Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
DRC_2012-11-15_AgendaPacket
CALL TO ORDER CITY OF ATASCADER0 DESIGN RE VIE W COMMITTEE A GENDA Committee Meeting Thursday, November 15, 2012 3:00 P.M. City Hall City Council Chambers 6907 El Camino Real Atascadero, California Roll Call: Chairperson, Roberta Fonzi Committee Member, Bob Kelley Committee Member, Chuck Ward Committee Member, Christian Cooper Committee Member, Susan DeCarli APPROVAL OF AGENDA PUBLIC COMMENT (This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the Committee on any matter not on this agenda and over which the Committee has jurisdiction. Speakers are limited to three minutes. Please state your name for the record before making your presentation. The Committee may take action to direct the staff to place a matter of business on a future agenda) CONSENT CALENDAR (All items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine and non -controversial by City Staff and will be approved by one motion if no member of the Commission or public wishes to comment or ask questions) 1. APPROVAL OF DRAFT MINUTES OF THE REGULAR DRC MEETING ON OCTOBER 25, 2012 ©Find us on http://wwwfacebook.com/planninoatascadero Facebo- City of Atascadero Design Review Committee Agenda Regular Meeting, November 15, 2012 Page 2 of 2 DEVELOPMENT PROJECT UPDATE 2. DRC 2012-0029, PLN 2099-0848 / CUP 2005-0157 / TTM 2005-0067 / ZCH 2005- 0099 Property Owner: Oakhaven Village, INC Project Title: Oakhaven Village DRC 2012-0029/PLN 2099-0848 / CUP 2005-0157 TTM 2005-0067 Project ZCH 2005-0099 Project 1155 EI Camino Real, Atascadero, CA Location: Update DRC on revised project design: Project Re -design of architectural elevations and floor plans for a previously approved 62 Unit Description: townhouse subdivision. Applicant proposed to reduce the number of stories from three (3) to two (2) as well as revise certain floor plans to add additional bedroom (s). The applicant proposes minimal changes to the previously approved site plan or the number of lots. 3. PLN 2008-1280, EAGLE RANCH Applicants: Eagle Ranch, LLC / RRM Design Group Project Title: PLN 2008-1280: Eagle Ranch Specific Plan Project Adjacent to the City's southwestern boundary Location: Project Update DRC on revised project design: Description: . Revised Site Plan; lot sizes increased & number of units reduced. • Proposed Phasing Plan • Road sections • Village Center site plan • Atascadero Ave. intersection proposal COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS AND REPORTS DIRECTOR'S REPORT ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting of'the Design Review Committee: to be announced. Agendas, Minutes and Staff Reports are available online at www.atascadero.org under City Officials & Commissions, Design Review Committee. t:\— design review committee\agendas\dre agendas 2012\dre agenda 1 1-15-12.docx ITEM NUMBER: 1 DATE: 11-15-12 CITY OF A TASCADERO DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Regular Meeting — Thursday, October 25, 2012 - 3:30 P.M. City Hall Conf. Rm 4 6907 EI Camino Real, Atascadero, California CALL TO ORDER — 3:30 p.m. Committee Member Bob Kelley called the meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Committee Members Kelley, Ward, DeCarli Absent: Chairperson Fonzi, Committee Member Cooper Others Present: Community Development Director Warren Frace Staff Present: Associate Planner Callie Taylor Public Works Director Russ Thompson Others Present: Glen & Karen Lewis Claudio APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: By Committee Member Ward and seconded by Committee Member Kelley to approve the Agenda. Motion passed 3.0 by a roll -call vote. PUBLIC COMMENT None Page 2 of 3 CONSENT CALENDAR (All items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine and non -controversial by City Staff and will be approved by one motion if no member of the Committee or public wishes to comment or ask questions.) 1. APPROVAL OF THE DRAFT MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 27, 2012 MEETING MOTION: By Committee Member Ward and seconded by Committee Member Kelley to approve the minutes. Motion passed 3:0 by a roll -call vote. DEVELOPMENT PROJECT REVIEW 2. DRC 2012-0028, PLN 2099-0827 & PPN 30-87 (HOTEL PARK) Property Owner: Hotel Park Business & Professional Center Project Title: Hotel Park Fagade Improvements DRC 2012-0028/PLN 2099-0827/ PPN 30-87 Project 5801 through 6505 Capistrano Ave., Atascadero, CA 93422 Location: Project Exterior fagade improvements proposed at Hotel Park Business Center. Includes new Description- arched windows, stone veneer window trim, stone wainscot sills, and wrought iron balconies. Exterior paint colors and staff recommended future landscape and signage upgrades to be discussed. Associate Planner Callie Taylor gave the staff report and an update on the following; ■ Colors ■ Signs — ok ■ Landscape - ok DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DELIBERATIONS Committee Member Kelley ■ Colors other than white ■ Work with staff on sign design. Glen Lewis ■ Worried about busy marquee Committee Member DeCarli ■ Need map — kiosk — directional signage in parking lot ■ Colors — add 2nd color Page 3 of 3 Colors ■ Library using taupe's / applicant white ■ Karen Lewis wants white / make buildings look small • Bob Kelley worried about dirt & stains ■ Variety nice / shade lighter than library good idea Committee Member Ward ■ Why Hotel Park — needs better name Design Review Committee — Supportive of name change Karen Lewis ■ Elastimeric paint PUBLIC COMMENT None MOTION: By Committee Member Kelley and seconded by Committee Member Ward to approve the project with the following amendments; 1) to work with staff on signage update & landscaping 2) add 2nd color to base to match existing library building Motion passed 3:0 by a roll -call vote. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS AND REPORTS None DIRECTOR'S REPORT 1. Las Lomas — Dr. Claus issue? — exact 2nd story unit locations not defined by DRC — DRC directed no further action. 2. Eagle Ranch 11/15/12 - Public notice - DeCarli unable to attend ADJOURNMENT - 3:52 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED BY: Warren Frace, Community Development Director N— design review committee lmin utes lmin utes 2010draft action minutes 10-25-12.docx R'r i "iaia A�AqSCAD i ITEM NUMBER: 2 DATE: 11-15-12 Atascadero Design Review Committee Report In Brief - Community Development Department Alfredo R. Castillo, AICP, Assistant Planner, (805) 470-3436, acastillo@atascadero.org OakHaven Village Elevation & Floor Plan Redesign — Master Plan of Development Amendment Owner: Oakhaven Village, Inc. (SBI Buildiers) Oakhaven Village -62 Units masa Address: 1155 EI Camino Real Project #: PLN -2099-0848 / CUP 2005- 005-0157/ZCH 0 1 572C H2005-0099 General Plan: High Density Residential (HDR) Zoning: Residential Multi -Family (RMF- 20) / PD26 Project Area: 5.5 acre site for 62 Townhome units on individual lots Existing Use: Vacant ❑ Design review of revised architectural style, including revised floor plans and elevations compared to previously approved project. ❑ Minor lot modification to accommodate proposed architectural elevation changes. ❑ DRC to provide recommendation of architectural elevations and floor plans to the Planning Commission, consistent with PD -26 requirements. Recommendation: Recommend Approval to Planning Commission The identified changes are a positive step for the approved project to better align it with current market conditions. The proposed changes provide an update to the floor plans and ITEM NUMBER: 2 DATE: 11-15-12 continue to give this development a "high end" residential look. Staff is recommending that the DRC make a recommendation of approval to the Planning Commission. The DRC should make a recommendation on the following outstanding issues: 1. The use of the river rock material remain as a fagade option for Plan "B". 2. Recommend the approval of a minimum 20 -foot driveway length to meet the City's parking requirement for the project. If a lot cannot accommodate this length, a driveway length shall be a maximum of 10 -feet with additional parking identified within the project. Background Oakhaven Village, was approved by City Council as a Planned Development (Zone Change 2005-0099) with a Master Plan of Development (CUP 2005-0157) and Tentative Tract Map (2005-0067) for 62 townhouse units on individual lots in August 2005. Developers submitted building plans and final map checks to start construction. By late 2007 the development was ready to begin construction, however the downturn of the economy effectively ended the proposed construction. The development went into bankruptcy. The site was recently purchased by Oak Haven Village, headed by SBI Builders. The new owners are interested in making floor plan and elevation changes to the master plan of development to better align the project to current market conditions. The applicants are eager to commence construction of these units. Elevation Changes The 2004 Master Plan of Development was approved with three building elevations. These building elevations included variations from the principal elevation include architectural trims and finishes, sectional garage doors, window shutters, variety of siding (i.e. masonry, smooth stucco, wood), composition shake roofing materials, recessed doors and windows, and other architectural enhancements so that the builder could provide a wide variety of home designs for prospective buyers. One of the unique aspects of this project was a "three-story" building elevation (Plan A). The three-story elevation included a 2 -bedroom floor plan and provided a variety of building heights throughout the project. The maximum building height for Plan A as approved was 38 -feet in height. Plan B and Plan C were two -stories elevations with various options for fagade configurations. 2005 ITEM NUMBER: 2 DATE: 11-15-12 Proposed Elevations - November 2012 (See Attachment 4 for complete set of proposed elevations) The applicant has redesigned the building elevations comprised of a few traditional elements from various architectural influences including rural farmhouse, cottage and craftsman styles. The specific changes include a complete redesign of Plan A, as well as minor modifications to Plans B and C. Similar to the previously approved plans, each elevation contains "options" to provide distinctly different residential units from adjacent units. This type of mix gives the buildings within the development the appearance of "completed over a series of time" versus a monotonous row of buildings containing the same architectural styles and features. Plan A has been re -designed from a three-story elevation into a two-story elevation. Plan A is proposed to have three distinct fagade variations. Some of the architectural features include smooth stucco finishes, stone veneers, and wood siding Additional changes to the elevations include recessed windows, window trims, and varying front entry's and rear patio/backyard entries. The garage doors are also proposed to be varied as a part of the distinct variations. Scheme A-3, as shown in Attachment X, will be a proposed "end unit" for the townhome buildings. This unit shows additional landscaping by utilizing a trellis feature. Staff is recommending that additional landscaping be utilized for the units when facing a public street to soften the appearance of a "blank" fagade. ITEM NUMBER: 2 DATE: 11-15-12 FRONT END Proposed Plan 'A' Plan B and Plan C have similar proposed elevation changes that include the use of wood siding in two options, and one additional fagade option as a part of the proposed amendment. The applicant has proposed to eliminate the use of River Rock Base and red brick base which were utilized as a part of the base of the front entry columns and in building pop outs. Staff is recommending that the use of the river rock base for Plan B remain as a fagade option to maintain the distinctive residential facades from adjacent units. FND FRONT END REAR RFAR Proposed Plan 113' Proposed Plan IC' ITEM NUMBER: 2 DATE: 11-15-12 Staff is supportive of the architectural design changes proposed by the applicant and believes that the revisions will create a high end design aesthetic that addresses some of the initial concerns with the original project approval. Floor Plan Changes Oakhaven Village was originally approved with a mix of two (2) and three (3) bedroom residences. Plan "C" was the only elevation associated with three (3) bedrooms. The applicant is proposing to modify the floor plans in order to respond the existing demand in the current residential market, as well as the elevation change in Plan A and the reduction of the third -story. With the elimination of the third story in Plan "A", the floor plan reflects has been adjusted accordingly. The garage has been moved to the side of the 1" floor. A half bathroom has been provided on the 1St floor similar to the previous plan. The second floor contains two bedrooms with a bonus room/den. The 2nd floor contains a washer/dryer space, consistent with PD -26 requirements, and adds a master bathroom. The total unit size has been increased from 1,260 square feet (sf) to 1, 388 sf. 2005 Approved Plan 'A' 7-- i ia 2nd Floor 550 SF 2012 Proposed Plan 'IA' ------------ A lst Fluor W til r-1 -- I , I , t� I i I BI i I � I 3rd Floor 490 SF =I==024111c_-- r�ME Livft 7-- i ia 2nd Floor 550 SF 2012 Proposed Plan 'IA' ------------ A lst Fluor W til r-1 -- I , I , t� I i I BI i I � I 3rd Floor 490 SF ITEM NUMBER: 2 DATE: 11-15-12 Proposed Plan B is 1,825 sf and contains relatively few modifications with the exception of the larger living space increase from the previously approved Floor Plan "B". The original I II J A 1st Floor 590 SF Proposed Plan "C" has relatively minor changes from the previously approved plan. The 1, 828 sf floor plan is the only unit with three (3) bedrooms. The laundry room has been moved to the 1St floor. The unit is proposed to be increased in size from the previous approval by approximately 315 sf. it ---- O 2nd Floor 560 SF _-__ AM — - floor plan contained 1,150 sf. B = The proposed floor plan "B" I includes reconfiguration of the -_J LI I laundry room and bathroom on N,rA,�P M Pantry Kitchen Bedroom 12'-0"x 10'-8" the 1St floor. Similar to proposed floor plan "A, a bonus room/den -__ is proposed on the 2nd floor GaXage_5•• 30 Laundry Dining `l Laundry along with an additional rl 11%6"xW-6" I „a bathroom. A deck is also II cc) Dn proposed on Floor Plan "B" that UP�� 6'-7'x6=11 ' is larger in size than previously II Room I Master I approved. This additional p p s Entry 11'-6" x 13'-9" Bedroom 12'-0" x 13'•10" Deck outdoor space not previously Garage Door 9.-0" __ 6'-5" x 4'-6" provided is wide enough to 'L} Porch Partes ❑ i accommodate a small table and 9-a Up chairs. aDriveway B N I A I II J A 1st Floor 590 SF Proposed Plan "C" has relatively minor changes from the previously approved plan. The 1, 828 sf floor plan is the only unit with three (3) bedrooms. The laundry room has been moved to the 1St floor. The unit is proposed to be increased in size from the previous approval by approximately 315 sf. it ---- O 2nd Floor 560 SF _-__ AM ITEM NUMBER: 2 DATE: 11-15-12 Color Schemes: The previously approved project contained a color scheme that included pops of bright colors such as dark blue, plum, red, yellow and an Irish green mixed with tans and white. Condition # 11 of the master plan of development left the final approval of the color scheme to staff. The "pops" of color originally proposed were not consistent with the City's Appearance Review Manual. The applicant has proposed a more muted color scheme, eliminating the dark and bright "pops" of colors and substituting them with more earth tone colors including the use of blue -gray hues, brown, tan, and reddened earth. These colors are more consistent with colors found in other developments such as Dove Creek. Site Plan Modifications: To compensate for the additional larger units, as well as provide a more competitive mix of 2 bedroom plus bonus/den room units, the applicant has re -arranged the floor plan/elevation types throughout the development as a result. Some of the lots have been modified compared to the previously approved plan. Overall, the proposed site plan modification does not increase the density of the project. The applicant will maintain the proposed road layout, proposed open space areas, drainage basin and the location of proposed guest parking throughout the development. The applicant has increased driveway lengths in some of the lots in order to accommodate additional parking within the driveway, however staff is recommends that a condition be placed as a part of the Planning Commission approval that the driveway lengths shall be a minimum of 20 -feet to allow for driveway parking credit. If the units cannot meet the proposed 20 -feet minimum driveway length, than the maximum driveway length shall be 10 -feet, to discourage driveway parking. The purpose of the 20 -foot minimum driveway length is to accommodate not only parking, but also for the opening and closing of the garage door and allow for sufficient back -out space from on -coming local traffic or prevent vehicles from overhanging onto proposed sidewalks. The total amount of parking required per the Atascadero Municipal Code is 142 parking spaces. Staff will work with the applicant in refining the site plan as necessary to meet the minimum parking requirements. Staff Recommendation: The identified changes are a positive step for the approved project to better align it with current market conditions. The proposed changes provide an update to the floor plans and continue to give this development a "high end" residential look. Staff is recommending that the DRC make a recommendation of approval to the Planning Commission. The DRC should make a recommendation on the following outstanding issues: 1. The use of the river rock material remain as a fagade option for Plan "B". 2. The DRC recommends the approval of a minimum 20 -foot driveway length to meet the City's parking requirement for the project. If a lot cannot accommodate this length, a driveway length shall be a maximum of 10 -feet with additional parking ITEM NUMBER: 2 DATE: 11-15-12 identified within the project. Attachments: Attachment 1: Aerial Map Attachment 2: 2005 Approved Site Plan Attachment 3: 2005 Approved Elevation/Floor Plans/Color Scheme Attachment 4: 2012 Proposed Amendment Plan Set Attachment 1: Aerial Map 1155 El Camino Real 10 ITEM NUMBER: 2 DATE: 11-15-12 _� Attachment 2: 2005 Approved Site Plan C� rt fD �t ITEM NUMBER: 2 DATE: 11-15-12 ITEM NUMBER: 2 DATE: 11-15-12 Attachment 3: 2005 Approved Elevations / Floor Plans / Color Schemes Approved Elevation Plan B Plan A Plan A Plan C ITEM NUMBER: 2 DATE: 11-15-12 Approved Floor Plans - Plan A 20' \ — UP -- 20' F_1_1 A 20' B \ IH II I I I I 0 wia 1 Patio I I 1 I a I F- rji I worksho _ - �o Kitchen 11'-10" x 9'-6" I Bedroom I i DnII 11'-10 x 10'-8" I I High window P I II Powdy{ `J I ---- — Garage 11'-6" 30'-5" Dining �� dr w O Laundry x I 1— on J I I ll' -10x 8'-5" r Bath I units. rekrto I site plan. I L n nonend I units. Rekr to site plan. Dn La -Li C UP C C I I Dn U P C C .. 6'-T x 6'-11 J C Entry I I Living Master Boom I mRoom if Garage Door I 11'-10" x 16'-10" Deck 6'$" x 4* -6" I High window 11'-10" x 13'(6" Deck 6'$" x 4'-G' I .I IL _ _ _ _ _ Porch I I I I I Up I Driveway I I A B I I A B B I I I I I 10•-0' I I I L I I L I A 1st Floor 2nd Floor 3rd Floor 160 SF 550 SF 490 SF Approved Floor Plans - Plan B 13 Patio -- J A 1st Floor 590 SF C C ITEM NUMBER: 2 DATE: 11-15-12 A I � I — — — — I I Bedroom I 12'-0" x 10'-8" � I - o Laundry I -O I Bath I Do 6'-T' N6-11" Ac I Master Bedroom 12'-0" x 13'-10" Deck I 6'-5" x 4'b" I I � A I � I II `-- -- II --J 2nd Floor 560 SF Summary - Plan B 1100 SF 2 -Story 2 Bedroom, 1.5 Bath 1 Car Garage 1st Floor 590 SF Deck }V w Plan B - Floor Plans ITEM NUMBER: 2 DATE: 11-15-12 Approved Floor Plans - Plan C F 13 I rake I� nrAshnp — — — I I Walk -In 1'antry Kitchen I 9' S" x o'- " I Bedroom 3 18'-11" 06 I 12'-0" x 10'-8** I Garage Laundry Master )al I ,sundry 11'-6" x 30'-5 Bedroom Dmmg 11'-8" x 12'-0" O 12.-0., x 9,-6" I BI Do Up M. Bath 11'$' x 8'-6" . i' C C I LivRoom ing Bir I1 (7 7 Bedroom2 I 12'-6" x 14'-2" 12'-0" x13'-10" - I Deck Gara�,e lhx,r 6'-5" x 4'-6" I` — — — — — Porch 9'•0"lid. Varies I I I Up J Driveway B I I A 5 2nd Floor 560 SF I I Summary -Plan C 1510 ry 2nd Floor 560 SF 2 -Story 1st Floor 950 SF 1 st Floor 3 Bedroom, 2.5 Bath Total Living 1510 SF A 950 SF 1 Car Garage Garage 360 SF Lot Size. 43'x 64'= 2752 SF Deck 30 SF Color Scheme T� a Ye9w 5cneme 1A w Plan Bl amtTr�m mk Ped maw Plan B1 Aam, irm t>ar�Gram Trim Brown Trim cram may vioin Plan C1 Plan C1 L" Scheme H \—°:d4'° Plan A2 Plan A3 ITEM NUMBER: 2 DATE: 11-15-12 Trim Bmwn Aott Bm Bmy i �Fm Grem Plan C2 Plan B2 _ OLL I.—) — Plan B2 ITEM NUMBER: DATE: 11-15-12 Attachment 4: 2012 Proposed Amendment Plan Set See Attached drawings Parking Summary Parking RegWred 2 spaces per 2 bedroom house: 53.2- 106 25 spaces per 36edroom house: 9x25= 22.5 1 space per 5 houses; guest parking: 62/5= 13 ToW Pazking Required: 141.5:. 142 Parking Provided Pdvate Garage Parking: 62 Private Driveway Parking: 62 Common Parking Areas: 20 TaW Pazking Provided: 144 Project Summary This package addmsses exterior elevation and other minor mWiff- i. to the previously approved "The Village at Oakhaven", a housing development comprised of 62 single family _idences organized mW 16 buBdmg groups with zero lot line pazrels. Plan A: 24 2 -Story, 2 5edroom,1 Car Garage Plan B: 28 2-S.,y, 2 Bedroom, 1 Car Garage Plan C: 9 2 -Story, 3 Bedroom, 1 Car Garage Plan D: 1 2 -Story, 2 5edroom,1 Car Gazage Total Single Family Residences: 62 Vicinity Map Dmaity: 11 urulre/an. Open Spare: 4.19 acres Groan Site Area: 5.65 acres Sheet Index 1Title Sheet 2 (lrerall Ste "an & Budding Group 14 Nevetion 3 Building Group14Massing 4 SFR Plan W. 5 SFRPIan"A"€olor Schemes 6 SFR PIan"B" 7SPR Plan "B" Calor Schemes e 5FR Plan "C" 9SFR Plan "C" Color Schemes 10 SFR Plan "D" 11SFR PIan "D" Color Schemes 12 Building Gmup l Extedor Elevations 13 Buil ding Group 2 Exterior Elevations 14Bull ding Gmup 3 Extedar Elevations 15 Building Group 4 Exterior Elevations 16 BuedingGroup 5 Exterior Elevations 17 Building Group 6 Exterior Elevationu 18 Building Group 7 EXMnor Elevations 19 Building Gmup SExterior Elevations W Building Group 9 Exterior Elevations 21 Building Group 10Exterior Ele `a M Building Group 11 Exterior Elevations 23 Building Group 12 Exterior Elevations 24 Building Group 13 Exterior Elevations 25 Building Group 14 Exterior Elevations 26 Building Group 15 Exterior Elevations 27 Building Gmup 16 Exterior Elevations — SHEET TTTLE: Title Sheet PROIECTTITLE. Imil CLIENT: ADDRESS: Oakhaven Village lnc. 3160Ocean Te iu ii o�rvs Marina, CA 93933 ae so PLOT DATE: November 6th, 2012 dd4 Higu—Sheet Site 201 San LA —P. C.99401 PURPOSE: C.U.P. A—dment phone: W-1-4tax: 11,411119 www,reammhirecrs�oc.com PROJECT NO. R12126 Oakhaven Village 1155 El Camino Real Atascadero, CA Sixty -Two Single Family Residences for Oakhaven Village Modifications to the Previously Approved "The Village at Cakhaven" ZCH: 2005-0101, CUP: 2005-0157, TTM: 2005-0067 SHEET 1 27,_ reraem.a aye a,. a Baa1ma,a,a.w,x a.v > VJ'oaapeaseIy guns ONuufona ea euanw,o,oa df2115'S0Z .1 1., :auWtl TaurnmueJI35SLL luawpuawv'drrD :asodana -WS eosgos!mHos IN al!n51aa45 olanfiiN W6 u= •_ w.la�. =.d ZiAZ'ga9 iaq�nanoN :HlvatO7d 5133X5 LZ 30 z 133x5 a�vlUA U@AVtjjPo EEE6E6 tlJ'eimeW > aSeyuea>099I£ :553NOOtl ' el I9A uanegsleO :.LMrD7J ,=a,•o,a iw IElaHS :Tulj..uafoaa uopenaig luodd yT dnodo 2wUnfl / old a7?S fledaAo a7ua J=S II L :HzVDs Cyd BdRONO O079 9dnONO 0079 LdnON00079 — SdnON00079 VA H99019 Ed ON, I ...�a a� a� r' 6 dIAONO O079 of dnOU0 0079 11 dnON0 T-pueam— —Td m f—A jj +q. -nays ae aax-sape>el nayy ioggS�ao o !p. sIi .—p—pip pip LI—�!p .9111. maS 9>ea .pe>el leg xo3leuualod aq1 a>npa>of AIMuog11— ae (puel aqy y�I,n 2u dole) AIIe>9+an A.A Igw. ped Sp,, N,S 4>, uL'IH a}iS Ileiano I I' SdnON00079 � I �� �l� , ley .ellayaa IveN�ae9 :yeM Ianv+x��V olelanv ao vo == ao�u �u.�.e ll.av •vt LZ a £s IEIHHS VD 'aaapez)seIV ieau OunneJ IH SSLL a-vll!A uOA-el j ll20 :3LLI.L JJH(Oild 9MI'd ;ONJDHI08d T--p--v d'R'J :Hsodilfld ZWZ' pq zaq.—N :Hlva iold IIC6 VJ'esn- amnay�aao09I££ :59HIOQV Su[ssuW VL dnozq Smptmg :9' m ,f.=s df21>5'SOZ :�1 >&9'It5'SOd :auWtl IOYF6'o�otlsigp sin�uo5 IOZ al!n51aa45 olanfiiN W6 ley •w+xua IveN�ae9 :yeM Ianv+x��V Iolelcnv wo vo vxvw�= ao�u �u.�.eol.o.v •vt s LZ Ja f, IEIHHS VD 'aaape❑SLIV ieau OU!LUBD IH SSLL a-vll!A u0A-el j jl20 :Tull JJH(ONd 9ZIZI'd ;ON 1JHI08d ==ulq=anw,uroa,M,.. df2'W'w .1 1., :auWtl T--P--V d'fl'J :Hsodilfld lolfd'o�otlsigp sin�uo5 IOZ a1!n51aa45 olanfiiN W6 ZiAZ'4a9 iaqN :3LtlO 101a tlJ--N —£ -, �ag009I£ :ssditOQtl • --I IsVll old HJS :d'IIII J=s AS NCI:V3QHNOIBGNOJ'lVMI I Vv 11 MV'ld HHS xoo�a Isi noo�I anz o i -------mil I ',I AYW3 N3J. W 3`ltlNtl� -- � O ��11I''� ANdNfltll UJ III V4I / 1VIA1'1 WNINIQ NM ZWW1I43H /W�llS!]N FHWI I 1 QO do r �i I I I I I I 7G ley .ellayaa IveN�ae9 :yeM Ianv+x��V olelanv ao vo == ao�u �u.�.e ll.av •vt LZ a ss IEIHHS £-rd aWaHJS „9NOY Oai1JVls3N S,l3A„3NOJSN30:3NOY5 ,aNVHS NMVSa1L033YNIVY330:d003 VNL`JIN3-9I09M5 idd01 A3NOW5-LCT9MS NVYA11tlY0Y-SC14MS lINSlB-ZII9M9 VD 'aaapez)SLIV ieau OunneJ IH SSLL a-vll!A uOA-el j ll20 :31111 YJa(Oifa 9ZCZC7[ ;ONJDHI08d T--p--v d'rr:) :aSOdurlj ZWZ'pgzaq.—N :3LVU10ld IIC6 VJ'esn- amnaY�aa009C£ :SSHNCIGV V eI9A ua 11VO :�10 sawagaS miOJ ,,V,, O ld HJS anul YaUHS df21>5'SOZ :�1 >&9'It5'SOd :auWtl IOYF6'o�otlsigp sing uo5 IOZ al!n51aa45 olanfiiN W6 SE[WEIHDS HO'IOD IMI NV'Id XJS Z -V MNaHJS ,000M as HlVaMl, OaUNIVINU Ud H 3819 ApOOW - [ZZ9MS NMONfl AllAaafl - 8909MS ZVJOY AMNO VHJOW-Z909MS NVl AIIVYOC 30[19 HO[d VN09 - E909MS DCL 919 IN awaHJS .3NOYs a3xlvYs 9NOYSAax, 9NatsN9O:9Nols ,3JMH5 NMV533, OaaYM9VYNa0 :300L MINN tal �oslyns wo vo vxvw�= ao�u �u.�.eo�v •� SJ33Iis zz 30 9 J33H5 IHHHS VD 'Odapuz)SLIV ILau OURUPJ jH SSII a-vlllA uanPujP0 :Tull JJHfoxd 9ZIZI'd ;ON1Z>HI08d ==ulq=angvoroa+' df2'W'w .1 1., T--P--V d'f1'J :HSodilfld lolfd'o�otlsigp sins uo5 IOZ al!n51aa45 olanfiiN W6 AZ'4a9 iaqN :3Ltl0101a EIO07.� 4�6 £ J-- II I II Ili A �..` --,I 009ic :S53i0Qtl raa /wwasawaa • 'Z a IZI[A ua 4VO :.L "D _Inun ywavo �R, old HJS :nUI I=s AS M'I:VS QHNOIUQNOO'IVMI ,g,, NV'ld HHS YIP a()(P I is I EIO07.� 4�6 p II I II Ili A �..` iva raa /wwasawaa r on I slx I _Inun ywavo �_� ,r ,r lu u I ----.IF - aaistivnw !1V HM awwa I�alcxux _ a v� awl O III � - — I I \ ZW00ao3n L_ J ley •w+vua IveN�ae9 :yeM Ianvsx��V olelynv wo vo == ao�u �u.�.eo�v •vt s LZ a G s IEIHHS Z NOI LdO £-S awaHJS £-fl aWaHJS 'QOOM Q9N9H ., Q9N.LMd1N90:a00N NMON9 UTA9N9 - 8909MS VHOOW-L909MS 901399OIa VN09-9909MS VD 'aaapeaSLIV Ieau OU!LUBD IH SSLL a�?-Cll!A UOn-etl)l-00 :TELL. 9J9(ONa Z -S aWaHJS „9NOS CMDVYS 9NOISA9%„3N SN90:9 OIS „VNNNIS 1N nl. CIM1Na0:a00N NMON9 ,CLIA 9N9 - 8909MS VHJOW-Z909MS N61 AIIIVIM- SIBMS 9MIN ;ONJDHI08d ==ulV=anw,oroammm df2'W'N .1 1.9 Ivawp--v d'fl'J :HSOaNfla lo-WSI otlsigp s,nl IOZ al!n51aa45 olanfiiH W6 ZTIIC6 xagsnanoN :9itlO 101a IIC6 Z-.L ueaap 009 09l£ ,I9A :553NQQtl • l uan 11VO :aD sawalPS JOIQJ ,.U,, �Id HJS :nua J=s SHWHHDS HO IOD Ilflll NV Id XJS L -g awaHJS 9JIVHSN Vtl H,. Q99.LNIV.LN90:a00N H Wa Q9NMGQ -£S09MS NMON9 AJ uu-8909MS Z JO.LA. OAS-LI19M5 ,LIfDSI9- ZL19MS �oslyns SJ33WS LZ 30 I 8 J33H5 lHHHS VD 'oaaprz)sL}y lLau OURUPJ jH SSII a-vlllA uanPujP0 9MI'd ;ON1Z>HI08d '="Iq=engveroa+' df2'W'w *al 1&9'1t5'S(9:auWtl T--P-wtl'a'fl'J :asoaufla lolfd'o�oslniuo5 IOZ al!n51aaIS45 olanfiiN W6 ZiAZ'gl9 iaq :aaV4101a xoo7a QNZ tlJ'esmey� I I I D I r I I WODa499 ays+w �£fbfb .L>�ag009I£ 009ic 55aitOQtl r �'1il 6 Wooaoa9 -_- • =al Helen tea^ 4VO :.L "D :a1Ll.LJ3a(08a IIJII old HJS :nua J=s T �I IIt,/T :A -I V{.� DS AS KB'I:V3 QaNOILIQO.� N� V 11)1 ILII NV -111 M -4S H()c)� I.I_si xoo7a QNZ F=____ I O I I I D I r I I WODa499 ays+w I I I I r �'1il 6 Wooaoa9 -_- I NStl9 ---- (1V O OIII `)N1NIQ N9FDlla aMlttel' ------ I O I I zW�a�9 ------------------------ ley .ellayaa IveN�ae9 :yeM Ianv+x��V olelanv ao vo == ao�u �u.�.e ll.av •vt sZZ a 6 s IEIHHS VD 'aaapez)SLIV ieau OU!LUBJ IH SSLL a.vll!A uOA_el j l20 :3LLI.L JJ3(ONd 9MI'd ;ONJDHIONd lvawp_.v d'fl'J :HsOdNfld Z10Z' pq zaq.n N :3Ctl01016 IIC6 tlJ'esna amna,L �aa009L£ 5SHN00V saulag3S 3OIOD IIJII �Id HHS :nua J=s df21>5'SOZ :�1 >&9'It5'SOd :auWtl IOYFd'o�otlsigp sing uo5 IOZ al!n51aa45 olanfiiN W6 £-J EIWHHJS NVH ��T ^� -HNOlQ(MViS MOVISI3JI��3NOISN30:3NO.IS SHI aHDS HO'IOD II✓II N V cl XJS �AOOM 09N91d.LV9M0=IVIN9J:6003 =9 ONIJVNB- ZFZ9MS NMON9 A.LIA3N8 -8909MS V DO1V -L909MS 3OI39 3013 VNOB - MMS 1 Z -D awaHDSL-J Elwa IDS 2 vau .3NO.LS QMOVIS 9NOISA9JL, 9NO.LSN90:9 015 .,VNN3IS INSfI&, 033INIVIN9J:d00N ,V KN3IS INNnI, 033.LNIVIM 0003 HINtl303N3003N-£509MS tlWO1N3-8109MS ZtldOi A9NOW5-LLL9MS ZVdOIA OWS-LI19MS N I1 IWI.Ol-SLLws —tip VH w-L909M5 -ZLL9M5 ImDs98 - ZLL9MS INO .LII 'NJ h �oslyns wo yo vxvw�= uov� �u.�•eoN.o�v •� SJ33Iis zz 30 0l J33H5 lHHHS VD 'Oaaprz)sL}y lLau OURUPJ jH SSII a-vlllA uanPujP0 9MI'd ;ON1Z>HI08d '="Iq=engveroa+'w df2'W'w .1 1., T--P-wtl'a'fl'J :aSOaufla lolfd'o�osin�uo5 I0Z al!n51aaIS45 olanfilN W6 ZT0Z'gl9 iaq :aaV0 jold NO07.{ ONZ I I I I I I alNa £fbfb tlJ'esmey� ,I ;Ina /wooas oe 0 0 nl �n uuo.l L u009ic :S53iCJGV _ _JJ • 'aelZlaA uan 4VO :.L "D - — :TUI.LJ3a(08a IKh old HJS :nua J=s AS M'I:Va Q9NOIUQNOO'IVMI IIQII NV'ld HHS Y0O'L{,LSI NO07.{ ONZ I I I I I I alNa ,I ;Ina /wooas oe 0 0 nl �n uuo.l ------------------ s.�,�oa I W00Y439 a3,5„w _ _JJ I - — I I — I I 1 I I oNlwa Niw.u>t DLII aN I nv I _ sam I —� I I ZW00a038 I II I L_ J ley .ellayaa IveN�ae9 :yeM Ianv+x,I�V olelanv ao vo == ao�u �u.�.e ll.av •vt s LZ a 11 IEIHHS VD 'aaapeaSLIV ieau OU!IUBD IH SSLL a�?-PII!A uan-Pu);[-P0 :91LIY JJH(ONd (" Sv awns) c -a awams ,AODM GHN VHM,,AHHYNIdYNHO:dWN H[l19 AQOOW -LZZ9MS NMON9h A3N9-9909MS v :)OW-L909M5 3013934id VN09-W9MS 9MI'd ;ONKXIIONd T--p--v d'rr:) :HSOdNfld ZWZ' pq xaq.—N :a1va 101d IIC6 v-0'es - amnal�aa009I£ 5SHNOQv v eI[!A uan 11VO :�70 awagaS JOIOJ IIQII �Id NdS :H'IJJl JHHHS df21>5'SOZ :�1 >&9'It5'SOd :auWtl IOYF6'o�otlsigp sin�uo5 IOZ al!n51aa45 olanfiiN W6 E[WEIHDS HO'IOD IIQII NV'Id XJS ley •w+vua IveN�ae9 :yeM Ianvsx��V olelcnv wo vo == ao�u �u.�.eosw�v •vt s LZ a Zi s IEIHHS VD 'aaapez)seIV lean OunneJ la SSLL a-vll!A uOA-el j ll20 :3LLI.L JJ9(Oild 9MI'd ;ONJDHI08d =="Iq=anw,oroar,M,.. df2'W'N .1 1., l-wp-wV'd'fl'J :UsOailfla lo-WSI otlsigp sinl IOZ al!n51aa45 olanfiiH W6 ZiIIC6 xaq.nanoN :3LVU 101d IIC6 .L ueaa0 09l£ Z-,IF.A 55gitOQV • 'x¢I uan 11VO :.L "D Suopenalg JOI-jxg - i dnoiq 8lnpling a'Iua. j=s 'xoloa poeazaaa,a dm^. I sJoox Apse 11—se sapeaeJ IIo ,T = IIS/ I� '.1 1 V DS y xoggs,a.ipea,w�N—,pXlaae„a�p vmMu3S4-a SNOILF�A� I� 2i0I2i�LX� - Z dflOHO 1JNIQ'Ililg -peaeJ+e14 `q 1 ,—d ayl—paa a �peJuozuoy Ilam se (Poet aq glu+9wdols) Xjjl . a —A [I. d 2.,pl!^g MS q=� -N I HOI?I J NOXd ® ® ❑ ❑ 0 o❑ ❑oo❑ ley .ellayaa IveN�ae9 :yeM Ianv+x��V olelanv ao vo == ao�u �u.�.e �v •vt s LZ a £l s IEIHHS VD 'alapez)seIV ieau OunneJ IH SSLL a-vll!A uOA-el j ll20 :H1LI1 JJH(Oild a-I-pv^--,a dm lvee IM J—pp nayl aogySlav rvaaelpe ap wwJrvwaJ�P 6po^Os?P MI Ipm yHs 4ae3 -p—j4,14 4,14`q 1l ,—d N,—pal a 1peeuozuoy Ilam se (Pa4 a4 gl!a+9wdvls) Xjje . un —A [I. d 2vlpl!^4 MS 4a� -Ns�iaar!yaay 9MI'd ;ONKXIf08d T--p--v d'rr:) :HsOdilfld ZWZ'Ip9 zaq.—N :H1va 101d IIC6 VJ'esv- amnalueaa009I£ £:SSHNGGv 'ovl ^I[.A uan 11VO :.L "D Suopenajg JOI-jxg - z dno1q 8fnpitng a'Iul d.=s df21>5'SOZ :wI >&9'It5'SOd :auWtl IOYF6'o�otlsigp sin�uo5 IOZ al!n51aa45 olanfiiN W6 ,o-,T = "S/I:E[,IVDS SNOI,LVAd Id HORId,LXd - Z dflOHO ONIG II U .. WEI :::: = ::::cr■■I� M. .... .... .... .... 1111 ■... .... .... ....��1� ::::I � ❑ ::I::' L.L.I �.�1 � L... L... ..L.� �..L. .I:: , .... LN X11 ,LN02id NONE ley .ellayaa IveN�ae9 :yeM Ianv+x��V olelanv ao vo == ao�u �u.�.e �v •vt LZ a K s IEIHHS a-I-pv^--,a dm lvee IM J—pp 11—se sapeaeJ nayl aogySlav rvaaelpe ap wwJrvwaJ�P 6po^Os?P MI Ipm yHs 4ae3 -p—j4,14 4,14`q 1l ,—d N,—pal a 1peeuozuoy Ilam se (Pv a4 gl!a+9wdvls) Xjje . un —A [I. d 2vlpl!^4 MS 4a� -Ns�iaar!yaay VD 'aaapez)seIV ieau OunneJ IH SSLL a-vll!A uOA-el j ll20 :H1LI1 JJH(Oild Nvau 9MI'd ;ONJDHI08d rvawp--v d'fPJ :HsOdilfld ZWZ'Ipq zaq.—N :Hlva iold IIC6 VJ'esv- amnalueaa009I£ :SSHIOQV V'ovl ^I[.A uan 11VO :.L "D Suopenajg JOI-jXg - € dnoiq 8fnpitng a'Iul d.=s df21>5'SOZ :wI >&9'It5'SOd :auWtl IOYF6'o�otlsigp sin�uo5 IOZ al!n51aa45 olanfiiN W6 ,o -,T = "S/I:E[,IVDS SNOI.LVAd Id HORId,LXd - £ dflOHO ONIQ'IIfIR .LN02id ley .e.ayaa IveN�ae9 :yeM Ianv+x��V olelanv ao vo == ao�u �u.�.e �v •vt s LZ a ST s IEIHHS a-I-pv^--,a dm lvee IM Jove Apse 11—se sapeaeJ navy aogySlav rvaaelpe ap wwJrvwa,P 6po^!as?P NMAn Syae3 -p—j 4,14`q 1 ,—d N, —p. a 1peeuozuoy pam se(Pv ay gl!a+9wdvls) Xjje.un—[I. dQvlpl!^g MSgam -Ns�iaar!yaay VD 'aaapez)seIV ieau OunneJ IH SSLL a-vll!A uOA-el j ll20 :H1LI1 JJH(Oild NVIN 9MI'd ;ONJDHI08d rvawp--v d'fPJ :HsOdHIld ZWZ'Ipq zaq.—N :Hlva iold amnal ueaa009I£ :SSHIOQV Suopenajg JOua;xg - y dnoiO 8fnpitng a'Inl d.=s df21>5'SOZ :wI >&9'It5'SOd :auWtl IOYF6'o�otlsigp sin�uo5 IOZ al!n51aa45 olanfiiN W6 ,o -,T = "S/I:E[,IVDS SNOI.LVAd Id HORId,LXd - fi dflOHD ONIG II U .... ■■ ■■ �n .... ....El ■■ ■■ nn �61 wi r ■■ ■— ■n■= .LN02id ■.■ ■ME ■■ ■■ �n mom ■ ■ ■ ■ ■..■ ■■ ■■ nn �� �� oo r ■■ ■— ■n■= ley .ellayaa IveN�ae9 :yeM Ianv+x��V olelanv ao vo == ao�u �u.�.e �v •vt s LZ a 91 s IEIHHS a-I-pv^--,a dmly IM J—pp 11—se sapeaeJ navy aogySlav rvaaelpe ap wwJrvwaJ�P 6po^Os?P MI Ipm yHs 4ae3 -p—j4,14 4,14`q 1l ,—d N,—pal a �peeuozuoy Ilam (Pa4 a4 gl!a+9wdvls) Xjje.un—[I. dQvlpl!^4 MS4a� -Ns�iaar!yaay In I�I die i VD 'aaapez)seIV ieau OunneJ IH SSLL a-vll!A uOA-el j ll20 :3LLI.L JJH(Oild NVEIN 9MI'd ;ONJDHI08d T--p--v d'fPJ :HsOdilfld Z WZ'Ip9 zaq.—N :Hlva 101d IIC6 VJ'esv- amnayueaa009I£ :SSHIOQV V'ovl ^I[.A uan 11VO :.L "D Suopenajg JOI-jxg - s dnoiq 8fnpitng a'Iua. d.=s df21>5'SOZ :wI >&9'It5'SOd :auWtl IOYF6'o�otlsigp sin�uo5 IOZ al!n51aa45 olanfiiN W6 ,o -,T = "S/I:E[,IVDS SNOI.LVATIE1 HORIH,LXH - S dfIOHD ONIG II U .LNOHJ �0_ U Ijimwi NNON NOON_NONEBill— NOON :e :: NOON _ NOON � .LNOHJ NOON ..■. NOON :e :: NOON _ NOON � NOON NOON ..i .. ., ..i ley .ellayaa IveN�ae9 :yeM Ianv+x��V olelanv ao vo == ao�u �u.�.e �v •vt LZ a zi s IEIHHS VD 'aaapez)seIV ieau OunneJ IH SSLL a-vll!A uOA-el j ll20 :H1LI1 JJH(Oild a-I-pv^--,a dm lvee IM J—pp 11—se sapeaeJ nayl aogySlav rvaaelpe ap wwJrvwaJ�P 6po^Os?P MI Ipm yHs 4ae3 -p—j4,14 4,14`q 1l ,—d N,—pal a 1peeuozuoy Ilam se (Pv a4 gl!a+9wdvls) Xjje . un —A [I. d 2vlpl!^4 MS 4a� -Ns�iaar!yaay H V H'd 9MI'd ;ONJDHI08d rvawp--v d'fPJ :HsOdilfld ZWZ'Ipq zaq.—N :Hlva iold IIC6 VJ'esv- amnalueaa009I£ :SSHIOQV V'ovl ^I[.A uan 11VO :.L "D Suopenajg JOI-jXg - 9 dnoiq 8fnpitng a'Iul d.=s df21>5'SOZ :wI >&9'It5'SOd :auWtl IOYF6'o�otlsigp sin�uo5 IOZ al!n51aa45 olanfiiN W6 ,o -,T = "S/I:E[,IVDS SNOI.LVAd Id HORHd,LXd - 9 dflOHO ONIQ'IIfIR MOM m all .LNO?I3 ley .ellayaa IveN�ae9 :yeM Ianv+x��V olelanv ao vo == ao�u �u.�.e �v •vt s LZ a ST s IEIHHS a-I-pv^--,a dm lvee IM Jove Apse 11—se sapeaeJ navy aogySlav rvaaelpe ap wwJrvwa,P 6po^!as?P NMAn Syae3 -p—j 4,14`q 1 ,—d N, —p. a Jpeeuozuoy pam se (Pv ay gl!a+9wdvls) Xjje . un —A [I. d Qvlpl!^g MS gam -Ns�iaar!yaay VD 'aaapez)seIV Tax OU!LUBD IH SSLL a-v11!A uan-euj120 :91uI1 JJH(Oild HVIN 9MI'd ;ONJJHI08d rvawp--v d'fPJ :HsOdHIld ZWZ'Ipgzaq.—N :H1VU101d amnal uea ao 09I£ :SSHIOQV V'ovl ^1F.A uan 11VO :.L "D Suopenajg JOI-jXg - L dnoJq 8fnpitng :H'IJJl j=s df21>5'SOZ :wI >&9'It5'SOd :auWtl IOYF6'o�otlsigp sin�uo5 IOZ al!n51aa45 olanfiiN W6 ,o -,T = "8/1:E[,IVDS SNOI.LVAd Id HORId,LXd - L dflOHO ONIG II U .LNO?I3 ley .ellayaa IveN�ae9 :yeM Ianv+x��V olelanv ao vo == ao�W�u.�.e �v •vt ZZ a 61 s IEIHHS a-I-pv^--,a dmly IM J—pp 11—se sapeaeJ navy aogySlav rvaaelpe ap wwJrvwaJ�P 6po^Os?P MI Ipm yHs 4ae3 -p—j4,14 4,14`q 1l ,—d N,—pal a �peeuozuoy Ilam se (Pv a4 gl!a+9wdvls) Xjje . un —A [I. d 2vlpl!^4 MS 4a� -Ns�iaar!yaay MOM m all VD 'aaapez)seIV ieau OunneJ IH SSLL a-vll!A uOA-el j ll20 :3LLI.L JJH(Oild uvax 9MI'd ;ONJDHI08d rvawp--v d'fPJ :HsOdilfld ZWZ'Ipq zaq.—N :Hlva fold IIC6 VJ'esv- amnayueaa009I£ :SSHIOQV V'ovl ^I[.A uan 11VO :.L "D Suopenajg JOI-jXg - g dnoiq 8fnpitng a'Iua. d.=s df21>5'SOZ :wI >&9'It5'SOd :auWtl IOYFd'o�otlsigp sin�uo5 IOZ al!n51aa45 olanfiiN W6 ,o -,T = "S/I:E[,IVDS SNOI.LVAd Id HORId,LXd - S dflOHO ONIQ'IIfIR .LNONd ley .ellayaa IveN�ae9 :yeM Ianv+x��V olelanv ao vo == ao�W�u.�.e �v •vt s LZ a oz s IEIHHS VD 'aaapease;V ieau OunneJ la SSLL a�?-Cll!A uan-etl)l-00 :TELL. dJa(Oxd 8fnpitng :a'Iua d.aaxs df21>5'SOZ *'011&9'It5'SOd :auWtl IOYFd'o�otlsigp sing uo5 IOZ al!n51aa45 olanfiiN W6 '.-I-pueaza>•a,a dm^. l sJoo. pp-11--sapeaeJ y,oggS!..ipea,w�Na.a,P6laae„s.p vmMu3S4-a -peaeJ+e14 `q 1 ,—d ayl—p. a 6xeJuozuoy Ilam se (Poet ayJ glu+9wdols) Xjjl . a — II. ped 2.,pl!^q MS qac :-N s;lxr!yaay LdaI ?VIN IIo IT = IIS/ I� '.11 V DS SNOIL'dA� I� 2IOI2i�LX� -6 dflOHD ONIG II U III .... Fm LM UM t=f EE -- Ul o ID a EB M FIE 99 EM MOM LN02id �'� .IN ....... � � 111111111111 .... .... Lug_ 1 � -L � L;;'1J-1111111111111 �,,1 n aan Mmoll ,I II ;;'1J-1111111111111 .1 .... gzrzIx ON rJa[oxa i-wp-wv'snn :asoaxna ZiAZ'ga9 xaq.nanoN :aitlU 101a VJe.n £Ebffi 'mlry a>e�,ay�a��>£ ssaxOav -1Zuane11sle0 q a9el[!A :�7J suopena;g do;ra;xg - 6 dnoi9 III .... ley .ellayaa IveN�ae9 :yeM Ianv+x��V olelanv ao vo == ao�W�u.�.e �v •vt s LZ a TZ s IEIHHS a-I-pv^--,a dmly IM Jove Apse 11—se sapeaeJ navy aogySlav rvaaelpe aiwwJrvwa,P 6po^!as?P NMAn Syae3 -p—j 4,14`q 1,vaod ayl—paa a Jpeluozuoy pam se (Pv ay gl!a+9wdvls) Xjje . un —A [I. d Qvlpl!^g MS gam -Ns�laar!yaay VO 'aaapez)seIV Tax OU!LUBD IH SSLL a-v11!A uan-euj120 :3uuly JJafolfa HV IN 9MI'd ;ONJJHI08d rvawpvawV'd'fPJ :Hsodilfld ZWZ'Ipgzaq.—N :HyVUJ01d amnay uea ao 09I£ :SSHIOQV V'ovl ^1F.A uan 11VO :.L "D saopenajg -ma;xa - 01 dnoJq 8fnpling :H'IJJd. j=s df21>5'SOZ :wI >&9'It5'SOd :auWtl IOYF6'o�otlsigp sin�uo5 IOZ al!n51aa45 olanfiiN W6 ,o -,T = 11 O / I '.Z 1 V DS SNOI.LVATO NOR EUX3 - 01 dfIOHD ONIG II U .LNO?I3 ley .ellayaa IveN�ae9 :yeM Ianv+x��V olelanv ao vo == ao�u �u.�.e �v •vt s LZ a ZZ s IEIHHS a-I-pv^--,a dmly IM J—pp 11—se sapeaeJ navy aogySlav rvaaelpe ai wwJrvwaJ�P 6po^Os?P MI Ipm yHS 4ae3 -p—j4,14 4,14`q 1l ,vaod ayl—pal a �peluozuoy Ilam se (Pv a4 gl!a+9wdvls) Xjje . un —A [I. d 2vlpl!^4 MS 4a� -Ns�laar!yaay IHORI VD 'aaapez)seIV ieau OunneJ IH 99II a-vll!A uOA-el j ll20 :3LLI.L JJH(Oild NVEIN 9MI'd ;ONJDHI08d rvawpvawV'd'fPJ :Hsodilfld ZWZ'Ipq zaq.—N :Hlva iold IIC6 VJ'esv- amnayueaaO09I£ :SSHIOQV V'ovl ^I[.A uan 11VO :.L "D saopenag aoua;xa - Ii dnoiq 8fnpitng a'Iua. d.=s df21>5'SOZ :wI >&9'It5'SOd :auWtl IOYF6'o�otlsigp sin�uo5 IOZ al!n51aa45 olanfiiN W6 ,o -,T - 110 / I '.Z 1 V DS SNOI.LHAEI'IEI NORid.LXEI - IT dflOND ONIQ'IIfIR .LN02id ley .ellayaa IveN�ae9 :yeM Ianv+x��V olelanv ao vo == ao�u �u.�.e �v •vt LZ a£Zs IEIHHS a-I-pv^--,a dmly IM J—pp 11—se sapeaeJ navy aogySlav rvaaelpe ai wwJrvwaJ�P 6po^Os?P MI Ipm ydS 4ae3 -p—j4,14 4,14`q 1l ,vaod ayl—pal a �peluozuoy Ilam se (Pv a4 gl!a+9wdvls) Xjje . un —A [I. d 2vlpl!^4 MS 4a� -Ns�laar!yaay IHORI VD 'aaapez)seIV ieau OunneJ IH SSLL a-vll!A uOA-el j ll20 :3LLI.L JJ9(Oild NVEIN 9MI'd ;ONJDHI08d rvawpvawV'd'fPJ :Hsodilfld ZAZ'Ipgzaq.—N :3LVU10ld IIC6 VJ'esv- amnayueaaO09I£ :SSHIOQV V'ovl ^I[.A uan 11VO :.L "D saopenag aoua;xa - ZI dnoiq 8fnpitng a'Iua. j=s df21>5'SOZ :wI >&9'It5'SOd :auWtl IOYF6'o�otlsigp sin�uo5 IOZ al!n51aa45 olanfiiN W6 I,o-,T = 110 / I '.Z 1 V DS SNOI.LHATO NOR EUXEI - ZL dflOND ONIQ'IIfIR .LN02id ley .ellayaa IveN�ae9 :yeM Ianv+x��V olelanv ao vo == ao�u �u.�.e lso.v •vt LZ a tz IEIHHS a-I-pv^--,a dm lvee IM J—pp 11—se sapeael nayl aogySlav rvaaelpe ai wwJrvwaJ�P 6po^Os?P MI Ipm yHS 4ae3 -p—j4,14 4,14`q 1l ,vaod ayl—pal a 1peluozuoy Ilam se (Pa4 a4 gl!a+9wdvls) Xjje . un —A [I. d 2vlpl!^4 MS 4a� -Ns�laar!yaay i I �' �..- IN VO 'alapez)seIV ieau OunneJ IH SSLL a-vll!A uOA-el j ll20 :H1LI1 JJH(Oild XVIN 9MI'd ;ONKXIf08d rvawpvawV'd'fPJ :Hsodilfld ZWZ'Ipgzaq.—N :H1VU101d IIC6 VJ'esv- amnalueaaO09I£ SSHIOQV V'ovl ^I[.A uan 11VO :.L "D saopenag aoua;xa - Cl dno1q 2 -ling a'Iul d.=s df21>5'SOZ :wI >&9'It5'SOd :auWtl IOYF6'o�otlsigp sin�uo5 IOZ al!n51aa45 olanfiiN W6 ,o -,T = 110 / I '.Z 1 V DS SNOI VAE I I NOR EUXEI - £L dflOND ONIG II U INONJ ley .ellayaa IveN�ae9 :yeM Ianv+x��V olelanv ao vo == ao�u �u.�.e �v •vt s LZ a sZ s IEIHHS VD 'aaapez)seIV ieau OunneJ IH SSLL a-vll!A uOA-el j ll20 :H1LI1 JJH(Oild a-I-pv^--,a dm lvee IM J—pp 11—se sapeaeJ nayl aogySlav rvaaelpe ai wwJrvwaJ�P 6po^Os?P MI Ipm yHS 4ae3 -p—j4,14 4,14`q 1l ,vaod ayl—pal a 1peluozuoy Ilam se (Pv a4 gl!a+9wdvls) Xjje . un —A [I. d 2vlpl!^4 MS 4a� -Ns�laar!yaay .idall 9MI'd ;ONJDHI08d rvawp--v d'fPJ :Hsodilfld ZWZ'Ipq zaq.—N :Hlva iold IIC6 VJ'esv- amnalueaaO09I£ :SSHNCIGV V'ovl ^I[.A uan 11VO :.L "D saopenaH aoua;xa - -Vi dnoiq 8fnpitng a'Iul d.=s df21>5'SOZ :wI >&9'It5'SOd :auWtl IOYF6'o�otlsigp sin�uo5 IOZ al!n51aa45 olanfiiN W6 ,o—,T - 110 / I '.Z 1 V DS SNOI VATO NOR EUXa - K dflOND ONIQ'IIfIR 51 noo:: .. .... ........ .... .... ���� .... eu. .... .... .. .LHORi .LN02id ley .ellayaa IveN�ae9 :yeM Ianv+x��V olelanv ao vo == ao�W�u.�.e �v •vt s LZ a 9Z s IEIHHS a-I-pv^--,a dmly IM J—pp 11—se sapeaeJ navy aogySlav rvaaelpe ai wwJrvwaJ�P 6po^Os?P MI Ipm yHS 4ae3 -peaeJ,e14 `q 1l ,vaod N,—pal a �peluozuoy Ilam (Pa4 a4 gl!a+9wdvls) Xjje.un—[I. dQvlpl!^4 MS4a� -Ns�,aar!yaay .I.i IOIX VD 'aaapez)seIV ieau OunneJ IH SSLL a-vll!A uOA-el j ll20 :3LLI.L JJH(Oild Nvam 9MI'd ;ONJDHI08d rvawpvawV'd'fPJ :Hsodilfld Z WZ' p9 zaq.—N :Hlva 101d IIC6 VJ'esv- amnayueaaO09I£ :SSHIOQV V'ovl ^I[.A uan 11VO :.L "D saopenag aoua;xa - 5i dnoiq 8fnpitng a'Iua. d.=s df21>5'SOZ :wI >&9'It5'SOd :auWtl IOYF6'o�otlsigp sin�uo5 IOZ al!n51aa45 olanfiiN W6 I,o-,T = 110 / I '.Z 1 V DS SNOI VAE I I NOR EUXEI - SL dflOND ONIG II U ecce .... U LJ- ... - eee ... � _ = e1 levee ..:, . ��l 1 ;.a LgL levee NOW ecce .LN02id ley .ellayaa IveN�ae9 :yeM Ianv+x��V olelanv ao vo == ao�u �u.�.e �v •vt LZ a Gz s IEIHHS a-I-pv^--,a dm lvee IM J—pp 11—se sapeaeJ nayl aogySlav rvaaelpe ai wwJrvwaJ�P Spavps!p aq [pm 1IHS 4ae3 -p—j 4,14`q 1,vaod ayl—pal a 1peluozuoy Ilam se (Pv a4 gl!a+9wdvls) Xjje . un —A [I. d 2vlpl!^4 MS 4a� -Ns�laar!yaay VD 'aaapez)seIV ieau OunneJ IH SSLL a-vll!A uOA-el j ll20 MDM :H1LI1 JJH(Oild ?Ivd2I 9MI'd ;ONJDHI08d rvawpvawV'd'fPJ :Hsodilfld ZWZ'Ipq zaq.—N :Hlva iold IIC6 VJ'esv- aaalueaaO09I£ :SSHIOQV 'oa IF.A uan 11VO :.L "D saopenaH aoua;xa - 91 dnoiq 8fnpitng a'Iua d.=s df21>5'SOZ :wI >&9'It5'SOd :auWtl IOYF6'o�otlsigp sin�uo5 IOZ al!n51aa45 olanfiiN W6 ,o—,T = 110 / I '.Z 1 V DS SNOI VATO NOR EUXEI - 91 dflOND ONIQ'IIfIR I NOHLq ITEM NUMBER: 3 DATE: 11-15-12 A tascadero Design Review Committee ka' r*979 x'18'8' "97B`- Y p Report In Brief - Community Development Department p �! Callie Taylor, Associate Planner, (805) 470-3448, ctaylor@atascadero.org Eagle Ranch Specific Plan PLN 2008-12801 GPA 2008-00221 ZCH 2008-01501 SP 2008-0002 DRC Review #3: Updated Project Design Applicant: RRM Design Group 3. Owner: Eagle Ranch, LLC Project South west of City a Location: boundary, accessed off f i, gyp. F Santa Barbara Rd. General Plan Unincorporated within 01 & Zoning Sphere of Influence �� Eagle Ranch Identified for future N N. Specific Plan Area annexation 1 Au—dero Sphere of Influence I Project Area: 3,460 acres Existing Use: Cattle Ranch ❑ Proposed Phasing Plan ❑ Revised Village Center Site Plan ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ ❑ Proposed Road Sections • Atascadero Ave. Intersection Improvement Proposal • San Diego Road Connection ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ❑ Updated Affordable Housing Proposal ❑ Please note: Review of project economic issues are not part of the DRC s responsibilities and are not discussed in this report. These issues will be reviewed by the City Council. ITEM NUMBER: 3 DATE: 11-15-12 Staff Recommendation: Upon reviewing the proposed project, DRC should take one of the following actions: Option 1: Recommend City Council consideration of the project as proposed; or Option 2: Recommend City Council consideration of project with changes as identified by DRC; or Option 3: Refer back to Staff and the applicant to further revise the project. Background: In late 2011 and early 2012, several public meetings were held to discuss the design of the Eagle Ranch Specific Plan. The most recent of these public meetings was a joint City Council and Planning Commission meeting on March 27, 2012, which provided direction to Staff and the applicant on key issues. A summary of Council/Commission direction is provided in Attachment 1 of this report. Over the past eight months, Staff and the applicant have been making progress on the project issues list and working to redesign and obtain analysis key components. The project applicant has also worked with a fiscal consultant on a Feasibility Analysis to relook at the size and density of the project, as well as construction phasing. Site Plan Proposed at March 27, 2012 Council / Commission Workshop f $ ITEM NUMBER: 3 DATE: 11-15-12 Neighborhood Meetings: Neighborhood outreach has been a main focus of the project redesign. The City Staff and the applicant attended two neighborhood meetings. The first was the Atascadero Avenue neighborhood, held on April 19, 2012. Key issues brought up by the neighbors were: • Increased traffic on local roads • Speed and safety on Atascadero Avenue • Project size (too many lots) • Size of lots (larger lots would be more compatible) • Entrance / egress location on Atascadero Avenue The next meeting was with the Ortega Road neighborhood on May 17, 2012. Main issues addressed included: • Small lots adjacent to end of Ortega not compatible • Connection between Eagle Ranch and end of Ortega (do not want through traffic) Revised Site Plan: In order to respond to neighborhood concerns and the consultant's Feasibility Analysis, the applicant has made some major project revisions. The previous site plan discussed at DRC and City Council last year proposed 696 single-family lots, with a wide range of lot sizes starting as small 4,500 sq. ft. The current project proposal decreases the number of single-family lots to 494, and includes a minimum lot size of one-half acre, with most lots in the 1 to 5 acre size. Current Proposed Residential Statistics: ❑ 494 single-family lots • '/2 — 1 acre: 90 lots (merchant built, semi -custom) • 1 — 5 acre: 378 lots (individual lot sales, custom homes) • 5 — 20 acre: 26 lots (individual lots sales, custom homes) ❑ 93 multifamily & mixed-use units at Village Center: • 79 senior housing units (senior apartments) • 12 workforce housing units (condos) • 2 mixed-use units (located above commercial space) The commercial components of the project remain mostly unchanged. The Resort Hotel remains as a 100 room full service resort and spa located at the historic Ranch Headquarters. The location and design of the Village Center has been modified with the new project site plan, but the original project components are included with up to 15,000 sq. ft. neighborhood commercial space, a public park, and adjacent multifamily. ITEM NUMBER: 3 DATE: 11-15-12 The highway commercial still proposes a 150 room hotel and quality restaurant; however, the area of the commercial site has been reduced from 10-15 acres to 8.4 acres. A site plan has not yet been submitted to show how the hotel will fit within the revised site area. Staff is concerned with this change in area and recommends the previous hotel site design be maintained to maximize the marketability of the site. The revisions to the density and Village Center location have enabled the applicant to preserve the "Big Valley" at the center of the project. No construction is proposed in this area and it will be retained as open space with excellent views of the open valley from sites and roads throughout the project. Current Proposed Site Plan 701 EAGLE RANCH ----r___ :ems .1 lkbi .' .'3p F<aNrea - - EE��.-�w.r.vy Kaoortw uta _ 1'kS' \ ITEM NUMBER: 3 DATE: 11-15-12 Proposed Phasing Plan: Construction of the Eagle Ranch project would begin at the main project entrance near Santa Barbara Road. Phase 1 includes much of the main loop road and 120 single family lots. Access to the highway commercial hotel area is proposed to be constructed in Phase 1, and the hotel would be built when a buyer or operator becomes available. There are additional 3 sub -phases which would also be constructed in Phase 1. These include areas off of Los Osos Road, Atascadero Avenue, and San Rafael where large lots would be sold for custom homes. About 6 lots are proposed at each location. These lots would take access off existing City roads and would be designed to blend with the existing colony lots and established neighborhoods. The Village Center, multifamily sites, public park, and 47 single family lots would be constructed in Phase 2. Phase 3 continues construction of single family units towards the center of the project site. Phases 4 through 7 extend single family lots north along the main loop road to San Rafael and the north end of the site near Atascadero Avenue. Construction of the project would move west in the last phases of development, with the largest lots (up to 20 acres) located off an emergency access loop which connects to San Diego Road. The Resort hotel would be one of the last phases to be developed as it takes access off the back loop road. If a hotel operator came forward earlier, the access road could be constructed sooner. It is expected to take a minimum of 20 years to build out the project, but will depend on the rate of absorption of the new units. Proposed Phasing Plan ITEM NUMBER: 3 DATE: 11-15-12 Affordable Housing Proposal: A senior housing building is proposed in the area near the Village and Public Park. These units may be for sale and/or rental housing. The product type is modeled after the Wyndham Residence in Arroyo Grande. Of the 79 senior units proposed, 19 units would be reserved for affordable income qualified seniors. In order to provide some additional housing types, an area of the Village Center has been set aside for 12 workforce housing units. These would be attached condo or townhome units, with 3 units in each of the 4 buildings. Product type would be similar to the Villas in Dove Creek. These may be implemented in partnership with a local non- profit or NGO, and could be for rent or for sale. Two very low income units are proposed to be included as second story mixed use units above the Village commercial area. In addition to the designated workforce and income qualified affordable housing, second units ranging in size from 850 to 1200 sq. ft. would be allowed on lots over one acre. There are currently 404 lots in the project which are large enough to accommodate a second unit. Construction of the second units would depend on the future individual property owners. The affordable housing proposal has been developed by the applicant upon ongoing discussions with staff. However, City Staff has not had adequate time to review the complete affordable housing proposal and therefore will make a formal recommendation to the City Council for compliance with the City's Inclusionary Housing Policy. ITEM NUMBER: 3 DATE: 11-15-12 Village Center Site Plan: A new location for the Village Center is proposed towards the southern boundary of Eagle Ranch. The Village would be located directly off the main loop road, in a relatively flat area where some horse corrals existing today. The Village includes up to 15,000 sq. ft. of retail/office space in small two one and two story buildings. A few mixed use residential units would be located above the retail. A 12 unit workforce housing product and a senior housing apartment make up the multifamily component of the project. The public park makes up about 9 acres within walking distance of the Village Center and Senior Housing. The park is envisioned to be focused primarily on passive activities (picnic, BBQ, etc.), some children's play structures, horseshoes, and limited open turf areas to accommodate group and family play. Natural creeks and a possible small amphitheater area are located in close proximity to the park. City Staff is supportive of the proposed changes to the Village Center, and would be able to work with the applicant to make minor modifications to design elements upon further review. Revised Village Center & Multifamily Site Plan ---,.,.,...4 ITEM NUMBER: 3 DATE: 11-15-12 Roads: Road sections have been modified slightly since the last proposal. The applicant intends to provide a rural character with fairly narrow roads, gravel shoulders, landscape medians, and separated trails. City Public Works and Fire Staff have been reviewing road sections to ensure adequate width is maintained for safety. Proposed Main Loop Road Section R/W 11 19' MIN. 17' S' B' 2' TRAVEL LANDSCAPED TRAVEL DRAINAGE MUL11-USE PATH DRAINAGE SWALE SWALE 2. Y A.C. PAVEMENT CUSS 11 ACC. BASE A.C. PAVEMENT ZERO INCH CONCRETE CLASS II AGG. BASE 7 CURB (TYPICAL) MAIN LOOP ROAD - COLOR: RED Traffic Analysis: NOTE: MULTI -USE PATH MAY BE PROPOSED OUTSIDE OF THE R/W TO MINIMIZE GRADING IMPACT TO TREES. The City's EIR Traffic Consultant (W -Trans) is currently finalizing an updated traffic report which takes into consideration the reduced lot count and density, as well as the Atascadero Avenue intersection design. Staff expects to have a copy of the report to share with DRC at the meeting on Thursday. Atascadero Avenue Intersection: Safety, traffic speeds, and potential improvements to Atascadero Avenue have been an ongoing discussion between staff, the applicant, and the neighborhood. After going through multiple designs and options, the current proposal is to install a landscaped median on Atascadero Avenue at the intersection near Ortega Road, San Diego Road East, and the secondary entrance to Eagle Ranch. The Ranch entrance at this location would be controlled with a turn lane and stop sign for exiting. A landscaped median would prevent left turns for residents at Eagle Ranch, thereby preventing new northbound traffic on Atascadero Avenue to Santa Rosa interchange or to the San Diego Road onramp. Based on preliminary traffic analysis, it does not appear that the Santa Rosa Road / US 101 interchange can accommodate any additional traffic from ITEM NUMBER: 3 DATE: 11-15-12 the project. With the proposed Atascadero Avenue controlled stop and medians, all Eagle Ranch traffic using this intersection would be directed south on Atascadero Avenue to the Santa Barbara interchange. The landscaped median with single lanes should also provide some traffic calming at this location. Curve widening and improved visibly is also part of the new intersection design. Gravel shoulders would be installed along Atascadero Avenue and a separated trail (existing Ranch road) would be opened to the public along the Atascadero Road frontage. Current Proposal for Atascadero Avenue Intersection low • TRU:J/ ia•�.. / ' . / / RCL OCA ILD ORIVFWA _�nC� ANO a LA �f�CI , T ONE CANE � TRAVEL WAY WITHADJA B C£NT 1KF PATI ! 1 Y i ONE LANE !RAVEL WAY ALVUSIEODRIVEWAY n • i ONFLANF IRA VEL WAY r�VfRfADJACCNT S BIKE PATH \ FGRF. SS AND INGRESS `EXISTING �MEWAIY M4 TCR EXISTING AffmVFMENTS BRFOWE BRIDGE 1 TURNeV LE S LAALE PED TURN LANE C£NT 1KF PATI ! 1 Y i ONE LANE !RAVEL WAY ALVUSIEODRIVEWAY n • i ONFLANF IRA VEL WAY r�VfRfADJACCNT S BIKE PATH \ FGRF. SS AND INGRESS `EXISTING �MEWAIY M4 TCR EXISTING AffmVFMENTS BRFOWE BRIDGE 1 ITEM NUMBER: 3 DATE: 11-15-12 San Dieao Road Connection: Consistent with the Fire Department's requests, an emergency connection is being provided at the west end of the project to connect to San Diego Road. Multiple design options and locations have been considered for the road on this steep slope. The current proposal follows contour lines to the extent feasible, avoids sharp curves in the road and keeps as much distance as possible from the adjacent neighbors' homes. Tree removals will be required for installation of this road, and will be mitigated with replanting areas and/or mitigation fees. Installation of this road will be in one of the last phases of construction of the project. The proposed location of the San Diego Road emergency access connection has been staked with markers on site. The road connection is located within the existing Colony Road right-of-way for San Diego and can be viewed on site prior to the DRC meeting. Emergency Access Connection at San Diego Road ITEM NUMBER: 3 DATE: 11-15-12 Attachments: Attachment 1: Issues List from March 27 Council Meeting Attachment 2: Applicant's Current Proposal a) List of Significant Changes b) Updated Project Description c) Revised Site Plan d) Road sections e) Phasing Plan f) Village Center Site Plan g) Atascadero Avenue Intersection ITEM NUMBER: DATE: 11-15-12 Attachment 1: Issues List from March 27 Council Meeting 3/27/12 Joint Session Meeting Summary of key issues (list is not prioritized) Project Issue Response Responsibility 1. Keeping of horses on large lots a priority compromise needed RRM 2. San Rafael Area — lot layout E selected. Revise site plan RRM 3. San Diego Way 2"d access needed for need to look at "gating" options Fire / RRM public safety - 4. Bio / Natural spring & steep slopes on needs additional analysis Planning / Los Osos Road RRM / MBA 5. San Carlos road maintenance issue (San "off-site" road maintenance areas needs to RRM / Public Rafael frontage lots included) be reviewed Works 6. Group mailbox on San Rafael traffic need to review parking/ safety issue RRM / Public safety issue Works 7. AMWC service and fee increase issue need more public information. Planning/ Public Works 8. Wastewater treatment plant capacity need more public information Public Works ok? (increase costs on to existing residents?) 9. Can Eagle Creek Court hook into sewer Need to review options / costs to extend Public Works sewer to Eagle Creek. / RRM 10. Project finances and revenues need to Discuss options to offset commercial Planning,/ be improved. revenues if hotels do not get built until late RRV (O'Malley interested in conditions like Dove Creek or West Front) 11. Atascadero Avenue area traffic / safety neighborhood meeting requested RRM / a major concern Planning/ ITEM NUMBER: DATE: 11-15-12 Project Issue Response Responsibility 12. Pocket parks are not a priority No action 13. General support for RRM's affordable • needs refinement • RHNA credit for 2"d units (check with � Ic housing proposal & exemption of 452 colony lots from affordable housing HCD). requirement • Discuss phasing and implementation so does not prevent construction of portions of project. 14. Annexation boundary reduction • needs to be studied and cost / benefit Planning/ analyzed. Fire • Concerns about losing National Forest Department / and Santa Margarita trail connections. RRM • If outside City/project boundary, does it limit our ability to clear & install fire breaks? • Consider adding costs to CFD to fund wildfire costs ($50,000/yr?) 15. Interchange proportional share / • City to get proposal from RCS. public Works funding strategy needed. • Roundabout funding was mentioned as /Planning a concern numerous times. 16. City staff to begin negotiations with Staff to develop negotiation strategy Planning County on tax split agreement. 17. San Rafael / San Gabriel & school traffic Additional analysis needed Public Works and safety are a major neighborhood / W -Trans concern. 18. Maintenance districts / CFD's / need more analysis and public information Planning/ infrastructure districts Public Works ITEM NUMBER: 3 DATE: 11-15-12 Attachment 2: Applicant's Current Proposal (Submitted 11/9/12) See Following i. List of significant changes ii. Project Statistics iii. Complete Project Description iv. Revised Site Plan v. Phasing Plan vi. Village Center Site Plan vii. Road sections viii. Atascadero Avenue Intersection ix. San Diego Road Connection Eagle Ranch —11/09/2012 Significant Changes in the project description from 3/2012 through 11/2012 1. Project Density — Total number of units reduced by 139 a. 3/2012 - 680 SFD, 46MFU. Total = 726DU b. 11/2012 - 494SFD, 93MFU. Total= 587DU 2. Single Family lots — minimum size %2 acres. Sizes vary from % acre to 5+ acres 3. Deletion of small lot SFD — 4500 — 19,000sf lots all deleted (no more "tiny" lots) 4. San Diego Road West Connection - proposed & staked in the field (one way portion of the "back loop" deleted) 5. Village Center relocated - into Phase 2 and moved to the South (retains MF, Park and Commercial components) 6. Village Center— Senior Housing proposed (79 units) 7. Village Center— Workforce housing proposed (12 single family attached) 8. Village Center— Mixed use — 2 affordable residential units 9. San Rafael Road - area re -designed to delete small lots 10. Ortega Road Area - area redesigned to delete small lots (all lots now lac +) 11. Ortega Road - emergency access designed (no routing vehicle access + emergency access located on ranch property) 12. Highway Commercial area — access locations revised 13. Big Valley Area — retained as significant central open space 14. Affordable Housing — on site implementation of required affordable housing a. Senior Affordable Housing —19 units b. Mixed Use Affordable Housing - 2 (very low income above Village Commercial) c. Workforce Housing —12 units in 4 buildings (potential partnership with NGO) d. 2nd dwelling units allowable on lots over 1 acre (maximum potential — 404) 15. Atascadero Ave — Eagle Ranch project entry/exit relocated to the south per traffic report recommendation + right turn only out of the Eagle Ranch project 16. Phasing revised Planning Activities since 3/2012 • Continued project planning & planning meetings with City staff • Coordination with County regarding property tax sharing • Meetings with Ortega Road neighborhood group (2) • Meetings with Atascadero Ave neighbors group (1 + 1 in Planning) • Meetings with individual Atascadero Ave neighbors (2) • Meetings with San Diego Road west neighbor (2 + field staking) • Additional traffic and traffic fee analysis • Additional project economic analysis • Additional fiscal analysis 11-09-2012 Eagle Ranch Draft Project Description 1. Overall Approach and Vision - The applicants overall vision for the Eagle Ranch is to: • Reflect and build upon the history and heritage of Eagle Ranch. • Continue Eagle Ranch agricultural operations where feasible. • Be consistent and compatible with the character of the "Colony," the existing community, and the City concept of "elbow room" as expressed in the General Plan (GP Goal LOCM. • Use a clustered settlement approach that causes less environmental impact than implementation of the existing streets and 452 lots of record. • Create a small Village Center that will function as a "central gathering place" for residents and visitors to Eagle Ranch. • Keep large areas of Eagle Ranch in open space with limited public access thereby retaining the conservation values and agriculture operations existing on the Ranch to the extent practicable. • Create a trails system for access to the surrounding neighborhood and limited areas of the ranch consistent with the protection of open space and active agriculture operations. • Be identified as a highly desirable, premier place to live in Atascadero, the north county and the state based upon the Eagle Ranch planning and development approach. • Be economically feasible to implement. • Contribute positively to the fiscal condition of the City. • Complete the environmental review, City and LAFCO entitlements process in an efficient manner and within a reasonable time frame. 2. Site Planning Approach - See attached Conceptual Land Use/Site Plan Dated 11 /09/2012 The site planning approach is to identify areas where the residential entitlements of the existing lots of record and additional development necessary to create a viable development and can be clustered to reduce environmental impacts. The plan will use the routing of existing ranch roads where practicable to serve the clustered lots and other uses. In order to create a "neighborhood," the planning approach incorporates many elements of the City's General Plan such as a Vi//age Center commercial area to serve residents' daily needs and provide a central sense of place, and a public park/trails system radiating from the village area to residential clusters within the project and connecting to the existing surrounding neighborhood. The plan will incorporate a Highway Commercial economic development area and an area identified for a future Resort Hotel/Dude Ranch to be consistent with the City Economic Development Vision. 1 3. Resources Constraints Currently Identified - See Maps from MBA Constraints Analysis Dated 8/19/2011 • Agriculture • Biology • Cultural • Flood Zone/Hydrologic • Slope • Traffic • Wildfire/ Emergency Connectivity 4. Descriptions of Land Uses Proposed - See attached Conceptual Overall Project Statistics for Land Uses • Total Project Area - 3430acres • Total Annexation Area - ???? acres (potentially less than the total SOI acreage) • Highway Commercial - Approximately 8.4 acres is proposed in a location convenient to US 101 /Santa Barbara interchange. • Village Center - Approximately 1 .8 acres is proposed for uses to serve the daily needs of Eagle Ranch residents. This area will likely contain retail shops or offices, postal facilities, meeting spaces, parking and other functions needed and used by residents daily. The Village Center will reduce vehicle trips and provide a central gathering and focal "place" for the Eagle Ranch neighborhood. Building(s) at the Village Center may contain a mix of uses including retail shops, personal and professional services, offices, food services, meeting facilities and second floor residential. • Resort Hotel - Approximately 42.4 acres. Two feasibility studies have been completed by the applicant looking at the viability of this type of use. Both studies confirm the value of open space as an "attractor" for this use, and indicate potential future market support for a modest size but "upscale" facility. A critical prerequisite for a Resort Hotel is the need for Eagle Ranch to be well established as a high quality neighborhood "place" in advance of Resort Hotel development. A second prerequisite is for the City to have a vibrant, active tourism support infrastructure and track record of frequent successful community events before Resort Hotel operators will attempt to develop. The resort is currently envisioned to have 75-100 rooms/suites/cottages, restaurant, bar, meeting spaces, hospitality areas, pool area and other associated activities such as horseback riding and hiking. • Single Family Residential -Current site studies are based upon 494 SFD units. However, the final number of homes will vary depending upon the financial feasibility of the project once all agency requirements are determined and costs accounted for. A variety of single family detached lot sizes are anticipated varying from approximately 20,OOOsf to over 5 acres (see site plan). The conceptual residential lot construction methodology is as follows: N 0.5 - 1 acre = 90 lots Product type - Merchant Built, Semi -Custom 1 ac - Sac = 375 lots Product type - Merchant ,built and individual lot sales; Semi -custom & custom homes 5+ acres = 29 lots Product type - individual lots sales, custom homes • Lots over one acre in size will be allowed to have an on-site second residential unit ("granny unit") and provided with one parking space. The size of the second units may vary in conjunction with the size of the underlying lot size as follows: 1-1.5 acre lot = 850sf maximum 2.6 - 2.5 acre lot = 1000sf maximum 2.6 - 5+ acre lot = 1250sf maximum • Senior Housing (MF) - 79 Senior Housing units are proposed in the area near the Village and Public Park. These units are anticipated to include both market rate and affordable senior housing. These units may be for sale and/or rental housing. A portion of these units will be Affordable Housing • Required Affordable Housing (MF) - Affordable Housing units are proposed to be on site at Eagle Ranch. Units are proposed in the Very low, Low and Moderate levels of affordability as defined by the City. Units are proposed to be integrated into the Village Center Commercial buildings as well as a proposed Senior Housing project located at the Village Center. The total number of Affordable Housing units proposed is 21(19 senior and 2 mixed use). • Workforce Housing (MF or SFA) - The total number of workforce housing units proposed is 12. They may be implemented in partnership with a local NGO. They will be located in the Village center. • Public Park - An approximately 9.2 acre (gross) neighborhood Public p)ark is proposed. Its size will reflect at least the City parklands standards & requirements. The location considered is within walking distance of the Village Center and Senior Housing. The park is envisioned to be focused primarily on passive activities (picnic, BBQ, etc.), some children's play structures, horseshoes, and limited open turf areas to accommodate group and family play. A small amphitheater is proposed • Open Space - Significant open space areas are envisioned, likely measured in thousands of acres totaling +/- __% of the Ranch. Much of the open space will continue to be utilized for agricultural activities. The intent is to provide limited public access through and/or adjacent to these areas via public trails for pedestrian, bicyclists, and equestrians. Primary routes for trails will be aligned with existing ranch roads when ever possible. 3 • School - Discussions with the District are ongoing regarding the necessity for a Middle school site at Eagle Ranch. This issue is not fully resolved at this time, however the AUSD is considering a location off of Eagle Ranch. 5. Onsite Circulation (Roads and Trails) - See attached Project Statistics, Roads Sections and Trail Cross Sections • Roads - A variety of road widths are proposed in order to facilitate the terrain being traversed by the roads. Road widths in general are kept as narrow as practicable in order to be in keeping with the vision for the project and to avoid impacts to trees and other resources. Existing road rights of way will be extinguished through the subdivision map process except where existing rights of way may need to remain to provide emergency access routes or serve other purposes. The City does not accept new roads for maintenance by the City therefore roads will be maintained through an assessment on the project property owners. In addition to other public access streets connecting to existing streets and neighborhoods Eagle Ranch proposes one 20 ft. wide (12 ft paved) secondary emergency access point of connection to existing Ortega Road. A secondary access connection to the current dead end of West San Diego Road is proposed. This will enable the City to resolve current access issues in the future, concurrent with the appropriate phase of the Eagle Ranch project. • Trails - Public pedestrian, bicycle and equestrian trails are proposed and designed to lead to the Village Center and to connect with the surrounding existing neighborhood. A trail alignment easement leading to the National Forest and the ALPS Conservation property is provided. The City does not accept new trails for maintenance by the City therefore trails will be maintained through an assessment on the project property owners. In the case of the trail connection from ALPS property to the National Forrest across Eagle Ranch the trail maintenance responsibility may be shared with ALPS, the City, County and other local NGO's. 6. Public Services/Utilities Approach • Water - The project will be served by Atascadero Mutual Water Company (AMWC). The 452 existing lots of record are "Colony" lots and therefore are shareholders and must be served by AMWC. AMWC has prepared a water supply analysis (SB 610) to review their ability to serve and concluded that capacity to serve Eagle Ranch is available and they have issued a :can and will serve" letter dated 211512011. AMWC will maintain the water system. • Sewer - Treatment and disposal service where needed will be provided by the City. Within the Ranch collection and distribution will be via individual wet wells to collector pumps to main arteries and finally to a relatively short section of public gravity flow main to the point of connection with existing sewer east of US 101 . Maintenance of sewer lines and pumps will be provided by the City and paid for 4 through an assessment on the Eagle Ranch property owners. Properties over one acre in size may be served by septic systems where feasible based upon soils conditions. • Fire Safety - Eagle Ranch will have several layers of fire safety planning carefully coordinated with the City Fire Department. Beginning at the perimeter of select areas of development with fuel reduction corridors - area where the underbrush is thinned and reduce in height and volume in order to reduce the available fuel for fires. Secondarily select Open Space areas with the developed portion of the ranch will be intensively grazed to reduce fuel loading. Individual lot owners will be required to follow Cal Fire standards for fuel medication on the lots and adjacent to the lots and buildings. And finally the Village Center (Commercial area and Public Park) will be designed as a fire safe area and designated as a place of refuge for Eagle Ranch residents as well as serving as a potential staging area for firefighting operations if/when necessary. • Law Enforcement - Service will be provided by the City. • Fire/Life Safety - Service will be provided by the City. • Library - City of Atascadero • Ambulance - ? • General Government - City of Atascadero 7. Phased Approach - See attached Phasing Map. Eagle Ranch will be a phased project guided by the Specific Plan and the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map. Individual building phases are expected to range from 25 -50 units with needed infrastructure provided concurrent with or in advance of development as necessary to provide required access and services. Current development phasing breakdown by Phase is approximately as follows: Phase / Components = 69 lots 0.5 to 1.0 acre 69 Lots 1 .1 - 5 acres Highway Commercial - 8.4 acres Phase 2 Components = 21 lots 0.5 to 1.0 acre 26 lots 1.1 - 5 acres Senior Housing - 79 units Mixed Use - 2 units Workforce Housing 12 units Village Commercial - 1.8 acres Public Park - 9.2 acres (gross) Phase 3 Components = 88 lots 1 to 5 acre Phase 4 Components = E 43 lots 1-5 acres Phase S Components = 38 lots 1-5 acres Phase 6 Components = 36 lots 1-5 acres Phase 7 Components = 16 lots 1-5 acres Phase 8 Components = 40 lots 1-5acres 23 lots 5+ acres Phase 9 Components 22 lots 1-5 acres 3 lots 5+ acres Phase 10 Components Resort Hotel 42.4 acres 8. Entitlements Process & Environmental Review - • City - City approvals required are General Plan Amendment/Pre-zoning, Annexation, Specific Plan and Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map. • City - Certification of an Environmental Impact Report. • LAFCO - The City will be the applicant to annex the Eagle Ranch project area into the City corporate limits; this will require approval by LAFCO. 9. "Green" Features & Objectives of the Conceptual Plan - • Village Center - reduces vehicle trips and vehicle miles travelled by providing a place for residents' daily shopping needs, mail delivery and needs of visitors onsite and accessible via bike, walking and horseback. • Highway Commercial - Provides a potential place to accommodate overnight visitors to the Eagle Ranch and the City; provide places for Eagle Ranch residents to obtain meals, goods and services on a scale somewhat larger than the commercial facilities in the Village Center. For the City, highway commercial is one critical leg (economy) of the three legged stool of environment, economy, and social justice that is part of balanced development. These facilities will also provide employment opportunities for residents of Eagle ranch and the larger community as well as employment opportunities from the related support business. The meeting facilities proposed will support the City's targeted growth of visitors to the City through events and meetings. • Resort Area - Provides for retention of select existing historic structures, adaptive re -use of some existing structures and retention of the spirit of history associated with a Historic and still working Ranch. This land use will provide direct and Cs indirect employment opportunities. The resort when implemented will contribute to the fiscal well being of the City and residents. • Green Streets Approach - Roads within Eagle Ranch are designed to be as narrow as practicable to accommodate passenger and emergency vehicles. Improvements within the roadway are minimized to maintain a rural appearance and at the same time limit disturbance, minimize structural improvements (paved drainage swales, etc.), minimize grading that disturbs the environment, retain native oak trees and allow maximum maintenance of natural functions to accommodate drainage, consistent with the objectives of low impact development. • Oak Tree Retention, Removal and Disturbance Standards - Maintain native oak trees consistent with the City regulations. Use early involvement of City retained environmental professionals and a professional arborist in the Eagle Ranch site plan evaluation, in the field review of the site planning as it is developed, and finally in the creation of Specific Plan standards. • Retain Open Space & Conservation Values - Observe City creek setback requirements and creek policies. Avoid disturbance of identified critical creek habitat areas such as steelhead fishery habitat and other critical areas. In large contiguous areas where settlement is not anticipated, retain open space, continue agriculture operations and retain conservation values and features. Allow controlled public access via a well defined system of trails to accommodate pedestrians, bicyclists and equestrians. Where needed, limit public access in favor of retaining agriculture, conservation and environmental values. • Agriculture - Retain the ability to use (if appropriately sized) contiguous open space areas within the Eagle Ranch project for grazing use. Attachments: Conceptual Land Use Plan over Aerial Photo (see site plan) Conceptual Project Statistics Summary (see site plan) Conceptual Road and Trail Cross Sections Conceptual Phasing Map Conceptual layout for Village Center & Public Park Atascadero Ave (north) project entry & road/safety improvement concept 7 !� =::fAg e•.: _ o v-a•w� �> Y -,+i., ,q�g�' •,.4 Q ^ niseu ,• N ,*t ,', y w '.� I � w< >., , � ?, r ,y;_E 7t' ��:.., .. N , ."/iar:i.r P`: •� frf:x, W o p^"ear- i �.y�pewm`a ,.�,e•}^.'.„ J. '�• �,�w�o•,��1, 1. \tv�i '•y(.f tl' �d Z'WII��`��� 't blr. �'• '\ `� f. a — Sad R�r erRd ,r•.j✓wYo rn ;fJ i�•3aM>� ,><x$ i-'�; J`. ` t"•' "`` . n • 1 4• e' a; .sem— . N ^ "� : ` A` -14 s 411v- % i �•••b rf e. s q � I Y' O• ,• 4 ✓ o . Me, A. 'e,�.•y'n, ., 7 -4 IW � • ra°.4t� .. f'`I�� ',gyp •Mtrr.� � �j' c„�i o sd ; a� �,�� c 0 t� r•:.. - .� •tw. a ' Ops 2� per:., •. ( ''®'i. 7, i t�f� t ;.•,•� is o "w� �s s^. �' 'id !�`p•3"� ,;� �',� ?�'� yeF�t=,�'��\2f� ` �$*. 79 f '• � � +� �` r4`� °r�2 �'°°a� r� �++ °"��'+ �'rp.t �ez'�► j�5 °`;i t ` o { � yam°° °`°� s isa v. �" ��” t •�a �* •-fie + ,� �, F 0 _ °.,: ,. r �• ::.. c .. .' �;® •+ice _'�1 .! \'!ai ;:. l r t• °F' • e , • : � .���, , t, Aram +'•. ) ��� , " • r rr• ; W � K . ; •,a � and ! � r 0' ?.}• t• � Aq. ( f � '� I 9•�Y4 1 � I� � a. ra /' `� ,.°� t r "' � I o a n � � � • :y fes• ���.' N,gyp ,_ . • _. _ ., .,,• Resort gee, , • t I v f �' �.1�I Pell � :. ?'� � ,R �•.ei�+: � z r a.' �� 1 at� - r ° a x ,TL • A s Map Features a a, v GENERAL MAP ELEMENTS RESIDENTIAL AREAS ROADS AND TRAILS • •�+ r -gyk 5 - - 0 Ranch Boundary 90 20,000 sf - 1.0 ac Lots 0 Existing Ranch Roads' 0 City of Atascadero Boundary 173 1.1 ac - 1.5 ac Lots ® Proposed Road ROWS with — — — — — -- — _ — �. — _ �r _ • - Ci of Atascadero URL Varying Width Paved Surface re 84 1.6 ac -2.0 ac Lots 1ss Total Roads(miles)~� Streams: Intermittent 38 2.1 ac -2.5 ac Lots (USGS NHD- Nafinal Hydmgraphy Dataset) Existing Lakes/Ponds 39 2.6 ac - 3.0 ac Lots .e Class 1 Multi -Use Path EAGLE RANCH � 3, 3.1 ac -4.0 ac Lots r 3 Notes/Sources Utility Line Location-20'Corridor • ewde Paved Alp gMan Loop • f $' f i Aerial data from he National (National H drogra a Program -2010. design 10 4.1 ac - 5.0 ac Lots Unpaved Trail t P 9 Imagery 9 0 Utility Line Location -Abandoned 0 � P �- i • 1• 2) Stream data from the NHD (National Hydrogrephy Dataset). �"• 11 5.1 ac - 7.5 ac Lots • MOW—rd Sngie Tack aEs d 4) Bounder Topographic contour Intervals 10 feet 2D COMMERCIAL AND OPEN SPACE AREAS National Forest Service s ° • •, } g+� +� T L 4) Boundary road and topo data from existing data/information. P•----•—••; 818 7.5 ac - 10.0+ ac Lots Connector Trail azaac� Resort Hotel 5) Feature annotat on and peak elevations from the USGS quad data. ----- ___ • Single Track s) This map is for illustrative purposes only. 10 i 1.e ac j Village Center so ___a Multi -Family Senior Housing Units �„ A,�r s.. r ---- 1s.a " City of Atascadero, CA Scale: a a Highway Commercial L �zi__� Affordable Housing Units Total Trails (miles) r o Mb 1/2 Mile 1 i•g z Public Park (1z Workforce Housing Units - t s _ , " 0M6AP0. Equestrian Staging Area 000 oo- ^}, ." op Total Lots/units CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN fNvember9,2P'2 Oen Space Remainder ••• 'iy, R/w 2 iRA'VELAw — 2 IDL A.C. PAVEMENT CLAS511 AGG BASE R/W Rw so' - SN B' 2' LANDSCAPED mnVEL Mu�rr-usE aAr 2 °SWA(E °RA NAGE S- MAIN LOOP ROAD — COLOR: RED A . PAVEMENT J CLASS P AGG. BASE NOTES MULTI -USE PATH MAY BE PROPOSED OUTSIDE OF THE R/W TO MINIMIZE GRADING IMPACT TO TREE$. SROULDE TRAVEL TRAVEL LEAK LTAI u Z E MU'A" 1 x rr,p 1GiF A.C. PAVEMENT A,C. PAVEMENT CLASS II AGO - BASE CUSS P AGG. BASE NOTE: MULTI -USE PATH MAY BE MAIN LOOP ROAD TYPE 2 — COLOR: RED PROP SED Ou TSIDE of THE nh R/W TO MINIMIZE GRADING IMPACT TO TREES e�e r p. AC I -All A �MFINE `EXISTING GROUND DRIVEWAY SERVING UP TO 6 LOTS — COLOR: LIGHT BLUE I= %W RIW R/W 1W 56 " SHOP E EDS � zx zz OX C 3\`l A.C. PnVEMENi C Acc II A. BASE RESORT LOOP & SAN RAFAEL FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT — COLOR: YELLOW NOTE: PAVED SHOULDER .Is WITH ASPHALT DIKE MAY BE REQUIRED TO CONTROL DRAINAGE. REVISIONS APPROVALS DESCRIPTIONS BY DATE APPROVED COUNCIL R LUTON N0. 26-923 10 92 CUL DE SAC AND RESORT LOOP AND SAN LOCAL ROADS RAFAEL FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT COLLECTORS STANDARD Hit- E(I STANDARD HILLSIDE 1 PARAMETERS RECD (2) DMR (3) RECD (21 m r (3) EC'D (2) LIMIT (3) pEC'O (2) LIMIT (3) DESIGN SPEED P . 25 20 25 15 os 25 05 25 HORIZONTAL GEOMETRY MINIMUM CURVE RADIUS (Fl) DISTANCE TO LATERAL OBSTRUCTION FROM EP (FT) -WRHOUf BERM -WITH BERM 200 100 200 50 500 125 500 50 10 5 10 5 t0 5 10 5 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 VERTICAL GEOMETRY MAXIMUM GRADE I%) MINIMUM GRADE 1%) M. STOPPING SIGHT DIST. (Fn 1015 15 20 B 12 10 15 05 0.3 OS OJ 0.5 0.3 05 0.3 150 125 150 100 360 150 360 125 DRIVEWAY APPROACH MAXIMUM WIDTH (FT) MINIMUM WIDTH (FI) MAXIMUM SLOPE (%) MINIMUMSIGHT GIST. (FT) 20 20 20 p , 16 12 '612 20 20 p p 150 too 100 5p 200 150 125 ]5 .. 1. HILLSIDE STANDARDS APPLY TO ROADS WITH EXISTING CROSS SLOPES 30% OR GREATER ON AS DESIGNATED BY THE CRY ENGINEER. 2- THE RECOMMENDED DESIGN STANDARD IS THE MINIMUM STANDARD ALLOWABLE WITHOUT SPECIAL APPROVAL BY THE CITY ENGINEER 3. THE VALUES IN THIS COLUMN MAY ONLY BE USED IF APPROVED BY THE CRY ENGINEER DUE TO CONSTRAINTS OF EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY OR AVAILABLE RIGHT OF WAY. MITIGATION MEASURES WILL BE REOLRRED AS DETERMINED BY THE CITY ENGNIEEFL EXCEPTIONS TO THESE STANDARDS DRAWN BY R.I.W. CITY OF ATASCADERO ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT DRAWING NO. OlS10Nm Bn S.J.S. RURAL ROAD DESIGN STANDARDS 409 - D2 NAME2 AT409.OWG THE STANDARD FOR THE DESIGN OF THE MAIN LOOP ROAD IS AN INTERPOLATION BETWEEN THE 45 MPH AND THE 25 MPH HILLSIDE STANDARDS FOR RURAL COLLECTORS USE EXISTING DIRT SHOWN IN THE ABOVE TABLE ROAD WHERE POSSIBLE/ LOR/W 50' MAIN LOOP DESIGN PARAMETERS �>XIELNG ELOPE + IL G� DDS DESIGN SPEED: 35 MPH ' NCO MINIMUM HORIZONTAL CURVE." 275' CLEARZZONE 6 GLEAR2ZONE P'/ �"`� MAXIMUM GRADE.' 157 MINIMUM GRADE: 0.49 NATURAL SURFACE DRIVEWAY APPROACH MINIMUM SIGHT DISTANCE" 100' E UESTRIAN TRAIL E;y 1� A6. PAVEInENT r`"J oss n A. 6AEE CUL DE SAC AND LOCAL ROAD DESIGN PARAMETERS EQUESTRIAN PATH ON EXISTING DIRT ROAD CUL DE SACS & LOCAL ROADS RURAL LOCAL HILLSIDE LIMIT COLUMN FROM ABOVE TABLE —nts- -nrs RESORT LOOP COLLECTOR AND SAN RAFAEL FUNCTIONAL EOUIVALENT COLLECTOR EAGLE RANCH City of Atascadero, CA TYPICAL ROAD SECTIONS RURAL COLLECTOR HILLSIDE LIMIT COLUMN FROM ABOVE TABLE rrmdesi6..group III creating errvlronmenls people enjoy" {p•#e ,r 4 p-ar > S -. > �4'ai ., 5y - e - 3 w �•. r ,y, �!Br `.. •o SAO o r ' .� ,.. , � ems, �°" P ,'.-.•n+,A' �: / �� ��� ,'�' ���:s�l�+�' �� � - 4' - - �� V Y -' , . r � .• die � ; • E b�i, .r • ° {`ir^�I ;p, ` &E A �Sy I -B .• � �,,� "��,, .� _ �4 p'� �.r � � y(.i ,+t, M 4 Q�1 UfT t ,� s• � II Y � �I�1 • � ". � � I Q � ' � � � viiAwc.- ?t; � "Y Lro •; 4 ti°.'..,4, i, •' �'.; sa°Rat d' °P 9°t•�>�v�! :sy,•.'" • to > � r �' t y •.f;.r �E�'r*� � Iwi . ' . E� ; ,�, R '. d ae Ro OS BLOCK 1 rx�►�Y J �' i� � i atr� ! Y h•.: s '�. :) � P" D • N' PHASE �Si WW1l VII r1. ` a ' gi" PHASE Q.zAP h�-.r•p a PHASE V ,a '�•a'r., . os BLocK 1� 2i PHIVE s.' T • '.R V x`0 S � ra,,yy;, Ort � �' •S; 1 �'a � ;. ° •i�� `�'•.. • � ...PHASE -.07-• 3 I ,� - . VIII • -" '� -.Milk.A.` I ., I+ PHnSEI • • I • . O a PHASE S BLOCK y ' ' • •s )q V 3 4 �� ..._��Y , ' 7 as / .<' ♦r � .. *�'7,27 Rd ;. s.�'d� �' � ",•-.7 i • ' v. i r fi S,� • • Yb.p t Leh, s ` PHASE .„,., o Y� _.; . a • ,r I X 1 o � >. ,; � � �-� Ay?I, � � �• • >! �� ice,!`' f PHASE / � /% � t � • �A� � , PHASE 1 I 1 _ ✓. •� ws on d �f s RETAINEDI AS 1 1 •'•. # t& t -. + �,� ,a t SMITH PROPERTY rye •i„ � t. M' �' � t \ . 1 1 X x '•� tt�a � pin ..,�+,:�'.. R°Ay; ��' *s�`„Y1 I 1 : RETAINED AS ,� F:g:% �,'IY..A• • lry, t{.y,ky >” g L, �¢ `.. 1 I SMITH PROPERTY ;�.+ #+-s-) Y _ ,• K ... ... -.o . r — — — r — �_ — — — — — — - — " � fir. �.• .P ar"•+� . - ,7 !. �. 1 'ter-�•y , A " .,• - {PSS _ R Map Features PHASING AREAS,\ Phase I • I • -" ': Phase 11 t 1 EAGLE RANCH Notes/Sources. 0 Phase 111 Ir 1 1)Aerial photo from the Nat onal Agriculture] Imagery Program 2010 rrRld•SlgrlgrOUp Phase IV 2) Stream data from the NHD (National Hydrography Dataset) ae' I dz; •• $'$-9 3) Topographic contour Intervals 10 feet. Acaes Phase V • •, L ' L 4) Boundary road and topo data from existing data/information.2U Phase VI 6) Feature annotaton and peak elevations from the USGS quad data 0 1 1 •�4y�'> qo t. `q` " '�'( r'# •��d� .p 6) This map is for illustrative purposes only. 10 Phase VII , 1 .'•a4, 0.%'.,- .,a �' A" f-' Y' '"'�,' s 0 City of Atascadero, CA Scale: Phase VIII 0 1/2 Mile 1 Phase IX Ma Phase I - ' rf°'• ..'.nSa.".�•r �a s7 2000 m 1000 S00 0 soil Fast 1 - "494" TAKE-DOWN PHASING " 061 OS Blocks , o „� November 7, 2p12 EAGLE RANCH City of Atascadero, CA CONCEPTUAL PLAN MULTI -FAMILY / VILLAGE / PARK AREA Notes/Sources: �� 1) This map is for illustrative purposes only. &s gn ewHp�rniesu,.y.py Scale: NOT TO SCALE Novembers, 2012 V 063 KCaT{fZ 4 Cl*ty o Atascadero Office of the Secretary to the Design Review Committee TO: Design Review Committee COPIES (via email): City Council, Wade McKinney, Brian Pierik, Department Heads, City Hall Reception, Atascadero Library FROM: Warren Frace Community Development Director SUBJECT: Additional Information Provided to DRC after Agenda Pacl<et Distribution DATE: November 15, 2012 Attached is additional information that was provided after the DRC Agenda Packets were distributed. This information pertains to: Description: Letters received from: Twila Martin Pam Kressley Nancy Spitzer Terence Grebel Additional comment cards/letters received After publication of agenda packet Design Review Committee Meeting Date: November 15, 2012 t:\- 08 pins\pin 2008-1280 eagle ranch\2011_12 community meetings\dre nov 2012\supplemental materials memo 11 15 12.docx Callie Taylor From: Twila Martin <twilamartin@ymail.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 12:26 PM To: Callie Taylor Subject: Eagle Ranch Hi Callie, I just received your email regarding the meeting tomorrow at 4:30 with the Eagle Ranch reps. To better understand the proposed Atascadero Ave. changes, and to channel my future questions, I'd appreciate if you would answer one key question today... Will vehicles heading south on Atascadero Ave. be able to make a left hand turn (or a U-turn) onto San Diego Road once they pass the one-way portion of the road? ... The graphic makes it look like the barracade stops a left-hand turn, but the 16 foot turning lane makes me think otherwise. I look forward to hearing the answer. Thanks for your assistance. F.Y.I.... I also sent the email below this morning to the individuals listed in the address. Twila Martin City of Atascadero Council Members, Design Review Committee members, and City Staff: I just heard about the changes and scheduled Design Review Committee meeting for Eagle Ranch a few days ago from a couple of very concerned neighbors. I found the supplemental info. on-line with the proposed changes and have found the San Diego E. Intersection graphic very confusing. Will San Diego Road be closed to all southbound traffic? Or, will the one-way barrier end at San Diego Road allowing for a left hand turn making it the main thoroughfare for the Eagle Ranch residents traveling to the Santa Rosa exit or to Atascadero (along with the commuters using San Diego Road to get on the 101 going south )? I live on the corner of San Diego Rd. and Colorado Rd. and would be devastated (along with my neighbors) if the most convenient route to get to town, or to the Santa Rosa exit, for Eagle Ranch residents was San Diego Rd., to Colorado Rd., to San Rafael R., to E. Front, to Santa Rosa Rd. If that happened, it would destroy the peaceful rural neighborhood that brought us to buy homes here. I don't think there needs to be an outlet/inlet on Atascadero Ave. It will decrease property values and anger the current residents who will have to deal with the repercussions of hundreds of cars zooming down their neighborhood roads. I'm hoping the main road loop can go back to Santa Barbara Rd. where residents can use that exit (that isn't as impacted as the Santa Rosa exit) or travel to town on El Camino (a road designed for that kind of heavy traffic). I am also still very concerned with the increased flooding the Eagle Ranch development may cause. My property already floods along with other properties on San Diego Rd. I have to trust that the city will not allow any disturbance to Eagle Ranch that will cause more flooding to occur. The back of my property has flooded many times. But, in March of 2011, the front and side of my property flooded. I contacted the city last year asking them to look at a section of the culvert on the other side of San Diego Rd. that appears to be clogged, causing flooding across San Diego Rd. and eventually flooding my most of my property. No one from the city ever contacted me, and I don't believe the culvert was ever cleared. So if we get heavy rain this winter, it will most likely happen again. I would like to meet with city officials to address the current flooding problem ASAP ... before we get rain. And, I certainly want to be sure that no additional increase in runoff or stream water from Eagle Ranch development will be sent down the culvert on San Diego Rd. The culvert can't handle it ... and I'm afraid it could end up flooding my home along with my property. I am just one citizen with questions and concerns. I know there are numerous others with their own questions and concerns about the Eagle Ranch development. It's a huge project that is going to have a tremendous impact on our neighborhoods and city. I hope the members of the Design Review Committee will not make any decisions allowing the project to go forward at this time. Only a few of my neighbors have been notified of the meeting and the proposed changes. And, I'm sure there are others who will be impacted that have not seen the proposed changes and have not had an opportunity to ask questions and express their opinions. Once again, please either reschedule the meeting or wait until you get more input from the citizens before going forward with the project. Thank you, Twila Martin 10955 Colorado Rd. 710-1188 twi lmartingymai l . com Callie Taylor From: confidentialinslo@gmail.com on behalf of Nancy <westwindcos@charter.net> Sent: Monday, November 12, 2012 8:27 PM To: Callie Taylor Subject: Comments regarding the Eagle Ranch Proposed Project Attachments: Letter-3.pdf Good Morning, Callie, Pam Kressley (11000 Atascadero Avenue) and I (9015 San Diego Road) wanted to give our input relative to the proposed changes to the Eagle Ranch Project. Although many of the changes, such as the increase in lot sizes and reduction in number of parcels, are welcome, we have some major concerns about the new intersection proposed for Atascadero Avenue, just north of San Diego Road, as follows: 1. The intersection is very near to the 100 year flood zone (A), that affects our properties. As well, a blue line and other riparian areas are very much affected. 2. There is a blue line creek that runs across Atascadero Avenue just east of San Diego Road (to Pam's Property) that is already an issue (see attached letter from Keith Crow, PE, PLS, Consulting Engineer). 3. The Atascadero General Plan states the following: 4. Goal LOC 8. Watershed areas of Atascadero shall be protected. It states the following: 1. 3. The waterways in the City shall be maintained in a natural state and concrete channelization creeks shall be prohibited. 2. 4. The City shall strongly discourage underground piping, and unnecessary disturbance of creeks and streams, and encourage use of bridges and arched culverts. Any alterations required for public safety will be guided by this policy. 3. 10. Land disturbance shall be minimized in proximity to watercourses including necessary flood protection measures .... 4. 11. Areas subject to flooding, as identified through flood hazard overlay zoning and flood maps, shall be protected from unsound development consistent with the City's flood hazard ordinance requirements. 5. Goal SFN 2. Reduce damage to structures and danger to life caused by flooding and dam inundation 1. 2. Prohibit development within floodways and areas of high flood hazard potential to the extent practicable. 2. 4. Prohibit development that will create new upstream or downstream flooding or drainage problems. 3. Policy 2.2 3. Perform flood -related preventative maintenance and repair, and ensure that all flood -related work in riparian areas minimizes impacts to biological resources. 6. Goal LOC 5. Preserve the contours of the hills. 1. 5. Public and private development in close proximity to scenic and sensitive lands, including creek reservations, wooded areas, flood plains, prominent view sheds and historic sites shall be designed to minimize impacts. 2. 7. The City shall carefully evaluate both pubic and private projects to require the preservation of trees, watersheds, natural slopes, and other natural features. It is evident that the proposed new intersection and area surrounding it, will involve EXTENSIVE grading, cutting down of the hillsides, as well as the removal of MANY trees. This seems to be the antithesis of what is stated in the General Plan. Other concerns include; 1. Devaluation of property, possibly making it impossible to sell our properties. California law requires property owners to disclose anything that adversely affects their properties. 2. Traffic is a HUGE concern! Cars already drive down Atascadero Avenue at speeds in excess of 55 MPH. The curves and hills heading east on Atascadero towards the freeway encourages people to drive at extreme speeds. A straight-away will encourage this further. There are no stop signs or anything else to slow them down. Pam lives on Atascadero Avenue near San Diego Road. Often times she and her husband have to pass their driveway in order to avoid a rear end collision. 3. Although there may be some advantage to the proposed medians, they will encourage u -turns and other unsafe and dangerous behavior. Because of these reasons, and others not mentioned, we propose that you adopt Option 3, and study this further before proceeding. Further, we are very upset about the lack of contact from the City and the Owners/Developers of the Ranch. We only found about the Design Review Committee meeting from our neighbor, who only found out by chance. The "Yellow" notice was placed such that it appeared that it was intended to be hidden from the residents. We were offended by the email that was sent by the Smiths yesterday. It implied that the residents were not being cooperative in meeting with them and RRM. To the contrary, Justin Kerr, who has been acting as our liason, was first contacted just last Thursday by Victor Montgomery, who virtually demanded that we have a meeting this week. There was NO mention of the Thursday meeting. We also are upset that the meeting is scheduled at 3pm. It is difficult for many of us to attend, especially with such short notice. We would like to have more time so that we can work something out that would be acceptable to all parties Please forward this letter to the Design Review Committee. Thank you, Pam Kressley - 11000 Atascadero Avenue Nancy Spitzer - 9015 San Diego Road P O Box 6021 Atascadero, CA 93423-6021 Phone: 805-466-6372 Fax: 805-462-9350 This email and any files transmitted with it may contain confidential information and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, dissemination, distribution, or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this email in error please notify the sender by reply email or by telephone at (800) 456-5630 and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving them in any manner. kvc April 18, 2012 Pam Kressley 11001 Atascadero Avenue Atascadero, Ca 93422 Dear Pam; KEITH V. CROWE, PE, PLS CONSULTING ENGINEER Porgy 1loYl�'1iny�Um 1S�,iv JUL 2 4 2012 COMMUNITY DEVELOP In September of 1993 I completed a study of the flood hazard to your property at 11001 Atascadero Avenue. Your residence lies adjacent to an unnamed tributary to the North Fork of Paloma Creek. I found your house to be relatively safe from the 100 -year flood on the creek. However, at that time (almost 20 years ago) I cautioned you to be watchful of upstream development. The reason I expressed this concern is the culvert under Atascadero Avenue. Your residence is near a relative low point on the road. The culvert goes under the road at this same low point. The concern is the culvert. If the culvert fails to carry all the water approaching from upstream then the water will overflow onto the road and toward your residence. In my opinion, the culvert probably does not meet current design standards with regard to capacity. Further, it is normal practice to provide a "safe overflow path" should the culvert fail. Unfortunately, I don't see a safe overflow path and if water tops the culvert I believe there is a significant risk that your residence will be flooded. My opinion of the marginal (at best) capacity of the culvert is supported by your observations of water ponding nearly to the point of flooding Atascadero Road during heavy rains in recent years. The development of Eagle Ranch will decrease the capacity of the watershed tributary to this culvert to absorb rainfall. This means that, if not properly mitigated, there will be an increase in the rate at which water reaches this culvert thereby increasing the risk of flooding to your residence. Even if measures are installed that will mitigate the increased runoff rate, the volume of runoff reaching the culvert will be increased unless all the runoff from the development is stored in terminal basins. P.O. Bax 832 ATASCADERO CA 93423-0832 • PHONE (VOICE AND FAX): (805) 464-0975 E-MAIL: KVCROWE@CHARTER.NFT OR KVCROWE@GROUNDUP.Bz WEB: WWW.GROUNDUP.Bz The increase in volume means that more water will reach the culvert inlet - even if it comes at a slower rate. If the culvert becomes plugged - a very likely event for culverts draining hillside watersheds - there is a significant likelihood water will top the road and risk flooding your property. In conclusion, it is my opinion significant development on the Eagle Creek Ranch could put your residence in significant jeopardy. Sincerely; �� V, Keith V. Crowe �oFEss�oti V cRo Lic. No. 31,581 Exp 12/12 CIVIL 4 OF CAO 04 P.O. Box 832 a ArnscADFRO CA 93423-0832 * PHONE (Vorcr AND FAX): (805) 464-0975 E-MAIL: KVC'z�(-)wFr«?CFiAaTFiz..NH,r oi> KVC R0WF,4GwUNr.)UP.Bz WEB: WWW.GROUNDUP.Bz Callie Tallar From: confidenbalinslo@gmail,com on behalf of Nancy <westkndcos@diarter.net> Sents Wednesday, November 14, 2012 2:57 PM To: Callie Taylor Subjett. Re: Comments regarding the Eagle Ranch Proposed Project Callie, I have a video of flooding at Atascadero Avenue and San Diego Road taken by Pam Kressley in 1995, 1 tried to send it to you, but I'm not a techie, so not sure if you got it. If you did, I would appreciate it if you would get it to the Design Review Committee. Ido have aCD also. Pain & I believe that this would help the DRC to understand the topography and flooding issues in the area. Thank you, Nancy Spitzer Callie Taylor From: Terence Grebel <grebelj@charter.net> Sent: Monday, November 12, 2012 9:20 AM To: Callie Taylor Cc: Russ Thompson; Karen Grebel; grebelj@charter.net Subject: Design Review Committee Meeting on November 15, 2012 It is my understanding that the City of Atascadero Design Review Committee is going to meet to review proposed changes to the proposed Eagle Ranch. I urge the Committee to select option 3 of their proposed outcomes - Option 3: Refer back to Staff and the applicant to further revise the project. The basis for this recommendation is as follows: 1. The Traffic Report has not be made available for public review which was the basis for the proposed changes 2. There is a significant impact to the local neighborhood and the affected parties were not made aware of these changes. 3. There needs to be other traffic alternates considered given the significant environmental and public safety concerns regarding these proposed changes. Some of the alter natives that should be considered include the appropriate balancing of traffic flow issues with the adverse public safety effects. These alternatives should as a minimum include: a. Northern access that allows the Eagle Ranch traffic to go north on Atascadero Rd. b. Single inlet to Eagle Ranch at the proposed southern access. This alternative would confine the traffic impacts to the new development. The northern access could be an emergency exit only. c. Elimination of the median strip and left turn lane at the northern access . Installation of 4 way stop signs at the northern entrance and lowering of the speed limit to 35 mph in the vicinity of the northern access. Installation of crosswalks—this alternative would minimize the environmental impact of the road widening which will require removal of over 50 oak trees some of which are quite mature. 4. To my knowledge there have been no recent traffic counts near the northern access. The existing traffic travels well in excess of the posted speed limits. Exiting from my existing driveway is dangerous due to the speeds being traveled in excess of the speed limit and the elevation changes in the Atascadero Rd which prevent exiting vehicles from seeing oncoming traffic. In addition many people walk this stretch of Atascadero Rd. Even if a walkway were to be installed on the west side of Atascadero Rd, pedestrians would still have to cross the street which is dangerous due to the amount and speed of traffic. Mailboxes are on the east side of Atascadero Rd and this requires crossing the road to get mail and introduces a public safety issue due to the traffic speed, volume and elevation changes in Atascadero Rd. 5. The proposed northern access design which requires realignment of Ortega Rd and widening of Atascadero Rd. appears to require easements which the City does not possess. 6. The proposed northern access would significantly alter traffic flow of residents of Ortega Rd since it would not allow them to go north on Atascadero Rd. In addition the home on the corner of Atascadero Rd and San Diego Rd would not be allowed to travel south on Atascadero Rd. These changes significantly alter and impact the existing residents. 7. No information has been provided on the improvements to the Santa Barbara Rd bridge over the freeway. Will this entail installation of traffic lights? Will left hand turns be included in the bridge widening? 600 homes and the proposed commercial plus the park is a significant amount of additional traffic on the Santa Barbara which is already significantly impacted especially at normal commuting times. 8. It does not appear the staff has been made aware and considered these concerns since they are not addressed in their report. In summary these changes have not adequately considered alternatives which would address the above environmental and public safety concerns and have not made the impacted public aware of these changes so they can participate in meaningful manner. Callie Taylor From: Terence Grebel <grebelj@charter.net> Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2012 6:06 PM To: Callie Taylor Cc: kgrebel@charter.net Subject: RE: Eagle Ranch Study Session March 27 Thank you for being responsive to my request. I understand that the detailed traffic analysis has not yet been completed. Please consider this email as my comments and forward it as appropriate. My main concern with the project is the increased traffic on Atascadero Rd and more specifically from the intersection of San Diego Rd north thru the s curves and San Diego Rd from the intersection of Atascadero Rd to the frwy, As I am sure that you are aware, there have been several fatalities over recent years at the intersection of Atascadero Rd and San Diego Rd. In addition, during the last year, a car ran off the road, and took out a utility pole and my fence. People travel Atascadero Rd well in excess of posted limits. I suggest that you put monitors on the road that would record actual vehicle speeds. My recommended action for the city to impose on the project is to put a stop sign at the intersection of Atascadero Rd and San Diego Rd and lower the speed limits on both Atascadero Rd and San Diego Rd. Roth roads are traveled by runners, walker and bicycle riders. There are no shoulders so this puts people in jeopardy. Increased traffic associated with the planned development and the proposed school, increases the risk to public health and safety. These roads should be considered unique given the road construction and people traversing them. A stop sign and lowered speed limits are not expensive to implement and would protect the public health and safety without placing an undue imposition on the developer. From: Callie Taylor [mailto:ctaylor@atascadero.org] Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2012 11:48 AM To: 'grebelj@charter.net' Cc: Annette Manier Subject: RE: Eagle Ranch Study Session March 27 Terence, You can send a letter or email to myself and/or Annette and we will forwarded on the City Council and Planning Commission. All comments received so far are included in the staff report. Letters and emails received between now and next Tuesday's meeting will be forwarded directly to the City Council before with meeting. The staff report and current project proposal are being posed on the City's webpage today at www.atascadero.ora . Go to "Council agendas and minutes" for March 27`h. The staff report identifies many of the project issues for Council consideration and direction. At this point, the project is still in preliminary design development, and the formal EIR process has not started. The City has been working with the EIR consultant to conduct some preliminary studies and constraints analysis in order to identify major project issues. This preliminary traffic analysis identified traffic impacts at the interchanges (Santa Rosa and Santa Barbara) as those will be the most costly improvements for the project. We have not analyzed the other roads and intersections around the project. During the EIR, a complete traffic analysis will be completed in order to identify traffic impacts and required offsite improvements. Please feel free to call if you have additional questions, Callie t 1 I I isti-h, oo.._ l ( !,os-d,i . ,k,, har,n,�t s dsn',r P, 1_l'!7e 7.., ,z. t ,a rlr7i 1, in ki qi' �Vt fi'j,r'oe< 1a. 1 From: Terence Grebel [mailto: rebeli(d)charter.netl Sent: Monday, March 19, 2012 7:31 PM To: Annette Manier Subject: RE: Eagle Ranch Study Session March 27 I am out of town on 3/27. 1 have concerns about the traffic density being added by the project and the safety of the existing roads in the vicinity of San Diego and Atascadero Rd. A stop sign at the intersection of San Diego and Atascadero Rd coupled with a reduced speed on Atascadero Rd should be incorporated into the project design. Is there a website somewhere that I can review on the proposed traffic restrictions? How and where can I send comments to be considered? From: Annette Manier [mailto:amanier@atascadero.oral Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 2:45 PM Subject: Eagle Ranch Study Session March 27 Annette Manier, Administrative Assistant Community Development Dept. 6907 EI Camino Real, Atascadero CA 93422 Direct (805) 470-3402 1 Office (805) 461-5035 Direct Fax: (805) 470-3403 1 Office Fax (805) 461-7612 www.atascadero.or� De6,alad to Atascadero s charac¢� r angl cafe y by helping people pk= and build qmflty projects. Note: ubli unt rs are closed Fridays, 2