Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda Packet 07/14/1992
IC REVIEW Oyya inn � . �..� ' ER"_ A G E N D A ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL' REGULAR MEETING CITY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 6500 PALMA AVENUE, 4TH FLOOR ROTUNDA ROOM JULY 14, 1992 7:00 P.M. This agenda is prepared and posted pursuant to the requirements of Government Crede Section $4954.2. By listing a'°topic on this agenda, the City Council has expres ed its intent to discuss and act on each item. In addition to any action identified in brief general description of each item, the action that may be taken shalt include: A refs rat to staff with specific requests for information; continuance; specific direction to ste f cvneerning the policy or mission of the item; discontinuance of consideration; authorizat on enter into negotiations and execute agreements pertaining to the item; adoption ;o approval; and, disapproval. Copies of the staff reports or other documentation relating to each item of usiness referred to on the agenda are on file in the office of the City Clerk (Room 208) and in the Information Office (Room 103), available for public inspection during City Hatt business hours. The City Clerk will answer any questions regarding the agenda. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in a City meeting or other services offered by this City, please contact the City Managers Office ((805) 461-5010) or the City Clerk's Office ((805) 461-507#). Notification at least 48 hours prior to the meeting or time when services are needed wl U assist the City staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility to the meeting or service. RULES OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: * Members of the audience may speak on any item' on the agenda. * Aperson may speak for five'- (5) `minutes. * No one may speak for a second time until eve, one wishing to speak has had an opportunity to do so. * No one may speak more than twice on any item. * Council Members may question any speaker; the speaker may, respond but, after the allotted time has exp ed, may not initiate further discussion. * The floor will then be closed to public participation and open for Council discussion. Call to Order Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call City Council Comments: Announce Award from American Planning Association for Fiscal Impact Model COMMUNITY FORUM: The City Council values and encourages exchange of ideas and comments from you, the citizen. The Community Forum period is pro- vided to receive comments from the public on matters other than scheduled agenda items. To increase the effectiveness of Community Forum, the following rules will be, enforced: * A maximum of 30 minutes will be allowed for Community Forum, unless Council authorizes an extension. * All remarks shall be addressed to Council, as a whole, and not to any individual member thereof. * No person shall be permitted to make slanderous, profane or personal remarks against any elected official, commissions and staff. A. COMMITTEE REPORTS (The following represent ad hoc or standing committees. Informative status reports will be given, as felt necessary. ) 1. S.L.O. Area Coordinating Council/North Coastal Transit 2. Solid/Hazardous Waste Management Committee 3. Recycling Committee 4. Economic Opportunity Commission 5. City/School Committee 6. Traffic Committee 7. County Water Advisory Board 8. Economic Round Table 9. Colony Roads Committee 10. Procurement Committee 11. Homeless Coalition I. Council Committee Appointments B. CONSENT CALENDARS All matters listed under Item B, Consent Calendar, are consid- ered to be routine, and will be enacted by one motion in the form listed below. There will be no separate discussion on these items. A member of the Council or public may, by request, have any item removed fromtheConsent Calendar, 'which shall then be reviewed and acted upon separately after the adoption of the Consent Calendar: 1. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 29-89, 5100 CASCASEL ROAD - Consideration of time extension on request to create two new parcels of 2.6 and 3.2 acres (Safarjan/ lolbrecht Surveys) 2 2. RESOLUTION NO. 62-92 RATIFYING THE JOINT P WEBS AGREEMENT FOR THE S.L.O. COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS FOR FY 992/93 (Cont'd from 6/23/92) 3. 1992/93 BUDGET A. Resolution No 67-92 Adopting FY 1992/93 Budget B. Resolution No. 65-92 Adopting FY 1992/ 3 Annual Spend- ing Limit C. Resolution No. 66-92 - Adopting a volunta Work furlough policy D. Motion reaffirming the City's 'current d veloper impact fees 4. RESOLUTION NO. 64-92 - "POINTING FIVE MEMBERS TO THE CITY'S PARRS & RECREATION COMMISSION 5. AWARD OF BID NO. 92-06 FOR DOWNTOWN ROAD AND DRAINAGE IMPROVE- MENTS AND OTHER MINOR ROADIMPROVEMENTS C. HEARINGS: 1. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 02-87, 9385 VISTA BONITA - APPEAL OF SEWER IMPROVEMENT CONDITION RECONSIDERATION AND TIME EXTENSION (Cen- tral Coast Engineering) 2. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 92-002, 7255 PINAL AVE. - APPEAL OF PLAN- NING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF PROPOSEDDIVISION OF '3.2 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF 1.50 AND 1.70 ACRES (Shref ler/Westland Engineering) 3. C.U.P. 91-01, 5950 EL CAMINO REAL - APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMIS- SION'S ACTION REAFFIRMING ORIGINAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, INCLUDING REMOVAL OF A SHED FOR OFF-STREET PARKING (The Card Parlour/Togni), 4. RESOLUTION NO. 63-92 - ADOPTING SANITATION SERVICE CHARGES TO BE ADDED TO THE 1992/93 PROPERTY TAX BILL D. REGULAR BUSINESS: 1. AUTO MALL/RV PARK LETTER FROM PROPONENT REQUESTING RECONSID- ERATION 2. LETTER FROM GLEN LEWIS RE: 'ED'S GARAGE, 6940 EL CAMINO REAL (VOLVO SALES) 3. LETTER FROM JEFF MCALISTER REQUESTING RECONSIDERATION OF NAN- DATORY TRASH PICK-UP 3 4. CIRCULATION ELEMENT COMPLETION LETTER FROM CONSULTANT RE: HIGHWAY 41 5. LETTER FROM DOUG LEWIS RE: MISCELLANEOUS TRAFFIC AND CIRCULA- TION ISSUES 6. ORDINANCE NO. 252 - 'RESTORING THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE PARRS & RECREATION COMMISSION FROM FIVE (5) TO SEVEN (7) (Recommend -(1) motion to waive reading in full and read by title only, and (2) motion to approve on first reading by title only) 7. ORDINANCE NO. 248 - COMPREHENSIVE REVISIONS TO TITLE 8, BUILD- ING REGULATIONS, TO UPDATE CONSTRUCTION REGULATIONS (Recommend (1) motion to waive reading in full and read by title only, and' (2) `motion to approve on second reading by title only) 8. SCHEDULE DATE AND TIM FOR PLANNING COMMISSION INTERVIEWS E. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION: 1. City Council 2. City Attorney 3. City Clerk 4. City Treasurer 5. City Manager * NOTICE: THE COUNCIL WILL ADJOURN TO A CLOSED SESSION FOR PURPOSES OF DISCUSSION REGARDING LITIGATION, ENTITLED O'REEFE v. CITY OF ATASCADERO. 4 MEMORANDUM TO: Ray Windsor, City Manager FROM: Henry Engen Ao- DATE: June 16, 1992 RE: City Award: Fiscal Impact Model The Central Coast Section of the American Planning Association has awarded the City, Steve Nukes & Associates, Crawford, Multari & Starr, and Professor Steve French it's "Outstanding Planning: Innovative Use Of Technology Award" for " a project or process which features an innovative use of technology to further the goals of the planning process". cc: Mark Joseph • 000 ick. - n n m 0mz � mem m C7 m m m Z 000 0 � z 7rl � a � rn 0 m n fes\ Joo 10'21 REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO ITEM: B-1 Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Mtg. Date: 7/14/92 From: Henry Engen, Com. Dev. Director 46 File No: TPM 29-89 SUBJECT: Consideration of a time extension for Tentative Parcel Map 29-89 at 5100 Cascabel Road (request to create two new parcels of 2.6 and 3.2 acres) (Bill Safarjan) RECOMMENDATION: Per the Planning Commission's recommendation, approval of a one year time extension to May 8, 1993. BACKGROUND• On June 16, 1992, the Planning Commission considered the above- referenced subject on its Consent Calendar. On a 7:0 vote, the Planning Commission's recommended approval of a one year time extension. HE:ps Attachment: Staff Report dated June 16, 1992 cc: Dr. Bill Safarjan 300003 ITEM: A.7 M E M O R A N D U M DATE: JUNE I61. 1"2 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Gary Kaiser, Associate Planner°''¢`'( SUBJECT: Time Extension Request -- TPM #29-89 5100 Cascabel Road (Safarjan) RECOMMENDATION• Staff recommends the requested one-year time extension be granted. DISCUSSION: Tentative Parcel Map #29-89 proposed to create two (2) new parcels of 2.6 and 3.2 acres for single family residential use. This application was approved by the Planning Commission (7:0) on April 17, 1990 and the City Council on May 8, 1990. On May 8, 1992, prior to the expiration of this entitlement, the subject extension request was received. According to the applicant, an additional window of time will be necessary to satisfy certain conditions of approval and record the final map. There have been no changes to the site or its surroundings, nor have there been any changes in the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, or Subdivision Ordinance, that warrant reconsidering the merits of this project or circumstances surrounding its approval. Staff therefore supports the applicant' s request. Attachments: Attachment A -- Extension Request Attachment B -- April 17, 1990 staff report 300004 . ATTACHMENT "A" WILLIAM ROBERT SAFARJAN. PH.D. 5100 CASCABEL ROAD MAY S 1992 • ATASCADERO.CALIFORNIA 93422 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT May 8, 1992 Henry Engen Community Development Director City of Atascadero 6500 Palma Avenue Atascadero, California 93422 i REF: Tentative Parcel Map 29-89 (5100 Cascabel Road) Dear Mr. Engen: It has come to my attention that my tentative parcel map approval is about to expire. Please accept this letter as a request to extend the window of time to record the final map. Enclosed please find a personal check for $330 to cover the cost of processing the extension. Upon talking with Gary Kaiser of the City Planning Department,. I trust that this request is timely. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Bill. Safar-jar, Enclosure �' 3SL37 33b.o� i ATTACHMENT "B" CITY OF ATASCADERO Item: �. 2 STAFF REPORT • FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: April 17, 1990 BY: Karl Schoettler, Assistant Planner File No: TPM 29-89 SUBJECT: Subdivision of one existing lot containing a total of 6.0 acres into two (2) lots containing approximately 3.2 and 2. 6 acres. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of TPM 29-89 based on the Findings for Approval in Exhibit E and subject to the Conditions of Approval in Exhibit F. SITUATION AND FACTS: 1. Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Bill Safarjan 2. Representative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Volbrecht Surveys 3. Project Address. . . . . . . . . . . . . .5100 Cascabel Road 4. General Plan Designation. . . . .Suburban Single Family 5. Zoning District. . . . . . . . . . . . . .RS (Residential Suburban) 6. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.0 acres 7. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .one single family residence 8. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Negative Declaration posted March 27, 1990 ANALYSIS: The application before the Commission proposes to subdivide one existing lot containing a total of 6.0 acres into two lots containing approximately 3.2 and 2.6 acres. The General Plan designation for this site is Suburban Single Family and the Zone designation is RS (Residential Suburban) . The property is located near the northern terminus of Cascabel Road adjacent to Graves Creek and has one single family residence toward the rear of the lot. Minimum lot size in the RS zone is 2.5 to 10 acres depending upon 300006 � a C C the minimum lot size determination using performance standards established by the Atascadero Zoning Ordinance. Staff has determined that the minimum lot size for this site is 2.58 acres. Lot size factor Distance from Center (8, 000-10, 0001 ) 0. 25 Septic Suitability (21.0 min/inch avg. ) 0.75 Average Slope (5%) 0.5 Access Condition (Paved road, <15% slope) 0. 40 General neighborhood character (3. 41 acres) 0. 68 Minimum lot size. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.58 acres The proposed lot sizes of 3. 2 and 2. 6 acres meets the minimum lot size requirement under the Residential Suburban zone. The septic suitability of the site is approximately 21 min/inch and is classified as "moderate" . A concern related to this case is that the subdivision will result in the creation of a flag lot (parcel 1) . The Atascadero Subdivision Ordinance (Section 11-8.209) states: "Flag lots may be approved for subdividing deep lots subject to the following findings: (1) the subdivision is consistent with the character of the immediate neighborhood; (2) the installation of a standard street, either alone or in conjunction with neighboring properties is not feasible; and (3) the flag lot is justified by topographical conditions. With respect to finding number one, Exhibits A and B show that parcels in the surrounding neighborhood are similar in size and configuration, with a number of flag lot parcels present. The second finding concerns the installation of a standard city street as an alternative to the creation of a flag lot. In this case it seems that it is inappropriate to require the installation of a standard city street to serve one lot. Finding #3 refers to the presence of topographic conditions that would justify the creation of a flag lot. The site in question consists of a fairly level lot. However, the primary consideration here seems to be the configuration of the existing lot which has a relatively short frontage along Cascabel Road, as well as the presence of the existing single family residence lying to the rear of the lot. Therefore, the remaining area most suited for further building exists towards the front of the existing lot. Thus, the existing conditions argue in favor of a flag lot configuration as the most logical way to divide the property. Another issue of importance is the presence of Graves Creek along the north side of the proposed subdivision. As a mitigation a00G 17 :� C measure to preserve the creek in a natural, undisturbed state, staff has conditioned this subdivision to include a fifty foot open space easement along the property lines adjoining the creek. The easement would be reduced to fifteen feet where a fifty foot easement would conflict with the existing structure. This still leaves ample room for development on the remainder of the parcels. CONCLUSIONS: The design of the proposed subdivision is in conformance with the City' s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The required findings can be made to allow for creation of a flag lot. The City' s Public Works and Departments have reviewed this proposal and added their own conditions of approval. KCS/kcs ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Zoning Map Exhibit B - General Plan Map Exhibit C - Tentative Parcel Map Exhibit D - Negative Declaration Exhibit E - Findings for Approval Exhibit F - Conditions of Approval EXHIBIT A ?�� \ CITY OF ATASCADERO LOC'MON AND ZONING �R .,.. :... . COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TPM 29-89 DEPARTMENT y? , 6 .� Y, awe CIO 4v _ SITE • 5100 T RS Ccabel Rd, Zone: p N � 1 / L(FH) RS ( ,Nr RS 404 �'4 tl•w 300000 EXHIBIT B GENERAL PLAN MAP CITY Or ATASCADERO `—suc COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TPM 29-89 DEPARTMENT PULIC RIC. K � • LTURE FF 11 / / C♦ SITE �• 5100 Cascabel Rd, Suburban Single o Family / 1 4 i AG ICU ti� (• EXHIBIT C CITY OF ATA.SCADEIZO TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP ; COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TPM 29-89 DEPARTMENT o'GOf ,��• e z t5 /w+f�i,aid + ii• em g i e t y za :1 5S cc la Am a Jt is -all CIO $� 2 e` 95, �m R, p \ , ' p $ ` to it e � `�• � ' ti b c's R� litD A=p .it ♦w tiw •• .y� j'�HIBIT D CITY OF ATASCADERO u" ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATOR lot 1070 7�,. NEGATIVE DECLARATION COMMLW DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 6500 PALMA AVE• ATASCADERO, CA 93422 (805) 461-5035 M APPLICANT: LL �,A-Fa Sart �j CC GASCA rG L A-IM'7CA DEiZO, GA y zz PROJECT TITLE: 1a&,—AT'VE F'AJZCEL MAF PROJECT LOCATION: 5;(00 c-ASCA 5,Ei- L-6,T zz 3-OLK t(, PROJECT DESCRIPTION: GP7 rN % Cc� c AEU C,z�`� ►ti i u TwoQTS i� i EJ i is Z•G a ND FINDINGS: 1. The project does not have the potential to degrade the environment. 2. The project will not achieve short-term to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. 3. The project does not have impacts which are individually limited. but comulatively considerable. 4. The project will not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings either directly or indirectly. DETERMINATION: Based on the above findings. and the information contained in the initial study(made a part hereof by refer- ence and on file in the Community Development Department). it has been determined that the above project will not have an adverse impact on the environment. Henry Engen Community Development ector Date Posted: u4' ,�7 lf 9v . Date Adopted: r• �I0 � can,i- 1 3000, EXHIBIT E - Findings for Approval Wentative Parcel Map 29-89 5100 Cascabel Road ENVIRONMENTAL FINDING: The proposed project will not have a significant impact on the environment. The Negative Declaration prepared for the project is adequate. MAP FINDINGS: 1. The proposed map is consistent with the applicable General or Specific Plan. 2 The design and/or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the applicable General or Specific Plan. 3. The site is physically suitable for the proposed ,type of development. 4. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. 5. The design of the subdivision, and/or the proposed • improvements, will not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish and wildlife or their habitat. 6. The design of the subdivision, and the type of improvements, will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision; or substantially equivalent alternate easements are provided. 7. The design of the subdivision and/or the type of proposed improvements will not cause serious public health problems. Flag Lot Findings: 1. The subdivision is consistent with the character of the immediate neighborhood. 2. The installation of a standard street, either alone or in conjunction with neighboring properties is not feasible. 3. The flag lot is justified by topographical conditions. EXHIBIT F - Conditions of Approval Tentative Parcel Map 29-89 5100 Cascabel Road (Safarjan) April 17, 1990 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. All existing and proposed utility, pipeline, open space, or other easements are to be shown on the final map. If there are building or other restrictions related to the easements, they shall be noted on the final map. 2. All relocation and/or alteration of existing utilities shall be the responsibility of the developer. 3. Obtain an encroachment permit from the City of Atascadero Engineering Division and construct improvements as directed by the encroachment permit prior to the final building inspection or the recording of the final map, whichever comes first. Improvements required shall be as follows. a. Construct a four foot graded and based shoulder per City Standard A-1 along the Cascabel Road frontage of the property. 4. Construction of the public road improvements shall be completed prior to the recording of the map. 5. Offer to dedicate to the City of Atascadero the following right of way. Street name: Cascabel Road Limits: 20 feet from centerline to right of way along entire property frontage. 6. Offers of dedication shall be completed and recorded prior to or simultaneous with the recordation of the map. 7. Access to Parcel 1 shall be through the flag portion of the lot. 8. Parcel 2 shall have access from the accessway serving (and owned) by Parcel 1 only. Relinquishment of access rights for Parcel 2 shall be delineated on the final map. Parcel 2 shall have access and utility easement rights over the accessway serving Parcel 1. These shall be designated on the final map. 9. Private road improvement plans, prepared by a registered civil engineer, shall require approval prior to recording of the final map. These shall include the accessway of twenty- four feet wide with twenty feet of pavement, as required by c: the Subdivision Ordinance. The construction of the access to the rear parcel shall be completed prior to the recording of the final map. 10. A road maintenance agreement, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, shall -be recorded with the deed to each parcel at the time it is first conveyed. A note to this effect shall be placed on the final map. 11. A reflectorized house number master sign shall be located at the intersection of the street and accessway and individual reflectorized address signs shall be placed on the right hand side of the driveway to each individual lot. 12. Upgrade fire hydrant to city standard at entrance to easement. 13. A fifty (50) foot open space easement along the property lines adjacent to the creek shall be established. This shall be reduced to fifteen (15) feet where the fifty foot easement would conflict with the existing residence. This shall be shown on the final map. 14. 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' s Subdivision 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 shall be set by a date specific and that they will be sufficient to enable the survey to be retraced. Monuments set within any road right of way shall conform to city standard drawing M-1. b. Pursuant to section 66497 of the Subdivision Map Act the engineer or surveyor shall notice the City Engineer in writing when the monuments have been set. C. A recently updated preliminary title report shall be submitted for review in conjunction with the processing of the final map. d. A preliminary subdivision guarantee shall be submitted for review in conjunction with the processing of the final map. 15. Approval of this tentative 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. ,f.„ ..'�.rC1ttI,- MEETI I 3' AGENDA� DATE 92 ITEM Ill B_._.___... San Luis Obispo Area Coordinating Council ArroAtayo rande ro Grover City Morro Bay "qW and Regional Transportation Planning Agency Paso Robles Pismo Beach San Luis Obispo - San Luis Obispo County DATE: June 12, 1992 TO: All City Managers FROM: Ronald De Carli, Executive Director RE: Fiscal Year 1992/93 Joint Powers Agreement Enclosed is the Joint Powers Agreement for FY 1992/93 for your ratification. Several minor modifcations are noted in the attached staff report. It was unanimously approved by the San Luis Obispo Area Coordinating Council (San Luis Obispo Council of Governments beginning July 1, 1992) at the meeting of June 10, 1992. Delegates Brackett and Morrow were absent. The JPA requires the Agreement to be annually ratified by its members. Enclosed for your use, are a sample staff report and sample resolution to take before your Council. After ratification, please complete the signature page in the appropriate location and return it along with the resolution to our office. Thank you for your prompt cooperation. Please call me at 549-5714 if you have any questions. C:\...\joy\JPA9293.1et J jU - County Government Center, San Luis Obispo, CA 93408 (805) 549-5612 RE: ITEM #B-13 MEETING DATE: 6/23/92 San Luis Obispo Area Coordinating Council Arroyo ode o AtaGrover City Morro Ba AW and Regional Transportation Planning Agency Paso Rob Pismo Bea San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo County MEMORANDUM DATE: June 19, 1992 TO: All City Managers 0 Y ��C;- FROM: Ronald De Carli, Executive Director eD RE: Correction to 1992/93 Joint Powers Agreement It has come to my attention that changes to page 5 of the JPA agreement sent to you on June 16, 1992 had not been made. The enclosed page 5 has these corrections as per the approved SLOCOG budget. The changes were in items 3 and 4 of page 5. In item 3, the following corrections were made: ( 1. postage and supplies were included in the copy you received, they have now been omitted; 2. in both paragraphs, the functions of SLOCOG were omitted on the page.you received, these functions (RTPA, MPO, and CMA) have been added on the corrected page; 3. the page you received did not include where the funding is obtained for SLOCOG, the corrected page adds this information (end of second paragraph). The correction in Item 4 reads "changes in the work program or budget to be approved by SLOCOG." The version you received read "to be approved by the member jurisdictions." This change was approved by SLOCOG. SLOCOG agreed that only"extraordinary" increased costs would require approval by affected member jurisdictions. If you have any questions please contact me at 549-5714. 1 County Government Center, San Luis Obispo, CA 93408 (805) 549-5612 "11001"7 RESOLUTION NO. 62-92 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO RATIFYING THE JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT FOR THE SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1992/93 WHEREAS, The San Luis Obispo Council of Governments was created by a Joint Powers Agreement between the cities and County of San Luis Obispo; and WHEREAS, Section IV of said Agreement requires annual ratifi- cation by member agencies; and WHEREAS, The City of Atascadero desires to continue its mem- bership in the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments during fiscal year 1992/93; and NOW, THEREFORE, LET IT BE RESOLVED, that the City of Atasca- dero does hereby ratify the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments Joint Powers Agreement for fiscal year 1992/93, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference, and authorizes the Mayor to execute said agreement and forward it to the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments. • On motion by Councilmember , seconded by Council- member , the foregoing resolution is adopted in its entirety by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ADOPTED: ATTEST: CITY OF ATASCADERO LEE RABOIN, City Clerk ,Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: ARTHER R. MONTANDON, City Attorney .1000 STAFF REPORT T SUBJECT.. � COUNCIL.QF GQVERNMEIVTS (COGS �1Q1NT PQVUERS AGR '' � (JPA) MOQIFICA�TION:AND,ANNUAL RATIEt�A�'[Qri SUMMARY This year the annual ratification of the JPA between the Cities and County of San Luis Obispo includes certain necessary modifications. The modifiedJPA was MammouslyMrrow and approved by the Area Council at the June 10, 1992 meeting (Delegates Brackett absent). The changes are primarily language related to State and Federal requirements associated with becoming an MPO. The changes include: a name change, approved by the Area Council at the April 8, 1992 meeting; reference to the Congestion Management Agency (CMA) and ex-officio membership of Caltrans on the CMA board; revision of the sections on operation of the JPA for next fiscal yearCouncil and it's ,i OattachedWP irements, and the meeting schedule. The proposed RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION Annual ratification of the JPA by each jurisdiction is required. This yearthe Area Council of the notes several major modifications to the JPA are necessary primarily enactment of the Intermodal Surface Transportation of the SencV Act of 1991 (ISTEA) and TEA and Proposition passage of State Proposition 111 in 1990. Major provisions 111 now apply to San Luis Obispo County due to the County being officially designated an "Urban County" based on 1990 U.S. Census findings. The mais requirement provision of the ent to ISTEA which applies to our region (as an Urbanized is The for a wide establish a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). he MPO 111 range of regionwide transportation planning and programming functions. Proposition requires Urban Counties to establish a Congestion Management Agency (CMA) and prepare and annually update an Congestion Management Plan (CMP).b he AreaeenCaltran Council has already approved a new Memorandum of Understanding MO and itself which defines the responsibilities esiboth nat n the the S OACC as the MPO and jurisdiction has already passed a resolution d g 9 the CMA. 0ii0UA The major modifications to the JPA proposed by the Area Council are as follows: 1• Section II, Establishment of the COG - Per the request q t of Caltrans, the Fed.C-jr<al Highway Administration (FHWA), and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), the Area Council has changed the name of the organization from Area Coordinating Council to Council of Governments (COG). This name more accurately reflects the range of functions being carried out by the organization. This section also includes language defining the various functions of the Council of Governments including: Area Planning Organization (APO); Regional Transportation Planning Organization (RTPA) Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO); and Congestion Management Agency (CMA). In addition, throughout the JPA the organization name is changed from SLOACC to SLOCOG. 2. Section IV, Membership - Per Caltrans request, and as recently approved by the Area Council, Caltrans is added as an ex-officio member of the governing board when the board is acting as the CMA. 3. Section v, Operation - Regarding transportation funding, the language of this section is 'expanded to include Federal and State planning and programming funds associated with MPO and CMA functions in addition to Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds. In addition, costs borne by San Luis Obispo County are reduced as COG now funds all services, supplies, postage, and new furniture. Office space and existing furniture are still provided by the County through overhead rates on a reimbursement basis. 4. Section VII, Staff - References to require submittal of an Overall Work Program (OWP) and budget to each member agency for ratification has been deleted as absolute provisions as the provision is contrary to State and Federal Programming requirements. 5. Section Vlll, Meetings - The proposed schedule of meetings is changed per previously adopted policy. The changes are the result of establishing alternating meetings between SLOCOG and SLORTA and the need to meet State and Federal milestones. The Area Council also expects there will be additional changes to the JPA in the future. At their June meeting, the Area Council concurred with a recommendation of the Executive Committee to direct staff to investigate actions to establish more independence from the County. The Committee also requested staff evaluate various options to implement such a change, including: contracting with PERS for benefits now provided through the County, and independent rental of SLOCOG office space. The problems and opportunities of these and other options will be discussed during this next fiscal year. Depending on the outcome of these discussions, changes to Section V of the JPA (Operation) may be necessary in regard to costs borne by the County, with COG moving to assume all costs and perhaps contracting out with the County for some services. -0 oAAJ � . 1991-1992 JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT PAGE 1 e:\wpdocs\acc\c9200671.mis FY JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT SAN LUIS :......I OBISPO : �:;.: :;o;:C:..w:a:<aa:::kU�uA•::.m4k.w.�''.,,:,a,.,a..w.,...:.w::.::::.::.n<.am,.,E..... THIS JOINT pOWERS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this 17th day of January, 1976, and amended on November 4, 1982, September 19, 1984, and ".yl by and among such of the incorporated cities of Arroyo Grande, Atascadero, El Paso de Robles, Grover City, Morro Bay, Pismo Beach, and San Luis Obispo; all being municipal corporations of the State of California and located within the boundaries of the County of San Luis Obispo, California, as may execute this Agreement, hereinafter called "CITIES," and the County of San Luis Obispo, a body politic and corporate and a subdivision of the State of California, hereinafter called "COUNTY," as follows: WHEREAS, Section 6500, -et sea•, of the California Government Code (Title 1, Division 7, Chapter 5, Article 1) provides for agreements between two or more public agencies t to jointly exercise any power common to the contracting parties, subject to certain mandatory provisions contained therein; and WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo by virtue,of its charter, and the other . incorporated cities in the County, parties hereto, by virtue of Sections 65600 through 65604, inclusive, of the California Government Code have the joint and mutual power to create an area •" planning commission; " WHEREAS, COUNTY AND CITIES did, in 1968, jointly execute an agreement establishing such a planning council and now wish to amend and supersede the same; and WHEREAS, Section 29532, California Government Code, provides that such a Fling and Coordinating Council shall be designated the Regional Transportation Planning Agency to act in matters of transit and transportation planning; and WHEREAS, it is desirable that a single agency be created by and with the consent of CITIES and COUNTY to advise, plan for, and suggest solutions to common problems; assist in the preparation of plans and programs by utilizing planning talents and general plans of the various governmental jurisdictions in the County and of experts in various other fields and to coordinate their efforts; and WHEREAS,creation of such an agency and action by it upon certain plans and programs is necessary to comply with requirements of federal and state legislation in order to participate in the allocation and disbursement of state and federal funds which may be desired by COUNTY "00o2-1 . 1991-1992 JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT PAGE 2 e:\wpdocs\acc\c9200671.mis and CITIES in the implementation of plans and programs which have been approved by their respective governing bodies. NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed as follows: I. PURPOSE ......x,+}:::....v:svv:vvr--•.v,:[i:}}i,}::..: "e::-:::s::::?;.a.}'.:-.}:::-?}:`•};:cx:.':.;}:-Y::.}•.`.:-Tx;-:}-•:. F;;;-.,}••};•ax�.:?:.aa;r.:ckr;:••,u:•aB;;?::{:aIy:-:i-:::};<::::;`::3.:.:};:C;;;:•}.::},"E+}}:.:;}k..:1-..x}r:n'};. :,::,},.:•`:+.�}.':�%•}•.:.a?+,.x•••:}k?'i•.::.:Q:.}X.'.n,-;g:�Fn5:4i�, .--:•:"•..{`?��ma7.-y.�.�+E.•...K.ri.L..Fr;}-:.v��.:,.;o.{ •.,:�.,x.Ia.�(}}y.- A,�}�c}.;;t,�'i.2••.:'£ v:�.; ,52;.h'.}.,..,^s.+5.:;}..Y,.:,.Y1IMt#,".{+.i••::-M ,MX.a:.•},,::.��:.T}C:?}:t!(4d•,,..e.F.�r}.:.X�..ri•:::or::::..b......l:�. ...{}*...w s... €�70 `4 ie" NO FF }p Yti;o.e:. flmmauiluC>si $ xo-R.�,2xf..%::...,.�},':Y,�.: ;:t.:•;±:`.:;>`%•;}<; UI#eF��?`�Ad.�fllt_C.�L7E���f:�;�����'�+: +'� '-"���-F:�� °`_{' N.; -�C! eit�'�O��•$ttidl �Iit��3dop$[OiI ::x:}•::•}...:?.„:;? >,;•3:F-r}'t v-.;�;y •Y� „},•:,}.... ,•r.``4,y.=t`,•.-r,.,}.....�r �a�?:.�iY::t+-x:.;.::.;}:;-+}rSr}`.o•.;;.y;:::}}'-.mar;+'•T• :.`;' •t •K' NS” 't}.'C� ,a b:•::` )v:.t•:T:::. ::.g:?•?:•}}::::�'-:::: ..:....:...n.:} .,•�..;:...�:;;::.}:\x�'eyr,�}r+.»o-. r;;;+}�.4`;., :..::> aa4� `.F`-..�Y}'Y.•�'�,,. �}T ,?. �-:- :::: •::::.....ic:}?f:;?•}::T•}...,.:+.:}..�,4:-;:•?}�,}w:n..:....� ., K...,.. .;.:�F$C�'.,i.., :.w6`.•: � `a+h.::...;}:{;:•':::2 p4•.,n.: th :3}..{:ySk:;F:;icz :',x:;�+F:?•:...:•}%;�;}?•:.yJt::??•`a�J.`q.,+:?,�?i,•�\\;4�:-:'�'..':,.':,'%,.,..' `,',•�•,k;}'fiF'-�'„c•`? :.•:•�C�.a.'� .P'S '''�,g•.•-.`•3"�A�#;.;..;.:c::�.',54+„r,.: �OE oacaortsr�� �wt # € i € ear c erts: :xT-:{vivxwKa•.M1J::}.i?;-:?J:}i?•x•:,ti}T„1K•M•rv:x-.4+.vnY1VTnJ1\.+,+:ikin\tihkl-0iJPNO. x{,w,a}; y}�iswa+x�i ..?caa,�.,.an,w:is UP ........:.... .F. ...Y.. ..... ............v ..... ... ...... ... ;.. 111E : $13. —v� ""?•.T. av `a4::K�2.' ?iKri':.";i.}?:N.':-5'Z:' :aYF: 'r,FkhdF:Fiex?cddiFY 1 '�r:;:4�iaF:ic::.... .,.••%„-.,,-:}.,,.,:..,,,.+?•.?tf<a •av -.'F•2'.w:•,•xh• '{{awot,}sCctci;"::oxn 'Fa?5?2}:x:;:'.;{..}}}FCf'.,..:`�t:,x•:t�:iit�VJi4Y1• W :€ Rgon ierezr 2 ::::5-:i•.,•-.-rrx,Ti;::;s.},.},,.. .,}w..: :;a%<K4 •. n%:.:uc3Y••:? ry- •.o-YtF:{;±s;.'.•..4<.%.::K..: `:,G:)�F•`:"�`'+;:::,•:-- .C,:•x,+•v;f,;:;}.:':::;f•Y• }.t??:�e;::R�'.,..•:::,.c?a:,'�::�,.' •:..*Yc.•.;e?:�h,}4y. ,}R�:...{':!f.•�f.-.•.�?y7.4" 3;}!;i:�F'6.H 1yS� ...5•r •y} .`•-1q.;{}rk; '...'...:..... .:.,�W '��` " '-x-',:F�f,}.}C.�,•:��: '� {f:.•r �}{+..w`:•-Yir;:y. } .r2. f.• .. l t��q},ok?.�?.• +.° �?},.t}T"+n, y, z, s.k �:.�F+•. '3.:.,. t?' `fib.. 'K --''' a#t � ' •r�.` Et��t,�'fei�1�:�.�'�8S-<�ip� P,#l.�s: e.''�..•....�����#1? 5� X11��� #�TiS A �it�,$7Etd :.;;%F,`C.3:'t}.r::',"%`.Y•::<�:tixti.::.::. ,y:-.- ;}v:.' ba'eaZ'6obolfobEt3etli: .c...,....,...�sc:S:,w - .. SI .ww.•,+.-.yws�a-xwaca•.d;'.kir`Ka?:;�.uaTwkwxw+\ .. :::: �n "jif�`if' :4dFF4¢;sc:2�:'titk:v4.Ka.�.ga?yr•�'�.,;.4..a .� ^a` e�pc�F �yxs c;��• �e}�%.y�};s`} � "xc�r..SaFF-�.tV �i V4R{��:. iWFf••.A���� fi S fMi•}• 1'I.�-F' :?.�h1:.x•.',�.,'.• Wak rt `,.: R: '�!i3• .y?,..- ::.�}:;K•:{:T ,.. -:•K. `•\::-K�.. .p',•�F'••ry•%,••••:� �,�. �y• {:...::Fa '•r.r.};a,}:;.:o:{:t�C4%:::r:::}-�� *:iK._?r..;-.;::;.;Y: .� 1�3.��''•.. .l$fliilFl ;�s'1Tld -, [Iil:� � •••.'`Of`.''r.• .�l�K±�2tl �i:Y}}::,si.'�.. �;}+.? ;??C}:?},;}K•�+'c;:::}..,};•:.. •- �r�}�t.,.�...a�� r}, ::Jh'�."' sySt'`•o{� ?.4�:R+• '�`Cf:��FR}};;:::.}�':.,r.:::'' ...,...: ..;.., .}..-�:#`w+ :,.., : ,.w.FF:..;..`a,'c'^+:kt¢� •v?�.fa'`�.'S �c,R`.�rw,.,:... •� 'r ¢c+ .. a i'•.-.:,...k:w"fi.F}>.}\.:;$y: max: ' _ .� -r.u`h'� �' •• X72' p OFi ii 0�]Ia eSf ............. ;. ` { r3 .': 3ifK^►3�i}Vx#\� rVAI}fi 11 ti•6f iiMli �.,;�r ea,;....` ....,.���, wu.aoadca6 .F.}„a.;.:arT ba•..w...,.w:^:tar3.•�x�%:<a,• ,::.,,.w i}::}Ks:{a•x.}%;.:£J;:.;..Y:;.:,• +.�ti;`..A.{;..},`•••:C}�:F:;r•.,•r�}Sn•h -..:ax J.y.y y.... : �. •+3m nM1 fi�iYryeavax}p�r.. ..: .}}' ...,,, ...Wif6 K•-•v.?r.»'ar::•:c.::}}�: a�o-x{aFr•+...rte .. ::- + •;.\'"•4?.}}•k;:{:.:<•}K,+.•::{:{.?.:.5%,•a:•{ •M-1-1- a ':`3��,.n `•:-:'gq s.'++'isidFf::+.:.::::A;a•.-'4.i;>;«;•}::•.::�ti.n :•:}.•c•::.:.. .uS::%, ....,<??':55:}:dM714c•`•{,++:}+y{K.�:.: :};}.C.;@;+:.:•.`'.f;N:•;•.'•::`:Y`t'},['�}'-+t"•:?.c:• :.:?s. '%y"�`-- IRS= , }:Ott'•' %. ::-:t;{:;•:K}-:?•%?•::?•}:•a:a:,;:„:,,,;•.:,, ,,,,.:.,•.:•.+,a•Y;aSa:: `K �: fiad{CiakAc...' w�a'�a� ..ri:;•};<;:.;�::f;•ry:;,};•.:,}:w:,•:Ka}:s�z:a:..,;..::.rr�:'.,'.•.,•. ,�....�... A?¢?�".. .-„v.:, . F4�ie?,?M.;74x':,�i.�'!';::.;M;}t... {;.}}c%;.,..,�.-,;.}:c•%}. Efi;�A Cortctrat ���, tID y`' neovemofi Stag o :xv:nv; y,<}. ,:.n4.:,.Ta•.dh:?++%?:tiavv'.N�'X9ri{iv�,"V:•YinK:%d%;AXw+64C?W'r '•: •`tilf;[;viirsldiitShti3CK;,'A tow x ';{:p}}TK^ii::vv{n\...y}yai.K,};Mvnv:}r•,w-..nt?yM?M}:h,. .. ... wM.^.\+%•,+!}}'v:..i}:Nix•;..yy�: r. Own Y'}:i.. . 5ecr- : .:ofBusuiess:and :IL;` ;tietaterCalifaiva, �..:..:::: -........... �....�.:_:::::. .: � :T::)Y:x;. ':�.Yl.:iJ}Y+.;.PMt,}P}:....::. •wn�. :.::im::::�:.. ...... .... .::::...........:..:..%p}:;P};-,�:.r{u.}iv,•:;..:..:,%j-}Yff;:?KKi�M..'•is..;.Y:M!{?i...K%i%CvxxY!,'4}?C+�.• ..?fi: The Mesropoli tP.l�uu�sng, cttia (VIPO as designated by the U 5 Dep�rttnent v�Transgot�cattos� '��nd 1991-1992 JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT PAGE 4 i e:\wpdocs\acc\c9200671.mis 3. Member agencies may elect to have an alternate member(s) in addition to any official member, but said alternate shall be able to vote only in the absence of the official representative. 4. Designation of the official representative or alternate(s), or changes thereto, shall be transmitted in writing to the Executive Director of the by the appointing city or the county. 5. In addition to the incorporated cities presently a party to this Agreement, any other city which may hereafter be incorporated within the boundaries of the County of San Luis Obispo and which may desire to participate in the activities of the SI. . may do so by executing this Agreement without prior approval or ratification of the named parties to this Agreement and shall thereafter be governed by all the terms and provisions of this Agreement as of the date of execution. 6. Membership shall be contingent upon the execution of this Joint Powers Agreement and subsequent annual ratification. a . V. OPERATION 1. The powers of the ` Y are advisory to the member agencies which execute this Agreement except for those actions mandated by state or federal law for the processing of applications submitted by any of the member agencies for federal and state grants or funds which require action by theE fl . Nothing herein shall be construed to limit in any manner the power of any of the parties to initiate and complete a local project within their respective jurisdictions with their own funds. It is understood, how-ever, that the recommendations of the Nom may have the effect of precluding any favorable action by an agency of the state or federal government in support of such a project if other than local financing is sought, as determined by the respective state or federal agency under law, regulations and policies applicable to them. 2. Except as otherwise provided herein, there shall be no costs incurred by SZO pursuant hereto, other than expenses of its members, which are to be borne by their respective entities, and the cost of services by the officers and personnel of the respective entities to said ......................... SLfl _OG_, upon approval of such services by the governing bodies hereof, shall likewise be borne by the respective entities. All costs incurred by performing functions as the MPORP?l>an CMA for San Luis Obispo County as designated by the State shall be paid out of the transportation fund established pursuant to Section 29530, g sig., Government Code as provided for therein, and ./ "'`t` PLANNING/BULDING ID :305-546-1242 JUL - 06 '92 9 :55 No .001 P .02 1991-1992 JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT PAGE 5 c:\wpdocs\acc\c9200671.mis 3. Casts of ' . for each fiscal year which are necessary for the ordinary ,.:.:.. operation of the , including but not limited to office space, furniture; and excepting i'14.aNY'4' •Wv4Y%C those functions perarnted as the ' p ,� shall be borne by COUNTY in an amount approved by the Board of Supervisors in the annual county budget. Extraordinary costs as recommended by the shall be borne by contributions from the member entities as approved by their governing bodies. Costs of all activities undertaken by ;;,.. :y. {ii as the shall be set forth in the budget as part of the annual work program of. 30 and shalt be funded from the transportation fund pursuant to applicable State statutes ONO offifflumm9m. 4. The annual work program and budget, when adopted shall be the basis for operation of' 0"'0';' for the fiscal year. Any deviation from the work program affecting the budget shall lie Nils i. For purposes of conducting business, there shall be present a quorum consisting of a majority of representatives, including two COUNTY representatives. No action shall be effective without the affirmative votes of a majority of those l2resent. However, eight (8) affirmative votes shall be required for taking any action in the event any agency demands such a vote. The representatives to the w. shall adopt such procedures as are consistent with this Agreement and necessary to conduct the business of in an orderly manner. VY. OFFICERS 1. The officers of the IRM shall consist of a President and Vice-President elected for a term of one year by a majority vote of member agency representatives to the 2. Both the President and Vice-President of .( #+ shall be elected at the JOB% meeting. 3. The officers shall serve until their successors are elected. 4. The duties of the officers shall be as follows: a. President 1) Shall preside over all meetings of the , as Chairman. �i�(1lr�Gr PLANNING/BULDING ID :805-546-1242 JUL 06 '92 9 :56 No .001 P .03 1991-1992 JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT PACE 6 e:\wpdocs\acc\c9200671.mis 2) Shall appoint all standing committees. 3) Shall exercise general supervision over all activities of said 4) Shall be an ex-officio member of all committees. S) Shall execute all contracts and legal documents on behalf of the b. Vice-President 1) Shall serve as Chairman pro-tempor in the absence of the President. 2) Shall give whatever aid necessary to the President in administering of the ffi . 3) Shall be an ex-officio member of all committees. S. In the event of a vacancy occurring in the office of either the President or Vice-President upon said officer's death, resignation, removal or his ceasing to be an official representative of a member city of the County of San Luis Obispo, such vacancy will be filled by majority vote of theta, the officer elected to serve for the balance of the unexpired term. VII. STAFF 1. The I shall appoint an Executive Director to serve at its pleasure, who will perform the following duties and such others as may be assigned by � : a. Prepare and submit the annual work program and budget to the for its approval and to the parties hereto for ratification. b. Shall keep an accurate account and file of all meetings. C. Shall disburse all funds in accordance with the policies of the County-Treasurer and the County Auditor/Controller and the budget and is work program adopted by the 300026 1991-1992 JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT PAGE 7 e:\wpdocs\acc\c9200671.mis d. Shall have charge of all correspondence. e. Shall keep and maintain the reports of the on all committees. f. Shall insure that S renders a written year end report reflecting activities of the `preceding fiscal year, said year end report to be distributed to each of the participating member bodies. g. Shall be responsible for directing those employees authorized b.y the S1Ufi1 in the budget. Employees are to be appointed by the on the recommendation of the Executive Director and to serve at the pleasure of the - 2. The Executive Director of the .. shall have charge of, handle and have access to, any property of the 3. The Executive Director, Treasurer, and Auditor-Controller shall be bonded or t self-insured through the county in-lieu of bonds (in accordance with Government Code Section 24156) in the sum of$1000. r, VIII. MEETINGS 1. Regular meetings of the' shall be held at least six (6) times a year or at more frequent intervals as approved.by the 2. Special meetings may be called by the President or upon written request of at least three (3) representatives of the 40M. Actual notice of special meetings must be given at least three (3) business days in advance. 3. Meetings shall be open to the public as required by state law. 4. Regular meetings shall be generally held in the first week ofWOO- gust=Lctobe or as specified in the annual meeting calendar adopted in ..:.....;}.:.::.:::.::.. �....P v;i';�'i•'+STh:;;•}}?}:x::V?ni:vnvk}.kv4\.:?.L?.-n..::::?:•}:.:G??:J:??:i•.+ri:;vv:%:4:. June. The June meeting shall be designated the "annual meeting." 5. The Executive Director of the 400M will direct the publication of notices of all meetings pursuant to state law. 6. Only official representatives or alternates shall represent a member of the LQ £7 or vote on any motion before the St 1991-1992 JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT PAGE 8 e:\wpdocs\acc\c9200671.mis 7. The meeting agenda shall be prepared by the Executive Director to the S,LOC€ . Agenda material shall be submitted to the Executive Director at least twenty-one (21) calendar days prior to the next regular meeting and distributed to members at least fourteen (14)calendar days prior to the next regular meeting to allow member agencies to advise their representatives on tentative vote subject to independent judgement of delegate based on public testimony. Unless authorized by �o`f"ftfis vote of the representatives at a regular meeting, only agenda a. cuax�rcaw• a <,; :.,<c items shall be considered by Shttrstt . �res?( inswm3ci. •• ... ...aA: .. ••::ate -::.:::;:.:::.,,s:o+:{:..:kt...a`.b..•.:,:a.:.`2M3t.`t..;;,i u2DM•x.:±!1'i i: Qe:.'acw+...?a.ia.::' +.:.y�.:. 8. The at at the discretion of the President, may memorialize any of its actions by resolution. 9. Robert's Rules of Order or such other rules as the may adopt will govern all proceedings not specifically provided for herein. 10. Executive sessions shall be held in accordance with applicable law. 11. The M shall hold public hearings for the adoption of Regional Plans. _.:.: 12. Minutes of all ST meetings shall be kept by the Executive Director to the 5' and shall be submittedYto member agencies. IX. CONEW=ES 1. Committees and subcommittees may be established as the t may deem appropriate. 2. Membership on "ad-Hoc" policy committees shall be at the discretion of the President. Nothing herein shall be construed to limit membership on these aforesaid committees to officials of the member agencies. The President may appoint any individual deemed qualified to serve on a committee. 3. Standing committees shall include the Administration Committee, comprised of all managers and administrators of member jurisdictions; the Legal Committee, comprised of all city and designated county attorneys; the Planning Committee, comprised of all agency planning officials appointed by their respective agencies; the Public Works Committee, comprised of all agency engineering officials appointed by their respective agencies: the Technical Transportation Advisory Committee ('ITAC) and the Citizen's Transportation Advisory Committee(CTAC) as per the Memorandum of Understanding between the California Department of Transportation and the and and the Transit Productivity Committee as required by Section 99224 and Section 99238 of the Public Utilities Code. The SIACOG may J 0 0 0 L 1991-1992 JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT PAGE 9 e:\wpdocs\acc\c9200671.mis organize such other technical advisory committees as it deems necessary to carry out 3CtXi functions. 4. No committee shall commit the £ Cs on any matter or questions of police. Such matters or questions can only be decided by the Area Council. 5. All committees shall receive clerical assistance from the Ki staff for the purpose of maintaining minutes of meetings and other such duties as the Executive Director may direct. The chairman of each committee shall sign the original copy of the minutes indicating his verification of contents. Copies of minutes of all meetings shall be sent to members of the and the Executive Director. X. FINANCE 1. The shall have no power to expend funds on any project for which funds have not been budgeted, nor on any item in excess of the budgeted amount without f specific approval of two-thirds of the governing bodies of the member agencies including COUNTY. 2. The Treasurer of the County of San Luis Obispo is designated the depositary, and ..........a:... further he shall have custody of all money of the ?. ` 5 from whatever source received. .It is understood that the Auditor/ Controller of the County of San Luis Obispo is, as such, auditor of the • XI. WITHDRAWAL AND DISSOLUTION 1. The parties to this Agreement pledge full cooperation and agree to assiP- representatives to serve as official members of the S.T.- . ,or any committee or subcomrrii thereof who shall act for and on behalf of their city or county in any or all matters which shall come before the , subject to any necessary approval of their acts by the governing bodies of CITIES and COUNTY. 2. Any party to this Agreement may withdraw from the San Luis Obispo Area Coordinating Council and terminate its participation in this agreement by resolution of its governing body. The withdrawal of the member shall have no effect on the continuance of this Agreement among the remaining members and the Agreement shall remain in full force w-id effect as respects the remaining members. 3. A member withdrawing shall not be liable for the payment of further contributions i�Vl►Ii:C_:+ 1991-1992 JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT PAGE 10 e:\wpdocs\acc\c9200671-mis falling due beyond the date of withdrawal and shall have no right to reimbursement of any monies previously paid to SIC3 ± provided, however, that may authorize a :.: :.. reimbursement if in its judgment such reimbursement is fair and equitable and can be done without jeopardy to the operation of the LTG . If any party hereto fails to pay its contribution, as determined by said said entity shall be deemed to have voluntarily withdrawn from the SCQ . 4. OPM may be dissolved at any time and this Agreement rescinded by a joint _ agreement executed by COUNTY and CITIES which are parties hereto. Said rescission Agreement shall provide for the orderly payment of all outstanding debts and obligations and for the return of any surplus funds of ,` in proportion to the contributions made. XII. EFFECTIVITY This Agreement shall take effect upon its execution by the chairman or mayor and clerks of the governing bodies of the County of San Luis Obispo and at least four (4) cities, pursuant to resolutions of such governing bodies authorizing such execution and shall remain in full force and effect until dissolved pursuant to the provisions herein. This Agreement may be executed in eight (8) counterparts which together shall constitute a single agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first hereinabove written. E:\WPDOCS\ACC\c9200671.MIS • J000kj PAGE 11 f 1991-1992 JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT e:\wpdocs\acc\c920067 I-mis CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Date:-- -- By: Mayor Resolution No. Clerk CITY OF ATASCADERO Date:----__— By: Mayor Minute Order Clerk i CITY OF GROVER CITY Date: .. By: Mayor Resolution No. Clerk CITY OF MORRO BAY Date: By Mayor Resolution No. Clerk CITY OF PASO ROBLES Date: By: Mayor Minute Order Clerk . 1991-1992 JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT PAGE 12 � e:\wpdocs\acc\c9200671.mis CITY OF PISMO BEACH By: Date Mayor Minute Order Clerk CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO By: Date: Mayor Resolution No. Clerk COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO By: Date: Chairman Minute Order Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL EFFECT: JAMES B. LINDHOLM, JR. County Counsel By: Deputy County Counsel Dated: EA WPDOCS\ACC\c9200671.M IS 4. FINANCE DIRECTOR'S REPORT - JULY 1990 5. ACCEPTANCE OF FINAL PARCEL MAP 9-87, 9000 ATASCADERO AVENUE TO DIVIDE ONE PARCEL OF 1.0 AC. INTO TWO LOTS (Kuhlman/Baumberger ) 6. ACCEPTANCE OF FINAL PARCEL MAP 26-87, 11300 VIEJO CAMINO TO DIVIDE ONE PARCEL OF 27.01 AC. INTO FOUR LOTS CONTAINING 8.52, 4.23, 6.59 AND 7.67 ACRES (Bordeaux House/ VandenSerghe) 7. AUTHORIZE POLICE DEPARTMENT AUCTION OF UNCLAIMED PROPERTY AND SURPLUS CITY PROPERTY 8. RESOLUTION NO. 109-90 - CREATING EX-OFFICIO YOUTH REPRESENTATION ON CERTAIN CITY COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES —� 9. ANNUAL RATIFICATION OF AREA COUNCIL JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT 10. EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION: A. RESOLUTION NO. 106-90 - ADOPTING A SALARY/ � CLASSIFICATION SCHEDULE & BENEFITS FOR CONFIDENTIAL EMPLOYEES B. RESOLUTION NO. 105-90 - ADOPTING A SALARY/ CLASSIFICATION SCHEDULE & BENEFITS FOR MID- MANAGEMENT/PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES C. RESOLUTION NO. 107-90 - ADOPTING A SALARY/ CLASSIFICATION SCHEDULE & BENEFITS FOR MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES D. RESOLUTION NO. 108-90 - AMENDING EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT FOR RAY WINDSOR, CITY MANAGER Eric Greening , from the public, asked to pull item #A-8 for further discussion. The City Clerk asked to continue item #A-1 . MOTION: By Councilman Dexter and seconded by Councilman Nimmo to continue the Minutes from City Council meeting of August 14, 1990 until the next regular meeting; motion carried . MOTION: By Councilman Nimmo and seconded by Councilman Shiers to approve the Consent Calendar with the exceptions of items A-1 and A-8; motion carried- CCB/2e/go Page 5 .Jv'U'tr.S.y • REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL Agenda Item: B-3(A) CITY OF ATASCADERO Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 7/14/92 From: Mark Joseph, Administrative Services Director ;�q SUBJECT: Adopting FY 1992-92 Annual Budget RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution 67-92 setting forth annual appropriations and projected revenues by fund; and including a schedule of interfund transfers for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1993. BACKGROUND: Council received a recommended line-item budget by Fund and Department, for its review. On July 6, a public hearing was held to review the budget and to hear appeals by community groups for funding. Adopting the attached resolution will establish the City' s FY 1992-93 annual budget, including capital projects. It will thereby replace the interim budget, which will expire July 14. In addition, two other items on Council' s July 14 agenda -- setting the annual spending limit and reaffirming developer impact fees -- are also required as part of the budget adoption process. The last resolution, establishing authorized staffing and salary schedules, is being postponed until the second July agenda, insofar as final arrangements are being worked out with the various bargaining units. ANALYSIS The significant changes from the recommended budget are noted below: 1. Community Group Funding: Exhibit A sets forth the approved amounts by agency. A total of $1,950 was added to community groups, per Council motion. The increases by group are listed below: SLO County Visitor' s Bureau $1,000 American Red Cross 500 Family Service Center 250 Senior Citizens United* 200 $1,950 *Senior Citizens United had already been recommended for $500; the $200 is only the net increase. • J000.i4 2. Operating Expenditures: Council also imposed a $300 per month "Cafeteria Plan" upon itself, effective November 1, 1992. Under this arrangement, each Councilmember will only receive $300 per month. Limited health insurance benefits, heretofore offered to Councilmembers, would be paid by Councilmembers who choose to continue receiving them. The anticipated savings is roughly $8, 000. In addition, staff is recommending a new fund be created for Recreation Programs, based upon the recommendation from our Community Services Director. This is essentially an accounting transaction, and would have no net effect upon the General Fund' s "bottom line" . 3. Capital Projects: Council also reaffirmed its intent to proceed with acquisition of Stadium Park. No appropriations have been budgeted for the project, insofar as the cost is expected to be financed over a period of years, with the first installment due in the next fiscal year (FY 93-94) . The remaining capital projects are primarily existing projects rolled over to the FY 1992-93 year. A more comprehensive review is expected as part of our Five-year CIP review, anticipated later this year. In conclusion, the traditional budget document, summarizing the City' s planned revenues and expenditures, is expected to be completed in August. Instead of showing recommended figures, it will note the actual approved amounts. Each Councilmember will receive a copy. FISCAL IMPACT The General Fund Budget, as approved in concept by Council, is balanced, despite a $1.4 million reduction over the original "base" budget. Although no major service reductions are anticipated, some minor services may be deferred or delayed. In addition, there are no monies anticipated at this time to restore any of the City' s reserves, which were used over the last fiscal year to maintain existing service levels. a:adopting #3 i COMMUNITY GROUP FUNDING REQUESTS, FY 92-93 FY 91-92 FY 91-92 FY 92-93 FY 92-93 FY 92-93 AGENCY NAME REQUEST APPROVED REQUEST RECOM'D APPROVED CONTRACT AGENCIES BIA 4 , 000 4, 000 4 , 000 4, 000 4 , 000 Chamber of Commerce 23, 000 23, 000 23, 000 20, 000 20, 000 SLO Co. Visitor ' s Bureau 4, 000 4, 000 3, 675 0 1 , 000 Subtotal 31 , 000 31 , 000 30, 675 24, 000 25, 000 SOCIAL SERVICES Ad Care Assoc 1 , 000 500 1 , 000 500 500 American Red Cross 1 , 000 750 1 , 000 0 500 Care & Counseling Ctr 5, 000 2, 000 0 0 0 Caring Callers 200 175 200 150 150 Easter Seal Society 600 250 650 0 0 Environmental Center 12, 000 0 0 0 0 EOC 2, 850 2, 850 2, 725 500 500 EOC - Homeless Shelter 6, 250 2, 000 2, 000 500 500 Family Service Center 1 , 000 750 11000 0 250 Food Bank Coalition 2, 500 1 , 000 2, 000 500 500 Hospice of SLO County 800 500 500 250 250 Hotline 1 , 000 300 750 300 300 Loaves & Fishes 0 0 0 0 0 No. Co. Connection 1 , 300 600 0 0 0 No. Co. Women' s Shelter 20, 000 18, 300 15, 000 10, 000 10, 000 Ombudsman Service 300 300 500 0 0 Peppertree Counseling 0 0 5, 000 0 0 Sr. Citizens United 2, 400 2, 400 2, 400 500 700 Sr. Nutrition Program 1 , 500 1 , 500 1 , 500 11000 1 , 000 Subtotal 59, 700 34, 175 36, 225 14, 200 15, 150 MISC. GROUPS AFAR 13, 000 25, 000 25, 000 5, 000 5, 000 Atas. Community Band 0 0 0 0 0 Chumash Campfire Girls 11100 500 500 0 0 Crime Stoppers 500 500 500 0 0 Eagle & Bear (Soviets) 3, 500 11000 2, 000 0 0 RSVP 525 525 550 250 250 Subtotal 18, 625 27, 525 28, 550 5, 250 5, 250 PASSIVE RECREATION AAUW (Art Park ) 750 750 550 0 0 Cal Poly Arts 350 350 350 0 0 Pacific Rep 0 0 300 0 0 SLO Co. Youth Symphony 500 250 300 0 0 SLO Mozart Festival 300 250 300 0 0 Subtotal 1 , 900 1 , 600 1 , 800 0 0 ACTIVE RECREATION Atascadero Sox 0 0 1 , 500 0 0 Atascadero Youth Soccer 0 0 11000 0 0 Atas. Babe Ruth 15, 000 5, 000 7, 500 0 0 Atas. Girls Softball 2, 432 2, 432 2, 165 0 0 Atas. Little League 0 0 0 0 0 Atas. Youth Cheerleaders 3, 440 11000 0 0 0 Atas. Youth Football 12, 500 4, 000 3, 000 0 0 No. Co. Cycling 2, 000 0 0 0 0 Subtotal 35, 372 12, 432 15, 165 0 0 --------------------------------------------- TOTALS 146, 597 106, 732 112, 415 43, 450 45, 400 ��Ulia�► RESOLUTION NO. 67-92 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY , OF ATASCADERO APPROVING A BUDGET FOR THE 1992-93 FISCAL YEAR AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREOF BE IT RESOLVED by the Atascadero City Council as follows: Section One: Pursuant to provisions of the Government Code, a budget is hereby approved, per the attached exhibit A entitled "Annual Appropriations by Fund, by Department", and as may be amended by City Council for the City of Atascadero for Fiscal Year 1992-93; Section Two: The attached exhibit B, entitled "Revenue Projections by Fund" and Exhibit C, entitled "Schedule of Interfund Transfers", are also hereby approved, and as may be amended by City Council for the City of Atascadero for Fiscal Year 1992-93; Section Three: The City Manager or his designee, may transfer appropriations within, but not between, each of the departmental appropriations, as required to achieve the orderly and efficient functioning of the City; and , Section Four: The Council, from time to time, by motion may approve additional appropriations, as they deem necessary. On motion by Councilperson , seconded by Councilperson, the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety on the following roll call vote: P AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ADOPTED: CITY OF ATASCADERO By: Robert P. Nimmo, Mayor 0 300O.J ATTEST: LEE RABOIN, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ARTHER MONTANDON, City Attorney r EXHIBIT A: ANNUAL APPROPR I AT I ONS BY FUND, BY DEPARTMENT FISCAL YEAR 1992-93 r DEPARTMENT SUNT FUND 001 - GENERAL FUND City Council 26,925 City Clerk 45,925 City Treasurer 4, 105 City Attorney 80,000 City Manager 135,050 Police 2,183, 190 Fire 1,052,750 r. Public Works/Engineering & Administration 241,200 Community Development/Administration 181,120 Community Development/Planning 251,550 Community Development/Building 216,340 Community Development/Code Enforcement 59,950 Community Services/Administration 31,600 t Community Services/Parks 326,005 Community Services/Building Maintenance 202,750 Community Services/Streets 390,000 Personnel 65,525 Finance 272,40 Risk Management 250,750 { Equipment Replacement 75,500 Non-Department 387,300 Community Group Funding 20,400 -- TOTAL GENERAL FUND 6,500,385 FUND 002 - GAS TAX Streets/Gas Tax 222,000 FUND 015 - ZOO OPERATIONS Zoo Operations 220,340 Capital Improvements 0 ------------ TOTAL Z00 ENTERPRISE 220,340 FUND 200 - DIAL-A-RIDE Dial-A-Ride Operations 315,475 Capital Improvements 0 TOTAL DIAL-A-RIDE 315,475 FUND 201 - WASTEWATER Wastewater Operations 1,142,455 Capital Improvements 1,282,500 -- TOTAL WASTEWATER 2,424,955 FUND 202 - PARK CONCESSIONS Park Concession Operations 23,200 .iij�l r7;i.y EXHIBIT A: ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS BY FUND, BY DEPARTMENT FISCAL YEAR 1992-93 DEPARTMENT AMOUNT FUND 203 - PAVILION Pavilion Operations 38,290 FUND 204 - AQUATICS Aquatics 30,260 FUND 205 - RECREATION Recreation Operations 401,725 FUND 301 - TREE PLANTING TRUST Tree Planting Activities 4,000 FUND 307 - EMERGENCY SERVICES Emergency Preparedness 12,000 FUND 310 - POLICE TRAINING TRUST Police Training 20,000 FUND 311 - WEED ABATEMENT TRUST Weed Abatement 40,000 �\ FUND 403 - ASSESSMENT DISTRICT #3/REDEMPTION Assessment District #3 6,420 t. FUND 404 - ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 14WREDEMPTION Assessment District #4 102,000 r FUND 405 - ASSESSMENT DISTRICT #5/REDEMPTION Assessment District #5 56,356 FUND 452 - C.O.P. REDEMPTION C.O.P. Debt Service 202,400 FUND 500 - CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Capital Improvements 2,406,300 c FUND 731 - STREET MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS Street Maintenance Districts 30,000 i GRAND TOTAL 13,057, 106 NOTE: Interfund Transfers are only included in Exhibit C. 1. J00040 EXHIBIT B: REVENUE PROJECTIONS BY FUND, FISCAL YEAR 1992-93 • AMOUNT FUND --____-- ------------ FUND 001 _ 6,581,500 General Fund 454,500 FUND 002 - Gas Tax 3,000 FUND 013 - Assessment District #4/Reserve 157,000 FUND 015 - Zoo Operations 356,000 FUND 200 - Dial-A-Ride 971,700 FUND 201 - Wastewater 35,050 FUND 202 - Park Concessions 40,000 FUND 203 - Pavilion 29,435 FUND 204 - Aquatics 325,485 FUND 205 - Recreation 4,000 FUND 301 - Tree Planting Trust 51000 FUND 306 - Sidewalk Trust 12,000 FUND 307 - Emergency Services 70,000 { FUND 310 - Police Training 42,000 FUND 311 - Weed Abatement 6,420 FUND 403 - Assessment District #3/Redemption 107,233 FUND 404 - Assessment District #4/Redemption 43,000 FUND 405 - Assessment District #5/Redemption 121,400 FUND 452 - C.O.P. Redemption ?28,500 FUND 500 - Capital Projects Fund -15,000 FUND 550 - Police Impact Fees 31,000 FUND 575 - Fire Impact Fees 75,000 { FUND 600 - Parks Impact Fees 65,000 FUND 700 - Drainage Impact Fees 65,000 FUND 701 - Amapoa/Tecorida Impact Fees 151000 FUND 705 - Streets & Bridges Impact Fees 5,100 FUND 73I - Street Maintenance Districts 97,300 FUND 732 - TDA/Non-Transit ____________ GRAND TOTAL. 9,872,623 NOTE: Interfund Transfers are only included in Exhibit C. 1. i - . EMfIBIT C: SCHEDULE OF INTERFUND TRANSFERS, FISCAL YEAR 1992-93 FROM FUND TO FUND AMOUNT PURPOSE �. General Fund Zoo Operations 75,000 Operating Support General Fund Recreation 77,065 Operating Support General Fund COP Debt Srvc 100,000 Debt Service Gas Tax General Fund 5,000 Engineering Support Gas Tax Capital Projects 556,000 Capital Improvements AD#4/Reserve AD#4/Redemption 3,000 Debt Service Dial-A-Ride General Fund 75,000 Overhead Support - Wastewater General Fund 97,500 Overhead Support Tree Planting Capital Projects 10,000 Capital Improvements AD#3/Redemption Wastewater 6,420 Debt Service Police Impact Capital Projects 3,550 Capital Improvements Police Impact COP Debt Srvc 58,000 Debt Service Fire Impact Capital Projects 3,550 Capital Improvements t' Parks Impact Capital Projects 26,250 Capital Improvements Parks Impact COP Debt Srvc 32,000 Debt Service Drainage Impact Capital Projects 55,000 Capital Improvements Amapoa/Tecorida Capital Projects 135,000 Capital Improvements Street & Bridge Capital Projects 595,250 Capital Improvements TDA/Non-Transit Capital Projects 787,250 Capital Improvements GRAND TOTAL 2,700,835 i qJ 04 { l REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL Agenda Item: B-3(B) CITY OF ATASCADERO Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 7/14/92 From: Mark Joseph, Administrative Services Director SUBJECT: Adopting FY 92-93 Annual Spending Limit RECOMONDATION: Council adopt Resolution No. 65-92 establishing a new annual spending limit for the City of Atascadero. BACKGROUND: As part of the annual budget adoption process, the City' s FY 92-93 Annual Spending Limit, or the so-called "Gann Limit" must be approved by Council. Staff has calculated the new limit based on the formula set forth in Proposition 111 (approved by the voters in June, 1990) . As a result of staff's calculations, the limit will increase a very modest 0.5%, or an increase of $29,922 (from $5,984,428 to $6,014,350) . The low rate reflects the low increases in both the City's population and the California per capita income. Based on the revenue projections for FY 92-93, including "excludable" items (i.e. , the General Fund's portion of debt service on the C.O.P. bonds) we expect to have a cushion of almost $800,000. The table below sets forth the exact amounts. FY 92-93 SPENDING LIMIT Proceeds from taxes $5,336,100 Less: Exclusions (100,000) Appropriations subject to limitation 5,226, 100 New Spending Limit 6,014,350 Amount Under Limit 778,250 RESOLUTION NO. 65-92 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO ADOPTING THE FISCAL YEAR 1992-93 ANNUAL SPENDING LIMIT WHEREAS, Proposition 111 revises the methodology used to calculate the Annual Spending Limit; and WHEREAS, the City of Atascadero must select the most appropriate criteria to be used in calculating that new limit; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Atascadero: Section 1. That the City of Atascadero elects to use the following criteria for fiscal year 1992-93, in establishing its new Annual Spending Limit: City Population and California Per Capita Income. Section 2. That the Annual Spending Limit is calculated as follows: FISCAL YEAR CURRENT LIMIT PERCENT CHANGE NEW LIMIT 1992-93 $5,984,428 0.50% $6,014,350 Section 3. That any judicial action or challenge must be commenced within 45 days of the effective date of this Resolution. Section 4. Documentation used in determining the Annual Spending Limit is available to the public in the Office of the Administrative Services Director, Administration Building, Room 203, 6500 Palma Avenue, Atascadero, CA. On motion by Councilmember , and seconded by Councilmember , the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ADOPTED: � trU+li #•" CITY OF ATASCADERO By ROBERT P. NIMMO, Mayor ATTEST: LEE RABOIN, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ARTHER MONTANDON City Attorney a:spendlimit #3 REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL Agenda Item: B-3(Q CITY OF ATASCADERO Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 7/14/92 From: Mark Joseph, Administrative Services Directo SUBJECT: Adopting Voluntary Work Furlough Policy i RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 66-92, establishing a Voluntary Work Furlough Policy. 2. By motion, declare a period of economic hardship to encourage voluntary furloughs. BACKGROUND: During the last two months, staff and employee bargaining unit representatives have been meeting and discussing ways to reduce operating costs (including employee, service reductions) in an attempt to help balance the City's FY 1992-93 budget. One avenue considered is voluntary work furloughs. The recommended policy is included as the exhibit to the attached resolution. It was originally planned and is still • intended, to be part of the City's revised Rules & Regulations. However, in order to expedite any voluntary furloughs, this specific policy has been extracted from the full document for immediate Council approval. This policy has been discussed with, and generally endorsed by, all interested bargaining units. In addition, they have been notified of this item on Council's agenda, in case they wish to address Council directly. Once adopted as policy, staff also recommends Council declare a period of economic hardship, which is the first step in the process. FISCAL IMPACT• Employees requesting furloughs would receive time off without pay, thus saving the City money. However, there is a risk of service interruptions if too many employees furlough. The policy compensates for this by requiring Department Head and City Manager approval. a:workfurlough #3 RESOLUTION NO. 66-92 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO ADOPTING A VOLUNTARY WORK FURLOUGH POLICY BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO: Section 1: That the attached Exhibit A, entitled Voluntary Work Furlough is included as part of this resolution and hereby adopted by Council. Section 2: That this resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption. On motion by Councilperson , seconded by Councilperson , the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ADOPTED: . CITY OF ATASCADERO By. ROBERT P. NIMMO, Mayor ATTEST: LEE RABOIN, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ARTHER MONTANDON, City Attorney 10.06 Voluntary Work Furlough a. Policy/Intent As an alternative to mandatory work furloughs, the City will first consider voluntary requests. In adopting this policy, it is recognized and acknowledged that less work will be performed and that certain delays and/or reductions in service may result. The City Manager shall direct Department Heads to seriously and adequately consider all requests to participate in this program. b. Review and Approval Process ( 1) Council declares a period of economic hardship and directs the City Manager to solicit voluntary furloughs. The City Manager or his/her designee, shall notify all Department Heads and recognized employee bargaining units. (2) The employee requests a voluntary furlough through his/her Department Head. The Department Head will review the request and determine its feasibility, considering a variety of criteria, including but not limited to workload, fiscal impact and operational concerns. (3) The Department Head shall recommend approval or denial to the City Manager, whose decision shall be final. The recommendation shall include the effective date of the furlough and the employee's revised work schedule. (4) Any approved furlough shall be documented through a Personnel Action Form (PAF) or other form as established or revised by the Personnel Officer. C. Compensation ( 1) The period furloughed shall not constitute a break in service for purposes of seniority or ,step increases. Probationary periods shall not be affected unless the amount of voluntary furlough exceeds eighty (80) hours, whereupon the end of probation shall be 'extended on an hour-for-hour basis. (2) The employee requesting a voluntary furlough will continue to receive the full amount of his/her regular leave accruals and health benefits. �tJtJU� 3. If mandatory work furloughs are ultimately required, employees having participated in the voluntary program shall receive hour-for-hour credit for time already furloughed during any continuously declared period of economic hardship. d. Restrictions ( 1) An employee must work at least thirty (30) hours per week. Insofar as PERS retirement service credit is determined by the number of hours worked per year, it is the employee's responsibility to monitor the effects of the voluntary furlough with his/her future retirement benefits. (2) Leave may be taken in increments of one hour for FLSA non-exempt employees and in increments of one full work day for FLSA exempt employees. (3) Employees in other leaves without pay (e.g. , extended medical leave) during a pay period shall not be eligible for this voluntary furlough program. The program is only available to employees who are in a paid status the scheduled workday before as well as after the voluntary furlough. (4) Overtime will not be paid unless an employee actually works a full forty (40) hours in a work week, or the equivalent for fire employees. (5) Hours worked beyond the employee' s revised (i.e. furlough) work schedule but less than forty (40) hours per week (or the equivalent for fire employees) shall be paid at straight time and such hours will be included for retirement purposes. If such hours are banked as compensatory time earned (at straight time) , they will not be counted towards retirement, until they are taken off as paid time. e. Quarterly Review The suitability of the furlough program will be reviewed with the employee every three months, or until the end of the economic hardship, at which time either party may discontinue it. In the event that the employee' s salary or benefits are reduced, or other unforeseen economic hardships occur, the employee may request immediate termination of the voluntary furlough, prior to the next quarterly review. a:furlough #22 . REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL Agenda Item: B-3(D) CITY OF ATASCADERO Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 7/14/92 From: Mark Joseph, Administrative Services Director SUBJECT: Reaffirming the City's Developer Impact Fees RECOMMENDATION: By motion, staff recommends no change to our current developer impact fees. BACKGROUND: Part of the enabling State Legislation (AB1600) for our Developer Impact Fees requires an annual review of the fees and the projects associated with those fees. Given the current state of the economy, no increase in developer impact fees is recommended. There may be minor adjustments (additions or deletions) to the list of capital projects required; however, this matter will be addressed as part of Council' s annual review of its Five Year Capital Improvements Plan. a:ImP actfees #3 • i�00 MEETING AGENDA DAT 7 14 92 ITEM# B-4 RESOLUTION NO. 64-92 • A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO APPOINTING FIVE (5) MEMBERS TO THE CITY'S PARRS & RECREATION COMMISSION WHEREAS, The City Council has adopted Ordinance No. 101 establishing the City's Parks & Recreation Commission and has subsequently amended Ordinance No. 101 by adopting Ordinance Nos. 205 and 209 amending Ordinance No. 101; and WHEREAS, Due to expiring terms, three (3) vacancies have occurred on the Parks & Recreation Commission; and WHEREAS, Public advertisements soliciting interest in appoint- ment to the Parks & Recreation Commission have been published and posted; and WHEREAS, The City Clerk did receive thirteen (13) applications for consideration; and WHEREAS, The City Council did, on July 7, 1992, interview and consider those candidates for appointment to the Parks & Recreation Commission and did then vote for specific nominations. WHEREAS, In acknowledgement of the outstanding quality of candidates desiring to serve the community as commissioners, the • Council has directed staff to restore the original intent of Ordinance No. 101, which provides for a seven (7) member commis- sion; NOW, THEREFORE, The City Council does resolve to appoint the following citizens to four-year terms on the Parks & Recreation Commission: George Beatie Barbara Butz Victor Smart and the following citizens to two-year terms on said commission: Karen Coniglio Thomas Bench On motion by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember , the foregoing Resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ADOPTED: �C1U5 Resolution No. 64-92 Page Two CITY OF ATASCADERO ATTEST: By: LEE RABOIN, City Clerk ROBERT P. NIMMO, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: ARTHER R. MONTANDON, City Attorney REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL Meeting Date: 7-14-92 CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: B-5 Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager From: Greg Luke, Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Award of Bid: Downtown Road and Drainage Improvements and other minor road improvements. RECOMMENDATION: Award the base bid and additives 1 and 2 to Alex Madonna Construction for $389, 599. 12 . DISCUSSION• This project involves road repair, reconditioning and storm drains for downtown roads, Junipero Avenue and Mercedes Avenue. The bid was broken down into the following components: Base Bid Downtown Road and Drainage Improvements, including renovated storm drain system, street overlay and sidewalk repairs in the area bounded by Traffic Way, E1 Camino Real, Olmeda nd East Mall (excluding Highway 41, ie West Mall) . Additive #1: Junipero Avenue Road overlay and Drainage Improvements Additive #2: Mercedes Avenue Drainage Improvements, including drain inlets and a new storm drain system. The Bid Summary prepared by the City Clerk is included for reference as Attachment A. The Engineers Cost Estimate for the Base Bid and Additives 1 and 2 was $395,073 . 69. FISCAL IMPACT• This project is in conformance with the approved FY92-93 Capital Improvement Budged and will be funded through Gas Tax monies. Attachments: Attachment A - Bid Summary • Attachment B - Bid from Alex Madonna _ BID SUMMARY TO: Greg Luke, Public Works Director FROM: Lee Raboin City ClerV&L--� BID NO. : 92-06 OPENED : 6/26/92 PROJECT: ROAD REPAIR, RECONDITIONING AND STORM DRAINS for Downtown Roads, Junipero Avenue and Mercedes Avenue The following five bids were received and opened as outlined: Contractor Base Bid Add. #1 Add. #2 TOTAL BID Alex Madonna Construction 303, 171.62 49,487.50 36,940.00 389,599.12 P.O. Box 3910 San Luis Obispo, CA 93403 R. Burke Corporation 314,006.55 53,799.85 39,682.40 407,488.80 P.O. Box 957 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 Southern Pacific Milling 345, 881.51 48,301.74 47,310. 12 441,493.4 P.O. Box 71 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Whitaker Contractors, Inc. 345,631.41 59, 115.26 43,902. 00 448,648.67 P.O. Box 910 Santa Margarita, CA 93453 John Madonna Construction 366,310.71 47,987. 15 40,685.25 454,983. 11 P.O. Box 5310 San Luis Obispo, CA 93403 c: North Coast Engineering viii tlll:i, BID SHEET 1 PROJECT: DOWNTOWN - ROAD AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS JUNIPERO AVENUE - ROAD AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS MERCEDES AVENUE - DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS BID OPENING: 2: 00 p.m. June 26, 1992 1 NAME OF BIDDER: /t�ONMA dQA1 e,7X&k QA) C&M44Aly --- BUSINESS ADDRESS: . Bo 0 - Ss�cl Cues OB/SPo �� �3f�23 PHONE: 0 3 0 0 RESIDENCE ADDRESS: clod/ S.4,1 Gdis .17�• SAAJ Lu/S OBISPO PHONE: �8&5' S�3 3000 TO: CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO The undersigned declares that he has carefully examined the location of the proposed work, that he has examined the Plans and Specifications and read the accompanying instructions of bidders, and hereby proposes to furnish all materials, machinery, tools, labor and services, and do all the work necessary to complete the project in accordance with said Plans, Specifications, and Special Provisions for the unit prices shown. The undersigned declares that he has read and acknowledges the following: Bids are required for the entire work. Incidental items of work shall be incorporated into the most appropriate unit price bid item and no additional compensation shall be made therefor. The amount of the Bid for comparison purposes will be the total of all items. The total of unit basis items will be determined by multiplying the unit price bid by the estimated quantity set forth for the item. The Bidder shall set forth for each item of work, in clearly legible figures, a unit price and a total for the item in the respective spaces provided for this purpose. In the case of the unit basis items, the amount set forth under the "Total"-. column shall be the multiplication of the unit price bid by the estimated quantity of the item. Bid Sheet - 1 between the unit price and the total set In case of discrepancy unit price shall prevail; provided, forth for the item, rice is ambiguous, however, if the amount set forth as a unit p or is omitted, or in in for any unintelligt forth in the "Total ible, or uncertasamereason, the entry in case of unit basis items, is the same amount as the �� then the amount se1° the "Total column, column for the item shall prevail in accordance with the following: 1. items, the amount set forth in the As to lump sum "Total" column shall be the unit price. As to unit basis items, the amount set forth in the 2, the estimated "Total" column shall be dividedthus obtained shall L quantity for the item and the price be the unit price. The Owner reserves the right to reject all bids. BASE BID DOWNTOWN ROAD AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS Unit Total Price Price { Item Item Unit of Estimated Me Figures) No Description Measure Quantity (Figures) ( 1. Cold Mill A.C. SF 49,884 � 2 , Pavement Reinforcing �rzSF 7 , 502 � � � Fabric JlLeex l, 313 T— -t-""` 3 . Pavement Base Repair SF �.. N 221 L Course TO - -� -�-/4 . A.C. Leveling 7a- lin 135,366 _ -f-iv L. 5. A.C. Overlay, SF t 6. Seal Coat SF 85, 653 - s. Ba 1 7 . Curb & Gutter, LF 316 ( Std 418 8. Sidewalk, Std 419 SF 5,415 <' �• 9 . p.C.C. Driveway Std 423 SF 1, 010 Approach, 1 oe 10. Sidewalk Ramp, 19 �a'- Std 420 EA / At 4C I2 ,604 - 11. Cross Gutter,Std 421 SF 12 . P.C.C. Gutter LF 30 �i Bid Sheet - 2 tiitU+U+l :i Unit Total Item Item Unit of Estimated Price Price I No Description Measure Quantity (Figures) (Figures) i ss 13 . 18" HDPE Pipe LF 121 14. 24" HDPE Pipe LF 723 7 D •✓ d O 15. 30" HDPE Pipe LF 923 16. Drop Inlet, Std 502 EA 6 17 . Repair/Replace P.C.C. Are Drop Inlet Apron SF 48 18. Storm Drain Manhole5 Gam• �• 4�o� 41.0Std 501 EA � 19 . Rip Rap CY 34 C� w 20. P.C.C. Cut-Off Wall LF 29 ✓�d ( 21. Adjust Monument Cover EA 2 22 . Adjust Manhole Cover EA 8 Joe ` 1�d 23 . Traffic Striping LF 4,927 i�aat 4'63' 24 . Traffic Marking SF 100 { Sum of Total Price Column $ IL 71. i .I I I i i Bid Sheet - 3 J Uhl) ADDITIVE NO. 1 JUNIPERO AVENUE ROAD AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS Unit Total Unit of Estimated Price Price Item Item (Figures) No Description Measure Quantity (Figures) ( g I 1. A.C. Overlay, 1h" SF 22, 419 •fro 2 . Drop Inlet, EA 3 �a Caltrans Type G1 jLF 82 .... 3 . P.C.C. Swale O,aa ��D' •o 1 -n i 271 4 . 18" HDPE Pipe LF dftL 443 3+ 5. A.C. Berm LF l 6. A.C. Swale SF 383 • /dw 7 . Leveling Course TON 57 S . A.C. Driveway az `d SF 1, 200 —go Approach _ ` 9 . Remove/ReplaceQLF 20 _ Exist. Fence �• 66 10. P.C.C. Junction 1 i Structure w/Cover EA '�--_ 11. Adjust Manhole Cover EA 3 .3��• -,� � 12 . Base Shoulders CY 35 -� 13 . A.C. Pavement SF 100 J• � Construction S'a i Sum of Total Price Column I Bid Sheet - 4 i = ADDITIVE NO. 2 MERCEDES AVENUE DRAINAGE IMBROVEMENT _ Unit Total Unit of Estimated Price Price Item Item (Figures) No Description Measure Quantity (Figures) i .. ._ •c 1. Drop Inlets, 24aa . IStd 502 EA 2. Storm Drain Manhole Std 501 EA 1a4e, " .. %002 3 . 18" HDPE Pipe LF 26 l 4 . 30" HDPE Pipe LF 274 a 5. 30" Bituminous 65 �• != a Coated CMP Pipe LF 6 . A.C. Pavement 250 �� D0� d► I Construction SF 7 . Rip Rap CY 2211�zd s . Concreted Rip Rap CY 8 DO• " ,',�� `A 9. P.C.C. Cut-Off Wall LF 24 ISum of Total Price Column $ �► --� The Contractor shall comply with the requirements of Division 5, Part I, of the State Labor Code, and specifically with Sections 6705 and 6707 thereof. The Contractor shall submit for app roval a detailed plan showing the design of shoring, bracing, sloping, or other provisions to be made for worker protection for all areas to be excavated to a depth of five feet or more. If the I plan varies from the shoring system standards, the plan shall be prepared by a registered civil or structural engineer. The undersigned further agrees that in case of default in executing and submitting the Contract with required bonds and insurance within ten (10) working days after having received notice that the Contract seady toBidlshallre, the become theceeds of property the check or bond accompanyinghis of the City. I The Contractor to whom the contract is awarded shall submit a statement each month certifying that it is in conformance with the City's Affirmative Action Program. Bid Sheet - 5 )ookll) LIST OF SUBCONTRACTORS 4100 et. seq. of the �. In accordance with the provisions of Sectionthe Bidder shall, in Government Code of the State of California, of each its Bid, list the will performcwork orslabor or render service to ` subcontractor who P the prime contractor in an amount inexcess one-half of one of the percent or $10,000, whichever is greater, contractor's total bid. 1 Address Specific Name under which License No. of Office Description Subcontractor is and of Subcontract I Licensed Classification Mill or Shop ------------ -------------- ------------ r --------------- ------------- ------------ ------------- --------------- Do not list alternative subcontractors for the same work. i List of Subcontractors - 1 v�ll�t�ti� REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Items C-1 Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Mtg. Date: 07/14/92 From: Henry Engen, Com. Dev. Director AG File No: TTM 2-87 SUBJECT: Appeal filed by Paul Metchik (Central Coast Engineering) of the Planning Commission's off-site sewer improvement condition for revised Tract Map 2-87 (9385 Vista Bonita) . RECOMMENDATION: Denial of the appeal and approval of Revised Conditions of Approval (Attachment D) of the May 5, 1992 staff report with approval .of a time extension to April 26, 1993. ALTERNATIVE• Revise the off-site sewer condition to that of the original map as indicated in Attachment D, 13 . , Conditions of Approval, dated April 15, 1988. BACKGROUND: On May 5th and June 2nd, 1992, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on revising original conditions of approval for this 8-lot planned development tract map The focus of the applicant's request for reconsideration was to obtain a final one-year time extension and on modifications in the private roadalignment, both of which were supported by staff and endorsed by the Commission. This appeal, which was the focus of discussion by the Planning Commission, has to do with Condition 10e, off-site sewer improve- ment requirements. On a 7:0 vote, the Commission recommended approval of the time extension and staff recommendations contained in Attachment D. There was considerable discussion and public. testimony, as reflected in the attached minutes excerpt. SEWER IMPROVEMENT ANALYSIS: The Public Works Director provided an explanation with the Planning Commission Agenda of the rational for revising the off-site sewer improvement conditions. Additionally, sketches of the alternative proposal are included with that memorandum. The off-site sewer improvement proposed as Condition No. 10e, of Attachment D reads as follows: 10e. "Contribution of 25% of the total cost of construction for the El Bordo Relief Sewer Project. Approval of the tentative map is contingent upon the completion of the El Bordo Relief Sewer Relief project. " This represented a revision to the original map condition, which stated as follows: 13 . "Provide Sewer Main Extension Plan acceptable to the Director of Public Works. Main extension shall be thru Golf Course or Las Lomas to Pina Solo. Easement thru Golf Course, if this alternate is selected, shall be recorded prior to recording final map. " As indicated, the Public Works Director cannot support the appli- cant's proposed E1 Bordo lift station to El Camino Real solution in that it would (1) burden the City with continual maintenance costs, and (2) carry sewage to lines that are near capacity. He also observes that the applicant dramatically underestimates the cost of such an improvement. The 25% participation in a gravity plan project (Condition 10e) would be a "fair share" when contrasted with the cost of the original Condition 13 or the real cost of the unwanted El Bordo lift station approach. HE:ph Attachments: Letter of Appeal - June 15, 1992 Staff Report - May 5, 1992 Staff Report - June 2, 1992 Minutes Excerpt - May 5, 1992 Minutes Excerpt - June 2, 1992 cc: Paul' Metchik Central Coast Engineering (Dennis Schmidt) CENTRAL COAST ENGINEERING 396 Buckley Road 15 June 1992 San Luis Obispo RECEIVES E-1787 P California 93401 5 �yyL JUN .. City of Atascadero COMMUNISM DEVELOPMENS ` Planning Department .. 6500 Palma Avenue Atascadero, CA 93422 ' Re: Reconsideration of Tent.Tr. Map 02-87(Tr.1488) Doug... - We appeal Condition 10e as approved by the Planning Commission on 02 June 1992 and request it be rewritten to read: Tract 1488 will connect to the City Sewer at El Bordo and at that time will reimburse the City its fair share of the construction costs of the El Bordo Relief Sewer Project. With the inclosed $200.00 fee, please process this request and schedule the item for the first available City Council Hearing. During the Planning Commission hearing, staff acknowledged that hundreds of new units will use the El Bordo Relief Sewer. Tract 1488 is willing to pay its share for _ sewer construction based on an estimate number of total users as set by engineering. This normal approach would estimate the number of present users plus the future new connections. We do not request an assessment district or special study. If the El Bordo Relief Sewer is not constructed, we reserve the right to use a lift station by pumping to Las Lomas to Pino Solo as ori 'tellyconditioned. We,do not - _ Jv 3s3g _ Telephone(805)544-3278 E-1787.wpS. June 15, 1992 2 object to others along El Bordo Avenue, Tract 1562 and the golf course to - participate and use this lift station. If you have questions,please phone. Dennis Rct _ E-1787.wps ITEM : B . 1 M E M O R A N D U M TO: Planning Commission FROM:. Doug Davidson, Senior Planner RE: Reconsideration of Tentative Tract Map 02-87 Tract 1488 DATE: June 2, 1992 This matter was continued from the Planning Commission meeting of May 5, 1992. The continuance was granted in order to allow the applicant additional time to confer with the Public Works Department on the recommended Conditions of Approval. This discussion was centered on sewer collection and fees as required in Condition #10. The applicant has requested a change to recommended Condition #10(e) as shown on Attachment A. The Public Works Department, however, is recommending that the Reconsideration be granted per the revised Conditions as presented in the May 5, 1992 staff report (Attachment C) . A background and justification for this is provided by the Public . Works Director (Attachment B. ) Attachments: Attachment A - Letter from Applicant Attachment B - Memo from Public Works Director Attachment C - Prior Staff Report • MHY-18—'92 MON 09:01 ID:C.C. ENGINEERING TEL NO:805-541-3137 9090 P02 ------- ATTACHMENT A. CENTRAL COAST ENGINEERING ' 3% Buckley Road 07 May 1992 San Luis Obispo E-1787 Callfornia 93401 City of Atucadeso Bering Department 65Palma Avenue ' AtascadeM CA 93422.. Re:Tract 1488 Reconsideration Stam.. As you are aware, at this past weeps Planning Commission hearing,,we requested and were granted a continuance to the first date in June. Our intention is to settle the wording of condition 10(c) prior to the re-scheduled hearing. Please consider the following: Tract 1488 will connect to and pay it's fair share of the comttruction costs for the future El Bordo Relief Sewer Project. Please respond aKcordiney. Thankx for your consideration: • L� Dennis SERW V 1 Telephone(805)544-3279 E1787d wps Yl�v� �iV ATTACHMENT B MEMORANDUM TO: Atascadero Planning Commission FROM: Greg Luke, Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Tract 1488 - Sewer Condition DATE: May 21, 1992 The purpose of this memorandum is to explain the sewer conditions placed by the Public Works Department on Tract 1488, in particular, why the cost of sewer service is so high. It is important to note that this subdivision is presently far removed from any public sewer system. The original tentative tract map called for the construction of a sanitary sewer line across Chalk Mountain Golf Course to the sewage treatment plant. Recently the applicants requested that we look for ways to relax both road and sewer requirements; which has lead to their request for a reconsideration. With regard to the sewer across Chalk Mountain, the applicant . was proposing to construct a private pump station at the base of their property and pump the waste to pump station no. 2 (located near the entrance to the State Hospital. Public Works staff has had a history of problems with private pump stations. The Regional Water Quality Control Board and surrounding residents look to the City whenever problems (such as odors or overflows) occur. Therefore, we were reluctant to approve an on-site, private pump station. We suggested that instead the City would be willing to participate in a three-way arrangement to jointly construct the necessary sewer. The developer would pay the equivalent cost of constructing a sewer to meet their needs as setforth in the Tentative Tract Map 1488. At the time, all parties agreed this cost was at least $60, 000. The County of San Luis Obispo had allocated $24, 400 to sewer Chalk Mountain Lodge with a small diameter line, and they were willing to contribute that amount to a regional sewer system. Finally the City recognized that we would need additional capacity in the south end of town in the future and we would be willing to contribute the remaining $158, 600 to upsize the line for our future needs. .iiyCJ�r�t; The Public Works staff spent considerable time and effort pulling all the parties together, including action by the County Board of Supervisors to participate and changing the City's Capital Improvement Plan to match the proposed three way project. The applicant continued to be somewhat evasive about participating requesting various modifications and possible alterations. They requested that each new lot be assessed individually for the sewer service (approximately $7500 each) and we concurred. However, the applicant continued to seek alternate ways of solving their sewer service issue, never committing to nor positively rejecting the City's proposal. Now that a regional sewer line crossing their property appears to the developer to be almost a certainty, their position is that they will simply pay their "fair share". Their offer has two problems: 1) staff cannot determine what dollar value this fair share represents, and 2) without the developer's full participation, the concept of constructing a sewer in this location is far less appealing. In fact, recent discussions with representatives of the State Hospital have indicated that a sewer line could be constructed across their property. They would possibly be willing to participate to a large degree and eliminate their sewage treatment plant which is costly to run. This route is also preferred from an engineering perspective since the line can serve a larger area of town. The State Hospital alternative route is still in the early conceptual stages, however, and staff feels it is prudent to put in a pipeline across Chalk Mountain Golf Course, providing the developer is willing to substantially participate in the project. Thus, the applicant is left with a decision. They can choose to participate with the City in a joint project; they can wait until the City can ascertain the preferred route for sewering the south end of town; or they can build their own sewer line across Chalk Mountain Golf Course per the original tentative map conditions. I hope this explains the origin and history of Tract 1488's sewage disposal condition, item 10E. i \ AlTERNATB a ACTEbATe A 1 � WSW 8.la4J,N- `; ; tam crt�►t� � f � Y A%k - KOMAL CONDITION � . OF TRACT MAP 1498 1 , E5'WATEp COST Fd A?MXMA LY �� AVRCE MAN -- PROfoejjO 10, �: Ln.., y o� J MeW 10"CrWITY MaiN a GOLF cws AouhE 28 v TRACT 1488 vi toA&TA b cola A.T NEW G' roace MAtN CITY KOP05ED ALIERMATO E - �c. G"FORC6 AWAt ,w eE mp"ao M :j?i44.OW DEvELOP�R 5�{/ = �et,0 ' Ilry COIIMTY SKW :41C4,400 ZC&3- foRCAC.Am IbL .3.. �. u �. x'70 a GOLF COURSE i� �J ev 1 NPw uFr Qi 'y EL BORDo , STATION Kew 4" FORCE MAIM s , �.� CMV ELOPER z S 00'r: 92.453 (Ot APTAW 'Co C(TY) FWC6 MAIM Iovi r/ miry I it COST ESTIMATE FOR SEWERING OF TRACT 1488 VIA PUMP STATION COST ESTIMATE BASED UPON NORTH COAST ENGINEERING 9-26-91 COST ESTIMATES FOR THE SEWERING OF SOUTH-EAST PORTION OF ATASCADERO LAKE AREA. MINIMUM SIZED PUMP STATION........... $ 50,000.00 778 FEET, 4" FORCEMAIN, @ $12/FT....... $ 9336.00 960 FEET, 8" GRAVITY LINE @ $26/FT.... $ 24,960.00 3 MANHOLES @ $1850 ea....................... $ 5550.00 ROADWAY TRENCH REPAIR @ $1.50/FT...$ 2607.00 TOTAL $ 929453.00 i ATTACHMENT C • M E M O R A N D U M TO: Planning Commission FROM:-P.PDoug Davidson, Senior Planner RE: Tentative Tract Map 02-87 - Metchik/Central Coast Eng. Time Extension Reconsideration - Conditions of Approval DATE: May 5, 1992 RECOMMENDATION• Staff recommends approval of the Reconsideration of Tentative Tract Map 02-87 (Tract 1488) and approval of the time extension based on the revised Conditions of Approval as contained in Attachment D. This action would extend the approval and final expiration date to April 26, 1993. BACKGROUND: The above referenced map was originally approved by the Planning Commission on April 7, 1987 and subsequently approved by the City Council on June 23, 1987. The map was reconsidered by the Planning Commission on April 5, 1988 and ultimately approved by the City Council on April 26, 1988. On June 26, 1990 the City Council granted a one year time extension until April 26, 1991. On June 25, 1991 a second time extension was granted by the City Council to expire on April 26, 1992. This extension request is the third and last extension allowed under the Subdivision Map Act. The application also includes a request to reconsider the requirement for full construction of Vista Bonita Ave. and allow for the option of bonding for all required improvements. Although, not a part of this Reconsideration, adjacent Tract 1562 was conditioned to conform to the road improvement requirements of the subject Tract 1488. At the time of Tract 1562 approval, both tracts of land were under single ownership. Tract 1562 is located on the southwest face of Chalk Mountain and also fronts on the Vista Bonita right-of-way. (Attachment C compares the two tracts) . ANALYSIS: • Time Extension The applicant has requested an extension in order to complete the required conditions of approval. The applicant' s representative (Central Coast Engineering) is currently addressing these substantial improvement requirements in the final map check process. Coordinating these improvements with the adjacent tract (Tract 1562) is also being undertaken. Since a continual effort is being made toward completion of the project, the map should be extended for one more year. Reconsideration The applicant is requesting that the requirement to construct Vista Bonita Ave. to its westerly terminus be eliminated (see Attachments A and B) . Instead, under the developer's proposal, Vista Bonita would be constructed to the beginning of the private road (Pico Blanco) ending in a cul-de-sac as shown on Attachment C. The private road would be constructed from the cul-de-sac to serve the eight lots as approved in 1988. The applicants contend that the construction of Vista Bonita throughout the existing right-of-way is an excessive, economically infeasible requirement and does not agree with the approved road alignments for the adjacent Tract 1562. In addition the reconsideration includes a request to allow bonding for all required improvements (on and Off site) . Response from the Planning and Engineering Divisions Staff agrees with the applicant' s premise that the construction of Vista Bonita is not practical given the approved road alignments for the two tracts, nor desirable considering the physical constraints of Chalk Mountain. Both Tract 1488 and Tract 1562 were resubdivisions of existing lots and did not result in the creation of any new lots. Through a Planned Development Overlay (PD) Zone the original Colony lots were realigned to cluster the residential development and preserve a large amount of open space on Chalk Mountain. Similarly, the road alignments for both tracts were adjusted to respect the natural topography. As is shown on Attachment C, a private road (Pico Blanco) was designated to serve the eight (8) lots of Tract 1488 and the Vista Bonita right-of-way was relocated to a lower, more sensitive route to provide access to the six lots of Tract 1562. The grading plans and cross-sections reviewed in these two subdivision applications demonstrated that this approach would present the least visual exposure of residences and road embankments. Essential to this argument to reconsider the Conditions of Approval is the fact that Tract 1488 was conditioned prior to the approval and relocation of Vista Bonita Ave. for Tract 1562. With the road relocation, the full construction of Vista Bonita Ave. to the right-of-way terminus is not necessary for access. For this reason, the existing Vista Bonita right-oaf-way is to be abandoned upon recordation of Tract 1562. The request to allow bonding for all required improvements is a confirmation of the original conditions. The 1988 conditions of Tract 1488 allows the posting of bonds for road and drainage improvements. Proposed revised Condition #15 (Attachment D) reaffirms that the posting of securities is a reasonable performance guarantee in this case. In addition to Condition #2 (road improvements) , the proposed revised Conditions also reflect current sewer connection policy (Condition #10, formerly Condition #13) . CONCLUSIONS: Tract 1488 and 1562 were originally approved because the design respected the terrain and prominent visibility of Chalk Mountain. The reconsideration of Tract 1488 better carries out this intent and also reflects current City development standards. The condition to fully construct Vista Bonita Ave. in its right-of- way has frustrated attempts to final the map while still protecting Chalk Mountain. By incorporating the subsequent approval and separate ownership of Tract 1562, Tract 1488 should be able to proceed toward final recordation without impeding the progress of Tract 1562. Attachments: Attachment A - Request for Reconsideration/Extension Attachment B - Letter from Applicant Attachment C - Reconsideration Map Attachment D - Revised Conditions of Approval Attachment E - Approved Map - Tract 1562 Attachment F - Prior Staff Report ('4/26/88) ATTACHMENT A RECONSIDERATION l TTM 02-87 (TRACT 1488) CENTRAL COAST ENGINEERING 396 Buckley Road 15 January 1992 San Luis Obispo E-1787 California 93401 City of Atascadero Planning Department 6500 Palma Avenue Atascadero, CA 93422 Attn: Doug Davidson Re: Tract 1488 (Metchik) Doug... With respect to the above mentioned tract subdivision,we are formally requesting a "reconsideration of conditions." Enclosed items include: 1. Application. 1992 2. Fee of$330.00. JAN 21 3. Blueprint copies of map. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 4. 8.5"x 11"reduction. We are requesting that the conditions 2c and 12 be deleted entirely. In lieu, condition 11 be rewritten to read, "Improve Vista Bonita to the following standard: 24' road bed with 20'A.C. travel way, minimum 50' centerline radius ending in a cul- de-sac with an edge of pavement radius a minimum of 40'. Limits: From El Bordo to its intersection with the beginning of the private road." Explanations for the reconsideration request are as follows: 1. Ancient unengineered fills (sluffs), deposited when the site was used as a quarry, lie within the paper alignment of Vista Bonita making_ roadway construction within this alignment economically infeasible. Telephone(805)544-3278 33 � v 1 121 (8 v133�� I E1787-wps f January 15, 1992 2 2. The practical, existing traveled alignment to the water tank does not entirely fall within the right-of-way of Vista Bonita. Beyond the tank site, the existing traveled alignment"zig-zags", crossing the right-of-way repeatedly. 3. Tentatively approved Tract 1562, with condition 10, is to provide road improvement plans that with condition 10a, specifically for Vista Bonita, "conform to design of improvements being prepared for Tract 1488 (Spanish Ridge)". Next, Tract 1562 proposes a road alignment that does not follow the recorded Vista Bonita location. This new alignment, complies with their condition 10a that states the design"shall include measures to save and preserve trees within the right-of-way." If construction of Vista Bonita from the private road to its terminus remains a condition of Tract 1488, Chalk Mountain would have two paralleling roadways to its top. This second roadway, unused by residents, would become another "hangout" needing City attention. 4. Tentative Tract 1562, with condition 18, is to offer to dedicate "10 feet of Vista Bonita, from centerline along property frontage" making it extremely difficult to keep the roadway within the public portion. With the placement of a cul-de-sac as stated above, any concerns that the City's circulation plan needing study becomes moot. Secondly, we are requesting a clarification on bonding. Condition 2a permits bonding for road improvements and Condition 4c allows bonding for drainage work. Because of the extensive work and cost involved with construction of offsite and 0000,17 E1787.wps , January 15, 1992 3 onsite improvements, we are requesting an added condition stating "All offsite and onsite improvement shall be completed (or bonded for) prior to recording the final map. Lastly,we formally request our final time extension. The present extension expires 26 April 1992. Thankx for your time and consideration... ennisc t 30007r�,,ii`LyytfE� y 6 E1787.wps 'f+� ATTACHMENT B RECONSIDERATION TTM 02-87 (TRACT 1488) CENTRAL COAST ENGINEERING 28 February 1992 396 Buckley Road �:►pR San Luis Obispo OPMENj E-1787 California 93401 City of Atascadero Engineering Department 6500 Palma Avenue Atascadero, CA 93422 Re: Tract 1488 Reconsideration Staff... Please continue processing the reconsideration as requested in the application dated 15 January 1992. In studying this project with respect to the improvement of Vista Bonita from the private road to the westerly terminus, here is our understanding of the history: Original approval of Tentative Tract 1488 by City Council occurred June 23, 1987. At this time, project owners concurred with the condition because the existing dedication traversed the length of their properties. There were no development applications made for lands adjacent. Ownership then changed hands to parties having real property interest in adjacent lands now known as Tentative Tract 1562. Next, a subdivision application was submitted for said map Trad 15052. Through thL approval process, Planning Staff working with the applicant discovered that Vista Bonita if constructed within it's right-of-way would expose buildings above the ridgelines of Chalk Mountain. An agreement was made to move access to a lower, more site sensitive location preventing exposure and that would still allow Tentative Tract 1488 to be in compliance with conditions. It is important that there was one ownership of the two maps and the construction of the new alignment would be built by this entity. Next, Tract 1488 was sold and the two maps are�lcurrently held by two Telephone(805) 544-3278 E-1787B.wps February 28, 1992 2 separate, non-related entities. Presently, Engineering staff is requiring construction of Vista Bonita within it's limits as originally conditioned. Present ownership of Tract 1488 considers this requirement unreasonable. Bases for their contention are: 1. Ancient, unengineered fill (sluff) along the alignment make construction economically infeasible. 2. Environmental characteristics within the alignment prevent construction to be sensitive. 3. If constructed, tentatively approved Tract 1562 units would be visually exposed. Second, the owners are requesting limiting public road construction as delineated on the reconsideration map. Bases for the reconsideration being: 1. Findings for "Nexus" as required by the Government Code, has not been established by staff. 2. There is "no general use of the lots within the subdivision" as defined within the Government Code. 3. Vista Bonita, if constructed as shovni, does not cont ct with the City's General and Circulation Plans. 4. The requirement"is excessive to the extent it is not necessary to meet public needs arising as a result of the subdivision" as defined within the Government Code. 300060 - E-1787B.wps =: February 28, 1992 3 5. Limiting construction as requested, still allows Tract 1562 to comply with their condition 10a which requires access to "conform to the design of improvements being prepared for Tract 1488 (Spanish Ridge)." To conclude, tentatively approved Tracts 1488 and 1562 both use appropriately located private roads for access as allowed within the "Zoning Ordinance." The construction of Vista Bonita would create a third paved section on Chalk Mountain, with no practical use and benefit. Thanla for your time and consideration... tv,�GNw► ot ennisc neat oao08' E-1787B.wps r r ATTACHMENT C A '`� CITY OF ATASCAD RECONSIDERATION MAP �c�,ne��2� � COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TTM 02-87 (TRACT 1488) DEPARTMENT 6:ALt�P•4C' RECONSIDERATION MAP FOR BEING A SUBDIVISION OE PORTIONS 'r'"-��` `•\ \� •-�'�`� OF LOTS 6 d 7 AND LOTS 10 THRU 15 OF TRACT S IN THE CITY OF \�`s•�''\,• ��` _`�\`•\'-. �� ATASCADERO.COUNTY OF SAN �i \ \\\\ t r' �` \``.-w• LUIS OBISPO.CALIFORNIA. Ii `l •� Ic \ ` \�� \ \ \`•�\`\ `\ CENTRAL COAll ENGINEERING 10 FT.DEDICATION-____--•- \``... ����ti 1 U �\l`�•_`•.-- ! PER TRACT t382 \ti\` ` C���-.:-J_\1r1...�,i�.-,�•�'^�1 } �r�' ` PRIVATE ROAD ALIGNMENT _�- ` �_J \ _ •``,' _' PEA TRACT 1382 1"' -•--r-WATER TANK 17 :`• .v a l;;- EXISTING 40 PT.ROAD EASEMENT Ex1S TING TRAVEL WAY'-- J `� 't tiA AND PROPOSED 20 f7.'II �• <• <j L OFFSITE •�'�..f 11 th�'`-%fit 20 FT DEDICATION PER TRACT 1438 PER TRACT 1382 J ^ ,t, -f1 •:�F•�-=� PRIVATE ROAD ALIGNMENT \\ PER TRACT 1488 Cut-OE-SAC PER a - TRACT 1488 RECONSIDERATION - ' �•..,..�'� REOUEST - >' \ E L D O R O O A V E N U E VICINITY MAP --------�_____-�- .•.:r - ... A t. a .•. .: •. �000U ; M- sa EXHIBIT D - Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract Map 2-87 Reconsideration Revised by the Planning Commission May 5, 1992/JUNE 2, 1992 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The applicant shall annex to the sewer district and pay fees in effect at the time of annexation prior to recording the final map. All other sewer fees in effect shall be paid at the time of issuance of connection permits. a. Waste water disposal shall be connected to the public sewer. b. Obtain a sewer connection permit from the Public Works Department prior to hooking up to public sewer. 2. Improvement plans prepared by a registered civil engineer must be submitted to and approved by the Community Development, Fire and Public Works Departments prior to recording the final map. Road improvement plans shall include Vista Bonita and the private road. a. Construction of the public road improvements shall be completed (or bonded for) prior to recording the final map. Upon approval of the Public Works Director, the property owner(s) may enter into a deferral agreement for the construction of the public improvements. The deferred improvements shall be secured by a 150% performance guarantee, in a format acceptable to the City Attorney. Said guarantee shall be posted with the City, and said agreement shall be recorded prior to the recording of the map. b. Fire hydrants shall be installed at the intersection of Vista Bonita and the private road and opposite the property line between Lots 4 and 5 along private road. Exact design and location to be approved by the Fire Department. C. Water main design shall be reviewed by the Fire Depart- ment and pressure booster pump may be required if water pressure is found to be inadequate for fire protection. d. If road improvements designs require the relocation of 16" water main, the cost shall be paid by the developer. Relocation of all utilities which conflict with proposed improvement, shall be at the expense of the developer. e. Access roads shall not exceed 20% f. All utilities serving this site and the lots shall be underground. 10006-1 3. A 6 ' 0" Public Utility Easement shall be provided on all pri- vate property perimeters within the tract. a. Encroachment Permits are required prior to doing any work within the public right-of-way. 4. Grading & drainage plans prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer must be submitted to and approved by the Department of Public Works and the Community Development Department prior to recording final map. a. Secure a drainage acceptance ,letter from the County stat- ing that they reviewed the Drainage Plan and find it acceptable prior to the recording of final map or issuance of a building permit. b. Drainage Facilities shall be constructed to City of Atas- cadero Standards. C* All drainage work shall be completed (or bonded for) prior to recording final map. 5. Prior to recording the final map, a soil investigation (as required by the Map Act) shall be submitted, recommending cor- rective action which will prevent structural damage to each structure proposed to be constructed in the area where soil problems exist, as indicated in the Preliminary Soil Report dated November 1986 and any revisions. The date of such reports, the name of the engineer making the report, and the location where the reports are on file shall be noted on the final map. 6. All grading and erosion control measures shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and constructed in accordance with the City of Atascadero grading codes and standards. Prior to final building inspection, said engineer shall submit to the City written certification that grading is in compli- ance with said codes and standards. 7. Install all street signs, traffic delineation devices, warning and regulatory signs, guardrail, barricades, and other similar devices where required by the Director of Public Works. Signs shall be in conformance with the Department of Public Works standards and the current State of California Uniform Sign Chart. Installation of traffic devices shall be subject to review and modification after construction. 8. Offer of Dedication to City of Atascadero the following rights-of-way and/or easements: a. Acquire the necessary property from the Atascadero Mutual Water Co. to accommodate the realignment of Vista Bonita. This right-of-way width shall be dedicated to i�+�lity � the City of Atascadero for road purposes. The minimum width shall be 50 feet. b. Offer the Vista Bonita Ave. right-of-way for road purposes. The offer shall be made from E1 Bordo Ave. to the private road and cul-de-sac, 25 feet from centerline. C. The length of the entire private road (or limits as determined by the Public Works Director) shall be offered for sanitary sewer purposes, 10 feet from centerline of the private road access easement. d. Offer of Dedication to the public of the ,required Public Utilities Easements. All offers of dedication shall be recorded prior to or simultaneously with the recording of the map. 9. Vista Bonita shall be constructed to Atascadero City Standard Drawing 402. The construction limits shall be from E1 Bordo to the entrance of the private road. The Public Works Director may adjust the road alignment, construction limits, roadway, and traveled width due to the topography of the site. a. The cul-de-sac shall be constructed according to City of Atascadero Standard Drawing 415, or a turn-around according City Standard Drawing 429 (3) , on E1 Bordo Ave. at the entrance of the private road. b. The private road shall consist of 20 feet paved traveled way within a 30 foot wide access easement; minimum 50 feet centerline radius. The entrance to this road shall be designed such that it' s centerline intersection with the centerline of Vista Bonita Ave. be as close to a 90 degree angle as possible. 10. Applicant shall submit a sewer plan prepared by a registered civil engineer for review and approval by the Department of Public Works prior to recording the final map. The sewer line shall be constructed along Vista Bonita Ave. and the private road to City standards as follows: a. Along Vista Bonita, from E1 Bordo Ave. to the private road. b. From Vista Bonita, along the entire length of the private road, or as directed by the Director of Public Works. Sewer improvements shall include, but not be limited to the following: • C. Construction of a manhole at the junction of Vista Bonita and the private road, with a 8" stubbed pipe for future sewer main extension along Vista Bonita. d. Termination of the sewer main in the private road with a manhole. e. Contribution of 25% of the total cost of construction for the E1 Bordo Relief Sewer Project. Approval of the tentative map is contingent upon the completion of the El Bordo Relief Sewer Relief project. 11. Each lot shall have a separate water meter and service. The applicant shall establish Covenants, Conditions, and Restric- tions (CC&Rs) for the regulation of land use, control of nuisances, architectural control of all buildings, driveway and landscaping maintenance. a. These CC&Rs shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Attorney and Community Development Department prior to approval of the final map. b. A Drainage Maintenance Agreement, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney shall be recorded with the deed to each parcel at the time it is first conveyed and a note to this effect shall be placed in the C.C.R. . 12. Zone Change 1-87 shall be approved and in effect prior to the recording of the final map. 13. Applicant shall gain approval of a street name for the pri- vate road and it shall be shown on the final map. 14. A final map, in compliance with all conditions set forth herein, shall be submitted for review and approval in accord- ance 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 shall 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 sub- mitted for review in conjunction with the processing of the final map. 15. All required public and private improvements shall be completed or bonded for prior to recording the map. 16. Approval of this tentative tract 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. ATTACHMENT E APPROVED TRACT 1562 CITY OF ATASCADERO RECONSIDERATION (TTM 02-87 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TRACT 1488 DEPARTMENT — h1h'uty-"I uE rL! r"� __�_..__.._... - __.. I � - \•, \ Its I TRACT 1562 I _ r : •,.`'� ,;a �: TENTATIVE MAP � i-',• 'r`i.fie t CHALK mouNrAIN, ArASCAOER0 I � •i� .� _���•• –�`�. _ .rrasawnr.�r -`'� Y`i.•���'�``�•"��.�j 1 1 t®A I .+.•eaea IOTA `OF 5 ^"Y LOT LOT I LOT? • .OFeWAM h tRACT t5,i2 •1. i 20 ':1;.� .�^`� `a.t•� t� — ti .!"`. •�"'�i. ; –1-'OA' YICW rV IAM ~ —• -- ;i = 30006 .tom )GE ju I OA fTE�A 4 W1 ATTACHMENT F PRIOR STAFF REPORT RECONSIDERATION (TTM 02-87) M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council April 26 , 1988 VIA: Paul Sensibaugh, Acting City Manager FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director WS SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 2-87 LOCATION: 9385 Vista Bonita APPLICANT: Robert and Patricia Nimmo (Michael Yeomans) REQUEST: To modify the resubdivision of 8 existing lots totaling 6 . 98 acres into 3 lots varying in size from 5 , 520 to 6 , 750 square feet and open space lot of 5 .33 acres , to revise approved road name. BACKGROUND: At their April 5 , 1988 meeting, the Atascadero Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on this reconsideration of a previously approved map. on a 6 : 0 vote, the Commission approved the request subject to the findings and conditions contained in the attached staff report. There was discussion and public testimony given as reflected in the attached minutes excerpts . RECOMMENDATION: Approval of Tentative Tract Map 2-87 ( reconsideration of) per the Planning Commission' s recommendation. HE :ps Attachments : Staff Report - April 5 , 1988 Minutes Excerpt - April 5 , 1988 cc : Robert and Patricia Nimmo Michael Yeomans N + G AG DA �= ITFJIA �• CITY OF ATASCADERO STAFF REPORT FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: April 5, 1988 BY: Joel Moses, Associate Planner File No: TTM 2-87 SUBJECT: Reconsideration of Tentative Tract Map 2-87 to allow for the resubdivision of 8 existing parcels totaling 6. 98 acres into 8 residential parcels varying in size from 6750 to 5520 square feet and an open space lot of 5.33 acres and to revise the approved road name. A. SITUATION AND FACTS: 1. Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Robert Nimmo 2. Representative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Michael Yeomans 3. Project Address. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9385 Vista Bonita Road 4. Legal Description. . . . . . . . . . . .Lots 6,7 & 10 through 15 Tract 5, Atasc. 5. Site -Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. 98 acres 6. Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .RSF-Z (Residential Single Family) 1 1/2 acre without sewer, 1 acre with sewer minimum lot size. 7. General Plan Designation. . . . .Low Density Single Family 8. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Vacant 9. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Prior Negative Declaration B. ANALYSIS: The applicant proposes a redesign of the previously approved tract map. The map proposes to subdivide 8 existing undeveloped parcel containing 6. 98 acres into 8 residential parcels containing 6750 to 5520 square feet, and an open space parcel to contain 5.33 acres. The subdivision will be served off of Vista 1 � T-� J a10006 � - Bonita by a private road currently designated as Trifon Garcia Road. The site is located in the RSF-Z (Residential Single Family) zone. Minimum lot size in this zone ranges between 1.5 and 2.5 acres depending on the "score" of the various performance standards. No new lots are being created for residential development so the minimum lot size would not apply due to the nonconforming status of the lots. The site also has a PD-7 overlay as a part of its zoning. The overlay sets a specific conceptual plan for the development of the site. The applicant is now proposing to shift the development area to the west. This move will relocate the residential units approximately 1801- 0" and the improvements approximately 1001- 0" across the face of the hill. The design will also be changed in that the previously approved turn around will now be located between two residential units as opposed to being at the end of the units. Also added is an access to the golf course. Staff reviewed the redesign and found that the new proposal did not conform to the approved tentative map. The plan conforms to the approved conceptual plan for the Planned Development overlay, however the Planning Commission is only reviewing a revision to the Tentative Map and not the zoning, unless the Planning Commission finds that the shift does not conform to the approved overlay. Comments were received from several outside agencies. Our Fire Department noted no change in the previously approved conditions. The State Department of Transportation has noted no problem with the proposal. The Southern California Gas Company has again noted that the site can be served by an existing 2 inch main in El Bordo If additional gas mains are installed, they will need to be within the Public Right-of-Way or within approved easements. Public Works presently reviewing the improvement plans for the development and indicates no problems with the revised project. They have, however recommended some minor revisions to the approved conditions.. The County has reached a conceptual approval with the developer on the sewer, and the 'pedestrian access to the golf course. At the time of the prior consideration staff noted a problem with the approval of Trifon Garcia as a road name. Staff still recommends the revision of the street name. C. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends conditional approval of Tentative Tract Map 2- 87 based on the previous Findings in Exhibit C and Revised Conditions of Approval in Exhibit D and revising the approved Is street name. 2 ii000JO r ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Location Map Exhibit B - Tentative Map Exhibit C - Findings for Approval Exhibit D - Conditions of Approval Exhibit E - Prior Staff Report Exhibit F - Project comparison JM/jm 3 EXHIBIT A - LOCATION MAP CITY Or Tentative Tract Map 2-87 y� ATASCADERO Vista Bonita �� ���� ' '"'•� Nimmo/Yeomans COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Reconsideration of Map DEPARTMENT ��_ �••��', '` � SITE: Vista Bonita \ TTM 2-87 Vista Bonita • - Nimmo/Yeomans Reconsideation R F•Z ' W \ RSF• (PD7) X. i\ 609. J � W ` f< i W W� T'lYT CR-r T. CT* N C Cr F O� - �P -RS 300WYA; . EXHIBIT B TENTATIVE MAP Tentative Tract Map 2-87 CITY OF ATASCADERO vista Bonita Nimmo/Yeomans 1111. s• COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Reconsideration of Map DEPARTMENT . r - = r c:eM.�.►Cs --- n A `���{'.( V �`,4k,- vra rr MAP �yti4L'a"1� �`"� sowr� .�,-. -_♦ ,•' ,•/ �-^^r' Y .lij��}�'•1 1 1�.1yL. ChACR I5 CER FIFICATE EMcrrreEa•s cEarlFlc.+rE 91/ J ; ; , REVISED _ TENTATIVE MAP e fyrcft saenon rm—a.rw %•^ + TRACT 1488 . .mCne'•;ranene+. -/' -j k!/!i •�%i'- /�~ .rrr•.nnr..r•e.rr... t./MW L.l. •' OI...A— 1.11 as Os..3sw. 1.33 k Cbr/IIY coast fin.�Mtns�. t...r... 11 .nn dirire.r•r ����Yrs h.1..IN LN. / l...b.NM 1,f0 Aa �� r w -err �•"•r� 0-3 J , XHrBIT C TENTATIVE MAP HNTATIVE TRACT MAP 2-87 VISTA BONITA NIMMO/YEOMANS RECONSIDERATION OF MAF FINDINGS: 1. The creation of these parcels conforms to the City' s Zoning Ordi- nance and the General Plan, Land Use Element and policies. 2. The creation of these parcels, in conformance with the recommended conditions of approval, will not have a significant adverse effect upon the environment. The Negative Declaration prepared for the project is adequate. 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 and the proposed improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish and wildlife or their habitat. . 6 . The design of _the subdivision and the type of improvement will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at .large for access 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. 4 EXHIBIT D - Tentative Tract Map 2-87 Reconsideration Conditions of Approval April 15 , 1988 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1 . The applicant shall annex to the sewer district and pay fees in effect at the time of annexation prior to recording the final map. All other sewer fees in effect shall be paid at the time of issuance of connection permits . a. Waste water disposal shall be connected to the public sewer. b . Obtain a sewer connection permit from the Public Works Department prior to hooking up to public sewer. � . Improvement plans prepared by a registered civil engineer must be submitted to and approved by the Community Development, Fire and Public Works Departments prior to recording the final map. Road improvement plans shall include Vista Bonita and the private road. a. Construction of road improvements shall be completed (or bonded for ) prior to recording final' map . b . Construct Atascadero City standard cul-de-sac or turnaround as approved by the Fire Department . C . Upon approval by the Director of Public Works , the property owner(s) may enter into a deferral agreement for the constructioi of Vista Bonita Westerly of intersection of private road. d. Prior to approval of the improvement plans by the Director of Public Works, either the Subdivider shall acquire sufficient title or interest in the off-site land to allow the improvements to be made as required by these conditions; or the City Council, upon request by and at the expense of the subdivider, shall have made all appropriate finding and adopted a Resolution of Necessity as required by law so that the City may exercise its power of Eminent Domain. e . Submit proof, as required by the Department of Public Works , that access roads are constructed within their legal easements . f . Fire hydrants shall be installed at the intersection of Vista Bonita and the private road and opposite the property line between Lots 4 and 5 along private road. Exact design and location to be approved by the Fire Department . r g. Water main design shall be reviewed by the Fire Department and pressure booster pump may be required if water pressure is found to be inadequate for fire protection. h. If road improvements designs require the relocation of 16" water main, the cost shall be paid by the developer. Relocation of all utilities which conflict with proposed improvement, shall be at the expense of the developer. i . Access road shall not exceed 20%. j . All utilities serving this site and the lots shall be underground. 3 . A 6 ' 0" Public Utility Easement shall be provided on all private property perimeters within the tract. a. Encroachment Permits are required prior to doing any work within the public right-of-way. 4 . Grading & drainage plans prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer :rust be submitted to and approved by the Department of ?ublic Works and the Community Development Department prior to recording final map. a. Secure a drainage acceptance letter from the County stating t :at they reviewed the Drainage Plan and find it acceptable prior to the recording of final map or issuance of a building permit. b . Drainage Facilities shall be constructed to City of Atascadero Standards . C . All drainage work shall be completed (or bonded for) prior to recording final map. 5 . Prior to recording the final map, a soil investigation ( as required by the Map Act) shall be submitted, recommending corrective action which will prevent structural damage to each structure proposed to be constructed in the area where soil problems exist, as indicated in the Preliminary Soil Report dated November 1936 and any revisions . The date of such reports, the name of the engineer making the report, and the location where the reports are on file shall be :toted on the final map. 6 . Offer for Dedication to the public of the required Public Utilities easements . 2 7 . Offers of dedication shall be completed and recorded prior to or simultaneous to recording final map. 3 . All grading and erosion control measures shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and constructed in accordance with the City of Atascadero grading codes and standards . Prior to final building inspection, said engineer shall submit to the City written certification that grading is in compliance with said codes and standards . 9 . Install all street signs , traffic delineation devices , warning and regulatory signs, guardrail , barricades , and other similar devices where required by the Director of Public Works . Signs shall be in conformance with the Department of Public Works standards and the current State of California Uniform Sign Chart. installation of traffic devices shall be subject to review and modification after construction. 10 . Offer of Dedication to City of Atascadero the following rights-of way and/or easements : Street Name : Vista Bonita Limits : Property frontage minimum width: 20 ' from centerline of right-of-way 11 . improve Vista Bonita to the -Foilowing standard: 24 ` Road Bed with 20 ' A.C. traveled way, minimum 50 ' cenLe_1_ne radius . Limits : From El Bordo to Westerly Terminus of Vista Bonita. improve private road to the following standard: 20 ' A.C. Traveled Way within a 30 ' wide access easement; minimum 70 ' centerline radius . 12 . improve Vista Bonita to the following standard: 24 ' Road Bed with 20 ' A.C. Traveled Way Limits : From E1 Bordo to Private Road. Vista Bonita from Private Road to Westerly Terminus of El Dorado, 20' Road Bed with 16 ' A.C. Traveled Way. The Director of Public Works may adjust Roadway & Traveled Way width due to topographies of site. The Director of Public Works may allow deferral of Vista Bonita from private road to terminus until other development would create the need for the road improvement. 3 • 13 . Provide Sewer Main Extension Plan acceptable to the Director of Public works . Main extension shall be thru Golf Course or Las Lomas to Pina Solo. Easement thru Golf Course, if this alternate is selected, shall be recorded prior to recording final map. 14 . Each lot shall have a separate water meter and service. The applicant shall establish Covenants, Conditions , and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the regulation of land use; control of nuisances, architectural control of all buildings , driveway and landscaping maintenance. a . These CC&Rs shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Attorney and Community Development Department prior to approval of the final map. b . A Drainage Maintenance Agreement, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney shall be recorded with the deed to each parcel at the time it is first conveyed and a note to this effect shall be placed in the G.C.R. . 15 . Zone Change 1-87 shall be approved and in effect prior to the recording the final map. 16 . Applicant shall gain approval of a street name for the priva-e road and it shall be shown on the final map. 17 . A final map, in compliance with all conditions set forth herein, shall be submitted for review and approval in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act .and the City Lot Division ordinance prior to recordation. a. Monuments shall be set at all new property corners created and a Registered Civil Engineer or licensed Lard Surveyor shall indicate, by certificate on the final map, that corners have been ser or shall 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 submitted for review in conjunction with the processing of the final map. 13 . Approval of this tentative tract 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 . 4 r - IBIT E - Prior Staff Re. Tentative Tract Map 2-87 (Nimmo/Yeomans) Tentative Tract Map 2-87 Vista Bonita Nimmo/Yeomans City of Atascadero Reconsideration of Map STAFF REPORT 40 FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: 4/7/87 BY: Joel Moses, Associate Planner File No: TTM 2-87 Project Address: 9385 Vista Bonita Road SUBJECT: Request proposing a residential resubdivision of 8 lots into 9 lots, with eight of the lots varying in size from 5,520 to 6,750 square feet for residential use and one 4.94 acre lot for open space. The pro- posal also includes a request to establish Trifon Garcia Lane as a road name for a proposed private road. BACKGROUND: The applicants have applied for a zone change (ZC 1-87) to allow for a small lot subdivision (below the normal 1 1/2 to 2 1/2 acre) that is being considered along with the proposed tract map for the site. Notice of public hearing was published in the Atascadero News on Fri- day, March 27 , 198.7. All property owners of record located within 300 feet of the subject property were also notified 'on that date. A. LOCATION: 9385 Vista Bonita Road (Lots 6,7, & . 10 through 15 , Tract 5) B. SITUATION AND FACTS: 1. Request. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Resubdivision of 8 lots totaling 6.98 acres into 9 lots with 8 lots varying in size from 5,520 to 6 ,750 square feet for resi- dential development, and one lot of 4.94 acres for open space, and to establish Trifon Garcia Road as a private road name. 2. Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Robert Nimmo/Michael Yeomans 3. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6.98 acres 4. Streets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Vista Bonita 5. Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .RSF-Z (Residential Single Family 1 1/2 acre without sewer, 1 acre with sewer minimum lot size) 6. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Vacant 1 �itlU(1 Tentative Tract Map 2-87 (Nimmo/Yeomans) 7. Adjacent Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . .North: County, golf course South: RSF-Z, vacant, water tank, residence East: County, golf course West: RSF-Z , residence 8 . General Plan Designation. . . . .Low Density Single Family 9. Terrain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Steeply sloping down to the north 10. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Proposed Negative Declaration C. ANALYSIS: The proposed tentative tract map before the Commission proposes the resubdivision of eight existing residential lots totaling 6.98 acres into eight residential lots and one open space lot. The current zoning of RSF-Z, allowing for a density of 1 1/2 to 2 1/2 acres, is currently under review for revision. The proposed zone change application (ZC 1-87) would add a planned development over- lay allowing for a small lot subdivision. The proposed map con- forms to the proposed Site Master Plan and the proposal will also conform to the City' s General Plan. In a review of outside agencies, several comments , were received about development of the site. A preliminary soils report has been submitted and reviewed. The site' s development will require special attention at the time of construction. Concerns of poten- tial drainage and septic construction were noted. The site' s drainage will have to conform to the existing City ordinances and a letter of drainage acceptance will be needed. Due to the lots small size, public sewers will be needed for the project. The applicant is currently working with Public Works to set a specific design for the extension of the sewer lines to the site. Public Works has not yet received a request for annexation to the Sewer District, but no problem is foreseen in the approval of such a request since the site is within the Urban Services Line. Other concerns expressed by outside agencies are- routinely covered in standard conditions. The site' s Master Plan for development has been reviewed under Zone Change 1-87. As such, the proposed project has previously been reviewed and conditions generally set. The approval of the proposed tract map will simply be the implementation of the zoning approval. The proposed road name of Trifon Garcia Lane has been reviewed with the Emergency Services Agencies and has been deemed to be inappropriate. The City already has a Garcia Road (north end of the City) . Staff would recommend that the applicant submit a new road name at a later date. 0 2 Tentative Tract Map 2-87 (Nimmo/Yeomans) D. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends conditional approval of Tentative Tract Map 2-87 based on the Findings in Exhibit D and the Conditions of Approval in Exhibit E. JM:ps ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Location Map Exhibit B - Site Plan Exhibit C - Developer 's Statement Exhibit D - Findings for Approval Exhibit E - Conditions of Approval 3 W 5I TE' 93&rV IS7A W'NTA ZC.:1 • 87 4TTM Z-87 M • (PD i 2 i `.r ♦♦ t / `dab ♦`� : I f ♦ � Mi. c�yJo � ao v CR 6 Or Q r _ I NF / C / ••� ... rvE D«I IS tT- A LLLAnCf4 M" R S ZDNE-CRAMi,E ZC 11 -S7 TD- JMnUETVWT MW 73 15TH 1304 119 A TT I X2.87 '�t ll, :Yea; � _ .. �.I f_ ::I•' lil�ll''.�: �I�' I I•It Q. 11.. �' .,1 � Z `` 41I 11 e-•y ' , 1":� 1� 1 �l ►,I�I II �� . it • � � �� - •� ll1�`-�t�l'�•"� moi, =�,,:/���/� l� � ---.t' AX � - " I i �4 I --F'— :h�.• 'pis.IF/i I -.'• .,��^',%a` � /// � ' ' ` j l 141, � NX . -- T--_i':• •rii. ,I ' '��%/ i, / I I it nrp � l ££ moo �?L T. QmQ�'a z �• .y t•- n 03 rri 03 PZZ �i �7d sl tf !tt 1�HI811'B 517E r LJ G -tt�l 7ENM11VE TZPCr MAY Tile?2-57 9385 V tSTA SDN 1T'R NIMMO - VEDYAA V% SUPPLEMENTAL DEVELOPMENT STATEMENT FOR SPANISH RIDGE This application seeks to create an eight unit planned develop- ment of single family homes which we refer' to as Spanish Ridge or Tract 1488. The site is 6.98 acres located on the north face of Chalk Mountain overlooking the Regional Park and Golf 'Course. Most of the site is quite steep with slopes well in excess of 30% and is covered with native brush, some large oaks and a few pines. The 6.98 acres is currently divided into eight legal lots as the result of the recordation of Tract 5 in August of 1931. This proposal is submitted as an alternative development plan to the construction of eight single family houses; one each on the existing eight lots. There exist on the eastern portion of this site an area which is flatter and easier to access. This area was once used as a quarry site, see preliminary soils report, and as a result of that activity it has less significant vegetation than the remainder of the site. It is the purpose of _this application to employ the planned development overlay zone, as outlined in Atascadero's existing General Plan and Zoning text, to allow for the construction of the eight single family homes in the area most suitable for development. Although the newly created residential lots would be smaller than those normally found in this existing zoning, the creation of such lots are allowed as part of a planned develop- ment. It should be noted that this application does not seek a density increase. The use of the planned development concept in this application seeks to create a more sensitive development solution in regards to this site. The reasons we feel this plan is a more responsible development are as follows: A) 71% of the site will be preserved as an open space. B) The--access to the development area will be more sensitive to the existing terrain, and less area will be needed to make the access. C) It becomes feasible to bring sanitary sewer to the home- sites. This is preferable to the use of individual septics on the existing hillside. EXHIBIT G MEOPMONT STA;' 1 T�MA7IVC -WALT M/W T! MIZ•8- 93 b5 U 15M 7EMf A NI MD -VED m RIAS ? f: J' 001 014 is "W1 D) By limiting the amount of area to be used for development more of the native vegetation can be preserved. E) By placing the units in the flatter areas of the hillside their visual impact will be decreased. We hope that our planning efforts and design solutions will be accepted by the City of Atascadero in a positive manner. Sincerely, f� Michael P. Yeomans 2 Tentative Tract Map 2-87 (Nimmo/Yeomans) EXHIBIT D - Tentative Tract Map 2-87 Findings for Approval April 7, 1987 FINDINGS: 1. The creation of these parcels conforms to the City' s Zoning Ordi- nance and the General Plan, Land Use Element and policies. 2. The creation of these parcels, in conformance with the recommended conditions of approval, will not have a significant adverse effect upon the environment. The Negative Declaration prepared for the project is adequate. 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 and the proposed improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish and wildlife or their habitat. 6 . The design of the subdivision and the type of improvement will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access 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. • 4 :.300106 Tentative Tract Map 2-87 (Nimmo/Yeomans) EXHIBIT E - Tentative Tract Map 2-87 Conditions of Approval r AApril 7 1987' •' p t i I CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The applicant shall annex to the sewer district and pay fees in effect at the time of annexation prior to recording the final map. All other sewer fees in effect shall be paid at the time of is- suance of connection permits. a. Wastewater disposal shall be connected to the public sewer. b. Obtain a sewer connection permit from the Public Works De- partment prior to hooking up to public sewer. 2. Improvement plans prepared by a registered civil engineer must be submitted to and approved by the Community Development, Fire, and Public Works Departments prior to recording the final map. Road improvement plans shall include Vista Bonita and the private road. a. Construction of road improvements shall be completed (or bonded for) prior to recording final map. b. Construct Atascadero City standard Cul-De-Sac at the fol- lowing location: Terminus of the private road. C. Upon approval by the Director of Public Works, the property owner (s) may enter into a deferral agreement for the con- struction of Vista Bonita Westerly of intersection of private road. d. Prior to approval of the improvement plans by the Director of Public Works, either the Subdivider shall acquire suffic- ient title or interest in the off-site land to allow the im- provements to be made as required by these conditions; or the City Council, upon request by and at the expense of the sub- divider, shall have made all appropriate finding and adopted a Resolution of Necessity as required by law so that the City may exercise its power of Imminent Domain. e. Submit proof, as required by the Department of Public Works, that access roads are constructed with their legal easements. f. Fire hydrants shall be installed at the intersection of Vista Bonita and the private road and opposite the property line between Lots 4 and 5 along private road. Exact design and location to be approved by the Fire Department. i OIL Tentative Tract Map 2-87 (Nimmo/Yeomans) g. Water main design shall be reviewed by the Fire Department and pressure booster pump may be required if water pressure is found to be inadequate for fire protection. h. If road improvements designs require the relocation of 16" water main, the cost shall be paid by the developer. Reloca- tion of all utilities which conflict with proposed improve- ment, shall be at the expense of the developer. i. Access road shall not exceed 20%. j . All utilities serving this site and the lots shall be under- ground. 3. A 6 '0" Public Utility Easement shall be provided on all private property perimeters within the tract. a. Encroachment Permits are required prior to doing any work within the public right-of-way. 4. Grading & drainage plans prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer must be submitted to and approved by the Department of Public Works (and the Community Development Department) prior to record- ing final map. a. Secure a drainage acceptance letter from the County stating that they reviewed the Drainage Plan and find it acceptable prior to the recording of final map or issuande of a building permit. b. Drainage Facilities shall be constructed to City of Atasca- dero Standards. C. All drainage work shall be completed (or bonded for) prior to recording final map. 5. Prior to recording the final map, a soil investigation (as re- quired by the Map Act) shall be submitted, recommending corrective action which will prevent structural damage to each structure pro- posed to be constructed in the area where soil problems exist, as indicated in the Preliminary Soil Report dated November 1986. The date of such reports, the name of the engineer making the report, and the location where the reports .are on file shall be noted on the final map. 6 . Offer for Dedication to the public of the required Public Utili- ties easements. 7. Offers of dedication shall be completed and recorded prior to or simultaneous to recording final map. 8 . All grading and erosion control measures shall be designed by a isregistered Civil Engineer and constructed in accordance with the J0016 s �' Tentative Tract Map 2-87 (Nimmo/Yeomans) City of Atascadero grading codes and standards. Prior to final building inspection, said engineer shall submit to the City writ- ten certification that grading is in compliance with said codes and standards. 9. Install all street signs, traffic delineation devices, warning and regulatory signs, guardrail, barricades, and other similar devices where required by the Director of Public Works. Signs shall be in conformance with the Department of Public Works standards and the current State of California Uniform Sign Chart. Installation of traffic devices shall be subject to review and modification after construction. 10. Offer of Dedication to City of Atascadero the following rights- of-way and/or easements: Street Name: Vista Bonita Limits: Property frontage Minimum Width: 20' from centerline of right-of-way 11. Improve Vista Bonita to the following standard: 24 ' Road Bed with 20 ' A.C. traveled way, minimum 50 ' centerline radius. Limits: From El Bordo to Westerly Terminus of Vista Bonita. Improve private road to the following standard: 20 ' A.C. Traveled Way within a 30 ' wide access easement; minimum 50 ' centerline radius. 12. Improve Vista Bonita to the following standard: 24' Road Bed with 20 ' A.C. Traveled Way Limits: From E1 Bordo to Private Road. Vista Bonita from Pri- vate Road to Westerly Terminus of E1 Dorado, 20 ' Road Bed with 16 ' A.C. Traveled Way. The Director of Public Works may adjust Roadway & Traveled Way width due to topographics of site. The Director of Public Works may allow deferral of Vista Bonita from private road to terminus until other development would create the need for the road improvement. 13 . Provide Sewer Main Extension Plan acceptable to the Director of Public Works. Main extension shall be thru Golf Course or Las Lomas to Pina Solo. Easement thru Golf Course, if this alternate is selected, shall be recorded prior to recording final map. 14. Each lot shall have a separate water meter and service. B f Tentative Tract Map 2-87 (Nimmo/Yeomans) . The applicant shall establish Covenants, Conditions, and Restric- tions (CC&Rs) for the regulation of land use, control of nui- sances, architectural control of all buildings, driveway and land- scaping maintenance. a. These CC&Rs shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Attorney and Community Development Department prior to aproval of the final map. b. A Drainage Maintenance Agreement, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney shall be recorded with the deed to each parcel at the time it is first conveyed and a note to this effect shall be placed in the C.C.R. C. A Road Maintenance Agreement, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, shall be recorded with the deed to each parcel at the time it is first conveyed and a note to this effect shall be placed in the C.C.R. 15. Zone Change 1-87 shall be approved and in effect prior to the re- cording the final map. 16. Applicant shall gain approval of a street name for the private road and it shall be shown on the final map. 17. A final map, in compliance with all conditions set forth herein, shall be submitted for review and approval in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and the City Lot Division Ordinance prior to recordation. a. Monuments shall be set at all new property 'corners created and a Registered Civil Engineer or licensed Land Surveyor shall indicate, by certificate on the final map, that corners have been set or shall 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 sub- mitted for review in conjunction with the processing of the final map. 18 . Approval of this tentative tract 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. • �JUx�� ,AVS EXHIBIT F - Map Comp. Tentative Tract Man 2-87 CITY OF ATASCADERO vista Bonita <171 = f r:,•� Nimmo/Yeomans �� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Reconsideration of Map DEPARTMENT CURVE 0,0.413 L/AJE aq rA K t ,: o:wt�ac oust U '„y '3 ;�` 6 Sim,i'•✓ i � �, _. J!�\.�•w� -✓'' V •rte./ a c.•= r r w•r• . � ,,.,,, J�",d r r U� .-r.� ..rt f j`' ,r••��y� �'�r'� +; , w • ,� wNr r . Ys 'r'• .t- r¢0.J.Ow / \yam/ I�:' s� � 4 fr¢ fJ.r ..../ •f. � ��`� ft '' >,' pf Jr1 �\`;-,� t S ,'4,+0.t.,>'. rr 0'` ' fr wrd 1 ✓`�' h •(�"' �. :,a � A. jr j t;r',�. •�� ` �\'• ,,,.. ,,.r fr .f 5 P' _ s � o .- +-jr� .�� .i ND'/ f�•�t �y ` 9 \ .r" ^.• alb ep.gy, . ,`fir r•,w (.. V �. �� //fir'�gpA`t� � .... ... - :moo N 'r •��") -��"�-'... M5N LY�fntruir rur+ rrw••.w..r.rw, �'� ' .r' J"� ►y t. i"��j' " � i '4SP r wr rnr. uw o ur n d wr♦ ,m•"w � �S'�T ,�s'' /� S •O� I, / .+.„,,,tlt w,r MYrr w Amt u!rft.rrr \^ ? / - �r• ' f +'! / _ J-/ v rMe•.. •x..ar ww .fP n c t\ 1y/� rr'" TRACT 1488 r i ,0'� •d ✓• /P J Fe i ,•mor ri '♦ w rriu .�,ii _ lfJUf/Kff/tOJ//!/Ot OF/!J!l/J%/f.Y/O/J J,Ml7 A,D ,� r,•r j JrJ� tlff[Jeap, ,jwrt a J.w do eN,ro f7A/[Y w y,J L IC 4JL/fJLtl/w. =_ a CEUTRAL CA4Sl E.(!6/,uEE.P/,U4 w ,,, w•nrr•rw r � JJr Iw•w'L:Y m. fw./uws AlrJq fwCrrquw qMJ : m ara 3 iitl�1IL 1. i Minutes - Planning ,nmission - April 5 , 1988 No public testimony was given. MOTION: . Made by Commissioner Hatchell, seconded by Commissioner Bond and carried 6:0 to recommend approval of La Canada Lane as a private road as reflected in the staff report. 2. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 2-87: Request initiated by Robert and Patricia Nimmo to modify the resubdivision of 8 existing residential lots totaling 6.98 acres into 8 residential lots varying in size from 5,520 to 6,750 square feet and an open space lot of 5.33 acres, and to revise approved road name. Subject site is located at 9385 Vista Bonita. Joel Moses presented the staff report on this reconsideration re- quest to revise the previously approved map. Staff recommendation is for approval subject to 18 revised conditions of approval along with revision to the proposed street name from Trifon Garcia to Pico Blanco. In response to question from Commissioner Michielssen, Mr. Moses explained that the applicant is proposing to shift the development area to the west which will relocate the residential units approx- imately 180 feet which results in a substantial change from the approved tentative map. Mr. Engen added that this request in- volves a lower fee because it is a minor adjustment necessitated by the need- to have consistency between the. tenative and final map. Robert Nimmo, applicant, stated he was in agreement with the rec- ommendation and was available to answer any questions. Ursula Luna, 10600 San Marcos, asked if this would be considered by the .City Council. Chairperson Nolan responded that the decis- ion of the Commission would be forwarded to the City Council. She asked if the open space area would be subject to future lot splits to which Mr. Moses noted the project has been approved as part of a planned development overlay and any changes would have to go through a zone change process. MOTION: Made by Commissioner Hatchell, seconded by Commissioner Kidwell and carried 6 :0 to approve reconsideration of Tentative Tract Map 2-87 subject to the findings and re- vised conditions of approval contained in the staff report. 3. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 37-87 : Re ue t in ate y o Messer (guest En ine rin ) to allow the subs .ivision of 9. 5 acres into p�rcegs �arying in size from 1.00 to 1.14 acres, and to establish Caleta Lane as a private road name, and to allow annexation to Sanitary Dis- trict No. 1. Subject site is located at 8430 Santa Rosa Road. 2 MINUTES EXCERPT PLANNING COMMISSION- 5/5/92 MOTION: By Commissioner Lochridge and seconded by Commis- sioner Rudlac to uphold the appeal and direct staff to issue a business license as soon as possible. The motion carried 5:1:1 with the following roll call vote AYES: Commissioners Lochridge, Rudlac, Waage, Hanauer, and Chairperson Luna NOES: Commissioner Johnson ABSENT: Commissioner Highland Mr. Decamp advised that staff will notify the business license clerk that the land use definition for this particular use is a roadside stand and is an allowed use in the CT. zone. Commissioner Hanauer expressed his feeling that a precedent has been set this evening in that Atascadero has f inally moved to fast-track the opening of a new business in the City. 2 . RECONSIDERATION OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 02-87 (TR. 1488) : Application filed by Paul Metchik (Central Coast Engin- eering) for a reconsideration of the Conditions of Approval relating to required road improvements and bond- ing provisions. Subject site is located on the northeast side of Chalk Mountain on Vista Bonita Avenue (formerly El Dorado Avenue) . Mr. Decamp advised that the applicants have requested a continuance on this matter. He suggested that the item be continued to the June 2nd, 1992 meeting. No public testimony was received. 3 . TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 92-003: Application filed by William and Gail Randall (Cuesta Engineering) for the division of an 8.65 acre site into three (3) parcels of 2.75 (net) , 2 .76, and 2.87 acres, for single family residential use. Subject site is located at 4440 Potrero Road. Gary Kaiser presented the staff report which focused on issues including site characteristics and topography, project alternatives, subdivision design, findings and criteria for flag lots, and environmental review. Mr. Kaiser noted that the Public Works Director had reconsidered Condition 112 (soils report) and suggested that this condition be deleted in light of the increased building setback which would prohibit building on the steeper portions of the site. : 001i-- . PLANNING COMMISSION - MINUTES EXCERPT - JUNE 2, 1992 B. HEARINGS, APPEARANCES, AND REPORTS 1. RECONSIDERATION OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 02-87 MR. 14881: Application filed by Paul Metchik (Central Coast Engin- eering) for a reconsideration of the Conditions of Approval relating to required road improvements and bond- ing provisions. Subject site is located on the northeast side of Chalk Mountain on Vista Bonita Avenue (formerly E1 Dorado Avenue) (CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF 5/5/92) Doug Davidson presented the staff report and provided background information on the history of this project. Staff is recommending approval of the reconsideration subject to revised conditions of approval. Mr. Davidson then turned the presentation over to Greg Luke, Public Works Director. Mr. Luke introduced Mark Markwort, Chief of Wastewater Operations, who has been involved with this project. Mr. Luke noted that staff and the applicant were able to reach agreement on how the road issue should be handle; however, a consensus could not be achieved on the sewer improvement requirements. The te4tive map as approved contains a substantial requirement with regard to sewer service. Mr. Luke provided a background on efforts made to date between the applicant, City and County to seek a workable solution to providing sewer service to this area. He pointed out that if the applicant is not willing to seek a compromise, then the original tentative map conditions, as they presently stand, are acceptable to Public Works. Commission questions and discussion followed. In response to query, Mr. Luke explained the intent of the original sewer condition noting that considerable off-site sewer improvements were necessary. It was from this situation that staff entered into negotiations with the applicant suggesting that if the developer was willing to bear his cost for the improvement, the City would take the 'lead position in providing the sewer and, in return, the applicant would pay 25% of that cost. The County would pay 10% of the cost in order to serve the Chalk Mtn. Club House and the City would then pick up the remaining share. The applicant's item of contention is that the 25% share of cost is not fair. Chairperson Luna inquired whether there is an agreement with the County at this point. Mr. Luke replied that the City is in receipt of documents on the County committing to 10%. The total project cost is $244, 000 with the City's share being $155, 000 and the County's share at $24, 000. 000 1 A4 Chairperson Luna mused that this approach would appear to . solve not only the City's problem but the developer's as well. Mr. Luke agreed adding that the issue was approached in this way. There is debate as to what the applicant feels is their "fair share" . Discussion continued. In response to questions by the Commission, Mr. Luke explained the City's motivation for participating in this sewer project. Since south Atascadero is zoned multi-family, there are still many lots not yet developed; in the future there will be a considerable quantity of flow being generated in this area. It is important to have a means of obtaining another way of diverting sewage from the south Atascadero area over to the treatment plant. What currently exists is adequate but this will not always be the case. - Public Testimony - Paul Metchik, applicant, clarified that the only problem he has with the staff report revolves around the sewer condition. He requested that this condition be changed to reflect that this development connect to the City sewer at E1 Bordo and at ,time of connection, will reimburse the City its fair share of the construction cost of the E1 Bordo Relief Sewer Project. Mr. Metchik explained his understanding of the original sewer condition adding that to bring the sewer over the golf course would be extremely expensive. Mr. Metchik commented that upon acquiring the property, he and his engineer met with staff to ask whether a lift station and the intersection of Vista Bonita and E1 Bordo could be built which seemed to conform to the alternate condition. It was determined that this would cost approximately $32, 000, not $61, 000. Mr. Metchik pointed out that thousands 'of dollars have been spent in re-engineer- ing costs for the lift station as well as a considerable amount of time. Mr. Metchik commented that it is not his fault the City is experiencing problems in this general area with its sewer service. He stressed that this subdivision consists only of eight units and it would not be fair for this development to contribute $7-9 thousand dollars per unit while another lot down the road may only have to pay $500 to hook up to the sewer. In concluding his remarks, Mr. Metchik stated he would prefer to participate in the sewer project and pay only his proportionate share. He then responded to questions by the Commission. In response to question by Commissioner Waage, Mr. Metchik clarified that the $32,000 would be the cost of the system for this project only. He added that the project should be :;4joiij entitled to reimbursement when other lots tie into the system in the future. Mr. Metchik voiced his feeling that the "fair share" would theoretically be the number of houses the system serves divided by the number of units. Chairperson Luna inquired whether the proposed lift station would be publicly maintained. Mr. Metchik noted that this was not originally the intent. It was anticipated that the home- owners association of the 8 units along with the units from Tract 1562 (if they wanted to tie in as well) would maintain the system. Chairperson Luna referenced a memo from Mark 'Markwort noting that the City will recoup monies by assessing new connections to the sewer line of $8, 000 per household. Mr. Metchik responded that he was contacted by the City in November, 1991 with regard to making a decision whether to participate. It was his feeling that the 25% participation from the project was unfair; and the City noted that it would adopt a sewer fee charge that would be $8, 000 per unit if no participation from this project. At that point, Mr. Metchik determined that he would not participate and would wait to see what the sewer hookup fee would be. End of Public Testimony - Commissioner Highland asked what method would be used to determine assessments for the developments if the line were to go in. Mr. Luke replied that a fee structure would be established upon its functional operation. At this point, there is no analysis to determine what the exact charge will. be. He stressed that this project is based on three-way cooperation; if it is not achieved then the project will not be realized. Commissioner Highland stated that a problem would be posed in that the initial developer may end up paying substantially more than anyone else who develops along the line, which does not seem right. Discussion ensued. Mr. Luke noted that logic would dictate that it is premature for this lot to develop; they can wait until sewer service is available to the general vicinity. Discussion ensued relative to possible reimbursement agreements, assessments on future developers, etc. Commissioner Hanauer observed that there would appear to be more than three parties involved in this issue. He asked that if the applicant put in the pumping station with the City's and County's participation, could logic be applied that that is a sufficient contribution between all three. Mr. Markwort stated that the City recently rehabilitated a small pump station on Capistrano and for the replacement of the pumps, and valves alone, the cost was $51,000. He added that the pump station, if put in by the applicant, will not benefit the City. Discussion continued. Mr. Luke stated that the applicant's concept is to put in a pump station to pump back to El Camino Real which is not desireable. Instead, the City is attempting to get a gravity system; the City does not want more pump stations, private or public. There was further discussion relative to the concept of assessing surcharges to upgrade the sewer system in the south Atascadero area to increase the capacity in the future. MOTION: By Commissioner Lochridge and seconded by Commis- sioner Hanauer to approve the Reconsideration of Tentative Tract Map 02-87 and approval of the time extension based on the revised Conditions of Approval contained in Attachment D (of the May 5, 1992 staff report) . The motion carried 7:0. REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: C-2 Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Mtg. Date: 7/14/92 From: Henry Engen, Comm. Dev. Director tK File No: TPM 92-002 SUBJECT: Appeal filed by Dee Anna and Steven Shrefler (Westland Engineer- ing) of the Planning Commission's denial of proposed parcel map based on General Plan slope policies. Location: 7255 Pinal Avenue. Request to divide 3.20 acres into two lots of 1.50 and 1.70 acres each. RECOMMENDATION: Per the Planning Commission's recommendation, denial of Tentative Parcel Map 92-002 based on their Findings for Denial (Attachment F of the attached staff report) . BACKGROUND: On June 2, 1992 , the Planning Commission conducted an advertised public hearing on the above referenced subject and, on a 7: 0 vote, denied Tentative Parcel Map 92-002 based on General Plan policies. A house is under construction on this property (proposed Parcel 2) , pursuant to Precise Plan 70-89. Owing to slopes of over 30%, Regional Water Quality Control Board approval was required. Pro- posed Parcel 1 has a uniform natural slope ranging from 38 to 44%. Together with other language discouraging further lot splits on steep slopes, the General Plan Land Use Element states, in part, under Section E: "New lots shall not be permitted where. . . .private sewage disposal systems would be required on slopes of more than 30%. " There was discussion and public testimony as evidenced in the attached minutes excerpt. CEOA STATUS: As indicated in the staff report, an environmental document was not prepared in that the project was recommended for denial. There- fore, if the City Council chooses to uphold the appeal, the matter should be referred back to staff for CEQA compliance and conditioning. t HE:ps Attachment: Letter of Appeal dated June 16, 1992 Staff Report dated June 2, 1992 Minutes Excerpt - June 2, 1992 cc: Dee Anna and Steven Shrefler Westland Engineering (Terry Orton) Westland Engineering Company Consulting Civil Engineering & Surveying 1037 Mill Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805) 541-2394 June 16, 1992 Mr. Henry Engen Department of Community Development City of Atascadero 6500 Palma Ave. Atascadero, CA 93422 HAND DELIVERED RE: PARCEL MAP 92-002 - 7255 PINAL AVENUE Dear Mr. Engen: By this letter we are appealing the Planning Commission 's denial of Tentative Map AT-92-033 to the City Council. One of the reasons for the appeal is the Commission did not have the authority to deny the project. The hearing was to consider how the project was affected by the General Plan policies. According to the agenda and staff report for the hearing, the intent was only to discuss if the project met code requirements and could be processed. The Commission denied the project and this was done without a legal public hearing on the project. The merits of the project should not have been discussed at all since there was no environmental determination made on the project. Therefore, the commission 's denial of the project was not valid. We feel the General Plan policies can support the processing of the project using an open space easement and an appropriate sewer system on the new lot that does not depend on the slope of the surface of the land, but only the percolation capability of the subsurface soil . We have enclosed a check for $200. 00 for the appeal fee. If you have any questions, please contact our office. Sincerely, _JT&ren ce K. Orton enclosure cc: Dee Anna Shrefler RECEIVED TKO;jc JUN 16 1992 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY OF ATASCADERO Item: B . 5 STAFF REPORT FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: June 2, 1992 BY: Doug Davidson, Senior Planner File No: TPM 92-002 o�a r SUBJECT: Public hearing to consider interpretation of General Plan policies relative to proposed subdivisions. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of Tentative Parcel Map 92-002 based on the Findings in Attachment F. SITUATION AND FACTS: 1. Owner. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Steve and Dee Anna Shrefler 2. Representative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Westland Engineering 3. Project Address. . . . . . . . . . . . . .7255 Pinal Ave. 4. General Plan Designation. . . . .Moderate Density Single Family 5. Zoning District. . . . . . . . . . . . . .RSF-Y (Residential Single Family) 6. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.20 acres 7. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Vacant 8. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Statutory Exemption Section 15270 BACKGROUND: Precise Plan 70-89 became effective on March 9, 1990, an environmental review for a single family residence on the 3.20 acre subject property. The Precise Plan received two time extensions, keeping the project active until building permits were issued on May 15, 1992. This is the building site shown as proposed parcel #2 in Attachment C. �l :iJtjX;�l On August 16, 1990, Tentative Parcel Map 15-90 was submitted. The application was determined incomplete on August 29, 1990 and deemed withdrawn on July 29, 1991 after six months with no submittals to the City. The length of time associated with procuring a building permit under Precise Plan 70-89 and gaining a complete application for Tentative Parcel Map 15-90 were partially the result of processing time at the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) . This State agency figured prominently in both applications, for septic systems on slopes of 30 percent or greater must receive RWQCB approval. The building permit application under the Precise Plan could not be processed until such an approval was received, nor could the Tentative Map be accepted as complete. The current map application (TPM 92-002) was received on January 22, 1992 and determined complete for initial processing to the Planning Commission on April 15, 1992. The new General Plan Land Use, Conservation, and Open Space Element was adopted by the City Council on January 14, 1992. The Updated Land Use Element contains policies which expressly prohibit this proposed subdivision. Thus, the current application is only complete in a preliminary sense - no environmental review has been conducted or review by other agencies undertaken. The question will be limited to whether or not the newly adopted language of the General Plan automatically precludes approval of this subdivision. ANALYSIS: The Parcel Map proposes the division of a 3.20 acre parcel into two lots of 1.50 and 1.70 acres each. The minimum lot size in the RSF-Y zone is one acre with sewers and one and one-half without sewers. Although the site is within the Urban Services Line, sewer is not currently available. The property slopes upward from Pinal Ave. at a constant rate of 40 percent. The performance standards (slope, septic suitability, access, neighborhood character, and location) used in minimum lot size calculations in the RS and RSF-Z zones are not applicable in this case. Instead, the primary community goals for new subdivisions must be employed. The City' s fundamental requirement to create new lots is contained in Subdivision Ordinance Section 11-8.201: "The design of lots should be based on intended use, topography, and access requirements. Lots which are impractical for intended uses due to terrain, location of natural features, inadequate access, frontage or buildable area, or other physical limitations will not be approved. " This is reflective of the mandatory Subdivision Map Act Findings . to ensure that the newly created lots are physically suitable for the type and density of proposed development. Residential Policy #11 of the 1980 General Plan contained a similar goal regarding subdivisions: "Attention shall be paid to the aesthetic result of land division. Building sites shall be encouraged on natural slopes, with minimal disruption, of native vegetation and watersheds, and efficient layout of access and utilities. " The above two policies were used as the basis for denial of several subdivision requests. Applications such as TPM 23-88 (10750 Santa Ana, Vaughan) and TPM 20-88 (10450 Morro Road, Evans) were also requests to subdivide property in excess of 30 percent slope. Staff has consistently argued against the creation of new lots where non-conventional (e.t.i. , mound, or RWQCB approval) septic systems are necessary or where excessive grading is necessary to develop the parcel. The Updated Land Use, Conservation, and Open Space (adopted January 14, 1992) incorporated this concern as explicit policy. As stated under Subdivision Consistency (Section E (3) Page II- 37) , "New lots shall not be permitted where any of the following conditions exist: "Where average slope .is over 30 percent. (Exceptions may be allowed where ( 1) there is a building envelope with an average slope of less than 20 percent, or (2) the creation of such a lot offers public dedications or easements beneficial to the community. ) " "Where private sewage disposal systems would be required on slopes of more than 30 percent. " The building envelope includes the building footprint, access drives, and leach fields. Public dedications or easements must provide a direct benefit to City residents. The subject property slopes steadily at 38 percent throughout the building envelope. Furthermore, it is questionable whether an open space easement on the rear portion of this property would provide a direct public benefit. It is the second restriction above, however, that seems to preclude approval of the subdivision. The slopes of the septic system area for proposed Parcel #1 are 38 percent. The natural slopes are uniform, ranging from 38 to 44 percent over the entire proposed Parcel #1. CONCLUSIONS• Staff has consistently cited in writing the concerns over subdividing property in excess of 30 percent slope. In Attachment E, there is reference to these same concerns being ii)U li. forwarded to the former property owner (Whelpley) - a similar parcel map request (Tentative Parcel Map 05-89. ) This was well before any explicit language had been drafted restricting such subdivisions. It simply seems wise to not create new lots with the inherent development difficulties found in property of over 30 percent slope. By August 1990, these concerns had been formulated into specific draft land use policies (Attachment E) . The new Land Use, Conservation, and Open Space Element just codifies good judgement in land use planning. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Zoning Map Exhibit B - General Plan Land Use Map Exhibit C - Tentative Parcel Map Exhibit D - Development Statement Exhibit E - Determination of Completeness Exhibit F - Findings for Denial ATTACHMENT A CITY OF ATASCADERO ZONING MAP z�, .... ... . .ra.', TPM 9G-�OZ ��. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 0 s ° 67 p LS S i T-E �'Fr qpu —SON R04,uj L o� �< C - Q ALLE F - 477'/�n �O4e � r J ( J 7'/ T7777, j O AVv J r _ � I ccFa 1 � � r - ' r 7 ` RURAL t 0 �r Q �• RES Jos AT OW ao 4 r B xcmw talff? 7d I MEN 111,,, .:I .SJi _ /• � 1+� 1...., .� �• �.�_ ice,. �� !i �, �� ����, ►� ��� 'L�' ► w� c, ATTACHMENT C •Ti✓ CITY OF ATASCADERO TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP ���C�1f�P — E t.�•—. TPM 92-002 fluscAa COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT . PWE MOJf rr-NN Pl\rqK. 5 ONNE11'S STATEMENT I KRw.Mlt Ia tt M.v M 1"VISId,w rtta r.ac.tt sIaIN r Ma rut wa w.,rwr Mmmr rrW.w MIS .KA AMI M NWM.t[OI t.NM,MEAN=16s1Yt——cl n ,p T,I(ftft W M aORtSM r NtIt41w. MESTLANO ENEERtNG COWArtt fwrltaVirf fitw7 q gtal Iff -lll-taft awltratw w r VIPE .'S aATi f.urx.u ffttf _ ENGINEER'S STTATEMENTS„ N -.% t.cl,[fa n.tt twraw a rii rZV.,eS w n fu/NIrISilf w n M-atw w w // uroPttOp COM.Itf faW M a1r fwaN�fr.lros,ef a. // / / l I + /�� J�� d .r•att r u.ser.a cfum w ams /• rc.croct r.areattaor,tar.�- 11.0 ' 103,�tu irfcct / / a rf oftsra a iaret G / / I EASEMENT NOTES r. <mr.w.—.f xcl o iro fmr tt,atirsccrom ..Nmic�e•arnI /-�. �'r_. -/ j/�f.�i� /// 1 I F�]•6 acto,..eao,Ix s rrnrr I.taros.r r.x zaa. r lap - in �/�j,/i i/ /// /�/ �l 4�r Ens NOTES \ fEflMf MO-IOOr etlrr.l,rrora.aa to Nam oro _ / ., / _%/!. �/ / ra.ae.tn..wr IatnrlEo w rm.to trofnaaM eaowr w Str •! tt [.ttH. M.n.lrrx.w M a1Tt/a ne.tttt ri sisrasC�.o rrrfO.In. --- � — /i/ ✓i /� ennis or re.rttll 0 aIr s n este t L� i• - - >ar.fc.e[ff re..-9t. w in f w enwa m „� . ntocAa cww,.r af.amt n l��^•� --- - RaVttt9 R w�Nrsy R"' > MwTSYw NaNp• ` AVE:NUZ OEE lr .NN. etEfEE11 YiMa:l•NO' NESTIANO ENOTWEALA C010ANT .. .. —� ,eat roua rrwtr, wI.am an+. > fist( 1 r' ATTACHMENT D esdand Engineering Comp"ny Consulting Civil Engineering & Surveying 1037 Mill Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805) 541-2394 AN ^ `� 1992 COMMUNI TY DEVELOPMENT January 13 , 1992 City of Atascadero Community Development Department P.O. Box 474 Atascadero, CA 93423 HAND DELIVERED RE: Re-Submittal of Tentative Parcel Map AT-90-249 7255 Pinal Ave. Dear Sirs: Attached is a new submittal for a two—lot parcel map located at 7255 Pinal Avenue. When this project was first submitted, the City had a few concerns regarding how the project could be built upon. The application was subsequently returned to us. We would also, therefore, request that any unused fees from that prior application be returned to the applicants, Mr. & Mrs. Shrefler. Very little work was done directly with the application for the lots split because the majority of review work had been done with a Precise Plan, which was submitted by Mr. Whelpley (Precise Plan 70-89) . :with this application, we feel we have addressed the City's earlier concerns. For your reference I have attached a copy of the initial completeness review letter from the City. There were four items addressed in that letter. Those were: 1) Vesting information, 2) Septic design, 3) Lots having greater than a 3:1 width to depth ratio, and 4) Grading slope greater than 30%. We have addressed these concerns as follows: 1) The application is no longer for a Vesting Map. 2) We are currently processing a building permit for one of the parcels, and that application currently has a septic permit application in review with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) . We have attached a copy of that septic design, as well as a copy of the design for the new lot for your files. In working with the RWQCB, we are very close to receiving that permit and they have indicated that a re-review for the parcel . map would not be necessary. • 3 & 4) We are requesting an exception to the City Ordinance excluding lots with a ratio of 3:1 since our width to depth is very close to the requirement. Another lot lay out that would 001;x 6 ' JAN 2 21 199? COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT not need an exception would need a great deal of additional grading further up the slope. We have enclosed a grading plan of the proposed project. This plan shows haw the site could be developed. By having the project in review with the RWQCB and by submitting a grading plan to show just how the property would be impacted, we feel we have addressed the city's concerns for this project as they had outlined with the first submittal, and the City should be able to then complete processing of the application. Enclosed with this application are: Application Form Environmental Questionnaire 24 Bluelines Of The Tentative Map One 8h" x 11" Transparency of the Tentative Map Tree Protection Plan for the Property Soils Report Septic Design Grading Plan Current Preliminary Title Report Assessor 's Parcel Maps, showing all properties within 300 ' Mailing Labels of all property owners within 300 ' A check for application fees ( $865. 00) If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Terry Orton at 541-2394. cc: Steven & Dee Anna Shrefler attachments I l 1 ADMINISTRATION BUILDING ATTACHMENT E� / - POST OFFICE BOX 747 ATASCAOERO. CALIFORNIA 93423 PHONE: (805) 466.8000 .. POLICE DEPARTMENT POST OFFICE BOX 747 ATASCAOERO.CALIFORNIA 93423 CITY COUNCILPHONE: (805( 466.6600 CITY CLERK 114z"seadet'CITY TREASURER PORATED JULY 2. 1979 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT FIRE DEPARTMENT CITY MANAGER COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 6005 LEWIS AVENUE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ATASCAOERO.CALIFORNIA 93,122 PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT PHONE: (805( 466.2141 August 29, 1990 Westland Engineering 1037 Mill St. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 RE: Determination of Completeness Tentative Parcel Map 15-90 (AT-90-249) 7255 Pinal Ave. (Shrefler) Dear Mr. Rebik: The Planning Division of the Community Development Department is required to make a Determination of Completeness .within fifteen (15) days of receipt of all applications for land divisions. This letter is to inform you that the above referenced tentative parcel map application has the following deficiencies: 1. Vesting Maps require the additional information as outlined on the attached sheet, including grading and house plans for the proposed residence. 2. Since the septic system is proposed on slopes in excess of 30%, the application will not be accepted as complete until approval is received from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (R.W.Q.C.B) . The City and R.W.Q.C.B have pteviously reviewed this site for sewage disposal systems. Attached is the application for the State agency which must be accompanied by all the necessary information. 3. Lots which exceed a 3: 1 depth to width ratio are discouraged by the City' s Subdivision Ordinance. Exceptions from this standard must be requested in writing with supporting data. More importantly, we must again forward the concerns as stated in • the identical prior subdivision application (Whelpley) and phone conversations with the current applicant. The staff cannot support this proposed subdivision for the following reasons: 1. Proposed lots exceed 3: 1 depth to width ratio. 2. Slopes exceed 30% necessitating substantial grading. 3. Proposed lot cannot accomodate a conventional septic system, but must receive State approval. Concerns #2 and #3 are paramount; in fact the Draft Land Use Element of the General Plan contains two policies which expressly prohibit subdivisions on slopes over 30`k, particulary when sewer is not available. Also, please keep in mind the distinction between the issuance of a favorable determination for an existing legal lot (Precise Plan 70-89) and a positive recommendation to create a new lot in light of the above concerns. If you choose to proceed with the request, the application deficiencies listed above must be satisfied. Upon resolution of these deficiencies, you will be notified that your application has been accepted as complete. If the deficiencies have not been resolved within ninety (90) days of the date of this letter, your application will be deemed with-drawn and returned to you with a letter explaining the procedures for refiling. Any unused portion of your application fee will also be returned at that time. If you should have any further questions regarding this matter, please don' t hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Doug Davidson Senior Planner cc: Steven and Dee Anna Shrefler Attachments: Required Information for Vesting Tentative Maps Application for R.W.Q.C.B. Attachment F - Findings for Denial Tentative Parcel Map 92-002 7255 Pinal Ave. June 2, 1992 ENVIRONMENTAL FINDING: The proposed project is a statutory exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Section 15270) . MAP FINDINGS: 1. The proposed map is not consistent with the General Plan, specifically the policies precluding the subdivision of property where the slope exceeds 30 percent for septic system placement (Section E 3 - Implementation - Subdivision Consistency) . wUx3 ; PLANNING COMMISSION - MINUTES EXCERPT - 6/16/92 5. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 04-91: Application filed by Dee Anna and Steven Shrefler (West- land Engineering) to subdivide one 3.20 acre parcel into two parcels of 1.50 and 1.70 acres each. Discussion will be limited to whether or not the newly adopted Land Use, Conservation, and Open Space Element of the General Plan precludes approval of the request. Subject site is located at 7255 Pinal Avenue. Doug Davidson presented the staff report and provided a back- ground on the precise plan entitlement and previous tentative parcel map submittal. The current application was deemed complete for initial processing on April 15, 1992. However, the updated Land Use Element contains policies which expressly prohibit this subdivision; therefore, staff is recommending denial of the parcel map request. - Public Testimony Dee Anna Shrefler, applicant, presented an outline on a partial chronology of events pertaining to TPM 15-90 (AT 90- 249) and TPM 92-002 (AT 92-033) (Attachment C) . She then elaborated further on the outline describing the constraints and problems encountered in processing the precise plan, subsequent building permit, and tentative map applications. Mrs. Shrefler stressed that she has always complied with all City requirement, and expressed frustration in her attempt to obtain approval. She added that she has spent over $40,000 on the project during the last three years. Mrs. Shrefler voiced her feeling that the tentative map application should be allowed to continue to be processed as a result of items that she' has started on. Terry Orton, representing the applicant, stated that the situation comes down to one issue - whether the map can be processed. He concurred that this is not a vesting map and the reason is a technical matter due to City requirements requiring full building plans, etc. in order to file for a vesting map. Mr. Orton referenced the staff report relative to the General Plan's policy on subdivisions consistency - prohibiting new lot creation where private sewage disposal systems would be required on slopes of 300 or more. He pointed out that State law does not indicate that one cannot have a system over 30% as the staff report alludes to. Mr. Orton noted that in discussion with the Regional Water Quality Control Board, they indicated that if the application was processed, they did not feel there would be a problem with processing another building permit and septic system for the J"oo!.ii other lot. Mr. Orton discusse types of septic systems that would be appropriate for the site and noted that conditions could be met that would warrant a septic system on a lot averaging a slope of 30%. Mr. Orton then elaborated on General Plan excerpts pertaining to open space dedications and scenic easements noting the preference indicated for preserving the open space of upper hills; and that scenic and open space easements, etc. , shall be obtained through the subdivision and development review process. Mr. Orton acknowledged that there has not been an environmen- tal determination made yet on the project so none of these issues can be discussed at this hearing. In concluding his remarks, Mr. Orton pointed out that the key issue is related to the sewage disposal system; he questions how the 30% slope is determined. It was his feeling that there is enough evidence that warrants this application_ to continue to be processed, and asked the Commission to direct this matter back to staff for further processing. - End of Public Testimony - Commissioner Highland commented that staff has made if very clear that what the Commission is to decide at this hearing is whether the newly adopted language of the General Plan auto- matically precludes approval of this subdivison. He stressed that a strong case could be made for precluding a subdivision of this type based on the 1980 General Plan without having to refer to the 1992 General Plan language, which is very specific. Commissioner Highland expressed concerns with access for fire and emergency vehicles, and could not envision building another residence without a substantial amount of grading. Commissioners Johnson, Waage, and Chairperson Luna all concurred. MOTION: By commissioner Highland, seconded by commissioner Johnson and carried 7:0 to deny Tentative Parcel Map 92-002 based on the Finding for Denial contained in Attachment F. • PC 6/16/92 ATTACHMENT C • June 2, 1992 PARTIAL CHRONOLOGY OF THE EVENTS FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF 7255 PINAL AVENUE AT 90-249 AND AT 92-033 8-89 OPENED JOB/ TALKED TO CITY AND SAW LETTER TO WHELPLEY GIVING WRITTEN CONCERNS FOR SPLIT/ AND ALSO WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD (WQCB) REQUIREMENTS TO SIGN OFF PROJECT/ OUR PROJECT NEEDED TO MEET THE LETTER OF LAW/STAFF FEELS PROJECT IS A NO GO/ NEED TO SUBMIT ADDITIONAL ANSWERS NOT SUBMITTED BY WHELPLEY 11-1-89 RWQCB LETTER TO DOUG GIVING CONDITIONS TO MEET EXEMPTION 11-1-89 CHECK TO CITY FOR $200.00 FOR PRECISE PLAN 12-5-89 BILL WITH CITY BUILDING DECLINED TO MEET WITH US 12-22-89 TRANSMITTAL FROM WESTLAND WITH ARBORIST REPORT & SEPTIC DESIGN (BUILDING PERMIT?) 12-22-89 SUBMITTAL OF SEPTIC DESIGN ON PROPERTY/ PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED THIS SUBMITTAL WITH, DOUG 1-5-90 DEE MET WITH JOHN GONI OF THE RWQCB 1-8-90 DEE MET WITH CITY TO DISCUSS PRECISE PLAN 2-5-90 SEPTIC DESIGN TO CITY FOR ONE STRUCTURE 2-16-90 LETTER FROM CITY TO DEE ON PRECISE PLAN APPROVAL 3-9-90 PRECISE PLAN 70-89 APPROVED 8-16-90 APPLICATION FOR PARCEL MAP WITH SEPTIC DESIGN 8-29-90 DETERMINATION OF COMPLETENESS LETTER FROM CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT/ STAFF NOT IN SUPPORT OF PROJECT 9-24-90 CHECK #4652 WRITTEN TO CITY FOR RWQCB FOR LOT SPLIT (NEVER CASHED) 9-25-90 REVISED TENTATIVE MAP WITHOUT VESTING, SEPTIC DESIGN AND APPLICATION FOR WQCB TO CITY :iV0Io 7255 PINAL LOT SPLIT CHRONOLOGY AT 90-249/AT 92-033 10-23-90 LETTER FROM DOUG INCLUDING A LETTER TO TARTALIA ASKING FOR INFORMATION ON SEPTIC & WQCB LETTER WITH REQUIREMENTS 11-21-90 INFORMATION SENT TO CAL FERNANDES WITH CONCEPTUAL DESIGN TO GO TO WQCB 11-21-90 REVISED TENTATIVE MAP TO DOUG TO COMPLY WITH CONCEPTUAL SEPTIC DESIGN 12-6-90 LETTER FROM DOUG SAYS SEPTIC STILL DOES NOT ADDRESS 10-23-90 ITEMS 12-20-90 LETTER FROM WESTLAND ENGINEERING ADDRESSING ALL ITEMS FROM 10-23-90 LETTER TO CITY 12-90 TALKED TO PACIFIC GEOSCIENCE REGARDING CITY NOT ACCEPTING THEIR WORK, PAC GEO SAID THEY NOW HAD APPROVAL OF CITY 1-24-91 FAX TO WESTLAND ENGINEERING FROM CALVIN ON SEPTIC DESIGN DEFICIENCIES/ CAL WAS UNAWARE OF ANY PREVIOUS INFORMATION ON FILE WITH CITY 1-29-91 LETTER TO WESTLAND ENGINEERING FOLLOW UP TO FAX 1-30-91 WESTLAND ENGINEERING TRIED TO SET UP MEETING WITH CAL/ HE DID NOT WANT TO MEET 2-5-91 REVISED SEPTIC SYSTEM AND RE-SUBMITTED TO CITY ENGINEERING 2-19-91 INFORMATION TO PACIFIC GEOSCIENCE FOR ESTIMATE ON GEOLOGY REPORT AND PERC TESTS 2-25-91 CHRONOLOGY REPORT TO DEE TO SHOW CITY STAFF INTERACTION TO DATE 3-8-91 MEETING WITH DEE, STEVE DECAMP, CAL, WESTLAND ENGINEERING AND DEE'S FATHER 3-11-91 FAX TO PACIFIC GEOSCIENCE ON CITY REQUIREMENTS 3-15-91 CONTRACT FROM PACIFIC GEOSCIENCE RECEIVED BY FAX 3-19-91 CONTRACTS FORWARDED TO DEE ON GEOLOGY AND ' PERC 7255 PINAL LOT SPLIT CHRONOLOGY AT 90-249/AT 92-033 3-30-91 LETTER SENT TO CITY STATING WE STILL PLAN TO PROCEED WITH SPLIT, BUT WERE PLANNING TO DO SOILS WORK WHEN THE STRUCTURE IS BUILT BECAUSE CITY WILL NOT GIVE A GRADING PERMIT TO GRADE A ROAD WHICH IS NEEDED TO DO THE TESTING 5-8-91 MID COAST GEOTECHNICAL CONTRACTED FOR SOILS 7-25-91 SUBMITTAL OF BUILDING PERMIT TO CITY 7-29-91 DOUG SENT BACK APPLICATION FOR LOT SPLIT TO WESTLAND 8-26-91 PROCESSING BUILDING PERMIT CHECK PRINT 9-25-91 PROCESSING BUILDING PERMIT CHECK PRINT 10-22-91 PROCESSING BUILDING PERMIT CHECK PRINT 11-21-91 PROCESSING BUILDING PERMIT CHECK PRINT/ TELEPHONE CONVERSATION WITH CAL 11-21-91 RWQCB PERMIT TAKEN FROM CITY (HAND CARRIED BY DEE) TO WQCB (NOTE: THIS IS THE FIRST SUBMITTAL TO WQCB) 1-8-92 MID COAST GEOTECHNICAL SENT CONTRACTS FOR ADDITIONAL SOILS WORK 1-10-92 MID COAST CONTRACTS SENT TO DEE 1-13-92 RESUBMITTAL OF TENTATIVE MAP TO CITY 1-30-92 NEW PERC CONTRACT WITH MYERS TO USE SPECIAL EQUIPMENT TO ACCESS SITE FOR SOILS TESTS 2-13-92 NEW PERCS SENT TO DOUG AS EVIDENCE SITE WILL WORK FOR TWO SYSTEMS 3-11-92 REVISED TENTATIVE MAP (MAP NUMBER CHANGED TO AT 92-003) SUBMITTED TO DOUG PER HIS REQUEST 3-18-92 HAD TO SEND IN REVISION (COUNTY PLANNING GAVE US WRONG PARCEL MAP NUMBER) AT 92-033 4-15-92 DETERMINATION OF COMPLETENESS BY DOUG (ACCEPTANCE) REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: C-3 Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Mtg. Date: 07/14/92 From: Henry Engen, Com. Dev. Director .K File No: CUP 91-01' SUBJECT: Appeal filed by Walter Togni (Roger Picquet, representative) of the Planning Commission's action to re-approve the Use Permit subject to the existing Conditions of Approval. Subject site is located at 5950 E1 Camino Real. RECOMMENDATION: Per the Planning Commission's recommendation, approval of Condi- itional Use Permit 91-01 based on the original Conditions of Approval (Exhibit E of the April 2, 1991 staff report) . BACKGROUND: On June 16, 1992, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the above referenced subject. On a 6: 1 vote, the Commission re- approved the use permit based on the originalConditions of Approval. On May 14, 1991, the City Council, on a 5:0 vote, denied Mr. Togni's appeal of six Planning Commission Conditions of Approval. On June 16, 1992, the applicant asked for reconsideration of that condition requiring removal of the accessory storage building for parking, in favor of alternate off-site leased parking spaces` modification of the hours of operation; and revisions of the deadline for filing of a building permit for interior alterations. There was discussion and public testimony as reflected in the attached minutes excerpt. HE:ps Attachments: Letter of Appeal dated June 18, 1992 Planning Commission Staff Report dated June 16, 1992 Planning Commission Minutes Excerpt '- June 16, 1992 City Council Minutes Excerpt - May 14, 1991 cc: Walter Togni Roger Picquet i r Cut 0I - �') 1 z RECEIVED ,i w; - ;1�© 1Jv 2 LAW OFFICES 6 ' L LpQN & PICQvET 5 21 TELEPHONE ROGER LYON 1104 PALM STREET (605) 541-2560 ROGER PICOUET TELECOPIEP. TIMOTHY J.CARMEL POST OFFICE BOX 922 (605) 543.3557 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CALIFORNIA 93406 June 16, 1992 FAXED - ORIGINAL MAILED Planning Commission c/o Henry Engen Director of Community Dev. Dept. City of Atascadero 6500 Palma Avenue Atascadero, CA 93422 Re: Reconsideration of CUP #91-00 5950 El Camino Real (Togni) Dear Honorable Chairman and Commission Members: I represent the applicant, Mr. Togr_i, in the above matter. Because of a prior commitment I am unable to attend your meeting tonight. Please consider the following points in your deliberations: 1. The condition to remove the accessory storage building is unreasonable from a business perspective. The building is a vital and critical part of the activitie could result in a dramatic at the site. its oval and (although allowing on-site parking) , negative economic impact on Mr. Togni out of proportion with the benefits to be obtained from the CUP. 2. Mr. Togni and his representatives have been trying since April of 1991 to resolve the parking requirement through other means. After several discussions witn City staf�, it was uut understanding that Atascadero Municipal Code § 9-4. 120 offered the most acceptable way to proceed. 3 . The requirements of § 9-4. 120 have been met. It is not feasible to provide the sject rking on-site.he VetteraBuilding meets both lease f additional spaces behind t and theiri of the law. 4. It is irrelevant that some customers may not actually use the leased spaces. This is an inherent risk anytime the substitute off-site provisions are used. We will note that after over a year 0 of operation there is no actual parking problem with the site. ` 00'140 Henry Engen CUP 91-00 June 16, 1992 Page 2 This negates any concern raised by staff regarding a possible lack of use. 5 . Of course, the condition could be modified to allow periodic review or actual compliance with the on-site parking requirements should a problem develop in the future. We submit that Mr. Togni' s request is reasonable and equitable in light of all the facts and circumstances and respectfuily request that the Planning Commission select alternative number one as set forth in the staff report. Sincerely, LYON PICQUFT Roger P cque` RP: ts i�IUai,yt ITEM: B . L M E M O RAN D U M DATE: June 16, 1992 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Gary Kaiser, Associate Planner C-519eI SUBJECT: Reconsideration of CUP #91-001 5950 E1 Camino Real -- The Card Parlour (Togni) BACKGROUND: On April 2, 1991, the Planning Commission approved this CUP subject to some 13 conditions of approval. Theapplicantconcern appealed this action to the City Council. Of pa to the applicant were those conditions which required the removal of a detached storage building located behind the main building to allow for the provision of required on-site parking spa(VOTces. The City Council denied this appeal on May 14, 1991. original staff report prepared for the project, including conditions of approval revised by the Planning Commission at their April 2, 1991 meeting, are attached hereto for reference. ) The applicant maintains his good faith intentions with respect to legitimizing the use to the satisfaction of the Planning Commission and City Council. However, the requirement of the Commission and Council to remove the accessory storage building to allow for additional parking spaces continues to be a concern to the applicant. Therefore, in addition to requesting an extended window of time to comply with conditions of approval, the applicant has also provided new information in another attempt to avoid having to remove the accessory storage building Attachment A) . RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission re-approve CUP #91-001 subject to the existing conditions of approval. This action would essentially allow a one-year sme extension, but would make no herchangestothe conditions of approval. ALTERNATIVE #1: Grant the request with respect to timeframes to file a building permit application, and delete conditions requiring the removal of the accessory storage building and provision of additional on- site parking. Make such an approval contingent on the applicant • filing a building permit application for existing building alterations by a certain time after which, if no such application is received, the use is deemed illegal and abated accordingly. This action would acknowledge the new lease agreement, allowinff- the applicant to gain the required additional parking spaces site, as adequate to preclude the need for accessorystorage building removal and the establishment of additional on-site parking. This action, if chosen, would also emphasize theCity' s seriousness with respect to resolving existing building code violations in a timely manner. ALTERNATIVE #2: Deny the request and direct staff to resume enforcement procedures to abate the illegal The action is self-explanatory the applicant aan Lena t would be subject to criminal citation and/or other appropriate al actions. ANALYSIS: Condition of approval #12, as it presently stands, required the applicant to submit a building permit application within sixty (60) days of the CUP approval. Once again, this building permit application would serve to legitimize interior building alterations which had occurred without benefit of a building permit. Conditions of approval #7 & #8 required the applicant to remove an accessory storage building from the site and provide two (2) additional on-site parking spaces. The applicant twas onlye of the required to provide 2 additional parkingspaces following: (1) the Downtown Master Plan provides that ,for existing buildings, only the parking needed for additions thereto, or for changes in occupancy which increase parking relative to the prior use, shall be required" ; and (2) the Planning Commission granted a full 75% reduction in the number of additional parking spaces required, based on Zoning Ordinance provisions for shared peak hour parking. A building permit for "as-built" conditions was never received, nor was such an application received to remove the accessory storage building and establish a redesigned parking lot. The matter has therefore, once again, become an enforcement case. Staff is satisfied that circumstances transpiring sincCUP ranting approval (applicant injured in traffic accident) justify lganti an extended window of time to file a building permit app tion to legitimize existing interior alterations, and comply with hin other conditions of approval. Staff does not support ex changing a any of the other conditions of approval, however, P below. f � The New Lease Agreement Section 9-4. 120 of the Zoning Ordinance states: "Where it is not feasible to provide sufficient on-site parking, an adjustment may be granted to allow the required parking to be located off-site, provided that: (a) The most distant space is not more than 400 feet from the use; and (b) The site of the parking lot is in the same ownership as the principal use, or is under a recorded lease or similar agreement, with the use that provides that the parking will exist as long as the use it serves, unless the parking is replaced with other spaces that satisfy the requirements of this Title; and (c) The site of the parking is not located in a residential zone, unless the principal use requiring the parking is allowable in a residential zone. Where any such principal use is subject to Conditional Use Permit approval, the off-site parking shall be subject to Conditional Use Permit approval. " The April 2, 1991 staff report describes the applicant' s original attempt to avoid providing additional on-site parking through such an agreement. This original proposal, which came in the form of a letter rather than a lease, played a key role in enabling the Planning Commission to grant the 75% reduction in required parking (from 7 on-site spaces to 2 on-site spaces) . In the new lease agreement, the applicant proposes to meet his remaining parking requirement by using another existing parking lot located behind the building at 5870 Traffic Way (Vetter Building) . The term of this agreement is one (1) year, but could be terminated by the lessor at any time with a letter to the Community Development Department so stating. Although there appears to be sufficient parking at this location, and although this location may within 400 feet of the principal use requiring the parking, it is highly unlikely that Card Parlour customers would actually park at this location. Moreover, this parking lot is presently used by all Traffic Way business from Gordon' s Shoes to the El Paseo center. With vacant spaces existing in the El Paseo center, and with the likely possibility that an existing business using the parking lot will be expanded or replaced with one that requires more parking, it seems inappropriate to prematurely tie up these parking spaces. This is especially true insomuch as the new or expanded use at that location may be one encouraged by the Downtown Master Plan. 300144 /�Q ►ment onsider. LUSIONS• requirement to remove the existing storage building and blish additional parking on-site was not imposed by the ning Commission and Pity Council to merely satisfy a retical parking requirement. Rather, it was determined that and expansion of use would actually require additional parking I as. The applicant's proposal to avoid providing any tional parking merely shifts the problem to another location Lme. ng a the tionally, the current conditions of approval were imposed not '.and to allow the for the additional parking spaces required but pace imposed to (1) enhance the appearance of the site; (2) lero, Le the trash enclosure area to be relocated to a suitable :ion; and (3) ensure the required handicapped parking space :ovided. The applicant's current proposal would satisfy none iese needs either. :aff's opinion, the time has come in the Downtown area where Lst make the most of available and potentially available .ng. Staff feels the current conditions of approval are >priate and, in light of the 75% reduction granted, are more reasonable. hments: Attachment A -- Copy of New Lease Agreement Attachment B -- April 2, 1991 staff report P92001.rec i 5 "RENT i PLEASE REPLACE THE BELOW-NUMBERED iAGE IN YOUR AGENDA PACKET FOR THE 7/14 CITY COUNCIL MEETING (ITEM C-3) CONCLUSIONS: The requirement to remove the existing storage building and establish additional parking on-site was not imposed by the Planning Commission and City Council to merely satisfy a theoretical parking requirement. Rather, it was determined that the expansion of use would actually require additional parking spaces. The applicant' s proposal to avoid providing any additional parking merely shifts the problem to another location or time. Additionally, the current conditions of approval were imposed not only to allow the for the additional parking spaces required but were imposed to ( 1) enhance the appearance of the site; (2) enable the trash enclosure area to be relocated to a suitable location; and (3) ensure the required handicapped parking space is provided. The applicant' s current proposal would satisfy none of these needs either. In staff ' s opinion, the time has come in the Downtown area where we must make the most of available and potentially available parking. Staff feels the current conditions of approval are appropriate and, in light of the 75% reduction granted, are more than reasonable. Attachments: Attachment A -- Copy of New Lease Agreement Attachment B -- April 2, 1991 staff report GK:CUP92001.rec i 000-.As .- %TTACHMENT A New Lease Agreement CUP #91-001 reconsider. 0 OFF-SITE PARKING AGS This agreement, made and entered into this 27 T'� day of 104Y 1992 by and between _W,11.41,+o .A.v0 116:7-rcX e5,frwle-4, '7-.ryr-known as Landlord, and 0-V144-7z!3--- known as Tenant It is hereby agreed that Landlord shall provide and maintain on his property at 5870 Traffic Way, being a portion of Lot 1B Block LA. 3 parking spaces as approved by the City of Atascadero for the use of the business owner at 5950 El Camino Real, Atascadero, during all hours of operation of the business and subject to the terms and conditions of the Commercial Lease for said space. If for any reason the space provided becomes unavailable to the business owner, he shall immediately notify the City of Atascadero, Community Development Dept. in writing. The term of this agreement shall be for one year. Landlord 52- Date Tenant Tenant Date �REALTY( I1('. MIKE 131isincss(805)•t66-0700 REALTOR L.L� T r� �. Res. 466-6235 • Mobile 1-441.0432 FAX: 466.9753 6760 EI Camino Real • Alascldcro.Caltfornta 93422 (p l?�/9 C 6MMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 3 S 3 J()01 A 15.1 �, f ( 'TACHMENT B t ?,/2/91 staff report CUP #91-001 CITY OF ATASCADERO Item: g _ 3 STAFF REPORT FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: April 2, 1991 BY: Gary V. Raiser, Assistant Planner File No: CUP #01-91 SUBJECT: Consideration of a conditional use permit application to expand "The Card Parlour" into the adjacent tenant space to the north. The application includes a request to establish signage in excess of that allowed under the Downtown Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance, in addition to a modification of -the parking requirements contained within said documents. RECOMMENDATION• Staff recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit #01-91, based on the Findings contained in Exhibit D, and subject to the Conditions of Approval contained in Exhibit E. A. SITUATION AND FACTS: 1. Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Walter Togni 2 . Representative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Reinarch, Inc. 3. Project Address. . . . . . . . . . . . . .5950 E1 Camino Real 4. Legal Description. . . . . . . . . . . .Ptn. Lot 1, Blk GB, A.C. 5. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0. 14 acres 6. Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (DC) Downtown Commercial 7 . General Plan Designation. . . . .Downtown Commercial S. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Card Parlour/Vacant 9 . Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Exempt - Class 1 B. ANALYSIS: The applicant proposes to expand his card room into the adjacent tenant space, which was formerly occupied by a retail clothing establishment ( "Bare Essentials" ) . The proposed expansion would more than double the size of the card room. The subject conditional use permit application also includes a substantial modification of the parking requirements and sign regulations contained in the Zoning Ordinance and Downtown Master Plan. 3,0o) iib r As might be expected, the formulation of staff' s opinion regarding the merits of this project focusses on the matters of . parking and signage. The Project Site The project is located on the southwest side of E1 Camino Real, approximately fifty feet northwest of its junction with Traffic Way. The card room currently occupies one of four tenant spaces within an existing two-story building. Other tenants in the building include "The Rogue' s Den" and the "American Dance Studio" (upstairs) . The fourth tenant space is currently vacant and is the area into which the card room proposes to expand (Exhibit B) . The footprint of the building is approximately 3, 100 square feet (50' X 62' ) , and is constructed with no front or side property line setbacks. There is an existing building on the rear portion of the +/- 6,300 square foot lot, which is used for accessory storage and is connected to the main building by a breezeway. The remaining portion of the lot is paved and contains five (5) parking spaces, none of which are designated as handicapped spaces. Between the project site and the Highway 101 right-of- way is an alley, which contains several undelegated parking spaces.. Parking - Spaces Required . Revised parking requirements for the Downtown area are set forth in the Downtown Master Plan (Chapter 4) and its implementing zoning. As noted above, the subject site is located within the DC (Downtown Commercial) zone. The specific parking requirements for this zone, found in Section 9-3.276 of the Zoning Ordinance, are as follows: 1. The parking requirements for uses located in this zone shall be as required in Table 1 of the Downtown Master Plan. 2. For existing buildings, only the parking needed for additions thereto, or for changes in occupancy which increase parking relative to the prior use, shall be required. The revised parking requirement (Table 1) for the prior use of the vacant tenant space, defined as "general merchandising" , is one space per each 300 square feet of gross floor area. The vacant tenant space has a gross floor area of 1, 145 square feet. Thus, the prior use required 4 parking spaces (1,145/300) . 2 Table 1 specifies the parking requirement for certain uses, but refers to the "non-Downtown" parking requirements for other uses. Since Table 1 does not include specific parking requirements for recreational uses such as card rooms, the required number of parking spaces is determined by Section 9-4.118 of the Zoning Ordinance (notwithstanding the provisions of the DC zone, however) . Pursuant to said Section 9-4.118, the parking requirement for the card room is one space per 100 square feet of gross floor area. Thus, the parking requirement for use of the vacant tenant space as a card room is 11 spaces (1, 145/100) . Pursuant to the language contained within the DC zone (above) r the applicant must only provide the additional number of parking spaces triggered by the change in occupancy. Hence, the applicant is responsible for providing 7 addition parking spaces (11 minus 4) . Implicit in all calculations of the number of required parking spaces is the mandatory provision of one handicapped parking space per every 40 spaces required, or fraction thereof (Zoning Ordinance Section 9-4.115(c) ) . Handicapped spaces may be included in the total number of spaces required, and need not be provided in addition to the required number of spaces. Therefore, under applicable portions of the City' s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, the applicant would be responsible for providing a total of 7 additional parking spaces, one of which is a handicapped space. Parkin - Spaces Provided As stated above, there are presently five (5) parking spaces available on the project site. The applicant proposes to convert one of these existing spaces to a handicapped space, but proposes the creation of no additional parking spaces. Rather, the applicant holds that ample parking is presently available in the parking lot located immediately north of Atascadero Market and in the alley behind the project site. There is a provision in the Zoning Ordinance for a, reduction in the number of parking spaces for shared peak hour parking, as follows: '* . .where two or more uses have distinct and differing peak traffic usage periods (for example, a theatre and a bank) , the required number of parking spaces may be reduced through Conditional Use Permit approval, provided that the parking lots of each use are located within 300 feet of each other (as measured along the most direct pedestrian path) . The amount of reduction may be up to 75 percent of the amount of spaces required for the most intensive of the two or more uses sharing the parking. " (Section 9-4.115(8) ) 3 All uses currently utilizing the aforementioned parking lot adjacent to Atascadero Market clearly have distinct and differing peak traffic demands than would the card room (this is ensured by condition of approval #6, which limits the hours of opera.tj.arz Of the card room) . Said parking lot is also located within 300 feet of the subject card room. Moreover, better utilization of existing parking lots is encouraged in the Downtown Master Flan. A letter has been received by the Planning Division from Mr. Irwin Manning, owner of the Atascadero Market and the parking lot located immediately north of said market. The letter authorizes the applicant, and/or his tenant who operates the card room., Mr. Swanson, to use the parking lot adjacent to the Atascadero Market after 9: 00 pm daily (after the businesses currently using the parking lot have closed their doors for the evening) . However, the letter goes on to state that this offer is only to remain in effect until such time as Mr. Manning, or any of his future tenants, needs the spaces to satisfy their parking needs. In staff's opinion, the conversion of one of the existing parking spaces to a handicapped space would indeed satisfy the requirement for handicapped parking. Staff feels, consider3_rg the letter from Mr. Manning and the presence of several parking spaces in the alley, that the proposed expansion of the card room would not result in any immediate parking problem. The letter from Mr. Manning, however, is clearly not sufficient to ensure available parking for the card room in the future. Moreover, no assurance whatsoever has been presented that the parking spaces in the alley will be available to the applicant in the future. Staff recommends that the full 75 percent reduction in the number of additional parking spaces required be granted. This would reduce the number of additional parking spaces required for this project to 2 (7 X 0.25) . Staff believes that, with the removal of the accessory storage building and breezeway, the parking lot behind the card room can be redesigned to provide at least 2 additional spaces. Staff is therefore offering a creative, and in staff' s opinion feasible, solution to this parking dilemma, as expressed in the attached conditions of approval (Exhibit E) . Note that the conditions require the development of the highest number of on-site parking spaces possible, but at least the required two (2) spaces. Signage The existing sign regulations (Section 9-4. 132 of the Zoning Ordinance) apply in the downtown area, with certain exceptions found in Appendix B of the Downtown Master Plan. The exceptions contained within Appendix B of the Downtown Master Plan that directly apply with respect to the application currently under consideration are as follows: 4 „. Alf The total signage per downtown business is limited to one ( 1) square foot of signage per lineal foot of street frontage. Window signs, although not counted as part of the total signage allowed per business, are limited to twenty (20) percent- of the store's window area. Each business within the Downtown area is allowed a projecting sign in addition to a primary sign. If the projection is two-sided, its area must be calculated for each side of the sign, and the total area must fall within the total allowable sign area for the business. Projecting signs may extend three (3) feet into the public right-of-way and must maintain a minimum vertical clearance of eight (8) feet. All signs are required to be designed by a professional graphic designer. The card room, after expansion, would have a total 'lineal street frontage of thirty (30) feet. Thus, the maximum total areaof signage allowed for the card room, not counting any window signs, would be thirty (30) square feet. The applicants are requesting approval of a forty (40) square foot wall sign, plus an eight ( 8) square foot ( 1' X 4 ' X 2) projecting sign. Staff feels that a wall sign of this size would be excessive and unnecessary for the • use proposed. On the other hand, staff can support the applicant' s request for the projecting sign, provided it does not cause the total signage for the subject business to exceed thirty (30) square feet. That is, any wall sign at this location, given the above projecting sign, should not exceed twenty-two (22) square feet in area (30 minus 8) . The Downtown Master Plan makes explicit its intent to "stimulate creative, good quality signing which will complement the intimate scale and architectural character of the area (Appendix B, page 3) . " Thus, to implement this policy, we find the above requirement that all signs be designed by a professional graphic designer. The proposed wall sign, in addition to being excessively large, is not particularly attractive and was probably not designed by a professional graphic designer. In addition to the oversized wall sign and projecting sign, the applicants propose a 6.5 square foot (2' X 3.251 ) window signin each of the two windows facing El Camino Real. The size of each window is 18 square feet (6 ' X 31 ) . As stated above, window signs may constitute no more than twenty (20) percent of the store' s window area. Therefore, each window sign should be limited to 3.6 square feet, or less in the case that the wall sign exceeds 23 square feet. • 5 :ill t1 X::ic Solid Waste Collection The applicants are proposing a solid waste collection area, as lan (Exhibit B) . The proposed collectiolx shown on the site p would be constructed of located in the X 61 dextremeawesternngorDer Of (5) feet in height, and the project site. erimeter of the proposed collection bearea, Staff feels that the p ate would be located, except the side where the g proposed constructed with a six-inch curb beosituated.whThe intent of the wooden fencing mater in into curb is to prevent the solid waste container from in the fence, causing the fence to deteriorate p staff feels that the proposed location of the solid addition, ro riate and would create a sight waste collection area is inapproblem within the parking lot and distance and maneuverability p roval, therefore, adjacent alley. The attached conditions of apwith curbing, to a ensure the relocation of the collection arrecise location of the more suitable location on the site. Th prstae upon review of the collection area would be determined by parking lot redesign plans. Review by Other Agencies ect b the City Fire Department, several Upon review of the prof Y necessary conditions of approval have been recommended. These conditions are distinguished from thelPlanningal othercCoammission�f • approval for the convenience o CONCLUSIONS: staff feels that the proposed use, or expansion of In conclusion, qualifythis use, is appropriate at this location. Staff cnditions statement, however, by stressing the imp importance are of approval contained in Exhibit E. Of particular those conditions which require redesign of the parking lot, reduction in the size and enhancement of the appearance of signage, and all Fire Department conditions imposed in the interest of human health and safety. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Location Map Exhibit B - Site Plan Exhibit C - Floor Plan/Elevations Exhibit D - Findings for Approval Exhibit E - Conditions of Approval CUP-01-91.sr 6 .'►fit' • • • • , • � f • i SSW fI s r now , NOV �� � � � CITY OF ATASC ADERO EYHIBIT s Site Plan CO: LN. fUNL I"Y 0EVEI.OPNIEN+-r CUP #01-91 D EP.�R'ItiiE�f T EL CAP�11 REAL ,i � T 10 it _ I Ell sa a9 End re - � ----�-- -- - �- " -. _ Lam- --• ---- --•-. _ ._. •� U.S. HIGHWAY 101 77-771, SIT PLAN . 1�i CITY OF ATASCADERO EXHIBIT C Floor Plan/Elevations \ .p CO,,'VLNf NL M-Y D EVELO FNIEVT CUP #01-91 D EFAR'I MENT .n..,.�.1,..,.v...,.., a.=• •� �I E...Qm P. I �.Atascadero •Card Parlour c as •G3 �INORTm ELEUTIORs I - � a � �•*'^""' - c. f 1 a a a . a _ ��� � E c � a .wR[wa.r wnw_w,wmau.w v,,.,.rarrw��ramwaw 11 i SOUTH ELEUMON FLOOR PLAN I ' JDCJi,; EXHIBIT D - Findings for Approval Conditional Use Permit #01-91 5950 E1 Camino Real (Togni) April 2, 1991 ENVIRONMENTAL FINDING: The proposed project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , under the Class 1 categorical exemption for minor alterations to existing structures. FINDINGS: 1. The proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with the General Plan. 2. The proposed project, as conditioned, satisfies all applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. 3. The establishment, and subsequent operation and conduct of the use will not, because of circumstances and conditions applied in the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of the general public or persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the use, or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity of the use. 4 . The proposed project will not be inconsistent with the character of the immediate neighborhood or contrary to its orderly development. 5. The proposed project will not 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 development in accordance with the Land Use Element. 6. The characteristics of the proposed use and its immediate vicinity do not necessitate the number of parking spaces, type of design, and/or improvements required by this Title. 7. The reduced parkingwill bttheoproposmmeddate use.the site and all parking nee generated by 8. The proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with the City' s Appearance Review Guidelines. • EXHIBIT E - Conditions of Approval Conditional Use Permit #01-91 5950 E1 Camino Real (Togni - Expansion of Card Room) Revised per Planning Commission Mtg. of April 2, 1991 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The project shall be in conformance with all conditions of approval contained herein, and all other codes and - ordinances of the City of Atascadero. Any modification of the project, or this entitlement, shall be approved by the Community Development Department prior to implementing any such changes. 2. A building permit shall be sought, secured, and a final inspection approved for the interior alterations necessary to establish the use of the building and the placement of any signs requiring such a permit. All Uniform Fire Code and Uniform Building Code requirements shall be met to the satisfaction of the City Fire Marshall and City Building Official prior to the occupancy of the building. Such Uniform Fire Code requirements include, but may not be limited to: THE FOLLOWING SHALL BE ANNOTATED ON APPROVED PLANS: a. Provide an all purpose, dry chemical fire extinguisher with a minimum UL rating of 2A 1OBC. b. Mount the extinguisher in a central, readily visible and easily accessible location adjacent to the main exit from the building. C. Exit doors shall be operable from the inside without the use of a key or special knowledge or effort. Manually operated edge or surface mounted flushbolts and surface bolts are prohibited. d. The minimum flame spread classification of the interior wall and ceiling finish shall be Class III Tunnel Test 76-2.00. e. The trash and/or garbage receptacles within the building shall be of solid, all-metal construction, or approved non-metallic waste containers. If not emptied at the close of each business day, all such receptacles shall be tightly covered with solid all metal lids. f. Water heaters shall be equipped with an approved pressure relief valve. .ivU:Y„�+ti g. If there is enclosed usable space under the stairs, the walls and soffits of the enclosed space shall be protected on the enclosed side as required for one hour fire resistant construction. h. The enclosed usable space with the stairway shall be equipped with automatic fire sprinklers as required by UBC 3802(c) (4) . Plans and installations with proper permits and licenses shall be approved by the Atascadero Fire Department and all work done shall be in accordance with recognized standards. Sprinkler plans shall be submitted to the City of Atascadero Building Division. i. When exposed to probable vehicular damage due to proximity to alleys, driveways or parkinngarea , be aboveground gas meters, regulators and piping shall suitably protected. j . Provide and maintain identification of the main natural gas shutoff valve. k. Individual gas and electric service shall be marked for each unit. 1. Provide and maintain a minimum of three (3) feet unobstructed area in front of the main electric panel. M. Provide and maintain a readily visible, durable sign over the exit doors stating, "THIS DOOR TO REMAIN UNLOCKED DURING BUSINESS HOURS. " The signs shall be in letters not less than one ( 1) inch high on a contrasting background. n. Provide and maintain a sign which reads, "MAIN ELECTRIC PANEL" to be located on the main panel in the appropriate place. o. Provide and maintain numbers upon or adjacent to the building which clearly indicate the street address of said buildings. All numbers shall be placed upon a contrasting background, shall be uniform in height and width, and shall be at least five (5) inches in height and of corresponding width. THE FOLLOWING SHALL BE INCLUDED IN THE FINAL, AND ANY SUBSEQUENT+ FIRE ITY OFEPARTMENT THE CONTRACTORONS. IT TO THIS ALL H RESPONSIBIL INFORMATION TO THE BUILDING OCCUPANT p. All fire extinguisher must be serviced, sealed, and tagged by a state licensed agent at least once annually and/or immediately after each use, whichever occurs first. f q. Exit doors, exit signs, fire alarm sending stations, . and fire extinguisher locations shall not be concealed or be obstructed by any decorative materials. r. Minimum clear aisles must be maintained throughout this facility. S. All electrical cords shall be intact; replace any frayed or damaged cords. t. All electrical appliances, tools, fixtures, etc. , are to be plugged directly into approved outlets without the use of extension cords and/or multiple adapters. U. Extension cord shall not be used as a substitute for the fixed wiring of a structure or building. Flexible cords shall be approved for use and purpose. V. Flammable liquids shall not be placed or stored in this facility except as provided in NFPA #30 and upon issuance of a permit from the Fire Department. W. Maintain every portion of the building in a neat orderly manner, free of any condition that would create a fire or life hazard or a condition which would add or contribute to the rapid spread of fire. 3. Prior to the final building inspection the applicant shall pay all additional sewer fees deemed applicable by the Public Works Department. 4 . The total signage for the business, exclusive veeoft. any n Window signs, shall not exceed thirty (30) square signs shall not be allowed to comprise more than twenty (20) percent of the window area on which the sign is placed. The area of any projecting signs shall be subtracted from the allowable area of any wall signs, and vice versa. 5. All signs shall be designed by a professional graphic designer. The applicant shall submit plans for any and all signs at this location to the Community Development Department for review and approval prior to their placement on the building. 6. The subject card room shall be closed to the public between the hours of 7:00 am through 7:00 pm daily. On Sundays, however, the card room shall only be closed between the hours of 7:00 am through 2:00 pm. 7. The accessory storage building and connecting breezeway shall be removed from the site, pursuant to an approved • building permit and in accordance with any conditions attached thereto. � j f S. The applicant shall work with staff in the Planning Division to develop a feasible plan for the redesign of the parking lot. Said plan shall include a total of not less than seven (7 ) parking spaces (one of which is a handicapped parking space) , plus any redesign and/or relocation of the solid waste collection area deemed appropriate by Planning staff. The use authorized under this entitlement shall not be considered established until all parking lot imp are completed. to 9 . This ConditionlbUs�hee�nningshall Commissionctand revocation reconsiderationy approval contained if deemed necessary, if any conditions of a p herein cease to be complied with, or if the use becomes substantially different from that described in this application. 10. This Conditional Use Permit shall expire one (1) year from the date of final approval, unless: a. Substantial site work toward establishing thened in authorized use has been performed, as Section 9-2. 114 of the Zoning Ordinance; or b. The project is completed, as defined in Section 9-2. 11 of the Zoning Ordinance; or C. An extension has been granted, as defined in Section 9- 2. 118 of the Zoning Ordinance; or d. A building moratorium is imposed on the project site. 11. All applicable exiting requirements of the Unwith ifoBuilding Code and Uniform Fire Co de shall beding 12. The applicant shallcribedtin Conditionlete b#2laboveL,eto the application, as des days of Community Development Department within sixty (60) Y ermit the effective date of this one-hun shall be issued within dredleighty d(180)ddays ing poits submittal, and shall not be allowed to expire. 13 . The solid waste cojump stshall e one, andshallbeopaintede d of jto match cinder blocks or sump the main building. PLANNING COMMISSION - MINUTES EXCERPT - JUNE 16, 1992 s 1. RECONSIDERATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 01-91: Request filed by Walter Togni for a reconsideration of the Conditions of Approval for the expension of the "Card Parlour". Subject site is located at 5950 El Camino Real. Gary Kaiser presented the staff report and provided a background on the prior approval of the use permit. The requirement of the Commission and Council to remove the accessory storage building to allow for additional parking spaces is still a concern to the applicant; therefore, he has requested an extended window of time to comply with the conditions of approval. In addition, the applicant has also provided new information in an attempt to avoid having to remove the accessory storage building. Staff is recommending re-approval of the use permit subject to the existing Conditions of Approval, with this action allowing a one-year time extension. Mr. Kaiser pointed out a letter presented to the Commission from Roger Picquet, applicant's representative, in support of the request (attached) . Commissioner Highland inquired that in light of Commissioners Kudlac and Luna having been elected to the Council, if this item is appealed to Council, will a conflict of interest exist? Mr. Decamp replied that the City Attorney has advised that no conflict will exist as they were duly elected to the Commission and subsequently duly elected to the Council. - Public Testimony - Walter Togni, applicant, noted that his representative was unable to attend the hearing and he is present to answer any questions. In response to question by commissioner Waage, Mr. Togni explained that the problem with this situation is that he has sold the bar business and if the accessory storage building is removed, then the bar will close. - End of Public Testimony - Commissioner Johnson noted that a considerable amount of time was spent on this use permit previously; changing the conditions will not accomplish anything. He conveyed his feeling that the Commission needs to reaffirm the original conditions. :iii x1:11,tib at he nsider another Commissioner Waage commented rae closer locationulbutocannot approve parking agreement f this one. MOTION: By Commissioner Johnson and seconded by Commissioner Lochridge to re-approve Conditional Use Permit 91-ool based on the existing Conditions of Approval. The motion carried 6:1 with Commis- sioner Highland dissenting. ( CITY COUNCIL MINUTES EXCERPT MAY 141. 1991 Building and Construction Board of Appeals; mol:3_0,11 carried 3:2 with Councilmembers Shiers and Borgeson i opposing. C. HEARINGS/APPEARANCES: 1. C.U.P. 01-91 - APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO PERMIT EXPANSION OF ATASCADERO CARD PARLOUR, 5950 EL CAMINO REAL Henry Engen presented the staff report and recommendation. Sake Reindersma, applicant' s representative, gave an overview of the grounds for the appeal. He reported that the applicant felt ,it would be a financial hardship to hire a graphics designer to devise the card parlour' s sign. Additionally, the applicant objected to the mandate of removing a storage building currently located to the rear of the property. He asked that parking requirements be met in another manner. Mr. Engen clarified. that an architect was accepted as a graphics designer. Brief Council comments followed. Mayor Lilley stated that the City must strive for more well-organized parking. Councilwoman Borgeson asserted that she did not believe the parlour was an appropriate use in the downtown. Councilman Shiers also concurred with the • Planning Commission' s conditions regarding parking, noting that the change in occupancy had triggered the increase in parking. Councilman Dexter remarked that the applicant should meet the new conditions. MOTION: By Councilwoman Borgeson and seconded by Councilma.a Dexter to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission' s Findings and Conditions of Approval; motion unanimously carried. 2. SAN MARCOS ROAD EXTENSION - TREE REMOVAL REQUEST (cont`d from 2/26/91) Mr. Engen presented the staff report but noted that the applicant had withdrawn and there was now nothing to appeal. Councilman Shiers stated that the appeal fee should be returned to the applicant. Councilwoman Borgeson agreed. Councilman Nimmo referred to staff' s recommendation to require an environmental impact report on the original application and asserted that he would not vote to require an EIR. He then asked for clarification of the recommended action and whether or not it CC5/14/91 Page 7 vu 1 A w)a REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM: C-4 CITY OF ATASCADERO MEETING DATE: 7-14-92 Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager From: Greg Luke, Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Addition of Sanitation Service Charges to the 1992-93 property taxes. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council adopt the attached resolution and Exhibit upon completion of the public hearing. BACKGROUND: City Ordinance No. 181 provides for the collection of sewer service charges on the general County tax bills. The attached resolution has been prepared in accordance with Section 54354.5 of • the Government Code to accomplish the necessary collection through the 1992-93 property tax bills. In addition, a Notice of Public Hearing has been published noticing this action. DISCUSSION: The basic area of discussion during the public hearing is whether or not the property owner .is responsible'' for all or any portion of the sewer charge that is listed under the column entitled "amount" on Exhibit "A". Any questions or concerns received during the public hearing may be referred to Staff for resolution in order to ensure compliance with forwarding the approved list to the County Auditor in a timely manner. FISCAL IMPACT• The City will bill $617,454.90 in sanitation service charges for fiscal year 1992-93 . Attachments: Resolution No. 63-92 �vUY.ti,j RESOLUTION NO. 63-92 A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO ADOPTING SERVICE CHARGES TO BE ADDED TO THE 1992-93 PROPERTY TAS BILL WHEREAS, Council, after due notice was given in accordance with Section 5473-5473a of the Health and Safety Code has duly held a public hearing concerning the addition of the 1992-93 service charges to the 1992-93 property tax bill; and WHEREAS, at said hearing the attached report marked "Exhibit All containing such charges was duly received by said Council; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing opportunity was given for filing objections and protests and for presentation of testimony of other evidence concerning same; and WHEREAS, it is in the public interest that this body adopt the charges and determine and confirm the report presented at the hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Atascadero, as follows: Section 1. That the recitals set forth hereinabove are true, correct and valid. Section 2. That Council hereby adopts the service charges set forth on the attached report marked "Exhibit All which is hereby expressly incorporated herein by reference ad though here fully set forth; and Council hereby determines and confirms the report containing such charges as set forth in said "Exhibit All and hereby further determines and confirms that each and every service charge set forth in said report is true and accurate and is in fact owed. Section 3 . That the charges as so confirmed and determined and adopted shall appear as separate items on the tax bill of each parcel listed in said report, and such charges shall be collected at the same time and in the same manner as ordinary County ad valorem taxes are collected, and are subject to the same penalties in the same procedure and sale in case the delinquency is provided for such taxes. Section 4. The City Clerk shall file a certified copy of this resolution and said Exhibit A with the County Auditor upon its adoption. Section 5. This resolution is approved by at least a two- thirds vote of said Council. On motion by Councilperson and seconded by Councilperson the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety by the following vote: Jt!01 • AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ADOPTED: ATTEST: CITY OF ATASCADERO LEE RABOIN, City Clerk ALDEN SHIERS, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: ARTHER MONTANDON, City Attorney APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: • GREG LUKE, Director of Public Works • 300165- EXHIBIT A • Due to the length of this document it will not be reproduced for the agenda. A complete copy of the listing is available in the City Clerk's Office REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO ITEM: D-1 VIA: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 7/14/92 File No: GPA 2A-91 ZC 02-91 FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director -46 SUBJECT: Auto Mall/Recreation Vehicle Park General Plan Amendment and re- zoning reconsideration request. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Accept the request of Guy S. Greene & Associates for a re- hearing of their proposed General Plan and Zoning Amendments as a third discretionary application for 1992. This would enable early rescheduling of the project before the Planning commission. 2. Refer the applicant to the October 1 cycle of General Plan Amendments. BACKGROUND• The City Council has received the attached letter from Guy S. Greene & Associates, representing the owners of the 109-acre Rochelle property on the northwest edge of the City. They have requested that the Council agree to reinstitute consideration of their proposed general plan and zoning amendments, which were denied by the City Council on June 9, 1992, on a 2 ; 3 vote when the certification of the environmental impact report was rejected and therefore the general plan and zoning amendments were denied. The Planning Commission had recommended certifying the EIR on a 6:1 vote and also recommended approval of the general plan and zoning amendments on a 5:2 vote. ANALYSIS• State law provides that communities may amend their General Plans four times per year. The practice in the City of Atascadero is to have two open application periods closing on April 1st and October 1st of each year. This gives the City Council discretion for two additional plan amendments. Staff would note, that it makes sense to save those "openings" for major projects that would merit a separate hearing slot. HE:ph encl: Guy Greene & Associates letter - June 24, 1992 General Plan Land Use Map (existing) General Plan Land Use Map (proposed) Existing and Proposed Zoning cc: Guy S. Greene Daven Investments, Ltd. Cosmic Astro Corporation GUY S. GREENE & ASSOCIATES • 7339 Yucca Via, Tucson, Arizona, 85704 (602) 742 0267 June 24, 1992 The Honorable Robert Nimmo Mayor of Atascadero, California c/o Ray Windsor, City Manager 6500 Palma Avenue Atascadero, California 93422 Dear Mayor Nimmo: As you know, the Mayor and Council, at its meeting on June 9, 1992, voted not to certify the final EIR, and to deny the application for General Plan Amendment 2A-91, and Zone Change 02-91. In view of the project's importance, particularly in terms of potential revenue to the city, coupled with the fact that it has generated no real controversy, I submit this request for reconsideration, by the new Mayor and Council, of the denial noted above. I would like to ask, further, that the Mayor and Council consider this request at the earliest possible meeting, perhaps July 14, and put into effect one of its two remaining discretionary General Plan cycles, in order to expedite the matter. Clearly, the owners of the property, who have made a major investment of time and money, have a strong interest in proceeding in a timely manner, but I would not presume to make this request unless I were convinced that the project is not only in no way harmful to the city, but in fact has enormous potential for long- term financial benefits. Thank you for your consideration in this matter, and be assured that the owners and I stand ready to fulfill our responsibilities to the fullest. Sincerely, r S. G eene c. Henry Engen, Community Development Director RECEIVED JUN 2 6 1992 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT " 1J GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP CITY OF ATA.5CADERO =�}�MC .b �_�• GPA 2A-91 / Z C 02-91 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FINAL EIR DEPARTMENT ( EIMSTING ) S t T E , R� - PURL ! E TAI►FFiC�_ • f • c o .. n Ir I it EMS( Y i ; U TI- F / % I+ I46 1/ 4 „ 1 �J 00.11 3) CITY OF ATASCADERO GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT pgz O O Sl= O C � ) I PUBLI I `'� TA�►F�K= • r • ,l a ENSI TY U TI-F I � � u 1 � REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: D-2 Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 7/14/92 From: Henry Engen, Community Development Director SUBJECT• Letter from Glen Lewis re: Ed's Garage (Volvo Sales, 6490 E1 Camino Real) . BACKGROUND: As indicated in the attached letter from Mr. Glen Lewis, and its' accompanying history, Ed's Garage has been referred to the City Attorney's office for referral to the City Prosecutor to abate the used car lot at this location. ANALYSIS: • The history of this land use issue goes back to 1985 and is more succinctly outlined in the Community Development Director's letter to Mr. Lewis, dated July 15, 1991. In summary, the situation is as follows: 1. Illegal Nonconforming Use - The used car lot was never approved at subject location. At the time it evolved into this use, there was the opportunity to request a conditional use permit to become legitimate but this was never pursued. 2. Downtown Master Plan and Zoning - Central to the Downtown Master Plan was elimination of used car dealers and similar automotive uses in the downtown. Hence, the used car lot is not allowed either by right or by use permit, and in fact is prohibited. Mr Lewis is seeking relief from the abatement process through his letter to the City Council. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are possible for Council action. 1. Downtown Master Plan Amendment and Rezoning The applicant could be directed to seek an amendment to the Downtown Master • Plan to enable such land uses to be allowed by use permit. 2 . Time Extension - Council could direct staff to provide an additional grace period to relocate the use to an appropri- ately zoned site. 3 . Enforcement - Refer the matter to the City Prosecutor for abatement. HE:ph Encls: Glen Lewis Letter - June 17, 1992 Ben and Robbie Hoff Letter - August 7, 1992 Henry Engen Letter - July 15, 1991 cc: Mr. Glen Lewis Mr. & Mrs. Hoff i C! GLEN A. LEWIS A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION 5855 CAPISTRANO AVENUE POST OFFICE BOX 1980 ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA 93423 TELEPHONE 18051 466-6644 FAX 18051 466-6647 June 17, 1992 Council Members: Roland Dexter Robert Lilley Robert Nimmo Bonita Borgenson Alden Sheirs Martin Kudlac George Luna David Bewley City of Atascadero Administration Building 6500 Palma Avenue Atascadero, CA 93422 Dear Council: This law office represents Mr. and Mrs. Ben Hoff who are the owners of the real property located at 6490 E1 Camino Real in Atascadero (more commonly known as Ed's Garage) . This law office also is representing Ed's Garage with regard to the subject matter of this letter. By way of introduction, Ed's Garage is a used car sales lot, specializing in Volvo automobiles with approximate gross monthly sales of $40, 000.00. Ed's Garage has been located at this site since 1986 and has always been an admiral business for the City of Atascadero. In 1988, Ed's Garage applied for an updated business license. In order to obtain the license, the City staff informed Ed's Garage that t::ey had to submit a site plan for .review in order to obtain a Conditional Use Permit for their location. Unfortunately, at or about this time, the West Mall street light was under negotiation between Cal Trans, the City of Atascadero and the owner of the property, Mr. and Mrs. Hoff. Mr. Ed Dawson of Ed' s Garage, indicated to me that he was informed by City staff members that he should forego submittal of the site plan and other requirements until a final determination had been made with regard to the subject street light. Unfortunately, there was no uniformity with the City as to what they expected from Mr. Dawson with regard to obtaining his business license. Mr. Dawson, perhaps, was less than dilatory with regard to following up on certain requirements the City requested of him in those days. At the same time though, from correspondence that I have seen with the City, and in talking with Mr. Dawson, the June 17, 1992 Page Two City Planning personnel definitely did not give him any guidance with regard to completing his application and the accompanying documents in order to 'obtain the business license. In 1991, Ed's Garage was given a letter from the City of Atascadero indicating that he had to move his business. After discussions with City staff, and with the City Attorney, Art Montandon, Ed's Garage offered to move their business to another location when the auto mall was completed. Unfortunately, there is no other viable location in Atascadero for Ed's Garage to relocate without terminating its business. On April 20th of this yeas, Ari. Montandun . sent a letter to this office indicating that the operation of Ed's Garage must be discontinued within two weeks, or relocated. As I indicated earlier, there is no viable location in the City of Atascadero at this time for Ed's Garage to relocate and yet have high visibility. With the present financial condition of the City, it is hard for me to understand why City staff would put so much pressure to force a viable business entity out of business. With $40, 000.00 in gross sales, the City is going to lose once again, a business that generates revenue for this town, a business that does not pollute this area and one that is relatively attractive for the town. Please look into this matter immediately so this business may continue in the downtown location, both for the benefit of Ed' s Garage, as well as the City of Atascadero. Very trul yours, N R. WIS GRL'-by HOFFBE/10-002 ..y L� (AL1. W CITY OF ATASCADE .R - �-j is s° y �, 1979 — ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES CMAAD April 20, 1992 Glen R. Lewis 5855 Capistrano Ave. Atascadero, CA 93422 Subject: Ed's Garage Dear Mr. Lewis: After thorough review of this situation, we must require that Ed' s Garage be relocated. We cannot agree with the time requested in your previous letter. Please submit a compliance • schedule within two weeks which will ensure the discontinued operation of Ed' s Garage. If we cannot reach a satisfactory resolution soon, we will be obliged to refer this for prosecution. Sincerely yours, 1\16-rC- : M ARTHER R. MONTANDON V N 6 To City Attorney Z ARM:cw c: Henry. Engen UUx' 7 6500 PALMA AVENUE • ATASCADERO, CA 93422 City Council:(805)461-5086 City Treasurer.(805)461-5018 Citv Clerk:(805)461-5074 Citv Attornev:1805)"1-5010 City Fax:18051461-0606 CORRESPONDENCE: EDS GARAGE May 5th, 1985 Business License application: 114 parking spaces must be provided. Plot plan shows 6 spaces therefore 2 spaces left for used car sales. August 19th, 1985 Letter, Meg Morris, Assistant Planner: ". . .possible violation. . .concerning the storage and display of vehicles which exceed the limitations of the site. . . .It April 2nd, 1986 "Public Inquiry Form" [Complaint received by Meg Morris J : "(1) cars in public right-of-way, (2) oil, grease, soap in sidewalk, gutter, (3) cars marked for sale off-site." April 4th, 1986 Letter, Meg Morris: "Although you responded to that letter and partially complied with City codes at that time, there are still a number of violations which continue to exist on your site. . . . (1) Storage and display of vehicles which exceed the limitations of the site. . . . (2) Expansion of sales area to include areas which are required for on site parking. . . . April 18th, 1986 Memo, Meg Morris:. "Ed Dawson and Ed Flitters were . in today to discuss the enforcement letter they received. . . . I explained to them that the business license was in error in regards to the 8-10 cars allowed for sale. on the site. There was no approval for expansion. "We asked that they provide us with a detailed and to . scale site plan of what they propose to do on the site / how they will solve their parking / storage problems They said they_would have it to us by May 2, 1986._' NO DATE Letter, Ed Dawson: ". . . .no major repairs at this location. . .no disabled used cars or junkers -- all nice -- and only about 5 at a time." NO DATE Letter, Health Department: "Permit to Operate must be obtained from this department." November 12, 1986 Letter, Paul Sensibaugh, Director of Public Works: "We suggest that you request a time delay for your tank removals until the State removes your sidewalk." November 16th, 1986 Letter, Ben Hoff: "Please grant a delay for any action on my part regarding these tanks until such time." :it�11Y'!�3 •7 y 1 �3 May , 13th, 1987 Memo, Heather Paris, Health Department: "Enclosed is a copy of the information we have on Ed's Garage Too. Apparently, no fees were ever paid. May 15th, 1987 Letter, Steve DeCamp, Zoning Enforcement Officer: ". . .following violations. . .noted: "A) The Business License was approved based on the use being subordinate to a Gasoline Service Station (as described in the attached letter from you. ) ` "B) The number of cars allowed for display for sale on site was limited to 2 (as per your letter) . Your use of the site as an Automobile Sales Lot and Repair Garage is no longer a legal use. "C) Your current use of the Site as an Automobile Repair Facility is way beyond what you described in your letter. your use of the site as an Automobile Repair facility has never been an authorized or legal use of the property. Automobile Repair facilities require Planning Commission approval. . . ." May 29th, 1987 [date = rcv'd] Letter, Ed Dawson: request appoint to review business permit requirements. June 8th, 1987 Letter, Jon Ecklund, Code Enforcement: ". . .options available to you: 111) Apply for a Conditional Use Permit. . . ." "2) Look for another location. . . ." October 1st, 1987 Letter, Jon Ecklund: "Your property is zoned commercial Retail and your use, at its present location, will require Planning Commission approval. . . . "Since my last latter to you on June 8th, many additional automobiles have been added to the rear of the site and are being dismantled there. A cargo container has also been brought to the site and is being used for storage." December 7th, 1987 Project Review Check List March 29th, 1988 Letter, Jon Ecklund: "It was verifiedtoday that you have modified the front of your building. this is notice to you to stop all physical improvement of the property and building until such time as your Conditional Use Permit is Approved and Building Permit is issued. i00�'1 June 29th, 1988 Letter, Department of Transportation: "The State will not certify the right-of-way for this project until the tanks are removed. June 30th, 1988 Memo in margin, Paul Sensibaugh: "This changes our approach. . . ." July 6th, 1988 Memo, Henry Engen, Director, Community Development Dept. to Paul Sensibaugh: "You need to contact . . . County Health Department . . . to start tank removal." December 8th, 1988 Letter, Steve DeCamp, Senior Planner: Conditional Use Permit for Ed's Garage 6490 El Camino Real. "Section 9-3.223(g) requires that all Automobile Repair Facilities located in the Commercial Retail (CR) zone be approved by the Planning Commission." May 18th, 1990 Letter, Bill Wittmeyer; Compliance official: ". . .formalize notification regarding the requirement - for a building permit for construction of the office(s) at the subject address." June 21st, 1990 Letter, Bill Wittmeyer: ". . .you were notified. . . . To. date there is no record. . . . if you choose to remove or demolish the structure, a demolition or moving permit will be required." June 13th, 1990 Letter, Ed Dawson: ". . .request two more weeks to get the necessary documents prepared." July 17th, 1990 Letter, Ed Dawson: "Please allow me a few more days to get all of these things in order, to submit." ` July 23rd, 1990 Letter, Bill Wittmeyer: ". . .request for additional time has been approved. November 15th, 1900 Letter, Ed Dawson: ". . .may _ be some mis-- understanding. . . ." November 16th, 1990 Memo, Bill Wittmeyer: It appears from a review of the somewhat extensive file amassed regarding this business that the standard operating procedure is to pay some degree of lip-service to the notifications and directions and then just letting the matter die until the next time." November 16th, 1990 Letter, Bill Wittmeyer: "Your hand-delivered letter, received today, would seem to indicate that you are confused regarding the regulations and requirements regarding compliance of the operation at the subject address. Please review the following excerpt from the letter prepared to be forwarded to the City Prosecutor:" I November 27th, 1990 Letter, Bill Wittmeyer: "After review of the compliance file on the subject property with a representative from your business (Lori) it has been determined that the best approach at this time is to require a Compliance Survey. November 27th, 1990 Memo, Bill Wittmeyer: Additionalto November 16th: "Essentially, the attached is a "last chance" before taking this to court. In accordance with Mayor Lilley's admonition to avoid perpetuating the city's past anti-business attitude, we are affording Ed's Garage every opportunity and advantage. December 14th, 1990 "Notice of Nuisance" ["mis-sent" to 6322 El Camino Real; copy also sent to Ed Dawson],: re: construction without permits. Order to vacate by January 7th, 1990. December 14th, 1990 Letter, Bill Wittmeyer [cover letter for "Notice of Nuisance"; "mis-sent" to 6322 El Camino Real] . January 7th, 1990 Memo, Bill Wittmeyer to City Attorney, Henry Engen, Building/Planning Divisions: "The attached "DANGEROUS BUILDING" notice has been posted at the subject property this morning in accordance with the provisions of the December 14th, 1990 letter sent to the owner--copy to tenant." January 7th, 1991 Building Permit Application, by Leo Hickman for Ed Dawson. January 8th, 1991 Building Permit Control Sheet: "Permit Ready to Issue: 1/8/91. Applicant Notified: 1/8/91. Permit Issued: 1/25/91." [[note: demolition/removal of illegal structures was verified by Bill Wittmeyer; however, Building Division inspection was never requested by applicant, therefore the permit remains "active" in the Building Division files. ]J • January 8th, 1991 Building Permit Control Sheet: "Permit Ready to Issue: 1/8/91. . Applicant Notified: 1/8/91. Permit Issued: 1/25/91." [[note: demolition/removal of illegal structures was verified by Bill Wittmeyer; however, Building Division inspection was never requested by applicant, therefore the permit remains "active" in the Building Division files.]] ADDITIONAL TO CHRONOLOGY July 15th, 1991 Letter, Henry Engen to Glen Lewis: focus on continued land use violation. August 7th, 1991 Letter, Mr. and Mrs. Hoff to Community Development Department staff April 20th, 1992 Letter, Art Montandon to Glen Lewis: "...we must require that Ed's Garage be relocated...." June 17th, 1992 Letter, Glen Lewis to Council. v�U xt`i;c; August 7, 1991 i Director Henry Engen and Staff Community Development Department City of Ataseadero 6500 Palma Avenue Atascadero , California 93422 Gentlemen: we don' t believe we 've had any direct communication from you concerning 6490 El Camino Real, known as Ed' s Garage, since we were asked to remove the fuel tanks ahead of time in 1988 so that Caltrans would move on with the street and signal project. That cost us a heap of money and meant , of course , a big incon- venience and loss of income to the tenant we 've leased to since May , 1985. How long after the tanks were removed before the project was actually done? Two full yearsl As you know;., the elimination of existing driveways from 6490 along El Camino Real made us unhappy, but we gave in under pressure from a number of City officials and signed the Right- Of-Way Agreement March 8, 1988. According to an article in the Atascadero News dated March 16, by our doing so and the City • then being able to put in a three-way rather than a four-way signal , over $41,000.00 was saved. When we bought the property in 1980, we were given a copy of what was then the latest piece of correspondence from the State . Dept. of Transportation to the last owner regarding the signal project. Quote : "The City's portion will be constructed to give you maximum access at three locations . . . and one location #(4) solely on E1 Camino Real at West Mall on the State ' s portion." We feel that we gave up some of our property rights so that the City could have what they considered the very best possible street improvement for Atascadero. Now we are asking that the City show some concern for us. The gas _ tanks were removed because that was, we were told, necessary before the street project could be crone. if they had not been, and we had instead chosen to implement a monitoring program along with permit fees paid to the SLO County Health Department , Mr. Dawson could have gone on pumping some gas, but would the City have liked that? The application for the license issued to him May 30, 1y85, stated Automotive - Used Cas• Sales as the "Nature of business" , so that has been the same all along. In 1988 Mr. Dawson was told through his secs-etary (his hours of work at the State hospital kept him from applying in person) that a plot plan showing the street improvements must be submitted but since they did not yet exist ,not to woi-ry about a license until the project was none. The same thing nappenea in 1y69 when he tried to pay for a license. The project was, as you well know, �iUC1:Y.ti:� Page Two completed near the end of 1990. Meantime , lair. Dawson had made some mistakes as regards what was deemed an illegal structure , but he was trying in good faith to arrange for nis site plan to be finished up just as soon as the street worx was completed. .before that could happen, and without any notice whatsoever to us, the Downtown Master Plan was adopted, and then our Lessee was told that he would have to move. The new hank of America would be located at 6490 E1 Camino Heal instead of where it is if the City had not aemanded over 120 parking spaces,with some 25 of them to be aesignated for City use , in June and July of 1950 when B of A tri.eu to buy our downtown property (6490 to Jacx In The Boxy In march of 1981 burger King wanted to build at 6490, and then in July we thought we had it sold to Lyon' s for a 124 seat restaurant. They went to escrow ana struggled through negotiations with City officials for four months before giving up. Most of you know about Kentucky Fried Chicken' s attempts to build something on our property in_ 1987. Property taxes alone for this location are over $2,1`i5.00 per year, so we really need to keep our tenant. Your help with our problems will be much appreciated. Sincerely, ben and Robbie Hoff P.O.Box 928 Atascaaero , CA 93423 or 2b5 Bradley Ave. Morro bay, CA 95442 CITY OF ATASCADERO 1918 G ® '"' �' 1978 C—f COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT July 15, 1991 Mr. Glen R. Lewis 5855 Capistrano Avenue P.O. Box 1980 Atascadero, CA 93423 SUBJECT: ED'S GARAGE Dear Mr. Lewis: Per our discussion, and in response to your letter of June 25th, we are enclosing pertinent communications relative to the establish- ment of Ed' s Garage dating back to May 5, 1985. ' I think once you have familiarized yourself with this paper trail, you will have to conclude that the City has, if anything, been overly generous in trying to work with Mr. Dawson to bring the property into confor- mance with the City' s zoning requirements. As the enclosed communications attest, Mr. Dawson was notified years ago that he could not shift from a gas station, which was a permitted use in the CR zone, to a used car lot, which required a conditional use permit, *without obtaining use permit approval from the Planning Commission. This was never applied for, and as of the adoption of the Downtown Master Plan on December 11, 1990, is no longer a permitted use. Adding confusion to the process was the illegal structure and addition to the building which were eventu- ally removed. There has never, however, been a proper response to the issue of establishing an illegal land use. In January of this year, Ed and Tom Dawson advised, Steve DeCamp, City Planner, that they were aware of the law and would be in compliance no later than the end of June of this year. Obviously, they are not and we cannot support their continuance in a location which has been affirmed through the adoption of the Downtown Master Plan as inappropriate. There is no question that Mr. Dawson tried to obtain a business license, but he has not tried to comply with the City' s Zoning Ordinance with regard to the basic issue of whether the use is permitted. We continue to stand ready to work with Mr. Dawson in locating his business to a site properly zoned for used car lot sales. 6500 PALMA AVENUE • ATASCADERO, CA 93422 Building Permits 18051461-504 Manning:(805)461-5035 Enforcement(805)461-5034 Director.(805)461-5097 City Fax:(805)461-0606 �v�l1�ri� Page Two s Mr. Glen R. Lewis July 15, 1991 Please contact us as to when we may expect to obtain compliance. If it is not immediately forthcoming, I will have no recourse but to refer it to the City Attorney for prosecution. Sincerely, Henry Eng n Community DevelopmrtDirector HE:ps cc: Ray Windsor, City Manager Art Montandon, City Attorney ]Bill Wittmeyer, Compliance official Steve DeCamp City Planner Attachments: Correspondence - Ed' s Garage: Summary, May 5 , 1985 to January 8, 1991 . y List Copies of Documents cited in Summar MEETIPG AGENDA QATE.. l ITEM# D...,..�3 ..,,,.,. TO : Ray Windsor City Manager FROM : Jeff McAlister SUBJECT : Mandatory Garbage Service The mandatory garbage service that was imposed upon all Atascadero residence as of July 1, 1992, is unfair to those of us who do not chose to participate in this program and would prefer to recycle and dispose of solid waste at our convenience and our choice of disposal sites . Since January of 1991 this issue has been discussed in many city council meetings with opposition prevailing against this ordinance . Contrary to the purpose of mandatory collection, which is to reduce landfill reduction, per AB939 , we have yet to determine a base line for yearly waste from our city. It was also stated that Wil-Mar is the cheapest and most efficient garbage service available . This is false, as Paso Robles rates are currently less and no independent study has been performed on Wil-Mar "s services . Furthermore, this ordinance will increase landfill because those of us who have been recycling for years will now be paying for at least one 30 gallon can per week, so we might as well fill that can to the top . Why hassle with sorting recallable items when they can now all go into one can and be picked up every week? The only people to benefit from mandatory garbage service will be Wil-Mar and the City .of Atascadero who will receive a 5% franchise fee from Wil-Mar . This letter is to request that this important issue be put on the July 14, 1992 meeting agenda in hopes that the city council members will indorse and rescind the mandatory waste collection ordinance #243 . Jeff McAlister cc : Robert Nimmo Marty Kudlac Bonita Borgeson Dave Bewley George Luna MEMORANDUM TO: City Council VIA: Ray Windsor, City Manager FROM: Greg Luke, Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Matters relating to mandatory trash pickup DATE: July 9, 1992 Since the Council enacted a mandatory trash pick-up ordinance, a variety of criticisms have been expressed both in the press and personal communication. Staff has had no direction from Council of any desire to alter the original decision. However, the agenda item to discuss a letter from Jeff McAlister at the July 14 Council meeting prompts the memo. Council's decision to proceed with mandatory pick-up is constrained and guided by the requirements of AB 939 which require 25% reduction in solid waste by 1995, and a 50% reduction by 2000. As these deadlines approach, the City must have the authority to control the entire waste stream. Programs which provide an incentive to recycle or otherwise reduce the volume of waste are only effective when the entire community is involved. Hence the necessity for mandatory pick-up. Several documents have been prepared previously for Council which discuss the need for mandatory pick-up, including equitable cost sharing of a community service, control of illegal dumping, and efficiency of collection. In addition, the City's Recycling Committee, after exhaustive research and debate has recommended mandatory pick-up. Conversely, many logical arguments have been presented why mandatory pick-up places an unfair burden on a certain segments of the population. The arguments fall into the following categories: 1. Financial Hardship: The current collection rate of $7.50 for one can and $19. 00 for a 3-can capacity waste hauler is an onerous cost for low income families, particularly the elderly on fixed income. 2 . The Complete Recycler: Some residents are able to recycle/compost all or most of their waste and are doing so. 3 . Low Trash Generation: An individual (generally a senior citizen on fixed income) who purchases very few products that are commercially packaged, or simply buys very little of anything generates only a small quantity of waste. These people need only occasional trash pick-up. Often a family member or friend will pick up the small volume of trash on a regular basis and add it to their own trash collection. • 4. Hauls to Landfill: An individual periodically hauls waste to the landfill, thus eliminating the need for commercial trash pick- up. 5. Alternate Disposal Method: A business owner may have trash dumpster at work which is also used to dispose of the domestic trash. The argument is made that mandatory trash pick-up for domestic service is "double charging" a business 'owner for trash collection. Other alternate disposal methods have been mentioned, such as hauling to San Luis Obispo where rates are lower. 6. Unable/Inconvenient to Set Out Trash: Handicapped, elderly, people with long driveways, and other unique situations make putting the trash on the side of the road difficult. Presumably these residents have arranged to handle their trash in a more convenient manner. 7. Opposed on General Principles: Opposition has been expressed to Wil-Mar's exclusive contract, including speculation on excessive profit. General property rights, freedom of choice, excessive bureaucracy, lack of oversight, and a variety of other broad-based concerns have been associated with mandatory pick-up. In the event Council desires to reconsider the issue of . mandatory pick-up, that is to say, repealing it, staff should be directed to set the matter for public hearing at which time the current ordinance would be agendized. In the event Council desires to reconsider the issue of mandatory pick-up, that is to say, modifying the current ordinance to permit certain types of exemptions, it is recommended that the issue be referred back to staff so that specific areas of concern may be addressed by staff, the Recycling Committee and Wil-Mar in an effort to resolve the most compelling arguments against mandatory pick-up short of repealing the ordinance. • MEETING AGENDA DATEZl 4 2 ITEM# D-4 MEMORANDUM TO: City Council VIA: Ray Windsor, City Manager FROM: Greg Luke, Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Supplemental Report from DKS Associates' DATE: July 9, 1992 The enclosed report has been prepared by DKS; Associates, the City's consultant preparing the update to the General Plan's Circulation Element. The report which addresses'; the Highway 41 alignment is self-explanatory; staff has no further analysis or comment to add. A technical correction needs to be made in the second paragraph of under the "Background" discussion. The report states that , ". . .no decision has yet been made either by the City of Atascadero or Caltrans to select an alternative. " More correctly, no final decision has been made by the City or Caltrans. Previously, the City Council indicated a preference for the Alternative A alignment, reserving a final decision until the Environmental Impact Report was complete. The Alternative A alignment is also specified in the General Plan. More recently a "straw vote" taken by the previous Council indicated opposition to the Alternative A alignment. For your information, Mr. Mike Multari, Consulting Project Manager for the preparation of the updated Circulation Element, will be at the meeting available for questions. • .;OoluSu DKS Associates Atascadero Transportation Study Supplemental Report Route 41 Alignment Presented to Atascadero City Council By DKS Associates Circulation Element Consultants July 7, 1992 The following report was prepared at the request of Mr. Luke, Public Works Director, and is intended to bring to your attention our need for Council direction or approval of a course of action regarding Route 41 improvements as input to the Circulation Element Update of the Atascadero General Plan. Background . The project team has completed all of the background research regarding traffic patterns and volumes for the City. We have conducted two public meetings, the first to discuss and solicit inputs on existing transportation issues and needs, and the second to discuss future transportation needs and alternatives. We are now at the point where a draft Circulation Element is to be prepared under the terms of our agreement with the City. A key component of the Circulation Element is a Plan which shows the ultimate roadway system to serve the City upon buildout. The draft Circulation Element is scheduled for completion by late August. One of the critical issues affecting the Circulation Plan is the future location of Highway 41. Caltrans has prepared a DEIR addressing alternative Route 41 improvements east of El Camino Real and has held a public hearing but, to our knowledge, no decision has yet been made either by the City of Atascadero or Caltrans to select an alternative. We are aware of the local controversy and lack of consensus about the future Highway 41 location. The issue was a dominant subject at the two workshops held to discuss the Circulation Element. Technical Evaluation Key traffic engineering factors affecting the route decision are given below. Please note that Caltrans' DEIR discusses the environmental impacts of all of the alternative routes; it is not the intention of this report to repeat this information. P91244-01B 1 DKS Associates Conclusions and Recommendations As stated above, it is not our intention to second guess or influence the route selection process, which should consider all the environmental factors in addition to traffic service. We are simply at a point where an assumption must be made to complete our work. In the absence of other information, we must use our professional judgement to proceed. Based on the traffic engineering factors presented above, the realignment of Highway 41 (Alternative A or A-Modified) provides the best long-term engineering solution for traffic circulation for Atascadero. For the projected traffic volumes, the lower cost, lower impact A- Modified alignment would be satisfactory. Therefore, unless otherwise directed by staff or Council, it seems prudent to assume this route alternative while developing the draft Circulation Plan. In the future, if the final selected alternative turns out to be different than the one assumed in preparing the Circulation Element, it will be necessary to modify the Circulation Element to reflect the altered traffic patterns and roadway improvement needs. P91244-01/B 4 DKS Associates 1. The existing Highway 41 route (No Build or Alternative B) will not adequately serve the future east-west traffic circulation needs of the city, placing undesirably high traffic volumes on existing streets. 2. Of particular concern is Curbaril Avenue. With the existing route, Caltrans has projected 8,500 vehicles per day(total of both directions)by 2015,or about twice the existing volume, west of the Salinas River. Our own projections are for 6,600 daily vehicles on Curbaril Avenue west of the bridge, increasing to almost 12,000 daily vehicles just east of El Camino Real. These projections are with or without a new bridge across the river. Traffic volumes in excess of 5,000 daily vehicles (and sometimes as low as 3,000 daily vehicles) are usually unacceptable to people living on the street. The Caltrans and DKS traffic projections well exceed the level of traffic acceptable for a residential collector street. Presence of truck traffic would further impact the residents. Moreover, the traffic growth would require improving Curbaril Avenue to an arterial street of two to four lanes with left turn pockets, limited side access,full sized shoulders, etc.,with the four lane width being needed near El Camino Real. The right-of-way would not only be expensive, but would severely impact or displace existing residences along Curbaril Avenue. These improvement needs are not provided for in the Route 41 improvement plan under Alternative B or No Build and would therefore be a local (City) responsibility for funding. 3. Similarly,with the existing alignment of Route 41, additional traffic is projected along West Mall, Capistrano and Sycamore. About 4,600 daily vehicles (two-way total) are projected on Capistrano, as compared to 3,600 daily vehicles at present. The projected traffic increase would negatively impact the residents along Capistrano, with traffic levels at or closely approaching the acceptable limits. The schools on West Mall would also be adversely impacted. Although this route is designated as Route 41 and is therefore eligible for State funding,the DEIR points out that it would not be feasible to improve this route without displacing residences, and therefore does not provide for any improvements. 4. Realignment of Highway 41 as described in Alternative A or A-Modified would significantly reduce future traffic levels on Curbaril Avenue and West Mall/Capistrano/Sycamore. We project that the realignment would reduce traffic on Curbaril Avenue by 4,000 daily vehicles. This would result in acceptable traffic volumes on the east end of Curbaril Avenue and would avoid the need for upgrading Curbaril to arterial status in the future. Traffic volumes near El Camino Real would still be higher than desirable for a residential street, but could be accommodated by a two lane road. P91244-018 2 DKS Associates 5. Any of the alternative routes for Highway 41 would impose a heavy traffic load on the intersection of El Camino Real with Curbaril Avenue. Our analysis indicates that this is the most congested intersection today. With the existing Highway 41 alignment maintained, future traffic is projected to exceed the capacity of the intersection by some 30 percent. It is unlikely that this intersection could be mitigated to an acceptable level of service. Realignment of Highway 41 would reduce traffic at the El Camino Real intersection. Although still above capacity, resulting traffic levels would be more readily accommodated by feasible intersection improvements. 6. Our analysis indicates that the Morro Road, Curbaril and Traffic Way interchanges with Highway 101 will all ultimately need major improvements if the existing Highway 41 alignment is maintained. At the 101 freeway ramp intersections with Curbaril Avenue, turning lanes are limited and right-of-way is narrow. In addition, Curbaril's intersection with El Camino Real and the Curbaril on and off ramps are far enough apart to make combined signal timing difficult. Yet the two intersections are close enough together to interfere with one another. The Traffic Way intersection at both El Camino Real and 101 is highly constrained by many factors, including existing buildings, roadway elevational differences and numerous other factors. 7. With realignment of Highway 41, more of the future traffic will be concentrated into the Morro Road interchange. This will accelerate the need for improving the Morro Road interchange but should avoid or at least postpone the need for major improvements at the Curbaril and Traffic Way interchanges, both of which would be difficult to fund and construct. Caltrans' current proposal is to construct traffic signals at the Highway 101/Morro interchange as a part of realigning Highway 41. While this is only a "band-aid" solution, it does provide near term relief from additional traffic. Interconnecting the signals with state- of-the-art timing techniques will minimize the wait time at this intersection. In the longer range future the Public Works Department, San Luis Obispo Area Coordinating Council (SLOACC), and Caltrans will need to develop an improved ramp configuration. A Project Study Report is proposed by SLOACC for this fiscal year to study alternative ramp configurations. Our initial review of the area shows that several promising alternatives that may provide a long-term solution to the problem. Our final report will show some of these potential solutions. While no funding for the Morro Road interchange improvements has been identified, being an interchange between two state routes provides better prospects in the future than for the other two interchanges. P91244-01/B 3 ciU'U�:y.9 SYSTEM DESIGN TELEPHONE (605) 466-2015 TECHNICAL WRITING INFORMATION MANAGEMENT PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT APPLIED CREATIVITY July 7, 1992 Douglas R. Lewis POST OFFICE BOX 1017 ATASCADERO. CALIFORNIA 93423 The City Council Subject: An opportunity to City of Atascadero fill a crucial gap Administration Building improving Atascad.erc 6500 Palma Avenue circulation options. Atascad.ero, California 93422 Honorable Mayor: Members of the Council: I request your prompt, timely and. responsible action on a capital matter of great importance to traffic circulation in Atascadero, at jeopardy of irreparable oversight and. loss. This writing is an advisory correspondence urging that you proceed. at once to acquire and. utilize certain real property to link streets. ACTION: 1) Re-secure the real eatate parcel opposite Bajad.a Avenue at the Northerly boundary of the Traffic Way Municipal Yards and play-field.s to City ownership. I observe that the parcel, 29-091-31 , formerly in due-course muni- cipal ownership is now on the market for sale as industrial property, presumably by private persons. Get it back! The greater public value of that street-level parcel, and the reduced. vigor of the local real estate market should. work to facilitate the prompt recovery of that parcel for superior public owner- ship and purpose; not recreational use. ACTION: 2) Extend Bajada Avenue across Traffic Way so as to traverse said parcel appropriate to City acquisition for public purpose. That exten- sion of Bajad.a would. thereafter traverse City-owned. portions of the City Maintenance Yard-;.and proceed, to cross Atascad.eroCreek, thence to join Capistrano Avenue by access over a new bridge crossing there. ACTION: 3) Allocate priority bridge planning and bridge funding to this Bajada/Capistrano interconnect in lieu of the dubious Lew Avenue exten- sion bridging Atascad.ero Creek. I confess that I am no politician, no bureaucrat, and. perhaps no diplomat either. I concede the vested. sensitivities that press for the City Council/Lewis New Traffic Brid.ge 7-7-92 ill-advised. Lewis Avenue auto traffic carrier brid.ge. However, poo decisions based. on obstinate misjudgement d.o no cred.ti to the City. An expensive (Lewis Avenue) auto traffic brid.ge that ultimately only ad.d.s three ( 3) blocks to a traffic pattern, to thereupon includ.e a major fire station apron, a large junior high school campus and. elem- entary school campus , and. the City Hall parking lot and. handicap entry ( to City Hall) , inspires no confid.ence in the long-term prospect or efficacy of that choice. Please d.on't forget that those sole three short blocks of Lewis Avenue d.ead.-end. just three blocks from that pro- posed. brid.ge. In ad.d.ition, I would. point out that Lewis Avenue is only two blocks North-eastward. from El Camino Real. To build. a second. parallel bridge crossing over Atascad.ero Creek only two blocks from the existing E1 Camino Bridge over the Creek barely seven hundred. fifty ( 750) feet away merely to serve a three-block thorofare seems a rather cavalier extrav- agance of traffic mitigation. TheCity's gain would. be illusory at best; embarrassingly memorable at worst. A second. auto traffic bridge over Atascadero Creek ought to serve more than a three-block long dead-end corridor. New brid.ges ought to lead. somewhere, open new vistas , new mobility and. convenience. I d.o not believe the proposed. Lewis Avenue bridge will do either in significant measure, and. ask that you allow your best reasoning faculties to examine that question forthrightly. If this Bajada/Capistrano alternative auto traffic brid.ge is authorized. and. constructed., the entire Northeastern quadrant receivo a substantial new arterial linking the industrial and. resid.ential popu- lations of that quadrant to the commercial and professional institu- tions of the Southeastern quadrant in a nimble new manner far more able to relieve some of the d.owntown/through-town traffic clutter. Especially, some significant amount of industrial traffic would be effectively diverted. from town center in transit between the major cross-town corridors and. the industrial facilities East and. North of town. The subsequent reduction of industrial-strength traffic passing by a crowded, and. busy school campus and. major fire station should not bf discounted. under the scenario proposed here. However, the eventuality of a traffic signal at the B ajad.a/Traffic Way intersection is a virtual certainty und.er this implementation. Maybe not soon. . .but somed.ay. The present traffic outlet via Via from Traffic Way is much too far removed. from the next sequential cross-traffic artery at Olmed.a (and. Traffic Way) to effectively serve the circulation need.s between the Northeastern and Southeastern quadrants. This recommended course of action is ad.mitted.ly a jud.gement call reflecting only informal traffic pattern studies , since traffic pattern realities usually follow available routes and. have no way to anticipate unanticipated. relief corridors. No statistical projections or computer simulations have been devised. in support of this recommendation. It is worth noting that these two existing inter-quadrant links (Olmeda and. Via) are approximately three thousand. ( 3000) feet from one another, consid.er more than half a mile; and. neither of them has the thorofare potenti of the Bajad.a/Capistrano interface. Olmed.a d.ead.-end.s at West Mall and 2 City Council/Lewis New Traffic Bridge 7-7-92 • Via d.ead-end.s at Traffic Way. The Bajad.a extension to meet Capistrano simply makes more sense to me. The project I urge you to implement will be ',much more than a mere third interquadrant access between Northeast and. ', Southeast. The potent: al improvement in natural traffic flow should. be unmistakable. There are few if any other opportunities ever likely to make such a big traff- ic difference so simply. Whether you judge it to be so and worthy of expedition should. not bear scars of conflict or delay from any compe- tition with the ill-ad.vised. Lewis Avenue bridge. The Bajad.a/Capistrano tie-in deserves a totally fresh assessment as a priority traffic cross- ing for Atascadero Creek sufficiently Easterly from El Camino Real. The long-term benefits are subjectively presented in this letter, since the objective support matrix is beyond my purview or intent. I only urge you to do this sensible, responsible thing timely, promptly. If you judge its merits to be other than I present or perceive, I would regret your decision, and. would, probably tell you so, but I have no- thing to gain either way. However, I would be delighted to see you act decisively and. promptly to vindicate my perception and. urging. I had much rather watch my town proceed. in ways beneficial and timely beyond any narrow posturing or shortsighted. extravagances. Get that parcel back. Then put it to good. use. It is requested. that Council resolutions and. instructions to staff • along with other appropriate and. necessary procedures to implement some or all of this recommendation be instigated and. enacted timely, in pur- suit of an early benefit to the City; a large and permanent benefit. Respectfully, 1�hV/_� r4'e��� Douglas R. Lewis DISTRIBUTION: City Manager: I address these concerns as agenda items to be put before the City Council for action at its next regularsched.uled meeting following this date, July 7, 1992 , being timely submitted. City Director of Public Works: These expressions reflect prior discussions and disclosure held. in your office. Editor; Atascad.ero News: This is an advisory communication only. This is not a press re- lease intended for separate publication. D.R.L. 3 t ► allow 1��1111�1r Iir,/lln�►.o► -- --- _ _ -��/ - � �iBig 1111.111111 11/1 IIIIIIIIIII191111SIMON oil ®.•`��j �= _ _�►�� 11111111111111 11 r■.,11��7 ���1 :. ,,, Wks Ell = �■ . �- s '' SOMME its �`! '�! ��. ■.� ♦ : �� �i�1��,► � ��'�����■ter► '/ Mp WK Apr �_"�� � �,� • •, ' ,,,1111 �IO'�. ♦ . MEETING AGENDA DATE 7/� ITEM! D-6 ORDINANCE NO. 252 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA' AMENDING SECTIONS 2-13.01, 2-13.03, 2-13.10 AND 2-13.11 OF THE ATASCADERO MUNICIPAL CODE, INCREASING THE NUMBER OF MEMBERS OF THE PARRS & RECREATION CtMMISSION AND CHANGING THE TITLE OF THE DIRECTOR The City Council of the City of Atascadero does ordain as follows: SECTION 1. Section 2-13.01 of the Atascadero Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: Section 2-13.01 Established. There is created a Parks and Recreation Commission composed of seven (7) members. SECTION 2. Section 2-13.03 is amended to read as follows: Section 2-13.03. Members: Appointment: Terms of Office. The City Council shall appoint members of the Parks and Recreation Commission by a majority vote of the en- tire Council. There shall be seven regular members of the Commission. The terms of three (3) of the regular members shall expire on June 30, 1994, and every four (4) years thereafter. The terms of four (4) of the regular members shall expire on June 30, 1996, and every four (4) years thereafter. Vacancies on the Commission occurring other than by expiration of term shall be filled in the manner established for appointments. All members shall serve at the pleasure of the City Council. SECTION 3. Section 2-13. 10, Subsection (h) is amended to read as follows: (h) Advise the Director of Community Services in the development and operation of the parks and recreation programs and facilities; SECTION 4. Section 2-13.11 is amended to read as follows: Section 2-13.11. Director of Community Services: Meeting Attendance: Reports The Director of Community Services or the Director' s delegate shall attend the meetings of the Parks and Rec- reation Commission and shall make such reports to the Commission, to the City Manager or to the City Council as may be required. Ordinance No. 252 Page Two SECTION 4. 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 circula- ted in the City in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code; shall certify the adopting and posting of this ordinance and shall cause this ordinance and this certification, together with proof of posting, to be entered into the Book of Ordinances of the City. SECTION S. Effective Date. This ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and effect at 12:01 a.m. on the 31st day after its passage. On motion by Councilmember , seconded by Council- member , the foregoing ordinance is approved by the following roll-call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ADOPTED: CITY OF ATASCADERO By: ROBERT P. NIMMO, Mayor ATTEST: LEE RABOIN, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ARTHER R. MONTANDON, City Attorney REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO AGENDA ITEM: D-7 Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Mtg. ' Date: 7/14/92 From: Henry Engen, Community Development Director'. SUBJECT: Proposed adoption of Model Codes and Title 8, Building Regulations RECOMMENDATION: Approval and adoption of Ordinance #248 on second reading. BACKGROUND: On June 23, 1992, the Atascadero City Council conducted a public hearing on the above referenced subject and, on first reading, approved Ordinance No. 248. • HE:ps Attachment: Ordinance No. 248 J�JU :s ORDINANCE NO. 248 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO AMENDING TITLE 8(BUILDING REGULATIONS) TO THE ATASCADERO MUNICIPAL CODE AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE, THE UNIFORM CODE FOR BUILDING CONSERVATION INCLUDING ALL APPENDICES (LATEST PRINTING) , THE UNIFORM ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, 1991 ADDITION, PUBLISHED BY THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF BUILDING OFFICIALS; THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE, INCLUDING APPENDIX CHAPTERS 11, 12-II&III, 23-IV, 25, 29, 32, 35, 38, 49, 55, 57 AND 70, 1991 EDITION, AND THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE STANDARDS, ALL PUBLISHED BY THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF BUILDING OFFICIALS; THE NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE, 1990 EDITION, PUBLISHED BY THE NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION ASSOCIATION; THE UNIFORM PLUMBING CODE, INCLUDING ALL APPENDICES, 1991 EDITION, AND THE IAPMO INSTALLATION STANDARDS, 1991 EDITION, ALL PIIBLISHED BY THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF PLUMBING AND MECHANICAL OFFICIALS AND THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BUILDING OFFICIALS; THE UNIFORM MECHANICAL CODE, INCLUDING ALL APPENDICES, 1991 EDITION, PUBLISHED BY THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF PLUMBING AND MECHANICAL OFFICIALS AND THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF PLUMBING AND MECHANICAL OFFICIALS AND THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF BUILDING OFFICIALS; THE UNIFORM SWIMMING POOL, SPA AND HOT TUB CODE, 1991 EDITION, PUBLISHED BY THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF PLUMBING AND MECHANICAL OFFICIALS; THE UNIFORM SIGN CODE, 1991 EDITION, PUBLISHED BY THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF BUILDING OFFICIALS; THE UNIFORM FIRE CODE, INCLUDING APPENDIX CHAPTERS I-A, I-C, II-A, II-B, II-D, III-A, III-B, III-C, III-D, IV-A, V-A AND VI-A, 1992 EDITION, AND THE UNIFORM FIRE CODE STANDARDS, 1991 EDITION, PUBLISHED BY THE WESTERN FIRE CHIEFS ASSOCIATION AND THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF BIIILDING OFFICIALS; THE UNIFORM HOUSING CODE, 1991 EDITION, PUBLISHED BY THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF BIIILDING OFFICIALS; Section 1. This amendment has been evaluated in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and this City's environmental impact procedures guidelines, and the project has been determined to be categorically exempt (Class 8 Exemption) . Section 2. Title 8 (Building Regulations) of the Atascadero Municipal Code is amended to read as contained in the attached Exhibit A, which is hereby made a part of this ordinance by reference. Section 3. Penalty Provisions. It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to erect, construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, improve, remove, convert or demolish, equip, use, occupy or maintain any building, structure or building service equipment or cause or permit the same to be done in violation of this Title and the technical codes. Penalties for violation of this Title shall be as set forth in Chapter 3 of Title 1 of this code. Section 4. Publication. The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published once within fifteen (15) days after its passage in the Atascadero News, a newspaper of general circulation, printed, published, and circulated in the City in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code, shall certify the adopting and posting of this ordinance and shall cause this ordinance and this certification together with proof of posting to be entered into the Book of Ordinances of this City. Section S. Effective Date. This ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and effect at 12: 01 a.m. on the 31st day after its passage. 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: BY• ALDEN SHIERS, Mayor ATTEST: LEE RABOIN, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: RAY WINDSOR, City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: ARTHER MONTANDON, City Attorney PREPARED BY: Henry Engen, Community Development Director EXHIBIT "A" TITLE 8 - BUILDING REGULATIONS INDEX CHAPTER 1. ADMINISTRATIVE CODE 1-6 8-1. 101 Adoption of Uniform Administrative Code. . . . . . 1 8-1. 102 Modification of Certain Parts of the Uniform Administrative Code. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8-1. 103 Cargo Containers, Railroad Cars, etc. . . . . . . . . .1 8-1. 104 Establishment of Board of Appeals. . . . . . . . . . . . .2 8-1. 105 Violations, Compliance surveys. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 8-1.106 Permits Required, Grading not separate. . . . . . . .4 8-1.107 Exempted Work. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 8-1. 108 Expiration.of Permits. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 8-1.109 Fees. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 8-1. 110 Expiration of Plan Review. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 8-1. 111 Addition to 305(e) -Roof Nailing Inspection. . . .6 CHAPTER 2 . BUILDING CODE 7-8 8-2 . 101 Adoption of Uniform Building Code. . . . . . . . . . . . .7 8-2 . 102 Deletion of Certain Parts of the Uniform Building Code. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 8-2 . 103 Roof Covering Limitations Add to Sec.3203. . . .7 8-2 . 104 Fire Sprinkler Systems Add to Sec.3802 . . . . . . . .8 CHAPTER 3 . ELECTRICAL CODE 8 8-3. 101 Adoption of National Electrical Code. . . . . . . . . .8 CHAPTER 4 . PLUMBING CODE 9-16 8-4. 101 Adoption of Uniform Plumbing Code. . . . . . . . . . . . .9 8-4. 102 Deletion of Certain Parts of the Uniform Plumbing Code. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 8-4 . 103 Use of Plastic Pipe in Water Systems. . . . . . . . . .9 8-4. 104 Building Sewers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 8-4. 105 Private Sewage Disposal Systems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 CHAPTER 5. MECHANICAL CODE 17 8-5. 101 Adoption of Uniform Mechanical Code. . . . . . . . . . .17 8-5. 102 Deletion of Certain Parts of the Uniform Mechanical Code. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17 8-5. 103 Installation of Liquefied Petroleum Gas-burning Appliances. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 00 CHAPTER 6. SWIMMING POOL, SPA AND HOT TUB CODE 18 8-6. 101 Adoption of Uniform Swimming Pool, Spa and HotTub Code. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 8-6. 102 Deletion of Certain Parts of the Uniform Swimming Pool, Spa and Hot Tub Code. . . . . . . . . . . 18 8-6. 103 Swimming Pool Defined. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 i CHAPTER 7. SIGN CODE 19 8-7 . 101 Adoption of Uniform Sign Code. . . . . ' . . . . . . . . . . 19 8-7 . 102 Deletion of Certain PartsoftheUniform Sign Code. . • • • • • • • • • • . 19 CHAPTER 8. FIRE CODE 20-21 8-8.101 Adoption of Uniform Fire Code. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 8-8. 102 Deletion of Certain Parts of the Uniform Fire Code. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 8-8.103 Board of Appeals. . . . . . . . . . . . .20 8-8.104 Alarm Signal Defined. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 8-8.105 Establishment of Limits of Districts in which Storage of Flammable or Combustible Liquids in Outside Aboveground Tanks is Prohibited. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 8-8.106 Establishment of Limits of Districts in Which Storage of Explosives and Blasting Agents is Prohibited. . . . . . . . . . . .21 8-8. 107 Automatic Fire Extinguishing Systems. . . . . . . . . .21 8-8. 108 Fire Apparatus Access Roads - Turning Radius. .21 8-8. 109 Fire Apparatus Access Roads - Grade. . . . . . . . . . .21 CHAPTER 9. HOUSING CODE 22 8-9. 101 Adoption of Uniform Housing Code. . . . . . . . . . . .22 8-9. 102 Deletion of Certain Parts of the Uniform Housing Code. . . . . . . . . . . . . .22 8-9. 103 References to Building Official. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22 8-9. 104 Appeals Board. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22 8-9. 105 Time Limits for Appeals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22 CHAPTER 10. DANGEROUS BUILDINGS CODE 23 8-10. 101 Adoption of Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings. . . . . . . . . . . . . .23 8-10.102 References to Building Official. . . . . . . . . . . . .23 8-10. 103 Deletion of Certain Parts of the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings. . . . . .23 8-10.104 Appeals Board. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23 8-10. 105 Time Limit For Appeals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23 CHAPTER 11. BUILDING CONSERVATION CODE 24 8-11. 101 Adoption of Uniform Code for Building Conservation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 APPENDIX FEE SCHEDULE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25 ii .�JC1�tr,j TITLE 8 - BUILDING REGULATIONS Chapter 1. Administrative Code 8-1. 101. Adoption of Uniform Administrative Code. Certain documents marked and designated as the "Uniform Administrative Code", 1991 Edition, published by the International Conference of Building Officials, are hereby adopted for establishing administrative, organizational and enforcement rules and regulations for technical codes which regulate site preparation and construction, alteration, moving, demolition, repair, use and occupancy of buildings, structures and building service equipment. Each and all of the regulations, provisions, conditions and terms of such "Uniform Administrative Code" , 1991 Edition, published by the International Conference of Building Officials, on file in the Building Division, are hereby referred to and made a part hereof as if fully set out in this Chapter, except as otherwise provided in this Chapter. 8-1. 102 . Modification of Certain Parts of the Uniform Administrative Code. The following portions of the "Uniform Administrative Code", 1991 Edition, are hereby deleted: (a) Section 204 (Board of Appeals) (b) Section 304 (b) (Permit Fees) (c) Section 304 (c) (Plan Review Fees) (d) Section 304 (d) (2) (Fee) Change reference to". . . .Tables Nos. 3-A i through 3-H" to read " . . .the resolution of the City Council establishing fees. " (e) Section 305(h) (Reinspection) Change reference to " . . . .Tables Nos. 3-A through 3-H" to read " . . .the resolution of the City Council establishing fees. " (f) Table No. 3-A (Building Permit Fees) (g) Table No. 3-B (Electrical Permit Fees) (h) Table No. 3-C (Mechanical Permit Fees) (i) Table No. 3-D (Plumbing Permit Fees) (j) Table No. 3-E (Grading Permit Fees) (k) Table No. 3-F (Grading Plan Review Fees) 8-1. 103 . Cargo Containers and Railroad Cars. The following shall be added to Section 104 (f) Uniform Administrative Code: 1.When proposed use is other than originally designed and/or intended as determined by the Building Official, railroad cars, cabooses, shipping containers, mobile homes, and similar assemblies, etc. , may not be moved into or relocated within the City limits without his prior approval. 2 .Railroad cars, cabooses, shipping containers, mobile homes, and similar assemblies, etc. , do not qualify as conventional construction; therefore, all design/engineering work, plans, calculations, etc. , must be accomplished by a California licensed architect or engineer. 8-1. 104. Establishment of Board of Appeals. The following shall replace Section 204: Sec 204. (a) In order to conduct hearings to determine the suitability of alternate materials and methods of installation and to provide for reasonable interpretations of the provisions of this Title, a Board of Appeals is hereby established. The Board of Appeals shall also make interpretations of and hear appeals pursuant to the Housing and Dangerous Building Codes. (b)_ Membership. The Board of Appeals shall consist of five (5) members, two (2) of whom shall be general contractors, one (1) of whom shall be a structural engineer, or architect or other licensed professional in the building design field, one (1) of whom shall be a specialty contractor, all whom shall be qualified,, by experience and training, and one (1) of whom shall be a member of the public who is not one of the foregoing. Members of the Board of Appeals shall be appointed by and serve at the pleasure of the City Council. Each member shall comply with applicable provisions of the Political Reform Act of 1974, California Government Section 81000, et seq. The Building Official shall serve as Secretary to the 'Board of Appeals. (c) Eligibility. A person shall live within the City to be eligible for appointment to the Board of Appeals. (d) Term. Terms of initial appointment shall be 'a term of two (2) years for two (2) members and four (4) years for three (3) members. Subsequent appointments shall be for a term of four (4) years. (e) Rules and Regulations. The Board of Appeals shall adopt reasonable rules and regulations, subject to approval by the City Council, for conducting its business. The Boardshall render all decisions and findings in writing with a copy to the appellant. (f) Appeal Procedure. Any person aggrieved by a decision of the Building Division related to any materials of construction or any administrative provisions shall have the right to appeal the decision. The appeal shall be filed with the Building Official within fourteen (14) days after the rendering of the decision affecting the aggrieved person. Grounds for the appeal shall be set forth in writing. The Secretary of the Board shall set the time and place for a hearing on the appeal, and notice of the hearing shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation and shall be given to the appellant by mailing it to him, postage prepaid, at his last known address, at least ten (10) calendar days prior to the date set for hearing. Any written reports to be made to the Board shall be filed with the Secretary of the Board and shall be made available to the Board and to the public no less than three (3) working days prior to the date set for the hearing. Any Department Head shall have the right to be heard on any matter coming before the Board. 2 ; tom ; - The decision of the Board on the appeal shall not become final until fourteen (14) days after the Board has made its determination in order to allow time for an appeal to be made to the Council from the Board's decision. Any party aggrieved by the determination of the Board shall have the right to appeal its determination to the Council. Such appeals must be filed with the City Clerk within fourteen (14) days after the Board has made its determination. The Council shall set appeal fees by resolution. There shall be no charge for City-initiated appeals. (g) Limitations of Authority. The Board of Appeals shall have no authority relative to interpretation of the administrative provisions of this code or the administrative provisions of the technical codes nor shall the board be empowered to waive requirements of either this code or the technical codes. 8-1. 105. Violations Add to Section 205: (b)Purpose: This Section establishes procedures for enforcement of violations of this Section. The enforcement procedures set forth are intended to assure due process of law in the abatement or correction of violations and sub-standard, or otherwise non-compliant conditions subject to the jurisdiction of this Section. (c)Enforcement Responsibility: The responsibility for the enforcement of the provisions of this Section is assigned as follows: 1.Atascadero Police Department: It is the duty of the Atascadero Police Department and of all officers of the City otherwise charged by law to enforce this Section and all its provisions. 2.Compliance Official: The Community Development Department Director, or designee of the Director, shall act as Compliance Official to enforce this Section and all its provisions. The Compliance Official has the following responsibilities and powers in the enforcement of this Section: (1) To review with affected individuals the provisions of this Section through initiation of administrative remedies and other methods to achieve voluntary compliance with its provisions. (2) To issue citations for violations of this Section, including those documents adopted by reference, when he determines that voluntary compliance cannot be achieved. (3) To initiate all necessary proceedings to forfeit bond or cash deposits or similar guarantees. (4) To initiate proceedings to revoke approvals or conditional approvals granted under this Section. (5) To initiate and conduct abatement proceedings and to carry out additional abatement responsibilities regarding violations of this Section. 3 (d)Citation: The Compliance Official may issue a citation to any person who violates any of the provisions of this Section. Issuance of a citation shall be pursuant. to Chapter 4 of ' Section 1 of the Municipal Code (Citation of Violators) . Penalties for violation are established by Chapter 3 of Section 1 of the Municipal Code (Penalty Provisions) . (e) Interference Prohibited: No person shall hinder, interfere with or impede the Compliance Official in the performance of duties assigned by this Section or other Titles of the Municipal Code. (f)Compliance Survey. A Compliance Survey shall be required whenever conditions subject to the jurisdiction of this Title are determined by the Compliance Official to be sub-standard, or, otherwise not in compliance with the provisions of this Title, either by violation of permit requirements, or accident such as fire, vehicle accident, deterioration, natural catastrophe, etc. (1) PURPOSE: the Compliance Survey process is a finding process; the purpose is to determine the extent to which after-the-fact, existing, non-compliant and/or illegal conditions deviate from the requirements of this Title, and what subsequent process(es) will best cause the conditions to be brought into compliance. (2) The Compliance Survey shall consist of an inspection report, prepared by a licensed, design professional, after inspection by that licensed, design professional. The report should include the following: (a) A detailed description of the current condition(s) , including all non-compliant conditions, (b) A proposal (or proposals) for remedying sub-standard or non-compliant conditions. (c) Additional information may be required upon review of the Compliance Survey submittal. EXCEPTIONS: 1. When it is determined by the Compliance Official that the circumstances of the non-compliant condition are of a minor nature and as such may be adequately addressed through the standard permit process, the requirement for a Compliance Survey may be waived by the Compliance Official. 2. When it is determined by a the Compliance official that the circumstances of the non-compliant condition are such that they can adequately, or more appropriately be addressed by an individual other than a licensed, design professional. (3) Nothing in the Compliance Survey process is intended to replace or circumvent other requirements for permits and approvals required by this Title. 8-1. 106. Permits Required. Section 301(a) shall be revised to read as follows: (a) Permits Required. It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to erect, construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, improve, remove, convert or demolish any building or structure, including a swimming pool, spa or hot tub, or make any installation, 4 J00:c ii 7— v-� alteration, repair, replacement, or remodel any building, service equipment, including swimming pool, spa and hot tub equipment, regulated by this Title, except as specified in Subsection (b) of this Section, or cause the same to be done without first obtaining a separate, appropriate permit for each building, structure or service 0 equipment from the Building Official. Grading and/or waste disposal system permits for residential sites shall not be issued separately from the residence permit without the specific approval of the Building Official and City Planner. 8-1. 107. Exempted Work. The following shall be added to or omitted from Sec. 301(b) : I.A. and no point of the structure is over 12 feet in height. 1.E. or within two feet of the property line over 2 feet in height. 1.K. Omit. 5. Sign Permits. The following signs shall not require a sign permit. These exemptions shall not be construed as relieving the owner of the sign from the responsibility of its erection and maintenance, and its compliance with the provisions of this code or any other law or ordinance regulating the same. A.The changing of the advertising copy or message on a painted or printed sign only. Except for theater marquees and similar signs specifically designed for the use of replaceable copy, electric signs shall not be included in this exception. B.Painting, repainting or cleaning of an advertising structure or the changing of the advertising copy or message thereon shall not be • considered an erection or alteration which requires a sign per- mit unless a structural change is made. C.Signs less than six (6) feet above grade. 6. Repairs to Swimming Pool . Spa, and Hot Tub Permits. No permit shall be required in the case of any repair work including: The stopping of leaks in drains, soil, waste or vent pipe, provided, however, that should any trap; drainpipe; or soil, waste or vent pipe be or become defective and it becomes necessary to remove and replace the same with new material in any part or parts, the same shall be considered as such new work and a permit shall be procured and inspection made as herein provided. No permit shall be required for the clearing of stoppages or the repairing of leaks in pipes, valves or fixtures, when such repairs do not involve or require the replacement or rearrangement of valves, pipes or fixtures. " 8-1. 108 . Expiration Section 303 (d) shall be revised to read as follows: (d) Every permit issued by the Administrative Authority under the provisions of this code shall expire by limitation and become null and void, if the building or work authorized by such permit is not commenced within 180 days from the date of such permit, or if the work authorized by such permit is suspended or abandoned at any time after the work is commenced for a period of 180 days. Failure to request and receive a recorded inspection by the Administrative Authority within the 180 day period constitutes a condition of suspension or abandonment. Before such abandoned or suspended work can be 3002o t �- 5 recommenced, a new permit shall be first obtainedto do so, and the fee therefor shall be one half the amount required for a new permit for such work, but no less than $30. 00, provided no changes have been made or will be made in the original plans and specifications for such work: and provided further that such suspension or abandonment has not exceeded one year. In order to renew action on a permit after expiration, the permittee shall pay a new full permit fee. A permittee holding an unexpired permit may apply for an extension of the time within which work may commence or continuo under that permit when the permittee is unable to commence or continue work within the time required by this section for good and satisfactory reasons. The building official may extend the time for action by the permittee for a period not exceeding 180 days upon written request by the permittee showing that circumstances beyond the control of the permittee have prevented action from being taken. Permits shall not be extended more than once. All appeals shall be heard by the Construction Appeals Board. 8-1. 109. Fees This section replaces Section 304 (b) & (c) : (b) Permit, Plan Check, and Other Fees. Fees for permits, plan review, reinspection, special inspections, appeals and other . activities of this Section shall be established by resolution of the City Council. The determination of value or valuation under any of the provisions of this Section shall be made by the Building Official using the latest edition of the Building Standards Magazine published by The International Conference of Building Officials. The value to be used in computing the building permit and building permit plan review fees shall be the total value of all construction work for which the permit is issued as well as all finish work, painting, roofing, electrical, plumbing, heating, air conditioning, elevators, site work, fire-extinguishing systems and any other permanent equipment. The regional modifier shall be 1. 0 8-1. 110. Expiration of Plan Review Section 304 (d) shall be revised to read as follows: (d) Applications for which no permit is issued within 180 days following date of notification of approval/ready for issuance by the Building Division, or applications within 180 days following date of notification of permit corrections to be picked up or returned, shall expire by limitations. In order to renew action on an application after expiration, the applicant shall resubmit plans and pay a new plan review fee. No extension are allowed except by written appeal to the Community Development Director. 8-1. 111. Roof Nailing Inspection Add to 305 (e) Required Building Inspections. : ROOF NAILING INSPECTION: To be made after roof sheathing is nailed off but before roof covering is applied. 6 Section 8 - BUILDING REGULATIONS Chapter 2. Building Code 8-2 . 101. Adoption of Uniform Building Code Certain documents marked and designated as the "Uniform Building Code", including Appendix: Chapter 11 Agricultural Buildings, Chapter 12 Division II Group Care facilities, Division III Swimming Pool Barriers, Chapter 23 Division IV Flood-Resistant Construction, Chapter 25 Light Frame in High Wind Areas, Chapter 29 Waterproofing and Dampproo€ing Foundations, Chapter 32 Reroofing, Chapter 35 Sound Transmission, Chapter 38 Basement Pipe Inlets, Chapter 49 Patio Covers, Chapter 55 Membrane Structures, Chapter 57 Regulations Governing Fallout Shelters, Chapter 70 Excavation and Grading, 1991 Edition, and as the "Uniform Building Code Standards", 1991 Edition, published by the International Conference of Building Officials, are hereby adopted for regulating the erection, construction, enlargement, alteration, repair, moving, removal, demolition, conversion, occupancy, equipment, use, height, area and maintenance of all buildings or structures. Each and all of the regulations, provisions, conditions, and terms of such "Uniform Building Code", 1991 Edition, and the "Uniform Building Code Standards" , 1991 Edition, published by the International Conference of Building Officials, on file in the Building Division, are hereby referred to and made a part hereof as if fully set out in this Chapter, except as otherwise provided in this Chapter. 8-2. 102. Deletion of Certain Parts of the Uniform Building Code. The following portions of the "Uniform Building Code" , 1991 Edition are hereby deleted: (a) Chapter 1 (Section, Scope and General) , including Sections 101- 107 (b) Chapter 2 (Organization and Enforcement) , including Sections 201-205 (c) Chapter 3 (Permits and Inspections) , including Sections 301-307 and Table No. 3-A 8-2. 103 Roofing Materials Add to Section 3203: Roof covering for all new residential buildings and for any re-roofing of existing residential buildings shall be no less than Class A rating, regardless of building type or occupancy. Any reference to the approved use of roofing materials in residential buildings with less than Class A rating is hereby deleted. Exception: Roof coverings on additions to existing wood shingle roofs amounting to no greater than twenty-five percent (25%) of the existing roof area may be Class B rating. 8-2. 104 Fire Sprinkler Systems Add to Section 3802: (k) In all new buildings having a total floor area (outside walls) of 5,000 square feet of gross area or more. (1) In all existing buildings of less than 5,000 square feet which undergo addition sufficient to make the total floor area greater than 5, 000 square feet. (m) In all existing buildings or structures with a total gross (outside wall) floor area exceeding 5, 000 square feet which undergo any addition or change in use. In regards to building additions, and for the purpose of this section, the total floor area shall be computed without regard to area separation walls and floors of less than 4-hour fire resistive construction as defined in the Uniform Building Code. For the purpose of this section, the provision of utilizing an area separation wall may only be allowed once in a particular building or structure. The area separation wall shall have no openings. Section 8 - BUILDING REGULATIONS Chapter 3 . Electrical Code 8-3. 101. Adoption of National Electrical Code. Certain documents marked and designated as the "National Electrical Code", 1990 Edition, published by the National Fire Protection Association, are hereby adopted for safeguarding persons and property from hazards arising from the use of electricity. Each and all of the regulations, provisions, conditions, and terms of such "National Electrical Code", 1990 Edition, published by the National Fire Protection Association, on file in the Building Division, are hereby referred to and made a part hereof as if fully set out in this Chapter. Mok! I Section 8 - BUILDING REGULATIONS Chapter 4 . Plumbing Code 8-4 . 101. Adoption of Uniform Plumbing Code. Certain documents marked and designated as the "Uniform Plumbing Code", including all appendices, 1991 Edition, published by the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials, and as "IAPMO Installation Standards", 1991 Edition, published by the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials, are hereby adopted for regulating the erection, installation, alteration, addition, repair, relocation, replacement, maintenance or use of any plumbing system. Each and all of the regulations, provisions, conditions, and terms of such "Uniform Plumbing Code", 1991 Edition, and "IAPMO Installation Standards", 1991 Edition, published by the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials, and the International Association of Building Officials, on file in the Building Division are hereby referred to and made a part hereof as if fully set out in this Chapter, except as otherwise provided in this Chapter. 8-4 . 102 . Deletion of Certain Parts of the Uniform Plumbing Code. The following portions of the "Uniform Plumbing Code, " 1991 Edition, are hereby deleted: (a) Part 1 (Administration) , including Sections 10. 1-10.5 and 20.1- 20. 14 (b) Table I-1, entitled "Location of Sewage Disposal System" (c) Section I-4 (Percolation Tests) (d) Section I-8 (Cesspools) (e) Table I-4, entitled "Design Criteria of 5 Typical Soils" (f) Table I-5 8-4. 103. Replace Section 1004 (e) - Water Distribution - Materials Use of Plastic Pipe in Water Systems. PB, PVC and CPVC, as well as any other plastic pipe, shall not be used for hot and cold water distribution systems inside structures. Any reference to the approved use of such materials is hereby deleted. 8-4 . 104 . Building Sewers. The following requirements shall apply to building sewers and related drainage piping. Any reference to different standards in Table 4-3 or Chapter 11 of the Uniform Plumbing Code is hereby deleted. (a)A11 building sewers shall be constructed with pipe of internal diameter not less than four (4) inches, unless a pipe of internal diameter not less than three (3) inches is approved by the Administrative Authority. (b)A clean-out shall be placed in every building sewer within five (5) of each building, at all changes in alignment or grade in excess of twenty-two and one-half (22?) degrees, within five (5) feet of the junction with the public sewer, and at intervals not to exceed one hundred (100) feet in straight runs. The clean-out shall be made by inserting a "Y" fitting in the line and fitting the clean-out in the "Y" branch in an approved manner. In the case of a clean-out near the junction of the public sewer, the "Y" branch riser shall be extended to a depth of not more than one (1) foot, . All other cleanouts shall be extended to finish grade. (c)Drainage piping serving fixtures located at an 'elevation of less than one foot above the nearest upstream manhole cover in the main sewer serving said fixtures shall drain by gravity into the main sewer, and shall be protected from backflow of sewage by installing an approved type backwater valve, and each such backwater valve shall be installed only in that branch or section of the drainage system which receives the discharge from fixtures located less than one foot above the nearest upstream manhole cover. 8-4 . 105. Private Sewage Disposal Systems. The design, installation, operation and maintenance of private sewage disposal systems shall be in conformance with Appendix I of the Uniform Plumbing Code and with standards specified in this Section. Where specific standards are not provided within this Section or where the Administrative Authority determines that higher requirements are necessary to maintain a safe and sanitary condition, the "Manual of Septic Tank Practice" (published by the United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare) , the "Design Manual - Onsite Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Systems" (published by the United States Environmental Protection Agency) , "Guidelines for Mound Systems" (State Water Resources Control Board) , "Guidelines for Evapotranspiration Systems (State Water Resources Control Board) , and the "Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin" (adopted by the Regional Water Quality Control Board of the Central Coast Region) shall be used as guidelines by the Administrative Authority. (a)Percolation Test. An on-site investigation shall be made by a registered engineer competent in sanitary engineering in order to determine the suitability of a particular site for a private sewage disposal system and to provide the data necessary to design a private sewage disposal system. A percolation test shall be required prior to issuance of a permit for all new or enlarged private sewage disposal systems. The following percolation test procedure shall be used in performing percolation tests, except that other accepted test procedures may be used when approved by the Administrative Authority. (1)Number and Location of Test Holes. A minimum of three separate test holes space uniformly through and located in the immediate vicinity of the proposed leach field site shall be made. (2)Type of Test Holes. The test hole shall have horizontal dimensions between 4 and 12 inches and vertical sides to the depth of the absorption trench. S (3) Preparation of Test Hole. Smeared soil surfaces shall be removed from the sides and bottom of the test hole to provide a natural soil interface. All loose material shall be removed from the test hole. Two inches of coarse sand or fine gravel 10 Jaw ij shall be added to the test hole to protect the bottom from scouring and sediment. (4) Soil Saturation and Swelling. The test hole is to be carefully f illed to a depth of one foot above the gravel or sand with clear water which is to be kept in the hole for at least four hours but preferably overnight. This step may be omitted in sandy soils containing little or no clay. (5)Measurement of Percolation Rate: The percolation rate shall be determined twenty-four hours after water is first added to the test holes; except, in sandy soils containing little or no clay, the percolation rate shall be determined after the water from one filling of the test hole has completely seeped away. (i) If water remains in the test hole after the overnight swelling period, adjust the depth to approximately six inches over the gravel or sand and, from a fixed reference point, measure the drop in water level over a thirty minute period to calculate the percolation rate. (ii) If no water remains in the test hole after the overnight swelling period, add clear water to bring the depth'- of water in the test hole to approximately six inches over the gravel or sand. From a fixed reference point, measure the drop in water level at approximately thirty minute intervals over four hours refilling six inches over the gravel or sand as necessary. The drop that occurs during the final thirty minute period is used to calculate the percolation rate. The drops during prior periods provide information for possible modification of the test procedure to suit local conditions. (iii)In sandy soils (or in other soils in which the first six inches of water seeps away in less than thirty minutes after the overnight swelling period) , the time interval between measurements shall be taken as ten minutes and the test shall run for one hour with the drop during the final ten minutes being used to calculate the percolation rate. (6) Deep Boring: A soil boring, to a minimum depth of ten (10) feet below the bottom of the absorption trench, shall be made in order to determine the presence of impermeable bedrock and/or ground water. (b)General Design Standards. The following standards shall be used in the design of new or enlarged private sewage disposal systems where the percolation rate does not exceed 60 minutes per inch. (1) Determination of Size of Absorption Area. The absorption area, measured in lineal feet of absorption trench, shall be calculated as set forth in this Section. Tables 4-1 (Absorption Area Requirements) and 4-2 (Standard Trench Adjustment Factors) , included in this Subsection, shall be referred to as necessary. (absorption area per bedroom) X no. of bedrooms) X (standard (width of trench, in feet) trench adjustment factor) (2)Location of Private Sewage Disposal Systems: The minimum distance between components of a private sewage disposal system 11 300;4'L_4 r;646 - and other site features shall be as set forth in Table 4-3 (Horizontal Distance Separation) and Table 4-4 (Vertical Distance Separation) . Where physical limitations on a site preclude conformance with distance separation', requirements, the Administrative Authority may approve a lesser separation when the design is prepared by a registered engineer competent in sanitary engineering and when adequate substantiating data is submitted with the design. The Administrative Authority shall not approve a separation less than that set forth in the "Water Quality Control Plan - Central Coast Region" unless the Regional Water Quality Control Board or its designated representatives have previously approved the 'design. (3)Additional Standards: (i) Existing legal building sites which are served by an individual on-site well may be approved for a private sewage disposal system only if the site is one acre or larger in size. (ii)Private sewage disposal systems proposed to be installed on slopes of 200 or more shall be designed by and have their installation inspected and certified by a ' registered civil engineer. The design shall minimize grading disruption associated with access for installation and maintenance. Such systems shall be prohibited on slopes of 30% or more, unless approved by both the Administrative Authority and the Regional Water Quality Control Board. (iii)When the percolation rate exceeds 30 minutes/inch, a private sewage disposal system shall be designed, inspected, and certified to work by a registered civil engineer. (iv)When the percolation rate exceeds 120 minutes/inch, a private sewage disposal system using solely dependent upon soil absorption shall not be allowed. (v)Private sewage disposal systems may be designed pursuant to subsection (b) where percolation rates fall between 61 and 120 minutes per inch, inclusive. However, the required absorption area must be based upon an effluent application rate of no more than 0. 1 gallons per square foot per day. When using this method for residential systems, a minimum load rate of 125 gallons per bedroom per day shall be used. (vi)When the percolation rate exceeds 30 minutes/inch, a private sewage disposal system using a seepage pit shall not be allowed. (vii) Expansion area shall be provided on all building sites, shall be identified on all plans submitted for private sewage disposal systems, and shall remain available for system expansion. If areas reserved for system expansion are not accessible for future installation, then the expansion area shall be installed with the original system. (viii) For all alterations, additions, and new installations of septic systems, an 8-1/2" x 11" aluminum sublimation plaque may be made of the as-built septic system drawing and may be permanently mounted inside the garage or utility room so as to be readily visible prior to final inspection. ' The following may 12 J�Ut;ly be included in a legible manner: percolation rate, number of bedrooms, size of septic tank, dimensions of septic leach fields with distances to structures, expansion areas, recommended pumping intervals, spaces for recording when the tank is pumped. A copy may be submitted to the Building Division prior to final inspection. (c) Special Design Standards. The following standards shall be used in the design of new or enlarged private sewage disposal systems where the percolation rate exceeds 60 minutes per inch. Designs for alternate types of private sewage disposal systems shall be by registered engineers competent in sanitary engineering and may be approved by the Administrative Authority when the design engineer submits adequate substantiation data with the design. (1)Determination of Size of Disposal Field. The size of the disposal field shall be determined by the design engineer using methods of accepted engineering practice including manuals and documents specified in this Chapter. (2)Location of Private Sewage Disposal System. The minimum distance between components of a private sewage disposal system and . other site features shall be as set forth in Table 4-3 (Horizontal Distance Separation) and Table 4-4 (Vertical Distance Separation) using the column entitled "Leach Field or Seepage Bed. " (3)Additional Standards: (i)When private sewage disposal systems are designed pursuant to Subsection (c) of the Section, the design engineer shall provide the owner with information on the location, design, operation and maintenance of the private sewage disposal system. (ii)Existing legal building sites which are served by an individual on-site well may be approved for a private sewage disposal system only if the site is one acre or larger in size. (iii)Expansion area shall be provided on all building sites, shall be identified on all plans submitted for private sewage disposal systems, and shall remain available for system expansion. If areas reserved for system expansion are not accessible for future installation, then the expansion area shall be installed with the original system. (d)Replacement of Existing Private Sewage Disposal System. Where an existing private sewage disposal system has failed, the replacement system shall be designed in conformance with this Chapter and shall be designed, inspected and certified to work by a registered engineer competent in sanitary engineering. In the event that the replacement system cannot be designed to conform with this Chapter, the Administrative Authority may approve a system designed to lesser standards when it is designed, inspected, and certified to work by a registered engineer competent in sanitary engineering. (1)A private sewage disposal system shall not be replaced by another system if sewers are available. 13 (2)The Administrative Authority shall not approve a replacement system which does not conform with prohibitions set forth in the "Water Quality Control Plan - Central Coast ',Basin" unless the Regional Water Quality Control Board or its designated representatives has previously approved the design. The Administrative Authority may authorize a temporary means of sewage disposal pending such approval. TABLE 4-1. Absorption Area Requirements. Percolation Rate Absorption Area Per Bedroom (Minutes/Inch) (Square Feet) 0 - 9 150 10 165 11-15 190 16-20 215 21-25 230 26-30 250 31-35 270 36-40 285 41-45 300 46-50 315 51-60 330 TABLE 4-2. Standard Trench Adjustment Factor Depth of Gravel Trench Width (in inches) Below Pipe (in Inches) 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60 12 .75 .78 .80 .82 .83 .85 .86 .87 .87 18 . 60 . 64 . 66 . 69 .71 .73 .75 .77 .78 24 .50 . 54 .57 .60 .62 . 64 .66 .68 .70 30 .43 .47 .50 . 53 .55 .58 .60 .62 . 64 36 . 37 .41 .44 .47 .50 .52 .54 .56 .58 42 . 33 .37 .40 .43 .45 .48 .50 .52 .54 48 . 30 .33 .36 .39 .42 .44 .46 .48 .50 note 1. For trenches not shown in Table 4-2, the standard trench adjustment factor may be computed as follows: W + 2 W + 1 + 2D Where W = width of trench (in feet) D = depth of gravel below pipe (in feet) 14 TABLE 4-3. Horizontal Distance Separation (in feet) Building Septic Leach Field Seepage Sewer Tank or Seepage Bed Pit Buildings or structures, 2 5 80) 80) including porches, steps, breezeways, patios, and carports whether covered or not Property Line Clear(2) 5 5 10 Water Supply Well 50(3) 50 100 150 Streams, when shown 50 50 100 100 731 minute USGS Map and when a defined channel with definite bed and banks exists Swales, ephemeral draws, 50 50 50 50 or other natural water- courses with drainage areas larger than 10 acres Trees * 10* * 10* Seepage Pits -- 5 5 12 Leach Field or -- 5 6 5 Seepage Bed On-site domestic 1(4) 5 5 5 water service line Distribution Box -- -- 5 5 Pressure Public Water 10(5) 10 10 10 Main Sloping ground, cuts, -- -- 15(6) 15(6) or other embankments Reservoirs, including 200 200 200 200 ponds, lakes, tanks, basins, etc. for storage, regulation and control of water, recreation, power, flood control or drinking Springs 100 100 100 100 Notes m Distance separation shall be increased to twenty (20) feet when building or structure is located on a downward slope below a leach field, seepage bed or seepage pit. (2) See Section 315(c) of Uniform Plumbing Code. (3) Distance separation may be reduced to twenty-five (25) feet when the drainage piping is constructed of materials approved for use within a building. tai See Section 1108 of Uniform Plumbing Code. (s) For parallel construction or crossings, approval by the Health Department shall be required. (6) Distance is measured as horizontal distance to daylight. This distance may be reduced where it is demonstrated that favorable geologic conditions and soil permeability exist based on a report and analysis prepared by a licensed geologist or soils engineer. (7) Distance is measured at spillway elevation. * See Tree protection guidelines. 15 TABLE 44. Vertical Distance Separation (in feet)l • Leach Field or Seepage Seepage bed Pit Ground water 5 10 Bedrock 10 4 i. Distance is measured from bottom of trench or pit. 16 Section 8 - BUILDING REGULATIONS Chapter 5. Mechanical Code 8-5. 101. Adoption of Uniform Mechanical Code. Certain documents marked and designated as the "Uniform Mechanical Code", including all appendices, 1991 Edition, published by the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials, are hereby adopted for regulating and controlling the design, construction, installation, quality of materials, location, operation and maintenance or use of heating, ventilating, cooling, refrigeration systems, incinerators and other miscellaneous heat-producing appliances. Each and all of the regulation, provisions, conditions and terms of such "Uniform Mechanical Code", 1991 Edition, published by the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials and the International Conference of Building Officials, on file in the Building Division, are hereby referred to and made a part hereof, as if fully set out in this Chapter, except as otherwise provided in this Chapter. 8-5.102. Deletion of Certain Parts of the Uniform Mechanical Code. The following portions of the "Uniform Mechanical Code, " 1991 Edition, are hereby deleted: (a) Chapter 1 (Section, Scope and General) , including Sections 101- 107 (b) Chapter 2 (Organization and Enforcement) , including Sections 201-204 (c) Chapter 3 (Permits and Inspections) , including Sections 301-306 O and Table No. 3-A 8-5.103. Installation of Liquefied Petroleum Gas-burning Appliances. The following shall be added to the last paragraph of Section 504 (Installation) : . . . . "When appliances so fueled are located in underfloor or attic areas, provision shall be made to drain the appliance to the outside of the building. " LPG lines are prohibited under concrete slabs. s 17 vV ;c.kJ .� .c'v Section 8 - BUILDING REGULATIONS' Chapter 6. Swimming Pool, Spa and Hot Tub Code 8-6. 101. Adoption of Uniform Swimming Pool, Spa and Hot Tub Code. Certain documents marked and designated as the "Uniform Swimming Pool, Spa and Hot Tub Code", 1991 Edition, published by the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials, are hereby adopted for regulating the erection, installation, alteration, addition, repair, relocation, replacement, maintenance or use of any swimming pool, spa or hot tub plumbing system. Each and all of the regulations, provisions, conditions, and terms of such "Uniform Swimming Pool, Spa and Hot Tub Code", 1991 Edition, published by the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials, on file in the Building Division, are hereby referred to and made a part hereof as if fully set out in this Chapter. 8-6. 102. Deletion of Certain Parts of the Uniform Swimming Pool Spa and Hot Tub Code. The following portions of the "Uniform Swimming Pool, Spa and Hot Tub Code", 1991 Edition, are hereby deleted: (a) Part 1 (Administration) including Section 1.0-1.9 and 1. 11-1.18 8-6. 103 . Swimming Pool Defined. The definition of a swimming pool in Section 102 of the "Uniform Swimming Pool, Spa and Hot Tub Code", 1991 Edition, shall be revised to read as follows:' "Swimming Pool - Any constructed or prefabricated pool used for swimming or bathing. " 18 Section 8 - BUILDING REGULATIONS Chapter 7. Sign Code 8-7. 101. Adoption of Uniform Sign Code. Certain documents marked and designated as the "Uniform Sign Code, " 1991 Edition, published by the International Conference of Building Officials, are hereby adopted for regulating the design, quality of materials, construction, location, electrification, and maintenance of all signs an sign structures. Each and all of the regulations, provisions, conditions and terms of such "Uniform Sign Code", 1991 Edition, published by the International Conference of Building Officials, on file in the Building Division, are hereby referred to and made a part hereof as if fully set out in this Chapter, except as otherwise provided in this Chapter. 8-7. 102. Deletion of Certain Parts of the Uniform Sign Code. The following portions of the "Uniform Sign Code", 1991 Edition, are hereby deleted: (a) Chapter 1 (Section, Scope and Enforcement) , including Sections 101-103 (b) Chapter 3 (Permits, Fees and Inspections) , including Sections 301-306 (c) Section 1401 (Temporary Signs - General) 19 �b(1►eZA' ' Section 8 - BUILDING REGULATIONS Chapter 8. Fire Code 8-8. 101. Adoption of Uniform Fire Code. Certain documents marked and designated as the "Uniform Fire Code", 1991 Edition, including Appendix Chapters: I-A (Life Safety Requirements for Existing Buildings other than high rise) , I-C (Stairway Identification) , II-A (Suppression and Control of Hazardous Fire Areas) , II-B (Protection of Flammable or Combustible Liquids in Tanks in Locations Subject to Flooding) , II-D (Rifle Ranges) , III-A (Fire-Flow Requirements for Buildings) , III-B (Fire Hydrant Location and Distribution) ,' III-C (Testing Automatic Sprinkler and Standpipe Sytems) , III-D (Basement Pipe Inlets) , IV-A (Interior Floor Finish) , V-A (Nationally Recognized Standards of Good Practice) , VI-A (Hazardous Materials Classifications) , and the "Uniform Fire Code Standards" , 1991 Edition, are hereby adopted for the Opurpose of prescribing regulations governing conditions hazardous to life and property from fixe or explosion. Each and all of the regulations, provisions, conditions, and terms of such "Uniform Fire Code" , 1991 Edition, and the "Uniform Fire Code Standards" , 1991 Edition, published by the Western Fire Chiefs Association and the International Conference of Building Officials, on file in the Building Division are hereby referred to and made a part hereof as if fully set out in this Chapter, except as otherwise provided in this Chapter. 8-8. 102. Deletion of Certain Parts of the Uniform Fire Code. The following portions of the "Uniform Fire Code" , 1991 Edition, are hereby deleted: (a) Section 2.303 (Board of Appeals) 8-8. 103. Board of Appeals. In order to provide for interpretation of the provisions of the Chapter and to hear approvals provided for hereunder, the Board of Appeals established pursuant to Section 8- 1. 104 shall govern. Procedures specified by Section 8-1. 104 (e) shall be followed. 8-8. 104. Alarm Signal Defined. The definition of an alarm signal in Article 14, Section 14. 102, shall be revised as follows: Alarm Signal is an audible or visual signal, or both, indicating the existing of an emergency fire condition. Audible devices may be bells, horns, chimes, speakers or similar devices but no audible alarm shall conflict with the response of emergency vehicles or civil defense systems. Under no circumstances shall sirens of wail, yelp or hi-lo sounding be used. All devices shall be approved by the Police and Fire Chiefs. 000233 20 8-8. 105. Establishment of Limits of Districts in Which Storage of Flammable or Combustible Liquids in Outside Aboveground Tanks is Prohibited. The limits referred to in Section 79.501 of the Uniform Fire Code in which the storage of flammable or combustible liquids is prohibited are hereby established as the City Limits of the City of Atascadero. This section shall not apply to storage of flammable or combustible liquids in aboveground vaults as approved by the Fire Department. 8-8. 106. Establishment of Limits of Districts in Which Storage of Explosives and Blasting Agents is Prohibited. The limits referred to in Section 77. 107(a) of the Uniform Fire Code, in which storage of explosives and blasting agents is prohibited, are hereby established as the City Limits of the City of Atascadero. 8-8. 107. Automatic Fire Extinguishing Systems. Section 10.507 (a) shall be revised to read as follows: Section 10.507(a)General. An automatic fire extinguishing system shall be installed: 1. In all new buildings or structures having a total floor area (outside walls) of 5, 000 square feet of gross area or more. 2. In all existing buildings of less than 5,000 square feet which undergo addition sufficient to make the total greater than 5, 000 square feet. 3. In all existing buildings or structures with a total floor area (outside walls) exceeding 5, 000 square feet which undergo any addition or change in use. 4. In the occupancies and locations as set forth in this section. In regards to building additions and for purpose of this section, the total floor area shall be computed without regard to area separation walls and floors of less than 4-hour fire resistive construction as defined in the Uniform Building Code. For the purpose of this section, the provision of utilizing an area separation wall may only be allowed once in a particular building or structure. The area separation wall shall have no openings. For provisions on special hazards and hazardous materials, see Sections 10.501 and 45.209 and Articles 45, 48, 49, and 80. 8-8. 108. Fire Apparatus Access Roads --- Turning Radius. Section 10.204 (c) shall be revised to read as follows: Section 10.204(c) Turning Radius. The turning radius of a fire apparatus access road shall be at least 28 feet inside radius and 48 feet outside radius. 8-8. 109. Fire Apparatus Access Roads - Grade. Section 10.204(f) shall be revised to read as follows: Section 10.204(f) Grade. The Gradient for a fire apparatus access road shall not exceed 20% at any point along its length. 000234 21 Section 8 - BUILDING REGULATIONS Chapter 9. Housing Code 8-9 . 101. Adoption of Uniform Housing Code. Certain documents marked and designated as the "Uniform Housing Code", 1991 Edition, published by the International Conference of Building Officials, are hereby adopted for regulating the use and occupancy, location and maintenance of residential buildings and structures. Each and all of the regulations, provisions, conditions and terms of such "Uniform Housing Code" , 1991 Edition, published by the International Conference of Building Officials, on file in the Building Division, are hereby referred to and made a part hereof as if fully set out in this Chapter, except as otherwise provided in this Chapter. 8-9. 102. Deletion of Certain Parts of the Uniform Housing Code. The following portions of the "Uniform Housing Code", 1991 Edition, are hereby deleted: (a) Section 203 (Housing Advisory and Appeals Board) 8-9. 103 . References to Building Official. References made in the "Uniform Housing Code", 1991 Edition, to building official may be replaced with compliance official. • 8-9. 104. Appeals Board. In order to provide for interpretation of the provisions of this Chapter and to hear appeals provided for hereunder, the Board of Appeals established pursuant to Section 8- 1.103 shall govern. References to the Housing Advisory and Appeals Board in the Uniform Housing Code shall mean the Board of Appeals established pursuant to Section 8-1. 104. Procedures specified by Section 8-1.104 (c) shall be followed except where additional procedures are required .by this Chapter. 8-9. 105. Time Limits for Appeals. The following portions of the "Uniform Housing Code", 1991 Edition, are modified as specified: (a) Section 1101(b) (5) is amended to change the appeal time from 1130 days" to 1114 days. " (b) The last paragraph of Section 1201(a) is amended to read as follows: "The appeal shall be filed within 14 days from the date of service of such notice or action of the Compliance Official. " Section 8 - BUILDING REGULATIONS Chapter 10. Dangerous Buildings Code 8-10. 101. Adoption of Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings. Certain documents marked and designated as the "Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings", 1991 Edition, published by the International Conference of Building Officials, are hereby adopted for regulating the repair, vacation or demolition of buildings or structures which may endanger the life, limb, health, morals, property, safety or welfare of the general public or their occupants. Each and all of the regulations, provisions, conditions and terms of such "Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings", 1991 Edition, published by the International Conference of Building Officials, on file in the Building Division, are hereby referred to and made a part hereof as if fully set out in this Chapter. 8-9. 102 . References to Building Official. References made in the "Uniform Housing Code", 1991 Edition, to building official may replaced with compliance official. 8-10.103 . Deletion of Certain Parts of the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings. The following portions of the "Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings", 1991 Edition, are hereby deleted: (a) Section 205 (Appeals Board) 8-10. 105. Appeals Board. In order to provide for interpretation of the provisions of this Chapter and to hear appeals provided for hereunder, the Board of Appeals established pursuant to Section 8- 1. 104 shall govern. Procedures specified by Section 8-1.103 (c) shall be followed except where additional procedures are required by this Chapter. 8-10.106. Time Limit for Appeals. The following portions of the "Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings" , 1991 Edition, are modified as specified: (a) Section 401(b) (5) is amended to change the appeal time from 1130 days" to 1114 days. " (b) The last paragraph of Section 501(a) is amended to read as follows: "The appeal shall be filed within 14 days from the date of service of such notice or action of the Compliance Official. " 23 0 w-;OG 'T;p Section 8 - BUILDING REGULATIONS Chapter 11. Building Conservation Code 8-11. 101. Adoption of Uniform Code for Building Conservation. Certain documents marked and designated as the "Uniform Code for Building Conservation", including all appendices, 1991 edition published by the International Conference of Building Officials are hereby adopted to establish life-safety requirements for all existing buildings that undergo alteration or a change in use. Its' provisions offer alternative methods of achieving safety so that the inventory of existing buildings can be preserved. Each and all of the regulations, provisions, conditions, and terms of such "Uniform Code for Building Conservation", 1991 edition, published by the International Conference of Building Officials, on file in the Building Division, are hereby referred to and made' a part hereof as if fully set out in this Chapter, except as otherwise provided in this Chapter. 24300.:x:~1