HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 06/16/1981 M E M O R A N_ D U M :
TO: CITY MANAGER June 16 , 1981
FROM: PLANNING DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: Acceptance of Parcel Map AT 801230 :1
LOCATION`: 7305 Balboa (Lot 10, Block 25)
APPLICANT: Gordon Davis (Twin Cities Engineering)
On March 9, 1981 the City Council approved Tentative Parcel Map
AT 801230 :1 allowing creation of two lots of 5. 6 acres each
subject to certain conditions and in concurrence with the recom-
mendation of the Planning Commission.
The zoning is A-1-B-V-3-D and the General Plan designation is
Suburban Single Family Residential.
Staff review has determined that all conditions .-of approval have
been met. On June 15 1981 the PlanningCommission reviewed the
• Final Map on its Consent Agenda and recommended acceptance.
va4��
LAWRENCE STEVENS RUR L./WARDEN
Planning Director City Mana er
/Ps
•
M E M O RAN D U M
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION June 15, 1981
FROM: PLANNING DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: Acceptance of Parcel Map ;AT-801230 :1,
LOCATION: 7305 Balboa (Lot 10, Block 25)
APPLICANT: Gordon Davis (Twin Cities Engineering)
On March 9 , 1981 the City Council approved Tentative Parcel Map
AT 801230 :1 allowing creation of two lots of 5 .6 acres each
subject to 'certain condition's and in concurrence with the recom-
mendation of the Planning Commission.
The zoning is A-1-B-V-3-D and the General Plan designation is
Suburban Single Family Residential.
Staff review has determined that all, conditions of approval have
been met.
G�
LAWRENCE STEVENS
Planning Director
/Ps
•
Irl �2rtf-yLlwome-)
� � ��arx►U 11DIJU5U4 y1��ct `1^�l1DtJ(.$ Of A° mss
»un P ►b1S Wi GaGi 4CS:i: Yl1�Rt .lp11.S eteoeis
MCDt5 D� '„c4uvtA1�y0► , MS�ou. 4P�boY.Pt+a3-.e�csS4�ns
FW'1�-0C1C.GP4a81.8��O 3 eDVDL <OY�;;,�(.��.=�'D►J
s i w i14( Qf�A(lip,'z�P�1V11S�. - Yl`�PCI'aDLi Oft-01PA ,DfSl�o
i fps esS arnee.�el tee�ev ary tU.P.R. aatl4ld. ek.�Mu1¢�v.
y eF u�eeMevcs°u zeM vM.P,
R
F
'���,,,� �"� ���”" � � ''INYfg011t_ COMPLIAU(.E lrlK11
�, cnt � ui oeolaAac �a 6enou� -,aaDu. coMMeu
"W\iU0U1 D15 A4P¢OPiC1A'(t; 4P�MIS�:.D►.1P t`GOMQIadUGti V11S11, '
f r a x pP4l1Cd�1� C1S'� OeD113AUCCsvow
a k sr + oz p
s
SL a � a
U "111C' 'QP�VQ�(l'i ..b
'(W�LA (12) ,�( wtZu D11 UU06STeMAU
1�T1CAL Clti\`Lt Of 007-1MV3 Z14� ft�S���"
+�s�+.ryi%�. `Y' '3rY�' �°" � � a$'` " h �'' 4i a +-•wf-3 -�5�+ �'"E.c��'8F4�v^f '+P +�"'
������1c S�"` §�`rt�^�,�0 �f+Y.� J. �` .� z,5t•.E� ..§-A.` a4 4"`/^�� ��jfr Av Y.FI` C� � >
���� - QUo � `� -��" � °v � � ��'►o�UM�ii seg Ze(11�=v�AS�QL'C6C'fCORaJ�2. 4��G[Y�[_10
� a PaZ3fa o 4 �. �APM6�►tix. u0 c�o as'> g 1a°.dor .., t
_ r K �
��t'r�'C�.Vl�� •\.Wl� »1°G � f '.L. �����-.��"� r..F -�+r "a'E# �^nry�d r �,` a ,.��'S�`
� _ w�g� � •��`�� 'x�0U1J9 M01JUM�'A1'fS�DS�ISO�L� , �r�
�. - � � �,.,. �� j� rt �� "' - � _ Note �• ODUM�U'(S A2E 1 �Q�,�45�.,��
-�WIM,s
�tJoT KY.caep OIr1►J�Y. C�2ti�S co peovlpti` Y f
4�.���e �o,�a�
uvs -�c� b�l�� � � cAetD� �>nee.ovti►�i�t �»� .
p�Ya4
P�PO2 tVD13A1C °�l1AP� GF SNE t41. Cii sb41O �� a '
IN
SO
rs -tet `"�"" cA' ' 'a'
€r "3' -
it
of - '�`"` `j •F,. .,ter,, x .f zr `� e O
--�,A-M� ��c ✓ a# +z ,-j O y-
� rt'a � �.
•_.b� t�_'� >.r,ticea2a�aa� '��� ��p• _� �. � � �; �a��, `"���-�'�_`� }.��v�' e''¢�c.�.zoia� � ,�� �'
•,-� (PR 61 l9 03 sra� III;
z2� °a°J° 4s4 Ol` �L9b6°v0 r ,
" � x a�sz 944 Z4 Erni a x s s - -
►" VAN .H'
�, 'V'* !gyp t4'T�'•sa-y-c # i +t£_ Y
,:_\,F 4•,rt`- �i�Y^� •�, `'w`r..�•"!
t 4"y Pam-.aT.�. 9r l
�,- ; r � ,�fi `Y q �����w�-�-ms's- `'�`�i r��.,�. Q '�• ��"scs�� ' -�' ,� i v' 4
FL
��i ""pS f�L �aby v5pf�Lw�'�-�-��'•�R'r� PF+�� #�®���.C'$""v�y�' p $ _k!'� r � �- ..1 �.
^r.,
�`,�,z
�� ^nyj�,E.•• •ct� �r��s �.<?'�.v �;: �s�xi ; 'F'°.':- s `s.>�'"ec�� is �� �3�.-��"c �. 1 � t 5<.
tcA w{rc - U 33 YA 28 P. "T,061.10 y r <.
n d
welt e � E � -,i. �.s. � is `• ';'g'� �i •. y ,sem-•fir'"`�. _
bx' 1 f
-� u,. z r s a � q� •� •�-"'sr - � �r��- ��7,. � rock
r
�O �'w` '&tet` ':•,• '` x 3 R� w 3 ¢ ^ `" /� R :�¢°�-� � T"9-`.�,,J, �'^4
"'F" •"i'• R'��`}' 1 0
Ir da
4 r a .:1..}4+!' ••est. r. .v .: iy g1 H�
'� •^ Np wa l (oIo G G¢O fe7 J- 3 A , Yr T.I '. +c
y 5. ,' '- > .B�M...,tr_.r•. �. "-.�,..,c•, ya �)�5 �i ost, d.F•'&, -
v
-•r v.•.� `�` �fi 3 #Y dEs -n ,y�. r�x�N.f ���: �v � s m �"*7 � '+,sr'� .,S
• ':.;� � � r�.•'.q'� $i'$'�A _`-� `mow'�s>�Y 3 x ,w .atr-r. rt."#,^�y�.•es•u-$�� ��ae:.j%-+y)
1H
� �+ 1 V � a�F ,ri � �` ;'F. _�•� s � ydc,FM�Sx'Y.',A, .�Y^ t'x•. � /
��_ �-- ,-;.-w�<x+s•-: s� s�gas.>apcxr xa•-*r•.b JY�� G "^^-'�"�06614, C �seMe�>tr '4
u`_,c.,- �� X � a;�✓�' `"a � �J°.� Ib rJ5 W .1,049 Q,1 t - ^rT z �. -T°X`r k-a��+ F�`fiir
}p. L'2 LCt. l4°P�4 �x1,s"" x.�„<r..,, ns�, rA ,�� :�-,�"�s,.�, r;•c ax* �q.�.+s f`i#y �s+* � �i`f'v d� �,U
Sex
ze
o }oo - coo em aoo 1✓
•
M E M O_R A N D U M_
TO: City Council
f
FROM: City Manager
SUBJECT: McMillan Appeal
The attached extract of the General Plan puts in perspec-
tive the quote provided by the Planning Director in his
memo. As I recall, the arguments advanced by Mr. Chidlaw at
the lastCouncilmeeting involved the issue of consistency
between the General Plan and zoning. This consistency require-
ment does not apply to this issue since condition 5a is not
a zoning problem; rather it is simply an adopted policy state-
ment by the Council and Planning Commission. I agree with
Mr. Chidlaw' s contention that this is not a consistency problem
in the present context I must emphasize, however, that
the General Plan is a policy statement used by theCouncil
and Planning Commission `Staff' and citizens in making judgments
concerning issues addressed in the General Plan. As a
policy guide, this section has been applied in previous
instances as noted in Mr. Stevens' memo. Unfortunately, the
application of the terminology "General Plan consistency"
has been changed through usage from referring to the relation-
• ship between the zoning ordinance and General Plan to a
meaning attached to the General Plan itself. This switch,
however, has no legal or practiced foundation. The General
Planisa policy document, and therefore any change requires
that the Council consciously ignore the adopted policy,
change it to reflect the desired statements, or provide an
interpretation as to its meaning if, in fact, the meaning is
obscure. Care should be exercised in interpretation, however,
in view of the previous applications of the same provisions
for other properties in the area. While it is true that, you
are not bound by such precedence, nevertheless, fairness in
application should be considered unless there is certainty
as to vagueness in meaning. In the present case, it appears
that the paragraph under Special Commercial would have to
be changed in order toallowaccess from Amapoa >to the McMillan
property.
If it is the Council ' s desire to _change that policy state-
ment, and assuming there isno vagueness dictating interpreta-
tion, then you should direct such amendments be made_at: the
next General Plan amendment cycle. From a practical standpoint,
such action should not really bother the McMillan project'
since his access plans are not now dependent upon immediate
use of Amapoa.
• I , therefore, recommend your consideration of adopting
Alternative #1 as indicated by the Planning Director' s memo
with appropriate changes to be made in the resolution detailing
the findings
• 0
i
Memorandum - McMillan appeal
Page Two
One other aspect of the resolution concerns the assess-
ment district waiver or Item B2 of the resolution. Mr. McMillan's
representative agreed at the last meeting that they would
not enteranobjection during the majority protest hearings
for the formation of an assessment district. In this sense
then they have agreed to waive the right to participate in
an assessment district. He reserves, however, the right to
object to the cost spread which may result as a determina-
tion of the zone of benefit for the assessment district. I
do not believe that it was ever our intention to deny the
applicant the opportunity to express his opinion and/or
objections to the spreading of costs if an assessment district
is formed_ With the exception of the foregoing observations ,
I recommend your adoption of the resolution as modified.
/Uoy� . WARDEN
MLW:ad
6-17-81
•
•
I
' CITY OF ATASCADERO
air RFU , � Planning Department April 20 , 1981
1918 G r - C 1979
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT: Departmental Review R810330 : 1
LOCATION:• 8375 Morro Road (Lot 12, Block EC)
APPLICANT: David R. McMillan (Chidlaw)
REQUEST: To allow conversion of an existing single-family
residence to a commercial office use.
BACKGROUND
1. Existing Zoning: R-4-D(532) -Multiple Family and Professional
District with the "D(532) " to mean, as it applies to this
application:
1. Departmental Review required of all uses -
• 3. All developments shall emphasize the use of natural
materials in exterior finishes, and landscaping to
minimize visual impacts of structures and soften paved
areas.
4 . All yard areas abutting streets shall be considered front
yards requiring 25 foot setbacks, to be landscaped with
natural plant materials, with no off-street parking per-
mitted therein.
7. All developments shall require review and approval of
drainage plans by the City Public Works Department to
minimize potential flooding problems.
8. Signing shall not exceed 20 square feet aggregate area
without conditional use permit approval.
2. General Plan: Special Commercial.
3. Environmental Determination: An initial study environmental
form has been completed. The Planning Director has prepared
a Draft Conditional Negative Declaration indicating no signi-
ficant adverse environmental effects are likely to occur if
certain mitigating measures are incorporated into the project.
4 . Site Conditions : The site is generally flat and is developed
with a single-family residence. A double garage is detached
and a small guest house/cottage and an open-air covered shed
are located in the backyard. Mature birch and coniferous trees
are scattered around the site. There is some existing land-
Page Two .
Staff Report: Departmental Review R810330 :1 (McMillan)
April 20, 1981
scaping which is generally not well maintained. Access to the
site is via Morro Road which borders the property on the north-
west. The site is bounded by residential uses to the east and
vacant lots to the south and west. The subject property is in
the drainage moratorium.
5 . Project Description: The applicant is proposing to utilize
the site ;in its present condition of development as an Account-
ing Office. Minor interior modifications are proposed to
convert the single family dwelling to the main office area.
Interior modifications consist of a bathroom remodel to re-
move the bathtub and installation and removal of some interior
non-bearing walls. The small guest house/cottage is to be used
as a storage building with no proposed interior changes. The
detached garage which has been used as a waw shop is to be
used as a computer room. Modifications to the garage include
removal of overhead exterior door and replacement with a new
wall and two windows and a door. An existing wall creating a
20,' X 8 ' area to the rear of the garage is to remain. This
area is proposed to be used as a storage area and a new bath-
room. Access to the site is proposed to be via the existing
gravel driveway, and parking is indicated under the covered
storage shed and in the area between it and the garage.
STAFF COMMENTS
In light of the determination that the minor modifications proposed
to convert the use of the building are not subject to the restric-
tions of the drainage moratorium, there is only one concern that
remains; the concern being that allowing the conversion could pos-
sibly discourage voluntary participation in solutions to the area
wide drainage problems . This can probably be addressed by requiring
participation in any future assessment district or other method of
solution determined to be appropriate to solve the area wide
drainage problem.
Additionally, while on the one hand it may seem contrary to the
purpose of the moratorium to establish any conditions with this
approval, that could be perceived as creating similar results as
if new structures were built (i .e. paving or other impervious
surfaces that could increase the amount or rate of run-off) . On
the other hand, it has been common practice to require paved
parking in conjunction with the establishment of commercial uses .
The requirement for paved parking seems reasonable in this appli- •
cation since the "D" designation provides for the opportunity to
review drainage plans which should minimize any potential flooding
problems.
Page Three
Staff Report: Departmental Review R810330:1 (McMillan)
April 20 , 1981
FINDINGS
1. The site of the proposed commercial office use can be adequate
in size and shape to accommodate said use and all yards ,
fencing, parking, landscaping and other features required by
the Atascadero Municipal Code.
2. Streets in the vicinity of the proposed use are adequate to
carry the quantity and kind of traffic generated.
3. The proposed use will have no adverse effect on abutting prop-
erty or the permitted use thereof provided that there is
participation in any solution conceived concerning the drainage
moratorium.
4 . The establishment and conduct of the commercial office for
which the Departmental Review is sought will not be detrimen-
tal to the public welfare or be injurious to property or im-
provements in said neighborhood.
• 5. The project will not have a significant adverse effect upon the
environment provided appropriate mitigation measures are
introduced.
RECOMMENDATION
Based upon the above findings, the Planning Department recommends :
A) Issuance of a Conditional Negative Declaration as follows :
1. Access shall be limited to Morro Road only.
2 . Adequate provision shall be made for drainage in conjunction
with proposed improvements; and,
B) Approval of Departmental Review R810330 :1 subject to the fol-
lowing conditions :
1. No new structures nor structural additions to any existing
structures shall be allowed until such time as the drainage
moratorium is no longer in effect and the restriction on
issuance of building permits for new structures is lifted.
Page Four
Staff Report: Departmental Review R810330:1 (McMillan)
April 20, 1981
2. The property owner shall enter into an agreement with the
City to waive his right to refuse to participate in a
future assessment district, or similar joint participation
effort, should one be formed to solve the area-wide drain-
age problem. Said agreement shall run with the land and
remain in effect for a period not to exceed three years.
i
3 . Submit two copies of detailed landscaping and irrigation
plans indicating size, type and spacing of plant materials
proposed for review and approved by the Planning Depart-
ment prior to issuance of building permit.
a. Existing, poorly maintained planted area shall be
upgraded to improve the appearance of the property
from Morro Road and effort shall be directed towards
maintaining landscaping effect which minimizes the
visual appearance of the parking and access areas.
b. New plant materials shall be sized to achieve a
mature appearance in three years,
C. The type of irrigation system used shall depend •
upon the plant materials used and their watering
needs
4 . Any additions or changes to the exterior finish of ex-
isting structures may be permitted in an effort to up-
grade and improve the general appearance of the
structures from Morro Road. Elevations indicating
proposed materials and colors of exterior finish modi-
fications shall be submitted for approval by the Plan-
ning Department prior to issuance of building permit.
a. Any roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall be
screened from view from adjacent streets and
properties in a manner approved by the Planning
Department.
5 . Provide a minimum of six (6) parking spaces . Vehicle
parking and access areas shall be paved with a minimum
of two inches AC over rock base; individual parking spaces
shall be pain-striped or otherwise indicated and provided
with concrete wheel stops or approved functional equiva-
lent. Paved areas shall be permanently maintained. Two-
way driveway entries shall be a minimum of 24 feet in
width. Submit parking plan layout for review and approval •
by the Planning Department prior to issuance of building
permit.
Page Six
Staff Report: Departmental Review R810330 :1 (McMillan)
April 20:, 1981
13 . Install concrete curb, gutter and sidewalk along the Ama-
poa frontage of the subject property as required by Title
19 of the Atascadero Municipal Code. Said improvements
to be constructed under an inspection agreement and en-
croachment permit issued by the Public Works Department.
14 . Install a fire hydrant (s) of a type and size specified by
the City Fire Department. Exact location (s) and manner
of placement shall be subject to the approval of the Fire
Department. A letter from the Fire Department certifying
installation of the hydrant shall be received by the
Planning Department prior to occupancy by the office use.
15 . This Departmental Review R810330 :1 is granted for maximum
period of one year from the date of final approval unless
an extension of time is granted by the Planning Director
pursuant to a written request filed a minimum of ten days
prior to the expiration date.
16 : All conditions of approval established herein shall be
complied with prior to occupancy of the building of the
proposed use.
ACTION
The Planning Commission should direct Staff as deemed appropriate.
TO APPROVE: Motion to adopt findings and set conditions.
TO DENY: Motion setting findings for denial.
REPORT PREPARED BY:
MARY E. TIE
Associat Planner
REPORT APPROVED BY: avt�C, A2 �
LAWRENCE STEVENS
Planning Director
•
/Ps
OB
O'�\ h 10 G 2 29 10. 3p
49 9 23 a a A 30 9 3j T
w 8 8 3
24a) 8
-j2j ��.s 34 Sr
39 1$ t7s1 - �v 6 62�'e 26 31-4 4
7o 4 - 6
qp •�-4 ~_53 14 ! It-6
S-A
-
1 1_ �
3 1 __ �
! 1 2 2 (
12 ' 96
� 55
.r I
10
'N r 2a l:�2I; 2p 5T 54
TA: L! n
P: t 14 � F9
{,�, re tw
af
E2- aJ 3-'r UT A �4 o 60
Is
25
62 1
Es \ 17 4 R aI4 15 : Z6', 15 63 i x F
27n
14 k� 18 3 R 13 v ?y,� 19 Bs o v 2?
4 - s
\ g 2 4. X12 rje 13
15 12 ss - mss '`_
16 L1p 11 s rr if17 i
f z 9 » 10 3 ' -15
lr �
f \..Fl = = -
lo
C
1O J
I 10-Q
f \ f/ !
Ajq
\5p -
/�
( s
4 3." aoy^
� 2 7
t ., �.��-�.s,•- .. � o A/IE/� ZOrr�/i1/l /'75.0 �.,,+- .�• � ;-„ ,;.� , � �...,; � �•�. y ��-�: X375�l0/1iQD ,QOf�/J
a ari 't 3`J� "s sF l 'A '?'.�ts�`�'y 'g
_ 2 aaa.- -C .�r+-,L 9'-_i.., ....C.yw� k.•"W 1F^1,.... �--y�. -
Page Two
re: Departmental Review R810330 :1 (McMillan)
June 3 , 1981
their consensus that the recommended conditions with certain
revisions were appropriate.
Ed Chidlaw, representing the applicant, indicated objections to
or requested clarification of the following conditions:
#1 - (restricting structural additions while the moratorium re-
mained in effect) on the basis that the moratorium was not
legal;
#2 - (requiring participation in a future drainage assessment
district) since the applicant did not desire to waive his
right to object to an assessment district;
#3 - (requiring a landscape plan .to upgrade existing landscaping)
since existing landscaping when cleaned up and properly
maintained would be adequate;
#5 - (requiring paved parking with related standards) on the basis
that the number of spaces required was excessive, that the
• driveway could not be 24 ' wide because of an existing
building and that paved parking would contribute to the
drainage problem;
#5a (restricting access to Amapoa) since the applicant desired
access to that street;
#7 - (requiring a drainage plan) on the basis that paved parking
was not appropriate;
#13 - (requiring curb, gutter and sidewalk on Amapoa) because they,
especially the sidewalk, were inappropriate due to the mora-
torium and lack of adequate information to establish curb
grades; and
#14 - (requiring fire hydrant) on the basis that no additional fire
hazard was being created by the project.
Mr. Chidlaw also expressed strong objections to the continuation
of the drainage moratorium. Opposition was also indicated to the
conditions on the Conditional Negative Declaration concerning
Amapoa access and drainage.
No one else appeared on the matter.
• On May 27 , 1981 the attached letter of appeal indicating objection
to certain conditions established by the Commission was received.
Page Three
re: Departmental Review R810327 :1 (McMillan)
June 3 , 1981
Subsequently, the Planning Director has met with Dave McMillan
and Ed Chidlaw on the appeal. The remaining concerns are as
follows:
- Condition #2 concerning the future assessment district
Condition #5 concerning paved parking (it is preferred to defer
paved parking with a bond until the moratorium ends and curb,
gutter and sidewalk are done)
Condition #5a concerning access to Amapoa
- Condition #13 concerning curb, gutter and sidewalk (it is pre-
ferred to waive the sidewalk and bond for curb and gutter)
- Condition #14 concerning the fire hydrant
All other conditions have been resolved or explained to the
applicant' s satisfaction, at least pending the result of the
moratorium,
/�v lleAg_ •
LAWRENCE STEVENS MU L. /WARDEN
Planning Director City Manaber
/Ps
•
,�: � � � '� t.o�T- of- v.•�r'
a
Sl
r
1�
i
1 '
i
i�
i
�s k
�L%�d1U
r
L
fn 16
J'
i
j 0 X z.0,
'• ti,`��bt4Y art- v%aa
i
p � i
3
s
i
..y
re
r
�•��C1Gc1 { � 7
---
f
1
F!
.J
Oc
- N
IL
/oAo'er
Li
• the north side of Morro Road, from the existing com-
mercial uses to Santa Ynez Avenue. Such addition will
acilitate traffic flow by offering entrance to and
e ess from Morro Road, Curbaril Avenue and Santa Ynez
Ave e. This area comprises 8. 3 acres.
3. If, beca se of population pressures , a need can be
demonstrat Commercial uses should be located where
thev are con nient for commuting residents. In such
a case a locat n at either of the U. S. 101 intersections
with Del Rio Roa and Santa Barbara Road shall be desir-
able for a commercial development. Such development
shall be secondary to urrounding residential uses and
shall necessitate a dev opment plan.
Tourist Commercial
Tourist Commercial provides for uses at serve the travel-
ing public, such as motels, restaurants nd automotive ser-
vices . These services are properly locat cat intersections
of major inter-community routes where perman t accesses are
constructed and which have some high aestheticvalue.
Develonment of these areas shall relate strictly t the
environmental and aesthetic principles suggested in e
Atascadero Policy statement and outlined in the COMMUNITY
�7TP P S T T G 1 V ��r1��Q
Special Commercial
A Special Commercial use category is proposed for certain
properties and blocks fronting on Morro Road between Highway
101 and Portola Road. Access to properties shall be from a
arte:j"_pnly with establishm
e e
g s of commercial uses.
a. Offices, business and professional
b. Personal services
C. Motels
d. Financial uses
e. Specialty commercial uses requiring small space
needs and which are low traffic generators (e.g. ,
florist, stationery and gift shops)
f. Public utility offices
Of ficesL
A Professional Office�ate� v is proposed along the west
side of Morro Road between Curbari e and San Andres
Road. Access to properties shall be from an a only.
evory—i-nelud�.
71 .
,M_E M`O_R_A N_D_U M_:
TO: CITY MANAGER June 16, 1981
FROM: PLANNING DIRECTOR
SUBJECT APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
FOR DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW R810330 :1
LOCATION: 8375 Morro Road (Lot 12 , Block EC)
APPLICANT: David McMillan (Chidlaw)
REQUEST: To allow conversion of an existing single family
residence to a commercial office use.
On June 18 , 1981 City Council conducted a public hearing on the
appeal and continued the matter to June 22 to allow preparation
of findings and conditions modifying several of the appealed
conditions . A resolution intended to implement the Council
consensus is attached.
However, one of the issues, that of Amapoa access, requires further •
consideration The condition (originally #5a) was based entirely
on the Special Commercial section of the General Plan (p. 71)
which states :
" . . . .Access to properties shall be from an arterial
only with establishment of a continous left turn
lane. . . . "
The elimination of such a condition creates a quandary especially JA11V_
since it has been previously applied to two Zone Changes (Washburn
�1 and Barksdale) and two Departmental Reviews (Washburn and Sonne)
in the Morro Road area. There is no question that legally a general
plan consistency finding is not necessary for a Departmental Re-
view, but it has been clearly stated Council policy to closely
adhere to the General Plan in all respects. This decision creates
some uncertainty regarding that policy .
With regard to Amapoa access, the following alternatives are
available:
1) Direct consideration of a general plan amendment during
the next cycle to eliminate or modify the restriction.
2) Modify the attached resolution and include the access pro-
hibition for the McMillan project. (This could be done on •
an interim basis since the applicant ' s plans do not show
access now and the current condition of the road makes its
immediate use questionable. )
Page Two
Memo: Departmental Review R810330 :1 (McMillan)
June 16 , 1981
3) Establish a policy that general plan consistency not be
required for all approvals, only those where necessary by
law (i .e. zone changes , condo conversions, parcel maps).
In general, the principle of separating residential and commercial
traffic by the use of access restrictions is a valid one which is
commonly used. While the amount of traffic, in light of the uses
permitted and the size of the affected properties , may not be
significant, this is nevertheless the type of intrusion that
residential property owners usually object to. On the other
hand, there is also some merit to limiting the number of pos-
sible turning movements on a high-travel roadway such as Morro
Road.
LAWRENCE STEVENSU Uager
WARDEN
Planning Director City
•
/Ps
RESOLUTION NO. 16-81
A RESOLUTION OF THE ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL
APPROVING, SUBJECT TO CERTAIN CONDITIONS , DEPART-
MENTAL REVIEW R810330 : 1 ALLOWING CONVERSION OF AN
EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE TO A COMMERCIAL
OFFICE AT 8375 MORRO ROAD (LOT 12, BLOCK EC,
ATASCADERO COLONY)
WHEREAS , the City Council conducted a hearing on the appeal
by David McMillan of conditions of approval set forth by the
Planning Commission in the above-referenced matter; and,
WHEREAS, the findings adopted by the Planning Commission in
granting approval of this application are as follows :
1. The site of the proposed commercial office use can be
adequate in size and shape to accommodate said use and
all yards, fencing, parking, landscaping and other fea-
tures required by the Atascadero Municipal Code.
2 . Streets in the vicinity of the proposed use are adequate
to carry the quantity and kind of traffic generated.
3 . The proposed use will have no adverse effect on abutting •
property or the permitted use thereof provided that there
is participation in any solution conceived concerning
the drainage moratorium.
4 . The establishment and conduct of the commercial office
for which the Departmental Review is sought will not be
detrimental to the public welfare or be injurious to
property or improvements in said neighborhood.
5 . The project will not have a significant adverse effect
upon the environment provided appropriate mitigation
measures are introduced; and,
WHEREAS, the following findings are deemed appropriate in
conjunction with this application:
1 . The construction of parking and curb and gutter improve-
ments shall be deferred pending area-wide drainage studies
in order to avoid adverse effects thereon.
2 . The anticipated frequency of pedestrian traffic in the
area is .not sufficient to warrant sidewalks along Amapoa
where the intended commercial use will be primarily
oriented to Motu
• 0
Page Two Resolution No. 16-81
•
3 . Commercial property fronting on Morro Road should not
be restricted from using local streets such as Amapoa
as a secondary access.
WHEREAS, the establishment of conditions to implement the
above findings and to assure compliance with applicable development
standards is necessary.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Atascadero City Council
does hereby approve Departmental Review R810330 :1 allowing conversion
of an existing single family-residence to a commercial office at
8375 Morro Road (Lot 12, Block EC, Atascadero Colony) , subject to
the certain conditions:
A) Issuance of a Conditional Negative Declaration:
1. Adequate provision shall be made for drainage in
conjunction with future improvements .
B) Approval of Departmental Review: -
• 1. No new structures nor structural additions to any
existing structures shall be allowed until such time
as the drainage moratorium is no longer in effect
and the restriction on issuance of building permits
for new structures is lifted.
2. The property ownershallenter into an agreement with
the City to waive his right to refuse to partipate in
a future assessment district, or similar joining patti-
cipation effort, should one be formed to solve the
area-wide drainage problem. Said agreement shall
run with the land and remain in effect for a period
not to exceed three years.
3 . Submit two copies of detailed landscaping and irriga-
tion plans indicating size, type and spacing of plant
materials proposed for review and approved by the
Planning Department prior to issuance of building
permit.
a) Existing, poorly maintained planted area shall
be upgraded to improve the appearance of the
property from Morro Road and effort shall be
directed towards maintaining landscaping effect
which minimizes the visual appearance of the
parking and access areas .
b) New plant materials shall be sized to achieve a
mature appearance in three years .
Page Three Resolution No. 16-81 •
c) The type of irrigation system used shall depend
upon the plant materials used and their watering
needs.
4 . Any additions or changes to the exterior finish of
existing structures may be permitted in an effort
to upgrade and improve the general appearance of the
structures from Morro Road. Elevations indicating
proposed materials and colors of exterior finish
modifications shall be submitted for approval by the
Planning Department prior "to issuance of building
permit.
a) Any roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall be
screened from view from adjacent streets and
properties in a manner approved by the Planning
Department,
5. Provide for a minimum of five (5) parking spaces . The
existing driveway from Morro Road is acceptable for
two-way use at 17 feet in width. Submit parking plan
layout for review and approval by the Planning Depart-
ment prior to issuance of building permit. •
a) Vehicle parking and access areas shall be paved
with two inches AC over rock base; individual
parking spaces shall be paint-striped or otherwise
indicated and provided with wheel stops or other
approved functional equivalents. These improve
ments may be deferred for a period of time not to
exceed eighteen (18) months, unless an extension
is granted by the Planning Department pursuant
to a written request prior to the expiration
date, by the posting of a bond, certificate of
deposit, or similar acceptable guarantee to assure
said installation with the amount to be approved
by the Planning Department.
6 . on-site signing shall be limited to an aggregate area
of 20 square feet not to exceed the height of the
building unless a Conditional Use Permit has been
obtained. All signing to be reviewed and approved
by the Planning Department prior to issuance of a
building or sign permit.
a) The overall size, color, and materials of all
signs, including wall mounted signs, shall be
indicated. Submit complete plans and elevations
with proper dimensions for approval.
•
Page Four Resolution No.
7 . At the time of parking and curb and gutter improve-
ments, submit two sets of drainage plans indicating
grade of buildings , proposed pavement elevations , flow
lines at property boundaries, etc . for review and
approval by the City Public Works and Planning De-
partments prior to issuance of a building permit.
If so required by the said Departments, plans shall
be prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer.
8 . Any lighting standards or fixtures shall not project +
above the roof and shall be designed to minimize
on-site and off-site glare and shall be subject to
review and approval by the Planning Department.
9 . The applicant shall obtain a Change of Occupancy
permit from the Planning Department and shall sub-
sequently obtain a building permit to comply. with
all requirements applicable to Group B-2 occupancies .
In conjunction therewith, site and building plans
shall also be approved by the Atascadero Fire Department.
10 . Removal of any trees is not approved at this time;
Y future removal of trees shall be subject to first
obtaining a tree removal permit per procedures
specified in Title 19 of the Atascadero Municipal
Code.
11. Use of the guest house/cottage behind the single
family dwelling shall be restricted for use as
storage only. Conversion to office use may be
subject to increased parking and other requirements .
12 . The project shall be connected to the community
sewer. Verification shall be submitted from the
Atascadero Sanitation District. In the event that
the property is not connected to the sewer, connec-
tion shall be made and septic system abandoned
prior to establishing the office use.
13 . Install concrete curb and gutter along the Amapoa
frontage of the subject property as required by
Title 19 of the Atascadero Municipal Code. Said
improvements to be constructed under an inspection
agreement and encroachment permit issued by the
Public Works Department.
a) These improvements may be deferred for a period
t of time not to exceed eighteen (18) months , unless
an extension is granted by the Planning Department
pursuant to a written request prior to the expi-
ration date, by the posting of a bond, certificate
of deposit, or , similar guarantee to assure said
installation with the amount to be approved by
the Public Works Department.
Page Five
Staff Report: Departmental Review R810330 :1 (McMillan) '
April 20, 1981
a. Access to Amapoa shall be prohibited.
6. On-site signing shall be limited to an aggregate area of
20 square feet not to exceed the height of the building
unless a Conditional Use Permit has been obtained. All
signing to be reviewed and approved by the Planning De-
partment prior to issuance of a building or sign permit.
a. The overall size, color, and materials of all signs,
including wall mounted signs, shall be indicated.
Submit complete plans and elevations with proper
dimensions for approval .
7 . Submit two sets of drainage plans indicating grade of
buildings, proposed pavement elevations , flow lines at
property boundaries , etc. for review and approval by the
City Public Works and Planning Departments prior to issu-
ance of a building permit. If so required by the said
Departments, plans shall be prepared by a Registered
Civil Engineer.
8 . Any lighting standards or fixtures shall not project above
the roof and shall be designed to minimize on-site and
off-site glare and shall be subject to review and approv-
al by the Planning Department.
9 . The applicant shall obtain a Change of Occupancy Permit
from the Planning Department and shall subsequently ob-
tain a building permit to comply with all requirements
applicable to Group B-2 occupancies . In conjunction
therewith, site and building plans shall also be approved
by the Atascadero Fire Department.
10. Removal of any trees is not approved at this time; future
removal of trees shall be subject to first obtaining a
tree removal permit per procedures specified in Title 19
of the Atascadero Municipal Code,
11 . Use of the guest house/cottage behind the single family
dwelling shall be restricted for use as storage only.
Conversion to office use may be subject to increased
parking and other requirements.
12 . The project shall be connected to the community sewer.
Verification shall be submitted from the Atascadero Sani-
tation District. In the event that the property is not
connected to the sewer, connection shall be made and
septic system abandoned prior to establishing the office
use.
Page fro - F 1Resolution No. 16-81
14 . Install afire hydrant (s) of a type and size specified
by the City Fire Department. Exact location (s) and
manner of placement shall be subject to the approval
of the Fire Department. A letter from the Fire De-
partment certifying installation of the hydrant shall
be received by the Planning Department prior to
occupancy by the office use.
a) Partial recovery of hydrant installation costs
shall be made in conjunction with future devel-
opment of nearby lots based upon a formula using
Morro Road frontage and spacing between hydrants.
15 . This Departmental Review R8103.30 :1 is granted for a
maximum period of one year from the date of final
approval unless an extension of time is granted by
the Planning Director pursuant to a written request
filed a minimum of ten days prior to the expiration
date .
16 . All conditions of approval established herein shall
be complied with prior to occupancy of the building
of the proposed use.
On tion by Councilman ? and seconded by Council-
man , the foregoing resolu on is hereby adopted- in its
entir y on the following vote :
AYES : C �
NOES :
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
ROBERT J. WILKINS , JR. , Mayor
ATTEST:
MURRAY L. WARD N, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO ORM:
ALLEN GRIMES, City Attorney
r�\
M_ETM_O_R_A N_D_U_M^:
.1. 0
TO: CITY MANAGER June 3 , 1981
FROM: PLANNING DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
FOR DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW R810330 :1
LOCATION: 8375 Morro Road (Lot 12 , Block EC)
APPLICANT: David McMillan (Chidlaw)
REQUEST: To allow conversion of an existing single family
residence to a commercial office use.
On April 20 , 1981 the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing
on the subject matter unanimously adopting Findings 1-5 , authorizing
a Conditional Negative Declaration and approving the office conver-
sion subject to Conditions 1-16 as set forth in the attached Staff
Report with the following revisions
1) Parking and driveway width to be reviewed and revised
as necessary; and, •
2) Fire hydrant requirement to be reviewed with Fire Chief .
A subsequent letter dated May 4 which is attached made the following
revision:
"5 . Provide a minimum of five (5) parking spaces.
Vehicle parking and access areas shall be paved
with a minimum of two inches AC over rock base;
individual parking spaces shall be paint-striped
or otherwise indicated and provided with concrete
wheel stops or approved functional equivalent.
Paved areas shall be permanently maintained.
Two-way driveway entries shall be a minimum of 17
feet in width. Submit parking plan layout for
review and approval by the Planning Department
prior to issuance of building permit. "
The letter also contained further explanation regarding Condition
#2 on the drainage moratorium, Condition #13 on curb, gutter and
sidewalk, and Condition #14 on the fire hydrant.
There was some discussion among the Commission concerning the
curb, gutter and sidewalk requirements concerning the effect of •
the upcoming Council hearing on the drainage moratorium, and con
cerning conflicting information on fire hydrant requirements.
The Commission also discussed the desirability of paved parking
in lightofthe moratorium and the moratorium itself. It was
- M-E M_0 R A N_D U M_
TO: CITY MANAGER June 15, 1981
FROM: PLANNING DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: VARIANCE V810408:1
LOCATION: 5955 Traffic Way (Lot 49, Block EG)
APPLICANT: G.D. Spradlin (Lindenthaler & Courtney Associates)
REQUEST: To allow four parking spaces instead of five one of
the four spaces to be ,located at 5820 Traffic Way
(see Variance V810408 :2) and two of the three spaces
provided on-site being substandard in width.
On May 18, 1981 the Planning Commissionconducteda public hearing
on the requested parking variance unanimously adopting Findings
1-3 as listed in the attached Staff Report and denying the
application.
It was the consensus of the; Commission that the applicant did not
demonstrate that the regulations imposed a hardship on the devel-
opment of the site, especially since several reasonable alternatives
(indicated in the attached Staff Report) seemed available. There
was some discussion of costs associated with parking and concern
was expressed concerning the adequacy ofparking in the downtown
area. -
Larry Kelley, family member of the applicant, spoke in support of
the request pointing out the high volume of walk-in traffic and
the suitability of the area for retail commercial development.,
Tom Courtney, project architect, spoke on the project pointing the
high percentage of compact cars today and the attractiveness of
the project
William Vetter, adjacent property owner, spoke in support of revi-
talizing downtown by approving projects such as this:
No one else appeared.
On May 29, 1981 the attached letter appealing the decision of the
Planning Commission was received.
-/1411� OLWAL-_'
LAWRENCE STEVENS MURRA L. WARDEN
Planning Director City 'Man ger
�- CITY OF ATASCADERO
G �^1 ri r s7$, Planning Department May 18, 1981
C. STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT: Variance V810408 :1
LOCATION: 5955 Traffic Way (Lot 49, Block EG)
APPLICANT G.D. Spradlin (Lindenthaler & Courtney Associates)
REQUEST:' ' To allow four parking spaces instead of five; with
one of the four spaces located at 5820 Traffic Way
(Ref. V810408 :2) and two of the three provided on-
site being substandard in width
BACKGROUND
1. Existing Zoning C-1-C (Community Shopping District)
2. General Plan: Retail Commercial
3. Environmental Determination: An initial study environmental
description form has been completed. The Planning Director
has prepared a Draft Negative Declaration indicating the pro-
ject will not have 'a significant adverse effect on the environ-
ment if the project is implemented as proposed. ;
4. , Site Conditions : The site is flat, undeveloped and generally '
overgrown with weeds. The lot is the last vacant lot in the
block and is bounded on the east and west by other commercial
buildings. The site fronts on Traffic Way on the north and
has an alleyway on the south. The site measures 251 X 75''
(1875 sq. ft. )
5. Project Description: The applicant is proposing two small
shops for commercial retail use totalling approximately 1151
square feet of leaseable area. Each shop is to have a loft
area for storage totalling 784 sq, ft. Elevations submitted
indicated use of exterior stucco with wood trim and a mission
tile mansard roof at the frontandrear elevations. Each
store is provided with two accesses; one each from Traffic
Way and one each from the alleyway. Three on-site parking
spaces are provided, off the alley. One space is proposed to
be a standard _9 ' X 20 , ' the other two are proposed for "com-
pact" cars being 8 ' X 20. 1 : One parking space is provided at
5820 Traffic Way which is also proposed for development by •
this applicant (ref: V810408 :2) . A trash enclosure is proposed
to be located on an adjacent lot,
Page Two
Variance V810408 :1 (Spradlin)
May 18, 1981
STAFF COMMENTS
Section 22 . 86. 020 Space Requirements of the Zoning Ordinance states :
"Each required parking space shall be not less than nine feet side
and twenty feet long. " Beyond this there are no provisions for
"compact" cars or any other lesser standards. It should be pointed
out that, where parking is already perceived to be at a premium,
"compact" spaces could further limit parking choices and compound
the problem. Small parking lots (i.e. Tess than 5 or 20 spaces)
are not usually considered suitable for compact spaces since full
size cars will always attempt to park in a compact space, especially
if it is the only space available. The high percentage of compact
spaces and the limited number of available spaces make that a
likely prospect in this situation.
Section 22 . 86 . 050 also requires one parking space per each 300 sq.
ft. of floor area and one additional per each 2 employees for re-
tail commercial. This standard would require four spaces for the
store area, and assuming one employee per store at any given time,
one space for employees for a total of five parking spaces.
• Section 22 . 86 . 050 also provides that parking for retail uses can
be provided within 600 feet of the subject property subject to
Planning Commission approval. The applicant proposes one of the
required five spaces be on a lot approximately 250 feet away on
Traffic Way which the applicant is also developing. This still
results in a shortage of one parking space for this project in an
area where parking is perceived as critical Furthermore, this
includes no parking for the storage loft. While that appears
acceptable if used as intended, future parking problems could
result from deviation from this intent.
It seems that a number of alternatives to a variance for parking
are available. At least one of them is requested by the applicant
(approval of parking on another lot within 600 feet) . Of course,
even this alternative does not go to the point of providing all
required spaces . Alternatives include:
1. Provide five spaces with two on the site and three at the 5820
Traffic Way location. This would require modification of those
development plans since no extra spaces are now available.
2 . Provide five spaces with three on the site by acquiring a
2-3 ' parking easement (a common trash enclosure is already
proposed) and two at the 5820 Traffic Way site. This would
also require modification of those plans.
•
Page Three
Variance V810408:1 (Spradlin)
May 18 , 1981
3. Reduce the amount of floor area (and the resulting parking
requirement) on the subject site and apply either #1 or #2
above
4 . Change the project to offices where parking is calculated at
one space per 500 sq. ft. plus one per two employees. This
could allow for a smaller decrease in floor area than #3 above
and could also be combined with #1 or #2 .
In light of the extra square footage in the storage lofts and the
apparent availability of- off-site spaces , an alternative other
than a variance is appropriate. It seems that the applicant is
simply trying to squeeze too much on this (and the other) site.
While there are, no doubt, difficulties in designing buildings
for sites that are both small in area and in width, it. seems that
these should be compensated for by smaller buildings or use of
other parking alternatives rather than by reduction in the number
of parking spaces.
It must be remembered that the granting of a variance must be
based on a hardship imposed on the property because of its
characteristics and not because of the design selected, perceived
economic hardship by the applicant, or disagreement with established
standards
FINDINGS
1. There are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances
applicable to the subject property that do not also apply to
other small commercial lots in the same general area.
2. The granting of this variance is not necessary for the preser-
vation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the
applicant since other reasonable alternatives are available
to provide parking in compliance with zoning ordinance
regulations.
3 . The granting of this Variance will adversely affect and be
materially detrimental to the public welfare and other prop-
erty and improvements in the area by imposing an increased
parking burden on nearby public stores and private property.
RECOMMENDATION
Based upon the above findings, the Planning Department recommends •
denial of Variance V810408 :1.
Page Four
Variance V810408:1 (Spradlin)
May 18, 1981
ACTION
The Planning Commission should by motion direct staff as deemed
appropriate.
TO APPROVE: Direct Staff as deemed appropriate.
TO DENY: Motion to adopt Staff findings and recommendation
REPORT PREPARED BY: "G. ea��
MARY E. EATIE
Associate Planner
REPORT APPROVED BY:
LAWRENCE STEVENS
• Planning Director
/ps
•
l
1
0 1
U
TRAFFIC LEEWAY W
471.80
4 .1
T N u L -
1.1 /?0.6 0
r � 35
O W
130.76 . w ��• W3O.0 oWIt2nLn
131. `Aa"
13/: . -0-0a2/Un5r�.�•.
W-02eO�63
nM
D
133.97 70 75 25 2B63
Z) W WUoW
UI 4 'o3
1)2Dr3
m 137.1
0 178.60 70 1 29 1 1 1 5 27.63 In
rn IN
1 z N ENTRADA - AVE. N • W
�' f2e^77'w
4f3 -T
Z
lv Q9/ 76.69- 2s 35 30 26 25 23.e3 I`
ti I_
Z \L 78.02 I
n c�
N
H 0 N 79.00
T N W d a L
wu W D '--
{ ea r6 25 < mll
A ul c In a
O 106.13 N Q O .p
�A O
_ • 1W 5 30 ZJ 25 2B.n7m.
.107. p W } a \s L
32 a 25
12 1
60 aN /M
Ibe Jf
f w W N W
fA W 35
,V. e4 4J � P v m `° �\- N W -0I- 1/4�.�'
t
85 51
D D j n
o m WEST MALL
� V O N 57B'i/'W
T o n
uz
(}J
c
w
12 '4 5 2 9 1 . 3•
YS �,
13 2 - - -q � 64 s
14tn
_ 48
15
,, Rt I- -
_ 49 2
16 50
_\ / p 12 /o
_17\ I P 2 2
• 0 t' o � Q �,yog
i
zo60,� •
R:i�137 I \���i.� seo��'o ' �•
q
co
�P ►��
•� •.' �ry � '.v �, / --.. �U6 SO428� a /
V
�" ��� � `:• / �� �11 \, lil l� • - tom
,
fig'
1r
6
'i9 G� ,� c�,� •/1 12.12
� y9
� 5955 T,2,�FiG
' 1Z3.. B,Lac.�c
. . � .
. �� \� _ �, �'• :,,rte,,,-r,s-.-r^^ .
_ ' I
'Ile I r
,1, s s ,meg
SQ000L]
— 's ii' j�l'. A�'.❑QQQ � �
13
yy
N J' Y l i dpi
'b -
l] o
-
^"�' rw
Is
, 14`
_ � p
f
• •
L �. "5NMILIN RNNch
P. O. BOX 1294 - SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA 93406
May 29 , 1981
Mr. Lawrence Stevens
Planning Director
P 0 Box 747
Atascadero , Ca. 93406
Re : Variance V810408 :1
5955 Traffic Way
Dear Sir:
On May 18, 1981 we brought before the Planning
Commission of Atascadero a request for variance of
parking spaces for a proposed building at 5955 Traffic
Way. This request was denied and we wish to appeal
this denial for the f6llowing reasons :
1 . The width of the lot creates a hard-
ship and we believe special consideration should be
given the request.
2. There is an inter-relationship between
this project and one proposed at 5820 Traffic Way
which we feel may not have been made clear to the
Planning Commission for cooperative or shared peak
hour parking.
3. A study done by Weston-Pringle and
Associates , Traffic & Transportation Engineers of
Fullerton, Ca. found that 50% of cars today are com-
pact cars making the need for compact car parking
greater. The spaces would be designated and marked
for employee parking only.
We would support any proposed Public Parking Dis-
trict in the future .
Enclosed is the required $60 .00 fee for this
appeal.
Respectfully submitted,
Ne 1 E. Spradn
MEMO RAN D U_M
TO: City 'Council
FROM: Mary Beatie, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Morris Re-zoning (Lot 2- Block 40)
There is a gate on San Marcos Rd. past Vista Rdand
just before you get to the subject lot. This gate is
usually locked. A key can be obtained from Dick Davis at
York Realty on Morro Road or from the Planning Department.
Call ahead to make sure key is available and please
return it as soon as possible so it's available for the
next person.
Thank you.
MARY E. EATIE
MEB:pj
6-17--81
•
M E M O R A N- D U M
TO: CITY MANAGER June 15 1981
FROM: PLANNING DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: ZONE CHANGE Z810429 :1
LOCATION: 10905 San Marcos Road (Lot 2, Block 60)
APPLICANT: John W. Morris
REQUEST: To allow a change of zone from A-1-B-V-5 to A-1-2k
On June 1, 1981 the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing
on therequestedzoning change unanimously adopting Findings 1-2
as listed in the a-ttached Staff Report and recommending- denial.
In discussing the matter, it was the consensus of the Planning
Commission that the request to facilitate future lots at the
minimum size allowed by the General Plan was inappropriate due
to the distance from the center of town and due to the size of
the surrounding lots. The request was felt to be quite premature.
John Morris, the applicant, spoke in support of the request
pointing out the availability of several suitabile building
sites, the acceptability of driveway slopes , and the need for
affordable lots.
No one else appeared on the matter.
i
.�Lvti►�h
LAWRENCE STEVENS 90Rr&yWARDEN
Planning Director City Ma ager
/p s
CITY OF ATASCADERO
i'�e,Fr" yr it r�1 if
r riK°:L• Department June l 1981
i913
i�78 Planning
\ 5c�no� STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT: Zone Change Z810429 :1
LOCATION: 10905 San Marcos Road (Lot 2 , Block 60)
APPLICANT: John W. Morris
REQUEST: To allow a change of zone from A-1-B-V-5 to A-1-2�
BACKGROUND
1. Existing Zoning: A-1-B-V-5, a Light Agricultural District with
the B-V-5 being a slope combining district suggesting an average
density of one dwelling per 5 acres , and allowing variations in
minimum lot size from 3 to 10 acres depending on the average
slope of the lot (ranging from 0-300+) .
2. General Plan: Suburban Single-Family Residential
3. Environmental Determination: An initial study environmental
description form has been completed. The Planning Director
has prepared a Negative Declaration indicating the project
will not have a significant adverse effect upon the environ-
ment if it is implemented as proposed.
4 . Site Conditions : The topography varies across the site with
slopes ranging generally from loo to 50% - plus . The site
slopes up slightly from San Marcos Road to a knoll, which is
situated within proposed Parcel B, and then slopes down with
increasing steepness toward the rear of the lot. The property
is currently undeveloped and is vegetated with natural grasses
and scattered oak trees . City water is available to the site;
(new City water tank is directly opposite the site) . City
sewer is not available. A fire hydrant exists opposite the
proposed division line, and a power pole is located in the
proposed Parcel A just off San Marcos Road central to its
frontage. One or two lots in the immediate vicinity are less
than the suggested minimum, but existed prior to the adoption
of the current General Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
5. Project Description: The applicant is requesting a zone change
from. A-1-B-V-5 to A-1-21, in order to accommodate a proposed lot
• division of two lots at 21, acres each.
Page Two
Re : Zone Change Z810429 :1 0
June 1, 1981
STAFF COMMENTS
The zoning ordinance provides the following for the existing zoning:
Average Minimum Lot Size Related to % Slope Over
District Density 0-10% 10-15% 15-20% 20-25% 25-30% 30%
B-v-5 5 acres 3 acres 4 acres 5 acres 6 acres 8 acres 10 acres
In using the chart to determine minimum lot area, the minimum lot
size shall be based upon the average slope within each individual
lot. For any lot size requirement in excess of one acre, lots may
be reduced in size to one acre in newly created subdivisions, pro-
vided a suitable building site exists on each lot and provided the
cumulative remainder of the property required to meet the minimum
specified on the chart is dedicated to open space. Otherwise, lots
shall not belessthan the areas prescribed for the percent slope
from the appropriate average density column.
A slope study was conducted on the topography map provided by the
applicant. It is Staff ' s judgement that the average slope of the
property exceeds 20% slope which, according to the above chart,
would require a minimum lot size of 6 acres . The lot as it exists
is only 5 . 12 acres. Staff also notes that, even if the average
slope was determined to be 0-10% , the minimum lot size allowed is
still only 3 acres.
The 1980 General Plan suggests a lot size range of 22 acres to 10
acres, with the appropriate lot size being determined by a variety
of factors including: slope of access road to building site,
availability of services, distance from center of community, general
character of neighboring lands , percolation and the area needed for
access road to the building site.
The first and last factors are somewhat difficult to evaluate as
no precise building sites or driveway locations are known at this
time. The initial access off San Marcos would probably be under
10% , but depending on the choice of building lots , each driveway
could become steep rather quickly or require extensive grading to
get a drive of more reasonable slope . With regard to the second
factor, most utilities except sewer are available to the site--
water, phone and electric. While it is understood development
is likely to spread out to this area in time, Staff feels the site
is somewhat remote, being about 4-6 miles from "the center of the
community and being outside the perceived edge of the developed •
portion of the 3-F Meadows area.
• Page Three
re: Zone Change 2810429 :1
June 1, 1981
The general character of neighboring land is quite similar with
similarly varying topography. The Soil Conservation Service states
the following for the soils in this area (that being MDE or Millsholm
Dibble Complex in 15-300 slopes) :
Slope, erosion hazard and depth to rock severely limits
these soils for building sites, roads and streets. The
moderate shrink-swell and lack of sufficient strength
of these soils can be corrected by replacing the base
material. Soil erosion can be controlled by minimum
grading, runoff and sediment control structures and
establishment of permanent plant cover on side slopes.
Slope and depth to rock severely limits these soils
for septic tank absorption fields and will require
on-site investigation to determine proper methods .of
disposal . In highly populated areas, sanitary faci-
lities should be connected to commercial sewers.
Staff feels that due primarily to the factors of distance from the
center of the community, character of neighboring lands, average
• slope of the subject property and secondarily to the potential
access to the building sites and permeability of the soils , the
existing five acre average lot size is appropriate for the area
and is consistent with the General Plan range of 21-,-10 acre lot
sizes.
FINDINGS
1. The application is not consistent with the applicable pro-
visions of the 1980 Atascadero General Plan.
2 . The application will not have a significant adverse effect
upon the environment and therefore the preparation of an
Environmental Impact Report is not necessary.
RECOMMENDATION
Based upon the above findings , the Planning Department recommends
denial of Zone Change application 2810429 :1.
ACTION
The Planning Commission should by motion direct Staff as deemed
appropriate.
TO APPROVE: To continue the application to June 15, 1981 and
and direct staff to prepare findings and conditions .
TO DENY: To receive and file.
REPORT PREPARED BY :.
MARY EA E, Assoc to Planner
REPORT APPROVED BY:
annincq Director
V'
n
.�"1 \c�(j,., �. N _I �\ fir-\. � � •• �� {��
� rte. � \•� �-R
e..e •. e\ `fir/ io�d`- ; % •� �
A AtCAI)t5 ) COIQNT ` 1 1 4j9p oS - • 4
i
os-
A
1 ,
1
v,
/jam
2200
AREA MAP
/0905 %San Marco 5
SY -
yV7 -
uA.
A-1-
a
3-32O
A-3-s2p-P
A
a ;S 4-3's20�p
o A-i-6-V-S
�- P.Ok
A-1-13 15
A-I-e-v-5
A-►-B-v-S V
_
6-v-
;� S
A_
SITE
A-r-Q_V_5 FIFA
3
ZO/V/A)6 MAP
A-I-a-v-5
i
p-1-a /09,05 &M Marcos
•
M E M 0 R A N D U M
- - - - - -- -
TO: CITY MANAGER June 16 , 1981
FROM: PLANNING DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZA 810420`:1
APPLICANT: Initiated by Planning Commission
REQUEST: To consider zoning ordinance text amendment to
establish regulations for mobilehomes in single
family residential zones
On May 4, May 18, June 1 and June 15 the Planning Commission
conducted public hearings on the subject matter, and with Com-
missioners Cannon, Lilley, and Moore objecting, directed issuance
of a Negative Declaration, adopted Findings 1-4` and approved "text
changes allowing mobilehomes as permanent dwellings in the A-1,
R-A, R-1, RPD, and L Zones subject to certain development standards
asprovided in the attached Staff Report.
At the May 4 hearing, there was considerable discussion by the
Planning Commission onthepurpose and intent of SB 1960 on the
various alternatives outlined in the attached Staff Report and
on possible architectural standards. It was the consensus of
the Commission that Alternative #5 was the most appropriate and
Staff was directed to prepare text to implement that alternative.
At the May 4 hearings, questions concerning the State legislation
and the City' s implementation of it were raised by Roger Algee,
Ted Monson, Jerry Van Saun, Skip Margolis, Eric Michaelson, and
Herb LaPrade.
On May 18 and June 1 there was only limited discussion as the text
had not been finished.
On June 15 the Commission considered the proposed text. There
was considerable discussion and the _points raised by the Commission
included:
- the subjective nature of the proposed review process concerning
overhangs, siding and roof material
the legal basis for including a 20 ' minimum width
reasoning behind limiting additions, collecting license plates
and reviewing exterior treatment on building
- the cost of mobilehomes vs. conventional housing construction
Page Two
Memo: Zoning Ordinance Amendment ZA 810420 :1
June 16 , 1981
approaches taken by other jurisdictions on this matter
the possible need for grading standards
In general, the Commission expressed some reservations about the
effects of mobilehomes on adjacent residences but pointed to the
State legislation indicating that it should be implemented in
the best way possible despite personal objections to being forced
into it. The Commissioners objecting to the proposed text amend-
ment did not agree with the review process for the overhangs,
siding and roof material feeling that it was too subjective to
allow applicants to know what was acceptable and did not agree
with the 20 foot width requirement feeling that it was beyond the
limits authorized by the legislation,
John Cole, 3--F Meadows resident, spoke in opposition to: allowing
mobilehomes on individual lots because they were not 'attractive
and would deteriorate property values. He supported_a case-by-
case special review for compatibility.
Herb LaPrade appeared and stated his support for the text change
because it fairly implemented SB 1960.
No one else appeared on the matter.
It should be noted that copies of opinions by the 'Leage of Cali-
fornia Cities and State Housing and Community Development were
previously forwarded to Council.
The proposed ordinance has also been 'prepared and is provided for
first reading.
�iG��yM^/lfi4
LAWRENCE STEVENSU Y L WARDEN
Planning Director C ty Ma ager
/Ps
CITY OF ATASCADERO
• � i" I n 11
fr1
Planninc Department June 15 , 1981
,s j' r r r 197e r
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZA 810420: 1
APPLICANT: Initiated by Planning Commission
REQUEST: To consider zoning ordinance text amendment to establish ,
regulations for mobile homes in single family resi-
dential zones
BACKGROUND
1. State Legislation: Senate Bill 1960 added Government Code
Section 65852. 3 precluding cities from prohibiting mobile
homes on lots zoned for single family dwellings. A City may,
however, designate certain lots zon
dwellings for mobile om n compa i i ity. monlie
homes are to be subjected to the same development standards
• as single family dwellings although said standards cannot
have the effect of precluding mobile homes. The entire text
of the bill is as follows:
65852. 3. A city, including a charter city, county,
or city and county shall not prohibit the installa-
tion of mobilehomes certified under the National
Mobile Home Construction and Safety Standards Act
of 1974 (42 U.S.C. Section 5401, et seq. ) on a foun-
dation system, pursuant to Section 18551 of the
Health and Safety Code, on lots zoned for single
family dwellings. However, a city, including a charter
city, county, or city and county may designate lots zoned
for single-family dwellings for mobiZehomes as described in
this section, which lots are determined to be compatible for .7
such mobiZehome use. A city, including a charter city
county, or city and county may subject any such
mobilehome and the lot on which it is placed to any
of the same development standards to which a con-
ventional single-family residential dwelling on the
same lot would be subject, including, but not limited
to, building setback standards, side and rear yard
requirements, standards for enclosures, access, and
vehicle parking and architectural, aesthetic require-
ments, and minimum square footage requirements .
However, any architectural requirements imposed on
the mobilehome structure itself, exclusive of any
requirement for any and all additional enclosures,
shall be limited to its roof overhang, roofing
Page Two
Staff Report: Zoning Ordinance Amendment ZA 810420 :1 •
June 15 , 1981
material, and siding material. In no case may a city,
including a charter city, county, or city and county apply
any development standards which will have the effect of
totally precluding moblehomes from being installed as perma-
nent residences.
Attached are opinions from State Department of Housing and
Community Development and from the Leage of California
Cities concerning this new legislation.
2. Zoning Regulations
Section 22.04.620 DEFINITIONS. Defines dependent trailer.
Section 22 .04 .630 DEFINITIONS. Defines independent trailer.
Section 22. 04.640 DEFINITIONS. Defines mobilehome park.
Section 22.20 .030 RPD Zone. Allows mobile home parks in
Rural Planned Development Zone
with Departmental Review
approval
Section 22 .30.020 R-3 Zone.
Section 22. 32. 020 R-4 Zone. •
Section 22.42. 020 C-1 Zone.
Section 22. 62 . 020 L Zone.
Chanter 22.64 T Zone. Establishes regulations to allow
mobilehomes on individual resi-
dential lots within a subdivision
designed exclusively for such
mobilehomes.
Chapter 22. 80 TRAILERS AND MOBILEHOMES. Establishes regula-
tions for storage of dependent trailers; mobile-
homes as offices for mobilehome sales and for
temporary use during construction of permanent
building; mobilehome as subdivision sales office;
mobilehome as farm labor quarters; and, mobilehome
as permanent residence on lots of ten acres or
more.
3. Building Regulations:
Chapter 19 . 52 - MOBILEHOME CODE. Establishes building permit
procedures and regulations for mobilehomes
not located in mobilehome parks.
4. General Plan: ' The Land Use Element states that mobilehome
parks provide an alternative form of low-cost residence and
should be allowed in single and multiple family areas as a
secondary use depending upon the location and design (p. 61) .
This is supported by Residential Policy Proposal #14 (p. 62) .
•
Page Three
Staff Report: Zoning Ordinance Amendment ZA 810420 : 1
June 15, 1981
STAFF COMMENTS
This legislation raises a number of issues and creates many ques-
tions. It seems clear that the primary intent was to offer an
alternative form of affordable housing (i .e. mobilehomes) by
State mandate as the result of perceptions that zoning regulations
were being used to preclude such alternative. It is not quite so
clear what would be acceptable in implementing the stated intent.
The attached opinions offer divergent points of view on a number
of these issues and questions.
1. Should mobilehomes be allowed on all lots on which single-
family residences are allowed?
Single family residences are currently allowed as permitted uses
in the A-1, R-A, R-1,- R-2, R-3, R-4 , and L zones . Mobilehomes are
not allowed on individual lots in those zones but would be allowed
in the R-A and A-1 zones on lots exceeding ten acres. It would
seem that the intent of the legislation is to open up all of these
zones to mobilehomes; but, if compatibility criteria can be devel
oped, a less encompassing approach can be taken.
2 . What type of compatibility criteria can be used?
No definition of compatibility is provided indicating that discre-
tion can be 'applied to the situation. However, such discretion
cannot have the effect of prohibiting mobilehomes and needs to be
supported by appropriate findings.- Examples given in the opinions
include Victorian neighborhoods or similar distinctive architectu-
ral styles. The diversity of architectural style in Atascadero
makes this a more difficult approach. It seems questionable to
delineate any area in which a mobilehome would appear totally out
of place.
3. What is the effect on the T subdivision zone?
In order to avert reverse discrimination, it seems that the T
subdivisions must be modified to allow for single family residences
on those lots. However, the much smaller lot sizes can create
serious conflict with densities set forth in the General Plan.
In cases such as 'this, the legislation may have an opposite effect
than was intended.
4 . What is the effect on private deed restrictions?
Certain areas within Atascadero include deed restrictions which
• prohibit mobilehomes and this legislation does not supercede those
restrictions , although subsequent court action may lead to their
downfall. It is not the City' s responsibility to enforce these
deed restrictions.
Page Four
Staff Report: Zoning Ordinance Amendment ZA 810420:1
June 15 , 1981
5. Can architectural standards be imposed on mobilehomes?
There is obvious conflict in two parts of the legislation. One
seems to allowarchitectural requirements provided that they are
limited to roof overhangs, roofing materials and siding materials
(the co-sponsor of the legislation takes this position) . The
conflicting part limits such impositions to development standards
also imposed on single family residences. At present, there is no
City review of architectural treatment and design of single fami-
ly residences. Furthermore,` none seems desirable. One must,
however, consider whether or not some standards, especially grading,
might be appropriate
In attempting to implement this new Government Code section, con-
sideration can be given to the following alternatives :
Alternative #1 - Retain existing regulations which would allow
mobilehomes as permanent residences on lots greater than ten
acres and in mobilehome parks and subdivisions.
Alternative #2 - Revise existing regulations to allow mobilehomes
and single family residences in all zones (A-1, R-A, R-1, R-2 ,
R-3, R-4, L, and T) subject to identical development standards.
Alternative #3 Revise existing regulations to allow mobilhomes
in some single family zones (A-1, R-A, R-1, L) subject to iden-
tical development standards as single family residences .
Alternative #4 Revise existing regulations to allow mobilehomes
and single family residences in all zones (A-1, R-A, R-1, R-2 ,
R-3, R-4 , L) subject to additional architectural requirements
(i.e. roof overhang and roofing/siding material) for mobilehomes .
Alternative #5 - Revise existing regulations to allow mobilhome
in some single family zones (A-1, R-A, R-1, L) subject to
additional architectural requirements (i .e. roof overhang and
roofing/siding material) for mobilehomes.
Alternative #6 - Revise existing regulations to allow mobilehomes
and single family residences in all zones (A-1, R-A, R-1, R-2,
R-3, R-4, L, T) subject to additional development standards
(i.e. covered or enclosed parking, architectural review, grading,
minimum floor area or width/length standards , etc. ) for both.
Alternative #7 - Revise existing regulations to allow mobilehomes
in some single family zones (A-1, R-A, R-1, L) subject to
additional development standards (i.e. See #6 above) for both.
Page Five
• Staff Report: Zoning Ordinance Amendment ZA 810420 :1
June 15 , 1981
Alternative #8 - Revise existing regulations to provide for a
mobilehome overlay zone, combining district or similar zoning
technique which can be placed on certain designated properties
where mobilehomes and single family residences meet established
criteria for compatibility. Architectural requirements or
development standards could also be considered.
Alternative #9 - Revise existing regulations to establish criteria
for compatibility (i.e. minimum lot size, location inside or
outside the Urban Services Lines , general -architectural simi-
larity, etc. ) compliance with which would allow mobilehomes in
all single family zones (A-1, R-A, R-1, R-3, R-4 , L)
Alternative #10 - Revise existing regulations to establish
criteria for compatibility (i.e. See #9 above) compliance
with which would allow mobilehomes in some single family zones
(A-1, R-A, R-1, L) .
The range of possible alternatives is obviously- broad and some can
be both complex and time consuming. Furthermore, several may not
be in compliance with legislative intent. In evaluating serious
alternatives, it seems best to consider the needs and desires of
the community within the general intent of the legislative action
- especially since there are apparently numerous juxtapositions
of that intent which are highly dependent on one ' s particular
bias. Some further discussion of the alternatives does, however,
seem appropriate.
The first alternative raises substantial questions as to its
compliance with SB 1960 and would require findings to support the
conclusion that mobilehomes are only compatible with single family
residences on ten acre lots, Such a finding may be difficult to
justify.
Alternatives 2 and 3 differ primarily in the evaluation of what
constitutes a single family zone with the one defining it as all
zones where single family residences are permitted uses and the
other defining it as those zones where single family uses are the
primary use. The distinction is made primarily for multiple
family zones where it seems less desirable to allow an individual
mobilehome on an individual lot. It should be pointed out that
seldom are new single family homes constructed on multiple family
lots. Furthermore, a mix of stick-built and mobilehome units
could occur to achieve the higher densities, especially if the
site already has a single family residence on it.
•
• •
Page Six
Staff Report: Zoning Ordinance Amendment ZA 810420:1 is
June 15, 1981
Alternatives 4 and 5 differ from each other by the same distinc-
tion pointed out in the preceding paragraph but would add to
Alternatives 2 and 3 certain architectural requirements for the
mobilehomes. These must, however, be limited to roof overhang
and roofing/siding materials. Requirements could include a
minimum eave overhang, prohibition of certain roof and/or siding
materials (i.e. aluminum or similar metals) , painting or other
treatment to those exterior materials, or limitation to certain
approved materials (i.e. the or shake roofs, wood or stucco
siding, etc. ) . It should be noted that the same architectural
requirements are not imposed on single family residences creating
a possible conflict with the legislation.
Alternatives 6 and 7 differ from each other by the same distinction
pointed out in the preceding paragraphs but would add additional
development standards. It is suggested that these standards be
equally imposed on single family residences and mobilehomes .
Examples of possible standards would include a garage or carport
instead of open parking, limitations on grading, architectural
review standards, and others previously listed. For the most
part, none of these are now applied to single family residences,
but would be extended to them to mitigate perceived deficiencies
with mobilehomes because of the same treatment requirement. It
is unlikely that more regulation of single family residences is
either desirable or necessary.
The eighth alternative envisions both a text amendment and a
property rezoning once the overlay zone text is prepared. The
overlay zone would be placed on top of the existing zoning and
would establish development to apply in addition to those set
up by theunderlyingzone. The use of this technique would mean
that all R-1, R-A, or similar zones need not be overlayed and
would result in the selection of certain areas for mobilehome and
single-family residences with other areas being excluded. The
rezoning portion of this alternative would require considerable
review and hearings.. The major difficulty is establishing criteria
to determine where compatibility exists so that the overlay zones
can be appropriately placed. Property owners in areas not selec-
ted could always apply for overlay zoning but the time and expense
would be similar to a zone change. It does not seem that there
are many areas of Atascadero where mobilehomes and single family
residences would be incompatible based on reasonable criteria.
Altetnatives 9 and 10 envision a similar approach to Alternative 8
but without the overlaying technique. Specific standards such as
minimum lot size, property location with regard to the Urban
Services Line, lot slope, or similar can be established. Any lot
which then meets that criteria would have the capability for in-
stallation of a mobile home. The criteria would probably tend to
treat mobilehomes differently from single family residences . Any
• •
Page Seven
Staff Report: Zoning Ordinance Amendment ZA 810420 :1
June 15, 1981
compatibility criteria should be based on actual differences be-
tween the types of housing and not on perceived differences or
bias that seem to have existed in the past against mobilehomes .
This is easier said than done.
The proposed wording to implement the selected alternative is
contained in the "Recommendation" section but some comments are
in order. In essence, the first portion of the text change would
be a one mobilehome as a "permitted use" in the same manner as
single family residences are now allowed. The development stand-
ards are then listed in Chapter 22 .62 and accomplish the following :
Limit mobilehomes, in other than trailer parks, the T zone and
temporary dwellings, to those built after Federal standards
were adopted.
- Establish criteria for permanent foundation (anchors to portable
piers would not be acceptable) .
- Require review at the time of building permit application of the
• roof material, siding material, and eave overhangs for consisten-
cy with existing residences in the neighborhood. Staff decisions
would be subject to appeal .
- Require utility connections to be made in the same manner as a
single family residence.
- Limit additions to mobilehomes unless State approval is given.
This is necessary since the State inspected and certified the -- -
structure in the factory and field changes could affect the
structuralintegrity of the mobilehome.
- Provide for information and materials to be forwarded to the State
in the processing of permit applications and occupancy releases .
The approach taken complies quite closely with the intent of SB 1960 .
Many different approaches are being taken by other jurisdiction with
a common technique being some sort of special review, often on a
case-by-case basis. This alternative has not been chosen because
it establishes a different process for a single family residence
and a mobilehome.
It should also be understood that this change would eliminate the
ten acre requirement, Mobilehomes on lots greater than ten acres
in size would also have to comply with these standards. Existing
• mobilehomes on individual lots (except T zone) would probably,
for the most part, become nonconforming and be treated in the
same manner as other nonconforming uses.
Page Eight
Staff Report: Zoning Ordinance Amendment ZA 810420 :1 ilq%b-
June 15 , 1981
FINDINGS
1. The establishment of mobilehomes as permanent residences in
single family zones can enhance opportunities for affordable
housing.
- 2 . Development standards recommended are adequate to assure that
mobilehomes will be compatible with traditional stick-built
housing on a neighborhood-by-neighborhood basis .
3 .. Proposed regulations treating mobilehomes in the same manner
as other single family residences is consistent with new
State regulations,
4 . The proposed changes will not have adverse environmental
effect and the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report
is not necessary.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the above findings, the Planning Department recommends
issuance of a Negative Declaration and approval of Zoning Ordinance
Amendment ZA 810420 :1 as follows:
1. Modify Atascadero Municipal Code Section 22 .14 . 020 "Uses
Permitted" (A-1 Zone) by adding the following:
" (9) One mobilehome dwelling, as provided by Sections
22 . 80 . 050 (3) . "
2. Modify Atascadero Municipal Code Section 22 .20 , 020 "Uses
Permitted (RPD Zone) by adding the following:
11 (8) One mobilehome dwelling, as provided by Section
22. 80 . 050 (3) . "
3 . Modify Atascadero Municipal Code Section 22 .24 .010 "Uses
Permitted" (R-A Zone) by adding the following:
11 (9) One mobilehome dwelling, as provided by Section
22 .80 . 050 (3) . "
4 . Modify Atascadero Municipal Code Section 22 . 26 .010 "Uses
Permitted" (R-1 Zone) by adding the following:
11 (6) One mobilehome dwelling, as provided by Section
22 .80.050 (3) .
i
l
Page Nine
Staff Report: Zoning Ordinance Amendment ZA 810420 :1
June 15 , 1981
5 . Modify Atascadero Municipal Code Section 22 . 62 . 010 "Uses
Permitted: (L Zone) by adding the following:
" (4) One mobilehome dwelling, as provided by Section
22 . 80 . 050 (3) . "
6 . Modify Atascadero Municipal Code ,Section 22 . 80 . 050 "Designated
zones for permitted use" by deleting Subsection (3) which es-
tablishes a ten acre minimum lot size for independent trailers
and by adding the following in lieu thereof:
a) The mobilehome shall be certified under the National Mobile
Home Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974 .
b) The mobilehome shall be placed on an approved permanent
foundation system. A foundation system is an assembly
of materials constructed below, or partly below grade,
not intended to be removed from its installation site,
which is designed to support the structure and engineered
to resist the imposition of external natural forces. An
approved foundation system shall include any foundation
system approved by the State Department of Housing and
Community Development and any foundation designed by an
engineer or architect in compliance with applicable pro-
visions of the Uniform Building Code.
c) Roof overhangs, roofing material and exterior siding,
which shall extend to the ground, shall be compatible
with other dwellings existing within the surrounding --
area. At the time of permit application, the Planning
Director shall review the architectural features of the
proposed mobilehome with similar features on existing
dwellings within the area and shall make a finding of
compatibility. Such determination shall include recom-
mended changes which would make the mobilehome compatible .
The decision of the Planning Director may be appealed to
the Planning Commission and the decision of the Planning
Commission may be appealed to the City Council , as set
forth in Section 22. 02. 060 .
d) Mobilehomes shall have a minimum width of twenty (20)
feet.
e) Utility connections including water, sewer, gas , and
electric shall be made permanent in the same manner as
conventional housing. Utility shut-off valves shall be
accessible and shall not be located under the mobilehome
or behind siding or skirting.
Page Ten
Staff Report Zoning Ordinance Amendment ZA 810420 :1 `
June 15 , 1981
f) No additions or other structural modifications shall be
made to the mobilehome without prior approval from the
State Department of Housing and Community Development.
g) An application shall include all information necessary
to comply with State of California regulations, as well
as other permit information and fees established by the
City for its processing of a mobilehome application.
h) Prior to turn-on of utilities and issuance of a Certifi-
cate of Occupancy, the owner of the mobilehome shall
surrender to the City the Certificate of Ownership,
license plates or decals, and other Department of Motor
Vehicle registration indicia. If any of these items are
not available, the owner shall submit to the City a
"Statement of Facts" on the appropriate Department of
Motor Vehicle form indicating that these items are missing
or lost. When the mobilehome is new and has never been
registered with the Department of Motor Vehicles, the
owner shall submit to the City a statement from the
mobilehome dealer selling the mobilehome stating that
the mobilehome is new and has never been registered.
ACTION
Direct Staff by motion as deemed appropriate.
1. TO APPROVE Motion to adopt Findings and approve per Staff —�
recommendation.
2. TO DENY: Motion to adopt Findings.
REPORT PREPARED/APPROVED BY: A"�l''d'�
LAWRENCE STEVENS
Planning Director
/Ps
ORDINANCE NO 41
•
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO AMENDING THE
TEXT OF TITLE 22 (THE ZONING ORDINANCE) TO ESTABLISH
REGULATIONS FOR MOBILEHOMES AS PERMANENT DWELLINGS
IN THE A-1, RPD, R-A, R-1 AND L ZONES
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE- CITY OF ATASCADERO ORDAINS AS
FOLLOWS : `
-S-ection -1 . Zoning Ordinance Amendment.
The text of Title 22 (the zoning ordinance) is hereby amended
to establish regulations for mobilehomes as permanent dwellings in
the A-1, RPD, R-A, R-1 and L Zones as follows :
1. Modify Atascadero Municipal Code Section 22 .14 . 020
"Uses Permitted" (A-1 Zone) by adding the following:
• " (9) One mobilehome dwelling, as provided by Sections
22 . 80. 050 (3) . "
2 . Modify Atascadero Municipal Code Section 22 . 20 .020
"Uses Permited" (RPD Zone) by adding the following :
" (8) One mobilehome dwelling, as provided by Section
22. 80.050 (3) . "
3 . Modify Atascadero Municipal Code Section 22 .24 . 010
"Uses Permitted" (R-A Zone) by adding the following"
" (9) One mobilehome dwelling, as provided by Section
22. 80 . 050 (3) . "
4 . Modify Atascadero Municipal Code Section 22 .26 . 010
"Uses Permitted" (R-1 Zone) by adding the following:
" (6) One mobilehome dwelling, as provided by Section
22 . 80. 050 (3) . "
5. Modify Atascadero Municipal Code Section 22 . 62 .010
"Uses Permitted" (L Zone) by adding the following:
" (4) One mobilehome dwelling, as provided by Section
• 22 . 80. 050 (3) . "
•
Page Two Ordinance No. 41
6 Modify Atascadero Municipal Code Section 22 .80 .050
"Designated zones for permitted use" by deleting Sub-
section (3) which establishes a ten acre minimum lot
size for independent trailers and by adding the
following in lieu thereof ;
a) The mobilehome shall be certified under the National
Mobilehome Construction and Safety Standards Act of
1974 .
b) The mobilehome shall be placed on an approved perma-
nent foundation system. A foundation system is an
assembly of materials constructed below, or partly
below grade, not intended to be removed from its
installation site, which is designed to support the
structure and engineered to resist the imposition
of external natural forces . An approved foundation
system shall include any foundation system approved
by the State Department of Housing and Community
Development and any foundation designed by an en-
gineer or architect in compliance with applicable
provisions of the Uniform Building Code,
c) Roof overhangs, roofing material and exterior siding
which shall extend to the ground, shall be compatible
with other dwellings existing within the surrounding
area. At the time of permit application, the Planning
Director shall review the architectural features of
the proposed mobilehome with similar features on
' existing dwellings within the area and shall make
a finding of compatibility. Such determination shall
include recommended changes which would make the
mobilehome compatible. The decision of the Planning
Director may be appealed to the Planning Commission
and the decision of the Planning Commission may be
appealed to the City Council , as set forth in
Section 22 . 02 . 060 .
d) Mobilehomes shall have a minimum width of twenty (20)
feet.
e) Utility connections including water, sewer, gas , and
electric shall be made permanent in the same manner
as conventional housing. Utility shut-off valves
shall be accessible and shall not be located under
the mobilehome or behind siding or skirting.
• •
• Page Three Ordinance No. 41
f) No additions or other structural modifications
shall be made to the mobilehome without prior
approval from the State Department of Housing
and Community Development,
g) An application shall include all information
necessary to comply with State of California
regulations, as well as other permit information
and fees established by the City for its proces-
sing of a mobilehome application.
h) Prior to turn-on of utilities and issuanceofa
Certificate of Occupancy, the owner of the mobile-
home shall surrender to the City the Certificate
of Ownership, license plates , or decals, and other
Department of Motor Vehicle registration indicia.
If any of these items are not available, the owner
shall submit to the City a "Statement of Facts" on
the appropriate Department of Motor Vehicle form
indicating that these items are missing or lots.
When the mobilehome is new and has never been
• registered with the Department of Motor Vehicles,
the owner shall submit to the City a statement from
the mobilehome dealer selling the mobilehome stat-
ing that the mobilehome is new and has never been
registered.
Section 2 . Publication.
The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published
once within fifteen (15) days after its passage in the Atascadero
News, a newspaper of general circulation, printed, published and
circulated in the City in accordance with Section 36933 of the
Government Code; shall certify the adopting and posting of this
ordinance and shall cause this ordinance and this certification
together with proof of posting to be entered into the Book of
Ordinances of this City,
•
Page Four Ordinance No. 41
Section 5 . Effective Date.
This ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and
effect at 12 : 01 a.m. on the 31st day after its passage.
The foregoing ordinance was introduced on
and adopted at a regular meeting of the City
Council held on
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
•
MURRAY L. WARDEN, Cit Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM
ALLEN GRIMES, City Attorney
• s
ME -MO_RANDUM -
TO: City Council
FROM: City Manager
SUBJECT: Revenue sharing hearing
This .will be the second hearing on Revenue Sharing
requests. Thus far, the only request we have is from AFAR.
My memo which you received at the last meeting is still
applicable. Upon the conclusion of the hearing, youshould
make a motion with your decisions allocatingRevenue' Sharing
funds for Fiscal Year 1981-82.
RRAY WARDEN
LW:ad
6-17-81
M E M O 'RAN D U M
• TO: City Council
FROM City Manager
SUBJECT: Final Budget hearing
On June 6th you reviewed the budget in its entirety.
At this meeting, you should reach a decision as to the
donations and contributions that have been requested for the
next year.
Subsequent to our last budget meeting, I have received a
request from Dr. Eckert of Sierra Vista Hospital for money
for the San Luis Obispo County ,EMT program (copies of this
program proposal are attached) . I received this information
today, June 17th,, and have not had:an opportunity to' do -any
research or analysis dealing with the issues involved, the
short and long term costs or the involvement of the City;
beyond the immediate monetary one for 1981-82 of $3,426 .
There are numerous questions that need to be answered in terms
of costs as well as commitment of personnel, pay scale impacts'
if City personnel, i.e. , firefighters or police, are trained,
costs in overtime for attendance at training sessions, etc.
Additionally, the actual form of the new program will need to
be resolved in the way of a Joint Powers Authority (JPA)
agreement or similar implementing document. This program will
be ongoing with annual support from the cities required. ,
Because of these open questions, or for other reasons, you
may not be prepared to make a decision tonight and I would
recommend that you do not make such a commitment at this time.
However, if you think there is merit to the program, then
you may wish to_approve the concept and direct Staff to work
with the other cities, County and medical personnel to develop 1-
a finished package that you could then consider for adoption
Upon reaching agreement, you should then make a motion
to amend or adopt, as you consider appropriate, Fiscal Year
1981-82 Budget with instructions to Staff to return a Final
Budget reflecting the final agreements as to salary negotia-
tions. In this regard, the Police Officers negotiations;-
should be the only outstanding issue, since the, Firefighters
MOU Summary Judgment may preclude the necessity for any
furthernegotiationsthis year. I will have a better understanding
of that process by Monday night since I will be meeting
with both groups before then.
Assuming, that the salary issue is not yetresolvedon
Monday night, then you should adopt a motion to state that
any salary negotiations not completed will be retroactively
effective to July 1, 1981 , providing that negotiations are
completed by no later than August "15, 1981 ._ This 'motion: is
required in order to legally pay an agreement resulting from
Memorandum - Final Budget hearing
Page Two
ongoing negotiations. By placing anAugust15th deadline`,
we will have clearly indicated to employee groups that a
settlement must be reached by that date
With regard to the impact ,of the Summary Motion action,
the immediate budgeting impact will depend largely upon your
consideration of the actions you intend to pursue. An addi-
tional factor is the Staff ability to appropriately modify
the Fiscal Year 1981-82 ,Budget to reflect either implementation
of the Summary Judgment or any other alternative you choose
to follow.
What this all boils down to is that we will not have a
final type written budget until the 13th of July, but your
actions tonight will allow us to .adopt the next year's budget
and proceed accordingly.
WARDEN
M W a
5-17-81
r
AUGMENTED RESPONSIBILITIES .
IN EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
FOR
_ SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY
With Special Reference to:
• Advanced Pre-Hospital Life Support—(EMT-II)
Certification and Licensure (EMT-I , EMT-II)
Euncti_oning of the EMS System
Howard W. Mitchell , MD, MPH
Health Officer
June 1, 1981
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PROLOGUE i
I.. INTRODUCTION 1
II. STATEMENT OF MEED 4
III. GOALS & OBJECTIVES 4
Goal
Curriculum Training Objective
EMS Agency Objectives
Operation Objectives
IV. ACTIVITIES 5
V. ROLE OF EMT-I 8
VI EVALUATION 8
VII. BUDGET 10
VIII . JOB DESCRIPTIONS ,. 11' •
Medical Director
Training Coordinator
Intermediate Typist Clerk
IX.. APPENDIX - 16
Goals and Objectives Timetable
Organizational Chart
Map
Bibliography _.
PROLOGUE
The passage of SB 125 initiates changes in the administration
• of emergency medical services. Through passage of this Act the Legis-
l::ture has fors, lized its intent that such services shall. continue to
be provided by and through a variety of public and private entities,
but that the organization and direction of such services shall be
administered by appropriately qualified and designated units of local
government, with medical guidance and direction in accordance with
standards and guidelines established by a state authority. This
Authority has been established within the Health and Welfare Agency
at the local level .
The Public Health Department and the Health Officer are required
to carry out many of the direct service, coordination, and regulation '
:components of the Emergency Medical Services program. SB 125 has
assumed that in the lack of a specific designation, the County Health
Officer will carry out EMS planning and regulatory duties.
Under SB 125 the County possesses the authority to set a schedule
of fees for the costs of the Health Officer's duties in certifying
completion of training programs. (Section 1797.212 Health & Safety Code)
The language of the Act states that the County would be respon-
sible for the implementation of advanced life support systems and
limited advanced lire support systems , but there is some-ambiguity
in the Act as IM -whether this is 3—mandatory or discretionary
responsibility (compare Sections 1797.206 and 1797.2
• Consultation with the newly appointed Di`r&ctor of the State
Emergency Medical Services Authority, Dr. Roger S. Taylor, has informed
us that the development within the county of an Emergency Medical
Services-II training program constitutes quite clearly the development
of an emergency services program.
If the County. exercises its discretionary power to establish an
emergency nedical services program, then the County would be required
.to designate a local EMS Agency. (Section 1797.200) . Such an Agency
may only be 1ne of the following entities.. (Section 1797.200) :
1. The County Health Department.
2. An agency established and operated by the County. (e.g.
a health services agency).
3. An entity with which the County contracts for the
purposes of local emergency services administration.
(A state task force was unable to identify any such
agency currently in operation.)
4'. A joint powers agency created for the administration
of emergency medical services by agreement. between
counties or counties and cities.
The EMS Aocy would be responsible for do administration of
emergency medical services in the County.- It would have the mandatory
responsibility:to "plan, implement and evaluate" an emergency medical
services system. (Section 1797.204) It would be required to establish
policies and procedures to assure medical control of limited advance
life support and advance life support personnel . (Section 1797.220)
It would be required to have a licensed physician and surgeon as .
medical director. (Section 1797.202) It would be required to submit
annually an emergency medical servcies plan to the local HSA and the
State EMS Authority." (Section . 1797.254) The local EMS agency would
also have a number of descretionary powers including, for example, the
right to review applications for grants and contracts for Federal ,
State or private funds concerning emergency medical services in its
area. (Section 1797.256)
B cause certain responsibilities under SB 125 are already
required of the County Health Officer and County Health Department,
it would be frivolous and not cost effective to establish a separate
EMS agency outside the Health Department. Therefore, the course of
action followed in essentially all the counties of approximately our
size, namely, to designate the County Health Department as the EMS
agency, is the same course of action recommended for San Luis Obispo
County.
This project proposal deals with each of the components described
above but focused in on the EMT-II training program which, in fact,
constitutes the most important new activity for San Luis Obispo County
in advancing its capability to provide a higher level of life-saving,
pre-hospital emergency services.
ADVANCED PRE-HOSPITAL LIFE SUPPORT
Fiscal Year 1981-82
I. ?'-tTRODUCTION
An advanced pre-hospital life support program can save lives
and. i,::prove a person's chance for full recovery by providing
- j
up�g raded Emergency care in the field and during transport to the
hospital . Senate Bill 125, which took effect January 1, 1981,
was made into law to strengthen and enhance emergency medical systems
in California. Also it set about to establish a ,greater degree of
uniformity in the training and provision for emergency medical services.
Advanced pre-hospital life support systems have been developed
• in many communities, both rural and "urban in California, and have been
shown to have a measurable and important impact on accidental death
and injury. In Seattle, Washington, for example, 2 lives were saved
per 10,000 population per year out of 7.2 cardiac arrests per 10,000
per year.l -'
The emergency services systems which-have worked for large
metropolitan areas like Los Angeles have been found impractical and
not cost-effective in. more thinly populated rural areas. As a
result there was developed a series of pilot programs for the training
of a n-w kind of advanced pre-hospital life support person who has
been designated as an Emergency Medical Technician-II. The program
lHi ckey S. Eisenberg, MD,MPH; Lawrence Bergner, MD, 14PH:"Alfred
• Hallstrom, Ph.D; "Epidemiology of cardiac arrest and resuscitation in
a suburban community," Journal of American College of Emergency Physicians,
Volume 8:1, January, 1979.
which is being described here .for training of EMT-II personnel is
the result of much study, especially of the successfully operating
Sacramento-Sierra Emergency Medical Program.
Currently in San Luis Obispo County, emergency personnel
are trained at the Emergency Medical Technician-I- level which allows
the; to perform only basic medical techniques. It is proposed the
EMT-I 's be trained up to the EMT-II level . This additional training
would enhance the ability of these emergency medical technicians to
assess., stabilize, manage and transport critically ill and injured
patients to the hospital . 'A certified EMT-II would be able to utilize
training to provide essential life saving services at the scene and
while en route to the hospital . These interventions would be employed
under the .direction and supervision of an. emergency department physician
or nurse in a base station hospital..
The advanced pre-hospital life -support we-propose involves three •.
organizational components. The first would be the training and
certification of EIMT-I 's to EMT-II 's on a module by-module-basis. The
training curriculum has been developed and is based on' accepted,
State-approved standards. A nurse coordinator and a medical -director
would oversee it with local physicians doing the training using local
hospital emergency rooms as the places of training.
The second component would be the actual operation of the .
advanced prehospital life support systema A base hospital would be
designated, and staffing would include a mobile intensive care nurse
and a base station physician. The staff would supervise the EMT-II 's
in the field via radio communication. Each ambulance and hospital is
already equipped with radio communication, and all are linked to each •
other via the anty Medical .Coirmunication SyA located at the
Sheriff's Department. When an ambulance or emergency vehicle would
be dispatched- to the scene, the EMT--TI would assess the extent of the
injury. If advanced life support were determined to be needed,.
contact would be made right then with the base station hospital and
patient information would be transmitted. The hospital emergency "
.room physician or mobile intensive care nurse. would then give
instructions to the EMT-II. The victim would first be stabilized
and teen transferred to the most appropriate hospital.
Establishing an Emergency Medical Services Agency is a closely
linked third component and would provide the administration context
within which the EMT-II program would operate. The functions of the
EMS Agency would include the coordination of emergency medical care
services and agencies within the county,' and the supervision of the
training and certification of .the EMT-I 's and II 's. Because of the
small population of our county, it is believed that the nurse coor
dinator and medical director necessary for the training and certifi-
cIntion component of EMT-II 's could serve as the staff of the EMS
Agency as provided for in the act.
Experience has shown that advanced pre-hospital care has reduced '
morbidity and mortality in areas where it has been employed. : In the
coastal areas where large numbers of retired persons reside, there
is no immediate access to hospitals, and pre-hospital care is critical.
The enhanced ability to care for patients in the field is of particular
importance in our county with its remote areas where it is not uncommon
to have to take a patient 30 miles to the nearest hospital .
II. STATEMENT OF NEED •
Currently in San Luis Obispo County emergency personnel are
trained and certified to provide basic cardiac-pulmonary resuscitation,
to administer oxygen, to give first aid, and to transport to the
nearest hospital . Their limited training prohibits them from starting
intravenous fluids to give life-saving medications incases of heart
attack or shock due to blood loss; from providing a definitive aintay;
and from taking and interpreting electrocardiograms. Upgrading the
current level of training from EMT-I to EMT-II would permit these
emergency personnel to perform all of these advanced, life-saving
functions. Pre-hospital advanced life support has been demonstrated
to save lives.
Endorsements for the EMT-II program have come from County Medical
Society, from local hospital administrators, and from emergency room
physicians The Morro Bay and San Luis Obispo City Councils have
supported the project in concept.-. Consumers—throughout the County
have expressed d-c-mand for EMT-IVs at meetings of the Emergency
Medical Care Committee and via letter to the editor of local. newspapers.
The Emergency Medical Care Committee has long been a proponent of an
advanced pre-hospital life support system.
III. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Goal : To reduce morbidity and mortality in San Luis Obispo County
with the use of an advanced pre-hospital -life support system.
Curriculum Training Objectives : To train and certify 20 Emergency
Medical Technician-II 's by the end of. fiscal year 10.81-82.
Emergency Medical Services Agency Objectives:
1. To coordinate emergency medical services systems via
planning, implementation and evaluation.
2. To Ikelop policies and procedures Aassure medical
con l of limited life support (E11 ) andadvanced
life support (EMT-II).
3. To submit an emergency medical services plan- to the
• Health Systems Agency and State Emergency Medical
Services Authority.
4. To supervise the certification of individuals in approved
training programs.
5. To make the community-at-large and the medical community
aware of the program.
Operation Objectives:
1. To have EMT-II 's responding to`ten appropriate calls
per day by May, 1982.
2. To save 30 lives per year from primary cardiac arrest
beginning May, 1982.2
IV. ACTIVITIES
Courses in the EMT-II curriculum would be taught on-site at
local hospital facilities by emergency room physicians and registered
nurses and appropriate staff. '.The classroom _portion of the program
could be completed within six to eight months and would include
approximately 200 hours of didactic and clinical instruction. In
order to insure quality and cohesiveness, the program would be coor-
dinated by the medical .director and an advisory committee composed of —the medical director, emergency room directors from each of the
participating hospitals; physicians representing the private sector
of the medical community, and a nurse coordinator. Classes would be
held during off-duty hours for the EMTs. We would also plan to use .
respiratory therapists and medical technologists as adjuncts for
teaching specific clinical skills. . Clinical experience would be pro-
vided in the emergency department of each hospital participating in
28ased .on study done in Seattle (reference sited above).
v -
thePro9 ramo3u
.Ot would be .conducted in the mle fashion i .e.
.
there would be an introductory module, an intravenous module, an
advanced airiiay module, a cardiac module and an anti-shock suit
module. At the end of" each training module, the EMT's would be
required to demonstrate knowledge and skills proficiency to the
satisfaction of the medical director. Upon successful completion of
the testing process, students would be certified to perfor-in advanced
life support procedures in the field under the medical control of the
base hospital . Skills proficiency would then be monitored on at least
a montL.
hly basis to insure that high level of emergency medical care
would be continuously maintained::
California Senate Bill 125 mandated that if a county establishes-
emergency medical services, a local Emergency Medical Systens Agency
must be designated. In San Luis Obispo County that local E1-;S Agency
should be the County Health Department. The__Health Officer already has .
certain mandated EMS responsibilities including functions relating to the
training-, certification, and licensure of Emergency Medical Technician-I 's,
a category of personnel currently being trained and utilized in San Luis
Obispo County, asdescribed below. The EMS Agency would be responsible
for the` administrttion of emergency medical- services in the County.
A county with an emergency-medical services program has the responsi-
bility to. "plan, implement and evaluate" an emergency medical services
system. . (Section 1797.204) An EMS Agency would establish policies .
and procedures to assure appropriate medical control .of limited
advanced life support and advanced life support personnel . As required
in Section 1797.220, a licensed physician would serve as medical
director. An emergency medical services plan would be submitted
annually to the Ocal Health Systems Agency and t the State Emergency
Medical Services Authority in accordance with the law.
• The operations of an advanced pre-hospital life support system
include a base hospital . There are five acute care hospitals in San
Luis Obispo County and each of these offer an emergency room staffed
24 hours a day by emergency room physicians. One hospital would be
designated as a base hospital , preferably one located in the city of
San Luis Obispo This hospital would provide a base for both training
and communications.. The procedure would be for an EMT-II to evaluate
the condition of the victim .at the scene, and then contact the base
station hospital if the condition is such that -advanced life support
was warranted. According to Senate Bill 125, the skills of an EMT-II
would differ little from those of paramedics (EMT-P). The EMT-11 skills
include:
1. Starting intravenous fluids = to give life-savling medicines
in case of heart attack and fluids fot'shoc,k due to blood loss.
2. Provide an esophageal airway - to prevent the iinhalation
of fluid into the lungs and to assure lung expansion and
breathing.
3. Defibrillation to reverse cardiac arrest.
4. Administration of specific medication related to shock,
heart failure, etc.
5. Drawing of blood samples for immediate analysis at the
hospital .
6. Application of anti-shock trousers to keep blood from
"pooling" in the legs.
•
V. •THE.ROCE:(�MT-I •
California Senate Bill 125 required the County Health Officer to
develop a certification/recertification program for EMT-I personnel . •
To minimize costs of this program, cooperation with the training
institutions, i .e. , Cuesta College, Hancock College will be further
developed. The EMS Agency will be responsible for insuring that
the certification/re-certification process takes place at regular'
intervals and for collecting the related fees. The EMS Agency will
also initiate routine checks to insure that EMT applicants do not have
a police record or-any previous conduct which could disqualify an
individual from EMT service.
The guidelines for the EMT-I program are established by the
State Emergency Medical Services Authority and the local health officer
is responsible for implementing them. Senate Bill 125 states that
rtigulations in effect in Section 1760 of the State Department of Health
shall remain in effect until such time as new ones can be promulgated
by the EMS Authority.
VI. EVALUATION
_The effectiveness of the curriculum component would be determined
by the administration of tests after each module. Should scores be
universally unacceptable, the content of the material, would be reevalu-
ated 'and modified accordingly. _
The Emergency Medical Services Agency would be under the direction
of the.Health Officer who would have the responsibility for evaluating
its effectiveness and generally give leadership to its operation. Some
of the criteria may include:
1. Devel*nt of the policies and procedos in an acceptable
and timely fashion.
2. The planning, implementation and evaluation of emergency
• medical services following accepted medical standards.
3. Preparation and submission of the emergency medical
services plan in a timely manner.
The activities of the entire operation would be evaluated
regularly by the Advisory Committee which would be composed of the
medical director, emergency room directors of each of the local
hospitals, the nurse coordinator, and physicians in private practice. ,
• Advanced Pre-Hospital Life Support
Program Budg Training Curriculum and EMS ncy Components
Fiscal Year 1981-82
Proposed Revenue
San Luis Obispo County ' $ 23,756
*City of San Luis Obispo 7,370 •
*City of Morro Bay 3,000
*Grover City 1,920
*Arroyo Grande' 2,341
*Paso Robles 1,920
*Pismo Beach 1,080
*A�ascadero 3,426
Sub-total of city 'contributions 21,057
Tuition from enrolled students 4,000
Contributions from ambulances 5;000•
Certification fee (120 cert. , 150 recertifications @ $10) 2,700
Total Proposed Revenue $ 56,513
In-kind contribution Heart Association
Resusci-Annie 2,500
Intubation Mannequin 1,500
$ 4,000
Expenditures
Staffing
Medical Director (10 hrs/v,,k @ $40) 20,800
Hurse Coordinator (Head Nurse .Level) 18,180
Clerk (2 FTE ITC) 4,919
Sub-total w 43,899 •
Fringe Bene�its @ 8121. 3,951
. Training Time: MD's @ $30/hr for 75 hr 2,250
RN s @ $20/hr for 75 hr 1,500
Sub-total 3,750
Total Salaries 51,600
Pent ($150/mcnth) __. 1,800
Office Supplies/Copying 613
Education Supplies 1,000
Utilities/Communications 1,000
Mileage 500
Total Expenses $ 56,513
Net Gain or Loss -0-
The cost of the operations of the Advanced Pre-hospital Life Support program
would beabsorbed by participating hospitals and ambulance companies.
*Amount for each city was determined by a per capita ration with the
exception of Morro Bay who has corm-mitted $3,000 to the program. A State
Grant of AB-8 S.N.A.P. Funds has been applied for.
VIII'. JOB DESC*IONS •
San Luis Obispo County
i JOB TITLE: Emergency Medical 'Services Medical Director
DESCRIPTION OF BA_i C FUNCTION AND RESPONSIBILITY:
Responsible for.the overall supervision of the training program, and
quality control of emergency medical services..
TYPICAL DUTIES:
-- Sucervision of the recruitment; selection and orientation of
instructors and examiners.
-- Supervision of all EMT-11 training and testing activities.
-- Approval of curricula, examinations, teaching materials, protocols ,
textbooks , and other materials- used during training.
-- Liason with participating local hospitals, individuals, and
organizations to assure coordination of training and medical
control activities.
-- Assistance in class instruction when appropriate.
• -- Medical advisor of the Emergency Systems Agency.
J03 RcJUIRFMGNTS:
-- Physician licensed by the State of California;
experienced in emergency medical care, including advanced cardiac
life support.
San Luis Obi County
JOB TITLE: Emergency 1ledi cal Services Training Coordinator
DESCRIPTION OF BASIC FUNCTION AND RESPONSIBILITY:
To plan and coordinate the Advanced Emergency Medical Technician (EMT-II)
and coordinate activities of the Emergency Medical Systems Agency.
TYPICAL. DUTIES:
- Plans, designs and schedules EMT-II classes.
Selects and trains class instructors and organizes class materials.
-- Teaches appropriate ENfT-II classes.
-- Coordinates trainee activities with emergency room directors and
nursing supervisors and monitors trainee progress through training
programs.
-- Designs and schedules continuing education classes.
-- Coordinates emergency medical services activities via planning
implementation, and evaluation.
--
Develop policies and procedures _to assure medical control of •
EMT-I and EMT-II
-- Write and submit. emergency medical services plan. - .
-- Public and provider education of the grant.
- Perform related iaork as required.
JOB REQUIREMENTS:
Possession of:
-- a valid California driver's license;
a valid license to practice as a Registered Nurse in the State of
California.
Knowledge of:
-- principles of pre-hospital advanced life support care and its
relationship to the total health care system;
-- the most currently accepted practices in pre-hospital care involving
both technicians and nurses.
-Ability to:
-- develop educator programs for hospital and pre-hospital personnel;
- effectively train others;
-- communicate effectively in verbal and written form;
-- establish and maintain effective working relationships with all those
contacted in the course of work.
DESIRABLE QUALIFICAITONS
Three years of experience in either emergency department nursing or
pre-hospital mobile intensive care nursing.
RESPONSIBLITY:
Employees in this classification receive limited supervision within a
broad framework of policies and procedures.
_ 13 _
San Luis Obispo County
JOB TITLE: Intermediate Typist Clerk . - 'Half time
DESCRIPTION OF BASIC FUNCTION AND RESPONSIBILITY
To provide clerical support for the EMT-II training program and EMS
Agency.
TYPICAL TASKS:
Types reports, letters, legal documents , case records , bills , vouchers,.
requisitions, lists, schedules, orders , notices, memos and statistical
and financial data; proofreads typed or handwritten materials for spelling,
grammar, completeness, and accuracy; greets visitors in a courteous ,
helpful manner.; announces visitors to the proper person, or gives direc-
tions to the proper office or location; answei rs telephone calls, -routing
calls, taking messages or answering routine non--technical questions;
places telephone calls to gather or verify information; files cards ,
folders, reports, records and other materials in alphabetical ,
numerical or chronological order; sets up. new files with all needed
materials; monitors use of files and their contents purging information
from files in accordance with established departmental policies and
procedures; receives money in payment of bills, taxes, fines and fees,
and keeps records of collection; 'adds .and checks columns of figures;
checks and tabulates simple statistical accounting data; prepares and •
sends notices of payments .due; explains basis of charges; receives,
distributes and dispatches mail; operates paging or intercom systems.;
operates a variety o ooffice machines; keeps and maintains records.
JOB REQUIREMENTS:
Knowledge of: Correct English usage, spelling, grammar and punc
tuation; modern office practices and procedures; proper telephone
etiquette; alphabetical , numeri.cal and chronological sequences used
in filing.
Ability to: Read and comprehend material ; follow both oral and written
instructions ; establish and maintain effective working relationships;
learn departmental policies, procedures and organization; perform
clerical duties under pressure and with many interruptions; perform
basic arithmetic; operate various office machines; meet the public with
tact and courtesy keep and maintain clerical records and prepare
reports; in addition, the Intermediate Typist Clerk class is required
to type at a speed of 45 net wpm.
Intermediatef- pist -Clerk (Cont'd) .
• EDUCATION/EXP.ERIENCE:
One year of general clerical experience is required.
Possession of a Certificate of Proficiency in Secretarial or Clerical
studies or its equivalent from an accredited institution may
substituted for the one year of required experience. .
H go-
O cc %
C. ++ llL1+ x x
CL U
O €
U .14
U E- AON' X x
A X x x
• '� �; lda x r x %� x x
Cs o
un x x x x
+, XInf x x x
ra 00 N
`1 O o. +, o
CS
14 v 4J 0 4-3 v C-3 v
O k E j to 'd . H >
Cd S+ 4-) -A O k z Sa •ri U •r.1
U CJ U Ca U O ►-+ O L7 ,
1~ 010 'aO O
cs 1--4 •14 S-t a -
U U = O
J O 44 A 44 O i-+ i t 4a S 1 !+ S >r
C� O -O U O f 4 O 14 O O O O O _�% H U
44 1-4 .>: Cd 1=1 c:: U b u 4-1 4 U U u . H Cy O
U Cd 'd tt S4 S-1 S-C S 1 S I Cd N p .
E- to U 0 0 -1 -4 •a -,-1 .,� O .,� .,4 .� o tr'
O O X TQC] c) C:) A C] G] W >E <
C) a o
C-• r_z
a ¢ r 1
U) 41
t-7 N O '1 P4 P4
1-1 E-• .-4 3 f-1 CC) e) - U 4' '7. O
a co i- O � to 1, V [� v O �
to Gl 4r= -0 Cr C) �r-( -s= tn +' 44 v (4-4
.] LW .4 +J 1 C; to 0 V)_ •ri U •rA U
< �! E F+ U U ri •ri .-
"0 U t U 1-4 -1-4
C- H N :3 S-4 O CZ iJ O cs >
1 1-1 H r O 1+ O U O Cd S•+ > itv t= •ri - ^.. -5 -4c.• U O S.U o s-j -d _.,,P. O U .Cr_ > O = u U
U) c.: >-. a-+ Cd tL >-',4 w d c v e v s
r 1 O o CU • {Ca
:_a U •r-1 •ri 1.1 tU •ri U P C)' a-) V 4-3 > Li j -0 N b to •0 -
M t/1 =1 .0 O U -- O c f-4 OCS U d U O
�. 2 •.i O O S-1 •r-q t-+ 41 O U U :. = U 4-) O O S•+
4 Lt. r-t U v r H U •.i ra f; C) -1 to In t^ G' cA G' C.
O N Cd to k z r 1 CU t l 3 r' r •r4
L_: V; •ri U U .ice �..,, i-4 •r1 O r-•1 > U k' S= •rC = U
41
En En
• O C) -,-4 N 1-J Cd •ri •. -IDC:U r--: U U a v
U G Z rel •ri iJ •rq r-{ U Ln O U ^ ^_ r 4J H r'
p cC .a G U O C. tJ n > , E U E U C.
C V) N U. cs Cj U U -H i-) :3 f•1 C) >r J r-! 41 V
;4 r4 4-) tZ ri k ri r- Cd U V., rt Cd -d C
1~ • 4 •r4 to S4 U -ri U i+ rS -4 E to 1 •ri r G A G E O O
= L-: C fn C," c t; U C :> CC
O
41 4.2
r1 :z
ct
1-4
N H V Cd Pr p
to 4�J -0 F-1 t:, W
F"
U > O O .c U 0
.O N r t u7 U to 4 07• }' N to S 1
,{ rs t:a .ti U -4 e)
v to }4 to 1n v r }4 1-4 P.
44 V) CU i--4 U ) - -4 rs
• O •,.4 •ri _ •ri H E •ri w .--1 to U Cn M -
UU
H U > JJ
- U. 4 J P� U H 1.3 •ri to
es a >• P. rs k 4-J u r01� t!) E- -r4 f+
U ,r a O 2 Cd C •ri E +r r-. .r1O W P.M O
$4 iJ U U - w 4, b to U u7 C1 i.., H O
U H ri N u U k C) U H U k
4-3U U {{
O U O U co !. > - O U < 41 U U 4 > C. > Cy �I
1 rd C's O •r1 •ri Cf h .>; GC•! 1=r C1 •r1
O U ; K i-+ .O ::$ C. r-
.] Y �� tjF Eh V -1 oF' OE-O �
) U) E• U
Ln n n.
C•;
v
o
G 44
a o +� o
. o •� v
z
Ho o w
dCd
cu 4-J
W cA r3 {-•
�
p —4 O cS
Cd .
• F-� CW V 1-L •
- N -
a
Ftp C] W Fl; .A
ED O
O O O
U 4-3 x..
vi f=l
vi Ocd
w •H cd .-moi 4-J
W W O i-J 1J
W O y -
y
rs
D
• -zs o
O to
- - H Cd ,�'
rl
L✓ —1 -H
1S Cc
0 4J
IV
a
o w
t - w tn d N
Z C LL.1 OOLLI 9
Q J } d _
uj CD
C] -�
Q V � oc
G C-� O
m
N QoF- G -- o
O U C Q N LL-
Ln
..N
75
'C
K!J
/ l
ml
up
49
'•�• `o 6'
If
f
Bibliography
Emergency Medical Care Committee. "Emergency Medical Response
Manual ." March 18, 1976
Eisenberg, Mickey, MD, MPH; Laurence Bergner, MD, MPH; Alfred
Hallstrom, Ph.D. "Epidemiology of Cardiac Arrest and Resus-
citation in a Suburban Community," Journal -of American College of
Emergency Physicians. January, 1979.
Mahonev, L.E. , MD, MPH. "A Preliminary Report Submitted to the
California Conference of Local Health Officers. January, 1981.
Moorhead, George; Larry Karsteadt. "Proposed Guidelines for
Emergency Medical Technician II (EMT-II) Program. " May, 1981.
State of California Senate Bill 125. Passed the Assembly August 30, 1980.
•
M_E M_O_R_A_N_D_U M_
TO: City Manager
FROM: Finance Director
SUBJECT: Senior Citizen Request re: Fiscal Year 1981-82
Budget
Attached is a May 15 1981 letter from Senior Citizens
United, Inc. , requesting $200 per month from the Fiscal
Year 1981-82 Budget. During the Budget Hearings on June 6 ,
1981 , it was ascertained that this request is over and above
the current support provided by the City. The attached
June 8 , 1981 , letter clarifies their request for continuation
of vehicle insurance support at the current cost of $568
per year and an increase in vehicle operating costs support
from $1, 200 to $2 , 376 per year. The following is a comparison •
of both fiscal years:
FY80-81 FY81-82
Vehicle Insurance $ 568 $ 568
Vehicle Costs 1, 200 2, 376
Operating Costs 2,400 r_
Total $ 1 , 768 $ 5 , 344
Their request for $2 ,400, per their May 15 , 1981 , letter,
was the only amount presented to Council during the budget
hearings.
RALPH H. DOWELL, JR.
RHD:ad
6-16-81
r
� �z
Jun a 1981
?rnior Citize-ns Umte , -nc. ,
of Atascadero, Garden Farms, Santa Margarita and Templeton
• 5905 EAST NIALL a P. O. BOX 239 /
ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA 93423 ® TO
6p�
PHONE: (805) 466-4674
June 8, 1981
Murrey Warden, City Manager
City of Atascadero
P. 0. Box 747 '
Atascadero, Ca. 93423
Dear Mr. Warden:
To our request to be included in the new budget, dated May 15,
1981, we would like to add that the subsidy on one Senior vehicle
be continued at a rate equal . to that paid by San Luis Obispo
County for the other vehicle. Such as
9. 33 cents per mile up to 600 miles per month for use within the
city limits.
Also, that the city continue to pad, the insurance on the above
. vehicle, a Ford station wagon - 1968 model - 8J71F132856 I.D.
Sincerely,
Ethel F. Hagan President r
•
"IVE CARE"
Pe-nior Citizens Unite nc. R �.
of Atascadero, Garden Farms, Santa Margarita and Templeton
5905 EAST MALL • P. O. BOX 239
ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA 93423 S
PHONE: (805) 466-4674
May 15, 1981
Murray Marden, City Manager
City of Atascadero
P. 0. Box 747
Atascadero, Ca. 93423
Dear Mr. Darden:
Due to the excessive amount of paper work, the restrictions
placed upon our methods of service and the very personal questions
we are required to - ask the elderly participants in our programs
we are not renewing our contract with the Central Coast Commission
of the Area Agency on Aging.' We deeply appreciate the assistance
ani advise received from City employees while we tried to cope
with the requirements of the contract.
However, we still have, and will continue to have, problems in
meeting monthly expenses. We request that Senior Citizens United
be included in ' the upcoming budget for a sum of. 3200.00 per month
to assist in paying our current operating costs.
The Public Transit System dispatch office is still located in the
Senior Center. We receive -no financial assista_=_',e -from them-to
cover the additional costs -f enerpy, use of facilities or paper goods.
:Te 'rope you will give our request your earnest consideration.
Sincerely,
Ethel F. Hagan President 13
WE CARE"
M E ,M 0 R A N D U M
• TO: City Council
FROM: City Manager
SUBJECT Weed abatement hearing
The public hearing on weed abatement is to hear , protests
from property owners who may wish `to object to the require-
ment for them to remove weeds or other combustibles from
their property. Objections may also be voiced protesting
the cost of such abatement. This process is established;'by
State statute and its application is common by cities.
If you find objections to be invalid, `then by 'motion
you should overrule such objections. If you wish or are not
satisfied that all opportunities for objections have been
allowed, you may continue the hearing. If, after disposing
of the objections or if no objections are made, the Council
should order the abatement of the nuisances. A motion
directing Staff to abate the nuisancesonthe lots 'posted
would be appropriate You should realize that the costs of
abatement will be placed on the affected property owner's
tax bill and collected through the normal tax collection
process.
4Y L WARDEN
ML :ad
6-17-81
•
_ M E M O R A N D U M
• - - - - - - - - - - -
TO:
- - - - - - - - -
TO: City` Counci
FROM: City Manager
SUBJECT: FY 80-81 Final Budget
You will be provided, by Monday, with copies of the final
FY 80-81 budget. You have already approved of the changes
made to it so your action is a formal one ratifying those
changes.
Additionally, because of our status under Proposition
No. 4, this will establish our appropriations limit subject to
population growth or cost of living changes
The attached Resolution is necessary in order to formally
adopt that budget and to specify the particulars of the appro-
priation limit.
Recommend your approval.
•
YL WARDEN
ML :pj
6-17-81
•
RESOLUTION NO. 18-81
A RESOLOTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO
APPROVING THE BUDGET FOR THE 1980-1981 'FISCAL YEAR
AND APPROPRIATINGFUNDS THEREFOR
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Atascadero as
follows :
Section 1. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 37208 of
the Government Code, that certain document entitled "Final Budget
for the City of Atascadero for the Fiscal Year 1980--81, " dated i
June 19, 1981, on file in the office of the City Clerk, is hereby
approved as the final budget for the City of Atascadero for the
fiscal year 1980-1981 to the extent of the totals set forth for
each function in the General Fund, Special Revenue Funds, Enter-
prise Fund, Reserves and totals set forth for each capital project
and establishing the estimated Proceeds,, from taxes, at $2,424 ,814
and Non-Proceeds from taxes at $754,267 as appropriation limits
for FY 1980-81.
Section 2. The City Manager, upon recommendation of the
Finance Director, may transfer funds within, but not between,
each of the functional appropriations of the General Funds as re-
quired to achieve the purpose of this function. •
Section 3 The Council, from time to time, by motion, may
approve and authorize the payment of non-budgeted demands from
appropriated funds;. and may appropriate funds for budgeted or non
budgeted items, and any such appropriation for anon-budgeted item
shall constitute an approval to issue a warrant in payment of a
proper demand or demands therefor.
Section 4. This resolution shall become effective and in full
force immediately upon its passage.
Adopted , 1981.
ROBERT J. WILKINS, JR. , Mayor
ATTEST:
L4URRAY L. WARDEN, City Clerk
APPROVED AS T FORM: •
ALLEN GRIMES, City Attorney
M E M O R A N D U` M,
• TO: City Council
FROM City Manager
SUBJECT: State Hospital lease for recreation property
I have received a draft lease .from the State of
California for the twenty acres on the Hospital grounds .
This is a standard lease, but does require our compliance
with State requirements such as a certificate of insurance
naming the State as additional insured. I am in the process
of securing such certificate.
The term of the Lease is for twenty years starting
July 1, 1981, with a one time fee of $750 payable in advance.
Recommend your approval of this lease with the instruc-
• tion that the City Manager is authorized, subject to the
approvalofthe City Attorney, to sign the necessary, documents .
*LW:- /L. WARDEN-^�
6-17-81
RESOLUTION NO. 17-81
RESOLUTION OF THE ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL
APPROVING THE LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF ATASCADERO AND THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR USE OF STATE PROPERTY
BE IT RESOLVEDthatthe Atascadero City Council
hereby approves that certain agreement between the City
of Atascadero and the State of California entitled
LEASE AGREEMENT, dated July 1, 1981 for approximately
twenty acres, more or less, of property located on the
Atascadero State Hospital grounds; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is
hereby authorized to sign said agreement upon approval
as to 'form by the City Attorney. ;
On motion by Councilman and seconded by
Councilman , the foregoing resolution is
hereby adopted in its entirety on the following roll call
_vote:
AYES
NOES: •
ABSENT:
ROBERT J. WILKINS, JR. , Mayor
ATTEST:
MURRAY L. WARDEN, City Clerk
APPROVED AS T ' FORM:
ALLEN GRIMES, City Attorney
n
Department of Mental Health
Atascadero State Hospital Lease No.
LEASE AGREEPIENT
THIS INDENTURE OF LEASE, made and entered into this 1st day of June, 1981 by
and between the STATE. OF CAL IFOMfIA, acting by and through its duly appointed,
qualified, and acting Director of General Services, with the consent and
approval of the Director of dental Health, hereinafter called the State, and
i
the City of Atascadero, hereinafter called the Lessee.
WITP,'ESSETH:
That the State, in consideration of the covenants, conditions agree-
ments to be performed by Lessee as hereinafter set forth, and in accordance
with Government Code Section 14611.2, does hereby grant to Lessee upon the
terms and conditions hereinafter set forth, the right and privilege to occupy
• and use those certain premises situated in San Luis Obispo County, State of
California, and more particularly described as follows, to-wit:
A parcel containing approximately 19.5 acres
bounded on the east by Halcon Road; on the
west by Viejo Camino; on the northwest by the
boundry fence; and on the northeast by a line
••+reeppr_es�enting the southeasterly extension of the
westerly bou fence that intersects Halcon Road.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the demised premises for a term of twenty (20) years,
commencing on the 1st day of July, 1981 , and ending on the 30th day of June,
2002, for a one time fee of $750.00, payable in advance. Rental is to be paid
to: Atascadero State Hospital, Drawer A, Atascadero, CA 93423.
•
-2-
The parties hereby covenant and agree as follows:
(1) The demised premises ,shall be used by Lessee during the term
hereof for the construction and use of recreational facilities including
athletic fields, necessary facilities, and parking, and for no other purpose
whatsoever.
(2) The State, through the Director of 14ental Health, shall have the
full power and right to determine and regulate the operations of the Lessee
insofar as they effect the operation, the safety, and effective use of State
activities conducted at the same location.
(3) Lessee does further expressly agree to indemnify and save harm-
less the State, its officers, agents, and employees, from any and all claims
for loss, damage, injury or liability of whatsoever nature and howsoever the
same may be caused or may arise resulting directly or indirectly fromthe
exercise of this lease or the occupation of the premises herein permitted to •
be used of the premises of the State towhich the Lessee, its agents, employees,
or licensees may have access by reason of this lease. Lessee also expressly
waives any claims for damages it may have against State arising out of the
exercise of this lease. Lessee agrees to provide necessary Worker's Compen-
sation Insurance for all employees of Lessee upon said premises, at the Lessee's
s ,
own cost and expense.
(4) The Lessee shall maintain liability insurance and shall furnish
a certificate of insurance to the State with limits of bodily injury of not
less than One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000) for one person, and Three
Hundred Thousand Dollars ($300,000) for each occurence and with limits of
property damage liability of not less than Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000)
for each occurence. 40
-3-
• The certificate of insurance will provide: (a) That the insurer will
not cancel the insured's coverage without fifteen (15) days prior written
notice to the State. (b) That the STATE OF CALIFORNIA, its officers, agents,
employees, and servants are included as additional insureds, but only insofar
as the operations under this lease are concerned. (c) That the State will not
be responsible for any premiums or assessments on the policy.
Lessee agrees that the bodily injury liability insurance herein pro-
a
vided for shall be in effect at all times during the term of this lease.
(5) The Lessee shall make no repairs, changes, and/or alterations
to the demised premises without the consent in writing of the State first had
and obtained.
(6) Notwithstanding any other provisions contained herein, Lessee
agrees that the State may, in its discretion terminate this lease at any time
• during the term thexeof by giving notice to the Lessee at least ninety (90) days
next prior to the date when such termination shall become effective.
(7) Any willful violation of the State's regulations, or terms of
the lease shall be grounds for immediate cancellation of the lease and
removal of Lessee. -
(8) Any holding over after the expiration of the said term or any
extension thereof, with the written consent of the State, shall be a tenancy
from month to month, and shall otherwise be on the terms and conditions
herein specified, so far as applicable.
(9) All notices herein provided to be given, or which may be given
by either party to the other, shall be deemed to have been fully given when
made in writing and deposited in the United States mail, registered and postage
prepaid, and addressed as follows: To the Lessee at F .O. Box 747, Atascadero,
•
t
_4_
CA 93423, and to the State at Drawer A, Atascadero, CA 93423. The address to
which the notices shall or may be mailed as aforesaid to either party shall or •
may be changed by written notice given by such party to the other, as herein-
before provided; but nothing herein contained shall preclude the giving of any
such notice by personal service.
(10) The Stateill not be liah7 , for any debts or claims that arise
from the operations of the Lessee.
(11) Notwithstanding anything herein contained to the contrary, this
lease may be terminated, and the provision of this lease may be altered,
changed, or amended, by mutual consent of the parties hereto.
(12) If any rental shall be due and unpaid, or if default shall be
made in any of the covenants or agreements on the part of Lessee contained in
this lease, the State may, at its option, at any time after such default or
breach, and without any demand on or notice to Lessee or to any otherperson •
of any kind whatsoever, re-enter and take possession of said premises and
remove all persons and property therefrom.
(13) If action be brought by the State for the recovery of any rent
due under the provisions thereof or for any breach hereof, or to restrain the
breach of any agreement contained herein, or for the recovery of possession of
said leased premises, or to protect any rights given to the State against
Lessee, and if the State shall prevail in such action, then Lessee shall pay
to the State such amount as Attorney's fees in said action as the court shall
determine to be reasonable, which shall be fixed by the court as part of the
costs of said action.
(14) State will not keep improvements on said property insured against
fire or any other hazard, and Lessee shall make no claim of any kind or nature
•
r
-5-
• whatsoever against the State by reason of any damage to the business, operations,
or property of Lessee in the event said premises are damaged or destroyed by
fire or by any other cause.
(15) Every provision herein contained imposing an obligation or
covenant on the part of the Lessee is a material inducement and consideration
for the execution of this lease by the State, and any breach, violation or
failure with respect thereto by Lessee, shall entitle the State to terminate
this lease forthwith by giving Lessee ten (10) days written notice of such
termination, and no waiver by State or any such breach, violation, or failure
shall waive any continuing, subsequent, or other breach, violation, or failure.
(16) By entry hereunder, Lessee accepts the premises as being in
good order, condition, and repair, and agrees that on the last day of the term,
or sooner termination of this lease, to surrender up to the State all and
• singular the leased premises with any appurtenances or improvements in the
same condition as when received, reasonable use and wear thereof and damage by
act of God, or by the elements excepted.
(17) Lessee shall, at his sole cost and expense, comply with all the
requirements of all municipal, State, and Federal authorities now in force,
or which may hereinafter be in force, pertaining to the premises. The judge-
ment of any court of competent jurisdiction, or the admission by Lessee in any
action or proceeding against Lessee, whether State be a party thereto or not,
that Lessee has violated any such ordinance or Statute in the use of the pre-
mises shall be conclusive of that fact as between State and Lessee.
(!8) The Lessee agrees to pay all lawful taxes, assessments, or
charges which at any time may be levied by any public entity upon any interest
• in this agreement or any possessory right which Lessee may have in or to the
f
-6-
demised premises or the improvements thereon by reason of his use of occupancy •
thereof or otherwise, as well as all taxes, assessments, and charges on goods,
merchandise, fixtures, appliances, equipment, and property owned by Lessee in
or about said premises. It is understood that this lease may create a
possessory interest subject to property taxation and Lessee may be subject to
property taxation and Lessee may be subject to payment of property taxes levied
on such interest.
(19) This lease is subject to all existing easements and rights of
way. State further reserves the right to grant additional public utility
eastments as may be necessary and Lessee hereby consents to the granting of any
such easement. The public utility will -be required to reimburse Lessee for any
damages caused by the construction work on the easement area.
(20) During the continuance in force of this lease, and notwithstand-
ing anything herein contained, or any possession or rights of the Lessee here- •
under, there shall be and is hereby expressly reserved to the State and to any
of its agencies, contractors, agents, employees, representatives, or licensees,
the right at any and all times, and at any and all places, to enter upon said
leased land or premises for survey, inspection, or any other lawful State
purposes.
(21) Lessee shall not, without prior written approval of the State,
sublet the premises or any building thereon, in whole or in part, nor assign
this lease or any interest therein; provided further that any subletting,
assignment, or transfer of Lessee's interest herein, in whole or in part, either
voluntarily, involuntarily or by operation of law, shall automatically and
immediately terminate this lease or agreement and the State shall have the
right to immediately enter upon said premises and take possession thereof the
same as if this lease had not been made or executed. •
r
-7-
(22) Lessee agrees that it will not discriminate against any employee
• or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, ancestry',
national origin, sex, age or physical handicap. Lessee agrees to take
affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees
are treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, religion,
ancestry, national origin, sex, age or physical handicap. (See California Labor
Code Sections 1411-1432.5 for further details. )
(23) Time is the essence of each and all the terms and provisions of
the agreement, and the terms and provisions of this agreement shall extend
to and be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the heirs, executors,
administrators, successors and assigns of the respective parties hereto.
IN WITNESS WFEREOF, This indenture has been executed in quintuplicate
by the parties hereto as of the date first above written.
•
CITY OF ATASCADERO STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL T ALTH
By By
Division Director
Title
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Approved By: DEP:tRTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES
By
Ralph Goeken, Hospital Administ.rato:r
Atascadero State Hospital
I hereby certify that all conditions for exemptions set forth in State
Administrative Manual Section 12C9 have been complied with and this document is
exempt from review by the Department of Finance.
Ry
Oq
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made and enteredintobetween the CITY
OF ATASCADERO, A Municipal Corporation, P.O. Box 747, Atasca-
dero, California 93423, hereinafter called "City" , and ALLEN
GRIMES, Attorney at Law, P.O. Box 749, Atascadero, California
93423, hereinafter called "Attorney
NOW, THEREFORE, ,the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. Services of Attorney
City hereby employs Attorney, to render legal services
as City Attorney in accordance with the provisions of Ordi-
nance No. ll, adopted on November 14, 1979.
• 2. Compensation
As compensation for rendering services as City Attorney,
Attorney shall be compensated in the amount of Two Thousand
and No/100ths Dollars ($2, 000. 00) per month, except that:
a_ Attorney shall be reimbursed for all out-of-
pocket expenses incurred directly as a result of rendering
the legal services provided for in this Agreement. Such
expenses shall include such costs as court filing fees,
mileage to and from court, long distance telephone calls,
and similar out-of-pocket items incurred in the performance
of duties as City Attorney.
b. Attorney shall be compensated for handling all
assigned litigation and trial work, including disciplinary
-1-
AG:fr
5/28/81
6/16/81
appeals and similar activities, at, the rate of Sixty and •
No/100ths Dollars ($60. 00) per hour.
c. Attorney shall not be required to attend
meetings of the Planning Commission nor any other permanent
board, commission, or 'committee of the City in addition to
the City Council meetings without provision for additional
compensation.
d. Said compensation shall make available to the
City a maximum of sixty (60) hours of legal services per
month.
3. Compensation` Adjustment
The compensation provided for in, this Agreement shall
be renegotiated annually by the parties hereto.` Any increase
or decrease in compensation shall 'become effective as of •
July 1 of each year of the term of this Agreement.
4 Relationship of the Parties
It is understood that the relationship of Attorney to
City is that of independent contractor, and not employee.
5. Term
The term of this Agreement shall be for three (3)
years, commencing July 1, 1981, and ending June 30, 1984;
provided, however, that either party may notify the other
in writing of the desire to terminate it no later than
June 1 of the then current Year.
2-
r
i
IN WITNESS WHEREOF , the parties hereto have executed this
Agreement this day of June, 1981.
CITY: ATTORNEY:
CITY OF ATASCADERO
A Municipal Corporation
w
By
ROBERT J. WILKINS, JR. ALLEN GRIMES
Mayor Attorney at Law
ATTEST:
MURRAY L. WARDEN
City Clerk
•
•
-3-
M E M_O R A_N D U M
TO: City Council
FROM: City Manager
SUBJECT: "Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act of 1978".
You have previously been requested by P.G. &E to con-
sider adopting a resolution requesting that Congress hold
hearings to result in legislation allowing continued use
of natural gas as a fuel for existing power plants. This
action would rescind the provisions of the subject 1978 Use
Act.
P.G. &E ' s position is supported by Senators Cranston
and Hayakawas as well as Representatives Lagomarsino, Panetta
and other Congressmen from California. The prohibition on
• use of natural gas as a boiler fuel for production of
electrical power was enacted in 1978 as a means to expedite
alternate fuel uses. The position taken today is that the
proposals of that Act are no longer valid.
You have previously been provided with information on this subject. If you concur with the P.G.&E. request, it
would be appropriate to direct Staff to draft a resolution
supporting the P.G.&E. position. If you do not desire to
take any action, then the matter should be dropped and I
will notify P.G. &E.- of your decision.
i4�Y L WARDEN
MLW:ad
6-17-81
r
s
•
•