Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 04/27/1981 AGENDA - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting . April 27, 1981 7 : 30 p.m. Atascadero Administration Building Call to Order Pledge of Allegiance Invocation Roll Call Public Comment A. CONSENT CALENDAR NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC All matters listed under Item A, Consent Calendar, are considered to be routine and will be enacted by one motion in the form listed below. There will be no separate discussion of these items. If discussion is required, that item will be removed from the Consent Calendar and will be considered separately. Vote may be by roll call . 1. Minutes of the regular meeting of April 13, 1981 (RECOMMEND APPROVAL) 2. Minutes of the special meeting of April 14 , 1981 (RECOMMEND APPROVAL) 3. Lot Line Adjustment LA 810225 :1, 5260 Maleza, Michael B. Craig (Bray) to adjust the existing north-south lot line con- . figuration to an east-west direction to solve a property line encroachment through an existing residence --RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION) 4 . Lot Line Adjustment LA 810209:1, 2100 Traffic Way, Levi Barrett (Stewart) to adjust existing lot line to increase Parcel A approximately 0. 60 acres in order to provide a more suitable building site (RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION) 5. Lot Line Adjustment LA 810320:1, 5560 Nogales Street, Kendall B. Gallanger to adjust the existing lot line and create more conventionally shaped lots (RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION) 6 . Tentative Parcel Map AT 79-081 , 8830 San Gabriel , Floyd Slote (Hilliard) approval of a one year time extension to enable completion of road requirements (RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION) 7. Business License Renewal, U-Win Card Room, 5950 El Camino Real (RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION) B. HEARINGS, APPEARANCES AND REPORTS 1. Report on Amapoa-Tecorida Drainage Moratorium 2. Report on Chevron pipeline on El Camino Real C. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None AGENDA - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting April 27 , 1981 Page Two D. NEW BUSINESS 1. Consideration of request for additional custodian and extending lawn maintenance agreement E. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION 1. City Council 2. City Attorney 3. City Manager MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting April 13, 1981 7 : 30 p.m. Atascadero Administration Building The meeting was called to order at 7: 35 p.m. by Mayor Wilkins with the Pledge of Allegiance. Councilman Mackey gave the invocation. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmen Highland, Mackey, Nelson, Stover and Mayor Wilkins ABSENT: None PUBLIC COMMENT None A. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. .Minutes of the regular meeting of March 23 , 1981 (RECOMMEND APPROVAL) 2. Treasurer' s Report, 3-1-81 to 3-31-81 (RECOMMEND APPROVAL) 3. Resolution No. 6-81 supporting the Great California Resource Rally, April 20-26, 1981 (RECOMMEND ADOPTION) • 4 . Tentative Parcel Map AT810205: 1, 9755 Atascadero Road, Ray Dodd (Stewart) , to allow division of 4 . 5 acres into four parcels; three at 1. 0 acres and one at 1 . 5 acres (RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION) 5 . Tentative Parcel Map AT 79-077 , 4205 Santa Cruz, Mr. and Mrs. Robert Hottenroth (Hilliard) , approval of one year time extension to allow completion of work required for filing the Final Map (RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING C01MISSION RECOMMENDATION) 6 . Acceptance of Parcel Map AT 80-72, 10785 'Vista Road, Richard Todd (Stewart) (RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION) 7 . Tentative Parcel Map AT810126 : 1, 8270 Toloso Road•, Ernest Chalekson (Hilliard) to allow division of 6 .75 acres into two parcels of 3 . 29 and 3.46 acres each (RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS) 8 . Lot Line Adjustment LA810130: 1, 4550 San Ardo Avenue, Margaret Ferreira (Associated Professions) to adjust the property line to resolve an existing encroachment (RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION) Mayor Wilkins reviewed all items on the Consent Calendar. MOTION: Councilman Stover moved for acceptance of the Consent Calendar. The motion was seconded by Councilman Nelson and unanimously carried by roil call vote. • • • MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting April 13 , 1981 Page Two B. HEARINGS, APPEARANCES AND REPORTS 1. Update on Sewer Treatment Plant project - verbal report by City Manager Mr. Warden stated that he had met with County Engineer personnel regarding the status of the new sewer treatment plant project. The County is proceeding with the design and expects to go to bid on July 1st with construction to start three to four months later. There is a condition in the grant, however, that requires 60% of the areas identified by survey as experiencing septic tank failures to be served by the treatment plant prior to completion of the project. Mr. Warden stated that the County Engineer' s staff in cooperation with the City Staff is trying to reach an agreement through the Regional Water Quality Control Board to change this requirement. It is estimated that it would take ,$3 , 000,000 to $4 , 000,000 more than the plant costs to construct all of the collector lines needed to satisfy this condi- tion. No action was required by Council . 2. City Attorney' s Report No. 12 Mr. Grimes reviewed his report. He advised that the Daly appeal had been denied; and that the Firefighters MOU matter had been set for May 27th. C. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None D. ' NEW BUSINESS 1. Request for transfer of $1000 from Contingency Reserves into Parks & Zoo for departmental operations Mr. Warden advised that the transfer would allow enough funds for the Department to complete its operations for this year. MOTION: Councilman Highland moved that Council approve the transfer of $1, 000 from Contingency Reserves to the Parks & Zoo auto/equipment repairs. The motion was seconded by Councilman Nelson and unanimously carried by roll call vote. 2. Consideration of Atascadero Fire Department Employees ' Association Petition for Recognition Mr. Warden advised that the Atascadero Fire Department Employees ' Association had requested recognition as the bargaining unit repre- 0 senting Firefighters and Fire Engineers in their labor relations with the City. Mr. Warden had determined that the Petition complies with MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting April 13, 1981 • Page Three the City' s rules and regulations and requested Council ' s acceptance of the Petition for Recognition. He said that the Fire Captains had requested recognition as a bargaining unit. This request is now being processed. MOTION: Councilman Highland moved that Council acknowledge and accept the Bylaws and Petition for Recognition of the Atascadero Fire Department Employees ' Association. The motion was seconded by Councilman Mackey and unanimously carried. 3 . Requests for additional manning Mr. Warden advised that the requests are for a PBX Operator for the front reception desk, an Account Clerk for billing and receiving once the sewer system becomes the City' s responsibility, and an addi- tional Dispatcher in the Police Department. He stated that he would not hire the Account Clerk until it was necessary to do so, however, would like authorization to fill the position at this time. The Dispatcher is needed to cover the dispatch desk during sick leaves , holidays and vacations since their authorized absences cannot be covered with current manpower. • An additional request is for authorization to hire a contract person to be exclusively assigned to prepare a zoning and subdivi- sion ordinance in order to resolve the existing discrepancies between the General Plan and the carryover County Zoning Ordinance. The Planning Director felt that this approach would result in a finished product quicker than any other approach. Mr. Warden recommended that the individual be hired in the $8 . 00 to $10 . 00 per hour range. MOTION: Councilman Nelson moved that Council approve these addi- tional personnel requests and authorize transfer of the necessary funds. The motion was seconded by Councilman Highland and unanimously carried by roll call vote . 4 . Consideration of computer acquisition Mr. Warden reviewed his memo . He explained that City Staff had been working on the selection of the computer for over a year and a half. They had consulted numerous cities, school districts and pri- vate firms in attempting to arrive at a selection. Proposals from several different computer manufacturers were received and evaluated. Participants from Paso Robles, Morro Bay, Atascadero, the County Director of Computer Services and private firms all participated in this evaluation. As a result, Mr. Warden is recommending the Hewlett Packard • 3000 system for hardware acquisition. An arrangement has been made with the City of Santa Cruz to share software with only those costs necessary to adopt Santa Cruz programs to Atascadero's needs. • • MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting April 13 , 1981 Page Four The cost for the system hardware is $75, 483 plus tax of $4,529 ; cabling and window air conditioning for $1,202; software, training and installation for $8 , 800; start up supplies at $2, 300 and a contingency of $1,800 for a total of $94 ,114 . Mr. Warden noted that the cities of Arroyo Grande, Grover City, Morro Bay and/or Santa Maria had evidenced interest in exploring the possibility of joining with the City for shared programs which could result in mutual savings. Council discussed this project and asked questions to which Mr. Warden responded. Howard Marhon also asked several questions and urged the Council to study the matter further before making a decision. MOTION: Councilman Stover moved for acceptance of Mr. Warden' s proposition on the hardware/software in an amount not to exceed $94 ,114 for the Hewlett Packard 3000 system. The motion was seconded by Councilman Highland and unanimously carred by roll call vote. E. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION 1 . City Council (a) Councilman Nelson commented on the good condition of • the parks and zoo. (b) Councilman Nelson felt that the City should investigate using a different type of microphone since the ones the City has do not seem to be projecting voices well enough. Mr. Warden reviewed the problems with the microphones. (c) Councilman "Mackey reviewed the resolution passed by Council this evening on the Great California Resource Rally. She stated that the Beautification Committee would be holding a meeting on Wednesday at 7 : 30 p.m. in the Century Federal Building. (d) Councilman Stover commented on the informative meeting held by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board last week at which the new Recreation Director was in attendance. Mayor Wilkins introduced Skip Joannes who began work as the City ' s Recreation Director on March 30th. 2 . City Attorney Mr. Grimes had nothing to report. 3 . City Manager (a) Mr. Warden reviewed a recently conducted parking survey • covering the downtown area of El Camino and stated that the staff was now attempting to review the results with the affected merchants to receive their reactions. • 0 MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting April 13, 1981 Page Five (b) Mr. Warden reminded Council about the joint meeting with the Planning Commission, Tuesday, April 14 , 1981 , at 7 : 30 p.m. (c) Mr. Warden asked Council members if they wished to invite the Department Heads, Planning Commission, and Parks and Recreation Advisory Board to the Channel Counties Division meeting of the League of California Cities which the City will be hosting on May 8th. Council decided to invite all those mentioned, with the members paying for their spouses if they wish to bring them. (d) Mr. Warden asked Council when they would like to meet for a budget study session. Council decided on Satur- day, June 6th at 9 : 00 a.m. (e) Mr. Warden asked those Council members who planned to attend the League of California Cities Mayors ' . and Councilmen' s Legislative Conference to make their reservations . (f) Mr. Warden advised the Council that they were invited to the Special Olympics to be held at Arroyo Grande on May 1st. • (g) Mr. Warden advised that the City had received informa- tion from the Bureau of Census which set the City' s population at 15, 930 . The City is in the process of appealing that figure. (h) Mr. Warden discussed the amount of dinnerware available in the building for dinner functions. He asked Council if they wished to purchase enough to bring the amount of service up to '250 or advise people who use the building that they will have to bring their own or rent dinnerware elsewhere. Council decided that they would rather have the material rented than keep it in supply. (i) Mr. Warden requested a closed session to discuss personnel matters; specifically the demands made by the Atascadero Fire Department Employees ' Association regarding salaries and conditions of employment. The meeting adjourned to closed session at 9: 00 p.m. and returned to regular session at 10 : 08 p.m. The meeting then adjourned. Recorded by: MURRAY L. WARDEN, City Clerk By: Ardith Davis Deputy City Clerk MINUTES - ATASCADERO JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION Special Meeting P C�_ April 14 , 1981 7 :30 p.m. Atascadero Administration Building The meeting was called to order at 7 : 30 p.m. by Mayor Wilkins. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmen Highland, Mackey, Stover and Mayor Wilkins Commissioners Lilley, Oglesby, Sherer, Wentzel, Summers and Chairman Moore ABSENT: Councilman Nelson and Commissioner Cannon Representatives of the Chamber of Commerce thanked the City Council and Planning Commission for providing an opportunity to discuss the economic development of the City and to hear the Chamber' s Economic Development Committee' s recommendations for possible industrial park locations. Chamber representatives expressed interest in identifying land suitable for light industrial development and for encouraging indus- trial development in order to provide a solid economic base for the community and to provide employment opportunities. ; Chamber repre- sentatives noted that the Chamber could assist the City in addressing a program to attract desirable commercial and light industrial activities within the City. A problem of concern is the accessibility of commercial/industrial traffic to any proposed industrially zoned area. It was noted that there is a need to provide access without disturbing residential areas. Accessibility requires identification of rail and road re- quirements in order to assure safe, orderly and non-congestive traffic flow throughout the City. Careful study has to be made to determine development potentials, labor market and skills; how to attract desired industries as well as analysis of the economic, social and physical impacts of any Indus- trial development. The Chamber representatives voiced an opinion that now is the time to identify industrial needs and that the City could be "picky" as to the type of industrial activities allowed within the City. Commissioner Lilley stated that, as a municipality, the City cannot discriminate against any industrial firm if they meet rational criteria for land uses. The Chamber representatives noted that the community ' s interest in keeping a rural atmosphere had to be considered when addressing the problems of light industrial .development. • Chamber members asked about the status of hearings for bringing the zoning ordinance into conformance with the General Plan. Larry r 0 MINUTES - ATASCADERO JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION Special Meeting April 14 , 1981 Page Two • Stevens, Planning Director, responded by noting that he was trying to get a person under contract as soon as passible to start writing a new zoning ordinance. It will probably take 30 to 60 days of Staff work before a draft will be ready for consideration and hearings. It is likely that hearings will be held at special meetings in order to devote full attention to the proposals. It is hoped that the entire process will take no longer than 60 days. Concern was expressed about being certain, whatever commercial or industrial policies are adopted by the City, that attempts are made to assure diversified commercial or industrial uses. The City should not become dependent upon a single contributor to the economic life of the City. Reliance on a single, large employer should be avoided. It was concluded that a great deal of research and analysis will be needed before a definite plan for industrial development can be established. It was agreed, however, that the expression of views presented at this meeting provided a basis for further, more specific and intensive policy statements and general plan provisions. It was generally agreed that this meeting was a necessary first step in defining the scope of the concerns as well as providing a basis for resolving them. Recorded by: MURRAY L. WARDEN, City Clerk By: Deborah Cini Clerical Assistant M_E M_0_R A_N D_U M;: TO: CITY MANAGER April 21, 1981 FROM: PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: Lot Line Adjustment LA 810225 :1 LOCATION: 5260 Maleza APPLICANT: Michael B. Craig (Bray) REQUEST: To adjust the existing north-south lot line configura- tion to an east-west direction to solve a property line encroachment through an existing residence On April 20, 1981 the Planning Commission considered this matter unanimously adopting Findings 1-2 and approving the adjustment subject to Conditions 1-6 as listed in the attached Staff Report. This matter was presented as a Consent Calendar item but was • pulled for discussion concerning the location of the existing residence. No one appeared on the matter. _/C44/"Z LAWRENCETEVENS MURr Y W DEN PlanningOirector Ci/�y Ma ager /Ps • CITY OF ATASCADERO Planning Department April 20 , 1981 1979 \; CAD �/% STAFF REPORT SUBJECT: Lot Line Adjustment LA 810225 :1 LOCATION: 5260 Maleza (Lots 16 & 17 , Block C) APPLICANT: Michael B. Craig (Bray) REQUEST: To adjust the existing north-south lot line configura- tion to an east-west direction to solve a property line encroachment through an existing residence BACKGROUND 1. Existing Zoning: R-A 2. General Plan: Moderate density single family residential 3. Environmental Determination: The Planning Director has deter- mined the application as presented to be a Class 5 (a) Categorical Exemption and the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is not necessary. 4. Site Conditions: The site is generally flat to steeply sloping and is basically grass covered with many large live oaks . The site is bordered by sparse residential development to the east and west, by recreation property (Pine Mountain Park) to the north, and Maleza to the south. 5. Project Description: The applicant is proposing to adjust the property line between Lots 16 and 17 of Block C. Presently, the property lines run in a north-south direction dividing the house approximately in half. Final Parcel sizes are proposed to be 0 . 895 acres for Parcel A and 1 .022 acres for Parcel B. The primary reason stated for the lot line adjustment is to alleviate the encroachment problem with the existing residence to allow development of the other parcel. STAFF COMMENTS On Thursday, April 2, 1981 the Subdivision Review Board met to review this application. In attendance at that meeting were : Levi Barrett, applicant; Larry Stevens, Planning Director; Mary Beatie, Associate Planner; John Kennaly, Assistant Civil Engineer; Michelle Reynolds, Engineering Aide; Don Sylvia, Fire Chief; and Elaine Oglesby, Planning Commissioner. M h �'^• cue�.g/ � O f � Gb'r.'.:/h t IN It not c3 k14 Q�� �. ���.•r� i.� L.y,r y .� � .•• f� �,..� r �•l iV �p q � � t N .2^wY♦ f �� .. � 1 F - i s. i' ..{ �,< n IN fiS' .Lr .v .1 + /• w w 3ti wo Z= - , T•v �u 3� ��i ac m Q .�s K, t cr _ cli '^ v I N t to M •c' T1 r . r•1 - \r _�' S•• _•i - IIt J -��l/./ M cam+ NCE ci Jam' N 0 co 1 p Q Oma+ O _ to N N N ( m ! do CA _ Ic4 C4 OD g co I 1 Q! i \ ^1` 11{ M N ti— r1 sc •V \ � N • N Y\` L, � 3 0 rN orin iR /tea ' ZD m >J - O kM Page Two Staff Report: Lot Line Adjustment LA 810225 ;1 (Craig) April 20 , 1981 The following items of concern were discussed at that meeting: 1. Lot line adjustments are exempt from requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. 2 . Application conforms to applicable zoning regulations. 3 . The proposed property lines be surveyed and monuments set at the new property corners. 4 . The lot line adjustment be submitted in a Final Map format in lieu of certificates of compliance. 5. Location of high pressure gas lines crossing property be indicated. 6 . Only one hoofed animal is allowed for a lot of one acre. 7. Minimum allowable lot size under 1980 Atascadero General Plan • Guidelines in this area is 1z acres. If the lot line adjust- mentis denied, the two lots would effectively be merged due to the encroachment problem. Present and proposed lot sizes are below the minimum allowable under the General Plan. FINDINGS 1. The application as submitted has been determined to be Cate- gorically Exempt from the requirements of CEQA as defined by Class 5 (a) , 2. The application as presented conforms with the applicable zoning regulations. RECOMMENDATION Based upon the above findings, the Planning Department recommends approval of LA 810225 :1 subject to the following conditions : 1. The approval of this lot line adjustment as shown on the attachment provided herein shall be submitted in a Final Map format to be approved by the Planning Department prior to recordation by the County Recorder' s Office. • 2 . Any tree removal or site grading necessary for the development of the lots shall be subject to Planning Department approval prior to issuance of a building permit. This requirement shall appear as a note on the Final Map. Page Three Staff Report: Lot Line Adjustment LA 810225 :1 (Craig) April 20 , 1981 3 . The proposed lot lines shall be surveyed and monuments set at the new property corners. 4. The location of all high pressure gas lines be delineated on the Final Map. 5 . Number of hoofed animals shall comply with the number permitted in the 1980 Atascadero General Plan. 6 . Approval of this Lot Line Adjustment shall expire one year from the date of final approval unless a time extension has been granted pursuant to a written request prior to the expiration date. 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: — �a, A'sN KENNA Y sistant Civil ngineer REPORT APPROVED BY: GzG✓ttiwC,C. /, LAWRENCE STEVENS Planning Director /Ps l M E M 0- R A N D U M TO: CITY MANAGER April 21 1981 FROM: PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: Lot Line Adjustment LA 810209 :1 LOCATION: 2100 Traffic Way APPLICANT: Levi Barrett (Stewart) REQUEST: To adjust existing lot lines to increase Parcel A approximately 0. 60 acres in order to provide a more suitable building site On April 20, 1981 the Planning Commission considered this matter unanimously adopting Findings 1-2 and approving the lot line adjustment subject to Conditions 1-4 as listed in the attached Staff Report. There was no discussion on the matter since it was presented as a Consent Calendar item. No one appeared on the matter. LAWRENCE/STEVENS MU RAY ARDEN Plannin irector City M nager /Ps i CITY OF ATASCADERO P 1;1 Planning Department April 20 , 1981 1913 k l wn �'1979 STAFF REPORT SUBJECT: Lot Line Adjustment LA 810209 :1 LOCATION: 2100 Traffic Way (Lot 42 , Block 21) APPLICANT: Levi O. Barrett (Stewart) BACKGROUND 1. Existing Zoning: A-1-22 2. General Plan: Suburban Single Family Residential 3. Environmental Determination: The Planning Director has deter- mined the application as presented to be a Class 5 (a) Categorical Exemption. 4. Site Conditions : The site is generally flat to steeply sloping and is basically grass covered with several large live oaks. The site is bordered on the northeast by Traffic Way, a two lane road with 40 feet of right-of-way; on the northwest by Obispo Road, a 40 foot wide paper road; on the east by vacant property (also owned by the applicant) and on the soutwest by sparse rural residential development. A large drainage swale encompasses much of Parcel A. 5. ' Project Description: The applicant is proposing to adjust the property line between Lot 42 , Block 21 (Parcel A on the attached map) and Parcel A of Tentative Parcel Map AT 80-172 (Parcel B on the attached map) . The adjustment will result in a net increase of approximately 0. 60 acres for Parcel A and a corres- ponding decrease for Parcel B. The primary reason stated is to increase the building site area for Parcel A. STAFF COMMENTS On Thursday, April 2 , 1981 the Subdivision Review Board met to review this application. In attendance at that meeting were Levi Barrett, applicant; Larry Stevens, Planning Director; Mary Beatie, Associate Planner; John Kennaly, Assistant Civil Engineer; Don Sylvia, Fire Chief; and Elaine Oglesby, Planning Commissioner. i j i N A \ Qy N � :r'•- ice. ' G m H Y , = CD �, n L • w - w" - ^� cn w N — •p - _ CA 's -�- - �X cn tz\ w Eat N - s P N N Q co 1 N O OD LA N • ��` x s j t et I� � ►4 g p co 4 ; „ Mec, ivn � DrA, 2 If 1 0 - a 0 a N 0 n S.iS•3r W 0 i u A S 1+�� z �� on •C �� ISN �h n �{A� m-�O }}+ fm '9 !1 m n 2 O y• O -/ • /� .3 ti 4 +oy I V \l q�rF� SOD 7 J 0 D N I v "i i I j o fZA m >(PLn � In t 3 -� o„ a "� p e ?O r➢n r-p7 Ml 0 _ _ m Ll > : :a �-- m P{t m i i 1p I— —zDo> �i .; 70 m70 c 00 LA U in � fiti,00 I{{ $mss Page Two Staff Report: Lot Line Adjustment 'LA 810209 :1 (Barrett) April 20 , 1981 The following items of concern were discussed at that meeting: 1. Lot line adjustments are exempt from requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. 2 . Application conforms to applicable zoning regulations. 3. The proposed property lines to be surveyed and monuments set at the new property corners. 4. The lot line adjustment be submitted in a Final Map format in lieu of certificates of compliance. FINDINGS 1. The application as submitted has been determined to be Cate- gorically Exempt from the requirements of CEQA as defined by Class 5 (a) . • 2 . The application as presented conforms with the applicable zoning regulations. RECOMMENDATION Based upon the above findings, the Planning Department recommends approval of LA 810209 :1 subject to the following conditions: 1. The approval of this lot line adjustment as shown on the attachment provided herein shall be submitted in a Final Map format to be approved by the Planning Department prior to recordation by the County Recorder' s Office. 2. Any tree removal or site grading necessary for the development of the lots shall be subject to Planning Department approval prior to issuance of a building permit. This requirement shall appear as a note on the Final Map. 3 . The proposed lot lines shall be surveyed and monuments set at the new property corners. 4 . Approval of this Lot Line Adjustment shall expire one year from the date of final approval unless a time extension has been granted pursuant to a written request prior to the expiration date. Page Three Staff Report: Lot Line Adjustment LA 810209 :1 (Barrett) April 20, 1981 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: JOHN KENNALY Assistant Civil Engineer REPORT APPROVED BY: � "Z41 � LAWRENCE STEVENS Planning Director /Ps ! 0 • M_E M_0_R A N_D U M—: TO: CITY MANAGER April 21, 1981 FROM: PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: Lot Line Adjustment LA 810320 :1 LOCATION: 5560 Nogales Street APPLICANT: Kendall B. Gallanger REQUEST: To adjust the existing lot line and create more conventionally shaped lots On April 20, 1981 the Planning Commission considered this matter unanimously adopting Findings 1-2 and approving the adjustment subject to Conditions 1-5 as listed in the attached Staff Report. There was no discussion on the matter since it was presented as a Consent Calendar item. No one appeared on the matter. LAWRENCE EVENSY rager DEN Planning rector Ci y Ma /Ps —rte rg a 17P,F5 -' 'r CITY OF ATASCADERO • isle G c r R� r 1979 Planning Department April 20 , 1981 STAFF REPORT SUBJECT: Lot Line Adjustment LA 810320 : 1 LOCATION: 5560 Nogales Street (Lot 2, Block OA) APPLICANT: Kendall B. Gallanger (Hilliard) REQUEST: To adjust the existing lot line and create more conventionally shaped lots. BACKGROUND 1. Existing Zoning: R-1-B-3-D 2. General Plan: Moderate Density Single Family Residential 3 . Environmental Determination: The Planning Director had deter- mined the application as presented to be a Class 5 (a) Categor- ical ategor ical Exemption and the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is not necessary. 4 . Site Condition: The site is generally flat near the front to steeply sloping in the rear. Both lots are currently developed with single family residences. The lots have frontage on Nogales to the west, while the remaining three sides adjoin developed residential property. In addition to the residences on each lot, Parcel B is developed with a garage situated within the required front yard set-back. 5 . Project Description: The applicant proposes to adjust the existing lot lines by increasing Parcel A approximately 0 .08 acres and creating a more rectangular lot configuration in lieu of the present "L shape. The project will result in a corres- ponding decrease in Parcel B. The primary reason stated for the project is to allow the owner of Parcel A to have a slightly larger lot and to facilitate a proposed addition to the resi- dence on Parcel A. STAFF COMMENTS On Thursday, April 2, 1981, the Subdivision Review Board met to review this application. In attendance at that meeting were Levi Barrett, applicant; Larry Stevens, Planning Director; Mary Beatie, Associate Planner; John Kennaly, Assistant Civil Engineer; Michelle Reynolds, Engineering Aide; Don Sylvia, Fire Chief; and Elaine Oglesby, Planning Commissioner. Page Two Staff Report: Lot Line Adjustment LA 810320 : 1 . April 20 , 1981 The following items of concern were discussed at that meeting: 1. Lot line adjustments are exempt from requirements of California Environmental Quality Act. 2 . Application conforms to applicable zoning regulations. 3 . The proposed property lines be surveyed and monuments set at the new property corners. 4 . The lot line adjustment be submitted in a Final Map format in lieu of certificates of compliance. 5 . Front yard encroachment by existing garage on Parcel B. 6 . Both parcels should be connected to the public sewer. FINDINGS 1. The application as submitted has been determined to be Cate- gorically Exempt from the requirements of CEQA as defined by . Class 5 (a) . 2 . The application as presented conforms with the applicable zoning regulations. RECOMMENDATION Based upon the above findings, the Planning Department recommends approval of LA810320 :1 subject to the following conditions: 1. The approval of this lot line adjustment as shown on the attachment provided herein shall be submitted in a Final Map format to be approved by the Planning Department prior to recordation by the County Recorder' s Office. 2 . Any tree removal or site grading necessary for the development of the lots shall be subject to Planning Department approval prior to issuance of a building permit. This requirement shall appear as a note on the Final Map. 3 . The proposed lot lines shall be surveyed and monuments set at the new property corners. 4 . The Planning Department receive verification from the Atascadero Sanitation District that both parcels are connected to the public sewer. If one or both parcels are not connected, they be required to connect prior to recordation of the final map. Page Three Staff Report: Lot Line Adjustment LA810320 : 1 April 20 , 1981 . 5. Approval of this Lot Line Adjustment shall expire one year from the date of final approval unless a time extension has been granted pursuant to a written request prior to the expiration date. ACTION The Planning Commission should by motion direct Staff as deemed appropriate. TO APPROVE: Motion to adopt findings and set conditions. TO DENY: Motion setting findings for denial. REPORT PREPARED BY: V�. J N KENNALY ssistant Civil Engineer REPORT APPROVED BY: /OWu/Y�f,�J4,1� LAWRENCE STEVENS Planning Director co \1 at _ n a \WMf ga 0 �0 ab Cl CD � N /y 2 u,.• �. e9 c� ' ^�a � t°. a-e e� ` Al �fD ION V /� / /J , 4 ✓/ 2 y W h � o. cD w � to 4s S3 of 1 V v ~ A L_ N ♦/' f?�1's` `A 3= sss4',�' �- v ^� -�• °� T � C_ o m W aW,• N �4 f� ' eos d —�•-i w •_ J� tt w 1 4f V - � -- / ., p4•„/�/y yf w �.Y c c{ I N� A -��, � (D _ N N a `=•` / -'t`. ;- ctif ,`f h -mow y .,�Z '`'r - Cb a R- 05 a ti • � � 0 a * 4 g o t •<r 7 < 1 1 W ob" / `, '+ uo JE- Y S-. oftc �\ :_N t~ro r� ��•r ry �' zc- r t= m .� 10 00 m C� -o: oo, I N -i, 4 : ��fa�rit �•2tY.x.12. a - -� � .-- AVA1 � /So_—,,z mfr � cc/ 111 x _sem�cz�✓•� - '���srw1a-13 ai eo'AS rai - .C..O T �v�I• - _ _ �t i � �� .�H si ..- �2} i /_o O�Ewi - -_i_ Nd.PE..d.?a,t1•,.fr :Eo - _ - _ � - � 't-NO�2EC✓20 s7...:.�"qE0 � -- W.2/. F22 F•e.9R..CO.N -- • -C��_Ayyy���FNO / /P CFly✓ � Fat T.dJ?G..�'. _ , NS'' _ -.--`I. �.uo•Pc_C.aq lCrr � _ _ �N�,�f AO.G'J d-1�N .`� H 7Z AC;' Al- rte_ A ZS9 vl a ;a _- '_- � •`h Q _ �'. � �t_.+? ;�off, r,.'�� - - T - / 13 J _Z.• �^_ `� J qs'? _ �._� .S.'A� +•� ' _ -71 In _ � e f 72 --. - Af 3\y - ^, 45.37-.Zi - H.-. _ - R-•G/6�93 .yt�''' Fwo [✓ECL i`f _. .�: .. X35• 'e-lei, -7-7. 4-:5./B . ��({3 ..�. �'! -. - - _'til 11 f•'�'� /`- :"lf ,• •"4 /� ,�L�Zb�e�' 83 •Q tl CS" - 9 s �f_ � 61.,E /S -- __ • _.,. --- '� .`._i � '. ''� •- .. � _ J p- M E M 0- RAN D U M _ TO: CITY MANAGER April 21 , 1981 FROM: PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: Tentative Parcel Map AT 79-081 LOCATION: 8830 San Gabriel APPLICANT: Floyd Slote (Hilliard) REQUEST: Approval of a one year time extension to enable completion of road requirements On April 20 , 1981 the Planning Commission considered this s matter unanimously approving a time extension to March 22 , 1981 subject to Items 1-5 as listed in the attached Staff Report. There was no discussion on the matter which was presented as a Consent Calendar item. No one appeared on the matter. • LAWRENCE S ' VENS M Y W DEN Planning Dector Ci y Ma ager /Ps K% CITY OF ATASCADERO r ° C Planning Department April 20 , 1981 191!3 G r ."�! r �1 1979 \ CDO� STAFF REPORT SUBJECT: Tentative Parcel Map AT 79-081 LOCATION: 8830 San Gabriel APPLICANT: Floyd Slote (Hilliard) REQUEST: Approval of a one year time extension to enable completion of road requirements BACKGROUND 1. Existing Zoning A-1-12 2 . General Plan: Suburban Single Family Residential 3 . Project Description: The approved Tentative Map allows division of two lots totalling 10 acres in four parcels of 2. 5 acres • each. The site is adjacent to San Gabriel Road, providing direct access to Parcels A and B. Access to Parcels C and D is to be provided via a 40 foot access easement which traverses 20 feet either side of the property lines between Parcels A and B. Approval of the Tentative Map was conditional upon improving the access easement .to at least all-weather standard. The Tentative Map for this project was conditionally approved by the Atascadero City Council on March 24, 1980 . STAFF COMMENTS On April 2 , 1981 the Subdivision Review Board met with the appli- cant, Mr. Floyd Slote, to discuss the time extension request. Also attending the meeting were: Larry Stevens, Planning Director; Mary Beatie, Associate Planner; John Kennaly, Assistant Civil Engineer; Michelle Reynolds, Engineering Aide; Don Sylvia, Fire Chief; and, Elaine Oglesby, Planning Commissioner. The following items were discussed: 1 . Reasons for which time extensions are granted. 2. Adequate fire hydrants already exist in this area. 3. Owners have shown recent progress, plan and profile for access road checked and approved February 19 , 1981. Page Two Staff Report: Tentative Parcel Map AT 79081 (Slote) April 20 , 1981 4. Applicants indicated work would commence pending favorable weather conditions. 5. Drainage plan asP er Environmental Coordinator' s requirements. 6. Time extension request valid for one more year or untill :( March 22, 1982 . 7. All conditions as approved by the Atascadero City Council on March 24, 1980 shall remain in effect. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Department recommends approval of the time extension request subject to the following: 1. All conditions of approval established by the Atascadero City Council shall remain in effect. This includes compliance with conditions regarding drainage recommended by the Environmental • Coordinator. 2. Effort shall be made to minimize grading that would be disrup- tive to the natural topography and removal of existing, mature trees. The following shall appear as a note on the Final Map: "No grading shall commence without an appropriate permit and compliance with applicable City ordinances. 3. Condition 6 be changed to read: "That a private easement be reserved on the Parcel Map for access and utilities to serve Parcels C and D. " 4. A Final Parcel Map in compliance with all conditions set forth herein shall be submitted for review and approval in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and the City Lot Division Ordinance prior to recordation. a. Monuments shall be set at all new property corners created and a Registered Civil Engineer or licensed land surveyor shall submit a letter certifying that the monuments have been set prior to recordation of the Final Parcel Map. b. A final title policy (CTLA or ATLA) shall be submitted . for review in conjunction with the processing of the Final Parcel Map. • ! Page Three Staff Report: Tentative Parcel Map AT 79-081 (Slote) April 20 , 1981 5. Approval of this time extension shall expire at 5: 00 p.m. on March 22, 1982. ACTION The Planning Commission should direct Staff as deemed appropriate. TO APPROVE Adopt findings and set conditions. TO DENY: Set findings for denial. REPORT PREPARED BY: 6& 4�01OHN KE N LY ssistant Civilgineer • REPORT APPROVED BY: lawu�J4�� LAWRENCE STEVENS Planning Director /Ps off \ / • 4 \• A 3r ON • NO uke • f • .� h. • * �; 1; _ \� Q:u Pa k) \ !2 ✓ giant � '� ���, .`� i� �� - �;� Rod' "=.• _;."�. ,`\\ \,\'� ,.s Imo' s• \ / •� • •a Tr • _d • - •� ��4c � � / � I • Fv W � _ , •1 or �_ --, , )101 i © • '� � • , 5 . o . pOp 00 10 36 �a- X LA c Afte 64 rte,no0 04?1 Cn ! W p N 4p F v W \. (n 1 -o G No w Aj ti _ d9 (O w 0 fig N C- � C N _ 03 s' Lx rx rm LQ cy _ N ad... �• a �.rrw� r t „-•• a 1- is .;� � � - N C —Fr a s l'J rt y - _ y ' W co _,_ _ •'Z• < � i. -� �a �VQ ���'./•f.��s...33S-��iC'_1 G 1�s�1C0 dJ'^'. T �y t - t - Vic. � ��� _ .1.�► � F ���� � _�j ti ,� AZ - i v {�A. yy�+y { �.. _ Y,..n� ` P, ���� �"d. -V._ t .ate � �� "'2'�,-►�y'�,M,,,,,.s+ pp�� {�' .rte: is.. .-.a t rd � F�¢s }'. d _ ��� � _ ��}f .,.+k4 J'-� ,.'t- r 51 p� t j•�r � ••�t_5 w 1 t \ _ _ t y _J J !_j 1 •`C- t•.`*r iF` !V T i k _ �' z r y,,����• �_ _ C� � t.i��i�T 'a §�,t r'1.�.rxr j''xr.`:� x.e x r Ir —41 47 ' M_E M_O_R A N_D U M!: TO: CITY MANAGER April 21 , 1981 FROM: PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: Business License Renewal U-Win Card Room 5950 E1 Camino Real An application has been filed by L.E. Post (DBA: U'-Win Card Room) to renew his prior County business license to allow continued operation of a card room at the above location. The business license ordinance concerning card rooms requires approval by the Planning Department, the Finance Department, the Police De- partment, and the City Council. A recommendation for approval has been made by each of the above- Departments. Prior to issuing the license, Council approval is necessary. The recommendation for approval of the business is supported by the following: satisfactory background investigation results ' • - business has been in existence since April 7 , 1978 no reported problems with the business in the past LAWRENCE TEVENS Y ARDEN Plannin irector C' ty M nager • 1 M E M O R A N H U M TO: CITY MANAGER April 23, 1981 FROM: PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: Amapoa-Tecorida Drainage Moratorium BACKGROUND 1. Description of Problem: On February 21, 1978 the County Board of Supervisors established a moratorium prohibiting the construction of new structures in a specified area until measures were taken to remove the threat of flooding. The problem results primarily from building in a low area subject to storm water runoff from a large area of surrounding higher lands. Existing structures (mostly single family residences) obstruct drainage paths and are susceptible to damage during periods of heavy rain as the result of storm water accumulation. Some of the area is too flat for ade- quate drainage to occur and water accumulates once the ground has become saturated, It is anticipated that further devel- opment in the area will increase the negative effects of the drainage problem rather than retard it. A possible solution involving improvement to existing channels and culverts and construction of two storm drains was promoted by the County Engineering Department. Effort was made to form an assessment district to implement this plan but the lack action has resulted in the status quo. 2. Summary of Past Actions; February 6, 1978 - Board of Supervisors considers letter from County Engineer and, by motion, establishes development standards for the area including minimum floor elevations, fill restrictions, and drainage obstructionprohibition. Furthermore, the County Planning Department is directed to advise property owners of availability and advisability of flood hazard insurance. February 14, 1978 - Board of Supervisors directs County En- gineer to prepare a petition for circulation in the area to determine the degree of interest in formation of an assessment district. Page Two Memorandum: Amapoa-Tecorida Drainage Moratorium • April 23, 1981 February 21, 1978 - Board of Supervisors adopts emergency ordinance establishing building moratorium in subject area. April 18 , 1978 - County Engineering Department conducts in- formational meeting and circulates petition for the for- mation of an assessment district to construct drainage improvements . August 21 , 1978 Board of Supervisors considers letter requesting that the moratorium be lifted and receives and files request with no action. February 20, 1979 - Board of Supervisors considers request from Atascadero Advisory Committee that the moratorium be lifted. Board refers matter back to Staff in order to review size of assessment district with consideration towards enlarging it and to meet with people in area to find out how they .can help themselves and at what cost. July 2, 1979 - Atascadero incorporation becomes effective. July 10, 1979 —Engineering Department memo reports that Cal Trans will do no work since there is no threat to State facilities. Memo also reports no work done on district size and indicates question is moot in view of incorporation. 3 . Current Status: The moratorium ordinance, codified as Section 19 .56 , was adopted by the City at the same time as other County ordin- ances were adopted. It remains in effect and no concerted action has been taken to develop adequate drainage facilities to mitigate the flooding problems. During the last two wet-weather seasons, City Staff has made an effort to observe the flooding problems. Observation indi- cates that localized flooding continues and worsens as the ground becomes saturated later in the season. There is con- siderable run-off in existingchannels for several months after the rains. A number of "make-shift" drainage channels have been made by residents to divert water away from existing structures generally into roadways or nearby vacant land. It should be noted that the last two wet-weather seasons have not been extraordinary in volume or amount of rainfall. • Page Three Memorandum: Amapoa-Tecorida Drainage Moratorium April 23, 1981 The Staff has also discussed the moratorium with numerous individuals generally suggesting that a joint effort be launched to facilitate solution to the flooding problems , but no apparent action has resulted from this suggestion. A preliminary proposal affecting a portion of the flood hazard area was submitted and reviewed by the City Engineer who found it to be inadequate. in terms of handling the vol- ume of run-off. 4 . Land Use and Zoning; The subject area includes single family development and zoning generally along Azucena, Atascadero, San Francisco, and Teco- rida. The Morro Road area includes mixed commercial and residential development but is planned for future special commercial use. Alcantara and Amapoa as well as portions of Morro Road and Tecorida are developed with mixed residential use and planned for high density residential development. The total number of lots with the moratorium boundaries is 140. , • ALTERNATIVES In evaluating the flooding problem and the current status of the moratorium, there are a number of alternatives that can be con- sidered. These include: 1. Adopt an ordinance to rescind the moratorium and let the individuals cope with the flooding problem. 2. Adopt an ordinance which rescinds the moratorium, but simul- taneously replace it with certain development standards intended to minimize the impacts to individual structures. 3 . Adopt an ordinance which rescinds the moratorium but simultan- eously replace it with certain development standards intended to minimize the impacts to individual structures and with a participation requirement to contribute to an area-wide solution to the problem. 4 . Retain the moratorium in its present form with adequate flood control measures being developed by affected property owners . 5. Retain the moratorium in its present form with the City taking the initiative to devise adequate flood control measures . 6. Retain the moratorium but expand its size to include nearby uphill property located in the drainage area. Page Four Memorandum: Amapoa-Tecorida Drainage Moratorium • April 23, 1981 STAFF COMMENTS It appears that there has been no change in the conditions that led to the imposition ofthemoratorium. There has also been only limited effort to devise solutions to the flooding problem. How- ever, it must be recognized that a solution would have been imple- mented long ago if the problem was an easy one. These difficulties continue because of the number of properties involved, the potential costs of constructing flood control facilities, the inability of the property owners to effectively organize, the apparent lack of desire to pay for improvements, controversy over the seriousness of the flooding problem, and disagreement over the size of the affected area. At present, the number of lots included in the moratorium is 140 . • A number of those owners contend that their particular lot has no flooding problem and should not be included in the moratorium. It has also been noted in the past that many in the moratorium area contend that other lots in the uphill areas should be included in the moratorium, or, at least in an assessment district should one be formed. It is estimated that the number of additional lots in • the drainage area is approximately 250 . In 1978 the County Engineering . Department advocated some channel work and the construction of two storm drains with a total cost of approximately $300, 000. The City Public Works Department has reviewed that project and feels that the design and flow criteria were excessive. As a result, additional review of design alter- natives and projected costs is necessary. Preliminary review indicates that a drainage study prepared by a consultant would range between $8 , 000 and $15, 000 . While the Public Works Depart- ment does p*o&ess the capability to perform the study, current work loads would not allow for its timely completion unless other projects, including day-to-day activities are assigned a lesser priority. As has been noted previously, the County made at least some effort to facilitate the formation of an assessment district but received little support from area residents . In the last nine months or so, members of the City Staff have discussed the matter with quite a number of area residents suggesting that a strong expression of interest from the affected property owners would result in City assistance in forming an assessment district. Despite such sug- gestions, nothing has been forthcoming. It may be desirable to consider a more direct action in this regard by organizing a meeting, etc. , to determine the actual dq�ree of interest in the approach. J Page Five . Memorandum: Amapoa-Tecorida Drainage Moratorium April 23, 1981 Much has been made of the assessment district alternative and this seems to be a practical approach since those benefitted by the improvements would be those who would pay for ,them. The selection of Alternative #1 would indicate that the flooding problem is not serious enough to warrant concerted action by the City. The question that would obviously, be raised is whether or not, under the general authority of the police power, the City is responsible for undertaking measures such asmoratorium, more restrictive development standards, etc. to protectthe area from flooding. This judgement may be a difficult one to justify if consideration is given to past County actions and to current - knowledge of the flood hazard in the area. Nevertheless , this alternative should be considered in light of public opposition to the moratorium. Some notice of the flooding problem could be provided to current and future owners in conjunction with this alternative. Alternatives 2 and 3 suggest that development standards replace the moratorium. Examples of such standardscould include minimum • floor elevations for new construction; curb, gutter, sidewalk and road improvements; paved driveways ; culvert and drainage channel modifications or improvements; and similar. The biggest drawback to this approach is that it would be piecemeal since it would be implemented over a period of years as development occurs. Even if such improvements were done in conformance to an overall plan their effectiveness might be limited by the time frame. Also, costs for area wide problems would likely be unequally spread with owners at critical areas in the basin having the burden of more substantial improvements. It should also be understood that continuted development will compound the flooding problem to the detriment of now-developed lots . It is also suggested that a participation requirement or drainage fee be tied to development but this has the same disadvantages suggested in the preceding paragraph. Furthermore, a fee program would be similar to the county's road deposit tax which has negative connotations. The fourth alternative represents the status quo. Thus far it has had no beneficial results as property owners have not been able to effectively organize to deal with this area wide problem. Their ability to do so is constrained by their numbers and by lack of knowledge concerning possible costs. ' • i i Page Six Memorandum: Amapoa-Tecorida Drainage Moratorium April 23, 1981 If alternative five is selected, it would place the City in a position of attempting to organize and inform area property owners. This could occur through a meeting or hearing on the matter with the effort directed towards generating support for a solution (probably an assessment district) . This could mitigate one of the criticisms made on the moratorium which has been lack of City action. However, it should not be con- fused with City funding for any such solution. The last alternative suggests enlarging the size of the moratorium to include those which contribute the run-off as well as those who accept it. This approach is likely to generate objections from property owners not currently subject to the moratorium. Certainly their properties are not exposed to the same degree of flood hazard as the others but their contribution to the flooding should nevertheless be a factor. It may be desirable to leave such properties out of moratorium restrictions but include them in participation in the ultimate solution. Perhaps , some general discussion of possible flood control measures mentioned for alternatives 4, 5 and 6 is also appropriate.. The two basic concerns are flow within the area and flow from the area to an acceptable outlet. It can be anticipated that flow within the area will have to be channelized with preference • given to open channels. This would be accompanied by culverts under driveways and roads . Some need may exist to pave or other- wise improve any channels depending upon flow rates. Water should be conveyed out of the area to Atascadero Creek west of the free- way to the Creek east of the freeway by enlarging the drainage outlet under the freeway or to the Lake. A combination of the above might also e ossa 1 o e ro and curb utter improve- ments b y b e. /g P ments may also be appropriate. Detailed alternatives should be the focus of any drainage study. RECOMMENDATION The following recommendations are made in conjunction with the Amapoa-Tecorida drainage moratorium: 1. The City should lend its offices in the formation and administration of an assessment district at the instigation of a majority of the benefitting property owners . 2. The City should consider including the entire drainage area in any assessment district. This might require 4/5ths Council vote to override a majority protest by area residents. Page Seven . Memorandum: Amapoa-Tecorida Drainage Moratorium April 23 , 1981 3. The City should retain a consultant to prepare a drainage study and cost estimates for drainage alternatives to be paid by the area property owners and with these costs of the study transferred to the assessment district if it is formed. 4. The City should retain the moratorium in its present form until completion of the foregoing. 17 v ! J REPORT PREPARED/APPROVED BY: LAWRENC STEVENS Planni Director • • r. CHAPTER 19 . 68 t PROHI3IT,NG THE ISSUA\CE OF 2-71 ,7-:(3 a, CONSTRUCTION UPON THOSE CERTAIN ??rr•-_ _ 7 .:7s HAVE BEEN SUBJECTED TO F L0OD_ _-S RAVE __.. A'�U%POA-TECORIDA AREA OF Sections : lag 19- 68. 0 10 Building Cessation : The ?1 , _ steal':_ i:n�rediately cease issuance of any the construction of new structures within that c:,_t:cr,�o� the unincorporated territory of the Coun.y of San suis Obispo hereafter described by lot and block nu-gar `^d -cre saecifically described as the unshaded portion of t^at mao On file with the County Clerk marked E.;ihibi t �•n'� , i; iOti _s incorporated herein by reference as though fuliv Set fort'- for the time set forth in Section 19 . 68. 020 : (Ord. i866, 1978) in the Town of Atascadero Block Lots VA 1 thru 13 1nclusi•:e LTA 20 thru 32 inclusive QB 6 thru 26 inclusive; 30 & 31 PB 6 thru' 30 inclusive OB 21 thru 32 inclusive • EC 7 thru 20 inclusive t DC 4 thru 35 inclusive CC 33 thru 43 inclusive 19. 68 . 020 Duration: Said temporary buildinc ^„oratoriu:� o i - shall Den full force and effect L'nti l such time. as the { Board of Supervisors determines that adequate measures have i been taken to construct flood control works to protect from I flocding that property which is the subject of this i: anthat there is no irrmed_ate threat Of flooding to said FF area. (Ord. 1866-, 1978) _f i (San Luis Obispo County 2/27/78) DC , 1 � c �• • ,�, - �� �, Nom., • ��-{��d ANN ON 'It WE .,40 AwdALM , /�%r!t� -gip`► � ,� t �'- -z�, w� �����.." . ,���,. -� r l x hi • . - SO M E M O RAN D U M • TO: City Council FROM: City Manager SUBJECT: • Request for additional Public Works personnel After nine months of operation, some functions in the Public Works Department are unable to maintain an adequate service level due to limited manning. One is the parks and zoo activity which requires full time staffing, seven days a week with little time to perform landscape maintenance or preventative maintenance on other park and zoo facilities. With the advent of the spring and summer season, the necessity for increased watering is compounding the available time problem. To alleviate this situation, it is proposed that our present contract for lawn maintenance and watering be extended to cover all City facilities. - We will be proposing such an extension of the existing contract at the expiration of the current contract, , August. 1981. It is estimated that it would cost approximately $20,000 for the watering and maintenance of all City facilities, but proposals submitted in June may • change that figure. We believe that use of contract services, if equal to or less expensive than using City personnel , is the preferred approach. This matter will be included in the 1981-82 Budget proposals. In the meantime, in order to meet the needs of increased watering until August, we will use already budgeted funds in the part-time category to extend the watering provisions of our contract to cover the Lake Park area. Mr. McPherson has also requested an additional custodian position primarily for the Administration Building require- ments. We have found that one custodian cannot provide the level of service necessary, even though assisted by two part-time workers. Of the two Public Works Building and Maintenance personnel presently assigned, one is completely committed to maintenance chores leaving the other for custodial functions. This is inadequate. By adding an additional full time custodian, we can adopt flexible work hours providing coverage during the evening and weekend periods to cope with activities held during those periods. In addition, this person could perform security duties when functions are being held during the off-hours. Part of this employee ' s salary could be recovered from rental and cleanup fees paid by facility users. However, it may be necessary to modify our rental regulations and our security requirements to recover some of these costs, but these recommendations will be coming to you in the near • future. If you approve the additional person, it will be necessary to transfer $2 , 500 from Contingency ,Reserve to cover costs for the remainder of this fiscal year. Memorandum - Public Works Personnel Page Two In consideration of the foregoing, I recommend your approval , by motion, to hire an additional custodian and to transfer $2,500 from Contingency Reserves. U RAY WARDEN MLW:ad F 4-23-81 - �"wz2 0 � ems" � �,•, - � �L�,;�'.,a,� CA C4 TJ L . U b M E M O RAN D U M • TO: Cit Council 1 FROM: City Manager SUBJECT: Chevron pipeline on El Camino Real For some time we have been trying to reach a solution to the uncovered Chevron pipeline in front of the Security Pacific Bank along El Camino Real near the Adobe Plaza. It is my understanding that the County and Chevron had been discussing this matter for quite some time prior to incorpora- tion with neither of them being able to agree as to the other' s responsibility. Larry McPherson has talked to Chevron and they now appear willing to work with the City in reaching 'a solution. Not only is the open structure dangerous, but it is also contributing to washout of the El Camino Real 'roadway sub- structure. In addition, the sidewalk problem 'needs resolu- tion. As a result of Mr. McPherson' s discussions, we have reached what appears to be a satisfactory agreement. Basically, the City would secure any permits necessary for construction, would notify owners and operators of any of the properties affected as to the time and extent of the construction, and would provide traffic control, excavation, and back-hill compaction associated with any road work necessary for lowering the pipeline. Chevron agrees to lower the pipeline in order to allow installation of a sidewalk and will provide all materials needed to complete that task, they will be respon- sible for the excavation and refill and compaction in the area of the actual pipeline fill. Each would indemnify and hold harmless the other from any accidents arising from con- struction. The property owners in the area immediately adjacent to the sidewalk have expressed an interest in parti- cipating in construction of a sidewalk once the pipeline is lowered. It should be noted that during their discussions with the County, Chevron was insisting that the County pay the costs of lowering the pipeline; a cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $30, 000. Our agreement clearly places this cost on Chevron. It is recommended that you approve our proceeding with this project. and authorize the City Manager to sign any necessary documents subject to approval of the City Attorney. • U Y WARDEN M W:ad 4-23-81