Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 02/11/1980I AGENDA - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting February 11, 1980 7 : 30 p.m. Atascadero Administration Building Call to Order Pledge of Allegiance Invocation ry 1 Roll Call Public Comment NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC All matters listed under Item A, Consent Calendar, are con- sidered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion in the form listed below. There will be no separate discussion of these items. If discussion is required, that item will be removed from the Consent Calendar and will be considered separately. Vote may be by roll call. A. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes of the regular meeting of January 28 ,1980 (RECOMMEND APPROVAL) B. HEARINGS, APPEARANCES AND REPORTS 1. Appeal of Albert Centeno from County denial of business license 2. Appearance of Marina Rosa, County Division of Environ- mental Health, regarding a State Wide Litter Prevention and Control Campaign 3.-'" Proposed lot division (AT 79-077) , Santa Cruz Road - Hurdle (Hilliard) - continued 4 — Proposed street name change - Montura Lane 5. , Public hearing on proposed lot division (AT 79-128) , Santa Rosa Road near Atascadero Lake - Wilhoite (Stewart) 6. Public hearing on proposed lot division (AT 79-110) , on the west side of West Mall adjacent to Atascadero Creek - Hvolbol, et al (Schott) 7 . - Consideration of proposed lot line adjustment (AL 79-68) , Curbaril Avenue - Van Saun (Hilliard) 8. Consideration of proposed lot line adjustment (AL 79-46) , Rosario and Alamo Roads - Garza 9. Public hearing on condominium conversion ordinance recommend item be continued to 2-25-80 10. Public hearing on Atascadero General Plan - continued 11. Report of City Manager on acquisition options for parking lot property C. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None l aabauays A-4-FD •£ ,�auaoggv AgTO ' Z TTounoO A4TO 'T NOIlDV UO/aNV NOIIVMIWdalQQ gVnGIAIQNI 'a II xaaTO qunooDV jog butstgaanpP pUP AJPIPS buT4gaS • TV ma-.sAs quauiabEuauz T-eTouPuTJ JOJ buTgoPaquoo Jo uoTgPaapTsuoO • £ -.uauupuauis gopaquoo saoTAjas AgTO/AqunbO •z squauiaaznbaa AauapTsaa uoTssTunuOD buTuuuTd 90 uoTgPJapTsuoO •T SSaNIsnq MQN 'Q Oml abed 086T 'TT Aapnaga3 buT4aOW JuTnbag gIONnOD 2=3 O'dSG [OSVIV - KQNSOK MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting January 28, 1980 7: 30 p.m. Atascadero Administration Building The meeting was called to order by Mayor Wilkins with the Pledge of Allegiance. Reverend Lon Eckdahl of the Church of the Nazarene gave the invocation. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmen Highland, Mackey, Nelson and Mayor Wilkins ABSENT: Councilman Stover A. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes of the regular meeting of January 14 , 1980 . (RECOMMEND APPROVAL) 2. Treasurer' s Report, 12-18-79 through 1-22-80 (RECOMMEND APPROVAL) MOTION: Councilman Nelson moved for the approval of the Consent Calendar. The motion was seconded by Councilman Highland and unanimously carried. PUBLIC COMMENT 1. Leslie Cannon spoke on behalf of the Santa Rosa. PTA and advised Council of the difficulties the school was having in getting Atascadero Avenue re-striped after its widening. They had received several assurances from County staff that this would be taken care of and had only recently learned that re-striping is not even in the job specifications. Chuck Wilber, Principal ' of the Santa Rosa School also spoke on this matter. Mr. Warden stated that he would contact the County concerning this matter. 2. David Cannon asked Council when they would establish a recreation committee and how one would go about becoming a member. Mayor Wilkins stated ;hat other items had taken precedence over establishing a recreation committee; however, Council did hope to get to it in the near future. - B. HEARINGS, APPEARANCES AND REPORTS 1. Public hearing on Public Safety Committee Report Howard Marohn criticized the composition and functioning of the Public Safety Committee. Russ Wright requested a meeting with Council, the Atascadero Fire Board and City Staff members at a time con- venient to both. Council established a special meeting date of Thursday, February 14 , 1980, at 7: 30 p.m. in the Rotunda Room for a meeting between the Council and the Fire Board. Specific items to be discussed were Public Safety, the department budget, and the transition of the Fire Department from the district to the City. MINUTES - ATASCADEO CITY COUNCIL • Regular Meeting January 28, 1980 Page Two Councilman Mackey read a statement supporting combining of some services. She was in favor of the Fire Chief and Police Chief working out the details for combining some services. Bob Sparling spoke in favor of autonomous departments. 2. Public hearing on condominium conversion ordinance (Recommend item be continued to 2-11-80) This was recommended for continuance since the Planning Com- mission had not completed their recommendation for the proposed ordinance. MOTION: Councilman Mackey moved that the condominium ordinance be continued to February ll, 1980. The motion was seconded by Councilman Nelson and unanimously carried. 3. Public hearing on Atascadero General Plan Levi Barrett made a presentation requesting that the Northeast Atascadero area be specified for a 1� acre density rather than 2� acres. He felt that area should be treated the same as other areas such as 3F Meadows and the Las Encinas areas. Councilman. Highland stated that Northeast Atascadero was being given the same treatment as every other area outside the Urban Services Area. Pearl Munak appeared representing Ken Switzer regarding his property located adjacent to the freeway near Portola. The property is currently zoned commercial; however, the General Plan does not give it that designation. The property is sandwiched in between other commercial parcels and she felt that a commercial designation in the General Plan would be appropriate for this parcel also. This property is referred to as the "Wakefield" property. Allen Grimes advised Council that if any new information or presentations were made this evening not previously considered by the Planning Commission, it would be proper for Council . to refer them back to the Commission for their recommendations. Floyd Cornell requested consideration of rezoning property located on Block 66, Lot 11 and portions of Lot 9 on Highway 101 to San Diego Way. The property on both sides of this area is designated as high density and his property is A-1. He felt that the activity in that area warranted a higher density or commercial designation. Andrew Merriam, an architect representing Mr. Palmer, requested that property consisting of approximately four acres at the inter- section of E1 Camino Real and Pueblo adjacent to Highway 101 be changed from a heavy commercial designation to retail commercial Howard Marohn discussed traffic congestion in Atascadero and discussed the rerouting of Highway 41. There was considerable discussion regarding this matter with the feeling expressed that MINUTES - ATASCADE*CITY COUNCIL • Regular Meeting January 28, 1980 Page Three this project would remain unfunded by CalTrans. Dave Cowan was of the opinion that extending Highway 46 from Freeway l0l .across the river would be an improvement for Atascadero. Mayor Wilkins asked Mr. Warden to write to CalTrans and request a formal status report on the Highway 41 project. Richard Ingram spoke in opposition to subdividing and allowing building on small lots. Larry Stevens, Planning Director, read a letter from Robert Strong requesting a high density multiple-family residential designation rather than a low density multiple-family residential designation on Capistrano in the area of the Capistrano Garden Apartments. Mr. Strong felt that perhaps this request had been overlooked by the Planning Commission during their consideration of other issues. MOTION: Councilman Highland moved that Council refer to. the Planning Commission for their report and recommenda- tions the following: Floyd Cornell ' s request for a higher density designation on San Diego Way, Andrew Merriam' s request for a change from heavy commercial to retail commercial on Pueblo, and the Wakefield project request. The motion was seconded by Council- man Nelson and unanimously carried. Council decided to review the General Plan page by page along with the Planning Commission' s recommendations for changes. The following action was taken with regard to the General Plan: Page 44 - Councilman Highland suggested a change in the left column of this page under Low Density to read as follows : "Minimum lot sizes within the Urban Services Area shall range from one and one-half 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 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 inspection or evidence of a valid main- tenance contract. Councilman Highland felt that often too many things were not allowed and that people should be provided options whenever possible. He felt his amendment would provide a positive rather than negative approach. It was noted that the wording determining the appropriate lot size would be left in. Mr. Warden stated that this matter did not have to go back to the Planning Commission; however, it would be appropriate to do so if the Council wished. Council decided that the Planning Commission should look at it. MINUTES - ATASCADEO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting January 28, 1980 Page Four Page 45 - Robert Strong again requested changing the low density multiple-family residential designation on Capistrano to high density multiple-family residential. It was noted that the Planning Commission had spent quite a bit of time discussing this matter. MOTION: Councilman Nelson moved that Mr. Strong ' s request be submitted to the Planning Commission for report and recommendations to the Council. The motion was seconded by Councilman Highland and unanimously carried. Page 46 —Councilman Highland suggested adding (g) to paragraph 17 to read as follows: "Prohibit application for conversion for a minimum of four years subsequent to occupancy as rental housing. " He stated that he would like to see people apply for what they want; not build something and try to change it later. Mr. Warden and .Mr. Grimes advised the Council that this matter might better be considered under a condominium conversion ordinance; however, Councilman Highland wanted the Commission to review it. MOTION: Councilman Highland moved that this matter be .referred to the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Councilman Mackey and unanimously carried. MOTION: Councilman Highland moved that the hearing on the Atascadero General Plan be continued to February 11, 1980. The motion was seconded by Councilman Nelson and unanimously carried. 4 . Report by City Manager on El Camino Real traffic accidents Mr. Warden discussed a meeting held between Staff members, County Staff, Sheriff' s Office, Chamber of Commerce members and the AAA. He advised that the Auto Club will be conducting an engineering survey to address the traffic and pedestrian problems along El Camino Real. He advised Council that three new lighting standards are being installed at key intersections on E1 Camino, stenciling on the curbs near the intersections warning pedestrians to be cautious, and new striping of the crosswalks. The California Highway Patrol will contact residents of the Carlton Hotel to instruct them as to the use of the signal light and traffic safety. He noted that traffic engineers have concluded that marked crosswalks are more dangerous than not having crosswalks at all. The marked crosswalks give a false sense of security. MOTION: Councilman Highland moved for approval of installing the new lighting standards at the intersections involved. The motion was seconded by Councilman Nelson and unanimously carried. MINUTES - ATASCADEROCITY COUNCIL • Regular Meeting January 28, 1980 Page Five C. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Second reading of Ordinance No. 14 to grant a franchise to Southern California Gas Company Mr. Warden requested that Council fill in the blank in their ordinance on the first page (d) to add the words: "Public Works Director" . MOTION: Councilman Highland moved that Ordinance No. 14 be read by title only. The motion was seconded by Councilman Nelson and unanimously carried. Mayor Wilkins read Ordinance No. 14 by title only. MOTION: Councilman Highland moved for the adoption of Ordinance No. 14 . The motion was seconded by Councilman Mackey and unanimously carried. 2. Second reading of Ordinance No. 15 to grant a franchise to Pacific Gas and Electric Company MOTION: Councilman Highland moved that Ordinance No. 15 be read by title only. The motion was seconded by Councilman Mackey and unanimously carried. Mayor Wilkins read Ordinance No. 15 by title only. "MOTION: Councilman Highland moved for the adoption of Ordinance No. 15. The motion was seconded by Councilman Mackey and unanimously carried. 3. Consideration of appraisals on parking lot property and acquisition of same Mr. Warden mentioned some of the concernsas to the City revenues if Jarvis II is passed. He also reviewed the appraised values as being $250, 000 in one case and $235, 000 in the other. If the Council wishes to proceed, he suggested that the City Manager and City Attorney be directed to work out a feasible way within the City's statutory limitations and to bring back recommendations to Council. Council discussed this matter and were of the opinion that further exploration of the acquisition of this property should be pursued. MOTION: Councilman Mackey moved that the City Attorney and City Manager be directed to research the methods available for the City to acquire the property. The motion was seconded by Councilman Nelson and unanimously carried. Mr. Warden also advised that the School District was not inter- ested in jointly purchasing this property with the City. MINUTES - ATASCADE0 CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting Janaury 28, 1980 Page Six D. NEW BUSINESS 1. Consideration of bids on City office furniture Mr. Warden reviewed the bids submitted for office furniture and reported on the City' s efforts to obtain used furniture. The 31% discount offered by Western Office Products is a good bid. The County presently is purchasing its furniture from this firm. MOTION: Councilman Highland moved that Council accept and approve the low bid of Western Office Products in Bid No. 1-80. The motion was seconded by Councilman Mackey and unani- mously carried by roll call vote. 2.. Consideration of supporting legislation to mitigate Proposition 13 impacts on involuntary relocation Mr. Warden noted that the legislation proposed by the City of Ventura would be to the advantage of persons forced to sell their property because of governmental action. If the Council wishes to endorse the legislation, they should do so by motion. Mayor Wilkins can then advise the Channel Counties Division of the League of California Cities of the City' s support. MOTION: Councilman Nelson moved that Council vote in favor of the legislation outlined in Resolution No. 80-11 of the City of Ventura. The motion was seconded by Councilman Mackey and unanimously carried. E. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION 1. City Council (a) Mayor Wilkins introduced the City' s new police consultant, soon to be the City ' s Police Chief, Richard "Bud" McHale, and welcomed him to the City. (b) Mayor Wilkins proclaimed the week of February 10 through 16 as Cerebral Palsy Week in the City of Atascadero. 2. City Attorney Mr. Grimes had nothing to report. 3 . City Manager (a) Mr. Warden advised that the City has an opportunity, through funds supplied by LEAA, to obtain the services of a juvenile officer at no salary costs to the City. The San Luis Obispo County Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Commission is applying for a grant to fund these positions throughout the County. The officer would function on a task force utilizing officers from other police agencies, but would be responsible to the Chief of Police. MINUTES - ATASCADE0CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting January 28, 1980 Page Seven The grant is to address the use of alcohol by juveniles and the increase in the crime rate by juveniles while under the influence of alcohol. (b) Mr. Warden stated that he had received an appeal from Alfred Centeno from the County' s denial of a business license and he will set that hearing for February ll. Leslie Cannon advised the Council that there was one item, and perhaps more, in the General Plan recommendations from the Planning Commission that the Commission had never seen. Larry Stevens stated that the item she referred to was the one on page 7 of his memo regarding the discussion of the Sheriff' s sub-station. The Com- mission had discussed this matter and had directed that he draft appropriate language. He had prepared the general statement but the Planning Commission had not reviewed the exact wording. Allen Grimes advised that he and the City Manager would be in Court the following morning regarding the Daly initiative. Mayor Wilkins adjourned the meeting at 10: 48 p.m. Recorded by: MURRAY L. WARDEN, City Clerk By: Ardith Davis Deputy City Clerk _M_E M O 'R A N D U M TO: City Council FROM: City Manager SUBJECT: Albert Centeno appeal from business license denial Mr. Albert Centeno applied to the County for a business license to conduct a business at the 'Adobe Plaza. The business consists of amusementdevices such as pin ball machines, pool tables as well as the sale of candy, etc. His application was received by the County Tax Collector and referred, under the provisions of the County Ordinance, to the Sheriff for his recommendation. The County Sheriff recommended denial and the Tax Collector then refused to issue a license. His rationale was that a recommendation for denial by the Sheriff, even though" the Sheriff is not required to state his grounds for denial, constituted sufficient reason for the Tax Collector to deny the application. In consultation with the City Attorney, it appears that denial of a business license under the County Ordinance can only be accom- plished if a false statement is made on the application. It further appears that the Sheriff does not have the individual authority to deny a business license, but rather only recommends to the Tax Collector. It is further the opinion of the' City Attorney, with which I agree, that the Ordinance, as written, does not provide specific criteria for denial other than as mentioned above. The applicant, upon receivng notification of denial by the Tax Collector, filed an appeal to that decision. His initial approach was to the County Board of Supervisors, but he was advised that the City Council would act in lieu of the Board. Mr. Centeno' s repre- sentatives contacted me on Wednesday, January 23rd, with a request that the appeal be _heard. I notified them that, I would be unable to get it on the January 28th agenda because the Ordinance requires a minimum five day notice ,to the applicant prior to the date of hearing. The Ordinance does not specify the time within which a hearing must be set, leaving that to be determined by the Clerk. At the time, I was unable to secure the necessary facts for your con- sideration of the matter prior to the January 28th meeting. Accord- ingly, I advised the applicant' s representatives that they would probably be heard on February 11th._ As you will recall, on January 28th, you were notified of this hearing date; I have asked the Tax Collector and the Sheriff to provide infor- mation they may have concerning this matter, but based upon the information currently available to me and to the City Attorney, it does not appear to us that there are grounds for denial . If, after the hearing Council concurs with that conclusion, it would be Memorandum Centeno appeal Page Two appropriate to make a finding that there are no grounds for denial and that a business license should be issued. I will thencontact Mr. Frietas, the Tax Collector, who will take the necessary steps to provide a license. U RA WARDEN W. 2-5-80 I LAW O 'k' f CES OF EDWARD L. i ,HFY 123 Fast Fesler Street 2 Santa Maria, California 9'34 '-,"4 3 Telephone: (80 ) 922-7951 -RECEIVED JAN 1 61984 4 5 Attorneys for Applicant 6 I 7 $ BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 9 SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY 10 11 In Re Application of ) APPEAL FROM DENIAL ALBERT CENTENO ) 12 for a business license ) (Title 6 §608 .110 County Ordinance) 13 CITY OF ATASCADERO, ) 14 Real Party. In Interest. ) 15 TO THE CLERK of the Board of Supervisors of SAN LUIS 16 OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA: 17 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that ALBERT CENTENO appeals from the 1$ NOTICE OF DENIAL OF BUSINESS LICENSE APPLICATION mailed 19. ' January 2, 1980 , a copy of which is marked Exhibit "A" and 20 attached hereto. A copy of appellant' s application is marked 21 Exhibit "B" and attached hereto. 22 Appellant is informed that the County of San Luis Obispo 23 is acting on behalf of the City of Atascadero in this matter, 24 said City being the Real Party In Interest. 25 Grounds for appeal are: 26 1. The delegation of authority to the Sheriff, of the 27 power to approve or deny business licenses,, without reasonable 28 legislative guidelines or standards is unlawful, because it 1 allows the exercise of that power arbitrarily in violation of 2 the appellantts right to equal protection under the law and due 3 process as guaranteed by the Federal and State Constitutions.. 4 2 . The NOTICE OF DENIAL OF BUSINESS LICENSE APPLICATION, 5 Exhibit "A" , is defective in that it specifies the basis of 6 denial on "San Luis Obispo Cournt:y Ordinance Title 6, Section 7. 6. 24 , 060 The cited ordinance is contained in Chapter 6. 24 8 which has limited application to "Transient Merchants , Solicitors 9 and Convassers Appellant , by his application, Exhibit "B" , 10 did not, nor does he, apply for a business license under Chap 11 ter 6. 24 . His business, as specified in his application, is 12 "Arcade Pinball machines, Pool Tables - Candy 13 Said 'defective notice deprives appellant of his right to 14 equal protection under the law and due process as guaranteed by 15 the Federal and State Constitutions. 16 3. Applicable San Luis Obispo County Ordinance is Title 6, 17 Section 6. 08 . 150 which specifies that applications for business. 18 licenses to operate an "Amusement Parlor Penny Arcade or Play- 19 land" shall be presented the Sheriff .for his "findings and 20 recommendations Nowhere is the Sheriff given the authority 21 to approve or disapprove. 22 The authority to approve or disapprove rests with the Tax 23 Collector under 6 . 080. 070. 24 Appellant has not been advised of the Sheriff' s findings 25 and recommendations and the NOTICE, Exhibit "A" , specifies denial 26 by the Sheriff rather than the Tax Collector, all in violation 27 of the ordinance and appellant' s right to equal protection 28 and due process under the State and Federal Constitutions. -2- 1 WHEREFORE, appellant asks the Board to order issuance of a 2 business licenEe as per the application, Exhibit "B" , or, in 3 the alternative, to set this appeal for a hearing as provided 4 by law. 5 Dated: January 11, 1980 6 7 - ED ARW D L. PINHEY 8 Attorney for ALBERT CENTENO 9 10 11. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 -22 23 24 25 26 27 28 • APPLICATION 1 COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLEASE RETURN THISFOAM STATE OF CALIFORNIA ` APPLICATION FOR LICENSE TO CONDUCT,MAINTAIN AND ENGAGE IN BUSINESS UNDER THE'PROVISIONS OF SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY ORDINANCES AND BASED UPON THE FOLLOWING FACTS; LICENSE NUMtlkR FEE 01.E 60%PENALTY ��jj 20 OO If NOT PAID BY PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT ALL INFORMATION " A NAME LAST(021 MITENO FIRST(46) ALBERT P ADDRESS(031 631 13th Street P 1oi1 L. Paso Robles CA ) t 1051 93446 ZIP 106) r /1 8p SOCIAL SECURITY NO.1071 566-4 -4933 DRIVER'S LICENSE NO.(06) F0307291 N PHONE NO 1091 238-4060 BUSINESS CATEGORY(101 18 T U FUN R GAMES DOING BUSINESS AS B 1 1111 NATO OF BUSINESS 11121 Arcade Pinball machines T 1. Pooh Tables Candy R 1131 E LEXACT LOCATION OF THE BUSINESS OR ROUTE OR TERRITORY TO BE COVERED 0 11141 Adobe Plaza c 1151 E1 Camino Real h (lei Atascadero _ ..R I tF A CORPORATION THE PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS 1071 437 Robles Street 1 ,IIBI _Santa Maria L E 11191 A + I PERSONS INTERESTED IN CONDUCTING BUSINESS,IF MORE THAN FOUR PERSONS CHECK HERE (231 h �1 1201 4. C t r 1 7 1211 5, F �. 5 L3 1221 9. J11 r M-'1241 f.� i �1�. �' �� ,i, ,� , 1. .+ • rl f �� =OR LICENSE WITH YOUR REMITTANCE FRANK L. FR EITAS, TAX AND LICENSE COLLECTOR ROOM 201 COURTHOUSE SAN LUIS OBISPO. CALIFORNIA 93401 P R OWNER OF PREMISES 1161 Ed Worthan M ADDRESS OF OWNER 1271 P 0 BOX 206 S. 1161 Paso Robles CA 93446 E ..__$-_ 1291 L LESSEE OF PREMISES 1301 Albert Centeno E S ADDRESS OF LESSEE 1311 631 - 13th Street $ 1311 Paso Robles CA 93446 E E 1731 p FOR OFFICE USE ONLY F TERM FOR WHICH LICENSE IS APPLIED FOR 1341 FROM 1361 11/30/79 i0 6/30/80 F. RESTRICTIONS 1381 C I FEE CODE 1371 05 TERM 1381 3 FEE PENALTY(39) FIRST IbS,.!1401 1 1�30�79 C E I SPECIAL FEE CODE 1411 TERMS 1421 NO.OF STICKERS 1431 't N • 'F.041 AC -I NO LICENSE OR ORDER FORMERLY'ISSUED TO APPLICANT,AGENT OR ANYONE INTERESTED IN ME BUSINESS HAS BEEN- S CANCELLED OR REVOKED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY.(IF SO.STATE TO WHOM ISSUED C AND WHEN CANCELLED OR REVOKED:) DATE CANCELLED E ISSUED TO OR REVOKED --R '-S I APPLICANT HEREBY STATES THAT HE WILL NOT PERMIT OR SUFFER THE VIOLATION OF ANY LAW OR ORDINANCE ON THE G PREMISESONWHICH SAID BUSINESS IS TO BE LOCATED OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE BUSINESS FOR NWHICH THE ICEN E IS HEREBY APPLIED FOR. T I i� � ,i slcNeo L-� _vl/ .y DA,, Piovember 30, 197: —� FOR NEW APPLICANTS ONL! APPROVED IAS AM.:ABLE) P ANNING DEPT - f1EALTH DEP R \I bnhRIFFS DfoT �, N/ �4^y/. .� " ©0TH [} 0 v UOARD Of S-PERVISORS OTHER A L S PARKS AND Ut At MES OTHER ITAK COLLECTOR CX.Of fYClp LICENSE COLLN CG70R AND [DC MBTION 0/i1CCR PAUL Kf:l SAYI FOOM 204 i COURTHOUSE SAN I_U15 OBISPO, CALIFORNIA 93401 ASSIsrANr \ TELEPHONE 111 03) 343-1330. EXT. 230 January 2, 1980 Mr. Albert Centeno 631 13th Street Paso Robles, CA 93446 RE: NOTICE OF DENIAL OF BUSINESS LICENSE APPLICATION Dear ' Mr. Centeno: -Your application for a county business license for "FUN & GASES" was not approved by the County Sheriff Department. The San Luis Obispo 'County Ordinance Title 6, Section 6.24.060 requires this approval prior to issuance of a business license. Please contact the County Sheriff's Department to determine what changes are necessary in order for you to comply. County Ordinance Title 6, Section 6.08. 110 (of which a copy is enclosed): provides any person whose application has been disapproved shall have the right to appeal to the County Board of Supervisors within 14 days after notice of denial has been mailed to the applicant. Very truly yours, FRANK L. FREITAS, County Tax Collector By E1epu y FLF * Located at Adobe Plaza - El Camino Real Atascadero (VERIFICATION - 446, 2015.5 C. C P.) 1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ss + 2 1 am the 3 in the above entitled action; I hove read the foregoing _ 4 and know the contents thereof; and I certify that the some is true of my own knowledge, except as to those matters which 5 are therein stated upon my information or belief, and as to those matters I believe it to be true. 6 7 8 1, , certify (or declare), under penalty of perjury,' (name must be typed or printed) 9 that the foregoing is true and correct. 10 Fxecvted on at Colifornio (dote) (place) lI _ Signature 12 ti t i 3 (PROOF OF SERVICE BY MALI - 1013a, 20155 C C P.) STATE OF CALIFORNIA 14 COUNTY OF u' 1 am o citizen of the United States and a resident of the county aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years and not o 15 party to the within entitled odion; my (business/residence) address is: _ 16 123 East_ Fesler Street, Santa Maria. CA_93.454._ _ 17 on 1/14/80 , 19__, I served the within APPEAL FROM -DENIAL__ 18 ----_- -- -- 19 on the Parti 2S in sold odion, by placing o true copy thereof enclosed in o sealed envelope 20 with postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United States mail at Santa Maria. CA addressed as follows- ALLEN GRIMES, City Attorney 21 7360 E1 Camino Real, Suite B P. 0. Box 749 Atasc:adero, California 93422 II Dee Plnhe �_ __ --_ — . u -- —, certify (or declare), under penalty of perjury,' 1 — y - 73 1.— — (norne must be typed or printed) 24 L that the I ,g is true and corred. LJ I Execul � Q�_..-- --- — at Santa MarlcZ---__ --._ _. California ' !I (dote) 1 (place) ?6 - - -.Signature - — — -- r s a " PROOF OF SERVICE I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of Santa Barbara County; I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within entitled action my business address is: 123 East Fesler Street, Santa Mania, California. On January 14 , 1980, I served the within APPEAL FROM DENIAL on the Clerk of the Board of. Supervisors by personally delivering said Appeal to Said Clerk at Palm and Osos Streets, San Luis Obispo, California. I, Ted Pinhey, declare under penalty pf perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on January 14, 1980 at Santa Maria, CA. • alien grimes attorney at law 7360 EL CAMINO REAL. SUITE B • P. 0. BOX 749 • ATASCADERO.CALIFORNIA 93422' PHONES 18051 466.5678 OR 466.1408 MEMORANDUM February 7, 1980 To: The Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Allen Grimes, City Attorney Subject: Albert Centeno v. City of Atascadero, et al. : Appeal From Denial of Business License Application FACTS: Albert Centeno applied to the County Tax and License Collector for a permit for a business license to engage in the business of operating an arcade, pin- ball machines, pool tables, and selling candy, the business to be located at the Adobe Plaza. The County Tax Collector is charged with the responsibility of administering the County business licenses and regulations (County Code Section 6.20.020) . County Code Section 6.08.150 provides that an application for a business li- cense must be presented to the sheriff for his findings and recommendations in relation to the following businesses as a prerequisite to the issuance of a license. Among the specified businesses are amusement parlors, penny arcades, and billiard rooms. The tax collector submitted Centeno's application to the sheriff for the sheriff's findings and recommendations pursuant to County Code Section 6.08.150. The appellant's appeal file indicates that the sheriff denied the license on January 2, 1980 and returned the application to the tax collector, who wrote a letter to the appellant dated January 2, 1980 advising him that County Code Section 6.24.060 requires the sheriff's approval prior to the issuance of a business license as it involved "fun and games", and further advising the applicant of his rights of appeal pursuant to County Code Section 6.08.110. The sole and only ground for denial of a license which is stated in the County Code in Section 6.08.080 is that: "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 board or other body hearing such testimony, or before a referee appointed by the board. " MEMORANDUM: The Honorable Mayor and City Council February 7, 1980 - Page 2 The copy of appellant's application for a license in the appeal file reveals that the tax and license collector did not deny appellant's application for a license, but interpreted County Code Section 6.24.060 to require the sheriff's prior approval. A careful reading of this section reveals that it does not require the sheriff's prior approval before issuance of a license -- only the presentation by the sheriff of his findings and recommendations to the tax collector. In no place in the County's regulations relating to business li- censes can it be found that the sheriff has the authority to deny a business license application. APPEAL PROCEDURE: This appeal by applicant has been set for hearing by the City Council at its meeting of February 11. However, there are both procedural and legal problems involved with this appeal. The first relates to evidentiary problems to sustain the decision of the County authorities in this matter. No written report by the tax collector has been furnished to the City for the appeal as yet, and we assume that there is no such report that was prepared at the time applicant's license was rejected. Moreover, we are not aware of any written report and recommendations submitted by the sheriff to the tax collector at the time this license application was denied, and thus there do not appear to be any written findings or recommen- dations and reasons for the decision that were made of record by the sheriff. Richard McHale, Atascadero's Chief of Police, advises that the license may have been turned down because of certain criminal background information available to the sheriff about the applicant. At my suggestion, the chief contacted the CIC in Sacramento and was counseled not to make such information public even if such information were available. Further, because the County Code has not taken advantage of legislation to permit designated officials to have the avail- ability of criminal background information, there is serious question as to whether or not the Council and city officials are entitled to inspect criminal background information. I believe both the sheriff and the tax collector have been requested by the City Clerk to attend the hearing and testify. The testimony by the sheriff of reputation, background, or character information without the appellant being first informed of the material and having an opportunity to rebut it will not support the denial of the business license. Moreover, as I have pointed out, the County Code only specifies one ground for denying a license, and that is the applicant has knowingly made a false state- ment in a material matter. The County Code does not deal with this matter like other city codes do, which is to provide specific standards and criteria for license denial and grant to specified officers of the city access to state summary criminal history information when it is needed to assist them in ful- filling licensing duties under the code (SLOMC Sections 6100.3.1 through 6100.6) . MEMORANDUM: The Honorable Mayor and City Council February 7, 1980 - Page 3 THE LAW: If the evidentiary problems can be overcome and sufficient evidence produced to show substantial support for the decision, there is still the legal problem of due process and an adequate standard for the exercise of the County licens- ing provisions, a police power ordinance. If this appeal involved a first amendment matter, the provisions of the County Code with respect to licensing, as exercised in this particular case, would fall for lack of adequate standards and criteria to guide the exercise of administrative discretion. In some types of businesses not considered inamicable to the public morals and welfare such as taxicab licensing, a standard in the ordinance such as "the business shall comport with the peace, health, safety, convenience, good morals and general welfare of the public" will suffice. You might even be able to throw in the additional standard that the license must be denied if "applicant is unfit to be trusted with the privileges granted by this permit, or has a bad moral character, intemperate habits, or bad reputation for truth and hon- esty or integrity. " In a case dealing with an application for a business permit for a motion pic- ture exhibitor showing films to the public, involving constitutional issues, the ordinance standard challenged was a relatively standard one, providing that upon investigation, the administrative officer could deny the permit if found that ". . .the said operation will not comport with the peace, health, safety, convenience, good morals and general welfare of the public." The court held the standard inadequate and the ordinance unconstitutional. (Burton v. Municipal Court (1968) 68 Cal. 2d 684; Perrine v. Municipal Court (1971) 5 Cal. 3d 656; and Fascination, Inc. v. Hoover (1952) 39 ACA 271) But see People v. Perrine (1975) 47 Cal. App. 3d 252, holding valid a county ordi- nance which required the proprietor of a picture arcade to have a licensed manager on the premises at all times during which the arcade is open and the proprietor is absent. While the standard was thrown out in the Burton case, the very same standard was upheld in Daniel v. Board of Police Commissioners (1961) 190 Cal. App. 2d 566, where the permit sought related to the business of the sale of food and beverages. The courts are jealous of the proper conduct of a hearing in these license denial matters. In an appeal to a city council following denial of an appli- cation for renewal of a license to operate a game at an amusement park, the city council's refusal to hear all but one of the seven witnesses produced by the plaintiff on the issue of whether the game was one of skill or chance, was held erroneous and denied plaintiff the opportunity to present evidence on the only issue which the council had before it, and which was the basis of its denial of the license. The court said a full opportunity to present a defense is an essential ingredient of due process, especially when the government is about to deny an individual the right to pursue an occupation. (Bank of America v. City of Long Beach (1975) 50 Cal. App. 3d 883) v MEMORANDUM: The Honorable Mayor and City Council February 7, 1980 - Page 4 In Saunders v. City of Los Angeles (1969) 273 ACA 439, a mandate proceeding, the petitioner had been refused a renewal of a permit to operate an automobile repair business. This determination was made after a public hearing at which time it was found that the applicant had been convicted of a series of crimes and the determination was made that the same constituted a bad moral character and lack of integrity. The applicable standards with respect to the suspension, revocation, and the like in the ordinance, provided for disapproval of the permit upon the deter- mination that the applicant had been convicted of a felony or crime involving theft, embezzlement or moral turpitude, or if the applicant had a bad moral character, intemperate habits, or a bad reputation for truth, honesty or integrity. The petitioner argued that the standards as set forth were vague and uncertain. The court distinguished Burton v. Municipal Court (supra) on the basis that the business activity involved was one not involving first amendment rights. A determination was made that the ordinance standards were valid based upon Daniel v. Board of Commissioners (supra) , but standards were prescribed. It is recognized there are some cases relating to innocuous businesses that hold, although somewhat inconsistently with those cited above, that the court may imply the standard when there's none at all in the ordinance to guide the exercise of the discretion by the administrative board or official. It is my belief that it is not safe to rely on these cases in view of the trend of the law. (In Re Petersen (1958) 51 Cal. 2d 177, 331 Pac. 2d 24 (an ordinance granting the chief of police discretion to designate exclusive taxicab stands) ) The conclusion can probably be safely made that the nature of the business or activity will influence the court in determining the validity of criteria or standards in an ordinance granting discretionary police powers. CONCLUSIONS: 1) If the evidentiary problems can be solved, there is still a question of whether the denial of applicant's license would be upheld if challenged in court in view of the lack of standards to guide the issuance and denial of licenses. 2) If the evidentiary problems cannot be overcome and findings made by the Council, with conclusions to follow to support the basis for the denial of the license, the decision of the tax collector in this matter must be reversed. 3) It is recommended that the Council consider amending the County Code as it applies to Atascadero to rectify the difficulties encountered in this appeal. AG:fr cc: City Manager Chief of Police County Counsel M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council FROM: City Manager SUBJECT: Appearance of Burt Townsend Attached is a letter from Mr. Burt Townsend of the County Health Department concerning a State-wide litter prevention program. He is requesting your adoption of a resolution supporting the program. The actual requirements of the resolution may be somewhat premature insofar as enforcement is concerned because of our staffing, but the concept certainly is worth considering and possibly endorsing. Mr. Townsend will appear to give a 15 to 20 minute presentation concerning this matter. Aa' . WARDEN 2-5-80 T DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH 2191 Johnson Avenue San Luis Obi 2191 2191 Johnson Avenue • P.O. Box 1489 • San Luis Obispo,Califomia.93406 P.O.Box 1499 _ 5544 COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO Veterans Memorial Building D Paso Robles,Calif.93446 P.O.Box 155• 238-1880 • HOWARD W. MITCHELL, M.D., M.P.H. 5575 Capistrano Avenue Health Officer El Atascadero,Calif.93422 P.O.Box 813.466-3000 RECEIVED JAN 7 1980 286 So.16th Street F] Grover City,Calif.93433 P.O.Box 425•489-4722 200 East Dana Street P.O.Bo,Cal445.93a44 -3 January 3, 1980 P.O.Box 445•929-3277 Home Health Agency 1160 Marsh—Suite Z-2 San Luis Obispo,Calif.93408 549-5754 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Council City of Atascadero Post Office Box 747 Atascadero, California 93422 "Untrash California" is the theme of the State Wide Litter Prevention and Control Campaign. The theme is being adopted locally as Untrash San Luis Obispo County. The heart of the drive to cleanup the State has to be a vigorous law enforcement effort. The Division of Environmental Health is coordinating its program but for maximum effect other law enforcement personnel must be involved too. The State Solid Waste Management Board has produced a narrated slide show which speaks to the litter enforcement role of police and other personnel . It is re- quested that we be invited to present this program to you on your first available agenda in January 1980. There is a proposed resolution enclosed for your consideration. It is a resolution of support of the Litter Control Program and for the litter enforcement training seminar which will be available to your enforcement personnel in February, TIM MAllACANO, R.S., Director Division of Environmental Health c BERTRAM B. TOWNSEND, R.S. Solid Waste Management Section TM/BBT:lw Enclosure r SN°° LE RESOL.UT I0^1 a� RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT Of THE UNTRASH SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY PROGRAM WHEREAS, San Luis Obispo County is afflicted by an unsightly and costly litter problem, and WHEREAS, the County Health Department, Division of Environmental Health is managing a litter control program, funded by a State Litter Control Grant, and WHEREAS, it is in the public interest that more effective enforcement methods be used to change littering habits and reduce litter cleanup costs, and WHEREAS, the Division of Environmental Health is sponsoring a litter control training seminar for enforcement personnel . NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED AND ORDERED by the City Council , City of C �- h J , State of California as follows: 1. All City Department Heads shall take special cognizance of City work practices, make any necessary work changes to reduce litter and cooperate with the Health Officer to promote better litter control . 2. Residents and businesses are urged to reduce littering through use of proper waste storage containers, using litter receptacles and litter bags, covering all loads of loose materials when hauling, and by helping in litter clean up projects. 3. The Chief of Police and Building Inspector (and other persons with enforcement responsibilities) shall make the maximum number of staff members available to attend the enforcement training to be sponsored by the Health Department; and to participate in the enforcement program. M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council FROM: City Manager SUBJECT: Condominium conversions, General Plan matters Attached is a memo from the Planning Director addressing two planning items. One is the condominium conversions question which is recommended for continuance of the Council hearing to February 11, 1980. The Commission did not complete action on the matter; It would be' appropriate for you, by motion, to continue the hearing to that date since this was an advertised public hearing. The second is a hearing for General Plan recommenda- tions. You have been provided with a Planning Commission resolution adopting it and the amendments which they approved. The resolution is informational only since Another resolution will have to be drafted for Council approval upon completion of the hearings. Since this item could take considerable time, you may wish to set a time limit, perhaps 1 or 1 1/2 hours and, if not completed, continue the hearing to your next regular meeting. A motion to that effect would be required. If, on the other hand, you conclude your business within 1 or 1 1/2 hours, it would be in order to instruct staff to prepare the necessary resolution for your adoption at the next meeting WARD N MLW:ad 1-24-80 M E M O R A N D U M TO: Atascadero City Council Date: January 24, 1980 FROM: Planning Consultant/Director SUBJECT: TRANSMITTAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL FOR ACTION 1. STUDY ON CONDOMINIUMS, COMMUNITY APARTMENTS, AND STOCK COOPERATIVES AND CONVERSION TO SUCH USES The Planning Commission continued this matter to its meeting of February 4 , 1980, in order to conduct_a survey on the rental market and to allow Staff to develop more specific standards for further discussion. Since required notices for the City Council public hearing have already been made, it would be appropriate to continue the City Council hearing until February 11, 1980. 2. ATASCADERO GENERAL PLAN After several months of work, the Planning Commission has con- cluded 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 Resolution 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 Com- mission 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 provides that " . . . any modification of the proposed plan by the legislative body (City Council) not previously considered by the Planning Commission during its hearing, shall first be referred to the Planning Commission for report and recommendation, but the Planning Commission shall not be required to hold a public hearing thereon. " For example, the matter of the County-owned Memorandum to the City Council January 24, 1980 Page Two dots located near Atascadero Lake was notheardby the Commission and would have to be referred back for report. STAFF RECOMMENDATI.ONc Staff recommends that Item No. 1 be continued. It may be the desire of, the City Council to provide time at several meetings for consideration of the General Plan; and, in any event, adoption of the General Plan would require preparation of an appropriate Resolution for consideration at a subsequent meeting. Submitted by: Concur: LAWRENCE SqAVENS f4LTXRAY V. WARDEN Planning C sultant/Director C ' ty ;�fiager 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 `nth day of January, 1980. 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 l L 2 3 delete "amends the County Land Use Element and" 1 L 2 4-7 delete 3rd sentence referring to County General Plan l L 2 8 delete "County" and replace with '1 C i ty" 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 <1 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 plana. .formerly designated Rural_ are increased. t. 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 3,6 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 E1 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" 6:/77 L 2 d. change "County-granted to "City- granted" a "88R 1 delete paragraph "To relieve con- gestion. . .back to E1 Camino Real. 134 L 9 3 change "County" to "City" i -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 r� 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. " -A2 R #3 delete "temporary" and change "a" to Isanif 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. Par. 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 Vj to 2z 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 l delete the first paragraph including the table I /--�,orion/uamp AEntci•ln•i�t��, Ing•. LICENSE NO. 323423 8390 EL CAMINO REAL POST OFFICE BOX 1107 • ATASCADERO CALIFORNIA 934ZZ PHONE 18051 4664776 October 4, 1970 Kenneth Jones , Executive Officer California Regional Water Ouality Control Board j Central f'.nE�ct Rectinn I Dear Mr. Jones: In your capacity as chief executive officer of the California Regional Water Ouality Control Poard Central Coast R(.cyion , I trust that you are in a position to draw some sound conclusions as to proposed residential development. in North East Atascadero . Enclosed you will find a map showing the area ea ;terly of highway 101 , Westerly of the Southern Pacific Railroad, and ctener. ally Northerly of San Anselm P-)ad. It would be greatly appreciated if you could render an opinion as to the expected impact , if any, that this development would have on the Sai i>I is Riv. water ouali ty and the Paso Robles groundwater basin . It is proposer] by some of the residents of North East Atascadc•ro that this area be developed into V-, acre minimum par( t,-i size with Municipal water supply. It has also been suggested that enclinoored sciAic systems might be useful , or be a- pre-condition , to this minimum parcel size. Any comments or suggestions within your range of know- ledcle and expertise would greatly enhance the Ata-cadero Planninq Commission ' s ability to make an educated decision . The next meeting of this Commission will be on the 15th of October 1979. Your prompt reply would be much appreciated. S i ncF-�rely, ATASCADERO PLANNING COMMISSION Norman J. Norton Jr . Chli i rman Mr . Kenneth Jones , EX('elrt i ve Officer. CaIiforni'<< Pegion,il teat i (1L1,-tlit%- control [2. CE -:t ral Coost- l:ocjio .,i ] `! 22 A I.,aurl,l [,arae Spin Luis Obi :;po, C•,i , 93401 STATE OF CALIFORNIA—RESOURCES AGENCY EDMUND G BROWN JR,Governor CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD- CENTRAL COAST REGION 1122-A LAUREL LANE SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA 93401 October 15, 1979 (805) 549-3147 Mr. Norman J. Norton, Jr. , Chairman Atascadero Planning Commission P.O. Box 1107 Atascadero, Cls 93422 , Dear Mr. Norton: We received your letter dated 'October 4, 1979, soliciting our opinion regarding the impact of individual subsurface sewage disposal systems (septic tanks) in the northeast Atascadero area. Your letter inquires as to the acceptability of developing a 1. 5 acre minimum parcel size assuming reliance on municipal water supply. In response to your inquiry we make reference to page 5-35 of our Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin. The Plan states : "New septic . w divisions of land having a minimum parcel size of one acre, except where soil and otherytLysical constraints are ;artic- ularly favorable. In these c__es, parcel size should not be less than one alf acre. Subcivisions based on parcel size less than one half acre shoul- be sewered regardless of soil suitability; in some cases, sewers can be deferred until build out reaches an equivalent density; however, alternate parcels must be left vacant to separa-e perco a ion systems and proved for ail-safe areas for rep acnment leac e sewers are available. ,dhcres, future subdivisions may be permitted to develop septic tank systems so long as physical cons rain s are met; genera ly areas eve oped on parcels larger than five acres will not be required to provide sewers. " Fractured siltstones/claystones which exist in the subject area suggests that use of septic tanks -ay create some water quality / public th roblems. These problems could relate primarily to surfacing ef- fluent. Therefore , any proposal to develop such systems on 1. 5 acre lots should he suhstanti,3ted by an en ,in-�ering analysis to determine the soils individual and collective waste assimilation capacity. As answer to a separate concern, it is unlikely ; :at the Salinas River underflow (the source of municipal supply) would jeopardized by the use of septic tan} on lots at least 1. 5 acres in size Within the area in question. You've also solicited our co-.-ants regarding use o` engineered septi system,; as a pre-condition for �e-:=_oping 1. 5 acre minimum parcel sizes. While w- generally encourage use engineered systems , operational urob lems suj;.^Pesl,'t that yo,.i he cautious n'--.out making the parcel sizf'.s so small that 'n7I noc-r-?d r;'JSt Ii are t,IL o -✓ remainln;,, opt ion, othr'r than sow-rii Use O efii;int-erect :;}' rE'P may ti,e -.)_'c^_ appropriately appl .Led t0 pr('vin;l;