Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda Packet 11/14/1979
0 AGENDA - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting November 14 , 1979 7: 30 p.m. Atascadero Administration Building Call to Order Pledge of Allegiance Invocation Roll Call Public Comment A. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes of the regular meeting of October 22, 1979 (RECOMMEND APPROVAL) 2 . Minutes of the special meeting of October 27, 1979 (RECOMMEND APPROVAL) B. HEARINGS, APPEARANCES AND REPORTS NOTE: All Planning matters will be heard first so that the County Staff can make their presentations to Council 1. Environmental Determinations a. Prestini Departmental Review ED79-08 , b. Godfrey/Gutierrez Departmental Review ED79-14 C. Yeomans Parcel Map ED79-26 d. Yeomans/Jenkins Lot Line Adjustment AL79-22 e. Jenkins Parcel Map ED79-27 f. Boyle Parcel Map ED79-28 2 . CO 78-100, Moore-Hilliard parcel map extension of time request 3 . CO 77-236 , Finch-Stewart parcel map extension of time request 4 . CO 77-241, Finch-Stewart parcel map extension of time request 5 . CO 77-233 , Heino-Stewart parcel map extension of time request 6 . AL79-34, proposed lot line adjustment, Greenaway/Department of Veteran Affairs 7. Application for two certificates of compliance (CC54-111-36) Brainard 8. Acceptance of Parcel Map AT78-209, Worthan 9. Acceptance of Parcel Map AT78-145, Nelson 10. Consideration of condominium conversion moratorium 11. Tentative Tract #777, proposed condominium conversion sub- division of a 16 unit apartment project on the east site of Capistrano Avenue Kamm - Orton 12 . City Council selection of Planning Director C. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Set date to interview Police Chief applicants 2 . Employee holidays 3 . Ordinance No. ll, an ordinance relating to the Office of the City Attorney - second reading AGENDA - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting November, 14 , 1979 Page Two D. NEW BUSINESS 1. Property tax revenue negotiations 2 . Employee health insurance 3. Consideration of parking lot property acquisition E. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION 1. City Council 2. City Attorney 3 . City Manager I MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting October 22 , 1979 7: 30 p.m. Atascadero Administration Building The meeting was called to order at 7 : 30 p.m. by Mayor Wilkins with the Pledge of Allegiance. Reverend Russ Cahhal of the Church of Christ gave the invocation. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmen Highland, Mackey, Nelson, Stover and Mayor Wilkins ABSENT: None PUBLIC COMMENT 1. A gentleman living at the Carlton Hotel requested that something be done about the evening "drag racing" on El Camino Real. Mayor Wilkins stated that the Highway Patrol is now enforcing traffic violations until the City has an operating Police Department, but that they have very limited resources and there isn't a great deal that can be done. A. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes of the regular meeting of October 8, 1979 (RECOMMEND APPROVAL) MOTION: Councilman Mackey moved for the approval of the minutes. The motion was seconded by Councilman Nelson and unani- mously carried. 2 . Treasurer' s Report, 9-20-79 to 10-17-79 (RECOMMEND APPROVAL) MOTION: Councilman Mackey moved for the approval of the Treasurer' s Report. The motion was seconded by Councilman Highland and unanimously carried. B HEARINGS, APPEARANCES AND REPORTS 1. Appeal of Little/Rauch from Planning Commission denial of extension of time for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a 5-unit multiple family residential project, Santa Ysabel Avenue, Atascadero Larry Red, County Planning Staff, reviewed this project for the Council. He stated that in order to extend the Conditional Use Permit, the Council must find that there were circumstances beyond MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting October 22, 1979 Page Two the control of the applicant which prevented him from proceeding with construction. The Planning Commission had found that the delay was not beyond the control of the applicant and, that the project was inconsistent with the General Plan. Mayor Wilkins requested comments from the public. Gaylen Little, representing the applicant, reviewed the steps involved in receiving approval of the project which began in 1977. He felt that the Planning Commission was confused when considering this project because they dealt with both the extension and the Tract Map issue at the same time. He stated that the reason he had been unable to begin construction in time was because of difficulties in arranging financing. There was considerable discussion among Council members regarding the General Plan and rezoning of the area in question. It was noted that. the question before Council is whether or not the applicant had established that his failure to start construction within the use permit time requirements was beyond his control. Mr. Grimes stated that if the Council feels that it is going to disagree with the Planning Commission, it would be proper to set forth those disagree- ments and refer that matter back to the Planning Commission for a report. Councilman Nelson stated that because of the long history involved in this project, he would like to see the extension of the use permit granted for the apartments only; approval would not include the con- dominiums. MOTION: Councilman Highland moved that Council uphold the decision of the Planning Commission on this item. The motion was seconded by Councilman Stover and carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmen Highland, Mackey, Stover and Mayor Wilkins NOES: Councilman Nelson 2 . Public hearing on appeal of Donald M. Rauch from Planning Commission denial of a Tentative Tract Map to allow a subdivision of a . 49 acre site into a 5-unit condominium project, Santa Ysabel Avenue, Atascadero Larry Red stated that this is related to the first item considered and denied by Council. Since the Use Permit was not extended, the Tract Map should also be denied. Mayor Wilkins asked if there was any public comment with regard MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting October 22, 1979 Page Three to this matter. Gaylen Little reiterated his feeling that the Planning Commission had been confused when considering this matter. He requested that a decision on the appeal not be rendered until after adoption of the General Plan. Mr. Grimes advised the Council that, in view of _their previous action, they had no alternative but to deny the appeal. MOTION: Councilman Highland moved that the decision of the Planning Commission on the Tentative Tract Map be upheld. The motion was seconded by Councilman Mackey and carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmen Highland, Mackey, Stover and Mayor Wilkins NOES: Councilman Nelson 3 . Consideration of AL 79-56 , proposed lot line adjustment on Santa Lucia Road - Atteberry/Dostie Larry Red reviewed the proposed lot line adjustment. He stated that the Planning Commission had approved this adjustment subject to the .conditions recommended by the Subdivision Review Board report dated September 5 , 1979_ MOTION: Councilman Highland moved that the decision of the Planning Commission on this lot line adjustment be upheld with the attached conditions. The motion was seconded by Council- man Mackey and unanimously carried by roll call vote. 4 . Consideration of AL 79-38, proposed lot line adjustment on Los Osos Road —Knowles/Campbell Larry Red also reviewed this item stating that the Planning Commission had approved the adjustment with the conditions recommended by the Subdivision Review Board dated September 5, 1979. MOTION: Councilman Highland moved that Council uphold the decision of the Planning Commission to approve this lot line adjust- ment including the conditions as 'stated. The motion was seconded by Councilman Mackey and unanimously carried. 5. Report of City Manager on Planning Commission' s recommenda- tions regarding a moratorium on condominium conversions Mr. Grimes stated that if the Council is going to enact a mora.- torium of this nature, it will need more materials on which to base MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting October 22, 1979 Page Four its decision; he noted that other cities had taken up to three years to come to a final decision on condominium conversions because it is such a controversial subject. There was discussion regarding the wording in the General Plan relating to condominiums. Mr. Grimes, after examining the General Plan provision on page 46 , paragraph 15, felt that the wording in the General Plan was sufficient to allow the Council to enact ordin- ances to regulate the conversion of apartments to condominiums. There was considerable discussion regarding this matter with comments from Planning Commissioners Norman Norton and Robert Lilley. Council members discussed holding a public hearing to consider a four month moratorium on condominium conversions. MOTION: Councilman Nelson moved that Council hold a public hearing at their next regular meeting to consider imposing a four month moratorium for condominium conversions. The motion was seconded by Councilman Mackey and unanimously carried by roll call vote. 6 . Appearance of Mike Lucas regarding the Atascadero City Emblem Design and Motto Contest Mike Lucas reviewed the process followed in selecting finalists for the emblem contest. He explained who the judges were and reviewed those submissions which had been selected for honorable mention. He also showed the twelve finalists selected by the judging committee and requested Council guidance in making the final selection. Mayor Wilkins appointed Councilmen Mackey and Stover to work with Mr. Lucas in selecting three finalists from which the Council will select one. Council was also in receipt of copies of the many different entries in the motto contest. Mr. Lucas suggested that the Council cross out those entries they felt were unsuitable and give their lists to Councilmen Mackey and Stover for their recommendations for final Council consideration. Mayor Wilkins thanked the Emblem Committee and judges for the time they devoted to this process. C. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Review of contract between the City of Atascadero and the County of San Luis Obispo for Performance by County , of Services MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting October 22, 1979 Page Five Mr. Grimes explained that the proposed agreements, which included an agreement for animal control and health services, were arrived at after negotiations over a period of time between the City Manager, City Attorney and County Counsel. Mr. Warden noted that the contracts provide that the County continue with those services provided prior to incorporation for the balance of this fiscal year. Animal control and public health services are essentially self-sustaining and will be provided on terms equal to or better than those offered to other cities in the County. Mayor Wilkins noted that no expenses were incurred to the City for these services . Council reviewed all agreements. Mr. Warden stated that in the animal control agreement and the health services agreement, a , change affecting the terms and renewal of the agreements had been suggested so as to provide for renewal after July 1 , 1980, on the same terms and conditions as prevail for other cities within the County. Mr. Warden noted that the County Counsel ' s office had been very cooperative in working out this agreement; Mayor Wilkins stated that Supervisor Hans Heilmann had also worked with the City in reaching these agreements. The following motions were made adopting the separate agreements. MOTION: Councilman Highland moved that the contract between the City and the County providing continued County services to the City be approved as presented and that the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to sign the agreement. The motion was seconded by Councilman Nelson and unanimously carried. MOTION: Councilman Highland moved that the contract between the City and the County providing animal control services be approved as amended and that the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to sign the agreement. The motion was seconded by Councilman Nelson and unanimously carried by roll call vote. MOTION: Councilman Highland moved that the contract between the City and the County providing health services be approved as amended and that the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to sign the agreement. The motion was seconded by Council- man Mackey and unanimously carried by roll call vote. D. NEW BUSINESS 1. Consideration of request by John Daly for adoption of revenue limitation ordinance MINUTES ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting October 22, 1979 Page Six Mr. Daly reviewed the ordinance and its provisions for Council; he felt that the Council should have no objection to adopting the ordinance since he felt that it reflected the Council's campaign promises. There was discussion of the proposed ordinance with members of the Council expressing concern as to the Council 's ability to charge fees commensurate with the cost of services such as fees for new recreation programs, etc. , which could change as costs for materials, supplies, or personnel might be affected by rising costs. MOTION: Councilman Highland moved that the ordinance be referred to the City Attorney for study with a report back to the Council as to the ramifications of adopting such an ordinance Mr. Grimes suggested that the matter also be referred to the City Manager for his input. Councilman Highland amended his motion to include referral of the matter to the City Manager. The motion seconded by Councilman Stover and unanimously carried. 2 . Consideration of Ordinance Establishing Office of City Attorney Mr. Grimes stated that the ordinance had been prepared as an urgency measure, however, since an urgency does not exist, he suggested that the ordinance be introduced at this meeting with the second reading to take place at the next meeting. MOTION: Councilman Highland moved that the ordinance be introduced into the record. The motion was seconded by Councilman Mackey and unanimously carried. 3 . Review of Use Permits for space in the Administration Building and property at Atascadero Lake Mayor Wilkins explained that the use permits were for the Atascadero Jaycees' use of a portion of the basement in the Adminis- tration Building; the Atascadero Youth Athletics' use of the Atascadero Lake Pavilion; and Stewart Scribner' s use of a food concession stand at Atascadero Lake. Mr. Warden suggested that in the case of the uses requested for space in the Administration Building, a condition be adopted which would allow the use permit to be modified after reasonable notice by the City so that the City could have the oppor- tunity to realign uses within the building as needed to accommodate . City offices as well as groups desiring space MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting October 22 , 1979 Page Seven MOTION: Councilman Nelson moved that the use permits be approved with the condition that they could be cancelled or modi- fied after reasonable notice by the City to the permit holders of the intended changes. The motion was seconded by Councilman Highland and unanimously carried. Lon Allen asked if the 4-H Club would be able to continue to use their room in the basement. Councilman Highland stated that he hoped the organizations currently using the building would be able to continue using it, however, there may have to be some reallocation of uses so that more than one organization can- use the same space at different times during the week. Currently, some organizations have exclusive use of space in the building and only use such space for a few hours a month. Some consolidations would, therefore, appear possible and reasonable. 4. Consideration of establishing a speed zone on San Gabriel Road Mr. Warden advised that he had discussed this matter with personnel in the County Engineer' s office this afternoon and, since Mrs. Duckworth is not happy with the recommendation of a 45 mile per hour speed limit, that office will conduct another survey at a time recommended by Mrs . Duckworth. He asked Council to take no action at this time pending receipt of further information. E. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION 1. City Council (a) Councilman Makcey advised that a program in honor of U. N. Day would be held at the Community Church on Thursday, October 25 , 1979 at 7 : 30 p.m. (b) Councilman Mackey stated that she had some posters urging a yes vote on the Library Tax if anyone wanted them for display in their office or place of business. (c) Mayor Wilkins requested that Council pass a resolution commending the Colony Days committees including Lila Brehm, Maggie Rice and the Fire Department, and Fire Department volun- teers for their work. MOTION: Mayor Wilkins moved that a resolution be adopted commending Lila Brehm, Maggie Rice, the Fire Department and Volunteer Firemen as well as all committee members for their efforts in making a success of the Colony Days celebration. The motion was seconded by Councilman Nelson and unanimously carried. MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting October 22 , 1979 Page Eight (d) Mayor Wilkins observed that the Paso Robles Airport Day Air Show provided some spectacular demonstrations and was quite successful. 2 . City Attorney (a) Mr. Grimes requested an executive session to consider a personnel matter relating to the performance of the duties of City Attorney; he said that there would probably be further action after the executive session. 3 City Manager (a) Mr. Warden advised that November 12th (Veterans Day) is a County recognized holiday and City Offices would be closed in accordance with the adopted ordinance. He noted that this date is also a regular meeting night for the City Council. He asked Council if they wished to change their meeting night. Council decided to meet Wednesday, November 14, 1979. (b) Mr. Warden asked Council to choose a screening committee of Council members to screen resumes of applicants for Police Chief. Mayor Wilkins appointed Councilmen Highland and Stover to screen these applications. Councilman Nelson suggested having a committee to screen Police Chief applicants; he felt that there were qualified professionals within the community who would be helpful in the screening process. There was discussion regarding the interviewing of Planning Director applicants during an executive session on Saturday, October 27th. Council agreed that two members . of the public should be included on the screening committee for Police Chief applicants. It was decided that each Council member would provide a name of someone they wished to be on the committee to Mayor Wilkins and he would choose two from that list. The meeting adjourned to executive session at 10: 43 p.m, and returned to regular session at 10: 50 p.m. Allen Grimes,, City Attorney, announced that he would be having a medical examination which would take a week with a possibility. that he would be under medical care for a longer period based on the results of the examination. He requested a leave of absence without pay commencing October 24th for the period of possible treatment estimated to be approximately four to six weeks. He recommended that Council hire Fred Metzger on a temporary basis as City Attorney at $50. 00 per hour plus out of pocket expenses. He requested that Mr. Metzger be authorized to consult with Michael LeSage, an experienced City MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting October 22 , 1979 Page Nine Attorney in Paso Robles, if the need arises, at a` similar fee. MOTION: Councilman Highland moved that Fred Metzger be appointed City Attorney on a temporary basis at a fee of $50. 00 per hour plus expenses with the option of consulting with Mr. LeSage if he finds it necessary; and that Mr. Grimes be granted the leave of absence without pay. The motion was seconded by Councilman Nelson and unani- mously carried. The meeting adjourned at 10 : 55 p.m. to Wednesday, November 14, 1979 . Recorded by: MURRAY L. WARDEN, City Clerk By: Ardith Davis Deputy City Clerk P.1 MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL Special Meeting October 27, 1979 9: 00 a.m. Atascadero Administration Building The meeting was called to order by Mayor Wilkins at 9: 05 a.m. PRESENT: Councilmen Highland, Mackey, Nelson, Stover and Mayor Wilkins ABSENT: None The meeting adjourned to executive session at 9: 06 a.m, for the purpose of interviewing applicants for Planning Director. It reconvened to regular session at 1: 00 p.m. and adjourned at 1: 05 p.m. Recorded by: MURRAY L. WARDEN City Clerk RECEIVED SEP 2 4 1979 County of San Luis Obispo COURTHOUSE ANNEX SAN LUIS OBISPO,CALIFORNIA 93408 v 805-543-1550,EXT. 201 OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR TO: ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL FROM: ELLEN ROGNAS, ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY DATE: SEPTEMBER 21 , 1979 SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATIONS Attached are the Initial Studies, Staff Reports and recommendations for the following projects: 1 . Prestini Departmental Review ED79-08. 2. Godfrey/Gutierrez Departmental Review ED79-14. 3. Yeomans Parcel Map ED79-26. 4. Yeomans/Jenkins Lot Line Adjustment AL79-22. 5. Jenkins Parcel Map ED79-27. 6. Boyle Parcel Map ED79-28. These have been prepared by the San Luis Obispo County Office of Environmental Coordinaotr. If you have any questions or comments, please contact me at 549-5011 . jr Attachments n Y o✓' � � �y� t (3 l FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY FORM B2-1 Part 1 COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBIPSO ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION and NOTICE OF DETERMINATION Project Number £fl-p9 -08 Date -7, 19-79 197q Project Title/Description Fires •ni Dep2rfrr�nlrwl QeJieWlg reGURSt +o allow o re-esFQuront i,+) a G- I- D na, Project Location/Address/Legal Description pnstsid¢ £I Cuvnino (Z¢r.tl b2fta,w_� $hghuxaid�`"' (g PLAT-bb Avealu-e- h}±zXj2. derma 30—12 I-37 Property Size 17, OU f+2- Primary +2Primary Entitlement: Qrparfrreni,l Review R781213:1 Supv. District # —.2,_ RECOMMENDATION Ciiy CAU✓K 1I THE ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATOR RECOMMENDS THAT THE BOARB-SF SUPERVISORS TAKE THE FOLLOWING ACTION: OFINDING NO. 1: NEGATIVE DECLARATION Atascadero City Council after examination of the preliminary environmental des- cription of this project and review of the Environmental Coordinator's recommendation' and the attached statement of reasons supporting this finding, finds that this pro- ject will not have a significant effect of the environment and that this Board issue Oits Negative Declaration. FINDING NO. 2: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Atascadero City. Council after examination of the preliminary environmental des- cription of this project and review of the Environmental Coordinator's recommendation and; the attached statement of reasons supporting this finding, finds that this pro- ject may have a significant effect on the environment and requires the submission of an environmental impact report prepared in accordance with the Environmental Impact 0Report Guidelines, 0 FINDING NO. 3: FOCUSED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Atascadero City. Council after examination of the preliminary environmental des- cription of this project and review of the Environmental Coordinator's recommendation and the attached statement of reasons supporting this finding, finds that this pro- may have a significant effect on the environment and requires the submission of a focused environmental impact report prepared in accordance with the Environmental Impact Report Guidelines and including the topics as listed in the attached Staff OReport prepared by the Office of Environmental Coordinator. FINDING NO. 4: CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION Atascadero City Council after examination of the preliminary environmental des- cription of this project and review of the Environmental Coordinator's recommendation and the attached statement of reasons supporting this 'finding, finds that this pro- ject will not have a significant effect on the environment and that this Board issue its Negative Declaration subject to the conditions contained in the Environmental Coordinator's staff report. ACTION BY ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL On , the Atascadero City Council took the followinq action on the above referenced Proiect: Adopted the Environmental Coordinator's Recommendation No. _ as stated above. Adopted finding No. as stated above based on the following: REVISED 7/79 -1- FORM B2-1 Part 2 COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY - ENVIR014MENTAL CHECKLIST Project Number €D79-09 Date tai I q7q Yes Maybe No* POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT POLLUTION ( ) (X) Water pollution (ground or surface) ( ) ( ) (X) Air pollution, including odors ( ) ) ( ) Soil erosion and sedimentation ( ) l ) (x) Noise Other POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT LOSS OF RESOURCES ( ) ( ) (K) Wildlife habitat ( ) ( ) OCC)) Vegetation O O Mineral resources ( ) ( ) l)0 Agricultural land Other POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON CULTURAL RESOURCES ( ) ( ) (X) Historical or archaeological sites O O (O�cc Loss of scenic values ( ) ( ) (X) Other significant adverse effect on human beings ( ) ( ) (X) Overload or major impact on community services (fire ( ), police ( ), schools ( ), other ( ) ) POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON PHYSICAL FEATURES ( ) ( ) (X) Contribution to traffic congestion ( ), or traffic circulation concerns O { ) (X) Limited or unsafe access ( ) ( ) (;C) Overload or major impact on community facilities (sewer ( ), water supply ( ), solid waste disposal( ) other ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Major topographic alteration SENSITIVE LOCATION ( ) ( ) (K) State area of critical ecologic concern ( ) ( ) (X) Scenic and sensitive land (Open Space Plan) Endangered species habitat (( Area Subject to seismic faulting or other geologic instability (sliding ( ), soil expansion( other ( ) ) Area subject to drainage problems, flooding or inundation CO ( ) ( ) Area subject to high fire hazard: Rating MISCELLANEOUS SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ( ) ( ) (xl Potential for beginning a new land use trend ( ) ( ) (X1 Significant due to cumulative impact Growth inducing impact * A "Lets" answer indicates that there is sufficient documented evidence to indicate sub- stantial environmental impact in this category. A "Maybe" answer indicates that there appears to be substantial environmental impact anc requires further investigation in this category. A "no" answer indicates that there is sufficient evidence either documented or obvious, thaTthere will be no environmental impact in this category. Yes and maybe answers to the above environmental concerns are explained in the attached sheet, together with other information as needed to assist the Board with their determination. -2- e t REVISED 7/79 a 41. - - Irk � ... ...�.. ( J'.`� sA1::• !� I!' � �. 4\ ..1 •goy '.T `" A.. ADCpV1Y P-111. Il"L' l I p n / rrAI.BVIt.°Ji!:G p. o,� / (a 'ILL 6 f`sP °/ J I., I a � `\ ` '�• 'b C°rLur / F�cC"� L o c en ,anwL L.L. � /�: �•� � . _� °cam-`��A .L � Vic iIn' 1 I\e •}a � e 1 9 � 4 I 4 Y a 7t 4 6 :. 7V-7Y ONiw l'I 73 cl 0 27 47 26 16 17 V49 214 ��8\ ZFl iO hp 2.! 20 Xlb _ 22 cr T`---T.,• v� 9 \6 t \\ .�.\y O -,r / �pA 4.3 1 1 . btiP 21�\ ' q! ell >O dB . M V �w' ` /`7� � P .E. pt lPn1.� •. P � a� \ 4 y /04 o v. X61 130 \ 9 9 �9 k'1 3c-11 a9B -.l(� Zp h - j?69� m 10 _t r 1 e o gp .o B ° ib ..u, \0 rn.9 2°' ,76 .t"60 61 _89 / � .6 •Z h-P `, � 26 b ° 61 '.�;v. 'bac q,.F - bO• OT 0- IV 23 24 JI 7\ 20 ♦h 11.66 r'.�.d,, 'tr �J q / sb 'Je.a /sO 1 _ t\i! vq f1 `\\)�'� ` 1 -` •,S/� \ N /i' yj //4�q vp , �" �°� - O �. co / /pIL 9 -Y1T 13-A 1 _ J \ 13-C 1 , r / 1 115 � A,� • / .J_i1 /� P-160 FORM B2-1 Part 3 COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO STAFF REPORT Project Number ED79-08 Date August 27, 1979 Project Title Prettini Departmental Review THE FOLLOWING STAFF REPORT WAS PREPARED BY THE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL COORDI- NATOR AND INCLUDES BASIS OF DECISIONS FOR YES AND MAYBE RESPONSES ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST (Form B2-1, Part 2). PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting a Departmental Review to allow a restaurant in a C-1-D zone (General Shopping). The site is located on El Camino Real between Highway 41 and Pueblo Avenue, Atascadero. STATEMENT OF FINDINGS: The site is characterized by level terrain. Vegetation consists predominently of grasses. The site does not appear to be subject to any unique geologic hazards or flooding conditions. The 1978 Atascadero Area General Plan designates the site as Retail Commercial. Surrounding land uses consist of retail shops. It does not appear that this project will have significant effect on the environment. COORDINATOR'S RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that your Honorable City Council issue it's Negative Declaration. APPLICANT: Larry Prestini, P.O. Box 414, Paso Robles, California. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: San Luis Obispo County Office of Environmental Coordinator Dan Vossler, Environmental Coordinator Ellen Rognas, Environmental Specialist REVISED 7/79 -3- _.� ,� � ' �� r e � '. ;7 n ) . _ t ., `✓J 0'r f", ..�i..�t.-ate �..i r� fc �.. t .... ,j �i i �^ �_. �Z'`���"�„�°"� `` �'"� ._ FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY FORM B2-1 Part 1 COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBIPSO ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION and NOTICE OF DETERMINATION Project Number Date Date -5-- . 20+ 19-79 Project Title/Description Hni2/Lot uric Rdiu51' 2nf ; Project Location/Address/Legal Description nor!-h51Gdr rrP SC,er71Za C.Y�.(? r Rocs) we.s1' a:f C-,urr_(*C, Rodd L 7 r)0rt1nZ-+-n htctscc�d_Qro Primary Entitlement: 60-9_/gJ,4L79 2ZIS C(n�7Q RECOMMENDATION G� Council THE ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATOR RECOMMENDS THAT THE OARB OF-SUPE 101S9R` TAKE THE FOLLOWI14G ACTION: OFINDING NO. 1: NEGATIVE DECLARATION Atascadero City Council after examination of the preliminary environmental des- cription of this project and review of the Environmental Coordinator's recommendation and the attached statement of reasons supporting this finding, finds that this pro- ject will not have a significant effect of the environment and that this Board issue its Negative Declaration. OFINDING '10. 2: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Atascadero City. Council after examination of the preliminary environmental des- cription of this project and review of the Environmental Coordinator's recommendation and the attached statement of reasons supporting this finding, finds that this pro- ject may have a significant effect on the environment and requires the submission of an environmental impact report prepared in accordance with he Environmental Impact Report Guidelines. (p'4 FiiiDING NO. 3: FOCUSED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT �� Atascadero City. Council after examination of the preliminary environmental des- criGtion of this project and review of the Environmental Coordinator's recommendation anc the attached state-.ent c= reasons supporting this finding, finds that this-pro- mav have a significant effect on the environment and requires the submission of a focused environmental impact report prepared in accordance with the Environmental Impact Report Guidelines and including the topics as listed in the attached Staff (J report prepared by the Office of Environmental Coordinator, F: ,'DIN'G NO. S: CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION r.:acradero City Cnunril after examination of the preliminary environmental des- cription of this project and review of the Environmental Coordinator's recommendation and the a.tacheo statement of reasons supporting this finding, finds that this pro- ;ect will not have a significant effect on the environment and that this Board issue its ':ecative Declaration subject to the conditions contained in the Environmental Coordinator's staff report. ACTION BY ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL On the Atascadero City Council took the followinq action on the above referenced Proiect: Adopted the Environmental Coordinator's Recommendation No. _ as stated above. Adopted finding No. _ as stated above based on the following: REVISED 7/79 -1- FORM B2-1 Part 2 COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY - ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Project Number W7q-a(oi�7_ 1- 7T1W?J-Zit Date le. 197 Yes Maybe No* POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT POLLUTION ( ) ( ) W Water pollution (ground or surface) (X) Air pollution, including odors ( } (X) ( ) Soil erosion and sedimentation 0<) Noise Other POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT LOSS OF RESOURCES ( ) ( ) (X Wildlife habitat ( ( ) 08 Vegetation ( ) S ) (X) Mineral resources (X) l ) ( ) Agricultural land ( ) ( ) (X) Other POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON CULTURAL RESOURCES ( ) ( ) (K) Historical or archaeological sites ( ) ( ) 00 Loss of scenic values ( ) (X) Other significant adverse effect on human beings ( ) (X) ( ) Overload or major impact on community services (fire ( ), police ( ), schools ( ), other ( ) ) POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON PHYSICAL FEATURES ( ) 00 ( ) Contribution to traffic congestion ( ), or traffic circulation concerns O ( (x1 Limited or unsafe access ( ) ( ( ) Overload or major impact on community facilities (sewer ( ), water supply (X), solid waste disposal( ) other _ ( ) ( ) (A) Major topographic alteration SENSITIVE LOCATION (X) ( ) ( ) State area of critical ecologic concern ( ) ( ) QC) Scenic and sensitive land (Open Space Plan) ( ) ( ) (x) Endangered species habitat ( ) O0 ( ) Area Subject to seismic faulting or other geologic instability (sliding ()l), soil expansion( daing er ) O0 ( ) ( ) Area subject to drainage problems, Min or inundation OC) ( ) ( ) Area subject to high fire hazard: hL3 h MISCELLANEOUS SIGNIFICANT IMPACT (X) ( ) ( ) Potential for beginning a new land use trend (x) ( ) ( ) Significant due to cumulative impact Growth inducing impact * A ",, em�s" answer indicates that there is sufficient documented evidence to indicate sub- stant�al environmental impact in this category. A "maybe" answer indicates that there appears to be substantial environmental impact and requires further investigation in this category. A "no" answer indicates that there is sufficient evidence either documented or obvious, that there will be no environmental impact in this category. Yes and maybe answers to the above environmental concerns are explained in the attached sheet, together with other information as needed to assist the Board with their determination. -2- REVISED 7/79 /NLSIA\tMA —'7uT . .• Mu� * 1 ? , � rc.,..,I � � If r- I�M•w�tw, � r 4.P A.•w•.M.L.r, /R r _d' i .r I, SAN MIGUEL '. i •s1u1C .�.a 1 PASO ROBLES •� J c� F .A °;s. { �' Iry {...e�`, •~ L '� `,�. _ 1�' •�-r, _cJy1v.. C• EM FTON CRISTO ry� � l ` �IY \ � L 4 � I_ dr••d 4?—�.�.44i .O ♦ Y ` —• -- .� .....n rye �— �r1� _� ` •r• cf e. r ,` ` .� �`v„• ''3 A•. SCAOERO f• c.•,- _� -\. l •,.P aa P L I -- i IM]' wad .... ayw ••r4� � jP..rl •\ \ • . i� = (p Lilrr� P 11 : y-1 ea^• r � (. rl�V r` -�'. ` r� r.it _ fN' ,'s •ru.ern Y° /`�Sf' i I • 1 >.. f h.l r•1.1 4r,.,. �1 • \ � ° 1-I /Ffl,�� �w` _;.• — �.w..w� // � 1I7ww1tl. ` ` F-P.�M�. I�i.w•y VW^^•.. ! a •�.a..v r � �� "+—.��'Jam, � • ryw4 '� �G F1 �, �.L ,�L h It toC/ ♦y�c IANTA AAAROARRA A •LyAKIG yo.l_..c. w. MORR _„! o c..• �� •.....,.Ir.w Pwt .ate• O GAFJ iYa,l r�. .I• ` .ice .. V� .... i� ., \IN l.ry - \ `•' O IYM LOE . I. _�'.., f��°.Ar+.y P, � l0 � _ y,,,r.•• °• w •.ct .r. �:+w~ �\,\I r�° q�l s. �.... •^,e.�� s ~P� Ila '�o.�, _ �.• AN LUIS OB SPO .� _. 40 � C1 ITIfN MILLPri f .. S �_ L� • �` �- �� '_-1 a y iaiat s _-:..___,- .. -•-•.__ ,_..:., -.._. __ ._ice+.t,/ _ .1 VV } _ z.sae-. � e z.5or. I z.5wc. z.5ac j ;u sc die— IV 2.5 vac• - 2•lo4c•. � • v FORM 62-1 Part 3 COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO STAFF REPORT Project Number ED79-26, ED79-27, ED79-28 Date September 7, 1979 Project Title Yeomans Parcel Map/Lot Line Adjustment (CO 79-14/AL 79-22), Jenkins Parcel Map CO 79-15), Boyle Parcel Map (CO 79-16 THE FOLLOWING STAFF REPORT WAS PREPARED BY THE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL COORDI- NATOR AND INCLUDES BASIS OF DECISIONS FOR YES AND MAYBE RESPONSES ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST (Form B2-1, Part 2). PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Three requests for parcelizations will be covered in this report.. They are as follows: 1. Yoemans Parcel Map/Lot Line Adjustment & Boyle Parcel Map - requests to divide 5.1 acre sites into two parcels of 2.5 and 2.6 acres each. 2. Jenkins Parcel Map - a request to divide a 10 acre site into four parcels of 21; acres each. These proposals are located adjacent to each other at the north side of Santa Cruz Road just west of Garcia Road in northern Atascadero. STATEMENT OF FINDINGS: The sites are level to gently sloping and were part of a larger ownership and walnut orchard. The previous ranch has been sold under four individual lots, but the youthful walnut orchard remains. These requests propose to divide the previ- ous ranch into nine 2'; acre lots. The San Luis Obispo County Flood Hazard Boundary Map shows that these sites are in a special flood hazard zone. The Seismic Safety Element rates this area as having a moderately high landslide risk. Data from the Soil Conservation Service notes that the area appears to have a severe rating for sewage effluent percolation and a medium to high erosion hazard.. The State Area of Critical Conern Map designates this area as Prime Agricultural Land. This portion of Atascadero is very sparsely developed. More intensive residential development is located to the southeast along Santa Cruz Road and to the south in the Las Encinas area. To the east and west are rural areas consisting of 5 to 10 acre lots. Santa Cruz Road, west of the site, is undeveloped at this time. It appears that these projects will be beginning a new land use trend. They may also be significant due to cumulative impact. COORDINATOR'S RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that your Honorable City Council require the preparation of a Focused Environmental Impact Report addressing the following issues: 1. Soil erosion and landslide hazard; 2. Agricultural potential; 3. Flood and fire hazard; 4. Potential for beginning a new land use trend; and 5. Cumulative impact. REVISED 7/79 -3- Project Number: ED79-26, ED79-27, ED79-28 Project Title: Yeomans Parcel Map/Lot Line Adjustment (CO 79-14/AL 79-22), Jenkins Parcel Map (CO 79-15), Boyle Parcel Map (CO 79-16). September 7, 1979 APPLICANTS: Judith Yeomans 9005 Larkview Atascadero, CA. 93422 Jon & Martha Jenkins 2020 Hope Street San Luis Obispo, CA. 93401 Robert & Cecillia Boyle 2850 Monterey Road Atascadero, CA. 93422 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: San Luis Obispo County Office of Environmental Coordinator Dan Vossler, Environmental Coordinator Ellen Rognas, Environmental Specialist -4- Central Coast Labotories SOIL MECHANICS - 396 BUCKLEY ROAD , 544-3276 FOUNDATION ENGINEERING SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA 93401 November 5, 1979 Mr. Mike Yeomans 9005 Lakeside Drive Atascadero, CA 93422 Subject: Lots 28, 29, 30, and 31, Block 50, Atascadero Colony, San Luis Obispo County, California. CC04079 Dear Mr. Yeomans: An inspection of the subject parcels and available public maps has been completed with respect to flood hazards. The general landslide potential was also assessed at the time of site inspection. The rectangular shaped lots lie with the longitudinal axes in the southeast-northwest direction with a five percent slope to the southeast in the flatter portion (2/3) of the lots. The northwestern third of the lots averages about a nine percent slope. The above description is true of each lot with the exception of parcel B of lot 31 where a drainage depression angles across the lot, sloping in a westerly direction. At the steepest point of the depression slopes, a grade of twenty-five percent is observed. No evidence of these lots being in a floorplain was observed for the hillside lots. The drainage depression crossing lot 31 exhibits evidence of containing surface runoff within its defined channel . Reference to the recently completed "Preliminary Flood Boundary and Floodway Map," prepared for the Federal Insurance Administration by George S. Nolte and Associates do not place the subject property within limits of investigated floodplains. The subject area is outside the floodplain zones on current HUD maps. While the surface soils on the slopes of the drainage depression may be subject to soil creep, any significant areas having a landslide potential are nonexistent on the subject lots. At the extreme northwestern end of lot 28, a roadway fill having a fill depth of about ten feet may also be subject to soil creep; however, both areas are minor in latitude and may be adequately addressed in a soils investigative report--having a common engineering solution. In summary; the potential for flooding or landslide hazards on the subject lot are considered nonexistent. Very truly yours, Ellery A. Biathrow, Jr. , P.E. Soils Engineer EAB:1 t NED A. ROGOWAY, Director Telephone(805)549-5600 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Courthouse Annex SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA 93408 September 6, 1979 Honorable Planning Commission Honorable City Council City of Atascadero, California Ladies and Gentlemen: The following time extension request is referred to your Council with a recommendation for denial from the Subdivision Review Board. ] . CO 78-100 (Moore - Hilliard) Respectfully submitted, LARRY J. RED, Supervisor Subdivision Review Section LJR:JH:ca cc: County Engineer County Health Department REPORT OF THE SUBDIVISION REVIEW BOARD MEETING SEPTEMBER 5, 1979 RE: CO 78-100, PROPOSED LOT DIVISION OF LOT 17, BLOCK 7, ATASCADERO COLONY, LOCATED ALONG MARCHANT AVENUE, ATASCADERO (R-A: MODERATE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) (MOORE - HILLIARD) SRB Members in Attendance: Chairman, Colonel Sorenson, John Hofschroer, Michael Doherty, Jim Granflaten Planning Commissioner in Attendance: David Oakley Legal Counsel Present: None PROJECT DESCRIPTION This application proposes a subdivision of a 69,374 sq. ft. site into two parcels, one at 30,999 sq. ft. and one at' 38,375 sq. ft. each. The site is located near the intersection of Marchant and Cristobal Avenue, Atascadero. Zoning: R-A: "Suburban Residential" (20,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size) General Plan: 1978 Atascadero General plan: "Moderate Density Residential" (one acre minimum lot size) COMMENTS Time extensions are discretionary in nature and can be approved, conditionally approved or denied by the legislative body. A denial of a time extension request would normally cause the reap to expire since it could not be recorded by the required date. An expired map cannot be recorded and can only be reinitiated by the approval of a completely new application. The State Map Act and the Lot Division Ordinance requires an approved tentative parcel map to be recorded within one year of approval. It also allows time extensions to be granted to a maximum of 24 months. The Map Act does not stipulate the criteria for approving or denying the request, however. The criteria commonly used by the Subdivision Review Board in such decisions includes the progress of meeting conditions, new zoning or general plan requirements, or other concerns about the division as proposed. The subject tentative map was to expire on September 25, 1979. On August 8, 1979, the applicant's engineer requested an extension of time. A review of this request indicates that check prints and improve- ment plans have been submitted to the County Engineer for review. The applicant stated that he needed additional time to construct the required road improvements. CO 78-100 • A concern with this request is that the division as proposed does not comply with the density recommended on the current Atascadero General Plan. The tentative map was approved under the 1963 Plan which recommended parcels in the (1-2-1 acre) range. The 1978 General Plan recommends a (1-1'g acre) density range in the "Moderate Density Residential" category. The parcels as proposed are only approximately 3/4 acres in size. The zoning district remains unchanged at this time. In reviewing other similar time extension requests the Subdivision Review Board has maintained the position that the newly adopted General Plan should be adhered to and that time extensions for parcel maps that do not comply with recommended parcel sizes should not be granted. The only exceptions have been where the applicant has made substantial progress and investment in road construction or other improvements. RECONVENDAT ION After review and discussion of Tentative Parcel Map CO 78-100, the Subdivision Review Board recommends to the City Council that a time extension not be granted based upon the following: (1) The 1978 Atascadero General Plan recommends a 1 acre minimum parcel size and the proposed parcels do not comply with this density; (2) Reasonable progress in constructing road improvements has not been accomplished at this time and that physical improve- ments have not been made. DISCUSSION The applicant did not attend the meeting. The Subdivision Review Board unanimously adopted the preliminary report as written. f'• 42 ` ' 6 ,/• ; '_'� . rt— fQ ► �;� lank- 00" • \ � \ �'. l�' 4 y�. ••• meK. Sr lk ! 2 •:/v. ��o .4, 846 •�f / 4/B�R �. • i p•7, It 11 � �{� � y ��• qp 96:)� ' .' o , �.�• P�Q��Lou 9 YDERO < o 1 ��_, t ' ,•�"/^vP a' O r ' ,� • 0 .�� •'1b. \/..Kn_ (�ra0.. ,�` •��C,( � q'� �� • /,•hip• • / 'ffi / �j� , � - . �''= tie, .�,� ••dnn./. I�►.;���x -'!_- " � �� •� '� '�� •� �:�..-� r-F�,� `1 Hig' S�•h• -.r .. �C)�+1 1 �; . •,.,� . t . �j �. Oo. P •. o o „.• '';•t l; 4' R p�`-� /`mob , 'P� , �I _ � ` � •� ,�5,,�� •. o ._�• I. •, 1�/ � L �� ,'�•��-ate �! _, ill'c:1 . �. / /� •`' Qb 'r t• .� o 44 V. lo o Z S •o `•, ' , y, �' i •^ / `•' v } 14 3. _ �+ �` + \ •!` l l . • o i/• Tr .' s �- -.• • J/���L9o _._ >. '�__� � -_-moi• I � ��'r,_' �•.•/ ;. %���' +� .:~ _ � E 41 4o v • •� �� h I 'u p Palk) /2 ' ant14( • `�• i \ \ �• �\ �"� ,175\•� ,�{{ vM� ` • R • ;..... 'fit 3 Y VIC I H ITY AAP • �R A �� .''fin , + `C- \ •// � / / _ _ �� � ' ? >�y•�'n'� ly ;.�1n+-CSG of a JJ PARCEL MAP071 - 100 co * 9 i f L x`3;3 f.. �`•�',.;��,,'�'. .�� y. � �•'-G�-1—c�:; f,VLJv,v i�:,tr;.�✓vt�i ` �. Jt•JV jz F' T + � sr! a -r+ ,q�!/ •;. t) ✓;�� /I?,,,!, .�,f �����'I� �;►�v21M�Jw ',,LJ'.;: �, 1 1+• � : •" y'ti+•�t�J;��j J.y `� y y � 'yam�+i:t�� FA V ,.. t. � raw , •' o-��w tr.,y jJv"t.�, .1 r,_....'F C,., ®��r. •I`ll x � i Jvy •- •� •• • ,, . . ,Z OR-• •�Z- ol • . • ol 00, Oa { L a •• •• • O +v �/ ?� •� •• • • 1, f � • OR e ,, Y �• � r!• oaf! '��•_ th. l cif r t 7: Lt %�'r, "�'ti,° � 1 �`�; 7C ��,� � � Qy 1, , '� •. ;• Ir :` ' } HIGH DENSITY MULTIPLE FAMILY r . .. ::, �. . LOW DENSITY ` HIGH DENSITY . . ... . . - SINGLE FAMILY /► L /��A/fJ MOO. DENSITY . I Ire /!'a / /w/ wths� / rwyWe�f SAID LUIS OBISPO COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMEi'1T LOT DIVISION APPLICATION FOR PARCEL HAPS FOUR PARCELS OR LESS (.` 100.00) (FOUR COPIES REQUIRED) W, - �� :' .,.m ; rte,r .� Code idumber 1. Record Owner(s) : Name,&0(*4A$ .A_ /17Dojff Phone �-` Address 40 A 2. If property is in escrow, the following questions must be answered: Name of Purchaser Phone Address 3. Agent flame Phone or Subdivider Address 4. Engineer i1o. Namef ,&fre. y/,[�j Q Phone_0,6 •/y�� or Surveyor No. Audress6l&pi- ATASCApC&7, GA. 5. Lxisting Use: (,f) Residential. ( ) Agricultural ( ) Commercial ( ) Industrial ( ) Recreational ( ) Other (Describe) 6. Proposed Use: Residential ( ) Agricultural ( ) Commercial ( ) Industrial ( ) Recreational ( ) Other (Describe) ?. Public Utilities available to property: ( J ) Electric ( ,� Gas ( X Water Telephone 3. Proposed source of water, if not available from public water company: ( ) Private Well ( ) Neighbor' s fell ( ) Other (Describe) 9. Proposed provision for sewage and sewage disposal : ( ) Septic Tank (,)O Public Sewer ( ) Other (Describe) 10. Is any portion of this property obligated by any assessnient(s) under tae Ii-vrovement bond r ct of 1915? (x ) Yes ( ) into If yes, name(s) of assessment district(s) 11. E.re there flooding or drainage problems at any time during the year? ( ) Yes. ( j►(� ) Ido. If yes, explain: 1�. Proposed improvements by applicant : ( ) Sidewalk ( ) Road surface ( ) Curbs and gutter ( ) Other (Describe) 13. Are there any existing or proposed easements on the property? ( ) Yes. ( ) No. If yes, describe: u77� 0.f 14. Are there any existing strdctures on the property? Residence ( ) Farm Buildings ( ) Commercial or Industrial ( ) Trailer ( ) Other (Describe) MlfcE4 15. Legal description of property: Lot Block Tract or Township and Range Section Assessor's Parcel Number(s) �( - /7/ - 37 16. Total acreage in parcel proposed to be divided: 9g' 17. Total number of parcels created as a result of this division_ : 2 18. Size of each lot created: 099 19. when did Record Owner purchase lot? /j1G 20. Does the Record Owner or Purchaser (if property is in escrow) own any contiguous property not mentioned above? (Describe) W 21. Has Record Gwner previously divided any contiguous property? (Describe) p 22. why is the property being divided? ysAE-44E 23. Is the owner intending to build structures on newly created parcels? (x) Yes. ( ) No. Est a %starting date&&XT fifi➢/e Signed, Record Owner Agent or '// � Engineer lig/ Date Date 3- 8 ---- ------------------------------------------ - FOR OFFICE USE 1. Zoning Zoning i1ap iio. Z. Parcel Flaps of four parcels or less or categorically exei.�pt from environmental impact determinations under normal conditions. 3. Location 4. General Plan Designation 5. Previous Lot Divisions granted/denied on above property` Nen A. RocowAY, Director. Telephone(805)549-5600 RECEIVED U-C r 6 1979 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Courthouse Annex SAN Luis Owspo, CALIFORNIA - 93908 October 15, 1979 City Council Atascadero Planning Commission County of San Luis Obispo, California Ladies and Gentlemen: The following time extension requests are referred to you with recommendations from the Subdivision Review Board: 1. CO 77-236: Recommendation for Denial (Finch Stewart) 2. CO 77-241: Recommendation for Approval (Finch - Stewart) 3. CO 77-233: Recommendation for Approval (Heino - Stewart) Respectfully submitted, LARRY J. RED, Supervisor Subdivision Review Section ca cc: County Engineer County Health Department � ' 1'� rx .� � � .. !) � C��+�--rti ,� a �. REPORT OF THE SUBDIVISION REVIEW BOARD MEETING OCTOBER 3, 1979 RE: CO 77-236, PROPOSED LOT DIVISION OF LOT 3, BLOCK LB, ATASCADERO, LOCATED ALONG AGUILA ROAD, ATASCADERO (R-A: SINGLE FAMI Y-LOW DENSITY) (FINCH - STEWART) RECOMMENDATION FOR DE IAL SRB Members in Attendance: ] Chairman, Colonel Sorenson, John Hofschrer, Larry Red, Jerry Erickson, Jim Granflaten PlanningCommissioner in Atendance: None r Legal Counsel Present: None PROJECT DESCRIPTION This application proposes subdivision of a 3.2 acre site into 3 parcels at approximately Macre each. The site is located along Aguila Road, City of Atascadero. i Zoning: R-A: "Suburban (Residential" (20,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size) General Plan: 1978 Atascadero General Plan: "Single Family-Low Density" (11-2 to 231 acre minimum) I COMMENTS Time extensions are discretionary in nature and can be approved, conditionally approved or denied by the legislative body. A denial of a time extension request would normally cause the map to expire since it could not be recorded by the required date. An expired map cannot be recorded and can only be reinitiated by the approval of a completely new application. The State Map Act and the Lot Division Ordinance requires an approved tentative parcel map to bel' recorded within one year of approval. It also allows time extensions to be granted to a maximum of 24 months. The Map Act does not stipullate the criterial for approving or denying the request however. The criteria commonly used by the Subdivision Review Board in such decisions includes the progress of meeting conditions, new zoning or general plan requirements,) or other concerns about the division as proposed. The subject tentative maplwas to expire on September 6, 1979. On September 5, 1979, the applicant's engineer requested an extension of time. A review of this r�quest indicates that check prints and improve- ment plans have been submitted to the County Engineer for_review. The applicant stated that he needed additional time to construct the required road improvements. A concern with this request is that the division as proposed does not comply with the density recommended on the current Atascadero General Plan. The tentative map was approved under the 1968 Plan which CO 77-236 • • recommended parcels in the (1-2-1 acre) range. The 1978 General Plan recommends a (11-2-22 acre) density range in the "Low Density-Single Family Residential" category. The parcels as proposed are only approxi- mately 1 acre in size. The zoning district remains unchanged at this time. In reviewing other similar time extension requests the Subdivision Review Board has maintained the position that the newly adopted General Plan should be adhered to and that time extensions for parcels maps that do not comply with recommended parcel sizes should not be granted. The only exceptions have been where the applicant has made substantial progress and investment in road construction or other improvements. The Subdivision Review Board recommendation is based on presently adopted County ordinances and general plans and is adivsory only. The City Council may approve, conditionally approve or deny the request. As a basis for denial they may use a finding that the division does not conform to the general plan which will likely be adopted. RECOMMENDATION After review and discussion of Tentative Parcel Map CO 77-236, the Subdivision Review Board recommends to the City Council that a time extension not be granted based upon the following: (1) The 1978 Atascadero General Plan recommends a 13-2 acre minimum parcel size and the proposed parcels do not comply with this density; (2) Reasonable progress in constructing road improvements has not been accomplished at this time and that physical improvements have not been made. DISCUSSION Applicant's engineer attended the meeting and stated that the road was not yet built but that they had planned to begin construction. The Subdivision Review Board unanimously adopted the preliminary report as written. • / •] . — E 4�� • ti • • • * �� 1 99 40 If co �� a�' • ATA CADERO J,. '.�- ± ^vP,•h �,� �•� ,. .fir• o -p: ` �� _ _ ,�... � � ,i • �� " (9 p `• �• �,. `' •� �`� v'�''` i� �..-` -•1 ,, ,�4�`/ �.� ♦ ��� �:�.fix. ``` q ML an T aim 2. 0 . .. ul 'gyp 96. O5, a.,•�.,�'�. � . ., .i_,�; _DSS-_ �� •Vii .1. .'¢- • :- ' • ••� _�- • 0 Opt \� `\�� • i / \ t� • 1 / �� � •'� ',' ^���•�� ''Tim_� �Y • _/... • C421 25 A. 14 + i m u ° N CO O M r J N 2 O 1., ZO N It +l+ 3 h 0 v 3 0 ll+ Ln F:W Ze4Z 1�� o co ciz V to -a � ~ ���wwLU Wv W ui� 0 4K1Q �y Q O \e<?� h t tiL asU Q I e°f gr .., M p h P eM , .rJ 1 +1 ti 1 w O \ m V s� � 1 cc:e. µ H9 J J 1n a t 1 1 V 3 Q ly Q 7 M.IN •yN E° 9bE LOT DI ION APPLICATION FOR PARCEL'MAPS Job H` -77 0 FOUR PARCELS OR LESS (x100. 00) (FOUR COPIES REQUIRED) 1-2 � Code Number. 1. �gord Owner(s): Name E-43. F Bch Phone Address /V/APM? C4-y NaWAenQ SSiZG 2. If property is in escrow, the following questions must be answered: Name-of-Purchaser Phone - Address 3. A ,entZ�''w x ' 1:4`m,}` e ` ,,� M,. 'f��J �ta►SM5 M� Phone SQ.O �d Subdivider Address k u 4. Engineer Name Phone Z �-071JU or - Address p 130,< 2U3fj ReAro l?Oh/ri..�y/j, -��139yiZ 5. Existing Use: ( #-Residential ( ) Agricultural ( ) Commercial ( ) Industrial ( ) Recreational ( ) Other /LGr)Q (Describe) 6. Proposed Use: (v} Residential ( ) Agricultural ( ) Commercial ( ) Industrial ( ) Recreational ( ) Other (Describe) 7. Public Utilities available to property: (!) Electric G4 Gas ( ,_} Water Telephone 3. Proposed source of water, if not available from public water company: ( ) Private Well ( ) Neighbor' s Well ( ) Other (Describe) 9. Proposed provision for sewage and sewage disposal: 0-) Septic Tank ( ) Public Sewer ( ) Other (Describe) 10. Is any portion of this property obligated by any. assessment(s) under the Improvement Bond Act of 1915? ( ) Yes ( 44- No If yes, name(s) of assessment district(s) 11. Are there flooding or drainage problems at any during the year? ( ) Yes. Pio. If yes, explain: 12. Proposed improvements by applicant: ( ) Sidewalk (Road surface ( ) Curbs and gutter ( ) Other IS. Are there any OWtinct or proposed easeren(•n the property? ( v9 Yes, ( ) Mo. If yes, doscrih� 14. Are there any existing structures on the property? ( ) Residence ( ) Farm Puildings ( ) commercial or Industrial ( ) Trailer ( ) Other Descries" 15. Legal description of property: Lot 101ocI- L4 mract_14�03ta6 or Toi,mshin and Ranac Section Assessor I s Parcel Muriher (s) 16. Total acreage in parcel proposer. to he divides' ; 3 L A 17. Total numher of parcels created as a result of this d1vision:-a 18. Size of each lot created: ) ; 19. Tlhr�n did Pecord Owner purchase lot? l40re 61�y oY,e .696� p T 20. Moos the Record Owner or Purchaser, (if Property is in escrow) own any contic nous property not mentioned above? (noscrihe) - e 21. F'as Reccrd Owner previously divided any contic-uons prccorty? (nescrihc) 22. Why is the property being divided? Swot 23. Is the owner inten_rina to huil-r?. s4ructurc,s on newly creator? parcels? ( ) Yes. (tom}' MO. Fstimated starting date Signed, Re.-,cord Owner. : Paont or rnaincer. Date nate ----------C __ ----- FOIL OFFIP USE 01NILY _ 1. Tonin /� •:��- g-- f'' .',� ?spina ,dap T?o. 2. Parcel r"aps of four parcels or less or catenerically exprint from environmental impact deterr..inations under nornal conditions. 3. Location 4 . General Plan DesignationfAl h, raft,� 5. Previous Lot Divisions granted/denied on ahcvn property ANIEL J. STEWART & AS C. ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS POST OFFICE BOX ()H 7 PHONC (005) 4 6(i i 17 4401 L1. Camino Real Atascadero, CA 93422 November 5, 1979 City of Atascadero Administration Building Atascadero, CA 93422 Re : Parcel Map Co 77-236 Honorable Planning Commission : This letter is to inform you that considerable work and planning has been completed. in the development of large portions of Blocks LB and IB. The request before you is to grant an extension of time so that we can continue the planning and development of this area of Atascadero. Recently, my clients have applied for, received approval of , and completed parcel maps fronting on Chauplin Ave. Prior to recording these maps , Chauplin Ave . had to be designed, improvement plans prepared, surveying completed and maps prepared. My clients posted bonds for the construction of Chauplin Ave . As of now, the construction has been compl—etod and piid for , but the bonds have not yet been ru Leased. As soon as bowis are released , we can than post bonds for Adui la Ave . and other road construct iorr. We are in the process of accomplishing the same for Aquila Avenue including an Additional Road through lots 14 , 2 , 3 , 4 , and 11 in Block LB. The design work has nearly been completed. ;;oiil(t rough grading has been done on Aquila from Venada to Violet.ta anti a little beyond. The overall plans include : 1 . Lot line adjustment Lots 2 & 14 compLet.erd. 2 . Lot split Lot 3 before you at this time . 3 . Lot split Lot 4 - Application ready for. submittal . Contour map and survey compluted - own(.rsh i p to centerline recorded . 4 . Lot split Lot 5 - contour mal) & survey completed. 5 . Lot split Lots b & 7 - contour map & survey completed . 6 . Lot sty I i t Lot. 1. 1 0078-98 - ,ippr_oved by County . Survey Complete. New road dusi_gn almost complete. 7 . Construct new road to courity standards . 8 . Construct Aquila from Venado to Venado (approx . 4500 feet) to county standards . DANIEL J. STEWART ASSOC., ENGINEERS & SUR*ORS Page 2 November r 5, 19'19 City of Atascadero As you can seu Eli'u planniny and design is nearly completed and some road improvement work has been done . The request before you at this time is one portion of the overall project. Some projects are complete and some have been approved and some are pending approval . Based upon the above SLatements, I heyeby request that you recommend to the City Council that the time extension be granted because substantial pruyrUS.,- <<ni.l invu: UnimnL has bean made. i,nLo Lh'is and contiguous projects . Respectfully submitted , ./ (lVe 'f t e DANIEL J . STEWART, R.C .L. 14994 1\(font for St incfil i (-'Id , Finch , et. al Attachment : map of projects 4' to O e O ` CIO 1N7 ,t . o t e + N O wa • Q P o AV n t ®_ '.p. a � o o � 1� ✓ � � � 3.L t•, W 1 � 41 WCo m N Z m Q O 0 a b 4 O o o0 t J • O v REPORT OF THE SUBDIVISION RHVIEW BOARD MEETING OCTOBER 3, 1979 RE: CO 77-241, PROPOSED LOT DIVISION OF LOT 9, BLOCK I-B, ATASCADERO, CHAUPLIN AVENUE, CITY OF ATASCADERO (A-1-12: ' SINGLE FAMILY-LOW DENSITY) (FINCH - STEWART) RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL SRB Members in Attendance: Chairman, Colonel Sorenson, John Hofschroer, Larry Red, Jerry Erickson, Jim Granflaten Planning Commissioner in Attendance: None Legal Counsel Present: None PROJECT DESCRIPTION This application proposes a subdivision of 2. 25 acre site into two parcels at 1. 1 acres each. The site is located along Chaulpin Avenue, in the City of Atascadero. Zoning: A-1-12: "Light Agriculture" (12 acre minimum lot size) General Plan: 1978 Atascadero General Plan: "Single Family-Low Density" (12 to 22 acre minimum) COMMENTS Time extensions are discretionary in nature and can be approved, conditionally approved or denied by the legislative body. A denial of a time extension request would normally cause the map to expire since it could not be recorded by the required date. An expired map cannot be recorded and can only be reinitiated by the approval of a completely new application. The State Map Act and the Lot Division Ordinance requires an approved tentative parcel map to be recorded within one year of approval. It also allows time extensions to be granted to a maximum of 24 months. The Map Act does not stipulate the criterial for approving or denying the request however. The criteria commonly used by the Subdivision Review Board in such decisions includes the progress of meeting conditions, new zoning or general plan requirements, or other concerns about the division as proposed. The subject tentative map was to expire on September 19, 1979. On September 5, 1979, the applicant's engineer requested an extension of time. A review of this request indicates that check prints and improve- ment plans have been submitted to the County Engineer for review. The applicant stated that he needed additional time to construct the required road improvements. To date, the road construction has begun. CO 77-241 A concern with this request is that the division as proposed does not comply with the density recommended on the current Atascadero General Plan. The tentative map was approved under the 1968 Plan which recom- mended parcels in the (3-2-1 acre) range. The 1978 General Plan recom- mends a (12-2z acre) density range in the "Low Density-Single Family Residential" category. The parcels as proposed are only approximately 1. 1 acres each in size. The zoning district remains unchanged at this time. In reviewing other similar time extension requests the,Subdivision Review Board has maintained the position that the newly adopted General Plan should be adhered to and that time extensions for parcel maps that do not comply with recommended parcel sizes should not be granted. The only exceptions have been where theapplicanthas made substantial progress and investment in road construction or other improvements. There appears to be adequate basis in this case. One last consideration is the matter of the Atascadero incorporation. Although it appears the new City Council will take final action on this project, the Subdivision Review Board may still take action on this matter. Any action taken will likely constitute an informal recommendation to the City Council. It should be noted this staff report and the recommendations are based on County policy, procedure, and ordinances. RECOMMENDATION After review and discussion of Tentative Parcel Map CO 77-241, the Subdivision Review Board recommends to the City Council that a time extension be granted. DISCUSSION Applicant' s engineer attended the meeting. He stated that the road had been built. Staff stated that the recommendation would change based on completion of the road. The Subdivision Review Board unanimously adopted the preliminary report as amended. 14F �.. C 4 , 4125 • `:. 19 Ir ,r,Al 4V ... F 00 • X80 G If , � �- .3 � ♦ ,� . i �v: / 1. l• ' r • '� •: �Z � I • . '�: o r Hca ° � CO CO Rr�oe�• MATA CADERO \ �''�. • • ^�°°'�` o"Six r ►. •a�� p • -- - i•- -_ 4 _ ,6 �- \ i• • , -•may Ar 40 io moi. • •� � • t�. � /`'�^"��"' :.g�' -ry�•/•. f•�0 • Ari ,, .�,I • • �ra:`x • 4 Hi�ri s�'I� � 8 ��•�� 1 �b • \ '� e ` { `� y�'• .� * 1 • - i•� ,• . �,, /tet Jam' •.'��,,� ��. .:•. _ O. Zo •- r- OCA v�•. T- •�` � -{,_�, . 7�j� 1p. �. -�- � `� 4i,� �zy VIviV 0140 AA i `d•�� � i W p J � �° V Qs � Ocp Q 0 ? W W qn- to Z = F � h D d �j 2 ib. �� n 00 • `,N 3y5' tz _ V 344•�Z 9� O+ \ ods j,'►�,_ 3 �w • ee``h� 1�� s { .:' tp aoo o e o°p,.,••.A...,•-•.,.,.,.•::...• ..:,�� r:. +6. �;;h ,.x -.,.:). j � a 'o aoop oe o u°a°�: � �: E :::Y•:. t � � t� E�` 4ti: • 0 00 o e o e .. s '•;::1 Y'.::.a::''..''r� � . . ,� r., (j;ly s,f5•-.J 'F 1 Jb f ':.T'•.?�{'i;•:'r:::•C .. .. .•moi: ••, � �s Wrl t• °•• as °°ee..::. . .�;'. :�" ` � ::�I � �• -.� _,;:'r °•e•i oOOo.�i��:�:�'�': \ '�� g+�, •.. :;Y.'.�:..•� �t�` � Jac• ate _ Gepp• Y°°°':'':'::.::::.. : // 1J .?� •:•lL. •++;7\v5[r_ ��:P?�•�'�..• • 0 0 • o ' i °eeo••• •.r-'`"'7• '•1.' •:.f:'.�:.: �••' ,a �1`-. 1 T'�: Ni3:'"" ••' .:lah fit{....,. .....:. ...: J r J � } Jti r 1 ��y�E --� t� r c• h I '�y of,n.,r r r.•t : .. -«. 1�; ., +� i y s" -.• t. SAN LUI ISPO COUNTY PLANNIIiG DEP &NT J ob 77171 LOT DIVISION APPLICATION FOR PARCEL ZAPS FOUR PARCELS OR LESS (FOUR COPIES REQUIRED) �•� f �" LLy'c''!, i�,�g���,• Code Plumber 6 3 � c ' o Ow (s): NameL•�_ .,ch. Phone Address 11&Ahh / i /f1Gh�cshc1 S l�1ZG 2. ti rty is in escrow, the following questions must be answered: Sf4j 16w Name of Purchaser Phone PPL l 04"1 L. .fe ` Address 3. t Name nw,� no. Phone or Subdivider Address 0,0, SOY- 14067 xr-66L , 4. Engineer lvo. AY92y Name 4h%tel Skwu y- Phone 23k-070e) or Address /00, 13pX 2l/3p, p4SU A 'es, la/j, 9 ovc 5. Existing Use: (y Residential ( ) Agricultural ( ) Commercial ( } Industrial ( ) Recreational ( ) Other (Describe) 6. Proposed Use: ( y) Residential ( ) Agricultural ( ) Commercial ( ) Industrial ( ) Recreational ( ) Other (Describe) 7. Public Utilities available to property: (v3 Electric (�) Gas Water Telephone S. Proposed source ofwater, if not available from public water company: Private Well ( ) Neighbor's Well ( ) Other (Describe) 9. Proposed provision for swage and sewage disposal: (rte)- Septic Tank ( ) Public Sewer ( ) Other (Describe) 10. Is any portion of this property obligated by any assessments) under the Improvement Bond Act of 1915? ( ) Yes ( �} No If yes, name(s) of assessment district(s)� 11. Are there flooding or drainage problems at any time during the year? ( ) Yes. ( ) No. If yes, explain: 12. Proposed improvements by applicant: ( ) Sidewalk (y—Road surface ( ) Curbs and gutter ( ) Other 1.3. Are there ar_N7 stincT or proposedeaseren( on the pronerty? ( ) Yes. ( 1�-1 Mo. If yes, doscrihe 14. Are there any exist .na structures on the property? ( ) Residence ( ) Farm Buildings ( ) rormorci.al or Industrial ( ) Trailer ( ) Other Ifleel if (DCAscri e 15. Lecral description of property: Lot g- Bloc:. T13 TactG.�CGc o%Y or Totmshin and P_anae Section Assessor's Parcel Number (s) 16. 'T'otal acreage in parcel proposed to he divided- 2.2S 17. Total number of parcels created as a result of this eivision: 2 18. Fize of each lot created: /,/Z QC�Lj 19. T,1hcn did Record C14mer purchase lot? p/yc « 20. noes the Record Owner or Purchaser (if property is in cscrow) own_ any conticuous property not mentioned above? (Ocscriho) � 2.1. �*as .0.ccr,� Oirmer previousiv (Uvided any conticmoi s prroc-rty? (Describe) 22. Why is the property being divided?23. Is the owner intcneina to huilr'. structures on neYA71V crnatoO narco_ls? ( ) Yes. (L4 No. F-stimator-1 startinca date Signed, Reco.r(� Otaner: Poem or Pnaincer T Hato _ --- - - _.._ ------- --------- -- - ---.._------- --- ---------Z -�- .___ FOR OFFICP. USF ONLY- 1. NLY- 1. 7oninv ?onir.a "ap T, '� 33 2.. .Parcel maps of tour parcels or less or catecerically exe*ipt from environmental impact r3eterm.inations under normal conc?.itions. 3. Location d A A 4 . General Plan Uesianation -�,jy� J 5. Previous Lot Divisions granted/denied on above property � • 6S REPORT OF THE SUBDIVISION REVIEW BOARD MEETING OCTOBER 3, 1979 RE: CO 77-233, PROPOSED LOT DIVISION OF LOT 24, BLOCK 40, ATASCADERO COLONY, CARMELITA ROAD, CITY OF ATASCADERO (A-1-12: SUBURBAN) (HEINO - STEWART) SRB Members in Attendance: Chairman, Colonel Sorenson, John Hofschroer, Larry Red, Jerry Erickson, Jim Granflaten Planning Commissioner in Attendance: None Legal Counsel Present: None PROJECT DESCRIPTION This application proposes a subdivision of a 5 acre site into 2 parcels at 22 acres each. The site is located along Carmelita Road, within the City of Atascadero. Zoning: A-1-12: "Light Agriculture" (12 acre minimum lot size) General Plan: 1978 Atascadero General Plan: "Suburban" (22-10 acres) COMMENTS The subject tentative map was to expire on September 6, 1979. On September 5, 1979, the applicant's engineer requested an extension of time. A review of this request shows that the Zoning District remains unchanged at this time. The General Plan however, was amended in December, 1979. The . Lot Division Ordinance allows a 12 month time extension to be granted to a maximum of 2 years. One last consideration is the matter of the Atascadero incorporation. Although it appears the new City Council will take tinal action on this project, the Subdivision Review Board may still take action on this matter. Any action taken will likely constitute an informal recommenda- tion to the City Council. It should be noted this staff report and the recommendations are based on County policy, procedure, and ordinances. RECOMMENDATION After review and discussion of Tentative Parcel Map CO 77-233, the, Subdivision Review Board recommends to the Atascadero City Council that a one-year extension be granted to September 6, 1980, subject to the original conditions of approval as set forth in the minutes of the Subdivision Review Board meeting dated August 24,1977. DISCUSSION Applicant's engineer attended the meeting. The Subdivision Review Board unanimously adopted the preliminary report as written. • y , ' ,4-3 . • ..•1. 100 14 R 6 R AL _ L VIS A ' O r. "co V 1v v.A r . PA /k PC! p76-3 — Z I Q Q 1 i PARCEL Z to PARCEL OLO 41 , Al 1' MAP } A LVA A D 0 GO , 0 Z3� 1 O Q ,n wzwaa4 o~I 3sZ �` wiug n� CO< • Fj F nwZ - N u. o 0 uQ "oa.0a �w O V Ja Lll pW�za ��° �1� hs�w w �u Q�� w 1J n N u wm O J Q Q p ,n w Q F F- W Wz� sz� Qz \,C z _o cn W QLLo u Q z3pLi- aa Q p O �/ 0O 2 Joh Qi 1-oa O 'Nr LSA W LLOJ' zll ` WusLu l�L. < ~Fy V Ya� ,� Q jN J w S W a Q A} Z OJ � m w 4 p 1 W Lij w 3 d W d°LaNaW A -7cz w ":3Q y i �N ,m .R :z1V- �, bJ ddL. O N in J �J Q—P •ti S " V N SAN LUIW`'SPO COUNTY PLANNING DEPA WNT Jh 771 a OT DIVISION APPLICATION FOR PARCEL MAPS �% FOUR PARCELS OR LESS (:x:100.00) . �`�VO 2 (FOUR COPIES REQUIRED) /► 6 w CIO vw1191 Code Number f V� 00 evn s): Name Phone L Address 1/9DS /aarfsook ��`•. �Yv, �o/ly�odo� 107 2. 2. exty is in escrow, � the following questions must be answered, Name of Purchaser Phone Address 3. Agent Name Phone or Subdivider Address 4. Engineer Ido.AWV , Name l�cihie/ ✓. �rilrwa r� Phone 93,9,4 74,3 or L83 Ulm Address, %boy 2a 3A A4sa r1,3 91V 5. Existing Use: ( ) Residential ( ) Agricultural ( ) Commercial ( ) Industrial ( ) Recreational ( ) Other 41,oVe_ (Describe) 6. Proposed Use: (I-' Residential ( ) Agricultural ( ) Commercial Industrial ( ) Recreational ( ) Other (Describe) ?. Public Utilities available to property: (�J Electric Gas Water (L4' Telephone 3. Proposed source of water, if not available from public water company: ( ) Private Well ( ) Neighbor's Well ( ) Other (Describe) 9. Proposed provision for sewage and sewage disposal: ( k Septic Tank ( ) Public Sewer ( ) Other (Describe) 10. Is any portion of this property obligated by any assessments) under the Improvement Bond Act of 1915? ( ) Yes ( `.}- No If yes, name(s) of assessment district($.)_ 11. Are there flooding or drainage problems at any time during the year? ( ) Yes. (`) No If yes, explain: 12. Proposed improvements by applicant: O Sidewalk ( ) Road surface ( ) Curbs and gutter ( ) Other zkli ` e 1.3. Are there anv aVs*g or proposed ease!-tints o he property? 0✓1 Yes. ( ) TTo. If yes, describe. : 6Ct,, a 14 . Are there any existing structures on the property? ( Residence ( ) Farm nuildinas ( ) Cominercial or Industrial ( ) '"rarer ( Other ZDv! (Describe) 15. Legal description of proporty: Lot2y Plock T Tract `t. rnloHU or To.,mship and Panac Section Assessor's Parcel Muriher (s)_ 16. Total acresage in parcel proposed to be divider' : 17. Total number of parcels created as a result of this e.i.vision: 2- 18. 18. Size of each lot created: ;?- 5 Glycs, 19. 11hon did Record CTmer purchase lot? fV/i�r � e r Gy e2 28. noes the Record Owner or Purchaser (if property is in escrow) own_ any contic-�?ous property not mentioned ahovc�? (Describe) tiiJ 21. Vas .Tecorr! Oltmer previously divided any contic.uons proncrty? (Describe) 22. 6.7hy is the prorerty being divided? ��,�,�,� ��;/�� S1��s ,�Q✓ do�liavyer�, 23. Is the owner intcr-r'ing to huilr� structures on neTr.%ly create,? parcels? ( y'Yes, ( ) No. ?'stimated starting date fu fire'_ Signed, Record Oxiner. Pcont or. Pnain^ox rathate ---------------- -- - ------- ----_ ----------- -------- ---------------------- FOR opricF' 119E ONLY- 1. NLY; - �- 1. 9onin "/- �r:, rT g f � �7,cnina _.p o.��'°,' 2. Parcel gaps of tour parcels or less or catoacri.cally exempt from environrmental impact d.eterr':inations under normal condz.tions. 3. Location 4. General Plan DesignationffM 41= : 4LA�� 5. Previous Lot Divisions ?ranted/denied. on abov,� property NED A. ROGOWAY, Director Telephone(805)549-5600 RECE n i y. -4 j j- : I OPF PLANNING DEPARTMENT Courthouse Annex SAN LUIS ORISPo, CALIFORNIA - 93405 October 5, 1979 City Council Planning Commission City of Atascadero The following Lot Line Adjustment was reviewed by the Subdivision Review Board on October 3, 1979, and was found to comply with Section 21.48.017 of the Lot Division Ordinance. This Lot Line Adjustment recommended by the Subdivision Review Board for conditional approval, is as follows; RE: AL 79-34, Proposed Lot Line Adjustment of Lots 127 and 128, Block MC, Atascadero Colony on Palomar Avenue, City of Atascadero. (R-A: Moderate Density - Single Family Residential) (Greenaway/Department of Veteran Affairs) (884: 7/5/79) It is recommended that the above referenced adjustments be conditionally approved with the conditions as recommended by the Subdivision Review Board and set down in their attached reports. Respectfully submitted, LARRY J. RED, pervisor Subdivision Review Board ca Attachment cc: County Engineer County Health' Department r REPORT OF THE SUBDIVISION REVIEW BOARD MEETING OCTOBER 3, .197 RE: AL 79-34, PROPOSED LOT LINE. ADJUSTMENT OF LOTS 127 AND 128, BLOCK MC, ATASCADERO COLONY ON PALOMAR AVENUE, CITY OF ATASCADERO. (R-A: MODERATE DENSITY - SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) (GREENAWAY/DEPARTMENT OF VETERAN AFFAIRS) (884: 7/5/79) RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL SRB Members in Attendance: Chairman, Colonel Sorenson, John Hofschroer, Jerry Erickson, Bill MacDonald Planning Commissioner in Attendance: Evelyn Delany Legal Counsel Present: None PROJECT DESCRIPTION This application proposes an adjustment of the line between 2 parcels. The resultant area of each parcel will remain approximately the same. The site is located along Palomar Avenue on the northside, City of Atascadero. Zoning: R-A: "Suburban Residential" (20,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size) General Plan: 1978 Atascadero General Plan: "Moderate Density - Single Family Residential" (11-2 acre lot size without sewers) REASON FOR THE ADJUSTMENT To relocate the property line around an existing drainage course_according to the applicant. COMMENTS The readjusted line will transfer a triangular segment at the front of Lot 127 to Lot 128, and the rear portion of Lot 128 to Lot 127. The new dines roughly parallel the existing drainage course and provides more parcel area in the vicinity of each house. RECOMMENDATION After review of applicable General Plans and other available infor- mation, the Subdivision Review Board recommends to the Atascadero City Council that the proposed Lot Line Adjustment be found to comply with Section 21.48.017 of the Lot Division Ordinance and that it be approved. One last consideration is the matter of the Atascadero incorporation. Although it appears the new City Council will take final action on this project, the Subdivision Review Board may still take action on this matter. Any action taken will likely constitute an informal recommendation to the City Council. It should be noted this staff report and the recom- mendations are based on County policy, procedure, and ordinances. Provided that the adjustment is approved, the following conditions are hereby established: Y Al, 79-34 � • 1. All conditions of approval herein specified are to be complied with prior to the recording of Certificates of Compliance which effectuates the adjustment. Said Certificates of Compliance must be signed by all record owners and holders of interest as defined in Section 21.48.017(e) of the Lot Division and notarized. 2. The Certificates of Compliance must be filed in accordance with Section 21.48.017(e) prior to transfer of the adjusted portions of the property. 3. After approval by the Board of Supervisors, compliance with the preceding conditions will bring the proposed adjustment in conformance with the Subdivision Map Act and Section 21.48.017 of the Lot Division Ordinance. 4. The Lot Line Adjustment will expire one year (12 months) from the date of Board of Supervisors' approval, unless the Certificates of Compliance effectuating the Adjustment are recorded. DISCUSSION Applicant did not attend the meeting. The Subdivision Review Board unanimously adopted the, preliminary report as amended. 412 t \ • jtp- E2.1�' S �,,;•�- +' ''iia: 0,.•• + � '�1 •\ y • •�Orl .�` lank \ $A /r L ,9 �`����j��.�•: 4�� rmo •� �� r 3`r 1'ne - . � i�.s e Ili �\ •••a�� 'Aj• ��+,��• h :- 846 % R Q `° Q�y COL, C ' pp�Q v 1J' I1 • �� y?•�,. �•`� � `' �C • / �•' •���X� '�1 �'� •�. ��• •' jam\ ` � / ,\ ` I r �IgTi S'e-h � �� y l` L.1y�'; �. . ''yA .� •%a°` 10 / /:/ �a r � I lei j� �. y' -„11 ZT1 • LyR�' 1�-� \ ms's yf. ! p.. V O i•�• • ( .. " ,� . �-- �• ... Sewag Dlspo; ! d. '-� �� •' - i• a �\,` ' •.�O/� ••. \ : ' ' Pon ...'". .�. ►�;-_ S. . , � •� � � o Z s X40 �.o•,e.----�-- �2M El 02 ap Qrav .546 •�! / \ .fes "'�Tr••/ ` • I G \\ \ ��� ..�—= \/ po��� ao � (A IS li Q A • �' 9� • FOO 'c' , ��'� •S�;bl�✓/,_� .� ,\� L�`PL Pa�,k).\\�� , ant ,•c f� \\ 'rte A'Oa3►4R �� \•� A_ h? 'a w �. Vic 3v 9 � . . ,ter. � • �� . ��� _ �_ �-- 72. 4O'E 11 0 U0, ,� rq �t ^3ch ,•fir 11 p`� ul i 07)11� 1 A f 73- 34 !_1f\1A c 'v1i't�1: AD�,,.� f t' L)i .i � ,?8 of .. C LlC C '. i?big o Conrty, GA. ^ 27 -ItPdlv��ic;;, lin ,.rc Sor L,.i� �.._.-..--�N,ev' gnu ; 'I ��� •-, '; �^ • �06 al,. q�\�;\ � '�� tea. � �� ly° .9..–`/ d da nt e(:zrer. if 01� fOFt�ltl. �`r _;;1 L�4--1( fl 4 1 i 7^ —t-T– COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBIS PLANNING DEPARTMENT 4���� -� APPLICATION F �;FO LOT LINE ADJ U Return to Courthouse Annex, Room 102, San Lu 93101 i3 APPLICANTS NAME SIGNATURE ADDRESS P;TONE C,��� �cst�.A�Yj �'o-��" ..P.c,,�i�.►�1I�I �ranr.Pc+ _ r, � y- Kg E►t ��>,rara ` .a To. k<�(wfKn It 0 0 z 0 Lo Agent Eng. or Surveyor Eng. or Surveyor k All owners as shown on the preliminary Title Report must sicn the application PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot Al 118 Block MC Tract 11 •:r.arT:.f; ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUAIBF.RS: %rt I "1S4 I C,- o'(1 - q::?- Attach ::?-Attach a copy of a current Title Report covering all of the property involved. REQUIRED INFORMATION Why is the adjustment requested? R81AC47E P,¢,,pear 1_i it When was the property acquired? 4c? /2y qZIY/7 La1, /As - Does the owner or owners own any contiguous property? Aln Describe Existing use:( Residential( ) Agri. ( )-Ind. Recreation( ) Other Proposed use:(V O Residential( ) Agri. ( ) Ind. Recreation Other Public utilities available to the property: (� Elec ( )'Gas ( Water (Phone Proposed source of water:( )Private well ( )Neighbor's Well (Public Water Proposed provision for sewage disposal: (V/Septic tank ( )Public sewer ( )Other Are there flooding or drainage problems at any time during the year? ( )Yes (✓)No If yes, explain Are there any existing structures on the property'. (,/JResidence ( )Farm Buildings ( )Commercial or Industrial ( )Mobile Home ( )Other VERIFICATION: I have read and understand this application and I certify (or declare) under penalty of oer;ury the__tPugoine, sr.ar_ements_are true and •;c•rr,�ct_ I`am (N/) Applicant & Owner ( ) Applicant ( ) Agent for applicant Signature J Date OFFT.C;f USE: ONLY ZONTNG: MAP NUMBER: GENERAL PLAT: DATE RECEIVED: PILE NUMBER: AL- PREVIOUS LOT DI1'IS[ON GRANTED/DENIED ON VE PROPERTY RECEIPT ;,0: BY: —_ S 72. 4aE 95.03 195.03' N 100.00' t N N O� house 9�. , const. ?3� 1 `h PID01 ^� \ a 4 1,-50' \0 \ PARCEL A L A24012• N 44630 1 r N\_ \ \ `` 2PI A6�Q6 S97. "g ti` h° o oo. w c ro° ti�� bti�` �/� r Qpm � ;0 V Op Q o^) ip Cpl/ r P p �7P �5 83.43'E c,11.16'48 L, 28.23 o a _ N N S837;3-!F 108.48 R.� SEP 1111979 +curs�,„r,D C\110 4?08 V,, � /v _ PALOMAR A L 79-34 LEGEND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT MAP Original subdivision lines Lots 127&128 of Block MC of --�—New boundary line Atascadero, San Luis Obispo County, CA. V19 LN—IITX MAP 0 Prepared from record data by: 41 C, • ORVILLE MORGAN LSA308 u rbI^� 4-17-79 101 67 NBD A. ROGOWAY, Director Telephone(805)549-5600 RECEIVED C"0T 1 6 1979 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Courthouse Annex SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA - 9.1408 October 10 , 1979 Honorable Planning Commission Honorable City Council City of Atascadero RE : Application for two Certificates of Compliance (CC54-111-36) (BRAINARD) ; Planning Department recommendations for approval_ of two Certificates of Compliance ( 884 : 9-20-79) . The parcels for which Certificates of Compliance are requested are located on the southerly side of San Lucia Road between Los Gatos and Cascabel roads . The parcels are approximately 20 ,000 square feet each and there is an existing single .family residence on the front portion of the site. The area is zoned A-1-22 , Light Agriculture , with a 22 acre minimum building site require- ment . The 1978 Atascadero Area General Plan designates the area as Single Family Low Density Residential with a 12 to 22 acre range. The Subdivision Map Act , in Section 66499 : 35 gives a local agency the authority to issue Certificates of Compliance for property divided in compliance with applicable Laws and or- dinances . The subject property is composed of parcels est- ablished by valid deeds; one parcel being established in 1956 and the other parcel established in 1959 . Based on documents submitted and other available information , the Planning Department recommends approval of two Certificates of Compliance as requested. Respectfully submitted, LARRY J . RED, SUPERVISOR Subdivision Review Section LJR:kim 66499.35. (a) Any person owning real property or a vendee of such person pursuant to a contract of sale of such real property may re- quest, and a local agency shall detennine, whether such real property complies with the provisions of this division and of local ordinances en- acted pursuant thereto. Upon making such a determination the city or the county shall cause a certificate of compliance to be filed for record with the recorder of the county in which the real property is located. The certificate of compliance shall identify the real property and shall state that the division thereof complies with applicable pro- visions of this division and of local ordinances enacted pursuant there- to. The local agency may impose a reasonable fee to cover the cost of issuing and recording the certificate of compliance. (b) If a local agency determines that such real property does not - comply with the provisions of this division or of local ordinances enacted pursuant thereto, it may, as a condition to granting a cer- tificate of compliance, impose such conditions as would have been applicable to the division of the property at the time the applicant ac- quired his interest therein, and which had been established at such time by this division or local ordinance enacted pursuant thereto. Upon making such a determination and establishing such conditions_ the city or county shall cause a conditional certificate of compliance to be filed for record with the recorder of the county in which the real property is located. Such certificate shall serve as notice to the property owner or vendee who has applied for the certificate pur- suant to this section, a grantee of the property owner, or any subse- quent transferee or assignee of the property that the fulfillment and implementation of such conditions shall be required prior to subse- quent issuance of a permit or other ,grant of approval for develop- ment of the property. r CDUNTY OF SAN LUIS 061SP0 PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPLICATION Ftp CERTIFICATE(S) OF COMPLIANCE Return to Courthouse Annex, Room 102, San Luis Obispo CA 93401 (805) 543-15:0 OWNERS: NA E ADDRESS ' PHONE C�YLoN H. E>mN ,1gFr! J 152-24 (ASGAD/R� W ) A`( MARSo2NE gj•�QAI►JARD, ALDCQWcaD AIAM6P-,0 H•98O3L NL)513Ao1D WIFE AS 78�NZ-�+-�R►33 ( eLD -745--2410 List ownership as shown on a current title report or the =resent ceed(s) . PROPERTY: [ASSESSOR'S ,L DESCRIPTION: LotPRC% /8 Block /S Tract ATA5c1DE�°a PAR= JIU�ERS: SN - 111— 361 CST ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 7IpAN%A Lor-Is RoFlD, kmscADERo 130oK 171ATION OF TFE PROPERTY: !/ALtFY Deed Paces Book - PAGE 99S a'a,-ay le) vide supplementary pages and maps if necessa to clearly indicate ouz3- es of the recuest. REQUEST: I hereby request -rW Q Certificate(s) of Compliance on the above =escri ed property for the foliowiay reason: DE 12E To SELL i4c H of `?-}f E TW o SEPA2A i E- PA2C E L S 7c DIFEJ'V'EWT PeoPL� I believe that I have a legal lot(s) for the following reasons: EACH of 7--fE PA;cFZ 5 WAS LFI ALL`/ pEE•DE-D `la QwLaEl2s PQIo�2 To /9�0 Please s::�it copies of all supporting deeds,-maps, contracts that appear to justify your request. VERIFICATION: F:-, h,ave read and understand this application and I certify (or declare) under lty o: perjury t he foregoing statements are correct. corrct. ( j�) ApDlicar_tt, 6 Owner ( ) Anolica ( ) agent for applicant Date Approval of this application will not grant any. right cr ?r_v_lece to use any building or land contrary to :e provisions of law. All ordinances ;overni:.= the use of this land shall be complied with, whet`ser_specified herein cr not. -_ '_52 CNLY :.A2 \'L';•SER; ��-'U - '� � ZONING: 'A-Z ITc7: — -Lr ?iv'`LER: s RECORDING REQUESTED BY SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY WHEN RECORDED, RETURN T0: Planning Director Room 102, Courthouse Annex San Luis Obispo, California 93401 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE The following real property and the division thereof into One1 parcels as of the date of recordation of this document, has een eterm ned to be in compliance with applicable provisions of the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California and Local Ordinances enacted pursuant thereto. Said Real Property being described as: A portion of Lots 17 and 18 in Block 15 according to the recorded Map of Atascadero Colony described as follows: Beginning at a point on the center line of Santa Lucia Road, said point being common to Lots 17 and 18 in Block 15 and is also the Northwest corner of Lot 17, Block 15; thence running along the center line of Santa Lucia Road, in an. Easterly direction on a curve to the left having a central angle of l° 05' 37" with a radius of 1432.5 feet for a distance of 27.35 feet; thence South 25° 39' West 194.72 feet to a point; said point being the true point of beginning; thence South 68° 26' East 119.47 feet to a point; thence South 25° 391 West 150 feet to a point; thence North 68° 26' West for an approximate distance of 119 feet to a point on a line running North 250 39' East; thence North 25° 39' East 150 feet to the true point of beginning. Owner: CEYLON, H. BRAINARD and MARJORIE B. BRAINARD, husband and wife as joint tenants. NED A, ROGOWAY; Planning Director By: Larry J. Re , Supervisor Subdivision Review Section STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) On 19 before COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO) S5' me, the undersigned, a Notary'Public in and for the State, personally appeased Larry J. Red known to me to be the person whose name is sub- scribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same. (SEAL) NOTARY PUBLIC RECORDING REQUESTED BY SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY WHEN RECORDED, RETURN TO: Planning Director Room 102, Courthouse Annex San Luis Obispo, California 93401 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE The following real property and the division thereof into One (1) parcels as of the date of recordation of this document, has been determined to be in compliance with applicable provisions of the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California and Local Ordinances enacted pursuant thereto. Said Real Property being described as: Those portions of Lots 17 and 18, Block 15 of Amended Map of Atascadero Colony, County of San Luis Obispo, state of California, as per map recorded July 6, 1915, in Book 3, Page 14A of Maps in the Office of the County Recorder of said County, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the center line of Santa Lucia Road, said point being common to Lots 17 and 18, Block 15 and is also the Northwest corner of Lot 17, Block 15; thence running along said center line of Santa Lucia Road in an Easterly direction on a curve to the left having a central angle of 1° 05' 37" with a radius of 1432.5 feet and for a length of 27.35 feet to the true point of beginning of this description; thence continuing along said center line of Santa Lucia Road on a curve to the left having a central angle of 4° 48' with a radius of 1432.5 feet and for a length of 120.00 feet to a point; thence South 250 39' West, 200.00 feet to a point; thence North 68° 26' West, 119.47 feet to a point; thence North 25 30' East, 194.72 feet to the true point of beginning. Owner: CEYLON H. BRAINARD and MARJORIE B. BRAINARD, husband and wife, as joint tenants. NED A, ROGOWAY, Planning Director By: Larry J. Red, Supervisor Subdivision Review Section STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) on 19 before COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO) ss, me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State, personally appeared Larry J. Red known to me to be the person whose name is sub- scribed to the within instrumentand acknowledged to me that he executed the same. (SEAL) NOTARY PUBLIC Co 811 1 a e .• o ��> �� '__�� Q ��' ,�•,��1�I,�ul�;�y�'���/I,���.oy -cif:��°T.`\/��'� i �� � � _ ® � sir '�`�����jW�t•�^v�A.�,eys\ ` .yi r 11\ V ��C' � �,,.�'` AJC� �'�G �i,r/�' ��•�j'�o:,�� 021 ® �`® � �� o�O nyO`,`2�O o`•'r'•` ��� /ova;��e.`�v ©N=t I"- .�� � � .moi /• % , �O: �. �� . O p c EVA opt, �,. 0 ®���`o'����Op�•o�,;'��*moo%���• 000� � � r 0c oo a fit, �s�� d•:. a.�..: O row+ �. � 4Po � O ®®gyp� S �•_ .���c o0�'-�;;- ,p,J "��a;� �;;•.,O r^� � - a ,-'77 � r J• 1 A0� �� � i�1��`•_��O ������® ����5 J1�r a Vj C�!` V i�u_�o�� �`a� �J0�7��/�., O® MQ`'`M�lt!`�)� - �O�n\rer^off -��[/��y� ����,'•':�J '� � a, _ n • / 'ter Q,v©a�VA .: r r ♦ T Y r- 14-1 R0 A QB I � c f?()A � r Q �C u� �a p ,tq N g o gs ti O o 0% 29 g 3 m A23 � n O 3.51op£N 2 - ---- M_6£.SZ_S — ar�iVLb ; old Nq�\�,S? P oo L �p osy 1� I 14< M 1' a�NO v � N ,•.,6F. 96.96 N 010 h 61 r _ L•r.ss.sa.s ._"J � O N 51 N__� ip Z U C1 a o N p a p; 0 g Alpo O � � M�t Q rn ti to fn 'D Q it Q 3 N 3 gZZN Ofilld Z919z oil a E Na Q ti Qi N 3 N rj A. o ml •do 7+£L z � 0 U -------------- - --- -- - - --- 't N a N pl'I£ ..J Nq h 30£0ZZN O c 09 £9 v a Rnnio - N � COUNTY SH 0 LUIS 0UIV1 0 000Rig I DEPARTMENT ROOM A101 + COURTHOUSE ANNEX . SAN LUIS OBISPO + CALIFORNIA \ / 93408 + (805) 549-5252 GEORGE C. PROTOPAPAS ROADS County Engineer (�C( c ([�"' OCT (� TRANSPORTATION CLINTON MILNE IRECEIVIED. CE 1 8 077 FLOOD CONTROL WATER CONSERVATION DEPUTY COUNTY ENGINEER i SURVEYOR GUY PREWITT J SPECIAL DISTRICTS ADMINISTRATOR - SPECIAL DISTRICTS October 15 , 1979 City of Atascadero Veterans Memorial Building, Room 106 P. 0. Box 747 Atascadero, CA 93422 Attention Mr. Murray Warden, City Administrator Subject: Acceptance of Parcel Map AT 78-209 Gentlemen: Your consideration of the approval of Parcel Map AT 78-209, a proposed subdivision by Edward and Barbara L. Worthan, is requested. It is our RECOMMENDATION that your Honorable Council approve and authorize the Clerk to sign the map. Discussion: A finding of consistency with the General Plan in accordance with Section 66473 . 5 of the Subdivision Map Act was made by the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Luis Obispo on March 19, 1979 . Attached are the C. C. & R. ' s for subject map and are to be recorded concurrently with said Parcel Map. The total area of this development is 3. 65 acres with minimum lot areas of 0 . 50 acres. The area is zoned C-1-D. Water service will be from Atascadero Mutual Water Company; sewage facilities will be maintained by Atascadero Community Sewer District. R spectfully, GE RGE C. kOT60� A County Engineer GCP/JRE/alb t RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: DECLARATION OF COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS OF ADOBE PLAZA This Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions of Adobe Plaza is made by EDWARD E. WORTHAN and BARBARA L. WORTHAN, hereinafter referred to as "Declarant" to effect that certain_ real property described below. Declarant is the owner of certain real property designated Adobe Plaza in the County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, which is comprised of three distinct parcels of land more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof. Declarant intends to develop the described property and provide for covenants and restrictions insuring common use of established landscaped areas, parking areas and ingress and egress lanes, and the continued maintenance thereof. Declarant hereby declares that the following covenants and restrictions are intended to be covenants running with the land affected, being the three parcels of Adobe Plaza described in Exhibit A. The covenants are for the benefit of each parcel and apply to the grantees of each parcel and the heirs, successors and assigns of each such grantee. The covenants are intended to be and shall be taken as conditions of each conveyance and one of the express considerations thereof as follows: 1. Subsequent owners of said parcels, their authorized -1- t representatives, invitees, tenants and sub-tenants and their invitees shall have the same rights with respect to the landscaping, parking and driveway areas of each and every other parcel, including the contiguous common area, as the owner of any individual parcel has therein, further including a mutual reciprocal right of ingress and egress for pedestrians and vehicles and mutual reciprocal nonexclusive right of use of driveway and parking areas for customer only parking and excluding employee parking. Employee.and employer parking shall occur only on the parcel of the employer. 2. The owner of each parcel shall be bound to main in good condition that portion of these common areas of gress, egress, parking and landscaping which is within his own parcel. Should the owner of any parcel fail in this duty, any other parcel owner may provide the defaulting owner with written notice that the common area, or a portion thereof, is in need of repair and/or maintenance. If the defaulting owner fails to commence said maintenance and repair within thirty (30) days of his receipt of said notice and diligently pursue the completion of said maintenance and repair, the notifying owner may, at his option, proceed to repair and/or maintain said areas or a portion thereof and the defaulting owner is thereby bound to promptly reimburse that owner for said expenses in full. 3. If any action at law or in equity be brought to enforce any of the provisions herein then the party prevailing in such action shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, in addition to any of the relief therein. 4. The Grantor, or an owner of any parcel, shall have the right to enforce, by any proceeding at law or in equity, all restrictions and covenants now imposed by the provisions of this declaration. Failure by the Grantor or any owner enforce any covenant or restriction herein contained sh no event be deemed a waiver of the right to do so thereaft -2- v 5. These covenants may be anded at any time by unanimous written agreement of the legal owerns of record of Parcels 1, 2, and 3 described on Exhibit Al provided, however, that modifications of these covenants and restrictions shall not be effective unless and until approved in writing by the City of Atascadero. DWARD E. WORTHAN 9ARBARA L. WORTHAN STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ) On this /9 day of NSj6Z, 1979, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said County and State, personally appeared EDWARD E. WORTHAN and BARBARA L. WORTHAN, known to me to be the persons whose names are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that they executed the same. WITNESS my hand and official seal. cxnAi � MICH L T. LeSAGE Notary Public in and for said ". County and State. ,,H1\- . J..41 NsbAq -3- lac-V >Fl) IN /OS OfF/C/�9L /PEC ANO /03 P.gGE //6 O.� OFf/C/�9L �E�c2F fl,vo /,v X!600/C /Q8� PAGE 22/ OF' OFA/C/�L iC'E�O�PGZS. 6. 141V E� /vEivT Fn/e Gc%TF,� Pi�E.C/NE �Nv 7� �N �,4SEi`7ENT foe GAS �f E�/NLS r9NO �NC/-- c��vrq� Z?� A,v E,s►sE�F�vr Fcye ff s 14 h � — o ,L W � T z � A \ a a i 3 RZ, y � h /c'iNiTY /�lr9F� Ar JQ v- VA /7i 76 -- -6-N93 E .234.//'.P-.Z N 9/'39%�E•23Cs.9�4�/`� rv4/°so E z�07 add � GV ^1� ���s:Y7E •1�9?N 7t7 3 • O' RAa M N• • ' iY�d' E,r2yjSi!' y ,Q3 O E e n r c•+ C ��\Mo1ll� c T .. � Q. . D Gi 014 0 0 �� 0 _ tor c/n.E: [or 3•.� 0 ti � � 'f�'aricus•es�cr`''"svr _ _ab /67 aS:A4, COUNTY ENGINEERING SRO LUIIIS OURIS1pO COVI) HTY DEPARTMENT ROOM A101 + COURTHOUSE ANNEX + SAN LUIS OBISPO r CALIFORNIA �� 93408 + (805) 549-5252 GEORGE C. PROTOPAPAS ROADS County Engineer TRANSPORTATION FLOOD CONTROL CLINTON MILNE WATER CONSERVATION DEPUTY COUNTY ENGINEER SURVEYOR GUY PREWITT SPECIAL DISTRICTS SPECIAL DISTRICTS ADMINISTRATOR October 31, 1979 City of Atascadero Veterans Memorial Building, Room 106 P. 0. Box 747 Atascadero, CA 93422 Attention Mr. Murray Warden, City Administrator Subject: Acceptance of Parcel Map AT 78-145 Gentlemen: Your consideration of the approval of Parcel Map AT 78-145, a proposed subdivision by R. Nelson, is requested. It is our RECOMMENDATION that your Honorable Council act upon the attached reso- lution, and authorize the Clerk to sign the map. Discussion: A finding of consistency with the General Plan in accordance with Section 66473 . 5 of the Subdivision Map Act was made by the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Luis Obispo on November 20, 1978 . Attached is a vicinity map and layout of Parcel Map AT 78-145 . The total area of this development is 2 .3 acres with minimum lot areas of 1 . 0 acres . The area is zoned R-A. The road will be maintained by the City of Atascadero; water service will be from Atascadero Mutual Water Company; sewage facilities will be maintained by the City of Atascadero. Respectfully, GEO�GE C. PROTOPAPAS County Engineer GCP/CFC/alb Attachment f RESOLUTION NO. 17-79 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING A FIVE FOOT WIDENING OF A CERTAIN ROAD INTO THE CITY ROAD SYSTEM CITY ROAD NO. 4023 The following resolution is hereby offered and read: WHEREAS, the City- of Atascadero, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, has been duly requested to accept a certain offer to dedicate for additional widening of a road presently in the maintained system in said City; and WHEREAS, the County Engineer by letter dated October 31, 1979, has duly recommended that the City Council: Accept the offer of dedication for public use of five feet (5 ' ) as shown on Parcel Map AT 78-145 . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AND ORDERED by the City Council of the City of Atascadero: 1 . That the offer to dedicate for the five foot widening of City Road No. 4023 as shown on Parcel Map AT 78-145 is hereby accepted into and made a part of the City Road System, to be maintained in kind, and shall and does constitute a public highway in the City of Atascadero. 2 . That the City Clerk be and hereby is authorized And directed to record a copy of the resolution in the Office of the County Recorder of the County of San Luis Obispo. Upon motion of Councilman seconded by Councilman and on the following roll call vote to-wit: AYES : NOES : ABSENT: ABSTAINING: the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted. ATTEST: Mayor of the City of Atascadero Clerk of the City of Atascadero Co. Eng./CFC/alb hh rl Coo ICI � h 0 i✓SS' O/z h!�L zL� a'�J,929i/ �JZ6L0' L.;ZL ZSZ BJ�S� j sz 107- 4 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY FORM B2-1 Part 1 COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBIPSO ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION and NOTICE OF DETERMINATION Project Number F�) 79 /y Date Sept. 7, 1979 Project Title/Description Gr-JFre-)( /6,,I,cr-rie7_a Review (R79oin2 a) , AJJ�t, bl� 4 RPowrt,meV-,t u, A:, to a,, e-Y."St�^3 �/ u���' o�artmert eovnalex Project Location/Address/Legal Description 5Y(.41 Ta'�'Nc � A�a s_ -A Rloc� D-A,_At. ,.d,.,ro Tro,ct App 29- o(�o '2'- 14 Property Size rex 1 acrd Primary Entitlement:��t Rev. R79U122 :2 Supy. District 1 RECOMMENDATION THE ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATOR RECOMMENDS THAT THE A►escadcro<<}, C -\k TAKE THE FOLLOWING ACTION: 0 FIND114G NO. 1: NEGATIVE DECLARATION \\ Atascadero Citv Council after examination of the preliminary environmental des- cription of this project and review of the Environmental Coordinator's recommendation and the attached statement of reasons supporting this finding, finds that this pro- ject will not have a significant effect of the environment and that this Board issue its Negative Declaration. OFINDING NO. 2: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Atascadero Citv Council after examination of the preliminary environmental des- cription of this project and review of the Environmental Coordinator's recommendation and the attached statement of reasons supporting this finding, finds that this pro- ject may have a significant effect on the environment and requires the submission of an environmental impact report prepared in accordance with the Environmental Impact Report Guidelines. 0 FINDING NO. 3: FOCUSED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Atascadero City Council after examination of the preliminary environmental des- cription of this project and review of the Environmental Coordinator's recommendation and the attached statement of reasons supporting this finding, finds that this pro- may have a significant effect on the environment and requires the submission of a focused environmental impact report prepared in accordance with the Environmental Impact Report Guidelines and including the topics as listed in the attached Staff OReport prepared by the Office of Environmental Coordinator, y. FINDING NO. 4: CONDITIONAL NEGATI`!E DECLIRATION Atatradern City Cn„ncil after examination of the preliminary environmental des- cription of this project and review c` the Environmental �oerdinator's recommendation and the a:.tached statement of reasons supzportinc tris ,incing, finds t.^.at this pro- Ject will not have a significant effect on _he envir;rrent and that this Board issue its Negative Declaration subject to the conditions contained in the Environmental Coordinator's staff report. ACTION BY ATASCADEP.O CITY COUNCIL On _ the Atascadero City Council took the followinq action on the above referenced Proiect Adopted the Environmental Coordinator's Recommendation No. _ as stated above. Adopted finding No. as stated above based on the following: REVISED 7/79 -1- FORM B2-1 Part 2 COUNTY OF SAN LUIS.OBISPO INITIAL STUDY - ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Project Number F X79- /`/ (R7901a�' �} Date S�ptelcc. I�, ! 97 9 Yes Maybe No* POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT POLLUTION ( ) ( ) ( Water pollution (ground or surface) ( ) ( ) (K) Air pollution, including odors ( ) Soil erosion and sedimentation ( ) ( ) (`e) Noise Other POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT LOSS OF RESOURCES ( ) ( ) (K) Wildlife habitat Vegetation O ( ) (x) Mineral resources ( ) ( ) (x) Agricultural land Other POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON CULTURAL RESOURCES ( ) ( ) O Historical or archaeological sites ( ) ( ) O Loss of scenic values ( ) ( ) (x Other significant adverse effect on human beings ( ) ( ) ( Overload or major impact on community services (fire ( ), police ( ), schools ( ), other ( ) ). POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON PHYSICAL FEATURES Contribution to traffic congestion ( ), or traffic circulation concerns ( ) ( ) (K) Limited or unsafe access Overload or major impact on community facilities (sewer ( ), water supply ( ), solid waste disposal( ) other ( ) ( ) (X) Major topographic alteration SENSITIVE LOCATION ( ) ( ) A State area of critical ecologic concern ( ) ( ) (k.) Scenic and sensitive land (Open Space Plan) ( ) ( ) R9 Endangered species habitat ( ) (y) ( ) Area Subject to seismic faulting or other geologic instability (sliding (�-), soil expansion( ) , other ( ) ( ) ( ( ) Area subject to drainage problems, flooding or inundation (?C) ( ) ( ) Area subject to high fire hazard: Rating !-, c haro�� MISCELLANEOUS SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ( ) ( ) (K) Potential for beginning a new land use trend ( ) ( ) (rC) Significant due to cumulative impact ( ) ( ) (off) Growth inducing impact answer indicates that there is sufficient documented evidence to indicate sub- stantial environmental impact in this category. A "maybe" answer indicates that there appears to be substantial environmental impact and req a further investigation in this category. A "no" answer indicates that there is sufficient evidence either documented or obvious, tha7there will be no environmental impact in this category. Yes and maybe answers to the above environmental concerns are explained in the attached sheet, together with other information as needed to assist the Board with their determination. -2- REVISED 7/79 I e•x ;,.>" 41 4� Are y • ind°q�< p< \� ' P tO\ .fes $r,� w.,°o,b A•enve a e Co/`fry �:✓ ¢ ;41 ee D4. .d—Ga a.mu AAMOAY- ^o" e�P •?''^. 4 P.—W, 1124WA- - MOIIIAI.HUII.XING ` p^ Ave 6 Ilu P< e'd " ' 1 Avenue 5,ntu t< / Se° n Ore a `pa"o Ad A r. r, v� P � Avenue :. O• P e e CTI s L1 P P` O '' cry".^ n,,"o° AIASI API kO 41 101 F a 4°pO ff PaRI: �t ' � \ ` 9'°'�G tet•. r P<`> ` .. I� Poetola E A "•r; Q,• Cbb.;er � ° J �<< ape � ' `? JE 9 ;�.. `A.,. sof '�`; ° ser• G°P",a 4 r' ' <ac \� Adlbk low 27J' 212 21/ � / 3g • �q • -� R46 \6 z/ 37 J Q P429 210 10 2 209 20 -�• 1� 17 7 16 to e 206 22 IB I1 1 rs, i 23 4 -' io, ,BQ• P / // 20 to 4 221 21 S 6 .13 Bq ?' 4 17 16 15 S / 2g /p /? 4 IS f g 1D '�I 12 i�y •� BO dle • 15 L 6 R7e t 192 hp .�\s/ 2g 0 ' 6 . i6 IS le 13 .g co 1 e7 • 17 � 193 a 30 !!B v`R I LB- �, ca 19 a 10 194 31 T 161 20 9 SI 52 Jae >! 32 6 16 S 21 \9= 176 22 ce: s•+ 33 6 rc \9 173 34 4- �II -J- ) 24 za 3oe ea ra eI r k B 4 eo 7 So•C 19 ; r L• �OS 25 - z1 - 36 •• 196 174 36 2 �rq\ 26 19 r20 28 34173 -37 ( 27 Jg J 35 15 172 3E '42 /0 27•A 17 g y `� < f• r'. 4O 1411 /? J oe + !, rp _ Tic \� 39 q ! 9 �•. � �� pJ e P 5 / 13 @ r PerA 2u S.q rrrr \ Sl O 146 rte` / e 1 •tiJ P 861 4 r 15 6•4 o a g ,,4 it • 6 Jg ` 44:k r 16 I • 7 Jg41 at 17 4u 10 Is 1 A g J JJ �S 9 ?2. f �soc 19 2 LA 43 Y, J ky —T 4 4 30 e,) t i 12 a5 29 zz ff 23 24 14 a7 2g /fir ON- T� / �,�,,,� I I - SOS// 1\12 12 I :({'SG�•�f�S 1 A?. n I k\ T �. s fc ,A^ .4 � r— •� i�� \� � Cie 4 /Fv 'n. -+ �Y ,77 � 1 r,P.fx,.ic kiAy J FORM B2-1 Part 3 COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO STAFF REPORT Project Number ED79-14 Date September 7, 1979 Project Title Godfrey/Gutierriez Departmental Review (R790122:2) THE FOLLOWING STAFF REPORT WAS PREPARED BY THE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL COORDI- NATOR AND INCLUDES BASIS OF DECISIONS FOR YES AND MAYBE RESPONSES ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST (Form B2-1, Part 2). PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting a Departmental Review to build an addition 4 units• to an existing apartment complex. The site presently contains 4 units with two bedrooms within each unit. The site is located at 5464 Traffic Way within the City of Atascadero. The existing and proposed units will be located on a site that is approximately one acre in size. The 4 additional units will occupy the rear portion of the site and will be situated on approximately 1/3 of an acre.. The site is zoned R-2-B-2-D, Multiple Family Residential. STATEMENT OF FINDINGS: The property is characterized by a gently sloping terrain with an approximately 24" slope in the street frontage portion.of the property reaching an approximate 109, slope towards the rear portion of the lot. The vegetation on the project site consists of annual grasses and a white oak tree. The site does not consti- tute a unique wildlife habitat and does not appear to be subject to flooding conditions. The project will require moderate to extensive grading for building site preparation. Information from the County Seismic Safety Element indicates that the site may be subject to a moderately high landslide risk. In addition, Soil Conservation Service data indicates that the,property may be subject to high erosion potential. The additional units are proposed to be served by the Atascadero Mutual Water Company and community sewers. In accordance with normal County procedures, the Health Department will require evidence that the sewage and water systems will serve the additional 4 units. The San Luis Obispo County Fire Hazards Map indicates that the site may be subject to high fire hazard; however, it should be noted that the project site is within a seven-minute response time by the local fire protection agency. Surrounding property consists of single family residences intermixed with some multiple family residences. Parcel sizes range from 1/3 - 1'Z acres. The San Luis Obispo County Planning Department has noted that according to the Atascadero Area General Plan the site is crossed by a zoning designation boundary. The rear 2/3 of the property is designated as a moderate density single family residential area. The front 1/3 of the property is designated as a high density multiple family residential area. S.L.O. County Planning Department estimates the project would require an additional 2,000 square feet of lot area to build the number of units specified in the site plans. This is a matter that will be, addressed in the Departmental Review Process. COORDINATOR'S RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Honorable members of the City Council issue a Condi- . tional Negative Declaration conditioned on the completion of grading, drainage and erosion control plans to be approved by the County Engineering Department prior to the issuance of building permits. REVISED 7/79 -3- Project Number: ED79-14 Project Title: Godfrey/Gutierriez Departmental Review (R790122:2) September 7, 1979 �( APPLICANTS: Ronald Godfrey 5180 Alamo Street Atascadero, CA. 93422 Juan Gutierriez ; ) 2170 San Fernando Rd. Atascadero, CA. 93422 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: San Luis Obispo County Office of Environmental Coordinator Dan Vossler, Environmental Coordinator Vince Morici, Environmental Specialist -4- I _M_E-M_O_R:_A_N D U M_ TO: City Council FROM: City Manager SUBJECT: Police Chief applicants As you know, the screening committee has completed its review of the Police Chief resumes. Eighteen candidates were selected for interview by the entire Council. As of this date, sixteen have responded agreeing to appear for interview. Please be considering a date which would be acceptable for meeting to interview the finalists. I would suggest Saturday, the 1st, 8th, or 15th of December. It will be necessary for you to set a date at this meeting. You should be aware that in the event all eighteen respond, we may have a rather long day extending into the evening or, alternatively, we could schedule for half the following day. This should be an option for you to consider. We would have to notify the applicant' s accordingly. R L. WARDEN MLW:ad 11-9-79 It seems to me we are having an excessive number pf holidays. If l was on the receiving end of these holidays I am sure would be in favor of thea but since I get no9aid iolidays or vacation, I view these with alarm' } J M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council FROM: City Manager SUBJECT: City Holidays Unfortunately, I have been unable to complete a draft of a proposed personnel ordinance and implementing resolution although both are being worked on, so official City holiday periods have not been established. We have, however, adopted the County ordinances which specify certain holidays. Among them is Thanksgiving Day and the day immediately after, November 22 and 23. Since the City Council has adopted the County ordinances, I assume that the Thanksgiving holiday period will be observed. Another aspect of the holiday situation is that Monday, December 24th is a regular City Council. meeting day and also Christmas Eve. You should decide as to whether the Council' s meeting will be on Wednesday, December 26th or whether you wish to have only one meeting that month. The reason the decision needs to be made now, is so that we can have sufficient time to schedule public hearings and advertise the hearing date, if there are such matters that need to come before Council. UR L. WARD MLW:ad 11-9-79 r C3 ORDINANCE NO. 11 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO RELATING TO THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO ORDAINS as follows Section 1. Creation. The Office of the City Attorney is hereby established. It shall consist of the City Attorney and such assistants as may be authorized by the Council. The City Attorney shall administer the office and be responsible for the successful performance of its functions. He shall serve under the direct supervision and control of the Council as its legal advisor. The Council may retain or employ other attorneys, assistants, or special counsel as may be needed to take charge of any litigation or legal matters or to assist the City Attorney therein. Section 2 . Functions. The functions of the Office of the City Attorney shall be to: (a) Advise the Council and all City officers in all matters of law pertaining to their offices; (b) Furnish legal service at all meetings of the Council, except when excused or disabled, and give advice or opinions on the legality of all matters under consideration by the Council or by any of the boards and commissions or officers of the City; (c) Prepare and/or approve all ordinances , resolutions, agreements, contracts, and other legal instruments as shall be required for the proper conduct of the business of the City and approve the form of all contracts and agreements and bonds given to the City; (d) Prosecute on behalf of the people misdemeanor cases for violation of City ordinances when so directed to perform this function by resolution of the Council; and (e) Perform such other legal duties as may be required by the Council or as may be necessary to complete the performance of the foregoing functions. Section 3. Superseding previous ordinance. The provisions of this ordinance are intended to supersede any provision of Ordinance No. 2 which is in conflict therewith. Ordinance No. 11 Page Two Section 4. Publication.. The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published once within fifteen (15) days after its passage in the Atascadero News, a newspaper of general ciruclation, printed, published and circu- lated in the City in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code; shall certify the adoption and posting of this ordinance and shall cause this ordinance and his certification together with proof of posting to be entered into the Book of Ordinances of this City. Section 5. Effective Date. This ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and effect at 12 : 01 a.m. on the 31st day after its passage. The foregoing ordinance was adopted at a regular meeting of the Council held on November 14, 1979. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ROBERT J. WILKINS, JR. , Mayor ATTEST: MURRAY L. WARDEN, City Clerk M E M O R A N D U . M TO: City Council FROM: City Manager SUBJECT: Property tax revenue negotiations Attached is a letter from the County concerning the method for assuring distribution of property tax revenues. The process requires ne(Totiations between the City and County for property tax revenues accruing after July 1, 1980 , upon dissolution of the Fire and Sanitation Districts. The attached letter and resolution provide the details of this process. In order to get the process underway, it is necessary for the Council, by motion, to appoint 'a person or persons to negotiate the matter with the County. It is my suggestion that the Council appoint the City Attorney and City Manager to undertake this process, at least during the initial stages, knowing that no decisions can be made without the approval of the Council as a whole. 4WAR"D-EN RAY MLW:ad 11-7-79 i83fl � Count of San Luis Obispo 4 `� Y P (:Milt HIOUSI. ANNEX I SAN Luis OiIISPO,CALIFORNIA 93408 + 805543-1550, Ex-r. 201 s October 29, 1979 OFFICE 01 Fill! COUNTY/ADMINISTRATOR Honorable Council City of Atascadero i'. 0. Box 747 Atascadero, CA. 93422 Att'n: Murray Warden, City Manager ^ear "r. ,Darden: Assembly Bills 8 and 1019, the clean up legislation for Proposition 13, require actions by your Honorable Body, the County Auditor, Local Agency Formation Commission and the, Board of Supervisors. Briefly, these actions involve a determination on the amount of property tax revenue to be transferred for a territory being annexed to a city (or to a special district) . Also, in cases where special districts are formed or cities are incorporated a similar determination must be made. When proposals involve jurisdictional changes (annexations or detachments) to or from cities, your body and the Board of Supervisors must negotiate the amount to be transferred. When proposals for jurisdictional changes involve special districts , either dependent or independent, the Board of Supervisors alone makes the determination on the amount to be transferred. During the negotiation period, all revenue from the annual tax increment attributable to the tax rate area (or areas) within the terri- tory being exchanged and which has not yet been distributed to the affected agency(s) for the fiscal year(s) in which the negotiations take plane must be impounded by the Auditor, At close of negotiations, resolutions setting forth the amount to be transferred will be adopted and sent to the Auditor and LAFCo. The Auditor will then release impounded funds , but will not transfer any funds until the LAFCo Officer has completed the required recordation and State filings for the jurisdictional change and furnished the Auditor with a copy of the documents, Page Two Ocl:ober 29, 1979 While the -law does not specify a time limit for completion of negotiations, delays will not only affect LAFCo' s and government agencies ' procedural times and affect the filing date for placement on the tax roll , but could also cause costly problems for involved landowners and developers. Under the law all jurisdictional changes effective between January 1 , 1978 and July 14, 1979, must be retroactively negotiated under Section 99, subsections (d) and (e) of AB 8. Also, several later ones up to our cut-off date must be negotiated. Furthermore, pursuant to this law, any agency which has not filed a map of its boundaries by January 1 (of a given year) shall not receive any allocation for the following fiscal year. In order to meet this deadline, negotiations must be completed by December 3, 1979, for those attached here. Obviously, we have a number of jurisdictional changes which must be acted upon as soon as possible. Because of LAFCo' s involvement, we have revised our procedures to comply with AB 8 and have prepared forms with which to initiate negotiations. A copy of the new procedures is attached for your information. Also attached are copies of "Notice to Commence Negotiations" for those jurisdictional changes which affect your City. An amendment to the law allows negotiations to be completed without an actual "meeting" between a city and the County. However, it is necessary that both city and County governing bodies determine how they wish to approach the process, i .e. , appoint a negotiator or use a formula , and if so develop one. In any case, agreement between the County and cities as to what method is to be used will be necessary. Presently, we are completing several pending proposals and follow- ing these all others will fall under the new procedural actions. For those to fall under new procedures, we will initiate negotiations immedi- ately so as not to delay them. Copies of "Notice to Commence Negotiations" on these are also included herein. If we can be of any assistance, please contact us. Sincerely, DONALD D. STILWELL Executive Officer Local Agency Formation Commission By: BARBARA W. CARLSON Deputy Executive Officer Jr Enclosures ECF1VE0 00=V1 197 Dov t County of San Luis Obispo COURTHOUSs ANNEX + SAN LUIS OBISPO,CALIFORNIA 93408 805-543-1550,ExT. 201 OI+FICS OF THS COUNTY AmINISTRATOR October 30, 1979 Honorable Board of Supervisors County of San Luis Obispo Room A205, Courthouse Annex San Luis Obispo, CA. Gentlemen: The Califonia Legislature has decreed pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code Section 99, subsection (e) of AB 1019, that an amount of property tax revenue base is to be transferred to the City of Atascadero. The LAFCo report had projected property tax revenue for the new city in the amount of $3:"10,000. The County Auditor has, using the formula provided by Section 99(e), determined the amount of property tax revenue base to be transferred as follows: Property Tax Revenue Projected in LAFCo Report (per Section 99(e) AB 1019) . . . . . .. . . ..$300,000 2/3 of $300,000 - $200,000 `200.000 X 134,728,084 F.Y. 1978-79 Revenue . $111 ,867 6 s /`7-78 Revenue) Furthermore, the two large special districts, the Atascadero Fire Protection and Atascadero County Sanitation Districts, will not be dissolved until June 30,1980,. and your Honorable Board and the City Council must negotiate to determine the amount of property tax revenue to be transferred for these two districts, pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code Section 99(b). Such negotiation should commence as soon as possible in order that a determination of the amount to be transferred will be rade well in advance of the June 30, 1980, deadline. Honorable Board of Supervisors Page Two October 30, 1979 You will very shortly be determining a method for negotiating property tax transfer for all jurisdictional changes. As soon as this method has been established, negotiations on the amounts to be trans- ferred for these two Atascadero districts should be commenced. Meanwhile, a resolution, determining that $111 ,867 is the amount of property tax revenue base to be transferred at this time to the new City, is attached hereto and we recommend its adoption by your Honorable Board. Respectfully submitted, DONALD D. STILWELL Executive Officer Local Agency Formation Commission By: BARBARA W. CARLSON Deputy Executive Officer Jr Attachment cc: Atascadero City Council County Auditor-Controller IN THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO,STATE OF CALIFORNIA -------day------------------------,19-- _ PRESENT:Supervisors ABSENT: RESOLUTION NO. ` I RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING AMOUNT OF PROPERTY TAX REVENUE BASE TO BE TRANSFERRED TO THE CITY OF ATASCADERO The following resolution is now offered and read: WHEREAS, the California Legislature has decreed that an amount of property tax revenue shall be transferred to the City of Atascadero which was approved by the voters and became effective during the 1978-79 fiscal year; and WHEREAS, AB 1019 amended Section 99 of the Revenue and Taxation Code to provide under subsection (e) a formula for the purpose of computing the amount of property tax revenue base to be transferred if such revenue was projected in the final Local Agency Formation Commission report; and WHEREAS, the Local Agency Formation Commission report on the proposed incorporation of Atascadero did make such a projection in the amount of $300,000; and WHEREAS, the County Auditor, using the formula provided, has determined that amount to be $111,867 as follows: Property Tax Revenue Projected in LAFCo Report (per Section 99(e) AB 1019)...........$300,000 2/3 of $300,000 = $200,000 $200,000 X $34,728,084 F.Y. 1978-79 Revenue _ $111,867 _62,08/, 66�F�! 9�-7Rev(nue) WHEREAS, the Atascadero Lighting District dissolved on July 2, 1979, upon the incorporation of the City of Atascadero; and WHEREAS, the property tax revenue base for said District is trans- ferred automatically, to the City without negotiation, as part of the computation made pursuant to said Section 99(e); and WHEREAS, the property tax revenue base to be transferred for the Atascadero Fire Protection District and Atascadero County Sanitation District will be negotiated by the Board of Supervisors and the City -of. Atascadero pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code Section 99(b). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AND ORDERED by the Board of Super- visors, of the County of San Luis Obispo; State of California, that property tax revenue base in the amount of $111,867 be transferred to the City of Atascadero; C11 34 FURTHERMORE, that the Auditor of the County of San Luis Obispo is hereby authorized and directed to transfer said base amount being the total tax revenue base of the Atascadero Lighting District together with such an additional amount of County General Fund tax revenue base as to equal said $111,867. Upon motion of Supervisor seconded by Supervisor and on the following roll call vote, to-wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAINING: the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted. Chairman of the Board of Supervisors ATTEST: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors ADMIN./LAFCo/ir -2- STATE OF CALIFORNIA, County of Sun Luis Obispo, } ss. County Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, in and for the County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, do hereby certify the foregoing to be a full, true and correct copy of an order made by the Board of Supervisors, as the same appears spread upon their minute book. WITNESS my hand and the seal of said Board of Supervisors,affixed this ----------------- day of- ------------------19----- -------------------------------------------- County Cleri: and Ex-Officio Clerk of the Board (SEAL) of Supervisors I3 - -- ---------------------------------------- Deputy Clerk. Cu.asa 70 M_E_M_O R_A_ I D_U_M_ TO: City Manager FROM: Finance Director. SUBJECT: Employee Medical Coverage Group medical coverage will be provided for our employees and their dependents by the Central Coast Cities Joint Powers Authority (JPA) . It is anticipated that this program will be in effect by January 1, 1980, however, there could be an adminis- trative delay of several months. In the interim, we can obtain a Blue Cross Group Medical Plan which will provide basic hospital expense and major medical expense very comparable to the JPA plan. This temporary coverage will provide 80% of charges under major medical expense coverage to $4 , 000 and 100% thereafter with standard exceptions. Under basic hospital expense coverage, this plan will provide 80% of semi-private room and daily services for the first 21 days and 100% of remaining days during a period of disability. Any deductible under the temporary policy can be credited to the JPA policy as .both are administered by Blue Cross. This is considered an important feature of the temporary coverage. The temporary policy will not include dental coverage which is proposed as part of the JPA plan. Maternity coverage may be included at a slight increase in fee at our choice as we will have less than 15 employees under the temporary policy. The following shows a comparison of costs: y • Memorandum - Employee Medical Coverage Page Two Temporary Policy JPA Policy Without Maternity With Maternity (Proposed) Coverage 3077 Coverage 3079 Employee $37 . 40 $38. 73 $40. 40 Two-Party 48. 41 52. 88 - Family 69 .71 74 . 28 67 . 99 Elected officials may be included in both the temporary and JPA coverage if so determined by Council. It is recommended that Council give favorable considera- tion to implementing the Blue Cross Group Plan, coverage 3077 (without Maternity), as temporary coverage pending activation of the JPA coverage. It is further recommended that City pay the employees " cost and that each employee may have deducted from their pay those costs for selected family participation. If Council elects to be included in the plan, each participating member will pay the Finance Director the determined amount on a monthly basis RALPH H. DOWELL, JR. RHD:ad 11-5-79