact upon the surround- ing residential neighborhood. Questions were also voiced over drain- age, sewer capacity, and increased traffic. The Public Works Depart- ment has reviewed the project and would again review the grading, • drainage and erosion control plans before any building permits would be issued. Condition #7 , the widening of Santa Rosa Road, is in re- sponse to the increased traffic generated by the facility, although ! 0 many Christian Home residents will not drive a car. Condition #9 as- serts that the civil engineer will have to show that the sewer lateral can handle the proposed flows. If not, the lateral will have to be en larged or a holding tank installed. Conditions #10 and #11 are req- uesting further clarification that the existing and proposed public improvements and infrastructure are adequate in size and nature to accommodate the development. Pinedorado Road is currently un-improved- and runs along, the rear of the site. Condition #8 required the improvement of Pinedorado as a secondary access to a minimum all-weather surface, 20 feet in width. The improvements were to extend from Atascadero Road to Mountain View. The Fire Department originally required this emergency access, but due to the reduced scope of the project and problems with this access, the Fire Department has determined that Pinedorado is no longer needed for emergency purposes as conditioned on a revision to the site plan to widen the access drive from Santa Rosa. Staff feels that this proposed facility complies with the General Plan which states in the Land Use Element that "Where all factors are fav- orable, board and care facilities could satisfactorily be developed in designated neighborhood areas. The use density shall not exceed that of high density multiple family use. " Overall, this project, as amen- ded, appears an appropriate compromise between the legitimate concerns of the neighborhood and the city' s obligation to provide sufficient housing opportunities for the elderly pursuant to the language in the Land Use Element. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Draft Resolution 27-85 denying the appeal and approving Conditional Use Permit 29-84 subject to the same condi- tions recommended by the Planning Commission, except that Condition #8 be deleted. DGD:ps ATTACHMENTS: Draft Resolution No. 27-85 Letter of Appeal to City Council - March 11, 1985 Staff Report - March 4, 1985 Staff Report - February 19, 1985 Staff Report - February 4, 1985 Planning Commission Minute Excerpts - February 4, 1985 February 19, 1985 and March 4 , 1985 • RESOLUTION NO. 27-85 A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO DENYING THE APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 29-84 AND APPROVING AN AMENDED CUP 29-84 (8455 SANTA ROSA ROAD CHRISTIAN HOME) WHEREAS, a petition has been submitted appealing the approval of said use permit; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the record of testimony before the Planning Commission, staff reports and public testimony before the Council on this issue. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Atascadero does resolve as follows: Section 1. Council Findings. 1. The project will not have a significant adverse impact upon the environment, and preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is not necessary. 2. The project, with the conditions of approval, conforms to all applicable zoning regulations and is consistent with the Gen- eral Plan 3. The establishment, and subsequent operation or conduct of the use will not, because of the circumstances and conditions applied in the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of the general public or persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the use, or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity of the use and 4. The project will not be inconsistent with the character of the immediate neighborhood or contrary to its orderly development. 5. The project will not generate a volume of traffic beyond the safe capacity of all roads providing access to the project, either existing or to be improved in conjunction with the project, or beyond the normal traffic volume of the surround- ing neighborhood that would result from full development in accordance with the Land Use Element. 6. Streets in the vicinity of the Atascadero Christian Home are adequate to carry the kind and quantity of traffic generated by the proposed expansion. . 0 0 7. The conditions imposed are necessary to assure that the pro- ject will be reasonably compatible with existing and future uses in the area and with the character of the neighborhood and its orderly growth. Section 2. Conditions of Approval. 1. Site development including buildings, driveways, parking, landscaping and other features shall be consistent with the attached plans submitted including any modifications required herein and all provisions of Title 9 of the Atascadero Muni- cipal Code. 2. All conditions of approval herein shall be complied with prior to occupancy of new construction. 3. Building architecture shall be generally consistent with sub- mitted elevations. a. Roof-mounted or outdoor-mounted equipment shall be screened as required by Section 9-4. 128 of the Zoning Ordinance. 4. Landscape and irrigation plans in conformance with Section 9-4.124 shall be approved by the Planning Department prior to issuance of building permits. S5. All new utilities and utility connections shall be placed underground. 6. Submit two sets of grading, drainage, and erosion control plans for review and approval by the Planning and Public Works Departments in accordance with Sections 9-4.138 and 9-4. 148. 7. Santa Rosa Road shall be widened along the full property frontage. 8. New sewer lateral shall have the capacity to handle the fully developed flows. Submit calculations from a registered civil engineer to substantiate sizing. If an 8" lateral is neces- sary, a manhole will have to be installed at the sewer main. 9. Include storm water detention and drainage plan in project planning. Submit calculations for entire project prior to approval of first building permit. 10. Street, drainage, grading, and sewer plans and calculations are to be subject to a checking and inspection agreement with the Engineering Department. 11. Fire alarms, fire extinguishers, smoke detectors and sprink- ler systems are required by the Fire Department. 12. Three fire hydrants shall be required; type and location shall be determined by the Fire Department. 13. Site circulation system shall be redesigned to meet Fire Department standards for access width and turning radius. 14. Development shall be subject to the approval of the State Fire Marshall prior to the issuance of a building permit. 1.5. A lot merger of appropriate access easement shall be con- firmed by the Planning Department prior to the issuance of building permits. 16. This conditional use permit approval shall expire one year from the date of final approval unless all conditions are satisfied and the project shows substantial progress, or unless an extension is granted pursuant to Section 9-2. 118 of the Zoning Ordinance. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Atascadero, California, held on the 8th day of April, 1985. CITY OF ATASCADERO By ROLFE D. NELSON, Mayor ATTEST: ROBERT M. JONES, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: A . _,ZA6117 TIMHAIFATLIHICkS', Acting City Manager APPROVED AS 0 FORM; ALLEN GRIMES, City Attorney a xou�3b .,�x wrro _� 1'Y 3114 uu;Y Owo= :i;' I;i;• Z � • w , a 4 ­3 W W \\ 771 ` o 1w - F � I f W •k f + fG . Y 0 W . z f fes. � r /� •/ � �li - ,71 � � `\ ,i \ �f�.� may. �` .� ��'r,• ,'. � \.. s sR f r p. - '"►.tib r,.�� y y y RECEIVED MAR 1 1 1985 APPFA:, TO ATASCADF£tO CIT`f COUNCIL ATASCAOERo C+T`!rt ERK The following is an appeal to Council to reverse Planning Commission decision and deny Conditional Use Permit 29-84. This Appeal is for- mulated by and expresses opinions of a citizen's group dedicated to following any legal avenues of recourse against this Conditional Use Permit. Appeal is based on the following grounds: 1. Six of the seven Planning Commissioners resigned at the March 4'. 1985 meeting at which this Conditional Use Permit was approved. It is felt that the Conditional Use Permit 29-84 was not given adequate attention by the Planning Commission at that time. 2. Revised proposal and Planning Department staff report were first seen by the Planning Commission at the beginning of the Planning Com- frission meeting on March 4.1y85 in violation of the Planning Commis- sion rules of procedure, Resolution 1--84. Inadequate time for consideration was provided. 3. Maps of the proposed expansion were small., fragmented, difficult to read, and not to scale. 4. Building size was misrepresented by the applicant as being 2400 to 2600 square feet for cottages. Review of scale plans indicates size Of the seven larger cottages to be approximately 4,000 square feet. 5. The scale plan of the proposal shows 17 new buildings, 5 existing buildings, and expansion of one existing cottage for a total of 23 buildings at this phase of the project. 6. A demand was presented by the citizens group for an environmental impact report. This demand was dismissed by the Planning Commission. 7. Additional traffic problems have been minimized. Safety of school children walking along Santa Rosa, Portola, and Atascadero Avenue has not been addressed. This problem was posed by the Santa Rosa P.T.A. President at a Planning Commission meeting. Extension of Pinedorado to Atascadero Avenue would create within a block of Santa Rosa School, another intersection close to the existing intersection Of Atascadero Avenue and Portola Road. This will result in additional hazard to school children. 8. Sewer plant capacity in regards to this project is in question. 9. Proposed total density figures are misleading. The Conditional Use Permit represents only a portion of the developers stated intent. Developer has gone on record with plans to build two additional large facilities, a skilled nursing facility and a board and care facility, on this property within 5 years. 1 APPEAL TO ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL -2- 10. 2-10. This property is zoned RSF-Y ksingle family dwelling, one acre minimum) and is surrounded by a residential neighborhood. A care facility of this magnitude, in this location, is totally unsuit- able and inconsistent with the General Plan. Alternative locations are available. 11 . The City's General Plan was amended, at the specific request of this Corporation, to read "where all factors are favorable, board and care facilities could satisfactorily be developed in designated neighborhood areas". This Conditional Use Permit is inconsistent with the General Plan`in that"all factors" are obviously not favorable. 12. Affixed to this appeal is -a' en petition prested to the Planning Com- mission, ' signed by residents of the m�ae -surrounding area to the project who are I opposed to t . In light of the factors listeds the undersigned urge the City Council to deny Conditional Use Permit 29-84, with recommendation that this development take place in: a more suitable location. NAME ADDRESS C. � r C v v V ZZ � -- This petition concerns th4&plication of the Atascadero ChristiWome Incorporated for conditional use ermit No. 84 before the Atascadero City P1anr�T'ng Commission. The P /property in question is currently zoned RSF-Y (residential single family dwelling with one acre minimum lot size). The size of the property in question is 10.34 acres. The city's average household size is currently 2.76 persons. Current zoning at this average allows a total density for the property of 28.5 persons. The proposed expansion would increase from the present 37 • residents, 6 staff to 322 residents, 53 staff for a total density of 375 persons. This is a single family dwelling neighborhood and we want to keep it that way. A change of this magnitude would have a very strong negative effect on, among other things, traffic flow on our streets, visual impact on homes overlooking the project, and the residents' right to "quiet enjoyment" of his or her property. The undersigned residents of the surrounding area to the property in question strongly urge the Planning Commission to deny conditional use permit No. 29-84. Name Address K� 041 ko cS�4�/7 K1 o C t4 11�7S /V,-dam ZZ491t%c i� ,ti: .�: i* rd- d kr4 - �21Z /6• ac C56,- i. s 75" �! � tY1a�; (��� If. ".k. T This petition concerns the Olication of the Atascadero Christianome Incorporated for conditional use permit No. 29-84 before the Atascadero City Planning Commission. The property in question is currently zoned RSF-Y (residential single family dwelling with one acre minimum lot size). The size of the property in question is 10.34 acres. The city's average household size is currently 2.76 persons. Current zoning at this average allows a total density for the property of 28.5 persons. The proposed expansion would increase from the present 37 residents, 6.staff to 322 residents, 53 staff for a total density of 375 persons. This is a single family dwelling neighborhood and we want to keep it that way. A change of this magnitude would have a very strong negative effect on, among other things, traffic flow on our streets, visual impact on homes overlooking the project, and the residents' right to "quiet enjoyment" of his or her property. The undersigned residents of the surrounding area to the property in question strongly urge the Planning Commission to deny conditional use permit No. 29-84. Name Address i 3. �( o ' 6. Lv / 16 t7h, t1 7. P6d fry a r 0 /L.• _iSitl�tA 7C u..J �n�l.^� 1Z� O� A`f i 3 rtic..� a-7S" 1A eAA) /�• mo i!' ' s 7-'/^ ri C k -�� 2(• 2 5, 30 ter, City of Atascadero STAFF REPORT FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: March 4 , 1985 BY: Doug Davidson, Assoc. Trainee File No. : CUP 29-84 Project Address: 8455 Santa Rosa (Atascadero Christian Home) SUBJECT To allow development of a 10 . 34 acre parcel to expand the existing residential care facility for the elderly. This addendum concerns the Atascadero Christian Home revision submitted to staff on the afternoon of February 28, 1985 , which was after the agenda packet was completed for the March 4, 1985 meeting. ANALYSIS: The revised plan is in response to the concerns of the neighborhood and Planning Commission over the proposed density of the project. The current request is for the additional cottages and the site im- provements associated with them. Phase 9 (Skilled nursing facility) and Phase 5 (Board and care) have been eliminated from the project at this time I Five new cottages are proposed to occupy the area where the skilled nursing facility was originally proposed. The area originally pro- posed for Phase 5 in 1988 (Board and Care, Administration, Dining Facility) is vacant in the current site plan. The Chapel and addi- tional cottages are also requested at this time. This proposal will add an additional 60 people, all residing in cottages, to the existing 43 people on site, for a total density of 103 people The project proposes a total of 61 parking spaces and staff has de- termined that parking needs are met on the site. In sum, the addition of the five cottages near the rear of the site and the elimination or replacement of two cottages near the front of the project results in a net addition of three cottages from the original plan proposal. These cottages along with the Chapel and small administration building comprise the current request. The two large facilities, the skilled nursing and the board and care, are not part of this request. -1-- 0 • Staff Report - CUP 29-84 (Atascadero Christian Home) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit 29-84 based on the Revised Findings and Conditions of Approval contained in Exhibit A. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Revised Findings and Conditions of Approval Exhibit B - Revised Site Plan Staff Report dated February 19, 1985 i -2- • EXHIBIT A - Conditional• Use Permit 29-84 Revised Findings and Conditions of Approval March 4 , -1985 FINDINGSs 1. The project will not have a significant adverse impact upon the environment, and preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is not necessary. 2 . The project, along with the conditions of approval, conforms to all applicable zoning regulations and is consistent with the General Plan. 3 . Streets in the vicinity of the Atascadero Christian Home are ade- quate to carry the kind and quantity of traffic generated by the proposed expansion. 4 . The conditions imposed are necessary to assure that the project will be reasonably compatible with existing and future uses in the area and with the character of the neighborhood and its or- derly growth. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. Site development including buildings, driveways, parking, land- scaping and other features shall be consistent with plans submit- ted including any modifications required herein and all provisions of Title 9 of the Atascadero Municipal Code. 2. All conditions of approval herein shall be complied with prior to occupancy of new construction. 3. Building architecture shall be generally consistent with submitted elevations. a. Roof-mounted or outdoor-mounted equipment shall be screened as required by Section 9-4 . 128 of the Zoning Ordinance. 4 . Landscape and irrigation plans in conformance with Section 9-4 . 124 shall be approved by the Planning Department prior to issuance of building permits. 5 . All new utilities and utility connections shall be placed under ground. 6 . Submit two sets of grading, drainage, and erosion control plans for review and approval aby the Planning and Public Works Depart- ments in accordance with Sections 9-4. 138 and 9=4 . 148. -3- Conditional Use Pert 29-84 (Atascadero Chris*n Home) Exhibit A - Revised Findings and Conditions of Approval (Cont. ) 7. Santa Rosa Road shall be widened along the full property frontage . 8 . Pinedorado shall be improved as a secondary access to a minimum all-weather surface, 20 feet in width. This access shall extend from Atascadero Road to Mountain View. The internal driveway shall be connected to Pinedorado to ensure that this emergency access is available. 9. New sewer lateral shall have the capacity to handle the fully dev- eloped flows. Submit calculations from a registered civil engin- eer to substantiate sizing. If an 8" lateral is necessary, a manhole will have to be installed at the sewer main. 10 . Include storm water detention and drainage plan in project plan- ning. Submit calculations for entire project prior to approval of first building permit. 11. Street, drainage, grading, and sewer plans and calculations are to be subject to a checking and inspection agreement with the Engin- eering Department. 12. Fire alarms, fire extinguishers, smoke detectors and sprinkler systems are required by the Fire Department. 13. Three fire hydrants shall be required; type and location shall be S determined by the Fire Department. 14 . Site circulation system shall be redesigned to meet Fire Depart- ment standards for access width and turning radius. 15 . Development shall be subject to the approval of the State Fire Marshall prior to the issuance of a building permit. 16. A lot merger of appropriate access easement shall be confirmed by the Planning Department prior to the issuance of building permits. 17. This conditional use permit approval shall expire one year from the date of final approval unless all conditions are satisfied and the project shows substantial progress, or unless an extension is granted pursuant to Section 9-2. 118 of the Zoning Ordinance. • -4- i OEV �SF-D :z-TE FLAB PFOPOSED MASTER SITE P LAN F O R A T A S C A D E R O s C H R I S T I A N HOME I NC. NO RT HWEST S EC TI ON Pb A 1 .�� ENTER} r 7 >3` � \ / /// / / --,-/ / �/ / B• f'-, �. O e mAd ZZ, f / °A. j E�•� ,t"�ems'' ��,yam' ;,�� �� -.,` i ( 1�_ � �c.- �iXt 1 ') ijet – J 11 i t-v* Y cotT r t -.. *f ': '�. i�ll'r of ♦ oo £ / oTTq -�:; =_'=� r0Fs �!I Z l ✓A•- COTjAGES _ ya it�""I\'- COTTAGE, OTTACE ^ - P R O P O S E D MA S T E R S I •T E P L A N rCiY11 GE urT FOR A T A S C A D ERO GIFT SHOP PARLOR r COTTAGES .i.� d � �,� CHRI STIA. N H0M �E . I NC. , i y .:Xl•S� _ T`JAiy)}• -°S O,U TN•EAST SECTION °LSsTiT"Ivt \�Iil/.�` :� �' T.t• ,L'4 CU �'. � / � '�...ec.,. / / t °ortEs � win , ), \ ~// ��/�/ ac, 1 �� / / �ivr,,,,�6� y"4�""�•�,. 5� 5fw'� �'.a----ER Xl „f „_"yl �/ .' J _ AD HtsTNATIo �' l / ///i�,.ar�/ �n ��//^ I �`:..� U� r�� /� �.I `` �� t �. I• lit ---- / � t C—AG corn ctv t v II,�..:f''3.•, ,-. i� _l v'a.w -w t - � ,d--� 1 . _ T- � 1 City of Atascadero Item: B-4 . STAFF REPORT FOR: City Planning Commission Meeting Date: 2/19/85 BY: Doug Davidson, Associate Trainee File No: C.U.P. 29-84 Project Address: 8455 Santa Rosa Road (Atascadero Christian Home) SUBJECT: To allow a phased development of a 10.34 acre parcel to expand the existing residential care facility for the elderly. BACKGROUND: Residential care and skilled nursing facilities with over six resi- dents under care are allowable conditional uses in the RSF zones. This proposal consists of three levels of elderly care: independent "cottage" living units; board and care bedroom units; and a skilled nursing facility. This expansion is proposed to be phased over a ten year period Notice of public hearing was published in the Atascadero News on January 25, 1985 and all owners of record property within 300 feet were notified on that date. On February 4, 1985, the Planning Commission continued this project due to concerns over the proposed density and its impact upon the sur- rounding residential neighborhood. Concerns were also voiced over drainage, traffic, and the scale of buildings. STAFF COMMENTS: Staff has addressed the concerns over drainage and the capacity of the roads and sewers by incorporating Conditions #6 through #11. These conditions require street widening and improvements, as well as drain- age and sewer calculations to determine if the existing infrastructure can accommodate the proposed development. Height of Buildings: The applicant originally proposed a height of 36 feet for the new board and care facility. This height exceeds the lifesaving capabil- ities of the Fire Department, but the Fire Chief has accepted the height because the project will have an automatic sprinkler system throughout. The applicant has notified staff that the building can be designed at a lower height. Thus, staff feels that the building should have a height limitation of 30 feet which is the maximum height allowed in single family areas. an Conditional Use P rtt9-84 (Atascadero Christian Home) Density: The major concern of the neighborhood and the. Planning Commission was that this development was too large in scale for a single family resi- dential area. The number and size of the buildings and the proposed total density of 375 people was thought to be incompatible with the existing neighborhood. During the course of development of the City' s General Plan, Residen- tial Policy No. 15 was added in consideration of future expansion of the Atascadero Christian Home stating that "Where all factors are fav- orable, board and care facilities could satisfactorily be developed in designated neighborhood areas. The use density shall not be permitted to exceed that of high density multiple family use." A key issue raised with respect to the proposed skilled nursing facilities at the February 4th hearing is that the General Plan contains the following language - with respect to nursing homes. Particular concern has been expressed over the future placement of nursing homes within the com- munity - vocational factors related to intensive care agencies, sani- tariums, and nursing homes shall include consideration of the charac- ter of the surrounding area. These might be better located outside of single family residential areas, perhaps in a more rural setting or in professional high density areas near important thoroughfares. " With this in mind, staff feels that the skilled nursing facility, pro- posed as Stage 9 in 1993, should be eliminated as part of this Condi- tional Use Permit. This will allow the project to expand its continu- ing care facilities at a density level of 279 people (263 residents and 16 staff) while the reduced size of the project will soften its impact on the neighborhood. The conditions of the original staff report are all applicable with modification to #17 and the addition of conditions #19 and #20. RECOMMENDATION• Based on the previous findings and conditions, along with the proposed conditions, staff recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit 29-84 modified as follows: Finding #6 relative to buildings in excess of 30 feet should be deleted. Condition #8 to be reworded as requested at February 4th meeting, as follows: " 8. Pinedorado shall be improved as a secondary access to a minimum all-weather base, 20 feet in width. This access shall extend from Atascadero Road to Mountain View and shall occur as a part of Phase 5. " Condition #17 shall be reworded as follows: 1117. A minimum of 68 parking stalls are required, two of which must for the handicapped ' 2 • Conditional Use Perm� 9-84 (Atascadero Christian Home) The following conditions #19 and #20 are to be added: • "19. No building shall exceed 30 feet in height on the site. " "20. The project shall be redesigned to eliminate Phase 9. Phase 9 is the skilled nursing facility and its associated parking, cir- culation, and landscaping as shown in Exhibit D. Phase 5 shall be redesigned to extend the internal driveway to connect to Pinedorado. DGD:ps ATTACHMENT: Staff Report - February 4, 1985 3 • City of Atascadero Item: B-3 • STAFF REPORT FOR: City Planning Commission Meeting Date: 2/4/85 BY: Doug Davidson, Associate Trainee Item No: CUP 29-84 Project Address: 8455 Santa Rosa Road (Atascadero Christian Home) SUBJECT: To allow a phased development of a 10 .34 acre parcel to expand the existing residential care facility for the elderly. BACKGROUND: Residential care and skilled nursing facilities with over six resi- dents under care are allowable conditional uses in the RSF zones. This proposal consists of three levels of elderly care: independent "cottage living units; board and care bedroom units; and a skilled nursing facility. The expansion is proposed to be phased over a ten year period. Notice of public hearing was published in the Atascadero News on January 25, 1985 and all owners of record property within 300 feet were notified on that date. A. LOCATION: 8455 Santa Rosa Road (Parcels A,B,C, Parcel Map 26-64 (CO 76-240) Ptn. of Lots 9 and 10 of Block 12) B. SITUATION AND FACTS: 1. Request. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .To allow a phased development to expand the existing residential care facility for the elderly. 2. Applicant. , . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Atascadero Christian Home 3. Architect. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Gary Harcourt 4. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10.34 acres 5. Streets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Santa Rosa Road is a city main- tained local street with a 40 foot right-of-way. • i Conditional Use Permit 29-84 (Atascadero Christian Home) 6. Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .RSF-Y (Residential Single Fam- ily - Moderate Density) 7. Existing Use.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Residential care facility 8. Adjacent Zoning and Use. . . . . .North: RSF-Y, Residential South: RS, Residential East: RSF-Y, Residential West: RSF-Y, Residential 9. General Plan Designation. . . . .Moderate Density Single Family Residential 10. Terrain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Level to gently sloping terrain with an existing residential care facility 11. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Negative Declaration C. SITE AND DEVELOPMENT DATA: BOARD AND CARE: Residential facility for the elderly which provides 24 hour care, assistance with activities of daily living, supervision of prescribed medications, transportation, personal laundry needs and housekeeping. COTTAGE RESIDENTS: "Transitional" independent living units for the elderly. Minimum age would be 60 years. We provide a living unit, maintenance and housekeeping, meals and 24 hour security. SKILLED NURSING FACILITY: Long-term care by licensed nurses, 24-hours a day, in which we provide all the above plus the nursing for elderly need- ing nursing care around the clock. ZONING ORDINANCE DEFINITIONS: Residential Care: Establishments primarily engaged in the provision of residential social and personal care for children, the aged, and special cate- gories of persons with some limits or ability for self-care (in- cluding mental and physical limitations) but where medical care is not a major element. Includes: board and care facilities, child- ren' s homes; halfway houses; rehabilitation centers; self-help group homes. Skilled Nursing Facility: Residential establishments primarily engaged in providing nursing and health related personal care, generally on a long term basis, with inpatient beds, including skilled nursing facilities; exten- ded care facilities; convalescent and rest homes. • • Conditional Use Permit 29-84 (Atascadero Christian Home) Maximum Density Allowed 375 people Maximum Density Proposed: 375 people (to include staff) OCCUPANCY: Existing: Board and care residents 30 6 Board and care staff 6 Cottage residents 7 Skilled nursing facility residents 0 Skilled nursing facility staff 0 Total 37 res. 6 staff Proposed: (maximum including skilled nursing facility) Board and care residents 203 Board and care staff 16 Cottage residents 60 Skilled nursing facility residents 59 Skilled nursing facility staff 37 Total: 322 res. 53 staff Parking: a. Existing b. Proposed (maximum site utilization) *Board and care - 1/8 beds total 26 Skilled nursing facility 1/4 bed 15 *Chapel - 1/4 seats Borrow from adjacent (25) (refer to note) Administration - 1/300 s. f. 5 *Gifu shop - 1/300 s.f. Borrow from adjacent (3) (support function to above) Staff (1/employee-100%) 53 Total 99 spaces 116 required *Adjustment required from current zoning requirements. 3 ! 0 Conditional Use Permit 29-84 (Atascadero Christian Home) PROJECT SIGNAGE: SYM. DESCRIPTION LOCATION SIZE LTG. A Entrance identif. Refer to plan 32 s.f. B Entrance directory Refer to plan 20 s.f. C Street signs Shall be located at all street in- tersections and D Building identif. At entry or visable 4 s. f. each perspective from streets at each building building complex E Enforcement signs Shall be posted as required (no parking) PROPOSED PHASING SCHEDULE PROJECT DATE OF (IMPLEMENTATION OF PROPOSED ACCOMPLISHMENT MASTER PLAN) 1. Beauty shop/gift shop 1983 2. Board and care (12 unit-addition 1984 to the existing facility) 2a Kitchen/dining room remodel 1984 3. Cottages (upon approval of CUP) 1985 4. Site improvements (streets, curbs, gutters, utilities, etc. ) to be phased in concert with the development and construction of each of the indi- vidual phased tasks. 5. Administration building with conversion 1986 of existing residence into triplex or day care center 6. Conversion of existing kitchen and 1988 dining to residential units 7. Board and care with new kitchen, laun- 1988 dry, and dining facilities (include • pedestrian mall) 8. Additional cottages These shall be developed through- out the develop - 4 Conditional Use Permit 29-84 (Atascadero Christian Home) ment schedule responding to the need as it is structured in the overall develop- ment (locations shall be radiating from two prosper- tives: (1) kitchen and dining facili- ties and (2) ex- tension of access roads and pedes- trian paths. 9. Skilled nursing facility 1989 D. ANALYSIS: This conditional use permit is comprised of three requests. The first is to allow a residential care facility, skilled nursing facility, and a chapel in the RSF-Y Zone. In addition, the pro- posed height of the buildings and the on-site parking will require a modification from the zoning ordinance standards. Other con- cerns such as signage, access, and density will be discussed. Conditional Uses: Churches, as well as residential care and skilled nursing facili- ties where the number of residents under care is greater than six, are conditional uses in RSF-Y zones. The elderly care facilities require a 'minimum 20,000 square feet of site area, while churches and relatedfacilities must be located on a collector or arterial. Both of these criteria are met in the current proposal. Staff feels the existing facility has been a compatible use in this residential area. Staff' s concern is with the increased den- sity due to the phased expansion. Residential Policy No. 15 of the Land Use Element of the General Plan states that: "Where all factors are favorable, board and care facilities could satisfac- torily be developed in designated neighborhood areas. The use density shall not be permitted to exceed that of High Density Mul- tiple Family use. " Under the current ordinance, this is 16 dwell- ing units per acre. This criteria is not feasible in this situa- tion, however, unless each bed or bedroom is considered a unit. This project' s particular density standard of 3x.5 people was bor- rowed from the City' s old zoning ordinance, which allowed 36 peo- ple per acre maximum. Over a ten year period, the Atascadero Christian Home will eventually have 322 residents and 53 staff for a total population of 375 people. The concern with this situation is creating a higher density standard than found elsewhere in the 5 0 0 Conditional Use Permit 29-84 (Atascadero Christian Home) City. The City' s average household size is currently 2.76. Using this figure, a 10 acre site in the RMF/16 zone could contain 440 people. This project proposes 375 people and thus does not exceed the General Plan density policy cited earlier. Building Height: The maximum height of buildings in residential zones is 30 feet. The applicant is requesting a height of 36 feet for the new board and care facility. Even though this height exceeds the lifesaving equipment capabilities of the Fire Department, the project will have automatic sprinkler systems throughout. Hence, the Fire De- partment accepts the higher building height proposed. Parking: A total of 99 parking spaces are provided which makes use of the shared on-site parking adjustment of up to 20%. The uses taken separately would require 116 parking stalls. Staff feels this modification is justified because many of the residents will be using all the different uses available on site (beauty shop, gift shop, board and care, skilled nursing facility) during their stay at the home. Thus, this internal community should not need the total number required for each separate use. A space is provided for each of the 53 employees. Three handicapped stalls are re- quired, although the facility may find they need to provide more. . Signage: The 20 square foot directory sign is exempt from zoning ordinance standards. The 32 square foot identification sign is allowed under Section 9-4.134 (b) . The remainder of. the signing is exempt from zoning ordinance standards. Emergency Access: Finally, the second access off of Pinedorado is not adequate to provide sufficient access to the site. This access should be im- proved when the project reaches Phase 5 in 1988. An emergency access point to a development of this size should be at least all-weather surface) . E. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit 29-84 based on the findings and conditions of approval contained in Exhibit A. Additionally, staff recommends that the Planning Commission cer- tify a Negative Declaration as a complete and accurate document consistent with the provisions of CEQA. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -- Findings/Conditions of Approval Exhibit B - Location Map Exhibit C - Site Plan Exhibit D - Phasing 1983 1989 Exhibit E - Elevations Exhibit F - Architect' s Rendition Exhibit G - Supplemental Development Statement Conditional Use Permit 29-84 (Atascadero Christian Home) I EXHIBIT A - Conditional Use Permit -29-84 • Findings and Conditions of Approval February 4, 1985 FINDINGS: 1. The project will not have a significant adverse impact upon the environment, and preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is not necessary. 2. The project, along with the conditions of approval, conforms to all applicable zoning regulations and is consistent with the General Plan, 3. Streets in the vicinity of the Atascadero Christian Home are ade- quate to carry the kind and quantity of traffic generated by the proposed expansion. 4. The conditions imposed are necessary to assure that the project will be reasonably compatible with existing and future uses in the area and with the character of the neighborhood and its orderly growth. 5. The shared on-site parking adjustment will provide for adequate parking due to the fact that this is an internal community with many necessary services for the elderly located on-site. 6. The sprinkler system will enable the Fire Department to conduct emergency services, even though the height of one of the buildings exceeds the maximum allowed. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. Site development including buildings, driveways, parking, land- scaping and other features shall be consistent with plans submit- ted including any modifications required herein and all provisions of Title 9 of the Atascadero Municipal Code. 2. All conditions of approval herein shall be complied with for each phase of construction prior to occupancy of new construction. 3. Building architecture shall be generally consistent with submitted elevations. a. Roof-mounted or outdoor-mounted equipment shall be screened as required by Section 9-4. 128 of the Zoning Ordinance. 4. Landscape and irrigation plans in conformance with Section 9-4.124 shall be approved by the Planning Department prior to issuance of building permits. Conditional Use Permit 29-84 (Atascadero Christian Home) 5. All new utilities and utility connections shall be placed under ground. 6. Submit two sets of grading, drainage, and erosion control plans for review and approval by the Planning and Public Works Depart- ments in accordance with Sections 9-4.138 and 9-4. 148. 7. Santa Rosa Road shall be widened along the full property frontage at the same phase when the first cottages are being built in 1985. 8. Pinedorado shall be improved to an all-weather surface so it can provide adequate emergency access. 9. New sewer lateral shall have the capacity to handle the fully dev- eloped flows. Submit calculations from an registered civil engin- eer to substantiate sizing. If an 8" lateral is necessary, a manhole will have to be installed at the sewer main. 10. Include storm water detention and drainage plan in project plan- ning. Submit calculations for entire project prior to approval of first building permit. 11. Street, drainage, grading, and sewer plans and calculations are to be subject to a checking and inspection agreement with the Engin- eering Department. 12. Fire alarms, fire extinguishers, smoke detectors and sprinkler systems are required by the Fire Department. 13. Two fire hydrants shall be required; type and location shall be determined by the Fire Department. 14. Development shall be subject to the approval of the State Fire Marshall prior to the issuance of a building permit. 15. A lot merger or appropriate access easement shall be confirmed by the Planning Department prior to the issuance of building permits. 16. Each phase shall include the adequate circulation pattern neces- sary for its use. 17. A minimum of 99 parking stalls are required, three of which must be for the handicapped (Section 9-4.115) . 18. This conditional use permit approval shall expire one year from the date of final approval unless all conditions are satisfied and the project shows substantial progress, or unless an extension is granted pursuant to Section 9-2.118 of the Zoning Ordinance. • S tZ'8f • - ? .: _ AT-78-141 A7-18'161 1�--4 �1 17 AT 81 LI? s-zs•4 ` r vet 20 y7 i, ••: ( t',`s� ��s o� � � c - �!:�'^A.a Pft.ei:•,a D:.T£ 'I Y ° 7�1' ..� s. j° art � d-t`z o. � • 3. � 'I p :RSF- ;IP , a.�'f (..tF � +` • � *., IT "S 9gy ;.� 'r'•�� / � _ is A'� :j° S./f �j � A.sa ` �t .+a o.:o'°*!° A{+p a. 0 1 �v.k' vi ,..K, 7C• d' .1 .20 a* `+ �o�(,0 8 _ z*� s° ir' m �,.' �� ��s •�pr's � .0 21•• oY�/_=a.eV o '^p/a \_-� tF) y � • � fir` .. p. �+ � •` 1�: .a^ r w a7 'r• ,13./�/r" 8 .S '.��/ .. 6. art 'SA�w•w.v i.5 ;�/ry fl n•+t i` S /wt 1 \ 9 .`Opo`. A6 'Ouc 24 6� - 1 to 9 sm s ..Z6 >25a 24 °o/nw>in:aa �� r'••' m �O�n�� 131.. 1 , �. 33 .\\, ca�. : too � 2A4 A • ap 0! �ro� $8 ..w.a..r .' 34 t` torr . +r<i 10,60 ,- •r?�i m j. , a rr Q r m 1 - 30-, `33• aAr i 4 ?]w `..- p a rn w. __3f••1 32 �r w...•ar 41 ,y ar.,f ' •. m I a o. `m^. too - 2 "T� tpsw° -.. � a m � Q n 1 m � u., eei � 1920 lbro ry • x $7 D18` o A 2 17 f A 5 ..1 33 • 3 120 11 D ,9' 33 • s7p to 1 1 30 31 33 46 t,i 36 34 35 D - - t `g3738 . H 39 `O 41 43 44 f Jb - 7 42 N. CITY��►�`��� '' f �� ifi g LO(�ATrcIJ M4-P ( CITY OF ATASCADERO Planning Department `' f71r :�1r��� � 1 41�i 11-r•f�r f.t�j�e.,,l - - ,:�k�`2'f�f� .,+ �"'.i. L •�y�/� ". -.�.-.. .. .. 1, � l�r��i l��aNs tl..r.•u•.r....+r- +^ PAc, 22- J /��� ~ L ` `1 LLJ ,meq^,�Y� � � �t 1� �•� �\� \ ` R .u•d t � '.E Z` � �i� �t AW tv S Q a W c ci t n v fo z > a Is 000 0 00� (i 002OD N ONq-�10 "0S a O \ !' Z' w M- oil I ((11 S< N SrtSA `NSt rn t» s `r.�;�A0m .an.� �� �-iac� °'asci^i+o' � n O � `_•�: \ ' i `� S�GNy p_ /m'� i/fJ V Nam . m. r�-qO rc•+aoba rA+ x,•,�. m r to \� `.,:7 _ •1 `^ AN m•O } Ts Nc \ J.. 't MO 3,0 O a `f Y 1L M -O�• y 1E ♦ 1 I w � I p r R j t ' i• r c � — 7 I s I ti i w \ �u z U g � L- 9f DECEMBER 7, :i984 I A 'Chitect 1 1 I Planning j + Graphics i I DEVELOPMENT STATEMENT I 8455 SANTA ROSA, ATASCADERO THE FOLLOWING SUBMITTAL IS _ONE-71N WHICH THE PHASING WILL BE SUCH THAT IT WILL BE BLENDED WITH THE GROWTH OF THIS ;COMMUNITY''AND SERVE' THE COMMUNITY IN THE AREA OF (RESIDENTIAL CARE AS IT HAS IN THE PAST. THIS DEVELOPMENT REPRESENTS A PROJECTED MASTER PLAN TO BE IMPLEMENTED IN PHASES TO ADDRESS THAT NEED. ! T'HE,'CONCEP'T IS TO OFFER THREE LEVELS OF CARE FOR THE ELDERLY; j k ; INDEPENDENT ;"COT'T'AGE" LIVING UNITS,'' BOARD AND CARE BEDROOM i' r ; ; UNITS AND A SKILLED NURSING FACILITY. FOR THE PROPOSED DENSITY, REFER TO THE ATTACHED STATISTICS_ SHEET. " THERE ARE CURRENTLY 37 RESIDEN'T'S ON THE SITE OF WHICH 30 ARE ` LIVING IN A "BOARD AND CARE" ENVIRONMENT, REGULATED BY THE i' ESTATE OF :CALIFORNIA,' DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES. (REFER TO it 1 1 ATTACHED STATISTICS SHEET FOR BREAKDOWN) . ALSO ATTACHED .IS A PROJECTED TIME SCHEDULE WITH SOME "TARGET" DATES OF ACCOMPLISHMEN'T'S AS IT RELATES TO EACH PHASED TASK. WE WOULD BE ANTICIPATING WORKING CLOSELY WITH THE CITY OF ATASCADERO PLANNING AND PUBLIC WORKS TO PROPERLY COORDINATE ANY REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS AS WE DEVELOP THIS SITE TO ITS POTENTIAL, FROM THE VERY BEGINNING WITH THE "COTTAGE" CONCEPT TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF A SKILLED NURSING FACILITY. (A LIST HAS BEEN ATTACHED INDICATING THE CONCEPT DESCRIPTIONS OF PARTICULAR PHASES OF CARE TO RE PROVIDED) t BOARD AND CARE: �. RESIDENTIAL FACILITY FOR THE ELDERLY WHICH PROVIDES 24 HOUR CARE, ASSISTANCE WITH ACTIVITIES OF DAILY LIVING, SUPERVISION OF PRESCRIBED MEDICATIONS, TRANS- PORTATION, PERSONAL LAUNDRY NEEDS -AND HOUSEKEEPING. COTTAGE RESIDENTS: "TRANSITIONAL° INDEPENDENT LIVING UNITS FOR THE ELDERLY. MINIMUM AGE WOULD BE 60 YEARS. WE PROVIDE A LIVING UNIT, MAINTENANCE AND HOUSEKEEPING, MEALS AND 24 HOUR SECURITY. SKILLED NURSING FACILITY: LONG-'PERM CARE BY LICENSED NURSES, 24-HOURS A DAY, IN WHICH WE PROVIDE ALL THE ABOVE PLUS THE NURSING FOR ELDERLY NEEDING NURSING CARE AROUND THE CLOCK. , -PROPOSED PHA v SCHEDULE OtOJECTED DATE (IMPLEMENTATION OF PROPOSED MASTER PLAN) OF ACCOMPLISHMENT 1. BEAUTY SHOP/GIFT SHOP 1983 2. BOARD AND CARE ( 12 UNIT- 1984 ADDITION TO THE EXISTING FACILITY) 2A. KITCHEN/DINING ROOM REMODEL 1984 3 . COTTAGES (UPON APPROVAL OF C.U.P. ) 1985 4 . SITE IMPROVEMENTS (STREETS, CURBS, . GUTTERS, UTILITIES, ETC. ) TO BE PHASED IN CONCERT WITH THE DEVEL- OPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION OF EACH OF THE INDIVIDUAL PHASED TASKS. 5 . ADMINISTRATION BUILDING WITH 1986 CONVERSION OF EXISTING RESIDENCE INTb TRIPLEX OR DAY CARE CENTER 6 . CONVERSION OF EXISTING KITCHEN AND DINING TO RESIDENTIAL UNITS 1988 7. BOARD AND CARE WITH NEW KITCHEN, 1988 LAUNDRY, AND DINING FACILITIES (INCLUDE PEDESTRIAN MALL) 8. ; ADDITIONAL COTTAGES THESE SHALL BE DEVELOPMEr THROUGHOUT THE DE- VELOPMENT SCHEDULE RESPONDING TO THE NEED AS IT IS STRUC'T'URED IN THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT (LOCATIONS SHALL BE RADIA'T'ING FROM TWO PROSPECTIVES: ( 1) KITCHEI AND DINING FACILI'T'IES AND (2 )EX'T'ENSION OF ACCESS ROADS AND PED- ESTRIAN PATHS. 9. SKILLED NURSING FACILITY 1989 SITE ADDRESS: _8455 SANTA ROSA ROAD SITE: 10.43 ACRES 454.331 S.F. USE ZONE: RSF-Y MAX. DENSITY ALLOWED: 375 PEOPLE MAX. DENSITY PROPOSED: 375 PEOPLE (TO INCLUDE STAFF) OCCUPANCY: EXISTING: BOARD & CARE RESIDENTS 30 BOARD & CARE STAFF 6 COTTAGE RESIDENTS 7 SKILLED NURSING FACILITY RESIDENTS 0 SKILLED NURSING FACILITY STAFF 0 TOTAL: 37 RES. 6 STAFF OCCUPANCY: PROPOSED: (MAXIMUM INCLUDING SKILLED NURSING FACILITY) BOARD & CARE RESIDENTS 203 BOARD & CARE STAFF 16 COTTAGE RESIDENTS 60 SKILLED NURSING FACILITY RESIDENTS 59 SKILLED NURSING FACILITY STAFF 37 TOTAL: 322 RES. 53 STAFF PARKING: A. EXISTING, B. PROPOSED (MAXIMUM SITE UTILIZATION) *BOARD & CARE 1/e BEDS TOTAL 26 SKILLED NURSING FACILITY - 1/4 BED 15 BORROW FROM ADJACENT (25) *CHAPEL 1/4 SEATS (REFER TO NOTE) ADMINISTRATION - 1/300 S.F. 5 BORROW FROM ADJACENT (3) *GIFT SHOP 1/300 S.F. ' (SUPPORT FUNCTION TO ABOVE) STAFF (1/EMPLOYEE - 100%) 53 TOTAL: 94 SPACES > 116 PROVIDED *ADJUSTMENT_ REQUIRED FROM CURRENT ZONING REQUIREMENTS. f PROJECT LIGHTING �SYM. DESCRIPTION LOCATION HEIGHT OSTREET POST AT DRIVE AND 12-16 FT. PEDESTRIAN WALL OWALKWAY PEDESTAL AT COMMON SPACE FT. PEDESTRIAN WALKWAYS 3 FT. THROUGHOUT PROJECT OSIGNAGE AT SIGNAGE AS SUP LIGHTING INDICATED AT SCHEDULE O -LANDSCAPE AT LANDSCAPE AREAS 1-1k FT. NEAR BUILDINGS WITH ACTIVITY AREAS PROJECT SIGNAOt SYM. DESCRIPTION LOCATION SIZE LTG. aENTRANCE IDENTIFICATION REFER TO PLAN 32 S.F. FENTRANCE DIRECTORY REFER TO PLAN 20 S.F. MCSTREET SIGNS SHALL BE LOCATED AT ALL STREET INTER- SECTIONS AND QBUILDING IDENTIFICATION AT ENTRY OR VISABLE 4 S.F. EACH PERSPECTIVE FROM BUILDING STREETS AT EACH COMPLEX BUILDING aENFORCEMENT SIGNS SHALL BE POSTED AS REQUIRED (NO PARKING) HANDICAP SIGNS (AS REQUIRED) Minutes - Plannin0ommission - February 4, 05 itional Use Permit 9-84 subject to the findings conditi contained in the .staff report with addi tion of Findi 8 to read: "8. Parking within the t setback along E1 Cam- ino Real is accepts as osed in that slope condition sere o screen par ke hicles, there is no reduc in the amount of overa andscaping be ' provided, and the design proposed is tive and avoids a straight line definition of the lar scaped area. " 3. Conditional Use Permit 29-84: Request submitted by the Atascadero Christian Home to allow a phased development of the 10.34 acre parcel to expand the existing residential care facility for the elderly. The site is located at 8455 Santa Rosa Road, legal description being Lots 9 and 10 of Block 12 in Atascadero Colony. Negative Declaration to the provisions of CEQA is to be certified. Doug Davidson presented the staff report on this request explain- ing the reasons for the use permit request, and then proceeded to describe the phasing aspects of the project. He did paint out staff's concerns with the amount of density proposed and briefly elaborated on Policy #15 in the General Plan enabling such uses in single family areas. Mr. Davidson further noted that with regar to the parking situation, a shared on-site parking adjustment i needed and pointed out that condition #8 had been modified in it wording of the condition. _ - Chairman Summers read page 104 of the General Plan pertaining to nursing homes. Commissioner Moore asked where the commercial aspect of this pro- ject comes in with regard to the beauty shop and gift shop. Mr. Davidson responded that staff felt there would not be any impact , concerning these two uses because they are internal for the resi- dents' use. Mr. Moses pointed out that this aspect of the project had been previously approved by the County. Mike Arrambide, director for the Christian Home, spoke in support of the project and thanked staff for their efforts with the staff report and noted that the Christian Home has been in existence for ' 27 years. He briefly commented on the the beauty shop and gift : shop and noted that these buildings had been approved by the City and were built two years ago. Mark Dodson noted he lives next door to the Christian Home and stated he has no problems with the residents of the Home, but noted that the proposed project does not provide any buffering between the Home and abutting neighbors. He expressed concerns with regard to the noise level, drainage problems, impacts o Santa Rosa Road and felt that provisions for these concerns shoul be provided for. 3 t Minu".es - Y Plannin commission - February 4 1 4 g Doris Vaden noted she lives adjacent to the back lot of the Home . and felt that the skilled nursing home is not compatible because of the height. She expressed concern with the drainage in that area and stated it was her understanding that only cottages would be built on the property. John Dorman, Mt. View resident, noted his opposition to the pro- ject because of the density and felt that the increased traffic from this project would have a significant impact on the neighborhood. Gary Harcourt, architect for the applicant, addressed some of the issues raised by the neighbors and noted that many types of draw- ings had been submitted that would take care of the buffering con- cerns. He also noted that vehicles that would be used by the res- idents would be consolidated in terms of two vans and explained the scheme of the cottages internally. He also noted that efforts were made to keep the project at a low profile. With regard- to the lighting, Mr. Harcourt noted that most the lighting would be within the middle of the property. Commissioner Sherer asked Mr. Harcourt what the proposed square footage of the building that is proposed to be 36 square feet tall. Commissioner LaPrade inquired what type of material is proposed to be used with the six foot fence. Jack Porter , Mt. View resident, stated that the two-story nursing i facility would face Mt. View and felt this project is too big for a residential area. He expressed concern that the project would have little impact for the residents on Santa Rosa Road but the residents on Mt. View would be greatly affected. Olive Dorman, Mt. View resident, noted that a project of this size is too big for a residential area. Mike Arrambide addressed the concerns raised by the public and noted that he understood the concerns with regard to the residen- tial character of the neighborhood. He has directed Keeler Foods to deliver with smaller trucks. Commissioner Moore expressed concern with the ten year phasing aspect and felt this application should not be addressed as a multiple family zone and noted she was not sure that a project of this size should be located in a residential area. She further stated that the matter should be continued in an effort to have the Christian Home meet with the neighbors to try and resolve some their concerns. Commissioner Wentzel addressed some of the concerns with regard to density, parking, height which exceeds the zoning ordinance stand- ards and concurred that the matter should be continued. Commissioner Lilley felt the project is too 'ambitious for this area and noted his desire to familiarize himself with the history of the project. 4 PommissionMinutes PlanninFebruary 4 15 Y Commissioner Carroll commended Mr. Arrambide on a fine job in directing the Home and noted his understanding with the concern of the neighbors. Commissioner LaPrade concurred with the comments made by the rest of the Commissioners and felt that this is an excellent facility. Commissioner Sherer also concurred with the rest of the Commis- sion and stated that the project is very worthwhile. Chairman Summers also concurred with the Commissioners' comments and felt the matter should be continued. She also noted that this project meets a lot of needs of the community and the cottages fill a void with regard to granny housing. MOTION: Made by Commissioner Sherer, seconded by Commissioner Wentzel and carried unanimously to continue the hearing on Conditional Use Permit 29-84 to the meeting of February 19, 1985. Zone Change 1-85s Request initiated by Planning Commission to revise the Zon' g Qrdinance text modifying the rear setback requirement in om- m cial and industrial zones which are adjacent to r iden tia zones, to allow waiving the ten foot setback f build- ings, r portions of buildings, twelve feet in eight or less. N ative Declaration to the provisions of QA is to b certified. 6 The Planning Direct explained the reasons an ackground for the initiation of the ame ment and read the pr osed language that would clarify the inten with interpretati of the section. Commissioner Sherer thanked taff for a timeliness involved in preparing the report for hears Ed Chidlaw spoke at length on t oposed amendment and felt the amendment would not be adequa and ggested some modification to the language of the text to include "a portion of the building within 10-feet of the p perty line" . Chidlaw felt that any burden of a commercial velopment should placed on the com- mercial aspect and of on the residentia wner . He cited and elaborated on sever examples of why there sho d be a rear set- back between comm tial and residential zones. Mr. Chidlaw oted that he has checked with several citi in the County d stated that these cities all have requiremen for a rear s ack. He commented on alleyways being a useful p pose as separation between the commercial - and residential uses nd ' fe the alleyways acted as a buffer between the two differe nes. 5 Minutes - PlanningCmission - February 19 1985 Y roject would provide an adequate amount of open space. Mr Richichi talked about the fact that there is not enough land for the children in which to play. Mr . Yeomans noted t t the yards re 20 feet in depth. Mr. Nile noted there are no dimensions on the proposed site plan. Mr. Yeoman pointed out that general plan and zone ch nge appli- cations do of require detailed dimensions. He the responded to various questions from the public.` Commissioner Moo a expressed concern that this p oject may be con- sidered spot zoni with regard to a multi-fami y use in the mid- dle of a residentia neighborhood. She furth stated that in the past, the Commission ad looked at general p an and zone change amendments as a neigh b rhood type study. Chairman Summers felt tha there is lan that currently exists that would accommodate thi type of us and noted her concern that she didn' t think the city ca provide the necessary services that would provide for the increas in de sity in the area. Commissioner Sherer felt that se is systems would take up more land space and talked about RMF and RMF/16 land that is within the sewer district and the exp se at would result in this type of housing that would not mak it of rdable. He further spoke on planned developments assuri the open space, landscaping, fencing and drainage solutions rel ted to the p jest. He felt the re- vised site plan was a co romise. Commissioner Lilley ex ressed concern that t e project is a radi- cal departure from t zoning ordinance and g eral plan but felt that these docume s, by nature, are subject to change. He en- dorsed the advant es of planned unit developmen Commissioners W ntzel, LaPrade and Carroll concurre with the sup- porting remar made by the other commissioners and It the pro- ject is a go one. MOTION: de by Commissioner Lilley, seconded by Commi sioner aPrade, to approve General Plan Amendment GP 1 85 and Zone Change 7-84 subject to the recommendation con ained in the February 19, 1985 staff report. The motion ar- ried with Commissioner Moore and Chairman Summers dissenting. 'hairman Summers called a recess from 9:10 to 9:20 p.m. y 4. Conditional Use Permit 29-84 : Continued hearing on request submitted by the Atascadero Christian Home to allow a phased development of the 10.34 acre parcel to expand the existing residential care facility for the elderly. Subject property is located at 8455 Santa Rosa Road, also known as Lots 9 and 10 of Block 12. Negative 5 10 Minutes - Planning Commission February 19, 19 Declaration to the provisions CEQA to be certified. Mr. Davidson summarized the background on this matter from the 1 previous meeting which included the addressing of such concerns as density, drainage, traffic and height of buildings. He noted that mitigation of the concerns have been taken care of through the conditions of approval. Mike Arrambide, representing the Atascadero Christian Home, ex- pressed his concern with procedural matters which occurred after the Planning Commission hearing was closed at the previous meet- ing and spoke to Commissioners Moore' s and Lilley' s comments made at that meeting. He explained that meetings were scheduled in an effort to resolve the neighborhood concerns with the project but that these meetings were poorly attended. Commissioner Lilley commented that there had been support for the Home from the Atascadero Advisory Committee years ago. Mr. Arrambide further commented that the project' s goal is to have an internal community and explained that skilled nursing is less of a traffic generator than a board and care facility, and spoke about the benefits of a skilled nursing facility. Commissioner Carroll felt that if the skilled nursing facility was scaled down to a one story building, that the use would be a good one there. Gary Harcourt, architect representing the Christian Home, pro- ceeded to address the issues of density, traffic, drainage, and proposed height of the buildings. Charles Butler, Portola resident, stated he was never contacted by the Christian Home but was instead notified by neigbors of the meeting. A resident at 8845 Santa Rosa, Road, stated the meetings were held at the Christian Home's convenience and not the neighbors, and felt the scale of the project is too large for the area. She fur- ther spoke on how dangerous it is for the children traveling back and forth to Santa Rosa School. The President of the Santa Rosa School P.T.A. expressed concern with children going to school with respect to the traffic, and felt the lack of sidewalks may not be appropriate. John Dorman, 9275 Mt. View, spoke on behalf of a group of neigh- bors and proceeded to read a petition that had been circulated among the neighbors which strongly urged the Commission to deny the project. He spoke on some of the factors that should be con- sidered which include: demand for an E.I.R. , reasonable traffic flow, appropriate lighting, visual impact on neighboring proper- ties, and the fact that the project is not in conformance with the General Plan. 6 Minutes - Planning Aoission — February 19, 1985 Doris Bateman, Mt. View resident, stated she had attended all of the hearings on the general plan prior -to the City' s incorporation and urged that the philosophies, of the general plan be upheld and to deny the proposed project. Steve Worford, 8410 Portola, spoke in opposition to the project and noted concern over the existing drainage. He stated that a project of this magnitude should be denied for this area. Ken Fenton, 9425 Mt. View, concurred with Mr . Worford' s testimony and spoke about other facilities in the Santa Rosa Road area such as the elementary school, a pre-school, etc. He felt the project is inconsistent with the neighborhood character. Mr. Arrambide made several closing remarks in response to the testimony given and attempted to re-assure that the concerns raised would be appropriately taken care of, and noted that drain- age would be re-directed from Mt. View to Santa Rosa. He reminded the Commission that the Christian Home has been a part of that neighborhood for a long time. Commissioner Moore felt that the neighbors do have a right to ask for an E.I.R. and asked staff if this is appropriate. Mr. Engen responded that the Commission could direct that an E.I.R. be pre- pared. She further felt that there are still a lot of unanswered questions concerning the project. It appeared too ambitious and would be better to proceed one step at a time. Commissioner Lilley stated he shares Commissioner Moore ' s com- ments and spoke on his concerns as they relate to the impact on the neighborhood Commissioner Wentzel stated that the project is a little too ambi- tious and felt that because of an increased density of 279 people, there definitely would be an impact on the neighborhood. Commissioner Sherer inquired about the possiblity of an expanded initial study and felt that the project should be scaled down. Commissioner LaPrade stated the Christian Home has been a good facility for the community and spoke on the intensity and expan- sion of the skilled nursing facility, and stated he was not en- tirely convinced that the project is justified for this area. Chairman Summers concurred with statements made by the Commis- sioners and felt the intensity of the project is too much for the area. It was Chairman Summer ' s opinion that the skilled nursing ' facility should be located elsewhere and felt that sidewalks along ! Santa Rosa Road is a good idea. Commissioner Moore asked Mr. Arrambi.de about the feasibility of il proceeding with the phases one at a time. Further discussion ensued on this. MOTION: Made by Commissioner Lilley, seconded by Commissioner 7 0 Minutes - Planning Commission - February 19, 19 Wentzel d an zed rr ' ! ca unanimously to continue considera- tion of Conditional Use Permit 29-84 to the meeting of March 4, 1985 to consider the possibility of a revised site plan. \Davidson ional Use Permit 1-85: t submitted by Timothy's Restaurant (J. Michael Brady, tect) to allow a reduction in the on-site parking re- quirement of 28 spaces using the modification allowed under n 9-4.115 (i) of the Zoning Ordinance. Subject roperty ated at 7327 E1 Camino Real, also known as a rtion of 9 of Block JA. Negative Declaration to the provisions A to be certified. n in presenting the staff report, point d out: the pri-d i volved with the request involves a 2 % reduction in- on-site parkin and noted staff' s recommenda on for denial. Granting of the equest would require a 30% r duction from re- quired parking. Michael Brady, architect representing the a licant, passed out a graph for the Commission' s review which r flected a survey of ac- tual parking use by thetime of day at t Adobe Plaza and pro- ceeded to cite severs] statistics i favor of allowing the re- quested reduction in parking. Mr. Br y further addressed staff' s evaluation of the prior tenant and, s ke on the different uses of the center. Bob Lyon, owner of Timothy's Res urant, pointed out several rea- sons for wanting to relocate into the Adobe Plaza and felt that the restaurant would provide eoQnomical advantage to the Plaza. Michael LeSage, attorney fo the app icant, spoke on the history of the project and note that the C my had previously approved the use in 1978. Commissioner Moore st ed she had seen evz ence of unused spaces at the center, but pressed concern over he parking if the pro- posed farmer's mark t takes place in the Pla Commissioner ''She r felt the center may suffer ith respect to the parking situati n if the request is granted, but hat Mr. Worthan is in charge o his own destiny. MOTION: Ma e by Commissioner Moore, seconded by mmissioner S erer and carried unanimously to approve Con itional Use ermit 1-85 with staff to bring back at the ne t meeting a resolution reflecting findings and conditions or ap- proval. The motion was carried unanimously. 6. Zone Change 2-85: - Request initiated by the Planning Commission to revise Zon 9 Ordinance Sections 9-4.143 (b) and 9-4.141(a) to allow gradi 8 Minutes - Planning Aission - March 4, 1985 0 my Engen presented the staff reportlindicating that this was a r . co ideration of an action approving two-way lot division at the b- ruar 4th meeting. The applicant has examined the calculations or neighbo hood character and staff concurs with his conclusion at a smaller m' imum lot size requirement results. Hence, staffecommends approving t e Tentative Parcel Map subject to findings and onditions to provide fo a three-way lot split. MOTION: Made by mmissioner LaPrade, seconded by C missioner Wentzel and carrie unanimously to approve Tentat` e Parcel Map ;2878.4 sub- ject to the 'ndings and conditions cont fined in the staff report, includi the granting of a 200 inimum lot size reduc- tion to enable c ation of three lot with the smallest lot being 3. 08 acres. 2. Tentative Parcel Map 3- Request submitted by Marti Ca pbell (Dennis Bethel-engineer) to allow the division of two egal lots, 9.36 acres in sum, into four lots of 1. 00, 1. 92, 2 0 d 4. 24 acres each. Subject property is located at 8 0 West cont Road, also known as Lots 8 and 9 of Block 10. gative Dec ration to the provisions of CEQA to be certified Doug Davidson presented e staff report indicatin that the applicant and staff had reached cord to revise Condition No. to read as fol- lows: "l. Parcel M shall be modified to either com 'ne Parcels B and C or p vide appropriate access easements fr West Front to Parc B. " It was open t the floor and applicant' s representative was not resent and there w s no one else to speak on the matter. MOTION: Made by Commissioner Lilley, seconded by Commissioner LaPra and carried unanimously to approve Tentative Parcel Map 3-85 subject to the findings and conditions contained in the amended staff report. 3. Conditional Use Permit 29-84 Continued hearing on request submitted by Atascadero Christian Home to allow a phased development of the 10.34 acre parcel to expand the existing residential care facility for the elderly. Subject property is located at 8455 Santa Rosa Road, also known as Lots 9 and 10 of Block 12. Negative Declaration to the pro- visions of CEQA is to be certified. Doug; Davidson presented the staff report. He noted that the revised site plan had been received after the agenda packet had been completed, thereby precluding inclusion of analysis and recommendation report with the agenda packet. Revised site plan eliminates the earlier proposed skilled nursing facility and board and care facility and substitutes five (5) cottages near the rear of the site. These cottages, along with the chapel and small administration building comprise the current re- quest. This revised plan proposes approximately 103 people (addition of 60) in contrast to the 375 person density originally proposed. 2 Minutes Planning Commission - March 4, 1985 Staff recommendation is for approval of the revised site plan subject to the findings and conditions of abproval . in the staff report. Under discussion, staff clarified questions relative to existing and pro- posed structures on the site plan, and advised that the project is being sought as a single use permit as opposed to a nine phase conditional use permit. Mike Arrambide, Director for the Christian Home, noted that this project reflects a good, clean, quiet local industry. The density has been dropped substantially in response to neighborhood concerns. Their only disagree- ment with conditions of approval is No. 8, calling for the improvement to all-weather surface of Pinedorado from Atascadero Avenue to Mountain View. Charles Butler, 8400 Portola , commented . about the lateness of receiving the revised plan and said that the cottages were, in fact, apartment buildings. Doris Faeth , 9355 Mountain View, questioned the calculationson density, and thought the cottages looked like duplexes and triplexes. Jean Wiley, 8445 Santa Rosa, worried about increase in traffic and drain- age problems and indicated that she had heard a rumor that it was also going to become a boys' school. John Dorman, 9275 Mountain View, felt there was no dramatic change in developer' s proposal. The area, indicated as vacant, will come in late as a project. The cottages are triplexes and the site plans don' t show square footage figures. In essence, Mr. Dorman felt that objections to the project noted in the past are applicable to this project, and that the density is unsatisfactory. Gary Harcourt, stated there were big differences in the project. It is lower density and a lower keyed project with single story residential on the perimeter of the site adjoining the homes. The buildings will be single family in style and traffic generation will be one third that of normal,i.e. , 3.3trips per unit. The individual units are approximately 650 to 850 square feet in area. Commissioner Lilley questioned why the units were on the fringe and open spaces being in the middle. The response being the site planners sought to have parking away from the neighbors. Olive Dorman, 9275 Mountain View, questioned if there would be assurances that the open area never be developed and response of the applicant was that the space was not included in the application; they would like to develop it later. Jack Porter, 9325 Mountain View, asked if the triplex cottages were approxi- mately 2600 sq. feet in area, and response by Arrambide was in the affirm- ative, indicating that the intent was to have those units the same size as the abutting single family houses. He further stated that to divide 3 n �j Minutes - Planning Commission - March 4, 1985 them into three separate cottages would be a mistake and incompatible with the neighborhood scale. He noted that drainage would be addressed in the detailed plans for construction and there are no plans to have this facility utilized as a boys'home. Approval of this use permit would be for a senior citizens' project only. i John Dorman quoted the Zoning Ordinance, with respect to the definition of board and care facility, which is much broader than an elderly housing project. Commissioner Lilley shared the concerns of the neighbors and others that the application was received at a late date. Commissioner Sherer agreed, but stated that the site plan was clearly an improvement over the project I reviewed at the last meeting. Commissioner Moore stated that she did not believe in having too many continuations on a project; felt that this was a good compromise for a local institution that had done good work. MOTION: Made b Commissioner Lille seconded b Commissioner Wentzel to Y Y� Y approve the Conditional Use Permit 29-84 subject to the findings and conditions in the staff report except for the deletion of condition #8 on Pinedorado. Question raised with staff as to importance of the secondary access from Pinedorado and response being that the fire department definitely wanted that access and the site plan extends development throught the full site to Pinedorado. Gary Harcourt stated that he felt this was an undue hardship considering the reduction in density. After discussion, j the motion was amended to include condition #8 by maker and second of the motion. MOTION: Made by Commissioner Lilley, seconded by Commissioner Wentzel and carried unanimously to approved Conditional Use Permit 29-84 , as amended, subject to the findings and conditions in the staff report. C man Summers declared a break at 8 :30 p.m. The meeting �BUSINE t 8 :40 p.m. C. UNFINISHE 1. Consideration of Resolu - ' No. 5 incorporating the necessary findings to allow a reducti on-site parking requirements of 28 spaces using the ficatio llowed under 9-4 .115 (i) of the Zoning Ordi ce. This approva a prerequisite for the relocation Timothy' s Restaurant to th dobe Plaza. Henry Engen pr nted the staff report noting that this had be ranted in concep the February 19th, 1985, meeting and staff has prepar forma esolution incorporating the findings unique to the approval, i.e. , t parking utilization study and characteristics of Adobe Plaza. 4 (OOUNCIL MEETING : 4/8/85 GENDA ITEM NO., ' B - 4 • M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council April 8, 1985 VIA: Michael Hicks, Acting City Manager FROM: Henry Engen, Planning Director SUBJECT: Resolution Approving Annex N - PP Annexation o 3 to the Cit of Atas 9 Y cadero ("Holiday Inn") BACKGROUND: Pursuant to Local Agency Formation Commission procedures, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 15-85 on February 25, 1985 which es- tablished an April 8, 1985 date of hearing for considering final city action to annex Annexation No. 3 to the City. Appropriate public notice was published on March 13, 1985 in the Atascadero News. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the attached draft Resolution No. 23-85 annexing Annexation Area . No. 3. HE:ps ATTACHMENTS Draft Resolution No. 23-85 February 4, 1985 LAFCO Communication RESOLUTION NO. 23-85 A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO APPROVING THE ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY TO THECITYOF ATASCADERO: ANNEXATION NO. 3 ("HOLIDAY INN") WHEREAS, on June 11, 1984 the City Council approved general plan amendments enabling prezoning of land proposed for annexation; and WHEREAS, City Council conducted a public hearing and unanimously approved the prezoning on June 11, 1984; and WHEREAS, on August 24, 1984 there was filed with the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) for an annexation of territory to the City of Atascadero; and WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 94 prezoning lands for annexation was adop- ted by the City Council at a regular meeting on November 26, 1984; and WHEREAS, the City Council has certified and hereby re-affirms certification of an Environmental Impact Report and accepted the ad- dendum thereto; and WHEREAS, the -matter was approved by LAFCO at a public hearing on December 20, 1984; and WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Atascadero did pass Resolution No. 15-85 establishing a date for public hearing on the proposed an- nexation of April 8, 1985; and WHEREAS, the Council, at a regular meeting on April 8, 1985, held a public hearing on the said annexation request. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Atascadero does resolve as follows: 1. That the legal description approved by the Local Agency For- mation Commission attached hereto, (marked Exhibit A) , and incorporated by reference herein as though set forth in full is hereby approved annexing Annexation No. 3 to the City of Atascadero. 2. That the City Manager is authorized and directed to mail certified copies of this resolution, legal description, and map showing boundaries of the area approved to the Local Agency Formation Commission together with a check from the applicant in the amount of $480.00 , payable to the State Board of Equalization. On motion by and seconded by , the foregoing resultion is hereby adopted in its entirety on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: DATE ADOPTED: CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA By ROLFE D. NELSON, Mayor ATTEST: ROBERT M JONES, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO CONTE T I CHAEL HICKS, 'Acting Y 9 Cit Manager APPROVED AS 0 FORM: 4 ALLEN GRIMES, City Attorney LEGAL DESCRIPTION ANNEXATION 110. 3 TO THE CITY OF ATAS CAD E RO That certain property within the County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, being a portion of that property conveyed to Harold L. Edelman by deed recorded in Volume 2043 of Official Records at Page 22 , records of said County, more particulary described as follows : Beginning at P. R. No. 1 , the Southeast corner of Rancho Paso de Robles in the bed of the Salinas River, as shown on a map of said Rancho recorded in Book A of Maps at Page 164 , records of said County, and running thence the following courses and distances, according to said deed to Harold L. Edelman: 1. Along line of said Rancho North 58035 ' West, 872 .3 feet to a point opposite the mouth of Paso Robles Creek; thence up said Creek the following courses and distances South 2l° West, 637 .7 feet; South 51° 30 ' West, 380 .0 feet; and South 76'030 ' West, 115 feet, more or less, to the intersection with the northeasterly lire of the parcel of land conveyed to the State of California by deed recorded April 25 , 1950 in Volume 562 of Official Records at Page 13 , records of said County, particularly with the course numbered (11) of said deed, being the northeasterly right of way line of US 101 . 2. Thence along said course (11) South 439231 East, 160 feet, more or less, to the northwesterly terminus of the course numbered (12) of said deed. Thence along courses numbered (12) through (15) , particularly South" 50003 ' 50 " East, 85 .96 feet; South 430231 East, 830.13 feet; South 56006 ' East, 297 .68 feet; and South 36° 28 ' 40 " East, 250 .59 feet to the northwesterly terminus of the course numbered (16) of said deed. Thence along said course (16) South 25° 33' 40 " East, 79. 59 feet to the northwesterly terminus of the course numbered (3) as described in the deed to the State of California recorded January 20 , 1966, in Volume 1382 of Off ficial Records at Page 645 , records of, said County, being a point in the northeasterly right of way line of US 101 . 3. Thence along said course (3) and the course numbered (2) of said deed, particularly South 36028 ' 20 " East, 426 . 54 feet; and South 8° 17 142 " West, 230 .43 feet to a point in the line between stakes M. 11 and A.G. 7 , as described in the deed recorded January 23 , 1918 in Book 120 of Deeds at Page 276, being the existing limit line of the City of Atascadero. #. Thence along said line North 86015 ' East, 1135 feet, -ore or less, said stake A. G. 7 . Thence the following courses and distances per.-said deed recorded January 23 , 1918 : South 62° East, 297 . 0 feet to - stake A. G. 8 ; North 28° East, 1467.18 feet to a point in the center of the Salinas River; and North 65' 45 ' 'Vilest, 2317 . 26 feet to ~the true point of beginning. Enclosing an area of approximately 109 acres . EXH `SIT A i Adak i a r-l CL Q�7 co CD LLJ x,,.�rstic•�$-'�r� '24+�FA+w q' I'.. ; z � rl Z 1 t a_ W r' a. O LL BK Q� t 101 REUIVED FEB County of San Luis Obispo • COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER SAN Luis OBISPO,CALIFORNIA 93408 (805)549-5011 OFFICE OF February 4, 1985 COUNTTADMINISTRATOR Mr. Henry Engen Planning Director City of Atascadero P . 0. Box 747 Atascadero , CA 93423 Dear Mr. Engen : Enclosed are copies of LAFCo resolutions 84-41 (Approving Annexation No. 4 to the City of Atasca- dero, Wastewater Treatment Plant) and 84-43 (Approv- ing Annexation No. 3 to the City of Atascadero-, Holi - day Inn ) . Also enclosed are "Filing Procedure" instructions for each annexation . . In the case of Annexation No. 4 (Wastewater Treatment Plant) , please note that LAFCo has authorized the city to complete the annexation Without public notice , hearing or election. For Annexation No . 3 (Holiday Inn ) , the city is authorized to initiate proceedings to annex the territory as specified in the filing instructions . Following its decisions on the annexations , the city must send certified copies of its resolutions to the LAFCo office . These reso- lutions must be accompanied by the other materials specified in the filing procedures in order to final - ize the annexations . Thank you for your patience in this matter. Please feel free to call if you have any questions . Sincerely, _'� �.- �=A PAUL L . HOOD Deputy Executive Officer Local Agency Formation Commission PLH:mjw • (5598u ) �b JRUNCIL MEETING : 4/8/85 AGENDA ITFM NO. : C 1 • TO: City Council April 8, 1985 FROM: Mike Hicks, Acting City Manager SUBJECT: RESOLUTION 22-85 — AMENDMENT TO THE 1984-85 SALARY/ CLASSIFICATION SCHEDULE The proposed resolution is presented for consideration, per Council ' s direction at the March 25 , 1985 ,.Council Meeting. • . RESOLUTION NO. 22-85 RESOLUTION OF THE ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 45-84 FOR ADOPTION OF A SALARY/CLASSIFICATION SCHEDULE FOR THE 1984-85 FISCAL YEAR The Atascadero City Council resolves as follows: The Salary Plan of the City of Atascadero, Classified Positions and Management, as adopted by Resolution 45-85, for Fiscal Year 1984-85 is amended to provide a five percent (5%) increase for all ranges in the Plan, effective March 30, 1985. Exhibits I and II, attached, reflect this increase. ON MOTION, by Councilman and seconded by Councilman the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety on the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ADOPTED: ROLFE D. NELSON, Mayor ATTEST: ROBERT M. JONES, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO RM APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: f ALLEN GRIMES, City Attorney MICHAEL G. HICKS, Acting City Manager Effective March 30 , 1985 EXHIBIT I CITY OF ATASCADERO Salary Plan Fiscal Year 1984/85 4 MONTHLY Range Trainee QualifiedFully Qualified Salary Salary Salary 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 884.86 983.18 1081.50 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 906 .98 1007.76 1108.54 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 929.10 1032.34 1135.57 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . 951.23 1056.92 1162. 61 5 Clerical Assistant I. . . . . . . 973.35 1081.50 1189.65 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . 997 .68 1108 . 54 1219.39 7 Custodian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1022:02 1135.58 1249.14 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1046.35 1162.61 1278.87 9 Acct. Clerk I/Clerical Assistant II. . . . . . . . . . . . .1070.69 1189.65 1308.62 10 . . . . . . . . . . .1097.46 1219.40 1341.34 11 Support Services Aide. . , . . .1124. 22 1249.13 1374.04 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1150.99 1278.88 1406 .77 13 Maint. Worker I/Account Clerk II/Clerical Asst III1177.76 1308.62 1439.48 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1207.20 1341.33 1475.46 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1236.64 1374. 05 1511.46 16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1266.08 1406.76 1547.44 17 Maint. Worker II/Bldg. Maint. Worker I/Eng. Aide/ Records and Dispatch Supervisor. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .1295 .53 1439.48 1583.43 18 Administrative/Personnel Analyst. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1327.91 1475.46 1623.01 19 City Mgr. Secty./Maint. Worker III/Recreation Coord/Shop Mechanic. . . . . . . .1360.30 1511. 45 1662.60 20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1392. 69 1547.44 1702. 18 21 Bldg. Maint. Worker II/ Maint. Worker IV. . . . . . . . . . .1425.08 1583.42 - 1741.76 22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1460.71 1623.01 1785.31 23 Firefighter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1496.33 1662. 59 1828.85 24- Zoo-Mgr/Sen. Eng. Tech . . . .1531.96 1702.18 1872.40 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1567 .58 1741. 76 1915.94 26 Bldg. Inspector/Treatment Plant Operator. . . . . . . . . . . . .1606.77 1785. 30 1963.83 27 Police Officer/Fire Engin. .1645.96 1828.85 2011.74 28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1685.15 1872.39 2059 .63 29 . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . .1724.34 1915.94 2107.53 30 AssociatePlanner/Assis i. Civil Engineer. . . . . . . . . . . . .1767.45 1963. 84 2160.22 31 Chief Treatment Plant Operator. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1810 .56 2011. 74 2212.91 32 Fire Captain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1853.66 2059 .63 2265.59 33 Chief Bldg. Inspector . . . . . .1896 .77 2107. 53 2318.28 OVER. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L Page -2- 34 Associate Civil Engineer. . .1944. 20 2160.22 2376.24 35 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1991.62 2212.91 2434.20 36 Public Works Superd' t./ Plan Check Engineer. . . . . . . . 2039.04 - 2265 .60 2492.16 37 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2086.45 2318.28 2550 .11 38 . . . . .2138.61 2376 .24 2613.86 39 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .2190.77 2434.19 2677.61 40 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2242.93 2492.15 2741.37 32 Police Sergeant. . . . . . . . . . . .1851.93 2057.70 2263.47 Effective March 30, 1985, all ranges to increase 5% over FY 84-85-3 Classified Salary Plan. Effective March 30, 1985 EXHIBIT II CITY OF ATASCADERO • Salary Plan Fiscal Year 1984/85 - 2 MANAGEMENT Range Monthly Salary M-1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,263.98 M-2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,353. 28 M-3 Recreation Director. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2,457.09 M-4 . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2,472.76 M-5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,535.65 M-6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2,574.77 M-7 . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 2,665.20 M-8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2,731. 86 M-9 . . . . . . . . . o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3,138.09 M-10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2,871.48 M-11 . . . . 0 . . 0 . 00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,943.16 M-12 Finance Director. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3,016.11 M-13 Planning Director. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3,091.58 M-14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,169.56 M-15 Police Chief/Fire Chief. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 3,248.81 M-16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3,329.30 M-17 00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0. . . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,412.32 M-18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,497.83 M-19 Public Works Director. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3,585.89 M-20 . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3,675.18 M-21. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 000 . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . .3,764.49 M-22 . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3,861.32 M-23 . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3,958.19 M-24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4,056. 29 M-25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4,158.17 M-26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4,262.56 M-27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4,368.21 M-28 - - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . .4,477.63 M-29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4,589.57 M-30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 ,704 .03 M-31 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4,822. 25 Effective March 30, 1985 , all management ranges to increase 5 over FY 84-85-1 Management Salary Plan. Per City Manager Contract effective April 8, 1985 through June 30, 1985, salary set at $4,160.20 per month (M-27, FY 84-85-1) . 10OUNCIL MEETING: 4/8/85 GENDA ITEM NO, : C 2 • M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council April 8, 1985 VIA: Michael Hicks, Acting City Manager FROM: Henry Engen, Planning Director -AC SUBJECT: Revocation of Resolution 11-85 Approving General Plan Amendment at 8800 El Centro (Yeomans) (GP 1C-85) BACKGROUND; At the City Council' s March 25 , 1985 meeting, a referendum petition opposing the development of the 24 units at 8800 E1 Centro was presen- ted to the City Council. The referendum sought revocation of Resolu- tion No. 11-85 which had been adopted on February 25, 1985. The en- closed communication was received from Michael Yeomans and Joseph E. Lindsey requesting that the Council repeal its prior approval and also deny final passage of proposed Ordinance No. 100 which would rezone the land to permit a 24 unit residential planned development. i RECOMMENDATION: Approval of attached draft Resolution 24-85 rescinding approval of Resolution No. 11-85. HE:ps ATTACHMENTS: Draft Resolution No. 24-85 March 28 , 1985 Communication — Yeomans and Lindsey Resolution No. 11-85 I i RESOLUTION NO. 24-85 A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO RESCINDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION AT 8800 EL CENTRO FROM MODERATE DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO LOW DENSITY MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (GP 1C-85 : YEOMANS) WHEREAS, the City Council, on February 25, 1985, did approve the attached Resolution No. 11-85 amending the City of Atascadero's Gen- eral Plan; and WHEREAS, the City has received a request from Michael Yeomans and Joseph E. Lindsey, the applicants for the aforesaid general plan change, requesting that the City Council repeal its earlier general plan amendment resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Atascadero does resolve to rescind Resolution No. 11-85 thereby retaining the land use desig- nation at 8800 E1 Centro as Moderate Density Single Family Residential On motion by and seconded by the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in its en- tirety on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: DATE ADOPTED: CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA By ROLFE D. NELSON, Mayor ATTEST: ROBERT M. JONES, City Clerk APPROVED AS N NT: MttHAEL HICK , Acting City Manager APPROVED AS T FORM: ALLEN GRIMES, City Attorney Yeomans/Dillon Group 7000 Morro Road Atascadero, Califomia 93422 805 466-8662 March 28 , ' 1985 Rolfe D. Nelson, Mayor Council Persons George Molina - RECEIVED MAR 2 8 188.3 _Wayne Handshy Barbara Norris Mardge Mackey Members of the Council: We, Michael Yeomans and Joe Lindsey, hereby request that the Atascadero City Council. vote to repeal . General Plan Amendment Resolution (G.P. 1.C.85) . We also request that the "council vote against final passage of ordinance number 100 , the zoning change -=which would establish a planned unit development zone at 8800 E1 Centro. The net effect of our request will be the denial of project approval of the 24 unit planned unit development which we have referred to as "Summerf ield. Our reasons for withdrawing our request are as follows "a. 'We cannot in good conscience allow the taxpayers of „ • this city to sponsor a special election. .,The expense of such an election would be more than the city should bare. b. This 24 unit project is not so significant that it alone k _ should occupy center stage in the on going debate overgrowth and it's related issues in our community. - There are more - important civic issues which deserve the attention of the voters of this city. eu r Although we included features in the design of "Summerfield" which we felt would mitigate the concerns of the people living v around the project, we never set up direct communications between ourselves as applicants and the parties who would be most affected by our proposal, the neighbors. Where a healthy` intercourse of ideas and concerns would have been helpful we had none. For us to go on the campaign trail against the neighbors would only ` serve to widen the communication gap between us. The reason for this withdrawal should not be construed as a repudiation of general plan amendments or the use of the planned unit development overlay zone in our community. The problems that arose relate solely to this project. Yeoman s/Dillon Gro 7000 Morro Road Atascadero, Caiifomia 93422 805 466-8662 ",.'. .,:, We owe a debt of gratitude to the city planning staff for the insight and support which they have given to us and our proposal. We are also indebted to those members of the city planning commission and city council who supported us,, thank you. `. Those persons who voted against us did listen patiently to our proposals and then did what they felt was in the best interest of the community. They serve long hours with little reward and have, : therefore, also earned our sincere gratitude and respect. Thank you, Zia f MICHAEL YEOMANS _ . J SEPH E LINDSEY t. i. v' Revised 2/19/85 RESOLUTION NO. 11-85 A RESOLUTION OF THE ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL 0 APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION AT 8800 EL CENTRO FROM MODERATE DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO LOW DENSITY MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (GP 1C-85 : YEOMANS) WHEREAS, a request to amend the City of Atascadero' s General Plan has been received as follows: General Plan Amendment 1C-85: Request submitted by Michael Yeomans and Joseph Lindsey to change the General Plan Land Use Element Map designation from Moderate Density Single Family Residential to Low Density Multiple Family Residential. Subject property is located at 8800 El Centro, also known as Lot 24 of Block 4. Negative Declaration to the provisions of C.E.Q.A. is to be certified. WHEREAS, this request was considered by the Planning Commission at hearings held on December 3 and 17, 1984 and on February 19 1985 with the Commission voting to recommend approval of an amended project containing 24 dwelling units; and WHEREAS, such amendment to the General Plan was considered by the City* Council during a public hearing; and WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65323 provides that a .,General Plan be amended by the adoption of a resolution; and WHEREAS, the Council of the City: of- Atascadero finds as follows: 1. ArGeneral Plan Land Use designation of Low Density Multiple Family is consistent with the policies of the General Plan document as proposed to be implemented by a' Planned Development rezoning. 2. The proposed General Plan Land Use designation is located within the Urban Services Boundary and will not have a significant effect upon the existing level of services. 3. The proposed general plan amendment will not have a significant adverse effect upon the environment and preparation of an Environ- mental Impact Report is not necessary. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Atascadero does resolve to approve General Plan Amendment GP 1C-85 (Yeomans) as shown on the attached Exhibit "A" . On motion by Councilman Molina and seconded by Councilman Handshy , the amendment was approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilman Molina, Councilman Handshy and Mayor Nelson. NOES- Councilwoman Norris and Councilwoman Mackey. ABSENT: None DATE ADOPTED: 2_25_85 CITY OF arVASCADERO,rz ALIFORNIA By 5 /-j ROLFE D. PELSON, Mayor ATT A(38ERT City Clerk " APPROV AS TO CO T: RALPH H. DOWELL, JR. , Acting City Manager APPROVED AS O FORM: ALLEN GRIMES, City Attorney - C�� -� a =Y y , \ i \ \ <YC 6. EO LLJ= - ::... . ...... :... : ...... W Q ..... 0�,a i : y 4 �\ W ........ ... PW a . ............ P W ' H c� Qw00. a z EL / _ _ O �::..:. � U Q O J--•� ' i p U Q Q ....... U0.'--�Uw'1 Cr CC U • c Lu }—�U'lL QFQ-OW O � i \ 0. Cr i ©oa ........ a r , \ f, ' ��� � �N z ! W w Q r \\\ aQa>e OOODDLU mU :' a ^. _...� ..: S S o co co O 0 0 0 rr' SJSrLJtnn i r 0861 opo©Q� 1 C. �. JJ 7,. `b V F: AY ...:� t - I �•may �:i�L». ` �,. + •• .� �; o c l 0 o- I .. .. . COUNCIL MEETING : 4/8/85 AGENDA ITEM NO, : C - 4 • TO: City Council April 8 , 1985 FROM: Mike Hicks, Acting City Manager SUBJECT: URGENCY ORDINANCE NUMBER 101 - AMENDMENT TO MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND RECREATION COMMISSION The ordinance attached revised Ordinance Number 101 is presented for consideration, per Council ' s directive at the March 25th Council Meeting. Please note that this Ordinance has been revised to an Urgency Ordinance and requires one reading only. REVISED ORDINANCE NO. 101 AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO AMENDING CHAPTER 9 OF TITLE 2 OF THE ATASCADERO MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND AMENDING CHAPTER 13 OF TITLE 2 OF THE ATASCADERO MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE RECREATION COMMISSION AND DECLARING THE URGENCY The Council of the City of Atascadero does ordain as follows: Section 1. Sections 2-9.01 through 2-9.07 of Chapter 9 of Title 2 of the Atascadero Municipal Code, relating to the Planning Commission, are hereby repealed. Section 2. Chapter 9 (Reorganized) is added to Title 2 of the Atascadero Municipal Code, relating to the Planning Commission, to read as follows: CHAPTER 9. PLANNING COMMISSION (Reorganized) Sec. 2-9.01 . Creation: Composition. There is created a Planning Commission for the City which shall consist of seven (7) members who shall not be officials or employees of the City, but who shall be residents of the City. Seca 2-9.02 . Members: Appointment: Terms of office. The City Council shall appoint the members of the Plan- ning Commission. Three (3) members shall be appointed for terms which shall expire on August 1, 1986. Four (4) members shall be appointed for terms which shall expire on August 1, 1988. Thereafter, all terms shall be for four (4) years and shall expire four (4) years after August 1 of the date of the appointment, except those appointments made after the commence- ment of the term to fill a vacancy or removal, in which case the term of office shall be for the balance of the unexpired term. Sec. 2-9.03 . Absence from meetings: Running for office on City Council. Absence of a member of the Planning Commission from three (3) consecutive meetings, or from four (4) meetings during a calendar year, without formal consent of the Planning Commis- sion noted in its official minutes, shall be reported by the the Planning Director to the City Council for consideration of removal from office. If a member of the Planning Commission files for election as a member of any elective City office, -1 AG:fr/3/29/85 ORDINANCE N0. Page 6 Section 7 . This urgency ordinance shall go into effect immediately upon adoption, but shall not become operative until the Council adopts a resolution or resolutions declaring all or part of this ordinance operative and fixing the operative date. The foregoing ordinance was introduced on and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on AYES: NOES ABSENT: ROLFE D. NELSON, Mayor ATTEST: ROBERT M. JONES, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: L" 02i�21�Y��,L IKE HICKS, Acting City Manager APPROVED AS TO RM: ALLEN GRIMES, City Attorney CIL MEETING: 4/8/85 DA ITEM NO, : C = 5 M E M 0 R A N D U 14 • TO: CITY MANAGER/CITY COUNCIL FROM: CHIEF OF POLICE SUBJECT: REVIEW/UPDATE OF POLICE FACILITY AND SITE ALTERNATIVES DATE: APRIL 2 , 1985 In keeping with Council ' s request, following is a current analysis of police facility alternatives which have been dis- cussed and/or .suggested for consideration: Alternative #1: -Basement - Administration Building Estimated renovation costs: $220, 000 (1981 estimate) -Advantages A. Would provide secure facility. B. Police services would be in close proximity to other City services. • C. Prisoner ingress and egress would be easily accomplished. Disadvantages A. Cost of renovation is comparatively excessive, largely due to the necessity of relocating low-hanging plumbinq and other mechanical apparatus. B. Could be a conflict with an existing use by a service club. C. The atmosphere and environment of a basement facility may not be conducive to office use on a regular, full- time basis. D. Space is limited - much of it is now used by the P.D. and Public Works for storage, etc. Alternative #2: Masonic Lodge -Estimated renovation costs: $156,000 (1981 estimate) -Advantages • A. Location is acceptable: D. Incidence of vandalism of police cars and employees ' private vehicles has been high as presently configured. E. Offices in the Administration Building are located in such a way that the space offered is, by virtue of the round design, not contiguous, thus an efficient work flow is difficult to achieve. Alternative #4 : -Occupy the Entire Street Floor of the Administration Building for the Exclusive Use of the P.D. -Advantages A. Relative low cost. B. Police services would remain close to other City services. C. Move of Records and Dispatch functions within the same building may be comparatively simple as compared against relocating to another building. D. Most P.D. functions would be on one floor. -Disadvantages A. Occupying the entire first floor would necessitate the move of the libraries and the museum. B. Multiple use of this building creates conflict and security problems for law enforcement. C. Continuing vandalism of City-owned and employees ' private vehicles. D. Office space is not contiguous - causes inefficiency. Alternative #5: -Purchase or Lease Old Bank of America Building on Traffic Way (As this building was recently sold to a private entre- preneur, this no longer appears to be a feasible alternative. ) Alternative #6 : -Purchase or Lease Old Century Federal Savings and Loan Building, Traffic Way and Palma (As this building currently houses an on-going business, this no longer appears to be a feasible alternative. ) Wil. ng spa Alternative #7 : l Purchase or Lease the Hendrix (Formerly French Medical Clinic) Building at El Camino & Principal (Approx. purchase price $450, 000 plus remodelling costs. ) -Advantages A. Relatively new building in good condition. B. Offering price appears below market value. C. Would require relatively little remodelling and lends itself to fairly easy expansion. D. Parking should be sufficient for a projected period of time. E. Location affords easy access to freeway. F. Office space design affords contiguous work space which will enhance efficiency and work-flow. G. With police operations relocating away from the Admin. Building, additional space is realized for other City operations such as Planning, Recreation, etc. H. Facility location lends itself to a more secure operation - both inside and out. -Disadvantages A. Significant cash outlay for City. B. Some feel the location is too far from the central city. C. Extra maintenance/utilities costs . D. Remote from other City services. Alternative #8 : Construct New Police Facilities Building Estimated cost of facility 4700 square ft: $470, 000 plus land. -Advantages A. Efficient floor plan can be developed. B. Could dq_µjvint project with other City service such as a, `ire Dept ' satellite station. C. Other similar advantages as indicated in Alternative #7 R: D. Long planning and lag-time. • SUMMARY LIST OF ALTERNATIVES: 1. Basement - Administration Building. 2 . Masonic Building - Olmeda & Hwy. 41. 3. North Wing of 2nd Floor Combined With lst Floor Adult Library Admin. Building. 4 . Entire Street Floor - Administration Building. 5. Old Bank of America Bldg. - Traffic Way. 6 . Old Century Federal Bldg. - Traffic and Palma Ave. 7. Hendrix Building - Principal and El Camino Real . 8 . New Facility Construction. -- 9 . Ranger House - Atascadero Lake. 10 . Police Occupy Fire Department - Relocate Fire Dept. to New Facility. While there may be other possible solutions to providing space for police operations, those indicated in the foregoing represent our staff discussions to date as well as the data as reported by Corolla Engineers and Consultants. For your consideration and discussion. RICHARD H. McHALE RHM: sb 0 CIL MEETING: 4/8/85 DA ITEM NOS : C _ 6 • TO: City Council April 8, 1985 FROM: Mike Hicks Acting City Manager SUBJECT: AMENDMENT TO THE 1984-85 FISCAL YEAR BUDGET This is a continued item from March 25, 1985, inwhich Council " tentatively approved at that time. It is my recommendation that Council approve, by motion, the additional appropriations requested by Department Heads, as an amendment to the 1984-85 budget, at the Council Meeting of March 25, 1985. • Please note that Section 3 of Resolution Number 37-84, which approved the 1984-85 fiscal year budget, provides that Council may amend such budget by motion. MH:RC:kv • .K W.0 VI L MEETING : 4/8/85 law DA EE IM �Ca. — 1 MAR 2 ; 1985 • T0: hike Hicks CITY MGR, FR UZ: David Crouch SUBJECT: Employee 's Picnic DATE : Parch 20, 185 Because we have a ner City Council and neva employees in almost all departments I :^ould like to suggest an Employee 's Picnic as a ray for the neva and the old to meet and become beater acquainted. So that no employee Mould be excluded because of financial reasons it would be most important that the City help with the costs. If all employees , Council members and families were to attend this would be ; 1075.00. It mould provide for a 'Santa 14aria' style barbecue with Tri-Tip, bread and chili. Also napkins , plates , cups , table- ,-are , soft drinks and hot dogs for the kids, beer, ice , char- coal and a park fee . Since there will be sr:.all children attending I feel it • mould be safer to stay array from, the lake , and use instead , the County: Regional Park at the entrance to Atascadero 's Golf Course . It's a plesant park r;ith 'well organized facilities including a horseshoe pit, vollyball court and a children's play area. A tentative date could be Saturday, the 11th. of Ploy. I - P t 'o Think you Mike, V� David Crouch • ,f COUNCIL MEETING: 4/8/85 .LNPA ITEM NO. : E - 1 TO: City Council April 8, 1985 FROM: Mike Hicks, Acting City Manager SUBJECT: City Representative to the Environmental Protection Agency This item is being presented for Council consideration of Resolution 26-85 , which appoints the City Manager position as the City of Atascadero' s representative to the Enviornmental Protection Aqency. Previously, the City' s representative was Murray Warden. It is suggested that Council appoint, by resolution, the City Manager position rather than the person, by name. RESOLUTION NO. 84- Page 2 AYES NOES: ABSENT Date: , 1985 ROLFE NELSON, President ATTEST: ike Hicks, Secretary APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: JOHN WALLACE, Consulting City Engineer APPROVED AS TO 'FORM: �- A,:", ALLEN GRIMES, City Attorney EXHIBIT A Being lot 44c, block NC of Atascadero Colony, in the City of Atascadero, county of San Luis Obispo, State of California, as per map recorded in book 4 , page 62B on October 21, 1914. v cQ 0o EXHIBIT B f /c'1 , 0 ° Q W m .. - Nv t^�1. LL o'v o Q `1 ' a ►' f1 �� `cv mi Oto Ir yo r to a �' a• vi vO 1 x3 4 cl a Ac . e 53° �^ a COW w - - �v�� 1�i) �e �J t I O�..r n 3 68 '� h2E to L7 L M N IL uj to • N_ w m ...,..: W C Q O SSo t6 92J9 �ti-�' _ 40 �W W y Iz o `n , -i fi •N,ev,..,r ,, (101 kMN 0-10) ONIWVO -13 `---- IMPROVEMENT I NT D STRICT BOUNDARY - - SEWER LINES • • PROPOSED ANNEXATION TO DISTRICT .d ins Irs � "� )���,•► f , `!a � i �ti® `� '�� ��► �© � �� ��F .� � . : � ,, �► ''�� � �©. ®O mow.{�� 44YY'�`,�• A IY! PAP ^�'A���� d�©E��Q' B v ■IWllIlllliilllJlll: �� �'�.� �,�'� `,� �''�- ,. .. ® �.. ✓, ./'�Magog ii ur � -I� ® T . lye_�,=�.'. �v'!�► C:��y. ��'A�'-� .�ii - � d'B�_ �.a "9�,��..,�1�� �"� �• �, � `��' w' '�'■ '•: �� A Via. �D �.. 1 all Iv- IL It � " @mi a F4 Mon. PAP A -� v 0 M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council April 1, 1985 FROM: Henry Engen, Planning Director SUBJECT: Draft Housing Element The attached General Plan Housing Element will be before you as a public hearing item on April 8 , 1985. It includes refinements to the December, 1984 draft which occurred as a result of refinements by the Planning Commission. z HENRY ENG N Planning irector ' HE:ps t HOUSING ELEMENT City of Atascadero 1st Hearing Draft: December , 1984 Planning Commission Approved Draft: February 4, 1985 T TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION What Is A Housing Element? 3 State Legislation 3 Relationship To Other General Plan Elements 3 Housing Element Review and Revision 4 Organization of The Housing Element 4 DEMOGRAPHIC AND HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS Population Characteristics 5 Income Characteristics 7 Household Characteristics 8 Land Use Characteristics 9 Housing Characteristics 10 REGIONAL FAIR SHARE HOUSING ALLOCATION 13 HOUSING GOALS, POLICIES ANDPROGRAMS State Goals 18 Colony Goal 18 Policies and Programs 18 APPENDIX Government Code Section 65580 : Housing Elements 25 i LIST OF TABLES Page 1. 1984 Age/Sex Pyramid 5 2. 1984 Ethnic Characteristics 6 3. Population Trends and Projections: 1940-2000 6 4. Growth Rates: 1950-2000 6 5. Maximum Buildout: City of Atascadero 7 6. 1979 Income Characteristics 7 7. Persons with Income Below Poverty Level 7 8. Persons with Income Below Poverty Level —Housing Type 8 9. 1984 Households 8 10. 1984 Household Make-up 8 11. 1984 Sex and Ethnic Characteristics . 9 12. Household Projections: 1980-2000 9 13. Residential Land Use: Acreage/Units 9 14. Residential Zoning: Acreage/District 10 15. 1980 Housing Units and Rent Values 11 16. 1980 Housing Costas a Percentage of HH Income 11 17. 1980 Gross Rent as a Percentage of HH Income 11 18. 1980 Monthly Mortgage and Rent 12 19. 1980 Vacancy Rates 12 20. Household Income - 1984: City of Atascadero 14 21. Households by Income Group: 1983, 1989 and 1990 16 22. Basic Construction Needs: San Luis Obispo County 17 ii GRAPHICS Page Vicinity Map 1 City of Atascadero Map 2 Permits Issued Residences: 1980 1984 15 111 r i 1 - t 1 r r 1 J f 3 W � O • l= . Z 0 \\ Vs ¢ d ' u (= • o O W +1 w Q` a o � O + _ 93 . / w vi z / L t O C m w p N O a3 tcc _ a 0 Z Q o x c 1 t� 1 1 N O (D Y O O ,� O O N u L) \\ N O O • :�> iL r tU N � � r • • r !� � ..C! L 'D N 'II CO 0 , U.. U A t0 R3 O k i Er N N O W W I ` w _�vt i, :fit" r. '7•• ' i�' {{[[ Mks \ • '� g, ,/. it �.ate-}.�1.��,-V x �� ��;. ^'f M�`• , •. le 10, 1 I \ / f• /y 2 _ 1 INTRODUCTION WHAT IS A HOUSING ELEMENT? The Housing Element is a state-mandated "chapter of the Atascadero General Plan. Its purpose is to identify housing problems and develop policies and programs to address them. STATE LEGISLATION Government Code Section 65302 (c) mandates the inclusion of a housing element in the General Plan of all cities and counties in the State of California. Ths element must be developed pursuant to regulations established under Section 41134 of the Health and Safety Code, consis- ting of "standards and plans for the improvement of housing and 'for the provisions of adequate sites for housing" and that "this element of the plan shall make adequate provision for the housing needs of all economic segments of the community." The Department of Housing and Community Development is the agency empowered to review local housing elements for conformity with these guidelines (refer to Appendix) . RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER GENERAL PLAN ELEMENTS The California Government Code Section 65300.5, requires _ that the housing element of a General Plan be internally consistent and com- patible with all other elements contained in the General Plan. The Housing Element is most affected by the policies of the Land Use Element, which establishes the location, type, intensity and distribu- tion of land uses. The Land Use Element channels housing into areas determined to be better suited for residential development. It also determines an upper limit on the number and type of housing that can be constructed by designating the amount of acreage given to residen- tial development and the density at which it can be developed. The Circulation Element establishes the location and scale of existing and proposed transportation routes which support and provide access to the land use designations. The Public and Quasi-Public Services Element guide residential devel- opment by designating the areas to receive full urban services and the areas that will only receive partial urban services. Creating an "Urban Services Line" will determine where public and quasi public services will be available and how much housing development these ser- vices can accommodate. The Community Appearance and Standards Element sets out the philosophy of the founder of Atascadero, Edward Gardner Lewis. Many of his ideas guided the designation of residential areas within the Land Use Element. Five elements in particular , concern environmental or man-made factors that may limit the location or type of housing that can be developed. They include the Safety, Seismic Safety, Noise, OPen Space and Conser- vation Elements. The first three address hazards or nuisances which 3 should be avoided in the location of housing or mitigated in the con- struction of housing. The latter two elements concern the land re- sources which should be protected from development. When these elements are rewritten or updated, steps will be taken to insure compatibility with programs contained in the Housing Element. HOUSING ELEMENT REVIEW AND REVISION Section 6472 of the State Housing Element Guidelines indicates that the housing element must be reviewed and revised as need dictates, but no less than every five years. The housing element is designed to accommodate such review and any possible revision with a minimum amount of difficulty. The Demographic and Housing Characteristics sections can be updated or changed without the need to update or re- vise any goals, objectives or policies. ORGANIZATION OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT Housing is one of the fundamental needs of the community' s residents. These needs reflect the gap between what the housing stock is and what the housing market is providing. Two basic methods are used to determine when a housing problem consti- tutes a need. The first method uses the standard set up by the De- partment of Housing and Urban Development to determine if housing costs are excessive. According to that standard, housing costs are excessive and constitute a housing problem when a household spends more than 25 percent of its gross income for housing. The other method will be a comparison of the number of housing units that are presently being built, to the number of housing units that will be needed to meet projections of future population growth. A1- though projections are only an estimate, it can give an idea of a po- tential deficiency in the number of housing units. Other problem areas will be identified that are derived by other methods or are unique to our City. The adoption of a goal or policy does not necessarily mean that it can be accomplished in a short period of time. The gap between available and desired housing may never by completely attained. This Housing Element contains revised and updated: 1. Citywide profile of existing and projected demographic and housing conditions, 2. Evaluation of housing problems and needs, 3. Local housing goals, objectives and policies. 4 DEMOGRAPHIC AND HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS The objectives of this Housing Element need to be evaluated in con- junction with pertinent housing and population data. The City incor- porated in 1979 so the United States Census of 1980 was the first time data was gathered for Atascadero using its present city limits. Since this is still the most comprehensive material available, it provides the basic population and housing data. The yearly State Department of Finance Reports, city surveys, and other updated census material sup- plement the 1980 data base. POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS Table 1 shows the present population breakdown for the City of Atas- cadero. The age/sex distribution is about even. The largest number, approximately 20% of the population, is in the 25-34 age- group. The median age is 31 years of age. Females make up 51% of the total pop- ulation. Minorities account for a small percentage of the total pop- ulation. Whites make up 90%, while all other minorites combined make up the remaining 10% Table 2) . The Spanish speaking population is the largest minority group making up 6.3% of that 10%. Atascadero has seen rapid growth over the past twenty years. From 1960 to 1980 the population has more than tripled (Table 3) . The yearly growth rate between 1950 and 1960 was 2.9%. This jumped to 7.1% between 1960 and 1970 and 6.0% between 1970 and 1980 Table 4) . Population projections used in this Housing Element are based upon this past trend continuing exactly as it has been. This would mean that Atascadero would reach "build-out" estimates by the year 2000. "Build-out" is determined by taking the minimum lot size in each zone and dividing it by the amount of acres in each zone (Table 5) . Since many factors could .contribute to the population of Atascadero, drop- ping, rising sharply, or leveling off in the next twenty years, it is unwise to be too confident in making population projections. These projections will be used for the analysis done in this element that requires future population figures. Table 1 1984 AGE/SEX PYRAMID Total 18,194: Male - 8,896/Female - 9,300 Agee Total 65 & up 898 1250 2148 55-64 803 880 1683 45-54 768 816 1584 35-44 1093 1094 2187 25-34 1773 1739 3512 15-24 1384 1434 2818 5-14 1417 1370 2787 0-5 760 717 1477 Sources: State Department of Finance Update, 1980 U.S. Census, Atascadero Planning Department 5 Table 2 1984 ETHNIC CHARACTERISTICS Number Percent White - 16,424 90. 3 Black - 166 .9 Asian - 379 2.1 Spanish -1,154 6.3 Other 71 .4 18,194 100.0% Source: State Department of Finance, Atascadero Planning Department Table 3 POPULATION TRENDS AND PROJECTIONS: 1940-2000 1940 2,600 1980 - 16,232 1950 - 3,443 1984 - 18 ,194 1960 4,583 1990 - 25,771 (projected) 1970 - 9 .091 2000 35,311 (projected) population capacity - 34,150 Source: Atascadero Planning Department, U.S. Census Data Table 4 GROWTH RATES: 1950-2000 1950 1960 2. 9% 1980 1990 4.7% (projected) 1960 - 1970 7.1% 1990 - 2000 4.0% (projected) 1970 1980 6.0% Source: Atasca ero P anni.ng Department, U.S. Census Data 6 Table 5 MAXIMUM BUILD OUT: CITY OF ATASCADERO (UNDER CURRENT ZONING REGULATIONS) RS 3859.20 units R/LSF-X 319 .04 units R/LSF-Y 1435.53 units Using Total Acres R/LSF-Z 390.04 units Present In Each Zone RMF/10 1000. 30 units RMF/16 5459.20 units Total 12, 463.31 units x 2.74 mean household size 34,149.47 Maximum Build out Population Source: Atascadero Planning Department INCOME CHARACTERISTICS Median individual income in Atascadero is relatively equal with that of the state and slightly higher than that of the county. This is true also for the median family and household incomes. (Table 6) Although the City has the highest household income in the county com- pared to the other cities, there are presently 6.9% of the City' s pop- ulation below the poverty level. This percentage is lower than that of both the state and county by almost half (Table 7) . Most of the people having incomes below the poverty level are living in renter occupied units (Table 8) . Table 6 1979 INCOME CHARACTERISTICS Individual Median Household Median Family Median Atascadero $7,600 $18,528 $ 20,879 County $4,765 $14,805 $ 18,198 State $7,984 $18,243 $ 21,537 Source: 1980 U.S. Census Table 7 PERSONS WITH INCOME BELOW POVERTY LEVEL Atascadero 6.9% County 13.7 State 11.4 Source: 1980 U.S. Census 7 Table 8 PERSONS WITH INCOME BELOW POVERTY LEVEL — HOUSING TYPE Percent Owner-Occupied Housing Units with Incomes below Poverty Level: 5.5% Percent Rental-Occupied Housing Units with Incomes below Poverty Levels 14.6% Source: 1980 U.S. Census HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS Table 9 shows a population of 17,860 occupying 6 ,837 housing units for an average household size of 2.766 in 1984. The remaining 334 are housed in group quarters. Household characteristics indicate a large number of two-person house- holds, approximately 66% of the total (Table 10) . There are also close to four times as many female (no husband) heads of household, as there are male (no wife) heads of household. Ethnic characteristics support the 90% white population with a 96% white heads of household count (Table 11) . If trends continue as in the past, projections show 8,430 households by the year 1990 and 10, 530 households by the year 2000 (Table 12) . Table 9 1984 HOUSEHOLDS Total Population 18 ,194' Persons in Group Quarters - 334 (Inmate = 304/other = 30) Total Households - 17 ,860 Mean Household Size - 2.74 Total housing units - 6,837 Source: 1984 State Department of Finance Update Table 10 1984 HOUSEHOLD MAKE-UP Household Make-Up 1-person household 1,224 ,(Male = 498/Female = 726) 2-person household - 4,554 Source: State Department of Finance, Atascadero Planning Department 8 i �► Table 11 1984 SEX AND ETHNIC CHARACTERISTICS Female Head of Household - 536 Male Head of Household - 147 Non-Family - 376 Male - (249) Female - (127) White Head of Household - 6,540 Black Head of Household - 42 Other Ethnic Head of Household 165 Source: State Department of Finance, Atascadero Planning Department Table 12 HOUSEHOLD PROJECTIONS 1980 - 2000 (Based on average of 210 year) 1980 - 6,330 1990 8, 430 2000 - 10,530 Source: Atascadero Planning Department LAND USE CHARACTERISTICS A Land Use Survey was done by the City during 1981. According to this survey there are currently 5,368 acres of land presently developed in residential uses (Table 13) . The largest amount being developed is with single family residences. Under the Zoning Regulations currently in effect (Title 9, adopted July 1983) there are 12,267 acres of land zoned for residential uses. Of these, 5,347 acres or 43% of all land zoned for residential uses, are still vacant. The largest amount is in the RS (Residential Subur- ban) and RSF-Y (Residential Single Family- Moderate Density) zones. These also contain the largest amount of total acreage (Table 14) . Table 13 RESIDENTIAL LAND USE: ACREAGE/UNITS Single Family Multiple Family Mobile Home Residential Residential units acres units acres units acres 9,695 4,824 1,193 359 278 185 Source: Atascadero Planning Department, 1981. 9 Table 14 RESIDENTIAL ZONING: ACREAGE/DISTRICT Total Acres District Vacant Acreage Percent Vacant RS 9,648 acres 4, 487 acres 47% RSF-X 50 6 14% LSF-X 109 14 13% RSF-Y 1,167 501 43% LSF-Y 267 66 25% RSF-Z 585 183 31% LSF-Z 0 0 n/a RMF/10 100 11 11% RMF/16 341 77 23% Total 12, 267 acres 5,347 43% Source: Atascadero Planning Department; 1981. HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS According to the State Department of Finance January, 1984 update, a summary of the current stock of housing in Atascadero shows: Total number of housing units - 6,837 Conventional - 6,383/Mobile - 454 Occupied number of housing units - 6,458 Number of renters - 2,047/Number of owners - 4,790 Average number of bedrooms per unit 2.94 Age of unit - 139 or earlier : 32% ' 60-' 70: 19% ' 70-' 80: 49% Units with complete plumbing - 6,807 Without 30 Number of overcrowded units (1.01+/room) - 222 total Renter - 121 Owner - 101 The median cost for an owner 76 000. 00 akin the c ne occupied unit is $ , making median mortgage payment $472.00 (Table 15) . The median rent is $288. Housing cost and gross rent as a percentage of household income is as shown on Tables 16 and 17. The values for owning or renting a housing unit in Atascaderoarejust slightly higher than that of both the the county and state (Table 18) . Since incorporation, to the ending of 1984, the City has issued 680 new single family residences and 375 new multiple family residences. This is approximately 210 units per year on average. Vacancy rates in the City are very low. There is a 2% vacancy rate in units for sale and a 3% vacancy rate in rental units. The total vac- ancy rate is 5. 54%. This number does not include part time households, such as vacation and weekend homes (Table 19) . 10 Table 15 1980 HOUSING UNITS AND RENT VALUES Housing Unit Values Rent Values 0- 9 ,999 22 0-49 5 10,0000- 14,999 14 50-99 41 15, 000 - 19,999 19 100-119 47 20,000 - 24,999 35 120-139 40 25, 000 - 29,999 37 140-149 16 30, 000 - 34,999 47 150-159 64 35, 000 - 39,999 64 160-169 29 40,000 - 49,999 175 170-199 128 50,000 - 79,999 1481 200-249 366 80,000 - 99 ,999 761 250-299 413 100, 000 -149, 000 606 300-399 338 150 ,000 -199,000 108 400-499 101 200, 000 -and up 34 500 and up 21 No cash rent 61 Totals: Median Housing Unit Value $76,000 Median Rental Unit Value - $288. Source: 1980 U.S. Census Table 16 1980 HOUSING COST AS A PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLD INCOME Household Income 0-19% 20-24% 25-34% 35%-up N/C $ 0- 4,999 42 22 20 100 31 5,000- 9,999 165 28 27 129 10,000-14,999 220 62 32 133 15,000-19,999 153 77 97 160 20,000 and up 1028 344 397 137 Source: 1980 U.S. Census Table 17 1980 GROSS RENT AS A PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLD INCOME 20% 20-24% 25-34% 35%-up N/C 0- 4,999 0 0 6 188 50 5,000- 9, 999 24 36 107 269 11 10,000-14,999 53 83 131 77 5 15,000-19,999 43 54 98 18 11 20,000 and up 313 51 16 16 12 Source: 1980 U.S. Census 11 Table 18 1980 MONTHLY MORTGAGE AND RENT Median Mortgage Median Rent Atascadero 472 288 County 397 279 State 411 283 Source: 1980 U.S. Census Table 19 1980 VACANCY RATES Vacant for sale - 116 2% Vacant for rent - 187 3% Vacant other - 205 3% Total Vacant - 508 8% Source: 1980 U.S. Census 12 REGIONAL FAIR-SHARE HOUSING ALLOCATION In 1980 AB 2853 was passed requiring all councilsof government, to develop regional allocations of housing needs for all income levels. This includes a determination of current and projected housing needs for the entire County as well as allocated totals of the city and county level. The San Luis Obispo Council of Governments chose not to prepare a Housing Allocation Plan. Pursuant to statute, therefore, an initial plan was prepared by the State Department of Housing and Community Development in December, 1982. Table 21 represents a re- vised plan for San Luis Obispo County dated August, 1984. This table estimates the total number of households by income group for each city in the region, the unincorporated area and the county total for 1984 and projected estimates for July 1989 July 1992. The purpose of the plan is to examine housing needs in the region and to allocate a share of the projected regional need to each local gov- ernment. Each jurisdiction is then responsible for developing pro- grams in their housing elements to attain the designated distribution of low, moderate, and above moderate housing units in their area. This table indicates the highest percentage of low to very low income households in the region which are located in Grover City, Morro Bay, Pismo Beach, and the City of San Luis Obispo. The intent of the regional allocation plan is to more evenly distribute the proportion of households throughout the region. The following table 21 shows the estimated and projected households by income group for San Luis Obispo County and the existing breakdown for the City of Atascadero. The income ranges for a family of four are defined as follows: Very low income Income not exceeding 50% of the median family income of the County. Other lower income Income between 50 and 80% of the median family income of the ocunty. Moderate income Income between 80 and 120% of the median fam- ily income of the County. Above moderate income Income above 120% of the median family income of the County. Also shown are the projected basic construction needs in San Luis Obispo County. The most noticeable aspect of these two tables is the difference be- tween the San Luis Obispo County and Cities Area Council numbers and those of the City of Atascadero regarding 1984 household income breakdown. 13 This discrepancy arises because the Council of Government is includ- ing the regional share of allocations, while the City of Atascadero chart is using existing numbers within the city as projected from the 1980 Census. The breakdown of households for the county as a whole shows no change in the provisions for each income category in the years 1984 to 1989-1992. By comparison, the City of Atascadero is being allocated a share of lower income households which increases from 31% in 1984 to 40% in the years 1989-1992. No other city in the county is being asked to accommodate such an increase. It appears that the city is making progress toward a more equitable distribution of income categories as the proportion of lower income is higher in 1984 than the 1984 projection in Table 21. Likewise, the city figures show a marked decrease in the number of higher income households, as opposed to the 1984 total in Table 20. The projections to 1992 show this trend toward a more even distribution continuing. Table 20 HOUSEHOLD INCOME - 1984 CITY OF ATASCADERO $ Income Households 0 - 2,499 193 2,500 4,999 400 5,000 - 7,499 509 7,500 - 9,999 481 10,000 - 12,499 474 12,500 - 14,999 516 15,000 - 17,499 469 17, 500 - 19,999 452 20,000 22, 499 471 22,500 - 24,999 527 25,000 - 27,499 565 27, 500 - 29,999 240 30, 000 - 34,999 479 35, 000 - 39,999 278 40,000 - 49,999 201 50,000 - 74,999 139 75,000 or more 60 Median Household Income: $18,528 Households Very low income (less than 50% of median) 1, 583 Other low income (between 50% and 80% of median) - 994 Moderate income (between 80% and 120% of median) 1,392 Above moderate income (above 120% of median) 2, 489 Source: Projections using 1980 Census Date, Atascadero Planning Department 14 low PERMITS ISSUED ® r Residences - 350- Single Family Residences Multiple Family Residences ® Total Residences 300 250- INEEN 200- 150- 100- '\0 00150100 50- 0 0 `> 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 — YEAR { Table 21 HOUSEHOLDS BY INCOME GROUP: 1983, 1989 AND 1990 Households Percentages Area Income Group 1989- 1984 1989 1990 1991 1992 1984 1992 Arroyo Grande Very Low 1,156 1,332 1,358 1,384 1,411 24 25 Other Lower 578 799 815 831 846 12 15 Moderate 1,060 1,066 1,086 1,108 1,129 ?2 20 Above Moderate 2,023 2,132 2,173 2,215 2,257 42 40 Total 4,817 5,329 5,432 5,538 5;643 100 100 Atascadero Very Low 1,356 1,859 1,909 1,959 2,010 21 25 Other Lower 646 1,116 1,145 1,175 1,206 10 l5 Mcderate 1,421 1,487 1,527 1,567 1,607 22 20 Above Moderate 3,035 2,975 3,054 3,135 3,215 47 40 Total 6,458 7,437 7,635 7,836 8,038 100 100 El Paso de Very Low 1,285 1,666 1,743 1,822 1,900 22 28 Robles Other Lower • 596 774 810 846 883 13 13 Moderate 1,055 1,368 1,432 1,496 1,561 23 23 Above Moderate 1,652 2,142 2,241 2,342 2,443 36 36 Total 4,588 5,950 6,226 6,506 6,787 100 100 Grover City Very Low 1,319 1,104 1,122 1,139 1,157 35 27 Other Lower 565 613 623 633 643 15 15 Moderate 904 818 831 844 857 24 20 Above Moderate 980 1,554 1,578 1,604 1,629 26 38 Total 3,768 4,089 4,154' 4,220 4,286 100 100 Morro Bay Very Low 1,556 1,409 1,423 1,438 1,452 36 31 Other Lower 562 682 689 696 703 13 15 Moderate 951 909 918 927 937 22 20 Above Moderate .1,253 1,546 1,561 1,577 1,592 29 34 Total .4,322 4,546 4,591 4,638 4,684 100 100 Pismo Beach Very Low 947 946 964 981 999 33 30 Other Lower 402 473 482 491 500 14 15 Moderate 717 631 642 654 666 25 20 Above Moderate 803 1,104 1,124 1,145 1,165 28 35 Total 2,869 3,154 3,212 3,271 3,330 100 100 San Luis Obispo Very Low _4,912 4,580 4,750 4,821 4,893 34 30 City Other Lower 2,023 2,340 2,375 2,411 2,446 14 15 Moderate 2,600 3,120 3,167 3,214 3,262 18 20 Above Moderate 4,912 5,460 1,541 5,625 5,708 34 35 Total 14,447 15,600 15,833 16,071 16,309 100 100 San Luis Obispo Very Low 4,956 7,214 7,479 7,753 8,021 21 25 Unincorporated Other Lower 4,484 4,328 4,488 4,650 4,812 19 15 Moderate 4,012 5,771 5,983 6,200 6,417 17 20 Above Moderate '10,149 11,542 11,967 12,400 12,833 43 40 Total 23,601 28,855 29,917 31,000 32,083 100 100 COUNTY TOTAL Very Low 17,487 20,210 20,743 21,294 21,843 27 27 Other Lower- 9,856 11,125 11,427 11,733 12,039 15 15 Moderate 12,720 15,170 15,586 16,010 16,436 20 20 Above Moderate 24,807 28,455 29,239 30,043 30,842 38 39 Total 64,870 74,960 77,000 79,080 81,160 100 100 Source:. San Luis Obispo County and Cities Area Planning and Coordinating Council. 16 , Table 22 BASIC CONSTRUCTION NEEDS: SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY Construction Needed Area - 1/83 to 7/89 1/83 to 7/90 Arroyo Grande 1,201 1 ,391 Atascadero 1 ,854 2,124 El Paso de Robles 2,486 2,843 Grover City 634 734 Morro Bay 536 622 Pismo Beach 649 743 San Luis Obispo 2,589 2,938 Unincorporated 10,319 11 ,827 COUNTY TOTAL 20,268 23,222 Source: San Luis Obispo County and Cities Area Planning and Coordinating Council 17 HOUSING GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS STATE GOALS The State has identified four broad goals for a community' s housing program. They include. 1. Adequacy To promote and insure the provision of adequate housing for all persons regardless of income, age, race, or ethnic background. 2. Freedom of Selection To promote and insure open and free choice of housing for all. 3. Range of Selection To promote and insure an adequate selection of housing by lo- cation, type, price, and tenure. 4. Guide to Government To act as a guide for governmental decisions which may affect the quality of housing stock and inventory. COLONY GOAL A more specific goal for Atascadero_ is described in the residential section of the Land Use Element. It is appropriate to repeat and elaborate upon it here. "E.G. Lewis' dream was a population of 20 to 30,000 people living on some 7,000 homes scattered over about 20,000 acres of the Colony, leaving about 3,000 acres for open space. We share that dream. People are attracted to Atascadero because it is still possible, thanks to Lewis' forsight, to realize the American Dream. It is the City' s policy to make that dream the goal of our Land Use Element. This is to say that a core, still rural in tone, is to be surrounded by a broad suburban and rural belt catering to a lower-middle to upper-middle income residential community." The ability of private industry to stand alone in an effort to provide decent and safe housing at an affordable price for all economic seg- ments of the community has long since passed. The role of the City shall be to attempt to initiate, encourage, coordinate, and assist in a wide range of efforts that should benefit every sector of the commu- nity concerned with housing. POLICIES AND PROGRAMS The following are city policies dealing with home ownership and ren- tal housing: 18 1. Problem: Home Ownership It is becoming difficult for many people to become homeowners. . The costs of owning a home throughout California are increasing faster than average incomes. Most home purchases are limited to the higher income households or previous homeowners who have sub- stantial equity from a previous home sale. Policies: 1. Promote the development and construction of new housing units for low and moderate income persons. 2. Promote and encourage the development and construc- tion of new housing units for first time homebuyers. 2. Problem: Development and Land Costs. Financing, construction, land and development are the major components of hous- ing production costs. Increases in production costs are generally passed onto the consumer in the form of higher prices for new homes, as well as rental units. Construction costs have decreased dramatically from 1949 to 1980 according to the California Housing Task Force` and the Construction Industry Research Board (69% to 42. 5%) . The cost of land, on the other hand, has in- creased sharply (ll% to 27.8%) . Land costs may be a larger portion than this figure for new housing, espe- cially in cases where there is shortage of buildable land, strong competition for available land, or wide- spread speculation. Construction financing has increased also, more than doubling from 1949 to 1980 to 12.0% of the finished cost of a house. Thus, consumer credit has increased and without credit, most consumers cannot afford to purchase housing. Policies: 1. Provide flexibility in development standards as a means to lower overall costs of low and moderate income housing units. Programs: 1. 1 Continue the housing policy which permits factory built housing such as modular or mobile homes to be approved as standard housing stock. 2. 1 Continue to monitor and evaluate development stand- ards and advances in methods of housing construction to lower development costs where feasible. 2. 3 Continue to utilize the 25 percent density bonus for low and moderate income housing. 3. Problem: Government Requirements and Review Time. The cost to a developer of holding property while securing permits - is an expense generally recovered in the sale of the housing unit. The longer this process takes, increased housing costs or decreased housing production may result. 19 6. Problem: Rental Units: Costs and Supply. Rents in the City are increasing steadily. Approximately 19 percent of total renters are paying 25 percent or greater of their house- hold income for rent. Many factors such as high con- struction costs, the idea that rental properties are a poor investment, and the popularity of condominium units has contributed to a low vacancy rate and increased the pressure on existing rentals to supply all rental demand. Policies: 1. Achieve a balance in supply of and demand for rental housing more favorable to the tenant. Programs: 6.1 Monitor and consider regulation of condominium con- versions to ensure that the supply of low and moder- ate rental housing is not significantly decreased. 6.2 Coordinate with agencies which address rental hous- ing, such as Housing and Urban Development and Farm- ers Home Loan in order to be informed on housing assistance available and appropriate to Atascadero. 6.3 Encourage developers to pursue, with such agencies as the California Housing Finance Agency and Housing and Urban Development to obtain loans for the devel- opment of new rental and multi-family housing for low and moderate income households. 7. Problems Competition for available land. Residential and non- residential land uses compete for land with the nonresi- dential uses having an economic advantage. Policies: 1. Promote new . residential development within areas currently designated for development under policies of the Land Use Element. 2. Encourage the use of existing vacant parcels zoned for residential use for new housing. Programs: 7.1 Zoning applications shall be consistent with this policy. 7.2 The impact of general plan amendments and zone changes on the availability of housing will be eval- uated by the Planning Commission and City Council. 8. Problem: Vacant Land. Throughout the City there are numerous parcels currently being unused or underutilized. Ac- cording to a 1984 Sanitation District audit (the Sani- tation District generally corresponds to the Urban Ser- vices Line) approximately 15 percent of the area is non-improved property. Policy: The City will encourage "infill" and intensification of land which is suited to meet housing needs within the Urban Services Line. 21 Policies: 1. Government review shall be handled in as timely a manner as possible, while still maintaining adequate public involvement and fulfilling the appropriate requirements of local and state laws. Programs: 3. 1 Consolidate all actions relating to a specific pro- ject on the same council or commission agenda. 3. 2 Revise local review procedures to streamline the process and eliminate the unnecessary steps. 4. Problem: Availability of Public Services. Housing requires a variety of services and facilities, including police and fire protection, schools, streets, sewage treatment, and water. Provision of such services for increased housing demand is often difficult, because of the limitation of financial and natural resources. An adequate sewer system is particularly important in Atascadero because much of the area' s soil has low septic suitability. Policy: 1. Provide communty services which are adequate for new residential developments. Program: 4.1 Consider adopting a development fee surcharge sched- ule to generate funds needed to provide for the cap- ital project needs of the community. 4. 2 Expand, where necessary and feasible, sewer ser- vices, to allow .for the development of all residen- tial properties with sewer within the Urban Ser- vices Line. 5. Problem: Supply of New Housing Units. Since the City incorpo- rated in 1979, an average of 210 housing units has been added to the City housing stock each year (see graph) . The San Luis Obispo Council of Governments projects the need for 2,124 housing units to be constructed between the years 1983-1990. By subtracting the 1983 and 1984 totals from this figure, the projection becomes 1,495 housing units from 1985-1990. There appears to be a shortage of 235 units, or 40 units a year during this period. These population projections are just projec- tions, however, and the number of permits issued is based on the yearly average since incorporation of 210, when several periods of recession affected the housing market. Policy: The City will attempt to generate a steady rate of con- struction, averaging approximately 200 units per year during the 1980 ' s. The State realizes that the quanti- fied objectives need not be identical to the existing housing needs, because these needs may exceed available resources. 20 9. Problem: Housing Maintenance and Conservation. Existing hous- ing should be preserved, and rehabilitated to current building standards. There have been complaints in the City about people living in structures not suitable for human occupancy. Unless neighbors or tenants complain, most substandard housing conditions go undetected. Policies: 1. Encourage conservation and preservation of neighbor- hoods and housing stock. 2. Encourage the maintenance and repair of existng own- er-occupied and rental housing to prevent deteriora- tion of housing in the City. 3. Encourage the rehabilitation of substandard and deteriorating housing, 4. Encourage the conservation and preservation of houses and neighborhoods of historical and architec- tural significance. Programs: 9.1 Apply to Federal and State agencies, such as Housing and Urban Development Block Grant programs, for loans or deferred payment loans and partial or total grants for rehabilitation. 9.2 Continue to enforce Uniform Building Codes to make sure new housing stock is up to standards. l 9.3 Continue to provide technical assistance and infor- mation to the public, when requested, on interpret- ing requirements of the building code for rehabilitation. 9 .4 Conduct an inventory to review and evaluate the housing of historic and/or architectural significance. 9.5 Consider adopting an Historic Resources Overlay District which allows the use of the Historic Build- ing Code. 10. Problem: Energy Conservation. As prices of gas and electricity increase, more and more households are faced with unaf- fordable utility bills. If the city is to address hous- ing needs in the future and continue to maintain afford- ability of planned new units, energy self-sufficiency is necessary. Although the city presently has no speci- fic energy incentive programs, continued future afford- ability can be ensured if careful land use planning and conservation measured are promoted. Policies: 1. Continue to make residents aware of energy saving techniques available to them. 2. Encourage solar and other innovative energy designs when they are consistent with local and state ordinances. Program: 10.1 Continue to strictly enforce the state energy stand- ards of Title 24. 22 • 0 11. Problem: Special Needs and Variety in Housing Opportunities. The range of household types .and "lifestyles" in Atasca- dero necessitates a range of housing types. (Current standards permit a maximum minimum lot size for single family homes of 1/2 acre, with sewers. Policy: Encourage a wide range of housing opportunities, includ- ing manufactured housing, and consider development of any form of housing which has proven itself as a reli- able housing sources. Programs:ll.l Maintain flexibility in zoning standards which provide for housing of various densities and in dif- ferent zones: provide for a minimum- lot size of 10,000 square feet for single family homes within the sewered area when compatible with residential neighborhoods. 11.2 Maintain flexibility in zoning standards (use per- mit, planned development, and residential accessory uses) to allow variations in development standards to house special groups, such as the elderly and handicapped. 11. 3 Encourage lending institutions to back loans for innovative projects. 12. Problem: Housing Assistance. Housing assistance comes from a variety of federal, state and local laws whch attempt to provide housing for low .income households, the handi- capped, and elderly. Most often it is in the form of direct rental subsidies or the operation and maintenance of apartment buildings. It is difficult to determine the exact number of those needing rental assistance, but according to the 1980 census, there were 195 families with an income of $5,000 or less and a total of 668 fam- ilies with an income of $10,000 or less in the City. According to the San Luis Obispo Housing Authority, there are presently 61 people receiving rental assis- tance in Atascadero under the Section 8 program. The difficulty in quantifying those needing assistance does not mask the fact that there are many people in Atasca- dero who qualify for assistance that are not getting any. Policies: 1. Encourage the rental assistance effort, including participating in available Federal and State housing assistance programs. 2. New construction of additional assisted housing should be of high priority. 3. Existing housing should also be made available to provide additional housing assistance. 4. The people who need housing assistance the most should be given the first available choice. 23 Programs:12.1 Continue to participate in housing assistance pro- grams such as People' s Self Help Housing for new- housing. 12. 2 Coordinate through the Council of Governments with the County and other cities in defining the role of the Housing Authority in Atascadero. 12.3 Coordinate with agencies such as Housing and Urban Development and Farmers Home Loan in order to be informed on housing assistance available and approp- riate to Atascadero. 24 s - s Article 10.6. Housing Elements 65580. The Legislature •finds and declares as follows: Legislative policy (a) The availability of housing is of vital statewide importance, and the early attainment of decent housing and a suitable living environment for every California family is a priority of the highest order. (b) The early attainment of this goal requires the cooperative participation of government and the private sector in an effort to expand housing oppor- tunities and accommodate the housing needs of Californians of all economic levels. (c) The provision of housingaffordableto- low- and moderate-income households requires the coopera- tion of all levels of government. (d) Local and state governments have a responsibility to use the powers vested in them to facilitate the improvement and development of housing -to make _ adequate provision for the housing needs of all economic segments of the.community. (e) -The Legislature recognizes that in carrying out this - responsibility, each local government also has the responsibility to consider economic, environmental, and fiscal factors and community goals set forth ` ,'in the general plan and to cooperate'with other local governments and the state in addressing re- gional housing needs. (Added by Stats. 1980, Ch. 1143.) GSS31. It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this article: Intent (a) To assure that counties and cities recognize their responsibilities in contributing to the attainment of the state housing goal. (b) To assure that counties and cities will prepare and implement housing eIzments which, along with fed- eral and state programs, will move toward attain- ment of the state housing goat. (c) To recognize that each locality is best capable of determinin- what efforts are required by it to Revised February 1984 R contribute to the attainment of the state housing goal, provided such a determination is compatible with the state housing goat' and regional housing needs. (d) To ensure that each local government cooperates with other local governments in order to address regional housing needs. (Added by Stats. 1980, Ch. 1143.) 65582. As used in this article: Definitions (a) "Community," "locality," "local government," or "jurisdiction" means a city, city and county, or county. (b) "Department" means -the Department of Housing and Community Development. . (c) "Housing element" or "element" means ilia housing element of the community's general plan, as re- quired pursuant to this article and subdivision (c) of Section 65302. (Added by Stats, 1980, Ch. 1143.) 65583. The housing element shall consist of an identification Housing Element and analysis of existing and projected housing needs and a statement Content of goals, policies, quantified objectives, and scheduled programs for the..preservation, .improvement, and development of housing. The . housing element shall identify adequate sites for housing, including rental housing, factory-built housing, and mobilehomes, and shall make adequate provision for the existing and projected needs of all economic segments of the community. The element shall. contain all of the following: - (a) An assessment of housing needs and an inventory Needs Assessment of resources and constraints relevant to the meet- ing of these needs. The assessment and inventory shall include the folIowingr ' (1) Analysis of population and employment trends and documentation of projections and a quanti- fication of the locality's existing and projected housing needs for all income levels. Such existing and projected-needs shalt include the locality's share of the regional housing need in accordance with Section 65584. (2) Analysis and documentation of household char- ..acteristics, including level of payment com- -pared to ability to pay, housing characteristics, . including overcrowding, and housing stock con- dition. (3) An inventory of land suitable for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having potential for redevelopment, and zn analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites. (4) Analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improve- ment, or development of dousing for all income ' levels, including land use controls, building codes and their enforcement, site improve- ments, fees and other exactions required of developers, and local processing and permit procedures. (5) Analysis of pote74'fial and actual nongovern- mental constraints upon the maintenance, im- provement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the availability of financing, the price of land, and the cost of construction. (6) Analysis of any special housing needs, such as those of the handicapped, elderly, large fami- lies, farmworkers, and families with female heads of households. (7) Analysis of opportunities for energy, conserva- tion with respect to residential development. Goals objectives (b) A statement of the community's goals, quantified a and cies objectives, and policies relative to the mainte- F nance, improvement, and development of housing. It is recognized that the total housing needs identified pursuant to subdivision (a) may exceed- available resources and the community's ability to. satisfy this need within the content of the general pian requirements outlined in Article 5 (commenc- ing with Section 65300). Under these. circum- stances, the quantified objectives need not be Iden- tical to the identified existing housing needs, but should establish the maximum number of housing units that can be constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved over a five-year time frame. Implementation (c) A program which sets forth _a five-year schedule P of actions the local government is undertaking or program intends to undertake to implement the policies and achieve the goals and objectives of the housing element through the administration of Iand use and development controls, provision of regulatory con- cessions and incentives, and the utilization of ap- propriate federal and state financing and subsidy programs when available. In order to make ade- _ quate provision for the housing needs of all econom- ic segments of the community, the program shall do all of the following: (1) Identify adequate sites which will be made available through appropriate zoning and devel- opment standards and with public services and facilities needed to facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels, including rental housing, factory-built housing and mobile homes, in order to meet the community's hous- ing goals as identified in subdivision (b). (2) Assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of low and moderate- income households. (3) Address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and develop- ment of housing. - j (4) Conserve improve the condition of the existinaffordable housing stock.g(5) Promote oQport nities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital staters, ancestry, national origin, or color. The program shall include an identification of the agencies and officials responsible for the implementation of the various actions and the means by which consistency will be achieved with other general plan elements and community goals. The local government shall make a diligent effort to achieve public participa- tion of all economic segments of the community in the development of the housing element, and the program shall describe this effort. (Added by Stats- 1980. Ch. 1143.) 65584. (a) For purposes of subdivision (a) of Section 65.583, a Regional housing locality's share of the regional housing needs includes that share needs of the housing need of persons at all income levels within the area significantly affected by a jurisdiction's general plan_ The distribu- tion of regional housing needs shall, based upon available data, take into consideration market demand for housing, .employment oppor- tunities, the availability of suitable sites and public facilities, commuting patterns, type and tenure of housing need, and the housing needs of farmworkers. The distribution shall seek to avoid further impaction of localities with relatively high proportions of tower income households. Based upon data provided by the Depart- ment of Housing and Community Development relative to the statewide need for housing, each council of governments shall daerrnire the existing and projected housing_need for its region. The- Depart- of Housin and Community Development shall- = _ g ensure that this determination is consistent with the statewide housing need and may revise the'determination of the council of ; governments if necessary to obtain this consistency. Each locality's's share shall be dete m ined by the appropriate council of governments consistent with the criteria above with the advice of the d-apartment subject to the procedure 'established pursuant to subdivision (c). (b) For areas with no council of governments, the Depart- ment of Housing and Community Development shall determine housing market areas and define the regional housing need for localities within these areas. Where the department determines that a Iocal government possesses the capability and resources and has agreed to accept the responsibility, with respect to its jurisdic- tion, for the identification and determination of housing market areas and regional housing needs, the -department shall delegate this responsibility to the Iocal governments within these areas. (c) Within 90 days following a determination of a cour cil of governments pursuant to subdivision (a), or the department's determination pursuant to subdivision (b), a local government may revise the definition of its share of the regional housing need. The revised share shall be based upon available data and accepted planning rryethodology, and supported by adequate documentation. Within 60 days of the local government's revision, the council of governments or the department, as the case may be, shall accept the revision or shall indicate, based upon available data and accepted planning methodology, why the revision is inconsistent with the regional housing need. The housing element shall contain an analysis of the factors and circumstances, with all supporting data, justifying the revision. All materials and data used to justify any revision i shall be made available upon request by any interested party within 45 days upon payment of reasonable costs of reproduction unless such costs are waived due to economic hardship. (d) Any authority to review and revise a local government's share of the regional housing need granted under this section shall net constitute authority to revise, approve, or disapprove the manner in which the local government's share of the regional housing need is implemented through its housing program. (Added by Stats. 1980, Ch. 1143.) . 65585- (a) Each city, county, and city and county shall consider Housing element the guidelines adopted by the Department of Housing and Community guidelines Development pursuant to Section 50459 of the Health and Safety Code in preparation and amendment of the housing element. pursuant to this article. Such guidelines shall be advisory to each local government in order to assist it in the preparation of its housing- element. (b) At least 90 days prior to adoption of the housing element State re-view pursuant to this article and Section 65357, or at Ieast 45 days prior to the adoption of an amendment to this element, the planning agency of a city, county, or city and county shall submit a draft of the element or .amendment to the Department of Housing and Community Development. The department shall review drafts submitted to it and report its findings to the planning agency within 90 days of receipt of the draft in the case of adoption of the housing element pursuant to this article, or within 45 days of receipt of the draft in the case of an amendment. The legislative body shall consider. the department's findings prior to final adoption of the housing element or amendment. (c) Each local government shall provide the d-epartment with Copy a copy of its adopted housing element .or amendments. The . department may review adopted housing elements or amendments and report its findings. (d) Except as provided in Section 65586, .any and all findings Advisory review made by the Department of Housing and Community DeveIopment pursuant to subdivisions (b) -and (c) shall be advisory to the local government. (Added by Stats. 1980, Ch. 1143.) 65586_ Local governments shall-conform their housing elements Deadline for to the provisions of this article on or before October 1, 1981. adoption Jurisdictions with housing elements adopted before October 1, 1981, in conformity with the housing element guidelines adopted.by the Department of Housing and Community Development on Decem- ber 7, 1977, and located in Subchapter 3 (commencing with Section 6300) of Chapter 6 of Part i of Title 25 of the California Adminis- trative Code, shall be deemed in compliance with this article as of its effective date. A locality with a housing element found to be adequate by the department before October 1, 1981, shall be deemed in conformity with these guidelines." (Added by Stats. 1980, Ch. 1143.) 65587. (a) Each city, county, or city and county shall bring its housing element, as required by subdivision(c) of Section 65302, into conformity with the requirements of this article on or before October 1, 1981. No extension of time for such purpose may be granted pursuant to Section 65302.6, notwithstanding its provisions to the contrary. Y 65589 (a) Nothing in this article shall require a city, county,, Legal, Effect or city and county to do any of the following: (1) Expend local revenues for the construction of housing, housing subsidies, or land acquisition. (2) Disapprove any residential development which is consistent with the general plan. (b) Nothing in this article shall be construed to be a grant of authority or a repeal of any authority which may exist, of a local government to impose rent controls or restrictions on the sale of real property. (c) Nothing in this article shall be construed to be a grant of authority or a repeal of any authority which may exist of a local government with respect to measures that may be undertaken or required by a local government to be undertaken to implement the housing element of the local general plan. (d) The provisions of this article shall be construed consis- tent with, and in promotion of, the statewide goal of a sufficient supply of decent housing to meet the needs of all Californians. (Added by Stats . 1980, c. 1143, p. 3697, § 3. ) 65589.5 When a proposed housing development project complies Proposal of with the applicable general plan, zoning, and development policies Local Agency in effect at the time that the housing development project's to Disapprove application is determined to be complete, but the local agency or Approve proposes to disapprove the project or to approve it upon the con- Project on dition that the project be developed- at a lower density, the local Condition of agency shall base it decision regarding the proposed housing Lower Density; development project upon written findings supported by substan- Written tial evidence on the record that both the following conditions Findings; exist: Existence of Conditions (a) Each local government shall consider the guidelines adopted by the department * * * pursuant to Section 50459 of, the Health and Safety Code in the preparation and amendment of its housing element pursuant to this article. Those guide- lines shall be advisory to each local government in order to assist it in the preparation of its housing element. (b) At least 90 days prior to adoption of the housing element pursuant to this article and Section 65357, or at least 45 days prior to the adoption of an amendment to this element, the planning agency of a local government shall submit a draft of the element or amendment to the department * * The department shall review drafts submitted to it and report its findings to the planning agency within 90 days of receipt of the draft in the case of adoption of the housing element pursuant to this article, or within 45 days of receipt of the draft in the case of an amendment. The legislative body shall consider the department's findings. prior to final adoption of the housing element or amendment unless the department's findings are not available within the above prescribed time r limits. If the department's findings are not available within those prescribed time limits, the legislative body may take the department's findings into consideration at the time it considers future amendments to the housing element. (c) Each local government shall provide the department with a copy of its adopted housing element or amendments. The depart- ment may review adopted housing elements or amendments and report its findings. (d) Except as provided in Section 65586, any and all findings made by the department '^ * * pursuant to subdivision (b) and (c) shall be advisory to the local government. (Amended by Stats. 1983, c. 1250, p. ----, § 2, urgency, eff. Sept. 30, 1983, operative Jan. 1, 1984) 65589.8 A local government which adopts a requirement in Fixed Percent- its housing element that a housing development contain a fixed age of percentage of affordable housing units, shall permit a developer Affordable to satisfy all or a portion of that requirement by constructing Housing Units; rental housing at affordable monthly rents, as determined by the Satisfaction local government. of Requirement Nothing in this section shall be construed to expand or con- by Constructiol tract the authority of a local government to adopt an ordinance, of Rental charter amendment, or policy requiring that any housing develop- Housing atAffordable ment contain a fixed percentage of affordable housing units. Monthly Rents (Added by Stats . 1983, c. 787, p. ----, § 1.) Revised February 1984