HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 11/25/1985 (2) NOTE:O E. THERE WILL BE AN OPEN STUDY SESSION REVIEWING THE 1984/85
• AUDIT AND FIRST QUARTER FINANCIAL REVIEW AT 6 : 30 P.M. IN
THE FOURTH FLOOR CLUB ROOM
NOTE: THERE WILL BE A CLOSED SESSION REGARDING LITIGATION
(Barret vs City of Atascadero) AT CLOSE OF COUNCIL MEETING
IN THE FOURTH FLOOR CLUB ROOM
AGENDA
ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL
Regular Meeting
ATASCADERO ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
FOURTH FLOOR ROTUNDA ROOM
November 25, 1985 AT 7: 30 P.M.
** Intoduction of New Employee Steve De Camp, Senior Planner ,
Community Development Department
Call to Order
Pledge of Allegiance
Invocation
Roll Call
City Council Comments
A. CONSENT CALENDAR:
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
All matters listed below 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 seperate discussion of
these items. If discussion is required, that item will be
removed from the Consent Calendar and considered seperately.
Vote may be by roll call.
1. Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of November 12, 1985
i
2. Approval of Treasurers Report, October 1-31, 1985
3. Approval of Finance Director 's Report, October 1-31, 1985
4. Authorization Requested for Mayor to Enter into Agreement
with Neal Feaver for Computer Consultation Services
• 5. Approval of 1985/86 Library Agreement Renewal
0 ._. •
6. Tentative Parcel Map 27-85 - Ellison/Twin Cities Engineering
10390 Santa Ana Road (Lot 34 , Block 26) (Division of 10 .11
acres into two 4. 00 and 6 .11 acre parcels)
7. Zoning Enforcement Status Report
8. Ordinance No. 113 - Zone Change 6-85 - Planning Commission
Request to Revive Minimum Lot Size Performance Standards
Formula in the RS, RSF-Z, and LSF-Z Zones (Cont'd from
11/12/85) (SECOND READING)
9. Authorization for Public Works Director to enter into an
agreement with Fred Schott Associate for engineering and
architectural services for Phase IIA - Renovation of
Administration Building
10. Final Parcel Map 4-85 - 10550 San Marcos Road - Atkinson/
Kennaly Engineering
11. Final Tract Map 27-84 —5319 Honda - Marazzo/Gage/Kennaly
Engineering
12. Final Lot Line Adjustment 8-85 - 6295 Flores
13. Motion Accepting City of Atascadero Financial Audit for
Fiscal Year 84-85, ending June 30 , 1985 (verbal)
14. Motion Authorizing expenditure of $100 to provide
sponsoring of the Vision 2000 Conference
B. ATASCADERO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
(Council will recess and convene as the Atascadero County
Sanitation Distict Board of Directors)
1. Proposed Annexation into the Atascadero County Sanitation
District:
A. Public Hearing on the following Proposed Annexations
into the Atascadero County Sanitation District (Cont,d
from 10/14, 10/28, and 11/12/85) .
a. Lots 73-87, Marchant Way
b. Lots 66-72, Santa Rosa Road
C. Lots 11-16 , Santa Rosa Road
B. Proposed Resolution 118-85 (Alternate 6) - Approving
Annexation for Improvement District #3 (Lots 73-87,
Marchant Way, Lots 66-72, Santa Rosa Road and Lots
• 11-16, Santa Roas Road (Cont,d from 10/14, 10/28, and
11/12/85)
C. Proposed Resolution 123-85 (Alternate 2) - Approving
• Annexation for Improvement District #3 (Lots 66-87 ,
Block JC Marchant Way and Santa Rosa Road)
2. Report on Seperado & Cayucos proposed Sewer Assessment
District (Cease and Desist Area)
3. Motion Accepting Atascadero County Sanitation District
Audit Report for Fiscal Year 84-85 ending June 30, 1985
(The Board of Directors will adjourn and reconvene as the City
Council)
C. HEARINGS, APPEARANCES, AND REPORTS
1. Public Hearing- Zone Change 7-85 - Urban Sciences Inc./
Dodson 8425 El Bordo (Lot 27, Block 442) - Zone Change from
RSF-Z to L (PD5)
2. Appeal by Gifford of Planning Commission denial of
Conditional Use Permit 16-85, 6455 Santa Lucia (23 Unit
Elderly Facility)
• 3. Appeal of Planning Commission action allowing removal of
the Sycamore tree at 7040 El Camino to allow expansion
of a Kentucky Fried Chicken Restaurant
4. Appeal by Sherer of City procedures, which do not allow
installation of permanent electrical power until final
inspection
D. NEW BUSINESS
1. Proposed Resolution 127-85 - Setting Public Hearing Date
regarding posssible establishment of a Business Improvement
Association
2. General Plan Conformity Report - Request to offer Graves
Creek Reservation No. 8 to City - 11725 Santa Lucia
F. COMMUNITY FORUM
G. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION
1. City Council
• 2. City Attorney
3. City Clerk
4. City Treasurer
4-1
MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL
Regular Meeting, November 12 , 1985 , 7 : 30 p.m.
Atascadero Administration Building
*The Regular Meeting of the Atascadero City Council was called to order at
7: 30 p.m. by Mayor Nelson, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL
Present: Councilmembers Mackey, Molina, Norris and Mayor Nelson.
Absent: None
STAFF
Mike Shelton, City Manager; Thomas 1Morlan, Acting City Legal Counsel;
Bud McHale, Police Chief; Henry Engen, Community Development Director;
Paul Sensibaugh, Public Works Director; Joel Moses , Associate Planner;
Meg Morris , Assistant Planner; Cindy Wilkins , Deputy City Clerk; Robert
Jones, City Attorney/City Clerk (arrived approx. 9: 35 p.m. ) .
COUNCIL COMMENT
Councilwoman Mackey, on the advice of the City Attorney, asked if Coun-
cil would support the citizens' appeal of the Planning Commission' s
decision allowing for the removal of the sycamore tree at Kentucky Fried
Chicken; Council ' s support would allow for an additional public hearing
as well as eliminate the $100 fee requirement for appeals . Based on
their lack of information relating to this issue , Council concurred to
allow for the normal appeal process to take place , if initiated.
Councilwoman Norris congratulated Emile LaSalle , present in the audience ,
for his recent election to the. A.U.S.D. Board.
Mayor Felson proclaimed the month of November as both National Hospice
Month and Veterans' Unity Month.
A. CONSENT CALENDAR
Note: re: Item #6, Mike Shelton, City Manager , briefly summarized this
item.
re: Item #2 , Mayor Nelson asked that the item be entitled "Pro-
posed Resolution 124-85" , omitting the subsequent wording, as
some of the Councilmembers felt the wording to be misleading.
1 . Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of October 28 , 1985
2 . Proposed Resolution 124-85
3. Authorization Requested for Public Works Director to Enter into a
5-Year Elevator Maintenance Agreement with Tri-County Elevator Co.
4. Claim by Lennette Tingey (unspecified amount) (RECOMMEND DENIAL)
5. Proposed Resolution 125-85 - Authorizing a Procedure for the Des-
truction of Police Records
•6. Motion Directing City Clerk to Advertise for Interested Applicants
to Serve as Citizen Representative to the Citizens Transit Advisory
Committee
1
COUNCIL MINUTES - 11/1285
PAGE THREE
4L nit project was included in the system) ; having been paying for several
years, she expressed concern about possibly losing the opportunity to hook
up should the 90 "slots" be filled up. Paul Sensibaugh responded that the
existing lost were included in that estimate , however, potential lot splits
weren't figured in.
MOTION: By Director Mackey that the Board go along with the wishes of the
property owners and continue this item to their Nov. 25th meet-
ing, seconded by Director Norris; passed unanimously.
MOTION: By Director Handshy that the Board adjourn and reconvene as the
Atascadero City Council, seconded by Director Mackey; passed unan-
imously.
C. HEARINGS, APPEARANCES AND REPORTS
1. Public Hearing - Appeal by Gary Mulholland of a 10-foot Sidewalk Re-
quirement for an RMF-16 Project at 5550 Traffic Way
Henry Engen, Community Development Director , gave background summary
on this item, with further staff report from Paul Sensibaugh, Public
Works Director.
Public Comment
Gary Mulholland, applicant, proposed that the City staff perform a
pedestrian traffic study and determine what size sidewalk should be
used as a policy, bringing their findings back to Council for an open
public hearing on the issue.
Mr. Engen reported that he had received a letter supporting the appeal
from a party (E. Grinnell) in Vancouver , WA.
Councilman Molina questioned the policy of not requiring sidewalks on
the industrial side of the street. Councilman Handshy and Councilwom-
an Mackey expressed concern over school children traffic. Mayor Nelson
and Councilwoman Norris stated that a sidewalk policy for the area
should be set as a public Council-level decision.
MOTION: By Councilwoman Norris that staff perform pedestrian traffic stud-
y and bring back their findings to Council for public hearing,
seconded by Councilman Handshy; passed unanimously.
2. Public Hearing - Zone Change 6-85 - Planning Commission Request to
Revise :Minimum Lot Size Performance Standards Formula in the RS , RSF-Z
and LSF-Z Zones. (This involves the substitution of specific site in-
formation in the septic suitability factor instead of using generalized
soils data, and to consider elimination of the 20% lot size reduction
adjustment option. )
Henry Engen, Comm. Develop. Director , gave staff report.
No public comment.
M0OTION: By Councilwoman Mackey that Mayor Nelson read proposed Ord. 113 by
title only, seconded by Councilman Molina; passed unanimously.
Mayor Nelson read proposed Ord. 113 by title only.
3
COUNCIL MINUTES - 11/f/85
PAGE FOUR
MOTION: By Councilwoman Mackey that this constitutes the first reading
of proposed Ord. 113 , seconded by Councilman Molina; passed
unanimously. Second reading will be at the Nov. 25th meeting.
3. Public Hearing - Zoning Enforcement Hearings : Nuisance Abatement
Thomas Morlan, representing the City' s legal counsel, Morlan & Jones ,
outlined the purpose and procedures for abatement hearings.
Oaths were administered to Henry Engen, Comm. Develop. Director, Joel
Moses, Associate Planner , and Meg Morris , Assistant Planner , (who all
testified on behalf of the City utilizing the VCR) by Cindy Wilkins ,
Dep. City Clerk. Henry Engen summarized the enforcement effort.
A. 1800 E1 Camino Real (APN: 49-131-47)
Owned by Leonard Q. Brazzi
(NOTE: Nuisance Abated Prior to Hearing Date)
Resolved, as noted; no Council action necessary.
B. 5985 Rio Rita (APN: 49-151-06)
Owned by Michael Frederick
Joel Moses, Assoc. Planner , gave staff report, with assistance of
Meg Morris operating VCR to show Planning Dept. film of site.
Mr. Moses added that he had met with Mr . Fredericks for a discus
sion of the issue today, and Mr. Fredericks had demonstrated a
willingness to take care of the problem as quickly as possible.
Public Comment
Michael Frederick, owner of subject property, took oath from Dep.
Clerk. He stated that the property has always been a problem; in
approximately 1959 , Madonna Construction Co. took a lot of the
fill material from the side of the mountain on the property and
used it in the construction of the freeway overpasses. He stated
that the reason for "dragging our feet" was , up until two weeks
ago , he had a buyer for the property. The potential buyer had
planned to completely redesign the grading plan for a bigger pro-
ject. Although the City previously approved the engineered grad-
ing plan, neither they nor the engineer would guarantee drainage.
Though the grading doesn't conform with that plan, Mr. Frederick
stated he already has $12 ,000 into the grading as it is. He ' s
willing to work with the City to solve the problem, indicating
30 days would be sufficient time to begin that process .
Mr. Engen advised staff could work with Mr. Frederick to process
a grading plan in that period, and he would have 180 days under
the permit to do the work.
MOTION: By Councilwoman Mackey that Council concurs with staff findings
and recommendations , as listed in their report, and directs them 0
to work with Mike Frederick in order to abate this nuisance as
expediently as possible , seconded by Councilman Molina; passed
unanimously by roll-call vote .
�J,
COUNCIL MINUTES - 11/12/85
PAGE FIVE
0
C. 2100 E1 Camino Real (APN: 49-141-41)
Owned by Del Rio Investments
(Leased by Phillip and Mary Simoneau)
Staff report by Joel Moses, Assoc. Planner , with assistance of
Mea Morris , Asst. Planner, operating VCR. Mr. Moses added that ,
during the time of the posting, staff had visited the site and
talked to Mrs. Simoneau; in addition, Mrs. Simoneau Visited the
City offices today and reviewed what has occurred since then:
She has installed a fence and is in the process of trying to
screen the property, and she indicated all the vehicles are now
operational (unconfirmed by staff) . She indicated she 'could not ,
due to her husband' s illness, be present tonight.
No public comment.
MOTION: By Councilman Molina that Council concurs with staff findings
and recommendations, as listed in their report , seconded by
Councilman Handshy; passed unanimously by roll-call vote.
D. 4540 Hidalgo (APN: 28-042-03)
Owned by Walter Braffett , et al.
0 Staff report by Joel Moses , with assistance of Meg Morris (VCR) .
Mr. Moses added that Mr. Braffett had visited the City offices
Friday to discuss cleaning up the site; he indicated that , due
to vehicle breakdown and illness , he has been unable to complete
the process but that he would continue to try and remove as much
of the material as possible.
No public comment.
MOTION: By Councilwoman Mackey that Council concurs with staff findings
and recommendations , as listed in their report, seconded by Coun-
cilman Handshy; passed unanimously by roll-call vote. It was
suggested that volunteer help be sought to assist in the cleanup.
E. 8555 E1 Corte (APN: 30-401-01 through 05)
Owned by William Poe
Staff report by Joel Moses , with assistance of Meg Morris (VCR) .
Mr. Moses added that Mr. Poe visited the City offices to discuss
the issue today.
Public Comment
Bill Poe, owner of subject property, took oath from Dep. Clerk.
He related his embarrassment over this issue. He recently ac-
quired this property, which was already in a problem state. The
Health Dept. issue has been addressed, and the only outstanding
problem is with regard to some of the equipment on the property:
It seems no one is really sure who owns the equipment. Other
than that , Mr. Poe has no problem resolving the matter and feels
30 days is sufficient time.
r
COUNCIL MINUTES - 11/12/85
PAGE SIX
MOTION: By Councilman Handshy that Council concurs with staff findings
and recommendations, as listed in their report , seconded by
Councilwoman Norris; passed unanimously by roll-call vote.
F. 8405 Coromar Road (APN: 56-041-17)
Owned by Harold Jr. and M.K. Sims
Staff report by Joel Moses , with assistance of Meg Morris (VCR) .
Mr. Moses related that Mr. Sims has asked for a 30-day continu-
ance of the matter in order to allow him to work on the site;
although 30 days might be sufficient time, Mr. Sims indicated to
Mr. Moses during their last contact, about 2 weeks ago , that he
didn't know what his regular work schedule would be and whether
or not rain might forestall some of his removal of equipment from
the site.
Thomas Morlan, Acting City Legal Counsel , recommended against a
continuance, as the law mandates 30 days to abate if. Council so
finds that a nuisance exists.
MOTION: By Councilwoman Mackey that Council concurs with staff recommen-
dations , as listed in their report , seconded by Councilman Molina;
passed unanimously by roll-call vote.
Public Comment
Sharon Wright , resident related that she and her husband feel
g ,
they have been miscategorized and fall into the abatement cate-
fory: They were issued a citation for not having a business
license , and she feels the action the City took against them for
having equipment on their property should have come in the way
of an abatement notice. Mrs.Wright claims she and her husband,
a general contractor, have had a business license for 32 years
which expired in July. They reapplied because the business ad-
dress changed; the City lost their files , and they reapplied
again in August. They still haven't received a license. The
City came out and cited them, and they have to go to court on
Nov. 22nd for not having a business license. She feels they
have been harrassed by the City and that court is unnecessary.
City Attorney, Robert Jones, responded that it ' s within the
Council' s power to request the City Atty. to continue the court
appearance for a period of time to allow staff to respond; Coun-
cil consented to follow that suggestion, with a report on the
matter to be provided City Council.
COUNCIL RECESSED FOR A FIVE-MINUTE BREAK @ 9 : 40 P .M.
D. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1 . Proposed Ordinance No. 112 - Amending the City Business License Or-
dinance Regulations (Recommend Continuance to future Council Meeting)
(Cont ' d from 10/14/85 - Verbal Presentation by Griager Jones , Atty. )
City Attorney Jones reviewed that the purpose of this amended
0 0
COUNCIL MINUTES - 11/12/85
PAGE SEVEN
ordinance is that the current one is the County Business License Or-
dinance which was adopted in its entirety, and many of its provisions
are not applicable today or to the City of Atascadero . He suspects
the first draft may be complete in two weeks.
E. NEW BUSINESS
1 . Proposed City Council/Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting Agenda
for November 21 , 1985
Council consented to approve of the date and proposed agenda; Coun-
cilmembers Norris and, possibly, Molina may not be in town to attend.
2 . Authorizatio.n Requested for Staff to Enter into Agreement with a
Private Engineering Firm to Provide Design Services for Replacing
Graves Creek Bridge (Proposals due November 8) (Public Works Direc-
tor, Paul Sensibauah, to give verbalpresentation)
Paul Sensibaugh gave staff report. During the five-minute break,
he provided copies of the bid summaries received from the three en-
firms the City requested to submit them to Council: Bis-
sell & Karn, Sacramento; CH2M Hill, Inc. , San Jose; Bruce Fraser &
Associates, Shingle Springs , all well-known California bridge con-
sultants and confirmed by Cal-Trans to have the capability to work
on this project. Staff recommends acceptance of the proposal from
Bissell & Karn for the design engineering, who would also be doing
the construction engineering. (Figures quoted to City by Bissell &
Karn: $11 ,064. 77 , design engineering; $28 ,956. 00 , construction eng-
ineering)
No public comment.
MOTION: By Councilman Handshy to accept staff recommendation to accept
the proposal from Bissell & Karn, seconded by Councilman Molina;
passed unanimously by roll-call vote.
3. Proposed Resolution 126-85 - Authorizing Mayor to Enter into Agree-
ment with the County of San Luis Obispo to Exchange Property Tax
Revenue, Transfer Appropriations Limit, and Settle and Release of
All Claims
Mike Shelton, City Manager, gave staff report. He noted that the
full County Board of Supervisors unanimously approved the concept
of this proposed agreement , which will go before them one week from
today for conclusion upon Council' s approval tonight.
MOTION: By Councilman Molina to have the Mayor sign and accept the agree-
ment with the County, seconded by Councilwoman Norris; passed
unanimously by roll-call vote , adopting Res. 126-85 .
Council and staff concurred on the significant accomplishment reached
by the negotiating process , which, Mayor Nelson noted, has seen all
j
•
COUNCIL MINUTES - 11/12/85
PAGE EIGHT
3 of Atascadero s City Councils since incorporation in 1979 , as well
as new faces on the County Board of `-Supervisors over the same period
of time.
F. COMMUNITY FORUM
No public comment.
G. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION
City Council - Councilwoman Norris inquired if the business license
issuance process is behind schedule; Mr. Engen responded the pro-
cess is running on schedule , with no problems or complaints lately.
Mr. Shelton commented that the renewal process is now complete.
Councilwoman Mackey related that she had received a complaint from
a citizen who used the coin-operated car wash in town, lost some
money in the machine there and found that there was nothing posted
providing a contact to secure a refund from. She inquired if there
is an ordinance requiring non-attended coin-operated vendors to
furnish such information. City Attorney, Robert Jones , responded
that , legally, it ' s difficult to enforce such a requirement; Coun-
cil consented that , were customers to avoid patronizing the vendor,
the problem would take care of itself.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10 : 16 P.M. TO THURS. , NOV. 21ST @ 4 : 00 P .M. FOR THE
PURPOSE OF INTERVIEWS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR CANDIDATES
AND 8: 00 P.M. FOR A JOINT MEETING WITH THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMIS-
SION, AND TO 6 : 30 P.M. (PRIOR TO THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING) ON NOV.
25TH IN THE 4TH FLOOR CLUB ROOM FOR THE PURPOSES OF 1984-85 AUDIT REVIEW
AND FIRST QUARTER FINANCIAL REVIEW.
RECORDED BY:
r
ROBERT M. JONES, City Clerk
PREPARED BY:
CINDY WILKINS, Dep. City Clerk
P'1
i
• CITY OF ATASCADERO
TREASURER' S REPORT
OCTOBER 1, 1985 TO OCTOBER 31, 1985
RECEIPTS
TAXES
Property Tax 22, 336.95
Cigarette Tax 3, 516. 95
Motor Vehicle "In Lieu" 45 ,142.22
Sales & Use 85,500 .00
Livestock-Head Day Tax 18.48
Franchise Tax 2, 014. 55
Occupancy Tax 18,948. 23 -
LICENSE/PERMITS/FEES 27,851.43
GAS TAX 22,736.54
RECREATION FEES 13,629.75
REVENUE SHARING 42,660.00
GRANTS 6,979.00
® RETURNED FROM LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUND
AND MATURED TIME DEPOSITS 160 ,000.00
TRANSPORTATION SB-325 96 ,249.05
MISCELLANEOUS
Rents/Concessions 10 ,235.96
Investment Earnings 38,382.00
Sale Maps/Publications/Reports 227 .30
Special Police Services 160.00
Fines & Penalties 632.30
Planning Permit Deposits 17,153.73
Bails/Bonds 664. 00
Traffic Safety 3 ,704.42
Reimbursement from Sanitation District 33,955.05
Reimbursement to Expense 9,000.00 .
P.O.S.T. 218.63
Narcotic' s Officer 8,417 .12
Rebates 45.00
Refunds 568 .16
Appeals 250.00
Performance Bonds 2, 450 .00
TOTAL $ 673,646 .82
• 1
• NOVEMBER 19, 1985
To All Council Members:
The breakdown detail on all accounts is available
for your viewing in the Finance Department.
Ray Cassidy
Interim Finance Director
3
li
0 •
CITY OF ATASCADERO
FINANCE DIRECTOR'S REPORT
OCTOBER 1, 1985 TO OCTOBER 31, 1985
BALANCE AS OF SEPTEMBER 30 , 1985 14,679. 77
DEPOSITED BY TREASURER, SEE RECEIPTS,
TREASURER'S REPORT, PAGE 1 673 ,646 .82
TOTAL 688,326 . 59
HAND CHECK REGISTER DATED 10/31/85 315, 673.34
CHECK REGISTER DATED 10/04/85 60 ,002.11
CHECK REGISTER DATED 10/04/85 1, 881. 25
CHECK REGISTER DATED 10/11/85 23,643. 53
CHECK REGISTER DATED 10/17/85 1,887 . 25
CHECK REGISTER DATED 10/18/85 37 ,075.50
CHECK REGISTER DATED 10/25/85 29,727.95
EXPENSE LISTING 207 ,031.77
TOTAL 676,922.70
BALANCE AS OF OCTOBER 31, 1985 11, 403.89
PETTY CASH 200 .00
TREASURY INVESTMENTS
SEE TREASURER'S REPORT, PAGE 2 1,500 , 000.00
TOTAL 1, 511,603. 89
I, RAY CASSIDY, do hereby certify and declare
that demands enumerated and referred to in the foregoing
register are accurate and just claims against the City and
that there are funds available for payment thereof in the
City Treasury.
DATED: November 19, 1985 `
RAY CASSIDY
Interim Finance Director
4
n
v'
� F . 0
CITY OF ATASCADERO
FINANCE DIRECTOR'S REPORT
OCTOBER 1, 1985 TO OCTOBER 31, 1985
EXPENSE LISTING
PAYROLL DATED 10/02/85 CHECKS #34671-34790 70 , 698.31
PAYROLL DATED 10/16/85 CHECKS #34791-34887 68,702.77
PAYROLL DATED 10/30/85 CHECKS #34888-34985 67,734.97
VOID CK#25926 CK. REG. DATED 10/01/85 (54. 28)
VOID CK#25510 CK. REG. DATED 08/01/85 (50 .00)
TOTAL 207 ,031.77
5
iJ
TO: City Council Members November 25, 1985
FROM: Michael Shelton
City Manager
SUBJECT: ENGAGEMENT OF COMPUTER CONSULTANT - NEAL FEAVER
RECOMMENDATION:
Council authorize Staff to engage the services of Neal Feaver ,
Consultant, at a rate of $20. 00 per hour to provide computer
consultation.
BACKGROUND:
Council authorize the City to engage outside services to prepare
an efficiency audit on the City' s data processing system. In
part, the resultant report, dated August 26 , 1985, resulted in
the following summary conclusion and recommendation:
The City' s needs are not being fully met by the existing system,
but the problems are more managerial than technical. The
resources exist but are not being properly focused. The City
needs a technically oriented person to be the advocate for data
processing, to explore the best possible solutions for the City' s
needs from all sources, and to effectively manage those hardware
and software resources once they are in place.
The report goes on to state:
The single greatest problem is the lack of a technically oriented
person to manage data processing. The City needs someone who is
knowledgeable and will look out for the City' s own best
interests.
The programmers from Visalia (Paul Rose and Sam Adams) are tech-
nically good and helpful, but their first goal is to supplement
their income by supporting their software at other sites. The
Hewlett-Packard salesman (Dave Ryan) makes his living by selling
more hardware and preventing existing customers from defecting to
other vendors, not by insuring that existing customers get the
most efficient use out of what they already have. None of these
people have the City' s best interest at heart.
The City should consider hiring a full-time data processing
manager or engaging a good local consultant to help out for the
next year . This will be difficult due to the generally low
salary structure within the City and the scarcity of technically
knowledgeable people. Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo, has an excel-
lent reputation for its Computer Science Department and may be a
source of help.
1
I�f
LEASE AGREEMENT
The CITY OF ATASCADERO, a political subdivision of the State of California,
hereinafter called "City", hereby gives permission to San Luis Obispo County,
hereinafter called "County", to use the following described City property or space
for such purposes and upon such terms and conditions as are herein provided:
Areas designated on the first floor of the Atascadero Veteran's Memorial
Building, Atascadero, California. The area covered by this Lease is
graphically shown on Exhibit "A" which is attached hereto and made a part
hereof by reference.
WITNESSETH
In consideration of the mutual covenants, conditions, promises, and agreements
herein contained, the City and County hereby mutually covenant and agree as follows:
1. Premises: The City grants to County the non-exclusive rights and
privilege to maintain and operate a Public Library within the Atascadero Veterans
Memorial Building, which is more fully designated on Exhibit "A" attached hereto,
and by this reference made a part hereof.
2. Quiet Enjoyment: City agrees to and shall, on the commencement date of
the term of this Lease as hereinafter set forth, place County in quiet possession
of the leased premises and shall secure to County the quiet possession hereof
against all persons lawfully claiming the same during the entire term and any
renewals or extensions thereof.
3. Condition of Premises: The taking of possession of the leased premises by
County shall, in itself, constitute acknowledgment that the premises are in good
and tenantable condition. County agrees to accept said premises in their presently
existing condition "as is"; and the City shall not be obligated to make any
alterations, additions or betterments thereto, or be responsible for any major
structural repair including, but not limited to, electrical, plumbing, roof, and
heating.
4. Term: The term of this Lease shall be for a period of one (1) year,
commencing on the 1st day of July, 1985 and expiring at midnight on the 30th day of
June, 1986, unless sooner terminated as herein provided.
5. Option to Extend: County shall have the option to extend the term of this
Lease for two (2) additional periods of one (1) year each on the same terms,
covenants and conditions as provided in this Lease. Said options to extend shall
be deemed automatically exercised unless this Lease is terminated in accordance
with paragraph 8 of this Lease Agreement.
demands, damages, expenses,costs liability occasioned by the performance A
or Y
attempted performance of the provisions hereof except those arising from the sole
negligence or willful misconduct of the City, or in any way arising out of this
Lease, including, but not limited to, inverse condemnation, equitable relief, or
-- any wrongful act of any negligent act or omission to'act on the part of the County,
or of agents, employees, or independent contractors directly responsible to the
County; providing further that the foregoing shall apply to any wrongful acts, or
any actively or passively negligent acts or omissions to act, committed jointly or
concurrently by the County, the Countys' agents, employees, or independent
contractors and the City, its agents, employees, or independent contractors.
15. Liability Insurance: County agrees to obtain and keep in force during the
term of this Lease, at County's expense, public liability and property damage
insurance in companies authorized to issue such insurance in the State of
California. Said insurance policy shall consist of the following:
a. Liability Insurance: County shall maintain in full force and effect,
for the period covered by this Lease, bodily injury, and personal injury, including
death resulting therefrom and damage to property, resulting from any act or
occurrence occurring in or about the premises which are subject to this Lease, oo
resulting from County's operations, or from County's use of owned or nonowned
automobiles.
b. Worker's Compensation: County shall maintain in ,full force and
effect, for the period covered by this Lease, full worker's compensation and
employer's liability insurance with limits of at least statutory requirements.
The amounts of insurance shall not be less than the following:
Single limit coverage applying to bodily and personal injury, including
death resulting therefrom, and property damage or a combination of both -
$1,000,000.00 The following endorsements must be attached to the policy:
1. If the insurance policy covers on an "accident" basis, it must be
changed to "occurrence".
2. The policy must cover personal injury as well as bodily injury.
3. The policy must cover complete contractual liability. Exclusions
of contractual liability as to bodily injuries, personal injuries and property
damage must be eliminated from the basic policy and endorsements.
4. BROAD FORM property damage liability must be afforded.
5. City of Atascadero, and their officers, employees and agents shale
be named as additional insureds under the policy, and the policy shall stipulate
-3-
6. Rental: County shall pay as rent for the first year of this Lease
Agreement the sum of nine thousand eight hundred and fifteen dollars ($9,815.00),
payable in advance.
Rents payable under the first year extension of term shall be Ten Thousand Two
— Hundred and Nine Dollars ($10,209.00) payable in advance monthly installments of
$850.75.
Rents payable under the second year extension of term shall be Ten Thousand
Six Hundred and Seventeen Dollars ($10,617.00) payable in advance monthly
installments of $884.75.
7. Use of Premises: County may use the premises for the sole purpose of
maintaining public libraries.
8. Termination: This Lease may be terminated by County or City only upon
completion of construction of a new Library Facility within the City of Atascadero
by giving thrity (30) days written notice.
9. Title to Improvements: County acknowledges that title to all real
property is vested in City. Said premises shall not be altered, repaired or
changed in any way without the written consent of the City and then only upon such
terms and conditions as may be required by the City. All permanent alterations,
improvements, and additions authorized by the City shall become the property of the
City and shall remain upon and be surrendered with the premises. County shall
surrender premises in as good condition as received, reasonable wear and tear
excepted.
10. Janitorial Services: City shall provide routine janitorial service
including, but not limited to, vacuuming, trash disposal and minor repairs for the
leased premises.
11. Utilities: City will pay during the term hereof all charges for all
utility services, excluding telephone service, used by County on the leased
premises.
12. Personal Property: Title to all personal property provided by County
shall remain with the County of San Luis Obispo. The City will not be responsible
to County for any loss of property from said premises, however occurring.
13. Rules and Regulations: The City reserves the right at any time to make
such reasonable rules and regulations as in its judgment may from time to time be
necessary for the safety, care, and cleanliness of the premises, and for the
preservation of good order therein.
14. Hold Harmless Agreement: The County shall defend, indemnify and save
harmless the City, its officers, agents and employees from any and all claims,
this insurance will operate as primary insurance and that no other insuranc
effected by the City or other named insured will be called upon to contribute to a
loss covered thereunder.
c. The following requirements apply to all liability insurance to be
provided by County:
1. Approval of the insurance by the City shall not relieve or
decrease the extent to which the County may be held responsible for payment of
damages resulting from its operation.
2. If County does not keep the insurance required by this full
paragraph 16 in full force and effect at all times during the term hereof, this
Lease shall immediately and automatically terminate, and all rights and privileges
granted hereunder to the County shall be extinguished thereby. It is expressly
understood that no notice by the City is required to effect this termination
specified herein.
d. County may elect to self-insure for all or part of the insurance
requirements contained herein.
16. Inspection of Premises: County agrees that the City, acting through it-
authorized agents and employees, shall have the right to enter upon the premises a*
any reasonable time to inspect them.
17. Lease Notices: Any notice 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, postage prepaid and
addressed as follows:
To the County at: County of San Luis Obispo
Director of General Services
County Government Center, Room 460
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
To the City at: City of Atascadero
City Manager
P.O. Box 747
Atascadero, CA 93423
The address to which the notices shall or may be mailed as aforesaid by 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 o40
any such notice by personal service.
-4-
� F
MEW
No waiver b Cit at an time of an of the
18. Waiver of Contract Terms: y y Y y
terms, conditions, or covenants ofthisLease shall be deemed as a waiver at any
time thereafter of the same or of any other term, condition, or covenant herein
contained, nor of the strict and prompt performance thereof. No delay, failure or
— omission of the City to re-enter the premises or to exercise any right, power or
privilege or option arising from any default nor any subsequent acceptance of rent
then or thereafter accrued shall impair any such right, power, privilege or option
or be construed as a waiver of such default or a relinquishment of any right or any
acquiescence therein. No notice to County shall be required to restore or revive
time as of the essence after the waiver by the City of any default. No option,
right, power, remedy or privilege of the City shall be construed as being exhausted
by the exercise thereof in one or more instances. The rights, powers, options and
remedies given to the City by this Lease shall be deemed cumulative.
19. Modification of Lease: Not withstanding any of the provisions of this
Lease, the parties may hereafter, by mutual consent, agree to modifications thereof
or additions thereto in writing which are not forbidden by law. The City shall
have the right to grant reasonable extensions of time to County for any purpose for
the performance of any obligation of County hereunder.
20. Assignment and Subleases: County shall neither assign, sublease or
otherwise convey any interest of any sort granted by this Lease to any person or
persons, entity or entities whatsoever without prior written consent and approval
by the City. Any document by which an interest is granted, subject to the approval
by the City, shall indicate that the person acquiring that interest has been
advised of all of the terms of this Lease and takes his interest subject to those
terms and conditions, and recognizes that upon termination of the interest of
County granted by this permit, his interest shall also be terminated. However, in
the event of termination of this Lease, the City, at its sole option, may elect to
treat any assignee, subtenant, or holder of an interest conveyed by County as the
City tenant, subject to the terms and conditions of this Lease and that entered
into between the assignees, subtenant or holder of an interest conveyed by County.
Subject to the following qualifications:
1. That said designated person, persons, or entity demonstrates to the
satisfaction of the City that the person, persons or entity is competent
and qualified to operate said library pursuant to the provisions of this
Lease.
-5-
�= 0 tib
id person, persons or entity first agree to assume all the""
2. That sa p p Y 9
obligations, as set forth in this Lease, and agree to be bound by all the
provisions hereof and the activities and transactions with respect thereto.
3. That all of the matters referred to in 1 and 2 above be complied with
within thirty (30) days, provided that said time limit may be extended by
express written permission of the City if good cause is shown therefore.
21. Waiver of Claims: County hereby waives any claims against the City, its
officers, agents or employees for damage or loss caused by any suit or proceeding
directly or indirectly attacking the validity of this Lease, or any part thereof or
by any judgment or award in any suit or proceeding declaring this Lease null, void
or voidable, or delaying the same or any part thereof from being carried out.
22. Time of Essence: Time shall be of the essence in the performance of this
Lease.
23. Hazardous Substances: No goods, merchandise or material shall be kept,
stored or sold in or on said premises which are in any way explosive or hazardous;
and no offensive or dangerous trade, business or occupation shall be carried on
therein or thereon, and nothing shall be done in said premises, other than i
authorized which will in any way injure said premises or structures; provided thal*
nothing contained in this paragraph shall preclude County from bringing, keeping or
using on or about said premises such materials, supplies, equipment and machinery
as are appropriate or customary in carrying on its said business.
24 Nondiscrimination: County and its employees shall not discriminate
because of race, sex, age, religion, color, national origin or marital status
against any person refusing to furnish such person any accommodation, facility,
service or privilege offered to or enjoyed by the general public. Nor shall County
or its employees publicize the accommodations, facilities, services or privileges
in any manner that would directly or inferentially reflect upon or question the
acceptability of the patronage of any person because of race, sex, age, religion,
color, national origin or marital status.
In the performance of the Lease, County will not discriminate against any
employee because of race, sex, age, religion, color, national origin, or marital
status.
25. Independent Contractor: County enters into this Lease solely and
exclusively as an independent contractor and only in capacity and not as a partner
employee or other agent of the City.
-6-
n
26. Remedies Not Exclusive: The use by either party of any remedy specified
herein for the enforcement of this Lease is not exclusive and shall not deprive the
party using such remedy of or limit the application of, any other remedy provided
by law.
27. Hours of Operation: County shall set hours of operation as desired.
28. Holding Over: In the event that County shall hold over after the
expiration of the Lease term or any extension or renewal thereof, with the consent,
express or implied, of the City, such holding over shall be deemed merely a tenancy
from month-to-month on the terms, covenants and conditions, as far as applicable,
and subject to the same exceptions and reservations, as herein contained, until
such tenancy is terminated in manner prescribed by law.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be
executed this day of 1985.
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: CITY OF ATASCADERO
PAUL M. SENSIBAUGH ROLFE NELSON
Director of Public Works/City Engineer Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
ROBERT M. JONES, City Attorney Chairman of the Board of Supervisors
Approved by the Board of Supervisors this
day of 1985.
ATTEST:
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
Approved as to Form and Legal Effect:
JAMES B. LINDHOLM, JR.
County Counsel
By:
Deputy County Counsel
Date:
cjt/js/5152p
11-10
•
PaZma Avenue
BuiZdi #1021 103
'19 1 rubZic
Inspectors Counter
Planners I BuiZding
1
itduZt
-
Atascadero
101 Historical #10
_ - Society
• Museum
Elev
• -- Police
Police -
Dispatch- Chief
— #106--_ _ _ _ - - ---- ---- ----- _ ------ ------ ----
_ -- - j #105
L
O -
FIR 4R
EXHIBIT "A"
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: City Council November 25 , 1985
VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager ' b
FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Tentative Parcel Map 27-85
LOCATION: 10390 Santa Ana Road
APPLICANT: Greg Ellison (Twin Cities Engineering)
REQUEST: To allow division of a 10 .11 acre parcel into two lots of
4.00 and 6 .11 acres each.
• On November 4, 1985, the Planning Commission conducted a public hear-
ing on the above referenced subject unanimously approving the land
division request subject to the findings and conditions contained in
the attached staff report.
Tom Vaughan, representing the applicant, noted his agreement with the
recommendation.
No one else spoke on the matter .
HE:ps
ATTACHMENT: Staff Report - November 4, 1985
cc: Greg Ellison
Twin Cities Engineering
•
Tentative Parcel Map 27-85 (Greg Ellison/Kennaly kgineering)
C. SITE AND DEVELOPMENT DATA:
1. Site Area. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .10. 11 acres
2. Minimum Lot Size. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Lot Size Factor
Distance from center (8 , 000-10 , 000 ' ) . 25
Septic suitability (slow) 1.00
Average slope (0-10%) . 50
Condition of access (paved, < 15%) .40
General neighborhood character (4. 52 acres) .90
Minimum lot size: 3.05 ac.
3. Proposed Lot Sizes. . . . . . . . . . .Parcel A - 6 .11 acres
Parcel B - 4. 00 acres
D. ANALYSIS:
In the RS (Residential Suburban) zone, the minimum lot size is 2
and 1/2 to 10 acres depending on the sum of the minimum lot size
standards in the zoning ordinance. In this case, the total is
3. 05 acres, which is well under the proposed lot sizes of 4.00 and
6.11 acres.
Lot Size Standards:
This minimum lot size total includes the substitution of percola-
tion tests for the Soil Conservation Service Maps in the septic
suitability factor pursuant to Planning Commission interpretation
policy. Zone Change 6-85 formally provides for this substitution,
while at the same time, deletes the 20% reduction provision of the
zoning ordinance. This zone change was unanimously approved at
the Planning Commission meeting of October 21, 1985 and will go to
the City Council on November 12, 1985 . Therefore, the 20% reduc-
tion is still in effect under the ordinance. If the Soil Conser-
vation Map designation of severe (a lot size factor of 1. 50) is
used for this site. The minimum lot size total is 3. 55 acres,
which is still well under the proposed lot sizes.
Development of the Site:
The average slope of this ten acre area is 10%; however , there are
some areas of Parcel B that approach 20%. Grading for driveways
and building pads on slopes over 20% requires a precise plan ap-
proval at the Community Development Department level. This review
is dictated by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) .
The site is outside the sewer district. The percolation tests
submitted show that a septic system is appropriate for sewage dis-
posal if it is installed in conformance with the Septic Tank Manu-
al. Access to the site has been greatly improved recently. Santa
Ana Road was paved over the week of October 21-28. This will
surely make other large lots in this area more suitable for subdi-
2
Tentative Parcel Map 27-85 (Greg Ellison/Kennaly Engineering)
vision and residential development. Due to this situation, staff
feels that there should be a common access driveway for this site
so as to not start a trend of unnecessary driveways in the area.
In sum, staff agrees that this parcel map conforms to existing, as
well as proposed, language of the zoning ordinance and will result
in a pattern of orderly development.
E. RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of Tentative Parcel Map 27-85 based on
the findings and conditions of approval contained in Exhibit A.
DGD:ps
ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Findings/Conditions of Approval
Exhibit B - Location Map
Exhibit C - Parcel Map
3
Tentative Parcel Map 27-85 (Greg Ellison/Kennaly Engineering)
EXHIBIT A - Tentative Parcel Map 27-85
Findings/Conditions of Approval
November 4, 1985
FINDINGS:
1. The creation of these parcels conform to all applicable zoning and
the General Plan.
2. The creation of these parcels in conformance with the recommended
conditions of approval will not have a significant adverse effect
upon the environment, and preparation of an Environmental Impact
Report is not necessary.
3. The site is physically suitable for the type of development that
is proposed.
4. The site is physically suitable for the density of development
that is proposed.
5. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will
not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and
avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
6 . The design of the subdivision or the type of improvement will not
conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large for ac-
cess through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision;
or that substantially equivalent alternate easements are provided.
7 . The proposed subdivision complies with Section 66474. 6 of the
State Subdivision Map Act, as to methods of handling and discharge
of waste.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. A preliminary soils report shall be prepared by a registered civil
engineer . If tests indicate critically expansive soils or other
soils problems, corrective measures shall be taken.
2. Water shall be obtained from the Atascadero Mutual Water company
and water lines shall exist at the frontage of each parcel or its
Public utility easement prior to recordation of the final map.
3. All existing and proposed utility easements, pipelines and other
easements are to be shown on the final map.
4. Drainage and erosion control plans, prepared by a registered civil
engineer , shall be submitted for review and approval by the Commu-
nity Development Department prior to issuance of building permits
in conjunction with installation of driveways, access easements or
structures.
4
i
Tentative Parcel Map 27-85 (dreg Ellison/Kennaly Engineering)
5. A common drive is required to serve the two parcels. Plan and
profile drawings of proposed individual driveways and driveway
easements shall be submitted for approval by the Community Devel-
opment and Public Works Departments in order to determine average
grade and appropriate improvement requirements.
6. The need for additional fire hydrants shall be determined by the
Fire Department, prior to the issuance of any building permits.
7. All conditions herein specified shall be complied with prior to
filing of the final map.
8. A final map drawn in substantial conformance with the approved
tentative map and in compliance with all conditions set forth
herein shall be submitted for review and approval in accordance
with the Subdivision Map Act and the City Lot Division Ordinance
prior to recordation.
a. Monuments shall be set at all new property corners created
and a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor
shall indicate by certificate on the final map that corners
have been set or will be set by a date specific and that they
will be sufficient to enable the survey to be retraced.
b. A recently updated preliminary title report shall be submit-
ted for review in conjunction with the processing of the
final map.
10. Approval of this tentative parcel map shall expire two years from
the date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted
pursuant to a written request prior to the expiration date.
5
'F'1
sm-
"" %
1 \ 14
\�rss 19
20
w 26 r '\ 21 It
10 ,
25 3 24
s 3
24 --n3m -�\r / 26
'3 i 2T � 4 37eo
20
Rs
3
I 22 �,tiros 107
Y`\°sro 29 '/ H
i F• i 1
12 (/ nip /
30
` 31 �iC
;{ \'-1'r5 %' �� a�o \ IpD°5 \..�0,50
14
\ loaoo
OD
1 \ \ 05
/�
-. •/� R \ � � � syr '-�`�'— �� \
//
1
EXHIBIT B -
LOCA TION
�4
V. 7• + r f \ c qr? W
Ce
?,, c\.,? ,\�� ..�"' l /? ..�1v •, `��� ,;\ y1 /\ tel.
111
. c\
'� to
Q1
;-� M�. .86767 .SE6Fii l0
� 1
sit b
, 4
t Ko°
4tl CTS l 7 1985
;moi- .1J RECEIVED
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: City Council November 25, 1985
VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager � i
FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director 4
Joel Moses, Associate Planner & Meg Morris, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: ENFORCEMENT CASE E:84-132 - 7800 San Gabriel Road
Al Wright - Business License
BACKGROUND:
At the City Council meeting of November 12th, staff was requested to
prepare a report on the enforcement on this site.
SUMMARY OF SITUATION:
• In September of 1984 , the City received inquiries as to the repair
of cars at 7800 San Gabriel Road. Included in the inquiry was the
concern over the construction of a 20 by 30 garage that was being used
for the repair work on the site (the garage was actually built on the
Carmelita frontage of the site) . A check of the building permit file
and the business license files showed that no permits or license were
issued for the site. A site inspection at that time noted that the
site was also being used for a storage yard for Al Wright Construc-
tion. In the intervening months, staff has attempted to bring the
site into conformance with the City codes dealing with zoning, build-
ing and business licenses.
After reviewing the problem with the City Attorney and Community Dev-
elopment Director, a citation was issued to Mr. Wright and three
others working on the site. The citation was issued on the basis of
the operation of the construction yard on the site without a license
for that site and the operation of a car repair business without a
business license (Sections 6 . 00 . 040 and 6 .00.030) .
Staff is also reviewing the possibility of amending the charges listed
to include other violations concerning the construction of a building
without a permit, occupancy of a structure without a final inspection,
providing power to a structure that has not be finaled, cancellation
of the building permit due to lapse of time on the permit, and other
violations of the business license ordinance.
• Staff has attached a copy of the time line noting the City actions
pertaining to the violations. Also attached is a letter received by
the City concerning the violation. The court appearances have now
been rescheduled for December 20 , 1985.
0 i
RE: Enforcement Case E:84-132 - 7800 San Gabriel Road
December 26, 1984 - Mr. Wright submitted required drawings and permit
applications for illegal garage. Mr . Moses reviewed with him the
need to remove the illegal use from the site. He was told all
storage of construction material would need to be removed from
site and should be done in two weeks. He (Mr. Wright) noted that
he was relocating his trucks to Templeton and the "rest" would be
taken care of soon.
January 7 , 1985 - Another complaint received from Neighbor D.
January 15, 1985 - Mr. Wright was in City Hall asking about a recent
site check made to his site. He wanted to know how long he had to
clear his site. Mr. Moses noted he would be sent a letter setting
January 25 , 1985 as a deadline.
January 15, 1985 - Two more neighbor complaints and a site check.
January 21, 1985 - Letter mailed siting January 25, 1985 deadline.
Sent return receipt - received by S. Wright on January 28, 1985.
January 25, 1985 - Photos taken at site check. Vehicles were gone
from site except for a back hoe and two others by garage.
January 29 , 1985 - Site check. Photos show commercial vehicles back
on site loading material.
February 12, 1985 - Building permit issued for garage.
February 14, 1985 - Site check and photos show storage of construction
material and workers working on car repair.
February 22, 1985 - Site check shows trailer (mobile) moved to front
of site.
February 25, 1985 - Site check - photos show car up on blocks.
February 26, 1985 - Site check - photos show eight vehicles on site,
trailers (2) , and a tractor - also construction material.
March 12, 1985 - Stop-work order issued by Mr. Moses for structural
modification being done without a building permit.
March 15, 1985 - Mr. Moses and police officer to site to issue Mr.
Wright a citation. Spoke with Mrs. Wright. Mr . Moses asked that
Al Wright contact him at City Hall.
March 22, 1985 - Mr. Wright' s attorney, Nico Charisse, came into City
Hall and reviewed the problem with Mr. Moses. Mr. Charisse said
he would relay information and review with the Wrights. He said
(Charisse) would get back with us.
April 18, 1985 - Site check - pictures. Storage and vehicles on site.
April 30, 1985 - Site check - pictures.
3
•
RE: Enforcement Case E:84-132 - 7800 San Gabriel Road
May 2, 1985 - Mrs. Wright was in City Hall to discuss citation. She
asked that the citation be issued to her. Mr . Moses said he would
issue citation to Al Wright.
May 15, 1985 - Meeting scheduled with Al Wright, Attorney Nico Char-
isse, and City staff. Mr. Charisse could not attend. Mr. Wright
showed but said he felt it better to have Charisse there. He
would get back with us.
August 13, 1985 - Business license application for Al Wright Construc-
tion at 5811 Traffic Way was received.
September 19, 1985 - Site check noted worker on site.
October 3, 1985 - Site check noted vehicle activity on site. People
arriving/leaving. Painting and preparation for painting being
done on a large rig.
October 4, 1985 - Site check noted further activity.
October 14, 1985 - Citations issued to: Allen Wright/Ronald Weltmer/
Darren Davis/Jami Chapman
Joel Moses and Officer Hutchins were both present. Court date set
for November 8, 1985
November 12, 1985 - Sharon Wright complained at City Council meeting
of being harassed by the City staff. City Attorney advised that
court date could be extended. Staff requested to report back on
the case to the City Council. Court date subsequently revised to
December 20 , 1985.
4 ,
•
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: CITY COUNCIL
VIA: MICHAEL SHELTON, CITY MANAGER
FROM : HENRY ENGEN, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
DATE: NOVEMBER 25, 1985
SUBJECT : ZONE CHANGE 6-85 (SECOND READING)
RECOMMENDATION:
APPROVE A SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 113 FOR
FORMAL ADOPTION.
r
BACKGROUND:
ON NOVEMBER 121 198510 THE CITY COUNCIL CONDUCTED A
PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS MATTER AND HELD A FIRST
READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 113 ,
/PS
•
City of Atascadero Item: B-1
STAFF REPORT
FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: 10/21/85
BY: Doug Davidson, Assistant Planner File No: ZC 6-85
Project Address: City-Wide
SUBJECT:
To revise the minimum lot size performance standards formula in the
RS, RSF-Z, and LSF-Z zones. This specifically involves the substitu-
tion of specific site information in the septic suitability factor
instead of using generalized soils data. This request also entails
consideration of the elimination of the 20% lot size reduction adjust-
ment option.
BACKGROUND:
At the July 15, 1985 meeting, the Planning Commission directed staff
to prepare a zone text change to eliminate the 20% reduction possible
under the zoning ordinance and accept site specific information in its
place.
Notice of public hearing was published in the Atascadero News on Fri-
day, October 11, 1985
ANALYSIS:
The minimum lot size in the RS, RSF-Z, and LSF-Z zones is determined
upon conformance with performance standards of the zoning ordinance.
The following five performance standards are evaluated for each lot in
these zones to calculate its minimum lot size.
1) Distance from the center of the community:
This is measured as a radial distance using the Atascadero Admin-
istration Building as the center of the community.
2) Septic suitability:
This is derived using the generalized soils data from the Soil
Conservation Service Maps.
3) Average slope:
This is figured using the basic, sectional, or contour measurement
method.
4) Condition of access:
This is determined by using the condition of the road right-of-way
with the shortest accessible distance between a lot and an im-
proved collector road.
5) Generalized neighborhood character :
This standard determines the average lot size of existing lots
which are zoned for single family use within a certain radius from
the subject property.
Each of these five standards contains a breakdown of factors that are
assigned from a worst case to best case (for development) basis. The
sum of each of these lot size factors determines the minimum lot size.
Adjustment to Minimum Lot Size: Under the zoning ordinance, the
Planning Commission may reduce the minimum lot size determined by this
section by an amount not to exceed 20% when considering an application
for a land division.
" (1) Application Requirements: A land division application, which
requests the 20% adjustment, shall include the following, as well
as any other information deemed necessary by an applicant to sup-
port his request:
(i) Proposed building sites, including average slope of the
building sites;
(ii) Proposed location of private sewage disposal system;
(iii) Preliminary plan and profile of driveways including slope;
(iv) Preliminary grading plan for building sites and driveways.
(2) Required Findings: The Planning Commission shall approve an
adjustment only if it finds that:
(i) There are circumstances applicable to the property including
shape, topography, location and surroundings which warrant
use of specific site information rather than generalized
area information in determining lot size.
(ii) The specific site information submitted clearly demonstrates
that the adjustment in lot size is warranted.
(iii) The granting of the adjustment will not adversely affect the
health or safety of persons, be materially detrimental to
the public welfare, or be injurious to nearby property or
improvements.
This adjustment procedure is somewhat arbitrary in nature, and has be-
come a routine request when conditions do not merit it. The intent of
this reduction was to grant an adjustment when specific site informa-
tion warranted it. This zone text change proposes to eliminate the
20% reduction and substitute specific site information on an individ-
ual site basis.
Septic Suitability Factor :
The Soil Conservation Maps used in determining septic suitability
provide a broad perspective of soils in a particular area. They are
not necessarily accurate on sites of less than ten acres. Over 95% of
the soils in the Atascadero area are severe for septic suitability
according to these maps. Percolation tests taken on individual sites
often indicate a more suitable soil for septic systems, and many ap-
plicants have submitted this information. In the past, staff has
accepted these percolation tests as a part of the request for a 20%
reduction. However, there are now five approved parcel maps which
have incorporated the favorable percolation rates, in addition to
the 20% reduction, in effect, amounting to greater than a 20% reduc-
tion from ordinance standards. These decisions include Dunham (La
Paz) , Peterson (San Gabriel) , Miller (San Marcos) , Cini (La Paz) , and
Curtis (Atascadero Road) .
At the July 15 , 1985 meeting, the Commission approved Tentative Parcel
Map 18-85 (Miller/San Marcos) and directed staff to prepare a 20% re-
duction and accept site specific information in its place. This zone
change is an attempt to clarify what has become a confusing situation
for all.
Impacts of the Zone Change:
Substituting percolation tests for the Soil Conservation Services data
is seemingly the only area where site specific information can be ap-
plied. The factors of distance from the center of the community,
average slope, condition of access, and general neighborhood character
are clear-cut in nature. The major impact of this change will be to
create larger minimum lot sizes in these areas. The five previously
cited requests could not have been approved under this proposed new
language of the ordinance because these approvals substituted percola-
tion rates and were granted the 20% reduction.
The minimum lot size in the RS (Residential Suburban) zone is 2 1/2 to
10 acres depending on the sum of these lot size standards. It is ap-
parent that the intent of the ordinance is to assess the septic suita-
bility factor a larger proportionate share of the total lot size. A
severe rating yields a 1. 50 factor in an area where the minimum lot
size is 2. 50 acres. This is more than half the total minimum lot
size. Likewise, in the RSF-Z and LSF-Z zones, a severe rating is a
factor of . 70 in an area where the minimum lot size is 1 1/2 to 2 1/2
acres. This nearly half the total minimum lot size. Staff will con-
tinue to use the generalized soils data, but the new language will
allow the substitution of favorable percolation rates.
As shown in the following resolution and exhibit, the following lan-
guage is proposed to be placed in the septic suitability factor sec-
tion of the RS, RSF-Z, and LSF-Z zones:
"Percolation tests may be substituted for the Soil Conservation Ser-
vice Reports. These shall be prepared by a registered engineer or
licensed sanitarian. The following conversion chart shall be used to
determine the appropriate lot size factor :
PERCOLATION RATING MINUTES PER INCH
well-suited less than 20
moderate 20 to 39
slow 40 to 59
severe greater than 60
Staff feels that this change will result in less confusion by elimin-
ating the 20% reduction possibility of the ordinance. Staff will con-
tinue to use the Soil Conservation Service Maps, unless percolation
rates are submitted. These are to be prepared by a registered civil
engineer or licensed sanitarian and converted to a lot size factor
using the previous chart. This further clarifies the standards to be
used in determining lot size.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of Zoning Ordinance Text Change 6-85 as con-
tained in the attached draft ordinance to the City Council.
DGD:ps
ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Draft Ordinance
Exhibit B Zoning Ordinance Excerpt
Y l:,
ORDINANCE NO. 113
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ATASCADERO AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING ORDINANCE
TEXT RELATIVE TO REVISING THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FORMULA IN THE RS, RSF-Z, AND
LSF-Z ZONES (ZONE CHANGE 6-85)
WHEREAS, the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment proposes stand-
ards consistent with the General Plan as required by Section 65860 of
the California Government Code; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment is in conformance with Section
65800, et seq. , of the California Government Code concerning Zoning
Regulations; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment will not have a significant ad-
verse effect upon the environment and preparation of an Environmental
Impact Report is not necessary; and
WHEREAS, the Atascadero Planning Commission held a public hearing
on October 21, 1985 and has recommended approval of Zoning Ordinance
Text Change 6-85.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Atascadero does ordain
as follows:
Section 1. Council Findings.
After conducting a public hearing, the City council finds and
determines that:
1. The proposed zoning text amendment would be in compliance
with the City of Atascadero' s General Plan Housing and Land
Use Elements.
2. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, the
negative declaration granted the project by the Community
Development Director is appropriate.
Section 2. Zoning Text Change:
Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment 6-85 is approved to change the
text of the Zoning Ordinance to read as follows:
1. Section 9-3.144 (a) (2) (RS) is modified to read as follows:
(2) Septic Suitability: Using generalized soils data from
the Soil Conservation Service Reports, the lot size
factor based on this performance standard shall be:
SCS RATING LOT SIZE FACTOR
Well suited 0. 50
Moderate 0.75
Slow 1. 00
Severe 1. 50
1. Refer to map maintained in Community Development
Department.
Percolation tests may be substituted for the Soil Conserva-
tion Service Reports. These shall be prepared by a registered
civil engineer or licensed sanitarian. The following conver-
sion chart shall be used to determine the appropriate lot
size factor :
PERCOLATION RATING MINUTES PER INCH
Well-suited less than 20
Moderate or slow 20 to 39
Slow 40 to 59
Severe greater than 60
2. Section 9-3.144 (c) Adjustment to Minimum Lot Size shall be
deleted.
3. Section 9-3.154 (a) (2) (RSF-Z) is modified to read as follows:
(2) Septic Suitability: Using generalized soils data from
the Soil Conservation Service Reports, the lot size
factor based on this performance standard shall be:
SCS RATING LOT SIZE FACTOR
Well-suited 0. 30
Moderate or slow 0.50
Severe 0. 70
1. Refer to map maintained in the Community
Devlop=t Department.
Percolation tests may be substituted for the Soil Conserva-
tion Service Reports. These shall be prepared by a regis-
tered civil engineer or licensed sanitarian. The following
conversion chart shall be used to determine the appropriate
lot size factor :
PERCOLATION RATING MINUTES PER INCH
Well-suited Less than 20
Moderate 20 to 39
Slow 40 to 59
Severe Greater than 60
r�:
3
4. Section 9-3.154 (c) Adjustment to Minimum Lot Size shall be
deleted.
5. Section 9-3.164 (a) (2) (LSF-Z) ` is modified to read as follows:
(2) Septic Suitability: Using generalized soils data from
the Soil Conservation Service Reports, the lot size
factor based on this performance standard shall be:
SCS RATING LOT SIZE FACTOR
Well-suited 0. 30
Moderate or slow 0. 50
Severe 0. 70
1. Refer to map maintained in the Community
Development Department.
Percolation tests may be substituted for the Soil Conversa-
tion Service Reports. These shall be prepared by a regis-
tered civil engineer or licensed sanitarian. The following
conversion chart shall be used to determine the appropriate
lot size factor :
PERCOLATION RATING MINUTES PER INCH
Well-suited less than 20
Moderate 20 to 39
Slow 40 to 59
Severe greater than 60
6. Section 9-3.164 (c) shall be deleted.
Section 3. 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 this City in accordance with Gov-
ernment Code Section 36933 ; shall certify the adoption of this ordi-
nance; and shall cause this ordinance and certification to be entered
in the Book of Ordinances of this City.
Section 4 . Effective Date. This ordinance shall go into ef-
fect and be in full force and effect at 12:01 a.m. on the thirty-first
(31st) day after its passage.
On motion by and seconded by
, the foregoing ordinance is hereby adopted in its entirety
by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
i
NOES:
ABSENT:
DATE ADOPTED:
CITY OF ATASCADERO
ROLFE D. NELSON, Mayor
ATTEST
i
ROBERT M. JONE , City Clerk
APPROVE ^�S TO CONTENT:
c
MI SHELTO , 7-Sty Manager
APP AS , O CONTENT:
ROBERT M. , City Attorney
PREPRED BY:
HENRY ENGEN, Community Development Director
ADOPTED JUNE 27 , 1980
(2) Business support services
(3) Libraries and Museums
E X k 16 t7_ $
(4) Offices Z L - L _ ?
(5) Personal services FS
(6) School - business and vocational
9-3 . 144 . Lot Size. The minimum lot size in the Residential Sub-
urban Zone shall be two and one-half (2 1/2) acres and may range. up to
ten (10) acres depending upon conformance with performance standards
established in this Section.
(a) Performance Standards: The following performance standards
shall be evaluated for each lot in determining its minimum
lot size.
(1) Distance from the Center of the Community: Using the
Atascadero Administration Building as the center of the
Community, the lot size factor based on this performance
standard shall be
1
DISTANCE LOT SIZE FACTOR -
0 - 8000 ' 0. 20
8000 ' -10 ,000 ' 0.25
10 , 000 ' - 12,000 ' 0.30
12,000 ' - 14 ,000 ' 0. 40
14 , 000 ' - 16, 000 ' 0.50
16,000 ' - 18 , 000 ' 0. 60
18 , 000 ' - 20 , 000 ' 0.75
20 ,000 ' + 0.90
1. To be measured as radial distance using
map maintained in Planning Department.
(2) Septic Suitability: Using generalized soils data from
the Soil and Conservation Service Reports, the lot size
factor based on this performance standard shall be :
1
SCS RATING LOT SIZE FACTOR
Well suited 0 . 50
Moderate 0 . 75
Slow 1. 00
Severe 1. 50
1. Refer to map maintained in Planning Department.
'I .DD LAk� GvIA G= E 14AID HAk _ Lk
3-8
ADOPTED JUNE 27, 1983
0
(3) Average Slope: Using the Basic, Sectional or Contour
Measurement Method, the lot size factor based on this
performance standard shall be:
SLOPE , LOT SIZE FACTOR
0 - 10% 0.50
11 - 20% 0.75
21 - 25% 1.00
26 - 30% 1. 25
31 - 35% 1.75
36 - 40% 2. 00
40% + 2.25
(4) Condition of Access: Using the road right-of-way with
the shortest accessible distance between a lot and an
improved collector road, the lot size factor based on
this performance standard shall be:
CONDITION LOT SIZE FACTOR
City accepted road 0.40
paved road, < 15% slope 0.40
paved road, > 15% slope 0. 50
•-� all-weather road. 0.75
< 15% slope
all-weather road 1. 00
> 15% slope
unimproved road 1. 25
< 15% slope
unimproved road 1. 50
>. 15% slope
(5) General Neighborhood Character: Using the average
lot size of existing lots which are zoned for single
family residential use (except that lots larger than 15
acres shall be excluded unless they constitute more than
25% of the total number of lots) within a 1500 foot ra-
dius, the minimum lot size factor based on this perfor-
mance standard shall be determined by multiplying the
average lot size by 0. 2.
(b) Determination of Minimum Lot Size: The minimum lot size
shall be determined by the sum of each of the lot size fac-
tors for the performance standards set forth in Subsection
(a) of this Section.
(1) The most current information shall be used to determine
the lot size factor. - Where information is not avail-
able, the Planning Director shall determine which lot
size factor shall apply.
3-9
! !
ADOPTED JUNE 27 , 1983
(2) If more than one lot size factor can be applied to a
lot, the less restrictive factor shall be used.
(3) Lot size factors shall be based on conditions in
at the time of filing an application unless infor-
mation is included with the application which will alter
a lot size factor.
(c) Adjustment to Minimum Lot Size: The Planning Commission
may reduce the minimum lot size determined by Subsec/�include
)
of `phis Section by an amount not to exceed 20% when ering, an application for a land division.
(1) Application Requirements: A land division appltion., which requests the 20% adjustment, shall
the following, as well as any other information deemed
necessary by an applicant to support his request:
(i) Proposed building sites, including average slope of
the building sites; %
(ii) Proposeclocation of private sewage disposal
system;
(iii) Prelminary �lan and profile of ,driveways including
slope;
(iv) Preliminary grading plan for building sites and
driveways.
(2) Required Findings: The Planning Commission shall ap-
prove an adjustment only if, it finds that:
(i) There are circumstance\sepplicable to the property
including shape, topography, location and surround-
Ings which warrant use of specific site information
rather than generalized areainformation in deter-
mining lot size. \
(ii) The specific site information submitted clearly
demonstrates that the adjustment in lot size is
warranted.
( iii) The granting of the adjustment will not adversely
affect the health or safety of persons,'\ be mater-
ially detrimental to the public welfare;., or be in-
jurious to nearby property or improvements.
( iv) The granting of the adjustment will result in
better utilization of the affected property.
(v) The granting of the adjustment is consistent with
the General Plan.
3-10
ADOPTED JUNE 27, 190
(d) killedNursing Facility, where the number of residents under
c e is greater than six (See Section 9-6 .134)
(e) Resi ntial care, where the number of residents unde care is
greate than six (See Section 9-6 .135)
(f) Organizati al houses
(g) Pipeline
(h) Bed and Breakfast
(i) Caretaker residence ee Section -6 .104)
(j) The following uses where est. lished in a residential struc-
ture of historical import a a are satisfied.
(1) Broadcasting s u'os
(2) Business support services
(3) Librariersr"Iand museums
i'
(4) Off ices \
(5) ,,A'ersonal Services 'tee
A .
.,.(6) School-business and vocational
(k) Kennels (See Section 9-6.111)
R5 F - 7
9-3.154. Minimum Lot Size: The minimum lot size in the Residen-
tial Single Family Zone shall be one-half (1/2) acre and may range up
to two and one-half (2 1/2) acres. The size of a lot shall be consis-
tent with the land use designation set forth in the General Plan and
shall be indicated by the symbols set forth in the following chart,
which shall be shown on the Offical Zoning Maps as provided by Section
9-3.104 (d) .
SYMBOL MINIMUM LOT SIZE
X one-half (1/2) acre
y one (1) acre, when sewers are available
one and one-half (1 1/2) acres, when sewers are
not available
Z one and one-half (1 1/2) to two and one-half
(2 1/2) acres based on performance standards set
forth in this Section.
(a) Performance Standards: The following performance standards
shall be evaluated for each lot which is appended with the
"Z" symbol in determining its minimum lot size:
(1) Distance from the Center of the Community: Using the
3-12
r
ADOPTED JUPIE 27, 190,
Atascadero Administration Building as the center of the
community, the lot size factor based on this performance
standard shall be:
DISTANCE LOT SIZE FACTOR
0 - 4000 ' 0 . 08
4000 ' - 6000 ' 0. 10
6000 ' - 8000 ' 0 . 12
1. To be measured as radial distance using map main-
tained in the Planning Department.
(2) Septic Suitability: Using generalized soils data from
the Soil and Conservation Service Reports, the lot. size
factor based on this performance standard shall be:
1
SCS RATING LOT SIZE FACTOR
well-suited 0.30
moderated or slow 0. 50
r. severe 0. 70
�ND L-t4A K T_ 144 '�-7 1. Refer to map maintained in Planning Departmen
(3) Average Slope: Using the Basic, Sectional or Contour
Measurement Method, the lot size factor based on this
performance standard shall be:
SLOPE LOT SIZE FACTOR
0 - 20% 0.30
21 - 30% 0. 50
31% + 0.70
(4) Condition of Access: Using the road right-of-way with
the shortest accessible distance between a lot and an
improved collector road, the lot size factor based on
this performance standard shall be:
CONDITION LOT SIZE FACTOR
paved with slope of 0 . 15
less than 15% or City-
accepted
paved with slope of greater 0. 20
than 15%
all-weather surface with 0. 25
slope of less than 15%
all-weather surface with 0.30
slope of greater than 15%
unimproved surface 0. 40
3-13
ADOPTED JUTTE 27, 19 83
(5) General Neighborhood Charac fir : Using the average
lot size of existing lots (except that lots larger
than five (5) acres shall be excluded unless they con-
stitute more than 25% of the total number of lots)
within a 1000 foot radius, the minimum lot size factor
based on this performance standard shall be determined
by multiplying the average lot size by 0.2.
(b) Determination of Minimum Lot Size: The minimum lot size
shall be determined by the sum of each of the lot size fac-
tors for the performance standards set forth in Subsection
(a) of this Section.
(1) The most current information shall be used to determine
the lot size factor. Where information is not avail-
able, the Planning Director shall determine which lot
size factor shall apply.
(2) If more than one lot size factor can be applied to a
lot, the less restrictive factor shall be used.
(3) Lot size factors shall be based on conditions in exis-
tence at the time of filing an application unless infor-
mation is included with the application which will alter
a lot size factor.
1�LE t (c) adjustment to Minimum Lot Size: The Planning Commission
may reduce the minimum lot size determined by Subsection ( )
of th-i,s Section by an amount not to exceed 20% when cons ' -
ering � application for a land division.
(1) Applic tion Requirements: A land division ap ica-
tion, which requests the 20% adjustment, sha include
the followiyzg, as well as any other. inform ion deemed
necessary by �napplicant to support his equest:
(i) Proposed bui3ding sites, 1nclud ' g average slope
of the buildi sites;
(ii) Proposed location f ppriva e sewage disposal system
(iii) Preliminary. plan and p file of driveways including
slopes;
(iv) Preliminary gradx�g plan�for 'bkuilding sites and
driveways.
(2) Required Findings:/The Planning Commission shall ap-
prove an adjustment only if it finds that:`
(i) There,are circumstances applicable to the'Troperty
including shape, topography, location and surround-
ings which warrant use of specific site information_. 0
rather than generalized area information in deter-
7-
lot size. \
i
3-14
ADOPTED JUNE 27, 19�
(i ' The specific site information submitted cleax y
onstrates that the adjustment in lot iie is
war ted.
(iii) The grantin f the adjustment.,Wlill not adversely
affect the heal t r safet saf persons, be mater-
ially detrimental to e-- ublic welfare, or be
injurious to nearbyp-rop or improvements.
(iv) The granting -of the adjustment w 1� result in bet-
ter utilization of the affected proper-ty.
(v) The-granting of the adjustment is consistent-with
/-the General Plan.
i
y
3-15
ADOPTED JUNE 27,033
(g) peline
(h) Bed d breakfast
( i) Caretake residence (See Section 9-6.104)
.=
(j) The following uses where established in a residential struc-
ture of histori, 1 importance:
(1) Broadcasting s'tudios /
(2) Business support, -cervices
y
(3) Libraries a museums
(4) Office
(5) P ' sonal Services
(6 School - business and vocational
L� S — Z
9-3.164. Minimum Lot .Size: The minimum lot size in the Limited
Residential Single Family Zone shall be one-half (1/2) acre and may
range up to two and one-half (2 1/2) acres. The size of a lot shall
be consistent with the land use designation set forth in the General
Plan and shall be indicated by the symbols set forth in the following
chart, which shall be shown on the Official Zoning Maps as provided
by Section 9-3.104 (d) .
SYMBOL MINIMUM LOT SIZE
x one-half (1/2) acre
Y one (1) acre, when sewers are available
one and one-half (1 1/2) acres, when
sewers are not available
Z one and one-half (1 1/2) to two' and
one-half (2 1/2) acres based on per-
formance standards set forth in this
Section
(a) Performance Standards: The following performance standards
shall be evaluated for each lot which is appended with the
"Z" symbol in determining its minimum lot size:
(1) Distance from the Center of the Community: Using the
Atascadero Administration Building as the center of the
community, the lot size factor based on this performance
standard shall be:
1
DISTANCE LOT SIZE FACTOR
0 - 4000 ' 0.08
r1; 4000 ! - 6000 ' _0.10
6000 ' - 8000 ' 0.12
1. To be measured as radial distance using map main-
tained in the Planning Department.
3-17
ADOPTED JUNE 27, 1983
(2) Septic Suitability: Using generalized soils data from
the Soil and Conservation Service Reports, the lot size
factor based on this performance standard shall be:
1
SCS RATING LOT SIZE FACTOR
well suited 0.30
moderate or slow 0. 50
L / f severe 0.70
al
+ � L 14A�1- l-� �, 1. Refer to map maintained in Planning Department.
(3) verage Slope: Using the Basic, Sectional or Contour
Measurement Method, the lot size factor based on this
performance standard shall be:
SLOPE LOT SIZE FACTOR
0 - 20% 0.30
21 30% 0. 5 0 1r\
31% + 7t?
(4) Condition of Access: Using the road right-of-way with
the shortest accessible distance between a lot and an
improved collector road, the lot size factor based on
this performance standard shall be:
CONDITION LOT SIZE FACTOR
paved with slope of 0.15
less than 15% or City-
accepted
paved with slope of 0.20
greater than 15%
all-weather surface with 0.25
slope of less than 15%
all-weather surface with 0.30
slope of greater than 15%
unimproved surface 0.40
(5) General Neighborhood Character : Using the average
lot size of existing lots (except that lots larger
than five (5) acres shall be excluded unless they con-
stitute more than 25% of the total number of lots)
within a- 1000 foot radius, the minimum lot size factor
based on this performance standard shall be determined
by multiplying the average lot size by 0 . 2.
3-18 t,
r
ADOPTED JUNE 27, 1983
.� (b) Determination of Minimum Lot Size: The minimum lot size
shall be determined by the sum of each of the lot size fac-
tors for the performance standards set forth in Subsection
(a) of this Section.
(1) The most current information shall be used to determine
the lot size factor. Where information is not avail-
able, the Planning Director shal determine which lot
size factor shall apply.
(2) If more than one lot size factor can be applied to a
lot, the less restrictive factor shall be used.
(3) Lot size factors shall be based on conditions in exis-
tence at the time of filing an application unless infor-
mation is included with the application which will alter
a lot size factor.
J E L 7 P (c) 'Adjustment to Minimum Lot Size: The Planning Commisssion .�
may reduce the minimum lot size determined by Subsection �)
of this Section by an amount not to exceed 20o whe/consid-
ering\\aan
application for a land division.
(1) Application Requirements: A land division aption,\which requests the 20% adjustment, shalde
the following, as well as any other information deemed
�- necessar by an applicant to support his request:
(i) Propos d building sites, includingaverage slope
of the building sites;
(ii) Proposed location of privat: -ofof
swage disposal system
(iii) Preliminary plan and pro 1f. 1
driveways including
slope; \
(iv) Preliminary grading .plan for building sites and
driveways.
(2) Required Findings: The Planning Commission shall ap-
prove an adjustment only if it`\finds that:
(i) There are circumstances applicable to the property
including shape, topography, location and sur-
roundings which warrant use of specific site infor-
mation rather than generalized area information in
determining lot size.
(ii) The specific site information submitted clearly
demonstrates that the adjustment in lot size is
warranted.
(iir) The granting of the adjustment will not adversely
affect the health or safety of persons, be mater-
ially detrimental to the public welfare, or be
3-19
ADOPTED JUNE 27
1983
j-urious to nearby property or improveme
(iv) The granti g-o - the adjustment result in bet-
ter utilization of-the�af ed property.
(v) The granting o e adjustment i-s-c nsistent with
the Genera-flan.
3-20
'1
TING DATE : 11 /4/85
NDA ITEM: A-1
MIN S - ATASCADERO PLANNING COMMISSION
Regula Meeting
Monday, ctober 21, 1985 7 :30 p.m
Atascadero Administration Building
The regular m ting of the Atascadero Planni g Commission was
called to order a 7 : 30 p.m. by Chairman LaPrad Commissioner Ken-
nedy led the Pledge o Allegiance.
ROLL CALL:
PRESENT: Comissioners Sanders, Hatch 1, Michielssen, Nolan, Bond,
Kennedy, and Chairman P de
ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Henry Engen, ommunity D Velopment Director ; Doug Dav-
idson, Ass ' tant Planner ; d Patricia Shepphard,
Administ tive Secretary I
A. CONSENT CALE AR
1. Appr Val of minutes of regular meeting of Octo r 7, 1985 0
2. onsideration of staff report for Lot Line Adjust nt 10-85
at 1200 Garcia Road - James and Sylvia Dulitz (Shirt Moore)
Approval of Resolution No. 9-85 denying Conditional Use Per-
mit 16-85 - Gifford Construction (J.D. Brannon)
MOTION: Made by Commissioner Bond, seconded by Commissioner
Nolan and carried unanimously to approve the Consent Cal-
endar as presented.
B. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Zone Change 6-85 :
Request initiated by Planning Commission to revise the mini-
mum lot size performance standards formula in the RS, RSF-Z,
and LSF-Z zones. This specifically involves the substitution
of specific site information in the septic suitability factor
instead of using generalized soils data; and to consider
elimination of the 20% lot size reduction adjustment option.
Doug Davidson presented the staff report on this proposed text
change and pointed out that this change would affect three of the
zones, and spoke briefly on the five criteria used in determining
minimum lot size factors as well as the 20% adjustment reduction.
r
Minutes - Planning Commission - October 21, 1985
Commissioner Nolan asked why the RS zone had four ratings wherein
the the RSF-Z and LSF-Z zones only had three ratings. There was
discussion concerning this.
Commissioner Bond stated that the information contained in the
staff report is what the Commission had requested.
Chairman LaPrade opened the hearing to the public and there was no
testimony given.
MOTION: Made by Commissioner Hatchell, seconded by Commissioner
Nolan and carried unanimously to recommend approval of
Zone Change 6-85 as reflected in the draft ordinance.
2. Tentative Parcel Map 26-85 :
Request submitted by Catherine Davis (Guy Greene, representa-
tive) to allow division of 8. 7 acres into three lots of 2
acres each. Subject property is located at 8870 San Gab el
Road, also known as a portion of Lot 11 of Block 33.
Mr. avidson presented the staff report and summarized t history
relate to this project wherein a previous application or a three
way lot lit had been denied by both the Planning Co ission and
City Cou il. Mr. Davidson pointed out that th 20o reduction
which was r uested in the first application d subsequently
denied had no been requested in the present pr osal.
Guy Greene, repre enting the applicant, conc rred with the recom-
mendation in the s ff report. He noted t t this new map, in its
redesign, had taken to consideration tmany concerns previous-
ly expressed by the ar neighbors, an briefly addressed some of
the particular areas of oncern whic included drainage, grading,
and septic locations.
Robert Brown, 8850 San Gabrie oted that he and other neighbors
were pleased with the cre ity in this new lot split request
and felt that the condition of a roval contained in the staff
report would assure that e neigh b rs' concerns would be met.
MOTION: Made by Commi sioner Bond, conded by Commissioner
Michielssen nd carried unanimo ly to recommend approval
of Tentat ' e Parcel Map 26-85 sub ' ct to the findings and
conditi s contained in the staff r ort.
C. PUBLIC CO T
There w no public comment at this time.
D. IN VIDUAL ACTION AND OR DETERMINATION:
1. Planning Commission
2
- 1
• MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
l�
THROUGH: Mike Shelton, City Manager
FROM: Paul Sensibaugh, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
SUBJECT: Authorization to Enter into an Agreement for Engineering
and Architectural Services for the City Hall Renovation
Project.
DATE: November 7, 1985
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Director of Public Works be authorized
to enter into an agreement with Fred H. Schott for Engineering and
Architectural services for the Renovation Project for City Hall at a
maximum cost of $12,225.
Background:
Staff has met with the architect from the State Historical
Preservation office concerning the project as previously bid. At
no surprise to us, the receipt of the grant changes the scope of
some of the work. The historic significance of the building is now
a sensitive issue and such improvements as the mezanine and the
lowered ceilings will be redesigned or eliminated.
The projected use of the third floor coupled with the future
absence of the Library has changed the demand on the air conditioning
system. A new system is now being proposed different than the system
that was previously designed but not included in the last bid due to
cost. The new system, even as expanded, will cost about the same, but
the design will cost more. Additionally, an outside cooling tower
unit must accompany the new system, but could be placed in the
adjacent parking lot.
Discussion:
It is essential that we proceed immediately with the work
outlined as Phase IIA. However, staff is not comfortable with
the scope of Phase IIB even though the work is necessary. The State
has given us tentative approval to bid the work separately since
the items involve specialized trades.
1 ��
FRED H . SCHOTT & ASSCOATES, INC .
CIVIL& STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS
Fred H.Schott,P.E. Kevin T Devaney
Richard N.Kopecky,Arch. Matthew J.Edwards
200 Suburban Road 8051/544-1216 Leonard Haeger,A.I.A. J.J.Emrick
San Luis Obispo,California 93401-7589 805/929-3216 Philip R.Henry,P.E. Brian Husting
Michael P.Bailey Richard J.Nadelson
Larry Bogovich Perry C.Schacht
November 5, 1985
City of Atascadero
Post Office Box 747
Atascadero, CA 93423
Attention: Mr. Paul Sensibaugh, Director of Public Works
Subject: Cost Estimate for Phase IIA & IIB Remodel Work
at the Atascadero City Administration Building
Dear Paul :
In response to your request, we have prepared a cost estimate for
Phase IIA & Phase IIB work at the City Administration Building. The
estimate is in keeping with our recent meetings to discuss the City' s
modified remodeling program and the addition of a new State grant
approved by the State Office of Historic Preservation. Our cost
estimates are based on staff time being billed on an hourly basis of
the individuals doing the work with a "not-to-exceed" maximum figure
for each phase of the work. Our fee includes services by our
consulting Mechanical and Electrical Engineers. Our consulting
Mechanical Engineer is Al Nibecker & Associates and our consulting
Electrical Engineer is Mr. Alvin Smith. We have broken our estimate
down into two primary construction phases.
The general scope of construction work for Phase IIA includes the
following:
A. Asbestos removal at the first floor ceiling.
B. Total renovation of third floor men ' s and women ' s restrooms.
C. Structural bracing of high and low parapet walls at the fourth
floor.
D. Structural bracing_ of 22 ' high unreinforced masonry walls and
reinforcement of existing floor beams at the fourth floor.
PHASE IIA Professional Services
-------------------------------
1 . Recent and future meetings with City staff.
2. Preparation of 1986 State Historical Grant application.
3 . Coordination with consultants, State Architect, and City staff.
4. Revision of Architectural, Electrical, Mechanical plans and
specifications for Phase IIA construction.
FRED H . SCHOTT & ASSOIATES, INC .
CIVIL&STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS Fred H.Schott,P.E Kevin T.Devaney
Richard N.Kopecky,Arch. Matthew J.Edwards
200 Suburban Road 805/544-1216 Leonard Haeger;A.1-A. J.J.Ernnck
San Luis Obispo,California 93401-7589 805/929-3216 Philip R.Henry,P.E. Brian Husting
Michael P.Bailey Richard J.Nadc
Larry Bogovich Perry C.Schad
CITY OF ATASCADERO page 2
November 5, 1985
5. Preparation of bid packages for contractors.
Professional Services $ 9,725.00
Construction Administration Services $ 2, 500.00
The general scope of construction work for Phase IIB includes the
following:
A. Install new H.V.A.C. system at all City staff offices and remote
mechanical plant with a new cooling tower, mechanical pumps, and
boilers.
B. Install new t-bar ceiling system, ceiling lighting and wall
outlets in City staff offices where required at first, second and
third floors.
C. Install new carpeting and carpet base in City staff offices where
required at first, second and third floors.
D. Paint City staff offices where required at first, second and third
floors.
E. Construct draft stops at all vertical mechanical shafts at each
floor.
PHASE IIB Professional Services
-------------------------------
1. Meetings with City Staff.
2. Coordination with consultants, State Architect, and City staff.
3. Preparation of * Architectural and Electrical plans and
specifications for Phase IIB construction.
4. Preparation of Mechanical design plans and specifications of new
H.V.A.C. system for entire administration building.
5. Preparation of bid packages for contractors.
Professional Services $39,575.00 - $44, 575.00
Construction Administration Services $14,600.00 - $24,600.00
FRED H . SCHOTT & ASSCOATES, -INC .
CIVIL&STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS Fred H.Schott,P.E. Kevin T.Devaney
Richard N.Kopecky,Arch. Matthew J.Edwards
200 Suburban Road 805/544-1216 Leonard Haeger,A.I.A. J.J.Emrick
San Luis Obispo,California 93401-7589 805/929-3216 Philip R.Henry,P.E. Brian Husting
Michael P.Bailey Richard J.Nadelson
Larry Bogovich Perry C.Schacht
CITY OF ATASCADERO page 3
November 5, 1985
We have enjoyed our past association with the City and hope that our
business relationship will continue. We hope this proposal meets with
your approval. If you have questions regarding this matter, please do
not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely yours,
f"kibV eLe
Fred H. Schott
RNK:ac
1VE0 NOV 1 � 185
FRED H . SCHOTT & ASSOIATES, -INC . RE 6
CIVIL&STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS Fred H.Schott,P.E. Kevin T.Devaney
Richard N.Kopecky,Arch. Matthew J.Edwards
200 Suburban Road 805/544-1216 Leonard Haeger,A.I.A. J.J.Emrick
San Luis Obispo,California 93401-7589 805/929-3216 Philip R.Henry,P.E. Brian Husting
Michael P.Bailey Richard J.Nade-
Larry Bogovich Perry C.Schac
November 13 , 1985
City of Atascadero
Post Office Box 747
Atascadero, California 93423
Attention: Mr. Paul Sensibaugh
Director of Public Works
Subject: Construction Cost Estimate for Phase IIA
Remodel Work at the Atascadero City Hall
Administration Building
Dear Paul :
To supplement our letter to you dated November 5, 1985, and
based upon the previous bids received January 31 , 1985, we have
prepared a preliminary estimate of construction costs for Phase
IIA.
A. Asbestos removal at the first
floor ceiling: $ 12,000
B. Total renovation of men ' s and
women' s restroom at the third floor : $ 19,000
C. Fourth floor structural bracing
of high and low parapet walls, 22 ' high
unreinforced masonry walls, and
reinforcement of existing floor beams: $ 71,000
Total $1021,000
Assuming that it does not jeopardize the state grant that has
been approved for the rehabilitation work, we would recommend
that Item A, asbestos removal work, be bid out separately to
qualified asbestos removal companies. The primary advantage to
the City is that there should be approximately a 20% cost
savings by the elimination of a general contractor ' s overhead
and profit. Because asbestos removal work is dangerous to
FRED H . SCHOTT & ASSCOATE5, ' INC .
Fred H.Schott;P.E. Kevin T.Devaney
CIVIL&STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS Richard N.Kopecky,Arch Matthew J.Edwards
200 Suburban Road 805,1544-1216 Leonard Haeger,A.I A. J.J. Emrick
San Luis Obispo,California 93401-7589 805/929-3216 Philip R.Henry,PE. Brian Husting
Michael P.Ba!ley Richard J.Nadelson
Larry Bogovich Perry C.Schacht
CITY OF ATASCADERO page 2
November 13 , 1985
anyone not properly protected, we are specifying that the work
be done during non City business hours to eliminate any
possibility of a freak accident involving the City staff or
general public. This requirement will also allow the City staff
to function in a normal manner without interruption or
inconvenience. If you disagree with this approach, please
advise us at your earliest convenience.
Sincerely yours,
Fred H. Schott
FHS:rcds
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: City Council , ` November 25 , 1985
VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager h�
FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director Alf,
SUBJECT: Acceptance of Final Parcel Map 4-85
LOCATION: 10550 San Marcos Road
APPLICANT: Frank Atkinson (Kennaly Engineering)
• On June 24 , 1985, the City Council approved Parcel Map 4-85 , sub-
ject to certain conditions and in concurrence with the recommen-
dation of the Planning Commission. The required conditions have
been complied with and the final map is recommended for approval.
HE:ps
cc: Frank Atkinson
Kennaly Engineering
•
CO
}
x.
W Q W
co-
ti r
^j c2c a
Q $o $< h
ooW3 t
qs
oma ' Qi Q
r
z
z
y j •�
47 c,c7� O��a�ov •.I� sa ` 1 � ,
1 S•
I
yY �
ki
Ok
NW/ I �,
1 `o�
do � •
i
to
Ir
rNA
•
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: City Council November 25 , 1985
VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager ��
FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director Wt
SUBJECT: Acceptance of Final Tract Map 27-84
LOCATION: 5319 Honda
APPLICANT: David Marazzo/Ben Gage (Kennaly Engineering)
• On December 10, 1984 , the City Council approved Tract Map 27-84 ,
subject to certain conditions and in concurrence with the recom-
mendation of the Planning Commission. The required conditions
have been complied with and the final map is recommended for
approval.
HE:ps
cc: David Marazzo/Ben Gage
Kennaly Engineering
1
a
b
LU
M
Ln
o�
e
h
E $
N
tiU OSOf/ 6 ,,6r:BZiY
W
Q j
e
z
N
Z
2
C7�
•
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: City Council November 25, 1985
JuVIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager u
FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director V-V
SUBJECT: Acceptance of Final Lot Line Adjustment 8-85
LOCATION: 6295 Flores
APPLICANT: Roger Staver (Kennaly Engineering)
On August 26, 1985 , the City Council approved Lot Line Adjustment
8-85, subject to certain conditions and in concurrence with the
recommendation of the Planning Commission. The required condi-
tions have been complied with and the final map is recommended
for approval.
HE:ps
cc: Roger Staver
Kennaly Engineering
•
A \
0
. �
< 2« ! r, « '
/ � \
».�
/ Ck
�z; -� 7w.szz*
S X07
\
�
. ��
W7
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
1
COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER• SAN LUIS OBISPO. CALIFORNIA 93408 • 805-549-5450
•
UL
s
November 15, 1985 Members of the Board
JERRY DIEFENDERFER
WILLIAM B.COY
EVELYN DELANY
RUTH E.BRACKETT
Ms. Marge Mackey CARL HYSEN
City of Atascadero
Post Office Box 747
Atascadero, CA 93423
Dear Marge:
Thank you for consenting to be a conference sponsor on behalf of the
City of Atascadero, in the amount of $100.00, to the VISION 2000
Conference.
As you know, the county is experiencing high rates of growth and
development. Urban sprawl has become visible and impacts the
overall quality of life. We can't stop growth, but we can manage
it. Tree VISION 2000 Conference is a starting point toward
inter-city cooperation and planning that will determine our county's
economic future.
The VISION 2000 - Conference will give community leaders, such as
yourself, the opportunity to be a part of preserving our quality of
life. I think it will be a day well worth your time.
Enclosed is an invitation to the conference and a registration
card. Please note that space is limited so please return your
registration and a $15.00 check by November 25.
Again, thanks for your support of this conference.
Sincerely,
CARL HYSEN
Supervisor, District 5
CH/bkm
(3o35c)
s
• MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of Directors
THROUGH: Mike Shelton, City Manager
FROM: Paul M. Sensibaugh, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Marchant Way - Santa Rosa Sanitary Sewer District
DATE: November 20, 1985
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Board take no action on Resolutions
-85 or 123-85 and that the majority of protest be received by
the Board on Alternative No. 2, said alternate being presented at
the November 12 meeting. It is further recommended that staff
present the financing alternative discussed herein to those involved
in Alternative No. 2 and continue the hearing until such time as staff
can recontact all of the property owners involved. If the owners
agree to the new arrangement, they can voluntarily withdraw their
protests at the continued hearing. In addition, staff recommends
that the Board entertain seperately any future requests for emergency
measures from the southerly side of Santa Rosa for failing septic
systems and help obtain easements if necessary to accomplish the
connections to Marchant Way.
Background:
The November 12 hearing was continued to November 25 to allow
the property owners to hold a neighborhood meeting on November 18
7:30 p.m. That meeting convened with the City staff and the pro-
ject engineer presenting the options that were discussed at the
hearing and was then opened up to questions from the floor . Staff
indicated that, due to the infringement upon the Urban Services
Line, Alternate No. 6 , which seemed to be favored heavily by the
group, was not feasible without initiating a General Plan Change.
Staff emphasised that we would recommend Alternate No. 2 which
unfortunately is not economical to those being assessed.
Discussion:
The Board has now received greater than a 51% protest against
Alternate No. 2. While staff still feels that Alternate No. 2 is
the most feasible plan with respect to the General Plan, there is
a strong concern for making the project work because of the Cease
and Desist order on this area. This particular area has an affect
. on the general public because of its contribution to the bacteria
level in Atascadero Lake. Placing this area onto the public sewer
system would be of major significance - in the effort to clean up the
lake so that it could once again be utilized for recreational pur-
1 0
• poses.
Additionally, the City ownes the, last lot at the Marchant Way-
Santa Rosa intersection and, even though that lot does not derive a
direct benefit, continuing the sewer along that frontage will
implement our own policy of extending the sewer to the next adjacent
lot upstream.
Furthermore, the Cease and Desist areas were originally intended
to be included in the plant expansion project, but the costs exceeded
the grant expectations. The ACSD only postponed its involvement in
cleaning up the Cease and Desist Areas.
Conclusion:
Staff feels strongly that the ACSD should bear some of the burden
of this assessment district due to the benefit to the general public.
It is suggested that the ACSD pay any costs over $5,000 per parcel,
including the annexation fee, and that equal assessments be the
method used instead of the area method suggested previously.
Fiscal Impact:
Equal assessments on $140 ,000 would mean that each of the 22 lots
being benefitted including the City lot, would be $6363 each, plus
• 850 annexation fee for each plus the cost of abandoning the septic
tanks and private plumbing costs for extending the laterals.
The total cost of the project is. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $140,000
*The Engineering cost is. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$15 , 000
The City Lot would be. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 6,363
It is estimated that the estimate is 10% high. . . . . . $14 ,000
The contingency fund will not be used if the project
is smooth. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$14,000
Possible cost to parcels. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$90 ,637
Divided by 21 lots. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $' 4 , 316
Plus $850 .00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 5,166
It is therefore conceivable that the ACSD will only have to pay
for the City lot plus the engineering and at minimum another $166 per
lot. The worse case situation for the ACSD would be $650 per lot
plus our share, or about $35, 000.
There is $191,400 available from FmHA at 5% interest. With
$35, 000 directed toward this district, there would be approximately
$117 ,900 remaining that the Board could use for other Cease and
Desist Areas.
*The Board previously agreed to contribute to at least the
Engineering for Cease and Desist areas to show a good faith effort
• to the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
FmHA at last correspondence has emphasised that they would prefer
that their funding be used for construction as well as engineering
2
and that the fund be drawn down within six months. The above dis-
cussion is subject to FmHA approval, but the Board would have the
option of using other available district funds for this purpose
such decison being made at the equalization hearing when all final
project costs are known.
3 10
i
Tr
A
• MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of Directors, Atascadero County Sanitation District
THROUGH: Mike Shelton, City Manager `
FROM: Paul Sensibaugh, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
SUBJECT: Seperado-Cayucos Cease and Desist Area
DATE: November 14 , 1985
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Board direct staff to proceed
immediately with the proposed schedule of events to form an
assessment district in order to alleviate the septic tank
failure problems in the Seperado and Cayucos areas and to ex-
press support to Council to eliminate any septic tanks in
that and other Cease and Desist areas.
Background:
• The Seperado and Cayucos areas compose approximately 80%
of the septic tank failures in the ACSD. Recent conversations
and correspondence between staff and the Regional Water Quality
Control Board emphasises a need to proceed in an expeditious and
timely manner to alleviate these problems. Staff is in the
process of receiving proposals for the engineering design for a
sewer extension assessment project for these areas.
Procedure:
Staff recommends that the following steps be followed to
initiate a sewer assessment district for the above areas.
1) Define a boundary map for the proposed district and
obtain a list of ownership.
2) Proceed with the design engineering after approval of
a consultant.
3) Calculate a preliminary engineer ' s estimate for the
necessary improvements.
4) Prepare an assessment schedule for each parcel based on the
engineer ' s estimate, including financing.
• 5) Send letters to all affected parcels describing the project
and soliciting their approval of an assessment district.
6) Hold a neighborhood meeting to discuss the project and
1 G���
CALIF RIIIA Rr-C=O:IAL ,1ATER QUALITY CO"7T"r?OL BOARD
2E11TRAL CONST REGIOid
1102-A Laurel Lane
' San Luis Obispo, California 93401
CEASE ,°_':D DESIST ORDER NO. 81-60
Order Requirin7 Atascadero County Sanitation
District and the City of Atascadero to
Cease and Desist from Discharging Wastes
Contrary to Requirements Prescribed by the
Cali=ornia Regional Water Quality Control Board,
Central Coast Region.
The California Regional Wa-er Quality Control Board, Central Coast Region,-
(hereafter
egion,(hereafter Regie_.al Board) -finds:
1. Atascadero County Sani-ation District (hereafter District) provides
municipal wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal for the
area within The City e= Atascadero. The District's boundary and
its sewer service area boundary are sho:cn on Attachment "A" included
with this Order. Areas outside the sewer service area utilize septic
tank/leaching systems =or wastewater disposal.
2. Responsibility for operation and maintenance of the wastewater facili-
ties is to be assured by the recently incorporated City of Atascadero
-T (hereafter City) .
3. The Board adopted Order No. 75-67, "Waste Discharge Requirements for
Atascadero County Sanitation District, San Luis Obispo County" on
September 12, 1975, and amended it on April 11, 1980. Order No.
75-67 implements the Ecard's dater Quality Control Plan for the Central
Coastal Basin (Basin Flan) and provides, in part, that:
"A. Discharge Specifications
1. The discharge shall be maintained within the
designated land disposal areas without overflow
or bypass to adjacent properties or drainageways.
"2. . The maxir.:�i daily dry weather volume discharged
shall not exceed 0.833 million gallons. After
completion of proposed additional treatment
facilities , it shall not exceed 1.67 million
gallcnS.
"12. The publ_c shall not have contact with inadequately
treated as a result of trcat:,ent and
disposal aerations."
"B. Pro-risions
The disc-arser shall comply :.lith all items in
'St3rdar_ -Prcvisions' dated Decem.her 9, 1977 ."
1 1
C & D Order No. 81- 60 -2-
4. Standard Provision B.13. requires the discharger to submit a
written report to the Board, when flows exceed 75% of design
capacity, outlining a schedule of work needed to provide
additional capacity before waste flow equals the capacity of the
present- units.
5. The District submitted a Plan of Study in 1976 and a Facilities
Plan in 1977 for expanding treatment plant capacity utilizing
Clean .•later Grant funds. Concept approval was granted March 15,
1978.
6. A condition of receiving a grant for construction of the
facilities was im-osed on the District :which requires providing
service to areas with failing septic tanks.
7. San Luis Obispo County Health Department evaluated septic tank
system problem areas and submitted a report titled: "City of
Atascadero, On-Site Sewage Disposal System Survey, January -
February - I•larch, 1981."
S. The County Health Depart-ment Report identifies eleven septic
system problem areas as shown in attachment "A." Areas
designated as C, E, F, G, I, and K, on Attachment "A" have the
s greatest need for servers. It was recommended that these areas
.,� be sewered "as rapidly as funding will allow." Areas designated
as C and E, have approxi^ately 80 percent of the system failures
in the six designated areas.
9. Failing onsite sewage s-stems constitute a threat to water
quality and public health.
10. Expansion of District wastewater facilities will be necessary
before areas with failing septic systems can be sewered.
11. On June 12, 1981, after due notice to the dischargers and all
other affected persons, the Regional Board conducted a
hearing and evidence was received concerning the discharger of
waste in violation of terms and conditions noted in paragraphs
3. and 4. , above.
12. After r=vierwing t`.e evidence, the Regional Board has determined
that the dischar;;e is in violation, or threatened violation, of
dischar-2 speed i cations' and provisions noted In para-grip:ls 3.
and 4. , above.
13. This enforcement action is bein-, taken for the protection of the
environr...�nt and as such is exempt from the provision of the
California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code,
Section 21000 et seq. ) in accordance with Section 15121, Chapter
3, Title 14, Cali=crnia Aodministrative Code.
C D Order No. 60 -3- _
IT IS HEREBY ORD=?FD Tti -r, pursuant to' Section 13201 of the California
Water Code, the itascadero County Sanitation District, and the City of
Atascadero shah comply °orizn the following:
1. Cease and Desist from discharging wastes contrary to requirements
lited in Items 3. an---: above, by constructing additional
treatment ca_acity according to the following time schedule:
.Task Compliance Date*
Begin construction of Wastewater October 25, 1981
Treatment Plant
Progress Report September 1, 1982
Complete construction of Wastewater July 1, 1983
Treatment Plant
A report of cc-;_liance s all he submitted within 10 days aster the
compliance date.
}i 2. Eliminate water quality and public health problems associated with
' failing indi•ridual on-site waste:aater system discharges '-.y providing
sewage collection service to problem areas shown on Attachment "A"
according to the fol_c: ing time schedule:
Task Compliance Date'
Submit a Horkplan (i nclu i ng time schedule) klove:nber 1, 1981
to provide Sewer Service fcr Unsewered Areas
C and E.
Submit a Workplan (including time schedule) March 1, 1982
to minimize Failing On-Site Sewabe Syste-x
in Unsewered Areas F, G, I, and K. {�a r 'P
N�
Progress Report October 1, 1982. 0
Progress report October 1, 1983
Submit a i.orkpla^ (i.ncl!_ i. , ti;:_ schedule) Octcber 1, 198'
to provide Serer ervi.ce =cr Cnsc :(=d Areas
F, G, I, and K.
Begin design of S., wers _`c^ --rens C and F. March 1, 1985
_.' Complete desil;n _ se;:er: "_rf�as Canal E. D ccmber 1, 1935
Begin ecnstruct c-i of for Areas C
and T.
C & D Order No. O&C, -4-
Task Compliance Date*-
Complete construction of sewers Nove-.iber 1, 1930
for Areas C and E.
*—ile dischai•ger shall advise the ?eElonal Board of compliance by at
least one copy of the appropriate documents no later than the date
specified. Where tasks do not include completed documents (i. e. ,
tasks f, h, -and i), written reports are due within ten (10) working
days of the compliance date. All reports shall include sufficient
detail to allow determinaticn of wether satisfactory progress is
being made to comply with all terms of this Order.
3. If, in the opinion of the Executive Officer, the District or
City fails to comply with the provisions of this Order, the
Executive Officer is directed to request the _Attorney General
to take the appropriate enforcement action against the discharger,
including injunction and civil monetary renedies, if appropriate.
I, KE'i,'NETH R. JONES, Executive Of=icer of the Regional I-later Quality Control
Board, Central Coast Fegion, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a
full, true, and correct copy of an Order adopted by the Regional A;ater
Quality Control Board on Jure 12, 1931.
Executive Officer
�I1 \
.\, Ll
\
\` 1
IL
cn
t � � 5.,,<=s�1 ` �',�•. /^' j� >f ',� •�1•� �i� of �6 p obi
4 !t
N '
�' t , ���•'\/i\ �o Lac--'��/ y// �� `>�`\� �.\ +�,1,! �\ - �..� \ � .}' 1
� - .� ,,I
�
\- i �U -�moi `
( -/
rICES CO_4TnOL EA:.RO. TER QUALITY PFA
3: Sacrmenta°5^01
f ;7971 �7;
t
0
In reply 11 e er .
Ju;i 2 0 �_gp to: 517:JS
.Ir. Jim Jonte
County Engineering Depart=e_*mt
,an Luis Obispo County
Room 101, Courthouse Anne:
San Luis Obispo, CA 93408
Dear Mr- Jonte:
rT?SCs aL? CGT�':TTti.:S .xTZ� TT_C;t':Bibi TCr ; P?Ct_ir.r P 0 C-Oa--I37_4-110; CR.-'. 1
CO DITIMT yamNDiE-_N'
The Division Division of IT Quality has reviewed your letter of May 27, 1920,
reoard:ng Grant Conadltion No. 9 amid the failing sept-1c, tank areas.
We have cc--e to the conclusion that the grant condition. should not be
rescinded. However, we recog mize your local funding problem and i.ri.Il
modify the grant condition to read as follows:
The grantee agrees to delineate and define the septic ta;,ti areas
and submit their connection schedule prior to Approval to .ward
^ j
l (ctlr_� life grantee a�reeS that no less = Man 60 perC-ant of the S
seLtic tank failing areas :ill be connected to the treaL�ent
plant within 3 years after cow^_ncing cpera_ticn of the tr.eat:2nt
plant.
If you wish to utilize the Clean ;?ater Grant Program to help fund these
collection syste.^s in the unse-4ered areas, you s':ould contact your
Regional ;later Quality Control Board. The collection systems would be
considered as a new and separate project on the Project priority List. ((
If you have any questions, please cer_tact '.•Ir- Jim.. Sro:r at (916) 322-6486.
' 1
Sincerely,
f
Pa --ord :•lals'h
. Division Chief Boil: _-- - ------ --- ----- ----
f3
:•'.3nager — Clean 'U'ater grant Pray, cr ' s � t
1 ve locu •�cd the Letter with the condition
CC: .". isa_'t1 Jo^es, �::( CuCiV3 Off- reg�ardit. septic tan'- area---it' s a concept
Califo. ,, pproval ai-:endmort dated 'fa_rch 12 , 1979
113 .2 10P, :1 ICer �u� �r•Tn _
`C }
L, I:S ,i_IZG o US ? CO�� ,
Co:izrol Board - Region (3) '
llt?2-1 Laurel awe ,
GtdT?LE'e <!}�r�JES LV UCL111�:iL!' cI:C: CiE'1.LLi'-'
San Luis Obispo, C:1 9340I septic tangy areas and submit their
. . . . . . 120 days after receipt ()f Step 2
cyrant* t at not Lass than 00% o` septic tar:
failing areas will be connected to Treat: e:
Plant at: the t�.�re cf .coT��nc; nom cnerztic~s .
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Murray Warden
FROM: Larry McPherson
SUBJECT: Proposed Cease and Desist Order No. 81-60
On June 12 , 1981, the Regional Board of the California Regional
Water Quality Control Board will hold a hearing concerning a proposed
Cease and Desist Order issued against the City and the Atascadero
County Sanitation District. The hearing is in Santa Barbara and I
will be planning on attending along with representatives of the
Sanitation District.
There are two issues cited in the order. They are :
(1) The County Sanitary District must comply with Regional Board
adopted waste discharge requirements by constructing additional treat-
ment capacity b
p y y July 1, 1983.
(2) Areas identified by the County Health Department in their
survey of January through March of 1981 as failing individual on-site
wastewater systems shall be connected to collector sewers and treated
at the central wastewater treatment facility. The Board order shows
that two areas identified in the survey must have collector sewers
constructed by November 1, 1986.
Primary reasons for the Health Department survey were to comply
with a wastewater treatment construction grant requirement and in re-
sponse to input by City staff requesting the Health Department to make
a comprehensive survey of failing septic tank areas. The grant con-
dition was tied to a requirement that a majority of the failing septic
tanks identified in the survey were to be sewered prior to completion
of the treatment plant expansion.
In a meeting with Regional Water Quality Control staff, County
Sanitation staff, and City staff, it was agreed that it was not reason-
able or even remotely feasible to have sewers to various problem areas
prior to plant construction completion. It was also agreed that the
sewer line extensions were likely to cost more than the plant expansion
and the extensions would not be grant fundable.
It was the consensus of those attending the meeting that work must
be started within a reasonable time to solve some of the septic failure
problems. At this point, representatives of the Regional Board suggested
replacing the grant condition requiring immediate construction of the
collector sewers with a Local Board order with more reasonable time
frames to accomplish the needed collector system. The Cease and Desist
Order attached to this memo is the result of this determination.As an
4
added benefit to the City, work accomplished under this order may
grant fundable should Clean Water Grants survive Federal budget Cu-� *
Concerning the first issue mentioned above , at this point it
appears the County will have the plant expansion construction pro-
ject under way prior to the date mentioned in the order. In all
likelyhood, if there is a delay it will be caused by the State
Water Quality Control Board and there should be no difficulty_ in
having the start date extended.
Concerning the second issue of extending collector sewers to
certain areas , the 5-year time limits in the order seem reasonable
and only apply to two specific areas. Those are areas C and E as
shown in the County Health Department Survey, a copy of which is
attached to this memo.
Area C is generally northeast of E1 Camino Real and San Jacintc.,
boarded by San Anselmo, Cauycos, and Tranquilla.
Area E is generally northeast of El Camino Real immediately
southwest of Traffic Way, boardered by Seperado, San Anselmo, Estraaa ,
Yerba, Dolores and San Jacinto.
In addition to sewering these two areas , the Board Order rea_u:'
'T'
a workplan to provide sewer service to areas F, G, I and K. hec"C
areas are near Atascadero Lake and also the vicinity of Highway 4�1
and San Gabriel Road. This plan would be required by October 1,
however no timetable for construction is in the Order.
The Cease and Desist Order requirements seem reasonable especi.< _
in light of the known septic tank problems. I am confident that we
can work with the Regional Board staff to resolve any scheduling or
construction difficulties.
As a worst case situation, if the City could not comply with tr
conditions of the Order, then the Regional Board could envoke a re-
striction on building permits for specific unsewered areas within t-,
sewer service district. This restriction would not apply to alread,
sewered areas or outside the service district. Therefore, the effec
of a building moritorium on the areas identified as having septic
problems within the sewer service boundries would impact a relativel !
low percentage of buildable lots within the City.
As a side issue , if the City does not assume ownership of the
wastewater treatment facilities , there is some doubt as to whether ti__
Regional Board could impose those sanctions on the City.
In summary, the Cease and Desist Order was seen as a method to
allow a more reasonable approach to solving identified sewer collet
deficiencies in the Sanitation District. The proposed order allows
adequate time to determine costs of the system and take the initial
'oo
4
t
steps to form an assessment district and to apply for Clean Water
Grant Funds,
AAIVREMCE McPherson
LM:vh
6-3-81
att.
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Murray
FROM: Larry McPherson
SUBJECT: Status of Wastewater Collector Grant - Project No. C-06-2927
DATE: April 18, 1983
Attached is a report concerning the current status of the Wastewater
Collection System Grant of which the City was previously notified.
After a review of the individual areas that were to be sewered, the
Executive Officer of the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control
Board has notified the City that these areas do not qualify under the
grant criterion that requires at least 2/3rds of the areas to have been
developed prior to October 19, 1972.
The bulk of the properties in the proposed service area were
developed around 1975, with a number of lots still undeveloped.
It should be emphasized that the lots proposed to be served by
the collector system effected by this grant are currently covered by
a Cease and Desist Order of the Regional Board. This order was due
to evident septic tank problems in the area and requires specific action
by the City to correct, generally, five years from .the completion of
the new wastewater treatment plant. Failure by the City to correct these
problems could result in a building moritorium in the areas covered by
the Order.
I concur with the attached report by Ms. Reynolds and agree that
the Council order staff to file an appeal to the Executive Officer's
decision.
LAWRENCE McPHERSON
1114:vh
4"
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Public Works Director
FROM: Assistant Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: Clean Water Grant Project #C-06-2927
DATE: April 8, 1983
The following is an outline as to the status of the Clean Water Grant
Project #C-06-2927.
Background
March 1981 - A survey to delineate the scope of the septic systems problems
by area in accordance with a wastewater construction grant re-
quirement and in response to input by City staff was completed
by San Luis Obispo County Health Department. Analysis revealed
that some of the areas showing surfacing effluent and/or septic
tank problems may be caused by surfacing or subsurface springs
which adjoin or traverse disposal fields. It was on the opinion
of that Division, that there exists a moderate on-site disposal
system problem in those areas with the smaller parcel sizes,
areas of excessive slopes, especially where there is spring
activity. Based upon the survey findings, it was the Department's
recommendation that the community sewerage system be expanded as
rapidly as funding will allow.
June 1981 - The California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Coast
Region imposed the Cease and Desist Order #81-60 upon the
Atascadero County Sanitation District and the City of Atascadero.
October 1982 - The City of Atascadero received notification of project
acceptance "collection system for unsewered area under Cease
and Desist Order" on the FY 1983 priority list as a Class A
priority.
Nov. 8 1982 - A progress report as to the status of the Clean Water Grant
Project #C-06-2927 was submitted to the California Water
Quality Control Board Central Coast Region.
Dec. 8 1982 - The Scope of Work for Facilities Planning was submitted to the
California Regional Water Quality Control Board and the names on
the A-95 Circulation list for review.
Dec.30 1982 - A letter requesting advance funding was submitted to California
Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Feb.28 1982 - A request was submitted to California Regional Water Quality
Control Board for special consideration of Clean Water Grant
Project #C-06-02927. After compiling information, it was det-
ermined that this grant-funded project did not meet the req-
uirement set forth by 40CFR 35.2116 which states: "If the pro-
ject involves collection system work, such work shall be for
a new cost-effective collection system in a municipality in
existence on Oct.18, 1972, which has sufficient existing or
planned capacity to adequately treat such collected wastewater
and where the bulk (generally two thirds) of the expected flow
(from existing plus future residential users) will be from the
resident population on October 18, 1972." Therefore, a request
for special consideration was submitted to California Regional
Water Quality Control Board.
March 1983 - A letter from the California Regional Water Quality Control
Board was received stating that the City's request for
special consideration cannot be granted.
Applicability
An appeal to this decision may be submitted to the Environmental Protection
Agency. In reference to Clean Water Grant Regulation, Subpart 1 Deviations
40CFR30.1000 it states that "The Director, Grants Administration Division, is
authorized to approve deviations from substatutory requirements of this sub-
chapter or grant related requirements of this Chapter when he determines that
such deviations are essential to effect necessary grant actions or EPA
objectives where special circumstances make such deviations in the best interest
of the Government."
The following is a list of goals, policies and recommendations stated by
applicable State and Federal entities which relate to clean water grant
programs:
1) The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended through December
1981 states: The objective of this Act is to restore and maintain
the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Nation's Water.
In order to achieve this objective it is hereby declared that, con-
sistant with the provisions of this Act -
a) it is the national policy that Federal financial assistance be
provided to construct publicly owned waste treatment works;
b) it is the national policy that areawide waste treatment management
planning processes be developed and implemented to assure adequate
control of sources of pollutants in each State.
2) Title 23, Regional Water Quality Control Board; Clean Water Grant
Program states: The primary objective of the Clean Water Bond law and
the purpose of the State Clean Water fund is to assist in the financing
of treatment works necessary to prevent water pollution and thereby
protect and promote the health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants
of the State.
3) Discussion from the meeting agenda of the State of California Regional
Water Quality Control Board (Friday, June 12, 1981) which considered
issuance of a Cease and Desist order against the Atascadero County
Sanitation District states:
"Evidence indicates that the existing water quality situation within
the District's boundaries will worsen if wastewater treatment facilities are
not expanded and areas with failing septic systems are not sewered. Proposed
Cease and Desist Order No. 81-60 requires that the District and/or the City
construct the needed treatment and sewer system expansion in accordance
with a specified time schedule. Specific areas requiring sewers have been
delineated in the proposed enforcement Order.
The grant condition requires areas with failing septic systems to be
sewered if grant monies are used to expand treatment capacity; adopting Cease
and Desist Order No. 81-60 would insure that it will be done. Adoption of
the order would also justify elevating the project on the priority list."
A grant of deviation from the grant related requirement of 40CFR35.2116
would be in accord with tthe above stated State and Federal environmental
goals, policies and recommendations; therefore, the City's appeal for a
deviation would be justified. Also, it should be noted that the regulation
40CFR35.2116 which states the 2/3 requirement was not stated in the Federal
Clean Water Act and was decided upon arbitrarily after adoption of the Act.
The attached regulation outlines the necessary steps for request for
deviation.
The attached maps illustrate the building dates of the lots in the grant
funding area.
I recommend that the City appeal the decision of the California Regional
Water Quality Control Board and request for a deviation to the Director,
Grants Administration Division.
MICHELE RE OLDS
att.
j
• . F&EIVED MAR 9 183
STATE OF CALIFORNIA- �l j ' deorge Deukme j ian � Governor
CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD-
CENTRAL COAST REGION
1102 A LAUREL LANE
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA 93401
(805) 549-3147
March 8, 1983
Mr. Larry McPherson
Director of Public Works
City of Atascadero
6500 Palma Avenue
Atascadero, CA 93422
Dear Mr. McPherson:
SUBJECT: CITY OF ATASCADERO CWG PROJECT NO. C-06-2927
NOTICE OF GRANT INELIGIBILITY
This letter is in response to your February 28, 1983, letter requesting
special consideration with regards to 40 CFR 35.2116, "Collection
System." Your request cannot be granted. This grant regulation is
quite specific as to the flow capacity, ". . . where the bulk (generally
two-thirds) of the expected flow (flow from existing plus future resi-
dential users) will be from the resident population on October 19,
1972." Maps submitted by the City show that only 390 of the Arizona/
Mananita area and 280 of the Lobos/Hermosilla area were constructed
prior to October, 1972. Therefore, your project is not eligible for
a Clean Water Grant award.
You may appeal this decision to the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) , refer to Clean Water Grant Regulation 40 CFR 30.1000-2. Route
your appeal through the State Water Resources Control Board, Division
of Water Quality, P. 0. Box 100, Sacramento, California, 95801, Atten-
tion: Mr. Jim Nicholas. Mr. Nicholas will forward your appeal to the
appropriate person at EPA.
If you have any questions, please contact Frank DeMarco at 549-3147.
Very truly yours,
KENNETH R. ES
Executive Officer
FJD:bf
cc: Mr. Jim Nicholas, DWQ (w/encl)
QI
Ti
UNITED&TES E'4YtRONMENTAL PROTECT* AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
' 4
2 9
OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATION
MEMORANDUM
TO: Frank M. Covington, Director
Water Division (W-1 )
Region IX, ,S)n Franc* o
FROM: Harvey .-Pappen�r;�D' ctor
Grants " ministration os. (PM-216 )
SUBJECT: `ir
' tT_U'-- asty a"Tr "rg 91Tf
This memorandum responds to your July 22, 1983 , request
for a deviation from the construction grant program regulations.
ACTIO?
I am not approving a deviation from 40 CFR 35. 2116(b) of
the construction grant program regulations for the City of
tascadero, California's, proposed project C062927. This
eviation would have waived the requirement that the collection
system serve a resident population located in the area on or
before October 18, 1972.
BACKGROUND
Section 211(a) (2) of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act Amendments of 1972 stipulates that "no grant shall be . -
made for a sewage collection system under this title unless
such grant . . . is for a new collection syster_I in an existing
community with sufficient existing or planned capacity adequate-
ly to treat such collected sewage. . . . " This provision was
designed to assure that the costs of collection systems for
new communities developing after October 18, 1972, be included
as part of development costs and not be supported with Federal
funds. 40 CFR 35. 2116(b) implements this provision by requiring
that the bulk (generally two-thirds) of the expected flow
( flow from existing plus future residential users) will be from
the resident population on October 18, 1972. " Since only 30 to
-2- ;
40 percent of the flow from the project area Would come from
resident population in existence on October 18, 1972, the
project falls far short of the section 35. 2116(b) requirement.
We do not see any rationale that would support a deviation
from EPA's longstanding interpretation of section 211 (a) (2) .
Therefore, we are not approving this deviation request.
The Regional Office in San Francisco and the State of
California both recommend that we not approve this deviation
request .
AT`S E'?0 0';-SITE SEe.AGE DISPOSAL SS EY
,A,
r January - February - March
1931
PREFACE
the past it has been the practice of engineers and public health professionals to
recc�er.d the construction of se.'..'age collection, central treatment and disposal fac-
ilities :;hen individual on-site seti.,ace disposal systems have malfunctioned or completely
rail'�d• And the construction of these facilities has indeed resolved the problems of
tl;ese cc=iunities as far as on-site failures.
Pc,:ever, w-Ith todays construction, operating and maintenance costs the construction of
l
t!;-se facities may no longer a viable solution in resolving the disposal problems
in small communities, and public se,: rs stimulate growth of an area to proportions
planners and citizens may not t-.,?-nt.
Septic systems can be effective long term tools for wasteti•:ater disposal when properly
designed, constructed, and Operated, :;here suitable land in sufficient quantity is
available. They are also potentially less costly than sewers and central t
freatment
acilities.
Septic system failures are controllable. Alternative septic system technologies are
available to overcome soil , geOlogica1 , and hydrological conditions that may limit the
use of conventionally designer septic systems .
Proper performance of a septic system depends upon the ability of soil to absorb viruses
strain out L.C:cteria, and filter �:astes. A proper site evaluation requires accurate
measure;;en , Of soil permeability, decree of slope, position of the watertable, and the
depth of bedl-o;:k; or other imperTe?ble material .
The most widely used indicator o; soil permeability is the percolation test, which
measures the capability of soils to absorb water. However, researchers generally agree
the percolation test alone does rot provide adequate information to design septic systems
properly. Percolation test results taken in the same soil can vary as much as 50 percent
because of (1) differences in the tin= of year the soil is tested, (2) testing procedures,
(3) interpretation of results.
Improved designs exist to maximize soil purification ability and lengthen septic system
life. A variety of technologies exist to make septic systems viable under different
soil , geological and hydrolegical conr'itions. To overcore poor site conditions for
exa-:ple, such as seasonally h:ch crow 'eater or shallow top soil over rock, soil absorp-
tion beds can be raised by constr: ctir,7,7, them in mounds of sand.
Septic syste7s may also be cons t;-;:cter with pressurized distribution systems to provide
Periodic dosing and uniform distribut;cn of effluent to enhance purification, reduce
leachir;g field clogging, and I:Dxi;-;ize leaching field life.
Cc:--_.n Causes of SeDtir System Fa lures Are:
1. 'Poor site evaluation.
2. Inadequate system design.
3. Failure to follo:i design specifications during construction.
'• Poor construction procedures.
5. Inadequate inspection by regulatory agencies.
6. - Lack' of proper operation and, aintenance practices .
A primary cause of septic system failures especially
ti,i ti'll n the first three years
of service, is poor quality construction, overlooked by regulatory agencies during
site inspections. In addition to making construction errors, contractors sorretirres
1. Do not follow septic system design specifications.
2. Modify designs they do not understand.
3. Do not install systems at the proper location on lots.
?hese actions can only lead to early septic system failures.
Operation an*-j: iia i ntena rice Problems
then septic tanks are not periodically cleaned (pumped) , solids build up and enter the
underground soil absorption field, blocking or preventing the flow of effluent into
the soil . tiaintenance of a septic system is relatively Simple involving pericdic
pumping to remove accuMiulated solids from the tank.
Piiainterance of the Septic System i s tine Homeol•-iner's P.esoons i bi 1 i ty
Ffomeo:,r.ers usually do not know how ti-jeir systems v,ork or ho:, to operate and maintain
them properly. - Homeoa,rners frequently neglect pumping of the tank, causing failures
or problems, because thoy are not ac•;are of maintenance needs. Homeowners can also
cause system failures and probl&.—,s by excessive water usage, which overloads systells.
SEPTIC SYSTEM SURVEY REPORT
City of Atascadero
1981
In response to a request by the County Engineering Department (Atascadero Sanitary
Distract) the Division of Environ:i;ental Health conducted a survey of eleven estab- .
lisped areas of Atascadero reported to have experienced septic system problems.
The objective of the survey �-'as to delineate the scope of septic system problems
by area.
All statistical data Was established by means of a house to house contact utilizing
the attached questionnaire ,"or ,. An attempt t•ras made to examine the property, with
i,omeo;finers consent, to dete:r^rire t:h=tiger effluent may be surfacing on the property.
N-ost property owners were cooperative and helpful .
The survey questionnaire used various criteria to observe the extent of problems or
failures including:
1. Fr=equency of pumping.
2. Failures, t•rhether seasonal (during rains) or not.
3. Effluent surfacing H--hether presently or in the past.
4. Restricted or sluggish use of fixtures.
5. S`p:.arated gray,-rater syste.;s to reduce septic hydrologic loading.
6. Noted ser,age odors.
In addition, other data was eathered as to parcel size, types of dwellings, ty es of
septic systems. Whether standard or specially engineered aerobic systems, agespof the
systems and lot slopes.
Dates were taken of t=hen system repairs were made and what types of repairs Were made.
Dates are shown by range, however, it should be noted that many homes are rentals or
ne':r buyers so that a complete ,history of the system is difficult to determine in many
cases. Most repairs Were either extending leachlines or addition of dry Wells or pits.
A nuber of systems shot;ed repairs to septic tams or replacirg older redwood tanks
Loth new lids or complete tan' reptaciament with cement or fiberglass units .
It should also be noted that so-e areas sho,,rirg surfacing effluent and/or senor_ tank
problems may be caused by surface or subsurface springs trhich adjoin or traverse
disposal fields.
The attached survey datad1ngS of 'it'.
See. r1,S •+ Gerald Erickson R.S rad
Ray ..e•�sen ,S � . , rlr. Pr
ad, i• r. , I�S. Shire-En Fa heyd"Rated on and Nr. n of
'f this Division in PI-ca5 graphically .S. , ' 'the ecce�C uE'rt Garver, n.$ , ,
descri bed in th,, fol l o,,,J n rpanyi rg ,,;ap and
n7
cr: rn -Y OF FINDINGS
The surrey team attempted interviews with 739 parcels. In those with residents not
home, business cards were left with a toll free telephone number requesting a cal
back for intervie:•1 by telephone, Intervie•rs or acquisition of information was suO
cessfully obtained for 4'09 dwellings or 59% of the at
contacts in eleven areas .
An analysis of the total units4
( 6.) surveyed revealed a seasonal or repeated failure
rate of Ili while 240/10 overall reported past repairs to the original system. All
percentages are broken doian in % by area.
It �•roul d be reasoned that in most cases those dviel l i ngs bypassing gray,.iater to the
yard do so to relieve septic tank overload aiid system failure and in most cases seem
not to Le a;•rare that this is a violation of existing codes.
It is the opinion of this Division that there exists a moderate on-site disposal system
proble� ;n those areas with the smaller parcel sizes, areas of excessive slopes,
esp;.cialiy where there is spring activity.
It ,-,,as interesting to note that many individuals interviewed never had their se.pti c
tank pumped, did not 'rno:•r ,-,,here it- ;-,,as located, ti-,ere surprised they were not on
co„_,iunity selv,ers and did not consider septic tang; pu;;,ping necessary unless there t•�as
a backup into the house or yard.
RECO;.";EiiDATIO?JS
1. That the A tascadero City Council formulate a policy to educate property and;or�
10Meo ;,rs to t
,:rhe necessity of septic systelm maintenance.
2. That t`-e r'-.tascadero City Council maintain a minimum lot size for single -family
d ,'ellin" s of at least one acre t•Jith cOiTi:➢Unity ,•rater and 2'Z acres 'ai th a private
V.1e l l .
3. That the Atascadero City Council support a policy that all parcels outside the
Sewer L:;,rove::ent District proposing new construction require soil tests and
engineered se;.-age disposal syste:;s inspected and certified by the design engineer.
4. That an engineered system, ;;hether it be conventional or evapotranspirative, be
certified by the design engineer. In turn the contractor certify the systei to
the buyer or owner of the property as to the operation and maintenance of the
disposal system. A maintenance schedule should be permanently affixed to the
d,•relling and made a part of the title report and become a permanent record in
the grant deed.
5. Based on the survey findings it is this Department's reccmmendation thais the
community sererz�ge syste, be e;•;pw;�ded as rapidly as funding allow.
Specifically, these areas t1nalt sFculd be given priority for severing are as
follc,rs.
AREA C '",^,ginering Sci-!Ices :F 11
A2EA E ;;'17_
AREA F -5 6
AIR EA G ,,3
AR. EA I " ,�7
AREA K 7.4 1 ,�
i
iiEM X4 �J
•
ATASCADERO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
AUDIT REPORT
. June 30, 1985
•
•
ROBERT M. MOSS ACCOUNTANCY CORPORATION
CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
802 EAST MAIN STREET
SANTA MARIA,CALIFORNIA 93454
(805)925-2579
ROBERT M. MOSS.C.P.A. SANTA MARIA.CALIFORNIA
PAUL B. MOE.C.P.A. September 23, 1985 BEVERLY HILLS.CALIFORNIA
RONALD A. LEVY. C.P.A.
MEMBER AMERICAN INSTITUTE
CELIA KAHN.C.P.A. AND CALIFORNIA SOCIETY OF
DEBORAH DAVIS.C.P.A. CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
AND CALIFORNIA SOCIETY OF
MAURICE KAHN.C.P.A. MUNICIPAL FINANCE OFFICERS
Governing Board
Atascadero County Sanitation District
Atascadero, California
Gentlemen:
We have examined the balance sheets of Atascadero County Sanitation
District as of June 30, 1985, and the related statements of income and
changes in financial position for the year then ended. Our examination
was made in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, and
accordingly included such tests of the accounting records and such other
auditing procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances.
In our opinion, the aforementioned financial statements present
fairly the financial position of the Atascadero County Sanitation Dis-
trict at June 30, 1985, and the results of its operations and the changes
in financial position for the year then ended in conformity with generally
accepted accounting principles applied on a basis consistent with that of
the preceding year.
ROBERT M. MOSS CCOUNTANCY CORPORATION
/InLevy, C .A.
i �5
ATASCADERO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
COMBINED BALANCE SHEETS
June 30, 1985
Sewer
General Facilities
Fund Fund
Assets
Current Assets:
Cash in treasury $ 2,983 $ -
Cash in bank 29,779
Cash investments 561,623 155,117
Cash with fiscal agent
Accounts receivable 28,836
Interest receivable 28,901 430
Annexation Charges:
Receivable - current (Note 3) 1,202
Deposits 2,000
Total current assets 654,122 156,749
Property, Plant and Equipment:
Land 346,500
Utility plant in service (Note 7) 10,587,296
Less: Accumulated depreciation 637,774
Net property, plant and
equipment (Schedule 1) 10,296,022
Noncurrent Assets:
Amount provided for retirement of
long-term debt
Annexation Charges:
Receivable - noncurrent (Note 3) 5,175
Total assets $ 10,950,144 $ 161.924
The accompanying notes are an integral part of the financial statements
Bond Bond
Plant Revenue Service Long-Term (Memorandum
Expansion Fund Fund Debt Fund Only)
Fund (Note 6) (Note 6) (Note 6) Total Funds
$ - $ - $ 53,091 $ - $ 56,074
23,637 53,416
493,260 1,210,000
13,664 13,664
28,836
29,331
1,202
2,000
493,260 23,637 66,755 1,394,523
346,500
10,587,296
637,774
10,296,022
1,543,100 1,543,100
5,175
$=493.260 $_ 23,637 $_ 66,755 $ 1,543,100 $13,238,820
-2-
ATASCADERO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
COMBINED BALANCE SHEETS
June 30, 1985
Sewer
General Facilities
Fund Fund
Liabilities and Fund Balances
Current Liabilities:
Accounts payable $ 71,277 $ -
Accrued interest payable
Deposits 250
Total current liabilities 71,527
Long-Term Debt:
Bonds payable (Note 6)
Total long-term liabilities
Fund Balance:
Reserves 5,175
Fund balance available 10,878,617 156,749
Total fund balances 10,878,617 161,924
Total liabilities and fund balances $ 10,950,144 $ 161,924
�he accompanying notes are an integral part of the financial statements
C,
i
Bond Bond
Plant Revenue Service Long-Term (Memorandum
Expansion Fund Fund Debt Fund Only)
Fund (Note 6) (Note 6) (Note 6) Total Funds
$ - $ - $ 14 $ - $ 71,291
13,650 13,650
250
13,664 85,191
1,543,100 1,543,100
1,543,100 1,543,100
23,637 28,812
493,260 53,091 11,581,717
493,260 23,637 53,091 11,610,529
$ 493,260 $ 23,637 $ 66,755 $ 1,543,100 $ 13.238,820
-3-
ATASCADERO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
COMBINED STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE AVAILABLE
For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1985
Sewer
General Facilities
Fund Fund
Fund balance available - July 1, 1984 $ 10,790,259 $ 48,075
Add:
Net income (loss) (314,533) 107,566
Contributions - sewer laterals 29,680
Decrease in reserves 1,108
Total (284,853) 108,674
Less:
Transfer to reserves
Depreciation - contributed assets 10,635
Retirement of long-term debt
Fund transfers (383,846)
Total (373,211)
Fund balance available - June 30, 1985 $ 10,878,617 $---L56-,749
The accompanying notes are an integral part
of the financial statements
Bond Bond
Plant Revenue Service
Expansion Fund Fund
Fund (Note 6) (Note 6) Total Funds
$ 418,967 $ - $ 38,137 $ 11,295,438
74,293 454,830 (15,352) 306,804
29,680
1,108
74,293 454,830 (15,352) 337 ,592
5,678 5,678
10,635
35,000 35,000
449,152 (65,306)
454,830 (30,306) 51,313
$--493,--260 $ - $ 53,091 $ 11,581,717
-4-
d'
ATASCADERO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
INCOME STATEMENT
For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1985
Sewer
General Facilities
OPERATING ACTIVITIES:
Revenues:
Sewer Service Charges:
Residential $ _ $ _
Commercial
Institutional
Sewer availability 86,310
Connection fees 9,275
Effluent
Permit and inspection fees
Total operating revenues 95,585
Expenses:
Wages and employee benefits 109,452
General and administrative 72,827
Utilities 75,384
Maintenance and repairs 2,571
Operating supplies and tools 27,099
Gasoline and oil 2,346
Outside services 5,195
Depreciation 131,372
Total operating expenses 426,246
NET OPERATING INCOME (LOSS) (426,246) 95,585
NON-OPERATING ACTIVITIES:
Revenues:
Grants
Property taxes 59,340.
Interest income 52,373 11,981
Other
Total non-operating revenues 111,713 11,981
Expenses:
Interest
Other
Total non-operating expenses
NET NON-OPERATING INCOME (LOSS) 111,713 11,981
NET INCOME (LOSS) $ (314,533) $---107-.566
The accompanying notes are an integral part of the financial statements
4
r:
Bond Bond
Plant Revenue Service
Expansion (Note ) (Note ,55 Total Funds
$ - $ 336,371 $ - $ 336,371
72,264 72,2.64
36,054 36,054
86,310
9,275
9,854 9,854
287 287
454,830 550,415
109,452
72,827
75,384
2,571
27,099
2,346
5,195
131,372
426,246
454,830 124,169
35,600 35,600
63,902 123,242
38,693 4,141 107,188
74,293 68,043 266,030
82 ,955 82,955
440 440
83,395 83,395
74,293 (15,352) 182,635
$--74-.,2 93 $ 454,830 $ (15,352) $ 306,804
-5-
1
i
ATASCADERO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN FINANCIAL POSITION
For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1985
WORKING CAPITAL WAS PROVIDED BY:
Operations:
Net Income $ 306,804
Add: Depreciation 131,372
Value of contributed assets 29,680
Reduction in non-current portion of
annexation charges receivable 1,108
Total working capital provided $ 468,964
WORKING CAPITAL WAS USED FOR:
Retirement of debt $ 35,000
Additions to property, plant and equipment 55,517
Increase in working capital 378,447
Total working capital used $ 468,964
INCREASE (DECREASE) IN WORKING CAPITAL COMPONENTS:
Current Assets:
Cash in county treasury $ (599,003)
Cash with fiscal agent (750)
Cash in bank (156,713)
Cash investments 1,210,000
Accounts receivable (40,720)
Interest receivable 23,311
Current- portion of long-term receivable 56
Deposits 2,000
Current Liabilities:
Accounts payable (60,234)
Accrued interest payable 750
Deposits (250)
INCREASE (DECREASE) IN WORKING CAPITAL $ 378,447
The accompanying notes are an integral part of the financial statements
-6-
^t`
d-
i ! i
ATASCADERO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
June 30, 1985
1. District Organization
The District was organized in July 1958 under the authority of Section
6400et. seq. of the Health and Safety Code of the State of California.
Although the District is responsible for sanitation within its boundar-
ies, it does not directly provide any sanitary services.
2. Summary of Significant Accounting Principles
The accounts and reports are maintained in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles and the uniform system of accounts re-
commended by the State Controller's Office. Standard records of original
entry are maintained on a timely- basis. General ledger accounts are pro-
perly classified and provided adequate information for reporting purposes.
Accounting Method - The district is organized as an Enterprise Fund and
the records are maintained on the accrual basis with the exception of
revenues from taxes and assessments which are recognized when received.
Fixed Assets - Utility plant in service is valued at cost or fair mar-
ket value at the time of donation. Depreciation is computed using the
straight-line method, with useful lives ranging from five to seventy-five
years, which is in accordance with the guidelines recommended by the State
Controller's Office.
3. Annexation Charges and Related Receivables
Article 8 of the Atascadero County Sanitation District Ordinance No. 1
provides that when properties are annexed to the District, the property
owners shall pay such amounts as they would have been assessed had they
been included in the original district. These amounts must be paid in
full, or an installment agreement executed before a permit is issued for
sewer connection. The Ordinance provides that the charge may be paid in
annual installments over a period not to exceed fifteen years with inter-
est accrued at the rate of six percent per year on the unpaid balance. The
accounting policy of the District is that the revenue is recognized at the
time the agreement is executed and the lien created against the property.
The portion of the corresponding receivable of the district which is due
during the current year is shown as a current asset. The remainder is not
available for financing current operations and is shown as a noncurrent re-
ceivable with an offsetting reserve to remove that amount from fund balance
available.
4. Source of Revenue
Revenue of the district is derived from user service charges and from
a tax levy based on the assessed valuation, as determined by the Assessor
of the County of San Luis Obispo, on all property withing the District.
-7-
i��
ATASCADERO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
June 30, 1985
4. Source of Revenue (Continued)
The assessed valuations for the fiscal year 1984-1985 were as follows:
Kind of Assessed
Property Valuation
Secured $ 216,351 ,561
Unsecured 5,771,304
5. Bonds Payable
Bonds payable consists of two bond types as described below. To facil-
itate proper recording of bond transaction and to meet the accounting
requirements of the revenue bond agreement the Bond Revenue Fund and
the Long-Term Debt Fund have been added to the financial statements.
On January 1 , 1969, the District issued $665,000 of 6% bonds in order to
finance the construction of the sewer plant. Interest payments are due
semi-annually on each January 1 , and July 1. Principal payments on bonds
are due each January 1 as follows:
January 1 Annually Total
1985-1988 $ 25,000 $ 75,000
1989-1991 30,000 90,000
1992-1993 35,000 70,000
1994-1995 40,000 80,000
1996-1997 45,000 90,000
1998 50,000 50,000
455,000
FMHA loan as described on
page 9 1 ,088,100
$1 ,543,100
-8-
ATASCADERO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
June 30, 1985
5. Bonds Payable (Continued)
Per board resolution No. 79-205 a FMHA loan was obtained, secured by
revenue bonds in the amount of $1,300,000. As of June 30, 1985 pro-
ceeds totaling $1,108,100 had been received. Interest accrues at 5%
per annum, payable annually the first year on June 1, 1985 and semi-
annually thereafter on December 1 and June 1 each year. Principal
installments are payable as follows:
Principal Maturity Date (June 1)
Amount (both years inclusive)
$ 15,000 1986-1992
20,000 1993-1997
25,000 1998-2001
30,000 2002-2005
35,000 2006-2008
40,000 2009-2011
45,000 2012-2013
50,000 2014-2015
55,000 2016-2017
60,000 2018-2019
65,000 2020
70,000 2021
75,000 2022
6. Plant Expansion - Reclamation Plan
Construction of the new water reclamation plant was completed in Feb-
ruary of 1985. The completed plant has been transferred from the plant
expansion fund to the general fund asset account group.
-9-
,'1
-� 0 00 r- u-} tr1 N. r-i N
. O 00 -. 00 r-1 1.0 r- N
�-, U-) �'1 � pd ^ -7 N M O
I J' M u'1 �O �7 r-i M I'DO --ZT 00 0, 00 r-1 00 a\
,Y M Cl) V' .-i M M N N
O I ^
r-1 M 0
yr �.
Lf) C'� M 00 O� I7
J tr) V'1 110 r- r-
U 00 t` Ul n 01 t\
C r-1 M O Cl)
G ro4-1
•-� CLQ �Li� tr}
•ri t` M itl t\
U 'D u'1 00 N r-
a) ci aN N M 00 Lr)I O
�4 o
0. •ri I 00 r, ON
00 r--q I 4J
U
^J
rA
t.r
ro
00 l r- N 7 n
U 7 00 Cl) N Q\ -T r,
U C 00 -,7 M n Cl) ir1
U ro 1 N 00 d N r-i m
ro
z Lr) Pa r- �.
w co
:J <. rn v}
z
C) 00 -ZT N -ZT 00 0 0 I
n c o 0 rn 0 \D Cl) Ln rn
C) Lr) Lr) Lr, V-) rn o O M r
a u u 00 �.o Lr�
O r` r\ ri rn M
z z C G I t 00 01\ 00 00 rl Lr) O M 41
O O ro O M N tr1 -17 M r-i D1
" O
� z 'c
Ham yr ro
z c ( 4-1
< w cA m
I -1
r H � w I ro
C4 c, n
a. r ro u
G. uCD m
m cir G
00 Lr') rn 00 Ln
w u 0 ° r�
L) a 4 14 t rn r,
CJ7 � 1-r 11 N
Q ri O
H w 14 7p
� ro
a
v o 00 -ZT rn co 0 0 ,-i
U -7 O O r-1 N t\ \0 M \.O r- ro
�
00 V ') V') 00 ON O O -7 N p
00
ir) M 7 rr) r- M r1 00 v
ro 1 00 I r` r- r- Lr) O r- +r
Fq r- M N ir) M O0 C
v
ro
ro
a 4
ro o
41q
00
m o •r-i G
a �, v ro
>, 414-1 rI
� m ro cn a a ro v ro
u 0 •�H a 4 •� ,.1 v rN O r H Cs
u o � •� •r� •r� a 0 o •moi �
7, ro U 1.1 JJ 41 'b 1.1 i••r Y4
4-1 w •r•i -r-4 •H (tr--i p, p' u
Y4 f4 v v
N Oo• 1 00•r I Oo•r1 -i ro
c o a ro a ro a ro u sr G o
ro u w C) w u w o a� o ro c
a G. cn cn
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: City Council November 25, 1985
VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager
FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Zone Change 7-85
LOCATION: 8425 E1 Bordo Road
APPLICANT: Urban Sciences, Inc. (Dodson)
REQUEST: To chance the ^mina mac from RSF-Z (Residential Single
Family - Low Density) to L(PD5) (Recreation - Planned
Development Overlay) in order to allow the development of
an outdoor recreation use (waterslide) .
•
RECOMMENDATION:
Adoption of Ordinance No. 114.
BACKGROUND:
On November 4 , 1985 , the Planning Commission conducted a public hear-
ing on the above-referenced subject unanimously (with Chairman LaPrade
abstaining) approving the zone change request as outlined in attached
Ordinance No. 114.
Bruce Dodson, representing the applicant, spoke in support of the pro-
ject and explained that he had been involved in the original planning
of the regional park. He commented on the timing of this project so
that it can be operational by next summer, and explained that he had
just entered into an agreement to acquire the adjoining Jensen prop-
erty which would provide for an additional 75 parking spaces needed
for the project, which responds to a major staff concern. He was ad-
vised to file a second application for rezoning to tie this project
into an overall development plan.
*A conditional use permit process will be utilized when actual devel-
opment plans are submitted.
There was public testimony from various individuals as reflected in
the attached minutes excerpt.
;,0
Minutes - Planning Commission - November 4, 1985
The m arried with a roll c e as follows:
AYES : Commiss ' Mic n, Hatchell, Nolan, and
rman LaPrade
NOES : Commissioners Kennedy, Sanders, and Bond
4. Zone Change 7-85:
Request submitted by Urban Sciences, Inc. (Bruce Dodson) to
change the zoning map from RSF-Z (Residential Single Family -
Low Density) to L (PD5) (Recreation - Planned Development Over
lay No. 5) in order to allow the development of an outdoor
recreational use (waterslide) . Subject property is located
at 8425 El Bordo, also known as Lot 27 of Block 442.
Chairman LaPrade stepped down from the Commission due to a possi-
ble conflict of interest.
Mr. Davidson presented the staff report and pointed out that the
site plan for this project is conceptual only.
Commissioner Hatchell inquired about the gates to gain access to
the subject site. Commissioner Bond asked if this site could be
annexed into the sewer system. Mr . Davidson responded that the
site is within the Urban Services Line but just outside the sewer
district.
Bruce Dodson, representing the applicant, talked in support of the
project and noted that he was involved in the original planning of
the regional park. He then gave a presentation on the project
using slides. Mr . Dodson addressed several of the issues raised
in the staff report. He stated that he would like to see a coop-
erative effort with various affected agencies and spoke about
safety provisions, noise factors. Mr . Dodson further pointed out
that he is attempting to have everything worked out so that the
waterslide facility could be operational by next summer . Also
raised was the fact that an agreement to acquire the adjoining
Jensen property had just been entered into which would provide for
an additional 75 parking spaces needed for the project, which re-
sponds to a major staff concern.
There was discussion concerning the increase of traffic along El
Bordo which would be generated from the project. Also discussed
was the proposed restaurant which would serve beer and wine and
the concern involved to which Mr . Dodson replied that this use is
not primary to the main activity.
Mr. Engen explained that planned development zoning is proposed to
keep a tight control on the design and subject final approval to a
a precise plan or conditional use permit process which reflects
the zoning concept. "L" zoning without the planned development
would open the way to too many types of uses. Discussion ensued
with regard to the utilization of a conditional use permit process
when proposed plans for development are submitted:
f f
Minutes - Planning Commission - November 4 , 1985
Mr . Dodson spoke about the buffers that would be designed to
0
buffer the project between the Jensen' s house and property.
Nancy Harvey, representing the Atascadero High School, noted her
support and felt this type of activity would be beneficial for
Atascadero' s youth.
Gordon T. Davis, Board of Directors of the Water Company, stated
he was delighted that something this useful could be built on the
site and noted he had been surprised that this property had been
zoned residential all these years.
Betty Sanders, local resident, commented on the project and added
her support of this use.
Harold Jensen, 9425 E1 Bordo, explained why he had sold his prop-
erty to the applicant and spoke in support of the project.
Jayne Sacks, local resident, asked various questions about the
project and inquired as to what months would this operation be
open. Mr . Dodson replied that the facility would be open from
May through September.
It was the Commission' s general consensus that this project will
be beneficial to Atascadero and provide a much needed recreational
facility. 0
MOTION: Made by Commissioner Michielssen, seconded by Commis-
sioner Nolan and carried unanimously to approve Zone
Change 6-85 with the provision that a conditional use
permit process be applied when development plans are
submitted.
Staff advised that Mr. Phil Gudry, an out of town owner of "L"
property on Morro Road, had called to protest "L" zoning provi-
sions and expansion of "L" zoning.
With regard to the issue of conditional use permits versus precise
plans, Commissioner Sanders felt that use permits are more de-
tailed and talked abou tt he need for strengthening precise plan
findings.
Mr. Engen noted that rezoning of the Jensen property would have to
be accomplished as a future application to tie into this planned
development.
an LaPrade took his seat back on the Commission. a then
called a inute recess at 9 : 25 p.m.
5. Draft Environmental Impac ort - Bordeaux House:
Public hearing for is commenhe draft Environmental
Impact Re for Precise Plan 9-85 aux House apart-
ments unit housing complex) . Subject prope is loca-
at 11300 Viejo Camino, also known as Assessor ' s el
C 13�
City of Atascadero ITEM: B-4
STAFF REPORT
FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: 11/4/85
BY: Doug Davidson, Assistant Planner File No: ZC 7-85
Project Address: 8425 El Bordo
SUBJECT:
To change the zoning map from RSF-Z (Residential Single Family - Low
Density) to L (PD5) (Recreation - Planned Development Overlay) in order
to allow the development of an outdoor recreation use (waterslide) .
BACKGROUND:
Notice of public hearing was published in the Atascadero News on Fri-
day, October 25, 1985 and all owers of record property located within
300 feet were notified on that date.
The Hans Heilmann Regional Park and Chalk Mountain Golf Course was
developed under County jurisdiction in phases from 1976-80. This 200
acre park is comprised of an 18 hole golf course, playfields, picnic
areas, and trails for hiking and horseback riding. The Atascadero
Waterslide project proposes to offer a new recreational use to the
existing park facilities. The design of the wateslide and its related
activities is being proposed by the same designer as the original
park. This fact and the location of the waterslide adjacent to the
existing park , seeks to give the appearance of an integrated recrea-
tional area with a number of recreational pursuits available.
This application is being processed solely as a zone change with a
planned development overlay. Although this land is designated Low
Density Single Family Residential on the general plan land use map,
this application is not being processed as a general plan amendment.
Planning staff determined that given the properties' contiguous nature
to public recreational lands, that this could be processed as a re-
quest to rezone to recreational use based on General Plan language
which permits flexibility in such cases. Land Use Policy #9 of the
General Plan states that the General Plan is not a specific diagram,
especially in areas where there is a transition between different
types of land uses. This "wavy line" concept encourages retention of
the zoning for the less intensive use until demand dictates a change
in zoning for the more intensive use. Factors to consider in the tim-
ing of these changes will include existing development, property own-
ership, development potential, access and related physical features
and compliance with zoning and General Plan standards and policies.
This zone change application is an attempt to justify the use in
this area; the planned development overlay zone will establish the
development standards and processing procedures.
Zone -
Change 785 UrT�an Sciences
g ( ► Inc. )
A. LOCATION: 8425 E1 Bordo (also known as APN: 30-442-01)
B. SITUATION AND FACTS: is
1. Request. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .To change the zoning map from
RSF-Z to L (PD5) to allow the
development of an outdoor rec-
reational use.
2. Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Urban Sciences, Inc.
3. Representative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Bruce H. Dodson
4. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Approximately 3.15 acres
5. Streets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .E1 Bordo is a City-accepted
street with a 45 foot wide right
-of-way.
6. Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .RSF-Z (Residential Single Family
- Low Density)
7. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Vacant
8. Adjacent Zoning and Use. . . . . .North: RSF-Z, vacant
South: Hans Heilmann Regional
Park
East: Hans Heilmann Park
West: RSF-Z, single family
residential
9. General Plan Designation. . . . .Low Density Single Family
10. Terrain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .Varies from level to extremely
steep with a large number of oak
trees.
C. ANALYSIS:
This section will analyze the many issues raised by this project
as well as raise several questions. Some of these questions will
remain unanswered at this time because the site plan submitted to
staff (see Exhibit B) is conceptual in nature. The Planned Devel-
opment Overlay will establish the procedure for establishing spe-
cific development standards. Staff feels that a detailed master
plan of development could be approved by a conditional use permit
or precise plan process, much like applications are now approved
in Planned Development Overlay Zone No. 1 for Commercial Park
development.
The key issues identified by staff are as follows:
Access and Traffic Generation:
The access roadway to the site from E1 Bordo is a concern due to
2 �;5
s
Zone Change 7-85 (Urban Sciences, Inc. )
its steepness and present condition. However , staff, and partic-
ularly the Fire and Public Works Departments, could not evaluate
the circulation or improvements needed from the site plan submit-
ted. Minimum requirements would include a paved 20 foot wide
access roadway from E1 Bordo to the employee parking area. Access
will need to extend to within 150 feet of all structures, as well
as providing the minimum turning radius of 28 feet inside and 48
feet outside for Fire Department purposes. The effect of the pro-
ject on E1 Bordo is substantial with the pedestrian and auto traf-
fic the project will generate. Pedestrian traffic, particularly
the young people that will surely patronize the waterslide, dic-
tate the need for sidewalk improvements or street widening. The
zoning ordinance (Section 9-6.123) requires outdoor amusement
parks to be located on a collector or arterial. E1 Bordo is des-
ignated as a collector street; however , these improvements, such
as widening or sidewalks, are necessary to accommodate the in-
creased traffic. Undoubtedly, participation in the future traffic
signal at Santa Rosa and El Camino Real will be required. Engin-
eering and planning staff will have to determine if a traffic
light is needed at the intersection of E1 Bordo and E1 Camino
Real.
Parking:
The project anticipates 800 patrons per 1/2 day, with 60% of those
to be drop-offs. Based on industry standards, this parking demand
is 60 spaces. Thirty-nine on-site spaces will be provided, 30 for
the public and 9 for employee parking. The rest of the parking
needs are proposed to be met by available surplus parking of the
county parking lot. Generally, staff is in agreement with a
shared parking situation. However , questions arise when the other
uses and activities associated with the waterslide are included.
As stated in Exhibit D, the proposal includes ten hot springs and
a restaurant capable of seating 120 patrons. Beer and wine are
proposed to be served. When these uses are included, the parking
demand of 60 spaces seems inadequate. The specific off-site park-
ing agreement will be approved in the development review phas of
the project. The impact of serving alcoholic beverages will also
need to be closely examined.
Visual Effect:
The waterslide will be constructed in a self-supporting manner and
will be 45 feet in height above grade. The applicant is attempt-
ing to soften the impact through the placement of the slide and
landscaping. The zoning ordinance requires that 25% of an amuse-
ment park site be landscaped, including all required setbacks,
which are to be provided with screening plant materials. Further-
more, the ordinance requires complete enclosure with a six foot
high fence. In this case, staff would recommend extra landscap-
ing, particularly along the south and west property lines where a
single family residence and vacant property zoned residential now
exists. This will provide a buffer between the recreational and
residential uses. Due to the conflicting nature of these two land
uses, the zoning ordinance requires that a facility of this kind
be located no closer than 1, 000 feet to a residential zone. This
requirement will need to be altered under the Planned Development
3
i
Zone Change 7-85 (Urban Sciences, Inc. )
Overlay zone.
Noise:
Closely related to the visual impact is the noise generated by the
project. This will be quite an active recreational area with both
voice and rushing water systems, contributing to noise. The
screening and landscaping associated with visual screening will
help somewhat in this regard, but not to a great degree. The
applicant is trying to temper the sound of the waterslide by plac-
ing it within a large excavation pit.
A case can be made that this sound, quite like a waterfall, is not
necessarily negative. While noise effects people differently, in
general the effects vary with the duration and with the time of
day. The Planning Commission may wish to consider a limitation on
the hours of operation as has occurred with other recreational use
approvals.
Signage:
Signage and lighting are not detailed at this time. Proposed
signs are to be placed on E1 Camino Real and at the entrance to
the facility. Signs will be lit at night. Staff notes that under
Zoning Ordinance Section 9-4.132 (c) (3) , off-premise signs that
direct attention to a business service, product, or entertainment
not sold or offered on the premises on which the sign is located,
are prohibited.
Sewage Disposal:
There are several soil types contained on this property. All of
them are designated as severe soils for septic tank systems on the
Soil Conservation System Maps. The project is planning on using
an on-site septic system. Staff would consider percolation tests,
soils reports, and a geology report necessary for review of the
feasibility of septic systems. During the development review
process, the Public Works Department will examine the feasibility
of annexing these lots to the sewer district and the possibility
of extending sewer lines to this area. The site is within the
the General Plan' s Urban Services Line.
Grading and Drainage:
The applicant' s supplemental development statement asserts that
minimal grading and tree removal is anticipated. Grading will
total approximately 15 ,000 cubic yards, mainly in the parking lot
area, the slope under the waterslide, and the sidewalk access to
the top of the slide. Drainage is expected to be contained on-
site. Drainage and erosion control plans will be required to en-
sure that these intentions are carried out. The soils and geology
reports will also aid in this analysis. Grading on these slopes
over 20% will require a precise plan approval by the Community
Development Department to see that the proposed grading is appro-
priate for the use and not excessive.
4
1
Zone Change 7-85 (Urban Sciences, Inc. )
Other Issues:
The waterslide is being installed to appear as an extension of the
existing park and, thus, become an integrated recreational area.
With this in mind, staff felt it might be wise to prezone the ex-
isting park consistent with the waterslide, in the event of annex-
ation of the County park to the City.
Water parks are large users of water. This park will be smaller
than many others, but will still use between 8, 000 and 15,000 gal-
lons of water per day. The Atascadero Mutual Water Company has
indicated to the applicants that an adequate water supply exists.
Summary:
Staff agrees that this project can be a compatible one in this
area if the proper mitigation measures and development standards
are applied.
Review of access to the site, as well as on-site circulation, will
center on improvements to the access road (E1 Dorado area) , im-
provements to El Bordo Avenue, and participation in traffic sig-
nalization. Parking demand wil be addressed through a shared
parking agreement with the County park parking area. Visual
effect and noise control will be softened through screening tech-
niques and noise standards available under the ordinance, in addi-
tion to careful placement of the facility on the hillside. Al-
though the feasibility of sewer will be examined, septic systems
will be the probable method of sewage disposal. Percolation tests
and soils reports will help in determining the adequacy of such
systems. Drainage and erosion control plans will be reviewed to
insure that the proposed grading will not cause erosion or adverse
visual effects and to protect neighboring properties from drainage
caused by this development. A prime focus of all these concerns
will be to shield the existing single family residence and the
properties zoned residential that abut the site, from any unfavor-
able results that the project could cause.
It is clearly evident that many issues and questions remain to be
answered before building permits are issued for this project.
Staff is in agreement, however , that these issues can be resolved
in a manner that will present an enjoyable and unique recreational
pursuit for the City and the North County.
In fact, this site is uniquely suitable in the City for this type
of activity, because it contains the proper terrain and is adja-
cent to an existing County park.
D. RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of Zone Change 7-85 with a Planned Dev-
elopment Overlay Zone. Additionally, staff recommends that the
specific conditions of approval be applied by conditional use
permit or precise plan process when a master plan of development
is submitted.
5 ��
4
•
Zone Change 7-85 (Urban Sciences, Inc. )
DGD:ps
ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Location Map
Exhibit B - Site Plan
Exhibit C - Topographical Map
Exhibit D - Project Description
Exhibit E - Supplemental Development Statement
Exhibit F - Environmental Description Form
Exhibit G - Draft Ordinance
6
L-21ill-
CITY
18
_.135 t2-el12-01: J9+
12'61
AT•81-183&T 81 2SLsill1Yc i� : ��•3 5imo
9e1`, •. 4REVISIONLO
Gg 2 "� #" °•,1?• TrL -r.iO 8 , e MIS
•17
a• r0LO 7jG.0 K510in �� JSI.3e, "SPARK.RSFY 05► . op
1•aRMFk 10-A
^{' 17
• `ra-,,, !) Ta/tel^ R/ /LL1234 1122rr yRSAY ,,�.1 ,nq w014
xe
23
J xL,o � ry..r. t.•.I 'At
OF ATASCADEI
Planning Departmer
r
r� V,
I ,
Yi
i
t+ r
i
1
„aa z
,
,
_ I�I�� �99J•J� l!"'�J-'- �y i X �ij�'�9�'�Jr__ 1
09
kY
Tp
EXH1131T C
'TOPOGRAPHY
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Urban Sciences proposes to construct and operate a water
recreation park adjacent to Chalk Mountain County Park on land leased
from the Atascadero Community Water District . This project is
stimulated by the strong need to provide water recreation activities
in the North County and Atascadero particularly .
DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY
The site selected was done so to make this recreation
service an integral part of an existing park and thus a component of
a larger variety of recreational activities originating at an already '
established regional location . The architectural design for
structures will be done by the same designer as the original park .
This will give the appearance of the new facilities being an
extension of the first park .
The integration of site and design will enchance the overall
utilization of the existing park by stimulating a wider -range of
people to come and use its facilities . The precise location next to
the larger park is strategic to parking because it is close and
apparent to both the golf parking lot and the main parking lot .
EXN ► v1T 17
�u3
WATER PARK ACTIVITIES & FEATURES
THREE FLUME WATER SLIDE
This slide represents an advancement in technology and is
buildable in less space with less alteration of the existing
landscape .
HOT SPRINGS
Ten springs will be built adjacent to an oak grove . These
soaking wells will appear natural with river rock and flagstone
borders . Each spring will have a shower , screen , locker and sitting
area .
KIDDIE POOL `
This shallow pool will have a standpipe foundation at its
center and a small slide on one side . Other play equipment will be
nearby .
BEACH AREA
20,000 square feet of turf area will be dedicated to sun
bathing and parental observation . This area will have lawn seating
furniture and sun bathing equipment .
RESTAURANT CONCESSION
A short order facility with beer and wine service will seat
120 patrons on its patio . This concession will offer service in the
beach area as well .
d
URBAN SCIENCES, INC. BRUCE H DODSON
PO. BOX 1244
PRESIDENT
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93406
(805)544-5665
SUPPLEMENTAL DEVELOPMENT STATEMENT
The Atascadero Waterslide Project will be built adjacent to the
Hans Heilman Regional Park in Atascadero , California. This project
is conceived to be an augmentation to existing recreational facilities
and will provide a substantial portion of water recreation needs
for the community and surrounding region.
The development of the project will have an effect upon many
aspects of community services and facilities. This activity
will also effect visual and to a lesser degree the audio environment
adjacent to the park. An Environmental Impact Report was prepared
in November , 1976 regarding the original park development and
is hereto attached . The following subject areas have been considered
in the design of this new facility:
( 1 ) TRAFFIC- Additional traffic will be generated
by proposed use industry standards indicate that
a car utilization factor of 4.5 people it typical
for waterslide usage . Daily maximum activity of
water park is anticipated to be 800 per half day
with approximately 60% of those as drop-offs.
The demand for nearby parking will then be 60
parking spaces total of which 30 will be provided
on site and the remainder will be located in parking
lots already constructed in the county park.
Additional parking ( 10 spaces) will be provided-
inside the waterslide grounds .
EXHIBIT F_
ARCHITECTURE URBAN DESIGN LAND PLANNING DEVEL0PMEN? CCUNSE'"NG � �
(2) WATER CONSERVATION- The water recreation park
is an intense commercial user of the potable water
supply. Although this park is anticipated to
be smaller in scale than- the standard park it
still may use between 8,OOO to 15 ,000 gallons
of water per day. The Atascadero Mutual Water
Company has indicated that an adequate water supply
exist to easily serve this need.
( 3 ) SEWERAGE- Sewerage impact from this use is minimal
and is generated by usage of public toilets,
an on-site consession stand and shower facilities .
The minimal sewer output will be handled by on-site
septic systems and will not need access to public
sewer system.
(4) NOISE- Water recreational parks are extremely
active public areas . Noise generated is by voice
and rushing water systems. The latter largely
mask the former and overall audio impact is similar
to that of a large waterfall . This accumulated
sound is not considered negative and will be tempered
largely by its location within a large, excavation
pit .
(5 ) VISUAL- Waterslides are constructed in a self
supporting fashion and rise to a maximum height
of 45 feet above origination point. This slide
will be constructed within the existing barrow
pit and will have little or no visibility from
any angle other than the water tank above the
property. Architectural features associated
with the operation of the park will be designed
to compliment existing park structures .
(6) ACCESS- The proposed park is located near the terminus
of E1 Bordo Drive which is classified as a collector
street in the Atascadero Circulation Plan. Easy
access is available for all types of rescue equipment.
Crash gates will be installed for service area
so fire equipment can move easily within the entire
side.
(7 ) PHYSIOGRAPHY- Little grading or alteration of the
existing typography is anticipated. All existing
oak trees will be preserved principle alterations
to the property will occur by landscaping of the
existing Fit and grading of the 30 car parking lot.
The visual effect will be positive and an improvement
on the neglected state of land at present.
( 7 ) SIGNAGE AND LIGHTING- Signs will be placed on El
Camino Real and at the entrance to the facility.
These will be lit at night as well as the activity
areas within the park. The signage will be consistent
park signage already in place and will not have
an advertising flavor.
8 ) GRADING AND DRAINAGE- Total grading will amount
to approximately 15 ,000 cubic yards . This 'will
occur in the parking lot and in the gradient slope
under the waterslide itself and sidewalk access
to the top. This will be non-structural and for
visual purposes. Drainage will be contained
within the park site and in strategically located
cache basins. No drainage impact is anticipated
beyond the perimeter of the property.
t!�r
Y
c®
INCORPORATED JULY 2. 1979
Ex14 rr31r F
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIR014DIENTAL DESCRIPTION
(To be completed by
applicant)
This form is being used to obtain information concerning your project.
The information you supply will be used to make a determination as to
whether any significant adverse environmental impacts may result from
the proposed project. This form should be submitted to the Planning
Department for evaluation in conjunction with your application. It
is to your advantage to see that all the necessary information is
supplied and is accurate. If the information is inaccurate or not
sufficient, you will be required to submit additional information
upon request.
Applicant Name URBAN SCIENCES, INC. For Office Use Only:
File No./Primary
Address P.O. BOX 1244, S.L .O. Entitlement:
Phone (805) 544-5665
Contact Person
BRUCE H. DODSON
Name
Address SAME AS ABOVE Proposal Title:
Phone SAME AS ABOVE
Description of Project: WATER RECREATION PARK (COMMERCIAL)
WATER SLIDE; HOT TUBS , SWIMMING t '
Legal Description of Property: LOTS 27 , 28 , AND 29 OF TRACT
NO. 5 , CITY OF ATASCADERO, COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, RECORDED IN BOOK 5 , PAGE 24 OF MAPS,...
Assessor' s Parcel Number: 30-442-01
A. GENERAL INFOR11ATION:
1. t7i11 this project produce odors, steam, vapors , or Yes No X
waste?
2. Is the project to utilize an individual subsurface Yes X No
sewage system? (if yes , complete Section C of this
form) '
Initial Study En* nmental-- Description
3. Is the project to be connected to existing sewer Yes No X .
lines? (if yes, complete Section D of this form)
4. Do you contemplate constructing sewage treatment Yes No ,
facilities?
5. Will industrial waste be discharged? (i_ yes , com Yes No X
plete Sections D and F of this form)
6. Will this project have onsite water softening Yes No X
regeneration?
7. Site Information: If more detail is needed, attach sheet.
a. Terrain: Level to gently rolling,
0-10% slopes .75 Acres
slopes of 10-30% �—Acres
steep slopes over 30% _71Z—Acres
b. Hydrology: springs, streams, lakes, or marshes Yes No X
on the site
Describe:
c. Proposed grading and land changes PARKING AREA FOR 30
'CARS AND STEPPED FILL FOR WATERSLIDE.
d. Vegetation: All natural vegetation already re- Yes X No
moved or altered
Natural vegetation will be Yes No
undisturbed
Significant tree-cutting or Yes NoX
vegetation removal proposed
(describe number of trees , area
affected, etc . )
e. Are uses on adjacent properties similar to those YesX No
proposed on the project site?
Different use. Describe
f. Describe any other unique or significant features of the
site: FORMER EXCAVATION SITE FOR GRAVEL OPERATION.
i
Isiitial Study Envi*imentjl Description -3-1p
8. If you think the project will not or cannot have any signifi-
cant environmental effects, indicate your reasons below:
THE USES ARE CONSISTANT WITH SURROUNDING COUNTY PARK.
9 . Are any of the following being submitted with this environmental
description?
a. Grading Plan Yes No
b. Drainage Plan Yes No
1. Slope map Yes No
2 . Contour map Yes X No
c. Vegetation Map Yes X No
1. Trees to be removed Yes No
2. Trees to be replaced Yes No
3. Trees to be planted Yes No
If yes to c. (1) , (2) , or (3) describe: NO TREES TO
BE REMOVED.
d. Landscaping plan Yes No
e. Building plan Yes X No
10. Amenities in project, such as park areas , open space, common
recreation facilities, natural area. Describe: ALL
RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE.
11. Are there any proposed signs and/or lighting? Describe: YES,
PARKING AND DIRECTIONAL SIGNS CONSISTENT WITH CURRENT PARK SIGNAGE.
12. Are there any proposed or existing deed restrictions? Yes No X
If yes, describe:
a. nature of restrictions
b. administrative responsibility URBAN SCIENCES, INC.
c. maintenance responsibility URBAN SCIENCES, INC.
i 5�
Initial Study En -iment l Description -4
i
13. Potential impact on community services :
a. Number of school children in project NONE
School district ATASCADERO
b. Need for police service YES, TRAFFIC AND GROUP ACTIVITY
Location of nearest station DOWNTOWN ATASCADERO
Response time (in minutes) 5 MINUTES
c. Need for fire protection NONE
Location of nearest station DOWNTOWN ATASCADERO
Response time (in minutes) 5 MINUTES
B. WATER:
1. Water Supply
Existing system Yes_K_No
New system with permit required Yes No
2 . Source
Well Yes No
Surface Yes No
Imported Yeses No
3. What is the use of the water?
Domestic
Residential Yes No
Type: (Homes, apartments , trailer park)
Commercial Yes No
Type: (Food estab. , shop, etc. )
Industrial Non-Domestic Yes_X_No
Type: (Agricultural, processing, recreational) RFCRFATTONAL
4 . Is there sufficient water available for this use? Yes-.&—No
Present Maximum Capability 15100q.p.a.
Maximum pressures at maximum demand 150 psi
5. Number of service connections required for the project. QNE
6 . Population served 00
7 . Does eater meet Health Department quality requirements? YES
Bacteriological Yes No
Chemical Yes No
Physical Yes No
Water Analysis Report submitted Yes—No—
ISS
I-Aitial Study Envi .mental` Description -5-
C. SUBSURFACE SEWAGE TREATMENT:
1. Has an engineered percolation test been accomplished? Yes—No. X
2. Has a conclusion been stated as to the suitability of Yes No X
individual systems?
3. Has a conclusion been stated as to the amount of re- Yes No X
quired sq, ft. of bottom area of leaching lines per
100 gallons of septic tank capacity?
4 . Has a conclusion been stated as to the amount of re- Yes No X
quired sq. ft. of sidewalk of seepage pits per 100
gallons of septic tank capacity?
5 . Is the area (parcel, lot, etc.) of sufficient size to YesX No
provide an area equal to 1000 of original installa-
tion to provide for expansion?
6 . What is the depth of the water table? UNKNOWN
7. What is the quality of any shallow (in relation to
existing ground evaluations) water table? Explain: UNKNOWN
3. Is there a portion of the lot(s) that is unsuitable for individual
installations due to soil or geologic conditions, slope,
etc? Yes X No
If yes , please explain: STEEP FACES OF SITE EXCAVATION.
9 . What is the distance to the nearest sewer line? 2000 ft.
10 . What is the distance to any neighboring water wells? 0 ft.
11. Will subsurface drainage result in the effluent re- Yes No X
appearing on adjacent lands?
42. Will subsurface drainage result in the possibility Yes No X
of effluent reappearing in surface water?
D. SEWAGE TREATMENT FACILITY (WASTE TREATMENT) :
1. What is the capacity of existing (or new) sewageg,p.d.
treatment facilities? �—
15�
� F
Initial Study Env* amental Description -61-0 "
2. What is the present maximum flow of existing sewage x g.p.d.
treatment facilities?
3. What is the amount of the proposed flow? _g.p.d.
4 . Describe the type of treatment and disposal: PUMPED PUBLIC
RESTROOM AND SHOWER FACILITIES FROM SUBSURFACE STORAGE TANKS.
5. Does the existing collection, treatment and disposal Yes X No
system have adequate additional capacity to accept
the proposed flow?
6 . Do you have letters or documents from the facility Yes X No
operator verifying all of the above?
E. SOLID WASTE:
1. What is the type of solid waste? Domestic
Industrial Agricultural
Other COMMERCIAL PUBLIC TOILETS & PAPER PRODUCTS
2 . What is yardage per capita per day? 12 YARDS
3. What type of storage? DumpsterX Single Containers X
Other
4 . Do you have a storage site? Yes X No
5 . Where is the waste disposal storage in relation to
buildings? AT REAR AND IN FENCED AREAS.
6 . Have you made arrangements for collection? Yes X No
e
.= .,, COMMERCIAL-INDUSTRIAL PROJECTS :
Describe project: WATER RECREATION AMUSEMENTS WITHIN
t
PERIPHEA OF LARGER COUNTY PARK.
�
11
' Initial Study Envio-:mental Description -7-
1. Are there any emissions (gases, smoke , odors , fumes, Yes No X
vapors) ?
2. Do you anticipate that this project will increase the YesX No
noise level in the immediate vicinity?
3. Anticipated sources of noise: 800 USERS PER DAY AT PEAK.
4 . Will shielding be provided for potentially hazardous Yes X No
operations (including heat, radiation, light & noise).
If yes, describe: LANDSCAPE AND SOUND BARRIER FENCING.
5 . Will protection be provided for storage of hazardous Yes X No
materials?
6 . What specific wastes are produced? NONE
G. VECTOR CONTROL: (insects , rodents , etc. )
(POOL)
1. Are recreational -NIX&MAX being planned for the project? Yes X No
2 . Are there adequate facilities for cleaning and dispo- Yes No X
sal of fish parts? ,
3. Are there any swamps, wet lands, salt marshes, spri.ngs,Yes No X
or wilderness areas adjacent to the project?
4 . Are there any irrigated pastures on or adjacent to Yes X No
the project? GOLF COURSE
5 . Are there any sewer ponds on or adjacent to the pro- Yes No X
ject?
6 . Are there any waste disposal sites on or adjacent to Yes No X
the project?
7 . Are there any plans for drainage on and from the Yes No X
project? --
8. Are there any plans for controlling standing water Yes No X
in borrow pits , drainage ditches, curb drains , etc?
9 . Are there any Flood Control Projects on or adjacent Yes No X
to the project?
�S
i
i
Initial Study En* nmental Description -8*
10. Are there any feed lots, poultry operations , dairies Yes X No
horse stables, hog ranches, rabbitries, or other
animal operations adjacent to or within a mile of
the project?
11. Are there any animal manure stockpiles on or near the Yes X No
project?
12. Is there any extensive fruit and/or vegetable harvest- Yes No X
ing near the project?
13. Are there any food producing plants near the project? Yes No X
If you answered "yes" to any of the above questions,
please explain:
GOLF AND RANCHING ACTIVITIES EXIST WITHIN ONE (1 ) MILE.
14 . Are there plans for weed abatement? Yes No X
'If yes, what materials are to be used?
15. Are there special plans for handling refuse? Yes No X
If yes, describe:
I have completed this Initial Study and the information contained ' is
accurate to the best of my knowledge.
Date Signature
Name (Printed)
Address
Phone
/_35
ORDINANCE NO. 114
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ATASCADERO AMENDING SECTION MAP NUMBER 19 OF
OFFICIAL ZONING MAPS OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO
AND AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT
BY REZONING CERTAIN PROPERTY AT 8425 EL BORDO
FROM RSF-Z (RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, LOW DENSITY)
TO L(PD5) (RECREATION - PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY
NO. 5) (ZC 7-85: URBAN SCIENCES, INC. )
WHEREAS, the proposed zoning map amendment is consistent with the
General Plan as required by Section 65860 of the California Government
Code; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment is in conformance with Section
65800 et seq. of the California Government code concerning zoning reg-
ulations; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment will not have a significant ad-
verse effect upon the environment, and preparation of an environmental
impact report is not necessary; and
WHEREAS, the Atascadero Planning Commission held a public hearing
on November 4, 1985 and has recommended approval of Zoning Ordinance
Text Change 7-85.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Atascadero does ordain
as follows:
Section 1. Council Findings.
1. The proposal is compatible with the surrounding land use and
zoning.
2. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan.
3. The proposal will not result in any significant adverse en-
vironmental impacts and preparation of an environmental
impact report is not necessary.
4. The site ' s relationship to the existing County park , as well
as the placement of the facility in a gravel pit, with an
extensive landscape buffer around it, make the proposal com-
patible with the surrounding residential property and the re-
quirement to be 1, 000 feet from a residential zone (Section
9-6 . 123 (a) (i) is inappropriate and is hereby waived.
,r
Section 2. Zoning Map.
Map Number 19 of the Official Zoning Maps of the City of Atasca
dero on file in the City Community Development Department is hereby
amended to reclassify lots 27, 28, 29 of Tract No. 5 (APN: 30-442-01)
as shown on attached Exhibit "A" which is hereby made a part of this
ordinance by reference .
Section 3. Zoning Text Change.
Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment 7-85 is approved to change the
text of the Zoning Ordinance to read as follows:
1. Section 9-3. 649 is added to the Planned Development Overlay
Zones to read as follows:
9-3. 649 . Establishment of Planned Development Overlay
Zone No. 5 (PD5) . The Planned Development Overlay Zone No.
5 is established as shown on the official zoning maps (Sec-
tion 9-1. 102) . The following development standards are
established:
a) Approval of a conditional use permit reflecting a master
plan of development for a waterslide and related uses
shall be required prior to approving a grading permit,
or tentative parcel or tract map. The master plan of
development shall be applied for and processed as a con- 0
ditional use permit (Section 9-2.109) .
b) In approving a master plan of development, the level of
processing for subsequent projects or phases may be re-
duced to a plot plan provided that the master plan con-
tains sufficient detail to support such a determination.
c) No subsequent plot plan, precise plan, conditional use
permit, or tentative parcel or tract map shall be ap-
proved unless found to be consistent with the approved
master plan of development. Any amendment to a master
plan of development, including conditions thereof, shall
be accomplished as set forth in Subsection (a) of this
Section.
d) Building architecture shall be compatible with the arch-
itecture of Hans Heilmann Regional Park.
e) Landscape plans shall make provision to develop a dis-
tinct buffer zone between the outdoor recreation use and
adjacent residential property.
Section 4. Publication. The City Clerk shall cause this or-
dinance to be published once within fifteen (15) days after its pas-
sage in the Atascadero News, a newspaper of general circulation, prin- 1
ted, published and circulated in this City in accordance with Govern-
ment Code Section 36933 ; shall certify the adoption of this ordinance;
and shall cause this ordinance and certification to be entered in the
2 f�
Book of Ordinances of this City.
Section 5. Effective Date. This ordinance shall go into ef-
fect and be in full force and effect at 12:01 a.m. on the thirty-first
(31st) day after its passage.
On motion by and seconded by
, the foregoing ordinance is hereby adopted in its entirety
by the following roll call vote :
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
DATE ADOPTED:
CITY OF ATASCADERO
ROLFE D. NELSON, Mayor
ATTEST,,:
ROBERT M. JONES° City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
MICHAEL SHELTON, City Manager
APPROVE . AS' 7 CONTENT:
ROBERT-M. JONES, City Attorney
PREPARED BY:
HENRY ENGEN,
Community Development Director
3 /5
I DIA
• M E M O R A N D U M
TO: City Council November 25, 1985
VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager
FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director K.
SUBJECT: Appeal by Elbert Gifford of Planning Commission' s denial of
Conditional Use Permit 16-85 (6455 Santa Lucia)
RECOMMENDATION:
Denial of the appeal.
BACKGROUND:
On October 7, 1985 the Atascadero Planning Commission considered this
request for a 23 unit residential facility for the elderly on a . 55
acre parcel across from Saint Williams Church. Action of the Commis-
sion was to deny the request as representing an excessive density
bonus for a senior citizens project and to invite the applicant to
submit a revised site plan containing a maximum 25% density bonus (see
attached resolution) . The applicant has subsequently appealed this
decision (see attached) and has also submitted a site plan application
for a 19 unit project with 19 parking spaces.
ANALYSIS:
As indicated in the attached staff report, the City' s General Plan
provides language which allows for utilization of a 25% density bonus
for low and moderate income housing and which permits flexibility in
development standards as a means of lowering costs for such units in-
cluding projects for the elderly.
The land is zoned RMF/16 which would permit nine units for a conven-
tional project or eleven units for a project requesting a flat 25%
density bonus as provided for in State law and in the zoning ordi-
nance. The zoning ordinance also indicates under Section 9-3.175 (c)
(1) "Amount of Bonus:
(i) The maximum density bonus shall be 25% except when a greater
bonus is allowed by Subsection ( iii) of this Section.
(ii) The number of units allowed by these bonus provisions shall
not be less than, but may exceed, the actual number of
• dwelling units provided for the targeted income group.
'i
1
r ar
Nov. 1 , 1985
City of Atascadero
_P.O. box 747
Atascadero, CA 93423
Re: Appeal of Use Permit #16-85
► 6455 Santa Lucia
Gifford Construction
J.D. BRANNON,ARCHITECT
MORM K ,kA W&M CWftffda93401 IMS)543-7M
RECE1`J�;�
Dear Sir:
We find that it is necessary to appeal the decision to deny our
application for a 23 unit residential facility for the elderly to
the City Council. We don't feel that the Planning Commission fully
understood our proposal or gave our oral presentation proper con-
sideration.
We feel that we can make viable arguments in support of this project,
which will be acceptable to the City and Community. This is a
facility that is much needed in Atascadero. This facility is sup-
ported and approved by the San Luis County Housing Authority.
Sincerely,
Elbert Gifford
�b4
'I
RESOLUTION NO. 9-85
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF ATASCADERO DENYING CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT 16-85 (6455 SANTA LUCIA: GIFFORD/BRANNON)
WHEREAS, the Atascadero Planning Commission conducted a public
hearing on October 7, 1985; and
WHEREAS, at that meeting, after considerable discussion, it was
decided that this project proposal was too dense for this site; and
WHEREAS, the intent of the density bonus provision is not to be
unlimited in nature; and
WHEREAS, the applicant was invited to submit a revised site plan
containing a maximum of a 25% density bonus.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the Atascadero Planning Com-
mission does hereby deny Conditional Use Permit 16-85 as follows:
Section 1. Commission Findings.
1. The proposed project or use as modified is inconsistent with
the General Plan.
2. The proposed project or use does not satisfy all applicable
provisions of this Title.
3. The establishment and subsequent operation or conduct of the
use will, because of the circumstances and conditions applied
in the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety
or welfare of the general public or persons residing or work-
ing in the neighborhood of the use, or be detrimental or in-
jurious to property or improvements in the vicinity of the
use.
4. The proposed project or use will be inconsistent with the
character of the immediate neighborhood or contrary to its
orderly development.
5. proposed use or project will generate a volume of traffic
beyond the safe capacity of all roads providing access to the
project, either existing or to be improved in conjunction
with the project, or beyond the normal traffic volume of the
surrounding neighborhood that would result from full develop-
ment in accordance with the Land Use Element.
6. The granting of a 155% density bonus would conflict with the
goals and objectives set forth in the Housing Element of the
General Plan.
Resolution No. 9-85 (Gifford)
Section 2. Commission Action.
1. Denies Conditional Use Permit 16-85 .
On motion by Commissioner Bond and seconded by Commissioner Sand-
ers, the foregoing resolution is adopted in its entirety by the fol-
lowing roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Bond, Sanders, Hatchell and Kennedy
NOES: Commissioners Michielsson, Nolan, and Chairman LaPrade
ABSENT: None
DATE ADOPTED: October 7, 1985
WAYNE LAPRADE, Chairman
ATTEST:
HENRY EN EN,
Communit Develo ent Director
2 ��i
City of Atascadero Item: B-2
STAFF REPORT
FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: 10/7/85
BY: Joel Moses, Associate Planner File No: CUP 16-85
Project Address: 6455 Santa Lucia
SUBJECT:
Request to allow for the establishment of a 23 unit residential care
facility for the elderly. Request includes a density bonus, a parking
reduction, a reduction in landscaping, and the location of parking in
the front setback. Current zoning (RMF/16) would allow for nine
units.
BACKGROUND:
In 1982 the applicant filed for a variance (V820212 :1) requesting the
approval of a three story, 27 unit senior citizen apartment complex.
At that time, Mr. Gifford' s application was denied due to the required
findings. The applicant was informed with the denial of the variance
that the City was in the process of rewriting its zoning ordinance,
and that the ordinance was being written in order to comply with State 0
law provisions for allowing density bonuses for low and moderate in-
come projects. The ordinance was also being reviewed to allow modifi-
cation of landscaping and parking standards for specific projects.
The applicant has now resubmitted the project showing 23 residential
units in a two story building. The exterior elevations show a tan
stucco building with red tile roof and black wrought iron railings.
The applicant proposes to provide 17 parking spaces. The applicant
has submitted a development statement noting that the project be lim-
ited to the elderly and that the project would be administered by the
Housing Authority of San Luis Obispo.
The project is required to obtain conditional use permit approval
based on four modifications to the zoning ordinance. The most impor-
ant is the request per Section 9-3.175 (c) to allow a residential den-
sity bonus increase from nine units to 23 (255%) . The applicant is
proposing a parking reduction from 43 parking stalls to 17 (39%) as
provided in Section 9-4.115 (i) . The applicant is also requesting for
a modification to the zoning ordinance pertaining to landscaping
standards and parking location.
A. LOCATION: 6455 Santa Lucia (Lot 24 , Block HB)
%F
1� '
0 r '
Conditional Use Permit 16-85= (Gifford/J.D Brannon)
B. SITUATION AND FACTS:
1. Request. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Request for a conditional use
permit for a 255% density bonus
increase, a 39% reduction in
parking stalls, and modification
to landscaping and parking
location.
2. Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Gifford Construction
3. Architect. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .J.D. Brannon
4. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 , 000 square feet ( . 5509 acres)
5. Streets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Fronting on Santa Lucia, a two
lane paved road with a 50 foot
right-of-way designated as an
arterial undivided in the
General Plan.
6. Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .RMF/16 (Residential Multiple
Family, 16 units per acre max-
imum density)
7. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Vacant lot
8. Adjacent Zoning and Use. . . . . .North: RMF/16 , church
South: RMF/16 , telephone co.
East: RMF/16, multi-family
residential
West: RMF/16 , multi-family
residential
9. General Plan Designation. . . . .High Density Multi-family
10. Terrain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Level, sloping gently to the
southeast corner of the site
11. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Negative Declaration
C. ANALYSIS:
A few years ago, the State, in an effort to provide more housing
for low and moderate income families, required cities to provide
new provisions to enable 25% density bonus increases into their
zoning ordinances. Atascadero' s ordinance also provides for an
unlimited density bonus increase if required specific findings
were made and that the project is found to accomplish goals and
objectives.
2 ��S
Conditional Use Permit 16-85,' (Gifford/J.D Brannon)
The required findings listed in the ordinance require: that the
project consist of a minimum of four units; that the bonus units
be made available to the target income group for a minimum of 15
years; that performance and management guarantees be provided to
demonstrate continued availability of the dwelling units to the
targeted income group; and that the density bonus will serve to
support goals and objectives of the housing element of the General
Plan. The project will or can be conditioned to meet the first
three required findings.
The fourth finding and the special finding deal with the General
Plan and housing element in particular is more complex. The Gen-
eral Plan' s land use designation notes a maximum density of 16
units per acre, but also notes the possibility of density bonuses.
The housing element notes in Problem No. 2 that development and
land costs are a problem not only for new units and rentals. As a
spolicy, the element provides direction to provide flexibility in
development standards as a means to lower overall costs of low and
moderate income housing units and that the City should continue to
utilize the 25% density bonus for low and moderate income housing
(Policies 1, Problem 2.3 - page 19) (Exhibit I) . The housing ele-
ment also addresses the housing needs of special groups such as
the elderly. Program 11. 2 notes again the maintaining of flexi-
bility in zoning standards by allowing variations in development
standards to house special groups such as the elderly (Problem 11,
Policy Program 11.2) (Exhibit I) .
It would appear that the project would meet the required special
findings to grant a density increase, but the General Plan and
Zoning Ordinance makes no mention of a maximum increase that could
be approved. The addition of 14 units to 9 units could be consid-
ered for a total of 23, but viewed in the light of being a 255%
density increase, this could also be considered excessive.
A further review of the project' s site plan reveals some problems
that are caused by development standards associated with the den-
sity and size of the project. The applicant has requested modifi-
cation of the development standards to allow a reduction from 42
required parking spaces to 17 parking spaces to a reduction •of
40%. The applicant has also requested reduction of the 10% land-
scaping required for parking lots along with an encroachment into
the front yard setback of three spaces, and the installation of a
non-useable parking area off the street to provide fire access
(this will reduce on-street parking) . These are primarily caused
by the size of the structure. The staff has, in the past, noted
approval of a use permit for modifying parking requirements for a
seniors project, but required a one to one relationship between
units and parking excluding handicapped stall requirements (Condi-
tional Use Permit 3-84 - Young (California Manor) ) . The applicant
has noted the use of local public transportation and the exper-
ience on other sites as reasons to reduce parking requirements.
However , the City already has a perceived parking problem in the
nearby downtown area and due to the status of Santa Lucia as an
arterial, it would seem unwise to potentially add to a parking
problem.
3
Conditional Use Permit 16-85 (Gifford/J.D Brannon)
It would appear that the size of the project has required several
modifications that will have a detrimental effect on the neighbor-
hood if approved in its present form.
Modification of the project could be done as shown in Exhibit H,
eliminating the east west wing to reduce the project to 17 units,
a bonus of 8 units (188%) from the allowed 9 . This would allow
for the relocation of the three parking stalls within the front
yard setback along with providing 18 stalls (one stall per unit
and one handicapped stall) . The reduction would also allow the
elimination of the fire access. Landscaping requirements could
then be met too. Additional outdoor amenities may also be pro-
vided. The density per acre would still be a generous 31 per
acre.
D. RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit 16-85 with
modification shown on Exhibit H (modified site plan) , based on the
findings and conditions of approval contained in Exhibit A.
JM:ps
ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Findings/Conditions of Approval
Exhibit B - Location Map
Exhibit C - Applicant' s Site Plan
Exhibit D - First Floor Plan
Exhibit E - Second Floor Plan
Exhibit F - Elevations
Exhibit G - Development Statement
Exhibit H - Modified Site Plan (staff)
Exhibit I - Housing Element Policies
4 n
, i
Conditional Use Permit 16-85 (Gifford/J.D Brannon)
EXHIBIT A - Conditional Use Permit 16-85
Findings/Conditions of Approval
October 7, 1985
FINDINGS - Required for approval of a conditional use permit per
Zoning Ordinance Section 9-2.109
1. The proposed project or use as modified per Exhibit H is consis-
tent with the General Plan.
2. The proposed project or use satisfies all applicable provisions of
this Title.
3. The establishment and subsequent operation or conduct of the use
will not, because of the circumstances and conditions applied in
the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety or wel-
fare of the general public or persons residing or working in the
neighborhood of the use, or be detrimental or injurious to prop-
erty or improvements in the vicinity of the use.
4. The proposed project or use will not be inconsistent with the
character of the immediate neighborhood or contrary to its orderly
development.
5. The proposed use or project will not generate a volume of traffic
beyond the safe capacity of all roads providing access to the pro-
ject, either existing or to be improved in conjunction with the
project, or beyond the normal traffic volume of the surrounding
neighborhood that would result from full development in accordance
with the Land Use Element.
FINDINGS - Required for approval of a Density Bonus per Zoning Ordi-
nance Section 9-3.175
6. The project, prior to the granting of the density bonus, shall
consist of a minimum of four dwelling units.
7. The dwelling units allowed by the bonus shall be available to the
targeted income group for a minimum of 15 years.
8. Performance and management guarantees have been provided which
demonstrate continued availability of dwelling units for the tar-
geted income group as provided by Subsection (ii) of this Section.
9 . The granting of a density bonus will serve to support goals and
objectives set forth in the Housing Element of the General Plan.
10. The proposed density increase would assist the City of Atascadero
to meet goals and policies of the General Plan Housing Element
along with assisting in the reaching of the regional housing goals
for affordable housing.
5 b�
i
Conditional Use Permit 16-85; (Gifford/J.D Brannon)
. FINDINGS - Additional:
11. The reduced parking at a rate of one per unit plus handicapped
stalls and employees will be able' to accommodate the needs of the
senior housing.
12. The proposed use of senior housing has characteristics that are
different than those of a standard multi-family project.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. Site development including buildings, driveways, parking, land-
scaping and other features shall be consistent with plans submit-
ted including modifications (per Exhibit H of modified site plan
- staff) required herein and all provisions of Title 9. The maxi-
mum number of units shall not exceed seventeen (17) .
2. Submit four copies of landscape and irrigation plans in confor-
mance with Section 9-4.124 et seq. prior to issuance of building
permits.
3. Building architecture shall be consistent with the elevations sub-
mitted. Any mechanical equipment used shall be screened in ac-
cordance with Section 9-4.128.
i4. Fencing and screening shall comply with Section 9-4. 128.
5. Onsite signing shall comply with Sections 9-4.130 through 9-4. 136.
6. Parking shall be provided as set forth in Sections 9-4. 114 through
9-4. 119 with the number of required parking stalls to be reduced
from 47 stalls to 17 stalls and one handicapped stalls.
7. The applicant shall establish Covenants, Conditions and Restric-
tions (CC&Rs) for the regulation of land use, control of nuisance
and occupancy of density bonus units.
a. These CC&Rs shall be submitted to and approved by the City
Attorney and Community Development Department prior to ap-
proval of building permits.
8. Curb, gutter , five foot sidewalk, and pave-out along the Santa
Lucia frontage shall be provided. Pave-out shall bring the pave-
ment width of Santa Lucia from curb face to centerline shall be
20 feet.
a. All road improvement plans shall be designed by a registered
civil engineer and shall be reviewed and approved by the C
Public Works Department.
M9. It is the applicant' s sole responsibility to have removed, relo-
cated or brought to grade any public utility facilities that may
conflict with the approved road improvement plan.
6 hU,
r
i
Conditional Use Permit 16-85) (Gifford/J.D Brannon)
10. The applicant shall submit a drainage plan prepared by a regis-
tered civil engineer for review and approval by the Public Works
Department.
11. The applicant shall submit design, details, and calculations for a
stormwater detention basin. Construction of the detention basin
and any on-site drainage structures shall be certified by the
designing engineer prior to final inspection.
12. Wastewater disposal shall be by connection to the public sewer.
13. The applicant shall obtain a sewer connection permit from the Pub-
lic Works Department prior to hooking up to public sewer .
14. Obtain an encroachment prior to beginning work in the public right
-of-way. An inspection agreement and curb and gutter agreement
shall be signed, guaranteeing that the work will be done and in-
spections paid for .
15. Bonus units shall be conveyed only to persons who have been certi-
fied as having household incomes which are 120% or less of the
median income of San Luis Obispo County, as such income is deter-
mined from time to time by the Housing Authority of San Luis Obis-
po County. The Community Development Director shall certify eli-
gibility with this criteria upon application by a prospective
purchaser. The CC&Rs shall specify the application procedure and
all eligibility requirements which shall not be modified or re-
vised without approval by the City of Atascadero.
16 . Provision shall be made for this project to connect to community
water and sewer facilities. A letter shall be obtained from the
Atascadero Mutual Water Company stating that they are willing and
able to serve this project and submit the same to the Community
Development.
17. All other utilities not already in place shall be extended under-
ground at the time of building permit.
18. Efforts shall be made to minimize grading that would be disruptive
to the natural topography. All grading and drainage shall conform
with Sections 9-4.138 through 9-4.154.
19 . Curbs, gutter, five foot sidewalk, and pave-out shall be installed
along the Santa Lucia frontage. Drainage and street improvements
shall be approved by the City engineer.
20. Fire suppression facilities shall be provided as required by the
Fire Department and shall include, but not be limited to, upgrad-
ing of the existing fire hydrant and the installation of addition-
al hydrants.
21. All conditions of approval herein shall be complied with prior to
occupancy of any structure.
22. This conditional use permit approval is granted for a maximum
7 I�}
Af-79.265 1 - 1
• AT•77-236 VJK -
� (fps
AT-L+O-t3 t2-81 JDK +? 4••
AT 62. IL 5.2S8L `SC •.� :I _ a ' •,T> 't_1yf I
CR
F� •:
• , :�, � t-0. `�� ."tea•,.� �•
�~d• '4; ' '�'i1 `` ��- RMF/gyp �
c'.,• �, . �O i' '
Q ,,17 'ham :� 7�=/.. � • i � •.
FE^,IS ION DATE BY - �" `"' _' •'�" ''•`%;1" <•
SAN �,,. ;E,o.� ,� RMF/16
',y, ,! 1• - _` ►. o may' ."•w�?dab:Ayr n� '1 °fit!xte �- ,
C/-OF 1 rU' Jr
{o 155 S/N97P L U CI l •'` a t f/ i P
LOST Zq ELK HE ATI15 .CDL.
Z3 ON FF EZIDERL-' HJU51MG Q C4. f• w
r
C(q _Loe ',off•\a ff•A s ,Y a r�" t77 � '*N �r;� �'e 4+- -
• ` °�a ha♦ 6 � y. u P ', y]/yi• '!..a... s .,
� �,r,. `b�s 5,• to° is � e �t A �"cFa rf� , v
+may 6 c� SioS It s p e o A �� rt
- •'yCT` ,`�.�_ \ t 1• f � to V t] � ti IdA .�.���' •i � .
• > $ IQ
.o ne 51iy .11 ts' c m `:.• ,�.aa, t�
,. :f.• `� - ice."? •u 8 t o teo itb ,T� \
6 o�,t,.,•.••• b 1�' y5� .r T 1� H
II p 1] r ee •s !' 2� !.
LATz.
$a ,< ty Z ,1 •• e
• 5D P > 1 � •t s`
' y�oy 1 :•+ t`,° 'S h�ry2O �M ,+E ,,e '• t8•: ,�•e\ r kn 4 iP' :�%��� _
. . p.8 ,yl?y-�, , ss•r+ •• yo I tl t+y 5��.�• t a +� �p �;•
- .. 05,. ,ra ° �,,4t5 y a� tz t1 tl zp.. a..5 �, ¢s • � ° �,a
5 "6S �J••<°`' `°,° ''t° � titi • �sb.' LSF +:.•e a "ac s• s ,
_ s
. 5y5`°s �; �AC i• •�. '.^» tit4 ,l•z..e �:;a, !�.t '•�• a Mme• .6 •t' °k 4 �£ � Ay/
,
' � )•> ! 1 196 w k3 !
,• �y a .'R:, �a,x,E .o :..�" y, FB -aC
LSF_•'y `
_ 15
a ,1 ao •a, Asa w -_�o t•:
nl al •+•e
' zt lat"ato g 66. -tE t n tt• �.t "•yso ,�
�5'B6' 14°0 t°t•, - ��• ,tti 1 >o . •r,r •�i• t .., .
-..IIA to* 6T +r• ,i ¢8 •• 1 •rti .;�;•a al fda .> r NtG
s ys '•jDo r'�tll•„a 1 � .SpO �•t I� ,.. > >• '�h, �+ 90 \ '' ro
y 11 s .. a , . , - �,� .,�t .°� •;z �„ �•' ,> r,,.�, �;_ LSF-Y
ys yrf' y }. r`d5 \t 9 \x z+ a 'ice a?t • n° a tJ It i 4
T a] .♦ ,' rfv >d•.v t \ 4,� >l syr • •p • •,a >> � > 7•sS �eey t_
.. o. ��-A y0 id' +i 9� + �6y o° '\� > >s>J�S�~ • °e tt r. >
x'Sy 15 41 •.,r'�+(IS v '�• ,� Ir L(FH.
. �' ,•� '\` x�+•'o K�•o • n�. • n rte/• ze]g
N
51 , `!,V `'b=°`1>> r{ _ 60 0!��`' C 1` .�• ..,�w >v a t.
SL(1
T •1 a•n•f.+ •t 3 n.5 _ ]°1! 10
r"�' ._••+o y.w J t 3e,`t ,ti .:e P +t" ySt.° xb z
SO � `01 • .'• e)xe ,+ .i4 J' r• zzsg • `
. (� �fi 6, -r."S A;a>,^" 0t to >•' tt at >• ,a ••i` � g tzrs • I�`rS,w ~ '
I> t. ��, • ';r,' ,Y, to„ •'*a� .,���o sJoo `' s,� +.,o, 1" ;;'t`et
• o f•a• .. •�'a' w tom, Y,'r r4 •t pw w'•' m '°ti f.�° ,,,.tx o e� U B '„� t ._
a`oy a r�o � s,a a ,� aa. `'}` • .,�t8!� ''ts e T LSF-Y
614 +re• 9 l m
' ,. ut5� , • ,o 3.f+t 1• � H•L`t� -- W`'D �•I d• Sr d � �_, .
V.
. . 6� t►p"�,a1'�' `•ss a•C vsR 0 C , m � „ °Js•� Q� �;•
6A ,1,1t .•6•W
�• 1 ..
,, � � • .. • �: � . °. EACH IbrT f3
CITY OF ATASCADER0 2 LDCATIDN MA?
5_
�? I� Planning Department G U P /(a - 95
71110:9, ;D'a r r,r --, (o,{5'S5�1NTN LUCIA
fr-�_.•,y t(!,` t Gr I FFD7D BRAN N 0 Irl
c „a lln1 we ..14� f " 7, . ��.r . l:>-..'. ►,` _. ,�� 1 � _ . ..__ ..._-
f
}
y
,v
LIQ-- ---- ' ➢ � r � 1' . '- '�.-- � :. � - � I
JI
1�
r t ' MrL
5A N T•A L L I C I A -
-< EX H I ISFF G
: S I TU PLAN AFFLICARTS
s OD14 S .TE .o � q C-UP 16 . 35
DATB } I_70S C•,�SIA M1D t -5— SAN-M LUCIA
Gt l F1=DiZD n/�n 'l`
O CNE KED I.Gfi• Gt77 i.►��s iG 4 AVC {L./-�{`II IDN.
GREVISED :O. 21 G_CC4 --5
f _ •
I I
o
• A' ' _ • III Iillllli i - - ��
• I II `
1
r • '
Q n�
I -------------
i
I P r
=i PT
EXNII)n D
F�I E,-DT FLD� FLAN
JOB 071Y LOWGR 1"LOOR MAIN MR. Cep:K- G'FiQOCO C„� `
SC
OATQ 5ANTA LUG A
a REVISEO
3 G I FT�RD FRA1�1N DRl ,
1 _
1
n
C —
rF
A
IIIIII!Illlli
N •
r •
Q
U
r
Will 'li I I,L7.
i
DCN M IT E
SEMND IF'LC)bR PLAN
Jae OD14 urrert r.0ort r�AN Mrt Cloen7 GlrrortP
CUA 16 • BS
O; SCA LUCIA-SAW
C-jI FFOID • B YAMWON
1
� Ln
o
:nL4
n
i
Z91
4.1
E .
8 < B EFU
"'ll,7�4- 1
; ➢ �.
ru
eek ge -_
L-4--
EY\14]BFT F
\ 110 IBS.708 �RJ 16 ...LCVf1rIOtiS 4—R. C.--�C 6'rIORD CUP 11/ • BS
g Q� o�N�'.o.'e,� �---- — 1955—SAMTA LUCIA
CNEC SE F�
3 ' ��V�Eo 's �l FFDA.D • B�ZANN 01 .1 ��n
7
June 19, 1985
i � Atascadero Planning Dept.
Henry Engen
Atascadero Planning Director
6500 Palma Avenue
Atascadero, CA 93422
Re: Retirement home for
+ E. Gifford
J.D. BRANNON,ARCHITECT
268 plum,Km Us obispo,callfomla 93401•(805)543-7978
Dear Henry:
We are attempting to build a retirement home on Lot 24 at 6455
Santa Lucia Road, which will require special approval for several
items that are not in conformance with the Zoning Ordinance. We
have reduced the scale of the project some since our meeting, which
should make it easier to make the necessary findings to approve the
Conditional Use Permit.
1 . The project is now 23 units, reduced from 27 units.
2. The parking lot will have 17 parking spaces, reduced from
18.
The items which must be adjusted by the Conditional Use Permit are
the density, the parking ratio and use of the front setback.
The density for this RMF-16 zone would be 9 units, so we are asking
for a 255% increase. Considering that the tenants in this project
will be limited to the elderly, and that the facility will be ad-
ministered by the Housing Authority of San Luis Obispo County, we
do not feel that this is over impacted. Each unit is provided with
a private patio, and we also are providing a common outdoor patio
and indoor common room. We have this same arrangement in the faci-
lity in San Luis Obispo. It works out very well . Several of the
first tenants to move into the San Luis facility are still living
there.
We feel that justification for this density bonus can be found in
the City' s Housing Element, which states as one of its goals, to
EX
1-41 S IT
EMPMENT SfATE.VI CTAT-
C UP l to 85
fog E'S 5AUTYA LI)C I A
GI FF67M • 97MANOM
Engen Page -2-
provide adequate housing for every sector of the community. Cer-
tainly low income elderly citizens are in real need of adequate
housing in this city. This project, which is reserved for the
elderly, administrated by the Housing Authority, and qualified for
subsidized rents, meets all of the required findings listed in the
Zoning Ordinance for density bonus.
The parking ratio, as established by the Young project, was one
parking place per unit. We are only providing 17 parking spaces,
which is 74% of what would be required. We feel this is more than
adequate parking for an elderly housing project, because few of the
tenants will have cars. The project in San Luis, which we have
based this project on, has 24 units, but I have never seen more than
10 cars in the parking lot at any one time. I have been checking
periodically for the last month at varying times . Transportation is
not a problem, because the project is within easy walking distance
of downtown via the Traffic Way underpass. The minimal staff and
maintenance would only use two parking places at any one time.
The plan that we are proposing encroaches into the front setback
of the site at two places. The building corner intrudes on one side,
but due to the curving setback line, the other corner is over three
feet behind the line . The average setback to the building is slight-
ly over twenty-five feet.
The parking lot also encroaches into the setback from four to ten
feet . To reduce this would cost us two parking spaces and increase
our shortage from the code. We feel that the amount of landscape
we have provided around the sides of the parking lot should satisfy
the intent of the code to screen and break up the parking area, as
wellas the additional front setback would. We have also provided
two landscape islands in the parking lot .
0
Engen Page -3-
In conclusion, we would reiterate that we feel that we are providing
a much needed facility in the community. We feel that considering
the use, we are meeting the intent of all of the codes and regula-
tions and that we qualify for the special consideration as provided
in the Zoning Regulations and Housing Element. We do need these
variances and bonuses, however, to make this an economical project
for us and for the Housing Authority.
We will be at the public meeting to present our verbal arguments
and hope to have a representative from the Housing Authority fami-
liar with the San Luis Obispo facility.
Please call me if you need any more information.
Sincerely,
. Brannon
l ; '
_ �i• � -, 1,�I �, �
I/Y4,
5AN7-A L LIC IA
-< DCH FFS
MODIFILD 31TF7LAN 5TAFF
= O4 IS. =tio5 c is,
• CMECKEO �R lu .s-/+�G/+9G .0u •1i4t2 Io'95S SANTA LUCIA
GnEvtsED
6-0'r iT c-at:c 5,A-nx. u GI FRCED •79EA14MOl�
a
i •
1. Problem: Home Ownership It is becoming difficult for many
people to become homeowners. The costs of owning a home
throughout California are .increasing faster than average
incomes. Most home purchases are limited to the higher
income households or previous homeowners who have sub-
stantial equity from a previous home sale.
Policies: 1. Promote the development and construction of new
housing units for low and moderate income persons.
2. Promote and encourage the development and construc-
tion of new housing units for first time homebuyers.
2. Problem: Development and Land Costs. Financing, construction,
land and development are the major components of hous-
ing production costs . Increases in production costs are
generally passed onto the consumer in the form of higher
prices for new homes, as well as rental units.
Construction costs have decreased dramatically from 1949
to 1980 according to the California Housing Task Force
and the Construction Industry . Research Board (69% to
42. 5%) . The cost of land, on the other hand, has in-
creased sharply (11% to 27 . 80) . Land costs may be a
larger portion than this figure ,for new housing , espe-
cially in cases where there 'is shortage of buildable
land, strong competition for available land, or wide-
spread speculation.
Construction financing has increased also, more than
doubling from 1949 to 1980 to 12. 0% of the finished cost
of a house. Thus, consumer credit has increased and
without credit, most consumers cannot afford to purchase
housing.
Policies: 1. Provide flexibility in development standards as a.
means to lower overall costs of low and moderate
income housing units._
Programs : 1. 1 Continue the housing policy which permits factory
built housing such as modular or mobile homes to be
approved as standard housing stock.
2. 1 Continue to monitor and evaluate development stand-
ards and advances in methods of housing construction
to lower development costs where feasible.
2.3 Continue to utilize the 25 percent density bonus
for low and moderate income housing.
3 . Problem: Government Requirements and Review Time. The cost to
a developer of holding property while securing permits
is an expense generally recovered in the sale of the
housing unit. The longer this process takes, increased
housing costs or decreased housing production may
result.
Ex H wF Z
19 GUP 1 I ES 5- tTIT- FOUCl hS
�,q SS SA UT-A LLJU A ,
Cz 1 FF D • TSZftN N 0 N
1
ll.- Problem: Special Needs and Variety in Housing Opportunities.
The range of household types and "lifestyles" in Atasca-
dero necessitates a range. of housing types. (Current
I standards permit a maximum minimum lot size for single
family homes of 1/2 acre, with sewers.
Policy: Encourage a wide range of housing oZportunities, includ-
ing manufactured housing , and consider development of
any form of housing which has proven itself as a reli-
able housing sources. ,
, Programs: ll. l Maintain flexibility in zoning standards which
provide for housing of various densities and in dif-
ferent zones: provide for a minimum lot size of
10 ,000 square feet for single family homes within
the sewered area when compatible with residential
neighborhoods.
11. 2 Maintain flexibility in zoning standards (use per-
mit, planned development, and residential accessory
uses) to allow variations-in -development standards
to house special groups, - such as the elderly and-
handicapped.
11. 3 Encourage lending institutions to back loans for
innovative projects.
12. Problem: Housing Assistance. Housing assistance comes from a
variety of federal, state and local laws whch attempt to
provide housing for low income households, the handi-
capped, and elderly. Most often it is in the form of
direct rental subsidies or the operation and maintenance
of apartment buildings. It is difficult to determine
the exact number of those needing rental assistance, but
according to the 1980 census, there were 195 families
with an income of $5 , 000 or less and a total of 668 fam-
ilies with an income of $10 ,000 or less in the City.
According to the San Luis Obispo Housing Authority,
there are presently 61 people receiving rental assis-
tance in Atascadero under the Section 8 program. The
difficulty in quantifying those needing assistance does
not mask the fact that there are many people in Atasc'a-
dero who qualify for assistance that are not getting
any.
Policies: 1. Encourage the rental assistance effort, including
participating in available Federal and State housing
assistance programs.
2. New construction of additional assisted housing
should be of high priority.
3. Existing housing should also be made available to
provide additional housing assistance.
4. The people who need housing assistance the most
should be given the first available choice .
23
--
k ,
k
� b
I '
I
I
P.
� o w
f
SAIJTA L uc'IA AV
a�l14 ! ITL rl�fv MR. aLbaRT ilI//RD
CYIb P- RD
,
O S c ZPa 'r-sl "Kol u '"1}22 JJ.D. BRANNON, ARCHITECT
1 0 i�y� G4�j0 3� 7 G14 V! tM pUMAD Ur.MN t.«
LOT tt D�0.'K MD,ATAb[. lDl.. CILL/. 2401
Fi0.•C-109189 •GLS. 70
P r V !O-i'11•D (pal Sy-7/"
,�3
i
eek � e
8
{
fT
i
BE� 1
�1 '. 88
z
` 88 dee
D _
D L D 8 8
EEL
MEL Cv,& Ia' MR. wLelR7 cirroRvaT.D. BRANNON, ARCHITECT
` !N POMO R..4N UJ-ONWOM CALL.I
CALJF.PMM.0 C-10003 OJCO Mi-7b7�
IN
i
iL�r i n
I
Q i ebir LOWP-K t01.1POK rLA.N g MR. C,beRT GiFfORtp
�
M'cin f J.D. BRANNON. ARCHITECT
A iiv� a P8 Mr Y � o
N UA6 P .C4aw 8344"
CA .M u f C_"3063 owo w-rye
1
I�
i,
t _
TUT
�I
�ul
�-A
7,9,
FJ
9'A A 11
!1
b
urroK noon mo,nonr einano
J.D. BRANNON. ARCHITECT
,� Q1/WN 1 oe
....PIMMO■..AN aur arMPo.CAUK B2401I CAUP.at0..C_1ON3 CMCM 043-79"
��b
Minutes - Planning Commission - October 7, 1985
Doug Davidson presented the staff report and pointed out that thi
application was similar to several recently approved lot sp ' s
herein site specific criteria was considered as opposed the
mi imum lot size criteria factors as outlined in the zoning
ordi nce.
i
Tom Vaugh , representing the applicants, spoke in pport of the
request, a asked for modification to Condi 'on #1 to reflect
that the soil eport be submitted prior to is ance of a building
permit. He also equested that with regar to Condition #7-a,
that one half of 20 foot rural road se ion be required instead
of the full 20 foot.
There was brief discussion oncern ' g the need to eliminate the
minimum lot size adjustment it is as it now exists in the zon-
ing ordinance.
MOTION: Made by Commiss ' er Michi ssen, seconded by Commis-
sioner Bond a carried unani usly to recommend approval
of Resoluti No. 8-85 , with mo ' fications to conditions
#1 and #7 a as follows:
"1. preliminary soils report shall b prepared by a
registered civil. engineer prior t issuance of a
building permit. If tests indicate critically
expansive soils or other soils problems, orrective
measures shall be taken. "
"7-a. The construction of one half (1/2) of a 20 fo
rural road section on Ortega Road along propert
frontage. "
2. Conditional Use Permit 16-85 :
Request submitted by Gifford Construction (J.D Brannon, ar-
chitect) to allow a 23 unit residential care facility for the
elderly. Request includes a density bonus, a parking reduc-
tion, reduction in landscaping and the location of parking in
the front setback Subject property is located at 6455 Santa
Lucia, also known as Lot 24 of Block HB.
Joel Moses, in presenting the staff, report, spoke briefly about
the prior history of this project in which a variance was reques-
ted for a 27 unit senior citizens housing project. It was pointed
out that the variance was denied as the Commission could not make
the required findings to allow for the project to be approved
under the variance in the old zoning ordinance. Under the cur-
rent zoning, the density bonus can be considered. Staff is recom-
mending a reduction in units to 17.
David Brannon, project architect, explained that this project has
been scaled down to a requested 23 units and compared it to other
high density developments in the area. Mr . Brannon explained that
the majority of the building is set back quite a bit from the
street and stated that the project will be administered by the
2
Minutes - Planning Commission - October 7, 1985
Housing Authority of San Luis Obispo. Mr . Brannon emphasized that
the units would consist of one bedroom and would be rented strict-
ly to senior citizens. He further spoke briefly about the reques-
ted reduction in the number of parking spaces.
Commissioner Bond asked what would happen if each of the occupants
of the units had a car . Mr. Brannon responded that historically
this has never been the case and referenced various similar type
projects in the San Luis Obispo area.
Richard Chubon, director of the Housing Authority, spoke in sup-
port of the project and explained the need for more affordable
housing for the elderly. He commented on the parking situation
and pointed out that most elderly people do not drive. Mr. Chubon
explained that the need for parking with the San Luis Obispo sen-
ior projects is less than what is provided and proceeded to cite
statistics of other similar projects in which this was the case.
He felt that the proposed 17 spaces is adequate for the size of
this project.
Commissioner Sanders asked Mr . Chubon what the requirements are
for qualification both as to median income and as to age. Mr .
Chubon explained the eligibility criteria factors involved under
the Section Eight program.
Jayne Sacks; Ardilla resident, referenced a recently approved pro-
ject for 36 units (Dunn) and stated that the Santa Lucia/Ardilla
corner is very hazardous with regard to traffic. She hoped that
something could be done regarding this traffic situation as she
felt it would present a hazard to the elderly who would be walking
and crossing these streets.
Mary Middlecamp, 5705 Venado, referenced the Marian Residence
located in Santa Maria and felt that it is important to have this
kind of facility for senior citizens; but she stresed the quality
of life for the residents as opposed to the pocketbook of the
developer who says it has to be financially able to be built. She
further emphasized that the project be safe and conducive to life
by lowering density and providing amenities.
Jane Clifford, Venado resident, pointed out that she was not op-
posed to the project but that the traffic issue needs to be con-
sidered. She stated that it is quite difficult to cross the
streets in the Santa Lucia/Ardilla/Traffic Way area and pointed
out there are no crosswalks in this area. She suggested an area
to be designated for pedestrians.
Commissioner Bond stated he was not against the project and could
agree with between 8 to 11 units being built, and felt that a
parking space should be provided for each unit. He also stated
his concurrence with testimony given by Mrs. Middlecamp.
3
Minutes - Planning Commission - October 7, 1985
Commissioner Sanders inquired if the 15 year contract which would
be administered by the Housing Authority would cover just the
bonus density units or all of them. Mr. Moses responded that in
the past, the Commission has required this contract to cover all
of the units. She further noted she had spoken with the City of
San Luis Obispo concerning their policy for density bonuses and
had been informed that San Luis will give up to a 50% bonus
density, and she stated she would be comfortable with between a
25% to 50% bonus.
Chairman LaPrade talked about the 25% density bonus being State-
mandated and explained the intent was to come up with an equitable
formula based on each project' s merits, and offered some comments
on the history of this project. He further explained he was in
favor of senior housing and did point out that there could be some
problems in the future if the housing intended for seniors did not
end up that way.
Commissioner Michielssen referenced Ed and Judy Young ' s senior
citizens project on El Camino Real and spoke briefly on the densi-
ty bonus the Youngs had requested. He felt consistency should be
given to this project to reflect that which was given in the Young
project.
Commissioner Hatchell felt that the project was an ideal situation
but felt the site was not adequate because of the scale of the
project, and noted his concurrence with staff report.
Commissioner Nolan concurred with the other commissioners and ex-
pressed concern over the traffic situation in that area. commis-
sion Kennedy also agreed with the previous statements given.
Commissioner Sanders felt that an 188% density bonus is still too
large, but commended the staff' s efforts in preparing the report.
There was further discussion concerning the percentage of density
bonuses and whether they should be larger than 25%.
MOTION: Made by Commissioner Bond and second by Commissioner
Sanders to deny Conditional Use Permit 16-85 based on the
proposed density but to invite the applicant to come back
with a proposed project which reflects a 25% density
bonus.
Commissioner Michielssen stated he would be more comfortable with
approving a 50% density bonus which would be an additional four
units.
Commissioner Sanders clarified that the representative from San
Luis Obispo whom she spoke with has given up to a 50% bonus based
on the individual site.
4
ff
Minutes - Planning Commission - October 7, 1985
The motion carried with a roll call vote, as follows:
AYES: Commissioners Sanders, Hatchell, Kennedy and Bond
NOES: Commissioners Michielssen, Nolan and Chairman
LaPrade
Mr. Engen noted that a resolution reflecting findings for denial
would be brought back on the consent calendar for the October 21st
Commission meeting.
3. Conditional Use Permit 20-85:
Request submitted by Paul Washburn to allow for an addit' n
of 3,165 square feet of retail space to an existing r ail
center . Request also includes a signage master plan fo the
center . Subject property is located at 8550 El Cami Real,
also known as Lot 45 of Block 7 .
Mr . Mo es presented the staff report for this reques and noted
that st f recommends that the project be redesigned to conform to
landscapi requirements.
Commissioner olan asked if any consideration h been given to
having a dri way on the Plata Lane side of he site. Mr. Moses
responded that c sideration had been given o this but, upon re-
view, the Fire epartment and Communit Development Department
determined it would of be necessary.
Paul Washburn, applican addressed c cerns he had with the staff
report with regard to th monument sign, the building-mounted
signs and the Plata Lane andsca ng. He felt that the monument
sign was a matter of interpr at ' n of the zoning ordinance and
pointed out how his sign w interpreted to be 102 square feet
rather than 51 square feet. urther commented on the visibil-
ity factors from El Camin Rea in trying to identify signs and
pointed out that the Glen ks Plaz is set quite a bit back from
the street.
With regard to the bu ' ding-mounted signs Mr . Washburn wondered
if square footage is an issue and noted he parapet wall on the
building which was esigned for signs. In speaking about the
Plata Lane land aping, Mr . Washburn pointed ut that an unbuild-
able lot was cr ated between his property and th Plata Lane prop-
erty and that o conditions or restrictions to ndscaping were
placed with egard to maintenance of that property. He also spoke
about the rainage problem in the area. He stated th t he would
lose two arking spaces if the five foot of landscapi is re-
quired, and suggested that a fence be put in along Plata ane.
Com ssioner Sanders addressed the area of signs as they elate
to the limits as outlined in the zoning ordinance. There was
rther discussion concerning the appropriate number of sq u e
footage for identification purposes for the tenant buildings.
5 C�
f
5
> H
• M E M O R A N D U M
TO: City Council November 25, 1985
VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager
FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director 146
SUBJECT: Appeal by Elbert Gifford of Planning Commission' s denial of
Conditional Use Permit 16-85 (6455 Santa Lucia)
RECOMMENDATION:
Denial of the appeal.
BACKGROUND:
U D.
On October 7, 1985 the Atascadero Planning Commission considered this
request for a 23 unit residential facility for the elderly on a . 55
acre parcel across from Saint Williams Church. Action of the Commis-
sion was to deny the request as representing an excessive density
• bonus for a senior citizens project and to invite the applicant to
submit a revised site plan containing a maximum 25% density bonus (see
attached resolution) . The applicant has subsequently appealed this
decision (see attached) and has also submitted a site plan application
for a 19 unit project with 19 parking spaces.
ANALYSIS
As indicated in the attached staff report, the City' s General Plan
provides language which allows for utilization of a 25% density bonus
for low and moderate income housing and which permits flexibility in
development standards as a means of lowering costs for such units in-
cluding projects for the elderly.
The land is zoned RMF/16 which would permit nine units for a conven-
tional project or eleven units for a project requesting a flat 25%
density bonus as provided for in State law and in the zoning ordi-
nance. The zoning ordinance also indicates under Section 9-3.175 (c)
(1) "Amount of Bonus:
(i) The maximum density bonus shall be 25% except when a greater
bonus is allowed by Subsection ( iii) of this Section.
(ii) The number of units allowed by these bonus provisions shall
not be less than, but may exceed, the actual number of
• dwelling units provided for the targeted income group.
1
Nov. 1 , 1985
City of Atascadero
P.O. box 747
Atascadero, CA 93423
t
Re: Appeal of Use Permit #16-85
6455 Santa Lucia
Gifford Construction
J.D. BRANNON,ARCHITECT
RECEIVESLA
',"";
Dear Sir:
We find that it is necessary to appeal the decision to deny our
application for a 23 unit residential facility for the elderly to
the City Council. We don't feel that the Planning Commission fully
understood our proposal or gave our oral presentation proper con-
sideration.
We feel that we can make viable arguments in support of this project,
which will be acceptable to the City and Community. This is a
facility that is much needed in Atascadero. This facility is sup-
ported and approved by the San Luis County Housing Authority.
Sincerely,
Elbert Gifford
`bti
RESOLUTION NO. 9-85
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF ATASCADERO DENYING CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT 16-85 (6455 SANTA LUCIA: GIFFORD/BRANNON)
WHEREAS, the Atascadero Planning Commission conducted a public
hearing on October 7, 1985 ; and
WHEREAS, at that meeting, after considerable discussion, it was
decided that this project proposal was too dense for this site; and
WHEREAS, the intent of the density bonus provision is not to be
unlimited in nature; and
WHEREAS, the applicant was invited to submit a revised site plan
containing a maximum of a 25% density bonus.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the Atascadero Planning Com-
mission does hereby deny Conditional Use Permit 16-85 as follows:
Section 1. Commission Findings.
1. The proposed project or use as modified is inconsistent with
the General Plan.
2. The proposed project or use does not satisfy all applicable
provisions of this Title.
3. The establishment and subsequent operation or conduct of the
use will, because of the circumstances and conditions applied
in the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety
or welfare of the general public or persons residing or work-
ing in the neighborhood of the use, or be detrimental or in-
jurious to property or improvements in the vicinity of the .
use.
4. The proposed project or use will be inconsistent with the
character of the immediate neighborhood or contrary to its
orderly development.
5. proposed use or project will generate a volume of traffic
beyond the safe capacity of all roads providing access to the
project, either existing or to be improved in conjunction
with the project, or beyond the normal traffic volume of the
surrounding neighborhood that would result from full develop-
ment in accordance with the Land Use Element.
6. The granting of a 155% density bonus would conflict with the
goals and objectives set forth in the Housing Element of the
General Plan.
n,
(0/
i
fr
Resolution No. 9-85 (Gifford)
Section 2. Commission Action.
1. Denies Conditional Use Permit 16-85.
On motion by Commissioner Bond and seconded by Commissioner Sand-
ers, the foregoing resolution is adopted in its entirety by the fol-
lowing roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Bond, Sanders, Hatchell and Kennedy
NOES: Commissioners Michielsson, Nolan, and Chairman LaPrade
ABSENT: None
DATE ADOPTED: October 7, 1985
WAYNE LAPRADE, Chairman
ATTEST:
HENRY EN EN ,
Communit Develo ent Director
i
i
2 7),
1
J
City of Atascadero Item: B-2
STAFF REPORT
FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: 10/7/85
BY: Joel Moses, Associate Planner File No: CUP 16-85
Project Address: 6455 Santa Lucia
SUBJECT:
Request to allow for the establishment of a 23 unit residential care
facility for the elderly. Request includes a density bonus, a parking
reduction, a reduction in landscaping, and the location of parking in
the front setback. Current zoning (RMF/16) would allow for nine
units.
BACKGROUND:
In 1982 the applicant filed for a variance (V820212: 1) requesting the
approval of a three story, 27 unit senior citizen apartment complex.
At that time, Mr . Gifford' s application was denied due to the required
findings. The applicant was informed with the denial of the variance
that the City was in the process of rewriting its zoning ordinance,
and that the ordinance was being written in order to comply with State
law provisions for allowing density bonuses for low and moderate in-
come projects. The ordinance was also being reviewed to allow modifi-
cation of landscaping and parking standards for specific projects.
The applicant has now resubmitted the project showing 23 residential
units in a two story building. The exterior elevations show a tan
stucco building with red tile roof and black wrought iron railings.
The applicant proposes to provide 17 parking spaces. The applicant
has submitted a development statement noting that the project be lim-
ited to the elderly and that the project would be administered by the
Housing Authority of San Luis Obispo.
The project is required to obtain conditional use permit approval
based on four modifications to the zoning ordinance. The most impor-
ant is the request per Section 9-3.175 (c) to allow a residential den-
sity bonus increase from nine units to 23 (255%) . The applicant is
proposing a parking reduction from 43 parking stalls to 17 (39%) as
provided in Section 9-4.115 (1) . The applicant is also requesting for
a modification to the zoning ordinance pertaining to landscaping
standards and parking location.
A. LOCATION: 6455 Santa Lucia (Lot 24 , Block HB)
Conditional U P -
io al se ermit 16 85 (Gifford/J.D Brannon)
B. SITUATION AND FACTS:
1. Request . . . . . . . . . . . . .Request for a conditional use
q . . . . . . .
permit for a 255% density bonus
increase, a 39% reduction in
parking stalls, and modification
to landscaping and parking
location.
2. Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Gifford Construction
3. Architect. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .J.D. Brannon
4. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24, 000 square feet ( . 5509 acres)
5. Streets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .Fronting on Santa Lucia, a two
lane paved road with a 50 foot
right-of-way designated as an
arterial undivided in the
General Plan.
6. Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .RMF/16 (Residential Multiple
Family, 16 units per acre max-
imum density)
7. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Vacant lot
8. Adjacent Zoning and Use. . . . . .North: RMF/16, church
South: RMF/16 , telephone co.
East: RMF/16, multi-family
residential
West: RMF/16, multi-family
residential
9. General Plan Designation. . . . .High Density Multi-family
10. Terrain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Level, sloping gently to the
southeast corner of the site
11. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Negative Declaration
C. ANALYSIS:
A few years ago, the State, in an effort to provide more housing
for low and moderate income families, required cities to provide
new provisions to enable 25% density bonus increases into their
zoning ordinances. Atascadero' s ordinance also provides for an
unlimited density bonus increase if required specific findings
were made and that the project is found to accomplish goals and
objectives.
f
2 161
Conditional Use Pert 16-85 (Gifford/J.D Brannon)
The required findings listed in the ordinance require: that the
project consist of a minimum of four units; that the bonus units
be made available to the target income group for a minimum of 15
years; that performance and management guarantees be provided to
demonstrate continued availability of the dwelling units to the
targeted income group; and that the density bonus will serve to
support goals and objectives of the housing element of the General
Plan. The project will or can be conditioned to meet the first
three required findings.
The fourth finding and the special finding deal with the General
Plan and housing element in particular is more complex. The Gen-
eral Plan' s land use designation notes a maximum density of 16
units per acre, but also notes the possibility of density bonuses.
The housing element notes in Problem No. 2 that development and
land costs are a problem not only for new units and rentals. As a
spolicy, the element provides direction to provide flexibility in
development standards as a means to lower overall costs of low and
moderate income housing units and that the City should continue to
utilize the 25% density bonus for low and moderate income housing
(Policies 1, Problem 2.3 - page 19) (Exhibit I) . The housing ele-
ment also addresses the housing needs of special groups such as
the elderly. Program 11. 2 notes again the maintaining of flexi-
bility in zoning standards by allowing variations in development
standards to house special groups such as the elderly (Problem 11,
Policy Program 11.2) (Exhibit I) .
It would appear that the project would meet the required special
findings to grant a density increase, but the General Plan and
Zoning Ordinance makes no mention of a maximum increase that could
be approved. The addition of 14 units to 9 units could be consid-
ered for a total of 23, but viewed in the light of being a 255%
density increase, this could also be considered excessive.
A further review of the project' s site plan reveals some problems
that are caused by development standards associated with the den-
sity and size of the project. The applicant has requested modifi-
cation of the development standards to allow a reduction from 42
required parking spaces to 17 parking spaces to a reduction of
40%. The applicant has also requested reduction of the 10% land-
scaping required for parking lots along with an encroachment into
the front yard setback of three spaces, and the installation of a
non-useable parking area off the street to provide fire access
(this will reduce on-street parking) . These are primarily caused
by the size of the structure. The staff has, in the past, noted
approval of a use permit for modifying parking requirements for a
seniors project, but required a one to one relationship between
units and parking excluding handicapped stall requirements (Condi-
tional Use Permit 3-84 - Young (California Manor) ) . The applicant
has noted the use of local public transportation and the exper-
ience on other sites as reasons to reduce parking requirements.
However , the City already has a perceived parking problem in the
nearby downtown area and due to the status of Santa Lucia as an
arterial, it would seem unwise to potentially add to a parking
problem.
3
i
a
Conditional Use Permit 16-85? (Gifford/J.D Brannon)
It would appear that the size of the project has required several
modifications that will have a detrimental effect on the neighbor-
hood if approved in its present form.
Modification of the project could be done as shown in Exhibit H,
eliminating the east west wing to reduce the project to 17 units,
a bonus of 8 units (188%) from the allowed 9. This would allow
for the relocation of the three parking stalls within the front
yard setback along with providing 18 stalls (one stall per unit
and one handicapped stall) . The reduction would also allow the
elimination of the fire access. Landscaping requirements could
then be met too. Additional outdoor amenities may also be pro-
vided. The density per acre would still be a generous 31 per
acre.
D. RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit 16-85 with
modification shown on Exhibit H (modified site plan) , based on the
findings and conditions of approval contained in Exhibit A.
JM:ps
ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Findings/Conditions of Approval
Exhibit B - Location Map
Exhibit C - Applicant' s Site Plan
Exhibit D - First Floor Plan
Exhibit E - Second Floor Plan
Exhibit F - Elevations
Exhibit G - Development Statement
Exhibit H - Modified Site Plan (staff)
Exhibit I - Housing Element Policies
4 n
Conditional Use Permit 16-85 (Gifford/J.D Brannon)
EXHIBIT A - Conditional Use Permit 16-85
Findings/Conditions of Approval
October 7, 1985
FINDINGS - Required for approval of a conditional use permit per
Zoning Ordinance Section 9-2.109
1. The proposed project or use as modified per Exhibit H is consis-
tent with the General Plan.
2. The proposed project or use satisfies all applicable provisions of
this Title.
3. The establishment and subsequent operation or conduct of the use
will not, because of the circumstances and conditions applied in
the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety or wel-
fare of the general public or persons residing or working in the
neighborhood of the use, or be detrimental or injurious to prop-
erty or improvements in the vicinity of the use.
4. The proposed project or use will not be inconsistent with the
character of the immediate neighborhood or contrary to its orderly
development.
5. The proposed use or project will not generate a volume of traffic
beyond the safe capacity of all roads providing access to the pro-
ject, either existing or to be improved in conjunction with the
project, or beyond the normal traffic volume of the surrounding
neighborhood that would result from full development in accordance
with the Land Use Element.
FINDINGS - Required for approval of a Density Bonus per Zoning Ordi-
nance Section 9-3. 175
6. The project, prior to the granting of the density bonus, shall
consist of a minimum of four dwelling units.
7. The dwelling units allowed by the bonus shall be available to the
targeted income group for a minimum of 15 years.
8. Performance and management guarantees have been provided which
demonstrate continued availability of dwelling units for the tar-
geted income group as provided by Subsection (ii) of this Section.
9 . The granting of a density bonus will serve to support goals and
objectives set forth in the Housing Element of the General Plan.
10. The proposed density increase would assist the City of Atascadero
to meet goals and policies of the General Plan Housing Element
along with assisting in the reaching of the regional housing goals
for affordable housing.
5
}
3
Conditional Use Permit 16-85,` (Gifford/J.D Brannon)
0 FINDINGS - Additional:
11. The reduced parking at a rate of one per unit plus handicapped
stalls and employees will be able' to accommodate the needs of the
senior housing.
12. The proposed use of senior housing has characteristics that are
different than those of a standard multi-family project.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. Site development including buildings, driveways, parking, land- ,
scaping and other features shall be consistent with plans submit-
ted including modifications (per Exhibit H of modified site plan
- staff) required herein and all provisions of Title 9. The maxi-
mum number of units shall not exceed seventeen (17) .
2. Submit four copies of landscape and irrigation plans in confor-
mance with Section 9-4.124 et seq. prior to issuance of building
permits.
3. Building architecture shall be consistent with the elevations sub-
mitted. Any mechanical equipment used shall be screened in ac-
cordance with Section 9-4.128.
4. Fencing and screening shall comply with Section 9-4. 128 .
5. Onsite signing shall comply with Sections 9-4.130 through 9-4. 136.
6. Parking shall be provided as set forth in Sections 9-4.114 through
9-4. 119 with the number of required parking stalls to be reduced
from 47 stalls to 17 stalls and one handicapped stalls.
7. The applicant shall establish Covenants, Conditions and Restric-
tions (CC&Rs) for the regulation of land use, control of nuisance
and occupancy of density bonus units.
a. These CC&Rs shall be submitted to and approved by the City
Attorney and Community Development Department prior to ap-
proval of building permits.
8. Curb, gutter , five foot sidewalk, and pave-out along the Santa
Lucia frontage shall be provided. Pave-out shall bring the pave-
ment width of Santa Lucia from curb face to centerline shall be
20 feet.
a. All road improvement plans shall be designed by a registered
civil engineer and shall be reviewed and approved by the C
Public Works Department.
9. It is the applicant' s sole responsibility to have removed, relo-
cated or brought to grade any public utility facilities that may
conflict with the approved road improvement plan.
6 bG
Conditional Use Permit 16-85,3 (Gifford/J.D Brannon)
10. The applicant shall submit a drainage plan prepared by a regis-
tered civil engineer for review and approval by the Public Works
Department.
11. The applicant shall submit design, details, and calculations for a
stormwater detention basin. Construction of the detention basin
and any on-site drainage structures shall be certified by the
designing engineer prior to final inspection.
12. Wastewater disposal shall be by connection to the public sewer.
13. The applicant shall obtain a sewer connection permit from the Pub-
lic Works Department prior to hooking up to public sewer.
14. Obtain an encroachment prior to beginning work in the public right
-of-way. An inspection agreement and curb and gutter agreement
shall be signed, guaranteeing that the work will be done and in-
spections paid for.
15. Bonus units shall be conveyed only to persons who have been certi-
fied as having household incomes which are 120% or less of the
median income of San Luis Obispo County, as such income is deter-
mined from time to time by the Housing Authority of San Luis Obis-
po County. The Community Development Director shall certify eli-
gibility with this criteria upon application by a prospective
purchaser . The CC&Rs shall specify the application procedure and
all eligibility requirements which shall not be modified or re-
vised without approval by the City of Atascadero.
16 . Provision shall be made for this project to connect to community
water and sewer facilities. A letter shall be obtained from the
Atascadero Mutual Water Company stating that they are willing and
able to serve this project and submit the same to the Community
Development.
17. All other utilities not already in place shall be extended under-
ground at the time of building permit.
18. Efforts shall be made to minimize grading that would be disruptive
to the natural topography. All grading and drainage shall conform
with Sections 9-4.138 through 9-4.154.
19. Curbs, gutter, five foot sidewalk, and pave-out shall be installed
along the Santa Lucia frontage. Drainage and street improvements
shall be approved by the City engineer.
20. Fire suppression facilities shall be provided as required by the
Fire Department and shall include, but not be limited to, upgrad-
ing of the existing fire hydrant and the installation of addition-
al hydrants.
21. All conditions of approval herein shall be complied with prior to
occupancy of any structure.
22. This conditional use permit approval is granted for a maximum
7 ��i`J
Conditional Use Permit 16-85 (Gifford/J.D Brannon)
period of one year from the date of final approval unless an
extension of time is granted pursuant to Section 9-2. 118.
8 i�i(
j ^
AT-77-236 f2•�+� V�K _ - - f
.. f lyrs
A7-r0_IZ 12-8I IJ15K
V
.At BL IL SLSBL 8-
R q
• ,a °� RMF/10
• a w,.J n ,� � i q
RE:'I S I O::
SA" GN'••' f,.,. ,s RMF/16
"g, it t• ` ,v ,ab .. ,� rLe'i>J�7• �.rfi:. 1
CUP I to ' bE
11 1oI53 SANTA LUCIA �t , •, ' R I
LOST' Z-I ELK HE A1715 CDL.��!^/LYta"'
Z3 DM rF ELDERL7 I-YD. IMCC3
• .AgOIC „'.° r4c1 t6)SajY + 10 • "� ° IN tii J'�ys •�s`p• •l'b�
C 4 �S e',o 3;� �"�. 5� •w ��" la [S1,i �� 5�n�e f+ -,J., � %�,r'C ��, - :
u'f {T` •`...Mt \5 1 1� ' S a 10 v L3 u .. � ., ,t,?;•'• ar � K•5 w .
.. • a8�( ll 1 �.n 5t*�' II '� z. ". ,n a .�,� j� '/
tr',7: . �. ����'s2 r a & zr., teo zrS � '"' >•
t`�• � �t e, �;•�• �� Ia 1O s � U ,° So S1w 3 ~"'� ti��
9 r ' •SzcS 1 It 5175
sr�
!� \
o M
9 a _ J `• •cBf
5 y
_--!"� Tia 13'. 4 � � •L ;i•au � .108 .. � .t3 r=czz,
+ � � ' ,,, ^�'{ 5�a N a*„' _ � - mss` 'r�+'.�'•°
• 410-8 ,y1�'��♦ � 16.+•F- y 4 1O 1 t y o a.” 5�^;`.a t',, ,\ ,�' a �:^•,
• 4�°yam .,\1M45�:/ �,^'4�C ^tiH . •' 1f as f' ..• '� $n'� • •:�e `^y t ,f' .
•t'1•n .. : LSF arr 1S., s°"• .4 �� , '6 S. °
. . . -a4,`'\. _ •„' ^° y ��8xt•.7. "a...�a• .•E"` ..a n � � 4 '�`.w 7
1- 4705•� v;�ea e � :a° '•:� •��'fa _1 /
,,os• �1Ij� � of�o�;.s, .'t.° i�•al,•r.�'° � F 4 .,°0 /�3FB /,�
f3 7q' n .a • ~ t.� '1f •y+ \. s lY� / U� LSF—Y
15 . @ d b o Pa• ,a tlaa r\4 to g c •fco
cd' 4, i,3f fnt 10 O 6� T �8 •, a •o i •a \ Nfo
ny eo r•./lt.��. tl Va 00, •a �� f"> a a.�• ±\•ya• so
Y f f ,� • .• rr•• � .. is
,. , 119 ' � - � ..��, •'; > • ,�� 4• V'� .,t1 ,.oa . \1 tf� f•` .� �,,_ s, •`;�•_ ,�, 4_ LSF7Yi
9S T '� f ., rf5 at 9 ` ` •i Q\ e•�r s+ ti ,y f7 .,,
� 33 � .♦ .` µ7r f.•5;t \li • `1 O+�° f: f1,i.•� • •ice\• `' ' NfS ^7ooS � -
.. O.,.�. �`A.So if•• .i, Na 1t`'� L(FH.: ..
N 34 `•,V °�af 4 _ 6A 61' ' N` , f • � ra 7.055
7 L
t+� yam', t n•.+ •t �,`\ '.` ..,� ' , V zo ir• zozf fo S L l/�r
^� •d`- /°Y°I • .' N .. Ezx e• •` sf'f �' h' zz°S r _r
'/1' eD/ 1 .+ �:✓° °�y a a1+o �1 •� '+ �_ �r.w_
r\ f e a0'/'" t, •'`�"J, Y• •ty.. .-►,' „�+ZO ftro i! g •e .
'r', ,° r,' Y,f h'i•�
a y ,� r•.." a ,�tia , �tr:6 •' :a a1�.^. , �
.° e•� `` •�70 v ,N , •5 ' ° '• �� '.q yes a T LSF-Y
.!�`�a ,1S • `,p°-'� Vu0°F3 ��� ~� °�' rY .. �a''��77 f '0 'fit / �r
✓740 •'` ro eft z+• E, Z� _,
`r*R 01I Y�D ' • cJJ` _—..,e -
7 r,� \ �PL Oo �'•N° • �. «~ �•�0`,0%t5
' v e6 � tiM1 Ay �. s i;7 L '�,`�sad�" •`� g! �.,f\', ita;^ ;�:; /'�
. �•,tf o �+ u MAn..05 zjf. '"'�• °� !1',�f
Lam/\1 1 I IS I l
\Q� CITY OF ATASCADDRO 2PTI�� SSS
Imo. PlanningDepartment
(oy.5S5ANTN LUCIA r .
t� I� C-�IF'FD7D
BRANNOf�! I�
l GIf. .hVt t7)70+ 7. `�.�- .f>.7.r• f•: •...,:.-saw t .. ... f
_ — -
1
- - __
�.
i
oln r I
i
i I ,
n I"I
.21
=U!IM F?Cf✓
----- r { nccc�J ;
1,4
SArtTA L LIC 1A AVE
• EX H I IIT' C
S I TE' PLAN -APPLICAFATn
s
s ,r — C.UF l (D - 35-
los a>lo. e MR G_CGC� G - OS7
DATE 1�7D4 C+iS/A M1D 5-S I`�SA M LUC/A
Gr IF'FMD 13T?- �I0�1_
. DRAWN I.GG. • 4
O y CHECKED Gt77 i+�.'e ..�G 4 AVC
'� GREVISED �O� 21, t_GCG .5, 40 1
,
WL
--_
. . .ar-.
rn
� � Illtlllllllll i �� -�
i .
I
D
E
.
CXNIL)IT D
Fl F-ST FLDbV- FLAX
i Q o 9e071(. 60w GR FLOOR rLAN MF. CSD=R'7' G'FFORG C-U r I �S�
SCALE (�f55- SANTA L_XJA
DL3EVISED GIFFORD • EYA1\lNbbl ,��
S
f
j
I
9 _
IIII i!�!illli �. ,
1 .
IMF
IN
IT
Im
7
I
. :: SEM D TLCM 'FLANI
O4; o>I6
urrem r,00� I v.deRr 6C�Ui5P
SCALE vS 1S6A•NBTSA
LUCIAAWN T.pM
C-EKEO
C IFFD-KD • WEAK NM
a REVISED
a � J
I
o
Z
jZIN
1 1' •1
r.11 �❑I ' l: �
I-7
..J '� i, t, �S _• � I.111 i!
i j.i•'i7 .Ll L.1 �-� J.J. -- _
1 � �
f } �' 11
�i il; ➢ .'
11 El
aff
... t Z
i
FE 7
. .� ❑ +till ❑' ❑ .- _ :+.t �
EM IE IT
CtC.UAII L)US
.toe 071 =..cv...T1o�s Ma. -ar, c�rroRv CUP'. 110 •$5 i
DAl'd
SCALE `�''', 5�41JTA LUCIA
C�ECKEO
A REVISED
� � ___ G l FFOY-D • BSZA�IN 01 ,1 ��
OF
June 19, 1985
Atascadero Planning Dept.
Henry Engen
' Atascadero Planning Director
. ' 6500 Palma Avenue
Atascadero, CA 93422
Re: Retirement home for
t= E. Gifford
J.D. BRANNON,ARCHITECT
288 Pism%son lull obispo,calftmia 934ol•(805)543-7978
Dear Henry:
We are attempting to build a retirement home on Lot 24 at 6455
Santa Lucia Road, which will require special approval for several
items that are not in conformance with the Zoning Ordinance. We
have reduced the scale of the project some since our meeting, which
should make it easier to make the necessary findings to approve the
Conditional Use Permit.
1 . The project is now 23 units, reduced from 27 units.
2. The parking lot will have 17 parking spaces, reduced from
18.
The items which must be adjusted by the Conditional Use Permit are
the density, the parking ratio and use of the front setback.
The density for this RMF-16 zone would be 9 units, so we are asking
for a 255/ increase. Considering that the tenants in this project
will be limited to the elderly, and that the facility will be ad-
ministered by the Housing Authority of San Luis Obispo County, we
do not feel that this is over impacted. Each unit is provided with
a private patio, and we also are providing a common outdoor patio
and indoor common room. We have this same arrangement in the faci-
lity in San Luis Obispo. It works out very well . Several of the
first tenants to move into the San Luis facility are still living
there .
We feel that justification for this density bonus can be found in
the City's Housing Element, which states as one of its goals, to
LL�U EMPMENT 5MTEM 0AT'
CUP 1 to- SS
(o9.TS 5AUTYA L)C I A
G1 FF67M • 137R' ANON
Engen Page -2-
provide adequate housing for every sector of the community. Cer-
tainly low income elderly citizens are in real need of adequate
housing in this city. This project, which is reserved for the
elderly, administrated by the Housing Authority, and qualified for
subsidized rents, meets all of the required findings listed in the
Zoning Ordinance for density bonus.
The parking ratio, as established by the Young project, was one
parking place per unit. We are only providing 17 parking spaces,
which is 74% of what would be required. We feel this is more than
adequate parking for an elderly housing project, because few of the
tenants will have cars. The project in San Luis, which we have
based this project on, has 24 units, but I have never seen more than
10 cars in the parking lot at any one time. I have been checking
periodically for the last month at varying times. Transportation is
not a problem, because the project is within easy walking distance
of downtown via the Traffic Way underpass. The minimal staff and
maintenance would only use two parking places at any one time.
The plan that we are proposing encroaches into the front setback
of the site at two places. The ;building corner intrudes on one side,
but due to the curving setback line, the other corner is over three
feet behind the line. The average setback to the building is slight-
ly over twenty-five feet.
The parking lot also encroaches into the setback from four to ten
feet. To reduce this would cost us two parking spaces and increase
our shortage from the code. We feel that the amount of landscape
we have provided around the sides of the parking lot should satisfy
the intent of the code to screen and break up the parking area, as
wellas the additional front setback would. We have also provided
two landscape islands in the parking lot .
' 1
Engen Page -3-
In conclusion, we would reiterate that we feel that we are providing
a much needed facility in the community. We feel that considering
the use, we are meeting the intent of all of the codes and regula-
tions and that we qualify for the special consideration as provided
in the Zoning Regulations and Housing Element. We do need these
variances and bonuses, however, to make this an economical project
for us and for the Housing Authority.
We will be at the public meeting to present our verbal arguments
and hope to have a representative from the Housing Authority fami-
liar with the San Luis Obispo facility.
Please call me if you need any more information.
Sincerely,
. Brannon
t
17
n
" n \
. 1:1 ,1 -... . . � 1- �° . . nn ; .••. - � � - � .
<- y' ��;.. rte. /; ; '�:• f � y
SANT-A L UG IA AVE i
DCH IB FF
MODIFI�-D 51l-FL AN 5TAFF
S JOH OD14 5 rH MR G_C:C�^ G �-ORJ LUP 16 - 95-
DATE ' P v Ii0IA
SCALE Ito,
DRAWN AS NTA LOVA
7'Du
CHECKED o
O�Z�G_GL'GIG'��PvnSG. f� GIFF .DZA'I.I�ION
p REVISED '
1. Problem: Home Ownership It is becoming difficult for many
people to become homeowners. The costs of owning a home
throughout California are .increasing faster than average
incomes. Most home purchases are limited to the higher
income households or previous homeowners who have sub-
stantial equity from a previous home sale.
Policies: 1. Promote the development and construction of new
housing units for low and moderate income persons.
2. Promote and encourage the development and construc-
tion of new housing units for first time homebuyers.
2. Problem: Development and Land Costs. Financing , construction,
land and development are the major components of hous-
ing production costs. Increases in production costs are
generally passed onto the consumer in the form of higher
prices for new homes, as well as rental units.
Construction costs have decreased dramatically from 1949
to 1980 according to the California Housing Task Force
and the Construction Industry . Research Board (69% to
42. 5%) . The cost of land, on the other hand, has in-
creased sharply (11% to 27 .80) . Land costs may be a
larger portion than this figure .for new housing , espe-
cially in cases where there 'is shortage of buildable
land, strong competition for available land, or wide-
spread speculation.
Construction financing has increased also, more than
doubling from 1949 to 1980 to 12. 0% of the finished cost
of a house. Thus, consumer credit has increased and
without credit, most consumers cannot afford to purchase
housing.
Policies: 1. Provide flexibility in development standards as a.
means to lower overall costs of low and moderate
income housing units.
Programs: 1. 1 Continue the housing policy which permits factory
built housing such as modular or mobile homes to be
approved as standard housing stock.
2. 1 Continue to monitor and evaluate development stand-
ards and advances in methods of housing construction
to lower development costs where feasible.
2. 3 Continue to utilize the 25 percent density bonus_
for low and moderate income housing.
3 . Problem: Government Requirements and Review Time. The cost to
a developer of holding property while securing permits
is an expense generally recovered in the sale of the
housing unit. The longer this process takes, increased
housing costs or decreased housing production may
result.
LXHIEM I:
19 GPilELS LN7_ -FOULI S
�,q SS S,A LIT-A L..L)LI A
CTIFF= • -SF_,ftNKJON
/111- Problem:
Special Needs and Variety in Housing Opportunities.
The range of household types and "lifestyles" in Atasca-
dero necessitates a range. of housing types. (Current
I standards permit a maximum minimum lot size for single
family homes of 1/2 acre, with sewers.
Policy: Encourage a wide range of housing o ortunities, includ-
ing manufactured housing , and consider development of
any form of housing which has proven itself as a reli-
able housing sources. _
Programs:ll. l Maintain flexibility in zoning standards which
provide for housing of various densities and in dif-
ferent zones: provide for a minimum lot size of
10 ,000 square feet for single family homes within
the sewered area when compatible with residential
neighborhoods.
11. 2 Maintain flexibility in zoning standards (use per-
mit, planned development, and residential accessor
uses) to allow variations in eve opment standnr_ds
to house special groups, - such as the elderly and
handicapped.
11. 3 Encourage lending institutions to back loans for
innovative projects. ;
12. Problem: Housing Assistance. Housing assistance comes from a
variety of federal, state and local laws whch attempt to
provide housing for low income households, the handi-
capped, and elderly. Most often it is in the form of
direct rental subsidies or the operation and maintenance
of apartment buildings. It is difficult to determine
the exact number of those needing rental assistance, but
according to the 1980 census, there were 195 families
with an income of $5 ,000 or less and a total of 668 fam-
ilies with an income of $10 , 000 or ' less in the City.
According to the San Luis Obispo Housing Authority,
there are presently 61 people receiving rental assis-
tance in Atascadero under the Section 8 program. The
difficulty in quantifying those needing assistance does
not mask the fact that there are many people in Atasc'a-
dero who qualify for assistance that are not getting
any.
Policies: 1. Encourage the rental assistance effort, including
participating in available Federal and State housing
assistance programs.
2. New construction of additional assisted housing
should be of high priority.
3 . Existing housing should also be made available to
provide additional housing assistance.
4. The people who need housing assistance the most
should be given the first available choice .
23
0 0
�r
b
i
j 4
s_
SAIJTA LUCIA AV
.. y
DDIi f ITt rL�ny MR. aLbaRT D,
c u s MID, J.D. BRANNON. ARCHITECT
O� C��7.RR .►rAfG�►p/RO, G.� '7�4t2
0��� G}7i 3i►..IT liiGis nv■ WMPWWAO Irr. N UAR ALMX01
C� . 0.•C .
LOT 11. [�.GCK ND,AroGC. (OL. �
M �a'D.+oMa (aoa�s�srsa
,�3
r
I
l
}
jll Y, E r
B
M
atj� Ji� l
El
}��
Fill
ilf}t ua
tj
iff' f{;Vl�
k
e B;
14 1
D L D B EI
Z �!
LiN
9 esia t�evaTivn s MR a est �r�oRo
CLO"
wv. �d.?d J.D. BRANNON. ARCHITECT
p� �.v.s
!M t+MM1O K..10 LIJI�OMrCD M 8-6 -79"
CALF.AlO.1 C-1CM7 vOsl Mi-7�'!�
n
N
I
n
,J
� I
s.
F F
DI TE
Tr-
1>
Q G�'��� LOw6R I V 00 R PL.►N MR. C�blRT G'�FFORG
e .J.D. BRANNON. ARCHITECT
Prb10 sm..RAN Lum G...G.GAL=W-0.01
CA .FIRM•G_10M soar '�7�
I
i
t
{
V
1
i p —
n
U
Ij LA
Ira
PA
F]
d
G OOIi ur��R moon roti MR ■�G�n7 bl►rOnP
D. BAANNON, ARCHITECT
mAMV IPO
��RfV1�MD Ml�PW M0 K YAN Q GALL.634M
CAL .Pi .#C- LLr�
1G ODOM 043-767a
Minutes - Planning Commission - October 7, 1985
r Doug Davidson presented the staff report and pointed out that thi
application was similar to several recently approved lot sp ' s
herein site specific criteria was considered as opposed the
mi imum lot size criteria factors as outlined in the zoning
ordi nce.
Tom Vaugh representing the applicants, spoke in pport of the
j request, a asked for modification to Condi 'on #1 to reflect
that the soil eport be submitted prior to is ance of a building
permit. He also equested that with regar to Condition #7-a,
that one half of 20 foot rural road se ion be required instead
of the full 20 foot.
There was brief discussion concern ' g the need to eliminate the
minimum lot size adjustment it is as it now exists in the zon-
ing ordinance.
MOTION: Made by Commiss ' er Michi ssen, seconded by Commis-
sioner Bond a carried unani usly to recommend approval
of Resoluti No. 8-85 , with mo ' fications to conditions
#1 and #7 a as follows:
"l. preliminary soils report shall b prepared by a
registered civil engineer prior t issuance of a
building permit. If tests indicate critically
expansive soils or other soils problems, orrective
measures shall be taken. "
"7-a. The construction of one half (1/2) of a 20 fo
rural road section on Ortega Road along propert
frontage. "
2. Conditional Use Permit 16-85 :
Request submitted by Gifford Construction (J.D Brannon, ar-
chitect) to allow a 23 unit residential care facility for the
elderly. Request includes a density bonus, a parking reduc-
tion, reduction in landscaping and the location of parking in
the front setback Subject property is located at 6455 Santa
Lucia, also known as Lot 24 of Block HB,
Joel Moses, in presenting the staff, report, spoke briefly about
the prior history of this project in which a variance was reques-
ted for a 27 unit senior citizens housing project. It was pointed
out that the variance was denied as the Commission could not make
the required findings to allow for the project to be approved
under the variance in the old zoning ordinance. Under the cur-
rent zoning, the density bonus can be considered. Staff is recom-
mending a reduction in units to 17.
David Brannon, project architect, explained that this project has
been scaled down to a requested 23 units and compared it to other
high density developments in the area. Mr . Brannon explained that
the majority of the building is set back quite a bit from the
street and stated that the project will be administered by the
2 ��
Minutes - Planning Commission - October 7, 1985
Housing Authority of San Luis Obispo. Mr . Brannon emphasized that
the units would consist of one bedroom and would be rented strict-
ly to senior citizens. He further spoke briefly about the reques-
ted reduction in the number of parking spaces.
Commissioner Bond asked what would happen if each of the occupants
of the units had a car . Mr . Brannon responded that historically
this has never been the case and referenced various similar type
projects in the San Luis Obispo area.
Richard Chubon, director of the Housing Authority, spoke in sup-
port of the project and explained the need for more affordable
housing for the elderly. He commented on the parking situation
and pointed out that most elderly people do not drive. Mr. Chubon
explained that the need for parking with the San Luis Obispo sen-
ior projects is less than what is provided and proceeded to cite
statistics of other similar projects in which this was the case.
He felt that the proposed 17 spaces is adequate for the size of
this project.
Commissioner Sanders asked Mr. Chubon what the requirements are
for qualification both as to median income and as to age. Mr.
Chubon explained the eligibility criteria factors involved under
the Section Eight program.
Jayne Sacks; Ardilla resident, referenced a recently approved pro-
ject for 36 units (Dunn) and stated that the Santa Lucia/Ardilla
corner is very hazardous with regard to traffic. She hoped thatle
something could be done regarding this traffic situation as she
felt it would present a hazard to the elderly who would be walking
and crossing these streets.
Mary Middlecamp, 5705 Venado, referenced the Marian Residence
located in Santa Maria and felt that it is important to have this
kind of facility for senior citizens; but she stresed the quality
of life for the residents as opposed to the pocketbook of the
developer who says it has to be financially able to be built. She
further emphasized that the project be safe and conducive to life
by lowering density and providing amenities.
Jane Clifford, Venado resident, pointed out that she was not op-
posed to the project but that the traffic issue needs to be con-
sidered. She stated that it is quite difficult to cross the
streets in the Santa Lucia/Ardilla/Traffic Way area and pointed
out there are no crosswalks in this area. She suggested an area
to be designated for pedestrians.
Commissioner Bond stated he was not against the project and could
agree with between 8 to 11 units being built, and felt that a
parking space should be provided for each unit. He also stated
his concurrence with testimony given by Mrs. Middlecamp.
3
Minutes - Planning Commission - October 7, 1985
Commissioner Sanders inquired if the 15 year contract which would
be administered by the Housing Authority would cover just the
bonus density units or all of them. Mr. Moses responded that in
the past, the Commission has required this contract to cover all
of the units. She further noted she had spoken with the City of
San Luis Obispo concerning their policy for density bonuses and
had been informed that San Luis will give up to a 50% bonus
density, and she stated she would be comfortable with between a
25% to 50% bonus.
Chairman LaPrade talked about the 25% density bonus being State-
mandated and explained the intent was to come up with an equitable
formula based on each project' s merits, and offered some comments
on the history of this project. He further explained he was in
favor of senior housing and did point out that there could be some
problems in the future if the housing intended for seniors did not
end up that way.
Commissioner Michielssen referenced Ed and Judy Young ' s senior
citizens project on El Camino Real and spoke briefly on the densi-
ty bonus the Youngs had requested. He felt consistency should be
given to this project to reflect that which was given in the Young
project.
Commissioner Hatchell felt that the project was an ideal situation
but felt the site was not adequate because of the scale of the
project, and noted his concurrence with staff report.
Commissioner Nolan concurred with the other commissioners and ex-
pressed concern over the traffic situation in that area. Commis-
sion Kennedy also agreed with the previous statements given.
Commissioner Sanders felt that an 188% density bonus is still too
large, but commended the staff' s efforts in preparing the report.
There was further discussion concerning the percentage of density
bonuses and whether they should be larger than 25%.
MOTION: Made by Commissioner Bond and second by Commissioner
Sanders to deny Conditional Use Permit 16-85 based on the
proposed density but to invite the applicant to come back
with a proposed project which reflects a 25% density
bonus.
Commissioner Michielssen stated he would be more comfortable with
approving a 50% density bonus which would be an additional four
units.
Commissioner Sanders clarified that the representative from San
Luis Obispo whom she spoke with has given up to a 50% bonus based
on the individual site.
4
f�
r .
Minutes - Planning Commission - October 7, 1985
The motion carried with a roll call vote, as follows:
AYES: Commissioners Sanders, Hatchell, Kennedy and Bond
NOES: Commissioners Michielssen, Nolan and Chairman
LaPrade
Mr. Engen noted that a resolution reflecting findings for denial
would be brought back on the consent calendar for the October 21st
Commission meeting.
3. Conditional Use Permit 20-85:
Request submitted by Paul Washburn to allow for an addit' n
of 3,165 square feet of retail space to an existing r ail
center . Request also includes a signage master plan fo the
center. Subject property is located at 8550 El Cami Real,
also known as Lot 45 of Block 7 .
Mr . Mo es presented the staff report for this reques and noted
that st f recommends that the project be redesigned to conform to
landscapi requirements.
Commissioner olan asked if any consideration h been given to
having a dri way on the Plata Lane side of he site. Mr. Moses
responded that c sideration had been given o this but, upon re-
view, the Fire epartment and Communit Development Department
determined it would of be necessary.
Paul Washburn, applican addressed c cerns he had with the staff
report with regard to th monument sign, the building-mounted
signs and the Plata Lane andsca ng. He felt that the monument
sign was a matter of interpr at ' n of the zoning ordinance and
pointed out how his sign w interpreted to be 102 square feet
rather than 51 square feet. urther commented on the visibil-
ity factors from E1 Camin Rea in trying to identify signs and
pointed out that the Glen ks Plaz is set quite a bit back from
the street.
With regard to the bu ' ding-mounted signs Mr. Washburn wondered
if square footage is an issue and noted he parapet wall on the
building which was esigned for signs. In speaking about the
Plata Lane land aping, Mr. Washburn pointed ut that an unbuild-
able lot was cr ated between his property and th Plata Lane prop-
erty and thato conditions or restrictions to ndscaping were
placed with egard to maintenance of that property. He also spoke
about the rainage problem in the area. He stated th t he would
lose two arking spaces if the five foot of landscapi is re-
quired, and suggested that a fence be put in along Plata ane.
Com ssioner Sanders addressed the area of signs as they elate
to the limits as outlined in the zoning ordinance. There was
rther discussion concerning the appropriate number of squ e 0
footage for identification purposes for the tenant buildings.
5
• M E M O R A N D U M
TO: City Council November 25 , 1985
VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager Ck
FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director �Ac_-
SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning Commission' s action allowing removal of
the sycamore tree at 7040 E1 Camino Real to allow for expan-
sion of a Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
Approval of Precise Plan 50-85 as revised November 4 , 1985. This
would permit removing the 30 inch sycamore tree and mitigating its
loss by replacement with three 32 gallon specimen oaks 'and removal of
the franchise bucket sign.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
• Staff' s recommendation to the Planning Commission was to redesign the
site plan to save the existing 30 inch sycamore tree (refer to staff
report - Exhibit C) .
BACKGROUND:
On September 19 , 1985, Marion Young appealed the October 7th condition
of approval which required redesign of their expansion project to
design around the existing sycamore tree. At the meeting of November
4th, the Planning Commission, on a 4:3 vote, upheld the appeal and
changed Condition #3 to allow the removal of the tree subject to miti-
gating the tree loss by replacing it with three 32 gallon specimen
oaks and removal of the bucket sign (see attached minutes) . Subse-
quently, a petition of appeal was received appealing the action of
the Planning Commission (see attached) . .
The arguments pro and con on this issue are contained in the staff
report and minutes of the Commission meeting. It should be pointed
out, however , that there has been some confusion on the role of the
Tree Committee which is not a formal City advisory body. On tree re-
moval issues staff will frequently consult with local landscapers and
other experts as to the need for removing significant trees. In this
instance, it was the staff' s feeling that there could be an alterna-
tive design to save the tree and we sought out the opinion of the
Atascadero Tree Committee who believed that the tree should be saved.
• In his letter of appeal to the Planning Commission, Mr . Young inadver-
tently indicated he was appealing the decision of the Atascadero Tree
Committee (see attached communication) when, in fact, it was actually _
the decision of the planning staff who had sought the advice of the
Committee.
I `
RECEIVED Ny3V 1 41985
Henry !:ngen, Community Development Director
City Hall, titascadero, Ca. 93423
With this letter the following people appeal the
recent decision of the Planning Commission to allow
the removal of the sycamore tree in front of Kentucky
Fried Chicken on 31 Camino Real.
We believe the tree is an asset to the City and
that the proposed expansion can be enhanced by in-
corporating the tree into their plans, ratrier than by
removing it.
With this letter we hand you a check for 100 �o
cover the cost of the appeal. Thank you.
� � 7fn S��(T&
Namp, Address
f�
14
._A' 4�e4�4e�7 P0 ,17—OX/9 R4
�A' &A 0 �Ir
002 v
p3
0 i
RECEIVED NOV 1 41985
l.enrjT .". C;C'.21, {i'V:ii:1L:11-I— 1);L, �lV jh� &C.1t r motor
s, _11, _'eta:cadero, Ca. 97423
_L:; U L, I 1 4--LoltiJ.,i c e a e a1 t_ie
�. -t :if.L'I.JI' Il U tI=E'' .i l,..=u)a!11,S_ %00 iJ lli.aal �SZo11 liJ C.11 C�4'1
t_.., .,,v:.1. .,t t..,. UC�a@ ii1'rorlt of Kentucky
on _ 1 �c YL::'� 3i.?31.•
,,-,e oeli;:ve t t(; ;ree is bn asset to the City and
ttlat t.ie proposed ea;pa .siou ca.n be culaanced by in-
corl,�r.:,ri. tAa tree into their ola.ns, ra.t.ior ttia:i by
ra�:cvi � it.
wit Luiz 'cigar we fni-ad you a c�qeck for 1;0 *o
c c v c r tai post of t e �Preal. Thank you.
Ja
�t
Address i
Q_ s
/(,�;..- S � ,•�,---� �.� �� C�t,,,i�vZ�J�,� Gam. , �(�
tic
EXHIBIT C
Conditions of Approval
Precise Plan 50-85
7040 E1 Camino Real
(Young Brothers Construction/Kentucky Fried Chicken)
(REVISED: November 4, 1985 Planning Commission meeting)
1. All construction shall be in conformance with Exhibit B (site
plan) , and Exhibit C (conditions of approval) , and all other ap-
plicable codes and ordinances of the City of Atascadero.
2. Complete landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to, and
subsequently approved by, the Community Development Department
prior to issuance of building permits (Section 9-4.124) . The fol-
lowing items shall be noted or detailed in these plans:
a. All areas including setbacks, parking lots, and unused areas
shall be landscaped appropriately as per Section 9-4.125 (a) .
b. 10% of the parking area shall be landscaped with shade trees
approximately 30 feet on-center .
C. Concrete curbing, or a functional equivalent, shall be pro-
vided to enclose all required landscaping.
d. All existing trees with a diameter of eight (8) inches or
more shall be shown. Trees which are to be removed shall be
noted as such.
e. Proposed landscaping shall be accompanied with a planting
schedule which includes species, container sizes, number of
plants or flats, and the space distribution of ground covers.
f. A trash enclosure shall be brought into conformance with Sec-
tion 9-4.129 . Please note that the construction standards
require the bottom of the trash enclosure area to be concrete
or an equivalent impervious materials, as well as screened
from public streets and adjoining properties.
g. Parking lots abutting a public street shall be separated from
the street right-of-way by a landscaping strip with a minimum
width of five feet.
3. The sit
elan shall be redesigned to eliminate the existing bucket
P g g
sign and to include three (3) 32 gallon specimen oak trees to mit-
igate the loss of the 30 inch sycamore tree.
4. Signage shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Develop-
ment Department prior to issuance of any building permits. Exist-
ing and proposed signage shall conform with Section 9-4. 130.
r
0 •
5. Parking shall be in conformance with Section 9-4.114. Seventeen .
(17) parking spaces are required for the restaurant use, one of
which must be appropriately striped, marked, and posted as a hand-
icapped space. Four (4) compact spaces are shown on the proposed
site plan. Compact spaces are only allowed on parking lots with
20 or more spaces.
6. This precise plan is approved for a period of one year from the
date of final approval.
2 �qb
Minutes - Planning Commission - November 4, 1985
Chairman LaPrade took his seat back on the Commission.
3. Appeal of Precise Plan 50-85 :
Appeal submitted by Young Brothers Construction Company (J.R.
Vest, representative) of a condition of approval requiring
project redesign to save an existing 30 inch sycamore tree.
Subject property is located at 7040 El Camino Real (Kentucky
Fried Chicken) , also known as a portion of Lot 14 , Block VA.
Mr . Davidson presented the report on this appeal and noted staff' s
recommendation to deny the appeal and to require that the site
plan be redesigned in order to save the tree.
Marion Young, representing the applicant, pointed out that the
root system encompasses a large area of the site and noted that
the foundation would damage the root system and they did not want
to sacrifice parking spaces in a redesign. H stated that the only
alternative he could see is to remove the tree.
Nick Carter, building designer for the project, pointed out that
the surface root system is the same size as the outside diameter
of the tree which is 56 feet and spoke about the root system ex-
tending at least that much under the building. He felt that if
the solarium is redesigned, some of the root system will also be
destroyed. Mr. Carter further spoke about liability insurance
with regard to the fact that if the root system is destroyed, at
some point it will also be destroyed structurally. Mr . Carter
stated he was willing to put in whatever trees that would be
deemed appropriate or try to do something that will keep the root
structure back. He went on to say that 17% of the property is
covered with the root system and this has affected the building ' s
plumbing. They have to remodel or go out of business, and are
willing to put in 36" box trees.
Commissioner Sanders noted that the patio area around the tree was
quite close as there was no provision for a planter for the tree.
Commissioner Bond asked if any exploratory digging had been done
to see where the root structure is. Mr . Carter replied that no
digging had been done at this time, but he noted the indication
of cracking by the patio area. Commissioner Bond spoke of a Gole-
ta restaurant built around a tree.
There was considerable discussion concerning protective measures
for saving the tree. Commissioner Nolan questioned whether an
alternate foundation design could be considered.
Tim Hailey, representative with the company that manufactures
solariums, felt that designing a solarium around a tree would dis-
tract greatly from the structure itself. He spoke about aesthet-
ics concerning the building and explained how a solarium works
with regard to passive solar energy.
0 0
Minutes - Planning Commission - November 4 , 1985
Commissioner Sanders stated that this landmark tree should be
saved as part of the City' s past efforts to preserve trees along
El Camino Real, and felt that the City Attorney' s opinion should
be sought with regard to the liability issue.
Chairman LaPrade recounted some experiences he has had with syca-
more trees in which limbs were liable to fall off at any time and
felt that this particular tree would present a potential danger to
people if the tree remained and an expansion was built around it.
Commissioner Michielssen asked that if the tree removal is ap-
proved, he would like to see two 36 gallon oak trees as a replace-
ment. Commissioner Hatchell said he would like to save the tree
but questioned redesign potential and was concerned about the
solarium under it.
There was continued discussion concerning development of the site
with regard to the tree' s dripline, limitations of the site with
regard to a redesign as well as criteria for remodeling.
Mr. Carter emphasized that a problem the restaurant is encounter-
ing is the fact that they are being required to comply with set
criteria from the main office so that the redesign of this partic-
ular franchise is not feasible. He also pointed out that if the
tree is required to remain, the franchise owner will have no other
choice but to close his business because he will be unable to meet
the main franchise' s requirements. They also should have a drive-
in window and more parking than proposed (20 to 23 to the 17
proposed) .
In discussion, Mr. Carter did point out that as a part of the re-
modeling, they will be proposing that a sign tower be constructed
ant the tree would block this tower . Staff noted this was not a
part of the permit request. A copy of the proposed tower was
shown the Commission.
MOTION: Made by Commissioner Bond, seconded by Commissioner
Sanders to deny the appeal of Precise Plan 50-85 . The
motion was defeated with a roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Commissioners Bond, Sanders, and Kennedy
NOES: Commissioners Hatchell, Michielssen, Nolan and
Chairman LaPrade
MOTION: Made by Commissioner Michielssen and seconded by Com-
missioner Hatchell to approve the appeal of Precise Plan
50-85 with revision to Condition #3 to read:
113. The site plan shall be redesigned to eliminate the
existing bucket sign and to include three (3) 32�
gallon specimen oak trees to mitigate the loss of
the 30 inch sycamore tree. "
Minutes - Planning Commission - November 4, 1985
The motion carried with a roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Commissioners Michielssen, Hatchell, Nolan, and
Chairman LaPrade
NOES: Commissioners Kennedy, Sanders , and Bond
4. Zone Change 7-85 :
Request submitted by Urban Sciences, Inc. (Bruce Dodson) to
change the zoning map from RSF-Z (Residential Single Fa ly -
Low Density) to L(PD5) (Recreation - Planned Developme Over
lay No. 5) in order to allow the development of an outdoor
recreational use (waterslide) . Subject property ' s located
8425 E1 Bordo, also known as Lot 27 of Block 4 .
Chairman aPrade stepped down from the Commission d to a possi-
ble confli of interest.
Mr. Davidson p esented the staff report and po ' ted out that the
site plan for this project is conceptual only
Commissioner Hatche 1 inquired about the g es to gain access to
the subject site. ommissioner Bond a ed if this site could be
annexed into the sewer ystem. Mr . Davi son responded that the
site is within the Urba Services Li but just outside the sewer
district.
Bruce Dodson, representing th ap icant, talked in support of the
project and noted that he was i olved in the original planning of
the regional park. He then ga a presentation on the project
using slides. Mr. Dodson dres d several of the issues raised
in the staff report. He:os ted that e would like to see a coop-
erative effort with va ous affec d agencies and spoke about
safety provisions, noise factors. Mr . dson further pointed out
that he is attempti g to have everythi worked out so that the
waterslide facility uld be operational b next summer . Also
raised was the f ct that an agreement to cquire the adjoining
Jensen property h just been entered into whi would provide for
an additional 75 arking spaces needed for the p oject, which re-
sponds to a ma ' r staff concern.
There was d ' cussion concerning the increase of traf c along E1
Bordo whi would be generated from the project. Al discussed
was the oposed restaurant which would serve beer and ine and
the co cern involved to which Mr. Dodson replied that thi use is
not p unary to the main activity.
Mr Engen explained that planned development zoning is proposed to
ep a tight control on the design and subject final approval to
a precise plan or conditional use permit process which reflects
the zoning concept. "L" zoning without the planned development
would open the way to too many types of uses. Discussion ensued
with regard to the utilization of a conditional use permit process
when proposed plans for development are submitted.
City of Atascadero Item:
STAFF REPORT
FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: 11/4/85
BY: Doug Davidson, Assistant Planner File No: PP 50-85
Project Address: 7040 El Camino Real
SUBJECT:
An appeal of the conditions of approval of Precise Plan 50-85 speci-
fically relating to the removal of the existing 30 inch sycamore tree.
BACKGROUND:
Precise Plan 50-85 was approved by the Community Development Depart-
ment and was to become effective on October 21, 1985. An appeal of
the conditions of approval was received by staff on October 9, 1985.
The appeal is specifically related to Condition #3 which addresses the
removal of the existing 30 inch sycamore tree. The Atascadero Tree
Committee, a local advisory body comprised of interested citizens, re-
viewed the matter and agreed that the tree was too valuable an asset
to lose for the site and the community. Planning staff agreed by re-
quiring the redesign of the site to save the tree.
Notice of public hearing was published in the Atascadero News on Fri-
day, October 25, 1985 and all owners of record property located within
300 feet were notified on that date.
A. LOCATION: 7040 El Camino Real (Ptn. Lot 14, Block VA)
B. SITUATION AND FACTS :
1. Request. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .An appeal of the conditions of
approval of Precise Plan 50-85,
specifically relating to the re-
moval of the existing 30 inch
sycamore tree.
2. Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Young Brothers Construction Co.
3. Representative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .J.R. Vest (Kentucky Fried
Chicken)
4. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 acres
5. Streets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .El Camino Real is a major div-
ided arterial with a 100 foot
wide right-of-way.
Appeal of Precise Plan 50-85 (Young Brothers)
6. Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .CR (Commercial Retail)
7. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Restaurant (Kentucky Fried
Chicken)
8. Adjacent Zoning and Use. . . . . .North: CR, commercial
South: US Highway 101
East: CR, commercial
West: CR, commercial
9 . General Plan Designation. . . . .Retail Commercial
10. Terrain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Level site developed with res-
taurant. Sycamore tree is loca-
ted in front of the restaurant.
11. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Negative Declaration
C. ANALYSIS:
The owners wish to expand the Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant
to allow a new solarium to be built on the front. The applicant
contends that the tree obscures the business as it now stands and
that the tree removal is necessary for the expansion of the busi-
ness. However, staff feels that the solarium can be designed
around the tree. This approach could save a large tree along the
E1 Camino Real corridor, as well as provide a natural amenity to
the restaurant use.
According to Zoning Ordinance Section 9-4.157, the following find-
ings must be made for tree removal:
1) Dead, diseased beyond reclamation, or hazardous.
2) Crowded, with good horticultural practices dictating thinning
3) Interfering with existing utilities, structures or right-of-
way improvements.
4) Obstructing existing or proposed improvements that cannot be
reasonably designed to avoid the need for tree removal.
5) Inhibiting sunlight needed for either active or passive solar
heating or cooling, and the building or solar collectors can-
not be oriented to collect sufficient sunlight without total
removal of the tree.
Staff cannot make the finding #4 which requires that the tree ob-
structs existing or proposed improvements that cannot be reason-
ably designed to avoid the need for tree removal.
Staff agrees that the conditions of approval contained in Precise
Plan 50-85 , including the redesign of the site to save the syca-
more tree, are necessary to ensure appropriate site development.
2 �p�
9 0
Appeal of Precise Plan 50-85 (Young Brothers)
D. RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the appeal based on the finding con-
tained in Exhibit A.
DGD:ps
ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Finding for Denial
Exhibit B - Appeal of Tree Committee
Exhibit C - Appeal of Precise Plan 50-85
Exhibit D - Precise Plan 50-85
3 '�°_
w 0
Appeal of Precise Plan 50-85 (Young Brothers)
EXHIBIT A - Appeal of Precise Plan 50-85
Finding for Denial
November 4, 1985
FINDING:
1. The proposed improvements can be reasonably designed to avoid the
need for removal of the sycamore tree.
4 ��-9
YBC YOUNG BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION CO.
J Building Contractors
P. 0. BOY 1176 — 5530'h TRAFFIC WAY
ATASCADERO, CALIF. 93423
Telephone: (805) 466-033
September 19, 1985
City of Atascadero it
6500 Palma
Atascadero, Ca. 93422 �I
Attention: Mr. Henry Engen - Planning Dept. Reference: Kentucky Fried
Chicken
7040 E1 Camino Real
Atascadero, Ca.
Dear Sir:
We wish to appeal the decision of the Atascadero Tree Committee of
August 27, 1985, for the removal of a 36' Sycamore Tree in front of the
above business. `
The reason for the tree removal is:
1. That the tree obscures the business to the extent that none of the
signage can be seen.
2. The Owners wish to expand the building to allow a new solarium to be
built.
3. A Sycamore tree is not on the approved tree list such as a Oak, etc.
There are restaurants on the north and south of this business, and a '
restaurant or any business must be seen to be patronized.
According to our client's contract with Kentucky Fried Chicken, construction
must be in progress by November 11, 1985.
Sincerely yours,
YOUNG BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION CO.
:Marion W. loung,,;Owner
`:?JY/sd
Ex 14113 I7- B
APPEAL OF 7-REF-
(f OMM
-REFCOMM I-TTE E t
YBC YOUNG BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION CO.
Building Contractors
P. O. BOAC 1176 — 5530',! TRAFFIC WAY
ATASCADERO, CALIF. 93423
Telephone: (805) 466-0353
October 9, 1985
City of Atascadero
6500 Palma
Atascadero, Ca. 93422
Reference: Kentucky Fried Chicken, 7040 El Camino Real, Atascadero, Ca.
Dear Sir:
We wish to appeal your decision of October 7, 1985 whereas you have denied
the removal of the existing 30" sycamore tree in front of the above business.
The reasons for the tree removal are:
1. The tree obscures the building to the extent that the building is not
easily visible from the street.
2. None of the existing signage can be seen from the street.
3. The tree cannot satisfactorily be trimmed without causing severe damage
to it, possibly killing it.
4. A sycamore tree is not on the approved tree list such as an oak, etc.
5. The Owners wish to expand the building to allow a new solarium to be
built on the front.
6. Our client's contract with Kentucky Fried Chicken states that con-
struction must be in progress by November 11, 1985.
Sincerely yours,
YOUNG BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION CO.
Marion W. Young/ Owner l
`1WY/sd
EX14 1B IT C_
APP) ,AL DP: P,�F�ISE
PLA N SC- 95
�o�
hkDMINISTRATION BUILDING
CITY ATTORNEY
1 POST OFFICE BOX 747
POST OFFICE BOX 749
ATASCADERO. CALIFORNIA 93423
PHONE: ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA 93423
PHONE: (805( 466.8000 PHONES (805) 466-5678
CITY COUNCIL
Atw
ascadeiC® ACITY CLERKPOLICE DEPARTMENT
CITY TREASURER POST OFFICE BOX 747CITY MANAGER CORPORATED JULY 2. 1979 ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA 9
FINANCE DEPARTMENT PHONE: (805) 466-8600 0
PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
�.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT FIRE DEPARTMENT
RECREATION DEPARTMENT 6005 LEWIS AVENUE
ATASCADERO. CALIFORNIA 93422
PHONE: (805) 466-2141
October 7, 1985
Young Brothers Construction
P 0 Box 1176
Atascadero, CA 93423
Attention: Marion Young
RE: PRECISE PLAN 50-85
7040 El Camino Real (Kentucky Fried Chicken)
Dear Mr. Young:
The City of Atascadero has received and reviewed your application for
a Precise Plan and Environmental Determination for approval to remove
an existing 30" sycamore tree to allow the expansion of Kentucky Fried
Chicken for a solarium.
The proposed site is zoned CR (Commercial Retail) and the proposed use
would be allowed as defined as an eating and drinking place (Section
9-3. 222 (p) . The surrounding properties are zoned the same as the sub-
ject site with U.S. Highway 101 to the south.
The proposed project is in compliance with the provisions of the Zon-
ing Ordinance with the exception of:
Section 9-4.157 - Proposed tree removal. (Signage and the trash
enclosure shall be brought into conformance as a
part of this approval.
A review by the Planning Director of the Environmental Description
form and application along with other background information shows
that the project will have no detrimental effect upon the environment,
therefore, a Negative Declaration has been prepared. The Director has
also found the project to be in compliance with the provisions of the
Zoning Ordinance, with the exception of those sections stated above.
The proposed Precise Plan is approved as shown on attached Exhibit B
(site plan) , and subject to the conditions of approval listed in Exhi-
bit C. Final approval of the precise plan will become effective at
5 : 00 P.M. on October 21, 1985 , unless appealed.
�9�
f
r
In the event you intend to appeal any of the conditions, your appeal
should be in writing and should state the reasons for the appeal. Any
appeal would be scheduled for Planning Commission consideration as a
public hearing. You should, however, discuss any objections to the
conditions with the Planning Staff.
If you should have any questions concerning this project, you are wel-
come to contact the Community Development Department for assistance.
Sincerely,
OL./fc.t,
Doug Davidson
Assistant Planner
DD ps
cc: J.R. Vest
Attachments: Exhibit A - Location Map
Exhibit B - Site Plan
Exhibit C - Conditions of Approval
IEB i E X IE 1 7
RMF/'Ib. ;' ,1A,' >
JI
,
\ '• F♦
RNF/1
!\� �_ ,rna Y v:, ,�/A „'ti' J! - oo ..,°. `t %,Y a • S1.,-
e �L .JI„�•• -• yam, �.. (� •�. ,�- ;:. p� � e ti
`�/ _ i �., ,. a V -'ra`4 f� u_ S` .♦. -,Naz ,°,+ t ,♦,, t�J\`4 ' '�'
'L SF
.. f —. r,s �. "+1. ` ;�ra•. tJ'A� «. a _ �° +•rt tett •l, i,N�yt rr �' �.
RMF/1fi NF'1 ) Uz .ta '.ri �;, t.•,. ,;.b
_ - �fY>_` r�"I'1' ,yS. 9� ,•',t �`�� sy�° tt .fie `.''•'i ,��'� ,`ty�f' '
• •'>SJ r `b, { J-'."' +ti i\i° Y,t • 's.'•' 3 :f',i t. ,. `` ,M
16 l+s.° r,T.i r° ,.St +� 'a t• I1 +` 1t.s is +°- t\A' ieiJ
-�.,� J tb l ->la ..ta ♦„s° r u ..=p rt b�•,. s+. ,�,�.o• :;^l
- I '1(>'. Jyrr � ', ,•�I n° ..j4' - a: .+ #A :• •• _
�� '`t #-.p-�'7 ra>°o lz• •tea �'}o ,s ti• �- ns'se � •�:1
18
�,. � t � :.o e fro° L3 �. _ • ' i ., ��'•
LSF-Y
A > ' ,ra .e., =� A� ..ye l:°e :1• '�_,00 --as ��r�� .J.
AT-60-C41 11.31 :;L4
is • p AT-78-L-11 tc•:+1 w:•
;/� :°, LSF-Y(FH) AT-78-65 7—
.CJV(PD3) ,r-.;! 2. C • ,,.,. ,.• a• ;o` ? sa 12-&1 J8,
i°<
t•til y /`.'`.✓• AT-7,3-21'_ IL•31 wJ..
::f +r-•,t1. >•�,i �- � ? �� rye •..0 ,s yY�.. * +4�8 A'` -_
a J l ,. Ttw 11 t� •c> - TRACT 1004 1�
1 ::_ ., ° a.,°• 'i♦.. := LSF—Y(FH)
19LSF-Y ,� : „ �.,,, eC• ro•+
_ •y6fM �•r � >, N' ,a♦ , mus♦ ° ��”- •'(-ess° -.
lu
- s• rs '> •. to. ,.•�• •,a •'ePsi +",`,.k.La- e+� ..
2.. !•r':� •fa y•a u•,a `_ � sOo ._ � .. R_V 157::•: O.l?F. n';
I. h/�• .• BY
' ,•fe „ '!• L :1'�'' 'rte �5 no�'t i� �T•� �t � r
lu V,. J.�rr 4 rem t 25
—Y(FH) • �: , • ,_l.�y;y -' �.�'�°
/_•i �- " u< Baa
Y 27
'� � /^7'-, _ t "N r1 ,'7 ''m�>• J.J��' K a r 9 S/ - 'v"' �y �-t
•`
V� r r E r a `7p ..4' tb a ;.o I 0
�3 ••,.,° r1��L}< ,4\ >•�' -��) ... - •pi� ; tj•':, y,•a>�•� fie' ttrY� .
31
- , >-c12 _ �'L4f T . ll. 4 `'' 'f •J> ^J.
_ -''S� vy l"�, e ♦X19 t
• � J�,r�''r �"°'� :V r�.� y tf 6'��'�3'• c9 �'�^" �y,o�� "�a .,weer.
YQ SA hyAQ
r � x22
�� CITY OF i �._
! \ ATA SCADFRO
s'^'Lr!• ,7 Wil,ry.�--ki.
---- „1�Planning Department r` :�'�} ,�•� > ';� �� ��,�r.�►
1 r ,
_ •� 1II 1'// 1 •N••1 N,r v'r,u.,°'.oi Tt. f e.•.
'+ ���r.ra l� i1.1 � � - • �-?t - r1.417/f/J�,•a•�,ew•�•.1••rnMM u� )1.,
I J � E•
7"')
Map No. 17
•-'1 ^-y _ l�.li)Zk. 2 ��_1 . 1,.,jT' 'S�:?'' 'f•''-3,q. f i'}
t
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT : -
Name: Kentucky Fried Chicken Site Address: 7U40 E1 Camino Reap AtascR-Iev-
I,ot: ! Block: y Tract: Assessor's Parcel Number 30 - 212 -23-000
i
:
l i i e
r
t
:_
;
ZZ
-
•..
}
O
-
{ ` 10-0x2(F� i
l Sic-,►, � ;.� ' � t x 1
�Z.vc>
:EX H I13IT,
TE PLA
TO BE COMPLETED BY STAFF:
EXHIBIT C
Conditions of Approval
Precise Plan 50-85
7040 El Camino Real
(Young Brothers/Kentucky Fried !Chicken) _.
1. All construction shall be i°n conformance with Exhibit B (site
plan) , and Exhibit C (conditions of approval) , and all other ap-
plicable codes and ordinances of the City of Atascadero.
2. Complete .landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to, and
subsequently approved by, the Community Development Department
prior to issuance of building permits (Section 9-4. 124) . The fol-
lowing items shall be noted= or detailed in these plans:
a. All areas including setbacks, parking lots, and unused areas
shall be landscaped appropriately as per Section 9-4.125 (a) .
b. 10% of the parking area shall be landscaped with shade trees
approximately 30 feet "on-center.
C. Concrete curbing, or a functional equivalent, shall be pro-
vided to enclose all required landscaping.
d. All existing trees with a diameter of eight (8) inches or
more shall be shown. Trees which are to be removed shall be
noted as such.
e. Proposed landscaping shall be accompanied with a planting
schedule which includes species, container sizes, number of
plants or flats, and the space distribution of ground covers.
f. A trash enclosure sharl be brought into conformance with Sec-
tion 9-4.129. Please note that the construction standards
require the bottom of -the trash enclosure area to be concrete
or an equivalent impervious materials, as well as screened
from public streets and adjoining properties.
g. Parking lots abutting a public street shall be separated from
the street right-of-way by a landscaping strip with a minimum
width of five feet.
3 . The site plan shall be redesigned to save the existing 30 inch
sycamore tree.
4. Signage shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Develop-
ment Department prior to issuance of any building permits. Exist-
ing and proposed signage shall conform with Section 9-4. 130 .
L'
5. Parking shall be in conformance with Section 9-4.114. Seventeen
(17) parking spaces are required for the restaurant use, one of
which must be appropriately striped, marked, and posted as a hand-
icapped space. Four (4) compact spaces are shown on the proposed
site plan. Compact spaces are only allowed on parking lots with
20 or more spaces.
6. This precise plan is approved for a period of one year from the
date of final approval (October 21, 1985) .
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: City Council November 25 , 1985
VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager
FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director P�;
SUBJECT: Appeal by Michael Sherer of City's procedures which do not
allow installation of permanent electrical power until
final .inspection
RECOMMENDATION:
Denial of the appeal.
ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION:
Develop performance agreement whereby power could be cut off where
projects are occupied without final inspection.
BACKGROUND:
Michael Sherer is constructing a project at 9520 Laurel Road. He
found he needed to install a so-called "piggyback" power connection
from P. G. & E. in order to provide power for construction of a single
family home. Although he has complied with this requirement, he is
appealing the City' s practice of not permitting permanent electrical
service to a project until final inspection is approved.
ANALYSIS•
It has been the City' s practice, and that of most building code admin-
istering agencies, only to permit the installation of permanent elec-
tric power (and gas) following final inspections of a project. It is
the City' s primary tool to assure that projects are in compliance with
the building code and other ordinance requirements prior to allowing
occupancy.
It is staff' s concern that were power made available to incomplete
projects, that there would be an increase in premature occupancy of
structures.
In discussing the matter with Mr . Sherer , he noted that his concern to
not jeopardize his contractor ' s license would provide assurances that
he would not allow occupancy of incomplete buildings. However , the
fact is that a large percentage of our projects are owner-builder
without any licensing concerns. Also, not all contractors have con-
trol over the individuals who will be occupying buildings.
d
Cascade ® r _ ,
INCORPORATED JULY 2.1979 !City Assigned GENERAL PING DEPARTMENT APPLICATION
Application No. (fill out completely)
% ' 8
pplicant Address ! Phone
U
H roperty Owner Address Phone
a
a Representative Address Phone
P4 Other Address Phone
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: S
E
to
0
W
DREASON FOR REQUEST:
01
W
c� XISTING USE:
ROJECT ADDRESS 9jJGy 1,/��.e�iL ,�� I consent to the filing of this
7 application and declare that this
EGAL DESCRIPTION—Lot—Block—Tract application and related materials
SSESSOR PARCEL NO. are true and correct.
E
Copies of recorded deeds, title reports, or similar (,/Owner ( ) Agent
U
material may be required to illustrate deed re-
o strictions, covenants, easements.
a Date: _ r
PPLICATION RECEIVED BY: 6% %,ty -* ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATIO
ATE RECEIVED: !^!_ � _ 6 5 SUBDIVISION (Tract Man)
ONING: LOT DIVISION (Parcel Map)
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: CERT. OF COMPLIANCE
OT SIZE• LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
ZONE CHANGE
NVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
Date CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
PLANNING CO-�24ISSION ACTION: PRECISE PLAN
VARIANCE
Date
CITY COUNCIL ACTION: ADJUSTMENT
EXCEPTION
Date OTHER
Total Fee
Date Paid (T�p3IS'a
Receipt No. J•DaSf
7
November 19 , 1985
PTL 1110 RATA D UM
TO : Honorable Rolfe Nelson,
Members of the City Council
FROM: Robert M. Jones , City Attorney
RE : Resolution of Intention to Establishing Downtown Parking
and Business Area: Dated November 25 , 1985
Tn.e attached Resolution of Intention to Establish a Downtown_ Parking
and Business Area is proposed pursuant to Section 36509 et seq. of
the Streets and Highways Code. The Resolution provides for a description
of the boundaries of the proposed area, the time and place of a Hearing
to be held by the City Council to consider the establishment of an area,
the proposed uses to which the proposed revenue shall be put and a de-
scription of the system of assessments or charges which will be used and
businesses upon which the levy will be made. There is an accompanying
memorandum from Harry Sackrider , Committee Chairman for the "Business
Improvement Association" which has met on many occasions with members of
the proposed Business Improvet^zent Association including election of
directors and with myself to normalize the Business Improvement Associ-
ation, Resolution and Ordinance.
The Resolution provides for a Hearing for the first (lst) meeting in
January at which time the City Council shall 'near all protests and re-
ceive evidence for or against the proposed action. If the City Council
following the Nearing, decides to establish the proposed area, it shall
adopt an Ordinance to that effect which esentially will formally adopt
the description of the boundaries of the area estate , estate of the
business in the area shall be benefitted by the narking and business
improvement area and the uses to which the revenue shall be put. It
should be pointed out to City Council that businesses recently estab-
lished in the area may be exempt from the assessment or charges imposed
for a period not exceeding one (1) year from the date the business
commenced in the area; this has been discussed with Harry Sackrider ,
as well as Mike Lucas , or members of the Interim Formation Committee of
the Business improvement Association.
Any questions concerning the T:esolution and Proposed Ordinance may be
directed to this office or to the Business Improvement Association.
_ �J
nob ert M. Jones , City Attorney
0 COPY®N A&E
November 15 , 1985
Mr. Michael Sheldon d r-
City Manager ItiIC)V I
P .O . Box 747
Atascadero , Calif. CITY Mr:R,
93423
Dear Mike:
At the July 23rd 1984 City Council Meeting, Mayor Rolfe Nelson
named Councilman George Molina and the then Chamber of Commerce
Executive Director , Gary Larson as Co-Chairman to head a
"Downtown -Rewrtalization Task Force" to explore several
persistant problems relating to the Central Business District.
By creating this task force , the Mayor insured citizen
participation of those most affected by the downtown problems.
The property owners and business owners of the down town area.
During the formation of their recommendation, the Revitalization
Task Force pursued various avenues of solution.
The recommendation that came out of this "Task Force" was the
creation of a "Business Improvement Association" . More
commonally known as a "BIA" . By using the form of a "BIA" the
needed solutions can be implemented and infuenced directly by
the people in the BIA area.
As a direct result of this recommendation, on May 2 , 1985 , an
Organizing Task Force of local business people was formed to
study the feasability of forming a "Business Improvement
Association" .
This committee consisted of the following people :
Chairman Mike Lucas Floyd Anderson
Garry Brill Henry Engen, City Planner
Joe Grisanti Tom Hatchell
John Kennaly Shirley Marengo
Irwin Manning Mary Pearson
Joe PeBenito Don Price
Maggie Rice , Exec. Dir. A.C . C. Harry Sackrider
Mary Walsh Jack Stinchfield
This committee , I think you will agree , represents a good cross
section of the business community.
Beginning with it ' s first meeting on May 23 , 1985 , and continuing
periodically, until it ' s last meeting on September 19, 1985 , the
committee worked on defining the area , and the following concepts
to present to the business owners within the designated
boundries . Based on the recommendations made by the original
committees questionaire results.
A. FUNCTIONS
I . Parking
To provide adequate parking in the defined area.
II . Beautification
To work towards the overall beautification of the defined
area.
III . Promotion
To provide adequate promotion for all businesses within the
defined area.
IV. Representation
To provide a unified voice and to consolidate efforts
towards the emplementation of the goals that will be established
by the B. I .A. board of directors .
The above are the planned functions to be established by the
initial board of the new Business Improvement Association.
B. FEES
Annual dues will be based on the city business license fee . They
will be levied in the following manner:
In the first year of the Associaion the assessment will be 25% of
the business license fee. In the second year 50% of the
business license fee , and third and fourth years , 75% of the
buisness license fee , and the fifth year and therafter will be
equal to 100% of the business license fee .
C . MANAGEMENT
A Board of Directors will be established to direct the business
of the BIA. It will consist of not more than nine members of the
BIA who will serve without salary. Each director will serve for
three years and will be elected by the general membership of the
BIA.
The above concepts were presented to the business owners within
the defined area at a meeting held on September 26, 1985 . This
meeting was attended by 87 people representing 46 businesses . Of
the business owners present , thirty-three (71%) signed petitions
in support of forming the above proposed BIA. Subsequent to this
meeting , an additional twenty-one petitions have been received
for a total of 54-
Our survey shows that approximately 148 businesses are located
within the proposed boundries . All have been notified at least 3
times inviting their participation in the development and
formation planning
as well as the public meeting which was held on September 26,
1985 . To this date , I have no knowledge of any organized ���
opposition to the establishment of "Business Improvement
Association" for our recommended downtown area of Atascadero.
Based on the findings of the Task Force and the overwhelming
support shown at the September 26th meeting , we are now
requesting that you proceed as quickly as possible to adopt a "
Resolution of Intention" to establish a BIA.
Should you need further information, contact either Jack
Stinchfield, Mike Lucas , or myself.
ncer l Ic
arry rider
Intem. Committee Chairman
cc : Grigger Jones
Members of Interim Formation Committee
1 1/z
TO: City CouncilMembers November 25, 1985
FROM: Michael Shelton
City Manager
SUBJECT: BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION (B.I .A. ) - NOTICE OF
INTENT - PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 127-85
RECOMMENDATION:
City Council adopt the attached proposed resolution of intention
to establish a Business Improvement Association area.
BACKGROUND:
Attached is a memorandum from Harry H. Sackrider , Interim
Committee Chairman for organizing a Downtown Revitalization Task
Force, who is petitioning the City Council to undertake the
necessary steps to formulate a Business Improvement Association
for the downtown area. The staff report provides considerable
detail as to the background history and events transpiring and
resulting in the formulation request.
B. I.A. FORMULATION REQUIREMENTS:
The following steps are required for the formation of the
Business Improvement Association:
1. The Cuity Council must adopt a "Resolution of Intent" to
establish the project area. The resolution must contain the
following information:
A. A description of the boundaries of the proposed area.
B. The time and place of a hearing to be held by the City
Council to consider establishment of an area.
C. The proposed uses to which the proposed revenues shall
be utilized.
D. A description of the system of assessments or charges,
which will be used and the businesses upon which the
levey will be made.
• 2. The City Clerk must publicize, 10 days prior to the hearing,
a "Notice of Public Hearing" in two ways:
1 /
MRESOLUTION NO. 127-85
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ATASCADERO OF INTENTION TO ESTABLISH A PARKING
AND BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREA WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN
SECTION OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO AND SETTING A
HEARING DATE THEREFORE PURSUANT TO STREETS AND
HIGHWAYS CODE SECTION 36500 ET SEQ.
WHEREAS, the City of Atascadero has received a request from busi-
nesses located in the downtown area of Atascadero to formulate_ a park-
ing and business improvement area pursuant to Section 36500 et seq. of
the Streets and Highways Code ; and
WHEREAS, in 1979 the California Legislature enacted Streets and
Highways Code Section 36500 et seq. (Parking and Business Improvement
Area Law of 1979) ; and
WHEREAS, it is therefore in the best interest of the City and
downtown business improvement area to establish the area, under
Streets and Highways Code Section 36500 et seq.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Atas-
cadero as follows:
1. The City of Atascadero intends to establish a parking and
business improvement area in the downtown section of the City
pursuant to the provisions of California Streets and Highways
Code Section 36500 et seq.
2. The purpose in establishing a parking and business improve-
ment area is to impose assessment or charges or both within
a parking and business improvement area which is in addition
to any assessments, fees, charges, or taxes imposed in the
City and to use such proceeds for the benefit of businesses
within such parking and business improvement area by doing
any of the following:
a. The acquisition, construction, or maintenance of parking
facilities for the benefit of the area.
b. Decoration of any public place in the area.
C. The promotion of public events which are to take place
on or in public places in the area.
d. Furnishing of music in a public place in the area.
e. For general promotion of business activities in the
area.
3. The boundaries of said proposed area are generally shown on
Resolution No. 127-85
Exhibit "A" (Map attached hereto) , and more specifically de-
scribed as follows: From the south corner of Morro Road at
the Highway 101 overcrossing then in a general northwest dir-
ection immediately adjacent to Highway 101, then easterly
along Rosario Avenue to a point at the intersection of
Rosario and Palma Avenue, then easterly along Palma Avenue to
the rear lot line of parcels on the west side of Traffic Way,
then north along said rear lot lines to the rear lot line of
parcels on the south side of Olmeda then easterly to the rear
lot line of parcels on the west side of Traffic Way, then
north along said rear lot line to include Lot 24 of Block LA,
then northerly along the centerline of Traffic Way, then
easterly to include the presently existing National Guard
Armory property, then to a point easterly to the intersection
of West Mall and Santa Ysabel Avenue at the West Mall bridge,
then southerly along Santa Ysabel Avenue to a point at the
intersection of the southerly leg of Hospital Drive and Santa
Ysabel Avenue, then easterly from that point to the extension
of proposed Highway 41, then southwesterly to the Morro Road/
Highway 101 overcrossing, point of beginning.
The area shall include all businesses located on parcels con-
tiguous to the Traffic Way boundary.
4. The Council will hold a public hearing at 7 : 30 p.m. Monday,
January 13, 1986 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 6500
Palma Avenue, Atascadero, San Luis Obispo County, California,
to consider the establishment of said area. }
5, Charges for obtaining funds to provide "services and programs
for the area shall be levied on .tfi-e- business sin the area in
amounts equal to the business license charge , such busi-
nesses based upon the following percentages and in the fol-
lowing years:
7 115 c rtr y a( t�. )
a. first y ar - Twenty-five percent (25%) of applicable
business license charge on such business.
b. --Seton year - Fifty percent (50%) of applicable business
license charge on such business.
C. Thi-r year - Seventy-five percent (75%) of applicable
business license charge of such business.
d. Fou-rah- ye-a-r - One hundred percent (100%) of applicable
business license charge of such business.
Charges based upon the percentages and levies against such
businesses for that year shall be from the date that any
ordinance is enacted adopting the proposed downtown parking
and business improvement area boundaries. 0
� :sC�
�eC A_
� t
2 J'.
J,
0 !
Resolution No. 127-85
6. Assessments for the purposes of construction of physical im-
provements shall be made only after further hearings and
findings are required under Streets and Highways Code Section
36500 et seq.
7. On direction of the City Attorney, the City Clerk shall pub-
lish and mail notices as required by Section 36522, Streets
and Highway Code.
On motion by Councilmember , seconded by Council-
member , the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted
in its entirety by the following roll call vote :
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
DATE ADOPTED:
CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA
BY:
ROLFE D. NELSON, Mayor
ATTEST:
ROBERT M. JONES, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
Michael Shelton, City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ROBERT M. JONES, City Attorney
3 rR'
E X H I B I .T
A .t
. .rn• :w,«:: :J:v.�:. ::,+:;?<�!m.•o^: :rsx^.x:�i ,rr:t:»:t;:)?f:>.•--+:. : -'•x:.y.
Ai.. t. r ... .... ...... ... ....... .....r....,. ..... ... ::,..... .... �::.,•:>�::;•.- :::::`::is
,{Y.+�[ .. ... ........... ..y. .. �.. ....�r..:�. ... ......�,�::: ........,...w.. ... ...). .:�... ..).-.mow... .
... ... .... . .... w. . ... +.... ... ... .f>....Y....
... .. ... �. .. .,. y.. ., v:.i is
R.. .. 'f. .r.. ..f . ...3..+t .:i:
.... a......... ....... ...
. .............. ........... ...:::... ... . .. a ... .... ... ...
...... .-..i.+......... ....:. .... >......... ...Y.....E .,y.#. .. �J
at
:.
�:
..
L ::):}:�;F...!i�i'•:�:`. •i?)ti;ii:C!••W ..;Y/r!';?:, :•:}F:�'::y.�''?�:ii?�':TN!:M.: . }<•i+-}�1:b . `' �...:: .w�.?..:.i�i'iii�i::;?::�?iiiii}i:iri.
�`:}:•iii�i$ii<::i;i}ii}:}.::.... .,::: ��� ✓ � � ':<��'>.��ii:$;::'.,••'.
,.,...ateVol
.... .,...... :{::
�'�.:;i�:�'�,:�•.,.����v'::tip-}ii:':L':���`:'::'��'
tt Vii: .hi:':: •' !�.a•;;::•: 'r-:v::' ?: .
Z
)f�:ti•:<L� 3 J
N w
�i
ui
V
a0
>':•s>:>
O
W
+►: : }.f V
14 X.
�V
ai.• tr
u
C
M
lt
U
t
N
�VvJ
Q
1
Q
i!!". i:i•ii�i'i>i�i`�iiii�ic:i;i;i>:•'i:>:.':::!.,. .�. �
4c
W
LL
cn
LU
3
1
�'a d
Q v
M
R
:.f
�.CO
;:�.'.;
«
{ ,•p
u
•. .. .. ...v:�t� ) ...R... ...: ...,.. .,...:. .:J. ..,.. � :. is ,
....:::::::...
. .. •i ::•:v....... .:::::: ::.i:•. •. .... 'p> ::n..... .. '•:}i.'!iii}.
........ ...: .... •?:Li}iii:'
........ ........... �::::.•: -. .... .� :{.iii::.;� �: ::. ..... ::., ^ii:�.�:� :i::�:^i':i?..' ���
;.i
a •:.,•. .n..r ..., .. ..... .�•:::v.•...... .. v:.. .. ..:: ... .i..: ::: .::iii;::� i:::.�, �i:!iv: .;.+A:i�. :>:a..,.
:i
•:::•:::..... .:: �:::. ::•: t•::: �::. ... .. :-,�. ::::. fir.:,
, 77
• I
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: City Council November 25 , 1985
VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager ,
FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director'
SUBJECT: General Plan Conformity Report - 11725 Santa Lucia
Request to offer Graves Creek Reservation No. 8 to the
City (Larry McPherson)
RECOMMENDATION:
That the land being offered in fee not be accepted by the City.
BACKGROUND:
On November 18, 1985 , the Atascadero Planning Commission considered
the above-referenced subject unanimously concurring with the recommen-
dation not to accept the land in fee in that the remaining parcels
would not conform to zoning and General Plan standards, and due to
additional concerns expressed by the Public Works Department.
There was brief dicussion by the Commission on this matter and no pub-
lic comment.
HE:ps
ATTACHMENTS: Staff Report - November 18 , 1985
cc: Larry McPherson
•
c
General Plan Conformity Report - 11725 Santa Lucia
City Public Works Department has expressed concerns over full accep-
tance of creek easements due to a maintenance concern, liability, po-
tential for drainage improvements, and concern for a policy relative
to the continuity of trails and park strips.
RECOMMENDATION:
Recommend to the City Council that the land not be accepted in fee
and that the remaining parcel would not conform to zoning and General
Plan standards.
HE:JM:ps
ATTACHMENTS: October 3, 1985 Letter of Offer
General Plan excerpt
Staff Report for Parcel Map AT 830523 :1
Map of City-owned property
2
4515 Stonebrook Road
Santa Maria, California 934
October 3 , 1985
City of Atascadero
P.O. Box 747
Atascadero , California 93422
Honorable Mayor and City Council :
I would like to offer the City a fee title gift of
land to be dedicated to permanent open space preservation.
As you may '_snow, I presently own a parcel of land
consisting of a portion of Graves Creek Reservation No . 8
as shown on Parcel Map 83-085 , recorded December 5 , 1982.
This land generally parallels Santa. Lucia Road and is
approximately 5 .6 acres .
This offer would provide the City with an additional
2, 000+ feet of Graves Creek adjoining the existing Graves
Creek Reservation deeded to the City in Janup.ry, 1983 by
James Rockstad.
If Council agrees to accept this offer , I will proceed
with the necessary documents to accomplish the transfer
of title .
Cordially,
Larry McPherson
0
l:
Areas of open space available for recreation that shall be
preserved are listed below: �
The banks and bed of Atascadero Creek
The inundation area of the Salinas River
Atascadero Lake and its surrounding park
The Sunken Gardens
Chalk Mountain Regional Park
The three Little League baseball fields
The banks and bed of Graves Creek
Pine Mountain (in part)
The Wran,glerette Arena
Areas of open space that shall be considered for acquisition
by a public agency and/or preserved for recreation are listed
below:
Chandler Parkland
Pine I•±ountain Amphitheater
County-owned lots fronting on Lakeview adjacent to
Atascadero Lake
Both categories are shown in Table VI-4 . The Creek Reserves ,
actual and potential, are shown on Map VI-4 .
Atascadero Creek bisects the Colony on a west to east line,
running along the southern portion of the Central Business
District and. the administrative-civic center complex.
Portions of the .Creek Reserve already are in public owner-
ship. Natural vegetation and scenic quality are abundant
along both creeks.
Creek Policy Proposals
1. Possible purchase of privately owned Portions , or
negotiation of easement rights , shall e const ered in
order to develop the whole area as recreational land.
These actions can be —nan� c�'e_�I__troug pu is-subs crip-
tion, general obligation bonds , revenue-sharing funds
or operating surplus.
2. Building set-back requirements shall be established
along the banks of both creeks to insure the uninter-
upted natural flow of the streams . Access to and
recreational use of the creeks shall be assured by
establishing building setbacks of not less than 50
feet from the bank of the creek.
3. The bacteriological content of the water in both creeks
shall be monitored at appropriate intervals , to insure
against contamination by inflow of effluent from nearby
septic tank leach-lines . This possibility may exist
along Atascadero Creek from the Capistrano .Avenue Bridge �-
to the railroad overpass.
83 ,
i
0 !
4 . Land disturbance shall be minimized within at least
50 feet of water courses, except for that maintenance
such as brush clearing which shall protect adjacent
properties from flood hazards. other minor exceptions
could be made for harvesting sand and gravel and for
low-intensity recreational uses , such as trails and pic-
nic areas. Channelization of creeks with concrete
shall be prohibited.
5. Some areas of the creeks shall be left in their natural
state for public enjoyment and to provide a continuing
home for the beaver population, as well as the foxes ,
weasels, coyotes , wildcats and raccoons .
6. Facilities for picnics, playgrounds and riding, biking
and hiking trails are appropriate to these watercourse
areas. :Multiple-use trails for hiking and riding shall
be developed the length of the creeks .
7. A series of check dams on the upper portions of Atas-
cadero Creek could provide year-round water (see
Chapter VII, SERVICES) for fishing and swimming acti-
vities. However, the alteration of natural drainage
patterns shall be minimized, and the existing minor
drainage channels shall be left in open space, in most
cases, to provide for runoff.
8. The Atascadero Creek .Plan, as prepared by SEDES and
approved as amended by the Board of Supervisors (1975) ,
is an integral part of this General Plan and represents
a potential horizon plan for the subject area. The Creek
Plan is shown on Map VI-2.
9. That portion of the Atascadero Creek Reserve from E1
Camino Real Bridge to the proposed Lewis Avenue Bridge
shall be developed into a park.
The Salinas River and its watershed recharge at least some
of the riverbed wellfields of the Atascadero _Mutual Water
Company. The unimpeded flow of the river and its tributaries
must be assured. The Salinas River offers spectacular possi-
bilities for certain types of recreational uses, as well as
playing an important role in the County Riding and Hiking
Trail System. Certain sections are endowed with abundant
natural vegetation. River bottom areas above normal flow
levels are particularly suited to camping and picnicking
development. A specific study for this type of use shall
be made of the more favorable river areas .
1. Agricultural . and. recreational land uses shall be main-
tained the full length of the river ' s flood plain as
it passes through the Colony. Building permits shall
be denied in the potential inundation areas .
84 ,
' �nj'
n Oro a a'12 IT l�
1918 all 1979 CITY OF ATASCADERO
Planning Department July 18 , 1983
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP AT 830523 :1
LOCATION: 11705 Santa Lucia Road (Ptn. Lot 2, Block 57)
APPLICANT: Lawrence McPherson (Twin Cities Engineering)
REQUEST: To divide 6. 52 acres of land into two parcels of 2. 86 and
3. 66 acres each.
BACKGROUND
1. Existing Zoning: A-1-BV-5
2. General Plan: Suburban Single Family Residential
3. Environmental Determination: The applicant has prepared an Ini-
tial Study Environmental Description form. The Planning Director
has prepared a draft Conditional Negative Declaration indicating
the project will not have a significant adverse impact upon the
environment if certain mitigation measures are incorporated into
the project.
4. Site Conditions: The site is generally level with a slight rise
at the northwest property line and a drop-off from the bank of the
creek to its centerline and back to the opposite bank. The site
includes part of Creek Reservation #8 from the northwest property
line southeast to the intersection of Santa Lucia Road and the
paper easement originally known as Puente Road. The site vegeta-
tion consists of native grasses and a few mature oaks and willows
along the creek. Average slope is approximately 10%.
5. Project Description: The applicant requests permission to divide
6. 52 acres of land (gross) into two parcels of 2. 86 and 3. 66 acres
each. Residential single family lot sizes are based on gross
acreage. The applicant has 3. 44 acres of land in Creek Reserva-
tion #8 and . 32 acres in the road dedication. The remainder, net
acreage useable for building sites after dedications is 1 (one)
acre for proposed Parcel 1 and 1. 76 acres for proposed Parcel 2.
Tentative Parcel Map AT 830523 :1 (McPherson)
STAFF COMMENTS
On Thursday, July 7, 1983 , the Subdivision Review Board, composed of
Fred Buss, Associate Planner , met with the applicant, Lawrence Mc-
Pherson. The following item was discussed:
Minimum lot size for the BV-5 zoning with less than 11% average
grade is three acres. Gross acreage will need to be adjusted to
increase the size of proposed Parcel 1 to at least three acres.
This application is a resubdivision of Final Parcel Map AT 82-129
which divided Lot 2 of Block 57 into two parcels. This application
resubdivides one of the created parcels into two for a grand total of
three parcels from Lot 2.
The applicant is using the creek acreage (3. 44 acres) and the road
dedication acreage ( . 32 acres) to meet the minimum lot size require-
ments of the BV-5 zoning. As noted on the map, the creek acreage has
been divided in two and each half added to the proposed parcels. This
will need to be adjusted to increase the size of proposed Parcel 1 to
at least 3 acres.
FINDINGS
1. The application conforms to the applicable zoning and subdivision
regulations and is consistent with the Atascadero General Plan.
2. The application, together with the recommended conditions, will
not have a significant adverse effect upon the environment and the
preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is not necessary.
RECOMMENDATION
Based upon the above Findings, the Planning Department recommends:
A) Issuance of a Conditional Negative Declaration as follows:
1. Adequate provisions shall be made for drainage and erosion
control and protection in conjunction with site development.
2. Adequate provision shall be made in the design of the private
sewage disposal systems to minimize effects on natural
watercourses.
3. Grading and tree removal shall be minimized during all phases
of site development; and,
B) Approval of Tentative Parcel Map AT 830523 :1 subject to the fol-
lowing conditions:
2 �JJ
Tentative Parcel Map AT 830523 :1 (McPherson)
1. Private sewage disposal systems will be an acceptable method
of sewage disposal, if reports and design are acceptable.
All tests, reports and designs shall conform to methods and
guidelines prescribed by the Manual of Septic Tank Practice
and other applicable City ordinances. The following shall
appear on the Final Map:
"Appropriate soils reports including a percolation test, a
test to determine the presence of ground water, and a log of
a soil boring to a minimum depth of ten (10) feet shall be
submitted to the Planning Department prior to the issuance of
a building permit. Where soils reports indicate that conven-
tional soil absorption systems are not acceptable, City ap-
proval of plans for an alternative private sewage disposal
system, designed by a Registered Civil Engineer , shall be re-
quired. Depending upon the system, more restrictive require-
ments may be imposed. "
2. Water shall be obtained from the Atascadero Mutual Water Com-
pany and water lines shall exist at each parcel frontage
prior to filing of the Final Map. A letter from the water
company indicating they are willing and able to serve the
property shall be submitted to the ,Planning Department prior
to recordation of the Final Map.
3. All other available• utilities 'not already in place shall be
extended underground to each parcel frontage at the time of
building permit.
4. The Final Map shall be adjusted to reflect at least three
acres gross on each proposed parcel. Adjustment may be made
by using the Creek Reservation Note on the map to adjust the
actual fee interest used in computing gross acreage.
5. Final grading and drainage plans prepared by a Registered
Civil Engineer for development on each parcel may be required
to be submitted for review and approval by the Planning and
Public Works Departments prior to issuance of building per-
mits. A Note to this effect shall appear on the Final Map.
6. Drainage and erosion control plans, prepared by a Registered
Civil Engineer , may be required to be submitted for review
by the Planning and Public Works Departments in conjunction
with installation of private driveways. A Note to this ef-
fect shall be placed on the Final Map.
7. All pipeline and other easements of record shall be shown on
the Final Map. A letter shall be submitted from each utility
company indicating the nature and extent of any building re-
strictions. A Note so stating such restrictions shall appear
on the Final Map.
J
Tentative Parcel Map AT 830523 :1 (McPherson)
8. The applicant shall remain bound to Condition #8 of Parcel
_Map AT 82-129 which is an agreement to dedicate or grant an
open space easement to the City of Atascadero consisting of
d1i of his portion of Graves Creek Reservation No. 8 within
a1 tetme. A Note so stating s a appear on the Final
etap and shall e in ing on all future assignees.
9. The boundary of Graves Creek Reservation No. 8 shall be de-
rineate2r on the Final Map so that it is distinguishable__ from
remaining portions of the proposed parcels.
10. No single family residential development shall be allowed
w�i in a ree Reservation portion of the proposed parcels
ancl a Note tothat effect shall a22ear on the Final Map.
11. All driveways providing access to building sites shall be
subject to Planning Department review and approval at the
time of building permit application for each parcel. Plan
and profile drawings may be required. If average slope ex-
ceeds 12%, paved improvement would be required, otherwise,
an all-weather surface would be required similarly. In no
event will driveways be allowed which exceed 20% in slope.
In the event any portion of a driveway is shared, improvement
of the shared portion shall be a requirement made in conjunc-
tion with the first building permit. Notes to these effects
shall appear on the, Final Map:
12. The driveway access shall be improved to at least the follow-
ing minimum standards: -
- an improved width of twelve (12) feet
- unobstructed vertical clearance of fourteen (14) feet
These standards shall appear as Notes on the Final Map.
13. Efforts shal'1 be made to minimize grading that would be dis-
ruptive to the natural topography and removal of existing
mature trees. The following shall appear as a Note on the
Final Map:
"No trees shall be removed without compliance with applicable
City ordinances. No grading shall commence without an appro-
priate permit and compliance with applicable City ordinances.
14. Roof materials for all structures shall be Class C rating or
better and a Note to that effect shall appear on the Final
Map.
15. The 100 year flood plan and the floodway shall be delineated
on the Final Map and a Note shall appear on the Final Map
which describes any building restrictions; including those
affecting design of a private sewage disposal system, appli-
cable to development of the site based on City participation
in the Federal Flood Insurance Program. The wording of said
4
p,
A
Tentative Parcel Map AT 830523:1 (McPherson)
Note shall be approved by the Planning and Public Works
Departments.
a. If possible, minimum finish elevations for any buildings
and private sewage disposal systems shall also be noted
on the Final Map.
16. A Final Map in compliance with all conditions set forth here-
in shall be submitted for review and approval in accordance
with the Subdivision Map Act and the City Lot Division Ordi-
nance prior to recordation.
a. Monuments shall be set at all new property corners cre-
ated and a Registered Civil Engineer or licensed land
surveyor shall submit a letter certifying that the monu-
ments have been set prior to recordation of the Final
Map.
b. A recently updated preliminary title report shall be
submitted for review in conjunction with the processing
of the Final Parcel Map.
17. Approval of this Tentative Parcel Map shall expire two years
from the date of final approval unless an extension of time
is granted pursuant to a written request prior to the expi-
ration date.
ACTION
The Planning Commission should, by motion, direct Staff as deemed
appropriate.
REPORT PREPARED BY: kms✓
doehEIf BUSS
As ciate Planner
REPORT APPROVED BY: __Iaw4u Amw
LAWRENCE STEVENS
Planning Director
ps
5
�:i
t(1
o
V Lo P
ujU
U
LJ
r O• = n r b-CS a7 C \ cr O m t
0. o c„_. RR " V" ¢ a Q 1 g h
i.
19
> N V H
Fa1c Ol.ro�o O� C �W�W� Ov
Wo�•c=i�W yG,'
�Qoi�o
PH��
NZ
U
W
1 N/
CC
a
tIi
/
I
� I11
r
3- NoRTN
J J
I
5
A-1-L3-V-5 ,
is
70s"J; .Arzv Luce ,evvw
�ovr14V Lor.? , f3coc� j"7
_ C/TY
��rH�1
Z4 i 0 �\1�-- I v
13 8
23 15
1610
29
\ 2219 11-0 48 1 ?I 110 \ �
28 Sf� -30' ; 20 19 18 47 11 `
24 25 26 2iN 34b/
� �I6
i 32 �
39 18
17 _�4 b`. v
16 1514
45
12 /
i, ; 8 O
4 7^ _ �' � 6 5 4 44
TA 3 2 I
< 3 lo° 43 13
35 1341-33
32 3l 30 {-
39 29 28 ,{ 7 GF�TQ 51 9 CSG
°��t 41 14-1 43 4 4 26 25 50 ` 7 6 5
� . 4q _
1 4b �rtf� 4
a . CO 9 C f 47
10 90 8 0 0 60 27 28 q 3 RD'q U ' 11 _
1! X4048�49 1
23 24 29 30 a { 31 14 b 15 16
25 /32
30 13 `140 I
26 } / 17
22 \ . 5 'T� K� ' 1 14
9 '1 /
8 f 16 i 15 114; ' ;Cs�l
,� 113 ; 12 111 ! �, ! 5 4
` 20 10 7 l I I I 10 9 8! 7 � �
11 } 3 2 i
6
}Np I 1 i8 21 .3 12
15 13 23 24
4
t p.`fETP` i
14
14 22
15 5 q
5 i3 Z 16 21 'i' IB 27 QOPQ
to 37
12 18 19 17
26•, t2 � ': f38 3a. �-=
13
14
22 / 15 i 4 Z
�/I47--/ QNLY
9 / _J
�7 � � � �4.x.1.3
20 14 27 28 76r SAA'7fl �,�
26 ' '1 1t ` LvT.ZI�SUO�,�' S7
r 17 16
LJ
33
28/, 32 2 1
4
6 6
�) ! �; 9 I 5 4 i 3 7 C