Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
CC_2014-04-22_AgendaPacket
CITY OF ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Tuesday, April 22, 2014 City Hall Council Chambers, 4th floor 6500 Palma Avenue, Atascadero, California (Enter on Lewis Ave.) CITY COUNCIL CLOSED SESSION: 5:00 P.M. 1. CLOSED SESSION -- PUBLIC COMMENT 2. COUNCIL LEAVES CHAMBERS TO BEGIN CLOSED SESSION 3. CLOSED SESSION -- CALL TO ORDER a. Conference with Labor Negotiators (Govt. Code Sec. 54957.6) Agency designated representatives: Rachelle Rickard, City Manager Employee Organizations: Atascadero Firefighters Bargaining Unit; Atascadero Police Association; Service Employees International Union, Local 620; Mid-Management/Professional Employees; Non- Represented Professional and Management Workers and Confidential Employees 4. CLOSED SESSION -- ADJOURNMENT City Council Closed Session: 5:00 P.M. City Council Regular Session: 6:00 P.M. 5. COUNCIL RETURNS TO CHAMBERS 6. CLOSED SESSION – REPORT REGULAR SESSION – CALL TO ORDER: 6:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Council Member Moreno ROLL CALL: Mayor O’Malley Mayor Pro Tem Sturtevant Council Member Fonzi Council Member Kelley Council Member Moreno APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Roll Call PRESENTATIONS: 1. Recognition Presentation to Keith Schmidt, Owner of K-Man Cycle & Run 2. Proclamation Declaring April 2014 as Autism Awareness Month 3. Proclamation Designating April 2014 as California Safe Digging Month 4. Proclamation Declaring May 5 – 11, 2014 as Wildfire Awareness Week A. 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 Council or public wishes to comment or ask questions. If comment or discussion is desired by anyone, the item will be removed from the consent calendar and will be considered in the listed sequence with an opportunity for any member of the public to address the Council concerning the item before action is taken. DRAFT MINUTES: Council meeting draft minutes are listed on the Consent Calendar for approval of the minutes. Should anyone wish to request an amendment to draft minutes, the item will be removed from the Consent Calendar and their suggestion will be considered by the City Council. If anyone desires to express their opinion conc erning issues included in draft minutes, they should share their opinion during the Community Forum portion of the meeting.) 1. City Council Draft Action Minutes – April 8, 2014 Recommendation: Council approve the City Council Draft Action Minutes of April 8, 2014. [City Clerk] 2. Weed Abatement – Awarding of Contractor Bid Fiscal Impact: None. Funds are budgeted annually, to cover the costs of the weed abatement program, and are recovered through assessments on property tax bills of those parcels abated. Recommendation: Council authorize the City Manager to execute a five- year contract with Travis Hansen dba Hansen Bros Custom Farming for weed abatement. [Fire] 3. Weed/Refuse Abatement Program Fiscal Impact: The City recovers costs for administering this program through the 150% administrative fee, which is placed on the San Luis Obispo County Special Tax Assessment for the fiscal year 2014 -2015 Tax Roll. Recommendation: Council adopt the Draft Resolution, declaring vegetative growth and/or refuse a public nuisance, commencing proceedings for the abatement of said nuisances, and placing all abatement fees on the San Luis Obispo County Special Tax Assessment for the fiscal year 2014-2015 Tax Roll. [Fire] 4. George Beatie Skate Park Lease Agreement with Kevin Campion DBA Paradise Coalition Fiscal Impact: The City will pay the premium for Mr. Campion’s Liability Insurance. The current yearly premium is approximately $1600. The rent will be one dollar per year. The City will take a percentage of class and skate camp activity conducted at the Skate Park. Cont ractor will provide an annual split of 40% of contracted class revenue to the City for the Skate and BMX Camps held at the Skate Park. The amount of operating funds saved annually, by the City not operating the Skate Park directly, is approximately $15,000 in City staff time. Recommendation: Council authorize the City Manager to execute a five - year Lease Agreement between the City of Atascadero and Kevin Campion, DBA Paradise Coalition. [Police] 5. Final Map 2013-0178 (Tract 2970) - West Front Village (TTM 2099 - 0997) - (MI W West Front Village LLC) Fiscal Impact: None. Recommendations: Council: 1. Adopt and approve Final Map 2013-0178 (Tract 2970); and, 2. Reject, without prejudice to future acceptance, on behalf of the public, the offers of dedication of Easements for Public Utility (PUE); and, 3. Authorize and direct City Clerk to endorse the City Council’s approval; and, 4. Authorize City Manager to sign a Subdivision Improvement Agreement for improvements associated with Final Map 2013-0178; and, 5. Authorize the City Manager to sign an Affordable Housing Agreement for the project. [Public Works] UPDATES FROM THE CITY MANAGER: (The City Manager will give an oral report on any current issues of concern to the City Council.) COMMUNITY FORUM: (This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wanting to address the Council on any matter not on this agenda and over which the Council has jurisdiction. Speakers are limited to three minutes. Please state your name for the record before making your presentation. Comments made during Community Forum will not be a subject of discussion. A maximum of 30 minutes will be allowed for Community Forum, unless changed by the Council. Any members of the public who have questions or need information, may contact the City Clerk’s Office, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. at 470-3400, or mtorgerson@atascadero.org.) B. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. PLN 2099-0033 / ZCH 2014-0171 Oak Ridge Estates / 3F Meadows PD-11 Text Amendment and EIR Addendum (Castlerock Development / KM Holdings) Fiscal Impact: Oak Ridge Estates is a private development project that is responsible for funding all on-site and off-site improvements. Recommendations: Planning Commission Recommends: 1. Council adopt Draft Resolution A approving the Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the PD-11 amendment for the Oak Ridge Estates/3-F Meadows project; and, 2. Council introduce for first reading, by title only, Draft Ordinance A amending PD-11 for the Oak Ridge Estates/3-F Meadows project. [Community Development] C. MANAGEMENT REPORTS: 1. Results of Community Poll and Consideration of Sales Tax Measure Fiscal Impact: The total cost of placing the measures on the ballot is estimated to be approximately $10,000 of budgeted General Funds. Recommendation: Council: 1. Direct staff to prepare a resolution and ordinance for City Council consideration at the June 24, 2014 meeti ng to place a ½ cent local sales tax override measure on the November 2014 ballot; and, 2. Direct staff to draft the resolution to include establishment of a Citizen’s Advisory Committee; and, 3. Direct staff to draft the resolution to include an advisory measure with language directing that the funds from the ½ local sales tax override would be used: A. Primarily for the purpose of repairing and maintaining the City’s roadways OR B. Primarily for the purpose of repairing and maintaining the City’s roadways, with remaining funds to be used for the repair and maintenance of other City infrastructure such as parks facilities, storm drains and zoo facilities. [City Manager] COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS AND REPORTS: (On their own initiative, Council Members may make a brief announcement or a brief report on their own activities. Council Members may ask a question for clarification, make a referral to staff or take action to have staff place a matter of business on a future agenda. The Council may take action on items listed on the Agenda.) D. COMMITTEE REPORTS: (The following represent standing committees. Informative status reports will be given, as felt necessary): Mayor O’Malley 1. City / Schools Committee 2. County Mayors Round Table 3. Integrated Waste Management Authority (IWMA) 4. SLO Council of Governments (SLOCOG) 5. SLO Regional Transit Authority (RTA) Mayor Pro Tem Sturtevant 1. City / Schools Committee 2. City of Atascadero Finance Committee 3. League of California Cities – Council Liaison Council Member Fonzi 1. Air Pollution Control District 2. Oversight Board for Successor Agency to the Community Redevelopment Agency of Atascadero 3. SLO Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) Council Member Kelley 1. Atascadero State Hospital Advisory Committee 2. City of Atascadero Design Review Committee 3. Economic Vitality Corporation, Board of Directors (EVC) 4. Homeless Services Oversight Council Council Member Moreno 1. California Joint Powers Insurance Authority (CJPIA) Board 2. City of Atascadero Finance Committee (Chair) 3. City of Atascadero Design Review Committee E. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND / OR ACTION: 1. City Council 2. City Clerk 3. City Treasurer 4. City Attorney 5. City Manager F. ADJOURNMENT Please note: Should anyone challenge any proposed development entitlement listed on this Agenda in court, that person may be limited to raising those issues addressed at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at or prior to this public hearing. Correspondence submitted at this public hearing will be distributed to the Council and available for review in the City Clerk's office. I, Lisa Cava, Deputy City Clerk of the City of Atascadero, declare under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing agenda for the April 22, 2014 Regular Session of the Atascadero City Council was posted on April 16, 2014, at the Atascadero City Hall, 6500 Palma Avenue, Atascadero, CA 93422 and was available for public review in the Customer Service Center at that location. Signed this 16th day of April, 2014, at Atascadero, California. Lisa Cava, Deputy City Clerk City of Atascadero City of Atascadero WELCOME TO THE ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL MEETING The City Council meets in regular session on the second and fourth Tuesday of each month at 6:00 p.m. Council meetings will be held at the City Hall Council Chambers, 6500 Palma Avenue, Atascadero. Matters are considered by the Council in the order of the printed Agenda. Regular Council meetings are televised live, audio recorded and videotaped for future playback. Charter Communication customers may view the meetings on Charter Cable Channel 2 0 or via the City’s website at www.atascadero.org. Meetings are also broadcast on radio station KPRL AM 1230. Contact the City Clerk for more information (470-3400). Copies of the staff reports or other documentation relating to each item of business referred to on the Agenda are on file in the office of the City Clerk and are available for public inspection during City Hall business hours at the Front Counter of City Hall, 6500 Palma Avenue, Atascadero, and on our website, www.atascadero.org. Contracts, Resolutions and Ordinances will be allocated a number once they are approved by the City Council. The minutes of this meeti ng will reflect these numbers. All documents submitted by the public during Council meetings that are either read into the record or referred to in their statement will be noted in the minutes and available for review in the City Clerk's office . In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in a City meeting or other services offered by this City, please contact the City Manager’s Office or the City Clerk’s Office, both at (805) 470-3400. Notification at least 48 hours prior to the meeting or time when services are needed will assist the City staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility to the meeting or service. TO SPEAK ON SUBJECTS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA Under Agenda item, “COMMUNITY FORUM”, the Mayor will call for anyone from the audience having business with the Council to approach the lectern and be recognized. 1. Give your name for the record (not required) 2. State the nature of your business. 3. All comments are limited to 3 minutes. 4. All comments should be made to the Mayor and Council. 5. No person shall be permitted to make slanderous, profane or negative personal remarks concerning any other individual, absent or present This is the time items not on the Agenda may be brought to the Council’s attention. A maximum of 30 minutes will be allowed for Community Forum (unless changed by the Council). If you wish to use a computer presentation to support your comments, you must notify the City Clerk's office at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Digital presentations must be brought to the meeting on a USB drive or CD. You are required to submit to the City Clerk a printed copy of your presentation for the record. Please check in with the City Clerk befo re the meeting begins to announce your presence and turn in the printed copy. TO SPEAK ON AGENDA ITEMS (from Title 2, Chapter 1 of the Atascadero Municipal Code) Members of the audience may speak on any item on the agenda. The Mayor will identify the s ubject, staff will give their report, and the Council will ask questions of staff. The Mayor will announce when the public comment period is open and will request anyone interested to address the Council regarding the matter being considered to step up to the lectern. If you wish to speak for, against or comment in any way: 1. You must approach the lectern and be recognized by the Mayor 2. Give your name (not required) 3. Make your statement 4. All comments should be made to the Mayor and Council 5. No person shall be permitted to make slanderous, profane or negative personal remarks concerning any other individual, absent or present 6. All comments limited to 3 minutes The Mayor will announce when the public comment period is closed, and thereafter, no further public co mments will be heard by the Council. ITEM NUMBER: A-1 DATE: 04/22/14 Atascadero City Council April 8, 2014 Page 1 of 6 CITY OF ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Tuesday, April 8, 2014 City Hall Council Chambers, 4th floor 6500 Palma Avenue, Atascadero, California CITY COUNCIL CLOSED SESSION: 5:00 P.M. Mayor O’Malley announced at 5:00 p.m. that the Council is going into Closed Session. 1. CLOSED SESSION -- PUBLIC COMMENT - None 2. COUNCIL LEAVES CHAMBERS TO BEGIN CLOSED SESSION 3. CLOSED SESSION -- CALL TO ORDER a. Conference with Labor Negotiators (Govt. Code Sec. 54957.6) Agency designated representatives: Rachelle Rickard, City Manager Employee Organizations: Atascadero Firefighters Bargaining Unit; Atascadero Police Association; Service Employees International Union, Local 620; Mid-Management/Professional Employees; Non- Represented Professional and Management Workers and Confidential Employees City Council Closed Session: 5:00 P.M. City Council Regular Session: 6:00 P.M. ITEM NUMBER: A-1 DATE: 04/22/14 Atascadero City Council April 8, 2014 Page 2 of 6 4. CLOSED SESSION -- ADJOURNMENT 5. COUNCIL RETURNS TO CHAMBERS 6. CLOSED SESSION – REPORT City Attorney Pierik announced that there was no reportable action taken. REGULAR SESSION – CALL TO ORDER: 6:00 P.M. Mayor O’Malley called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. and Council Member Kelley led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL: Present: Council Members Kelley, Moreno, Fonzi, Mayor Pro Tem Sturtevant, and Mayor O’Malley Absent: None Others Present: City Clerk / Assistant to City Manager Marcia McClure Torgerson Staff Present: City Manager Rachelle Rickard, Administrative Services Director Jeri Rangel, Community Development Director Warren Frace, Public Works Director Russ Thompson, Police Chief Jerel Haley, Fire Chief Kurt Stone, and City Attorney Brian Pierik. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Mayor O’Malley stated that he would like to move the Council Announcements and Reports to be after the Consent Calendar. MOTION: By Mayor Pro Tem Sturtevant and seconded by Council Member Moreno to approve the agenda as amended. Motion passed 5:0 by a roll-call vote. ITEM NUMBER: A-1 DATE: 04/22/14 Atascadero City Council April 8, 2014 Page 3 of 6 PRESENTATIONS: 1. Proclamation declaring April 2014, as “Sexual Assault Awareness Month” The City Council presented the Proclamation to Jennifer Adams, Executive Director of RISE. 2. Proclamation declaring May 2014 as “Bike Month”; May 16, 2014 as “Bike to Work Day”; and May 8, 2014 as “Bike to School Day” The City Council presented the Proclamation to Jennifer Rice of RideShare and Albert Almodova. 3. Proclamation declaring May 10, 2014 as “Letter Carrier’s Food Drive Day” The City Council presented the Proclamation to Lance Cochrane, the Atascadero Postmaster. A. CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. City Council Draft Action Minutes – March 25, 2014 Recommendation: Council approve the City Council Draft Action Minutes of March 25, 2014. [City Clerk] 2. Contract Plan Checking Services - M Bertaccini & Associates Fiscal Impact: The fiscal impact of the contract public works plan check services is estimated to be $40,000 of General Funds. Recommendation: Council authorize the City Manager to execute a contract with M Bertaccini & Associates for ongoing public works contract plan checking services. [Public Works] 3. Impact Fees for New Library Fiscal Impact: The fiscal impact will be a $10,000 expenditure of Library Impact Fee funds. Recommendation: Council authorize the Director of Administrative Services to appropriate $10,000 of Library Facility Impact Fees to be remitted to the San Luis Obispo County Library for equipment and furnishings for the new Atascadero Library Facility. [Administrative Services] MOTION: By Council Member Moreno and seconded by Council Member Fonzi to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion passed 5:0 by a roll-call vote. (#A-2: Contract No. 2014- 007) ITEM NUMBER: A-1 DATE: 04/22/14 Atascadero City Council April 8, 2014 Page 4 of 6 COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS AND REPORTS: The City Council Members made brief announcements. UPDATES FROM THE CITY MANAGER: City Manager Rachelle Rickard gave an update on projects and issues within the City. COMMUNITY FORUM: The following citizens spoke during Community Forum: Pastor Rick Comstock, and Mike Kirkpatrick. Mayor O’Malley closed the COMMUNITY FORUM period. B. PUBLIC HEARINGS: None C. MANAGEMENT REPORTS: 1. Solid Waste and Recycling Agreements Forum Fiscal Impact: New agreements, even with the potential additional services, could result in no increase or minimal increase in monthly garbage rates to City residents and businesses. Recommendation: Council provide staff direction to renegotiate agreements with the existing service providers for solid waste collection and recycling. [Public Works] Ex Parte Communications Council Member Kelley stated he spoke with and toured North County Recycling and spoke with SLO Waste and both asked to be included in a bidding process. Mayor Pro Tem Sturtevant stated he visited the Waste Management facility here in Atascadero. Council Member Moreno stated she spoke with and toured North County Recycling, spoke with a consultant of Waste Connections who requested to be part of the bidding process, and she also spoke with Waste Management. Council Member Fonzi stated she met with Mr. Goodrow of North County Recycling, and spoke with Ms. Gomez of Waste Management, spoke with Waste Alternatives and others asking to be included in the bidding process. Mayor O’Malley stated he met with Waste Alternatives, North County Recycling and spoke with other providers in the area. ITEM NUMBER: A-1 DATE: 04/22/14 Atascadero City Council April 8, 2014 Page 5 of 6 Public Works Director Russ Thompson gave the staff report and answered questions from the Council. Integrated Waste Management Authority (IWMA) representative Bill Worrell explained how the IWMA manages the waste and recycling programs in SLO County and answered questions from the Council. Chicago Grade Landfill majority owner and General Manager Mike Hoover gave a presentation on his relationship with the City and the waste/recycling companies in the surrounding area. Atascadero Waste Management representative Doug Corcoran gave an overview of the services they now provide and what a new contract could look like (Exhibit A). MidState Solid Waste & Recycling, North County Recycling, and B. Goodrow, Inc. Composting representatives Wayne Hall and Kelly Aster gave a presentation on the services provided by the three companies that are all owned by Brad Goodrow. Mayor O’Malley recessed the meeting at 8:52 p.m. Mayor O’Malley reconvened the meeting at 9:04 p.m. PUBLIC COMMENT: The following citizens spoke on this item: Bob Bergman, John Gannon, Parker Francis, John Long, Patrick Vinson, Mike Zappas, Tom Jones, Don Geissinger, Doug Corcoran, and Brad Goodrow. Mayor O’Malley closed the Public Comment period. PUBLIC COMMENT RE-OPENED: The following citizens spoke on this item: Kelly Aster, and Doug Filliponi. Mayor O’Malley closed the Public Comment period. MOTION: By Council Member Kelley and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Sturtevant to give staff direction to go out for an RFP. Motion failed 2:3 by a roll-call vote. (Moreno, Fonzi, & O’Malley opposed) ITEM NUMBER: A-1 DATE: 04/22/14 Atascadero City Council April 8, 2014 Page 6 of 6 MOTION: By Council Member Moreno and seconded by Council Member Fonzi to provide staff direction to renegotiate agreements with the existing service providers for solid waste collection and recycling and return to Council with results prior to July 1, 2014. Motion passed 3:2 by a roll-call vote. (Kelley & Sturtevant opposed) D. COMMITTEE REPORTS: Mayor O’Malley 1. SLO Council of Governments (SLOCOG) – Discussed transportation to Cuesta’s North County Campus and purchase of property for homeless shelter in San Luis Obispo. Mayor Pro Tem Sturtevant 1. City / Schools Committee – School staff will be going to their Board to decide if they will place their Bond issue on the ballot this year. 2. League of California Cities – Council Liaison – Water Bond update. Council Member Fonzi 1. Air Pollution Control District – State Parks and APCD agreed that the APCD cannot remove the permit to operate. 2. SLO Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) - will be meeting next Wednesday to discuss the different types of districts that would work for water management. E. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND / OR ACTION: None F. ADJOURNMENT Mayor O’Malley adjourned the meeting at 10:56 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED BY: ______________________________________ Marcia McClure Torgerson, C.M.C. City Clerk / Assistant to the City Manager The following exhibit is available for review in the City Clerk’s office: Exhibit A – Waste Management handout ITEM NUMBER: A-2 DATE: 04/22/14 Atascadero City Council Staff Report – Fire Department Weed Abatement – Awarding of Contractor Bid RECOMMENDATION: Council authorize the City Manager to execute a five-year contract with Travis Hansen, dba Hansen Bros Custom Farming, for weed abatement. DISCUSSION: A legal notice, inviting sealed bids, was printed in the Atas cadero News and The Tribune on February 26 and February 28, 2014. A total of 8 Invitations to Bid were distributed, and 3 bids were received. This bid for the weed abatement contract was opened on Wednesday March 26, 2014 at 2:00 p.m. at City Hall. Staff recommends awarding the bid to the overall low bidder Travis Hansen, dba Hansen Bros Custom Farming, for the term of the contract. Hansen Bros Custom Farming’s bid is $40 per hour for tractor work and $120 per hour for hand work for each of the five years. The contract is awarded based on the lowest five-year combination of the hourly rate for 1 hour of hand work and 1 hour of tractor work . Hanson Bros five year total combined hourly rate is $800, as reflected on the Bid Summary. FISCAL IMPACT: None. Funds are budgeted annually, to cover the costs of the weed abatement program, and are recovered through assessments on property tax bills of those parcels abated. ITEM NUMBER: A-2 DATE: 04/22/14 ALTERNATIVES: Council may direct staff to reject the bid and re-bid the contract. This alternative is not recommended because it would not allow the appropriate time to enter assessments on the 2014-2015 tax roll. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Notice Inviting Sealed Bids 2. Contractor Bid Summary ITEM NUMBER: A-2 DATE: 04/22/14 ATTACHMENT: 1 C ITY OF A TASCADERO FIRE DEPARTMENT NOTICE INVITING SEALED BIDS FOR VEGETATIVE GROWTH AND/OR REFUSE ABATEMENT Notice is hereby given that sealed bids will be received by the City Clerk at the City of Atascadero’s City Hall, room 104, located at 6500 Palma Avenue, Atascadero, California, until 2:00 p.m. on Wednesday, March 26, 2014 and promptly thereafter be opened and read for the public project. This contract is in effect from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2018 (Please note, this is a 5-year contract). The project will consist of cutting noxious or flammable vegetation and / or removal of material (i.e. tree branches, rubbish, refuse, and other waste materials) identified upon parcels within the city that are in violation of the city’s vegetative growth, refuse, or code compliance programs. All bids are to be submitted on forms, provided by the City of Atascadero Fire Department, 6005 Lewis Avenue, Atascadero, CA 94322. If you have any questions, please contact the Atascadero City Fire Department at 461-5070. _________________________ Kurt W. Stone, Fire Chief 6005 LEWIS AVENUE * ATASCADERO CA 93422 * (805) 461-5070 * FAX (805) 466-2907 ITEM NUMBER: A-2 DATE: 04/22/14 ATTACHMENT: 2 ITEM NUMBER: A-3 DATE: 04/22/14 Atascadero City Council Staff Report – Fire Department Weed/Refuse Abatement Program RECOMMENDATION: Council adopt the Draft Resolution, declaring vegetative growth and/or refuse a public nuisance, commencing proceedings for the abatement of said nuisances, and placing all abatement fees on the San Luis Obispo County Special Tax Assessment for the fiscal year 2014-2015 Tax Roll. DISCUSSION: The Atascadero Municipal Code Title 6, Chapter 13, § 03, addresses the abatement of vegetative growth and/or refuse, which constitute a hazard. Adoption of the proposed Resolution is the first step in this annual program, which requires City Council action. The Fire Department conducted its initial inspection during the month of April. There are approximately 11,166 parcels within the City. The list of parcels identified to have vegetative growth and/or refuse, which are or may become a public nuisance, is available for review in the Office of the City Clerk and the Atascadero City Fire Department. FISCAL IMPACT: The City recovers costs for administering this program through the 150% administrative fee, which is placed on the San Luis Obispo County Special Tax Ass essment for the fiscal year 2014-2015 Tax Roll. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Resolution declaring vegetative growth and/or refuse a public nuisance 2. Vegetative Growth Notice 3. Vegetative Growth / Refuse Notice ITEM NUMBER: A-3 DATE: 04/22/14 ATTACHMENT: 1 DRAFT RESOLUTION RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING VEGETATIVE GROWTH AND/OR REFUSE A PUBLIC NUISANCE WHEREAS, the City of Atascadero Fire Department is commencing proceedings for the abatement of said nuisances; and WHEREAS, abatement fees will be placed on the San Luis Obispo County Special Tax Assessment for the Fiscal Year 2014-2015 tax roll, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Atascadero: SECTION 1. That vegetative growth and/or refuse are a public nuisance and hereby declare to be such for the reasons that vegetative growth may attain such a large growth as to become a fire menace and/or drainage restriction, when mature and said refuse may become a public nuisance, thereby creating a hazard to public health. The City Council of the City of Atascadero finds and declares that vegetative growth and/or refuse on specified parcels of property are seasonal and recurrent nuisances. Such seasonal and recurrent nuisances shall be abated in accordance with the provisions of City and State laws. No further hearings need to be held, and it shall be sufficient to mail a notice to the owner of the property as their address appears upon the current assessment roll. SECTION 2. A description of the parcel of lots of private property upon which, or in front of which, said nuisances exist, according to the official Assessment Map of said City of Atascadero, shall be posted annually in the office of the City Clerk and referred to as Exhibit A (Vegetative Growth) and Exhibit B (Weeds & Refuse). SECTION 3. The City Clerk or designee is hereby ordered and directed to mail written notices of the proposed abatement to all persons owning property described in accordance with Section 6-13.08 of the Atascadero Municipal Code. SECTION 4. Pursuant to Section 6-13.10 of the Atascadero Municipal Code, the City Council shall hear and consider all objections or protests to the required removal of said vegetative growth and/or refuse. The City Clerk shall post a copy of the public hearing notice in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act. SECTION 5. Pursuant to Section 6-13.17 of the Atascadero Municipal Code, if the owner does not abate the hazard, it will be abated by the city contractor. The cost of the abatement plus a 150% administrative fee and county fee will be assessed upon the county property tax bill, and constitute a lien upon such land until paid. ITEM NUMBER: A-3 DATE: 04/22/14 ATTACHMENT: 1 On motion by Council Member and seconded by Council Member , the foregoing Resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ADOPTED: CITY OF ATASCADERO By: Tom O’Malley, Mayor ATTEST: Marcia McClure Torgerson, C.M.C., City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Brian A. Pierik, City Attorney ITEM NUMBER: A-3 DATE: 04/22/14 ATTACHMENT: 1 EXHIBIT “A” ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK ITEM NUMBER: A-3 DATE: 04/22/14 ATTACHMENT: 1 EXHIBIT “B” ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK ITEM NUMBER: A-3 DATE: 04/22/14 ATTACHMENT: 2 NOTICE Dear Atascadero Property Owner: Weed abatement season has arrived and parcel inspections were performed throughout the City during the first two weeks of April. The City’s Municipal Code, Section 6-13.08, requires this notification, which enables the Fire Department to abate dry noxious weeds in an effort to make our neighborhoods safer in the event of a fire. THE DEADLINE FOR COMPLIANCE IS JUNE 1, 2014 THANK YOU FOR YOUR ASSISTANCE IN MAINTAINING YOUR VEGETATIVE GROWTH TO A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 4 INCHES NOTICE TO DESTROY VEGETATIVE GROWTH (NOXIOUS WEEDS) Notice is hereby given that on the 22nd day of April 2014, the City Council passed a resolution declaring that vegetative growth (noxious weeds) constitutes a fire hazard, which must be abated by the cutting of said vegetative growth (noxious weeds). If the property owner does not abate the noxious weeds by June 1st, it will be abated by the city, and the cost of the abatement will be billed to the property owner directly, or assessed upon the county property tax bill, and will constitute a lien upon such land until paid. The City recovers costs for administering this program through a 150% administrative fee. Reference is hereby made to the resolution for further particulars and Municipal Code Sections 6-13.01 through 6-13.17. A copy of said resolution is on file in the office of the city clerk. All property owners having any objections to the proposed removal of the hazard are hereby no tified to attend a meeting of the City Council of the City of Atascadero to be held May 13, 2014 at 6:00 p.m., when their objections will be heard and given due consideration. Dated: This 28th day of April 2014. /s/ Kurt W. Stone Fire Chief City of Atascadero, California 6005 LEWIS AVENUE – ATASCADERO, CA 93422 – (805) 461-5070 – FAX (805) 466-2907 City of Atascadero Fire Department ITEM NUMBER: A-3 DATE: 04/22/14 ATTACHMENT: 2 The deadline for weed/refuse abatement compliance is June 1, 2014 On June 1, 2014, the City’s contractor begins the abatement process for par cels that are not in compliance. The contractor’s fees, as well as applicable City and County fees/fines are assessed on the County’s tax roll. The Fire Chief has established the following requirements: CLEARANCE REQUIREMENTS OF VEGETATIVE GROWTH (NOXIOUS WEEDS) Maximum height of 4 inches; a) Located within 100 feet of any building or structure, or to the property line, whichever is nearer; b) Located within 50 feet from the edge of any improved roadway; c) Located within 50 feet from each property line; d) Located within 10 feet on each side of driveways. EXEMPTIONS: a) Animal pastures and agricultural fields growing hay or grains. The interior portion of fenced pastures where the quantity of livestock significantly reduces the vegetative growth, therefore bringing the parcel into compliance. Agricultural fields must be cut at harvest time. Uncut hay and grain is subject to abatement. b) Habitat for endangered or threatened species or any species that is a candidate for listing as an endangered or threatened species by the State of California or Federal Government. c) Land kept in a predominantly natural state as habitat for wildlife, plant, or animal communities. d) Open space lands that are environmentally sensitive parklands. e) Other lands having scenic values. Abatement requirements shall remain in effect in waterways where flood preparation measures and emergency flood control mitigation is necessary. 1) This exemption applies whether the land or water are held in fee title or any lesser interest. This exemption applies to any public agency, and private entity that has dedicated the land or water areas to one or more of those purposes or uses, or any combination of public agencies and private entities making that decision. 2) This section shall not be construed to prohibit the use of properly authorized prescribed burning to improve the biological function of land or to assist in the restoration of desired vegetation. 3) In the event that any lands adjacent to land or water areas, as described above, are improved such that they are subject to this chapter, the obligation to comply with Section 6 -13.04 shall be with the person owning, leasing, controlling, operating, or maintaining the occupied dwelling or occupied structure on the improved lands. All maintenance, activities, and other fire prevention measures required by Section 6-13.04 shall be required only for the improved land, and water areas as described above. Questions regarding weed abatement may be directed to 805 -470-3300 or by writing to: City of Atascadero, Fire Department, Fire Marshal, 6005 Lewis Ave., Atascadero, CA 93422. PLEASE RETAIN THIS NOTICE FOR ANY RELATED COMMUNICATIONS ITEM NUMBER: A-3 DATE: 04/22/14 ATTACHMENT: 3 NOTICE Dear Atascadero Property Owner: An inspection was made on the above stated parcel and your property was identi fied to be in violation of Municipal Code Sections 6-13.01 to 6-13.17 and Uniform Fire Code (UFC) Section 1103.2.4. The City’s Municipal Code, Section 6-13.08, requires this notification, which enables the Fire Department to abate all vegetative growth and refuse that may create a fire or health and safety hazard(s) in our neighborhoods. We have identified Vegetative Growth/Refuse. NOTICE TO REMOVE VEGETATIVE GROWTH (NOXIOUS WEEDS) AND /OR REFUSE Notice is hereby given that on the 22nd day of April 2014, the City Council passed a resolution declaring that vegetative growth (noxious weeds) and refuse constitute a fire hazard, and health and safety hazard, which must be abated by the cutting of said noxious weeds, and removal of said health and safety hazard. If the property owner does not abate the noxious weeds and/or Refuse by June 1st, it will be abated by the city, and the cost of the abatement will be billed to the property owner directly, or assessed upon the county property tax bill, and will constit ute a lien upon such land until paid. The City recovers costs for administering this program through a 150% administrative fee. Reference is hereby made to the Resolution for further particulars and Municipal Code Sections 6 -13.01 through 6- 13.17. A copy of said Resolution is on file in the Office of the City Clerk. All property owners having any objections to the proposed removal of the health hazard are hereby notified to attend a meeting of the City Council of the City of Atascadero to be held on May 13, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. when their objections will be heard and given due consideration. Dated: This 28th day of April 2014 /s/ Kurt W. Stone Fire Chief City of Atascadero, California City of Atascadero Fire Department ITEM NUMBER: A-3 DATE: 04/22/14 ATTACHMENT: 3 The deadline for weed/refuse abatement compliance is June 1, 2014 On June 1, 2014, the City’s contractor begins the abatement process for parcels that are not in compliance. The contractor’s fees, as well as applicable City and County fees/fines are assessed on the County’s tax roll. The Fire Chief has established the following requirements: CLEARANCE REQUIREMENTS OF VEGETATIVE GROWTH (NOXIOUS WEEDS) a) Maximum height of 4 inches; b) Located within 100 feet of any building or structure, or to the property line, whichever is nearer; c) Located within 50 feet from the edge of any improved roadway; d) Located within 50 feet from each property line; e) Located within 10 feet on each side of driveways. EXEMPTIONS: a) Animal pastures and agricultural fields growing hay or grains. The interior portion of fenced pastures wher e the quantity of livestock significantly reduces the vegetative growth, therefore bringing the parcel into compliance. Agricultural fields must be cut at harvest time. Uncut hay and grain is subject to abatement. b) Habitat for endangered or threatened species or any species that is a candidate for listing as an endangered or threatened species by the State of California or Federal Government. c) Land kept in a predominantly natural state as habitat for wildlife, plant, or animal communities. d) Open space lands that are environmentally sensitive parklands. e) Other lands having scenic values. Abatement requirements shall remain in effect in waterways where flood preparation measures and emergency flood control mitigation is necessary. 1) This exemption applies whether the land or water are held in fee title or any lesser interest. This exemption applies to any public agency, and private entity that has dedicated the land or water areas to one or more of those purposes or uses, or any combination of public agencies and private entities making that decision. 2) This section shall not be construed to prohibit the use of properly authorized prescribed burning to improve the biological function of land or to assist in the restoration of desired vegetation. 3) In the event that any lands adjacent to land or water areas, as described above, are improved such that they are subject to this chapter, the obligation to comply with Section 6 -13.04 shall be with the person owning, leasing, controlling, operating, or maintaining the occupied dwelling or occupied structure on the improved lands. All maintenance, activities, and other fire prevention measures required by Section 6-13.04 shall be required only for the improved land, and water areas as described above. Questions regarding weed abatement may be directed to 805-470-3300 or by writing to: City of Atascadero, Fire Department, Fire Marshal, 6005 Lewis Ave., Atascadero, CA 93422. PLEASE RETAIN THIS NOTICE FOR ANY RELATED COMMUNICATIONS ITEM NUMBER: A-4 DATE: 04/22/14 Atascadero City Council Staff Report – Police Department George Beatie Skate Park Lease Agreement with Kevin Campion DBA Paradise Coalition RECOMMENDATION: Council authorize the City Manager to execute a five-year Lease Agreement between the City of Atascadero and Kevin Campion, DBA Paradise Coalition, allowing Mr. Campion to continue operation of the George Beatie Skate Park. DISCUSSION: Since April of 2009, Kevin Campion, DBA Paradise Coalition, has partnered with the City of Atascadero as the sole concessionaire providing recreational opportunities for area youth at the George Beatie Skate Park facility. Largely as a result of his efforts, the George Beatie Skate Park is considered one of the finest skate facilities in California. The partnership with Kevin Campion has benefitted the citizens and, in particular, the youth of Atascadero greatly. The operation of the Skate Park by a private company benefits the City by saving tax dollars that would otherwise have to be spent if the facility were operated by City staff. It is unlikely that City staff would be able to provide the same level of service to our community that we currently enjoy in this partnership. City staff has an excellent working relationship with Mr. Campion. He has worked continuously to improve the Skate Park and has been working most recently to raise funds for the insulation of the facility. He routinely participates in other community events such as Winter Wonderland and further increases the reputation of our City through this partnership. Kevin Campion has requested a five year lease agreement with the city for operation of the park. City staff agrees that a long term agreement with Mr. Campion will ensure the high quality of services provided will continue int o the foreseeable future. The agreement will continue to place day to day operations of the Skate Park under agreeable terms and conditions in the hands of Kevin Campion, Paradise Coalition. ITEM NUMBER: A-4 DATE: 04/22/14 The Lease Agreement defines the obligations of the respective roles, and what the City must provide to enable Kevin Campion, Paradise Coalition, to perform these functions. Some of the areas covered by the agreement include clarification of the authority for public operating hours; skate park programs, revenues, operations and plans, improvements of City property and use of City facilities. Some of responsibilities of Kevin Campion, Paradise Coalition included in the agreement are highlighted as follows: The base “rent” for the premises shall be $1.00 per year. Term of the agreement shall be five years commencing on May 1, 2014 and concluding on May 1, 2019. The contractor shall indemnify the City and carry liability insurance. Improvement plans shall be coordinated with the City and subject to City approval. Contractor facility staff will be hired and supervised by Paradise Coalition. Some of the City’s obligations under the agreement include: The City will provide exterior landscape maintenance and building infrastructure capital improvements. The City will pay for up to $300 per month of the electrical bill , telephone, and alarm service. The City will pay the premium for Mr. Campion’s liability insurance policy. This option was previously reviewed and is acceptable to the City’s carrier, CJPIA. The City is responsible for capital improvements for the building’s infrastructure (electrical, plumbing, roofing, etc.) In conclusion, the proposed agreement represents the furtherance of the cooperative relationship between the Kevin Campion, Paradise Coalition and the City of Atascadero. FISCAL IMPACT: The City will pay the premium for Mr. Campion’s Liability Insurance. The current yearly premium is approximately $1600. The rent will be one dollar per year. The City will take a percentage of class and skate ca mp activity conducted at the Skate Park. Contractor will provide an annual split of 40% of contracted class revenue to the City for the Skate and BMX Camps held at the Skate Park. The amount of operating funds saved annually, by the City not operating the Skate Park directly, is approximately $15,000 in City staff time. ITEM NUMBER: A-4 DATE: 04/22/14 ALTERNATIVES: 1. Council may request alteration or amendment to the proposed lease agreement. 2. Council may decline to renew the lease agreement and City staff would search for alternatives in providing this service. ATTACHMENT: None. ITEM NUMBER: A-5 DATE: 04/22/14 Atascadero City Council Staff Report – Public Works Department Final Map 2013-0178 (Tract 2970) West Front Village (TTM 2099 - 0997) (MI W West Front Village LLC) RECOMMENDATIONS: Council: 1. Adopt and approve Final Map 2013-0178 (Tract 2970); and, 2. Reject, without prejudice to future acceptance , on behalf of the public, the offers of dedication of Easements for Public Utility (PUE); and, 3. Authorize and direct City Clerk to endorse the City Council’s approval; and, 4. Authorize City Manager to sign a Sub division Improvement Agreement for improvements associated with Final Map 2013-0178; and, 5. Authorize the City Manager to sign an Affordable Housing Agreement for the project. DISCUSSION: Tentative Tract Map 2099-0997/Tract 2970 was approved by the Planning Commission on February 17, 2009. Final Map 2013-0178 amends the lot lines of 18-lots that were previously subdivided by Final Map 2006-0135 (Tract 2621). The developer chose to modify the housing product footprints, consequently resulting in the need to modify the lots by processing a new tentative map. The subject 18-lot subdivision is made up entirely of single family residential lots. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 66440 the approving legislative body (City Council) cannot deny a final map that is consistent with an approved tentative map. Staff has determined that Final Map 2013-0178 is consistent with approved Tentative Tract Map 2099-0997. The legislative body is also required to accept, accept subject to improvement, or rejec t on behalf of the public, any real property offered for dedication for public use in conformity with the terms of the offer of dedication. The offer of dedication for a public utility easement is rejected without prejudice on behalf of the public. ITEM NUMBER: A-5 DATE: 04/22/14 FISCAL IMPACT: None ATTACHMENT: Exhibit A: Final Map 2013-0178 (Tract 2970) ITEM NUMBER: A-5 DATE: 04/22/14 Exhibit A Final Map 2013-0178 (Tract 2970) 9000 West Front West Front Village, LLC. ITEM NUMBER: A-5 DATE: 04/22/14 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 Atascadero City Council Staff Report – Community Development Department PLN 2099-0033 / ZCH 2014-0171 Oak Ridge Estates / 3F Meadows PD-11 Text Amendment and EIR Addendum (Castlerock Development / KM Holdings) RECOMMENDATIONS: Planning Commission Recommends: 1. Council adopt Draft Resolution A approving the Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the PD-11 amendment for the Oak Ridge Estates/3-F Meadows project; and, 2. Council introduce for first reading by title only, Draft Ordinance A amending PD- 11 for the Oak Ridge Estates/3-F Meadows project. REPORT IN BRIEF: Project Summary The project consists of a proposed amendment to Planned Development 11 (PD-11) which is referred to as the 3-F Meadows or Oak Ridge Estates project. The City adopted PD-11 in 1995 as part of the Atascadero Zoning Ordinance to provide development requirements and standards for Oak Ridge Estates (project). The proposed PD-11 amendments are limited to the following off-site improvement requirements: 1. Intersection improvements at the State Route 41 and Los Altos Road. 2. Intersection improvements at the State Route 41 and the d riveway serving Lots 109-112. The amendments are required in order to bring the 1995 project requirements in line with current Caltrans improvements standards. A project specific Traffic Report has been prepared by W -Trans to analyze the proposed amendments . Based on the ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 conclusions of the Traffic Report, staff prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Addendum which concludes that the proposed amendments to PD-11 are consistent with the original 1995 project EIR. Project Map and Setting Planning Commission Hearing Summary On April 1, 2014, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider a recommendation to the City Council on the proposed project amendment. The Commission heard substantial testimony from staff, the City’s traffic engineer, the San Marcos project entry (existing) Cenegal Road project entry (future) ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 applicant and the public regarding the project (refer to draft Planning Commission minutes – Attachment 10). The primary issues raised were related to Caltrans requirements, traffic safety, and the timing of the improvements. 1. Caltrans Permitting Process The purpose of the proposed amendment is to align the City’s project requirements with Caltrans highway standards. There was significant discussion about Caltrans permitting process and why Caltrans is now requiring a right-turn taper rather than a right-turn lane for west bound traffic on State Route 41. Although Caltrans originally requested the right-turn lane in the EIR, since 2005, Caltrans has been clear that a right-turn taper will serve the traffic needs at the intersection and will have the least environmental impact on the creek. Caltrans asked the applicant to proceed with right-turn taper in the 2005 letter included in Attachment 8, as Exhibit C. There were a number of questions related to why the applicant has not finished the intersection improvements. Since the project Master Plan of Development was approved by the City in 2003, the applicant has submitted three separate permit applications to Caltrans (refer to applicants letter in Attachment 12): 1. First application to Caltrans submitted in 2003. The application expired in 2004 due to inaction based on the discrepancy between PD -11 and Caltrans Design Standards. 2. Second application to Caltrans submitted in May 2005. The application expired after Council denied Castlerock’s request to amend the right-turn requirement. This created a situation where Caltrans would not process an application for a full right-turn nor would it process an application for the taper inconsistent with City standards. 3. Third application to Caltrans submitted in June 2013 and is currently being processed. Caltrans is monitoring the City of Atascadero’s amendment process before taking any final action on the encroachment permit application. 2. Highway 41 Safety Concerns The public testified that safety on Highway 41 is a concern for residents. Several speakers voiced concerns related to speeding, tailgating and the potential for accidents at both intersections. The public also brought up a recent accident near the driveway serving Lots 109-112, as an indication that the road is dangerous. The public spoke in favor of maintaining the right-turn lane requirement for each intersection for safety reasons. ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 The warrant for a right-turn lane is driven by traffic volume. The type and scale of intersection improvements are based on requirements such as the number of right and left-turns, sight distance, and accident rates over the last five years. As right -turn volumes increase, more vehicle lane storage is often needed. This allows cars turning right to get out of traffic so the through lane is not backed up or stopped at the intersection. Traffic stopped in a through lane is a safety concern. The Traffic Report and Caltrans both agree that the appropriate upgrade to the Los Altos Road intersection is the construction of a right-turn taper and an upgraded left-turn lane. In addition, Caltrans is requiring a left-turn lane and an upgraded residential drive approach taper for the driveway serving lots 109-112. Lastly, sight distance and signage can improve driver awareness when approaching or leaving an intersection. The modified PD -11 language includes interim sight distance and signage requirements to improve driver awareness at both intersections. The police department is aware of the speeding and tailgating concerns voiced by the public at the Planning Commission meeting. Enforcement is the best tool for slowing down traffic and for ensuring that cars maintain a safe separation. The Atascadero police department has recently increased the number of hours dedicated to traffic enforcement, and has targeted some of these additional hours to traffic enforcement activity along Highway 41 within the City limits. Staff has looked into the fatal accident that occurred between the Los Altos Road and driveway serving Lots 109-112 intersections. This fatality was a single car accident attributed to speeding and wet road conditions and not to road design or sight distance. There were two accidents at the Los Altos Road intersection in 2005. The accidents were single car accidents involving objects on the side of the road. While three accidents have occurred at the intersection, the rate of accidents is below the statewide standard for similar intersections. 3. Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission deliberated about the timing of the improvemen ts at the intersection of Highway 41 / Los Altos Rd. Following a thorough debate, the Planning Commission voted to recommend the deadline for completion of the Highway 41 / Los Altos Rd. intersection improvements be reduced from three (3) years to two (2) years. The Planning Commission’s recommendation is included in the attached draft ordinance (Attachment 9). The applicant is concerned about the feasibility of finishing the improvements within two (2) years and have submitted a letter requesting the Ci ty Council change the deadline back to three (3) years (refer to Attachment 11). 4. Intersection Improvement Timing Staff originally recommended a three (3) year deadline to complete the intersection improvements because a number of separate permits are re quired from Caltrans, California Fish and Wildlife, Army Corp of Engineers, and the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Once permits from all of the agencies are received, the applicant could ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 begin the construction work which could take up to a year to complete, depending on weather. Staff thinks the three year timeframe provided adequate time for the applicant to complete the project plans, obtain permits and complete construction. The two year timeline is likely optimistic and may not be met if there are any permitting delays. DISCUSSION [This section is from the original Planning Commission staff report] Background 1. Project History The original 3-F Meadows Ranch project was approved by the City Council in February 1995. The project included a lot line adjustment map (LLA 94005), a zone change (ZCH 94-001) which created the Planned Development 11 (PD-11) zoning district, a Colony Road abandonment (RA 94-001), and the certification of an Environmental Impact Report. The purpose of the project was to reconfigure 115 existing residential Colony Lots on approximately 802± acres into a new configuration that would minimize grading and environmental impacts while creating open space preserves at the same time. Attachment 1 shows the approved project and off-site improvement requirements, which include: 111 single-family residential lots with 39 acres of conservation easements One (1) lot for an Atascadero Mutual Water Company water tank Three (3) open space lots consisting of a total of 256 acres Project construction began in 2003. Permits for 26 single -family homes have been issued and 25 permits have been finaled. As a result of the economic downturn, construction on the project slowed after 2006. The last housing permit was issued in the summer of 2007, after which time the City stopped issuing building permits. 2. Project Moratorium On March 8, 2010, the City issued a letter (Attachment 2) notifying the developer that the project was out of compliance with PD-11’s off-site road improvement requirements for: Curve widenings on Los Altos Road Intersection improvements at State Route 41 and Los Altos Road. The PD required these improvements to be completed within the following timeframe: When the average daily trips (ADT) on Los Altos Road reaches five hundred (500) vehicles per day; or, With the development of the twenty-seventh lot in Phase 1; or, ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 Within three (3) years of the issuance of building permits for Phase 1, whichever is earlier. Since the off-site improvements were not completed within the three year time frame, the letter stated that no additional residential building permits would be issued until the project was in compliance with the requirements of PD-11. The current suspension of project residential permitting is preventing the construction of additional dwelling units that would contribute additional traffic to Los Altos/SR41. Therefore, there are currently no potential public safety issues caused by the non-compliance with PD-11. However, Castlerock is working to design and complete the required off -site improvements at the State Route 41 / Los Altos intersection so permit issuance may resume. 3. PD-11 Requirements The City adopted PD-11 as part of the Atascadero Zoning Ordinance, Section 9-3.656, to provide development requirements and standards for Oak Ridge Estates (project). Because the project was a lot line adjustment rather than a tentative tract map, the City could not apply project conditions to the map. As a result, the project conditions were written into the zoning ordinance as PD-11 (Attachment 3). The PD-11 requirements are organized as follows: Planning Requirements Fire Department Requirements Engineering Requirements o On-site road improvements o Off-site improvements (this section is proposed for amendment) o Drainage o Utilities Planned Development 11 currently requires off-site road improvements for the intersection of State Route 41 and Los Altos Road. The offsite improvements should have been completed within three years of the issuance of housing permits. However, due to changes in Caltrans requirements, the Developer has been unable to secure a Caltrans encroachment permit that would allow the construction of improvements at the State Route 41 / Los Altos Road intersection, Current Planned Development 11 Requirements State Route 41 / Los Altos Road Intersection 1. A Left-turn lane shall be constructed on State Highway 41 for eastbound traffic entering Los Altos Road. (PD-11 section 9-3.656(3)(v)) 2. Vehicle refuge lanes shall be constructed for vehicles turning left onto State Highway 41 from Los Altos Road. (PD-11 section 9-3.656(3)(vi)) ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 3. Provide a minimum of five hundred fifty (550) feet of sight distance at the intersection of Los Altos Road and State Highway 41. (PD-11 section 9-3.656(3)(vii)) 4. Advisory and warning signage shall be installed along State Highway 41 to advise drivers of the approaching intersection with Los Altos Road. (PD-11 section 9-3.656(3)(viii)) 5. Designated right-turn lane shall be constructed on State Highway 41 for westbound traffic entering Los Altos Road. (PD-11 section 9-3.656(3)(ix)) 4. Previous Amendment Requests 2005 Amendment Request The applicant began working with Caltrans on the State Route 41 / Los Altos intersection improvements when the project began in 2001. After a number of years of discussions with Caltrans, the Developer was notified by Caltrans on June 15, 2005 (see following page) that the right turn lane would lead to significant environmental impacts resulting from widening the highway into a creek. Caltrans directed the applicant (Castlerock) to submit plans for a right-turn taper as the preferred intersection improvement rather than a separate right turn lane (“channelization”). The Developer notified the City that Caltrans would not issue an encroachment permit for the right turn lane required by PD-11. Consistent with Caltrans direction, the developer requested a right-turn taper be substituted for the right-turn requirement. The City Engineer decided to present the request to the City Council for a determination since the intersection improvements are contained in the Zoning Ordinance under PD-11. The issue was agendized for a City Council hearing in 2 005. Following lengthy testimony from the applicant, Caltrans, and the neighborhood, the Council determined that there was not sufficient analysis of the safety issues and denied the applicant’s request on a 5-0 vote. 2012 Amendment Request From 2006 to 2011, the applicant continued to work with Caltrans in an attempt to acquire an encroachment permit for the State Route 41 / Los Altos intersection. When these efforts were unsuccessful, the applicant requested in 2012 the issue be brought back to the City Council for further consideration. At the April 10, 2012 City Council meeting, staff recommended that Council accept a recommendation from the Acting City Engineer’s that the right-turn taper be substituted for the right-turn lane based on Caltrans previous direction that it is the preferred improvement. It was assumed the Acting City Engineer had the authority to make design level decisions for public improvement projects. Council accepted the Acting City Engineer’s decision, however, this decision was reversed when it was discovered that the Council’s 2005 decision on the project prevented staff from changing the requirements . It was determined the Council should make the final determination on any off-site improvement requirements or changes. ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 2013 Amendment Request This issue was again presented to Council May 14, 2013. Staff reiterated the current issues regarding the right-turn taper vs. right-turn lane, provided technical information regarding the improvements and provided Council with options for changing the right- turn requirements for the project. Council directed staff to formally amend the PD-11 code text and bring the project back for Council review and approval. Since the same issues exist at the State Route 41 / driveway 109 -112 driveway intersection, those standards are being updated concurrently. ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 June 15, 2005 Caltrans letter directing applicant not to build a right turn lane ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 5. 2014 Amendment Request Process Staff has prepared this staff report and PD-11 amendment in response to the City Council’s 2013 direction. The PD-11 amendment consists of three key components: W-Trans Traffic Report PD-11 Code Text Amendment Environmental Impact Report Addendum W-Trans Traffic Report The City hired the Traffic Engineer, W -Trans Inc., to complete a Traffic Report to analyze the potential impact of changing the project requirements for State Route 41 / Los Altos Road Intersection and the State Route 41 / Lots 109-112 driveway intersection. The traffic consultant costs were paid by the applicant. The Traffic Report is included as Attachment 8, Exhibit E. Staff subsequently sent the Traffic Report and amended PD-11 language modifications to Caltrans for review and concurrence. PD-11 Code Text Amendment Based on the results of the Traffic Report, staff developed draft PD -11 language changes that correlate to the improvements identified as being warranted in the Traffic Report. The proposed amendments to PD-11 would modify the requirements for the off-site improvements at State Route 41 / Los Altos Road Intersection and the State Route 41 / Lots 109-112 driveway intersection. The proposed amendment will modify the following sections of PD-11 (a complete analysis of these amendments follows in section “9. Planned Development 11 Amendments – Detailed Analysis”: 1. Left-turn lane requirements on State Highway 41. 2. Vehicle refuge lanes for vehicles turning left onto State Highway 41. 3. Minimum sight distance for intersections on State Highway 41. 4. Advisory and warning signage on State Highway 41. 5. Right-turn lane requirements on State Highway 41. No other changes or discretionary approvals are proposed for or to the number, lo cation or development of any residential lots, roads or any other aspects of the 3F Meadows Project. These proposed changes were analyzed in the traffic report and reviewed by Caltrans. Caltrans has subsequently provided the City with a confirmation letter that it has no objections to the draft PD-11 language. Caltrans’s confirmation letter is included as Attachment 4. A detailed explanation of the PD-11 changes is contained in the next section of this staff report. ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 Environmental Impact Report Addendum The third part of the PD-11 amendment process is the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Addendum. The EIR Addendum evaluates the proposed PD-11 changes against the off-site traffic mitigation measures identified in the original 3 -F Meadows EIR. These EIR traffic mitigation measures were incorporated into the PD-11 standards for the 3-F Meadows Project. The EIR Addendum concluded that it is acceptable for the City to modify some of the traffic mitigation measures for the following reasons: The modifications will avoid creating new, more severe, significant adverse environmental impacts; and, The proposed road improvements would be constructed consistent with current Caltrans recommendations and standards; and, The modifications will not create any new, significant traffic impacts. As demonstrated in the attached EIR Addendum (Attachment 8), no further environmental review beyond the EIR Addendum is necessary due to the fact that the proposed changes to the PD-11 will not result in any new or more severe environmental impacts. The conclusion of the EIR Addendum States: “…Based on the analysis in this Addendum and its exhibits, the City concludes that a subsequent EIR is not necessary as the proposed changes to PD-11 are minor in nature in that they do not result in any new significant adverse environmental impacts or an increase in the severity of impacts previously identified in the 3F Meadows EIR. In fact, the changes are decidedly beneficial from an environmental impact and public safety point of view as they avoid the creation of a new significant adverse impact (associated with the original PD-11 requirement that State Route 41 be widened to facilitate construction of a new dedicated right -turn lane from westbound State Route 41 onto Los Altos Road) and generally provide updates to modernize and ensure that the improvements that are necessary are built to current Caltrans Design Standards…” ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 Summary of 2013/14 amendment process The amendment process consists of the following steps: Step Status Prepare a Traffic Report to analyze current and future traffic conditions at the State Route 41 / Los Altos Road intersection and the State Route 41 / Lots 109-112 driveway intersection. Complete Develop draft PD-11 amendment language that reflect the warranted improvements at the State Route 41 / Los Altos Road intersection and the State Route 41 / Lots 109-112 driveway intersection. Complete Coordination with Caltrans regarding the proposed PD-11 amendments and Traffic Report in order to obtain Caltrans concurrence on proposed changes. Complete Prepare an EIR Addendum for the 1995 3-F Meadows (original development name) Final Environmental Impact Report that evaluates the proposed PD-11 changes. Complete Planning Commission hearing to consider a recommendation to the City Council regarding the proposed amendment. Current City Council Meeting to consider proposed PD11 amendments at first reading. Pending City Council Meeting to consider the proposed PD11 amendments at second reading. Pending ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 Analysis 6. Project Circulation Access Points Oak Ridge Estates (formally known as 3-F Meadows) has three access points: San Marcos Road via Los Altos Road and State Route 41 (current project access point) Cenegal Road via Laurel and Santa Lucia Roads (future access point) Private Driveway to Cholare Road off of State Route 41 (access to lots 109 -112 only) The first access is arrived at via the Highway 41/Los Altos Road intersection. From Los Altos Road you travel east to San Marcos Road and the development is at the end of San Marcos Road. The second access is from Santa Lucia Road via Laurel and Cenegal Roads. This connection has not been built and must be completed as part of a later phase. The Final EIR assumed that half of the project traffic would access Oak Ridge estates from each access point. Two road access routes are required to ensure adequate evacuation routes and traffic circulation. The maps on the next two pages show the access points. Lots 109-112 have a separate access point off of Highway 41. Lots 109-112 take access from an existing private driveway serving four adjacent lots. This access serves four existing single-family residential lots and the four proposed Oak Ridge Estates lots (Lots 109-122). The Applicant has a driveway easement across three of the adjacent lots, as shown on the next page. The easement then reconnects with Cholare Road and a private access easement that runs across lots 109 -112. A picture of the drive approach is shown below. The driveway serving Lots 109-112. Picture looking eastbound on Highway 41 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 Lot 109 – 112 Location Map Existing lots on State Route 41 (not part of Oak Ridge Estates Lots 109 - 112 (part of Oak Ridge Estates Existing driveway on State Route 41 (future access to lots 109-112 Future driveway connection to lots 109-112 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 Project Map and Access Points Santa Lucia access via Laurel and Cenegal Roads Intersection of State Route 41 and Los Altos Road Intersection of State Route 41 and the driveway for lots 109-112 PD-11 / 3-F Meadows / Oak Ridge Estates project boundary San Marcos project entry (existing) Cenegal Road project entry (future) ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 7. Traffic Report Staff evaluated the existing traffic reports to determine if they would provide enough information to support the PD-11 amendment process. Staff determined that the previous traffic reports did not provide the analysis needed to support the PD-11 modifications and supporting EIR Addendum. In addition, the previous traffic analysis did not address the intersection of the driveway accessing Lots 109-112 from Highway 41. Staff also wanted to consider questions and information that had been raised or provided in previous City Council meetings. Therefore, the Applicant funded, and the City retained, W -Trans to provide an overall evaluation of current and future traffic conditions resulting from the development and adjacent traffic shed. The following comments, data and information we re used to develop the February 4, 2014 Traffic Report: 1. Current Traffic Counts for Los Altos Road and Highway 41. These rates were collected when school was in session. (Collecting traffic volumes when school is in session is standard and was also a concern brought up at previous Council meeting regarding the traffic counts existing at that time.) 2. Current and Future Development information for Oak Ridge Estates. 3. Current and Future Development information for the developed and vacant lots accessing Los Altos Road outside of the development. (Inclusion of trips from existing development and potential development outside Oakridge Estates was a concern noted at a previous Council meeting. The additional trips were included in the Traffic Report so a conservative estimate of traffic conditions would be developed.) 4. Anticipated number of second units that could be developed in the traffic shed. (Inclusion of trips generated by the potential development of additional second units was a concern noted at a previous Council meeting. The trips generated by four additional second units were included so a conservative estimate of traffic conditions would be developed. The four unit estimate is double the existing second unit construction for areas around the development) 5. The 2013 version of the San Luis Obispo of Governments 2035 Traffic Growth Model for Highway 41. This model was used to estimate the growth of turning movements not related to the project over time. The model predicts future growth to 2035. 6. Highway Patrol Collision History for a five year period published in the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System. 7. Collision Review Results Memo from Central Coast Transportation Consulting (provided by Mr. Mitch Paskin). This information was evaluated in and incorporated where appropriate. W -Trans also provided a memo response to ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 the Central Coast Transportation memo. The response is included as Attachment 7. 8. Traffic Report Conclusions and Recommendations The W -trans traffic analysis utilized the above information to determine the following for the existing, future and future plus project scenarios: Levels of service calculations for roads and intersections Determine if Los Altos Road/Highway 41 intersect ion collisions exceeded statewide standards Determine the type of improvement that would be warranted at both intersections with Highway 41. The Traffic Report presented several conclusions and recommendations that staff used to modify PD-11 and support the FEIR Addendum. Significant conclusions and recommendations include: The State Route 41 / Los Altos Road intersection operates at an acceptable level of service in the existing, future and future plus project conditions. Therefore, a left-turn refuge/acceleration lane, for cars turning left onto Highway 41, is not warranted. A right-turn taper is warranted under future plus project conditions at the State Route 41 / Los Altos Road intersection. A right-turn lane at the State Route 41 / Los Altos Road intersection not warranted under any future traffic scenario. (Note: the trigger for a full right-turn lane would be construction of all of Oak Ridge Estates plus an additional 112 single-family residential houses.) At the State Route 41 / Lots 109-112 driveway intersection, the existing, future and future plus project scenarios do not warrant the need for either a left -turn lane, right-turn lane, right-turn taper or left-turn acceleration/refuge lane. The existing right-turn taper at the State Route 41 / Los Altos Road intersection should be evaluated to determine if it meets current Caltrans standards. If it does not meet the standard, the existing taper should be improved to meet the applicable Caltrans design standards. The conclusions and recommendations from the Traffic Report were subsequently used to develop draft Planned Development 11 language, as discussed below. 9. Planned Development 11 Amendments – Detailed Analysis As previously discussed, Planned Development 11 (PD-11) is in the Municipal Code and contains the conditions of approval for the Oakridge Estates Development. PD -11 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 provides development requirements for on and off -site roads, fire protection and other planning development standards. City staff developed the proposed modified PD-11 language to reflect the Traffic Report conclusions and recommendations. The entire draft PD-11 language is provided as Attachment 4. Staff provided Caltrans with copies of the traffic report and draft amended PD-11 language for review and concurrence. Caltrans provided a letter stating that Caltrans has no objections to the proposed PD-11 revisions. The letter is included as Exihibit F to the EIR Addendum in Attachment 4. The proposed PD-11 amendments consist of the following, and timing requirements are discussed after the description of the PD-11 changes: Left-turn lane improvements - Section 9-3.656(c)(3)(v) The Traffic Report identified that a left-turn lane is warranted for the intersection of Highway 41 and Los Altos Road. A left -turn lane already exists in this location therefore; Caltrans requested language clarifying that the applicant will be required to upgrade the left-turn lane to Caltrans’s satisfaction. In addition, Caltrans requested that the left-turn lane be retained at the Driveway serving lots 109-112. The left-turn lane is not warranted according to the Traffic Report. Therefore, the City and Caltrans staff agreed to include a provision that would relieve the Applicant of completing the left-turn lane improvements should Caltrans determine that a left-turn lane is not required. This will allow the Applicant to move forward with the project should a left -turn lane no longer be needed. Caltrans expects that the left-turn lane will be required. The following paragraphs show the proposed left-turn lane modification in strike out and italics for inserted language for the left-turn lanes: ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 PD-11 Text Amendment: Left-turn lane improvements - Section 9-3.656(c)(3)(v) Vehicle Refuge Lane improvements - Section 9-3.656(c)(3)(vi): The Traffic Report provides the Level of Service related to vehicle delay for vehicles turning left onto Highway 41 at Los Altos Road . Level of Service is used as an indication of how much time delay a person will experience at an intersection because of traffic congestion. Level of Service was not provided at the driveway serving Lots 109-112 because of the very small amount of traffic that the four lots will generate. Therefore, the Level of Service will not change significantly. The Traffic Report indicates that the Los Altos Road intersection will operate satisfactory at a Level of Service C or better during peak traffic hour. This means that motorists will not have to sit and wait very long before they have an opportunity to pull out onto State Route 41. The City has therefore removed the requirement to install refuge lanes for each intersection since the delay does not warrant refuge lane improvements. However, Caltrans is requiring that the drive approach for the Driveway serving Lots 109-112 be brought up to current drive approach design standards. This means that Planning Commission is recommending three (3) years be revised to two (2) years ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 the applicant will need to provide a plan showing what improvements need to be made to the driveway approach before a building permit can be obtained for any of the lots. The Draft plans that the Applicant has submitte d to Caltrans include a painted median in the same location where a refuge lane would be. This painted median is not specifically for refuge but it does provide an area for cars in the event of a conflict. This painted median is required since there is a left-turn lane on the other side of the intersection. The purpose of the painted median is to channelize on-coming traffic to the right, in order to protect the left turn lane: ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 PD-11 Text Amendment: Vehicle Refuge Lane improvements - Section 9-3.656(c)(3)(vi): Sight Distance Improvements - Section 9-3.656(c)(3)(vii): Sight Distance improvements have been modified to include interim improvements at the intersection of Los Altos Road and Highway 41. Long -term improvement requirements remain the same for both intersections. Short-term improvements include interim safety signage were added in response to comments at previous Council meetings that site-distance is an overall concern. The interim improvements consist of improving site distance at the Los Altos Road Intersection as permitted by Caltrans and relevant permitting agencies (e.g. Fish and Wildlife). The Applicant recently performed interim sight distance improvements last month. The timing triggers for the interim improvements and maintenance is yearly by September 15th until the final improvements are completed. Timing triggers are discussed below. The proposed PD - 11 language consists of the following: ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 PD-11 Text Amendment: Sight Distance Improvements - Section 9-3.656(c)(3)(vii): Planning Commission is recommending three (3) years be revised to two (2) years ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 Figure 2 - Painted Median Advisory and Warning Signage Improvement 9-3.656(c)(3)(viii): The Advisory and Warning Signage Improvement requirements have been modified to include interim improvements at the intersection of Los Altos Road and Highway 41. The interim improvements must be constructed within six months of the adoption of the PD-11 amendments. Short-term improvements were added in response to comments at previous Council Meetings that warning signage may not be adequate at this intersection. The interim improvements consist of the installation of appropriate signage prior to the Los Altos Road Intersection. All signage improvements will be subject to the approval of Caltrans. Long-term sight distance improvement requirements remain the same for both intersections. The timing triggers for the long-term improvements and maintenance is discussed below and is tied to the right-turn taper improvements. The proposed PD-11 language consists of the following: Painted Median Location Protects left turn lane Typical Vehicle ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 PD-11 Text Amendment: Advisory and Warning Signage Improvement 9-3.656(c)(3)(viii): Right Turn Lane Improvements - Section 9-3.656(c)(3)(ix): Planned Development 11 requires the applicant to install right -turn lanes on State Route 41 and at the Driveway serving Lots 109 -112. The Traffic Report results indicate that a right-turn lane is not warranted for either intersection. The right -turn lane at Los Altos Road is not warranted since the number of units being built, under future plus all other expected development scenario (worst case), does not generate enough right-turns at the intersection. The Traffic Report indicates that an additional 112 units are required, above the number planned or expected, in order to trigger the need for right -turn improvements. The traffic report indicates that a right-turn taper is warranted at the Los Altos Road intersection. Therefore, staff has modified PD-11 to reflect the right-turn taper warrant. Timing and warrants are discussed on the next page. The right-turn taper improvements are shown in Figure 3. Planning Commission is recommending three (3) years be revised to two (2) years ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 Figure 3 – Right-turn Taper Widening Lastly, a right-turn lane is not warranted at the Driveway serving lots 109-112 based on the Traffic Report results. The four project lots and the existing lots served by the driveway do not generate sufficient traffic to warrant full right -turn lanes. However, the applicant must still bring the drive approach up to current Caltrans standards prior to development of Lots 109-112. The amended PD-11 language is as follows. Right-turn taper widening Existing edge of pavement ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 PD-11 Text Amendment: Right Turn Lane Improvements - Section 9-3.656(c)(3)(ix): 10. Timing of Improvements State Route 41 / Los Altos intersection The State Route 41 / Los Altos intersection improvement timing requirement has already been triggered under the existing PD-11 language. As a result, the Applicant cannot pull any single-family residential permits at this time. The Existing PD-11 language requires the improvements at State Route 41 / Los Altos intersection improvement be constructed when: 1. when the ADT on Los Altos Road reaches five hundred (500) vehicles per day; or, 2. with the development of the twenty-seventh lot in Phase 1; or, 3. within three (3) years of the issuance of building permits f or Phase 1, whichever is earlier. Since the Traffic Report indicates that additional homes could be constructed without triggering the need for a right-turn taper the applicant is requesting that additional building permits be issued prior to the completion of the revised improvements. The Planning Commission is recommending three (3) years be revised to two (2) years ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 Applicant has stated this will facilitate the financing of the improvements at the intersection. The proposed PD-11 amendment language contains modified timing requirements that specify when the improvements have to be constructed. The timing of improvements is based on the warrants specified in the Traffic Report. The improvements at the State Route 41 / Los Altos Road intersection are tied to the requirements for the right-turn taper. Improvements to the intersection, under existing conditions (today), are not warranted until an additional 95 single-family residential units are constructed. Staff is recommending the trigger for the State Route 41 / Los Altos intersection improvements be set as follows: 1. Prior to the issuance of the 52nd Oak Ridge Estates housing unit permit (25 additional permits beyond the 26 already issued); or, 2. Three (3) years from the approval of this ordinance, whichever occurs first. [Note: the Planning Commission is recommending the timing trigger be reduced from three (3) years to two (2) years.] If the intersection improvements are not completed prior to the triggers, the City would stop issuing building permits. State Route 41 / Driveway serving Lots 109-112 Intersection The improvements at the State Route 41 / driveway serving Lots 109-112 intersection have not yet been triggered since the Applicant has not yet applied for building permits for these four lots. The existing PD-11 trigger requirement for Lots 109-112 intersection improvements is shown below. This trigger is not proposed to be modified as part of this amendment. “…The right-turn lane for the driveways accessing Lots 109-112 shall be constructed with the development of any portion of Lots 109-112…” The improvements and warrant triggers are specified in Table 2, below. In the case where a different improvement is specified, it is shown below the deleted improvement. ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 Table 2 - Improvements, Associated Timing, and Change Location Improvement Proposed Timing Change Los Altos Road and Highway 41 Right-turn Lane Not Required Deleted Requirement Right-turn Taper Within 3 years or prior to the issuance of the 52nd housing permit. New Requirement Refuge Lane Not Required Deleted Requirement Interim Sight Distance Yearly by September 15th. New Requirement Sight Distance Within 3 years or prior to the issuance of the 52nd housing permit. Modified Timing Interim Advisory and Warning Signage Within six months of the PD-11 amendment New Requirement Advisory and Warning Signage Within 3 years or prior to the issuance of the 52nd housing permit. Modified Timing Left-turn Lane Improvements Within 3 years or prior to the issuance of the 52nd housing permit. Modified Timing Driveway Serving Lots 109-112 Left Turn Lane Improvements Prior to the issuance of building permits for any portion of Lots 109-112 No change Right-turn Lane Improvements Not required Deleted Requirement Driveway Approach Upgrades Prior to the issuance of building permits for any portion of Lots 109-112 New Requirement Refuge Lane Not required Deleted 11. Neighborhood issues and Concerns Staff is aware of several issues that the local neighborhood has voiced. These concerns are mainly related to the following: Construction traffic on San Marcos Road Road maintenance of San Marcos Road Road maintenance of Los Altos Road Desire for another road connection to Highway 41 Sight distance and signage issues at Los Altos Road and Highway 41 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 Construction Traffic and maintenance of San Marcos Road is a concern of the neighborhood because of increased traffic, road damage, speeding and safety. San Marcos Road is a typical west-side hilly road that is narrow and winding. PD-11 addresses the increased construction traffic concerns by requiring the applicant to perform curve widening and maintain San Marcos Road through the end of Phase II construction. This requirement is not being changed. The City has a signed agreement with the applicant for the road maintenance. After Phase II, the City will rely on the Municipal Code section that applies to offsite damage by construction traffic. The City is able to require repair of construction related damage. Long-term, the City will add San Marcos, from Los Altos to the Oakridge Estates Entrance to the list of City Maintained Roads. Los Altos Road is already a City Maintained Road. Los Altos Road maintenance is an ongoing concern for the City. Although Los Altos is a City maintained road, the road was not built to City standards and has not been maintained over the years. The City currently does not have any long-term plans to maintain Los Altos. However, the Applicant has indicated that they are interested in performing repairs to Los Altos Road. The repairs would consist of pavement re pairs and sealing of the road. This repair scenario represents a medium term fix for Los Altos. This would be in addition to previously completed curve widening that was completed in 2013. The Applicant’s plan for repair of Los Altos is included as Attachment 5. The repair of Los Altos is discussed further below in the Performance Agreement Section. The City has also been asked by a resident to require the applicant to construct another connection to Highway 41. This connection would be along the Escabrosa Road right of way, which is partly in the County. This connection was analyzed as part of the Project EIR in 1994. This connection was discounted as an alternative because of significant environmental impacts that would result from the major grading and tree removal required. The EIR identified the two connection points as the Highway 41 ent rance and the Santa Lucia entrance via Laurel and Cenegal Roads. There are no proposed changes to the lot or road configurations within the project area. During the May 2013 City Council Meeting, a concern was raised over site distance and signage at the intersection of Highway 41 and Los Altos Road. Staff has evaluated the current conditions and has modified the existing sight distance and signage requirements to include interim sight distance and signage improvements at the intersection. These improvements are meant to address the neighborhoods concerns and are discussed in detail above. 12. Draft Amended Performance Agreement The Applicant and City have tentatively agreed to amend the existing project Performance Agreement. The existing Performance Agreement outlines the Applicant’s responsibilities related to the construction of offsite improvements and maintenance during project construction. Performance Agreement Amendment #1 describes the ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 Applicant’s responsibility related to the proposed changes in PD-11. Performance Agreement Amendment #1 also includes the Applicant’s proposed plan to repair Los Altos Road from Highway 41 to San Marcos Road. Performance Agreement Amendment #1 is included at Attachment 6. The current Performance Agreement only requires the Applicant to provide financial assurances for the improvements occurring on the City’s portion of the right of way on Los Altos Road, and not in the State Highway right of way. The existing financial assurance amounts to around $17,000 for the currently required improvements. Since financial assurances are used as a guarantee for performance of work and payment of suppliers and workers, the $17,000 amount would not cover the full cost of improvements if the City has to step in and perform the work in the Caltrans right of way. The Applicant is proposing to increase the financial assurance amounts to cover the full cost of the improvements at the intersection. Therefore, City staff and the Applicant have developed the draft Performance Agreement Amendment #1 to require the submission of an engineer’s cost estimate and new financial assurance mechanisms. The applicant has provided the draft plans and an engineer’s cost estimate to the City. The Deputy City Engineer has verified the Applicant’s Engineer’s Cost Estimate. Staff will be presenting the draft performance agreement to Council for approval. 13. California Environmental Quality Act Process Consistent with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) an Addendum to the certified 3F Meadows Final Environmental Impact Report (Attachment 8) has been prepared to analyze the potential impacts of the text amendment. The original 3F Meadows EIR identified mitigation measures to reduce all of the potentially significant environmental impacts associated with the 3F Meadows Project to levels of insignificance, and the City certified the 3F Meadows EIR and approved the 3F Meadows Project in February 1995. The purpose of the Addendum is to evaluate proposed minor changes to some of the off-site traffic mitigation measures identified in the original 3F Meadows EIR which were incorporated into the PD-11 zoning district developed for, and applied as, conditions of approval to the 3F Meadows Project. Other than the minor changes to PD-11 discussed and analyzed herein, no other changes or discretionary approvals are proposed to the number, location or development of any residential lots, roads or any other aspects of the 3F Meadows Project. As explained in the attached addendum, it is necessary for the City to modify some of the traffic mitigation measures to: (i) avoid creating new, more severe significant adverse environmental impacts; (ii) ensure road improvements are constructed consistent with , and meet current Caltrans recommendations and standards; and (iii) delete those which are not necessary to address any potentially significant traffic impacts associated with the Project. ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 As demonstrated in this Addendum, no further environmental review beyond this Addendum is necessary due to the fact that the proposed changes to the PD -11 will not result in any new or more severe environmental impacts. Conclusion: The 3-F Meadows / PD-11 project was approved in 1995 with a number of off -site road improvement mitigation measures required on State Route 41. Since the approval, Caltrans has changed its position regarding the types of highway improvements that are needed to mitigate the project’s traffic impacts. Because PD-11 is a fixed standard codified in the Zoning Ordinance, the code needs to be amended to reflect Caltrans’ current highway standards. A detailed traffic report was prepared to ensure the proposed c hanges are consistent with the original Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and will not impact traffic service levels, or create any unsafe conditions. The traffic report has been reviewed by Caltrans who is in agreement with the traffic report’s recommendations. A complete Addendum to the 1995 EIR has been prepared and concludes the proposed amendments are consistent with the mitigation requirements of the original EIR. By amending the PD-11’s off-site road improvement mitigation measures, the applicant will be able to restart construction of the project and obtain encroachment permits from Caltrans to make the necessary State Route 41 improvements. ALTERNATIVES: 1. The City Council may determine that additional information is necessary prior to making a recommendation. The City Council should continue the item and refer it back to staff for additional analysis. 2. The City Council may approve the amendments with minor changes consistent with the EIR Addendum. 3. The City Council may deny the proposed amendments. The City Council should make clear findings as the basis of the recommended denial. FISCAL IMPACT Oak Ridge Estates is a private development project that is responsible for funding all on-site and off-site improvements. As the project builds single-family residential houses the City will receive permit fees, Capital Facility Impact Fees, and increased property tax that will be revenue positive to the City. ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 ATTACHMENTS: Binder Tabs are coordinated with Attachment numbers and Exhibit letters: Attachment 1: Project Master Plan Map Attachment 2: March 8, 2010: non-compliance letter to Castlerock Development Attachment 3: Current Planned Development 11 code text Attachment 4: Caltrans Letter Dated March 11, 2014 Attachment 5: Plans for Maintenance of Los Altos Road Attachment 6: Draft Performance Agreement Amendment #1 Attachment 7: W-Trans Collision Review Results Memo, Central Coast Transportation Consulting Attachment 8: Draft Resolution A: Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum Exhibit A 3F Meadows/Oak Ridge Estates Public Improvement Map Exhibit B March 6, 1995 letter from Engineering Development Associates (Michael Hodge) to Caltrans (Larry Newland) Exhibit C June 15, 2005 letter from Caltrans (Steve Senet) to R. Thompson Consulting (Russ Thompson) Exhibit D November 9, 2010 letter from Caltrans (Steve Senet) to Ogden & Fricks LLP (Roy Odgen) Exhibit E W-Trans’ February 4, 2014 report to City of Atascadero Deputy Public Works Director (David Athey) Exhibit F March 11, 2014 letter from Caltrans (Steve Senet) to City Deputy Public Works Director (David Athey) Exhibit G Proposed amendments to PD-11 showing deletions (in strikeout) and additions (in underline) format Attachment 9: Draft Ordinance A: PD-11 text amendment Attachment 10: Draft Planning Commission minutes – April 1, 2014 Attachment 11: Letter #1 from Castlerock Development (applicant) – April 8, 2014 Attachment 12: Letter #2 from Castlerock Development (applicant) – April 8, 2014 Attachment 13: Letter #3 from Castlerock Development (applicant) – April 8, 2014 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 ATTACHMENT 1: Project Master Plan Map (full size map distributed to Planning Commission) ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 ATTACHMENT 2: March 8, 2010: non-compliance letter to Castlerock Development ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 Attachment 3: Current Zoning Ordinance Planned Development 11 code text 9-3.656 Establishment of Planned Development Overlay Zone No. 11: (PD11). The Planned Development Overlay Zone No. 11 is established as shown on the official zoning maps (Section 9-1.102 of this title). The conditions of development are established: Conditions of Approval. (a) Planning Division. (1) To ensure conformance with the provisions of the PD- 11 Overlay Zone, a master plan of development shall be prepared which satisfies all of the following conditions prior to the recordation of any final document implementing Lot Line Adjustment 94-005. The Master Development Plan shall consist of the one (1) inch equals forty (40) feet plans entitled “Precise Road Alignment/Lot Grading Plan,” amended and supplemented, as required by these conditions. (2) A Mitigation Monitoring Program, prepared in conformance with the Mitigation Monitoring Plan contained in the final EIR for this project, shall be prepared and implemented prior to the commence- ment of any construction. Preparation of the Mitigation Monitoring Program shall be the financial responsibility of the applicant. (3) The applicant shall demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the City Attorney, that adequate title and/or interest has been obtained for the existing Colony rights-of-way within the project boundary prior to approval of the Master Development Plan. (4) The Master Development Plan shall show the location of building envelopes, leach field areas, and driveways for lots whose average slope exceeds thirty percent (30%). The building, leach field and driveway locations shall be subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Director. (5) Open space easements to provide wildlife corridors shall be provided in conformance with the recommendations of the Final EIR. Limits on fencing and other detrimental uses within easement areas shall be restricted by the project CC and R’s. The location of the easements and CC and R restrictions shall be subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Director. ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 (6) The “Open Space” lots (Lots A, B and C) as shown on Exhibit B shall be offered for dedication to the City. (7) Road Abandonment 94-001 shall be completed and all necessary documents shall be recorded prior to, or simultaneously with the recordation of any final document(s) implementing LLA 94-005. (8) Retaining walls shall be used wherever feasible to reduce the amount of grading necessary for the construction of roads and homes. Grading plans shall be reviewed by the City Engineer and Community Development Director to ensure that proposed grading does not exceed that necessary to develop the site. (9) Road maintenance agreements, in a form approved by the City Attorney, shall be prepared and recorded for each group of lots which share a driveway or other common access. The agreements may be made a part of the CC and R’s, or may be recorded as deed restrictions, or may be recorded as separate road maintenance agreements. (10) The applicant shall prepare a Comprehensive Restoration Plan (CRP) as part of the road improvement plans. The CRP shall be prepared by a qualified professional and shall address plant lists, planting methods (to include slope preparation, mulching and slope protection), and a maintenance program, including weed control and irrigation. The CRP shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and Community Development Director prior to the issuance of permits for road construction. (11) The lot line adjustment shall not result in the establishment of any greater number of lots that are nonconforming due to lot size than currently exists. The lot line adjustment shall not result in the establishment of any lot which is smaller than the smallest currently existing Colony lot within the subject site. (b) Fire Department. (1) Water Supply. (i) Prior to final occupancy release by the City, the minimum required fire flow shall be one thousand (1000) gallons per minute at twenty (20) psi residual pressure for a one- hundred-twenty (120) minute duration in residential development, or as approved by the Fire Chief. The required fire flow will increase, as provided in UFC Appendix III-A, based on square feet of residential construction, with a fifty percent (50%) fire flow credit for automatic sprinkler systems. Verification must be provided from water company or fire department records in established areas or by a proof of design ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 test at the completion of new on-site water main construction. Homes designated strictly as model homes and/or sales offices, but with no residential occupancy, shall be granted exemption from the required fire flow as approved by the Fire Chief. (ii) Underground fire service mains and appurtenances shall conform to NFPA 24 minimum standard and plans are reviewed by the Fire Department prior to installation. The underground main size shall be a minimum of eight (8) inch diameter. If combustible building materials are used, a temporary onsite water tank with an approved Fire Department connection shall be installed prior to any stockpiling or installing any combustible materials. (iii) Fire Hydrants. The minimum number and distribution of fire hydrants is one (1) hydrant every five hundred (500) feet as provided in UFC Appendix III-B. The fire hydrant will be Atascadero Mutual Water Company specification with one four and one-half (4½) inch and one or more two and one-half (2½) inch outlets. Existing hydrants may be adequate, provided they consist of a minimum of one four and one-half (4½) inch and one two and one-half (2½) inch outlet. New hydrant color will be Safety Yellow for public right-of-way and Safety Red for private right-of-way. All hydrants in the public right-of-way to have “Blue Dot” highway reflector installed on the adjacent street of driveway to clearly identify the fire hydrant location. (iv) The dwellings shall be equipped with a residential automatic fire sprinkler system. The sprinkler system will be designed and installed according to NFPA Pamphlet No. 1 3D. The fire department requires a minimum one (1) inch water meter for residential sprinkler systems. (2) Fire Apparatus Access. (i) If combustible construction materials are used, all required public access roadways shall be completed to a minimum width of twenty (20) feet, or as described in subsections (a.) and (b.) below, capable of supporting forty thousand (40,000) pounds, with an all-weather surface, to within one hundred fifty (150) feet of all stockpiles and all sides of buildings with combustible construction. The access roadways to be posted “No Stopping/Fire Lane” and shall not be used for the storage of materials. Proposed private roads, driveways or extensions of existing roads shall be designed and constructed as follows: a. Single-family residential access road. A vehicular access to more than one parcel or vehicular access to a single parcel with more than two (2) buildings or more than three (3) dwelling units shall be twelve (12) feet width for one-way traffic and sixteen (16) feet width for two-way traffic. The ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 road shall also provide for a ten (10) foot fuel modification area on each side. b. Driveway. A vehicular access to a single parcel with one (1) or two (2) buildings, having no more than three (3) dwelling units on a single parcel and any number of accessory buildings. Length Required Width 0—49 feet 12 feet 50—99 feet 14 feet Greater than 200 feet 16 feet (Note 1 and Note 2) NOTE: 1. For driveways exceeding three hundred (300) feet, turnaround shall be provided at the building site and must be within fifty (50) feet of the dwelling. 2. For driveway exceeding eight hundred (800) feet, a turnout shall be provided at the midpoint or every four hundred (400) feet. (ii) Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than thirteen (13) feet and six (6) inches. Driveways shall have not less than fifteen (15) feet of vertical clearance. (iii) Fire apparatus access roads and driveways shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of forty thousand (40,000) pounds at twenty-five (25) miles per hour, and shall be provided with a surface so as to provide all-weather driving capabilities. (iv) The turning radius of a fire apparatus access road shall have a horizontal inside radius curvature of not less than twenty-eight (28) feet inside radius and forty-eight (48) feet outside radius. (v) All dead-end fire apparatus access roads in excess of one hundred fifty (150) feet in length shall be provided with approved provisions for turning around of fire apparatus. The bulb or cul-de-sac radius shall not be less than forty (40) feet. The hammer-head T shall extend a minimum of thirty (30) feet to each side of the centerline of the entry road and be eighteen (18) feet wide. The turnaround shall extend forty (40) feet from the entry road and be a minimum of eighteen (18) feet wide. Where parcels are zoned five (5) acres or larger, turnarounds shall be provided at intervals of approximately one thousand three hundred twenty (1,320) feet, or as approved by the Fire Chief. Each dead-end road shall have a turnaround constructed at its terminus. ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 (vi) The minimum level of improvement is determined by the grade of the access road or driveway providing access from the road to the building site or parking area as follows (UFC 10.204): Surface Minimum Grade All-Weather Less than 12 percent Nonskid (Note 1) 12 percent to 16 percent Nonskid (Note 2) Over 16 percent Note 1. Surface shall be asphalt or concrete in the City of Atascadero Engineering Standard Specifications and Drawings including a nonskid finish (brushed concrete or equivalent pavement). Note 2. A driveway/access road that would provide a grade greater than sixteen percent (16%) and less than twenty percent (20%) and is designed by a Registered Civil Engineer may be considered on a case-by-case basis by the Fire Chief. (vii) The maximum length of dead-end road, including all dead-end roads accessed from the dead-end roads, shall use the following cumulative lengths as a guideline for approval by the Fire Chief, regardless of the number of parcels served: Parcels less than 1 acre 800 feet Parcels 1 ac. to 4.66 ac. 1320 feet Parcels 5 ac. to 19.99 ac. 2640 feet Parcels 20 + ac. 5290 feet All lengths shall be measured from the edge of the roadway surface at the intersection that begins from the road to the end of the dead-end road surface at its farthest point. Where a dead-end road crosses areas of differing zones, the shortest allowable length shall apply. (3) Fuel Management. All parcels shall comply with the fire department’s wildland fuel management program. The hazardous vegetation that the program is concerned with is seasonal and recurrent in nature. Therefore, the operation of the program is planned on a continuous annual basis. (c) Engineering Division. (1) Road Improvements—General. ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 (i) All road improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the City Engineering Department Standard Specifications and Drawings or as directed by the City Engineer. (ii) An encroachment permit shall be obtained from the City Engineering Department prior to the start of construction. The applicant shall enter into a Plan Check/Inspection agreement with the City. (iii) Road improvement plans prepared by a registered civil engineer shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer prior to approval of the Master Development Plan. Road improvement plans shall conform to the requirements of the City Standard Specifications, Section 2—Preparation of Plans. R-value testing shall be done, and pavement sections designed by a registered civil engineer to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. (2) Road Improvements—On-Site. (i) The following roads shall be fully improved to a Rural Hillside Collection Section (City Std. 404), or as approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of building permits. The structural section shall be based on a T.I. = 5.0. b. San Marcos Road from the project boundary to the intersection of Cenegal Road (prior to Phase I); a. Cenegal Road from the project boundary to the intersection of San Marcos Road (prior to Phase II); (ii) All other roads within the project boundary shall be fully improved to a Rural Hillside Local Section (City Std. 402), or as approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of building permits. The structural section shall be based on a T.I. = 4.0. (iii) The minimum right-of-way width for all on-site roads shall be fifty (50) feet. (iv) All cul-de-sacs shall meet the requirements of City Standard 415, Typical Cul-de-Sac for rural areas with an unobstructed turning radius of forty (40) feet and a paved radius of thirty-four (34) feet, or as approved by the City Fire Marshal. Areas not paved within the forty (40) foot unobstructed turning radius shall be designed and maintained to support imposed loads of forty thousand (40,000) pounds at twenty-five (25) miles per hour and shall be provided with a surface which provides for all weather driving capabilities. (v) Slope easements shall be provided on each side of the right-of-way as needed to accommodate cut slopes, fill slopes and/or retaining structures. (vi) Curve widening shall be constructed on all on-site roads in conformance with Section 4, Paragraph F of the City Standard Specifications, or as approved by the City Engineer. ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 (vii) On-site road alignments shall be designed such that all existing streets, roads and alleys outside the project boundary, which intersect the project boundary, are provided with, and capable of obtaining, access from the on-site roads. Road alignments outside the project boundary, which intersect the project boundary, shall be clearly shown on the improvement plans. (viii) The applicant shall install all necessary street name and traffic signs as well as all necessary traffic striping and markings as required by the City Engineer. (ix) The applicant shall offer to dedicate all road rights-of-way for on-site roads to the City. The irrevocable offer of dedication shall be filed prior to, or simultaneously with, the recordation of any final document implementing Lot Line Adjustment 94-005. (3) Road Improvements—Off-Site. (i) Curve widening shall be constructed on Los Altos Road from Highway 41 to San Marcos Road where curve radii is less than two hundred (200) feet. Curve widening shall be constructed in conformance with Section 4, Paragraph F of the City Standard Specifications, or as approved by the City Engineer. Plans for the curve widening shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the approval of the Master Development Plan. The curve widening on Los Altos Road shall be constructed when the ADT on Los Altos Road reaches five hundred (500) vehicles per day, with the development of the twenty- seventh lot in Phase 1, or within three (3) years of the issuance of building permits for Phase 1, whichever is earlier. (ii) A “Stop” sign and stop bar shall be constructed at the intersection of Los Altos Road and San Marcos Road and shall be constructed with the development of Phase 1 of the project and prior to the issuance of building permits. (iii) San Marcos Road between Los Altos Road and the project boundary shall be improved preparatory to acceptance of this portion of road into the City maintained system. Curve widening shall be constructed where curve radii is less than two hundred (200) feet. Curve widening shall be constructed in conformance with Section 4, Paragraph F of the City Standard Specifications, or as approved by the City Engineer. Improvement plans for the curve widening shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer prior to approval of the Master Development Plan. San Marcos Road between Los Altos Road and the project boundary shall be improved prior to the development of Phase 1 of the project and prior to the issuance of building permits. ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 (iv) The applicant shall enter into a maintenance agreement with the City for the portion of San Marcos Road between Los Altos Road and the project boundary. The agreement shall guarantee that damage to the road which results from construction traffic generated by the development of the project is properly repaired. The agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and the City Attorney. The agreement shall remain in-force throughout construction of Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the project. A maintenance security in a form acceptable to the City Attorney and the City Engineer shall be posted for the portion of San Marcos Road between Los Altos Road and the project boundary. The maintenance security shall remain effective until final acceptance of both Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the project. (v) Left-turn lanes shall be constructed on State Highway 41 for eastbound traffic entering both Los Altos Road and the driveway serving Lots 109-112. Improvement plans for the left-turn lanes shall be submitted for review and approval by Caltrans and the City Engineer prior to approval of the Master Development Plan. The left-turn lanes for Los Altos Road shall be constructed when the ADT on Los Altos Road reaches five hundred (500) vehicles per day, with the development of the twenty- seventh lot in Phase 1, or within three (3) years of the issuance of building permits for Phase 1, whichever is earlier. The left-turn lanes for the driveways accessing Lots 109-112 shall be constructed with the development of any portion of Lots 109-112. (vi) Vehicle refuge lanes shall be constructed for vehicles turning left onto State Highway 41 from both Los Altos Road and the driveway serving Lots 109-112. Improvement plans for the refuge lanes shall be submitted for review and approval by Caltrans and the City Engineer prior to approval of the Master Development Plan. The vehicle refuge lane for Los Altos Road shall be constructed when the ADT on Los Altos Road reaches five hundred (500) vehicles per day, with the development of the twenty- seventh lot in Phase 1, or within three (3) years of the issuance of building permits for Phase 1, whichever is earlier. The vehicle refuge lane for the driveways accessing Lots 109-112 shall be constructed with the development of any portion of Lots 109-112. (vii) The improvements required to achieve a minimum of five hundred fifty (550) feet of sight distance shall be constructed at the intersection of Los Altos Road and State Highway 41 and at the intersection of the driveway serving Lots 109-112 and State Highway 41. Improvement plans for the site Bold section subject of proposed amendment ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 distance improvements shall be submitted for review and approval by Caltrans and the City Engineer prior to approval of the Master Development Plan. The site distance improvements for Los Altos Road shall be constructed when the ADT on Los Altos Road reaches five hundred (500) vehicles per day, with the development of the twenty-seventh lot in Phase 1, or within three (3) years of the issuance of building permits for Phase 1, whichever is earlier. The site distance improvements for the driveways accessing Lots 109-112 shall be constructed with the development of any portion of Lots 109-112. (viii) Advisory and warning signage shall be installed along State Highway 41 to advise drivers of the approaching intersection with Los Altos Road and the driveway serving Lots 109-112. Signage shall be installed which indicates a left-turn lane ahead. Improvement plans for the signage improvements shall be submitted for review and approval by Caltrans and the City Engineer prior to approval of the Master Development Plan. The signage improvements for Los Altos Road shall be constructed when the ADT on Los Altos Road reaches five hundred (500) vehicles per day, with the development of the twenty- seventh lot in Phase 1, or within three (3) years of the issuance of building permits for Phase 1, whichever is earlier. The signage improvements for the driveways accessing Lots 109-112 shall be constructed with the development of any portion of Lots 109-112. (ix) Designated right-turn lanes shall be constructed on State Highway 41 for westbound traffic entering both Los Altos Road and the driveway serving Lots 109-112. Improvement plans for the right-turn lanes shall be submitted for review and approval by Caltrans and the City Engineer prior to approval of the Master Development Plan. The right-turn lane for Los Altos Road shall be constructed when the ADT on Los Altos Road reaches five hundred (500) vehicles per day, with the development of the twenty- seventh lot in Phase 1, or within three (3) years of the issuance of building permits for Phase 1, whichever is earlier. The right-turn lane for the driveways accessing Lots 109-112 shall be constructed with the development of any portion of Lots 109-112. (x) Curve widening shall be constructed on the following roads where curve radii is less than two hundred (200) feet. Curve widening shall be constructed in conformance with Section 4, Paragraph F of the City Standard Specifications, or as approved by the City Engineer. Plans for the curve widening shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the approval of the Master Development Plan. ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 a. Laurel Avenue from Santa Lucia Road to Cenegal Road. b. Cenegal Road from Laurel Avenue to the project boundary. The curve widening shall be constructed when the ADT on Laurel Avenue reaches five hundred (500) vehicles per day, with the development of the thirty-eighth lot in Phase 2, or within three (3) years of the issuance of building permits for Phase 2, whichever is earlier. (xi) A three-foot wide Class II base or other all weather surface walkway shall be provided along one side Cenegal Road from the project boundary to Laurel Avenue and along Laurel Avenue from Cenegal Road to Santa Lucia Road, or as approved by the City Engineer. Improvement plans for the walkways shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer and Community Development Director prior to approval of the Master Development Plan. The three-foot-wide pedestrian walkway shall be constructed when the ADT on Laurel Avenue reaches five hundred (500) vehicles per day, with the development of the thirty- eighth lot in Phase 2, or within three (3) years of the issuance of building permits for Phase 2, whichever is earlier. (4) Drainage. (i) All drainage improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the City Engineering Department Standard Specifications and Drawings or as directed by the City Engineer. (ii) A grading and drainage plan for each lot, prepared by a registered civil engineer, shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of building permits. A registered civil engineer shall provide a written statement that all work has been completed and is in full compliance with the approved plans and the Uniform Building Code (UBC). (iii) An erosion control plan addressing interim erosion control measures to be used during the construction shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer. Erosion control measures shall be in-place between October 1st and April 1st. Prior to issuance of Grading Permits, and if required under the Clean Water Act (CWA), the applicant shall obtain the necessary permits in compliance with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). (5) Utilities. (i) All relocation and/or alteration of existing utilities shall be the responsibility of the applicant. (ii) The applicant shall submit a composite utility plan signed and approved by a representative for each public utility company along with the improvement plans. ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 (iii) The applicant shall install all new utilities (water, gas, electric, cable TV and telephone) underground. Fire hydrants shall be installed at locations as required by the City Fire Marshal. Utilities shall be extended to the property line frontage of each parcel or its public utility easement. (iv) Any utility trenching in existing streets shall be overlayed to restore a smooth riding surface to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. (6) General. (i) A Preliminary Soils Report shall be prepared for the property to determine the presence of expansive soil or other soil problems and shall make recommendations regarding grading of the proposed site. A final soils report shall be submitted by the soils engineer prior to the final inspection and shall certify that all grading was inspected and approved and that all work done is in accordance with the plans and the preliminary report. (ii) All improvements shall be covered with a one hundred percent (100%) Performance Guarantee and a fifty percent (50%) Labor and Materials Guarantee until the improvements are deemed substantially complete by the City Engineer. Prior to the final inspection of the improvements, and before the other guarantees mentioned in this condition are released, a ten (10) percent Maintenance Guarantee shall be posted to cover the improvements for a period of one year from the date of the final inspection. The guarantee amounts shall be based on an engineer’s estimate submitted by the project engineer and approved by the City Engineer. The guarantees posted for this project shall be approved by the City Attorney. (iii) A mylar copy and a blue line print of as-built improvement plans, signed by the registered engineer who prepared the plans, shall be provided to the City Engineer prior to the final inspection. (iv) The applicant shall acquire title or interest in any off-site land that may be required to allow for the construction of the improvements. The applicant shall bear all costs associated with the necessary acquisitions. (v) All improvements shall be completed or bonded for prior to the approval of the Master Development Plan. If the improvements are to be bonded, the applicant shall enter into a Performance Agreement with the City. The form and content of the Performance Agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and City Attorney. (Ord. 409 § 3, 2003; Ord. 286 § 3 Exh. C, 1995) ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 ATTACHMENT 4: Caltrans Letter Dated March 11, 2014 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 ATTACHMENT 5: Plans for Maintenance of Los Altos Road ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 ATTACHMENT 6: Draft Performance Agreement Amendment #1 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 ATTACHMENT 7: W-Trans 2/4/14 Memo: response to Central Coast Transportation Consulting ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 Attachment 8: Draft Resolution A: Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum DRAFT RESOLUTION A A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN ADDENDUM TO THE PREVIOUSLY-CERTIFIED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE 3F MEADOWS PROJECT AND DETERMINE THAT SAID ADDENDUM, TOGETHER WITH THE PREVIOUSLY-CERTIFIED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, SERVES AS THE APPROPRIATE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION FOR THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 11 ZONING CODE SECTION 9-3.656 Oak Ridge Estates / 3F Meadows (Castlerock Development / KM Holdings) The City Council hereby finds and declares as follows: WHEREAS, an application has been received from K&M Holdings, 445 Green Gate Road, San Luis Obispo, California 93401, (Applicant), to consider an amendment to Section 9 - 3.656 (PD-11) of the Atascadero Zoning Ordinance pertaining to the off-site road improvement requirements for the 3-F Meadows / Oak Ridge Estates housing development; and, WHEREAS, in conjunction with the approval of the 3F Meadows development project in February 1995, which entailed a lot line adjustment (LLA 94005), a zone change (ZC 94-001) which created the Planned Development Overlay Zone No. 11 (“PD-11”), and a colony road abandonment (RA 94-001) (herein referred to as the “Project”), the City Council of the City of Atascadero, on February 28, 1995, certified the 3F Meadows Final Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 94061014) (herein referred to as the “3F Meadows EIR”), adopted a Statement of Findings and Facts and adopted a Mitigation Monitoring Program in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (herein referred to as "CEQA"); and WHEREAS, in an effort to design and facilitate the construction of the off-site road improvements required by the 3F Meadows EIR and PD-11 for the Project, the original and current Project developers have met and conferred with the City and the California Department of Transportation (“Caltrans”) off and on since the City approved the Project , and based on those efforts Caltrans has recommended, and the City is considering modifications to several of the PD-11 conditions requiring the construction of various off-site road improvements; and ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 WHEREAS, prior to holding any hearings and bringing any proposed modifications to PD-11 before the Planning Commission and City Council, City staff retained an independent traffic engineer, Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc. (“W -Trans”), to study and analyze the potential impacts associated with the Project at the intersection of State Route 41 and Los Altos Road and the intersection of State Route 41 and the access driveway to Project lots 109- 112; and WHEREAS, W-Trans provided the City with a detailed report and traffic evaluation dated February 4, 2014 which provided substantial analysis and evidence in support of conclusions that: (1) only two collisions were reported at SR41/Los Altos Road for the five-year study period which is less than expected for similar facilities; (2) under existing Conditions, the intersection of SR41/Los Altos Road operates at acceptable levels of service d uring both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, and that continued acceptable operation is expected upon adding Project - generated traffic; (3) SR41/Los Altos Road would continue to operate at acceptable levels of service during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours under Year 2035 Future conditions with and without the addition of Project-generated traffic; (4) because the southbound Los Altos Road approach to SR41 would operate at an acceptable Level of Service C with the additional 101 residential units associated with the Project and other undeveloped lots in the traffic shed, no additional improvements such as a left-turn refuge/acceleration lane are warranted to address intersection level of service; (5) at SR41/Los Altos Road, a westbound right -turn taper is warranted under the Existing plus Project and Future plus Project conditions; (6) Under Future plus Project conditions, a right-turn lane would be warranted on SR 41 at Los Altos Road if 112 additional units were developed beyond the 101 residential units associated with the Project and other undeveloped lots in the traffic shed; and (7) at SR 41 and the driveway access to lots 109 - 112, future traffic volumes and build-out of the lots do not warrant the need for either a left-turn lane, right-turn lane, right-turn taper or left-turn refuge/acceleration lane (hereinafter “W-Trans Report”); and, WHEREAS, based on the W-Trans Report City staff prepared draft language amending several of the PD-11 conditions requiring the construction of various off-site road improvements and provided those draft PD-11 amendments and the W-Trans Report to Caltrans and has met and conferred with Caltrans to ensure that Caltrans had no objections to City staff’s proposed amendments to PD-11; and WHEREAS, in its letter dated March 11, 2014, Caltrans indicated that it reviewed all of the information provided by the City, that it has no objections to the City’s proposed revisions to PD-11’s off-site road improvement conditions and that Caltrans looks forward to cooperating with the City and Castlerock in constructing the modified off-site road improvements; and, WHEREAS, to assess potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed modifications to PD-11 relative to the 3F Meadows EIR, City staff prepared an addendum to the 3F Meadows EIR pursuant to CEQA (herein referred to as “Addendum”); and WHEREAS, the Addendum concluded that the proposed changes to PD-11 would not result in any new or substantially more severe impacts than disclosed in the 3F Meadows EIR; and ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 WHEREAS, Section 21000, et seq., of the Public Recourses Code and Section 15000, et seq., of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (herein referred to as the “CEQA Guidelines”), which govern the preparation, content, and processing of environmental impact reports, have been fully implemented in the preparation of the 3F Meadows EIR and Addendum; and WHEREAS, pursuant to California State Law and the City of Atascadero Municipal Code, public hearing notices were mailed to all property owners within a one thousand (1,000) foot radius of the Project site and a public hearing notice was published 10 days prior to the first public hearing in the Atascadero News; and WHEREAS, the Atascadero Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 1, 2014, where they considered testimony from staff, the applicant and the public prior to recommending approval of the proposed Addendum to the 3-F Meadows EIR; and WHEREAS, the Atascadero City Council held a public hearing on April 22, 2014, where they considered testimony from staff, the applicant, the public and the Planning Commission’s recommendation prior to making a decision on the proposed Addendum to the 3-F Meadows EIR; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Atascadero, based upon a thorough review of the proposed amendments to PD-11, the Addendum and the 3F Meadows EIR, and the evidence received to date, makes the following findings, determinations and recommendations with respect to the Addendum to the 3F Meadows EIR: 1. The City Council has independently reviewed, analyzed and considered the 3F Meadows EIR and Addendum and all written documentation, public comments, and Planning Commission recommendation prior to making a decision on the proposed modifications to PD- 11; and 2. The Addendum to the 3F Meadows EIR was prepared and reviewed in compliance with the provisions of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines; and 3. The information and analysis contained in the Addendum, which is attached hereto as Exhibit A, reflects the City’s independent judgment as to the environmental consequences of the proposed modifications to PD-11; and 4. That, based upon the evidence submitted and as demonstrated by the analysis included in the Addendum, none of the conditions described in Sections 15162 or 15163 of the CEQA Guidelines calling for the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR or negative declaration have occurred; specifically: ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 a. There have not been any substantial changes in the Project that require major revisions of the 3F Meadows EIR because of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; b. There have not been any substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the 3F Meadows EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; and c. There is no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the 3F Meadows EIR was certified, that shows any of the following: (a) the Project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the 3F Meadows EIR; (b) significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the 3F Meadows EIR; (c) mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the Project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (d) mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the 3F Meadows EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the Project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, pursuant to the above findings, the City Council determines that the previously-certified 3F Meadows EIR, together with the Addendum, are adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for the proposed amendments to PD-11 and hereby approve and adopt the Addendum as attached as Exhibit A; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the documents and other materials, including without limitation staff reports, memoranda, maps, letters and minutes of all relevant meetings, which constitute the administrative record of proceedings upon which the City Council’s resolution is based are located at the City of Atascadero, City Clerk, 6500 Palma Avenue, Atascadero, CA 93422. The custodian of records is the City Clerk. ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 On motion by Council Member ______________ and seconded by Council Member _________________, the foregoing Resolution is hereby adopted on this 22nd day of April, 2014, in its entirety on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ADOPTED: CITY OF ATASCADERO By: _______________________________ Tom O’Malley, Mayor ATTEST: ______________________________ Marcia McClure Torgerson, C.M.C., City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ______________________________ Brian A. Pierik, City Attorney ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 EXHIBIT A: Addendum to 3F Meadows Environmental Impact Report City of Atascadero Addendum to 3F MEADOWS Environmental Impact Report March 21, 2014 Prepared by: City of Atascadero Planning Department 6500 Palma Avenue Atascadero, CA 93422 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 I. INTRODUCTION This memorandum, prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), is an Addendum to the certified 3F Meadows Final Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse Number 94061014 (“3F Meadows EIR”). The 3F Meadows EIR analyzed the potential impacts of the 3F Meadows Ranch development project, which entailed a lot line adjustment (LLA 94005), a zone change (ZC 94-001) which created the Planned Development Overlay Zone No. 11 (“PD-11”), and a colony road abandonment (RA 94-001) to provide for a comprehensive reconfiguration and development of the existing 115-lot colony residential subdivision into 111 residential parcels, a water tank parcel and three open space lots on an 800+ acre site in the City of Atascadero to address access issues, create larger parcels of open space and relocate and develop residential lots into more compact areas of the site to minimize environmental impacts (“3F Meadows Ranch Project” or “Project”). The 3F Meadows EIR identified mitigation measures to reduce all of the potentially significant environmental impacts associated with the 3F Meadows Ranch Project to levels of insignificance, and the City certified the 3F Meadows EIR and approved the 3F Meadows Ranch Project in February 1995. The purpose of this Addendum is to evaluate proposed minor changes to some of the off-site traffic mitigation measures identified in the original 3F Meadows EIR, which were incorporated into the PD-11 zoning district1 developed for and applied as conditions of approval to the 3F Meadows Ranch Project. Other than the minor changes to PD-11 discussed and analyzed herein, no other changes or discretionary approvals are proposed for or to the number, location or development of any residential lots, roads or any other aspects of the 3F Meadows Ranch Project. As explained below, it is necessary for the City to modify some of the traffic mitigation measures to: (i) avoid creating new, more severe significant adverse environmental impacts; (ii) ensure road improvements are constructed consistent with and meet current Caltrans recommendations and standards; and (iii) delete those which are not necessary to address any potentially significant traffic impacts associated with the Project. As demonstrated in this Addendum, no further environmental review beyond this Addendum is necessary due to the fact that the proposed changes to the PD-11 will not result in any new or more severe environmental impacts. II. BACKGROUND While the City certified the 3F Meadows EIR and approved the 3F Meadows Ranch Project in 1995, residential construction on the Project site did not begin in earnest until after the Project was acquired by Castlerock Development (“Castlerock”) in 2003. The original project applicant/developer was the Davis Family Trust. Castlerock continues to own and develop the Project2 today. To date, Castlerock has applied for residential building permits for 31 of the 34 Phase 1 lots.3 In response to those 31 applications the City has issued 26 building permits and 1 PD-11 is located in the City of Atascadero Municipal Code, Title 9 (Planning And Zoning), Chapter 3 (Zoning Districts), Article 28 (PD (Planned Development) Overlay Zone), Section 9-3.656 (Establishment of Planned Development Overlay Zone No. 11). The Municipal Code is available online at: http://qcode.us/codes/atascadero/ 2 The Project is now commonly referred to as Oak Ridge Estates, but for purposes of this Addendum will continue to be referred to as the “3F Meadows Ranch Project” or just “Project” for consistency. 3 The 3 remaining Phase 1 lots include two residential parcels (lots 9 and 80) and one AMWC water tank parcel (lot 11). ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 construction has been completed and the permits finaled on 25 of them. The 3F Meadows/Oak Ridge Estates Public Improvement Map attached hereto as Exhibit A depicts the Project site, the four (4) phases of planned development and the current status of the development of the residential lots in phase 1. As a result of the economic downturn, however, construction on the Project has been very limited since 2006. The City issued the first building permit in early 2004 and the last building permit in the summer of 2007. Then, in March of 2010, the City informed Castlerock that it could not issue any additional building permits for new residential dwellings until certain off-site road improvements required by PD-11 were constructed. All of the off-site road improvements the City demanded be constructed before it would issue any further building permits involved road improvements at or near the intersection of State Route 41 and Los Altos Road (“SR 41/Los Altos”). These improvements stemmed from comments the California Department of Transportation (“Caltrans”) provided on the original 3F Meadows EIR. Indeed, the 3F Meadows EIR included a “Traffic Safety” section which established mitigation measures to address various potential traffic safety impacts, including potential traffic safety impacts at SR 41/Los Altos.4 Most notably, Caltrans requested and the final 3F Meadows EIR required a new right-turn lane for westbound traffic on State Route 41 approaching SR 41/Los Altos, as well as a new “refuge lane” for eastbound traffic entering SR 41 from Los Altos Road. As noted above, the City then incorporated those mitigation measures into PD-11 and applied them as conditions of approval to the 3F Meadows Ranch Project. PD-11’s conditions of approval also included these measures as required road improvements at a second location, the intersection of SR 41 and the access driveway to Project lots 109-112. The fact that not all of the off-site road improvements required by PD-11 have been constructed is not the result of a lack of effort on the part of the City or the former and current Project developers. Indeed, the original Project applicant/developer began discussions with Caltrans soon after the City approved the Project to discuss designs for the off-site road improvements required by PD-11. (See March 1995 correspondence between Engineering Development Associates and Caltrans attached hereto as Exhibit B.) After acquiring the Project, Castlerock continued those discussions with Caltrans regarding the scope of the necessary off-site road improvements and even submitted proposed SR41/Los Altos improvement plans as part of a preliminary encroachment permit application review process in 2005. In response, Caltrans indicated that it had changed its position with respect to the right-turn lane it previously requested for westbound traffic on State Route 41 approaching Los Altos road. In the June 15, 2005 letter from Caltrans’ permit Engineer attached hereto as Exhibit C, Caltrans indicated that it would no longer require or accept the right-turn channelization because constructing a new right-turn lane at that location would require extensive realignment of an adjacent creek that would create additional adverse environmental impacts and right of way constraints. Understandably, and in an effort to avoid any such new, unintended environmental impacts, 4The 3F Meadows EIR limited its analysis of transportation impacts to generalized traffic safety impacts because no formal peak hour trip review or intersection level of service analyses were prepared as is typical today. In other words, the 3F Meadows EIR did not identify whether vehicle delay or queuing would actually in crease to unacceptable levels at any off-site intersections or roadway segments as a result of the addition of Project -related traffic and thus limited its identification of potential impacts and imposition of mitigation measures to address general traffic safety concerns associated with average daily traffic estimates. ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 Caltrans indicated that the SR41/Los Altos intersection should instead be improved to meet the requirements of the “standard public road approach intersection,” which would require a less intrusive right-turn taper (limited extension of paved shoulder) instead of a new, full right-turn lane.5 In 2010 Caltrans confirmed that its position had not changed, stating that so long as no changes were approved to increase the number of vehicle trips generated by the Project upgrading the SR41/Los Altos intersection to the standard road approach intersection as shown in Figure 405.7 of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual would provide a satisfactory design to accommodate vehicles turning right onto Los Altos Road. (See November 9, 2010 Caltrans letter attached hereto as Exhibit D.) Before taking any action to modify the off-site road improvement requirements contained in PD- 11 to make them consistent with Caltrans’ updated position, City staff retained an independent traffic engineer, Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc. (“W-Trans”), to analyze potential traffic impacts based on current data. Specifically, the City asked W-Trans to determine whether eliminating PD-11’s right-turn lane requirement at SR41/Los Altos would result in a new or more severe traffic impact as well as to analyze whether the Project-generated vehicle trips might result in any other potential traffic impacts at either the intersection of State Route 41 and Los Altos Road or the intersection of State Route 41 and the access driveway to Project lots 109-112. W-Trans collected traffic volume count data on August 28, 2013, and presented its analysis and conservative evaluation of the impacts associated with Project-related traffic on those two intersections under existing, existing plus project, future and future plus project conditions in a report to the City dated February 4, 2014. (W-Trans’ February 4, 2014 report is attached hereto as Exhibit E.) W-Trans’ analysis was conservative because it not only analyzed the impact of the vehicle trips associated with the Project’s 82 undeveloped lots, but also included traffic from the 4 secondary units anticipated to be built within the Project area in the next 20 years and from the 15 undeveloped lots that lie outside the Project site but within the same traffic shed. Based on W-Trans’ report, City staff prepared proposed modifications to PD-11 to account for the current data and analysis of the Project’s potential traffic impacts at the intersections of State Route 41 and Los Altos Road and the intersection of State Route 41 and the access driveway to Project lots 109-112 and once again consulted with Caltrans. In a letter dated March 11, 2014, Caltrans indicated that it did not have any objections to the City’s proposed modifications to the off-site road improvement requirements contained in PD-11 and indicated its desire to cooperate with the City and Castlerock in constructing the modified off-site road improvements. (Caltrans’ March 11, 2014 letter is attached hereto as Exhibit F.) III. PROPOSED CHANGES TO PD-11 A copy of the existing text of Municipal Code section 9-3.656 containing the PD-11 overlay zone regulations is attached hereto as Exhibit G, which clearly shows all of the proposed changes/modified text developed by City staff and approved by Caltrans in strikeout (deletions) and underline (additions) format. Specifically, the changes are limited to the off-site road improvements managed by the City’s Engineering Division in subsection (c)(3) and the key aspects of the proposed changes are summarized as follows: 5 See Chapter 405.7 Public Road Intersections and related Figure 405.7 from Caltrans’ Highway Design Manual found here http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/oppd/hdm/pdf/english/chp0400.pdf ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 9-3.656(c)(3)(v) Original condition requiring new left- turn lanes for eastbound traffic on SR 41 at intersections with Los Altos Road and driveway serving lots 109-112. Modification proposes: (1) minor text amendments to acknowledge and address the fact that one of the required left-turn lanes has already been constructed but may need further refinements to comply with current Caltrans standards; and (2) revised timing requirements for construction of new left-turn lane on SR 41 to account for the fact that the left-turn lane from eastbound SR 41 already exists for eastbound traffic entering Los Altos Road and to ensure no building permits are issued for Project lots 109-112 before the new left-turn lane improvement is constructed for eastbound SR41 traffic entering the driveway access for Project lots 109-112, if required by Caltrans. 9-3.656(c)(3)(vi) Original condition requiring vehicle refuge lanes Modification proposes to: (1) delete the requirement to construct vehicle refuge lanes; (2) create a new condition requiring that the existing residential driveway approach to SR 41 serving lots 109- 112 be improved to current Caltrans Design Standards; and (3) create timing requirement for construction of improvements to bring driveway approach to SR 41 serving lots 109-112 to current Caltrans Design Standards to ensure no building permits are issued for lots 109-112 before this improvement is constructed. 9-3.656(c)(3)(vii) Original condition requiring sight distance improvements Modification proposes: (1) enhanced sight distance clearance to ensure compliance with most current Caltrans standards; and (2) revised timing requirements for interim/final sight distance improvements. 9-3.656(c)(3)(viii) Original condition requiring advisory/warning signage on SR 41 Modification proposes: (1) enhanced advisory/warning signage to ensure compliance with most current Caltrans standards; and (2) revised timing requirements for interim/final advisory/warning signage. 9-3.656(c)(3)(ix) Original condition requiring right-turn lanes for westbound traffic on SR 41 at intersections with Los Altos Road and driveway serving Project lots 109-112. Modification proposes: (1) right-turn taper (in lieu of full dedicated right-turn lane) on SR 41 for westbound traffic entering Los Altos Road; (2) deletion of right-turn lane requirement on SR 41 for westbound traffic entering driveway serving Project lots 109-112; and (3) revised timing requirement for construction of ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 right-turn taper to ensure improvement is constructed well before it is warranted. As discussed and demonstrated below, the proposed changes to PD-11 are minor in nature in that they do not result in any new significant adverse environmental impacts or an increase in the severity of impacts already identified in the 3F Meadows EIR. Rather, the modifications avoid the creation of a new significant adverse impact and generally provide updates to modernize and ensure the required improvements are built to current Caltrans Design Standards. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT A. Applicable Legal Standards This Addendum is prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164, which states: “The lead agency or a responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary, but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.” CEQA Guidelines section 15162(a) echoes and implements the CEQA statutory provision contained in Public Resources Code section 21166 in that it specifies that no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for a project unless the lead agency determines: (1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following: (A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration; (B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; (C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(e), this Addendum details: (1) proposed changes to modify some and delete other provisions in the PD-11; (2) the less-than-significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed changes in the PD-11; and (3) the reasons and evidentiary support for the City’s conclusions that the changes to the PD-11 do not meet the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR. Further guidance is provided by caselaw, particularly as referenced under CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 which refers to Bowman v. Petaluma (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 1065, which distinguished requirements for a subsequent EIR from the threshold required for initial EIR preparation, stating: Whereas section 21151 requires an EIR if the project ‘may have a significant effect on the environment,’ section 21166 provides that an agency may not require preparation of an EIR unless ‘substantial changes’ in the project or its circumstances will require ‘major revisions’ to the EIR. The two statutes serve quite different purposes and have correspondingly different effects. The question addressed by section 21151 is whether any environmental review is warranted. CEQA procedures reflect a preference for resolving doubts in favor of such review. [citations omitted]. In the present case, however, section 21166 comes into play precisely because in-depth review has already occurred, the time for challenging the sufficiency of the original EIR has long since expired and the question is whether circumstances have changed enough to justify repeating a substantial portion of the process. Thus, while section 21151 is intended to create a ‘low threshold require for preparation of an EIR,’ section 21161 indicates a quite different intent, namely, to restrict the powers of agencies ‘by prohibiting [them] from requiring a subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report’ unless the stated conditions are met. Further, caselaw is equally clear that in situations like this one, lead agencies may modify or delete previously adopted mitigations measures without preparing a supplemental EIR if the agency gives a legitimate reason for making the change, and supports its decision with substantial evidence. (Mani Bros. Real Estate Group v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1385; Katzeff v. Department of Forestry & Fire Protection (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 601; Lincoln Place Tenants Ass’n v. City of Los Angeles (2005) 130 Cal.,App.4th 1491. These decisions demonstrate that where the modification or deletion of a mitigation measure would not change the prior approval in a way that would allow a new significant impact to occur, or ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact, no subsequent EIR is required and a brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR shall be given and can be provided in an addendum to the prior EIR. B. Evaluation Of The Potential Environmental Impacts Of The Proposed Changes To PD-11 The following discussion evaluates the potential environmental consequences associated with the changes the City is proposing to make to several of the Project conditions in PD-11. Because the PD-11 conditions at issue involve measures identified solely to address the potential off-site traffic impacts of the 3F Meadows Project at the intersections of SR 41/Los Altos Road and SR 41/driveway to Project lots 109-112, this discussion is similarly limited to evaluating whether the proposed changes will result in any new or more severe traffic impacts at those intersections compared to the potential traffic impacts identified in the original 3F Meadows EIR. This limitation is reasonable because, as noted above, no changes are proposed for any other aspect of the Project including the number, location or development of residential lots, roads or any other aspect of the 3F Meadows Project and the City is not proposing any discretionary approvals other than the changes to PD-11. 1. The Proposed Changes To The Condition In PD-11 (Section 9- 3.656(c)(3)(v)) Requiring New Left-turn lanes On SR 41 Will Not Result In Any New Or More Severe Traffic Impacts. ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 As demonstrated in Exhibit G, the City is proposing to modify this condition as follows: The above-referenced modifications: (1) make minor text amendments to acknowledge and address the fact that required left-turn lane onto Los Altos Road has been constructed but may need further refinements to comply with Caltrans standards; and (2) revise the timing requirements for construction of new left-turn lane on SR 41 to account for the fact that the left- turn lane from SR 41 already exists for eastbound traffic entering Los Altos Road and to ensure no building permits are issued for Project lots 109-112 before the new left-turn lane improvement is constructed for eastbound SR41 traffic entering the driveway access for Project lots 109-112, if required by Caltrans. The 3F Meadows EIR imposed these left-turn lanes on SR41 to address unspecified “safety hazards.” Analysis of current information and data, however, demonstrates that traffic impacts and safety hazards from the 3F Meadows Project at these two intersections are less than significant. As noted in W-Tran’s report, reported accidents at the SR41/Los Altos Road intersection are below the statewide average for similar intersections. Further, the W-Trans report also notes that the required left-turn lane from eastbound SR41 onto Los Altos Road has already been constructed. Nonetheless, instead of deleting this requirement the City is simply modifying it to ensure that any additional left-turn lane improvements Caltrans believes are necessary to bring that existing left lane into conformance with current Caltrans Design Standards are constructed well before full Project build-out. ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 Further, the W-Trans’ report also concludes that a left-turn lane into the driveway for lots 109- 112 is not warranted under any conditions. According to the recent traffic counts and W-Trans’ conservative analysis regarding potential traffic impacts associated with full build-out of the Project and other undeveloped lots in the vicinity a left-turn lane into the driveway to lots 109- 112 is neither warranted now nor in the future. Nonetheless, while the City is not currently proposing to delete the required left-turn lane into lots 109-112, the proposed amendment does include language permitting Caltrans to delete the requirement at its discretion in the future. Regardless, because the most current traffic information and impact analysis demonstrates that a left-turn lane is not required to address any identified adverse environmental impacts associated with vehicles turning left into lots 109-112, no impacts will result even if Caltrans decides to modify or delete this requirement in the future. This conclusion is further supported by the fact that PD-11 will continue to require that the existing residential driveway approach serving Project lots 109-112 be improved to current Caltrans Design Standards. (See Section IV.B.2. immediately below.) In sum, substantial evidence supports the conclusion that the proposed changes to Section 9- 3.656(c)(3)(v) will not result in any new or more severe impacts than those previously identified in the 3F Meadows EIR and no further environmental impact analysis is required under CEQA. 2. The Proposed Changes To The Condition In PD-11 (Section 9-3.656(c)(3)(vi)) Requiring Vehicle Refuge Lanes Will Not Result In Any New or More Severe Traffic Impacts. As demonstrated in Exhibit G, the City is proposing to modify this condition as follows: The above-referenced modifications: (1) delete the requirement to construct vehicle refuge lanes; (2) create a new condition requiring that the existing residential driveway approach to SR 41 serving lots 109-112 be improved to current Caltrans Design Standards; and (3) create timing requirement for construction of improvements to bring driveway approach to SR 41 serving lots ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 109-112 to current Caltrans Design Standards to ensure no building permits are issued for lots 109-112 before this improvement is constructed. The 3F Meadows EIR imposed these left-turn lanes on SR41 to address unspecified “safety hazards.” Analysis of current information and data, however, demonstrates that traffic impacts and safety hazards from the 3F Meadows Project at these two intersections are less than significant and that vehicle refuge lanes are not necessary. W-Trans’ report demonstrates that both intersections do and will continue to operate satisfactorily at a level of service C or better during the peak traffic hours. Accordingly, vehicles desiring to turn out onto SR 41 from Los Altos Road or from the driveway to Project lots 109-112 will not experience significant adverse delays. As a result, there is no potential traffic impact at these intersections in need of mitigation requiring the construction of vehicle refuge lanes and thus no adverse environmental impacts will result from the deletion of the refuge lane requirements. While current data showing that reported accidents at the SR41 and Los Altos road intersection are below the statewide average for similar intersections demonstrates that there are no current traffic safety concerns at that intersection, no such similar data is available for the intersection of SR 41 and the driveway to lots 109-112. Accordingly, the City’s proposed modification to PD- 11 requires that the driveway approach to SR41 be improved to meet current Caltrans Design Standards before the issuance of any building permits for lots 109-112. This condition will ensure that any traffic safety concerns will be addressed before anyone moves into and begins using the driveway to lots 109-112. Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the conclusion that the proposed changes to Section 9-3.656(c)(3)(vi) will not result in any new or more severe impacts than those previously identified in the 3F Meadows EIR and no further environmental impact analysis is required under CEQA. 3. The Proposed Changes To The Condition In PD-11 (Section 9-3.656(c)(3)(vii)) Requiring Sight Distance Improvements Will Not Result In Any New or More Severe Traffic Impacts. ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 As demonstrated in Exhibit G, the City is proposing to enhance this condition as follows: The above-referenced modifications propose: (1) enhanced sight distance requirements to ensure compliance with the most current Caltrans design standards; and (2) revised timing requirements for interim/final sight distance improvements. These enhancements and revised timing requirements take nothing significant away from and only strengthen the prior sight distance improvement requirement in that the proposed changes not only ensure adequate sight distance will be provided at both intersections in accordance with current Caltrans Design Standards6, but that the sight distance improvements at both intersections will be made and maintained in the short term due to the new interim timing requirements until final sight distance improvements are constructed as part of the long-term intersection improvements required for both intersections. These interim requirements were 6 The use of current standards will increase the traffic safety protection of this condition because while 500 feet of sight distance clearance was the standard when the 3F Meadows EIR was prep ared, Caltrans’ current sight distance clearance standard for vehicles turning out onto a state highway with a design posted speed of 55 mph is now 605 feet of required corner sight distance clearance. (See Caltrans Encroachment Permits Manual, Appendix J – Road Connections and Driveways.) ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 added by the City to address public comments about sight-distance issues as it may be several years until the final improvements to SR-41/Los Altos Road and SR41/driveway to lots 109-112 intersections are constructed pursuant to Sections 9-3.656(c)(3)(vi) [upgraded residential driveway approach serving lots 109-112] and 9-3.656(c)(3)(ix) [upgraded SR41-Los Altos Road intersection to add right-turn taper and other related improvements]. Because the prior site distance improvement requirements have been retained and modified solely to ensure early compliance with modern standards, substantial evidence supports the conclusion that the proposed changes to Section 9-3.656(c)(3)(vii) will not result in any new or more severe impacts than those previously identified in the 3F Meadows EIR and no further environmental impact analysis is required under CEQA. 4. The Proposed Changes To The Condition In PD-11 (Section 9-3.656(c)(3)(viii)) Requiring Advisory And Warning Signage Will Not Result In Any New or More Severe Traffic Impacts. As demonstrated in Exhibit G, the City is proposing to enhance this condition as follows: The above-referenced modifications propose: (1) enhanced advisory/warning signage requirements to ensure compliance with the most current Caltrans design standards; and (2) revised timing requirements for interim/final advisory/warning signage. ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 These enhancements and revised timing requirements take nothing significant away from and only strengthen the prior requirement in that the modifications not only ensure adequate signage will be provided at both intersections in accordance with current Caltrans Design Standards, but that the signage at both intersections will be installed in the short term due to the new interim timing requirements until final signage improvements are constructed as part of the long-term intersection improvements required for both intersections. These interim requirements were added by the City to address public comments about warning signage issues as it may be several years until the final improvements to SR-41/Los Altos Road and SR41/driveway to lots 109-112 intersections are constructed pursuant to Sections 9-3.656(c)(3)(vi) [upgraded residential driveway approach serving lots 109-112] and 9-3.656(c)(3)(ix) [upgraded SR41-Los Altos Road intersection to add right-turn taper and other related improvements]. Because the prior advisory and warning signage requirements have been retained and modified solely to ensure early compliance with modern standards, substantial evidence supports the conclusion that the proposed changes to Section 9-3.656(c)(3)(vii) will not result in any new or more severe impacts than those previously identified in the 3F Meadows EIR and no further environmental impact analysis is required under CEQA. 5. The Proposed Changes To The Condition In PD-11 (Section 9-3.656(c)(3)(ix)) Requiring New Right-turn Lanes Will Not Result In Any New or More Severe Traffic Impacts. As demonstrated in Exhibit G, the City is proposing to modify this condition as follows: The above-referenced modifications propose: (1) the construction of a right-turn taper (in lieu of full dedicated right-turn lane) on SR 41 for westbound traffic entering Los Altos Road; (2) the deletion of the right-turn lane requirement on SR 41 for westbound traffic entering driveway ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 serving Lots 109-112; and (3) a revised timing requirement for the construction of the right-turn taper to ensure improvement is constructed well before it is warranted. The 3F Meadows EIR imposed these right-turn lanes on SR41 in response to comments submitted by Caltrans and to address unspecified “safety hazards.” Analysis of current information and data, however, demonstrates that traffic impacts and safety hazards from the 3F Meadows Project at these two intersections are less than significant and that new right-turn lanes are no longer necessary as the anticipated traffic does not generate enough vehicles making right- turns at these intersections to require the construction of new right-turn lanes. Additionally, Caltrans has indicated and recently re-confirmed that it no longer desires the right-turn channelization because constructing a new right-turn lane at this location would require extensive realignment of an adjacent creek that would create additional adverse environmental impacts and right of way constraints. The W-Trans’ report demonstrates that both intersections do and will continue to operate satisfactorily at a level of service C or better during the peak traffic hours. More importantly, the W-Trans’ report demonstrates that the threshold requiring a new right-turn lane on SR 41 for westbound traffic entering Los Altos Road will not be reached until an additional 112 residential units were to be developed above and beyond the units anticipated to be developed by the Project and other nearby undeveloped parcels in the traffic shed area in the Future Plus Project scenario. Similarly, the W-Trans’ report demonstrates that no additional facilities in the form of either a right-turn lane or right-turn taper would be warranted on SR 41 for westbound traffic entering the driveway serving Project lots 109-112 even under Future Plus Project traffic conditions due to the low traffic volume to be generated by the four additional residential lots, and, any potential safety impacts will be addressed by the new condition discussed above requiring Castlerock to bring the driveway approach to up to current Caltrans standards prior to development of Project lots 109-112 Accordingly, no new or more severe impacts will result from deleting the right-turn lane requirements at these intersections because there is no potential traffic impact now or in the future resulting from the Project that would require a right-turn lane for mitigation. However, while right-turn lanes are not warranted at either intersection, W-Trans’ report does conclude that a right-turn taper on SR 41 for westbound traffic entering Los Altos Road is necessary to reduce a potential traffic impact under both Existing Plus Project and Future Plus Project scenarios. W-Trans’ report also concludes that the right-turn taper would be required just prior to full build-out of the 101 anticipated residential units studied (82 remaining Project lots, 15 non-Project lots in the same traffic shed and 4 anticipated second units in the traffic shed). Accordingly, the proposal to add a condition requiring construction of a right-turn taper prior to the issuance of the 52nd building permit or for the Project or within 3-years (whichever occurs first) ensures that the mitigation recommended by Caltrans and confirmed by W -Trans will be in place well before it is warranted. In sum, substantial evidence supports the conclusion that the proposed changes to Section 9- 3.656(c)(3)(ix) will not result in any new or more severe impacts than those previously identified in the 3F Meadows EIR and no further environmental impact analysis is required under CEQA. ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 V. CONCLUSION Based on the analysis in this Addendum and its exhibits, the City concludes that a subsequent EIR is not necessary as the proposed changes to PD-11 are minor in nature in that they do not result in any new significant adverse environmental impacts or an increase in the severity of impacts previously identified in the 3F Meadows EIR. In fact, the changes are decidedly beneficial from an environmental impact and public safety point of view as they avoid the creation of a new significant adverse impact (associated with the original PD-11 requirement that State Route 41 be widened to facilitate construction of a new dedicated right-turn lane from westbound State Route 41 onto Los Altos Road) and generally provide updates to modernize and ensure that the improvements that are necessary are built to current Caltrans Design Standards. ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 Exhibit A 3F Meadows/Oak Ridge Estates Public Improvement Map ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 Exhibit B March 6, 1995 letter from Engineering Development Associates (Michael Hodge) to Caltrans (Larry Newland) ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 Exhibit C June 15, 2005 letter from Caltrans (Steve Senet) to R. Thompson Consulting (Russ Thompson) ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 Exhibit D November 9, 2010 letter from Caltrans (Steve Senet) to Ogden & Fricks LLP (Roy Odgen) ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 Exhibit E W-Trans’ February 4, 2014 report to City of Atascadero Deputy Public Works Director (David Athey) ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 Exhibit F March 11, 2014 letter from Caltrans (Steve Senet) to City Deputy Public Works Director (David Athey) ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 Exhibit G Proposed amendments to PD-11 showing deletions (in strikeout) and additions (in underline) format ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 ATTACHMENT 9: Draft Ordinance A: PD-11 Text Amendment DRAFT ORDINANCE A AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE ATASCADERO MUNICIPAL CODE, SPECIFICALLY SECTION 9-3.656 (PD-11) OF THE ATASCADERO ZONING ORDINANCE Zone Change 2014-0171 Oak Ridge Estates / 3F Meadows (Castlerock Development / KM Holdings) The City Council hereby finds and declares as follows: WHEREAS, an application has been received from K&M Holdings, 445 Green Gate Road, San Luis Obispo, California 93401, (Applicant), to consider an amendment to Section 9- 3.656 (PD-11) of the Atascadero Zoning Ordinance pertaining to the off-site road improvement requirements for the 3-F Meadows / Oak Ridge Estates housing development; and, WHEREAS, the City Council directed City staff to process an amendment to PD-11 during a City Council meeting held on May 14, 2013; and, WHEREAS, the PD-11 project area, also known as 3-F Meadows and Oak Ridge Estates, is currently zoned Residential Suburban / PD-11 (RS / PD-11); and, WHEREAS, a Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH 94061014) was certified by the Atascadero City Council on February 28, 1995; and, WHEREAS, an addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report that analyzes the proposed amendment to PD-11 has been prepared and reviewed by the Planning Commission; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined that it is in the best interest of the City to enact this amendment to the Atascadero Zoning Ordinance to protect the health, safety and welfare of its citizens by applying orderly development of the City; and, WHEREAS, the laws and regulations relating to the preparation and public notice of environmental documents, as set forth in the State and local guidelines for implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) have been adhered to; and, ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 WHEREAS, a timely and properly noticed Public Hearing upon the subject Zone Change application was held by the Planning Commission of the City of Atascadero at which hearing evidence, oral and documentary, was admitted on behalf of said Zoning Amendments; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Atascadero, at a duly noticed Public Hearing held on April 1, 2014, studied and considered Zone Change 2014-0171, after first studying and considering the Proposed Environmental Impact Report Addendum prepared for the project, and, WHEREAS, a timely and properly noticed Public Hearing upon the subject Zone Change application was held by the City Council of the City of Atascadero at which hearing evidence, oral and documentary, was admitted on behalf of said Zoning Amendments; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Atascadero, at a duly noticed Public Hearing held on April 22, 2014, studied and considered Zone Change 2014-0171, after first studying and considering the Proposed Environmental Impact Report Addendum prepared for the project and the Planning Commission’s recommendation, and, NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO HEREBY RECOMMENDS THE FOLLOWING: SECTION 1. Findings for Approval of an amendment to the Atascadero Zoning Ordinance, amending portions of Section 9-3.656 (PD-11). The City Council finds as follows: 1. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Atascadero General Plan; and, 2. The proposed amendment is consistent with the original intent of the PD-11 Zoning Code; and, 3. The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of the general public or persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the use, or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity of the use; and, 4. The proposed amendments will not be inconsistent with the character or the immediate neighborhood or contrary to its orderly development. SECTION 2. Approval. The City Council of the City of Atascadero, in a regular session assembled on April 22, 2014, resolved to introduce for first reading by title only, an ordinance that would amend section 9-3.656 (PD-11) of the Atascadero Zoning Ordinance: 9-3.656 Establishment of Planned Development Overlay Zone No. 11: (PD11). 9-3.656(c)(3) ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 Planning Commission is recommending three (3) years be revised to two (2) years ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 Planning Commission is recommending three (3) years be revised to two (2) years ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 Planning Commission is recommending three (3) years be revised to two (2) years Planning Commission is recommending three (3) years be revised to two (2) years ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council held on April 22, 2014, and PASSED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Atascadero, State of California, on ___________________, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ADOPTED: CITY OF ATASCADERO By: _______________________________ Tom O’Malley, Mayor ATTEST: ______________________________ Marcia McClure Torgerson, C.M.C., City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ______________________________ Brian A. Pierik, City Attorney ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 ATTACHMENT 10: Draft Planning Commission Minutes – April 1, 2014 Note: These are draft minutes that have not been adopted by the Planning Commission. CITY OF ATASCADERO PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Regular Meeting – Tuesday, April 1, 2014 – 7:00 P.M. City Hall Council Chambers 6500 Palma Avenue, Atascadero, California CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 p.m. 14. 15. Chairperson Schmidt called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. and Commissioner Bentz led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Anderson, Bentz, Cooper, Colamarino, Vice Chairperson Dariz, and Chairperson Schmidt Absent: Commissioner Wolff (excused absence) Others Present: Recording Secretary Annette Manier Steve Weinberger, W -Trans Staff Present: Community Development Director Warren Frace Deputy Director of Public Works David Athey Assistant Planner Alfredo Castillo Brian Pierik, City Attorney APPROVAL OF AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 MOTION: By Vice Chairperson Dariz and seconded by Commissioner Bentz to approve the agenda. Motion passed 6:0 by a roll-call vote. PUBLIC COMMENT None Chairperson Schmidt closed the Public Comment period. PLANNING COMMISSION BUSINESS None CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPROVAL OF ACTION MINUTES OF THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ON FEBRUARY 18, 2014. MOTION: By Vice Chairperson Dariz and seconded by Commissioner Anderson to approve the consent calendar. Motion passed 6:0 by a roll-call vote. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORTS None PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. GTE / VERIZON CELL TOWER AT ABC CHURCH PLN 2013-1484, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR 6225 ATASCADERO MALL Applicant: GTE Mobilnet of Santa Barbara d/b/a Verizon Wireless, C/O Jay Higgins, 211 East Carrillo Street, Suite 301, Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Owner: Atascadero Bible Church, 6225 Atascadero Ave., Atascadero CA 93422 Project Title: PLN 2013-1484 / CUP 2013-0276 Project Location: 6225 Atascadero Mall. Atascadero, CA 93422 (San Luis Obispo County) APN: 030-192-018 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 DISCLOSURE OF EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS Commissioners Anderson and Dariz stated they reviewed this project at the Design Review Committee (DRC). Commissioners Cooper, Colamarino, Bentz, Schmidt – None. Assistant Planner Castillo gave the staff report and answered questions from the Commission. PUBLIC COMMENT The following people spoke during the public comment: Jay Higgins, representative from Verizon Wireless. Chairperson Schmidt closed the Public Comment period. Project Description: Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a cellular communication facility located at 6225 Atascadero Mall. The projects consists of a seventy five (75) foot faux-tree pole with nine (9) antennas, an at grade unmanned radio equipment shelter measuring 11’6” x 16’-10”-1/2” with a backup generator on a 5’x10’ concrete pad, a new five (5) foot underground fiber route, and the potential to impact nine (9) native trees. The project requires further environmental review consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) based on aesthetics, biological resources, agriculture and forestry resources, and hydrology/water quality. Zoning: Public (P) General Plan Designation: Public Facilities (P) Proposed Environmental Determination: Based on the Initial Study prepared for the project, a Mitigated Negative Declaration is proposed. The Mitigated Negative Declaration is available for public review from 3/13/14 through 4/1/14 at 6500 Palma Avenue, Community Development Department from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday, and also available on our website at www.atascadero.org/environmental docs. Staff Recommendation: Design Review Committee (DRC) recommends approval of the project. ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 MOTION: By Commissioner Bentz and seconded by Commissioner Anderson to adopt PC Resolution PC 2014-0007 certifying Mitigated Negative Declaration 2014-0003 approving PLN 2013- 1484/CUP 2013-0276 to allow a cellular telecommunications facility in public zone at APN 030-192-018, 6225 Atascadero Mall based on findings and subject to conditions of approval and mitigation monitoring, including the proposed change by Verizon to change Condition 22 to read “public parking areas” rather than “the parking area.” Motion passed 6:0 by a roll-call vote. PUBLIC HEARINGS (CONTINUED) 3. Oak Ridge Estates Planned Development Amendment PLN 2099-0033 / ZCH 2014-0171 CODE TEXT AMENDMENT TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT #11 (PD-11) REGARDING OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENT REQUIREMENTS ALONG STATE ROUTE 41 (MORRO ROAD) Property Owner: K&M Holdings Applicants: Castlerock Development, 445 Green Gate Road, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Project Title: Oak Ridge Estates Planned Development Amendment PLN 2099-0033/ZCH 2014-0171: Zone Code Text Amendment to Planned Development #11 (PD-11) regarding off-site improvement requirements along State Route 41 (Morro Road) [Oak Ridge Estates] Project Location: The Oak Ridge Estates project consists of 115 rural residential parcels covering 802± acres located at the western end of San Marcos Road in Atascadero, CA 93422. (San Luis Obispo County) Project Description: The project consists of an amendment to the off-site road improvement standards for PD-11, which covers the Oak Ridge Estates residential development project. Specifically, Section 9-3.656(c)(3)(v) through (vii) of the Atascadero Zoning Ordinance will be amended to modify the intersection improvement requirements at the following locations: State Route 41 at Los Altos Road State Route 41 and a private driveway ¼ mile west of Los Altos Road No changes are proposed within the project boundary. General Plan Designation: Rural Estates (RE) Zoning: Residential Suburban / Planned Development #11 (RS / PD-11) Proposed Environmental Determination: An Addendum to the 1994 project Environmental Impact Report (EIR) [SCH #94061014] has been prepared for the proposed amendments to PD-11. The EIR Addendum analyzed the proposed amendments to PD-11 and concluded that the revised off-site improvement requirements would not result in any new or substantially more severe impacts than those identified in the original EIR. ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 DISCLOSURE OF EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS Chairperson Schmidt announced he would be recusing himself from voting on the item because Castlerock Development has been a client of his, and the City Attorney recommended he step down from voting. Chairperson Schmidt left the room, and Vice Chairperson Dariz took over the meeting. All other Commissioners had no ex parte communications. Director Frace introduced David Athey from Public Works, Brian Pierik, the City Attorney, and Steve Weinberger from W -Trans. Director Frace and Deputy Director Athey gave the staff report. Director Frace, Deputy Director Athey, Steve Weinberger, and Brian Pierik answered questions from Commission. PUBLIC COMMENT The following people spoke during the public comment: Wend y Ackhart (on behalf of Darren Shetler from Castlerock Development), Warren Stephenson, Don Ritter, Debra Paskin, Mitch Paskin, Joe Dervin, Carrie Briscoe, Frank Lopez, Linda Stephenson, Constance Johnson, Jason Tyra (Castlerock Development), and Joyce Mos tavich. Steve Weinberger of W -Trans responded to questions raised by the public speakers. Vice Chairperson Dariz closed the Public Comment period. Steve Weinberger gave a history of W -Trans’ involvement in the project, and then answered questions from the Commission. Jason Tyra answered questions in regards to the right turn taper. Director Frace, Deputy Director Athey, and Steve Weinberger answe red additional questions from the Commission. Vice Chairperson Dariz re-opened the Public Comment period. PUBLIC COMMENT The following people spoke during the public comment: Warren Stephenson, Mitch Paskin, Joe Dervin, and Don Ritter. Vice Chairperson Dariz closed the Public Comment period. Recommendation: Staff is recommending the Planning Commission recommend adoption of the Addendum and approval of the proposed amendments to PD-11 to the Atascadero City Council. ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 Commissioners then made statements on the project, and Commissioner Bentz agreed with the other commissioners’ comments, and said he would make a motion. MOTION: By Commissioner Bentz and seconded by Commissioner Cooper to adopt PC Resolution 2014 - 0005 recommending to the City Council approval of the Environmental Impact Report addendum to the previously-certified EIR for the Oakridge Estates-3F Meadows Project and determine that said addendum together with the previously-certified Environmental Impact Report serves as the appropriate environmental documentation for the proposed amendments to the Planned Development 11 Zoning Code Section 9-3.656 AND By Commissioner Bentz and seconded by Commissioner Cooper to adopt PC Resolution 2014 - 0006 recommending to the City Council introduce for first reading an Ordinance amending PD-11 for the Oakridge Estates/3-f Meadows project with the recommendation that the Council address the Los altos / State Route 41 safety issues. Commissioner Colamarino said he would like to make a motion to add a recommendation with a change that the developer would complete the road improvements, at the two locations, within one year from the Council’s approval. Brian Pierik explained the procedure for this motion (now that there is a motion and a 2nd on the table). He said Commissioner Colamarino must ask the maker of the motion (Bentz) and the commissioner who seconded the m otion (Cooper) whether they would be willing to modify the motion to include the one -year limitation or not. Commissioner Bentz agreed to modify the motion, and Commissioner Colamarino agreed to the second the modification, but Commissioner Cooper did not agree. Deputy Director Athey explained that staff’s position on realistic time-frames. Commissioner Colamarino then suggested the time limit we should be talking about is for the developer to initiate the process of securing these other permits from th e other agencies within 3 months after Council approval. Vice Chairperson Dariz and Commissioner Cooper agreed. Director Frace explained that trying to set a timeframe on another agency’s approval is beyond the control of anyone in the room. What is in the Commission’s control would be when the project would go back into a status of non -compliance, and that perhaps a timeframe of 2-years would get us to a window of something more realistic, and that would be staff’s direction. ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 Commissioner Bentz, (maker of the motion) would agree to the 2nd amendment if the 2nd (Colamarino) would agree to the change that. Commissioner Cooper asked for clarification from staff on exact wording. Director Frace stated that the original resolution states that in 3 years, facilities would need to be completely done and accepted by Caltrans. Staff would recommend that 2 years would be the shortest timeframe the Commission should consider. Commissioner Cooper said he would agree to second the motion if we change the language to say the applicant must have permits from all agencies at the 2 -year mark. Commissioner Colamarino asked Commissioner Bentz to amend his motion to make it two years for completion, per staff’s recommendation, and Commissioner Bentz accepted the amendment. Commissioner Colamarino said he would second that motion. Director Frace clarified that the only language changing in the resolution for the PD -11 amendment is for the timing sections in 9-3.656©(3)(v), (vii), (viii), (ix) from 3-years to 2- years. MOTION: By Commissioner Bentz and seconded by Commissioner Colamarino to adopt PC Resolution 2014-0005 recommending to the City Council approval of the Environmental Impact Report addendum to the previously-certified EIR for the Oakridge Estates-3F Meadows Project and determine that said addendum together with the previously-certified Environmental Impact Report serves as the appropriate environmental documentation for the proposed amendments to the Planned Development 11 Zoning Code Section 9-3.656 AND By Commissioner Bentz and seconded by Commissioner Colamarino to adopt PC Resolution 2014-0006 recommending to the City Council introduce for first reading an Ordinance amending PD-11 for the Oakridge Estates/3-F Meadows project, and changing the (v) timing sections in 9-3.656©(3)(v), (vii), (viii), (ix) from within three (3) years to (2) years of the effective date of the ordinance. Motion passed 5:0 by a roll-call vote. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS AND REPORTS None DIRECTORS REPORT ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 Director Frace stated that the next Planning Commission meeting will be held on April 15, 2014. ADJOURNMENT – 9:50 p.m. The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for April 15, 2014, at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall, Council Chambers, 6500 Palma Avenue, Atascadero. MINUTES PREPARD BY: _____________________________ Annette Manier, Recording Secretary t:\~ planning commission\pc minutes\pc minutes 2014\pc draft actn minutes 4 1 14.am.docx ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 ATTACHMENT 11: Letter #1 from Castlerock Development (applicant) – April 8, 2014 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 ATTACHMENT 12: Letter #2 from Castlerock Development (applicant) – April 8, 2014 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 04/22/14 ATTACHMENT 13: Letter #3 from Castlerock Development (applicant) – April 8, 2014 ITEM NUMBER: C - 1 DATE: 04/22/14 Atascadero City Council ____________ Staff Report - City Manager Results of Community Poll and Consideration of Sales Tax Measure RECOMMENDATIONS: Council: 1. Direct staff to prepare a resolution and ordinance for City Council consideration at the June 24, 2014 meeting to place a ½ cent local sales tax override measure on the November 2014 ballot; and, 2. Direct staff to draft the resolution to include establishment of a Citizen’s Advisory Committee; and, 3. Direct staff to draft the resolution to include an advisory measure with language directing that the funds from the ½ local sales tax override would be used: A. Primarily for the purpose of repairing and maintaining the City’s roadways OR B. Primarily for the purpose of repairing and maintaining the City’s roadways, with remaining funds to be used for the repair and maintenance of other City infrastructure such as parks facilities, storm drains and zoo facilities. REPORT-IN-BRIEF: The maintenance, funding and condition of the City’s infr astructure, particularly roads, has been a critical concern of the City Council for some time. As part of the 2013 -2015 budget, the Council allocated funds to conduct a poll to determine how potential voters would react to a ½ cent sales tax increase to fund infrastructure repairs. At the February 1, 2014 Council strategic planning session, the Council discussed critical infrastructure needs such as roads, storm drains, parks and zoo infrastructure , and ITEM NUMBER: C - 1 DATE: 04/22/14 facilities infrastructure. The poll was developed t o gauge citizen’s interest in the various infrastructure needs. DISCUSSION: Infrastructure Needs Infrastructure includes the basic facilities and equipment needed to run the City. It includes public infrastructure such as streets, roads, storm drains, street lights, sidewalks, bridges and other large capital items needed for transportation and wastewater to flow smoothly. It also includes facilities such as fire stations, police station, parks, the Zoo, City Hall and other large capital assets that are needed to provide services to the public. Funding the replacement of these long -term assets of the City has been a challenge since prior to incorporation. These roads/storm drains/facilities are used every day; however the cost of that use is not easily seen. The items will eventually have to be replaced as both time and use take their toll on them. These are costs that the City is incurring, but is not currently paying for. The City has had some success in the past in procuring grants and other funding sources for roads. With these grants, the City was able to slow the overall deterioration of roads; however we continued to slip backwards. General road funding and grant funding has been gradually reduced nationwide. Not only have state and federal grant funds dried up, but state and federal agencies are now looking to local jurisdictions to contribute more for repairs to state routes through their jurisdictions. These contributing factors have and will continue to increase the speed at which are roads are deteriorating. The City’s ability to fund the long-term replacement of infrastructure and particularly roads has been a concern of the City Council for quite some time. Council has discussed costs and funding associated with maintaining roads, through the Atascadero Road Program and through the Comprehensive Financial Strategies. At Council direction, staff has also tried to educate the citizens of Atascadero about long-term infrastructure costs, through public speaking engagements, Council presentations and handouts. As part of the Comprehensive Financial Strategy in 2013, Council reviewed funding for the repair and replacement of infrastructure . Due to continuing concerns regarding infrastructure deterioration, the Council approved funds as part of the 2013-2015 budget to investigate a half cent sales tax measure. The investigation would include a community poll to determine the community’s interest in approving the additional half cent sales tax. At the Council strategic planning on February 1, 2014 Council received a report on the City’s road conditions and a report from Jennifer Franz of JD Franz Research, a polling firm. While the Council was primarily concerned with repair and maintenance of the roads, they also directed the pollster to ask questions about all infrastructure needs. ITEM NUMBER: C - 1 DATE: 04/22/14 Polling Results On behalf of the City, JD Franz Research conducted interviews of 402 likely voters. JD Franz is a professional research firm with years of experience in the polling field. They have a strong reputation for the accuracy of their polling results. The interviews were conducted between March 13 and March 19, 2014. While the primary purpose of the poll was to determine the extent to which those most likely to vote would support a proposed sales tax increase, the poll included inquiries into the following: • Assessments of the quality of life in Atascadero • Assessments of changes in the quality of life in the past year • Ratings of the job the City’s government is doing of managing City affairs and services • Perceptions of the level of City taxes and fees • Awareness of the City’s sales tax rate • Awareness that the sales tax rate in neighboring cities is higher than the rate in Atascadero • Levels of support for the proposed tax increase • Reasons for support • Reasons for opposition • Effect of various situations on levels of support • Priority of two uses for the increased revenue • Potential effect of an Atascadero Unified School District bond reauthorization measure on the same ballot • Effect of possible uses for the increased revenue on levels of support • Respondent demographics, including gender, length of residence in Atascadero, educational attainment, age, and cell phone usage • Voter characteristics derived from the sample list, including registration status Given that 402 interviews were completed, the margin of error for the survey at the 95 percent confidence level is ± 4.9 percent. Overall, the majority of voters (89%) say the quality of life is good in Atascadero and believe that the quality of life has remained about the same over the last year. The City did not fare as well when respondents were asked how the City does in managing its affairs. Only half (50.4%) of the respondents stated that the City did a good or excellen t job. (29.7% responded that the City did a fair job and 11.6% felt the City did a poor job). The poll showed that most voters knew that the sales tax rate in Atascadero is 7.5%, but the majority did not know that all of the other cities in the County ha d an 8.0% sales tax rate. The chart below displays levels of support for the proposed sales tax increase from seven and a half cents to eight cents. About four in ten support this proposal, while two in ten strongly support it, for a total of around six in ten (61%). ITEM NUMBER: C - 1 DATE: 04/22/14 Citizens in favor of the sales tax measure cited the need to improve roads as the main reason for supporting the proposed sales tax increase. Other reasons included the need to maintain infrastructure and that a half cent sales tax increase was reasonable. An advisory measure stating that the additional money be used primarily for the purposes of maintaining and repairing the City’s streets and roads is likely to increase support. Almost as likely to increase support is the proposal to establish a citizens’ advisory committee to oversee the spending of the additional money. Adding a 10 year sunset date only had a modest positive effect amongst both opponents of the tax and proponents of the tax. The poll results showed that if the Atascadero Unified School District’s ballot measure to “reauthorize existing bonds to increase student access to computers, maintain and upgrade educational technology, and modernize classrooms and other school facilities” were on the same ballot as the City’s sales tax increase measure, support for the City’s measure would decrease to 54.4%, combining “vote only for City measure” and “vote for both”). Another nine percent do not know what they would do; the remainder would vote only for the school district measure or vote against both. It is interesting to note that if both measures were on the ballot, this poll shows that support for the school district measure would be at 52.7%, which is less than the support shown for the City’s sales tax measure. The chart below shows the weighted response. ITEM NUMBER: C - 1 DATE: 04/22/14 The respondents were asked the extent to which various uses of the increase would change their minds in the direction of support or opposition. Both those likely to support the measure and those likely to vote against the measure felt that maintaining and repairing roads made them support the measure more (average of over 70% for supporters and over 40% for opponents.) Although some of the other proposed uses increased support in over 40% of the “supporter” respondents, none of the other uses have a majority impact on support. Overall, the poll results showed that there is strong community interest in a sales tax measure, particularly if the proceeds of the sales tax were to go primarily to roads. While there is some interest in the community for some of the money to go to storm drains, parks infrastructure and facilities, it is clear that people are looking for the money to be spent primarily on maintaining and repairing our roads. The Council does not have the authority to impose the half cent sales tax on taxpayers, instead Council may only place the sales tax measure on the ballot, asking the voters if they want to approve the half cent sales tax measure. Sales Tax Measure Process Regarding increases to the sales tax rate, in order to make a change to any general tax rate, the change must be approved by the voters. The City Council does not have the authority to raise taxes. In order to place a tax measure on the November 4, 2014 ballot, it takes a 2/3 vote of the City Council (at least 4 members). If passed by the Council and the electorate, the tax would be effective no sooner than the first day of the first calendar quarter, commencing more than 110 days after the adoption of the ordinance. Therefore, the tax would be effective no sooner than April 1, 2015. ITEM NUMBER: C - 1 DATE: 04/22/14 Proposition 218, approved in 1996, now requires that all City tax election measures be placed on the same election when City Council members are selected. The next Council election is scheduled for November 4, 2014. Subsequent Council elections are held every two years. In order to place the local sales tax election on the next ballot the Council needs to act prior to August 8, 2014. In order to provide staff enough time to submit the proper paperwork, related resolutions and ordinances would need to be considered by the June 24, 2014 Council meeting. Advantages and Disadvantages of Sales Tax Measure As with most policy actions, enacting an increase to the sales tax has advantages and disadvantages. Some arguments in favor include: It would generate additional revenue to assist in meeting the City’s long-term needs, particularly road repairs; Unlike property taxes, sales taxes are paid by a greate r distribution of the population (including homeowners, renters, businesses and tourists); Sales taxes are paid based on consumption (those who can afford to spend more pay more), and they are paid incrementally instead of in a lump sum; The existing sales tax rate is currently at the legal minimum and lower than that paid by most residents in California; and, Because the tax is established by a vote of the local electorate, it cannot be taken by the State. Some arguments against include: Additional taxes reduce the discretionary income of Atascadero residents; Tax increases are not generally perceived positively by the citizenry and may erode trust in local government. Potential Impact on Local Sales The actual amount of proposed increase in the sales tax is minimal when compared to the actual cost of a product sold. For example, for every $100 spent, the increase would result in an additional $0.50 paid by the consumer. Sales tax data trends show that an increase in the sales tax rate of one half percent has no noticeable effect on the amount of taxable goods consumers buy. In other words, in other jurisdictions where the sales tax has been increased, the businesses did not see a decline in sales because the sales tax rate had been increased. HDL, our sa les tax consultants, do not believe that an increase of one half cent in the sales tax rate in Atascadero will affect local business sales volumes. It is estimated that a half cent sales tax would generate between $1.7 million - $2.0 million annually. ITEM NUMBER: C - 1 DATE: 04/22/14 Sales Tax Options If the City Council decides to move forward with a sales tax measure, it will require decisions on the following key issues in order to draft the measure: Amount of Increase Staff recommends that .5% be proposed as the local sales tax override amount. As discussed in the recent roads report, this amount is necessary in order to produce revenue sufficient to meet the needs identified. This increase would bring the sales tax rate up to the comparable rate to that of the other cities in the county. Below is a comparison table of the sales tax rate in neighboring jurisdictions. SLO COUNTY CURRENT SALES TAX Arroyo Grande 8% Atascadero 7.5% Grover Beach 8% Morro Bay 8% Paso Robles 8% Pismo Beach 8% San Luis Obispo 8% Advisory Measure The trend in the industry for local general sales tax measures is to include an advisory measure with the tax measure. An advisory question is a type of ballot measure in which citizens vote on a non-binding question. This allows voters to have a say in how the additional revenues should be spent. While the advisory measure is not legally binding on the City, it is viewed as clear direction from the citizens to the City Council on where the voters would like to see the funds spent. Staff strongly recommends an advisory measure also be placed on the ballot stating where the funds will be spent if the measure is passed. Because repair and maintenance of the roads polled the strongest and is the City’s biggest need, it is a given that the advisory measure would contain language stating that funds will be spent primarily on roads. While not as popular, there is also a need for long-term funding for other infrastructure such as park facilities, zoo facilities and public safety facilities. Staff does not have a strong recommendation as to whether the advisory measure should include all infrastructure or just roads. Sunset Clause Sunset clauses state that a tax measure ends or “sunsets” after a certain period of time. Sunset clauses can be perceived as beneficial because the tax is temporary and voters retain control over the tax. They are particularly popular when the tax will be used for a project of limited duration or to fund one -time expenditures. In this case, the need for the tax is an ongoing need - repair and ITEM NUMBER: C - 1 DATE: 04/22/14 maintenance of the City’s roads and infrastructure. Because the poll results do not show that a sunset clause is likely to measurably increase support for the measure, staff is not recommending that a sunset clause be added to the measure. Citizen Advisory Committee Citizen advisory committees can also be popular with the electorate. An advisory committee is often comprised of a group of citizens whose purpose is to analyze how new tax monies are being spent. While some respondents felt that an advisory committee added more administration, staff is recommending that a citizen advisory committee be established if the new tax is approved. The poll results showed that the voters are more likely to support the measure if there is a citizen’s advisory committee. The committee would be charged with meeting annually to review the previous year’s expenses from the proceeds of the increased sales tax. The committee would compile a report to the Council stating how the funds were spent and share wit h the community how the tax was being used. FISCAL IMPACT: The proposed sales tax measure would generate an estimated $1.7 - $2.0 million in additional annual revenue. The total cost of placing the measures on the ballot is estimated to be approximately $10,000 of budgeted General Funds. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Council may not pursue an increase to the sales tax rate. 2. Council may ask staff for additional information.