Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 07/28/1992 PI,BLIC f VIEW VY A cel A G E N D A ATASCADLRO CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING CITY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 6500 PALMA AVENUE, 4TH FLOOR ROTUNDA ROOM JULY 28, 1992 7:00 P.M. This agenda is prepared and posted pursuant to the requirements of Governmel t Code Section 54954.2. By listing a topic on this agenda, the City Council has expresse4 itsintent to discuss and act on each item. 'In addition to any action identified in th4 brief general description of each item, the action that may be shall include: A referr4 t to staff with sPecific requests for information; continuance; specific direction to staff concerning the policy or mission of the item; discontinuance of consideration; authorizatioi to enter into negotiations and execute agreements pertaining to the item; adoption or approval; and, disapproval. Copies of the staff reports or other documentation retating to each item of business referred to on the agenda are on file in the office of the City Cterk (Room 208) and in the Information Office (Room 103), available for public inspection during City Hatt business hours. The City Clerk will answer any questionsregarding 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 "tact the City Manager's Office ((805) 461-5010) or the City,Clerk's'Office ((805) 461-5074). Notification at least 48 hours prior to the meeting or time when services are needed will 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. A person may speak for five (5) minutes * No one may speak for a second time until everyone 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: • Presentations' to Councilmen George Luna d Marty Rudlac for former Planning Commissioner service Presentation to outgoing Parks a Recreation Commissioner, Ken Meyer 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. CONMITTEE REPORTS (The following represent ad 'hoc or standing committees. Informative status reports will be given, as felt necessary. ) : 1 S.L.O. Council of ,Governments 2 S.L.O. Regional Transit Authority 3. Solid/Hazardous !Waste Task Force 4 City/School Committee 5. Traffic Committee 6. County Water Advisory Board 7. Economic Round Table 8 Colony Roads Committee 9. Liability Claims Review & Finance Committee 10. Homeless Coalition B. CONSENT 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 from the Consent Calendar, which shall then be reviewed and acted upon separately after the adoption of the Consent Calendar: 1. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - JUNE 91 1992 2. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - JUNE 23, "1992 3. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - JULY 6, 1992 (Budget Session) 4 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - :JULY 7, 1992 (Interviews: Parks & Rec- reation Commission) 5. CONSOLIDATED TREASURER'S REPORT JUNE, 1992' 2 6. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 91-008, 14000 MORRO ROAD Consider re,- quest e,guest to divide one 80.92-acre lot into four parcels of 24.35, 11.61, 11.26 and 32.15 acres (Rockstad/Twin Cities Engineer- ing) 7 . TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 92-005, 10940 PORTAL ROAD/9660 LAUREL ROAD -- Lot line adjustment (Phelps/Sowell/Stew rt) 8. ACCEPTANCE OF FY 1992/93 BUSINESS IMPROVEMENr ASSOCIATION BUDGET 9. RECEIVING THE AUDIT RESULTS OF THE SYCAMORE BRIDGE GRANT 10. RESOLUTION NO. 68-92 - AUTHORIZING AGREEMENT WITH S.L.O. COUN- TY FOR COLLECTION OF THE CITY'S SPECIAL TARES AID ASSESSMENTS 11. RESOLUTION NO. 72-92 - AMENDING THE 'RECYCLING COMMITTEE BY- LAWS 12. AWARD OF BID NO. 92-07 FOR ACQUISITION OF ROTARE RIDING MOWER (Community Services Department) C. HEARINGS: 1. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 02-87, 9385 VISTA BONITA - APPEAL OF SEWER IMPROVEMENT CONDITION RECONSIDERATION AND TIME EXTENSION (Metchk/Central Coast Engineering) ('Cont'd from 7/14/92) 2. WEED ABATEMENT,APPEALS BEARING A. RESOLUTION NO. 70-92 - CONFIRMING THE COST OF WEED ABATE- MENT D. REGULAR BUSINESS: 1. PRESENTATION OF TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN BY BONNIE NELSON 2. LETTER FROM JEFF McALISTER REQUESTING RECONSIDERATION OF MAN- DATORY TRASH PICK-UP (Cont'd from 7/14/92) 3. SOLID WASTE COLLECTION: CONSIDERATION OF OUTSIDE AUDIT OF WIL- MAR REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR 'RFPs' 4. REQUEST TO INITIATE CONSIDERATION OF ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT AE: RS (RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN) DENSITY STANDARDS (RR4 Design Group) 5. PALOMA CREEK PARK ANNEXATION REQUEST TO SUPPORT PROPOSED ANNEXATION OF PALOMA CREEK PARK TO THE CITY 3 6 ORDIRANCE NO. 252 - RESTORING THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION FROM FIVE (;5) TO SEVER (7) (Recommend '(1) motion to waive reading in full and read by title only, and (2) motion to approve on second reading by title only) (Cont'd' from 7/14/92) 7 ORDIRANCE NO. 247 .- AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY or ATASCADBRO AND THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETZ ' SYSTEM (Recommend ` (1) motion to waive reading in: full and read by title only, and (2) motion to approve on second reading by title only) (Cont'd from 5/26/92) E. INDIVZRM DETOMMION MJQD QR„ ACTION: 1. City Council 2. City Attorney 3. City Clerk 4. City Treasurer 5. City Massager: Vacation 'absence, August 17 - 26, 1992 * NOTICE: THE COUNCIL WILL ADJOURN TO A CLOSED SESSION FOR PURPOSES OF DISCUSSION REGARDING LABOR NEGOTIATIONS, PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CGDE SECTION 54957.6. FROM SAID CLOSED SES- SION, ;THE COUNCIL WILL RECONVENE IN 'OPEN SESSION: 1. RESOLUTION NO. 73-92 - APPROVING MODIFICATIONS AND/ OR SIDE :LETTERS TO EXISTING MEMORANDUMS OF UNDER- STANDING (MOUS) WITH BARGAINING UNITS 2. RESOLUTjgf NO. 71--92 - ADOPTING FY1992-93 POSITION AUTHORIZATION & SALARY SCHEDULE 4 Agenda Item: B-1 . Meeting Date: 7/28/92 ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL JUNE 9, 1992 MINUTES The Mayor called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. Councilman Dexter led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL: Present: Councilmembers Nimmo, Lilley, Borgeson, Dexter and Mayor Shiers Absent: None Also Present: Muriel "Micki" Korba, City Treasurer and Lee Raboin, City Clerk Staff Present: Ray Windsor, City Manager; Henry Engen, Community Development Director; Art Montandon, City Attorney; Mark Joseph, Administrative . Services Director; Greg Luke, Public Works .- Director; Andy Takata, Director of Community Services; Mike McCain, Acting Fire Chief; Doug Davidson, Senior Planner and Lt. Bill Watton, Police Department r COUNCIL COMMENTS: Councilman Lilley recogiii.zed and congratulated Atascadero High School senior athletic scholars. PROCLAMATIONS: Mayor Shiers read the proclamation for "Special Olympics/Law Enforcement Torch Run Day", 6/15/92 and presented it to Lt. Watton. COMMUNITY FORUM: City of Paso Robles Mayor Chris Iversen, Councilman Duane Pecanso and Councilman-Elect Walter Macklin extended a hand of friendship to the City of Atascadero. Mayor Iversen reported that he would soon be asking the Council to consider a resolution of support for a North County multi-modal facility. • CC 6/09/92 Page 1 Mayor Shiers introduced Councilman-Elect Marty Kudlac. Tom Jespersen, Jaime' s Flowers & Antiques, urged the Council to • help local businessmen by easing regulations regarding banner signs. Frank Scicchitano, Awnings, Etc, pleaded for relief for himself and other business owners currently facing legal charges for violation of the present sign ordinance, as it relates to banner signs. He asked the Council to bring the revised sign ordinance off the back burner. Bill Mazzacane, Executive Director of the Chamber of Commerce, asked if there was a way to suspend portions of the sign ordinance and postpone pending court cases until the ordinance has been revised. Rick Grisanti, Grisanti' s Hardware, asserted that the City was making a big mistake by prosecuting violators of the sign ordinance because banner signs were not harming anyone. Mayor Shiers asked the Community Development Director to provide a status report on the sign ordinance re-write. Mr. Engen remarked that revisions would be before the Planning Commission in July. Brief Council discussion followed regarding Mr. Mazzacane's suggestion. The City Attorney advised .that the item was not on the-- agenda and recommended that the matter be calendared for the next . meeting. Individual members of Council asked whether the City' s Prosecutor, Roy Hanley, could postpone court action until the new Council is seated and/or the new sign ordinance adopted. Mr. Montandon reported that while he could convey to Mr. Hanley, the Council' s wishes, the Council did not have the power to ''give specific direction to him too delay prosecution. By consensus, Mr. Montandon was directed to contact Mr. Hanley, express Council concerns and report back in two weeks. A. COMMITTEE REPORTS (The following represent ad hoc or standing committees. Informative status reports were given, as follows. ) : 1. S.L.O. Area Coordinating Council/North Coastal Transit - Councilwoman Borgeson provided an overview of the agendas for the meetings scheduled for June 10, 1992. 2. Economic Opportunity Commission - Councilman Dexter reported on the annual recognition dinner held recently to honor numerous volunteers county-wide. 3. County Water Advisory Board Councilwoman Borgeson CC 6/09/92 Page 2 ju(v►114 reported that she had attended the meeting of June 3, 1992, at which time the contract for State Water was reviewed. 4. Economic Round Table - Councilman Lilley announced that he would be attending a sub-committee meeting on Friday, June 12th at Mid-State Bank regarding business retention. 5. Colony Roads Committee - Mr. Montandon reported that Wells Fargo Bank had agreed to participate by contributing $20,000 toward legal fees to resolve ownership issues relating to Colony Roads,. 6. Procurement Committee - Councilman Nimmo reported that the committee was refining revisions to the City's purchasing policy. 7. Homeless Coalition - Councilman Dexter reported that the next meeting would be Friday, June 12, 1992. B. CONSENT CALENDAR: The Mayor read the Consent Calendar, as follows: 1. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 12, 1992 2. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 21-89, 8555 EL CORTE AVE. - Consideration ,of time extension (Bunnell/Schott & Associates,) 3. DIRECT CITY CLERK TO RECRUIT FOR MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COM- MISSION AND THE PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION ' Citizen-at-large, Doug Lewis, pulled Item #B-1. MOTION: By Councilman .Nimmo, seconded by Councilman Dexter to approve Consent Calendar Items #B-2 and _ 3; _motion unanimously carried. Re: Item #B-1. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 12, 1992 Mr. Lewis asked that his comments regarding the proposed realignment of Highway 41 be included in the minutes. By consensus, the minutes were continued until the next meeting and the Clerk was directed to review the tape recordings and make any appropriate amendment(s) . C. HEARINGS• 1. ORDINANCE NO. 250 —CONSIDERATION OF ZONING ORDINANCE REVISION TO ALLOW POLE-MOUNTED FREEWAY SIGNS FOR NEW AUTOMOBILE DEALERS CC 6/09/92 Page 3 U0000 (Zone Change 03-92 - City of Atascadero) (Recommendation to waive reading in full and approve on first reading, by title only) Henry Engen provided the staff report and recommendation. There were no questions from Council. Public Comments: Ted Miles, 3700 Maricopa, spoke in support of the proposed zone change and ordinance. Mike Jackson, 5502 Ensenada, asked the Council to take a look at fees relating to signage and give businesses a break. ---End of Public Testimony--- MOTION: By Councilman Nimmo, seconded by Councilwoman Borgeson to waive the reading in full of Ordinance No. 250;_ motion unanimously passed. MOTION: By Councilman Nimmo, seconded by Councilman Dexter to approve Ordinance No. 250 on first reading. Discussion on the motion: Councilwoman Borgeson and Mayor Shiers indicated that they could not support the ordinance because it was too lenient. The mayor mentioned he would .- ,prefer to address the matter as part of the sign ordinance re- write, rather than in a piece-meal fashion. Vote on the motion: Motion carried 3:2 (Councilwoman Borgeson and Mayor Shiers opposed) . 2. AUTO MALL/RV PARK GENERAL PLAN/ZONING AMENDMENT, 905 EL CAMINO REAL , A. Certification of Final EIR prepared in conjunction with GPA 2A-91/Zone Change 02-91 for 103-acre parcel . B. Resolution No. 56-92 - Amending General Plan (GPA 2A-91) C. Ordinance No. 249 - Revising Zoning Ordinance to allow a proposed automobile sales mall and a recreational vehicle park (ZC 02-91) (Recommendation to waive reading in full and approve on first reading, by title only) Henry Engen introduced Doug Davidson, Senior Planner, who summarized the proposed project and concluded with staff recommendations. Council questions followed. Councilman Dexter expressed reservations because of inadequate CC 6/0992 Page 4 water supply and safety relating to the railroad crossing. Public Comments- The applicant' s representative, Guy Greene, spoke in:support of the project and implored approval. He stated that the change in zoning to allow the recreational vehicle park was appropriate and more suitable than the present single-family residential zoning. Mr. Greene also promoted the proposed auto mall, remarking that it would bring needed revenue to the City. Jon Trumbull, 8220 Santa Rosa, spoke in opposition to the proposed project claiming that it would degrade and urbanize', the area. He urged the Council not to certify the EIR or approve the zone change. Eric Greening, 7365 Valle, indicated that he believed the property would be better suited for a supermarket providing regional patronage. He expressed concern for public safety with any development on the property located below the railroad tracks and asserted that it would be irresponsible to put people in the flood plain. John Wilson, 4700 Santa Cruz, mentioned he was 'a neighboring property owner and was strongly opposed to the project. He voiced concern for increased traffic and crime. He stated that he feared for the safety of his family and decrease in his own property - valuen. Phil Ashley, San Luis Obispo resident, noted that as a career wildlife biologist he believed the EIR was inadequate and lacks bonafide mitigation measures. He referenced several wildlife species that would be adversely affected by the proposed development. In additionA ;he expressed 'trepidation that the EIR would be used for other projects if the one proposed did not come to fruition. Joan Denslow, Templeton resident, quoted several portions- of the staff report and debated that many issues were not adequately being addressed, such as the presence of Kit Fox, two of which live on her property. She communicated concern for the safety of guests at the RV park who might be subject to tragedy relating to hunters, poachers and other trespassers in the Salinas River bed. Judy Pullen, Templeton resident, agreed with the previous speaker and criticized the EIR for not addressing more seriously the issue of trespassing in the river. Anthony Aguilla, also of Templeton, spoke in opposition to the project and further destruction to the river. CC 6/09/92 Page 5 o0011().L1 Bill Mazzacane asked the Council to remain focused on what will be most beneficial to the City. He indicated that although he was not sold on the auto mall, the RV spaces are .desperately needed and the 0 City is losing tourist dollars already by not being able to meet this need. ---End of Public Testimony--- MOTION: By Councilman Nimmo, seconded by Councilman Lilley that the Final Environmental Impact Report be certified as an adequate document under the provision of CEQA, including a Statement of Overriding Considerations with respect to water supply and air quality impacts owing to economic and social benefits to the project. Discussion on the motion: Mayor Shiers indicated that he was not comfortable with the Statement of Overriding Considerations because costs had not yet been examined and environmental issues addressed. Councilwoman Borgeson voiced concerns for water and safety issues and asserted that the City does not have to settle for this project. Vote on the motion: Motion to certify the EIR failed 2:3 (Councilman Dexter, Councilwoman Borgeson and Mayor Shiers opposed) . (Clerk's Note: No action was taken on the General Plan Amendment._ or toe ordinance; those items becoming moot without certification of the EIR) . 3. ORDINANCE NO. 246 - AMENDING TITLE 7 OF THE CITY MUNICIPAL CODE (SANITATION ORDINANCE) (Cont'd from 5/12 and 5/26/92) REQUEST ADOPTION BY RESOLUTION: { r A. Resolution No..' 57-92 - Declaring the intention to exer- cise all powers afforded by State of California Health & Safety Code Section 5463 Greg Luke provided background and recommended that Council adopt Resolution No. 57-92 instead of Ordinance No. 247 originally proposed. He mentioned that, if Council adopts the resolution, staff would proceed with developing an enabling ordinance specifying the mechanics of implementing the policy. There were no questions from Council or the public. MOTION: By Councilman Nimmo, seconded by Councilman Dexter to adopt Resolution No. 57-92; motion carried 5:0 by roll call vote. CC 6/09/92 Page 6 . tl(1O�!(ld D. REGULAR BUSINESS: 1. ORDINANCE NO. 251 - REGULATING CIGARETTE VENDING MACHINES Acting Fire Chief Mike McCain presented a brief staff report and recommendation to adopt Ordinance No 251 banning cigarette vending machines. He mentioned that the ordinance was virtually identical to one recently adopted by the County of San Luis Obispo. There were no Council comments or public testimony. MOTION: By Councilman Dexter, seconded by Councilwoman Borgeson to waive the reading in full of Ordinance No. 251; motion carried unanimously. MOTION: By Councilman Lilley, seconded by Councilwoman Borgeson to adopt Ordinance No. 251 on first reading; motion carried 5:0 by roll call vote. E. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION ANDIOR ACTION: 1. City Council Councilman Dexter reported that he planned to resign as the Council representative on the Economic Opportunity Commission when his term on the City Council ends. He noted that this would create a need to either appoint another representative from Atascadero to serve_ the 4alance of the two-year term (expiring December '31, 1992) ; or, as an alternative, ask the City of Paso Robles (next in the rotation for North County) to appoint a representative to serve for two and one-half years. Staff agreed to follow-up.', 2. City Attorney f Art Montandon added an additional matter of potential litigation to the agenda for the Closed Session (said matter held pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a) ) . By consensus, the Council adjourned to a Closed Session for purposes of discussion regarding personnel matters pursuant to Govt. Code Sec. 54957 .6. MINUTES RECORDED D PREPARED BY: 1. OIN, Ci Clerk CC 6/09/92 Page 7 Agenda Item: B-2 Meeting Date: 7/28/92 ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL JUNE 23, 1992 MINUTES Mayor Shiers called the meeting to order at 7: 02 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmembers Nimmo, Lilley, Borgeson, Dexter and Mayor Shiers Absent: None Also Present: Muriel "Micki" Korba, City Treasurer and Lee Raboin, City Clerk Staff Present: Ray Windsor, City Manager; Henry Engen, Community Development Director; Art Montandon, City Attorney; Mary Redus Gayle, Assistant City Attorney; Mark Joseph, Administrative Services Director; Greg Luke, Public Works Director; Andy Takata, Director of Community Services; Mike McCain, Acting Fire Chief; Bud McHale, Police Chief; Vern Elliott, Fire Marshall; Steve Hicks, Building Official and Bill Wittmeyer, Code Enforcement Officer Resolution No. 60-92 - Certification of 6/2/92 Municipal Election results MOTION: By Councilman Dexter, seconded by Councilwoman Borgeson to adopt Resolution No. 60-92 certifying, the results of the June 2, 1992 Municipal Election; motion unanimously passed by roll call vote. Farewell comments were expressed by outgoing councilmembers Shiers, Dexter and Lilley. The City Clerk administered Oaths of Office to newly-elected Coun- cilmembers Dave Bewley, Marty Kudlac and George Luna. Council, by the following motions, made formal appointment of Mayor and Mayor Pro Tempore: CC 6/23/92 Mage 1 000007 .1 MOTION: By Councilwoman Borgeson, seconded by Councilman Luna to nominate Bob Nimmo as Mayor; motion carried unanimously. MOTION: By Councilman Luna, seconded by Councilwoman Borgeson to nominate Councilman Kudlac as Mayor Protem; motion unanimously passed. Mayor Nimmo presented plagues of appreciation to outgoing Councilmembers Alden Shiers, Robert Lilley and Rollin Dexter. Councilmembers Kudlac, Luna and Bewley individually spoke in appreciation to those who had worked for their campaigns and to the voters of Atascadero. COMMUNITY FORUM• Roger Cook, 10600 Colorado Road asked the new Council to repeal the mandatory trash collection ordinance. Rich Moen, 4200 Portola, also asked for re-consideration of mandatory trash pick-up and noted there were other ways to reduce the solid waste stream. Bob Huot, 3850 Ardilla Road, spoke in support of mandatory pick-up and asserted that he enjoyed the service provided by Wil-Mar Disposal. Michael Mancuso, San Lucia Road resident, indicated that he was also opposed to mandatory pick-up. A. COMMITTEE REPORTS (The following represent ad hoc or standing committees. Informative status reports were given, as follows. ) : 1. S.L.O. Area Coordinating Council/North Coastal Transit - Councilwoman Borgeson reported that the next meeting would be on July 8, 1992. B. CONSENT CALENDAR: The Mayor read the Consent Calendar, as follows: 1.. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 12, 1992 (Cont'd from 6/9/92) 2. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 26, 1992 3. CONSOLIDATED TREASURER'S REPORT - MAY, 1992 4. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 23-89, 11455 VIEJO CAMINO - Consideration of time extension request (Van Gundy/Cuesta Engineering) CC 6/23/92 Page 2 000007.2 5. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 92-001, 9955 and 9965 EL CAMINO REAL - Application to create eight airspace condominiums within approved retail commercial center (Hawkins Plaza/Volbrecht Surveys) 6. FINAL PARCEL MAP 21-87, 8665 PORTOLA ROAD - Re-subdivision of two existing lots into four parcels varying in size from 20,401 sq. ft. to 23,346 sq. ft. (Gouff/Stewart) 7 . REQUEST AUTHORITY TO AMEND CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE PURSUANT TO STATE LAW 8. AUTHORIZE PLACEMENT OF ANNUAL ASSESSMENT CHARGE FOR STREET MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS ON THE FY1992-93 PROPERTY TAXES A. Resolution No. 45-92 - District 83-1 (Lobos Ave. ) B. Resolution No. 46-92 - District 83-2 (Sonora/Pinal Aves. ) C. Resolution No. 47-92 - District 83-3 (Maleza Ave. ) D. Resolution No. 48-92 - District 84-1 (San Fernando Rd. ) E. Resolution No. 49-92 - District 86-1 (Falda Ave. ) F. Resolution No. 50-92 - District 86-2 (Final/Escarpa Aves. ) G. Resolution No. 51-92 - District 86-3 (Aguila Ave. ) H. Resolution No. 52-92 - District 86-4 (Cayucos Ave. ) 9. AUTHORIZE PLACEMENT OF ANNUAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT CHARGE ON FY1992-93 PROPERTY TAXES A. Resolution No. 53-92 - District No. 5 (Chandler Ranch) B. Resolution No. 54-92 - District No. 3 (Marchant Way) C. Resolution No. 55-92 - District No. 4 (Seperado/Cayucos) 10. RESOLUTION NO. 59-92 - SUPPORTING THE PASO ROBLES MULTI-MODAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITY 11. AWARD BID NO. 92-5 FOR HEAVY DUTY VEHICLE - WASTE WATER TREAT- MENT PLANT 12. RESOLUTION NO. 58-92 - APPROVING AN INTERIM FY1992/93 BUDGET 13. RESOLUTION NO. 62-92 - RATIFYING THE JPA FOR THE SLO COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS FOR FY1992/93 Mayor Nimmo mentioned that staff had requested that Item #B-12 be moved to correspond with discussions on Item #D-8. ' Councilwoman Borgeson asked to remove Item #B-13. Councilman Luna pulled Item #B-11. CC 6/23/92 Page 3 000007.3 MOTION: By Councilman Luna, seconded by Councilwoman Borgeson to approved Consent Calendar Items #B-1 through 10; motion carried 5:0 by roll call vote. Re Item #B-11. AWARD BID NO. 92-5 FOR HEAVY DUTY VEHICLE - WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT Councilman Luna asked the Public Works Director if an AM/FM radio and air-conditioning were essential to the use of, this vehicle. Mr. Luke emphasized the importance of air-conditioning and noted that although the bid specs included a radio as an option, the vehicle recommended for purchase did not come with one. In addition, he responded to questions from Councilmembers Kudlac and Bewley about the frequency of use projected for the vehicle and whether the work could be done by contracting an outside source. There were no comments from the public. MOTION: By Councilman Luna, seconded by Mayor Nimmo to award Bid No. 92-5 to Paso Robles GMC in the amount of $59,654. 88; motion carried 3:2 (Councilmembers Kudlac and Bewley opposed) . Re: Item #B-13. RESOLUTION NO. 62-92 - RATIFYING THE JPA FOR THE SLO COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS FOR FY1992/93 The City Manager reported that the Area Coordinating Council had notified his office of certain amendments to the JPA. These amendments, he noted, had been received after the agenda packet had been distributed. He mentioned that although staff had forwarded copies of the changes to each member of Council, not everyone had had the opportunity to review those changes. The matter was, by consensus, continued until the next regular meeting. C. HEARINGS: 1. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF APPLICATION TO RELO- CATE EXISTING PRIVATE ACCESS ROAD, 13590 PALO VERDE (Herndon) Henry Engen provided the staff report and recommendation to deny the appeal. Mayor Nimmo inquired whether or not Councilmembers Kudlac and Luna, who had rendered a decision on this matter while sitting on the Planning Commission, could participate in the hearing. Assistant City Attorney, Mary Gayle, advised that the new councilmembers could participate and vote on the appeal because they would be hearing new testimony. Staff responded to questions from Council regarding the legal recorded easement and history of land use for access. CC 6/23/92 Page 4 000007 .4 Public Comments: • Robert Weatherford, attorney representing the appellant, and Joe Boud, Joseph Boud & Associates, provided arguments in favor of the appeal and asked the Council to grant the appeal and direct staff the to processapplication. ---End of Public Testimony--- MOTION: By Councilwoman Borgeson, seconded by Councilman Luna per the Planning Commission' s recommendation, deny the appeal based on the Findings for Denial containedin the Precise Plan denial (Attachment F to staff report) ; motion carried 4: 1 (Councilman Bewley opposed) . ' 2. ORDINANCE NO. 248 - COMPREHENSIVE REVISIONS TO TITLE 8, BUILD- ING REGULATIONS TO UPDATE CONSTRUCTION REGULATIONS (Recommendation to waive reading in full and approve on first reading, by title only) Henry Engen provided a brief summary of the proposed ordinance and introduced Steve Hicks, Building Official. Mr. Hicks pointed out a f ew last-minute corrections to Chapter 8 (Fire Code) (see Exhibit A) . Councilwoman Borgeson asked the Fire Marshall if he was in agreement with the changes. Vern Elliott replied that he was. Public Comment Cedar Shake & Shingle le Bureau Michael Howell, District Manager for g addressing Section 8_2. 103 Roofing Materials, spoke in opposition ition to disallowing Class C shake shingles. ---End of Public Testimony--- Responding to query from Councilman Kudlac about Mr. Howell' s remarks, the Fire Marshall reported that the wood shingle industry could not meet the Class A standard and emphasized', the importance of striving for the maximum amount of safety in roofing materials. ActingFire Chief Mike McCain added that the California Fire Chiefs' Association was in unanimous support for using only Class A roof ing material and assured the Council that this recommendation was not intended to single-out any sole vendor. Steve Hicks explained the various uniform codes and ',exhibited those being adopted by reference. MOTION: By Councilman Luna, seconded by Councilwoman Borgeson to waive the reading in full of Ordinance No. 248; motion carried unanimously. CC 6/23/92 • Page 5 000007 .5 MOTION: By Councilman Luna, seconded by Councilwoman Borgeson to adopt Ordinance No. 248 on first reading; motion carried 5: 0 by roll call vote. Mayor Nimmo called a short recess at 8:48 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 9:00 p.m. D. REGULAR BUSINESS• 1. CITY FACILITY POLICIES, PROCEDURES AND FEES MANUAL UPDATE/RE- VISION Andy Takata provided an overview of changes to the City Facility Policies and recommended approval. He responded to brief questions from Council regarding fees, alcoholic beverages, insurance requirements and employee costs. There were no questions or comments from the public. MOTION: By Councilman Luna, seconded by Councilman Bewley to accept the amended "Facility Policies, Procedures, and Fees Manual", as presented; motion carried. 2. DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PROCESS REVIEW Henry Engen followed up on staff 's suggestion that the City Council tour the third floor to walk a permit through a simulated development review process. Mayor Nimmo suggested that a flow chart illustrating the process would be helpful. Councilman Luna proposed that the Planning Commission be given the same orientation. Councilman Kudlac added that if anyone from the general public was interested, that they should also be included. By consensus, the concept was approved. 3. SIGN ORDINANCE VIOLATIONS STATUS Henry Engen provided background and noted the presence of Bill Wittmeyer, Code Enforcement Officer. Staff ' s recommendation, he noted, would be to not hold in abeyance current pending violations of the City' s sign ordinance but to instruct staff to continue an even-handed enforcement of the current ordinance, keeping in mind pending revisions. Councilman Kudlac voiced support for the alternative of suspending enforcement of Section 9-4. 132 (a) ( "Permit Required" ) for permanent signs currently existing, until such time as the sign ordinance re- write is adopted. Councilman Bewley agreed. Public Comments: CC 6/23/92 Page 6 000007 .6 Tom Jespersen, Jaime' s Flowers & Antiques, requested a fair ordinance that address the individual needs of local businesses. Ray Johnson, President of the Chamber of Commerce, spoke in support of holding violations in abeyance until after the new sign ordinance is adopted. Joe Grisanti, Grisanti's Hardware, asserted that there are too many restrictions on free enterprise. ---End of Public Testimony--- Councilwoman Borgeson declared that signage is a '' privilege and opposed suspension of any part of the present sign ordinance. Councilman Luna asked the City Attorney for legal advise regarding action to suspend portions of City ordinances. Mr. Montandon noted that the past Council had suspended regulations regarding sidewalk sales and while that may have set a precedence was, in fact, a different matter because of the fact that there are pending court cases regarding violations of the sign ordinance. He reported, as directed, he had communicated with the City' s Prosecutor, Roy Hanley, who has confirmed his position that once a case has gone to court it is not subject to Council consideration. Councilman Kudlac mentioned that community input will be vital when considering the new sign ordinance. MOTION: B Councilman Kudlac, seconded by Councilman Bewley to MOT y suspend enforcement of Section 9-4. 132(a) ( "Permit Required" ) for permanent signs currently existing, until such time as the sign ordinance re-write is adopted; motion carried 3:2 (Councilwoman Borgeson and Councilman Luna opposed) . 4. ORDINANCE NO. 250 - CONSIDERATION OF ZONING ORDINANCE REVISION TO ALLOW POLE-MOUNTED FREEWAY SIGNS FOR NEW AUTO DEALERSHIPS (Zone Change 03-92 - City of Atascadero) (Recommendation to waive reading in full and approve on second reading, by title only) Councilmembers Luna and Bewley mentioned that they had reviewed the tape recording of the meeting on June 9, 1992 when Ordinance No. 250 was introduced and were prepared to act on the matter. (Clerk' s Note: Councilman Kudlac was personally present during the hearing) . Councilwoman Borgeson reiterated opposition to the ordinance and to "piece-meal" planning. CC 6/23/92 . Page 7 000007 .7 Public Comment: Jeff Hook, 4620 San Ardo, asked to address the Council. The City Attorney advised that the public hearing had been closed. Mayor Nimmo agreed to let him speak. Mr. Book asked Council to postpone action on the ordinance and consider comprehensively with other revisions to the sign ordinance. ---End of Public Testimony--- MOTION: By Councilman Kudlac, seconded by Councilman Bewley to approve the adoption of Ordinance No. 250 on second reading; motion carried 4: 1 (Councilwoman Borgeson voting in opposition) . 5. ORDINANCE NO. 251 - REGULATING CIGARETTE VENDING MACHINES (Recommendation to waive reading in full and approve on second reading, by title only) Councilmembers Luna and Bewley confirmed that they had also reviewed the tape recording of past testimony on this matter. There were comments or questions from Council or the public. MOTION: By Councilman Luna, seconded by Councilman Kudlac to adopt on second reading Ordinance No. 251; motion unanimously carried by roll call vote. 6. RESOLUTION NO. 61-92 - YEAR-END BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS FY1991/92 Mark Joseph provided a brief staff report and responded to questions regarding salaries, benefits and the process of rolling over funds. MOTION: By Councilman Luna, seconded by Councilwoman Borgeson to adopt Resolution No. 61-92; motion carried 5: 0. 7 . SET DATE FOR COUNCIL TO INTERVIEW COMMISSION CANDIDATES Council agreed to interview candidates for the City' s Parks & Recreation Commission on Tuesday, July 7, 1992 beginning at 5: 00 p.m. 8. SET DATES FOR 1992-93 BUDGET HEARINGS (Consent Calendar Item #B-12 added: Resolution No. 58-92 Establishing Interim Appropriations for the Upcoming Fiscal Year) Mark Joseph remarked that staff had prepared an interim resolution rolling over essential appropriations and suggested that a "sunset date" be chosen to coincide with a date selected for budget CC 6/23/92 Page 8 000007 .8 hearings. The City Manager suggested that in light of the State's lack of adopting their budget, Council consider waiting until their regular meeting of July 14th to set the date for budget hearings. MOTION: By Councilwoman Borgeson, seconded by Councilman Luna to adopt Resolution No. 58-92 and, on recommendation of staff, set a sunset date of July 14, 1992 and set the public hearing for the same date; motioncarried 5: 0. (Clerk' s Note: This motion was amended - see page 9) . E. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION: 1. City Council Councilwoman Borgeson suggested choosing another format for placing proclamations on the agenda. The City Attorney reported that many cities put them on the consent calendar. Discussion ensued. Mayor Nimmo proposed a procedure whereby proclamations submitted would be reviewed by the City Manager, Mayor and Mayor Protem to eliminate those that might be controversial or inappropriate. Mayor Nimmo remarked that he would prepare a memo to Council regarding committee appointments. He suggested that each councilmember provide him with input about which committees they might like to serve upon. Councilman Luna mentioned'. that he would appreciate information about meeting dates, times and locations to facilitate his choices. 2. City Treasurer Micki Korba expressed concern for postponing budget hearings and stated she would prefer to see them held before the fourteenth of July. Mr. Windsor reminded Council that they were involved in the "meet and confer" process with employees and that this might affect when the hearing could be held. Councilwoman Borgeson noted that she had intended, as maker of the motion, for the budget hearings to be held on the evening of July 14th not merely to be scheduled for some later date.' The previous motion was amended, as follows: MOTION: By Councilwoman Borgeson, seconded by Councilman Luna to delete the reference to a hearing date; motion unanimously carried. By consensus, Council agreed to meet in a special session for purposes of budget hearings on Monday, July 6, 1992 at 6:00 p.m. CC 6/23/92 Page 9 000007 .9 At 10:20 p.m. and by unanimous consensus, the meeting was adjourned to a Closed Session for purposes of discussion regarding personnel matters pursuant to Govt. Code Sec. 54957 .6. MINLfTES/RECORDE AND PREPARED BY: I 4, LEE RABOIN, Ci4 Clerk Attachments: Exhibit "A (Amendments to Ordinance No. 248 Chapter 8. Fire Code) CC 6/23/92 Page 10 000007 .10 CC6/23/92 EXHIBIT "A" 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", gxv 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 sulsec >=>to Flooding) , II-D (Rifle Ran*ges)�', .,,,,.... III-A (Fire Flow Requirements for Buildings) , III-B (Fire Hydrant Location, and Distribution)' III-C Test nq,�,utomati sprinkler and StandR:g �vteusi , III-D (Basement"'P pe hn e ) 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 fire 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. 20 J(gwt 16 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 :' in Which Storage of Explosives and Blasting Agents is Pi'ofi'iaited: "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. 88-8.107 . _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 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 < eutszde waIs exceeding 5, 000 square feet which undergo any addition 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 6:n4::::}v:n:.};;}:ii.:': xiiM:?4:?4i",:Yiii '•Y':i.?':?::r.: ''.. defined in the Uniform Building Code. For tie puipos tts SO the rays bn:.>Of. .3t �: :a.n <an , reg.se arat on> wal2.ma>. . be aIowed once ina articular buidn �sr strn.cture< e area separatxon:�ral shalla�e. : ....... ....... . . ...:.................:.:.........::::::::::::::::::::: no ,crxen�:nas. 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. 21 ��f(li of 10 MEETING AGENDA DATF28/ X92 FrEM# B,,.-3..... M I N U T E S ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING .:::::.::.,:... ••:,..:::,,•:::..•::•:::::::•::•::•::::.::a..�xa:;•.:'•:,••;••.:iti..'r.:••::::,c••t:.•:'is:::iaS.:..S::•.a:•::,.,•.?..4:a`ifra•:..k.;. CITY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 6500 PALMA AVENUE, 4TH FLOOR ROTUNDA ROOM JULY 6, 1992 6:00 P.M. Mayor Nimmo called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Councilman Kudlac led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL: Present: Councilmembers Kudlac, Luna, Bewley, and Maybr Nimmo Absent: Councilwoman Borgeson (present ,6:02 p.m. ) . Also Present: Micki Korba, City. Treasurer and Lee Raboin, 9 City Clerk Staff Present Ray Windsor, City Manager; Andy Takata, Assistant City Manager; Art Montandon, City Attorney; Henry Engen, Community Development Director; Greg Luke, Public Works Direotor; Mark JA,seph; Administrative Services Director; Mike••McCain, Acting Fire Chief and Bud McHale, Police Chief PUBLIC HEARING• A. CITY OF ATASCADERO BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 1992-93 1. COMMUNITY GROUP FUNDING APPEALS Mayor Nimmo indicated that the Council would hear appeals, but would take no action until after the Closed Session (Item #2) . The following appeals for community group funding were heard: CCBUDGET 7/6/92 • Page 1 J00006 Chamber of Commerce: Bill Mazzacane, Executive Director, asked the Council to consider a performance-based contract with the Chamber. Ray Johnson, President, urged Council to support this recommendation. San Luis Obispo County Visitors & Conference Bureau: Jonni Eylar, Executive Director, asked the Council not to abandon funding for the promotion of tourism. American Red Cross: Jeannie Nix, Executive Director, implored the Council to grant funding in the same amount as was awarded the year before and responded to brief questions from Council regarding the services rendered directly to Atascadero families. Family Services Center: Christine Hervey and Lucinda Borchard Griffith, representing the Family Services Center, requested reconsideration of their funding request and also responded to questions regarding their services. Food Bank Coalition: Don Benson appealed recommended funding of $500 asking that the agenryy' s full request of $2,000 be granted. Senior Citizens United: Jean Fredericks requested Council to approve additional funding. Action for Animal Rights (AFAR) . " AFAR Board representatives Kitty Olsen and Susan Harkness urged for full funding of the Spay/Neuter Program. Daphne Fahsing, Executive Director, was also present and responded to questions from Council regarding the Spay/Neuter Program offered through AFAR. Mayor Nimmo asked if there were any other agency representatives present who wished to address the Council. There were none. 2. CLOSED SESSION - Council will adjourn to a Closed Session regarding personnel matters pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6. MOTION: By Councilman Kudlac, seconded by Councilman Luna to adjourn to Closed Session; motion unanimously carried. (6:50 p.m. ) CCBUDGET 7/6/92 Page 2 0000r►y Open Session reconvened at 7:20 p.m. Mayor Nimmo opened the floor for one additional appeal: Loaves & Fishes: George Merit noted that Loaves & Fishes was asking for City support only in the way of storage space. He remarked that during the previous year' s budget hearings, the Council had granted this request, but reported that a suitable site had not yet been located to store food and interview potential clients. Brief discussion ensued. An ad-hoc committee comprised of Councilwoman Borgeson, Andy Takata and Mr. Merit was established to look into the matter and come back to Council with appropriate recommendations. Council discussion regarding staff recommendations for community agency funding followed. Councilmembers Borgeson and Luna commented that they were struggling with understanding the basis for the recommendations. Mayor Nimmo emphasized priority funding should go to those organizations that provide needed services for health and welfare that are not funded by other means. Council agreed to address each appeal one by one. Action taken was as follows: Chamber of Commerce: MOTION: By Councilman Kudlac, seconded by Councilman Bewley to grant to the Chamber of Commerce the sum of $20,000 and initiate negotiations for a performance-based contract; carried 5:0. San Luis Obispo Visitors & ,Conference Bukeau:" MOTION: By Councilwoman Borgeson, seconded by Councilman Kudlac to fund $1,000; carried 5:0. American Red Cross: MOTION: By Councilman Kudlac, seconded by Councilman Luna to approve funding at $500; motion carried 4: 1 (Mayor Nimmo voting in opposition) . Family Service Center: MOTION: By Councilwoman Borgeson, seconded by Councilman Luna to fund $250; motion carried 4:1 (Mayor Nimmo opposed) . CCBUDGET 7/6/92 . Page 3 Food Bank Coalition: MOTION: By Councilman Luna, seconded by Councilman Bewley to approve $500; motion carried 5:0. Senior Citizens United: MOTION: By Councilwoman Borgeson, seconded by Councilman Luna to grant $2,000; motion failed 2:3 (Councilmembers Bewley, Kudlac and Mayor Nimmo opposed) . Y PP .) MOTION: By Councilwoman Borgeson, seconded by Councilman Luna to fund $1,000; motion failed 2:3 (Councilmembers Bewley, Kudlac and Mayor Nimmo opposed) . MOTION: By Councilwoman Borgeson, seconded by Councilman Luna to fund $700; motion passed 5:0. AFAR- MOTION: By Councilman Luna, seconded by Councilwoman Borgeson to grant $10,000; motion failed 2:3 (Councilmembers Bewley, Kudlac and Mayor Nimmo opposed) . MOTION: By Councilman Kudlac, seconded by Councilwoman Borgeson to fund 5,000; motion carried 3:2 (Councilman Bewley and Mayor Nimmo opposed) . Mayor Nimmo called - y a break at 8.00P 4.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:15 P.M. 3. BUDGET REVIEW BY DEPARTMENT r Mark Joseph provided the staff report" and responded to brief ques- tions from Council. It ,was agreed that each department would be addressed and acted upon separately. The City Manager indicated that Council was being asked to approve the departmental budgets as submitted and noted that there would be another opportunity.to look at the overall budget at mid-year. City Council: Mayor Nimmo suggested that the City Council, in light of cuts to be taken by employees, should take a reduction in compensation as well. He proposed that this be done by approving a "cafeteria plan" whereby each member of Council may choose compensation in the maximum amount of $300 per month to be taken in the form of salary, benefits or a combination of both. CCBUDGET 7/6/92 Page 4 MOTION: By Councilman Kudlac, seconded by Councilman Bewley in favor of Mayor Nimmo' s recommendation. Discussion on the motion: Councilwoman Borgeson emphasized that there are travel costs associated with attending out of town committee meetings and cautioned against reducing the compensation so much that it might become a financial burden to present and future members of the City Council to meet these obligations. Vote on the motion: Motion carried 5:0. City Clerk: Budget Approved. City Treasurer: Budget Approved. City Attorney/Special Legal: Budget Approved. City Manager: Budget 'Approved. Personnel: Budget Approved. Police: Bud McHale provided brief Staff report and responded to questions. Councilman Luna spoke in support of adding back in $10,000 for P.O.S.T. training. The City Manager suggested that Council wait until the mid-year budget review before making any change._ Budget approved and authorization given to implement the 113-12 Plan" . - Fire: Budget Approved. Public Works/Engineering: Budget Approved. CCBUDGET 7/6/92 Page 5 won't Recycling: Budget Approved. Community Development: Budget Approved. Community Services: The City Manager noted that staff was canceling the contract for lawn mowing services and Andy Takata pointed out that members of the Fire Department would be assisting in the task of watering at the parks. Budget Approved. Administrative Services: Budget Approved. Other: Budgets were also unanimously approved for the following: Equipment Replacement, Non-Departmental, Emergency Preparedness, Weed Abatement, Waste Water Treatment Operations, Dial-A-Ride, Tree Planting, Park Concession, Pavilion, Zoo, Gas Tax Streets and Street Maintenance. Capital Improvements: Greg Luke provided a status report on various bridge replacement projects and signalization of Highway 41. There was discussion regarding the possible acquisition of "Stadium Park" and individual members of Gouncil expressed either support or opposition to the continuing efforts to acquire the property. MOTION: By Councilman Luna, seconded by Councilwoman Borgeson to proceed with the previous Council' s recommendation to acquire Stadium Park; motion carried 4: 1 (Councilman Kudlac opposed) . The mayor mentioned that the matter would come back to Council for direction regarding funding the purchase. Upon motion duly made and seconded, the City Council adjourned at 10: 10 p.m. to Tuesday, July 7, 1992 to interview applicants for the City' s Parks & Recreation Commission. CCBUDGET 7/6/92 Page 6 J0001 J MINUTES RECORDED AND PREPARED BY: L OIN, ity Clerk f t CCBUDGET 7/6/92 Page 7 0000114 MEETING AGENDA DAT 7 28 92 ITEM/ B4__�_. M I N U T E S ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING Y::.r•:{vi:ilii:yiij::i;:i:::Ciivi>:vvn::i:::vii:•i£:i{:L::i:+£}:i4::,{:•.kSi{�,Y..•,;•.•,.v, {:n::•;:i<r^tr..:3':{3,•{.}�S;�I ;R:� i ..i'•.�}.•.•••i:.•:n ,.,.•,.,�.,.�, ....•.A�,+..£,.r.,\..r:..\..a£sir..vsti.•w5.w'�c�•..''•:'•'i':::::+i\:Sn;'r::.?4v:xi:':•:Y•:tiii`.::'•.`•..�;'•'.'•..':w.,'•y.'s:::.3:.. CITY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 6500 PALMA AVENUE, 4TH FLOOR CLUB ROOM JULY 7, 1992 5:00 P.M. Mayor Nimmo called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Present: Councilmembers Borgeson, Kudlac Luna, Bewley, and Mayor Nimmo Absent: None Also Present: Micki Korba, City Treasurer and Lee Raboin, City Clerk, Ray Windsor, City Manager and Andy Takata, Assistant City Manager MEETING PURPOSE: To interview candidates for appointment to the City' s Parks & Recreation Commission and appoint three citizens to each serve four-year terms. r MEETING HIGHLIGHTS: The City Council interviewed the following applicants: Hoyt Chambless, Walter Reil, Karen Coniglio, Tom Bench, Barbara Hunt, George Beatie, Ken Meyer, Vic Smart, Myra Douglass, Barbara Butz and Chris Petrush. (Applicants John Martino and Howard Marohn were not present for the interviews due to illness and vacation) . The City Council, by unanimous motion, directed staff to bring back an ordinance restoring the membership of the Parks & Recreation Commission from five to seven. Andy Takata clarified that, in keeping with the terms set forth in the ordinance, five appointments would be called for: three members to serve for four years and two members to serve two years. He added that until an ordinance had been adopted expanding the membership of the Commission, the two additional appointees would not be able to CCSPECIAL 7/7/92 . Page 1 tl000l o vote. The Council, by ballot, made the following selections: Members to serve a four-year term: Vic Smart George Beatie Barbara Butz Members to serve a two-year term: Tom Bench Karen Coniglio The adoption of proposed Resolution 64-92 making the formal appointments was continued until the regular meeting of July 14, 1992 to allow staff to revise language in accordance with Council's direction. COUNCIL COMMENTS: Councilman Kudlac reported that he would be on vacation August first through the ninth. THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 8:35 P.M. THE NEXT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL WILL BE TUESDAY, JULY 14,, 1992 AT 7:00 P.M. MINUAS RECORDE D PREPARED BY: r LEE RABOIN, Cit Clerk l • r • CCSPECIAL 7/7/92 Page 2 �Onm b ME D T !&/92 ITGEMt �B..5....... CITY OF ATASCADERO TREASURER'S REPORT FOR THE MONTH ENDING JUNE 30,1992 Ilk h TABLE I: SCHEDULE OF CASH RECEIPTS AND DISBURSEMENTS 1.992 1991 Beginning Cash Balance 5,842,870.10 8,059,328.54 Plus: Receipts 537,872.52 553,330.00 Less: Disbursements (943,073.47) (1,295,060.06) r -------------- -- - Ending Cast) Balance�. 5,437,669.15 7,317,598.45 , Plus: Outstanding Transactions 339,691.24 393,175.16 . -------------- ----- ; Adjusted Cash Balance 5,777,360.39 7,710,773.64 TABLE II: SCHEDULE OF INVESTMENTS ----------------- -----...------_-_-_------_-_---_---_----_---_-- ---_---_----------- --- - Interest Interest Interest Name Amount Rate For Month Year-to-Date':, -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- / Orange County Invest. Pool 4,851,548.28 9.07x 129,549.44 366,414.16 L.A.I.F. 706,707.01 5.320 0.00 15,707.01. Mid State Bank 218,155.10 3.500 434.70 .-9,818.95 Petty Casff 950.00 N/A N/A N/A TOTAL: 5,777,360.39 129,984.14 391,940.12 r.. Key: N/A (Not Applicable) L.A.I.F Interest Paid Quarterly Orange County Investment Pohl. Interest Paid Quarterly _ I certify that this report reflects all Governmental Agency pooled investments and -is in conformity with the Investment Policy of rt the City of Atascadero as stated in Resolution No. 109-91 dated 12/10/91. A copy of this Resolution is available at the Office of the City Clerk. The Investment Program herein shown provides sufficient cash flow liquidity to meet next month's estimated expenditures. SIGNED: Muriel Korba, City Treasurer TREASURER'S REPORT FOR THE PERIOD ENDING JUNE 30,1992 TABLE III: SCHEDULE OF CURRENT MONTH ACTIVITY AND PRIOR YEAR VARIANCES ( JUNE CURRENT PRIOR DESCRIPTION 1992 YR-TO-DATE.- YR-TO-DATE VARIANCE REVENUE Property Taxes 22,039 21200,058 2,167,718 1.5 Sales Tax 137,128 1,660,509 1,781,580 -6.8% 0 75,220 102,764 -26.8% Bed Tax } Prop. Transfer Tax 2.,643 31,095 47,654 34.7% 5 8-5% 965 372,331 343,054 Franchise Fees . y Special Assessments 741 133,598 143,333 -6.8% Business Licenses 30,412 100,502 104,257 -3.6% Building Permits 34,006 238,408 351,544 -32.2% Motor. Vehicle Tax 63. 339 799,576 822,297 -2.8% Other State In-Lieu 17,117 72,834 97,461 -25.30 Gas Tax Receipts 66,456 414,462 377,449 9.8% TDA Receipts 0 352,885 402,149 -12.3% Other Intergov'al 112,698 525,953 519,833 1.2% Recreation Fees 71,921 354,877 343,180 3.40 { Zoo Admissions16,543 98,951 63,998 54.6o Planning Fees ?.0,088 139,459 139,521 -0.0% �,.. Wastewater Fees 12,600 618,862 716,107 -13.6% (. Development Fees 51,539 358,489 486,149 -26.3% Dial-A-Ride Fares 3,257 34,390 35,454 -3.0. Police Services 551 6,316 5,833 8.3% Weed Abatement 221 36,717 43,702 -16.0% Other Fees/Charges 94 2,550 4,093 -37.70 ,fines & Forfeits 4,137 42,744 98,410 -56.60 Interest Earnings 453 411,328 617,005 -33.3% Other,Rents/..Cty.Crews 3,586 8,212 1,594 415.20 . Proceeds from Sales 0 171,467 265,613 -35.4v Miscellaneous 5,316 48,362 78,932 ---38_7% ------------------------ r TOTALS 682,850, 9,310,155 10,160,684 -8.4% EXPENDITURES General Gov't 36,325 325,610 339,401 -4.1% Police 257,990 2,156,199 2,026,070 6.46 Fire 118,953 1,142,682 1,125,605 1.50 _ Public Works/Eng. 24,053 368,000 405,753 . -9.3% 42,934 581,994 722,579 -19.5% Wastewater , WastewaRide 28,598 303,103 252,238 20.20- Community Development 85,456 799,439 762.,400 4.9% � 44,683 565,885 563,526 0.4% Recreation Parks & Bldg. Maint 64,066 626,963 561,898 11.6% Zoo 24,718 2.34,350 230,007 1.9% Streets 46,868 565,993 538,468 5.10- Admin. Services 44,192 637,242 731,933 -12.9% 42,732 613,684 853,640 -28.1% Non-Departmental i Major Capital 100,440 2 % ,083,305 1,464,147 42.3 Debt Service/Trust 0 244,343 323,731 -24.5% -----------------------------395-- s. TOTALS 962,008 11,248,791 10,901,395 3.26 NET SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) (279,158)(1,938,636) (740,711) 161.7% l ...til\ ....r... TREASURER'S REPORT FOR THE PERIOD ENDING JUNE 30,1992 TABLE IV_ BUDGET-TO-ACTUAL REPORT CURRENT CURRENT COLLECTED PRIOR PRIOR COLL/ YR-TO-DATE /SPENT BUDGET YR-TO,-DATE SPENT ti ASCRIPTIONBUDGET ---------- REVENUES 2,200,0.58 96,60 2,OSO,OgO 2,167,718 105.7% Property Taxes 2,2.76,500 Sales Tax 1,700,000 1,660,509 97.7; 1,850,000 1,781,580 96.30 Bed Tax 105,000 75,220 71.60 110,000 102,764 93.40 b0,000 47,654 79.4% Prop. Transfer Tax 40,000 31,095 77.76 330,000 343,054 .104.0% Franchise Fees '370,000 372,331 100.60 151,753 143,333 94.5% Special Assessments 151,753 133,598 88.0% Business Licenses 110,000 100,502 91.4% 381,575 351,544 92.105,010 104,257 99.30 % Building Permits 325,225 238,408 73. % 860,000 822,297 95.60 Motor Vehicle Tax 825,000 799,576 96.99%% 95,900 97,461 101.60 Other State In-Lieu 75,700 • 72,8..,4 , 96.2% 377,449 96.0% 393,100 Gras Tax Receipts 416,162 414 ,46 . 99.6% r95 402 149 99.96 TDA Receipts 482, 7 352,885 73.16 402,521 Other Intergov'al 632,400 525,953 83.2% 455,700 519,833 114.16: Recreation Fees 419,550 354,877 84,6% 310,850 343,180 110.4% Zoo Admissions 72,500 98,951 136.5% 71,000 63,998 90.1% 1. Planning Fees 178,923 139P459 , 77.9% , 192,612 139,521 72.40 Wastewater Fees 690,200 618,862 89.7% 660,200 716,107 108.5% ; 562,600 486,149 86.4% ,,, Development Fees 717,000 358,489 50.5% 34,1000 35,454 104.3% Dial-A-Ride Fares 36,000 34,390 95.5% 4,800 5,833 121.5% '. Police Services 6,100 6,316 103,57 43,702 145.7% 40,000 36,717 91.8% 30,000 Weed Abatement 3„000 4,093 136.4% Othe.r Fees/Charges 57,650 2,550 4.4% 98,410 120.7% . Fines & Forfeits 82,050 42,744 52.1% 81,550 _ 158:6% Interest E`�rnings 392,920 411,328 104.7% 389,150 61 1,005 2,000 8,212 410.6% 14,200 1,594 11.27 . Rentals 68 500 265,613 387.8% Proceeds from Sales 190,000 171,467 90.2% , Miscellaneous 149,000 48,362 32.50 19,430 78,932 406.2% ___________ _____ __ ---------------- TOTALS 10,544,590 - 9,310,155 88.3% 9,6879,451 10,160,684 - 104.9% EXPENDITURES ' General Gov't 348,085 325,610 93.5% 305,225 Y-59,401 111.26 2,084,300 2,156,199 103.4% 2,053:;318 2;0 % 26,070 98.7 Police 682 95.06 1,164,492 1,125,605 96.76 Fire 1,202,500 1,142, Public Works/Eng. 361,205 368,000 101.9% 389 % ,010 405,753 104.3 ' 960 581,994 71.9% 801,585 722,579 9(6:1% Wastewater 808, 299 960 303,103 101.3% 388,393 252,238 -C4.9% Dial-A-Ride ,` 795,689 762,400 95.8% Community Development 809,917 :99,439 98,70 553,529 563,526 101:8% Recreation 626,963 565,885 1.10.1,% r Parks t Bldg. Main(. 562,686 626,963 111.4% 521,530 561,898 107.70 Zoo 221.,2.75 234,350 105.9% 222,500 230,007 103.4% 635 425 '565,993 89.1% 606,565 533,468 88.80 Streets r � 726 075 731,933 100.8% Admin. Services 668,635 637,242 95.30 y Non--Departmental 77S, i20 613,684 79.1% 733,893 853,640 116.3% Major Capital 5,046,000 2,083,305 41..3% 2,692,453 1,464,147 54.7% Debt /Trust 402,692 244,343 60.7% 741,31.6 323,731 4.3.7% Sei"U1Ce ---------------- TOTALS 14,740,587 11,248,791 76.3% 12,695,573 10,901,395 85.9% • NET SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) (4,195,997) (1,938,636) 46.2% (3,008,122) (740,711) 24.6% lff( CITY OF ATASCADERO TREASURER'S REPORT FOR THE MONTH ENDED JUNE 30,1992 TABLE V: SCHEDULE OF SIMPLIFIED BALANCE SHEETS, SELECTED FUNDS i GENERAL GAS DEVELOPER TREE FUND TAX FEES FUND ASSETS: Cash 137,362 1,360,197 796,456 26,221 Other Assets 290,414 0 1,662 ^-- - Total. Asse.ts 427,776 1,360,197- - 796,456 =y=�27,883- LIABILITIES 461,122 0 p 301 ' FUND EQUITIES:, 0 0 Fund Balance-Reserved 35,000 9,148 796,456 27,582 Fund Balance-Unreserved (68,346) 1,351,049 ----------- __--------- - 27,582 Total Fund Equity (33,346) 1,360,197 796,456 TOJ AL LIAB/FUND EQUITY - 427,776- r1,360,197- 796,456- Z00 OPERATING DIAL-A-RIDE WASTEWATER FUNDOPERATING OPERATING r ry -------- ------------------------------- R ASSETS: Gash 34 (81,726). 3,197-,797 _ Other Assets p 105,691 8,534,118 Total Assets 34 `- 23,965 11,731,915 LIABILITIES 6,157 0 1,454 ,880 FUND EQUITIES: Fund Balance-Reserved 0 105,361 8,187,6.1.8 Fund Balance-Unreserved (6,123) 7 (81,396) 2,089,41 ----------- - Total Fund Equity (6,123) 23,965 10,277,:115 TOTAL LIAB/FUND EQUITY 34 23,965 11,731,915 00002 C f TREASURER'S REPORT FOR THE PERIOD ENDING JUNE 30,1992 • Notes to the Treasurer's Report: 1. The numbers in Tables I and II are cash based; Tables III , IV and V are accrual--base(!. Thus, Tables I and II measure cash actually received or spent during the month; the other tables present revenues earned and expenditures incurred, regardless of when the actual receipt or disbursement occurs. As a result, figures from the two sets of tables 1 t are not expected to tie-in together. 2. The Adjusted Cash Balance in Table I includes checks ,still outstanding. This figure ties-in to the total amount of � invested funds (including the City's checking account with Mid-State Bank). 3. Table V. Modified Balance Sheets { a. ) The funds selected cover the bulk of the City's operating funds. Other funds may be included, as directed by Council . b. ) Gas Tax includes LTF/Non-Transit monies; Developer Fees include all impact fees (except Amapoa-Tecorida). 'c.) The Unreserved Fund Balance represents that portion of a { � particular fund available for any purpose for which the fund was established. It is a more reliable figure to use than the, cash balance for that fund. I Mark Joseph, do hereby certify that the above information is accurate and reflects the City's financial position for the t period specified. However., the information in these reports is unaudited, and may therefore be subject to' future revisions. C — t Mark Joseph, Finance Director t t REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL • CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda, Item: B_6 Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Mtg. Date: 07/28/92 From: Henry Engen, Community Dev. Dir. 4f File No: TPM 91-008 SUBJECT: Request to subdivide 80.92 acres into four parcels of 24. 35, 11.61, 11.26, and 32 . 15 acres each (net) at 14000 Morro Road (James O. Rockstad/Twin Cities Engineering) . RECOMMENDATION: Per the Planning Commission's recommendation, approval of Tentative Parcel Map 91-008 based on the Findings and Revised Conditions of Approval (specifically Conditions #15 and #18) . BACKGROUND: On July 7, 1992, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the above referenced subject. On a 4:1 vote (Commissioner Waage • dissenting) , the Commission recommended approval of the land- division request. There was discussion and public testimony as reflected in the attached minutes excerpt. HE:ps Attachments: Staff Report dated July 7, 1992 Minutes Except - July 7, '1992- Revised , '1992"Revised CQhditions of Approval - July 7, 1992 cc: Dan Stewart James Rockstad 0 CITY OF ATASCADERO Item: O�� STAFF REPORT FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: July 7, 1992 BY: R6bery B. Malone, Assistant Planner File No: TPM #91-008 SUBJECT• Consideration of a tentative parcel map application to subdivide one ( 1) existing lot of 80.92 acres gross into four (4) new parcels of 24.35, 11.61, 11.26, 32. 15 acres net, for single- family residential use. RECOMMENDATION• Staff recommends approval of Tentative Parcel Map #91-008 -based on the Findings contained in Attachment F and the Conditions contained in Attachment G. SITUATION ,AND FACTS: 1. Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .James O. Rockstad 2. Representative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Twin Cities Engineering 3. Project Address. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 14000 Morro Road 4. Site Area. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80.92 acres, gross • 5. Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .RS (Residential Suburban) 6. General Plan Designation. . . . . . . . . . .Suburban Single Family 7. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Vacant 8. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Negative Declaration posted June 5, 1992 ' DESCRIPTION• The project is located on Morro Road (State Route 41) near the western city limits (see Attachment A - Location Map) . The large 81 acre site was created in 1913 and is an original Colony lot (Lot 34) . The sites predominant features are an undeveloped _ ridge line over 3250 feet in length and numerous swales, one being a blueline. The lot is "T" shaped with the upper portion forming a ridge line comprised of steep hilly terrain with 35 to 45 percent slopes. This rectangular shaped upper portion contains approximately 63 acres and provides an natural back drop for travelers along Morro Road. Three oak covered hills rise up to 400 feet from Morro Road and form a portion of the upper water shed for Morro Creek. A blueline intermittent swale, one of the tributaries for Morro Creek, originates on the eastern portion of the site. 1 • The lower portion of the site that fronts on Morro ',Road contains approximately 18 acres with moderate sloped rolling meadows ( 10 to 24 percent) and the steep base of the foothills (30 to 40 percent) . Of the lower rectangular portion of the site, the western 2/3 is moderately sloped, has only a few oak trees, and appears to be the only buildable area of the lot that would not entail extensive grading. The blueline runs through the eastern 1/3 of the lower portion of the site towards Morro Road. The swale then crosses under the road, in an existing 24" pipe. A large culvert boarders the site frontage on Morro Road, and directs all site run-off to the west along the side of the road. All adjacent properties are located in the City and are considerably smaller in size than the subject lot, ,ranging between 3 and 10 acres. Properties located along the south side of Morro Road, across from the subject site, are within the County of San Luis Obispo and range from 10 to 15 acres. - Lot width frontages along either side of Morro Road, with only a few exceptions, are generally 170 to 350 feet. The response time for this area of the community is determined to be at least nine minutes by the Fire Department. Adjacent properties to the east and west are vacant. Across • Morro Road, to the south within the county, the properties are developed. A private driveway is located on the south side of Morro Road serving these developed parcels. The City has approved a Precise Plan for the four lots to the west (Lots 32A, B, C, and 33) with one residence per lot, a common driveway, and one entrance on to Morro Road. ,r The visibility for motorists traveling along Morro Road in the vicinity of this project- is- wide open due to the long, straight road segments. The lower buildable portion of the. sit.e . is on the outside of the broad curve, connecting the two straight road segments and provides excellent visibility of on-coming traffic. When driving to and past the project (at approximately 50 mph) the foothills and ridgeline of the property are visible for 20 to 30 seconds. The design of the proposed four lot subdivision is 'simple, with the parent lot split equally down the center, and then two lot lines roughly bisecting the remaining halves (see Attachment B - Tentative Parcel Map) . The lot sizes are 24.35 acres (Parcel 1) , 11.61 acres (Parcel 2) , 11.26 acres (Parcel 3) , and 32. 15 acres (Parcel 4) . The resulting lot frontages along Morro Road are 193 feet (Parcel 1) , 180' (Parcel 2) , 210' (Parcel 3) , and 365' (Parcel 4 ) . The applicant has specified the upper portion of the site to be a 2 ,0000',".4J�a private scenic easement with no development permitted. The lower portion of the site, adjacent to Morro Road, contains a cluster of building sites sharing a common driveway entrance (see 0 Attachment C - Site Development Plans) . The applicant has also proposed large areas excluded from the scenic easement to be optional building sites located on the ridge of the upper portion of the site (see Attachment D —Developers Statement) . ANALYSIS• The proposed subdivision has been reviewed and determined to be consistent with the requirements of the State Subdivision Map Act and the California Environmental Quality Act (See Attachment E - Negative Declaration and Attachment F - Findings of Approval) . This is the first subdivision that falls under the new General Plan Land Use Element' s subdivision policy, which requires approval to be based on providing a "direct public benefit" to the community. This finding must be made to approve the - subdivision. The following section from the Suburban Single Family Residential Land Use Element applies: Minimum tot sizes for the creation of new lots within the suburban single-family residential category shalt range from 2-1/2 to 10 acres, gross. Determination of appropriate lot sizes shall be based upon evaluation of such factors as slope, existence of a natural building site, availability of services, response time for emergency services, distance from the center of the community, general character of the neighboring lands, percolation capability of the site, adequacy of access, and adequacy of building site. Preference shall be given to conventional septic systems and new tots shall not be created which would require mound, evapotranspiration, or 4evapotranspiration/infiltration sewage disposal systems. New tots averaging 30% or more slope shalt not be permitted; provided that exceptions may be permitted when the following conditions apply: (1) Such a lot contains a "building envelope" with less than 20% average slope which includes building footprint, access drives, leach field, etc., or (2) The creation of such a lot offers public dedications or easements which would have a direct benefit to city residents. r _ This newly adopted section ,of the General Plan raises two ' questions that must be satisfactorily addressed prior to approving the proposed parcel map: 1. Do the proposed lot sizes, primarily the number of lots and the proximity of building sites along Morro -Road, meet the intent of Land Use policies? 2. Does the dedication of the proposed private scenic easement constitute a "direct public benefit"? Staff believes the subdivision design is similar to existing development along the Morro Road corridor. To answer the first question, Staff has focused on the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance criteria. Solar Orientation - The proposed building site locations can provide proper building orientation and maximum feasible control of solar exposure. 3 Depth-Width Relationship - Although the proposed lots exceed the 3:1 depth to width relationship, the recording of the proposed private scenic easement will not allow development,'; including subdivisions, of the large upper portion of the proposed parcels. Lot Lines - Proposed lot lines are aligned approximately perpendicular to Morro Road and the rear property line, which is encouraged by the Subdivision Ordinance. Also, the proposed lot lines are roughly parallel to each other and the existing side lot lines. Flag Lots - The proposal of alternate building sites on the upper portion of the site would create flag lots and the 'need to acquire access from San Marcos Road. The applicant has not acquired the necessary access easements or right-of-way and the proposed sites would create structures along the ridge line. The findings for the creation of flag lots (AMC 11-8.209) can not be made as it is not consistent with the neighborhood character, there is access to a public street, and the alternate sites have not been determined to be developable. Staff recommends the alternate sites be converted to the private scenic easement. Utilities & Easements - The property is served with all utilities (gas, electricity, water, cable, and telephone) that are contained within the Morro Road right-of-way. As conditioned by staff, the utilities will be extended -to the proposed parcels via.- the common driveway easement. Interdepartmental Review - The responses from the other agency review indicate that with conditions the project complies with the standards of the Fire and Public Works Departments and the Building Division. { CALTRANS - The applicant.' has received an encroachment permit from Caltrans for the proposed driveway entrance onto .Morro. Road. Morro Road is classified as a conventional highway, as opposed to an expressway or freeway classification. This classification permits one driveway per property or new subdivision. Caltrans has designated Route 41 as being eligible for a Scenic Highway classification if the City and the County pursued developing and adopting a Scenic Corridor Plan. Scenic corridor plans typically have restrictions on tree removals and land use restrictions such as increased building setbacks or obscuring structures from view behind native vegetation. Staff is recommending native oak trees be planted along the ,edge of the parcels to obscure the building sites from the corridor. Minimum Lot Size Criteria - The minimum lot size in the RS zone is 2-1/2 to 10 acres. The minimum lot size performance . standards, as specified in the Zoning Ordinance, indicate a 4 minimum lot size of 4.99 acres. The proposed lot sizes are well in excess of this standard. • Distance from the Center of the Community . 0 1 Septic Suitability (slow) 1.000 Average Slope (31.25% on lower portion of the site) (37% on upper portion of the site) 2.00 Condition of Access 0.40 General Neighborhood Character (Ave. = 4.98 Acres) 0-99 4.99 The only preceding subdivision request that may have precedence in establishing whether a large open space area constitutes a public benefit is the Millhollin subdivision (TPM 86-021) . This subdivision consisted of six lots (RS zone) divided into 22 parcels along the north side of Santa Lucia and Lomitas Roads. As a condition of approval, the City required a 75 foot wide open space easement stretching over 5,000 linear feet to protect a highly visible ridge line from development. on occasions there have been open space or scenic easements used on smaller subdivisions to eliminate the subsequent potential for creating flag lots. As noted in the project description the proposed lot widths and depths are consistent with existing lots located along Morro Road. The clustering of the residences allows minimal grading and maximum retention of open space areas on the site. The building separations of 65 to 170 Leet and front setbacks of 65 to 100 feet meet the required setbacks and, although they appear close, are similar to the development character at the intersection of Morro and Los Altos Roads.. The driveway location provides good visibility and does not increase the number of potential curb cuts along Morro Road. r The applicant, through engineering- reports, has verified the building locations, foundations and septic design meet city standards. Because the site characteristics of size, parcel frontage width, building site setback and separation appear to be consistent with the corridor's character, the remaining analysis focuses on the new subdivision policies of the General Plan. General Plan Land Use Element - In response to the second question previously raised by Staff, the Land Use Element states that new lots averaging 30% or more in slope shall not be permitted; Staff has calculated that the average slope is 37 percent. The only exceptions to this standard are: if the "building envelope" is less than 20%, or if "a direct benefit to city residents" is provided. As specified in the Developers Statement, only Parcel 1 has an average slope with in the "building envelope" of less than 20% percent. Thus the finding that a direct public benefit is provided must be made by the Commission. 5 Staff 's recommendation that the private scenic easement provides a direct public benefit is based on research from other public agencies that have similar policies and criteria. After contacting the San Luis Obispo Land Conservancy, and the San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara County Planning Departments, it was learned that open space acquisition was the typical method of ensuring preservation of significant visual resources. All agencies contacted indicated that preserving visual resources or open space was consistent with serving the public interest. By avoiding acquisition of the easement by the City, the long term management and maintenance of the property are avoided. The State provisions for zoning regulations allow city's to regulate and promote the "enjoyment of scenic beauty" (Section 65850. (a) of California Government Code) , along with the typical regulations governing the use of buildings and land use intensity. The State has determined that preserving scenic beauty is in the interest of the general public. The proposed private scenic easement will be consistent with this provision by ensuring a significant portion of the Morro Road corridor is preserved in its natural condition. I It appears from the other agency policies reviewed and Atascadero's established subdivision history that scenic easements are in the public interest and benefit. To determine whether it is a direct benefit, Staff believes this relies on the significance of the characteristics of, the element being considered. Due to the aesthetic nature of scenic easements, there is clearly some personal subjective judgement necessary. However, there are guidelines used by landscape architects and environmental resource management professionals to assess the beneficial, adverse, or significant aspects of evaluating open space. J Staff does not believe that- direct benefits necessarily mean dedication to the City of open space (parks) or lands for _public facilities. The following list of criteria could be beneficial in determining the significance (or "directness" ) of the public benefits for open space areas on this and future subdivisions: SITE VISUAL RESOURCES Is there a variety of physical attributes (surface waters, vegetation, or slope)? Is there a fore, middle, and background view? What is the relative visibility of the site (high, moderate, or low)? What length of time does it occupy the viewer? Are there important features such as mountainous areas, the urban fringe, and travel corridors? Are the features relatively unique? Is there wildlife habitat or riparian areas? VISUAL RESOURCE IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT Does the project significantly impact the visual resources of a scenic travel corridor? Does the project significantly degrade the sites existing visual resources? ' • Is cluster development of residential structures used? 6 Are there aesthetic impacts such as obstruction of views? Using this criteria staff believes the private scenic easement will provide a significant or direct public benefit. Using this type of criteria in the future, a case-by-case analysis is necessary. Staff is recommending the proposed upper building sites be replaced by the scenic easement to preserve the scenic view of the hills and ridgeline. To ensure wildlife can freely pass through the site, no fencing should be allowed between the proposed parcels. To lessen the visual impact of the building sites from Morro Road, Staff is recommending native oak trees be planted 30 feet on center along the frontage of the property adjacent to the building sites prior to recording the Final Map. In determining whether the private scenic easement is a direct public benefit, there is the argument that the hills forming the easement cannot be developed due to the slope, and recording the easement, therefore, will not provide benefits that would not already be achieved with approving the subdivision without the scenic easement. Staff believes this line of reasoning is flawed for a number of reasons. First, there is not a stipulation in the Land Use Element deeming a direct public benefit provided on a project must be on potentially developable land. Secondly, the following potential deve;opment options can impact the natural character of the upper portion of the site if the easement is not in place: Subdivision of the upper portion of the site in the future with access from San Marcos Road. Residence(s) could be built on the ridge tine with access from San Marcos Road. Residence(s) could be built further up the hills with long private driveways from Morro Road4 Accessory structures including barns, workshops, guest houses. Minor structures including gazebos, storage sheds, fences,'animal 15ens. Grading for access roads or traits, rough grading, clearing or leveling of the natural topography. Native tree or vegetation removals. To control these potential site impacts, Staff has recommended the Conditions of Approval and the CC&R's provide development limitations for the private scenic easement included in the preceding list. The enforcement of the development limitations would be handled, if necessary, by the City' s Code Compliance Officer. As noted in the Open Space and Conservation sections of the Land Use Element, the varying functions of open space are integrated and include maintaining productivity of land, providing structural distinction of the City' s edges, providing recreation opportunities, providing scenic or visual relief, and conserving and managing or natural resources. The following applicable policies in the General Plan 7 • jnowvj 67 i substantiate the public benefits of a scenic open space: Private development in close proximity to or over such lands shall be carefully evaluated to protect scenic and sensitive lands, including creek reservations, wooded areas, flood plains, prominent view sheds and historic sites. Scenic and open space easements, parklands and open space dedications shalt be obtained through the subdivision process, including wooded areas, scenic backdrops, sensitive areas, etc. Attention should be paid to the aesthetic result of land division. Building sites shall be encouraged on natural slopes, with minimum disruption of native vegetation and watersheds by thoughtful placement of building site, private sewage disposal fields and access. Building designs inappropriate for hillside locations shall not be approved. Plan and manage to prevent or correct degradation of the environment. Beautify the city's entryways. The freeway and other vehicular approaches to Atascadero shall be made more attractive through judicious application of the elements of landscaping and site development (i.e., setbacks, building location, signs and vacant space). These policies, along with others not cited, indicate that scenic easements are specifically identified as a desirable element to implement the Open Space and Conservation policies.' To prevent development of the open space immediately behind the lower building sites and protect the blueline swale, Staff is recommending the private scenic easement boundaries be increased to encompass these areas. Specifically, this revised lower boundary would generally follow the 1430 foot elevation contour interval located 40 to 150 feet behind the proposed building sites. The expansion of the scenic easement to encompass the blueline swale and the highly visible eastern portion of Parcel 4 would place the boundary on the west side of the swale at a minimum of 10 to 20 feet. CONCLUSION: r Staff believes that the pzgposed four lot subdivision and private scenic easement is consistent with all applicable provisions of the General Plan and the Atascadero Municipal Code, and that the proposed project can be approved subject to the attached findings and conditions. ATTACHMENTS: A - Location Map - General Plan and ',Zoning _ B - Tentative Parcel Map C - Site Development Plans Grading & Drainage Plan - Common Driveway Grading & Drainage Plan - Building Sites Engineered Septic System Design Tree Protection Arborist Report D - Developers Statement E - Negative Declaration F - Findings of Approval G - Conditions of Approval 8 ATTACHMENT A - LOCATION Mi CITY OF ATASCADERO TPM 4 140000 MORRORRO ROAD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ROCKSTAD/TWIN CITIES DEPARTMENT 0 Sir � 1 it, /p .h' a k /1 -p -t'N = _ d6_ Ida � � � • • • • • • � . Ir x NII NN ,, �;,,,�1 . �)1� ))�!��--moi►_ i�� �:�err:-�� j��p► c���1��'`=..� 116 t; LK �O � i. ATTACHMENT C SITE C MENT PLANS CITY OF ATASCADERO TPM 91-008 103'.0-7 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 14000 MORRO ROAD Its ROCKSTAD/TWIN CITIES DEPARTMENT /l1La I16 1 a t , n� 1 ► � ' 4� ! I �� ATTACHMENT C - SITE D :... .. CITY OF ATASCADERO MENT PLAN EVELo� . GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN, - scane�• COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BUILDING SITES DEPARTMENT TPM 91-008 14000 MORRO ROAD 101, o WE AW �r ,rii1 x , , 1 ) \ (O o� ATTACHMENT C - SITE DEVELOP ... �` CITY OF ATASCADERO MENT PLAN GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERED SEPTIC SYSTEM ., DEPARTMENT TPM 91-008 14000 MORRO ROAD 1pnrzqTA X11 141 4'� tool� I T `.•,• �\ \ 1 � �•,r' ', � t � r,. I : �it 1 ATTACHMENT C - SITE DEVELOP MENT PLAN CITY OF ATA.SCADERO -,N�.Mgq , 7 " ARBORIST REPORT SCA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TPM' 91-008 DEPARTMENT 14000 MORRO ROAD ROCKSTAD/TWIN CITIES SRT I F/�O' ,,. JACK BRAZEAL TREE CONSULTANT WESTERN CHAPTER 4531 SEIPJACx LANE PASO ROBLES, CA 93446 _ WCISA #163 (805) 227-6140 I QReO R�S� March 22, 1992 Twin Cities Engineering, Inc. 200 Main Street Templeton, CA 93486 RE: Certified Arborist Report for: Rockstad R Grading & Drainage Plan Northside of Hwy. 41 west of Los Altos A.P.N. 55-22-01 { Atascadero, California SITE DESCRIPTION: it Four proposed hoiis sites on individual lots with common drives. Two trees are impacted by this proposed plan and will be addressed in this report. However, I am concerned— when oncerned—when final plans are drafted, other trees may be impacted. i TREE INVENTORY: 1 . 42" diameter Coast Live Oak. Fair condition. To be retained. This tree has low horizontal branches that are heavy and should be lighten&d. A significant amount of dead wood is also existing in this tree. A complete pruning job by a qualified Certified', Arborist would invigorate this tree and extend its longevity. This tree is also impacted by the proposed driveway and adjacent leech fields. To protect the vital root zone area, install a tree protection fence around the entire perimeter of this tree's dripline. 2. 32" diameter Coast Live Oak. Fair condition.' This tree -� needs to be pruned for the same reasons as tree 01 . Install tree protection fence (half-circle) on the con- struction side of this tree. Fence is to be installed a minimum of twenty feet from the tree trunk. W ,Jn0n'A6 ATTACHMENT D - DEVELOPERS �i�1`\ STATEMENT 14 CITY OF ATASCADERO TPM 91-008 �OIT . ��»� 14000 MORRO ROAD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ROCKSTAD/TWIN CITIES DEPARTMENT 805/4 34.1834 T WIN CITIESP, ENGINEERING INC. CIVIL ENGINEERING S SURVEYING ALLEN W. CAMPBELL RCF 20244 March 23, 1992 Community Development Department RECEIVED 6500 Palma Ave. APR - 119yc Atascadero, CA 93422 Attn: Robert Malone, AICP COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Assistant Planner Re: Developer's Statement for Kilpepper Ltd. Tentative Parcel Map AT 08-91 R 14000 Morro Road Dear Mr. Malone: The parties that have signed the statement are the legal owners of the property comprising Tentative Parcel Map AT 08-91. We the applicant r propose to incorporate the following measures into the project: f 1.) Private Scenic ,Eafement - This w easement as shown on the map would prohibit.any- building of residential structure or accessory buildingwithin the designated area. B restricting, bu_ildin from_ 9 Y 9. 9. this areahe City I derive a direct benefit since the hillside and Y wil ridgeline view will be protected. The scenic easement will also provide open space fora wildlife and will guarantee tree preservation. 2.) The relatively small upper areas excluded from the proposed private scenic easement would be to allow an alternate building site. These sites would be used only as a replacement for the lower site and not in addition to a lower site. 3.) The development of any one of the upper sites would require the acquisition of an access easement. The upper sites and access easement are located in areas that would not require any tree removal and would not be visually obstrusive. Other development alternatives were considered as follows: A.) Additional parcels as might be allowed under the General Plan I standards. Since additional parcels could result in oak tree removal, this option was eliminated. • P.O. BOX 777 s 200 MAIN STREET . TEMPLETON, CALIFORNIA 93465 ATTACHMENT D - DEVELOPERS �i STATEMENT •• ` CITY OF ATASCADERO TPM ' 91-008 yNa . ���• 14000 MORRO ROAD -0u�we�J COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ROC ` KSTAD/TWIN CITIES ^� DEPARTMENT B.) Fewer parcels - This option would make it economically difficult to justify having extended Mutual Water Company main with fire hydrants to this area and also to tie up approximately 75% of the property in scenic easement (open space). Further, since this option would not result in any reduction of tree removal or other significant environmental concerns, it was not selected. CA Other driveway and site designs were considered, such as having each parcel construct its own driveway. However, the proposed shared access was selected to reduce grading and to reduce the number of access points to Highway 41. D.) The average slope of the parcels and building sites are as follows: Parcel 1: Average slope of site is 30% Average slope of building area is 18% Parcel 2: Average slope of site is 36% Average slope of building area is 24% I Parcel 3: Average slope of site is 32% Average slope of building area is 24% Parcel 4: Average slope of site is 27% Average slope of building area is 22% Sincerely, r _ Ames Rocksta wner: Kiipepper Ltd. date f` — ATTACHMENT E — NEGATIVE DECLARATIO CI rx OF ATASCADERO a All AV wyleft ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATOR NEGATIVE DECLARATIO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 6500 PALMA AVE. ATASCADERO. CA 93422 (805) 461-5035 APPLICANT: I f,IPP �•--('p, /�.1(�,,� x � D PROJECT TITLE: ' O"t rAT t Ali✓ rAW_9U.. tIA? PROJECT LOCATION: I o00 m><R.o eta {{w{ 41 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: c9 yrt yat- SUt�P t•i t t ort C1.f �,p.t- @ baft IN`rV y� � �C.� .1-5 G 2�. 3 5 �� 11• C�i AG, (� •zG A 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. oals.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. r DETERMINATION: - Based on the above findings. and the information contained in;he Initial study(made a part hereof by refer- ence and on file in the Community Development Department). it has been determined that tFie above project will not have an adverse impact on the environment. Henry Engen Community Development Director Date Posted: t3 t,4 JF_ x:� Date Adopted: coD 7 /n ATTACHMENT F - Findings for Approval Tentative Parcel Map #91-008 (Rockstad/Twin Cities Engineering) 14000 Morro Road (State Highway 41) ENVIRONMENTAL FINDING: The proposed project will not have a significant ' impact on the environment. The Negative Declaration prepared and', posted for the project is consistent with state guidelines. MAP FINDINGS: 1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan. The project meets the Land Use Element subdivision policy of providing "direct public benefit" by offering a'' Private Scenic Easement along the Morro Road corridor. 2. The design and/or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable General and Specific Plans. The size and shape of the Private Scenic Easement will permit the balance of the property to develop in an orderly, efficient manner. 3. The site is physically suitable for the type of development Proposed. 4. The site is physically suitable for the density of the development proposed. 5. The design of the subdivision and/or the proposed improvennents 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 the improvements, will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or the use of property within the proposed subdivision; or substantially equivalent alternate easements are provided. 7. The proposed subdivision design, and/or the type of improvements proposed, will not cause serious public health problems. (09 ,)f1f n4O ATTACHMENT G - Conditions of Approval Tentative Parcel Map #91-008 (Rockstad/Twin Cities Engineering) 14000 Morro Road (State Highway 41) July 7, 1992 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Public Works 1. Water shall be obtained from the Atascadero Mutual Water Company. Individual water services shall be installed to each parcel, according to the requirements of the Atascadero Mutual Water Company, prior to recording the parcel map. If construction of the private driveway is deferred, the installation of water services may also be deferred. The services are to be installed in conjunction with the driveway construction. 2. 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. All relocation and/or alteration of existing utilities shall be the responsibility of the developer. 3. A 'road maintenance agreement, in a form acceptable to the RCity Attorney, shall be recorded prior to or in conjunction with the recording of the map. This agreement shall be for the maintenance of the interior road. 4. A grading and drainage plan for the private access easgment shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer. The'{plan shall submitted to The Community D6velopment Department and Caltrans for review .and approval prior to recording the parcel map. 5. Drainage Facilities shall, be constructed to Caltrans standards. All work shall be completed or bonded or prior to recording 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 and Caltrans standards. 7. Offer to dedicate to the public for public utility purposes the private access easement. The offer of dedication shall be addressed on the parcel map, completed and recorded prior to or in conjunction with the recording of the map. 8. A final map 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 Ordinancerior to the recording of the final • p g map. a. Monuments shall be set at all new property corners by a Registered Civil Engineer or Licensed Land Surveyor as required by the Land Surveyors Act and Subdivision Map Act. 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 that 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. Building Division 9. The plans submitted for Precise Plan review or Building Permit for the septic system shall provide the supporting tests (Geology and Geologic Hazard Evaluation, dated April 19 and March 4, 1992; and Percolation Tests, dated April 20, 1992 for- KParcels i and 2, and August 8, 1991 for Parcels 3 and 4) as proposed on the site development plans for the tentative map which indicate that conventional leach fields will be suitable for the proposed building sites. r 10. Engineered grading and drainage plans are required for'feach parcel for Precise P14n review or Building Permit. 11. Analysis and recommendations from a licensed soil engineer must be made regarding construction of foundations, retaining walls, site grading, and subdrain construction for each parcel for Precise Plan review or Building Permit. 12. The surface flow at rear of the building pad sites of Parcels 2 and 3 as indicated on the tentative map site development plans must be redirected as recommended in the Geology and Geologic Hazard Evaluation dated April 19, 1992 using french drains and berms. 13. The cut slopes indicated on the tentative map site development plans shall not exceed 2:1 slope and specific revegetation and erosion control must appear on grading plans submitted for Building Permit. 14. Subdrains shall be designed and installed at the direction of a licensed soils engineer to intercept transitory ground water related to structures, septic system, and driveways as shown on the tentative map site development plans. Planning Division 15. The approval of the project and the CC&R' s for the Private Scenic Easement shall have irrevocable development limitations for the Private Scenic Easement that specify that no development shall occur within the boundaries and the area shall remain in its natural state. The development limitations shall preclude any man-made structure whether requiring a public agency permit or not, including but not limited to, subdivisions of land, habitable structures, accessory and minor structures including but not limited to barns, workshops, guest houses, gazebos, storage sheds, fencing of any type, animal pens, or grading for access roads or trails, rough grading, clearing or leveling of the natural topography, and removal of native oak trees or vegetation removal. 16. The final map submitted shall delete the three upper alternate building sites (located along the northern property line) , these areas shall be part of the Private Scenic Easement. 17. The boundary of the Private Scenic Easement shall include a portion of the lower site commencing along a line on the west side of the blue line swale that is a minimum of 10 to 20 feet from the center of the creek. The additional area shall be.- bounded by Morro Road, the line described above, the boundary of the scenic easement shown on the tentative map, and the east property line of Lot 34. 18. Native oak trees shall be planted approximately 30 feet Apart along the Morro Road frontage prior to recording of the ginal Map. The CC&R's shall specify the'maintenance of the trees shall be the responsibility of the property owner. 19. The final map submitted shall be recorded showing a 24' wide ingress/egress and utility easement, the common driveway, and the individual building pad locations as shown on the site development plans. 20. The common driveway, Morro Road driveway entrance, and utilities shall be completed and installed prior to recording the Final Map. Grading and Drainage Plans submitted for the common driveway shall specify a 12 foot wide paved width with a 4 foot wide shoulder opposite an A/C curb. 21. The final map shall indicate an access denial strip along the Morro Road frontage of all parcels with the exception of one driveway as shown on the tentative parcel map site development plans. 22. The building site of Parcel 2 shall be relocated 30 feet to the west to avoid being located in the course of the drainage � 1 J(�nnds swale and provide additional building site separation from the building site of Parcel 3. 23. Grading and Drainage Plans submitted for Precise Plan review or building permit shall substantially comply with the foundation and structure design specifiedon the site development plans. As identified in the Initial Study, the foundation designs shall integrate retaining walls and the garage into the hill (due to visibility and slope of the parcels, building pads with conventional ' slab-on-grade foundations are not acceptable) . 24. The 32" dbh Live Oak tree on Parcel 1 and 42" dbh Live Oak tree on Parcel 2 shall be preserved in relation to all future development adhering to the guidelines of the city' s Native Tree Ordinance and the Certified Arborist Report (dated 3/22/92) prepared for the tentative map. To ensure the health and longevity of the trees, all structures shall be located beyond the drip line of the natural tree canopies. _ 25. A reflectorized master house number 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. 26. A final map 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 the recording of the final map. a. Monuments shall be set at all new property cornersrby a registered Civil Engineer or licensed Land Surveydr as required by the, sand -Surveyors Act- and the Subdivision Map Act. Morxuments 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 of surveyor shall notice the City Engineer in writing that 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. 27. 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. i1f1(l�d� MINUTES EXCERPT - PLANNING COMMISSION. - JULY 7, 1992 1. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 91-008: Application filed by James O. Rockstad (Twin Cities Engineering) to subdivide one lot of 80.92 acres into four new parcels of 24. 35, 11. 61, 11.26, and 32 . 15 acres each (net) for single family residential use. Subject site is located at 14000 Morro Road. Robert Malone presented the staff report on this request, focused on two issues: 1) whether the lot size criteria has been met and lot sizes are appropriate, and 2) does the dedication of the proposed easement provide an actual direct public benefit. Mr. Malone offered modification to Condition 118 (concerning maintenance of the trees along the site frontage) . Commission questions and discussion followed. Commissioner Waage questioned the difference between private scenic easements and regular scenic easements. Mr. Malone referenced the Millhollin project (TPM 86-021) , subdivision of 6 lots into 22 parcels that created a private scenic easement. As well, several small lot subdivisions have provided open space or scenic easements to eliminate the potential for creating flag lots. Commissioner Lochridge noted that staff's recommendation in preserving the private scenic - easement area (hills and- Rridgeline) prohibited fencing between the proposed parcels in an effort to lessen visual impact and allow wildlife to travel freely. He expressed concern that a parcel of that nature and size will require some maintenance relative to fire safety. r Mr. Malone described the areas Where fencing would be allowed on the perimeter of the pr6perties,' and where it would not be allowed. He added, that the upper scenic easement could be entirely fenced off on the perimeter and that -there could be a separation between the parcels so animals could graze, etc. Discussion followed concerning possible modification to the fencing. Commissioner Lochridge commented on the proposed building sites for Parcels 2 and 3 being rather close to each other. - Public Testimony - Allen Campbell with Twin Cities Engineering, representing the applicant, stated that this application has gone through an extensive analysis and that the project was reviewed similarly to a precise plan for each building site. He noted that approximately 70% or more of the property is proposed as a scenic easement where no type of development can take place. .►nn�n� Mr. Campbell stated he had hoped the possibility would exist . with having some building sites on the upper portion of the property; however, he acknowledged staff's concerns with the visibility and access to those sites. He indicated concurrence with the recommendation as presented. Ted Bench, 2933 Agusta, San Luis Obispo, stated that he owns the lot north of Parcels 2 and 3 adding that he could support the subdivision as long as Condition #16 is in place (which omits upper building sites) . Joan O'Keefe, 9985 Old Morro Road East, conveyed her feeling that staff has put together an excellent report. The recom- mendations allow a large highly visible Colony lot to be subdivided without severe environmental impacts. Mrs. O'Keefe urged the applicant to accept the recommendation and develop a truly attractive and sensitive subdivision.' Mrs. O'Keefe asked what the figures are for the perc tests for each of the lots, and inquired that if the Planning Commission were to make significant modifications to the project (i.e. , remove the scenic easement, etc. ) , would', the Negative Declaration have to be reposted. Mr. Davidson clarified that a new Negative Declaration could be triggered depending on the significance of any changes. . 4- End of Public Testimony - Mr. Malone provided individual perc test results in response to Mrs. O'Keefe's question. Discussion ensued pertaining to modification of Conditin 115 in an effort to insure unobtrusive fencing on the upper portions containing animals. Commissioner Waage pointed out one site that has an average slope of less than 20% and asked if other building envelopes could be located on any other part of the project that would have a slope of less than 200. _ Mr. Malone replied that the building site Commissioner Waage referenced is on a rather level knoll at the edge of the site and is certainly the most level portion of the entire site. Commissioner Waage stated that he did not see where the public would benefit from a scenic easement because that open space will be there regardless of whether this project is developed and would be even bigger if the lots are not split. Mr. Malone asserted that land constitutingdirect public benefit doesn't necessarily have to be potentially develop- able. Mr. Malone continued noting that potential development options exist without the easement that would impact the JtNlnn6 natural character of the site. These impacts are contained in the Conditions of Approval and in the CC&Rs and include future subdivisions and structures, access roads and trails, rough grading, clearing, leveling of natural topography, tree removals, vegetation removal, etc. Discussion ensued relative to examples of potential impacts that the scenic easement would preclude along with preservation of the entire hillside as it currently exists. Commissioner Lochridge noted that he could support the proposal and concept but expressed apprehensiveness with the proposed house site on Parcel 3 . He referenced discussions on larger setbacks with bigger lots adding that the opportunity exists to make this project a better one by expanding the "elbow room" . He suggested moving the house site 20-30 feet toward the east. Discussion continued. Chairperson Highland warned that the Commission is treading dangerous ground when it gets into the business of redesigning projects adding that the Commission does not have the authority to do this. What may be too close for some may not be too close for someone else. MOTION: By Commissioner Johnson and seconded by commission- er Hanauer to approve Tentative Parcel Map 91-008 based on the Findings contained in Attachment F and- subject to the Conditions of Approval contained in Attachment G with modification to Condition #15: 1115. The approval of the project and the CC&Rs for the Private Scenic Easement shall ,r have irrevocable development limitations foi the Private Scenic Easem -limitations hat specify that no development shall occur within the boundaries and the area shall remain . .in its natural state. The development limitations shall preclude any man-made structure . whether requiring a public agency permit or not, including but not limited to, subdivisions of land, habitable structures, accessory and minor structures including but not limited to barns, workshops, guest houses, gazebos, storage sheds, fencing not approved by the Community Development Department, animal pens, or grading for access roads or trails, rough grading, clearing or leveling of the natural topography, and removal of native oak trees or vegetation removal." - modification to Condition #18: 1118. Native oak trees shall be planted approxi- mately 30 feet apart along the Morro Road frontage prior to recording of the Final Map. The approval of the project and the CC&Rs shall specify the maintenance of the trees and shall be the responsibility of the property owner." The motion carried 4:1 with Commissioner Waage dissenting. r ATTACHMENT G - Conditions of Approval Tentative Parcel Map #91-008 (Rockstad/Twin Cities Engineering) 14000 Morro Road (State Highway 41) As Amended by Planning Commission, July 7, 1992 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Public Works 1. Water shall be obtained from the Atascadero Mutual Water Company. Individual water services shall be installed to each parcel, according to the requirements of the Atascadero Mutual Water Company, prior to recording the parcel map. If construction of the private driveway is deferred, the installation of water services may also be deferred. The services are to be installed in conjunction with the driveway construction. 2. 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. All relocation and/or alteration of existing utilities shall be the responsibility of the developer. 3. ,A road maintenance agreement, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, shall be recorded prior to or in conjunction with the recording of the map. This agreement shall be for the maintenance of the interior road. r 4. A grading and drainage plan for the private access easement shall be prepared by, A registered divil" engineer. The plan shall submitted to .The Community Development Department and Caltrans for review and approval prior to recording the parcel map. 5. Drainage Facilities shall be constructed to Caltrans standards. All work shall be completed or bonded or prior to recording 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 and Caltrans standards. 7. Offer to dedicate to the public for public utility purposes the private access easement. The offer of dedication shall be addressed on the parcel map, completed and recorded prior to or in conjunction with the recording of the map. 8. A final map 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 Jnnnn►� accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and the City' s Subdivision Ordinance prior to the recording of the final map. a. Monuments shall be set at all new property corners by a Registered Civil Engineer or Licensed Land Surveyor as required by the Land Surveyors Act and Subdivision Map Act. 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 that 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. Building Division 9. The plans submitted for Precise Plan review or Building Permit for the septic system shall provide the supporting tests (Geology and Geologic Hazard Evaluation, dated April 19 and- RMarch 4, 1992; and Percolation Tests, dated April 20, 1992 for Parcels 1 and 2, and August 8, 1991 for Parcels 3 and 4) as proposed on the site development plans for the tentative map which indicate that conventional leach fields will be suitable for the proposed building sites. r 10. Engineered grading anti drainage plans are required for each parcel for Precise plan review or Building Permit. 11. Analysis and recommendations from a licensed soil engineer must be made regarding construction of foundations, retaining walls, site grading, and subdrain construction for each parcel for Precise Plan review or Building Permit. 12. The surface flow at rear of the building pad sites of Parcels 2 and 3 as indicated on the tentative map site development plans must be redirected as recommended in the Geology and Geologic Hazard Evaluation dated April 19, 1992 using french drains and berms. 13. The cut slopes indicated on the tentative map site development plans shall not exceed 2: 1 slope and specific revegetation and erosion control must appear on grading plans submitted for Building Permit. 14. Subdrains shall be designed and installed at the direction of a licensed soils engineer to intercept transitory ground water related to structures, septic system, and driveways as shown on the tentative map site development plans. is Planning Division 15. The approval of the project and the CC&R' s for the Private Scenic Easement shall have irrevocable development limitations for the Private Scenic Easement that specify that no development shall occur within the boundaries and the area shall remain in its natural state. The development limitations shall preclude any man-made structure whether requiring a public agency permit or not, including but not limited to, subdivisions of land, habitable structures, accessory and minor structures including but not limited to barns, workshops, guest houses, gazebos, storage sheds, fencing not approved by the Community Development Department, animal pens, or grading for access roads or trails, rough grading, clearing or leveling of the natural topography, and removal of native oak trees or vegetation removal. 16. The final map submitted shall delete the three upper alternate building sites (located along the northern property line) , these areas shall be part of the Private Scenic Easement. 17. The boundary of the Private Scenic Easement shall include a portion of the lower site commencing along a line on the west side of the blue line swale that is a minimum of 10 to 20 feet._ from the center of the creek. The additional area shall be bounded by Morro Road, the line described above, the boundary of the scenic easement shown on the tentative map, and the east property line of Lot 34. r 18. Native oak trees shall be .planted approximately 30 feet .part along the Morro Road frontage prior,to recording of the Final Map. The approval of.the project and the CC&R's shall specify the maintenance of the trees shall be the responsibility of the property owner. 19. The final map submitted shall be recorded showing a 24 ' wide ingress/egress and utility easement, the common driveway, and the individual building pad locations as shown on the site development plans. 20. The common driveway, Morro Road driveway entrance, and utilities shall be completed and installed prior to recording the Final Map. Grading and Drainage Plans submitted for the common driveway shall specify a 12 foot wide paved width with a 4 foot wide shoulder opposite an A/C curb. 21. The final map shall indicate an access denial strip along the Morro Road frontage of all parcels with the exception of one driveway as shown on the tentative parcel map site development plans. 22. The building site of Parcel 2 shall be relocated 30 feet to . the west to avoid being located in the course of the drainage swale and provide additional building site separation from the building site of Parcel 3. 23. Grading and Drainage Plans submitted for Precise Plan review or building permit shall substantially comply with the foundation and structure design specifiedon the site development plans. As identified in the Initial Study, the foundation designs shall integrate retaining walls and the garage into the hill (due to visibility and slope of the parcels, building pads with conventional slab-on-grade foundations are not acceptable) . 24. The 32" dbh Live Oak tree on Parcel 1 and 42" dbh Live Oak tree on Parcel 2 shall be preserved in relation to all future development adhering to the guidelines of the city' s Native Tree Ordinance and the Certified Arborist Report (dated 3/22/92) prepared for the tentative map. To ensure the health and longevity of the trees, all structures shall be located beyond the drip line of the natural tree canopies. 25. A reflectorized master house number 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. 26. ,A final map 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 the recording of the final rmap. a. Monuments shall ,4e set at all new property corners by a registered Civil Engineer or licensed Land Surveyor as required by the Land Surveyors Act and the Subdivision Map Act. 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 of surveyor shall notice the City Engineer in writing that the monuments have been seta; 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. 27. 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. tl(1OnsZ REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: g_7 Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Mtg. Date: 07/28/92 From: Henry Engen, Community Dev. Dir. }* File No: TPM 92-005 SUBJECT: Tentative parcel map application to adjust the lot line located between Colony Lots 15 and 16 at 10940 Portal Road and 9660 Laurel Road - Ed Phelps/Keith Sowell (Dan Stewart, representative) . RECOMMENDATION: Per the Planning Commission's recommendation, approval of Tentative Parcel Map 92-005 based on the Findings in Attachment E and subject to the Conditions of Approval in Attachment F. BACKGROUND: On July 7, 1992 , the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing • on the above referenced subject. On. a 5: 0 vote, the Commission_ approved the parcel map based on the above recommendation. There was no discussion and only brief testimony as reflected in the attached minutes excerpt. HE:ps r Attachment: Staff Report, July 7, 1992 Minutes Excerpt - July 7, 1992 CC : ED PHELPS KEITH SOWELL DAN STEWART tjf1(1l1� CITY OF ATASCADERO Item: B-2 STAFF REPORT FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: July 7, 1992 BY: Rob ft B. Malone, Assistant Planner File No: TPM #92-005 SUBJECT: Consideration of a tentative parcel map application to adjust the lot line located between Colony Lots 15 and 16. RECOMMENDATION• Staff recommends approval of Tentative Parcel Map #92005 based on the Findings contained in Attachment F and the Conditions _ contained in Attachment G. SITUATION AND FACTS: 1. Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Ed Phelps (Lot 15) Keith Sowell (Lot 16) 2. Representative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .,Daniel J. Stewart 3. Project Address. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10940 Portal Road (Lot 15) 9660 Laurel Road (Lot 16) 4. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.87 acres gross (Lot }5) 5.27 acres gross (Lot 16) 5. Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .RS (Residential Suburban) 6. General Plan Designation. . . . . . . . . .Suburban Single Fami-Iy 7. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . .Residence (Lot 15 Vacant (Lot 16) _ 8. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . . . . . . .Negative Declaration posted June 8, 1992 DESCRIPTION• The project is located between Laurel. Road and Portal Road, the latter of which is a private street (see Attachment A - General Plan Map and Attachment B - Zoning Maps) . The area is comprised of mostly developed single family lots located on oak tree covered hills and valleys. The area containing the proposed subdivision is located in the 8-9 minute response time zone from the downtown fire station. 00001-1.1 �� Lot 15, belonging to Ed Phelps, is currently developed with one single family residence. Access to the Phelps residence is from Portal Road and an access/PUE easement that crosses Lot 17. The adjacent lot to the south, Lot 16, is vacant. The area between the lots contains two large easements, one for PG&E overhead high-voltage power transmission lines, and the other for an underground petroleum pipe line. The topography of the project site rises up from Portal and the access easement to an elevation of 1260 feet where level pad areas exist for building sites on both lots. From the upper building sites the topography rapidly drops down, at a slope of over 54% (45 degrees) , to a level area, then slopes down again to Laurel Road. The applicant requests approval of a tentative parcel map application to adjust the lot that divides the original Colony Lots 15 and 16 (see Attachment C - Tentative Parcel Map) . The new lot line is relocated at 90 degrees, bisecting the lots, creating Parcel 1 (5.41 acres gross) with frontage on Laurel Road, and Parcel 2 (4.73 acres gross) with frontage on Portal Road (Phelps residence) . The lower level area described on Parcel 1 is the proposed building site with slopes of 5 to 15 percent. The building site is accessed by a driveway (alignment shown on Map) and is outside of the utility easements and has good percolation rates for a convgntional septic system. Although there is a graded building site on Lot 16 near the Phelps residence, the rough graded drive exceeds 20% and there may not be an appropriate septic system location. r ' ANALYSIS: w The local subdivision ordinance governing Lot Line Adjustments (AMC Section 11-7.001) specifies that the administrative process of reviewing lot line adjustments is limited to moving the lot line roughly parallel to its existing location and that the overall orientation of the lots shall remain unchanged. Because the proposed realignment does not meet this criteria, it is reviewed under the tentative parcel map procedures (AMC Section 11-4. 101) The application has been reviewed according to the requirements and standards of the Subdivision Map Act, CEQA, and the City's General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Subdivision Ordinance. The following discussion focuses on the applicable policies and standards applicable to the proposed subdivision design: State Requirements - The standards for information and subdivision design specified in the Subdivision Map Act have been provided on the submitted tentative map and accompanying 2 �I application information. CEOA Review - The proposed lot line adjustment has been reviewed under the guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act. The proposed design has been determined not to create significant environmental impacts and a Negative Declaration has been posted (see Attachment D - Negative Declaration) . General Plan - As the Commission is aware, the updated 1992 Land Use Element provides new policies that effect the standards that must be met for properties to subdivided. The Element specifies that new residential subdivisions in suburban areas that have an average 30% or more slope shall not be permitted; provided that exceptions may be permitted where such a lot contains a "building envelope" with less than 20% average slope or the lot offers a "direct public benefit. " Although the average slope of the subject properties is 35%, the proposed building envelope located on Parcel l has an average slope of approximately 10 percent. The new lower lot will be consistent in size and configuration with other properties on Laurel Road. Minimum Lot Size Criteria - The minimum lot size in the RS zone ranges from 2 1/2 to 10 acres depending on the results of several performance standards as described in Section 9-3. 144 of the City Zoning 'Ordinance. The following analysis on the project site has ._ determined that the minimum lot size is 4.92 acres. Lot Size Factor Distance from Center (12,000' - 14,0001 ) 0.40 Septic Suitability (68 min./inch = severe) 1.50 Average Slope (31 - 35%) 1.75 Access Condition (City Acg4pted-Roadj 0.40 General Neighborhood Chazacter (4.38 acre ave. ) 0.87 Minimum Lot Size. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.92 acres The proposed parcels have gross areas of 5.41 and 4.73 acres that total 10. 14 acres, well over twice the minimum lot size. Because Parcel 2 is lightly under the minimum lot size, Staff is recommending the proposed lot line be adjusted slightly to increase the gross lot size of Parcel 2 from 4.73 to 4.92 acres (see Attachment E - Conditions of Approval) . This would create lot sizes of 5.22 acres gross for Parcel 1 and 4.92 acres gross for Parcel 2. It should be noted that this recommendation will correct the existing non-conforming size of Lot 15 (Phelps residence) . Solar Orientation - The proposed building envelope on Parcel 1 is large enough to allow proper building orientation and maximum 3 feasible control of solar exposure by the lot owner, regardless of lot orientation. Depth-Width Relationship - The existing lots do not meet the application of the maximum 3 to 1 lot depth-width "ratio. The lot line adjustment will decrease the depth of the lots and bring the properties into conformance with the depth to width ratio. Lot Lines - The configuration of the lot lines for the proposed tentative parcel map will be perpendicular and parallel to the street, which is encouraged by the Subdivision Ordinance. The proposed lot line location relates appropriately to the slope of the properties. The proposed lot configuration will allow the property owners better access to their lots for maintenance as traversing the 50%+ slopes dividing the site is extremely difficult. The proposed lot configuration will also provide greater privacy for the existing residence and the proposed lower building site. With the proposed lower lot taking access off of Laurel Road, the amount of traffic will be reduced on Portal Road and the distance necessary to drive to the downtown will be shortened. Utilities & Easements - The lower parcel is served with all utilities (gas, electricity, water, telephone, cable) that are contained within the Laurel Road right-of-way. The title report • and submitted tentative map indicate the all identifiable easeiqents on the property. Interdepartmental Review - The responses from the other agency review (see Attachment F - Conditions of Approval) indicate that with conditions the project complies with the standards of toe Fire and Public Works Departments and the Building Division.'+ CONCLUSIONS: Staff believes that the proposed lot line adjustment is consistent with all applicable provisions of the General Plan and the Atascadero Municipal Code, and that the proposed project can be approved subject to the attached conditions and findings (see Attachment F - Findings of Approval) . ATTACHMENTS: A - Location Map - General Plan B - Location Map - Zoning C - Tentative Parcel Map D - Negative Declaration E - Findings of Approval F - Conditions of Approval 4 ATTACHMENT A - LOCATION CITY F ( GENERAL P • • ;� O ATASCADERO TPM 92-005 10940 PORTAL '9660 LAUR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PHELPS/SOWELL/TWIN CITIE c�..;. DEPARTMENT G4Q9t !AG I -Gu � O O r SITE f IL ATTACHMENT B - LOCATION P F f ZONING MAF CTT'�� 11 i v ATASCADERO TPM 92-005 10940 PORTAL & 9660 LAURE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PHELPS/SOWELL/TWIN CITIEE DEPARTMENT �r 0 cl Q 0 0 J J f LCF H) 0040 ' ATTACHMENT C — TENTATIVE t PARCEL MAP '.1�r'° �` CITY �� TPM 9 2—0 0 5 ATASCADERO 10940 PORTAL & 9660 LAURE PHELPS/SOWELL/TWIN CITIES COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ib �tgaTR QO ci ~ ((rf ; D{Nil yy�b�'�� 1 W`� �i Jr L �si�•` Wws d a b.E A C y o ,`1 .•� a .I y •1 rt F•_ w.. / 9� 1 � 1.111_. `�v s:.Cy is A't8 + — • �.• �t r. .F r.�'.. �'a.-, q - ff. 'i ��.� " �,^I•'� ���yi,•'i"�, °mow �' -r r././.'. ' �i Y�0 4 i a i g L;E. YO> >' "�� "ii:Y•. '�.\' '��t � � :;r ' ! 1. r� 2 eev�:it .•• �t •I Y �rr.►.rl�. ' .)oontiU ATTACHMENT D — NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY I OF ATASCADERO left ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 6500 PALMA AVE. ATASCADERO. CA 93422 (805) 461-5035 APPLICANT: a• �o�C 20 3g 2or-,-L_e PROJECT TITLE: - 11R�L PROJECT LOCATION: 1011 +0 epP--j-A-L- Ai4p -7 47&0 PALItZ-F—LL 120 5 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: pF I_C� _�_l N3-s Tttg u,::t+ �m"Pcf-lei Cho•) off- �Mt�toN l-o-r !-1�.1�-. FINDINGS: 1. The project does not have the potential to degrade the environment 2. T1 a 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: 1 Based on the above findings. and the information contained in the initial study(made a part hereof by refer- ence and on We 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 Director Date Posted: —a L4. _l E, j c 9 r Date Adopted: - CDD 11-80 t��0l�� t ATTACHMENT E - Findings for Approval Tentative Parcel Map #92-005 (Phelps/Sowell/Twin Cities) 10940 Portal and 9660 Laurel Roads July 7, 1992 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 subdivision is consistent with applicable General and Specific Plans. 2. The design and/or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable General and Specific Plans. 3. The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed. 4. The site is physically suitable for the density of the development proposed. 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 the improvements, will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or the .use of property within the proposed subdivision; or substantially equivalent alternate easements are provided. 7. The proposed subdivision design, and/or the type of improvements proposed, will not cause serious public health problems. ATTACHMENT F - Conditions of Approval Tentative Parcel Map #92-005 (Phelps/Sowell/Twin Cities) 10940 Portal and 9660 Laurel Roads 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. The lot line dividing Parcel 1 and 2 shall be adjusted to create lot areas of 5.22 acres gross for Parcel 1 and 4.92 acres gross for Parcel 2. This adjustment shall be shown on the final map prior to recording. 3. An engineered conventional septic system design is required for the development of Parcel 1. 4. All work undertaken in the vicinity of the PG&E utility facilities must comply with the minimum clearance requirements set out in the High Voltage Safety Orders of the California Division of Industrial Safety. 5. A 10 foot wide public utility easement contiguous to the boundary line of Laurel Road shall be granted to PG&E. 6. aA final map 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 the recording of the final ,map. a. Monuments shallbe set at all new property corners by a registered Civil Engineer or licensed Land Surveyor as required by the Land Surveyors Act and the Subdivision Map Act. 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 of surveyor shall notice the City Engineer in writing that 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. • 7. 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. MINUTES EXCERPT - PLANNING COMMISSION - JULY 7, 1992 2. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 92-005: Application filed by Ed Phelps and Keith Sowell (Daniel J. Stewart) to adjust the lot line located between Colony Lots #15 and #16. Subject site is located at 10940 Portal Road (Lot 15) and 9660 Laurel Road (Lot 16) . Mr. Malone presented the staff report on this application noting staff's recommendation for approval subject to 7 conditions. - Public Testimony - Dan Stewart, engineer representing the applicant, conveyed his agreement with the recommendation contained in the staff report. MOTION: By Commissioner Johnson, seconded by Commissioner Waage to approve Tentative Parcel Map 92-005 based on the Findings contained in Attachment E and subject to the Conditions of Approval contained in- Attachment F; motion carried 5:0. r REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL Agenda Item: B-8 CITY OF ATASCADERO Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 7/28/92 From: Mark Joseph, Administrative Services Director SUBJECT: Accepting Downtown BIA Budget for FY 92-93 RECOMMENDATION: By motion, Council review and accept the BIA budget for FY 92-93. BACKGROUND: Pursuant to Atascadero Municipal Code 3-11.09, the Downtown Business Improvement Association is to enter into an annual agreement with the City Council. In addition, the BIA is _ authorized to expend monies collected by the City on behalf of the BIA, in accordance with the City's budgetary and accounting procedures. Part of those procedures is to supply us with an annual budget, which is attached. It shows the $4,000 approved by Council as a supplement to the estimated $9,000 in membership . dues (i.e. , assessments) . The $4,000 will go towards the replacement of existing downtown street light lamps with the traditional "acorn" style. FISCAL IMPACT The annual assessments are collected by the City as pari of the merchant' s business ligense ,renewal process. There is no cost to the City, other than staff time. The $4,000 supplement has been included in the City' s annual budget and is in fact a carryover from the prior (FY 91-92) year. a:bia #3 CITY OF ATASCADERO COMMUNITY AGENCY PROJECTED BUDGET ATASCADERO DOWNTOWN C "BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION" -------------------------BIA-------------------------------------------� ----------------------------------------------------------------------- REVENUES BUDGETED AMOUNTS ------------------------------------------------------------------------ BEGINNING BALANCE --Checking 1073 --Savings 3330 34303 MEMBERSHIP DUES 5000 DONATIONS 200 FUND-RAISERS(BBQ' S FARMERS MARKET, ETC) 2500 --BBQ' s & Booths @ $50/week * CLASSIC CAR SHOW (NET TO BIA) 2:000 GOVERNMENT SUPPORT --Federal 0 --State 0 --County O - --City of Atascadero 4000 4000 * MARKETING & ADVERTISING 1000 INTEREST-FROM SAVINGS 700 SUB-TOTAL INCOME 19400 TOTAL REVENUES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53703 EXPENSES R ADMINISTRATOR (CONTRACT) $500/mo. 6000 OFFICE SUPPLIES 600mw NEWSLETTER-PRINTING & POSTAGE 1800 UTILITIES 5tjt7 EQUIPMENT PURCHASES(LIGHTS, ETC. ) r 2000 PROMOTIONS 2,000 PARKING LOT-MORTGAGE PAYMENTS 3600 BUS SHUTTLE SUBSIDY(-PROJECTED-"Dial-a-Ride") 6000 SUB-TOTAL EXPENSES - _ 22500 OPERATING PROFIT/LOSS - -3100 RESERVE ACCOUNTS: PARKING LOT (1-YR. RESERVE) 3600 TREE REWARD FUND 250 STREET LIGHTS q-000i SURPLUS 200 1YR. OPERATING RESERVE (LESS LOT) 17800 SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND TOTAL RESERVES 30703 END-OF-YEAR BALANCE 30703 NOTE: The above budget provides a fiscally responsible reserve �. fund, as well as funds for special projects as they may be ' presented to the "BIA. " Shuttle Subsidy of $500/mo. to assist in funding for "Outlet Mall" transport to downtown. -$3100 DEFICIT OF EXPENSE OVER INCOME DUE TO SHUTTLE SUBSIDY IF SHUTTLE SUBSIDY ESTABLISHED-POSSIBLY NOW SUBSIDY NEEDED. SUBSIDY MAY BE A ONE-TIME ITEM TO PROVE EFFECTIVENESS REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL Agenda Item: B-9 CITY OF ATASCADERO Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 7/28/92 From: Mark Joseph, Administrative Services Director' SUBJECT: Receiving the audit results of the Sycamore Bridge Grant RECOMMENDATION: By motion, Council review and accept the audit findings. BACKGROUND: Back in FY 90-91, the City received $97,000 in Federal Aid Urban grant monies, as part of the Sycamore Bridge , project. Since the monies were administered by the State, State auditors recently reviewed the City' s records. The attached letter and report presents the State Auditor's findings. The "questioned costs" of $912.71 are the result of incurring costs prior to the official start-up date for the grant. It should be emphasized that the expenditures were totally appropriate; merely premature. If and when the State bills us for the amount, it will be paid from the City' s Capital Projects .Fund. On a lighter note, the two City representatives are in fact myself and our Assistant Finance Director, Rudy Hernandez. CWe have not hired two new people! ) : . t cc: Greg Luke _ a:Sycamorebridge #3 I.E.COy 4' 9 4 Of 4 a,a •tr` tOF CALF{OP GRAY DAVIS (Iffentraller of toe Mats of ( alifarrnin June 30, 1992 Mr. Mike Joseph Administrative Services Director City of Atascadero 6500 Palma Avenue Atascadero, California 93422 Dear Mr. Joseph: Enclosed is our report to the Department of Transportation (Caltrans) concerning our audit of costs claimed by the City of Atascadero on Sycamore Road at Atas Creek, Federal Aid Urban, Project No. BROS-0079(14). If you have any further questions concerning the audit, please contact your Caltrans representative. We wish, to thank you for your courtesy and the cooperation extended to our auditor. Cordially, r GRAY DAVIS, STATE CONTROLLER By ° `- Steven Mar, Audit Manager Bureau of City Street Audits (916) 322-9894 SM/tu Enclosure DIVISION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT FISCAL AFFAIRS-P.O.BOX 942850,SACRAMENTO,CA 94250-5876 Jnt1r<l�F`t� L Y O r 'JF Gp CtOP'+e GRAY DAVIS (tSontroller of the,'Sktttz of C11ttlifornin May 20, 1992 Mr. John W. Peterson, Chief File: 05-SLD-0-ATAS Local Program Accounting Branch BROS-0079(14) Division of Financial Operations 05-140064 and Control Department of Transportation LGFA ID #: 3495 1801 - 30th Street, East Building Sacramento, CA 95814 - SUBJECT: Claim Audit - BROS-0079(14) We have completed an audit of costs totaling$97,000.00 claimed by the City of Atascadero on the Federal Aid Urban, Project No. BROS-0079(14). The project is known by the City as Sycamore Road at Atas Creek. The objectives of the audit were to determine that: 1. Claims for engineering costs are supported by payment voucher and canceled checks; r 2. All costs claimed were incurred after the Federal Highway Administration ' dates indicated on the Federal State'Agreement. We conducted our audit in accordance with Govemment Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Those standards require that we_ plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether noncompliance with the requirements referred to above have occurred. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence about the City's compliance with those requirements. The scope of our audit was limited to the review of operational procedures used to prepare the claim, examination of supporting records and documents, and consideration of the internal control structure relevant to the objectives of our audit referred to above. As part of our consideration of the internal control structure, we evaluated and tested the procedures controlling contracts expenditures. DIVISION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT FISCAL AFFAIRS-P.O.BOX 942850,SACRAMENTO,CA 94250-5876 000(14;j Mr. John W. Peterson -2- May 20, 1992 Our audit procedures produced the following findings: Amount Amount Questioned Description Claimed Supported Cost Preliminary Engineering $ 40,000.00. $ 39,087.29 (1) $ 912.71 Construction Engineering 57,000.00 57,000.00 -0- Total $ 912.71 (1) Costs were incurred prior to the authorization date; City of Atascadero concurs with finding. The results of our audit indicate that costs totaling$96,087.29 are fully supported, do not include agency overhead, and were incurred after the Federal Highway Administration dates. Costs totaling $912.71 do not qualify for reimbursement and should be recovered. We appreciate the courtesy and cooperation of the City's personnel and acknowledge the assistance extended to our auditor. The following persons attended the exit conference: Agency: Mr. Mike Joseph SCO: Mr. Abdul Shabib Mr. Rudy Hemandes If you have any questions, please contact Steven Mar at (916) 322-9894. Cordially, GRAY DAVIS, STATE CONTROLLER by WJFon5g,,, ef Bureau of City Street Audits WJF/tu cc: Mr. Mike Joseph Audit File 0 J00"'7t) REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL Agenda Item: B-10 CITY OF ATASCADERO Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 7/28/92 From: Mark Joseph, Administrative Services Director SUBJECT: Adopting an agreement for the Collection of Taxes and Assessments by the County. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. 68-92, authorizing the Mayor to renew the City's agreement with the County to collect the City's special taxes and assessments. BACKGROUND: The County is responsible for levying and collecting special assessment taxes on the City' s behalf, such as for the City's various assessment districts. Since 1981, the County has charged $1.00 per parcel to recover their administrative costs. The attached draft agreement would increase that amount to $2.00. No other terms of the agreement have been changed. As the Auditor-Controller's letter indicates this change has no direct fiscal impact on the City and may, in fact, offer some relief towards our SB 2557 property tax administrative fee. All of the other Cities in the County have adopted, or will adopt, the same agreement. r RESOLUTION NO. 68-92 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO TO COLLECT THE CITY'S SPECIAL TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS The City Council of the City of Atascadero, California, hereby resolves as follows: 1. The City Manager is hereby authorized to execute an agreement with: the County of San Luis Obispo to collect the City' s special taxes and assessments. 2. The City Manager is hereby authorized to make minor corrections or modifications of a mathematical or clerical nature. 3. The Finance Director is hereby authorized to: appropriate funds, if necessary; release and expend funds; and issue warrants to comply with the terms of ti this agreement. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Atascadero held on the of July, 1992. CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFQRNIA i r By: _ ROBERT P. NIMMO, Mayor ATTEST: LEE RABOIN, City Clerk a:taxes #3 J O O(1r7, County of San Luis Obispo DERE W. SIBBACH, CPA Office of the Auditor-Controller Auditor-Controller Room 300 County Government Center San Luis Obispo, California 93408 BILL ESTRADA (805) 549-5040 FAX (805) 546-1220 Assistant April 17, 1992' City of Atascadero P.O. Box 747 Atascadero, CA 93423 Attn : Mark E. Joseph Dear Mr. Joseph: Attached is a draft agreement for collection of special taxes and assessments by the County. These agreements have been in place since 1981 , with no increase in the $1. 00 per parcel charge. We believe it is appropriate to amend these agreements to recognize increased costs since 1981 . The amount allowed under the amended agreement is $2.00 per parcel which receives --a sp4cial tax or assessment . The amounts per parcel are added to the special tax or assessment, so it is not an additional costto your City ' s budget . In addition, the revenue received by the County for this purpose is used to reduce the net cost of property tax administration that is Charged to taxing agencies . For these reasons, we would ask that you present the agreement to your City Council for approval at your earliest convenience. Special taxes and assessments cannot be added to the 19.92-93 tax rolls unless a signed agreement is received. Sincerely ,, Gere W. Sibbach, PA Auditor-Controller Attachment 0783f t1(1(1l1�� AGREEMENT FOR COLLECTION OF TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this day of , 19 , by and between the COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, a political subdivision of the State of California , hereinafter referred to as "County , " and the CITY OF , a municipal corporation of the State of California , hereinafter referred to as "City. " WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Government Code Sections 29304 authorizes the County to add to the Special Assessment or Special Assessment tax an amount fixed by agreement to each parcel for the collection and disposition of taxes. R WHEREAS, when requested by City , . it is in the public interest that the County collect on the County tax rolls the r Special Assessment tax and/or Special Assessments for City . + NOW, THEREFORE,, IT IS AGREED by and between the parties hereto as follows : 1 . County agrees , when requested by City as hereinafter provided, or as required by law, to collect on the County tax rolls the Special Assessment tax and/or Special Assessments of City, and of each zone or improvement district thereof. 2. When County is to collect City ' s Special Assessment tax and/or Special Assessments , City agrees to notify the Auditor-Controller of the County on or before the 10th of August of each fiscal year the Assessor ' s parcel numbers and the amount of each special assessment to be so collected . Provided , however , to be effective , the notice must be received by the Auditor-Controller by said date . 3. County may charge the sum of Two Dollars ($2.00) per Assessor' s parcel number for each parcel for which a Special Assessment tax and/or Special Assessment is to be collected on the County tax rolls by County for City, and County may collect such charge by adding it to the Special Assessment tax and/or Special Assessment on 'the County tax rolls to be collected for each parcel . 4. City hereby releases and foreverdischarges County and its officers , agents and emploYees from any and all claims , demands , liability, costs and expenses, damages ,' causes of action, and judgments , in any manner arising out of this agreement or out of the performance or attempted performance of the provisions hereof , including, but not limited to, any act or omission to act or active negligence by County or its officers , ', agents , employees or independent contractors directly responsible to County. r 5. District agrees . to and shall- defend, indemnify and save harmless County and its officers, agents and employees from any and all claims , demands , liability , costs , expenses, damages, causes of action, and judgments in any manner arising out of this agreement or occassioned by the performance or attempted performance of the provisions hereof. This, indemnity shall include, but not limited to, all actions or omissions to act by District, its officer, agents , or employees, in authorizing, levying , reporting or collecting any of its Special Assessment tax -2- and/or assessments . This indemnity shall also apply to any act or omission to act whether it be through sole active or passive negligence , violation of constitutional, statutory, or regulatory duty , by County , its officers , agents , employees , or independent contractor, or any of them whether or not acting jointly with District. 6. City agrees to and shall take out and maintain during the entire term of this agreement, in companies acceptable to the County, public liability and property damage insurance in an amount of at least One Million Dollars ($1, 000,000.00) combined single limit for bodily injury and property damage. All such insurance or the endorsements must include the following provisions: a . If the insurance policy covers on an "accident" a. basis , it must be changed to "occurrence . " b. The policy must cover contractual liability and contain a cross-liability -or severability of_ interest endorsement. + J C. The policy must cover personal injury , as well as bodily injury. d. The policy shall include coverage for errors and omissions by County and its officers, agents, employees. and independent contractors directly responsible to County . e . The County of San Luis Obispo, its officers , agents and employees shall be named insureds under the policy, and the policy shall provide that the insurance will operate as primary insurance and that no other insurance effected by the -3- County will be called upon to contribute to a loss hereunder. f. The policy shall contain a provision requiring the insurance carrier to give City and County thirty (30) days prior written notice of any cancellation of such insurance, reduction in the coverage thereof , or any other major change therein. 7. City agrees that its officers , agents and employees will cooperate with County by answering inquiries made to City by any person concerning City ' s Special Assessment tax and/or Special Assessment, and City agrees that its officers , agents and employees will not refer such individuals making inquiries to County officers or employees for response. 8. City shall not assign or transfer this agreement or any interest herein and any such assignment or transfer '-or R. attempted assignment or transfer of this agreement or any interest herein by City shall be void and shallimmediately and r automatically terminate this agreement., _ 9. This agree(nent shall be effective for the 1992-93 fiscal year and shall be automatically renewed for each fiscal year thereafter unless terminated as hereinafter provided. 10. Either party may terminate this agreement for any reason for any ensuing fiscal year by giving written notice thereof to the other party prior to May lstlof the preceding fiscal year. 11. County ' s waiver of breach of any one term, convenant, or other provision of this agreement, is not a waiver -4- t1 f 10!1"7' of breach of any other term, nor subsequent breach of the term or provision waived. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this agreement as of the day and year first above written. COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO By : Chairman, Board of Supervisors ATTEST: Clerk, Board of Supervisors APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL EFFECT: JAMES B. LINDHOLM, JR. County Counsel By Deputy County Counsel Dated : CITY OF r By Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL EFFECT : By : City Attorney 1015f REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL Meeting Date: 7/28/92 CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item #B-11, Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager From Lee Raboin, City Clerk SUBJECT: Recycling Committee Membership. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. 72-92 amending the Recycling Committee By-Laws. BACKGROUND: Recently, in an effort to reduce the list of committee assignments, the City Council agreed to discontinue Council representation on the City' s Recycling Committee. This action made it necessary to amend the Recycling Committee By-Laws. • ANALYSIS: Resolution No. 72-92 amends the By-Laws by deleting of councilperson" as a designated member of the Committee and eliminating a specified term for same. r Attachments: Proposed Resolution 72-92 Resolution No. 112-90 - Key: Language strieken_ RESOLUTION NO. 72-92 A RESOLUTION OF THE ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 112-90, WHICH ADOPTED REVISED BY-LAWS FOR THE CITY'S RECYCLING COMMITTEE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby amends Resolution No. 112-90 to read as follows: WHEREAS, the City Council has established a Recycling Commit- tee to advise and make recommendations on matters pertinent to the issue of waste reduction and management, the Council hereby estab- lishes the following by-laws for said Recycling Committee: Recycling Committee. The City Council may establish an advisory Recycling Committee, to serve without compensation, consisting of a member of City staff, a representative of the local refuse collector, a local recycler and citizens that reside within the City limits. Said number of citizens to be appointed shall be at the discretion of the City Council. Term. (a) The citizen representatives shall be appointed by Council - to a berm of two (2) years, except for the initial year. Each suc- ceeding year, the Council shall fill the vacancies created by the expired terms at their discretion.. (b) The staffperson, local refuse collector representative and local recycler shall be appointed by Council to a two-"Year term. The number of conse#tive-terms served by these individuals shall be left to the discretion of the Council. Committee Selection. Selection of citizen representatives shall not be subject to Resolution No. 35-81. Council shall use its discretion in appoint- _ ing citizen members. Duties and Rules. (a) It shall be the duty of the Recycling Committee to recom- mend to Council or to the City Manager programs and activities that will reduce the amount of landfill refuse being generated within the City of Atascadero to meet or exceed the goals established by the State. These programs and activities shall include, but not be limited to, recycling, consumer education and source reduction. The committee shall study related matters and make recommendations to the Council. �nnnt�� Resolution No. 72-92 Page 2 (b) The committee shall meet as necessary at a convenient time and place designated by the committee. (c) Officers shall consist of a chairperson and secretary elected to a six-month term by a majority vote of the committee. The chairperson shall preside over all committee meetings. The secretary shall record all committee meeting minutes, official actions and recommendations. (d) Matters shall be decided by a majority vote of those members present. On motion by Councilmember , seconded by Council- member , the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety, effective immediately, on the following roil-call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT.- ADOPTED: BSENTzADOPTED: ATTEST: CITY OF ATASCADERO 1 ' By LEE DAYKA, City Clerk ROBERT P. NIMMO, Moor APPROVED AS TO FORM: ARTHER R. MONTANDON, City Attorney RESOLUTION NO. 112-90 A RESOLUTION OF THE ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL TO AMEND RESOLUTION NO. 5-90, WHICH ADOPTED BY-LAWS FOR THE . CITY' S RECYCLING COMMITTEE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby amends Resolution. No. 5-90 to read as follows : WHEREAS , the City Council has established a Recycling Commit- tee to advise and make recommendations on matters pertinent to the issue of waste reduction and management, the Council herby es tab lishes the following by-laws for said Recycling Committee: Recycling Committee . The City Council may establish an advisory Recycling Commit- tee. to serve wit o-ut compensation, consisting of a member Of City staf ea representative of the local refuse col- lector, a local recycl_r and citizens that reside within the Cit! limits . Said number of citizans to be appointed shall be at the discretion of the City Council. - Term . ( a) The citizen representatives shall be,appointed by Council to a �term of twc ,?) years, except for -E-he initial year. Each suc- ceeding year, the Council shah f411 the vacancies created by the expired terms at their discretion. -roll Tia- -% tm'e-y ear �- as-G-�rzn�tl-dg 's- -s ,1-besZe� --a� -a neral-bpi., The staffperson; local refuse collector representative and local recycler shall be appointed by .Council to -a- two-year term. T'he number of consecutive terms served by these individuals_._ shall be deft to the discretion of the Council.. ` Committee Selection. Selection of citizen representatives shall not be subject to Resolution No. 35-81. Council shall use its discretion in appoin- ring citizen members . Duties and Rules. C ( a) It shall be the duty of the Recycling Committee- to recom- mend to council or to the City Manager programs and activities that will reduce the amount of land-fill refuse being generated within t-he. ity of Atascadero to meet or exceed the goals established by tie State. These programs and activities shall include, but not be limited to, recycling, consumer education and source reduction. • J)f)(1l1f:i�; Resolution No. 112-90 (cont'd) The committee shall study related matters and make recommendations to the Council. - (b) The committee shall meet as necessary at a convenient time and place designated by the committee. (c) Officers shall consist of a chairperson and secretary elected to a six-month term by a majority vote of the committee. The chairperson shall preside over all committee meetings . The secretary shall record all committae meeting minutes, official actions and recommendations . (d) Matters shall be decided by a majority vote of those mem' ers present_ On motion. by Councilmember Shiers seconded by Council- member Dexter, the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in its entire_y, effective immediately, on the following roll-call. vote: � l ` AYES: Councilmembers Nimmo, Borgeson, Shiers, Dexter and Mayor Lilley- NOES: illeyNOES: None ' R ABSENT: None A IOPTZD: September 25, 1990 ATTE S LEE DAYK.k-,' City Clerk BE. T - LE Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM:: AR ._E. . .. NO. r ID ity Attorney vnnn�s REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM: B--12 CITY OF ATASCADERO THROUGH: Ray Windsor, City Manager MEETING DATE: 7/28/92 FROM: Andrew J. Takata, Director 6 Department of Community Services SUBJECT: BID NUMBER 92-07 - ROTARY RIDING MOWER PURCHASE RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends City Council to award Bid Number 92-07, in the amount of $15,363 .56 to: Pacific Equipment & Irrigation Post Office Box 8000 Industry, California 91748-0800 (714) 594-5811 DISCUSSION: After review six bid proposals received, staff determined that the three lowest proposals did not meet bid specifications as follow: Cal Ag: Bid specifications requirod a 72 inch mowing deck. Proposal reflected a 60," inch mowing deck. Cal Coast Machinery: Bid specifications required a minimum of 25 horse power._ Proposal reflected 22 horse power diesel Camino Real Equipment: Bid specifications required a minimum of 25 horse power. Proposal reflected 24 horse power. Of six (6) bids received, Pacific Equipment and Irrigation Company was fourth lowest proposal at $15, 363.56 for a demo Toro GM325D, which meets all bid specifications. It is noted that the demo unit bid has 30 hours running time on it. Pacific Equipment and Irrigation will guarantee the demo unit proposed with full new unit warrantee: Thzcompany also bid a same new unit at $18, 125.25. It is noted that the bid specifications allowed for- new or demonstration models to be bid. JO(1nN4 BACKGROUND• Due to recent budgetary constraints, it was determined that the current landscape maintenance contract with Shoreline Landscape be terminated and City staff to assume the maintenance duties. Current Department of Community Service maintenance staff will be able to perform the mowing duties due to capital improvement projects not being funded. OPTIONS: 1. Accept staff recommendation to award Bid 92-07 to Pacific Equipment and Irrigation to purchase a Toro GM325D demo model mower at $15,363.56. 2. Reject all bid proposals, and direct staff to re-solicit bids with modified specifications. _ FISCAL IMPACT: Funds sufficient to purchase this item have been allocated through the fiscal year 1992/93 budget at $20, 000. It s4ould be noted that if this bid is rejected and re-solicited, the continuance of landscape maintenance by Shoreline Maintenance (contract terminated on July 13, 1992) will impact the current budget by $2,700 per month. r AJT:kv , ;mowr Attachment - Six Bid Proposals City Clerk Summary BID SUMMARY t' TO: Andy Takata, Director Community Services Department FROM: Lee Raboin City Cler BID NO. : 92-07 OPENED : 7/20/92 PROJECT: Rotary Riding Mower The following bids were received and opened today: Supplier Name & Address Make/Model Bid Price *Note N r Cal Ag Ford CM272 $10,973.90 ( 1) 4615 Monterey Road Paso Robles, CA 93446 Cal-Coast Machinery, Inc. John Deere F935 12,870..00 Y 617 S. Blosser Road Santa Maria,, CA 93454 no Real Equipment Kubota F2400 14,845.55 2690 Ramada Drive Paso Robles, CA 93446 Pacific Equipment/Irrigation Toro GM325D 15,363.56 r (2) Box 8000 18, 125.25 Industry, CA 91748-0800 r J `W'Berchtold Equipment Co. Ford CM373 15,417.19 (4) 1250 W. Betteravia Road Santa Maria, CA 93455 C.R. Jaeschke, Inc. Excel Hustler 16,082.14 7817 Ostrow Street San Diego, Ca 92111-3602 *Notes: ( 1) This bid substitutes a 60" blade for the specified 72" blade (2) Demo model, new warranty (3) Brand new (4) Cannot guarantee delivery in 15 days Direct Edge (Ingersoll Equipment) declined to bid, but wishes to remain on the bidder' s list. Otachments: 6 Bids_ c: Cathy - Finance J(lnnla, City of Atascadero CITY OF ATASCAOERO H I D RESPONSE FORM CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Request far Bid #92-07 In response to your bid invitation and in accordance with your conditions and specifications, we agree to furnish and deliver one rotary riding mower to the City of Atascadero , Lake Park Maintenance Yard , located at 9305 Pismo , Atascadero , California, as specified, for the bid price quoted below. 1 Each Rotary Riding Mower Make: Ford Model : CM272 List additional equipment included in bid price: Exception: 72" Not available-- Substitution: 60" Side Discharge Rotary Mower Sub Total : J0232 .07 Sales Tax 741 . 83 TOTAL COST:$ 10973 ._90 To the City Purchasing Agent : In compliance with the above invitation far bid , and subj,'act to all the conditions thereof, the undersigned offers, and agrees , if this bid be accepted_ within 60 days from the date of the opening , to furnish any or all of the items upon which prices are quoted , at the price set opposite each item, delivered at the point as specified and , unless otherwise specified within fifteen days after receipt of order . Discount of NA % will be allowed for payment within 30 days from date of delivery . Bidder Cal Aa ( IMPORTANT INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDER ( Bids must be sealed and By addressed to : F (Authorized ignature) City of Atascadero Calvin L. Cherry City- Clerk , .Bid#92-07, 7/20/92 (Print Full Name) 6500 Palma Avenue Title Owner Atascadero , CA 93422-4299 Address 4615 Monterey Road Paso Robles, CA 93446 Date 07-20-92 j0ofls'7 • D City of Atascadero A 2 0 BID RESPONSE FORM GiY T Request for Bid #92-07 diY In response to your bid invitation and -in accordance with your conditions and specifications, we agree to furnish and deliver one rotary riding mower to the City of Atascadero , Maintenance Yard, located at 9305 Pismo , Atascadero , California, as specified, for the bid price quoted below. 1 Each Rotary Riding Mower Make: John Deere Model - F935 "st additional equipment included in bid price: - 72" mowing deck differential lock hydraulic weight transfer system 22 HP diesel Sub Total : S 12.000.00 Sales Tax 870.00 R TOTAL COST:s Ulm To --='___----- To the City Purchasing Agent: In compliance with the above invitation for bid, and subject to all the conditions thereof, the undersigned offers, and agrees, if this bid be accepted within 60 days from the date of the opening, to furnish any or all of the items upon which- pi -ices are quoted, at the price set apposite each item, delivered at the point as specified and , unless otherwise specified within fifteen days after receipt of order. Discount of 0 % will be allowed for payment within 30 days - from date of delivery. Bidder Cal-Coast achiner Inc ( IMPORTANT INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERI Bids must be sealed and By ature) .� addressed to: t (Authorized City of Atascadero G BradleyJohnson City- Clerk, Bid#92-07, 7/20/92 (Print Full Name) 6500 Palma Avenue Title Atascadero , CA 93422-4299 Address 617 S. 8losser Rd. Santa Maria, CA 93454 Date 15 July 92 vnnnK� a ZlYq City of Atascadero BID RESPONSE FORM Lease Option Request for Bid #92-07 If equipment identified on "Bid Response Purchase Form" can be leased/purchased a period of 36 . morvths, with lease/purchase period, without oppenaltytion c, purchase anytime during please complete the following . 36 mointbs a 409.01 per month = 14 724 36 - Total buy-out price = $ N/A In lieu of monthly lease payments please complete the following if applicable. ti. Quarterly Lease/Payment Plan ( 12 quarters over a three year period) r Quarterly payment Total buy-out 'peice = Please include any explanations or preprinted lease agreement forms in regards to your leasing process- prior approval required by John Deere current lease rates 9.5' requires 1-advance payment no buy-out Cal Coast Machinery Inc. Signature of idder Legal Name of. Firm G Bradley Johnson 617 S. Blosser Rd. Name of Bidder (Print or Type) Address of Firm V.P. Santa Maria CA 93454 Title 925-0931 15 July 92 Phone Number of Bidder Date Introduction K YOU for purchasing a John Deere product. you order parts. If this manual is kept on the machine, also file the identification numbers in a READ THIS MANUAL carefully to learn how to secure place off the machine. operate and service your machine correctly. Failure to do so could result in personal injury or equipment WARRANTY is provided as part of John Deere's damage. support program for customers who operate and maintain their equipment as described in this manual. THIS MANUAL SHOULD BE CONSIDERED a The warranty is explained on the warranty certificate permanent part of your machine and should remain which you should have received from your dealer. with the machine when you sell it. This warranty provides you the assurance that John MEASUREMENTS in this manual are U.S. customary Deere will back its products where defects appear units and their metric equivalents. within the warranty period. In some circumstances, John Deere also provides field improvements, often RIGHT-HAND AND LEFT-HAND sides are determined without charge to the customer, even if the product is • by facing in the direction the implement will travel out of warranty. Should the equipment be abused, or E when going forward. modified to change its performance beyond the original factory specifications, the warranty will WRITE IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS in the become void and field improvements may-be denied. Specifications section. Accurately record all the Setting fuel delivery above specifications or otherwise numbers to help in tracing the machine should it be overpowering machines will result in such action. stolen. Your dealer also needs these numbers when N •' c _ Z 7 MX.IFC.95321 .19-05SEP90 110990 JCl0n9Y 0 City of Atascadero JU 2 0 1992 RO HID RESPONSE FORM (�� OFFICE Request Request for Bid #92-07 with your In response to your bid invitation agreestoacfurnishe and deliver conditions and specifications, aAtascadero , Lake Park one rotary riding mower to the City Of Atascadero , California, Maintenance Yard , located at 93O5 Pismbelow. as specified, for the bid price quoted 1 Each Rotary Riding Mower make: u6 rA Model FZ4a0 List additional equipment included in bid price: J24 -F 24 o r-�2 - Sub Total : s-LL60-4 2. Gd Sales Tax j�3 3s TOTAL COST:s - -*14, 84f_rr To the. City Purchasing. Agent: In compliance with the above invitation for bid , and sub,i,�ct to signed offers, and a'�jrees," all the conditions thergof, the undersig dof the if this bid be accepted- within 60 days from the which pr ices are opening , to furnish any or all of the items upon deliver e quoted , at the price set oppd at the ,Site te each item, — point as specified and, unless otherwise specified within fifteen days after receipt of order . allowed for payment within 30 days Discount of _ ... from date of delivery. der /(,b L U� r Bid IIMP ORTANTNSTR IUCTIONS TO BiDDERI r' By Bids must be sealed and thorized Signature) addressed to: City of Atascadero (print Full Name) City Clerk ; Bid#92 720/92-07, Title DaUv''e'C 6500 Palma Avenue Address Atascadero , CA 93422-4299 6 A.1 Date 20 J(110"4 City of Atascadero BID RESPONSE FORM Lease Option Request for Bid #92-07 If equipment identified on "Bid Response Purchase Form" can be leased/purchased over a period of 36 months, hoppenaltion to purchase anytime during lease/purchase period, without please complete the following. 36 moaths a s 906.48 per month = � V3,2-9 ! ,t- Lasr p,� r, k:vr Ii) A vAUc'E '0 9'0 egciclur3L 'tel av 1484,SS" Total buy-out price = s 19, In lieu of monthly lease payments please complete the following if applicable. A. Quarterly Lease/Payment Plan ( 12 quarters over a three year period) Quarter ly a,,meet $ 14-99- 40 a KXedLAtr ; "_ s 19 aq2 20 Total buy-outrprice Please include any explanations or preprinted lease agreement forms in regards to your leasing process. Signature of Bidder Legal Name of 'Firm ,R)CtC u6 (44hw�y e,¢1 '�iyiht Name of Bidder (Print or Type) Address of Firm Title 2- Phone Phone Number of Bidder _ Date City of Atascadero 1992 BID RESPONSE FORMAT OCLEMOFFlCE Request fot- Bid #92-07 In response to your bid invitation and in accordance with your conditions and specifications, we agree to furnish and deliver one rotary riding mower to the City of Atascadero , Lake Park Maintenance Yard , located at 9305 Pismo, Atascadero , California, as specified, for the bid price quoted below. 1 Each Rotary Riding Mower Make: / "A o Model • Gni�ISy -t rst additional equment clujded in bid price: i - r 3 ZKT w z 11 el K fJ R eRk� c e. n►T ® _ C4rna�,l3.� a,.? 0- Sub Total : $ L✓ -30ts ttl� J Sales Tax ' l Z. +� TOTAL COST:s To the City Purchasing Agent: In compliance with the above invitation for bid, and subject to all the conditions thereof, the undersigned offers, and agrees, if this bid be accepted within 60 days from. . the. datg of the opening , to furnish any or all of the items upon which prices are quoted, at the price set opposite each item, delivered at the point as specified and , unless otherwise specified within fifteen days after recei t of order. Discount of QTY. will be allowed for p e,nt w' thin ,30 days , from date of delivery, ,,� Bidder � ( IMPORTANT INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERI Bids must be sealed and By addressed to : (A thori d Sig ature) City of Atascadero City- Clerk , Bid#92-07, 7/20/92 (Pr ipt Ful m 6500 Palma Avenue Title Atascadero , CA 93422-4299 Address A J Pacific Equipment& Irrigation, Inc Date 00"" George Normandin Director of Sales& Service Commercial/Industrial Products P.O. Box 8000 (714)594-5811 Cityoiindustry,CA91748-0800 (818)912-8533 �)O(1l14 City of Atascadero BID RESPONSE FORM Lease Option Request for Bid #92-07 If equipment identified onBid Response Purchase Form" can be leased/purchased over a period of 36 months, with option to purchase anytime during lease/purchase period , without penalty, please complete the following. 36 mo*a-ths a 611 •39 `Per month = Total buy-out price = ~ In lieu of monthly lease payments please complete the following if applicable. ti Quarterly Lease/Payment Plan ( 12 quarters over a three year period) i s�z.Zg r Quarterly payment ����• Za _ —0 Total buy-out price = $ Please include any explanatigns or preprinted lease agreement forms in regards to your leasing process. Pacific Equipment & Irrigation, Inc. Sig ature Bidder Legal Name of Firm 19515 E. Walnut Drive North P.p Box 8000 City of Industry, 'CA 9174$-0800 George Normandin Name of Bidder (Print or Type) Address of Firm Director of Sales iTitle l ' 714/594-5811 Phone Number of Bidder Date t City of Atascadero JUL 2 0 1992 . BID RESPONSE FORM c, TY Of ERK S OFF CE ! Request for Bid #92-07 In response to your bid invitation and in accordance with your conditions and specifications, we agree to furnish and deliver mower to the City of Atascadero , Lake Park one rotary riding Atascadero , California, Maintenance Yard , located at 9305 Pismo , as specified, for the bid price quoted below. 1 Each Rotary Riding Mower Make: ��� � rZ Model : -fist additional equipment included in bid price: _ 2 � �W � G oD Sub Total : s�J i'? Sales Tax f i� p TOTAL COST.s_______ /S 4_1 To the City Purchasing Agent: r and subject to In compliance with thei aboZ�henundersignedroffers, and agrees, all the conditions thereof, of the if this bid be accepted within 60 days from the datewhich ices are opening , to furnish any or all of the items upon delivered at the quoted, at the price set opposite each item, point as specified and, unless, otherwise specified within fifteen days after receiptof order. payment within 30 days,_ Discount of % will be allowed for from date of de ivery. Bidder ( IMPORTANT INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDER! n� J H Bids must be sealed and (A/ ized na u e) addressed to: el, 0..'j { Ids n/) City of Atascadero �Pr;r+ F 11 Name) City Clerk , Bid#92-07, 7/20/92 Title a £'S ���%� 6500 Palma Avenue Address Atascadero , CA 93422-4299 �� • rl� /s We to y( a City of Atascadero _ 2 Q HID RESPONSE FORM A1NSC�►OFFI0 Request for Bid #92-07 th ur In response to your bid invitation agreeltoacfurnisheandldeliver conditions and specifications, City of Atascadero , Lake Park one rotary riding California, Maintenance Yard , located a�ice305 quotedmOV belowascadero , as specified, for the bid p 1 Each Rotary Riding Mower Make: Excel Hustler Model: 4400 72" 3-waY -Gist additional equipment included in bid price: _ Deluxe seat wide tires and two rear weights Sub Total : $14.995.00 Sales Tax 1 ,087.14 A. TOTAL COST.$ ---- 16j 082.14 To the City Purchasing Agent: r In compliance with the) above invitation for bid , and subject to all the conditions thereof, the undersigned offers, and agrees, te of the if this bid be accepted withinthe itemsfupan'' whichap�ices are opening, to furnish any or al of osite each item, delivered at the quoted, at the price set op P; s otherwise specified within fifteen point as specified and, unles days after receipt of order. payment within 30 days- Discount of y. will be allowed for from date of delivery. Bidder ( IMPORTANT INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDER( By Bids must be sealed and (Au horiz ignature) addressed to: � -- City of Atascadero Charles R. Jaes� City- Clerk, Bid#92-07, 7/20/92 (Print Full Name) Title Presi 6500 Palma Avenue Address 78_______17 __ Atascadero , CA 93422-4299 San Die o CA 92111 3502 Date Jul 15 1992 y .------ 4101110 City of Atascadero BID RESPONSE FORM Lease Option Request for Bid #92-07 can be If equipment identified on "Hid Response thshawithoro�ption to leased/purchased over a period of purchase anytime during , lease/purchase period, without penalty, please complete the following. 36 months a s523.31 per month = S 18 , 829 RSA 16 Total buy-out price = s1 884.00 In lieu of monthly lease payments please complete the following if, applicable. Quarterly Lease/Payment Plan ( 12 quarters over a three year period) r _ Quarterly payment $ 1 ,624. 30 Total buy-out price = s 1 949.00 or preprinted lease agreement explanations Please include any process. ... .forms in- regards to your leasing p C.R. Jaeschke ne. Si Legal Name of Firm Signature dder Charles R. Jaeschke 7817 Ostrow Street Address of Firm Name of Bidder (Print or Type) President San Di0 _ A �� � � _g6�?. Title a ` (800)542-6 73 or (61 �a5_Fc�55- 1 Date Phone Number of Bidder ` REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL Meeting Date: 7-28-92 CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: C-1 Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager From: Greg Luke, Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Appeal of Condition of Approval for Tract Map 1488. RECOMMENDATION: Due to the withdrawal of the appeal by the appellant and review this staff report and order it filed. _ DISCUSSION: On July 20, 1992 staff met with representatives of Tract Map 1488, including Mr. Paul Metchik. The subject of the meeting was to discuss condition 10.e of the Revised Conditions of Approval adopted by the Planning Commission. • RAt the meeting their engineers (Central Coast Engineering) presented arguments in favor of reducing the cost to the developer to provide sewer service. The Public Works Department staff also provided cost data for providing sewer service to ,the development supporting the city's figures. As a result of this discussior}, the developer agreed that the costs presented by the City`s were " reasonably accurate and apoeptable. Consequently, the developer agreed to contribute $61,000 to the City's proposed regional sewer system. This amount represents the 25% developer contribution called for in the revised tentative map conditions. As a result, the applicant requested that their appeal be withdrawn. During the discussions, the developer requested that the City consider a reimbursement agreement for the ; project. The reimbursement agreement would assess a proportionate share of the sewer cost to those properties who in the future will benefit from the sewer facilities constructed by the developer. Approximately 24 properties would be affected by such an agreement. It should be noted that the Subdivision Map,, Act allows any developer to make such a request from the City. Staff, including the City Attorney, indicated that a reimbursement request is • reasonable, considering that other undeveloped properties could benefit from the contribution made by Tract Map 1488 in the future. However, only the City Council can make the decision to enter into a reimbursement agreement. This matter would be brought back to the Council at a latter date. The f inal matter discussed was the timing of the contribution. efts such fees at the Historically, the Public Works Department col time connection is requested, i.e. as a part of the connection fee. This will require a deferred improvement agreement be entered into by both parties. This is a routine agreement, not requiring Council approvo l� the Map he developer refeiving final approval.° execute -the agreement prior Based on these understandings, all of which have been reviewed by the City Attorney, all pending matters regarding Tract Map 1488 have been resolved. _ r r J r REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: C-1 Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Mtg. Date: 07/14/92 & 7/28/92 From: Henry Engen, Com. DeV. Director 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: r 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 road', alignment, 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 E1 Bordo Relief Sewer Project. Approval of the tentative map is contingent upon the completion of the E1 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 El Bordo lift station to E1 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 l0e) 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. R • 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) - J00'1 06- „110 e; CENTRAL COAST ENGINEERING _ ' 396 Buckley Road ECEIVEO E 787e 1992 San Luis Obispo - California 93401 5 lyy� JUN City of AtascaderoCOMMUNIlY DEVELOPMEN -- - -- Plammng 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 t 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 originally conditioned. We-do not Ait 3�s� el 615192 00010''7 Telephone(805) 5443278 E-1787.wps a June 15, 1992 2 object to others along El Bordo Avenue, Tract 1562 and the golf course to - participate and use this lift station. H you have questions,please phone. Dennis Sc_ffm�t - r 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. ) r, Attachments: Attachment A - Letter from Applicant r Attachment B - Memo from Public Works Director'{ Attachment C,- Prior Staff' Repdrt r 1 JOWII ..r MAY-18—'92 MON 09:01 ID:C.C. ENGINEERING TEL NO:805-541-3137 9090 P02 ATTACHMENT A. CENTRAL COAST ENGINEERING (Y7 Ma 396 Bucklty Road 1 i 1 992 Son Luis OWpo Cslltarnia 93401 Citi►of Atucadero Enj�kaoring Department 6500 Palma Avenue AW$Mdel%CA"422_ Re:Tract 1488 Reconsideration Stam.. As you are aware, at this past weels?s Planning Commission hearing,we requested acid were granted a continuance to the first date in June. Our intention is to settle the wording of condition 10(e) prior to the ro-scheduled hearing. Please consider the following: Tract 1488 will connect to and pay it's fair share of the construction costs for the future El Bordo Relief Sewer Project. Please respond excordingly. Thankx for your consideration. Dnnls 4 1 Telephone(805)544-3278 E1787d-wps j(1w to . 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. , . r 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. • 0001 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, ftown,, 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 AlT6RJ�14TQ ALTF'Rmm A \. 60LF CoufisE � , �, tvtltillJ T 11 y- Icdt4AL C01401TIOM : 't' CT MAP 1488 symat ALTS 'W 1,5; A —MX04 ►TiEi,Y �J +' ► •+--- FORCE MAS 1 ui3-t ti us NEW 10"GAMITYKAJt4 ,i y Cox We MU6E 2 j TRACT 1488 %VtytA OK b MIX s NEµt V FO Me owpi CITY KOP05E0 TO �, A14TERMAT1 V E Fac. 6"F0&6 M4t,w - Tb 8E 99PLACW _ Mew :'i .000 CM3 DMLOPgR WAM =lidoo CITY SNARE - _#isl, trOt�UTY S ►RE s�241400 mss. _ f©RCEMA 1A �.... ,Avrry _ � s r c�D GOLF Ct) qse i� No i J _ _ New L tFr 6L &RDOQy Riew a FOSTATtoN RS !Wr►trl�t i tow INV ELOPER 95*- COST: #9x,453 � ocOseC46 MAN � .► � a4 EX/�Zulf� 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 $ 92,453.00 r c 00iA � , ATTACHMENT C M E M O R A N D U M TO: Planning Commission FROM:'P,P• Doug 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 6ity Council to expire on Aprilj26, 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 improvementrequirements 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) . 000ii `"� - 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 Cr 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. �a .r 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-of-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 cond:6tion 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. " . r 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) J0(01 ATTACHMENT A RECONSIDERATION TTM 02-87 (TRACT 1488) CENTRAL COAST ENGINEERING 396 Bucklev Road 15 January 1992 San Luis Obispo E-1787 California 93401 City of Atascadero Plannug 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. 92 JAN 2119 2. Fee of$330.00. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 3. Blueprint copies of map. 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, He within the paper alignment of Vista Bonita making roadway construction within this alignment economically infeasible. as hone(805) 544-3278 33 b. e Telephone 33`�� 1 E1787 wps L" w 4 it/)f)I r)/, 1 r- 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 R 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 fe'lit 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 E1787.wps ,y 000-1 `l 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... v�'ritt Dennis ScMimt r ,1 1 I i E1787.wps �f ` ATTACHMENT B RECONSIDERATION TTM 02-87 (TRACT 1488) CENTRAL COAST ENGINEERING t%t,vE� R�,'1 1992 28 February 1992 396 Buckley Roadp► San Luis Obispo EL�pMEN� E-1787 California 93401 Comm 01 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 Tract E562. 'T_bar!huh-uiL ,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,currently held by two _ Telephone(805) 544-3278 E-1787B.wps , 0001 VA 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 us4 of the lots within the subdivision" as defined within the Government Code. 3. Vista Bonita, if constru ted as 'shovrn, does not" eon£ict .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. E-1787B.wps ,1001 'J� 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 "ZoningOrdinance" 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... 10.J��Ayk Io ennisc mid E-1787B.wps cr -p-1 ATTACHMENT C Kv, `- I, CITY OF A1tiSCADERO RECONSIDERATION MAP TTM 02-87 (TRACT 1488) -�'' ��:� ' COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT $:ALB P•LC' RECONSIDERATION MAP FOR _ - - BEING A SUBDIVISION OE PORTIONS 'r•-� •\ �� -�- OF LOTS 6 d 7 AND LOTS 10 THRU C 15 OF TRACT 5 IN THE CITY OF ATASCADERO•COUNTY OF SAN LUIS_OBISPO.CALIFORNIA. •\� ~��� ��1��\\ -� .fit\��,�>•, AJ `�"y CEN RAL COAST ENGINEERING /0 FT.DEDICATION ~~ \`�- _ -�/ ; U�,.,. j`K / .��•`�"•\ _ PER TRACT 15E2 PRIVATE ROAD ALIGNMENT I`-••L�1 _•'— ��..�"���'�r A'%,N% "�`•- •� - PEA TRACT 1882 f "-��„- ��-r-WATER TANK -t 1r EXISTING 40 FT.ROAD EASEMENT EXISTING TRAVEL WAY... AND PROPOSED 20 fT. 7•.• L \ls. -; OFFSITE gOAO ALIGNMENT •'`\ 1 - ' •^ � L S1!"" 20 FT DEDICATION PER TRACT 1486 PER TRACT 1642 .3 :111 I /r;, .,�1 = (,1 IPA PRIVATE ROAD ALIGNMENT--/ '• r-o '� ^:�•r/ ��� PER TRACT 1488 ;�� ♦ CUL-DE-SAC PER •`�`�'J�1�1��.• -TRACT 1456 RECONSIDERATION E l B O R O O ;'77-to U E �IClNITY MAP ----_------�_---- ..:I • _ ... A t•. P ti j(1�11 %�j , 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 connectedto 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 ._ n 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 td 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. V�.� J`` 1 11' " `1 y 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 .- Rproblems 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. r 6. All grading and erosion control meadures"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 certifigation that grading is incompli- 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 J001 Vf 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 El 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 El 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 El Bordo Ave. ._ R 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 qf, Vista Boriita` Ave.- be as close to a 90 degree angle ao ,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 El 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. ' AI ` :. t A 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 E1 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. ,CApplicant 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 rggordation. ' . t 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. 0001 :40 �t.J� ATTACHMENT E APPROVED TRACT 1562 — CITY OF ATASCADERO RECONSIDERATION (TTM 02 87 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TRACT 1488 DEPARTMENT •_-_:-:=��.�F�'1 L 1993 .. •-'' ' -- � � - TRACT 1562 TENTATIVE MAPS« CHALK mc)UNfAiw,•fASCAOEA03. -LOT I I - .-' •�. � -�•�• "' tw.Waww.n�r , ; w;.�i>i�-tA NOATH��` LOTS 4I L'�".- _"wr:�_"S� '`•\`\y_��`I �r �O"'r 1 //��� Fs �Tr LOT 7- -i ope44 ACE / i ,, ..i. •� •��','. .111 1• (RACY Isu i2i`—l! �4 I 19 YA' -21;` i -,,Cr f V IAMB•,• _ •_�• 000.1 ';1 19 b f'�`U s"• gar t�A4 ENDA ATTACHMENT F PRIOR STAFF REPORT RECONSIDERATION (TTM 02-0 M E M 0 R A N D U M TO: City Council April 26 , 1988 VIA: Paul Sensibaugh, Acting City Manager FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director 4W 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 con($� tions. contained in the attached sta4f report., Thera was discussion and public testimony given" as reflected ir. the attached minutes excerpts . RECOMMENDATION: Approval of Tentative Tract Map 2-87 ( reconsideration of) per the ?lanning Commission' s recommendation. HE :p s Attachments : Staff Report - April 5 , 1988 Minutes Excerpt April 5 , 1988 cc : Robert and Patricia Nimmo Michael Yeomans 0001 ,4,E N_77 G AG DoA D ITEM �. CITY OF ATASCADERO STAFF REPORT FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: April 5, 1988 BY: Joel Moses, Associate Planner File No: TTM 2-87 r SUBJECT: Reconsideration of Tentative Tract Map 2-87 to allow for the resubdivision of 8 existing parcels totaling 6. 98acres 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 K4. Legal D'escription. . . . . . . . . . . .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 r 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 0001 141 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. Comnlents 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 E1, Bordo If additional gas mains are installed,_ they will need 'to be within the Public Right-4--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 street name. 2 w - t 001 '1Z} 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 r r J - 3 00o 't;j EXHIBIT A - LOCATION MAP CITY Cir ATASCADERO Tentative Tract Map 2-87 4 ..•• :•• • Vista Bonita -I ml o p - 1 -W/0 Nimmo/Yeomans -�� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Reconsideration of Map DEPARTMENT -�•• A. SITE: Vista Bonita TTM 2-87 Vista Bonita Nimmo/Yeomans Reconsideation R F,Z • MF-4 6) ' W � � ♦ RSF• (PD7) ♦0 `` • q\ � � 609. ���♦ < ° P ; *6 TjLuT:1z_ � CR � CS ♦3 ic ,% / \ l ��. � • �' tri AI � �. cr H v� r / , x:01 O ox � RS ryF l °Q� 7 t' EXHIBIT B TENTATIVE MAP � - Tentative Tract Map 2-87 CITY OF ATASCADERO Vista VisBonita Nista Yeomans COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Reconsideration of Map DEPARTMENT +-��a� r ;_• ere�.•sut __ ��1- z \ \.Z i.^! VICINITY MAP u' NACR'S CERWICArS ,� t. =�'` .f•;\ �f: � .•t ! `.�. ! 4� •.r�y, �.�., fi'rrl �(i(11 r4?4.L.»ri+..--- Y. r / I / r, l `,T1 ��� �.a.... f' ENGINEER'S CER TIFICATE �• - /•' •�. - i% ,a�� fir. - REVISED TENTATIVE MAP mhcKT ucnofe .«...a..a. / ) . .� � �. . .�' rPACT 1488 .PACJ[CL IT>,n.nT.. �! 1:. '//:." �' rtw.•.vntw......ra. [.ING•f.N. •+ O.N.Y.. [.•T •.N. 6.[•k C[..M1..t COPT[M[.![Itl✓w h.t..IN LN. • •.Il.r.l.N 1,t0•., �� w..�. XHIBIT C TENTATIVE MAP ENTATIVE 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 Dot 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. , � " 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 affect 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 road improvements shall be completed R (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 Worlds , the property owneris) may enter into a deferral agreement for the construction 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 . ()O(11 "1y �. U00(3f 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 610" 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 R Engineer must be submitted to and approved by the Department of Public works and the Community Development Department orior to recording final map. a. Secure a drainage acceptance letter from the ,County stating t__at they . reviewed the Drainage Plan ar d find it acceptable ,prior "to the ;recording of final map or issuance of arbuiiding 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 noted on the final map. 6 . Offer for Dedication to the public of the required Public Utilities easements . 2 00014lI 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 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 , Mln,mum Width: 20 ' from centerline of right-of-way li . Improve Vista Bonita to the following standard: 24 ' Road Bed with 20 ' A.C. traveled way, minim t}m 50 ' centerline radius. Limits : From E1 Bordo to Westerly Terminus of Nista 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 Private 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 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 000141 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 C'.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 private road and it shall be shown on the final map. 17 . A final map, in compliance with all conditions set forth Ierein, 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 titlereport shall be submitted 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 . 4 00014z IBIT E - Prior Staff Re. Tentative Tract Map 2-87 (Nimmo/Yeomans) Tentative Tract Map 2-87 Vista Bonita Nimmo/Yeoman s City of Atascadero Reconsideration of Map STAFF REPORT 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, Marbh 27 , 1987. 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) r 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 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 ab+cut 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 ordinagces 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 .th-e site, Public Works has not yet received a request for annexation to the Sewer District, but no problem is foXeseen 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 anew road name at a later date. 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 r l r 1 3 o`\ cI • iNOFib X11 h �► �j�i` �►t' �j®� ::�`�`' rte• 1 UAW OVA � .•. � of •.i - ' 1 �(�1� �II I��.�Il.i) i I�I�jI�� • � • � ' �t!`'(� h Int �i;i�J I� i li I� �� •I��I' �"' 1 ���� M�.a V I. r•il if�f lil� l) !ilt/�/ / :,II` .:ea, . _. . •, 1 �-i ,t- ::I•..I;1�;I,� G SII: I i'"�� „•:,,,. .,;, � r a� � •�a�i !/J 1,�',,�•1-_ .1.r;',•i�� � I �''��li '1�'tll ::I // �i /wl J� f�� •; 1 ..,` �_-�'ii� :,._ ,�1llJl`// ' �1':�jl�l���;�lle,f�I �� ��/Il�� ���nwa I \•� `,' -_- y -"'._, �tlli��l ��..�� 1 .•,I'il'. 7��III //�� r 11 R •o � � 1= �' . � ' � / -I jl� • j. ,.: '•Irl � •� - �l � ��• moi. ,�'J �l � � /��J Oft J, F/z lo � , t >a IT 200 ._'.. Zi n L= � c �f C wig;b ';' I s ■�,� e{� EXU IBM B St-TE PU4N 7ENm-nVE Tuc MAT TT Tn r 2.87 9385 VISTA WNIT7a N I MMO • I DriMtJ,S vOOl , 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 evelopment 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, thef creation of such lots are allowed as part of a planned , develop- ment. It should be noted that this -applibation 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. l EXIT I B IT G UD ELOF m OM STAB" TENTASIVC -mrt ' mw TrTna•IS, 7365' VISTA SDN n NIMD -YED m Alm 1 A� d 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, / Michael P. Yeomans r J I r 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. ' r J 4 � Tentative Tract Map 2-87 (Nimmo/Yeomans) EXHIBIT E - Tentative Tract Map 2-87 Conditions of Approval April 7, 1987, 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. r - 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. oOt), siL 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- deco Standards. r C. All drainage work shall be completed For 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 strubtural 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 he-date of such reports, the name of the engineer making the report, and the location where the reports .a're 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. B. All grading and erosion control measures shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and constructed in accordance with the 6 0001 LIZ All 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- 0 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 E1 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. r 12. Improve Vista Bonita ,ta 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. 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 suffi6ient 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. 0001 $ Ip :- � `' r EXHIBIT F - Map Comp. Tentative Tract Man 2-87 ��; a----�,•�+ CITY OF ATASCADERO vista Bonita Nimmo/Yeomans COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Reconsideration of Map DEPARTMENT CURVE OAEA LINE L19TA3 .1 t I ( I 7 Aw .7NACAV4 ©t)I •.R .�. / {T r r r $ � �.•,r' ��.t L� may,,, �/ `'h.•+r'rh ♦+ ..,.. 41 r nv rrw rr - J^♦•�yi 9 r, :) �' / J fii J t• .10 4r.,, _+ r..• .,.,"'� t.+010 + +.fit++�•t r.Ar fM rte. rvC •?• / .$rJ,O�' ��„t (/r {I00 P.a fid: �'i .rs f �,� 1P PI � *� a •. '. r �.. «.. r r PCP :/ t � -�.•. V�,�. .f � ✓ .w .r' � � \\ � J -' w w• wr.• •Pf,�P.fP✓+•Pr''r �,yl I`~. •? `v`�` ` `',. i� �/Pl 21 {��/•PffPV J` ` `\ All r • ,t .,.• -'f _ ,• � / ' /P b MsN CY lb�eruin rw+rr..r..r....r+n � y",\� r •Pw P►w :(J` ♦ �'/ / J�bS P ■.w wrr. w s u.r o.., ,.nnr rr '1\ } -T u � 4.v " t1. A,..• / , a rr•r r•efn wr nur•,+.r e.. a nm•w ,\ Aw 1 � r (F• Irl /SAI �EfEPEUCES o i TRACT 1488 . r a �/ •O•' r ��P Ff A M M KNW.V1.04 Ar lArWi 01 11t iArt?AW v),Ae rJ.♦to a♦rtAtl AV I Attrtl Utr A< ♦• A?AJUtttO,tt+ttry a'JAu ctrl 1plro 17AIt Y a�% iw �yv'f LE6ENO GAtrlltuu. •O`` /F�, nrw✓IIr W� � / . �.� Irrlr/./•w /t CEUTRAL CA9Sl�(I6JUEE�Pl�l6 = i i' arr y+•rJ.s.r,.•w --_� !X.M'A't:Y d. IAUt t.,Af QYLtl CK.tAEUM IJ IO/ 3 �' �{..w....r.rr�••rwro j 6l �' 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 residentiallots 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. r 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 tiould 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 r 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 : e ue t in d ate y po Messer (Guest En ine rin ) to allow o� bd tie suivision of 9.5 acres into g p rcegs varying 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 b MOTION: By Commissioner Lochridge and seconded by Commis- sioner Kudlac 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, Kudlac, 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 finally moved to fast-track the Opening of a new business in the City. 2. RECONSIDERATION OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 02-87 MR. 1488) : Application filed by Paul Metchik (Central Coast Engin- eering) for a reconsideration of the Conditions of Approval relating to required road improvements and band 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 ,meetingf 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. 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 El 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. Davidsonthen turned the presentation over to Greg Luke, Public Works ';Director. Mr. Luke introduced Mark Markwort, Chiefof 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 tenttive map as approved contains a substantial requirement with regard to sewer 'service. R 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 Pu)D,lic Works.' Commission questions and discussion followed. In response to query, Mr. Luke explained the intent of the original sewer condition rioting 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. b 0001 `'� 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 El Bordo and at ,time of connection, will reimburse the City its fair share of the construction cost of the El 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 El Bordo could be built which seemed to conform to the alternate condition. It was determined that this ,Vould " cost approximately $3?,000; not '$61`,000.- Mr. Metchik pointed out that thousands s)f 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 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 - RCommissioner 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 ekact 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. Discussionensued 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. 000160 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 E1 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. R r t J001fit ""410"0**' • REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: C_2 Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting pate : 7/28/91 From: Michael P . McCain, Acting Fire Chief 4) SUBJECT : a) Resolution No. 70-92 - Confirming the cost of weed abatement b) Public hearing - Provides an opportunity for property owners assessed to voice objections . Any charges not paid prior to this hearing or adjusted by 'Council as a result of the hearing will be forwarded to the County Tax Collector for inclusion in the regular , property tax bill . RECOMMENDATION: It is my recommendation the administrative fee for weed abatement charges be set at 100%, and fees as shown on the attachments be accepted. • BACKGROUND : On 4/28/92, Council adopted a resolution declaring that all noxious or dangerous weeds or other flammable material that create a fire hazard constitute a public nuisance and authorized the Fire Chief to proceed with abatement . During the period from . April 30 to May 12, notices were mailed to property owners informing them of weedabatement requirements . A public hearing regarding appeals was held on 5/26/92 . - The weed abatement contract was awarded at that meeting to Brett ' s Tractor Service, to abate parcels which were not r abated by property owners . Abatement work began on June 8th and continued through July 20th. An itemized list of weed abatement assessments was posted with the City Clerk and at the Fire Station on 7/22/92 . A total of 107 parcels were abated. FISCAL IMPACT No direct fiscal impact - $16, 142 . 00 will be recovered through assessments placed on property tax bills . Attachments : Preliminary special assessments list Data entry documents for special tax charges J(1(l�ti�G RESOLUTION NO. 70-92 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO CONFIRMING THE COST OF WEED ABATEMENT WHEREAS, the Government Code of the State of California, Section 39500, et seq. , provides that cities may declare weeds a public nuisance for the purpose of Weed Abatement; and WHEREAS, the Atascadero City Fire Department did abate said nuisance within the provision of the government Code, Section 39500, et seq. ; and WHEREAS, the cost of the work of abatement as shown on Preliminary Special Tax Listing for 1992-93 Tax Year was submitted in accordance with Government Code Section 39574; and WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Atascadero received the cost report and held a hearing to •receive objections of any property owners liable to be assessed for the work of abatement . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the report of abatement cost is confirmed as presented; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the costs of abatement constitutes a special assessment against the described parcels and shall be lien on the property in accordance with Government Code Section ,39577g and " BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City is hereby directed to transmit to the proper officials of the County a certified copy of the report for filing. _ On motion by Councilperson , and seconded by Councilperson , the foregoing Resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety on the following roll call vote : AYES: NOES : ABSENT: • 00019.1 Resolution No. 70-92 Page 2 ADOPTED: CITY OF ATASCADERO By: ROBERT P. NIMMO, Mayor ATTEST: LEE RABOIN, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ARTHER MONTANDON, City Attorney APPROVED AS TO CONTENT,: , 1 MICHAEL P . MCCAIN, Acting Fire Chief oOo"gq ri v S--1 mm C N0 2 W O • \ •• V1N N O r • \ v N•O N V1tV P T O 0 0 O 0 0 O O O O p O S7 O 0 0 O m I W W N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N (Il O CJ .p b .0 •0 •O .0 10 00 co W co co W co O:) D r n W N N r r p O W W N r r r r O y D P N .,,I W co N y y r r W r N r r r N N r N N N r r m • .• • • .• ♦ v • .. • • •• . • Vi S O C7 O O O O O O O O O-. O O O O O O y m 0 N O iJ O r N r O r O r O W 3 m to P r r to r N l!1 J V Y -J Vt to W W .0 m O z 1 D CFA D -i 2 z C7 c_? c7 c„7 O O O O O O O O O CV O Q O D -1 W W N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N y U C7 O 10 .0 10 10 �o 10 co 00 co co W co 00 00 t) • • .• .. ♦ ♦ .• •• ♦ . .• m ►• 0 W N N r r O O W W N r r r r O y r f to P N v W 00 N W N 41 .0 10 v p '.J Lo r r W r N r r r 41 N N r r g .• v ♦ v r •• .• .. .• • • .• .• • m O O O O O O O O O O O O O' O O O O z r O O O N O O O r N r d r O r O W -1 Ut P r r V1 r N l71 J �I r .! V1 1J1 W W 0 y 'V D F Z _ cl m cJ1 o O o Z _Z cR O 47 0 +Cl) 3*0 O O o 0 0 O Pm ca r y r (A 10 vo -� m — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — m cl ci D ►+a 10 Z ' r m 0 0 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o m N W W W N N N -N N N N N N N N N N N m \ mD .0 .0 10 10 c0 00 m Go 00 OD 00 co 00 .0 y X • • . • • • • • . • .. • • . • . a W y r O O W N r N r O W W N r r r r O y :9(Y) W y W N In 0o W O W 41 N tT .0 10 .! O 00 y m< N r r N N r N to r+ r N r N N N W 41 m z .• • • • • • .• ♦ • .• •. .♦ .• .• .• • y -I-1 O O O O O O O O O O O O Q O O O O1 to ym W N r O O O r N O. N O W W 0 r r O I 3 p r N P .l .1 L W 0% r r O N P to +` N m J y z r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o v o o a W W W N N N N N N N N N N N N N N y O O O .0 •0 10 .0 10 .0 Oo OD C* GO co Co 00_ co !n • . .. . . . A . •• . . . .• . . . m r O O W N r r r O W W N r r r r O y W VI W N W OD W O W 41 N t." .0 .0 .1 O co 0 N r r+ N N r N V1 r r N •-• N N N W 41 3 . . . .0 . . . .0 . . . m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 z W N r O O O ►" N O N O W W O N r O -i -4 10 r N P -i W o r r O N P to 41 N !� O O v r 1 r Cl O m 10 oA O oA A 0 0 0 o pi o e p o o O o ro N 41 J\III cJ W ^�D 3-y C N O z W F U • \ •• U1 N N UI N _n P w G O V U O O 0 O O 0 O O q O w Q m w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w rn r w r r-• w r r r r r r w O O O O O D + r r r + r r r r r • '. r • r y. �{ N r w r r r O O O O O p. V1 N N N r to D O W VI N w O .O 10 0 co VI r r co -F` •P J N N N W r N N r r r-+ r r N W r w r r N m r r r ♦ .. r r r r r r r • • r t.� g 0 0 0 o 0 o v o 0 0 o C:) v Q ca o o to m O N r O 0 t.- r O r W N 0 ... w P P O rn co Co W F P w Vt O V P N co r W "A c] Ol m O I w D ^1 L O O O O (] O iJ O qU U C? p c7 4 t] c] D W W W W W W W w W W W W W w W W W to r r r w r r r r r r w r n C> 0 O O N r .. • r r r r .• r rn N r r r r w O O O O O O V1 N N N r to V 00 to N .0 1O 00 ,nWr r f` F NN r r N x Z) .. r ♦ r .• r .. • r r . r • .. . O m O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O z O N r 0 0 O r r O r W N O W P W O P Cb In O V P N co r W 1n O P to bD A z O p O O O O O C• >0 o o p O O AC IP r W r 0 v 0 0 m — -- — — — — — — — — — — — — — m nn D Hp 70 A C rz w ._{ 10 D 4 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O m N N-i w W W W W w W w W w W W W W W W W m \ m D w r r r r r r r ►+ .� r r r O O O O O NX r r r r • .. . . r r .. r '. r r . D W N N w r r r r r O O O O O O V1 N N N N mW O O co W N O O .0 10 10 P of r O In k m G N N W r r { r r r r N N N r r r r m Ztn r r • r r r .. r r r r r • 'r ♦ r r O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O, N co m N r O O O O © r O O r r r O W P N�� 3 3 P r co co O W W r J m J z -1 . r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o A W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W N + + • r • r r 1. • • • r • '.. r .. • m N r r r r r r O O O O O O Vt N N N 0 O 10 W W N O O .0 .0 .0 P V1 r O V1 + 41 0 N N W r r h• r ►+ ►+ N N N r r r r 3 r r + . r • . • r . + . r • . •0 o z m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N r O O O O O r O O r r r O W P V N P r r r r .0 r co Oo O W W r v n O O J r 1 r (� o • . . . • . • . • . � • • • . . . . m 0 o O o O O o p O O O O O Oi O O O • D n m N r :r- mm m .. .. C N J z wr o • \ •• V1N N Il N ul N n O Q O Cj 0 O O O O Q O T 1 0 ut it vi 41 � ,r 41 .F "P 41 41 w N m n Q o 0 o Cl 10 10 a 10 .o 10 ,0 .0 r' r .• + r • v r r r r r r r n -1 r r O u 0 W N N r r O O O W W N N y Y N r O` 41 41 r 10 �1 -R` W N 1` W N to r r r r r r r m • v + + + • v • r • r r r r • + N z o a o o O O o 0 0 0 0 0 o v o Q Q to m W r r 0 W O O O` � O O O Q r t7 3 m O O` O N O 41 r V1 co 0 UI 0 N N m O Z � n w A -r Z 0 Cl n Cn q C) O c) o v O 0 CJ to n In .n n .P r .P r -P f .c w w w w N O O O c) O 10 10 10 10 ,O .0 10 10 •-� r r r to r • r r r r ♦ • r • r r + • r T r r O O O W N N r r O O 0 w W N N N N r U 41 N w w N f` 10 -J 41 w N 41 w (i7 r r r W r r r N r N r r r r r r r 3 r r r r • r • • + r r r O O Q O O O Q O O O O O O Q O O O 2 W r r O w O O O. .} O O O O O O` O• N O O` w 41 r V1 F co Ul v) O, N N In V n m X_ W '_ ,� n �c N �A PU 3,3 4 0 O H N o o O O r y r to v vo m T. "c x YC r-z j I, T O O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O m -i V, V, v+ v) �n v+ 41 4s 41 .fi 41 41 .P .r W w W m \ m a O O O O O O .O 10. •O 10 .0 10 O Vt r r r ,O N X • .+ • v • r r r r r • • r r • + • Y ti) N r r O 0 O O N N r r r O O W w N N N 3N N N dV Vi N r O. N O .J Ui N N 41 W N T"f r r r r r N N N r r N U1 N r r N )' m z to r r + + + r r • r v r + + • • • Cn Ln !0 A m m W r O N W N W 3 3 W w r o w '10 1- ut of o o• ut N v v m w m z " f O O O O O O O O O O O O # O O O O A V1 UI U1 Vt 1n Ut 11 i` 4. 4- i` 41 # W W W N O O 0 O O O .0 10 •O •O .O 10 H r r r !n r r r r r r z r • r- • T r ►� O O O O N N N r r O dt W W N N N N N co U1 N ,-' O• N VI 41 O J D N N 41 W N r r r r r N N N r r N U1 r r r N r 3 r • r + r r r r r r r r H r . . • m - O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O z W r O N W N W P O W U1 O # r r r 0 —1 W W r O W .0 r V1 co O P W # O v 0 w n O c r SU W # CTS U1 A .0 n m N rnm N O W f` O • N •• V1 N N 7 �1 N U N V1 N P o 0 o O o o a o 0 0 o a O m vt v, v, ,t v( Qn s 0 vi v+ u, vi 0 0 \.A v1 �n m Vf i` -P, -F` }` 41 V O iJ q c:V O O c7 O U V D O W N N Y Y N r W N Y Y N N r Y Y ►+ r Y m + + + + + + + + + • + '.+ + + + y = O 0 cJ O p q q O O O O O O '.O O O O to m '-' 4' ►' Y Y O .0 N a W x m V1 N N N N P W P i1 W to Y %n W Un m O { n Lu D L V U U O CJ q Ca O O O U O O 'q 'J V p —{ Vi VI tJ� V1 In VI In VI V1 ut Vl V1 %n Vn VI VI V7 s 41 r 41 + 0 O O O O o a O O O O w m O w N Y O o W W W W W N N N r r Y of 4' co f N Y P P W Y Y U W N V) r r Y N r W N N N Y Y !-• r r r 3 O O O O fh O O O O O O O O O O O O Z N ¢` Y r r O O 0 r Y Y N N O N O W -i kn N N N r N P W P -1 W to r to W kn .} N vn Az rl m 'L � "� � -� � O � C O •3i N • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •p • m A z o a O O O o o O A ;Q O O O O r (n r Ov '00 m A N O A D C r-z r � R o D O O Q O O O O 0 O- O O O 0 0 O O 0 m N CA-1 ul \n s vn vi vA V1 un w ut 0 v+ \A to ut vn vt m m D ut r r r 41 r o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a O O 10 W x + + + • + ♦ + • + + + • + + + + D W N O W W r r O W 41 W W W N N N r Y r+ W 3V' F` W ►• lJl N Y P Q1 .P N Y OD v W 0 4P N -N m-< r r Y r Y W N Y h+ .L` N W ►+ N m z to O O O O O p O O O O O O O C7 O O O,: N (A m Y O W N W Y Y O O O Y O N ry O N O 3 3 P Vf co ut Y co Y y P. -4 VI ut N VI .O N v1 m J . z r O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O D 0 v1 In V1 W UI v1 0 NI 0 VI in %A U1 v1 V1 U1 0 VI 41 + .0 f` O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 O W W Y Y O W W W W W N N N Y Y r y 41 W r N N Y P P 41 N Y co V W In 1` N N Y Y r r r W N Y r 41 N r Y p W r N g ♦ + + + + . . ♦ • . ♦ + m 0 0 0 o a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o z Y O W N W r+ Y O O O Y O N N O N 0 P Vf co Vt r W r -1 P V Vn 0 N vt 10 N v1 f'1 O O .J I 1 A r 10 n o • • . • • • • • • • • . • • 0 m O O O O d O p p O mD O m N P 000196 ;, 13 0 0 4 M-1 mm m .. .. z W F U • � # V1 N J N O N V11`J C P C m W O `J O O O. O O O O U !7 V O m 1 T VI V1 W Vt V1 V1 'Ji Vi Vf VI VI Vt Vt Rl A P P P P '.11 V1 \11 V1 V1 ut Vt _' + + . r r . r . • v + n --1 0 W N O N N N N N r r r O In D n N O W v to 41 f` W O 0 W O 'Jf 0 N N w w w N N N w w r r N W m Y . . • -a . r r . . + + + 0 S <n o 0 0 0 0' 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 o 0 m N N O r! w r W W r w O r r O x T T .0 W co O o` w r O 0� 00 N W r m O N -q Y s w m n z -i N z C7 Q O O O 0 0 O 0 0 O O O Y --1 vt V1 V1 Vt- ut Vt l71 ut U1 V1 un v1 W P P 0` of VI 0 to Vt. Vt V1 In V1 V7 (4 r . . . r . . + . + m W N r O N N N N N r r r O Vf N o W V VI #` 41 W V Q W U "I N N r r N N N N r r r r r W + + 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o zm N 0 r r r W W .0 W co O P Vt r O P W N W �•' Cn 'D Y r A z ol C-) m N � � DX 11 MI-4 H C 0 -� CA l� Gl O •r to • • • • • • • • • • • • • m A z o O O d O o -C►+ r vt r <n v v0 -c m — — — — — — — — — — — — m nn D "0 A D C rz - r 1 ,o T 10 O O O O O O O O O O O O O m N vt v1 vl 1.n %.n 0 to ut V1 V1 0 vl %.n m D 0'l P Ol P %n VI V1 V1 V1 VI V1 w V1 10 to X r . . . • . .• . . r + . D W N .T W r w 41 N N N N N r r O 1n 3 N .0 r W W 0 ut -P 4- O O s N P 1n M-< r N r r w N N N w r r w N m z to r r . . . + N Wm -1•'i O o O O O O O O O O O O o r (n r O. r w W O W N N O r r W' 3 3 N J •O V W O f O O O 0` 10 .0 m z O O O O O O O O O O O O O D VI V1 VI VI V1 V1 VI V1 V1 .V1 V1 VI VI 1n P P P 0l VI V1 V1 1n V1 V1 V1 V1 V1 y F W w w 41 N N N N N r w O N 10 r W W Vf V1 fi 41 O O Vi N P W N N w w r N N N r r r r N 3 r . v . • . r . . + r . . m O O O O O O O O O O O O O z r O w r W O W N N O w '-' W -1 -i V1 .j .0 •J W CD 41 co O m 0• 10 .0 0 O J r i A r W � D 10 • . • . • • . . • . • • • m O d O D N j o o'l 1: COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AUDITOR-CONTROLLER'S OFFICE Data Entry Document for Special Tax Charges Special Assessment Atascadero Weed Abatement TRA - (1-4) (5-13) (14-24) Fund Number Assessment Number Tax Charge 1 17 12 1 (0 I I Of 3. 10 1 a 17 1 1 + 010131 1_I_I_I_I I_111 91 1 . IO 10 1 1 1171 a l 691 101310 l a l 71 1 10 I I I i_I—I_I_hI_I 1%I (01 . 1 a 1 o I / 171 A l &I 101 a 1_91 A 3 1310 101-71 I_1i1_I_I_I_I3141 g I. I o f o i I 171&-�I(a I 1012),191—o1 / I ;Z 1 010 121 1_1_1_1_1 1_116101- 10101 It 171 ;ZI(01 I. Of a Ij1 a 17 12, 1 010 131 1_1_1_1_1^1_I_I $ 10 1. 10101 1 / 11 1 a I Cv I 10 1310131gI 110 1.0 1 a l I_I_i_I—I_I_111010 1 . 10 101 1 / 171 -2,161 101-3101D611 1010131 1_1_1_1-1_1_1-1(n 1 q1- I 01 Of 1 1! 7I3I ( I 1013101 i1 7 1 11 01 0131 1_I—I-1_h I_I 1 ,41 b 1 . 1 0 1 of 11 171 a 16 1 101310 31 :31 a o 10 12 1 1_i-1_1-11 1_131 a 1 . 1 0101 f 117 12, 1 (a 1 1013 Io 1313 11 D 10 131 1-11_1_1!1-1-1_31;)4- 10101 1 17 I a I (o I I © I o 101-3 f al .1 1'0 la I_I I_I—I_I—I_1_1;�131 al . I 0 10 1 1 1 17 1 a I b 1 . 10 1310131 1 1 J 10 10 ! a l 1LI-_7 l a 1691 1013101:3 1 a I 1 01 a 151 I—I_1_I_11_I_15� I g 1. Io101 11171 a!to 1 10 13 10 1 a 14 1 A 1010 151 1_1_1-1_1_1_IL149 i_;�I. 1010 1 - 11 17 l A 1(n I Iol 311 1 1 1 1 l a i o to 141 I_I_i_I_I_1_1_11{ I$1 . 10 10 1 1117 1 1 17121 bI 10141112 1 1 1 1 0 la 101 I_I_I_I_I I_ILIsI F1 . 1 0 101 11 1-712-1(,o 1 1014191 o 1411 10 IL!s I—I—I_I—I II-1 I 17 14 1. 1 o f 01 IL17 I aI (,of I of1�191 0! 715-1 o10 141 I_i—f_1_I_I I OP 0! 01 1 1 17 1 a I O I 101 ''1 g 1 110 1 0 16-1 I I I_I_1_i—I_I-13 1 ,51(01 . 1 0 1 o f .Contact-.•Person - Peggy Green a<_Phon-'e 'r~~= 461-5070 Dept/Dist/City Atascadero Fire Dept. Date 7/21/92 t►(1(11 � TC-F002 (New 3/29/88) 4977A/0003A COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AUDITOR-CONTROLLER'S OFFICE Data Entry Document for Special Tax Charges Special Assessment Atascadero Weed Abatement TRA - (1-4) (5-13) (14-24) Fund Number Assessment Number Tax Charge IL171 a l(v l 1014 19 1 1101 1 10 1 a l o l 1_i—I_I_1_1_fa l o l l 1 . 10101 1 1 171 al (o I I o 14111 o l_I lol11 I o l I17 l a1I I°I 419 l a i;L i;�1 © 151 71 1—I_I—I_I_I_1a 16 1$1 . 1 ©I of I1121 A iwl I 015-101 Of al 110 1 2L17I I_i-1_1_1_1_1?1 LI 14 I. I of of 1117 l a l(v 1 I.0 151010 I a1 1 10 1 1 191 I_I-1_1_1_1_1_1�O 10 1 . 1_0 I o I 11 I7 1 al (Pi to 15101 l 10 1'/ 1 of / I (of ILi !�I_1_ILI_1121 . 1 © I of 11 1 7 12_1 ,Cpl 10 15-1c) I a1 i I l Ial 0 1 1 1 i_1_1_1_1_I_I_IgI S I . i 0 1 © 1 11 171 a I Of 16 151011 I al 1 1 6 1/ 171 !_1_(_1_1_1_{ l 1 SI (01 . 1 010 f ILI 7 1 a I&1 101 -51011 I (o I / 101 / 1 11 I_f_III_1_1 / 1 / l a 1 . 10 10 1 1117 1 a I(p I 1 0 1 6T°-I / 17 1 31 O 1 ;) 131 I 1171 al (SP1 10 16-101-24) 1a1/©I0 171 I-1-1_Ii1_1_1_1B 1V I . 101 01 (�I . 10 1sl 01 otl -71 1 1 010 1,-,6 1 1-1_1_1_1_1 . I al I IwI . I of 0 I I-/ 17f ;kI Co 1 1015-10 21-71 1 010 191 1 1 1 1 I_i_! / 1$10 1 . 10 10 1 11 17•Ia-� I& I 10 15-10 12,1 & 12 10 1-L 191 1_1-1_1-1_1_1 X131 (of . I a 1 01 I l 17 i al�P I I D I X141 a! ( I a l 0 l J 151 I_1_1_1_1_1_13 1 sl Lf 1 . 101 o f IJ 171 a f(v I 10 1:5-10 1 o-�I0 1310 1 o I I I I_I—I_1_I_1_I I $ ISI . 10 10 I 111-7 1 -Al of 1015101 l ! If I l o l a l&I (_1_1_1_1_1_1_14 141 . 1 0 10 1 ILII 1_2 1Lo 1 1 ©16-151 / I Ll 1 l 10 10 17 I I_1_1_I_I_I_1 �J 131 q1 . 10 10 1 1 1 1712 I(D 1 10 15161qI 5111 0l a 17 1 1 1 0 1 a!(v 1 1 of 5151 aI 4j1 X 10 to I (o! I—I_I—I_I_1_1_15141 . 10101 '�""' :Contact. Person-.: - Peggy Green � Phon'e`��-' 461-5070 Dept/Dist/City Atascadero Fire Dept. Date 7/21/92 k)(1(1117IL TC-F002 (New 3/29/88) 4977A/0003A COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AUDITOR-CONTROLLER'S OFFICE Data Entry Document for Special Tax Charges Special Assessment Atascadero Weed Abatement TRA - (1-4) (5-13) (14-24) Fund Number Assessment Number Tax Charge III?I al (p I 10 16 15-1 a 15 I a 10 I_Li_�I I_I_I_I_I I_1_I IS I . Ic) I© 1 1 1-7 I a I &I 10 IS I(-P 101571 1141 / 141 1_!_1_1_11_1 11 0 I `f 1 . N I D I l 1 171 a l(o I I o l S l w at I o l l 61 o 131 I I_I_i_I_ 1_1 1 1710 1. 14 141 I I I I I I I I I I ! I I ! ( I Cont-act Person Peggy Green ��`�-�: 461-5070 _ � gg _-- �.Phone� � Dept/Dist/City Atascadero Fire Dept. Date 7/21/92 vnn1 17Z TC-F002 (New 3/29/88) 4977A/0003A REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Meeting Date: 7-28-92 Agenda Item: D-1 Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager From: Greg Luke, Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Transit Development Plan Presentation RECOMMENDATION: Receive verbal report from Bonnie Nelson of Nelson-Nygaard Consulting Associates. BACKGROUND: The San Luis Obispo Area Coordinating Council applied for and received an UMTA Section 18 grant for the preparation of a Short Range Transit Development Plan for Atascadero Dial-A-Ride. • After soliciting proposals the firm of Nelson-Nygaard Consulting Associates from San Francisco was chosen. The project team is headed by Bonnie Nelson who will be presenting the Transit Plan to Council. DISCUSSION: _ The plan to be presented to Council is the. first—formal transit plan developed for Atascadero Dial-A-Ride. The study covers an assessment of current o,perations, development of goals, objectives and service standards, service improvement and expansion and capital improvement planning. The Plan is currently in draft form and will be finalized after comments from Council are received. MEETI�GAGENDA QATIE...,1,4/4/9,..2 .&ITEM# 7/28/92 D-2 TO : Ray Windsor • City Manager FROM : Jeff McAlister e- 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 ordinaice #243 . Jeff McAlister— cc : Robert Nimmo Marty Kudlac Bonita Borgeson Dave Bewley George Luna i 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 recomliended 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. o001"7__ 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- direeted 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 ordnance to permit certain types of, exemptionp, 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. t M E M O R A N D U M To: Ray Windsor, City Manager From: Arther R. Montandon, City Attorney Subject: Mandatory Trash Pick-Up Charge Date: July 20, 1992 I have received several inquiries regarding the legal basis for the imposition of this fee to benefit a private company. This memo will respond briefly to these questions. I. City's authority to regulate the disposal of waste. Pursuant to the authority granted cities by California Constitution Article 11, Section 7, the City may provide the exclusive regulations for the disposal of trash (Silver v. City of Los Angeles ( 1963) 31 Cal.Rptr.545) . II. City' s authority to contract for municipal trash collection. ,_ Under former Health & Safety Code Section 4250 and current • Public Resources Section 49300, the City may contract for trash collection. The grant of this contract or franchise may be an exclusive license and be done without competitive bidding (Uni- versal By-Products, Inc. v. City of Modesto (1974) 117 ''(Cal. Rptr.525) . " r III. City's authority to mandate the payment of a trash collection charge. California Constitution Article 11, Section 7 authorizes cit- ies to provide residents trash service and require that even those residents who do not use such services pay the charges assessed therefore (Perez v. City of San Bruno (1980) 168 Cal.Rptr. 114) . It should be noted that Atascadero' s ordinance does not man- date "collection"; it mandates a minimum "charge" . The residents may dispose of their trash in any manner they individually choose provided it is done in accord with current health and sanitation laws. The "charge" is to pay for the removal of trash within the City limits. It provides for cleaner and more sanitary neigh- borhoods by providing a means for removal of trash. It also discourages the accumulation of trash. ARM:cw y • REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL Agenda Item: D-3 CITY OF ATASCADERO Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 7/28/92 From: Mark Joseph, Administrative Services Director 4&Y", SUBJECT: Request to Solicit RFP' s for an Outside Audit for Wil-Mar Disposal RECOMMENDATION: By motion, to direct staff to solicit proposals for an independent audit of the Wil-Mar Disposal Company. BACKGROUND: Section 7 of the Solid Waste Collection Franchise Agreement between the City and Wil-Mar Disposal (dated October 8, 1991) allows the City "the right to order an audit, conducted by a qualified independent auditor selected by City, of the Franchisee' s [Wil-Mar' s] books and records to determine the accuracy of the Statements filed with the City" . In the event the results of the audit shows a variance greater than three percent (3%) , Wil-Mar assumes the cost; if the variance is less than three percent, it is the City's responsibility. The City has never ordered an outside audit of Wil-Mar' s books. Although Wil-Mar employs an outside C.P.A. to perform bookkeeping services, the resulting financial statements are not actually audited, merely compiled. Thus, it would be timely to have an outside firm ,audit the Company's books. In addition, there has been a tremendous-amount of change associated with the City'•s 'implementation of AB 939, including rate increases, rate restructuring, adoption of recycling programs and mandatory collection. It has been staff's -intention to conduct an extensive review of the impact of all these changes, including possible modifications. Part of that review should be an outside audit. By initiating the process now, staff expects results will be available in time to dovetail with the program review noted above. In addition, staff will return to Council to award the audit bid, at which time a fixed cost will be known (current estimates range from $5,000-10,000) . a:RFP/wilmar #3 t)001 176 REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL Agenda Item: D-4 CITY OF ATASCADERO Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 7/28/92 Via: Henry Engen, Community Development Director From: Gary Raiser, Associate Planner Cs� File: ZC #91015 SUBJECT: Request to initiate Zoning Ordinance Amendment to explore the feasibility of establishing greater flexibility determining minimum lot size in the RS (Residential Suburban) zone where there are special dedications for public benefit. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council authorize this initiation request. NOTE: This action would only enable such an amendment to be considered as an alternative during the upcoming review of a development project for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is currently being prepared. In taking the recommended action, it should be clear that the City Council' s initiation ._ sof this Zoning Ordinance Amendment represents consent for the Planning Commission and City Council to consider such a proposal at future public hearings when the 'details of the proposal and environmental impacts associated therewith can be disclosed -- the approval of this initiation request does not Presuppose approval of the amendment itself. 1 DISCUSSION• The subject request to initiate further consideration—of an amendment to the text of the Zoning Ordinance was filed pursuant to Section 9-1. 114 of the Zoning Ordinance, which states: " (a) Application: Text amendments may be initiated by: ( 1) The City Council or Planning Commission upon its own motion; or (2) The City Council or Planning Commission upon acceptance of a request from any interested party, including the Planning Director. Requests shall be in writing and shall include a description of the benefit to be derived as a result of the text amendment. " Staff believes the intent of this Zoning Ordinance section is to provide a mechanism whereby clearly unreasonable requests to amend the Zoning Ordinance can be screened prior to the making and processing of a complete application. As such, the initiation process can be thought of as a cost-saving device for the benefit of prospective applicants. The Proposed Amendment The text amendment proposed for further study is included in the applicant' s request for initiation (Attachment A) . Basically, the amendment would provide an exception to the current method of determining minimum lot size in the RS (Residential Suburban) zone. The Council is aware that minimum lot sizes in the RS zone range from 2.5 to 10 acres, depending on how the "parent lot" measures up to performance standards related to remoteness, septic suitability, slope, access and average lot sizes in the neighborhood. The proposed amendment would allow minimum lot sizes as small as 2.5 acres, regardless of the performance standards currently in place, in cases where a particular proposal offers land dedications having City-wide benefit. The determination as to whether or not land dedications associated with a given development proposal are substantial enough to warrant the granting of this exception would be decided on a case-by-case basis. Relationship between Minimum Lot Size and Density The ability to approve new parcels having acreage of less than the calculated minimum lot size, provided the overall allowable density is maintained, presently exists by way of the Planned Development (PD) overlay zone process. Here, the acreage of the parent lot is divided by the calculated minimum lot size (using prisent performance standards) yielding -allowable density. Once allowable gross density is determined, the minimum lot size need no longer apply. Because the proposed text amendment would result in some projects having a minimum lot size less than that calculated under current standards, higher allowable densities could result with an associated PD proposal. The subject text amendment therefore has potential growth-inducing impacts that will have be considered carefully. CONCLUSIONS• In judging the merits of the current initiation request, the focus should be on general intent as opposed to specific language proposed. Here, the general intent of this amendment is to provide increased discretion for the City Council to alter minimum lot size requirements, and possibly density, in particular cases where such alteration could be found to be in the interest of the community as a whole. . Upon receiving public testimony, and upon a thorough environmental review, it may be found that changes in the proposed wording are necessary. It may also be determined that such an amendment is undesirable. At this point, however, the request does seem to have merits to warrant it's further consideration. And, insomuch as an EIR is currently under preparation for the project (which involves more than simply amending the Zoning Ordinance text) , rejection of this request would complicate hearing alternativesspelled out in the EIR; the EIR cannot consider altered minimum lot size as a feasible alternative for the development proposal. As a precaution, it should be kept in mind that this evaluation intentionally does not discuss the merits of the development project associated with this initiation request. ' It only asks authorization to consider possibly amending the Zoning Ordinance text with respect to the RS district. Attachments: Attachment A -- Applicant's Initiation Request cc: RRM Design Group Mr. Gordon T. Davis GK:ZC91015\cci F 1 J001 81 ATTACHMENT A Request to Initiate �►'""�.+''" Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment ZC #91015 R RM D E S [ G N GROUP July 16, 1992 RECEIVE JUL 16 1992 Mr. Gary Kaiser COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Associate Planner City of Atascadero 6500 Palma Avenue Atascadero, CA 93422 RE: Long Valley H -- Request to Initiate Change in Zoning Ordinance Text Dear Gary: As you are well aware, my office currently represents Mr. Gordon T. Davis in the processing of a Tentative Map/Planned Development project for the 215-acre Long Valley II project, located within an infill area of the Long Valley Ranch subdivision. Since we first began working on this project over a year and a half ago, numerous alternatives have been evaluated to determine the most appropriate density for the property. After dvaluating the City's lot size criteria of the project and the Long Valley II CC&R's which limit the minimum parcel size to 2-1/2 acres, it was felt that the cumulative benefits of the project would warrant a higher density than that defined by the City Zoning Ordinance. This decision was discussed with staff and in turn, an application for a Tentative Map/Master Plan of Development and Zoning Ordinance text change±' was submitted to the City in December,,1991. Since this application submittal, the City has progressed in good faith to -process the application, and currently a Draft EIR is being prepared and monitored by the City Planning staff. Pursuant to Section 9-1.114 of the City Zoning Regulations, the Zoning Ordinance text may be amended whenever the City Council deems that public necessity, _ convenience, or welfare benefits will be derived as a result of the text amendment. However, it has come to our attention that such an amendment must be initiated by the City Council prior to formal consideration. Therefore, on behalf of the Long Valley II property owner, this letter represents a formal request that the City Council initiate the following Zoning Ordinance text change: Section 9-3.144 Lot Size (b) Determination of Minimum Lot Size: The minimum lot size shall be determined by the sum of each of the lot size factors for the performance standards set forth in Subsection (a) of this Section. :ozn-4nutn !{wuera'.reet San Luis'?aisou. C.a,itornia u;ao: ..in:-mreet.?A(Kirsto. miornia u-;;{ 'oy _.?- Mr. Gary Kaiser Page 2 July 16, 1992 (1) The most current information shall be used to determine the lot size factor. Where information is not available, the Planning Director shall determine which lot size factor shall apply. (2) If more than one lot size factor can be applied to a loo the less restrictive factor shall be used, (3) Lot size factors shall be based on conditions in existence at the time of filing an application unless information is included with the application which will alter a lot size factor. ..... ...... 4. �:� '�€fan:�:�:•�:'�:.'��'�' :.� ?��:��:� ::(<;tf�� ::�.:::..'.:f��:<:���:�. ,�.N: <b� ,� } ..x: Av.4a:•:nA:..:-la,{.:n:..v..:vk..-..�.vn:....:.. x..:Axa +....v.3�{..a:...hvvu3..::vvnv'nQu:v.\:tl:n� ���C ���cr. ���ss��,, YY �:}�}� q� :t' ••�:.r .•.tom'...�:�' +:i..'�+�'.•`�: .:4t;.� .'•a7:!t:�?! ;4.- �b::!:t?r�4:��Y�1Cti::a4vk :�:A�a xa�'CLw:��x+ A•\ ,."+•.'E+••:Y:3}k.,,.r..c r�•.'..x\.}kF :v .:xx�v:..'b::-'a�--.'.�: :I:...O}:::'r'{•;•;��.a'•;••f.•...k.:.....v... ...n...rk\}Y.k•.v\avv.a a•A ......i•\:ri•. .x'•1�::. ::J.v..v..a.n.n.{-}'a:•x.....:....a•:,yav::•.3.•h.::..:.a ...vn :4 W}kA3.ti-nx tivS�aW.. A�S+OtA %•.:n3}N. vtb}}:h•}}k }} r}}r. ...;. :t......w .... ........w •6 ............ . � �::.:{..}i���! .�;rY:{.:tii{'�:i{�:::•�".}'.f,�:a,�� :::� itn'.a...r:. {,.,\'- :.:} -��:u�'�a':4'�C-:•.+.}.{bvvyr}k\v\��4'\-.xvrX��ns�v�:{+.•r.. ,ri•W..}} We are aware that the initiation of this text amendment does not ,pre-suppose its approval, and that the amendment will be considered in conjunction with the.rentire project and environmental documentation associated therewith. Recognizing you need to take this request to the City Council for authorization, and since it appears that the Draft EIR will soon be available for public review, it is hoped that this request be taken to the Council as soon as possible. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to give me a call. Sincerely, D SIGN GROUP Pee'E., agmaier Vice Presid' t Planning Division cc: Mr. Gordon T. Davis Mr. Dean Benedix, RRM Members of the City Council c/lh-ingv2.kai 4JO01 N.3 REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: D-5 Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Mtg. Date: 7/28/92 From: Henry Engen, Community Dev. Director J* File No: SUBJECT: Paloma Creek Park Annexation - request to support proposed annexation of Paloma Creek Park to the City. RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the City Manager to sign Union Asphalt's LAFCO appli- cation as the owner on behalf of the City. BACKGROUND The City has been working with Union Asphalt and their represen- tatives who want to improve the intersection of Halcon Road and Viejo Camino. Enhancing the safety of this intersection will mean taking the tip of Paloma Creek Park in a re-alignment which would be beyond the City limits. The County Engineering Department is . unwilling to accept such a road in that it would begin and end within the City and, for that reason, the applicants are seeking annexation of the alignment. Although staff has advised that the City is working on a comprehensive annexation of the public lands in southeast Atascadero, Union Asphalt is desireous of moving ahead. Staff urged that rather than annex only that land geeded _ for a road, that it would be useful to annex the whole park '4which is on State-leased land that has been improved by the City over the years. f ANALYSIS: Currently, Paloma Creek Park, although outside the City limits, is afforded water by the Atascadero Mutual Water Company and sewer service by the City. Since the area is part of the unincorporated County, police and fire protection is the responsibility of the Sheriff and CDF. With respect to fire services, the site is covered by mutual aid agreement by the City Fire Department. Abutting roads are all within the City limits. The primary fiscal impact to the City would be a slight increase in police calls. RELATION TO AREA-WIDE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL: One of the special studies in this year's work program for the 0 Planning Division is to put together an application for annexing 903 acres comprised of Chalk Mtn. Golf Course, Heilmann Park, Atascadero State Hospital and Paloma Creek Park. Volbrecht Surveys is completing refinements to the required legal description and map, and we have consulted with the Local Agency Formation Commission and State Hospital and County relative to proceeding. At this point, the next step is to review the application package with the State Hospital staff. Thereafter, it will appear on a Council agenda as a resolution authorizing submittal of an annexa- tion application to LAFCO. Hence, approval of the subject agenda item is consistent with the overall annexation effort being proposed. HALCON-VIEJO CAMINO INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT: The attached communication from the Director of Public Works to representatives for Union Asphalt outlines the procedures that would be necessary to bring about both the annexation and the road improvement. Note that they have been advised that the development plans which have been submitted for the beginning of the review process would be brought to the Parks and Recreation Commission, and Planning Commission, for approval. Said approval would also require a road easement from the State. HE:ps Enclosure: July 16, 1992 letter from Tartaglia-Hughes Consulting Engineers ti LAFCO Application September 26, 1991 letter from Greg Luke cc: Robert Tartaglia Jon De Morales, Atascadero State Hospital Ralph Goeken, Atascadero .State Hospital RECEIVED ,`l 2 0 TTT TARTAGLIA-HUGHES CONSULTING ENGINEERS 7360 EI Camino Real, Suite E • P.O. Box 1930 Atascadero, California 93423 RE C~,"v'&E D U!. 2 0 1992 FAX (805)466-5471 Phone (805)466-5660 City of Atascadero July 16, 1992 6500 Palma Avenue Atascadero, CA 93422 File : 91-20 Attention: Mr. Henry Engren Director of Planning Subject: Paloma Park Annexation Dear Mr. Engren: Recently I met with Paul Hood of San Luis Obispo County LAFCO and Ralph Goeken and Mel Hunter of the Atascadero State Hospital. We all agreed that the City of Atascadero will have to take the initial step and request that the State allow the City to sign the LAFCO application as owner. As you and I discussed in our recent tele- phone conversation, you were to contact the City Manager on this subject. , I have 'received a preliminary map for the Paloma Park Annexation from Volbrecht Surveys, and some additional information was required to complete the map. The map is presently being revised. I have completed the application and petition for the annexation. When I receive the annexation map. and as soon as a designated owner is determined to sign the petition, we are ready to ,submit the annexation package to the County. If you would contact our office and let me know the ,results of your meeting with the City Manager, it would be appreciated since our client, Union Asphalt, is anxious to complete the annexation. Sincerely yours, Tartaglia-Hughes Consulting Engineers Robert C. Tartaglia Civil Engineer RCT:jf cc: Bob Kober, Union Asphalt Greg Luke, City Engineer Ralph Goeken, Atascadero State Hospital J001 Nib To: To Be Filled In By LAFCo LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO File No. ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE Date Presente COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER Officially Filed SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93408 Designated As LAFC) Action Date PETITION FOR S/fpsG � I�N.zJoEff�ld� The undersigned by their signature hereon DO HEREBY REPRESENT, REQUEST AND PETITION as follows: 1. This proposal is made pursuant to Part 3, Division 3, Title 5 of the California Government Code (commencing with Section 56000, Cortese-Knox Local Government Reorganization Act of 1985). 2. The nature of the proposed change of organization (i.e. , annexation, detachment, reorganization, etc. ) is/are: ,d W7 3. The name or names of all districts and/or cities for which any such change or organization is proposed are as follows: �y Or ZzWSG"�O 4. The names of all other affected counties, cities, and districts are: )Y 5. The territoryO proposed for tl_�SUrinnaDlLeUor in a to 6. This proposal is i-s no consistent with the sphere of influence of the affected city • 7. Complete description of the exterior boundaries of the territory proposed for annexation. Please attach legal description to this petition. 8. cDo the onflict with boundaries the boundariesstricts r cities, listed f the prabove, overlap or oposed annexation? _ N a 8a. If yes, justify the need for overlapping or conflicting boundaries. 9. List any of the districts or cities, as above listed, which possess authority to perform the same or similar function as requested herein. A/49 10. Do the boundaries of the territory proposed split lines of assessment? �d 11. Do the boundaries of the territory proposed create an island or corridor of unincorporated territory or a strip? ALO lla. If yes, justify the necessity for the island corridor or strip. 12. If the proposed boundary follows a street or highway, does it follow the center of the street or highway? ^110 es or o 13. It is desired that this proposal provide for and be made subject to the following terms and conditions: A. B. C. D. 14. the reasons for this proposal are:: ti A. C. D. 15. The persons signing this petition have signed as registered voters or r owners of land (check one). d,,ty mF 16. If the information of a new district(s) is included in the proposal : A. The principal act(s) under which said district(s) is/are proposed to be formed is/are: B. The proposed name(s) of the new district(s) is/are Al 1W C. The boundaries of the proposed new district(s) are as described in Exhibit(s) A _�, heretofore incorporated herein. 17. If an incorporation is included in the proposal : • A. The name proposed for the new city is: B. Provisions are requested for appointment of: (i) City Manager Yes No (i i) The City Clerk and C ty Treasurer YesNo J001 N6 18. If the proposal includes the consolidation of special districts, the proposed name of the consolidated district is: Vit! 19. Proponents of this Proposal : (Names of Chief Petitioners, not to exceed three (3 ), who hereby request that proceedings be taken in accordance with the provisions of Section 56000, et. seq. of the Government Code and herewith affix signature( s) as follows: (Please sign on top line and print on line below) 1 . 2. 3. When the form is completed and the requisite number of qualified signatures have been obtained (after circulation), it is to be filed with the Executive Officer. (ure sheets and romsignature ounter art ust be anotherintact -counterrartval of w 11 the si nat inva i a e the entire petit-ion. ) _ 7515u KM:kab 0001 NJ Tb iwoe 'z • •pasodoad se salaepunoq ata aoJ A'Ilssaoau ay- Xjpsnf 'sak 11 •6 o jdLa4s E ao A'ao:tlaaa4 pa:jeaodaooutun Jo aoplaaoa ao puelsl ue a4eaao pasodoad kao4laaa4 aya jo sataepunoq ata oa •o v j4Uawssasse 10 SOULI 4Llds pasodoad A'a04laa04 044 Jo sataePunoq ata oo •L pr/gfv •saLaepunoq 6ul4oll3uoo ao 6ULdderaano a01 paau aye kjl4snf `so'k jI •eq Luopexauue pasodoad 044 jo salaepunoq ate} 441M 4otlIuoo ao delaano 4413 ao -4oL.14SLp 9y4, 10 Sataepunoq eta Oa •g _ o I(saa-4on paaa4sl6aa a,,l ueya ssal) pa4tgP4ULun ao pa4tge4ut XJO4taaa4 pa:I:)Ojje ata sI •s •4-104taaa4 pa4oajje 10 UOL4E:)O( leaaua6 a4e4s„ •b D' o • •uopoe pasodoad a44 6upsanbaa aoj (s)uoseaa a4 qS •£ ON SOA zkaoq taaa4 papall e at4 ul Aaumo A'4aadoad pea 10 4uasuoo ua44taM %OOI apn lout UOL4eoL Idde a44 Sao(] •3 UOpEolLddV jo not-4nlosall UOLIPad /► :Rq pa4eL4lUt SEM UOL4eDLldde styl • I & 07 : lesodoad 3o aweN NOIIVWbOJNI IV'd3N39 •Matnaa ano a4e4tlloej o4 waoj SL44 a4aldwoo aseald • lesodoad SLP 10 Uot:leaaptsuoo Sai UL sao:oej otl toads Matnaa 04 uolsSLwwoO 044 saaLnbaa opoO 4uawuaano9 etuaoJ LIeO ayl IVSOdObd 30 NOI VO I j sn p odslg0 slnl UES jo A4unoO NOISSIWWOO NOIIVW'dOJ AON39V 1N301 i N517 f 00"E 780.86 opo i �\ � �1 � ��✓ s �? I � 60 3.00 w 60 N foo �V q IIS II O p O t' Q3 10. If the proposed boundary follows a street or highway, does it include the entire street or highway? VAS 11 . Name the city or district(s) which will be affected by thisPo ro sal. P alz !D,< ArYd 61.4.E ,e U 12. Total acreage: 23, LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL 1 . Indicate the General Plan designation of the city (if applicable): San LuisObispo ounty: t4A77o.J 2. Describe any special land use concernsexpressed in the above plans: 44&0 -'6 4zrale oe�a 3. Indicate the existing land use: 4. What is the proposed land use? 5. Has the affected territory been 'prezone? N/A No "Yes If yes, w at is the prezoning title and densities permitted? r c 6. Describe the 'speci fic development potential of the property: aJg ;o X39 G'oyTOW ka, 7v All c�S1'� ,�o,� �,�,e,� teA,40 s Below, please provide names and addresses of Applicant's Agent and/or other persons to whom copies of the Agenda, Executive Officer's report and any required notice of hearing is to be furnished. Name Address Phone No. _d&Y aDer- a ASk O—Wws � /fie, .G s. OW-Z 4- 5'a6;5 Name and Address of Applicant: Phone No: Signature ()001 1.4y0z ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM I. Is the site presen tly zoned for, designated, or engaged in agricultural use? Yes No / If yes, explain 2. Will extension of services requested for this proposal induce growth on the affected property? Yes No ,i On adjacent properties? Yes No ,/ UnincorporateT— Incorporated Both 3. Will the proposal require public services from any agency or facility which is currently operating at or near capacity, i.e. sewer, water, police or fire? Yes No ✓ If yes, please explain: 4. State general description of topography: ;F-Z.4 r 5. Has, or is, an Environmental Impact Report being prepared for this project? 6. R If so, who is the Lead Agency for the project? e/may Vit 4nl4e..4,p�� 7. Indicate Environmental Determination by Lead Agency: with respect to (project) dated: ' F NOTE: Not all projects will necessitate the preparation of an Envi.aonmen tal Impact Report. In order to make a determination as to whether any significant adverse environmental impacts may result from the proposed project, this form must be filled out and submitted to the Executive Officer for evaluation. Final determination for Negative Declaration status or the need for an Environmental Impact Report will be made by the Local Agency Formation Commission. Please answer the following questions to the best of your knowledge. If it is determined by the Executive Officer that answers are not sufficient or are incomplete, he will notify you and indicate the areas where further explanation is needed. , Name and/or Description of Project: Ae-VA001 Aw"t-, A�J&Kor—eexo Proposed Development, if any: /&d4Z1,J,.46A)9' 3. 00011 9J Location: Jloc�Tr� 'y T dozy 10100 ,6r 27,1& Alai, rz1 A Al5r- ten.. � ,e, Oi C.dAe"ADQ 1,&e&_JkO 1 e76&=A/ Address: A. Site Information: (If more detail is needed, attached sheet.) 1 . Setting: Urban, fringe, or rural iWifA 2. Terrain: Level to Gently Rolling (0-10%) 'O Slopes (10-30%) Steep Slopes (over 30%) 3. Hydrology: Streams, lakes, or marshes on site? No Yes Describe: C � 4. Proposed grading and land disruption 5. Vegetation: All natural vegetation already removed or altered yg5 Natural vegetation will be undisturbed AAO *Significant tree-cutting or vegetation removal proposed (describe number of trees, area affected, etc. ) / GtJ,t�i ow?c Is land currently under agricultural use? t / *Describe: -� 6. Adjoining land: Same use as proposed? Yes No If different use, describe: ./LzCcac. 7. Describe any other unique or significant features of the site, including cul tural , historical or scenic aspects: v,r�� 3a. 000,144 y4 B. Please complete the following regarding the project's potential significant environmental impacts. Discuss below all items checked Yes or Potentially (Attach additional sheets as necessary.) Yes No Potentially 1 . Could the project disrupt or divide an established community or disrupt orderly, planned development, or is it inconsistent with plans and goals that have been adopted by the community in which the project is located? ./ 2. Could is cause increased congestion or result in higher densities than desired by the community? ✓ 3. Could the project result in the temporary or permanent displacement or annoyance of neighboring community residents? ✓. 4. Could the project have an effect on natural , ecological , cultural , or scenic resources of national , state or local concern? ✓ 5. Is the project in an area characterized 'by unique physical features? ✓ 6. Is the project near the shoreline, near any natural or partially channelized flood plains, or on any hillsides visible to / 1't surrounding properties? r 7. Could any geologic features (slide prone areas, earthquake faults, etc. ) cause _ adverse conditions to result from this project? ✓ 8. Could the project disrupt or alter the appearance of the surroundings of any historic or archaeoligical site? ✓ 9. Could the project affect the potential use, extraction, or conservation of a scarce natural' resource? ✓ 10. Could the project affect the continued use of a recreational area or area of important aesthetic value? ✓ 11. Could any wildlife or unique vegetative communities be disrupted or displaced by this project? 12. Could any wildlife migration patterns be disrupted by the project? 1� x)00', y 13. Could existing noise levels be increased by Yes No Potentially this project (including during its construction period) to the extent that present or future residents or passers-by would be annoyed to any degree? 14. Would recreational or wildlife areas be detri- mentally affected by noise increases? _All" 15. Could the project increase air pollution levels in the area or exceed any existing air pollution standards? (Particulate matter (dust) as well as chemical pollutants should be considered.) 16. Could any unique characteristic be introduced into the area's atmosphere, such as sonic booms, radiation, annoying electronic trans- missions, etc.? ./ 17. Could the proposed project have any detrimental effect on existing water quality or quantities, of either surface or subsurface supplies? 18. Could the project disrupt or alter any items not • specifically discussed above, including 'Land ti Resources, Water Resources, Air Resources, Noise. Levels, or Biological Resources? ✓ 19. Could the project establish any precedents or facilitate any other projects of which the r impacts of these may be significant? Could { the project serve to encourage development of already undeveloped areas? (Examples include the introduction of facilities such as streets, _ roads, water mains, or sewerage lines in such a manner as to facilitate develppment or ✓ intensification of the use of an area. ) 20. Could the project generate a controversy? ✓ 21. Could the project result in inefficient or unnecessary consumption of energy? ✓ 22. Could mitigation measures minimize or eliminate such adverse impact on energy consumption? Describe: 3c. 10014t: C. If you have answered "yes" to one or more of the prior questions, but still think the project will not or cannot have any significant environmen { effects, indicate your reasons below: /'S A 46 da4VZ,� A4 D. If development is proposed for the project site, complete the following questions. 1. Present land use: 2. Describe existing structures on the site- and of the structures: 3. Type of land use surroundin ro perties (residential, commercial, etc. ): r 4. Intensity . ps use of surrounding properties (one-family, apartment houses; s , etc.)f CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attac a ex ibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of Rty ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Date Signature For 3d. 000-141 • Date: Local Agency Formation Commission County of San Luis Obispo Room 370, County Government Center San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Commissioners: This will serve to notify you o our approval of the annexation of territory to which �includes our proper y as listed below. { , 1 r J Assessor's Parcel Nos. �1(1(11 yR i September 26, 1991 Willco-Hermreck P.O. Box 1280 Santa Maria, CA 93456 ATTENTION: John J. Will SUBJECT: Realignment of Halcon Road at Viejo Camino Dear John, We have received your letter regarding the realignment of Halcon Road at Viejo Camino. At this time, both myself and Mr. Henry Engen, Community Development Director are in support of the project as proposed. We have discussed the procedure for constructing the road improvements and concluded the following steps are necessary to complete the project. 1. +City staff will take the plan to both the Parks and Recreation Commission and the Planning Commission for their review, comment and conceptual approval. While these bodies do not have authority to officially approve the project, the road realignment does impact on issues that fall within itheir jurisdiction. 2. The new road alignment falls outside the City boundary. Conversations with a representative of the County. Engineering Department indicated that the segment of land affected by the alignment change should, be annexed to the City. Understandably, the County is not willing to own and maintain a short portion of Halcon road, bounded on both sides by segments of a City Road. I am told this annexation process can be accomplished through LAFCO in a relatively short time. We would need you to prepare the necessary application documents for LAFCO, including Legal descriptions and any CEQA documentation. The completed application would be taken before the City Council for their endorsement. 3. A road easement would have to be obtained from the State for a City road. We will need you to submit the necessary documentation to the State to acquire the easement. Staff will obtain any authorizations that are necessary at the City level. oo o?.,00 4. You will need to submit engineered road improvement plans and specifications to the Public Works Department for review and approval. We will then issue you -the necessary encroachment documents. A performance bond will be required in the amount of 150% of the engineer's construction cost estimate. We will waive any plan check and inspection fees due to the nature of this project. 5. The road should be constructed according to plan by a licensed contractor. Any field changes must be pre-approved by the Public Works Department. A 10% maintenance bond to guarantee against construction defects must be deposited with the City, which will be returned after one year. 6. Finally, a resolution will be submitted to the City Council wherein the City accepts the new road into the City maintained system. Although this list looks pretty long, I have tried to spell out in detail all the steps that are necessary to put in the new road. With the alignment running through the County jurisdiction, the process is made more complicated than usual. I will begin the approval process as soon as you let me know you are ready to proceed. If you have any comments or questions, please, feel free to give me a call. R Sincerely. Greg Luke Director of Public Works ` cc: City Council Planning Commission Ralph Goeken oow?Iq REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: D-6 From: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 7/28/92 SUBJECT: Ordinance restoring the number of members of the Parks & Recreation Commission from five (5) to seven (7) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Council adopt proposed Ordinance No. 252 on second reading. BACKGROUND: The proposed ordinance, increasing the membership of the Parks . & Recreation Commission, was introduced at the Council' s meeting of July ,14th and was approved on first reading. RW:cw Attachment ORDINANCE NO. 252 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA 0 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 COMMISSION 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 (7) regular members of the Commission. The terms of four (4) of the regular S members shall expire on June 30, 1994, and every four (4) years thereafter. The terms of three (3) of the regular members shall expire on June 30, 1996, and every four (4) years thereafter. Vacancies on the Commission occurring " other than by expiratji'on 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 5. Effective Date. This ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and effect at 12:01 a.m. on the 31st day after its passage. 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 • t.ffl(1`�il�� REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: D-7 Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date:07/28/92 From: Alicia Lara, Personnel Coordinator SUBJECT: Amendment to Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) contract adding Two Years Additional Service Credit. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Council adoptthe attached ordinance amending the PERS contract to include Two Years Additional Service Credit for Miscellaneous and Safety employees. BACKGROUND: Ordinance 247 was approved on first reading by the City Council at the meeting of May 26, 1992, and appears for second reading. FISCAL IMPACT: At the present time, we have not been contacted by any individuals that may be interested in this benefit. This benefit option will enhance the options available to employees during the current fiscal crisis. There is a $10.00 valuation fee for each member retiring under this benefit. The net cost savings . would result upon the individual's retirement. Attachments: Ordinance #247 t!(N19 l j ORDINANCE NO. 247 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF .THE CITY OF ATASCADERO AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ATASCADERO AND THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM The City Council of the City of Atascadero does ordain as follows: Section 1. That an amendment to the contract between the City Council of the City of Atascadero and the Board of Administration, California Public Employees' Retirement System is hereby authorized, a copy of said amendment being attached hereto, marked Exhibit, and by such reference made a part hereof as though herein set out in full. Section 2. The Mayor of the Atascadero City Council is hereby authorized, empowered and directed to execute said amendment for and on behalf of the City of Atascadero. Section 3. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty-one (31) days after the date of its adoption, and prior to the expiration of fifteen ( 15) days from the passage thereof shall be published at least once in the Atascadero News, a newspaper of general circulation, pub- lished and circulated in the City of Atascadero, and thenceforth and thereafter the same shall be in full- force and effect. 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, CA ATTEST: By: ALDEN F. SHIERS, Mayor LEE RABOIN, City Clerk Ordinance No. 247 Page 2 APPROVED AS TO FORM: ARTHER R. MONTANDON, City Attorney (V/7 EXHIBIT A TO ORDINANCE 247 1 PAGE I OF 3 AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT 0 BETWEEN THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE 'r PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM `�^F AND THE '-P A CITY COUNCIL , OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO �, 01 lb4 The Board of Administration, Public Employees' Retirement System, hereinafter referred to as Board, and the governing body of above public agency, hereinafter referred to as Public Agency,having entered into a contract effective April 19, 1980, and witnessed March 19, 1980, and as amended effective July 1, 1980, April 30, 1983, January 7, 1984, July 14, 1990, November 9, 1991 and April 12, 1992, which provides for participation of Public Agency in said System, Board and Public Agency hereby agree as follows: A. Paragraphs 1 through 13 are hereby stricken from said contract as executed effective April 12, 1992, and hereby replaced by the following paragraphs numbered 1 through 13 inclusive: 1. All words and terms used herein which are defined in the Public Employees' Retirement Law shall have the meaning as defined therein unless otherwise specifically provided. "Normal retirement age" shall mean age 60-for local miscellaneous members and age 50 for local safety members. 2. Public Agency shall participate in the Public Employees' Retirement System from and after April 19, 1980 making its employees as hereinafter provided, members of said System subject to all provisions of the Public Employees' Retirement Law ex4ept such. as apply only on election of a contracting-agency and are not provided for herein and to all amendments to said LAw hereafter enacted except those, which by express provisions - thereof, apply only on the election of a contracting agency. 3. Employees of Public Agency in the following classes shall become members of said Retirement System except such in each such class as are excluded by law or this agreement: a. Local Fire Fighters (herein referred to as local safety members); b. Local Police Officers (herein referred to as local safety members); C. Employees other than local safety members (herein referred to as local miscellaneous members). 4. In addition to the classes of employees excluded from membership by said Retirement Law, the following classes of employees shall not become members of said Retirement System: NO ADDITIONAL EXCLUSIONS 000"'1e6 -{40E30wb— -01H040 tXHlbll A IU UKVlIVAIVUL L4/ PAGE 2 OF 3 PLEASE DO NOT "EXHIBIT ONLY" 5. This contract shall be a continuation of the benefits of the contract of the Atascadero Fire Protection District, hereinafter referred to as "Former Agency", pursuant to Section 20567.2 of the Government Code, Former Agency having ceased to exist and having been required by law to be succeeded by Public Agency on July 1, 1980. Public Agency, by this contract, assumes the accumulated contributions and assets derived therefrom and liability for prior and current service under Former Agency's contract with respect to the Former Agency's employees. Legislation repealed said Section effective January 1, 1988. 6. The percentage of final compensation to be provided for each year of credited prior and current service as a local miscellaneous member shall be determined in accordance with Section 21251.13 of said Retirement Law (2% at age 60 Full).' 7. The percentage of final compensation to be provided for each year of credited prior and current service as a local safety member shall be determined in accordance with Section 21252.01 of said Retirement Law (2% at age 50 Full). 8. Public Agency elected to be subject to the following optional provisions: a. Sections 21380-21387 (1959 Survivor Benefits) including Section 21382.2 (Increased 1959 Survivor Benefits) for local safety members only. b. Sections 21263, 21263.1 and 21263.3 (Post-Retirement'Survivor Allowance)for local miscellaneous members only. C. Section 20930.3 (Military Service Credit as Public Service), Statutes of 1976. d. Section 20818 (Two-Years Additional Service Credit). 9. Public Agency, in accordance with Government Code Section 20759, shall not be considered an "employer for purposes-of the Public Employees' Retirement Law. Contributions of the P}blic Agency shall be fixed and determined as provided in Government Code Section 20759, and such contributions hereafter made shall be held by the Board as provided in Government Code Section 20759. 10. Public Agency shall contribute to said Retirement System the contributions determined by actuarial valuations of prior and future service liability with respect to local miscellaneous members and local safety members of said Retirement System. 11. Public Agency shall also contribute to said Retirement System as follows: a. A reasonable amount, as fixed by the Board, payable in one installment within 60 days of date of contract to cover the costs of administering said System as it affects the employees of Public Agency, not including the costs of special valuations or of the periodic investigation and valuations required by law. b. A reasonable amount, as fixed by the Board, payable in one installment as the occasions arise, to cover the costs of special valuations;on account of employees of Public Agency, and costs of the periodic investigation and valuations required bylaw. "eb H" '( EXHIBIT A TO ORDINANCE 247 PAGE 3 OF 3 12. Contributions required of Public Agency and its employees shall be subject to adjustment by Board on account of amendments to the Public Employees' Retirement Law, and on account of the experience under the Retirement System as determined by the periodic investigation and valuation required by said Retirement Law. 13. Contributions required of Public Agency and its employees shall be paid by Public Agency to the Retirement System within fifteen days after the end of the period to which said contributions refer or as may be prescribed by Board regulation. If more or less than the correct amount of contributions is paid for any period, proper adjustment shall be made in connection with subsequent remittances. Adjustments on account of errors in contributions required of any employee may be made by direct payments between the employee and the Board. B. This amendment shall be a ective on the day of 9 BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC EMPLOYEES'•RE NT SYSTEM OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO a BY BY CHIEF, CONTRA4T SERVICES DIVISION Presiding Officer PUBLIC EMPI,Q ES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM O Witness Date Attest: S► Clerk -- PERS-CON-702 (AMENDMENT) ' (Rev. 1/92) 00091u) y