The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Packet 06/22/1981 AGENDA - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting ® June 22, 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 special meeting of June 6 , 1981 (RECOMMEND APPROVAL) 2 . Minutes of the regular meeting of June 8 1981 (RECOMMEND APPROVAL) 3 . Conditional Use Permit U810510: 1, 6100 San Anselmo, C N Signs & Graphics, to allow two signs with an aggregate area of • approximately 108 sq. ft (RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION) 4 . Acceptance of Parcel Map AT 810106:1 , 8725 El Camino Real, Joie Scolari (Southwest Engineering ) (RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION) 5 . Acceptance of Lot Line Adjustment LA 801203 : 1 , 2825 Monterey Road, Leo Tidwell (Associated Professions) (RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION) 6. Acceptance of Parcel Map AT 801230: 1, 7305 Balboa, Gordon Davis (Twin Cities Engineering) (RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION) B. HEARINGS , APPEARANCES AND REPORTS 1. Appearance by Richard Summers and Karl Keski regarding Service Club project to renovate pavilion 2 . Appeal of David McMillan (Chidlaw) from Planning Commission conditions of approval for Departmental Review R810330: 1, 8375 Morro Road, to allow conversion of an existing single family residence to a commercial officeuseand considera- tion of Resolution No. 16-81 approving said use subject to certain conditions (continued from 6-8-81) 3. Public hearing on Variance V810408 : 1, 5955 Traffic Way, G. D. Spradlin (Lindenthaler & Courtney Associates) , to allow four parking spaces instead of five; one of the four spaces provided on-site being substandard in width AGENDA - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting June 22, 1981 Page Two B. HEARINGS , APPEARANCES AND REPORTS (cont. ) 4 . Public hearing on Zone Change Z810429: 1, 10905 San Marcos Road, John W. Morris, to allow a change of zone from A-1-B-V-5 to A-1-2 1/2 5. Public hearing on Zoning Ordinance Amendment ZA 810420 :1, Ordinance No. 41, initiated by Planning Commission to consider zoning ordinance text amendment to establish regu- lations for mobilehomes in single family residential zones 6. Public hearing to consider proposed uses for $165, 946 of Revenue Sharing Funds for 1981-82 Fiscal Year Budget 7. Public hearing on Fiscal Year 1981-82 Final Budget 8 . Public hearing on weed abatement protests C. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None D. NEW BUSINESS 1 . Ordinance No. 40 modifying the State speed limit on certain streets or portions thereof - first reading 2 . Consideration of Fiscal Year 1980-81 Final Budget, Proposi- tion 4 budget, with resolution specifying expenditure limit• 3 . Consideration of Resolution No. 17-81 approving Lease j Agreement with the State of California for State Hospital property 4 . Consideration of Agreement with City Attorney for services 5 . Consideration of amending the "Power Plant and Industrial Fuel Use Act , of 1978" E. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION 1. City Council 2. City Attorney 3. City Manager ' NOTICE - The City Council will hold a closed session after the regular meeting to discuss employee negotiations and litigation x ;* MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL Special Meeting June 6 , 1981 9 : 00 a.m. Atascadero Administration Building The meeting was called to order at 9 : 00 a.m. by Mayor Wilkins : PRESENT: Councilmen Highland, Mackey, Nelson and Mayor Wilkins ABSENT: Councilman Stover Mayor Wilkins noted that the meeting was called for the purpose of reviewing the Preliminary Budget for Fiscal Year 1981-82. Mr. Warden provided an overall review of the proposed budget and noted different forms of municipal budgeting. The budgets of the Police, Fire, Planning and Public Works Depart- ments were reviewed with comments and questions from Council . Recess 10:45 a.m. RECONVENED10 : 55 a.m. Discussion on the Public Works Department budget continued; also Recreation, City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Finance and Non-Departmental . Council then reviewed therequests from various agencies re- questing g questing funds for the 1981-82 fiscal year. Anthony Avina appeared on behalf of the San Luis Obispo County Symphony Association's request for $400; Priscilla White on behalf of Family Services Center' s request for $500; Robert Jones on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce 's request for $16 ,500 (reduced from an original request of $25 , 000) ; Betty Hill on behalf of Hotline' s request for $500; Leonard Roders on behalf of People' s Self Help Housing Corporation' s request for $4,000 ; and Ethal Hagan for the Senior Citizens ' request for $2 ,400 . Ms. Hagan noted that the Seniors were also requesting a continuance of the support supplied by the City last fiscal year for mileage and insur- ance on their vehicle amounting to $1, 800 per year added to their requested amount. Daphne Fahsing representing the; Action for Animal Rights requested $5 , 000 to pay a portion of veterinarians ' costs for spay and nuetering of animals. As this was a study session, no action was taken on the requests. The meeting adjourned at 12: 30 p.m. Recorded by: M R L. WARDEN City t Clerk s i MINUTES - ATASC1?DERO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting • June 8 , 1981 7 : 30 p.m. Atascadero Administration Building The meeting was called to order at 7 : 30 p.m. with the Pledge of Allegiance. Reverend Rollin Dexter of the United Methodist Church gave the invocation. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmen Highland, Mackey, Nelson and Mayor Wilkins ABSENT: Councilman Stover PUBLIC COMMENT None Mayor Wilkins presented Norman Norton with a Certificate of Appreciationfor his service as Planning Commissioner from August, 1979 until December, 1980 . Mayor Wilkins thanked him for his dedi- cation to the City during this important formative period. A. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes of the regular meeting of May 11 1981 • (RECOMMEND APPROVAL) 2 . Treasurer' s Report, 5-1-81 to 5-31-81 (RECOMMEND APPROVAL) 3 . Claim of Mr. & Mrs . William W. Tidwell for damages in the amount of $10,855 (RECOMMEND DENIAL) 4 . Claim of Mr. & Mrs . William W. Tidwell on behalf of David Tidwell for damages in the amount of $20,000 (RECOMMEND DENIAL) 5 . Claim of Jim E. Gillispie, Jr. for injuries in the amount of $50, 000 (RECOMMEND DENIAL) 6. Bid No. 81-05, Emergency Generator (RECOMMEND BID BE AWARDED TO GENERATOR EQUIPMENT CO. IN THE AMOUNT OF $4, 326 .92) 7 . Bid No. 81-06, Street Overlay Project 1981 (RECOMMEND BID BE AWARDED TO M. J. HERMRECK IN THE AMOUNT OF $135 ,300) 8 . Bid No. 81-07, Grounds Maintenance (RECOMMEND BID BE AWARDED TO MOORE' S YARD MAINTENANCE IN THE AMOUNT OF $33 ,600) 9 . Bid No. 81-08 , Construction of Vida & Navidad (RECOMMEND BID BE AWARDED TO C. SANCHEZ & SONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $2 ,700) 10 . Bid No. 81-09, Windowcovering (RECOMMEND BID BE AWARDED TO THE WINDOW AFFAIR IN THE AMOUNT OF $2 ,413. 62) 11 . Exception to final Parcel Map CO 74-185, Valle Avenue and Pinal Road, James and Franki Hazard, to grant exception to Parcel Map conditions requiring "sewage disposal shall be by connection to the community sewers" (RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION) 12 . Tentative Tract Map AT 810227 : 1, 9550 and 9552 E1 Parque, • Edward and Judy Young, to allow a two unit air-space condo- minium conversion (RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF, PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION) MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting June 8, 1981 Page Two 13 . Lot Line Adjustment LA 810414 :1, 7720 Cristobal and 7605 & 7655 Tecorida, Marcel E. Texeira, to adjust existing lot line to solve encroachment problem (RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION) 14 Lot Line Adjustment LA 810316:1, 8808 Arcade, Rayetta Williams, to adjust existing lot line to solve encroachment problem (RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDA- TION) 15 . Acceptance of Parcel Map AT 80-57 , 9100 Pino Solo , Loyd Sims (Baumberger) (RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION a RECOMMENDATION) 16. Acceptance of Parcel Map AT 79-077 , 4205 Santa Cruz, Mr. and Mrs. Robert Hottenroth (Hilliard) (RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION) 17 . Acceptance of Parcel Map AT 801203 :1, 2100 Traffic Way, Levi Barrett (Stewart) (RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION) 18 . Acceptance .of Parcel Map AT 800911:1, ,8950 Atascadero Avenue, Harry Smith (RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION) 19 . Acceptance of Parcel Map AT 79-265, 5650 and 5765 Vega, Don Heath (Hilliard) (RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION) 20 . Acceptance of Lot Line Adjustment LA 810225 :1, 5260 Maleza • Michael Craig (Bray) (RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION) 21. Acceptance of Lot Line Adjustment LA 810130:1, 4550 San Ardo Avenue, Margaret C. Ferreira (Associated Professions) (RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION) 22 . Conditional Use Permit U810421 :1, N/E Corner of Morro Road & Lago Avenue, Peter Del Vaglio (Dave Hansen) to allow estab- lishment of an 8500 sq. ft. commercial recreation facility including a dance academy, an arcade, a laundromat, a health club and offices (RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION" RECOMMENDATION) 23. Tentative Parcel Map AT 810327 :1, 9600 and 9630 Carmelita, Edward and Hetty Anderson (Twin Cities Engineering) to allow subdivision of 7.7 acres into three parcels (RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION) 24 Variance V810408 :2, 5820 Traffic Way, G.D. Spradlin (Linden- thaler & Courtney Associates) to allow elimination of the required 25 ' front setback in a C-1 Zone, where part of the frontage in a block is in an "R (Residential) district, in conjunction with a proposed retail commercial project (RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION) 25. Tentative Tract Map AT 810121: 1, 6800 Alcantara, Gaylen Little, to allow a three unit air-space condominium conversion (RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION) 26. Tentative Tract 777 , 5625-55 Capistrano, F.E. McNamara (Wes land Engineering) to allow a 16 unit air-space condominium conversion (RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION) MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting June 8 , 1981 Page Three 27 . Tentative Tract 830 , 7605 and 7655 Santa Ysabel , Keith and Murl Bruington (Mitch Walker) to allow a 27 unit air-space condominium conversion (RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION) 28 . Resolution No. 7-81 denying an appeal concerning certain conditions placed on Building Permit No. 493 in conjunction with alterations pursuant to the establishment of McCarthy 's Restaurant at 6195 E1 Camino Real (RECOMMEND ADOPTION) 28 . Resolutions affirming City Council action on General Plan Amendments a. Resolution No. 8 approving General Plan Amendment GP 801101: 1 amending the text of the Circulation Element concerning the future location of Highway 41 to support the Mercedes Alignment (RECOMMEND ADOPTION) b. Resolution No, 9-81 approving General Plan Amendment GP 810108 :1 changing the land use designation from High Density Multiple Family Residential .to Retail Commercial for certain property along South Mall Extension and Capistrano near Santa Ysabel. (RECOMMEND ADOPTION) C. Resolution No. 10-81 approving General Plan Amendment • GP 810316 : 1 amending the text of the Land Use and Housing Elements concerning density bonuses for low, and moderate income housing (RECOMMEND ADOPTION) d. Resolution No. 11-81 approving General Plan Amendment GP 810316 : 2 amending the text of the Land Use Element concerning minimum lot sizes for Planned Unit Develop- ments and Mobile Home Subdivisions (RECOMMEND ADOPTION) e. Resolution No. 12-81 denying General Plan Amendment GP 810316 : 3 concerning permitted densities in Multiple Family Residential Land Use Designations (RECOMMEND ADOPTION) f. Resolution No. 13-81 approving General Plan Amendment GP 810316: 4 amending the text of the Land Use Element relating to future industrial development (RECOMMEND ADOPTION) g. Resolution No. 14-81 denying General Plan Amendment GP 810325:1 concerning a requested change in land use designation from Suburban Single Family Residential to Moderate Density Single Family Residential for certain property fronting on Viejo Camino and El Camino Real between their intersection and Santa Barbara Road (RECOMMEND ADOPTION) h. Resolution No. 15-81 denying General Plan Amendment GP 810325 : 2 concerning a requesting change in land use designation from Moderate Density Single Family Resi- dential to High Density Single Family Residential for a certain property located at 7565 Sombrilla (RECOMMEND ADOPTION) • MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting June 8 , 1981 Page Four Mayor Wilkins reviewed all items on the Consent Calendar. He stated that he and Councilman Mackey had listened to the tapes of the previous Council meeting and were, therefore, able to act on the matters presented on the Consent Calendar which were heard at the last Council meeting. Councilman Mackey asked that Items Al2, A22 , A25, A29a, A29b, and A29c be withdrawn from the Consent Calendar and considered separately. MOTION: Councilman Mackey moved for the approval of the Consent Calendar with the exception of the withdrawn items. The motion was seconded by Councilman Highland and unanimously carried by roll call vote. A-12 Tentative Tract Map AT 810227 :1, 9550 and 9552 E1 Parque, Edward and Judy Young, to allow a two unit air-space condominium con- version Councilman Mackey felt that two units was too small for a condo- minium; she thought that there should be a regulation which allowed a minimum number of units such as five. Mr. Stevens advised that there were no regulations at present limiting the number of units. MOTION: Councilman Highland moved that Council approved the recom- mendation of the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Councilman Nelson and carried with Councilman Mackey voting no. A22 Conditional Use Permit U810421: 1, N/E Corner of Morro Road & Lago Avenue, Peter Del V'aglio (Dave Hansen) to allow establishment of an 8500 sq. ft. commercial recreation facility including a dance academy, an arcade, a laundromat, a health club and offices Councilman Mackey did not feel that this was a good use due to its proximity to the park. Councilman Nelson asked about the possibility of a dance hall use at this location. Mr. Stevens stated that there was not enough parking to establish a dance hall use on this site. MOTION: Councilman Highland moved that Council approve the recom- mendation of the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Councilman Nelson and carried with Councilman Mackey voting no. A25 Tentative Tract Map AT 810121:1, 6800 Alcantara, Gaylen Little, to allow a three unit air-space condominium conversion Councilman Mackey noted her oppostion to this project. MOTION: Councilman Highland moved for approval of the Planning Commission's recommendation. The motion was seconded by Councilman Nelson and unanimously carried. • • MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting June 8 , 1981 Page Five 29a Resolution No. 8-81 approving General Plan Amendment GP 801101: 1 amending the text of the Circulation Element concerning the future location of Highway 41 to support the Mercedes alignment Councilman Mackey stated that she was opposed to the Mercedes alignment because, amongst other reasons, it would divide the City in half and would change the character of the area. MOTION: Councilman Nelson moved for the adoption of Resolution No. 8-81 . The motion was seconded by Councilman Highland and carried with Councilman Mackey voting no. 29b Resolution No. 9-81 approving General Plan Amendment GP 810108 : 1 changing the land use designation from High Density Multiple Family Residential to Retail Commercial for certain property along South Mall Extension and Capistrano near Santa Ysabel . Councilman Mackey stated that she did not feel that the City should commercially zone a residential area; it will not enhance the central business district to put a bank at this location. MOTION: Councilman Highland moved that Council approve Resolution No. 9-81. The motion was seconded by Councilman Nelson and carried with Councilman Mackey voting no. A29c Resolution No. 10-81 approving General Plan Amendment GP 810316: 1 amending the text of the Land Use and Housing Elements concerning density bonuses for low and moderate income housing Councilman Mackey stated that she was opposed to allowing density bonuses since the City should give the General Plan provisions )-an opportunity to operate before making changes. MOTION: Councilman Highland moved that Council approve Resolution No. 10-81 . The motion was seconded by Councilman Nelson and carried with Councilman Mackey voting no . B. HEARINGS, APPEARANCES AND REPORTS 1. Public hearing to consider proposed uses for $165, 946 of Revenue Sharing Funds for 1981-82 Fiscal Year Budget Mr. Warden reviewed the proposed Revenue Sharing items as suggested by Staff. He stated that this was the first public hearing on Revenue Sharing and it would be appropriate to ask for comments from the public, however, no decision can be made until after the next hearing. Daphne Fahsing, representing Action for Animal Rights, spoke in favor of AFAR' s request for $5 , 000 of Revenue Sharing funds. As there were no further requests for Revenue Sharing, the hearing was closed. MINUTES - ATAS A C DERO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting June 8 1981 Page Six 2. Appeal of David McMillan (Chidlaw) from Planning Commission conditions of approval for Departmental Review R810330:1, 8375 Morro Road, to allow conversion of an existing single family residence to a commercial office use Larry Stevens reviewed this project stating the the Planning Commission had approved the conversion subject to certain conditions . The applicant, however, did not agree with several of the conditions . Although some of the objections had been worked out at the staff level , there were still some that only Council could resolve. Mr. Chidlaw, representing the applicant David McMillan, reviewed his objections to the conditions. Most of the discussion centered around whether access should be allowed from Amapoa. The following determinations concerning each Planning Commission approved condition were made by Council: With regard to Condition .2, concerning a future assessment district, the applicant agrees not to protest the assessment district but retains his right to argue as to the spread of costs. Condition 5, Council agreed that the applicant could bond for construction within eighteen months . Condition 5a, Council agreed to allow access from Amapoa Condition 13, the sidewalk requirement was waived and a bond could be established for the construction of curbs and gutters. Condition 14, the fire hydrant would be required. MOTION: Councilman Nelson moved that Staff prepare a resolution in accordance with Council findings and that the hearing be continued until the next meeting. The motion was seconded by Councilman Mackey and unanimously carried. RECESS 9 : 30 p.m. RECONVENED 9 : 35 p.m. 3 . Appeal of Fernando Ebhardt (Swauger) from Planning Commission denial of a Conditional Use Permit U810316: 1, N/E corner of San Jacinto and Palma Avenues, to allow construction of a five (revised to four) unit air-space condominium project by obtaining a density bonus for solar and energy efficient units Larry Stevens stated that the Planning Commission had denied the request without prejudice and tabled it for ninety days to allow for submittal of revised plans. The General Plan does allow the requested density. Mr. Ebhardt, the applicant, was in favor of having the matter tabled until the issue of solar incentives can be determined by the City. it MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting June 8 , 1981 . Page Seven � MOTION: Councilman Highland moved that this matter be continued for six months. The motion was seconded by Councilman Mackey and unanimously carried. 4 . City Attorney Report No. 13 Mr. Grimes briefly noted some items which might be of interest to the Council . 5 . Report by the City Manager on proposed Cease and Desist Order No. 81-60 , Atascadero County Sanitation District Mr. Warden noted that the Cease and Desist Order proposed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board resulted from a health department survey of septic tank problems within the City. This survey was done as a part of the grant process for the sewer plant expansion. He reviewed the areas affected by the proposed Cease and Desist Order and stated that the hearing before the Regional Water Quality Control Board will be in Santa Barbara on June 12 , 1981. The Staff is recom- mending to the Board a plan of work which will address solutions to the problems. They were also recommending that any collector construc- tion be approved for grant funding. C. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Consideration of allocating additional funds ($3,180) for moving the Lucky' s Market Building Mr. Warden stated that he had authorized an additional $3 ,180 for moving the Lucky' s building because the original $5, 000 was not enough to move the building. Since he was unable to get Council approval prior to the deadline for removal from the site, he had to either authorize the expenditure or allow the building to pass to other owner- ship. He asked Council to authorize the expenditure of the additional $3,180 . MOTION: Councilman Highland moved that Council authorize the transfer from reserve of $3 ,180 for this expenditure. The motion was seconded by Councilman Nelson and unanimously carried by roll call vote. D. NEW BUSINESS 1 . Consideration of allowing mobilehomes as temporary dwellings during term of building permit Mr. Warden stated that by adopting a policy to allow a mobile home as a temporary dwelling for the building permit period for • owner-builder single family residential construction, the City would allow owner/builders to live on their property while building their house. Building permits are normally issued for eighteen months with a possible six month extension. MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting June 8 , 1981 Page Eight MOTION: Councilman Highland moved for adoption of recommendation #2 of the Staff memorandum, which allows the time periods for temporary dwelling and building permits to coincide. The motion was seconded by Councilman Nelson. John Cole stated that a neighbor of his has had a mobile home on his property while constructing his home for 21 months. He was wondering how much longer the home is going to be allowed to stay on the property. Mr. Cole was advised that by this policy, the owner/ builder would be allowed use of his mobilehome until the expiration of his building permit. The motion was unanimously carried. 2 . Consideration of the Capital Improvement Program Mr. Warden asked Council if they had any additions or deletions to suggest for the proposed Capital Improvement .Program. Councilman Highland stated that sidewalks around the Sunken Gardens were not needed. The rest of the Council agreed. He also felt that acquisi- tion of lawn equipment could be eliminated since the City was now contracting for lawn maintenance. MOTION: Councilman Mackey moved that the CIP be approved as amended The motion was seconded by Councilman Highland and unani- mously carried. 3 . Consideration of Dial-A-Ride Service Contract Mr. Warden stated that this is the City' s annual renewal contract for the management of the Dial-A-Ride system. MOTION: Councilman Highland moved for the approval of the contract and that the City Manager be authorized to sign the neces- sary documents. The motion was seconded by Councilman Nelson and unanimously carried. E. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION 1 . City Council (a) Councilman Mackey requested that consideration be given to planting a fruitless mulberry tree. (b) Mayor Wilkins asked if there was something that could be done about the parking in the red zone in front of Thrif ty' s. Staff will look into it. 2 . City Attorney • Mr. Grimes had nothing to report. • MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting June 8, 1981 Page Nine 3 . City Manager (a) Mr. Warden advised that the City' s Official popula- tion, adjusted by the State Office of Finance, is 16 ,495. (b) Mr. Warden reviewed SB 102 which is being considered by the State Legislature at this time. The City will face significant cuts in State subvention revenues if this bill is passed. (c) Mr. Warden requested a closed session to review the status of employee negotiations. He stated that there would not be an announcement after the closed session. The meeting adjourned at 10: 20 p.m. Recorded by: MURRAY L. WARDEN, City Clerk By: Ardith Davis Deputy City Clerk _M_E M O R A N D U M TO: CITY MANAGER June 16 , 1981 FROM: PLANNING DIRECTOR' SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT U810510 :1 LOCATION: 6100 San Anselmo (Ptn. Lot 26 , Block 18) APPLICANT: C N Signs & Graphics REQUEST: To allow two signs with an aggregate area of approximately 108 sq. ft. On June 15 , 1981 the Planning Commission conducted'' a public hearing on the subject matter adopting Findings 1-4 and: approving the signing subject to Conditions 1-6 as listed in the attached Staff Report with the modification of Condition #3 to allow the monument sign to be 36 . 6 sq. ft. There was brief discussion among the Commission with the consensus • being that the Staff recommendation was consistent with past actions in similar situations . Paul Moerman, C N Signs & Graphics, spoke in favor, of the recom- mendation but requested that the monument sign be 36 . 6 sq. ft. because it was the standard size used by Beacon. No one else appeared on the matter. 17 Xwv� LAWRENCE STEVENS M RAY . WARDEN Planning Director C ty nager /P s I rCITY OF ATASCADERO .: �Yl j y913 C�� Planning Department June 15, 1981 1978 STAFF REPORT SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit U810510 :1 - LOCATION: 6100 San Anselmo Road (Portion Lot 26 , Block 18) s APPLICANT: C N Signs & Graphics REQUEST: To allow construction of two signs with an aggregate area of approximately 108 square feet BACKGROUND 1. Existing Zoning: C-H (Highway Commercial District) 2 . General Plan: Retail Commercial 3 . Environmental Determination: The application is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act according to Section 15101 Class 1 (g) . 4. Site Conditions : The subject property is the present site of the Beacon Gas Station. The entire lot is paved. Two drive- ways provide access .to San Anselmo. There are no signs at the site at this time 5 Project Description: The applicant is proposing to construct 7 P PP P P 9 two signs. One, being approximately 6 ' X 12 ' (72 sq ft.) , is to be located at the most northerly corner of the lot. This freeway-oriented pole sign is to be supported by a 39 '-6" tripod pole with a 56" base existing at the site. The overall height of the sign would be 46 feet. The other pole sign, being a 55" X 8 ' sign (36 .6 sq. ft. ) is to be located at the easterly corner of the site and supported by a pole not exceeding 14 feet. The overall sign height would be 19 feet. The design of both sign faces is identical using the word "BEACON" in raised one inch red letters set on a raised 1 3/4 inch yellow background which is all then mounted on a raised 2 inch red border. Both signs are to be interior illuminated. There is also a painted sign (similar logo) of undetermined dimensions on the station' s office window. Page Two Re: Conditional Use Permit U810510:1 (C N Signs & Graphics) June 15, 1981 STAFF COMMENTS The subject property is the former site of a Shell Service Station. The zoning ordinance does not provide a height limit for signs in this zone but limits signs to an aggregate area of 20 sq. ft. with- out a Conditional Use Permit. The 46 ' high freeway-oriented sign would be visible for some distance on both the north and southbound lanes of Highway 101 and from the east and west approaches of San Anselmo Road. The shorter pole sign would only be visible intermittently from the freeway and would seem not to be a very effective sign except from San Anselmo. Staff feels a more effective location and type for a second sign (if one is necessary) would be perhaps a monu- ment type sign oriented to San Anselmo Road in the planter area near the center island along the street, or a similar monument sign generally in the proposed location of the shorter pole sign. (There is some question of the need for two pole signs on the same property. ) In a previous consideration on a Use Permit for motel signs in a C-H zone, the Planning Commission recommended and Council approved signs based on a County signing policy established in 1971 which allows aggregate on-site signing of 200 sq. ft. while limiting freeway signs to a height of 50 feet and an area of 125 sq. ft. The E1 Camino Real sign for that (and several other commercial projects) was limited to a monument style) . The intent of the C-H zone is to encourage development attractive to the traveling public and compatible with adjacent land uses , which includes single family residences. The height and scale of this smaller sign (19 foot) as proposed is unneccessary due to the good visibility of the 46 foot sign from both directions on High- way 101 and from San Anselmo and the ability to provide site identification with a lower and smaller scale sign either in the same location or in the center planter area. FINDINGS 1. As modified by the recommended conditions of approval, the size and type of proposed signing will be of a scale com- patible with surrounding development in this zone. 2 . The approved signing will be adequately visible to travelers along San Anselmo, El Camino Real and Highway 41. Page Three Re: Conditional Use Permit U810510 :1 (C N Signs & Graphics) June 15, 1981 3 . The project signing as modified by the recommended conditions of approval would be compatible with existing and future uses in the surrounding area. 4. The application is a Class l (g) Categorical Exemption and will not have an adverse effect on the environment. RECOMMENDATION Based on the above findings , the Planning Department recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit U810510 :1 subject to the following conditions : 1. Approval of the 46 foot high freeway sign as submitted. 2. The existing building wall sign shall be removed prior to granting of final for the remaining signs . 3 . The overall square footage of the smaller sign shall not exceed 35 square feet with a maximum height measured from grade to top of sign of eight feet. Design and placement of this sign shall be subject to Planning Department review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit or sign permit. a. Sign shall notencroachinto driveways or sidewalk areas and shall not obstruct traffic in any way. b. A decorative base shall extend from the bottom of the sign to finished grade. 4. Flashing or rotating signs and wind-activated devices are prohibited. 5. Building or sign permits shall be obtained prior to installer- tion of any signs 6 . Approval of this Conditional Use Permit shall expire one year from the date of final approval unless a time extension is granted pursuant to a written request prior to the expiration date. i Page Four Re: Conditional Use Permit U810510 :1 (C N Signs & Graphics) June 15, 1981 ACTION Direct Staff by motion as deemed appropriate. 1. TO APPROVE: Motion to set findings and conditions per Staff recommendation. 2. TO DENY: Motion to set findings and conditions. REPORT PREPARED BY: MARY BEATIE Associate Planner REPORT APPROVED BY: - z14e LAWRENCE STEVENS Planning Director /Ps 1 55 M-OWN, Ir h Ulm -KIM WA fit M off ear �'a lip TAIV WV IWA Ma NMI TAM ri �► ,d �g� r,°jam ,—= F r,{f �� ♦ i;�c •ASP-' � fA ®► � � ° t �.tom e4#A��,� `♦��. � .DU� NO !4�ro. mk RNNE VIV OAMNiN N, Nei ti � a LID fiv •. �, ��,� �� {•��"� � .r� �t fit ° tit e , Vat '!2-PA ray ' � r j Y, MIN. r,. ° + =?ice_ • `�` .,. �Of� g' ® �`,��►® a)� ,els ' � ."� + � CFA MAN 3 Q V4 UL OFN i5 map s • � � 3 Yyc$ s?o -r �� `r�� <a� �.�� `kir � - • � ,� � �Q ��_ ., � �, Ah _l:r„s rzs ys�; �� }`�� '�-�`� ��J� i' r-.�-� .:ham{ -�32 �#►"- �! �.. ��'. .+� .. 711 4 r,cirt- � A ' yA a ft �x pmt b �tyt Qa �+t♦t �. " A� `D t C tip ,. '`. ¢E r Y vT -, B e r�g�s-r i3xtif`�'�+t,�,�t<"a'' "�''•',�.- �e �-�.,rs ��'?� �,�,,.�. .-: F /��Z D �'�'��`'� - P `w r :, ....,:. F- _ "*?•'mac 7 �', - r�.� :., ... ..2- -y<. � �� ti.. € � a- ��ckxs��t �,.� v A y 3{ Ld, LeF. { �'F+��7S /w/�/E meq_ St,s, IRR r• 'moi' :.ywa. * s• �, : Q'1 - r 1 +, fs s.. .S-- 'j D H a (Yrs eta ter ter. "c ��,�'{aElam97 LZ61Ll � - K Z BZ-0 lo FAs, V,;'� �—A A 1 � v4 r Al 1,,,k P= '*.r�}..� �M �' ° � tv, ,kms ar d�� ,• f � �� ,. �. "¢e� �I �. �' ..,. .rx+ ri ePY 3 t _`{ Vta � e,Q .. �♦;. '{ '� 5 a r .E }fi *.M`� � ` "*P"F ..r - ;t7 f AD f D a . { c w 54 k x R - t 9 .'-�` < �S� '� q� �'!t'-"',t'•'"''� Via, ev "a' -�' .A Co _ 6a P Kl r4W V1, Cr 1"AP .�- ^� Z { +•cam^ �-), � -�;,� � ( �• - �'' •gay- - �-�l �,. i i � - - , s i �7 I { r • t�r...� ... __ -� �u r ��t tiw i _ � � _ ! � 1- 4 ' ,;�, �/� I f, �.-.�.,_._�_..._._—_ L _ tea- _--�T - � "�' "--{.-. - ' ' � i t 1 t � � � � � j , ` ; l 1' � ` i f I i 1� � ,. , � , � i-, 1 � . , � '• � � o E �� ,� �� _ ,, . ! � r_ ;,- ,^� 1 r-- � '� `� � 1� �,. A F�..�.. �� ..� _ �4 � r-^-1 t � i j i � , � �I f � ! i .. __ �-� �. r- ' T___ !. � � a , � i � � l i � i � ; c i ., . t � �. ' - �,� .;. 4. _ - S}mil" �:� !eC/ \ `F .� ! 't..+. _ _ `' '� r, L _i, :� ��f�� /�� v8rd5�fo.. f f 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 810106 :1 LOCATION: 8725 E1 Camino Real APPLICANT: Joie Scolari (Southwest Engineering) On March 9, 1981 the City Council approved Tentative Parcel Map AT 810106 :1 allowing creation of six lots of various sizes subject to certain conditions and in concurrence with the recommendation of the Planning Commission. The zoning is C-1-D and the General Plan designation is Retail Commercial. Staff review has determined that all conditions ofapproval have been met. On June 15 , 1981 the Planning Commission reviewed the Final Map on its Consent Agenda and recommended acceptance. LAWRENCE STEVENS RA . WARDEN Planning Director 'TRA anager /ps M_E M O—R A N D—U M—: TO: PLANNING COMMISSION June 15, 1981 FROM: PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: Acceptance of Parcel Map AT 810106 :1 LOCATION: 8725 El Camino Real APPLICANT: Joie Scolari (Southwest Engineering) j On March 9 , 1981 the City Council approved Tentative Parcel Map AT 810106 :1 allowing creation of six lots of various sizes subject to certain conditions and in concurrence with the recommendation of the Planning Commission. The zoning is C-1-D and the General Plan designation is Retail Commercial. Staff review has determined that all _conditions of approval have been met. • LAWRENCE STEVENS Planning Director /ps • y tF•a � ��n,.'y�et's Yt NK' Sa ?4.�. '."' J. �i cF` 4 'Si '� 1 < .,ti - r;x4" i '"h+ ,.:c. h � " d' t&44.•+riz' ., ys,n,"f �`?,"` k# y l�. x...j M1 \` t a j s- �, 'i. *,z ''s.r,� Fr-c,,;�`t'sr 'c '&'e�3�. r +'4'..+b&+:��'7 'i1��' A•�'.Z,Y "r�y*�i'r ''� , t ra "r, rtF 5;. is rF x � " -O' .a.� '`i ttx '# •'"c^; _ a '� ,•: �. .,v� '?r «syr t z �` 3 y:.k5 rr fi 'at T a P 4 �C - -F Ft+ • 4 v ff GM of w"€ } 'k �•� 6t�.7rLt Rr �io � s Bfi 66TH 2O/0• _ Y TP(a P.L.PROP To pp0.77 ",0.77 lu t P� 44o O 49 Lr t- S f 24. QP'74, "IF m z O X• g... d O i2,Ry�/ t tie fo 0E 5Cf 'Z :. .a [.' au.n� s n ' -ya. .r 'a:- �c_ pP�ry ,c,,,!1 •+� ; t B „, :t 2O U n M 1 /yu ,d y r � x a 4 7 as s , 40�0ey O �l 3 .� ..� �/ 3 �;r sz F y�kE� e F y s� �� . t4: .,., n 7�Y a•+��t`x s� s�4 ti3i z✓a �'�"-..).. o< .y... d Q, \ SM P.a ta•V '�'yz, a J '!c 4 r$DP 47 N 19'OB 00 w 4 ;ix: A , a i^ ''^ a _.' ��°. :r,' ..w ;z _5 Y#��'� : 7.m :=:ixh#t� �%�x n � ._ +r�?� rt.rn...?:.�`.3»,�e s'�.•j:�'�:zfV:a= r�siS.:sSl.�xirsMa# .�•e\' # ,,,,,-,:.x„s.. 9B YA `x.0° r 19 ae F. i IF Fra 2x 0 � sot>Nn C(L " a D N.g4S3 ` CS�P.I~f- - \b\u<+ •.OQPQ'1 e ' � � } l `d !* 5 UI W SI 7ECI C>>ft�N F'14 ?- �+ :.. f C S '\�'C P' o ryr< i .., 4 � ". 4 � !,•�, y. R�`D r�RPOSE+-. a t\ \ J e t .N 19'OB'Oo' D p N O D 2 C P F FNC N TNi} d - G14'SIY OP B.G. To BE SFf ` -L,S 4L 03 ' PGG.rrEv,PS BFIN( , - ON owr—e T-6RNr LINE ' 179.59 N190B'00''w o o t - 1 a - 5' pEpIGPT,ON FOR - ! ROPp PHRP05E9 mo '% - `\ L.G.4299 20 ..'yl 4 c.16J9 f L 1014ti��, 2 Q 5O _ 45 128.96' / 76.76 lol.Bl' 390.34 o EL CAMl O REAL - F17 REBAR �c GAP 'FD I P. RcE 5995 - 0 FP.'1'T P +[Ge-"795 2 O l-.5 4283 `� h - 0.04 w'LY OF E'LY LINE - L TAG AT GU— EL GwHiNO Re/`I- ni r.t.TO 0E SeT I. Tr0 BE sx. _ . - LEGEND . BASIS OF BEARINGS - :O.. FNP. e" 2 HUB RGE G%1'JreR THe.6'LY LINE OR fiL GAMINO REAL BEING SNJwN /.S rPRGEL MAI' GO.75'94 - H 19 09 00'w PEC HAP OP e/+SLeT NO.1 M.O.2 P�Ge 26. _ +- 0.... FNP rKl—TE ENGINEER'S Manu MINTS Pd 6HOwN ON RE6ORC OF 54V-11Y BOOK 97-99 F,7\V/ AL _M OF SUR�e YS AS NOTED I f, - '4'a' M E M 0 R A N D .0 M : TO: CITY MANAGER June 16 , 1981 FROM: PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: Acceptance of Lot Line Adjustment LA 801203:1 LOCATION: 2825 Monterey Road APPLICANT: Leo Tidwell (Associated Professions) On March 9 , 1981 the City Council approved tentative Lot Line Adjustment LA 801203 :1 to adjust existing lot lines to decrease Lot 39, Block 23 approximately 0 .-2 acres to solve an existing encroachment problem, subject to certain conditions and in concurrence with the recommendation of the Planning Commission. The zoning is A-1-22 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 Planning Commission reviewed the Final Map on its Consent Agenda and recommended acceptance. lalu� 4e4� LAWRENCE STEVENS MURRAY L. W RDEN Planning Director City Manag r /Ps �► s M E M O RAN D U M TO: PLANNING COMMISSION June 15, 1981 ` FROM: PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: Acceptance of Lot Line Adjustment LA 801203 :1 LOCATION: 2825 Monterey Road APPLICANT: Leo Tidwell (Associated Professions) On March 9 , 1981 the City Council approved tentative Lot Line Adjustment LA 801203 :1 to adjust existing lot lines to decrease Lot 39 , Block 23 approximately 0. 2 acres to solve an existing encroachment problem, subject to certain conditions and in con- currence with the recommendation of the Planning Commission. The zoning is A-1-22 and the General Plan designation is Suburban Single Family Residential. Staff review has determined that all conditions of approval have been met. LAWRENCE STEVENS Planning Director /Ps �' �S�S BiN:� 4 "w %F S 2 s4-# .1r. r a r 3,%e..'� ,ai a+'' s. a;. --' ,' "'�: d,�. ..w. .. t'L 'w.�.� .his^ u ~ ff -.t-,x. �. R1 S�� ' •-- Sic t"`3� M, vfi'+ "r °- �� '"s'.rar4" -'w+-" xtjn lb ,'+�- 's' a 21 xx Ram;riWh� -+F .r.5 w a F wn be ,i t ,.. f., v '* 'r`q V' v -J a�'.z � y� `k_ S , F 7! S J 7 � 'ii J' 4 a v ,, r ^' a� z a S + § ; z ' s U �,r x >nwln z -� n �r .. .. 11 rlr'°a'r J«zxs- 5 '+3r ` 2';ict �LZ �� Nxt : s.< - 9}> R i # '£ `�:,„„�, -4mx 2 ` _ 'Y1, s +�+� v. - e -n "`` O 4 L ,t „y tr t z ,. _ ,.-"i.-'ki-�ssPa"`. R "it -"" iee '`�-.�+.'�,- a." y w "r«....\ N a La' L`-r, C' `y '.�h' s *` ,, , .�,4�4'"' by �I'll, .8 n it * Q �' s s:, x �r c '✓+vi- "' �'�I4 AS,"I" W t V nr i. ;Ir 3".w'� { t z t 'a.,x <. aro i +w-x s' t�,pa, k asI f M Z _� L ' rr J ,..y.-±+y, i q » r�xz, _ ;� •a'- 5,-'^':1� _*,,. R ^.«w4Y ."t z� t ".s' ''t ay'" Wf s �� 7 its 0 N�� ., e a 6'+ }. } �* s' ; � Y a f5k s! ��*, y a''" ,y-'s x`s`O. -`',•`fix s �" Vt .1. '�-",'R-4,r. y, Q (p = t :'"'"t ,� ''r r x -ak ,�Safv '" � * - '� ,�„�".a z .a�as O M . _, ._ f a e . zl x'•c v+ ar � �. v `i 1 r"`:�*3. gab. - y Y d �"� .� d' a S '4,r t a ., Y' { ^` 4 �x `C `ia 6,y `$`��+{ �'c -) -* r• ,a"c'�f i -`s _ 75<d;r '.' `° x c -. i fi,� ''# x t' '�" ,w ',k "`z~3'.� it y,.�s a :.±.rC' . ,�, r s, r`j F --,,c t r ,� ,.O � x" . O < uc��,_ ,;,. ,. O {VV` a-•.s"xy . ^t,a* AT ya`�''C ``,. rear, ' gs p, .a., r fi { i�.J tr' ,(�`� _T "x. x ,-' Ery '�r: t- Vi! r = r v n. �' — v O N (1Pr' 0 �' v Q tom`' r �` r ,s em a^,.'e ' c - r `L, `' �. 0� a7",1 `^-.I . z a t k' i R*nk�, .N F+ w.. d ^rtl �' '•� q< � In"1111111,11111"Y. �, 'w. .4�4 4.�. yr�,,.S..;� r..�l),�. {° ' G $�,. .5 a - �'r -V.F �.,ry.: �>r r c , z•Y:,{.3.1.Te_ h. "c — m a -.: i11 \>^rf. +x„ 'it2 'ter •` -"'�. x 3x. ..1,* s} �'- #„ r ' s 4:,.a'''.� sn �}' O - h -.�. Y! �i x -r 11 ,�€ ;c t,}} a ��'+*"yy ` , " S k+� ,x (1 C �, w f>aa sj'';g.,;ay}�' wO. r- ,,'ia, rn�' �, +4' 7 : Y "l ^� L;R iuc Y i .# Y N' t" 2"d"*.- - 'Y F� 1. .ra "`;k i'v V s �C. d't Q '1i 1'!,e 4 ..+qr.w ' "=f's- `.'. s� n y, a _' w..• -x 4 f S'G% �' Sx ss ,�'` d u _ „ '` . .k -w Tg aiy .: $ *v :.'-s+ Mrt1SS,0&.90/1t �Z "*autr # d�'�i Z, i H #."N" ` x3 T` - x .y `�;,' ...� < �, z »^� 39✓Y✓9 r4' 1 a .ghs- ,x+i.`i 1'r .vx - - # x,, N O�tj +e f wYY� -y. xa yr d s� � . e-r yru.-w 1.�. d- xa x -"""_"� -s, , T ae .s+��{'S' ¢a, TM .w� _ i�ajt�'b as a (t s t is „q a b - $ i ; i �� t. i x T� ,� S .!._M1'\qi 1.iC 'S..a' E N V �> * F. It .0 1 r s < ?D Q 1 _ Lrq, $ �x� � sK^ #=3 g` F G =E�'` x i VI ', r �'r.^;! "`'�7 Sg+�"{ F,' 42 � .�� ?a\er i 1�(�,�_2,R �C, ;r,� r�` '`� t �8 �-y"'�'� # 5*Z`,�:gC° " y�� 1��"# =�5-, .1 d -s £ArA`-�$s .y s4`�t> y, c _ r ** : 9 a ,; d�' ,.,,,,; ,r r 2 VA I i+'' 'k #"' Kr 3rx�+ v+�a x'r.sF*. tz T 'E ? - t ..e >a- rf t' (N T t , 'r r '} 'sem- x,,,`m&� ry {JY 'FJ Z' ,[%, g1, �"k'S>�'� Y r` " T� Sc,�✓'S'M J `Y k _.; .f _s �+yY � � �Ie '�'i.... .,, s`' - W r..& Z 2 n -t� tom"`' r, '> e r 'r xz a_.� .0 n �iJ f - � "t s. r ar C ld F„{sr , R' t� sp ", .�� +- a '�,f-�, it ,� s r t : a``.Psr'51 IZ ns 7 - Lm !l1 F �Y1 a s 3,T �. rhe^` t ,4yf f >j'+h. .Ar±t "y Vic: ."7 '"' `,'' j -.'' '" ` ^rats{ l�r,J}J x # cmr 1 y;'>^i�.x. '.�'+'`. j_w aF �> ].,, i, ts` 34' A 3 X . A+' t 7 .}^t..' <y t?��K•.,`" !`-1 F>a. +t#,xo�'a J� `�-� .,fix, „„ `''a k r 1 M. m -S#r'+ru a �' .a5'Y^ $ - fiw�.. ,. L c s 4 r S y z. ,t' t ri' V��/J j .�.w` 8 .k, fi�, I 't, ' 7__ .r •u `� ,x 3�` .a n e f > '+r R, o-r"k. &. t '„f.Ee� ! 4 .: c p -,�,3L5if " arG` , A w s � 's' ; a s.4 C1 Q(� b vfiu s ^.w.P d t+ ` x 3.- y� "" k•.�,;;t rj r`..R ,. nx IF l '�e 1� a> xyta't *' y x* .. r`;E s ` * r t>: v s ra -s-i _1SJ �0 F''".i*` W i Z T -, Y r,,.,, -f— �-�"ro y e t sxr�y�e } $,. - 3��gai4. # }. Q Z m - ,, �y r �,ip c$,y� FS _ �' k C#jlad i' "r>' �3 � +�` - ,nQ p <O M a t t � "S '4„ �Q •" I a 3 ` �'4 /S Cn M Y IrY k _ "5 ; t; Q .0 iuT t a d 41t# r- u ins, n ,�'. a �' .4 1 ; ,:'`1 h- r �.r o y "r €a ; _ M 'z Q O �" L'i I' -�k� t �.�� z'x^ S- k W W V O t., r ^1 a :t �� a i .^r*� • -s tv 1 # Ys %V } Q f - 1 ih. W 1. L X15 f !Q V U. ca .' ¢ I S.�Sx * z:s,.• -,n I�(� -V 11 z t , (L,p% 11� W+- W . O 40 a11 , - � _ w y��i' �j t � � � � � v �. % -+ o � ¢• t ern x W ,,� v► � `�' �- _ '. ,4� # mQ = m iu 4 v 2 J a W` t`�, 't, }(�'�i, c a" .e�. 1 �1�V, (I ,r�'"p+Q 0�t11 -� 'U p Y �11, .,z y �- o {/ ;, `_ '� � J o`� �o �`� I o" 11 .� - t c� � o w - ' f a >- {pp�y� o `E;, I , f i\ 1.1��-int ►_• V .ad �. F >t t _ - Sair Cx3 /4f 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 Planning Commission reviewed the Final Map on its Consent Agenda and recommended acceptance. LAWRENCE STEVENS MUR L. ARDEN Planning Director City Mana er /Ps • M E M O R A N 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 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. LAWRENCE STEVENS Planning Director /Ps 4i,. rr i 'S SNUG ti h�� . _'MA,��'�`�--��. �"�:��- e�. -� �lY��,,��t► �iG ` � �,uv�� a ve,�.co>.�1to►�• • " - a ' A►�O�` ►,� ' A 'ODtt� D[1�1fs QF A M11 1AU M%%or � SWO U; �p�. t`A ,'tO":'L11G A1A4�AV G4A 9Wh% ,qP Pbt�gltJta:= " YE.iLUA1S LAE1i 1F111� •1A1L5 eGPD�S =�� `� a� ,�, '�„� �� 1pDiC0.SL "h1d'i':COUYb131101JbiR'�,•'�Dy."''`p�J6pP,p'(i0�.}:;b'tb'IP.MS 5�" �CR`.CP4If84t'ia�C1K �t?Y(��. 'O�' �� .IOY•'".M3 s QLC1:2l1ASlVE PY1`IQSf. '.._ D (� V - � � �,z est lk ,eP.gt c>;er,D �.. ,�� .. .r� ,, �o �„ .� 81�t11,�irtystUC'�R.a R�tL[tLl. "`ibk. Y.fAt�►'R.GD a 9C+P1;U9t1JC�> lWb1� !b_tsiP►lti1NJY4' WAR � � CQ6l CCPV t ODt11D �ttt�lOUt .'CAW+Pt.1dUc.E" VIA _ f X10 6edot+�se .Sudu. toMtmt z r <r t'_oav W1i1100{ dU` APPROPRIA�>; P�M1S :W'p--°GgMMlhwG WI u1 -, : k�� a � QPPL1Cb6LE C ll Oe t1JQY1Jc=PS s k, "' " � ' � �3� PCIJf M4CERSdLS�fOR ;' tteuGKUQESl1dL4 RAI - x *SeyIft WE R � A 6 �� fr 4� 'uE ?e1VQtG DQiVEVIb't S11Q 6ti lMPR1�vEO Bio b g" x� , r N�UtMUM W1PCll Of 'iWE1.YE (12) FGCf Wt411 dU 111JO>3SfKUCt [ q g �" qo' �' s +VtilZ41CAL Cl°LbGAI"�C. qF fOU�Z! U14 fPL( � + WES— eros t_ s• i^s ;R. ue< �.��••-^� �� F.;� of_'6�1.4�oA 4AaD 6G'(W7✓<;t5 'SIVE 'cwo FOt�t; 3 f— -14b At '{Il1a A10P1LIPASI Q!'C tgi'1JEQ "' tU( 10 . ' min 51� °Q +u '.r a. " 6�1t3c. ,tJO�fA AS 91gi°�Q�r, �.[• a ` re cry fWw? MODUM iJ(S AS WO St;O VM - - qy �, ;.tJ1N� tZcp D11zA�¢Ets; ta veoVtpt; , ,V;�; 1a0S- �iD b4f�15t itJ' d CAPtitlt, i1h7EQV��1J"� ��C�� °- ��"'; `-�-��s � �^ib'P�CWS'tetlC'( 8d1:6pA -�Q 84: 0 oil u1S } . YYAYof`t{�ila1P °ii1A4� of INtr -0m,BL' CCuf t F�tOJfM. 2SLti1V UAW 1S 'to Pt;MA\U �tU � � iP.fff�.t fq2 'tMiA `f p dQS ft!AM RFf OY V 114too a WM z �'-�'WlS :;,�MY •x'ss�'."1�`*",t�•y� .�a��T � �M-FRPSA . v � -. rt'1 ,2�sz,.,; -€^-':-> , 'r -F s ',.,r`# ,.a ,'� :: ��,�� atF�rr 9�y,��'.w� �`�,*� � .K z �K""�"'"[,,z`f-y�r(.,(-� �„E'�,3�.,�.s�. � �.'..°�� •� - t � `�Qjy, a xrr s- --8,• gr, ss� �, i V v 1 11 gj,m' b`E9, fv tt 4C 4A4k4 -a �QD� a ,r �', v �k _IP..PC� Z0244'$ - •s:� fpR f!T l9 03l # �,. � ^o-��s�`�3`r�+...�.�'�_ �e x vs%'k ..�s�r-�.s �„ a � ,a e ri. r� VO ; ��*�,,.. "'� sg'g��', "'"��...'� -w�.,,.� 1J3°3 t5 15 �.� �,�063Zfi e. .r->(�� ,,"bra � _•�"w � f ss r s a ate' -� y r 4 u} rT-� -` Off% P.�,��r '�` ✓ - fir.« 3- t 8.' �.+v i4 Eft� r I t � k ':�§ .,rkaf+^a M"`r`' 3' e""�.yz r '. -�� ,.rye-.�✓`�-�a:� zka"'�', �d..,S"�t ,r��'�` h jh a m° �;E �'f`�..c_��"`.+�wIK Jr �.��r��rc�,+c-rr�¢g�� si,�'} `��.�y`,� a 3 y y a t J as t"• as'ct 'L Z k "_ a •5 s t '*'La.,fr , � -.�!�:r .3. : .� r «• ��._ � � � Via" 1 .IJf�VV�`Ta- V "�� -_`�t.��`rk'�° zc�*w,+ "'j'�,ra�.. � ��,�� , �d r � � � � �''w a b.n-sem.wi•a' S 6: • �-� � .� �y M'{t � Ott�a �7 x� � +r'a'K z i.£. s�a-'a��'h-` �.x "i � Ak9 ` am � 7� �,�s (1 {� NV e V,c � •r{ e ��,�,, x��''^-'`a .c �� x y �+ tl,«a + � � �µ�� fi��fi,.,, �..��,�u tib'*" f : x s`v._ f�.:�^. ? >;z; .c-1,029.00 -'� ,s,.-x °; ,� t: � "��., �`..y,---•��•• ��rq a4w°^s� ''� v.,v ,es.�'•r3E�,�.-« ass ,�,+s,��a..aE�-S 'Jj 15 Lr "�1,0061Z � � ,t. _f'p.'..Lab • 14°J JQ a. tj LE Q ' r r p4i3 1�C77 a! �a� t f ar aasTex 15 N i 0 M_E_M_O_R ATN_D_U M_ TO: City Council i 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 last Council meeting 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 the Council 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 Plan is a 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 thereis 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 to allow access from Amapoa to the McMillan property. If it is the Council ' s desire to change that policy state- ment, and assuming there is no 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. • • 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 enter an objection 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 • • ill CITY OF ATASCADERO r ' RFl � �a� Planning Department April 20, 1981 1918 G C. - CI 1979 STAFF REPORT \ m00% SUBJECT: Departmental Review R810330 : 1 LOCATION:, 8375 Morro Road (Lot 12, Block EC) APPLICANT: David R. McMillan (Chidlaw) a 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 . 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. II 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: a"14'� Al'� � LAWRENCE STEVENS Planning Director • /Ps i., -�� J= �� f-- •�{'Q l�f frlr if a;– el B` 1 Bp —' t^ , P.; err 2 P E� !4 �•, 3• �cj�., py.\e�/ ��y - 1. B� � .td � 9 – 13- rp 3p 3 8 32 r ti 33 / 39. 3 f S r�Sr _ tv 6 aZ 26 34-q 9 4p49i l� i�-Sa 14 S-A A o " 2,? _ f 15� P y � r. !O CN P r 2Q 1 iV T 9 53 _ 1'.93" � c t4 -�-: _, t r8, � fg � S • -I2J 63 UT 2S 60 2'' t z k i uo: 17 G f6 62 , y9 iT i/4 5 2 �s,�Y f3 63 np tiZ`x i t v 27 6 14 Yom ' !8 3 c B3 �7vy�� (4 4 13 �� Q/a m _ 23 15 ► RF 2gz f2 &� � - 17 II� 47 _ i y f j � ' �8` r`� S s �t � `�,�5`'�•7�f - 6-A. -` �� wr�a• � ;�g�-.. fig.- � � k'4 f ' -- rs=�– 10 Q � _ i CQ b 1 !/ •� � it �a\50 rL P 5-A � e,, L � � t vii ! i s 39 4 s` 26 0 a/ T 3t \� 6 `` �5 �53 `g R - `�'�'-A ate.--}.•y- �'� s�1 X07" /2 /�L,rl ,t�C' t M "+:v .r•*aw.��-s v.-.s+-c-� r�,,� -.Y+nZi- k='�•9 s 'Y;.'ix`.la- : -:-.m .� -^'�..+n _.....�j i �C� , ,`t 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 t g o object to an assessment district; #3 - (requiring a landscape planto upgrade existing landscaping) g) 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 (itis 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. • LAWRENCE STEVENS MU L. /WARDEN Planning Director City Manaper /Ps • l � � I r� i r ' a �7 F. li i a �A t►.1 Aia E jO Y. Z.0 or NAJ A. �,�►rY- c+F- waa .. 1 1 i i i w ate. y INV 4^f'. f 3ZA S4- - v J� Co- CT ¢- W A 6rcr ti Lj -------------------- N s "t n ��S1�FtJo_` a Additional cop-nereia! !and uses shall be desiqnated Gn . 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 they are con nient for commutinq 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 locatedat intersections of major inter-community routes where perman` t accesses are constructed and which have some high aesthetic value. Development of these areas shall relate strictly t the environmental and aesthetic principles suggested in e Atascadero Policy statement and outlined in the COMA?UNITY APPEARANCE Tl T]TT T T T T �. .�„L - y yg J 9 plan. 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 arter ' onl with estabtishm . .- 1 e Or 1e ? 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 A Professional Office ca- egv is proposed along the west side of Morro Road between Curbarian�te;nd San Andres Road. Access to properties shall be from ar. aY tem' only. . is—catee�orv—i- re� ee _ , 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 ' since it has been previously applied to two Zone Changes (Washburn 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 Mo 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 owner shall enter into an agreement with the City to waive his right to refuse to partipate in a future assessment district, or similar joining parti- 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 maybe 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 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 amounttobe 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 F 1 V-E Resolution No. 16-81 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 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 R810330 :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 : � NOES : ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ROBERT J. WILKINS, JR. , Mayor ATTEST: MURRAY L. WARD N, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO ORM: ALLEN GRIMES , City Attorney M_E M_O^R A N_D U M 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 light of the moratorium and the moratorium itself. It was • 9 1\1 -8 �'� M^E M^O_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 Commission conducted a 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 of parking 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 decisionof the Planning Commission was received. LAWRENCE STEVENS MURRA:V L. WARDEN Planning Director City Man ger e CITY OF ATASCADERO ro•�_ G C, 'r 0 � �°•�•� Planning Department May 18, 1981 1918 ! r (' 1979 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 25' 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 front and rear 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 . ' 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. less 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. Thereare 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: MARY E. EATIE Associate Planner REPORT APPROVED BY: - /C24�� LAWRENCE STEVENS • Planning Director /Ps • .l i N TRAFFIC WAY W W d2e•3TW _ 47f.e0 � U N • T "_ N L �•1 /I0.69 ° qz�,_ 35 1 W I 0.76m\J V (nd OW� 305 25 2f,.6i•` D. ' kA y , rn •� > . 132.90 , I o u, o N J '� D O m133.97 �• 30 25 ^5 •• rn W ly. W O w 1't -'~^ Ul n 137.1 i N V Q 13 .6 JO 28 25 27.63 •, I Ia rn V IW ENTRADA AVE. G �^ 3 m �S2e°3T'w. A Q 41 Z L796. 029 2S 35 30 25 25 23.b3a n 4 x IIJfI :, m Z ro W ;< 00.16 zs G ml Ul cn H +.. �,V/1�1 .T•� I!fI 4—.S..W .IO�_1W.1.HA2.06_`�n•r ch Ln 0) r/ WV nN•i �W�•P� WW WA0v) Uh0:1 5 30 2 5 25 21R.d'vF 107. 0 .� 3 acrl ae.37 32.8 27 A` PH N613 Ni 35 44 N I ^ 72 a 72 a is S 17s�:f :7.67 ✓, � n J c v m o n N n z y .� „ pm WEST MALL --- ` a p A 0 U -� N 12 45 29 1 \ �6 — ro, ss H P- 14 i4 aT 28 o -� '�• 48 15 Rt I 49 2 16 :° 50 1 d -► ` / p 2 _ / /0 7� • � . � � P-2 2 to c/�.o , doe �• , -" fes.ASO ,�•• .- O�, • '. , 1` s eo 19 r l_ i y ly <. •1 s a � r ,lei/ v r \ � "'''1 `fists'• � ,W t7°•� r<� ` ' � 1 t►�, , 6 19/1, VCo302fq /]7,-, e ' oy�� . Z.oit)/A) MAP ,S J A B rnZ2-3 %• e 8Z40rX \\ U r:. .qq — _ jI • =L C-� _ i - _ _.._ - ..-. _ __.._._ _..__. . --_.. may{, MOR o Air, Co w u_ /_ F � J1 Jt " q, '��Ct.`� ..,r-�t��-�+•fs�i�i .111 t.f U1 L & '5& MILIN RANcb P. O. BOX 1294 - SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA 93406 May 29 , 1981 Mr. Lawrence Stevens Planning Director P 0 Box 747 Atascadero , Ca. 934.06 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. Spradlvin I� M E M O R A N 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 Rd. and 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 PlanningDepartment. 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 0 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-1-2z On June 1, 1981 the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the requested zoning change unanimously adopting Findings 1-2 as listed in the attached 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. C� LAWRENCE STEVENS MUR Y WARDEN Planning Director City Ma ager /P s .. -- � CITY OF ATASCADERO a f.ir,� r �L11 1979, Planning Department June 1, 1981 STAFF REPORT SUBJECT: Zone Change 2810429 :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-1-232- BACKGROUND -1-22BACKGROUND 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 10% to 500 - 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-1-22 in order to accommodate a proposed lot division of two lots at 22 acres each. Page Two Re: Zone Change Z810429 :1 June 1, 1981 STAFF COMMENTS The zoning ordinance provides the following for the existing zoning: Average Minimum Lot Size Related to A Slope Over District Density 0-10% 10-15% 15-20% 20-25% 25-300 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 be less than 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. w • Page Three re: Zone Change Z810429 :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 15-30o 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 s.- 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 BEAUE, As to Planner' REPORT APPROVED BY: annina Director T&TAtCAht i.? CO f 1�ir nt1�d t r�•\, if r� i � r / ..4j9e os 4 os- �. \\ k CV i � � TI,09 A LVA2200 /�_ LSE M P san Marcos a 2 uq. R—A—g-D—i—p &D-I-D �y Iz,q—�—� ► v A-1-22 a � Qv �— q—� 2o-v 3-520 A-I-Ii o A-i-6-V-5 k A-�-e-v-5 A-J-1 z SITE 1 A-1-6-v-5 ZONA)) , MAP A-`-610905 &n Marcos Zoe- -oz z/cr.A 60 M E M O 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 as provided in the attached Staff Report. At the May 4 hearing, there was considerable discussion by the Planning Commission on the purpose 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 I I Il 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. �/4474�� A L LAWRENCE STEVENS U Y L WARDEN Planning Director C ty Ma ager /PS - CITY OF ATASCADERO r� e:PIFiyr �r. r �' r; Planning Department June 15 1981� P 1913 R r. rI i'197 I cr �"ili, \ CAD �/ 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 slots z�on11 x� dwellings for mobileM"fiomefi � 'n compatibility. 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 sea. ), 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, incZuding a charter city, county, or city and county may designate Zots zoned for singZe-famiZy dwellings for mobiZehomes as described in this section, which Zots are determined to be compattble for such mobiZehome use. A city, including a charter city county, or city and county may subject any such /r 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 equirements, '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 0 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 mobilehomes 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 Plans 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. Itis 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 allow architectural 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 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 the underlying zone. 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 -dw 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 structural integrity 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 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: \ (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: 11 (6) One mobilehome dwelling, as provided by Section 22.80. 050 (3) . f ! • Page Nine Staff Report: Zoning Ordinance Amendment ZA 81042,0 :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. I I REPORT PREPARED/APPROVED BY 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 : -Section-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 systema 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 issuance of a 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. r 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. i 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 r ALLEN GRIMES, City Attorney in �V< M E M O RAN D U M 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, you should make a motion with your decisions allocating Revenue Sharing funds for Fiscal Year 1981-82 . WARDEN 'FR4RAY W:ad • 6-17-81 M_E M O R_A N_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 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 further negotiations this 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 yet resolved on 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 an August 15th 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 1981-82Budget 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. I WARDEN M W:a 5-17-81 r AUGMENTED RESPONSIBILITIES . IPJ EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES FOR - SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY With Special Reference to: • Advanced Pre-Hospital Life Supportl(E.MT-II) Certification and Licensure (EMT-I , EMT-II) Functi.oning of the EMS System Howard W. Mitchell , MD, MPH Health Officer June 1, 1981 TABLE OF CONTENTS PROLOGUE i I.. INTRODUCTION _ II. STATEMENT Of NEED 4 III. GOALS & OBJECTIVES 4 Goa] Curriculum Training Objective EMS Agency Objectives Operation Objectives IV. ACTIVITIES 5 V. ROLE OF EMT-I g VI. EVALUATION g VII. BUDGET IO 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 fore, lized its intent that such services shallcontinue 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 life support systems , but there is some-ambiguity in the Act as to -whether this is -amandatory or discretionary l responsibility (compare Sections 1797.206 and 1797.2 • Consultation with the newly appointed Director 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 medical services program, then the County would be required .to designate a local EMS Agency. (Section 1797.200) . Such an Agency may only be one of the following entities.. (Section 1797.200) : 1. The County Health Depart;r;ent. 2. An agency established and operated by the County. (8.9- 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 Alecy would be responsible for t9administration 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 NSA and the State EMS Authority.' (Section 1757.254) 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 1797.255) Bcause 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. INTRODUCTION An advanced pre-hospital life support program can save lives and.i;-prove a person's chance for full recovery by providing upgraded 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 Lalifornia, 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. The emergency services systems which-have worked for large metro-politan 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 new kind of advanced pre-hospital life support person who has been designated as an Emergency Medical Technician-II. The program INlickey S. Eisenberg, MD,MPH; Lawrence Bergner, MD, MPH:"Alfred • Halls trom, 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 them 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 l i fe,_support we—propose involves three organizational components. The first would be the training and certification of UMT-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 r- 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 system. 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 Wnty Medical .Comnunication SyW located at the Sheriffs Department. When an ambulance or emergency vehicle mould be dispatched- to the scene, the EMT-TI would assessthe 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 then 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 smallo ulation of our P P county, it is believed that :the nurse coor- dinator and medical director necessary for the training and certifi- c<tion 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 fs 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 . H. STATEMENT OF NEED i 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 ainiay; 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 de-mand for EMT-II`s 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 systema `- 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 1081-82. Emergency Medical Services Agency Objectives : 1. To coordinate emergency medical services systems via planning, implementation and evaluation. 2. To fRelop policies and procedures Mand. advanced assure medical con 1 of limited life support (Eh9 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 cornnunity 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 s 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 ENT's. 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 2Based .on study done in Seattle (reference sited above). V the program.Ot would be .conducted in the Joke fashion, i .e. , there would be an introductory module, an intravenous module, an advanced airtiray 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 perfo n advanced lire support. procedures in the field under the medical control of the base hospital . Skillsproficiency would then be monitored on at least a monthly basis to insure that high level of emergency medical care Mould be continuously maintained:: California Senate Bill 125 mandated that if, a county, establishes- emergency medical services, a local Emergency Medical Systems Agency must be designated. In San Luis Obispo County that local ETIS Agency should be the County Health Department. TheJealth 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, as described .below. The EMS Agency would be responsible for the` administrition 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 4cal Health Systems Agency and the State . 9 Y 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-II skills include: I. Starting intravenous fluids = to give life-saving medicines . in case of heart attack and fluids for-shock due to blood loss 2_. Provide an esophageal airway - to prevent the inhalation 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:ROLE:(�MT-I • California Senate Bili 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 regulations 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 Mould 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 proceces 'in an acceptable and timely fashion, 2. The planning, implementation and evaluation of emergency medical services following accepted medicalstandards. 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 1 $ 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 *Atascadero 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 Nurse Coordinator (Head Nurse .level) _ 18,180 Clerk (2 FTE ITC) 4,919 Sub-total N- 43,899 Fringe Benefits @ 8121. 3,951 . Training Time: MD's @ $30/hr for 75 hr 2,250 RN.'s @ $20/hr for 75 hr a1,500 Sub-total 3,750 Total Salaries 51,600 Rent ($150/moth) - - 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 be absorbed by participating hospitals and' ambulance companies. *Amount for each city was determined bya per capita ration with the exception of Morro Bay who has committed $3,000 to the program. A State Grant of AB-8 S.N.A.P. Fundshasbeen applied for. . VIII'. JOB DESC*IONS San Luis Obispo County JOB TITLE: Emergency Medical 'Services Medical Director DESCRIPTION OF BASIC FUNCTION AND RESPONSIBILITY: Responsible for.the overall supervision of tho training program, and quality control of emergency medical services.. TYPICAL DUTIES: . -- SuLervision of the recruitment; selection and orientation of instructors and examiners. -- Supervision of all EMT-II training and testing activities. -- Approval of curricula, examinations, teaching materials , protocols , textbooks, and other materials. dsed 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. ' JOB REQUIREMENTS: -- Physician licensed by the State of California; -- ,experienced in emergency medical care, including advanced cardiac lige support. San Luis Obio County • JOB TITLE-: Emergency ,Medi cal Services -Training Coordinator DESCRIPTION OF BASIC FUNCTION AND RESPONSIBILITY: To plan and coordinate the Advanced Emergency Medical Technician (EI-IT-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 EMT-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 meth cal contro r 1 o, EMT-I and EMT-II -- Write , and submit. emergency medical services plan. -- Public and provider education of the grant. -- Perform related work 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 direr- tions to the proper office or location; answers 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 of office machines; keeps and maintains records. JOB REQUIREMENTS: Knowledge of: Correct English usage, spelling, grammar and punc E'Li on; modern office practices and procedures; proper telephone etiquette; alphabetical , numerical 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. Intermediate1st Cle r!c Cont d • EDUCAT ION/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 be substituted for the one year of required experience. . .ttaV x x :e x x U btu{ x x x o rq a I ' .> :l z) x x x x x x �. o un x x >: }: .� (Inf x x x .� 0 O o a O 4-3 U 0 :, cs M. .� : u CISu O P , E •U N ti Ft O $4 4-3 -r4 o t, � $4 U •a cs ,r{.$A + sa �V C3 o 4 A 44.4 o 1-4 N W •d O � < c� O -O v O $4 O NC) 0 0 0 ,� v O .i 4J U 4J U U 41 •O QO x Ufa m (Z) A "U p t�� tn • G q r a Q t- N CV 1 lq I tom-. a p 4J P O U U r N -1 N 0 +j c/) Ll •r t - cd U 114 -�' y Y Cit ^v W 41La .i � N PJ U H .� N .rN rt U —1 U t F-•t E. cd 0 , 14 O U O c3 14 > i-+ v C { v "� .,{ • l0 V) L }.: 4-J cd tG C. r( N c7 C _V .i C C, w w U S: c Pr C) •r- •ri tr •i -• U t O d N $4 -0 C c; N N cd U ••.3 ? ? � `{ •.i 1-4 U •r i U S+ C)" 4.3 U 4-J > 44 N .0 N _ n O 0 : O •,{ C •.� c"- Sl O •C cd U cd U O < P. TUU N H U ,C - .� o U N N �l t^ G' t-0G' p 3 ^ 7 V; •.t U U i� a r{ O r•-q > U - •F' C om( U • < O U •4 N •� r 1 r-t c, C U 0 U < V] N U cs o U U-H ?-) ::1f: k U z Cr ao r1 1.3 U St P i-) t:.--t S4 tL •rf C ad U N cd cd ."7 C M -4 .� N Se U •ri 0 $4 ed rt E N .--c -,-q C E� >, e o 0 >. ;4J 4.10 •.•1 0 .-i N M ;t 14 N M d' u' N - r1 � r oH • N U cd •-i N H C E :. H :� •d N 1J G U V C) •H .,-q c.. s O .,1 0 0 H •j s. cis C0. U S>-C 4- �, (" o U, Q. .0 N .-4 ct7 ) tn Q u7 �' N N P cl t0 4 U .••c U ,`yQ -4 P O . _0 .4J t=. •0 H O •U LQ -4 U N U a M O U U e U O O L: t•+ tz cs i4 H r .-I U U P r U V) ,C O " 2 L S•+ O !4 W •� G Z cd C •ri c +� f+ 4J O W C.M 0 f+ 41 U z U W 4+ •C3 N U u7 I=L '� F-c O O U ��+ c; U L7 U U Sc U U (� U St U U E- !+ .0 d > •+ O U GC)U Q > C, > O Cd Cs 0 •rt .11 V: C1 � V � 0- C, c3 •14 O U +3 4J � V1 .~ � U T>+ ,E U •N U W. � c'. N H 0 ?.Cl. ;;.) 0 cC 0 U :3 0 v W O 0 0 0 0 C3 F 11 C U ^ U I , w rd . 'J N N O 4-+ - v O •r•t O O i4 N 4-3 Cd i•' r1 H E-4rQ U l N O r i U c3 CLI - - aCJr-f - - H - U - .N O • .4 tq � V � N H z }U+ Z U N t U cd 0 LO)41 P. - t t0�� t_7 •r�i cid 1-4 4-J t� 5 F UCd •� Q — C) to 0 4J o w ` N WCf tn d N Q p J ? v uj d Q w N ca L-n C ? O U J \ N cC . 63 o C�- N UA 03 N < Cod" o U `L < NLL- me m-�r to.D _ $ • j' � ,;� ; . - -gyp • -i J t / % ' • i ^' ` �� stn /* /* 14 it 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. -- Mahoney, L.E. , MD, MPH. "A Preliminary Report Submitted to the California Conference of Local Health Officers. January, 1981. Moorhead, Geo,.•ge; 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 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 Senior Citizens Unite ncl�0JUN , of Atascadero, Garden Farms, Santa Margarita and Templeton 5905 EAST MALL P. O. BOX 239 �/ ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA 93423 �V0�1 PHONE:.(805) 466-4674 June 8, 1981 Murrey Warden, City Manager City of Atascadero P. 0. Box 747 ' Atascadero, Ca. 93423 Dear Mr. Marden: 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 S.33 cents per mile up to 600 miles per month for use within the city limits. Also, that thecity continue to pay the insurance on the above • vehicle, a Ford station wagon - 1968 model - 8J71F132856 I.D. Sincerely, Ethel F. Hagan - President r • "IVE CARE" enior Citize-ns Uniter nc. R r r of Atascadero, Garden Farms, Santa Margarita and Templeton 5905 EAST MALL • P. O. BOX 239 `} , ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA 93423 PHONE: (805) 466-4674 May 15, 1981 Murray Warden, City Manager City of Atascadero P. 0. Box 747 Atascadero, Oa. 93423 i Dear Mr. Warden: 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 and 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. $200.00 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 fin-ancial assista__�e from them--to - cover the additional costs -f energy, use of facilities or paper goods. We _rope you will give our request your earnest consideration. Sincerely, Ethel F. Hagan — President 13 „IVE CARE" M_E_M_O_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 nuisances on the lots posted would be appropriate. You should realize that the costs of r abatement will be placed on the affected property owner' s tax bill and collected through the normal tax collection process. i Y L WARDEN :ML ad ' 6-17-81 • M E M O R A N D U M r - - - - - - - - - - TO: City Council 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 underProposition 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 r RESOLUTION NO. 18-81 A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO APPROVING THE BUDGET FOR THE 1980-1981 FISCAL YEAR AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS 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 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 a non-budgeted item shall constitute an approval to issue a warrant in paymen-C 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 � 33 M E Nt O RAN 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 - E 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 year's 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 approval of the City Attorney, to sign the necessary documents . *W: L. WA �- 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 RESOLVED that the 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 calf 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 AGREEMENT THIS INDENTURE OF LEASE, made and entered into this 1st day of June, 1981 by and between the STATE OF CALIFORNIA, acting by and through its duly appointed, qualified, and acting Director of General Services, with the consent and approval of the Director of Mental Health, hereinafter called the State, and the City of Atascadero, hereinafter called the Lessee. WITNESSETH: 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 14671., 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 go boun= fence; and on the northeast by a line representing 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 Mental 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 from the exercise of this lease or the occupation of the premises herein permitted to • be used of the premises of the State to which 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 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. t -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 CALIFOM IA, 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- 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 thereof 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 P.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 State .t:?:7_ -tot be liabl-3 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 other person • 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 • � t -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. (18) 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 -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, a 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 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 WHEREOF, 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 14ENTAL :H,ALTH By By Division Director _ Title STATE OF CALIFORNIA Approved By: DEPART114ENT OF GENERAL SERVICES By Ralph Goeken, Hospital Adminiotrator Atascadero State Hospital I hereby certify that all conditions for exemptions set forth in State Administrative Manual Section 1209 have been complied with and this document is exempt from review by the Department of Finance. By • AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into between 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. 11, 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 0 assigned litigation and trial work, including disciplinary -1- AG: f r 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 • 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 I 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 f 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. ZZ ),-- (7 iRoy 7L /W ARDEN MLW:ad • 6-17-81