HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 04/28/1980 AGENDA ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL
Regular Meeting
April 28, 1980 7 :30 p.m.
Atascadero Administration Building
Call. to Order
Pledge of Allegiance
Invocation
Roll Call
Public Comment
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
All matters listed under Item A, Consent Calendar, are con-
sidered to be routine and will be enacted by one motion in the form
listed below. There will be no separate discussion of these items.
If discussion is required, that item will be removed from the Con-
sent Calendar and will be considered separately. Votemaybe by
roll call.
A. CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Minutes of the regular meeting of April 14 , 1980
(RECOMMEND APPROVAL)
2. Treasurer's Report, 3-20-80 through 4-22-80 (RECOMMEND
APPROVAL)
3. Claim of Robert L. Bartels and Emily Ware for personal
injuries (RECOMMEND DENIAL)
B. HEARINGS, APPEARANCES AND REPORTS
1. Presentation by Public Works Director regarding Adminis-
tration Building renovation
C UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Ordinance No. 21 relating to business licenses and regula-
tions second reading and adoption
D. NEW BUSINESS
1. Jaycees ' use of Atascadero Lake Park facilities for
July 4th celebration
E. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION
1. City Council
2 . City Attorney
3. City Manager
I
• v 4
MINUTES ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL
Regular Meeting ,
April 14, 1980 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 Rollin Dexter from the
Methodist Church gave the invocation.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Councilmen Highland, Mackey, Nelson, Stover and Mayor
Wilkins
ABSENT None
PUBLIC COMMENT
1. One gentleman was concerned about the possible operation
of a skating rink in the Carlton Hotel building. Mr. Warden
stated that the City is aware of it and has asked: the County to look
into the matter since the operation does not have a business license
for a skating rink.
A. CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Minutes of the regular meeting of March 2.4, 1980
(RECOMMEND APPROVAL)
2. Claim of Dorothy Robinson for injuries and damages
(RECOMMEND DENIAL)
3. Library/museum joint usage (RECOMMEND COUNTY LIBRARY LETTER
BE REFERRED TO HISTORICAL SOCIETY FOR COORDINATION)
4. Request by Historical ,Society for custodianship' of light `
fixtures, Administration Building (RECOMMEND REQUEST BE
GRANTED)
5. Request of San Luis Obispo County Symphony Association for
funds (RECOMMEND LETTER BE DEFERRED FOR CONSIDERATION
DURING BUDGET HEARINGS)
6 Request for Conditional Use Permit to allow excess signing
for a proposed 122-unit motel (Motel 6) in a CH zone , -
Young
one -Young Electric Sign Company (RECOMMEND ADOPTION OF PLANNING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION)
7. Lot Division (AT 79-239) of Parcel A of CO 77-32, -West
Atascadero, Northeast side of Los Osos Road - Marrow
(Stewart) (RECOMMEND ADOPTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOM-
MENDATION FOR DENIAL)
8. Acceptance of Parcel Map AT 77-241 - Finch (Stewart) (RECOM-
MEND ACCEPTANCE)
Mr. Warden called Council's attention to an error in the minutes
on page 6, under 2, City Attorney. The City Attorney would be out
of town from April 30 through May 2 rather than April 20 through
May 2.
MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL
Regular Meeting April 14, 1980
Page Two
Councilman Mackey requested that Items A-3 and A-4 be with-
drawn .from the Consent Calendar and considered separately.
MOTION: Councilman Highland moved for the approval of the
Consent Calendar with the exception of Items A-3
and A-4. The motion was seconded by Councilman
Stover and unanimously carried by roll call vote.
A-3 Library/museum joint usage (RECOMMEND COUNTY LIBRARY LETTER
BE REFERRED TO HISTORICAL SOCIETY FOR COORDINATION)
Councilman Mackey stated that some members of the audience
had comments regarding this matter. Mr. Highland explained that
the recommendation on this matter was for it to be referred to the
Library and Historical Society people for consideration of joint
usage. Comments were heard from Jayne Sacks, Howard Marohn and
Kent Kenney.
MOTION: Councilman Highland moved thatStaffbe directed to
set up a meeting between the Historical Society and
the County Library to explore Mr. Perkins ' proposal.
The motion was seconded by Councilman Stover and unani-
mously carried.
A-4 Request by Historical Society for custodianship of light
fixtures, Administration Building (RECOMMEND REQUEST BE GRANTED)
Kent Kenney read a letter to Mr. McPherson, Public Works Director,
regarding preservation of the sconces outside the Administration
Building. The proposal by the Historical Society was to remove the
sconces and place them in the museum for restoration and safekeeping.
MOTION Councilman Stover moved that, as soon as the City has
clearance from the County, the sconces be taken down
and turned over to the Historical Society for preserva-
tion and restoration. The motion was seconded by
Councilman Mackey and unanimously carried.
B. HEARINGS, APPEARANCES AND REPORTS
None
C. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Ordinance No. 19 regarding Council procedures — second
reading
MOTION: Councilman Highland moved that Ordinance No. 19 be
read by title only. The motion was seconded by Council-
man Nelson and unanimously carried by roll call vote.
MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL
Regular Meeting April 14, 1980
Page Three
Mayor Wilkins 'read Ordinance No. 19 by title only.
Mayor Wilkins stated that he had been challenged regarding the
legal necessity to tape or take minutes of executive meetings.
Mr. Grimes stated that it was not necessary to either tape or to
take minutes of executive meetings.
Mr. Doug Lewis was concerned about the section that states
that silence by a councilmember indicates affirmative vote. He
felt that this provision violated democratic principles. There was
discussion of the matter with the observation made that the provi-
sion was intended to assure that a Councilman voted or made a posi-
tive. statement as to abstention on any issue
MOTION: Councilman Highland moved for the adoption of Ordinance
No. 19. The motion was seconded by Councilman Mackey
and unanimously carried by roll call vote.
2. Ordinance No. 20 amending the zoning map - second reading
MOTION: Councilman Highland moved that Ordinance No. 20 be
read by title only. The motion was seconded by
Councilman Stover and unanimously carried.
Mayor Wilkins read Ordinance No. 20 by title only.
MOTION: Councilman Nelson moved for the adoption of Ordinance
No. 20. The motion was seconded by Councilman High-
land and unanimously carried by roll call .vote.
3 Amending salary classification plan
Mr. Warden explained that information received subsequent to
Council adoption of the salary classification plan indicated some
discrepancies. The proposal before Council would preserve the
salary relationships between classifications.
MOTION: Councilman Highland moved that the amendment to the
salary classification plan be adopted. The motion was
seconded by Councilman Nelson and carried on the following
roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmen Highland, Nelson, Stover and Mayor Wilkins
NOES: Councilman Mackey
4. Consideration of revisions to City Manager's employment
agreement regarding salary
Mayor Wilkins explained that adjustments had previously been
■
MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL
Regular Meeting April 14, 1980
Page Five
Mr. Warden suggested that Council put a time limit on how long
the reward would be offered; perhaps the vandals would never be
caught and he wondered about the disposition of the funds in that
case.
Councilman Highland amended his motion to include
that the reward be offered through fiscal year 1980-81.
The amendment was accepted by Councilman Nelson.
The City Attorney suggested that the Council also make a finding
that .this contribution would benefit the citizens of Atascadero.
Councilman Highland further amended the motion to
include that the allocation would be of benefit to
all of the citizens of Atascadero and a matter for
their general welfare and protection. The amendment
was accepted by Councilman Nelson and the motion carried '
on the following roll call vote:
AYES: 1, Councilmen Highland, Nelson and Stover
NOES: Councilmen Mackey and Mayor Wilkins
3. Consideration of grant request for Dial-A-Ride
Mr. Warden explained that these grant requests were for obtaining
two handicapped lift equipped buses and for a share of the purchase
of the parking lot property which will be used for turn-around and
passenger loading and parking.
MOTION: Councilman Highland moved that the City Manager be
authorized to go ahead with this project and sign the
Fund Request Assurances. The motion was seconded by
Councilman Mackey and unanimously carried by roll call
vote.
4. Consideration of Ordinance No. 21 amending the business
license ordinance - first reading ;
Mr. Warden explained that this amended the currently adopted
County business license ordinance to establish grounds for denial
of a 'business license for certain types of businesses; such as
adult book stores, adult movie theaters, arcade operations, etc.
MOTION: Councilman Highland moved that Ordinance No. 21be
read by title only. The motion was seconded by Council-
man Nelson and unanimously carried.
MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL
Regular Meeting April 14 , 1980
Page Six
Mayor Wilkins read Ordinance No. -21 by title only.
MOTION: Councilman Nelson moved that this constitute the first
reading of Ordinance No. 21. The motion was seconded
by Councilman Mackey and unanimously carried by roll
call vote.
E. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION
1. City Council
(a) Councilman Mackey stated that the Beautification
Committee along with the 4-H Club had planted two
of the flower beds on the Administration Building grounds and will
plant two more in the near future.
(b) Councilman Highland asked for a status report on
the handicapped ramp to be constructed adjacent
to the Administration Building. Mr. Warden stated that the project
was presently under construction.
(c) Mayor Wilkins thanked the people who had made Clean-
Up Week in Atascadero such a success.
2. City Attorney
(a) Mr. Grimes stated that Council was in receipt of an
amicus curiae brief in the matter of Music Plus
Four regarding the sale of drug paraphernalia to minors.
3. City Manager
(a) Mr. Warden stated that there would be a foot-race
sponsored by the Merchants Association on April 16th
beginning at 8: 30 a.m. at El Camino Real and Santa Rosa Road.
(b) Mr. Warden reminded the Council to get their regis-
tration and motel reservations in for the New Mayor
and City Councilmen'sInstitute to be held May 8-10.
(c) Mr. Warden advised that the Channel Counties Division
meeting which was to be held in Lompoc on May 2nd
has been changed to June
13
(d) Mr. Warden advised that the City Planning Department
would begin building inspection and building permit
operations during the week of April 21st.
i
MINUTES -- ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL
Regular Meeting April 14, 1980
Page Seven
The meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m.
Recorded by:
MURRAY L. WARDEN, City Clerk
By: Ardith Davis
Deputy City Clerk
v
CITY OF ATASCADERO
TREASURER'S REPORT
March 20, 1980 through April 22 , 1980
Balance as of 3/19/80 $ 8 , 375.54
r
Receivables:
Per attached deposit listing 254 ,669. 51
Payroll:
3/26 $4 , 777.02
4/9 $5,010. 83 ( 9 ,787 . 85)
Payables:
Per attached Expenditure List ( 237,895. 45)
Balance as of 4/22/80 $ 15,361. 75
Other Funds:
Petty Cash $ 39. 79
Local Agency Investment Fund,
State of California 405 ,000. 00
Time Deposit, Mid-State Bank
13. 9% interest, matures 4/25/80 100,000. 00
Time Deposit, Mid-State Bank
14. 0% interest, matures 8/20/80 100 ,000 .00
Time Deposit, Mid-State Bank
15. 875% interest, matures 9/9/80 100 ,000. 00
Total 720,401. 59
DEPOSIT LISTING
March 20, 1980 through April 22 , 1980
Date Source Amount
3/20 State Sales Tax (2/80) $ 114,913. 34
3/20 State Gas Tax (2/80) 14 ,631.60
4/1 So Cal Gas Co - Franchise 27,440.04
4/1 -CA Police Officers Assn - Refund (Dues) 30.00
4/2 P G & E - Franchise 13,568.07
4/7 SLO' Co - Revenue (3/80) 4,422.90
4/10 State - LAIF Interest (3rd Qtr) 6,805.00
4/14 State Motor Vehicle "In Lieu" (3/80) 28,891.14
4/18 State - Cigarette Tax (3/80) 3,504 .61
4/18 State Gas Tax (3/80) 12,962. 81
4/18 State - Sales Tax (3/80) 27,500. 00
Total $ 254,669. 51
EXPENDITURE LIST
March 20, 1980 through April 22 , 1980
Payrolls
3/26 Checks 1349, 1350, 1351, 1352 , 1353,
1354, 1355, 1356 $ 4 ,777. 02
4/9 Checks 1383, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003,
2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 $ 5,010. 83
Total $ 9,787 . 85
Payables-
Dated Check No. Vendor Amount
3/20 1348 Mid-State - LAIF Deposit $ 125,000 . 00
3/26 1357 Mid-State FWH 3/8 - 3/21 1,124. 50
3/26 1358 EDD SIT 2/23-3/7 , 3/8-3/21 421. 70
3/26 1359 U S Post Office - Postage 75. 00
.3/26 1360 R.J. Wilkins,Jr. - Mayors Meeting 15. 00
3/26 1361 L. McPherson LOCC Conf. 302 . 52
3/26 1362 Atascadero News - Ads 262. 43
3/26 1363 Bay Typewriter Co. Calculator 136. 74
3/26 1364 Audio-Stats - Cassettes 18 . 00
3/26 1365 Citizens for Law & Order - Dues 10 . 00
3/26 1366 B & B Blueprinting 20. 03
3/26 1367 IAPMO` - Bldg. Publication 23.50
3/26 1368 Building News, Inc. - Bldg. Publ. 39. 71
3/26 1369 Western Wood Products Assn. Publ. 20 .00
3/26 1370 U S Treasurer - Sandbags 612 . 00
3/26 1371 Arrowhead Water 23. 38
3/26 1372 Western Office Prod. Furniture 523. 68
3/26 1373 Western Office Prod. Filing Cab. 184 . 63
3/26 1374 Shirley Moore, Travel, Conf. 285. 68
3/26 1375 Leslie Cannon, Travel, Conf. 130. 24
3/26 1376 Shirley Summers, Travel, Conf. 233. 12
3/26> 1377 Robert Lilley, Travel, Conf. 74 . 58
3/26 1378 Elaine Oglesby, Travel, Conf. 100 . 54
3/26 1379 James Wentzel, Travel, Conf. 121. 83
4/3 1380 City Treasurer - Petty Cash 60. 36
4/3 1381 U S Post Office - Postage 25. 00
4/7 1382 Mid-State - LAIF Deposit 30,000. 00
4/9 1384 Atascadero News - Ads 135. 01
4/9 1385 Amer. Public Works Assn. Dues 15. 00
4/9 1386 B & B Blueprinting 123.09
4/9 1387 Coop. Personnel Services - Tests 167. 75
4/9 1388 Day-Timers - Office Calendar 19. 21 ,
4/9 1389 Fresno Bee - Ad 94 . 92
4/9 1390 A. Grimes Contract Legal Servs. 1,488. 40
4/9 1391 A. Grimes - LOCC Meeting 300. 00
4/9 1392 Jobs Available Ads 95. 70
4/9 1393 Lewis & Lewis - Abney Level 42. 93
4/9 1394 K & F Leasing - Dictaphone 105. 80
4/9 1395 L. McPherson - Mileage _ 49 . 98
4/9 1396 R. McHale Mileage 58 .32
Expenditure List
3/20 - 4/22/80
Page Two
Payables: (Continued)
Dated Check No. Vendor Amount
4/9 1397 R. McHale Lock $ 9.92
4/9 1398 Pacific Telephone 521.20
4/9 1399 Daily Press - Ads 188.8.0
4/9 1400 PG&E, Street Lights (3/80) 1,777.67
4/9 1401 Patroline, Inc. - Conf. Airfare 126. 00
4/9 1402 Patroline, Inc. Airfare Prop. 4 179.805 g�
4/9 1403 The Paper Works - Copies 399. 38
4/9 1404 Santa Maria Times - Ad 35. 14
4/9 1405 Santa Barbara News-Press - Ad 49. 20
4/9 1406 Telegram-Tribune - Ads 298. 80
4/9 1407 Super. of Documents - Fed. Catalog 20.00
4/9 1408 Western Office Prod. Furniture 327.67
4/9 1409 Western Office Prod. Supplies 317.10
4/9 .1410 Tri-Ex Tower Corp.-Tower Antenna 3,422. 00
4/9 1411 VOID ----
4/9 1412 City of SLO JPA Medical (4/80) 567.57
4/9 1413 Mid-State FWH 3/22 4/4 1.120.06
4/9 1414 Darcy Printing Co. - Computer
Vouchers & Payroll Checks 769. 86
4/11 1415 M. Warden Car Allowance (3/80) 150.00
4/15 1416 U S Post Office - Postage 75.00
4/17 1417 Mid-State - LAIF Deposit 25,`000.00
4/21 1418 Mid-State LAIF Deposit40,000.00
Total $ 237,895.45
M E-M G R A N D U M ✓
TO: City Council
FROM: City Manager
SUBJECT: Claim of Robert L. Bartels and Emily Ware
Attached is a claim by Robert L. Bartels and Emily
Ware involving the death of Cassie Bartels on December
16, 1979. At the time of the accident, the roads were
the County's responsibility. The claim has been referred
to the County as well as to our Joint Powers Authority
Claims Manager.
It is recommended that you deny the claim.
AURRA7L4. WARDEN�
MLW:ad
4-24-80
1 HER RERAS AND SPATAFORF.
Attorneys at Law
2 390 Hicruera. Street Suite C
P.O. Box 769
3 San Luis Obispo, California 93406
(805) 541-0804
4
5 Attorneys for Claimant RECEIVEO FEB Z 7 10
6
CLAIM OF )
7 )
Robert L Bartels and )
8 Emily Ware ) CLAIM FOR PERSONAL INJURIES
(Section 910 of the Government
9 Claimant, ) Code)
10 VS. )
11 City of Atascadero )
12 )
13
14 To the City Council, City of Atascadero:
15
16 You are hereby notified that Robert L. Bartels and Emily
17 -dare, whose address is 10964 Casitas, Atascadero, California,
18 claim damages from the City of Atascadero in the amount, commuted
19 as of the date of presentation of this claim, of $60 ,000.00.
20 This claim is based on the wrongful death of Cassie T. Aarte s,
21 Oecedent, on or about 12-.16-79 , in the vicinity of E1. Camino Real
22 and Entrada Avenue under thefollowing circumstances :
23
24. (sPP .t+-achpd prO ce reportl
25
26
27
28
1 The amount claimed, as of the date of presentation of this
2 claim is computed as follows -
3 Damages incurred to date
4 Funeral expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 1. ,896 . 13
5 General damages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 ,103.87
6 Total damages incurred to date L �'g $60,000.00
7
8 All notices and other communications with regard to this clai
9 should be sent to claimant at Herreras and Snatafore, 390 Hiduera
10 Street P.O. Box 769, San Luis Obispo, California 93406.
11 Dated: c",
12
U
William A. Herreras
14 HERRERAS AND SPATAFORE
15
16
17:
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(VERIFICATION — 446. 2013.5 C.C.P.)
�. STATE OF CALIFORNIA,COUNTY OF
2 lam the attnrnev For r-laimant. --
4 itt the above entitled action or proceeding: I haw read the foregoing ('I.a i m for P t?r s o n a l I n l i 1 r i e s
5
6 and know the contents thereof•and I certify that the same is true of my own knowledge.except as to those matters which ore themin
7 stared upon un•information or belief.and as to those matters I believe it to be true.
8
9
2-25-20 San Luis Obis--)o
10 ` Executed on to at (place)
Californ&
11 1 declare, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct.
12
13 i
Signature
14
PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL (1013m. 2013.3 C. C. P.)
15 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
16 1 am a resident of the county aforesaid. I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within entitled action:my bucine."
address is:
17 390 Higuera Street, Suite C, San Luis Obispo CA 93401
2-25-100 ' CL,AIM FOR PFRSOTTAL
18 On , 19 , 1 served the within
19 TN.TITTZLFS (SRrTTON 910 OF THE G(DV.FT?_W1FNT COTW)
20 otrthe City of Atascadero
In said anion,by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid,in the United States neo!!
21 at San Luis Obispo, California 93401
addrened of follows:
22
23 City of Atascaaero P .O. Pox 747 A.tasradero, Ca. 93422
Pohert T,, B-irt.els and T'mi1.v Ware 1096A r.aGitas , Atascarlero'
24 ral_ifornia 03422
25
26
San Tmis Ohisno
27 Executed on ( ate) at ace California
28 1 declare. under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct.
Signature
0 -
LIVE FILE
Convert I Access { Store
THIS SHEET INDICATES
THIS SECTION CONTAINS
POOR QUALITY IMAGES
TRAFFIC COLLISION REPORT PARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA N1j PATROL ,•,�
o•rca.L ayyy/rr���urTloNa No.IN.I.AIo w • w a ,
wICT NVMYaw
ND..Y ILf FO
. 40 1-0UN
LA,. / wx•nwlLlo ol\Th/!'T ar AT
�. ua o+a./. •o oN �•,> Mr Tw, •,Mr (non( N1.»h,wo••Ictw r,U.
n r ^•S 1/ ' / I
Lr' f 1Ar INTI w\.Ctl[,N we,. --_ tNlllh T.YATA Lnw�•t law AwAT arA-7T■ NMT N•L.T.A,
gr"ll ' `1 NII M Tr.• All-o
J f�� . J. +•ci/In. o� .
I •T -I4 ll! LAaT ' •t 1 T A ll/.r\\
1•AHTV
4 IY•+.!•IC\Ne• NY»a\9 \ ATa arw TNDwTa S!w wwca UrT STATE •NONC __ -
t I!N !NIL'l• w. YAM•1-001 \A!!t ox-
UCa AIL NO. aTwt OwNa.N'S wAME w\ wrvh - --
C
01 r)NI.LwrYA�T f,eT Ow \ wl
N/(INw AT1.� w `N' N!\\
� Y l 3
1 � T
•��l; e' /(r�/r ♦.,/t/ /�E /l L !•c A-4
v r•[ 1/..rr u/e.oan luN ur v►Nlt La -T nwrv•w owu.Y w\qr v._ lou I)f w..�. __. nrr�, L wN„Lo !)_/!
1 . ' a•�1 t LI/Cw T1u Ir �1, /. l ,� l /[ 1
[._-l»moo.
J-low LItTOTwI r r
{r t rN
III—O a.;LAST -
s
i AIIT.V ! �. �- s.•T Aon efs l
• i l • !! NU»a[w STAT• a1w TNOA+• Sf■ wACa CrTf Yo. OAT w. : ■TATA •NONI
I
! • /r r IMOO.1.' L.caNSa NO. STAT• . w S NAM•
\wM! w!owlvaw
.. ni-w,•. role jeTwarT 6 .. ,ww.� w'• wonwl re - I I awMr Alk owlvrN
• ,fir'
Y• 11.1— w• n1 Nlr V1U,•,1,N r,wM1.aU
(.� V! Ir 11•M••.Y
1 rATI.NT LU1.A1-1.
HAL
f f ;l rrr ra0
I
(-1 res 1 No
- T,/,/..I• VATFNT OI' IN/II/IV IN)UIll 0 WA': 0 1 I ung l
I •AIITT
o�L• I A4F �.SLX A tAL...._ H.�rSul wovwu 'u T..iN Y,,.nnl _. - __ - .c r.
•//U orStVNTTO MI»n).9' U I.
,S ' A/Nf r/ ! OIII V,..p •A9S,--`_ I.l/. _--�I I ur.[rw Numacm
( , N.(.]/ ( I 1 1 .I I Y� I11
AM.,1/
j `1. •.. lae _ ,�� - TwwfN
MISC L L L AN F OUS
v riff , 1 Ivo—t. 1.OAI) 1 vrl
I
IA
ZfIt rr,.... ..1 ,.. . ,w.. A.. •1
o: (1.' .) W. i
.�� 1•.•. arra V A •[1'. a/.. .+1 v.U.,..r.1./•/N..... �r .11..1 U •.�.TE/.�6 J_M �.I V. (t
7.\r�O•'La I•\uw —�■ 11.661 we It. rLUMALw .1►►I.Yw afU. •[w •Au■
UI,LI ION N�NRAr•(��) 7
f /_; t; r�E' !4/1" 7j
. �1_�G�..%. Il".-_�i);c.i�, •.iS?._L_r_1�_.__L _ 1_._11�s.'��.'- f�_r__'.C_'i-�---_r>il/���Q�i��r'�,
ZA
J
/'�, ,j i i /•� ._� .i �'. ' � .�//lig �- � � /. J � f �/ , ;,y•
/ s�-
}
•• 11��11G�t�1II%•':�!?_.�lt� - _'��._.S�s1111.r1C._ _
,i ti /ii/ Litt' �/f_�i4�---- _�.l/•+ /�
I,44A AN I.011 ISION FACTOw RIGHT OF WAV CONTROL 1 = 1 4 TTr(t OF V4HICLH 1 2 7 4 MOVCIACNY roaccultia
A Vr: f1 '�SII"lA•rCw Al CO • OL•/VwtTIOwII.O A ►A{tocww'1NCatrnaf CC LL141Ur1 -
{r TInN wA00N
/ f
` A CONIwOI{NOT IVMC•IV WINO A � A •r UrrrU
.. ul. urwar w n+WI••4• C CUA Iw O\.•O■llc Vwao Il ► u1r rn.rIT I ,
cAw w/TA An rM O r r.I,rNO YTw A14.n1
l uln \n►N Ow.Vr w. - D No cO ;.'la•rola{a NT C Ml•TOwCVCL[/%COO Trw C w.N brr nOAo•
Or COLLISION n►1.r.on►ANaI rwucw t7 M N.•: wI�.NT♦unN
ANa Ao-oN
►I..wUr Ow PANT a.TnuCw C Mw NIr1 i. LI T Tl•RN
A al ww U •yltLwrvs EwhwAluw
l caa.�a• C w•Aw L NO F n. Lw ow T I n Tn Ac•nn .. _ _ ('-.n
wlw D MwOAO O[ rwUCn Uw rwuCN TnACTnn I H.•\ fI r Irl�._
G
( i B {(
1 CL6
I ,, w - � CAUrO/r•Of•rw1AN _._-- _ 1 nT..r r �- --. ..._ __ __ __. _ -. _._
K• Mwra�urcn
.� wa.wc. rf Nrca)r L �. r r►IC lwuv.
L1.:Ia TING -_ ..
K ..-.v•
rON•r u rrMr.Nr L ►ww wr N•; •roll•on
A r•w -w• _ _ _ -- MOTOR Vv".c I-[ INr OLVCD WITH L. I rc,.r rwrVAll: n.rrr•: V
r
11 I,., a. uAww A NONCUIII{rnh P.••.r a r V\.N rA ",l ni.N r ra TU wNIn I.
•:w '• w.I • Q r1o, IwN N rr 1 rrwM �. 11 .1•.r.• r:U{r M•.
�l N
. I.w•+ •\ _ l .. r% � Ol l Urnw V• LL[ .1,1 t,rl U a ' 1
.. r• rot O M ... rl r N u• %w wnAnwA 1 7 7 A 0011.N A:.i/1C U111_Il (I rn•.wl u
w a a
V^CT
•.,••r.r� w��.:• C rw n
w1 L+n w rA...c1[ (..Aww \ r.a )nr M•.) i iV • �• •""
__ M••.1,r A' !l N r•..1. v IN—•N - A w l ..1.U n v ,\w......
- t� r w r• w w r
I. i • V a r •C 1.[ -. �—.. r . i 17 r -.
LI I 1 _._ _ -__.- _._._._ IT wN 4w1. +�� Il Vl. • I.:TION VIOlw rrrl ra.. I ( I i
•1 •wt.r • 1 ' •` r
I
1 ] 4 1 II:.T y
1 1 v. ._UltJ li -
2
%.. ' IC f
i1 • (•..�Vrl U.al,•1[.' I.r\a•O uw,[CT: L Vl LI[rrl)N r.0\.ATI(,lr. � �(•A 1rr)a r MM1�
1.a:ALW AT LL.ND61IIGNa •� A Nwn r. .rUe[al Orill,A.wr_
XX
o•Naw oa)scv:
'} . p rc •w r.raoN VrrraA no+r. U N ril n.naraUL nl[
A ....I•.of l r wul{• { .. __ _.. _.:. ..._. _._ ___.._ .._
U •r•r\• MAI\• AL bN wCA Ow AT• K OTn{w; E r\fION OY•f VRa MLNI•: Ira - rl ncw•
- w rM r•. nMf.N.T �..
11 r....{solus I...w■►A1. rows ra'D[f TwrAN's ACTION F rN rrewr.nN u r.
."on■o.Ow.T wra•w- A no►[o[%TwlAw Iwrow[s G ••o►d a.oTwA/11e '-_._ F nua IN►wnUe•
I •:uLO• --- Cw0{flwY
IN
Colo""
ALAI - N/'Nlf wINU/l•AV N•O wwMr F' 4rNT-INT Hr•L• t
rat
\•a• AT IwT•w%[!TION -
� 1.1'n{VrOu•1'nr ll{aON (i r• wle.rn 1.ral w.,r rrlr•a..
C CAO%•INn.aw Cw of•w ALK - NOT / uN Aw w T.wU U li r I L L•
�\ r..., •VAaI
u I To II AT IN, ••fllr+w nr C:'
le of fu�,•r
Ir -
K
D twos% w NOT w cwoffw.L r„I I •�l
R Iw O A O Nf\.VO•{•NOV Io[w L Ua h •u Nrrar
r•
(• w.1.1�• I r r r./awwVrNrl •I M a•L•V• I I
-. 1 N rr r•r ar wrrA wr r.r � � ( I
♦11•.w r1u•. 1.0. NVMaYw IrV••\.V ArI[,■• --- --- •Y-� irr I
7.-7. 6r7-U1a1uN —■ It.") NCIH. "..a.ft .-t, 1 0. waw IAOA
/rte•) ow• /W rte. ��/
97-Ab
�` fr�,l. I fS-��CL_.G;_L�Z —.1C<L�'/��"�._�/I',�_f�r�������1__:•'/� _ �i.�/�'j:,L, –
A/If _._ ._t/'/��11_��.�
_ 1_,✓._.._ vim: .��—��s1.�I111t1L�.._
r r.rM Ar, ,_.,1111.10N FACTOR RIG/1T Oa' WAY CONTROL 1 21 ] A f Trr1I OF VGMCLE 1 2 7 11 MOVCML1111 rRaregioN6
A Vr. all 1,- •,111a&TICN A CO IMUL{FV«Ct10«IRO IA{{a NVaw Cww'rNCLV OT:a et•LL/91Or1
A
R cONlwOla MOT IVNC t10NIN0 LTA IInN rw00«' A alrlr rTu
J
b .'.try rN rw Gr•r nAryrMy• t. CUh Iw D,.•Owacuwa0 A .Rus/r14aw l:Aw r/Tw MI Iw (7 II 1La1 rang YTP AI:w/
•,r.rL ...n Dwrv1 w.• - D No coNTwara! .waAa«• Gwa•lnwtrctc/{[eotrw C www r,rr wnAD
1- TTI.1_ Or COLLISION p rIr )I ow•ANYL TnU1:w (1 M w1.•. w"nr Tun,
1—ow•A«r L.TnUCw C Mw Lr r rr:w.
A r wh U Uma.-. wlTnwlalw — .'1- I ) 1
'-
11
l •.ia• C wa Aw 1 NO _—_ _ _. r rrry Ow Twl w T Ac rnn (- nw w
L L
ArNr r. U awoAo oa rNuaw ow Twucw TlrAtrr)rr / 71 ar r 1
_ f
w1t.0'.CT W/Tff^ltf Is'I
1 r OV■ T wNl0 11 s
_�— n)C J C N 1
J a.a. • v►H c, urr . rr� r r•rc rwusr.
1 1 Nc r T
Llr:rr TING «r..r_...__ ` ]H
•r.n, rnrANr
_-__ rwww N•b YTw1I on
•• nw-are«T MOTOR Vh'Nlel..a INVOLVED 111T14 L. uu..v crr rw rc u.rwL: a
cea alunN 1A
• O r.ol N N
v a
1 r w unr.
.. •r•Oflr•.
...A ar. a u._•ra Cof a .._ __. _.. .. r1
.,«. .t .1t Nur � O••,•T -- - _— ..____-__... ..r•r r
r• Ot • rUAnwA 1 7 ) • 111.1 I.N A..�/la 1)111..c1 -.- -- -
•.,n.,.1 ,i�.:•- [ rw 1 ,•rn w (.'All.V NrC ■ _._ h'AC.TrJ fr i le r
Tri 1 11.-1
r:.•1.YAi l T1r Ar.1: - r Tw A1N ._. _ : �— • , - r
._._ : 1 A •r I I1.N Vrr 1l Ar.nrr'. 1) ri•. �. rw � ,
-I.VrclawTlr)rr. I`
r
a r ; - �• -
•
.1 • • • (a.„Vr. (Ira•,e.TC.' 1 r,aaD Vw)l CT: L Vr fl L I1a)N V1na.ATl11.1. '.. r r 1 ITr rM1�
/.a:AL:W Ar CLNGI I1 0
IO N{ A.NA1 �,. ua'f.r pfi,nwrwr.
lar•r•. . ,.. s n1« J oTwaw or)a cT: 5 < I/ va alcl.oN v1rlaA rrorr. U N r.. rr rr,rn aoauo mr
,
A ,.a �I a.1.11 r Ovaria• .1. - _ _.. _... _.. _. _ - _.._..._..-__ _....-_.
11 ar•.'. «Ala w a P wa:wow Ata h OTwaw, E ViHOH Drat VRl Ml:Nta: rn rT N..I
C
ona,•u,.r1uN cN wc.Auwwrl
- Hr N.•A1r•MT.N.r
l) {T u-rcu«Rte.. roN• rcoC{TwrAN'f ACTION F .NATTl NT10N u wr.
1 111 b,ufa0 wOAOr AT rIOTw A Nl1►!Ol atwlAN 1Nr OLVlY t1 at0r 4 40♦..IIIc — __ E un w VwV- 1Nr lUn HCrT
1 .:uao• cwOai TNu IN cwo�aww►w - - N r1a(w Nu/al wvrrao w F rT-INva1c AL• t
ar _ 1 wMr w
-1• - _ - _.. _ _.....—_._ '� AT tNTff R1a CT10N a1e.o. r• -
H.rf Irl rl Nrr.
CwOaalNra IN Cw095«Raw -NOT J VNrA w T r wUe N r r.I a: !Lf
11 •...•n •NAl r t Vltl,Ova AT INTr as fT C«
Is !
rV• 11r of ta�r.r- '1 fn
r
D cwoas h MOI 1N CwOaaal.a ML NT
IE aN n w rnr,.ua.*•Houaoaw L uNr avao r .r u.
V wolr .nwn MorrLN• _ - T -.�
.._.�_ - ♦ Nr.r,.1. wrrAnr..r 1
. ,11•.•111 •• r.D. NarrwrKw IN•.alrV allU•T --- . r —_ . ,r .. .
• '
i SUPPLEMENTAL/NARRATIVE Owq/wAl/wC/Of»• •,Mf 'NMI »�(� »uY gir,Cfw,.O. »uM..w ..4a
yy� NARRATIVE CONTINUATION TRAIfIC LOCwT/OwfwO+Wra. C/,IVATIow»VYSff
COLLMON REPORT ICw-.p Of aaa-at) 1-2
l.UPrLVWACMTAL TRAT/lC COLLISION -
..1
Rl:rp RT (C...060.so"$)
OTN[RZ�'�ln/U4�A!,e -
C,I•/f..fwaR wa•nwr�.(o Ola twit• •�
r.—x '2 ___ .27--- !�?i____�!�'�L��l '. Ii._•�c� l_!�'�/ --
r
/' _� .---�=-r.�� -�--���c,_.i14__ /_tee_:—�-; , �,,_,f.� =l i� � /•._ .:�.�. / ._ . _
.._. _ _l•_�•��.�--'•'�%_.�.'LC�L✓.__"�C_sr._1���---1 L���1-G s._�f" _�'!�_'_'"/t,./1/�„/---
/i✓ 77
-
ov—
or
01/
_ '_'�_!.1L -- .'�✓c;�2�'rif� �:'/�' C'i:'n�S.�*J1J1..�.�/��:>_1'1�' r'��_1/A�!- / � .-•/.,'�—
. ---.. ._ I� _.c'_'�'l':C=^.t����7��LC� �f"CJ �U/ l t:_�l lr ' / //%i.•� // j.' `yi I/t�
YL.:��. �1�_,�!l?rte '"•- ,�L o�t.�� __ ^_
..�-. .. .,L•.�J ' �J'..��� �ia.'/ref C..(��0.-f�C
. ... .... -L � ._ (fir` r '`�• f /'/.%' _i r I./`,///, � tl'1 {�'I
rA.ErA NED OT. hCV1EY/C.G OV. k`
'._ 1.0.NllMftM YO. OAr rw, w.t Mu PA' ,..
SUPPLEMENTAL/NARRATiV� YF qa./r Ai6 lrcloo". T,... (,#**I . w.,.,
.. ANAwwATIVC CONTINUATION TRAFFIC aeCAT.owlwwr�t-- c,t
— — -- -- -----. - — -- ----- — - - --
wnuw nYn.aw
COLLISION-REPOWF Ic.,r*1611 an see-eel
' y^�
SV►FL[M<NTAL TRAFFIC COLLISION /� f.+ /!� _�
�.wCPORT lc«v..r ow all+l) raw,t/
chr/`wrwr --- vnnrlro�u.r.IJet
� . _. ---- ----- _li ��_�a/LZ�4[�" � _�_S�• 1j1=___��>F�..�. __l,�/_n__�I�'�'/'_n_x: /3
'K �1r�
7-7
Vlr/L1rG,'�1>�_occS�ts 1�_L2s�' ��L/b/
PNEPAHEO fly IICV ILWEU UV
r. 1.Y.MYM.aw MO Ywt vn. r.rMa r.ry ... _-_.r •A
0 11A
_ FACT V.L DIAGRAM - NARRATIVE CONTi�TION
:oIf W COL\Ia10ti reMf (f.M(. «CIC MVMwfw O►Iltfw i.0. wVMwnA •wGf
_.,. /.--' .w. /(, ... 735
ALL MRASUACM[NT.l A"K APPROMYMATE ANO NOT TO•CALt. UNLCi1 STATED(SC ALI' .
r7tIIIII-Till
,1 r I
Irl%// - x
1
T
fin
. r
--// >
'� 70 VA rz� /
*4.jes
V.
4.
a9'
��. i✓112r
_
dy
i-
1 I I Lu I I I I I I I I l 1 I f i l l i I I I I I I I I 1�-
1
c
ORDINANCE NO. 21
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO AMENDING
TITLE 6 OF THE ATASCADERO MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING
TO BUSINESS LICENSES AND REGULATIONS .
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO ORDAINS as follows :
Section 1. . Section 6 .08 .080 of the-Atascadero Municipal.-Code
is amended to read as follows:
Section 6.08 .080.. Grounds for denial of license: Ineligibility
for city licenses and permits.
A license may be denied if the applicant has knowingly made
a false statement in a material matter either in his application
or in his testimony before the Council or other body hearing such
testimony, or before a referee appointed by the Council.
A license shall be denied unless the premises of the proposed
business and the operation thereof comply with current building,
fire, and health code requirements of the City.
In addition, except as otherwise provided herein, conviction
(including pleas of guilty and nolo contendere) of a felony or
misdemeanor shall be prima facie disqualification of an applicant
for the following city licenses or permits :
(a) Adult book store
(b) Adult movie theaters
(c) Arcade operations
(d) Billiard rooms
(e) Bingo operations
(f), Card rooms
(g) Fortune telling
(h) Head shops
(i) Massage parlors
(j) Mechanical amusement devices
(k) Pawn shops
(1) Taxi cabs
The City licensing authority, however, may disregard such con-
viction if it is found and determined by such licensing authority
that mitigating circumstances exist. In making such determination,
the City licensing authority shall considerthefollowing factors :
(a) The type of business license or Permit for which
the person is applying;
(b) The nature and seriousness of the offense;
(c) The circumstances surrounding the conviction;
AG:fr -1-
. 2/16/80
4/5/80
0
ORDINANCE NO.
(d) The length of time elapsed since the conviction;
(e) The age of the person at the time of the conviction;
(f) The presence or absence of rehabilitation or efforts
at rehabilitation;
(g) Contributing social or environmental conditions .
The City licensing authority shall give notice of disquali-
fication to an applicant disqualified under this provision. Such
notice shall be in writing and delivered personally or mailed to
the applicant at the address shown on the application.
An applicant who is disqualified_ for a city business license
or permit under, this provision may appeal such determination of
disqualification. Such appeal shall be in writing and filed with
the Finance Director within ten (10) days of the date of the notice
of disqualification. The appeal shall be referred to the City
Manager who shall hear and determine the appeal within ninety (90)
days after it is filed. The determination of the City Manager on
the appeal shall be final
Section 2 . Section 6 .08 .161 is added to the Atascadero
Municipal Code to read as follows :
Section 6 .08 .161 . Access to information for licensing or
permit purposes
Pursuant to Section 11105 of the Penal Code of the State of
California, the following officers of the City are hereby author-
ized to have access to and to utilize State Summary Criminal His-
tory Information when it is needed to assist them in fulfilling
licensing duties as set forth in this chapter:
(a) City Councilmembers
(b) City Manager
(c) City Attorney
(d) Finance Director
(e) Chief of Police
Section 3. The provisions of this ordinance are intended to
supersede any provision of Ordinance No. 2 which is in conflict
therewith.
Section 4 . 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 circulation, printed,
-2-
ORDINANCE NO.
published and circulated in this City in accordance with Section
36933 of the Government Code; shall certify the adoption and post-
ing of this ordinance; and shall cause this ordinance and its
certification, together with proof of posting, to be entered in
the Book of Ordinances of this City.
Section '5. This ordinance shall go into effect and be in
full force and effect at 12 :01 a.m. on the thirty-first (31st)'
day after passage.
The foregoing ordinance was introduced, adopted, and ordered
published at a meeting of the Council held on 1980,
by the following vote :
Ayes :
Noes:
Absent:
Robert J. Wilkins, Jr. , Mayor
ATTEST:
Murray L. War en, City C er
Approved as to orm: Approved as to content:
Allen Grimes, City Attorney Mur y L. ar en, City Manager
-3-
ORDINANCE NO.
I- hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true, and cor-
rect copy of Ordinance No. passed by the City Council of
Atascadero at its regular Council meeting held on
1980.
Murray L. Warden, City Clerk
-4
_ 6. 3-1
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Atascadero City Council DATE: February 6, 1980
FROM: Planning Consultant/Director
SUBJECT: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 4 , 1980
The following items have been reviewed by the Planning Commission.
and are forwarded to the City Council for final action:
B-3 Proposed lot division, AT 79-077, Hurdle (Hilliard)
The Planning Commission, with two dissenting votes, recommends
denial, of the proposed lot division. While there was some discus-
sion about road improvements and private driveway standards, the
primary reason for the recommendation for denial was based upon
the standard in the General Plan which provides for a gradation
of lot sizes based upon distance from the center of the community.
The consensus indicated that it would not be desirable to allow
creation of minimum lot sizes in the perimenter of the community.
B-4 Proposed street name change -` Montura Lane
The Planning Commission recommends approval of Montura Lane for
this unnamed private road. The street name request was initially
reviewed by the Planning Commission at its meeting of December 17,
1979 , when the original request for Charlotte Lane was referred
back to the County Planning Department .with the indicated preference
for the use of Spanish names and names of non-living historic per-
sons. The residents of the street have selected the name Montura
Lane. Montura is a Spanish word meaning a horse, a mule or a mount.
B-5 Proposed lot division, AT 79-128, Wilhoite (Stewart)
The Planning Commission recommends approval subject to Conditions
1-17 as set forth by the Subdivision Review Board, with the excep-
tion that Condition No. 11 be modified to provide for the Prelimin-
ary Soils Report as a condition of issuance of building permits
rather than as a condition of filing the final map. Said provision
is required to be noted on the final map. The establishment of lot
sizes in conformance with the General Plan is the primary reason
for the Planning Commission recommendation.
B-6 Proposed lot division, AT 79-110, Hvolbol et al (Schott)
The Planning Commission recommends approval subject to Conditions
1-15 as set forth by the Subdivision Review Board. The applicant
is in agreement with these conditions. The primary reason for the
Planning Commission recommendation is compliance with existing
zoning and General Plan requirements relative to lot size. There
Memorandum to City*uncil
February 6, 1980
Page Two
was some discussion concerning the flood hazard relative to Atascadero
Creek which abuts the property.
B-7 Proposed lot line adjustment, AL 79-68, Van Saun (Hilliard)
The Planning Commission recommends approval subject to Conditions `
1-4 as set forth by the Subdivision Review Board. The applicant is
in agreement with these conditions. The primary reason for the
Planning Commission recommendation is that the adjusted lot lines
would provide better building sites related to topography. There
was some discussion about the existing driveway access that crosses
Lot 15.
B-8 Proposed lot line adjustment, AL 79-46 , Garza
The Planning Commission recommends approval subject to Conditions
1-5 as set forth by the Subdivision Review Board. The applicant
is in in agreement with these conditions. The primary reasons for
the Planning Commission recommendation are the equalization of lot
size and correction of the existing condition in which the house
is located on the property line.
B-9 Continued public hearing to consider amendment of Title 22
concerning regulations to govern condominiums, community
apartments, stock cooperatives and conversions to these uses
The Planning Commission continued this public hearing to their
meeting of February 19 to allow Staff additional time to prepare a
draft ordinance. Since this was a noticed public hearing, it would
be appropriate for City Council to continue the public hearing to
the meeting of February 25, 1980.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval of Planning Commission recommendations with the exception
of Item B-9, which must be continued.
r Submitted by:
l
V
LA ENCEEVENS
Planning nsultant/Director
LS:kp
• -6-
Pg. Col. Par. Line
48 R 3 under Neighborhood Commercial #2
reading, "On the two northern
corners of Morro Road and Curbaril
Avenue." shall be deleted
66 R 1 1,2 the words "now in the initial stages
of development" should be changed
to "whish is nearly completed"
77 L 1 2 , 3 should be changed to read " . . .Fire
Department has made several recom-
mendations to the Fire Board.
Among the.
80 R #10 delete reference to Sheriff' s
Substation and renumber
90 R 1 b. delete "b. Designation of another. . .
is of high priority.
97 R 4 delete last sentence "A proposal. .
has been presented. "
43 R #8 the following wording is suggested
"8 In the calculation of lot area
for the purposes of considering land
divisionsandin determining per-
mitted numbers and types of animals
allowed, gross acreage shall be used.
However, in determining permitted
densities for multiple family resi-
dential developments, net acreage
(excluding land area needed for
street rights-of-way) shall be used.
various places in text Use the word "shall" in place of
"should" and "will" in .those instances
where binding standards are intended
(i.e. , regulations, principles) and
retain the word "should" in those
instances where flexibility is desired
(i.e. , policy proposals, property
acquisitions, capital improvements)
77 R 2 4 add the following sentence,. "The
French Medical Clinic, located on
the south end of El Camino Real,
also provides medical services to
the community.
77 R ' 3 6 delete sentence beginning, "It may
be possible. . . " and insert the
following, "A Dial-a-Ride program
operates as a service of _the,_ enior
Citizens United. ,o
• -7- •
Pg. Col. Par. Line
76 R 2 delete the last two sentences and
insert the following: "The City
of Atascadero is in the process of
establishing its own police services.
In the establishment of those ser-
vices, consideration is being given
to a public safety function combin-
ing some police and fire services. "
76 R 3 delete the entire paragraph
91 L c rewrite this sentence to read, "The
lot on Entrada Avenue between 5975
Entrada Avenue and the Post Office
building.
SUPPLEMENT
MAP CHANGES APPROVED BY THE ATASCADERO PLANNING COMMISSION
1. The CEMETERY shall be shown as a public facility on
Map VII-3.
2. Lots fronting on, the southerly side of Palomar Avenue,
adjacent to the Atascadero Regional Park, shall be shown
as Moderate Density Single Family Residential.
3. Santa Ysabel Extension to the County Clinic property.
(see attached sketch)
4. Lots on the westerly side of Santa Ysabel from the Thrifty
complex to Pueblo and on the westerly side of Sinaloa
between Pueblo and Curbaril shall be shown as Low Density
Multiple Family Residential.
5.. The west side of E1 Camino Real from Curbaril Avenue
south to the commercial use at the Santa Rosa overpass
shall be shown as Industrial Park.
a 1
Q
W1
F
Q L /"toflFtzT� DEN51T�
IiAL
tcs�k �t:N jY 51,y��c
,,nvt t t VL.E FAA!-uy asst. J
i l
c
ME M O R A N D U M gr',L rr .. f_ �'t - ,•►y`^C ��"o L
- - - - -
TO: City Council •- _ r .z >�.v �.� t��
FROM: Planning Consultant/Direc
SUBJECT WAKEFIELD DEPARTMENTAL RE
RESTAURANT AND SHOPS IN T ,c,i���t
WEST SIDE OF FREEWAY 101
PORTOLA AND COROMAR
An application has been filed -e�- ���
in the review process. The Envircr
a focused EIR due to the establishr u'
being asked to comment, I became ;ai
the zoning, which is C-H, and the c '.' L-
Density Single Family Residential.
City Council indicated that the Ge: 4 ("
for inconsistencies of this sort.
been processed without the Plannin
reviewing the request since some i
However, since the General Plan is
still be possible to initiate a ma
Staff has spoken with the app
they intend to pursue whatever prc
to obtain approval of the project.
the hearing on the General Plan in suYN%ay _ _
The following reasons may be favorable to a map change at
this time: -
1. Adjacent property to the south between Portola and Santa
Rosa is zoned C-H.
2. Freeway ramp access is available at Portola and via a
frontage road to Santa Rosa.
3 . The Conditional Use Permit procedure would allow for the
developmentof design standards to assure compatibility with the area.
4. The City may consider" a policy of contiguity when its
procedures are developed and that could be applied to this parti-
cular site.
5. Large motel complexes can be major revenue generators.
The applicant also indicated that meeting rooms and similar facilities
would be provided.
The following reasons may not be favorable to a map change:
1. The availability of other commercially zoned land. in the
area and in the city.
Memorandum to the City Council
January 24, 1980
Page Two
2. Potential traffic lighting and similar problems which
could adversely; affect the residential area.
3 The adjacent C-H property is not yet developed and exten-
sion of the C-H zoning may adversely affect future development of
that property.
4 Portola Road may be a logical boundary between the commercial
and residential uses.
The available alternatives -appear to be:
1. Resolution of the inconsistency by recommending_a General
Plan map change to an appropriate land use designation. The adjacent
property is designated for Retail-Commercial land use, but this may
be inconsistent with C-H zoning and, the uses permitted therein As
a result, consideration might be given to a Tourist-Commercial or
some similar designation. If this is done, it may be desirable to
use the same land use designation on the property to the south
instead of the current Retail-Commercial designation. If this
alternative were followed, the applicant could proceed with his
departmental review after adoption by City Council of the General
Plan. It should also be noted that this matter would have to be
referred back to the Planning Commission for a report and recommendation.
2. No change. This would result in denial of the project due
to inconsistency , since the intention would be to initiate a resulting
program for General Plan consistency within the near future.
Submitted by:
LAWRENCE PPEVENS
Planning onsultant/Director
,. do GoC ?/off
01
,P
yJ a "•\..,.
qo
a
Gr r
,1p
► 38
o P J
36
0 OF
.J
34 �•
rd F f,
coV
u ,
Shw6
L r 51 ry
F+`i�l���,/1/f'�q•�,n -u ill i P--1.78. 51r..
• 63
N&D A. ROcowAY, Director Telephone(805)549-5600
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Courthouse Annex L
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA- 93408 c ( f
W
December 6, 1979
Honorable Atascadero Planning Commission
and City Council
City of Atascadero, California
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
SUBJECT AT 79-077, PROPOSED LOT DIVISION OF LOT 13, BLOCK 49, ATASCADERO
COLONY; SANTA CRUZ ROAD, CITY OF ATASCADERO.
(A-1-22 LOW DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) (HURDLE - HILLIARD)
SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT #1 (884: 7/3/79)
RECOMMENDATION FOR CONSISTENCY AND FOR APPROVAL
RECOMMENDATION ON ROAD IMPROVMENTS
At a regular meeting of the County Subdivision Review Board, the attached
subdivision was considered and is being referred to you for required
action and findings regarding consistency with applicable general plans.
Respectfully submitted,
LARRY J. RED, e isor
Subdivision Review Section
ca
Attachment
cc: County Engineer
County Health Department
REPORT OF THE SUBDIVISION REVIEW BOARD MEETING DECEMBER 5,1979
RE: AT 79-077, PROPOSED LOT DIVISION OF LOT 13, BLOCK 49, ATASCADERO
COLONY; SANTA CRUZ ROAD, CITY OF ATASCADERO.
(A-1-2z: LOW DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) (HURDLE - HILLIARD) ,
SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT #1 (884: 7/3/79)
RECOMMENDATION FOR CONSISTENCY AND FOR APPROVAL
SRB Members in Attendance: Acting Chairman, Larry Red, John Hofschroer,
Bill MacDonald, Jerry Erickson, John Wallace
Planning Commissioner in Attendance: George Rathmell
Legal Counsel Present: None
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This application proposes a subdivision of a five acre site into two
parcels of approximately 2.5 acres each. The site is located on the
south side of Santa Cruz Road, near Carrizzo Road in northern Atascadero.
Zoning: A-1-22: "Light Agriculture" (22 acre minimum)
General Plan: 1978 Atascadero Area General Plan: "Low Desnity Single
Family Residential"
COMMENTS
Environmental Determination:
A Conditional Negative Declaration was issued by the Environmental
Coordinator on November 2, 1979, stating that the project will not have
a significant effect on the environment and therefore does not require
the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report, subject to the
following condition:
Septic system design to be reviewed and approved by the
County Engineering Department as per standard County procedure.
Site and Area Considerations:
The project site is undeveloped and consists of gently sloping terrain
that slopes upward toward the south. Vegetation on the site consists of
annual grasses with several large oaks along the southern boundary of
the site. Data from the Soil Conservation District indicates that the
site may be subject to a moderate erosion hazard and is designated for
severe limitation on the use of septic systems. The County Fire Hazards
Map indicates that the site is subject to a high fire hazard rating.
Water for the site is to be supplied by the Atascadero Mutual Water
Company. The County Department of Public Health has received a letter
of intent to serve the proposed parcels. Sewage disposal is proposed
to be by septic system.
rAT 79-077 •
Surrounding parcel sizes are mixed. There is a tract to the east of
the site with lot sizes in the 1/4 - 1/2 acre range. The majority
of parcels are in the 22 to 5 acre range. The division of this
parcel would not appear to constitute a new land use trend.
Zoning and General Plan Considerations:
The site and adjacent properties are zoned A-1-22, Light Agriculture, with
a 22 acre minimum building site requirement. The ownership includes area
to the centerline of Santa Cruz Road and under present zoning requirements
may be utilized in calculating lot area. The result will allow the
front parcel to be a net area of 2.36 acres.
The 1978 Atascadero Area General Plan designates the area as Low Density
Single Family Residential. The site is outside the Urban Services
boundary, and Santa Cruz Road is designated as an arterial street. The
General Plan contains the following comments pertinent to this project.
"Land Use Policy Proposals
2. The type and extent of services provided within the Urban
Reserve Area will depend on whether land is in the Urban or
the Suburban Services Area. Properties outside the Urban
Services Line should be evaluated for lot size based on the
Suburban Residential range (22 to 10 acres) until sewers
are available. (P. 42)
Low Density
Minimum lot sizes within the Urban Services Area should range from
12 to 22 acres. Determination of appropriate lot sizes should
be based upon such factors as the availability of services, especially
sewers; slope of access road to building site; distance from the
center of the community; general character of neighboring lands;
soil percolation; and the area needed for access roads to the
building sites. (P. 44)
Residential Policy Proposals
5. Residential density should decrease as one moves outward from
the core, in order to maintain the rural atmosphere of the
community. This can be accomplished by a graded increase in
lot size and a graded decrease in the permitted density of
population.
10. Lot splits should be thoroughly evaluated and be in accordance
with community plans and principles. Strict adherence to the
lot sizes defined in this Plan is essential in order to retain
the desired character of the community. Creation of lots smaller
than those recommended must not be permitted if the maximum
population of approximately 30,000 is to be maintained.
AT 79-077 •
11. Attention should be paid to the aesthetic result of land
division. Building sites should be encouraged on natural
slopes, with minimal disruption of native vegetation and
watersheds, and efficient layout of access and utilities.
12. A program should be developed to encourage the preservation
of trees, watersheds and natural slopes and other natural amenities
from abuse and destruction resulting from poor design and develop-
ment practices. (P 45 $ 46)
The Suburban Residential Section also contains the following guidance:
Lot sizes should be 21-2 acres or more. Determination of appro-
priate lot sizes should be based upon such factors as slope of
the access road to the building site, availability of services,
distance from the center of the community, general character
of neighboring lands, percolation and the area needed for
access road, to building site. (P. 44)
Santa Cruz Road is designated by the Plan as a secondary arterial,
and the following comments are offered:
3. Secondary Arterials
Secondary arterials should be developed to a 60 foot
right-of-way. These roads serve as major access routes
between residential areas, shopping centers, employment
centers and primary recreation areas. Road in this classi-
fication must have shoulders wide enough, to accommodate
multi-use paths and emergency parking.
There are 14 segments of undivided arterials:
b. Traffic Way from E1 Camino Real to Potrero Road
and future extension of Traffic Way beyond Potrero
Road to E1 Camino Real as a truck route. The
portion of Traffic Way between E1 Camino Real and
Olmeda Avenue is also designated to have 40 feet
of paving to allow for' two. 8 foot parking strips on
both sides of the arterial. (P. 88)"
RECOMMENDATION
Although it appears the City Planning Commission and 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.
After review of applicable General Plans and other available information
the Subdivision Review Board recommends approval and that the proposed
subdivision be found consistent with the General Plan in accordance with
Section 65302.5(a) (4) of the Government Code.
AT 79-077 •
Provided that a finding of consistency is made and the application
ultimately approved, the following conditions are hereby established
regarding the design and improvements of the proposed subdivision, which
conditions when satisfied will mitigate the environmental concerns
expressed by the Environmental Coordinator. in his Conditional Negative
Declaration of November 2, 1979.
And, provided that the Tentative Parcel Map is approved, the Subdivision
Review Board also recommends that it be found in the interest of the
public health and safety, and as a necessary- pre-requisite to the
orderly development of the surrounding area, to require the construction
of road improvements within a period of one year after recordation of the
Parcel Map.
1. That the following "NOTES" shall be placed on the final map:
A. No sewage disposal system installations are to be placed
closer than 100 feet from the top of the existing creek bank,
drainage swales or areas subject to inundation.
B. Sewage disposal systems shall be separated from any individual
domestic well and/or agricultural well, as follows: (1) leach
fields, one hundred feet (1001) , and (2) bored pits, one
hundred fifty feet (1501) . Wells intended for two or more
parcels shall be separated by two hundred feet (2001) from any
subsurface sewage disposal system.
C. Sewage disposal systems installed on slopes in excess of 200
shall be designed and certified by a registered civil engineer
or geologist and submitted to the Planning and Health Department
for review and approvalrp for to the issuance of a building
permit. Consultants shall determine geologically stable
building sites and sewage disposal for each parcel, including
evaluations of hillside stability under the most adverse
conditions including rock saturation and seismic forces.
Slopes in excess of 30% are not considered suitable or practical
for subsurface sewage disposal.
D. Septic tanks will be an acceptable method of sewage disposal,
if soil tests and plans are acceptable, until public sewers
may become available.
E. Water is to be obtained from the Atascadero Mutual Water Company.
2. Prior to the filing of theap rcel map, the applicant shall submit
to and be jointly approved by the Planning Department and Health
Department, results of percolation tests and the log or logs of
soil borings performed by a registered civil engineer. For this
purpose, the applicant shall perform one or more soil borings to be
a minimum depth of ten (10) feet in the area of the proposed
sewage disposal system to determine the: (a) subsurface soil
conditions, (example: impermeable stratas which act as barriers to
the effective percolation of sewage) ; (b) and the presence of
AT 79-0 •
groundwater. And the applicant must perform a minimum of three (3)
percolation test holes per lot, to be spaced uniformly in the area
of the proposed sewage disposal system. Percolation tests shall
conform to the methods and guidelines prescribed by the Manual of
Septic Tank Practice as adopted by the County Building and Construction
Ordinance Title 19, Chapter 10.24.
3. That operable facilities exist prior to the filing of the Final
Map. A letter shall be obtained from the Atascadero Mutual Water
Company and submitted to the Health and Planning Departments for
review and approval stating there are operable facilities immedi-
ately available and ready for connection to the parcels created.
4. That the applicant offer for dedication to the public for future
road widening purposes 10 feet along Santa Cruz Road; said offer
to be made by Certificate on the Parcel Map.
5. That a private easement be reserved on the Parcel Map for access
to Parcel B.
6. That the applicant submit a preliminary Title Report at the time the
Parcel Map is submitted for checking.
7. That Santa Cruz Road fronting said property and continuing to Traffic
Way or E1 Camino be improved in the following manner:
2/3 an A-4 suburban section
8. That the grade and alignment of the road easements as shown on the
Tentative Parcel Map meet San Luis Obispo County standards. Also,
improvement plans shall be prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer
and submitted to the County Engineer's Office for approval.
9. That the applicant enter into an Inspection Agreement with the
County for inspection of said improvements.
10. The Engineer, upon completion of the improvements, must certify to
the County Engineer that the improvements are made in accordance
with Subdivision Review Board requirements and the approved plans.
11. That any private easement as shown on the Title Report be shown on
the Parcel Map with recording data.
12. FIRE PROTECTION STANDARDS
The applicant must comply with state, county and district laws/
ordinances applicable to fire protection and consider increased
fire risk to area by the land proposed.
AT 79-077
•
13. All conditions of approval herein specified are to be complied with
prior to the submittal of the Parcel Map Original to the County
Engineer for approval.
14. That a Final Parcel Map shall be filed in accordance with the
Subdivision Map Act, prior to sale, lease or financing of the
subject property within a period of one year from approval date of
the Tentative Map.
15. After approval by the Board of Supervisors, compliance with the
preceeding conditions will bring the proposed subdivision in
conformance with the Subdivision Map Act and local ordinances.
16. The Tentative Parcel Map will expire one year (12 months) from the
date of Board of Supervisors approval. The Tentative Parcel Map
may be extended one year by the Subdivision Review Board. Written
requests with appropriate fees must be submitted to the Planning
Department prior to the expiration date.
DISCUSSION
Applicant's engineer attended the meeting and discussed road improvements.
The Subdivision Review Board unanimously adopted the preliminary report
as written.
All
. �► �� '� .,,IIS . �, �-�, ...
RC1- - MA
.� . ►epi. •�
; IN
,
Al
r •
r e
2117 `j' a
WQo d z Dnp Wti �°�
n�� o�t •�`� 'Jv� • � 0� MOV^ � U 3 �V� C� �� �'� � �
1 44
1
'E f
h
- - � � � �� �7.1 t. 'wry r r. ir�_ .•c. /� _ ' -- P i / e. ��
i';* r
Ki
r t
•�• . - � � CS� ��� \ - ,�`Q �� ` �. � � . � •' � � sem`..
ti ''II
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
TO: ATASCADERO PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: JANUARY 28, 1980
FROM: GENERAL PLAN ADMINISTRATION, COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: ROAD NAME, MONTURA LANE, CITY OF ATASCADERO
Specific Request
This is a request of the residents of the area to name an
unnamed private road located within the newly formed City
of Atascadero,
Background
The road to be named is a cul-de-sac approximately 490-feet
long and runs south-west from Coromar Road between Curbaril
Avenue and Portola Road. The parcel map CO 77-398 which
divided lot 26, Block 7, Atascadero Colony and created the
road, was recorded without a road name. The applicant has
recently finished construction of the road.
The need for a road name was first brought to the attention
of the County Planning Department by the Southern California
Gas Company . The initially proposed name was Charlotte Lane
The Atascadero Planning Commission, at its meeting on
December 17, 1979, referred the original request back to the
County Planning Department indicating that they preferred
the use of Spanish road names or of historic persons of
Atascadero . We have now received the attached petition
indicating support of "MONTURA LANE" (Montura is a Spanish
word meaning a horse, a mule, or a mount . ) .
Recommendation
The proposed road name meets all of the County ' s road-naming
criteria. Thus, we recommend its approval by your Commission. `
BAL/LWK/dkr
Report prepared by Ms . Betty A . Lacey
and reviewed by Mr. Larry W. Kelly,
Supervisor, General Plan Administration.
2ra H d Mtn.k Nn .POCK I v p ....L ='R..+a. 3 '7t `, o F �•.._-.r•^,h.1 R+ .4':
a
` ('p Mon D1 k S
-r •sfE
GAK
.M•a..SHORES _. . d„-,.. .. cam. '.� 1'Sn M.Pud J.. o_ 3p,
NACINIENTO ... ( : N9cTar r°� s - M len °c. s ° 4 a 1 r`co
1 IR A •LANE 09,11 n'r0 1.... 1 �{ Cany .r.
I
RESERVOIR .\ IL_NAcPARK To ------I _. r '__f �- +_ _--` -r fqn -j Is s r_ Rd.¢'°°`
' 1 HERITAGE 2$ t- ,.,I , \ SAN 1
{i
' -RANCH
Camp Roberts Military 2 E 1 °c _ an p`e _ „
o,
I `,� s..•"'^.�'. Eek :• ...r.e ..` . ' v' a•° 1 '.
z` /
nn R ilo
V
Is. .I f3 ILLA
�/7 /
fil
_ 4. -. -----_ $$ 1 1 0 ao� Gsm i� Il ana P
O 7._._- b r 2aR'D ,hM 5 Rd U wei Rd. ell.,
�, 1 F vEfurk_56 �E-1E REP SmBEd ¢ �( ) a. ^. /, 7
( 1
¢ e kaale
_ r" ---�:.. ne Ry,F • Rd. g� .RRaea
n o Ro
1 L 1 3 Ch a ^eF z 9,1
Sto2Poad
*Ra
ClMrmney Rbck P elol IT J. d4°onBts
f a d d O V dy
': ,�. .�
ce �
2321' I-� °Po � IM 1r" WHITLkV I w W
l ftd:11 1• L o _ P_C _ �_._ Ir O h 1 ¢ P°A GARDENS
~Snr,n 9� \c g II Ro
_e PASO ROBLES Q - - ♦V(
-- -- ' e,ao u -- — -- -
,' KLAU Fa 1•� ._ G _ C - r..._
en
.. F 8. < a '� a• ro, Road
1 d
z s r 2 3 P t G 1` c ran a°°b C^a nron '
• *-UrrE t\ va y 'rau e
o• r_ I
I YP >
A u. O e Y F 'y 0 4`Rood H y--\ -`�nk IT a s ru
-- o
m 'Ir.r 4 ; :.. -4C d90` V�neya.d 3\ Mb, ¢'° P 3--R d
ante.. 1 era OO Tah '$ aaho 46 mP” M Ave. °n _SPrin tl.
y _ N. C t n
80'^ R'rdRoad �;• 3 ... •� yb\ o �❑'Ro
��b Sy
.i
o N 41
., '
P XL_ D
k 1 Yon.-`n G as o 3 K �. __Q ''b 1 r
46 s.-r-' ( #P4 Moss to
a g
-.❑s. 3 P7A0 � s oyo Fa ) trdi or ° ✓�
> k � 6 P >, enc ❑ L' r°'" y �'+ i '
PAsnw6p 3 ( TEM LETON
r:2e vE.' Vll I - d S > P s.-
' _tea^ �\ _ �'t Son a Rdn Cir / C RpO n r South SW / \ P4'
..--._• '.�`" .snore Rna. O\a Ple.on"� CRESTON \ Aran s
° U
I--LAke�l.® R• CNO �0.,oa
ANcr+❑ ' g--�-T ya --h-- - ` n Delores /' it, N
1a c 1
(. ,�¢ c r• - s ( 1 `F rkJ °^R I 1 Fork Cedc ) WUEAMUCRO ro
10NI
4'+ ;G/c u. � Picach a•C'..Ryo� ti^._Vv_a•-1C.:` -R d--1 r , -a 'T{Ca �,R
�Ae AwCN❑ / ^q``^r1a�� —oJ°yo AT.S Rmeoand 9°
'7
Ol SCADERO I
200
Pk
IW2 ;w
0
'. , r uE RONIM❑c 8 \ "C`d rV� o Se ro Rm,,Oza *9—,_- \R'Pn. - a n .c r s)✓sl - $�._. -
v cu`y
C �T850Y-�s—.-_ Tarto�s�k t
o=k µ zc4 , \�IVh I Polnt e! 1 9 3 ' E.;_-- - �: 1 .! Los ft.qe
;D k Ran Pk
s" Fa: Roe R K Pond M, a a Pe.
Cayueay� :!' St L R w CAYUCOS�v f.i I -/�^on6 '( -r: 2476' p8 F \
G/ Ar .
M Ssr ud Qleyy a a 4T�—
oder
St.t.Beech /- rRAn[r'D/ a`Alt,Rodq�ARDfN ' ❑.
^'c .,n Rr•❑ r nru C❑tiF �cc- .o-_.� R _-__ ___ PAiM,3
xv
MAP OF f � 262II'
F
LUIS OBISPO COUNTY a a R a d a n_
SITED.Wl-
PO 3 0° MAR(AAhA AyrS 'Y x.
yAt .a.dveo'bo �Y-- �Go '37 A SANTA
81.t. ✓'
.T a 11 out, wo-. eoch .vs I�,❑n 0°� ,u Y l I' oo. MARGARITA
M.ro ,,..� 'E
u s Htc�w Ars IOI Rork CABRILLO
i
�°L C R, }
Sa 06 po\"_• ' r : r::.>H'' o,F.... J. V R {�
c • Camp G/ an L I a •s ..,
)r,tE ss16ewArL. MORRO B
f �C a Pn�. r+wwrr. p
I
y r
'r ROAD All OT.ER ROADS 3 ate Park SA:h T,A
.w ..'. „'„. TAsP+'/oAwROK o(�r it Ilo�luc{r I ka t LC?OL1LEGE+�/y,'�.�s;-.a%. � Ch�R•n:pJ O°,..,,.❑- a/ `)��y1 P �.._- \7. +o.w.Ea` c r� \ ^9�z+dvvOtaI{
A._
RO\RITA LJr
M.—eaT h0RRoqCOumv uNs .Pek BAY '6,our cuesr
\4
■A CUESTA-tY.TH&SEA
PACES Of m❑ERESI (/` ood y l.ak Ereke: �r N Id° 775
0.11,16 t - _ \\' ---- ) ~� RLdef} q}� w A—
S
5./ t snr�. a �H h rp l k p..AE Pot r �0 I ry z M uQ ...3 l4 , P N f 4
Oso a c C \ ra Tn 4
a n
' oll. ^r� / 1 9
rn11 ' 5 .J L”'_t Y°\\y C11❑ L t • h'l InSOLPNUP T 1'. p
O
ft
Pe
C
H_lfldaNs
'
1rkP,(W.11 AN LUIS OBISPO
4
8
P-,rnr 11:,h sn Mon Dr.
PefY On .ti d�_,� sumo on ` V
~St.•,.. ,�
n- t
a v
r',. rA \1' NI °1"^ — Tork F°rmR ',P /oma \tPj, .._Hr II V1 n y c
41
r
n Ir / 1
.. '- IRISH HILLS °
,n
� N
Pk l r 111111 9OOo `av '°o 05; ,!t i'
tDNA C
: G Xa c❑wR,.c 'LOPEZ41.
`Bud Annb ay i� o rS/ \R!'SER VOIRf;
/ 9
-� lei L 6tC q,34 2 z
ti.
Q
NBn A. ROcowAY, Director Telephone(805)549=5600
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Courthouse Annex
SAN LUIS OBISPo, CALIFORNIA - 93908
January 11, 1980
Honorable Atascadero Planning Commission
and City Council
City of Atascadero, California
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
SUBJECT: AT 79-128, PROPOSED LOT DIVISION OF LOTS 11 AND 12, BLOCK 13,
ATASCADERO COLONY, SANTA ROSA ROAD NEAR ATASCADERO LAKE.,
CITY OF ATASCADERO.
(R-A: LOW DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) (WILHOITE - STEWART)
SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT #5 (884 7/16/79)
RECOMMENDATION FOR CONSISTENCY AND FOR APPROVAL
At a regular meeting of the County Subdivision Review Board, the attached
subdivision was considered and is being referred to you for required
action and findings regarding consistency with applicable general plans.
Respectfully submitted,
LARRY J. RED, Supervisor
Subdivision Review Section
ca
Attachment
cc: County Engineer
County Health Department
REPORT OF THE SUBDIVISION REVIEW BOARD MEETING JANUARY 9, 1980
RE: AT 79-128, PROPOSED LOT DIVISION OF LOTS 11 AND 12, BLOCK 13,
ATASCADERO COLONY, SANTA ROSA ROAD NEAR ATASCADERO LAKE, CITY OF
ATASCADERO.
(R-A: LOW DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) (WILHOITE - STEWART)
SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT #S (884: 7/16/79)
RECOAff,9ENDATION FOR CONSISTENCY AND FOR APPROVAL
SRB Members in Attendance: Chairman, Colonel Sorenson, Larry Red, John Hofschroer,
Bill MacDonald, Jerry Erickson, John Wallace
Planning Commissioner in Attendance: None
Legal Counsel Present: None
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This application proposes a subdivision of 2 lots consisting of 8.66 acres
into 3 lots of two 3.0 acre lots and one 2.4 acre lot. The site is
located on the south side of Santa Rosa Road near the southern end
of Atascadero Lake.
Zoning: R-A: "Suburban Residential" (minimum parcel size is
20,000 sq. ft.)
General Plan: 1978 Atascadero General Plan: "Low Density Single Family
Residential" (range is 11-2 - 21-2 acres)
COMMENTS
Environmental Determination:
A Condition Negative Declaration was issued by the Environmental Coordinator
on November 7, 1979, stating that the project will not have a significant
effect on the environment and therefore does not require the preparation
of an Environmental Impact Report, subject to the following conditions:
1. A report, to be prepared by a registered civil engineer experienced
in soils engineering, focusing on erosion and landslide potential
complete with means to mitigate the hazard from potential slide and
erosion problems must be approved by the County Engineering Department
prior to the issuance of any building permits. This requirement
should be noted on the deeds of title.
2. The location and design of new septic systems to be used on the
created parcels must be reviewed and approved by the California Water
Quality Board, Central Coast Region Office.
AT 79-128 •
•
Site and Area Considerations:
The terrain at the project site consists of gentle to moderately sloping
hillside. Vegetation at the project site consists of grasses and
scattered oak trees. A single-family residence presently exists on the
project site located on the west side of proposed Parcel 1. The south
end of Atascadero Lake is directly across Santa Rosa Road and all the
proposed parcels will have a view of the lake.
The soils in the area may be subject to high erosion potential and are
listed as having a severe limitation classification for septic system uses.
The County Seismic Safety Element identified the area as having a moderately
high potential for landslide.
Surrounding land use is single family residential with parcel sizes
ranging from z to 5 acres.
A driveway to the existing single family residence can be utilized to
provide access to the proposed parcels.
Prospective development of the proposed parcels should incorporate the best
design and engineering practices to mitigate the potential environmental
problems identified within this report.
Water service will be provided by Atascadero Mutual Water Company and
sewage disposal will be by individual septic systems.
Zoning and General Plan Consideration:
The site and adjacent properties fronting on Santa Rosa Road are zoned
R-A, Suburban Residential. The minimum parcel size is 20,000 sq. ft.
to the south. Properties fronting on San Gabriel Road are zoned A-1-11-2,
Light Agriculture with a minimum parcel size of 1z acres.
The 1978 Atascadero Area General Plan designates the area as Low Density
Single Family Residential. The site is outside the Urban Services boundary,
and Santa Rosa Road is designated as a Secondary Arterial. The General
Plan contains the following comments pertinent to this project:
Land Use Policy Proposals
2 The type and extent of services provided within the Urban Reserve
Area will depend on whether land is in the Urban or the Suburban
Services Area. Properties outside the Urban Services Line should
be evaluated for lot size based on the Suburban Residential range
(2z to 10 acres) until sewers are available. (P. 42)
Low Density
Minimum lot sizes within the Urban Services Area should range from lz
to 2z acres. Determination of appropriate lot sizes should be based
AT 79-128
upon such factors as the availability of services, especially sewers;
slope of access road to building site; distance from the center of the
community; general character of neighboring lands; soil percolation;
and the area needed for access roads to the building sites. (P. 44)
Residential Policy Proposals:
S. Residential density should decrease as one moves outward from the
core, in order to maintain the rural atmosphere of the community.
This can be accomplished by a graded increase in lot size and
a graded decrease in the permitted density of population.
10. Lot splits should be thoroughly evaluated and be in accordance with
community plans and principles. Strict adherence to the lot sizes
defined in this plan is essential in order to retain the desired
character of the community. Creation of lots smaller than those
recommended must not be permitted if the maximum population of .
approximately 30,000 is to be maintained.
11. Attention should be paid to the aesthetic result of land division.
Building sites should be encouraged on natural slopes, with minimal
disruption of native vegetation and watersheds, and efficient
layout of access and utilities.
12. A program should be developed to encourage the preservation. of
trees, watersheds and natural slopes and other natural amenities
from abuse and destruction resulting from poor design and development
practices. (P. 45 & 46)
The Suburban Residential Section also contains the following guidance:
Lot sizes should be 22 acres or more. Determination of appropriate lot
sizes should be based upon such factors as slope of the access road to
the building site, availability of services, distance from the center of
the community, general character of neighboring lands, percolation and
the area needed for access road to building site. (P. 44)
Santa Rosa Road is designated by the plan as a Secondary Arterial, and
the following comments are offered:
3. Secondary Arterials:
Secondary Arterials should be developed to a 60 foot right-of-way.
These roads serve as major access routes between residential areas,
shopping centers, employment centers and primary recreation areas.
Roads in this classification must have shoulders wide enough to
accommodate multi-use paths and emergency parking.
There are 14 segments of undivided Arterials:
i. Santa Rosa Road from Morro Road to E1 Camino Real
AT 79-128 •
i
RECOMMENDATION
Although the City Planning Commission and the 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.
After review of applicable General Plans and other available information,
the.Subdivision Review Board recommends approval to the City Council and
that the proposed subdivision be found consistent with the General Plan
in accordance with Section 65302.5(a) (4) of the Government Code.
Provided that a finding of consistency is made and the application
ultimately approved, the following conditions are hereby established
regarding the design and improvements of the proposed subdivision; which
conditions when satisfied will mitigate the environment concerns expressed
by the Environmental Coordinator in his Conditional Negative Declaration
of November 7, 1979.
. 1. That the following "NOTES" shall be placed on the final map:
A. No sewage disposal system installations are to be placed
closer than 100 feet from the top of the existing creek bank,
drainage swales or areas subject to inundation.
B. Sewage disposal systems shall be separated from any individual
domestic well and/or agricultural well, as follows: (1) leach
fields, one hundred feet (1001) , and (2) bored pits, one
hundred fifty feet (1501) . Wells intended for two or more
parcels shall be separated by two hundred feet (2001) from any
subsurface sewage disposal system.
C. Water is to be obtained from the Atascadero Mutual Water Company.
2. Prior to the filing of theap rcel map, the applicant shall submit
to and be jointly approved by the Planning Department and Health
Department, results of percolation tests and the log or logs of
soil borings performed by a registered civil engineer. For this
purpose, the applicant shall perform one or more soil borings to be
a minimum depth of ten (10) feet in the area of the proposed
sewage disposal system to determine the: (a) subsurface soil
conditions, (example: impermeable stratas which act as barriers to
the effective percolation of sewage); (b) and the presence of
groundwater. And the applicant must perform a minimum of three (3)
percolation test holes per lot, to be spaced uniformly in the area
of the proposed sewage disposal system. Percolation tests shall
conform to the methods and guidelines prescribed by the Manual of
Septic Tank Practice as adopted by the County Building and Construction
Ordinance Title 19, Chapter 10.24 for Parcels 2 and 3. Also, septic
tank use to be reviewed by the Water Control Board.
AT .79-128 •
•
3. That operable facilities exist prior to the filing of the Final
Map. A letter shall be obtained from the Atascadero Mutual Water
Company and submitted to the Health and Planning Departments for
review and approval stating there are operable facilities immedi-
ately available and ready for connection to the parcels created.
4. That the applicant offer for dedication to the public for future
road widening purposes 10 feet along Santa Rosa Road; said offer to
be made by Certificate on the Parcel Map.
S. That a private easement be reserved on the Parcel Map for access to
Parcel 2.
6. That the applicant submit a preliminary title report at the time
the Parcel Map is submitted for checking.
7. That a practical plan and profile for access to a suitable building
site on Parcel 2 be submitted to the County Engineering and Planning
Departments for approval.
8. That any private easement as shown on the Title Report be shown on
the Parcel Map with recording data.
9. That the drainage swale on the property be delineated on the Parcel
Map.
10. That a drainage plan, prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer, be
submitted to the County Engineer for approval.
11. That three (3) copies of a Preliminary Soils Report prepared by a
Registered Civil Engineer in accordance with Sections 17953, 17954,
17955 of the California Health and Safety Code be submitted to the
Planning Department and Health Department prior to the filing of
the parcel map by the County Engineer's Office. The date and
person who prepared the report are to be noted on the Parcel Map.
12. That the layout be redesigned as per Subdivision Review Board
Exhibit "A, dated December 4, 1979, on file in the Office of the
County Planning Department.
13. All .conditions of approval herein specified are to be complied with
prior to the submittal of the Parcel Map Original to the County
Engineer for approval.
14. That a Final Parcel Map shall be filed in accordance with the
Subdivision Map Act, prior to sale, lease or financing of the
subject property within a period of one year from approval date of
the Tentative Map.
AT 79-128 •
•
15 FIRE PROTECTION STANDARDS
The applicant must comply with state, county and district laws/
ordinances applicable to fire protection and consider increased
fire risk to area by the land proposed.
16. After approval by the Board of Supervisors, compliance with the
preceeding conditions will bring the proposed subdivision in
conformance with the Subdivision Map Act and local ordinances.
17. The Tentative Parcel Map will expire one year (12 months) from the
date of Board of Supervisors approval. The Tentative Parcel Map
may be extended one year by the Subdivision Review Board. Written
requests with appropriate fees must be submitted to the Planning
Department prior to the expiration date.
DISCUSSION
Applicant's engineer attended the meeting.
The Subdivision Review Board unanimously adopted the preliminary report
as amended.
P —1,11,- 6 •/
_ �`� :- 4 Q. _ '4• r ..>r �l•N[� 4i _ ` ,.1C•�~r � �.- ,gU�/��I�v��i• �I ��•� . f
v la/► •� TT��{ }gyp •• /• 1
. �, '• _� • - _ �a ki ��ri�4.• .0 �� (' ••�•_'lam J• ,: . �1�� / '-
{ o ',-� - -'$- '� � - 7�*-• .g >;. .�`� _ ��� _ �i1 � ` � ,�. �-�� - ` � ,\ rob. �'
l i' `, � .. ,�• '1 .� _ _ •, ,�`�'. a `" - �J,,'i. �/ ;fit
D ' :�� `� Cys'. l `� y �- •
'f j •� z;.���'' �,� `i ice- Oi
X10 .
IL4
01-7
_ -7 .j,• r A --
vis
Sot / o
�PpR \ q O
POA ql-�o
32 yi�0� J
OLO 130
000 ��f� I0"Ji
r i "36 .14 `
' _ S 1200
^:9 ?N t' l
A LVA RA D 0
to Fco f_--- _ ; , 6497
C41v"
0 Ti
47 It dp
f _
24- 8 c'
'\ rn N.
+
4
liz
Kd
h
970 `
w
- 960
00
. . '4
Q
0.
44.
I .w
�- .4 %
DANIEL J. STEWART & ASSAC.
ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS
POST OFFICE BOX 6 8 7 PHONE (805) 46 6-5717
4401 El Camino Real Atascadero, CA 93422
9 l�
January 28, 1980
����� 1V
S.L.O. County y
Planning Department S
Courthouse Annex.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 £
RE: AT 79-128
Dear Mr. Red:
This letter is to request that you reconsider item No. 11 of the
conditions of approval for the subject Parcel Map.
The costs to meet this condition of approval would be from $400. 00 .
up to $800 . 00 .
I have reviewed the site and cannot fully understand why this condition
appears. There is an existing residence on one parcel and we are in
the process of creating only 2 additional parcels. I realize that
this condition is required for all subdivisions but it is normally
exempted from parcel maps.
Thank you very much.
Very truly yours,
DANIEL J TELr1ART, R.C.E.
Di S j1'>
pc: W. Wilhoite
Dan Vossler
JArl 2 9 1980
S.L.O. COUNTY
PLANNING DEPT.
n
eJ
? .. c-�
JJ -,
t�
0000 , > n �N
o "We appreciate your business"
2121 SANTA BARBARA ST., SAN LUIS OBISPo 543-6844
NBD A. RocOWAY, Director Telephone(805)549-5600
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Courthouse Annex
SAN LuIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA - 93408
January 11, 1980
Honorable Atascadero Planning Commission
and City Council
City of Atascadero, California
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
SUBJECT: AT 79-110, PROPOSED LOT DIVISION OF PARCELS 1 AND 2
OF CO 67-61, ON THE WEST SIDE OF WEST MALL ADJACENT TO
ATASCADERO CREEK, ATASCADERO.
(R-2-B-2-D(506) : LOW DENSITY MULTIPLE FAMILY)
(HVOLBOL, ETAL - SCHOTT) SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT#1 (884: 7/18/79)
RECOMMENDATION FOR CONSISTENCY AND FOR APPROVAL
At a regular meeting of the County Subdivision Review Board, the attached
subdivision was considered and is being referred to you for required
action and findings regarding consistency with applicable general plans.
Respectfully submitted,
i
LARRY J. RED, Supervisor '
Subdivision Review Section
ca
Attachment
cc: County Engineer
County Health Department
REPORT OF THE SUBDIVISION REVIEW BOARD MEETING JANUARY 9, 1980
RE: AT 79-110, PROPOSED LOT DIVISION OF PARCELS 1 AND 2 OF CO 67-61, ON
THE WEST SIDE OF WEST MALL ADJACENT TO ATASCADERO CREEK, ATASCADERO.
(R-2-B-2-D(506) : LOW DENSITY MULTIPLE FAMILY)
(HVOLBOL, ETAL. - SCHOTT) SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT#1 (884: 7/18/79)
RECOM14ENDATION FOR CONSISTENCY AND FOR APPROVAL
SRB Members in Attendance: Acting Chairman, Larry Red, John Hofschroer,
Bill MacDonald, John Wallace, Mike Doherty
Planning Commissioner in Attendance: None
Legal Counsel Present: None
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This application proposes a subdivision of two parcels totalling 2.05
acres into 4 parcels each, in excess of 22,000 square feet. The site is
located on the west side of West Mall adjacent to Atascadero Creek,
Atascadero.
"Zoning: R-2-B-2-D(506) : "Low Density Multiple Residential" (10,000
square feet minimum lot size)
General Plan: 1978 Atascadero General Plan: "Low Density Multiple
Family" (z acre)
COMMENTS
Environmental Determination
A Conditional Negative Declaration was issued by the Environmental
Coordinator on November 27, 1979, stating that the project will not have
a significant effect on the environment and therefore does not require
the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report, subject to the
following conditions:
1. That drainage and erosion control plans be submitted to and approved
by the County Engineering Department prior to issuance of any
building permits.
2. That disturbance of the riparian vegetation along Atascadero Creek
be avoided.
Site and Area Considerations
Terrain of the project site is relatively level. Vegetation consists of
grasses and some brush. Atascadero Creek runs along the northern boundary
of the site.
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 1977 Flood Hazard
Boundary Map designates the site as being in a special flood hazard area.
However, this is a general map. A more detailed study by Fred H. Schott 9
' AT 79-110
Associates - Civil & Structural Engineers shows the creek to stay within
its banks for a 100 year storm. Physical evidence on the site as well
as flooding history of the area indicate that there is not any flood
hazard on the property.
Information from the Soil Conservation Service indicates that the
potential for soil erosion and sedimentation is moderate and that the
site is well drained. An erosion control and drainage plan should be
submitted to the County Engineering Department.
Water is to be obtained from the Atascadero Mutual Water Company. Sewer
service is to be provided by the Atascadero Sanitary District. A 10 foot
. sewer trunk line extends diagonally across Parcels B, D and the corner._
-ofd ` 1T}e Dine, w is extends from-tne sewage treatment plant immediately
to the north of the property could be a limiting factor for fuTi�rP
construction. A conditional use permit 1001: 1) was granted by the
Board of Supervisors on December 27, 1976, for a 34 unit apartment complex.
An extension of time was also approved by the County Planning Commission
on January 12, 1978. The extension was good until June 27, 1978. The
use permit was apparently never exercised.
The 1978 Atascadero General Plan designates this property as Low Density
Multiple Family Residential with a minimum parcel size of 2 acre required
for new parcels. Access is from West Mall. West Mali is designated a
local street in the Circulation Element of the Atascadero General Plan.
The following excerpts from this Plan are pertinent to this property.
Multiple-Family Residential shall be further divided into:
Low Density
Should be permitted in areas not adjacent to arterials and may be
permitted adjacent to Single-Family Residential. May include
duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes, but not apartments of S or
more dwelling units. (P. 44)
Residential Policy Proposals
6. Multi-family residential use areas should have a minimum
building site of one-half acre with the number of allowable
units corresponding to the following table:
No. of Bedrooms Required Land Acre Per Unit
1 2400 sq. ft.
2 3600 sq. ft.
3 4800 sq. ft.
4 5900 sq. ft.
7. Multi-residential density areas should be considered in light
of such specific factors as topography, traffic circulation,
drainage, fire protection and general level of use intensity
at that location. (P. 44)
AT 79-110 •
11. Attention should be paid to the aesthetic result of land
division. Building sites should be encouraged on natural
slopes, with minimal disruption of native vegetation and
watersheds and efficient layout of access and utilities.
12. A program should be developed to encourage, the preservation
of trees, watersheds and natural slopes and other natural
amenities from abuse and destruction resulting from poor
design and development practices. (P. 45 and P. 46)
RECOMMENDATION
Although the City Planning Commission and the 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.
After review of applicable General Plans and other available information,
the Subdivision Review Board recommends approval to the City Council and
that the proposed subdivision be found consistent with the General Plan in
accordance with Section 65302.5(a) (4) of the Government Code.
Provided that a finding of consistency is made and the application
ultimately approved, the following conditions are hereby established
regarding the design and improvements of the proposed subdivision; which
conditions when satisfied will mitigate the environmental concerns
expressed by the Environmental Coordinator in his Conditional Negative
Declaration of November 27, 1979.
And, provided that the Atascadero City Council finds that your Tentative
Parcel Map is consistent and approved, the Subdivision Review Board also
recommends to the Atascadero City Council that it be found in the
interest of the public health and safety, and as a necessary prerequisite
to the orderly development of the surroudning area, to require the
construction of road improvements within a period of one year after
recordation of the Parcel Map.
1. That the following "NOTES" shall be placed on the final map:
A. Sewage disposal shall be by connection to the community sewers.
B. Water is to be obtained from the Atascadero Mutual Water
Company.
2. That operable water facilities exist prior to the filing of the
Final Map. A letter shall be obtained from the Atascadero Mutual
Water Company and submitted to the Health and Planning Departments
for review and approval stating there are operable facilities
immediately available and ready for connection to the parcels
created.
AT 79-110 • •
3. Thatrp for to the filing of the final map a "will serve" letter be
obtained from the Atascadero Sanitary District and submitted to the
Health and Planning Departments for review and approval stating
that the community sewage system is willing and able to serve the
newly created parcels.
4. That adequate provisions shall be made to prevent standing water in
order to prevent mosquito breeding and other associated nuisances
and safety hazards.
4A. That a 5' offer of dedication be required long West Mall Street.
5. That a private easement be reserved on the/Parcel Map for access to
parcel(s) A and C.
6. That the applicant submit a preliminary Title Report at the time
the parcel map is submitted for checking.
7. That any private easement as shown on the Title Report be shown on
the Parcel Map with recording data.
8. That the area inundated by Atascadero Creek on the property be
delineated on the Parcel Map.
9. NOTE for map: That a drainage and erosion control plan, prepared
by a Registered Civil Engineer, be submitted to the County Engineer
for approval prior to issuance of building permits.
10. FIRE PROTECTION STANDARDS
The applicant must comply with state, county and district laws/
ordinances applicable to fire protection and consider increased
fire risk to area by the land proposed.
11. All conditions of approval herein specified are to be complied with
prior to the submittal of the Parcel Map Original to the County
Engineer for approval.
12. That a Final Parcel Map shall be filed in accordance with the
Subdivision Map Act, prior to sale, lease or financing of the
subjectproperty within a period of one year from approval date of
the Tentative Map.
13. NOTE to be placed on Parcel Map indicating riparian vegetation along
Atascadero Creek not be disturbed.
14. After approval by the Board of Supervisors, compliance with the
preceeding conditions will bring the proposed subdivision in
conformance with the Subdivision Map Act and local ordinances.
AT 79-110
15. The Tentative Parcel Map will expire one year (12 months) from the
date of Board of Supervisors approval. The Tentative Parcel Map
may be extended one year by the Subdivision Review Board. Written
requests with appropriate fees must be submitted to the Planning
Department prior to the expiration date.
DISCUSSION
Applicant and engineer attended the meeting.
The Subdivision Review Board unanimously adopted the preliminary report
as amended.
• ++..ice.' 1 \ 'y 4i, y
�J
�.• 9
9 r fi++r. p� y 3p 4`. gyp\
\ •� C i 0
• \ /.�
/ ' �.- ti- d ,/J•M, '..� 836 D�21
gyp / C ;: \• / 4 4 ,• /•f••;� �1►
rQ�� � • k 9•y� ,Q--4 �., y2 : goo \\V 1.Fi�'F,
cr
nk
ine�� .•,� Z, .�., � '� S` / v�. £- � /tel '��
Ile
AT CADERO
00
l • � _ It �j`�4 -, � � p��lv. .• • J I / •I•
JOL
41
AI
H As
ig
• �• -��1� Vii` �,,. .���� �. � '� �p /•'`:�,• ��.4 1iC.
7,y`b •'`•J� `'• \.- .r * ANDS �vs �- _�, ' '�-.'�yy- 1 1•\\\� ��•'+,�., �,'�> �� -,,
�A V _ Al �. ��. —� �9 \.�,� ✓ _ ];,. •v a \�� Fvy �':�•i
' �-� p ` , 4 � �^ •N�1•�_,�,% `V, 1 •V? -� _ • • �� ' ��. ,{tea.
it//, ` • '.� , / F:j� W ••+���Y•• �U 0 IV
'.y `y. '�•�1•`•
•/
,�� C� � '' ••'`••� �r� - _� �` rte' �. -
R' o
�° \`~` ``i �`�`��� • yea,
y ♦ a °i-
It�
a aa Y k
3`
Ol
V i
4
♦
r
A � ran.w• s
i 3
o
rOJ'7rr 'r M.r .Il M .y+•s _i��`I�Q , �'
002
14
74 r a a
hlY W o � y a te_ I14
n
_ _ .tr�orr �.fr.nti � • °
i� ' Oif-YO-f6R
b
NED A. RocowAY, Director Telephone(805)549-5600
ce
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Courthouse Annex
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA- 93408
January 10, 1980
Honorable Atascadero Planning Commission
and City Council
City of Atascadero, California
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
The following Lot Line Adjustments were reviewed by the Subdivision Review
Board on January 9, 1980, and were found to comply with Section 21.48.017
of the Lot Division Ordinance. These Lot Line Adjustments, recommended
by the Subdivision Review Board for conditional approval, are as follows:
1. AL 79-68 (Van Saun - Hilliard)
2. AL 79-46 (Garza - None)
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 report.
Respectfully submitted,
LARRY J. RED, Supervisor
Subdivision Review Section
ca
Attachments
cc: County Engineer
County Health Department
REPORT OF THE SUBDIVISION REVIEW BOARD MEETING JANUARY 9, 1880
RE: AL 79-46, PROPOSED LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT OF LOTS 13 AND 58, BLOCK Q,
ATASCADERO; PARCELS FRONT ON ROSARIO AND ALAMO ROADS.
(R-1-B-3-D(506) : MODERATE DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE);
(GARZA - NONE) SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT #1 (884 7/19/79)
SRB Members in Attendance: Chairman, Colonel Sorenson, Larry Red, Bill
MacDonald, John Hofschroer, John Wallace, Mike Doherty
Planning Commissioner in Attendance: None
Legal Counsel Present: None
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This application proposes an adjustment of the property line between 2
lots. Lot 58 is 17,093 sq. ft. and Lot 13 is 25,088 sq. ft. The site
is located between Alamo and Rosario Roads.
Zoning: R-1-B-3-D(508) : "Single Family Residential" (20,000 minimum
parcel size)
General Plan: 1978 Atascadero General Plan: "Moderate Density Single
Family Residential (an acre minimum with sewers and
131 acre minimum without sewers)
REASON FOR THE ADJUSTMENT
The existing house is located on the property line.
COMMENTS
A Conditional Negative Declaration was issued by the Environmental
Coordinator on November 6, 1979, stating that the project will not have
a significant effect on the environmental and therefore does not require
the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report, subject to the follow-
ing condition•
A report to be prepared by an engineering geologist examining
the slope stability of Lot 13 (Parcel A) will be necessary
prior to the issuance of any builing permits; this should be
noted on the deed of titles.
The Environmental Coordinator states the "County Seismic Safety Element
identifies the area as having moderately high potential from landslide"
and therefore requires the report by an engineering geologist.
The adjustment, which involves shifting a property line to accommodate
an existing house, reduces the size of one parcel and increases the
other. The resultant parcels will be nearly equal in size. Parcel "A"
is 20,040 sq. ft. and Parcel "B" is 22,142 sq. ft. The existing house
will conform to ordinance requirements on setbacks and the creation
of two building sites will eliminate the problem of double street frontage
that now exists.
AL 79-46 •
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.
Provided that the adjustment is approved, the following conditions are
hereby established:
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.
S. A report be prepared by an engineering geologist examining the
slope stablility of Parcel "A" will be necessary prior to issuance
of any building permit. This should be noted on the deed of titles.
DISCUSSION
Applicants did not attend the meeting.
The Subdivision Review Board unanimously adoptedthepreliminary report
as written.
•��.,. •� E }. 9Tv-
00 p�l
6�0 59 29 Ft
.� a .,
O ♦ _S 0 _� 900Ft`
L p •� RANCHO LA ASUNCION
a • Q ncion as• I
33
+ d'M ♦ I i.
AO
` 3
y _ �• ss
\ 4t
> x „ / �',�— •?sem ' �,
�.•%FT,23G.
83
•//SIO}� � �O �` .\ . •', ./ --,`�Q r, •.�r'1� ., � - /•f••,•� ��\J
(/• .. • 'c:,. 412 :^• .,v O '� ;Q -UA
Ir
u
i7
LLwaterI
4 , � i � �: ,� .. �:,.ry Tangy
Ijt 1 a I
_cn �.;,�� ' 4...y `i ,;Armo II �/ a�l ine
44
• �.>� � 1 YF \ '�►-•'-�* � t re
404
• c .�4�2 • �. `4WN r
00 ^/48z�p0 C✓F •�® � �;� � LB/ G
i • ♦ I � /a' 1,107 },
L
•''� .�� 40 , 3 •y �` `RO ,_� ®'♦• �J�PI`Ou
~ r
e� P7A CADERO {1 'LQ t 4.'% .!• �.',h �. O- p�,
�' ' a
a
,L
�o
i \ Da
O
z � IL
,\ NY
16C
OP
IL
r N v Sl
L16)r N � � � 1�N � J ` -•-�
a Q
`� N o Z.
1- ^ tq '
r� N_
`4 O S{
�� .6
r
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Atascadero City Council DATE: February 6, 1980
FROM: Planning Consultant/Director
SUBJECT: ATASCADERO GENERAL PLAN
B-10 Continued public hearing on Atascadero General Plan and
referral of reports and recommendations by the Planning
Commission on items referred for their review by the
City Council on January 28 , 1980
After several months of work, the Planning Commission has concluded
its review of the General Plan and adopted Resolution 1-80 recommending
adoption. The Planning Commission recommendation consists of the
following:
a. The text marked "Exhibit A" which includes:
1) Amendments and corrections approved by the San Luis
Obispo County Board of Supervisors specified in Reso-
lution No. 78-674, adopted December 18, 1978 ;
2) Mitigation measures as a supplement to Environmental
Impact Report as recommended by the Environmental
Coordinator in a letter dated September 14 , 1978; and
3) Amendments approved by the Atascadero Planning Commission
as recorded in November and December, 1979 minutes and
as delineated in the attached supplement.
b. The General Plan of Land Use Map marked "Exhibit B" including
the supplement approved with amendments to the map.
It should be pointed out that Government Code Section 65356 pro-
vides that " . . . any modification of the proposed plan by the legis-
lative body (City Council) not previously considered by the Planning
Commission during its hearing, shall first be referred to the Plan-
ning Commission for report and recommendation, but the Planning
Commission shall not be required to hold a public hearing thereon. "
Included as part of this material are reports and recommendations
from the Planning Commission on items referred back for their review.
Submitted by:
LAWRENCE S EVENS
Planning nsultant/Director
LS:kp
RESOLUTION 1-80
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF ATASCADERO
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
JANUARY 7 , 1980
PRESENT: Commissioners Cannon, Lilley, Moore, Oglesby, Summers,
Wentzel and Chairman Norton
ABSENT: Commissioner
IN THE .MATTER OF ADOPTION OF THE ATASCADERO
CITY GENERAL PLAN BEING A COMPREHENSIVE
LONG TERM GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO
The following resolution is now offered and read:
WHEREAS, Section 65300 through Section 65307 of the
California Government Code provides for the authority and scope
of General Plans consisting of a statement of development
policies and diagrams and text setting forth objective principles
and standards and plan proposals among others; and
WHEREAS, Section 65302 of the California Government Code
requires a Land Use Element and
WHEREAS, An integrated Environmental Impact Report and
supplemental letter to the County Planning Commission of
September 14, 1978, with suggested mitigation measures to certain
portions of the plan have been prepared and reviewed by the
County Environmental Coordinator; and
WHEREAS, Several public hearings have been conducted
by the Atascadero City Planning Commission, including the con-
sideration of the Atascadero City General Plan adopted by the
County of San Luis Obispo in December, 1978 , as amended; and
WHEREAS, Additional amendments to the Draft Plan have
been proposed and incorporated herein as if made part of the
draft copy of the Atascadero City General Plan; and
WHEREAS, Adequate notice has been given of the Planning
Commission' s consideration of this General Plan including notice
as required by Section 65351 of the Government Code; and
WHEREAS, The staff of the Commission has reviewed and
made recommendations regarding the Draft General Plan prepared
as amended by the Commission herein and made part of this
draft copy; and
WHEREAS, This Commission has carefully considered the
proposed Atascadero City General Plan and finds that said Plan
constitutes a suitable, logical and timely Plan for the City
of Atascadero;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED AND ORDERED by the
Atascadero City Planning Commission:
1. That the Planning Commission after review and consideration
of the Environmental Impact Report and supplemental letter
of September 14, 1978, with suggested mitigation measures
to certain portions of the Plan find said Environmental Impact
Report is adequate
2. Resolve further that the Atascadero City General Plan,
including the Environmental Impact Report, be recommended
to the Atascadero City Council and replaces the Atascadero
General Plan adopted by the County of San Luis Obispo and
consisting of:
A. The attached text marked Exhibit "A" , which includes:
(1) Amendments and corrections approved by the San
Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors specified
in Resolution No. 78-674 adopted December 18, 1978;
(2) Mitigation measures as a supplement to the Environ-
mental Impact Report as recommended by the Environ-
mental Coordinator in a letter dated September 14,
1978; and,
(3) Amendments approved by the Atascadero City Planning
Commission as reflected in the minutes of their
meetings in November and December, 1979 and as
delineated in the attached supplement.
B. The General Plan of Land Use Map marked Exhibit "B"
including supplement approved as amendments to the map.
On motion by Commissioner Oglesby , seconded by
Commissioner Summers and upon the following roll call vote,
to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Cannon, Lilley, .Moore, Oglesby, Summers,
Wentzel and Chairman Norton
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
I hereby certify the foregoing as a full, true and
correct copy of a resolution adopted by the City Planning
Commission of the City of Atascadero, State of California, at
a meeting thereof held on 7th day of January, 1980.
G2u�w
S cretary, Planning Commission
City of Atascadero
State of California
S U P P L E M E N T
TEXT CHANGES APPROVED BY THE ATASCADERO PLANNING COMMISSION
Pg. Col. Par. Line
1 L 2 3 delete "amends the County Land Use
Element and"
1 L 2 4-.7 delete 3rd sentence referring to
County General Plan
1 L 2 8 delete "County" and replace with
"City"
1 L 4 delete second sentence
43 L delete entire left column
43 R 4-6 delete "The rate of residential
construction—problems are dis-
cussed in Chapter IX, HOUSING. "
44 L 4 3 amend to read " . . . schools, libraries
and board and care facilities. "
44 L 7 amend first sentence to read
"Minimum lot sizes within the Urban
Services Area shall range from 13�
to two and one-half acres while
the minimum lot size outside the
Urban Services Area shall be two
and one-half acres. "
44 R 2 11-13 delete last sentence "Because this
plan— formerly designated Rural
are increased. "
44 R 4 3 delete first point "The use density
. . .does not exceed 36 individual
residents per acre. "
45 L 1 add under High Density "The use
density. . .does not exceed 36 indivi-
dual residents per acre."
45 L 1 amend second sentence under Low
Density to read " . . .and fourplexes,
but generally no more than 5
dwelling units per building. "
-2-
Pg. Col. Par. Line
45 L 1 add third sentence under Low Density
"New projects with more than four
units per structure shall require
specific design approval. "
45 R" #6 delete " . . .with the number.
the following table: " including
the table
46 L #15 renumber "15" to "16" and amend to
read "New condominium projects,
planned mobile home developments and
stock cooperatives shall be reviewed
on an individual basis as community
housing needs, neighborhood character,
and site improvements will dictate.
46 L #15 add "15. Where all factors are
favorable, board and care facilities
could satisfactorily be developed in
designated neighborhood areas. The
use density shall not be permitted
to exceed that of . High Density
Multiple Family use. "
46 L #17 add "17. To alleviate the problems
arising from the conversion of
existing rental units, the City may
regulate condominium conversions.
The City shall revise its zoning
ordinance and subdivision ordinance
regarding condominium conversions
in order to:
(a) Establish criteria for the con-
version of existing multiple
rental housing to condominiums,
community apartments, stock
cooperatives, and new or limited
equity stock cooperatives.
(b) Reduce the impact of such con-
versions on residents in rental
housing who may be required to
relocate due to conversion of
apartments to condominiums,
community apartments, stock
cooperatives, and new or limited
equity stock cooperatives by
providing procedures for notifi-
cation and adequate time and
assistance for such relocation.
(c) Insure that the purchasers of
converted housing have been
properly informed as to the physi-
cal condition of the structure which
-3-
Pg. Col. Par. Line
is offered for purchase.
(d) Insure that converted housing
achieves high quality appearance
and safety and is consistent with
the goals of the City' s General
Plan.
(e) Encourage opportunities for hous-
ing ownership of all types, for
all levels of income and in a
variety of locations.
(f) Encourage a continuing supply of
rental housing for low and
moderate income persons and
families.
47 L 2 10-12 delete last sentence referring to
Countywide Land Use Element
47 L 3 5-8 amend to read " . . .Santa Rosa Road.
There are many. . . for the immediate
future. " deleting " . . . it is recommended
. . . 4 .4 acres in this category. "
47 R #1 delete "completely"
47 R #4 delete "and dangerous"
52 L .#2 amend #2 to read "2 . The area along
the west side of El Camino Real from
Curbaril Avenue south to the Commer-
cial use at the Santa Rosa overpass
shall also be upgraded to the status
of Industrial Park. "
66 L 3 8 change "County" to "City"
68 L 3 4 change "County to "City"
77 L 2 d. change "County-granted" to "City
granted"
88 R 1 delete paragraph "To relieve con-
gestion. . .back to El Camino Real. "
134 L 9 3 change "County" to "City"
-4-
Pg. Col. Par. Line
45 L 1 add the following under "Low Density" :
"The use density shall be based upon
the criterion of approximately 22
individual residents per acre. The
following maxima shall apply:
11 one bedroom apartments per acre
7 two bedroom apartments per acre
5 three bedroom apartments per acre
4 four bedroom apartments per acre
or, any combination of the above
which, multiplied by standard occu-
pancy factors, does not exceed 22
residents per acre. "
45 L 4 add paragraph to read "Mobile home
parks may be permitted in Single
Family Residential areas at the same
densities as if they were stick-built
structures and may be permitted in
Multiple Family Residential areas at
a maximum of 11 dwellings per acre. "
97 R 5 delete references to County in sen-
tence: "Although a local Housing
Authority. . .under the current County
Administration. "
87 R 4 add sentence to read "Proposed plans
to realign and .improve Highway 41
from Freeway 101 shall be dropped in
order to prevent further bisecting
of the community. "
87 R 5 1 delete "temporary
88 L C. delete "until the eastern portion of
Highway 41 is rerouted. "
92 R #3 delete "temporary" and change "a"
to "an"
92 R #3 add a new #3 and renumber 3-18 to
4-19 with the new wording "3. Highway
41 shall not be realigned and improved
eastward of Freeway 101. "
-5-
Pg. Col. Para Line
1 L 1 2 change "more than a half century"
to "nearly three-quarters of a century"
1 R 1 4 change "still stand" to "stood until
recently"
2 L 2 2 delete " ,now a County landmark,"
9 L 1 5 change "2311" to "1711"
41 R 1 8+ change third sentence to read "In
this Plan the Urban Reserve Line
generally coincides with the Atas-
cadero Colony boundary, except for
two Agricultural Preserves and a
portion of a third (The Eagle Ranch
Agriculture Preserve has a total of
5,978 acres of which 2,786 acres
are within the Colony boundaries)
that are located on the periphery
of the Colony and except for areas
south of Santa Barbara Road and
west of the summit of Frog Pond
Mountain.
42 L 1 2, 3 change first sentence to read,
"The Suburban Services Area consists
of. the remainder of the City and the
portion of the Eaglet Tract within
the City boundaries. "
42 R 1-3 delete the three paragraphs explaining
a method of calculation
44 L 7 the wording of the section under
"Low Density" shall read "Minimum
lot sizes within the Urban Services
Area shall range from 12 to 22 acres
while the minimum lot sizes outside
the Urban Services Area shall be
22 acres Determination of approp-
riate lot ` sizes shall be based upon
such factors as slope of access road
to the building site; availability
of services, especially sewers;
distance from center of the community;
general character of neighboring
lands; percolation and the area needed
for access roads to the building site.
The keeping of poultry. . .."
46 R 1 delete the first paragraph including
the table
-6-
Pg. Col. Par. Line
48 R 3 under Neighborhood Commercial #2
reading, "On the two northern
corners of Morro Road and Curbaril
Avenue. " shall be deleted
66 R 1 1,2 the words "now in the initial stages
of development" should be changed
to "which is nearly completed"
77 L 1 2 , 3 should be changed to read " . ..Fire
Department has made several recom-
mendations to the Fire Board.
It
Among the. .
80 R #10 delete reference to Sheriff ' s
Substation and renumber
90 R 1 b. delete "b. Designation of another. . .
is of high priority. "
97 R 4 delete last sentence "A proposal. . .
has been presented. "
43 R #8 the following wording is suggested
"8. In the calculation of lot area
for the purposes of considering land
divisions and in determining per-
mitted numbers and types of animals
allowed, gross acreage shall be used.
However, in determining permitted
densities for multiple family resi-
dential developments, net acreage
(excluding land area needed for
street rights-of-way) shall be used.
various places in text Use the word "shall in place of
"should" and "will" in those instances
where binding standards are intended
(i.e. , regulations, principles) and
retain the word "should" in those
instances where flexibility is desired
(i.e. , policy proposals, property
acquisitions, capital improvements)
77. R 2 4 add the following sentence, "The
French medical Clinic, located on
the south end of E1 Camino Real,
also provides medical services to
the community. "
77 R 3 6 delete sentence beginning, "It may
be possible. . . " and insert the (
following, "A Dial-a-Ride program
operates as a service of the Senior
Citizens United.
Pg. Col. Para Line
76 R 2 delete the last two sentences and
insert the following: "The City
of Atascadero is in the process of
establishing its own police services.
In the establishment of those ser-
vices, consideration is being given
to a public safety function combin-
ing some police and fire services. "
76 R 3 delete the entire paragraph
91 L c rewrite this sentence to read, "The
lot on Entrada Avenue between 5975
Entrada Avenue and the Post Office
building.
SUPPLEMENT
MAP CHANGES APPROVED BY THE ATASCADERO PLANNING COMMISSION
1. The CEMETERY shall be shown as a public facility on
Map VII-3.
2. Lots fronting on the southerly side of Palomar Avenue,
adjacent to the Atascadero Regional Park, shall be shown
as Moderate Density Single Family Residential.
3. Santa Ysabel Extension to she County Clinic property.
(see attached sketch)
. 4. Lots on the westerly side of Santa Ysabel from the Thrifty
complex to Pueblo and on the westerly side of Sinaloa
between Pueblo and Curbaril shall be shown as Low Density
Multiple Family Residential.
5. The west side of E1 Camino Real from Curbaril Avenue
south to the commercial use at the Santa Rosa overpass
shall be shown as Industrial Park.
0
N �
1j 4 �, 2 /n 00E 2ArE KA)51'r{
4 SINGLE FAMi
9V DEN
O �Pe
P CN" Y QE�15►ry p
��LTI t t.EFAAy tyEy�.
� �LES� �EN'�l�l• ! rI
°o
i /Qo o
T,c� �!C
I�
�'C ! HANE Vin. 3
S � � /"1 f�P
s •
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
ON REVISIONS TO ATASCADERO GENERAL PLAN
1. Request by Floyd Cornell for a higher land use designation such
as Multiple Familv Residential or Commercial for property loc-
ated along the easterly side of San Diego Way near E1 Camino
Real
The present zoning is A-1 (one acre minimum) and the recommended
General Plan designation is Suburban Single Family Residential (2�
acre minimum) . . The lots along San Diego Way are approximately one
acre in size. The proponent feels that the General Plan map change
would be appropriate for the following reasons:
- San Diego Way is heavily travelled since it is an off-ramp
from Freeway 101`
- El Camino Real is also heavily travelled
traffic noise is excessive for single family/agricultural
use
- nearby properties are designated for High Density Multiple
Family Residential use
- sewers being extended to serve a proposed mobile home park
can probably be extended to include his property
In reviewing this request, the following should be pointed out:
- there is no development proposal at this time
the extension of sewers to serve the area has not been verified
-. streets serve as good "dividing lines" between General Plan
land use designations
- the proposed General Plan designation is consistent with the
existing zoning
- the nearby High Density Multiple Family Residential parcels
are larger ranging from two to four acres in size
- the area is served by one off-ramp rather than an interchange
of ramps
- the property is adjacent to but outside of the Urban Services
Line
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission recommends the subject request not be
considered favorably. It was the consensus of the Commission that
the primary reasons for this recommendation are:
-2-
- there is no development proposal , at this time
- a high density use outside the Urban Services Area would
require new services
- that streets serve as good dividing lines between land use
designations
- the proposed General Plan designation is consistent with
existing zoning
as well as other points noted in the preceding paragraph.
2. Request by Capistrano Gardens (Kamm - Orton/Strong) for a-High
Density Multiple Family Residential designation for property
located on the east side of Capistrano north of Santa Ysabel
The present zoning is R-2-B-2-D (506) and the recommended
General Plan designation is Low Density Multiple Family Residential.
The 1. 07 acre site is developed with 12 two-bedroom and 4 one-bedroom
apartment units and was the subject of Tentative Tract No. 777. That
request for _a condominium subdivision was temporarily withdrawn by
the applicant due to the moratorium. The proponents contend that
the Planning Commission did not give specific consideration for their
request due to later, more controversial issues and point out the
following merits of their proposal:
- a recommended map change to High Density Multiple Family
Residential for property to the south should be extended
along Capistrano to include their project since this would
create a logical boundary line and transition between com-
mercial and lower density residential designations in the
area
- the request would reflect the existing use and avoid unneces-
sary "non-conforming" and "inconsistency" problems
- the existing development appears consistent with all policies
outlined in the text (Note: Even though the development
is not located on an arterial, the proponents point out that
other high density properties are not so situated. )
In reviewing this request, the following should be pointed out:
— even with the High Density designation, the existing develop-
ment exceeds density guidelines in the General Plan
attempts to meet the density guidelines have apparently been
unsuccessful
3 4
- the site is not located on an arterial
- parking would be inadequate based on County standards for
condominium projects
• -3-
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS:
The Planning Commission recommends that the subject request for
High Density Multiple Family Residential be favorably considered.
In addition, the Commission recommends that the High Density Multiple
Family Residential designation be extended northerly along Capistrano
to Country Club Drive. It should be noted that the vote on this -
request was 4-3. The primary reasons for the Planning Commission
majority supporting the request were because of the present state of
development on parcels owned by the proponent and the need to estab-
list an appropriate dividing line between land use designations.
3. Request by Wakefield/Switzer for Retail or Tourist Commerical
for property located at the northwesterly corner of Coromar
and Portola
The present zoning is C-H and the recommended General Plan
designation is Moderate Density Single Family Residential. The 3+
acre site is proposed for 112-unit motel with restaurant and shops.
A `departmental review application is being processed and is currently
being evaluated by the Environmental Coordinator' s Office. It was
at this point that the General Plan/zoning inconsistency was identified.
The following reasons may favorable to a map change at this
time:
- adjacent property to the south between Portola and Santa Rosa
is zoned C-H
freeway ramp access is available at Portola and via a frontage
road to Santa Rosa
- the Conditional Use Permit procedure would allow for the dev-
elopment of design standards to assure compatibility with
the area
- the City may consider a policy of contiguity when its procedures
are developed and that could be applied to this particular site
- large motel complexes can be major revenue generators. The
applicant also indicated that meeting rooms and similar facili-
ties would
acilities -would be provided
The following reasons may not be favorable to a map change
the availability of other commercially zoned land in the area
and in the City
- potential traffic lighting and similar problems which could
adversely affect the residential area
- 'the adjacent C-H property is not yet developed and extension
of the C-H zoning may adversely affect future development of
that property
-4
- Portola Road may be a logical boundary between the commercial
and residential uses
The available alternatives appear to be:
A. Resolution of the inconsistency by recommending a General
Plan map change to an appropriate land use designation. The
adjacent property is designated for Retail-Commercial land use, but
this may be inconsistent with C-H zoning and the uses permitted
therein. As a result, consideration might be given to a Tourist
Commercial or some similar designation. If. this is done, it may be
desirable to use the same land use designation on the property to
the south instead of the current Retail-Commercial designation. If
this alternative were followed, the applicant could proceed with his
departmental review after adoption by City Council of the General
Plan. It should also be noted that this matter would have to be
referred back to the Planning Commission for a report and recommendation.
B. No change. This would result in denial of the project due to
inconsistency, since the intention would be to initiate a
resulting program for General Plan consistency within the near future.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission that the subject request for Retail-
Commercial be favorably considered. The primary reasons are those
noted in the preceding paragraphs including the existing zoning,
the length of time that the property has been so zoned and the
availability of freeway access.
4. Request from Palmer-Merriam for a Retail-Commercial designation
for the property located on the southerly side of El Camino
Real and the westerly side of Pueblo
The existing zoning is C-2-D13 and the recommended General Plan
designation is Heavy Commercial. The proponent owns the 4+ acre
vacant portion of the block and is putting together a development
package for the site which includes a major financial institution.
It is their desire to obtain a more restrictive commercial designation
to "protect" this pending development from heavier, less desirable
commercial uses such as auto repair shops. The proponents also point
out that properties across El Camino Real (Adobe Plaza) and Pueblo
(Atascadero Federal Credit Union) are designated Retail-Commercial.
In reviewing this request, the following should be considered:
- a General Map change for the entire block eventually
resulting in a C-1 (or similar) rezoning would make
several existing uses in the block non-conforming
- changing only the proponent' s property will create a small
island of Heavy Commercial surrounded by Retail-Commercial
- the financial institution would be a permitted use under
the current zoning and General Plan designation
• -5-
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommends that this request not be
favorably considered. After considerable discussion, the Planning
Commission determined that the following were the primary reasons
for their recommendation:
- the existing zoning and proposed General Plan designation
are currently consisten
- there is a limited amount of Heavy Commercial property
located within the community
- the financial institution would be permitted under the
current zoning and proposed land use designation
It should be noted that Chairman Norton and Commissioner Lilley
disqualified themselves from participating on this request.
5. Councilman Highland proposes to add the following on page
46 , left-hand column, under #17 concerning condominium
conversions:
" (g) Prohibit application for conversion for a minimum
of four years subsequent to occupancy as rental
housing.
The intent of the proposal seems both explicit and obvious, but
it could preempt some alternatives being considered in the current
study of the condominium/condominium conversion issue. The proposal
is specific and may be more of a zoning than a General Plan proposal.
If this approach is favorable, any ordinance on conversions must
include it.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission recommends that this proposal not be
favorably considered. The primary reason for this recommendation
is that such a provision is too specific and seems more properly
placed in an ordinance rather than in the General Plan
6. Councilman Highland proposes to amend the first sentence
on page 44 , left-hand column, paragraph 7 under Low Density
Single Family Residential to read:
"Minimum lot sizes within the Urban Services Area shall
range from one and .one-half acres to two and one-half
acres. The minimum lot size outside the Urban Services
Area shall be two and one-half acres until sewered.
Creation of smaller parcels, which shall be no less
than one and one-half acres, outside of the Urban
Services Area, prior to sewering, may be considered
if development includes the use of interim approved
engineered package systems for sewage disposal. Use
of such systems shall require periodic inspections or
• _6_
evidence of a valid maintenance contract. Determination
of appropriate lot sizes. . . "
The Planning Commission' s previous recommendation stated that
"Minimum lot sizes within the Urban Services Area shall
range from one and one-half to two and one-half acres
while the minimum lot sizes outside the Urban Services
Area shall be two and one-half acres. Determination of
appropriate lot sizes. . . "
The primary difference is the allowance for smaller parcel
sizes outside of Urban Services with the engineered systems. Consid-
eration of these engineered systems should evaluate their adequacy
and potential problems in order to allow for adequate provisions to
control these factors if such systems are deemed acceptable. Another
consideration should be the likelihood of sewers ever being extended
to these areas since the lot divisions are "permanent" while the
engineered systems are "interim" . An additional alternative might
be to change the General Plan designation for the Low Density Single
Family areas outside the Urban Services to Suburban Single Family
since this more accurately reflects the permissible lot size; but,
it should be pointed out that a large portion of the community falls
within this category.
PLANNING CO"U4ISSION RECOPIIMENDATION:
The Planning Commission requests additional time to consider
this proposal and has instructed Staff to obtain additional informa-
tion on the use of engineered package systems for sewage disposal.
It would be intended to report back to the City Council at their
meeting of February 25.
Submitted by:
LAWRENCE ST ENS
Planning Co ultant/Director
LS:kp
A- 1
• •
q-l_ 5 - �- S
� ro
Q ST 14&
R ti ELL, REOEST
4
RWeq��! Pub/iL / i9 Di SV�rh S
r i
Co h Dt
lee
M10
Des; 5`.`l`
SERv��ES
PROP0 5Co GEMERR[. PLAnl
E /Sr 20 e�B
W
v�
e
J
Q �
F.
C,9P/sr2,41v o R- �1
GA•RD�/v S vE � T v;
Q` ko
t
Per PC. recomMundolion V O�
Ai5 LOMARarea wo✓/d v
cl,anye y6 y;y S Qes.'Iy
ti1�l�pie. Emily Rc5,-Av �.l
o��r.k 0..►:;ly
f 'l � Pco,e�,lrien
o�, � •d 1
4aui 2ewea{yoA
ate, M�dk
Mil�rPla . Dani 1r 2
IQcsi v7
FUN
lu N,9b L E
' M✓��� x��6�l L Lf� 5,;��C
MPOSED "Mcme4L PLAN r1 r%
r erGial
f • EXIST/NG ZONING `<;"
i
W�10E Flt \11 34"
> s
10
IL
lb . _
L
PC. Hco f
�o
�;on Elie corner of
.46
W M M Q}rG/
_e
(oMMERi 1.4� ` f\
�bi&4TE D .'S Iryz�
PR o PO s C'D l4ENERRL !�L/4•N �
4` R 4-�,�
v
17
-vR-T a
ER E�P 57 7-
•Q i � a
r u,� e rknw
�C< r°vas y�'L — h�`�+5;• y
Q �
lol�l 71,
PROPoSED GENERAL 044f4
� 6
M E M O RAN D .0 M
TO: City Council
FROM: City Manager
SUBJECT: Purchase of parking facilities
Las`f"Council meeting you directed that the City Manager and
City Attorney explore options for the acquisition of the parking
lot properties across the street from the Administration Building.
The Attorney and I have met and, subsequently, met with one of
the property owners. It appears that we can acquire the property
on the basis of a parcel by parcel purchase with an option to buy
the remaining parcels and, until that option is exercised, to
pay rent for the use of the entire area.
In examining the problem, we considered three options. One
would be to acquire the entire 26,000 square feet at the original
price of $210,000 which, as you will recall, is considerably
below the appraised value. In order to do this, the property
owner would have to create four parcels which could be done through
a lot line adjustment. The City could then buy each parcel in
turn with a rental paid for the remaining parcels. The first
parcel to be acquired would be the one bordering Lewis Avenue.
The price would be $50,000 with the remaining parcels being rented
at $500 per month for twelve months.
YFor purposes of illustration, assume that this was accomplished
on July 1, 1980. On that date, we would pay $50, 000 for the first
parcel with the rental for the remainder at $500 per month for a
total of $56, 000 for the first year. Then, on July 1, 1981, we
would pick up the second parcel at a cost of $60,000 with the rental
for the remainder at $400 per month for a total of $64 , 800 the
second year. The third year, July 1, 1982, we would acquire the
third parcel at a cost of $57 , 250 and pay rent on the remainder at
$200 per month for twelve months at a cost of $59,650 for that year.
The following year, July 1, 1983 , the fourth parcel would be acquired
at a cost of $63 ,600. The total cost of acquisition would, therefore,
be $244 , 050. The net effect of this option would be use of the
entire 26, 000 square feet on which we could construct a parking lot
with, in effect, the rental being considered the same as if we were.
carry a mortgage at 10% interest.
Option 2 would be to acquire approximately 18,000 square feet,
which is the larger parcel bordering on East Mall and Lewis Avenue,
for a price of $150, 000. In order to exercise a rental option,
that parcel would have to be subdivided into three equal parcels.
Then, again assuming July 1, 1980, as the start date, we could
purchase the first parcel at a price of $50, 000 with a rental of
$500 per month for the first vear. This would give a total price
Memorandum Purchase of parking facilities
Page Two
of $56, 000. Then, on July 1, 1981, the second parcel could be
purchased at a price of $54 , 000 with the rental on the remaining
parcels of. $240 per month to give a second year cost of $57 , 000.
Then, on July 1, 1982, the final parcel could be acquired at a
price of $54 , 000. Total purchase price would 'be $167, 000, again
with the difference between the $150, 000 and $167 ,000 representing
rental or the equivalent to a mortgage contract at 10% . interest.
Option 3 could possibly be a variation of Option 2 starting
with four parcels as opposed to three thereby cutting the price
per lot to approximately $37, 000, which would reduce the required
cash flow but extend the final acquisition until the fourth year.
In each case we could have an agreement with the seller that
in the event the City was unable to exercise its option to purchase
the additional parcels, the properties would be bought back from
the City. The buy—back price would be the amount which the City
had paid minus the rental payments already made.
Bascially, then, a judgment needs to be made as to (1) whether
the property should be acquired, and (2) if that judgment is yes,
then as to the method of acquisition. The major difference between
the large parcel acquisition and a portion of it is a difference
of $7, 000. Under any of the options illustrated above, the City .
would be able to develop the property as a parking facility.
It should be noted that our application for a grant ($65, 000
to $70, 000) to acquire parking facilities for Dial-A-Ride is still
under active consideration by the State grants people. I cannot
say that we will get the grant; but, at this point, it looks hope-
ful. This, then, would help offset the purchase price.
MURRAY L. WARDEN
MLW:ad
2-6-80
j�IQCPO
°00 ° nD
0 0
U '
CD = o "We appreciate your business"
2121 SANTA BARBARA ST., SAN LUIS OBISPA 543-6844
r
` • S � 1
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: City Council
FROM: City Manager
SUBJECT: Residence of Planning Commissioners in the City
An issue was raised at the Planning Commission meeting
of February 4th concerning the future status of a member of
the Commission who may move outside the City limits, although
just barely. Ordinance No. 9, which established the Planning
Commission, establishes residency: "Section l. There is
hereby created a Planning Commission of the City .which shall
consist of seven (7) members which shall not be officials
or employees of the City, but who shall be residents of the
City. " (Emphasis mine. )
The State laws governing general law cities are silent
as to the residency requirement. The Council technically
could remove the residency requirement by ordinance if it
so desired. It should be noted that this would be rather`
unusual since most cities require Planning Commissioners to
be residents because of their acting on matters within City
limits. The question posed is does the Council wish to change
the provisions of Ordinance No. 9?
I would like to note that application of Ordinance No. 9
does not in any way reflect upon the interest or dedication
of any commission to the affairs of this City. Residency
plays a role in qualifying individuals for participation in
governmental affairs. In this regard, one merely need look
to voter residency requirements.
XR�Y WARDEN
MLW:ad
2-5-80
I
• • 0a
M E M_O_R_A N D U_M
TO: City Council
FROM: City Manager
SUBJECT: County/City service contract
Attached is a proposed amendment to our agreement with
the County for provision of services for the balance of
this year. The Centeno business license problem illustrated
a weakness in our contract as originally drafted with
reference to the appeal procedure when the Council acts
in lieu of the Board of Supervisors. The proposed amend-
ment will correct that omission.
As you can see, the City Attorney has reviewed the
matter and concurs with the change. 2 share his recommenda-
tion. Suggest Council, by motion approve the amendment
. as drafted.
�1
MURRAY L WARDEN
MLW:ad
2-6-80
allen grimes attorney at law
7360 EL CAMINO REAL, SUITE B • P.0.BOX 749 • ATASCADERO.CALIFORNIA 93422 -
PHONES (805) 466.3678 OR 466.1408
MEMORANDUM February 5, 1980
To: Murray Warden, City Manager
From: Allen Grimes, City Attorney
Subject: Amendment of County and City Service Contract
Reference Jac Crawford's letter of January 3:1, 1980 and proposed
contract amendment No. 1 of which you received a copy.
Subparagraph a. is for property taxes, and b. is for business licenses.
Looks ok to me. If you concur, process to Council.
_ OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT
CRAWFORD
COUNTY COUNSEL JACA.DEPUTIES
COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO SCOVIL F.HUBBARD
COURTHOUSE ANNEX ROOM 103 BRUCE M.COOK
SAN LUIS OBISPO. CA 93408 JOHN P.DALY
TELEPHONE 549.5400 or 549.5401 DAVID K.HUGHES
JAMES B.LINDHOLM,JR. (AREA CODE 805) THOMAS P.CONROY
COUNTY COUNSEL
J a n e a r 9 ROGER C.LYON,JR.
y 31 , 18 0 JON M.JENKINS
PI CMVEp FEB B 2 1984
Mr . Allen Grimes
City Attorney
P . O . Box 749
Atascadero , CA 93422
Re : Amendment to Contrast Between County and City
Dear Allen :
Pursuant to our discussion last Friday , I have enclosed a' pro-
posed Amendment to our Contract which would , hopefully , clarify
our relationship concerning the handling of business licenses
for the City during the 1979-80 fiscal year.
If this meets with your approval , please see that the Amendment
is approved by your City Council , and then return the executed
document to thisofficefor placement on the Board of Supervisors '
Agenda .
Thank you for your assistance .
Very truly yours ,
JAMES B . LINDHOLM, JR.
County Counsel
By : L ac A . Crawford '
Assistant County Counsel
JAC :ar
cc : Murray Warden
City Administrator
80-191
IRECEIVEI) FEB 0 2 1980
AMENDMENT NO . 1 TO CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
ATASCADERO AND THE COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
FOR PERFORMANCE BY COUNTY OF SERVICES
THIS FIRST AMENDMENT to the Contract entered into on the
/ I day of 1980 , by and between the City of
Atascadero ( Located within the County of San Luis Obispo , State
of California , and hereinafter referred tows "City" ) , and the
County of San Luis Obispo (a political subdivision of the State
of California , a'nd hereinafter referred to as "County" )
WITNESSETH :
WHEREAS , the City and County have agreed that certain
services will be provided by County to City in accordance with
the terms and provisions of the Contract dated October 22 , 1979 ,
and
WHEREAS , it was the intention of the parties for the County
to provide business licensing services to the City during the
1979-80 fiscal year; and
WHEREAS , the language of the Contract of October 22 , 1979 ,
does not clearly specify the procedure to be followed for pro
cessing business licenses .
NOW, THEREFORE , in consideration of ; the mutual covenants ,
conditions , promises , and agreements herein set forth , and those
mutual covenants , conditions , promises and agreements set forth
in the Contract between the parties dated October 22 , 1979 , City
and County hereby mutually agree to amend their Contract dated
October 22 , 1979 , as follows:
1 . Paragraph 8 will be amended to read as follows :
"Tax collection and business licensing function .
a . County shall perform such services for
City pursuant to Government Code Sections
51514 and 51520 at no cost to City for the
entire 1979-80 fiscal year and continuously
thereafter .
b . County , through its tax collector , and
various County departments , shall process
business licenses in accordance with their
customary County procedures , provided ,
however , that where an applicant desires
to appeal the decision of the tax collector ,-
the appeal shall be to the City Council
rather than the Board of Supervisors . City
agrees that County shall retain all licenses
fees in accordance with Paragraph 9 of this
Contract . "
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and County have executed this
Amendment and intend for it to have effect through the entirety
of the 1979-80 fiscal year.
CITY OF ATASCADERO
By
Robert J Wilkins , Mayor
ATTEST :
Murray Warden , City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT : APPROVED AS TO ORM :
Murray Warden , City Manager Allen Grimes , City -Attorney
-2-
Y
COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
By :
Chairman , Board of
Supervisors
ATTEST :
Clerk , Board of Supervisors
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL EFFECT :
JAMES B . LINDHOLM , JR.
County Counsel
By :
c A. Crawford
Assistant County Counsel
Dated :
-3-
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: City Council
FROM: City Manager
SUBJECT: Financial Management System
Attached is a memo from the Finance Director recommending
retention of the firm of Alexander Grant to provide the City
with computer support for our budgetary accounting, payroll,
receivables and payable functions. The firm does work for
other cities in the County and is thoroughly familiar with
requirements of municipal accounting and budgetary procedures.
If approved, this arrangement will be an interim one until
our own system is fully established.
There are several reasons for establishing the service
now: (1) By the time the service is operational , the volume
will be beyond our manual capability; (2) we will utilize_
the entire first year's operations so as to be in a good
position for the required year-end independent audit; and
(3) we will be in a position to start the new fiscal year
smoothly utilizing this service. When the issue of our own
computer support is resolved, then this service could be
terminated.
Recommend your approval .
M RRA L. WARDEN
LW:-.ad
2-5-80
_M_E M O RAN D U M
TO: City Manager
FROM: Finance Director
SUBJECT: Financial Management System
Attached is a Financial Management System Plan for
Service for the remainder of this fiscal year and fiscal
year 1980-81 as presented by Alexander Grant and Company
per our request. This plan will provide a general accounting
service as listed within the Accounting System section of
the attached proposal. There is no requirement for specially
trained personnel within our structure with the exception
of processing input data by clear text. The Payroll Prepara-
tion Services are as listed under the Payroll Systems sec-
tion. Both the Accounting and Payroll Systems provide a
documentation and double entry ledger record from entry
through the issuance of warrants and payroll checks
The additional services are for Utility (sewer charge)
billing and business licenses, both of which become our
responsibility on July 1, 1980.
Your attention is invited to the section Fees and Costs
which outlines the professional costs for this proposal.
You will note a one time charge of $1,250 for start-up with
a fee of $250 per month for the remainder of the fiscal
year. This includes all transactions for fiscal year 1979-80
since incorporation and will provide a complete set of
General Accounting and payroll document for the entire fiscal
year. Fiscal year 1980-81 monthly fee will be $795 for com-
plete requested service. The approved budget for fiscal
year 1979-80 contains $3, 600 for data processing. The estimated
cost, including start-up and three month service, is $2 , 000.
It is recommended that Council accept this proposal
with an effective date of April 1, 1980.
l`
RALPH H. DOWELL, JR.
RHD:ad
2-5-80
M E M-0 R A N D U T'!
TO: City Manager
FROM: Finance Director
SUBJECT: Account Clerk II
Attached is the proposed advertisement for the Account
Clerk II assigned to the Finance Department. This position
is the most experienced of the two positions recommended
within Finance. The salary for this comparable position
in the other cities within the County ranges from $1087
per month for Paso Robles, $1065 for Morro Bay, $1042 for
San Luis Obispo and $950 for Arroyo Grande. It is recommended
that our salary be established at $950 per month recognizing
that this amount may discourage some highly qualified appli-
cants from participating in the recruitment process. The
reason for this rate is to preclude an imbalance between our
existing salary structure for City Manager, Planning and
Police secretaries. Start date for this position would be
April 7, 1980. Sufficient funds are in the fiscal year
1979-80 budget for this hire.
I will provide you a recommended salary structure for
all positions within each department within the immediate
future. I feel we need to study our total balance and capa-
bility prior to police and public works hires and certainly
before next year ' s budget process.
RALPH H. DOWELL, JR.
RHD:ad
2-5-80 yo/.rz)
C. Lia KC, L
a&eu2, *#r .s�ac�r eoM� ���r• �7
P" rM .
G,/£
w �t A overs y, d
ACCOUNT CLERK II - City of Atascadero. Salary
$950 monthly. Reports to Finance Director.
Duties Under 'general supervision to perform
clerical work in the keeping, maintaining, posting,
and verification of accounting, financial and
statistical records. Performs general utility
billing and collection, payroll and purchase, pro-
cedures. Required: Use of general office accounting
machines, typing 40 wpm, and knowledge of or capability
of training as computer operator. At least two
years experience comparable to an Account Clerk I
in a municipality. Applications available at City
of Atascadero, 6500 Lewis Ave. , Room 201, Atascadero,
Ca. , 93422. Final filing date