HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 03/28/2006CITY OF ATASCA DERO
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
7:00 P.M.
City Hall
Council Chambers
6907 EI Camino Real
Atascadero, California
SPECIAL JOINT STUDY SESSION (Eagle Creek Project): 5:30 P.M.
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY: 6:30 P.M.
CLOSED SESSION:
(Immediately Following Redevelopment Agency Meeting)
1. PUBLIC COMMENT CLOSED SESSION
2. CALL TO ORDER
a. Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation
(Government Code sections 54956.9, subdivision (a).)
Case name unspecified as disclosure would jeopardize existing settlement
negotiations (Government Code section 54954.5, subdivision (c).)
3. ADJOURN
4. CLOSED SESSION REPORT
0 REGULAR SESSION: 7:00 P.M.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor O'Malley
ROLL CALL: Mayor O'Malley
Mayor Pro Tem Pacas
Council Member Clay
Council Member Luna
Council Member Scalise
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 five minutes. Please state your name for the record
before making your presentation. The Council may take action to direct the staff to
place a matter of business on a future agenda. A maximum of 30 minutes will be
allowed for Community Forum, unless changed by the Council.)
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Roll Call
0
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.)
•
PRESENTATIONS:
1. Presentation by Larry Allen of the Air Pollution Control District on the
Climate Change Program.
2. Presentation to Retiring Superintendent of Schools, Jim Stecher.
3. Presentation to Lon Allan by Chief Stone.
4. Employee Service Award Presentations.
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.)
1. City Council Meeting Minutes — February 28, 2006
■ City Clerk Recommendation: Council approve the City Council meeting
minutes of February 28, 2006. [City Clerk]
oil
2. Atascadero Avenue Overlav Award (City Bid No. 2006-001
• Description: Authorization to execute contract with Granite Construction
for the pavement of portions of Atascadero Ave. between Santa Barbara &
San Diego Roads.
■ Fiscal Impact: Total estimated expenditures is $229,410.00.
■ Recommendation: Council authorize the City Manager to execute a
contract with Granite Construction in the amount of $168,768.00 for
paving portions of Atascadero Avenue between Santa Barbara Road and
San Diego Road. [Public Works]
3. Asphalt Purchasing and Delivery Services
• Description: Request authorization to enter into ongoing contracts for
asphalt purchasing with two separate vendors.
■ Fiscal Impact: Funds for the purchase and delivery of asphalt is included
in annual Street Maintenance Division budget.
■ Recommendation: Council authorize the City Manager to enter into
ongoing contracts for asphalt purchasing and delivery with Hanson
Aggregates and with Union Asphalt. [Public Works]
4. Annual Sewer -Line Cleaning Services
■ Description: Request for authorization to hire Mark Simon Sewer
Maintenance to conduct the City's annual sanitary sewer -line cleaning.
■ Fiscal Impact: Expenditures of $ 61,600.00 in Wastewater funds over the
next four years.
■ Recommendation: Council authorize the City Manager to execute a four
year contract with Mark Simon Sewer Maintenance in the amount of
$15,400.00 annually, for sanitary sewer -line cleaning services. [Public
Works]
5. Final Map 2005-0110 (Tract 2626) Santa Barbara Road_ / EI Camino Real
(TTM 2003-0033)(Centex Homes)
■ Description: Approval of a one hundred fifty-four lot subdivision.
■ Fiscal Impact: None.
■ Recommendations: Council:
1. Accept Final Tract Map 2005-0110 (Tract 2626); and,
2. Accept the offers of dedication for Street purposes, the Public Sewer
Easements, and Lot OS -15 in fee simple; and,
3. Reject, without prejudice to future acceptance, the offers of dedication
for Public Storm Drain Easements and Public Pedestrian Access
Easements; and,
4. Authorize City Manager to execute a Subdivision Improvement
Agreement, a Subdivision Annexation and Assessment and Parcel Tax
Authorization Deferral Agreement, and an Affordable Housing
Agreement; and,
5. Execute a Memorandum of Development Condition. [Public Works]
C
B.
C.
C!
PUBLIC HEARING:
1. Appeal 2005-0006 / Appear of Planning Commission Action on
November 1, 2005 For Reconsideration of Conditional Use Permit 2000-
0022 (6125 San Anselmo Avenue) Amendment of CUP 2000-0022
Shores
■ Description: Appeal of the Planning Commission decision concerning the
non -permitted driveway at the Car Wash on San Anselmo Road.
■ Disclosure of Ex Parte Communications
■ Fiscal Impact: None.
■ Recommendation: Council require the placement of a new median in San
Anselmo Road in lieu of removing a non -permitted ingress/egress
driveway. [Community Development]
2. Interim Urgency Ordinance Establishing a Moratorium on Conversion of
Residential Units to Condominiums
■ Description: Temporary Ordinance establishing a moratorium on
conversion of residential units to condominiums.
■ Fiscal Impact: None.
■ Recommendation: Council adopt the interim urgency ordinance
establishing a moratorium on conversions of residential units to
condominiums. [City Attorney]
MANAGEMENT REPORTS:
1. Sewer Reimbursement Agreement / Colima Avenue
• Description: Approval of a sewer reimbursement agreement for Colima
Avenue.
■ Fiscal Impact: The City will collect a 2% Administrative Charge from all
reimbursements. This charge will be deducted from the total amount
refunded.
■ Recommendation: Council approve the Colima Avenue Sewer Extension
Reimbursement Agreement. [Public Works]
2. Atascadero Road Program
Description: An update report on the Atascadero Road Program.
Fiscal Impact: None.
Recommendation: Council receive a report on the Atascadero. Road
Program. [Public Works]
0
.7
D. COMMITTEE & LIAISON REPORTS: (The following represent standing
committees. Informative status reports will be given, as felt necessary):
Mayor O'Malley
1. County Mayor's Round Table
2. Finance Committee
3. Air Pollution Control District (APCD)
4. Economic Vitality Corporation, Board of Directors (EVC)
5. League of California Cities — Grassroots Network
6. City / Schools Committee
7. Economic Opportunity Commission (EOC)
Mayor Pro Tem Pacas
1. Integrated Waste Management Authority (IWMA)
2. City / Schools Committee
3. Atascadero Youth Task Force
Council Member Clay
1. S.L.O. County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Water Resources
Advisory Committee
2. Nacimiento Water Purveyors Contract Technical Advisory Group
3. North County Water Purveyors Group
Council Member Luna
1. Finance Committee
Council Member Scalise
1. Atascadero State Hospital Advisory Board
2. Local Agency Formation Commissions (LAFCO)
3. SLO Council of Governments (SLOCOG) / S.L.O. Regional Transit Authority
(SLORTA)
E. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION:
1.
City Council
2.
City Clerk
3.
City Treasurer
4.
City Attorney
5.
City Manager
0
5
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, Shannon Sims, Deputy City Clerk of the City of Atascadero, declare under the penalty of perjury
that the foregoing agenda for the March 28, 2006 Regular Session of the Atascadero City Council
was posted on. March 21, 2006 at the Atascadero City Hall, 6907 El Camino Real, Atascadero, CA
93422 and was available for public review in the Customer Service Center at that location.
Signed this 21 st day of March, 2006 at Atascadero, California.
�-J
yin n
Shannon Sims, Deputy City Clerk
City of Atascadero
City of Atascadero
WELCOME TO THE ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Ohe City Council meets in regular session on the second and fourth Tuesday of each month at 7:00 p.m., at the City Hall
Council Chambers, 6907 EI Camino Real, Atascadero. Matters are considered by the Council in the order of the printed
Agenda.
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 Central
Receptionist counter and on our website, www.atascadero.org. An agenda packet is also available for public review at
the Atascadero Library, 6850 Morro Road. Contracts, Resolutions and Ordinances will be allocated a number once they
are approved by the City Council. The minutes of this meeting 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 AGENDA ITEMS
Members of the audience may speak on any item on the agenda. The Mayor will identify the subject, 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 podium. If
you wish to speak for, against or comment in any way:
• You must approach the podium and be recognized by the Mayor
• Give your name and address (not required)
• Make your statement
• All comments should be made to the Mayor and Council
• No person shall be permitted to make slanderous, profane or negative personal remarks concerning any other
individual, absent or present
• All comments limited to 5 minutes (unless changed by the Council)
• No one may speak for a second time until everyone wishing to speak has had an opportunity to do so, and no
one may speak more than twice on any item.
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. Access to hook up your laptop to the City's projector will be provided. 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 before the
meeting begins to announce your presence and turn in the printed copy.
The Mayor will announce when the public comment period is closed, and thereafter, no further public comments will be
heard by the Council
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:
• Please approach the podium and be recognized
• Give your name and address (not required)
• State the nature of your business
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).
TO HAVE ITEMS PLACED ON AGENDA
business matters to appear on the Agenda must be in the Office of the City Manager 14 days preceding the Council
eeting. Should you have a matter you wish to bring before the Council, please mail or bring a written communication to
the City Manager's office in City Hall prior to the deadline.
7
•
ITEM NUMBER: A-1
DATE: 03/28/06
ram 11170IElel gild `L� CITY •F A TA S— CADERO
w.CITY COUNCIL
DRAFT MINUTES
Tuesday, February 28, 2006
7:00 P.M.
REGULAR SESSION: 7:00 P.M.
Mayor O'Malley called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and Council Member Luna led
the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Council Members Clay, Luna, Scalise, Pacas and Mayor O'Malley
Absent: None
Others Present: City Clerk / Assistant to City Manager Marcia McClure Torgerson
and Deputy City Clerk Grace Pucci
Staff Present: City Manager Wade McKinney, Assistant City Manager Jim Lewis,
Administrative Services Director Rachelle Rickard, Police Chief
John Couch, Fire Chief Kurt Stone, Public Works Director Steve
Kahn, Community Development Director Warren Frace, Community
Services Director Brady Cherry, Deputy Public Works Director
Geoff English, Deputy Community Development Director Steve
McHarris, Associate Planner Kelly Gleason and City Attorney
Patrick Enright.
COMMUNITY FORUM:
Reverend John Davis led those present in prayer.
CC Draft Minutes 02/28/06
Pagel of 11 8
Mitch Paskin, San Marcos Road resident, expressed his concerns regarding having San
Marcos Road accepted into the city -maintained system. Those San Marcos Road
residents present in the audience stood in support of Mr. Paskin's statement.
Ralph Dutman, San Marcos Road, stated his concerns with the safety modifications to
Highway. 41 at Los Altos Road, and raised several issues regarding the lack of follow
through for the requirements of the PD -11 in the San Marcos Road area.
Public Works Director Steve Kahn gave a brief update on the San Marcos Road issues
and answered questions of Council.
Joanne Main, Executive Director Chamber of Commerce, spoke about an article she
wrote for the Chamber Newsletter summarizing Council votes over the previous year.
Steve Martin, Executive Director Atascadero Main Street Association, introduced Board
Member Maria Hooper who read a letter from Vivian Michel, Atascadero Main Street
President, expressing their gratitude for the city's continuing support. (Exhibit A)
Steve Martin spoke about the Atascadero Community Coalition, explained their
activities and invited Council to attend their monthly meeting.
Maury Froman, Rottman Group, gave a status report on the Master Plan for their
project, The Annex, at EI Camino Real and Del Rio Road.
Mayor O'Malley closed the Community Forum period.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
MOTION: By Council Member Luna and seconded by Council Member
Scalise to approve the agenda.
Motion passed 5:0 by a roll -call vote.
COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS AND REPORTS:
Council Member Clay spoke about how physically fit those using the Skate Park
appeared to be. He also suggested recruiting a chocolate outlet for the downtown area.
PROCLAMATION
1. Proclamation recognizing Atascadero as Tree City USA.
CC Draft Minutes 02/28/06
Page 2 of 11
9
•
•
Council Member Luna read the proclamation recognizing Atascadero as Tree City USA
2006 and presented it to Joan O'Keefe. Mrs. O'Keefe thanked the City for maintaining
the Tree City USA status for Atascadero.
A. CONSENT CALENDAR:
1. City Council Meeting Minutes — January 24, 2006
■ City Clerk Recommendation: Council approve the City Council meeting
minutes of January 24, 2006. [City Clerk]
2. October 2005 Treasurer's Report
■ Fiscal Impact: None.
Recommendation: Council approve the City Treasurer's Report for
October 2005. [City Treasurer]
3. November 2005 Treasurer's Report
■ Fiscal Impact: None.
■ Recommendation: Council approve the City Treasurer's Report for
November 2005. [City Treasurer]
4. November 2005 Accounts Payable and Payroll
■ Fiscal Impact: $1,809,637.53.
■ Recommendation: Council approve certified City accounts payable,
payroll and payroll vendor checks for November 2005. [Administrative
Services]
5. Assignment of Factory Outlet Agreement
• Fiscal Impact: No new fiscal impact, however, there is a continued
budgeted impact of approximately $58,000 annually.
■ Recommendation: Council approve assignment of "Agreement by, and
between, the City of Atascadero and EI Camino Real Fashion Outlets
Center, Ltd., dated July 1, 1994: from Levon Investments to Morro Road
Homes, LLC and 197 Property Investments, LLC effective July 2, 2005.
[Administrative Services]
6. Atascadero Lake Park Watercraft and Recreation Equipment Concession
Operation
■ Fiscal Impact: Approximately $3,000.00 in annual revenue.
■ Recommendation: Council authorize the City Manager to execute an
agreement with Atascadero Kayak and Sail for concession operation at
Atascadero Lake Park. [Community Services]
CC Draft Minutes 02/28/06
Page 3 of 11
10
7. Transit Bus Purchase through the State Department of General Services
■ Fiscal Impact: Purchase is funded by Transportation Development Act
(TDA) and Federal 5307 funds.
• Recommendation: Council adopt the Draft Resolution authorizing the
State Department of General Services to purchase vehicles on behalf of
the City of Atascadero. [Public Works]
8. Sewer Extension Reimbursement Agreements (Colima, Valentina and
San Marcos)
■ Fiscal Impact: The City will collect a 2% Administrative Charge from all
reimbursements. This charge will be deducted from the total amount
refunded.
■ Recommendation: Council approve Sewer Extension Reimbursement
Agreements for Colima, Valentina and San Marcos. [Public Works]
9. EI Camino Court Mixed -Use: Two Multi -Family Residential Buildings
and Two Mixed -Use Buildings Designed with Commercial Use on the
Lower Floor and Residential Use on the Upper Floors (GPA 2005-0015/
ZCH 2005-0104 / ZCH 2005-0105 / CUP 2005-0170 / TTM 2005-0076) (JRW
Group, Inc.)
■ Fiscal Impact: None.
■ Recommendations: Council:
1. Adopt on second reading, by title only, Draft Ordinance A, approving
Zone Text Change 2004-0081 establishing a PD -22 overlay district
based on findings; and,
2. Adopt on second reading, by title only, Draft Ordinance B, approving
Zone Change 2004-0081 based on findings. [Community
Development]
10.Final Map 2005-0126 (TTM 2004-0048) 5310 Carrizo Road (Tract
2625)(Mac Biz Group, Inc.)
■ Fiscal Impact: None.
■ Recommendations: Council:
1. Accept Final Tract Map 2005-0126 (Tract 2625); and,
2. Reject offers of dedication for public street, public access, public
pedestrian access, and public utility easement without prejudice to
future acceptance; and,
3. Authorize City Manager to enter Subdivision Improvement Agreement
with applicant; and,
4. Authorize City Manager to sign Subdivision Annexation and
Assessment and Parcel Tax Authorization Deferral Agreement; and,
5. Authorize City Manager to sign Affordable Housing Agreement. [Public
Works]
CC Draft Minutes 02/28/06
Page 4 of 11
11
•
City Clerk Marcia McClure Torgerson, read a correction to the Minutes of January 24,
2006: Page 12, 4t" paragraph, last line of motion amended to read: . use the
experiences of other cities and the mistakes the), have ma -de.
Items pulled: Council Member Luna Item #A-5, Mayor O'Malley Item #A-8, and Mayor
Pro Tem Pacas Item #A-10.
MOTION: By Council Member Luna and seconded by Council Member
Clay to approve Items #A-1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 9.
Motion passed 5:0 by a roll -call vote. (Item #A-6 Agreement
No. 2006-004, Item #A-7 Resolution No. 2006-019, Item #A-9.1
Ordinance No. 491, Item #A-9.2 Ordinance No. 492)
Item #5: Council Member Luna stated he pulled this item because subsidization of the
Factory Outlets was Atascadero's first such project and now that it is about to transfer
hands it is appropriate for Council to request a report on the costs and benefits of that
subsidization in the previous 12 years.
There was Council consensus to request a report on the impacts of the
subsidization in the previous 12 years.
MOTION: By Council Member Luna and seconded by Council Member
Clay to approve Item #A-5.
Motion passed 5:0 by a roll -call vote.
Item #8: Mayor O'Malley asked for a background report for this item including the
Colima sewer project.
Public Works Director Steve Kahn gave the report and answered questions of Council.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Eric Greening stated that there was another problem area in the vicinity of Valle and
Sonora and asked where that neighborhood is in the ongoing sequence.
Jennifer Eickemeyer distributed a petition from the neighbors on Colima Road (Exhibit
B) and spoke about her understanding that the developer not the neighborhood would
be paying for the cost of the sewer line.
Dr. James Eickemeyer explained why he believes that residents on Colima Road should
be receiving a sewer line in exchange for over development in his neighborhood.
Public Works Director Steve Kahn stated that no one is required to tie into the sewer
line.
0 Mayor O'Malley closed the Public Comment period.
CC Draft Minutes 02/28/06
Page 5 of 11
12
There was Council discussion regarding expectations for the Colima sewer is
reimbursement.
MOTION: By Mayor Pro Tem Pacas and seconded by Council Member
Luna to approve the Sewer Extension Reimbursement
Agreements for Valentina and San Marcos.
Motion passed 5:0 by a roll -call vote. (Agreement Nos. 2006-
005 (Valentina) and 2006-006 (San Marcos))
MOTION: By Council Member Clay and seconded by Council Member
Luna to postpone this vote for 30 days more or less so the
Planning Commission and City Council meeting tapes can be
listened to and a full report received from staff including
verbatim minutes and a discussion by the City Attorney
regarding conditions of approval and whether there is a nexus.
Motion passed 5:0 by a roll -call vote.
Item #10: Mayor Pro Tem Pacas stated that when this was approved only 2 or 3 of the
new homes came out onto Carrizo; she asked if this was still the situation. Community
Development Director Warren Frace stated that this is still the situation.
MOTION: By Mayor Pro Tem Pacas and seconded by Council Member
Clay to accept Final Tract Map 2005-0126 (Tract 2625); and,
reject offers of dedication for public street, public access,
public pedestrian access, and public utility easement without
prejudice to future acceptance; and, authorize City Manager to
enter Subdivision Improvement Agreement with applicant;
and, authorize City Manager to sign Subdivision Annexation
and Assessment and Parcel Tax Authorization Deferral
Agreement; and, authorize City Manager to sign Affordable
Housing Agreement.
Motion passed 5:0 by a roll -call vote. (Item #A-10.4 Agreement
No. 2006-009, Item #A-10.5 Agreement No. 2006-010)
B. PUBLIC HEARING:
1. Communitv Facilities District 2005-1 C1tvw1de Boundary Ma
■ Fiscal Impact: None.
■ Recommendation: Council adopt Draft Resolution A authorizing the
Future Annexation of Territory to Community Facilities District No. 2005-1
(Public Services). [Community Development]
CC Draft Minutes 02/28/06
Page 6 of 11
13
C
Community Development Director Warren Frace gave the staff report and answered
. questions of Council
PUBLIC COMMENT — None
City Clerk Marcia McClure Torgerson, in response to a question from Mayor O'Malley,
stated that no written protests have been received.
MOTION: By Council Member Luna and seconded by Council Member
Clay adopt Draft Resolution A authorizing the Future
Annexation of Territory to the Community Facilities District
No. 2005-1.
Motion passed 5;0 by a roll -call vote. (Resolution No. 2006-020)
2. 2006 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Allocation
■ Fiscal Impact: Available funds are estimated at $191,569 for the 2006
cycle. In addition, prior year unspent funds in the amount of $73,900 are
recommended for reallocation.
■ Recommendation: Council direct staff to forward allocation.
recommendations for the 2006 Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) funds to the County Board of Supervisors. [Public Works]
Public Works Technician Valerie Humphrey gave the staff report and answered
questions of Council
PUBLIC COMMENT
Sherry Fontan, Executive Director Escuela del Rio, thanked the City Finance Committee
for recommending funds for their project.
Joan O'Keefe referred to unspent funds in the amount of $73,000, and asked where
they were allocated and why they were not spent. Ms. Humphrey responded to Mrs.
O'Keefe's question.
Kayla Wilburn, EOC Health Services, spoke on behalf of the Senior Health Screening
Program, the Teen Academic Parenting Program and the 40 Wonderful Program and
asked Council to consider providing some funding for these services.
Steve Martin, Executive Director Atascadero Main Street, spoke in support of
reprogramming funds into street lights for the downtown. Mr. Martin asked what the
Code Enforcement allocation figure would be spent on. City Manager McKinney
addressed the question.
. Mayor O'Malley closed the Public Comment period.
CC Draft Minutes 02/28/06
Page 7 of 11
14
MOTION: By Council Member Scalise and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem M
Pacas to direct staff to forward allocation recommendations
for the 2006 CDBG funds to the County Board of Supervisors.
Motion passed 5:0 by a roll -call vote.
Mayor O'Malley recessed the hearing at 8:21 p.m.
Mayor O'Malley called the meeting back to order at 8:31 p.m.
C. MANAGEMENT:
1. General Plan Policy Review / Prime Multi -Family Residential Map
Adoption
■ Fiscal Impact: None.
■ Recommendation: Council refer the Prime Multi -Family policy back to
staff and the Planning Commission for further review. [Community
Development]
Community Development Director Warren Frace gave the staff report and answered
questions of Council.
PUBLIC COMMENT None
Mayor O'Malley closed the Public Comment period.
MOTION: By Council Member Luna and seconded Council Member
Scalise to refer the Prime Multi -Family policy back to staff and
the Planning Commission for further review.
Motion passed 5:0 by a roll -call vote.
2. Signage Clean Up Strategy
■ Fiscal Impact: None.
■ Recommendation: Council direct staff on how to proceed with
enforcement of the City Sign Ordinance. [Community Development]
Community Development Director Warren Frace gave the staff report and answered
questions of Council
PUBLIC COMMENT
Joan O'Keefe stated that the city has a sign ordinance that is not enforced and urged
Council to send a clear message of enforcement.
CC Draft Minutes 02/28/06
Page 8 of 11
15
Richard Mullen stated his support for allowing a banner sign to be used for a maximum
of 20 days.
Jeff Osland indicated the importance of looking at how long banner signs can be up,
how often they can be put up and suggested soliciting the opinions of local business
owners.
Joanne Main stated the Chamber of Commerce is on the record in support of this report
and would like to form a task force on this issue.
Carol McCully urged Council to not make a decision on banners until they review the
needs of the business community. She `suggested there is a problem with processing
sign permits in a timely manner.
Eric Greening stated enforcement must be regular and consistent and questioned the
purpose of the extra 30 days in Recommendation #2.
Steve Martin stated the Main Street Design Committee has discussed this as the office
has received many calls about banner signs. He would like to have a team of business
people revisit this.
Carol McCully indicated that the city has control over deteriorating signs in the
maintenance portion of the sign ordinance.
Jeff Osland reiterated that the city must define what a banner is; some businesses are
using flags that are not defined as banners.
Eric Greening questioned how long advertising flags at specific locations have been up
and whether they should be abated.
Mayor O'Malley closed the Public Comment period.
Council Member Clay stated he likes the idea of Main Street and Chamber working
together to come up with sign recommendations. He thinks there should be an
extension for banners or temporary signs for new businesses.
Council Member Luna stated there is a problem with the sign ordinance and he would
support sending this back for a comprehensive sign ordinance re -write.
Council Member Scalise agreed with the idea of a task force with community
involvement and perhaps a liaison from the Council and a timeline.
Mayor Pro Tem Pacas expressed her support for a revamp of the -sign ordinance, and
would like it to be simplified for staff approval and enforceable.
CC Draft Minutes 02/28/06
Page 9 of 11
16-
Mayor O'Malley restated the Council's concerns regarding the length of time for
processing sign permits, the need for enforcement of sign maintenance, that there has
to be a fast track in addressing this, and that the task force is a good idea.
Council Member Luna suggested checking with other communities to determine how
they do permits so quickly and would like staff to come back with what it will take to
facilitate a faster turnaround time.
MOTION: By Council Member Scalise and seconded by Council Member Clay
to form a task force that would come back with a report in three
months with the option that if Council needs to revamp it, they
would have that opportunity, and with the executive directors of
both Main Street and Chamber of Commerce to be lead agencies
and with one Council Member as a liaison, a city staff person and
one Planning Commission Member. The Chamber and Main Street
would each bring in three business owners to participate. The
Mayor to appoint the Council Member and the Chairperson of the
Planning Commission to appoint their representative. Task force
will be limited to consideration of banners and sandwich signs.
There was Commissioner discussion regarding limiting the number of members for this
task force, including a member of the public at large, standing vs. ad hoc committee,
incremental vs. comprehensive rewrite and the time necessary for staff to assemble the
information. 0
Council Member Scalise withdrew her motion.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Joanne Main suggested letting the Chamber and Main Street do some of the work and
come back with specific recommendations at which time a larger committee could be
organized.
Eric Greening stated his preference that there be a Council Member and Planning
Commissioner because they will be involved in making decisions regarding
implementation and enforcement; other members should include an intake type staff
person, code enforcement type staff person, and a member of the general public.
Jeff Osland suggested that the city and code enforcement immediately enforce banners
that are falling apart and not worry about a timeline. In addition he thinks that the entire
ordinance must be reviewed.
Mayor O'Malley closed the Public Comment period.
There was Council consensus to direct staff to enforce the banner maintenance
provisions under the current sign ordinance. 0
CC Draft Minutes 02/28/06
Page 10 of 11
17
MOTION: By Mayor O'Malley and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Pacas to
have city staff work with Main Street and the Chamber of
Commerce on their offer to do work on the Sign Ordinance, to
review banner and A frame portions of the Sign Ordinance,
and bring those back to the appropriate process before the
City Council and that staff will keep Council updated on the
progress of that review. Staff will report to Council within
three months.
Motion passed 5:0 by a roll -call vote.
D. COMMITTEE & LIAISON REPORTS:
Mayor Pro Tem Pacas
1. City / Schools Committee: met today and are anticipating pool construction to
be completed sometime in May, so the swimming pool will be available some
time this summer.
E. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION:
City Manager
City Manager McKinney stated there is a request for a study session for the
Eagle Creek Golf Course area, to include the City Council, Planning
Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission and neighborhood residents.
Council agreed to a study session before the March 24th Council meeting at 5:30
p.m. Mr. McKinney announced that the next business visit with the Chamber of
Commerce is scheduled for March 10th, to include the Carlton Hotel and
Michaels Optical
F. ADJOURNMENT:
Mayor O'Malley adjourned the meeting at 10:04 p.m. to the next regularly scheduled
meeting of the City Council on March 14, 2006.
MEETING RECORDED AND MINUTES PREPARED BY:
Grace Pucci, Deputy City Clerk
The following exhibits are available for review in the City Clerk's office:
Exhibit A — Atascadero Main Street, letter
Exhibit B — Petition, Colima Road residents
CC Draft Minutes 02/28/06
Page 11 of 11
•
•
ITEM NUMBER: A-2
DATE: 03/28/06
Atascadero City Council
Staff Report - Public Works Department
Atascadero Avenue Overlay Award
City Bid No. 2006-001
(Authorization to execute contract with Granite Construction
for the pavement of portions of Atascadero Ave.
between Santa Barbara & San Diego Roads.)
RECOMMENDATION:
Council authorize the City Manager to execute a contract with Granite Construction in
the amount of $168,768.00 for paving portions of Atascadero Avenue between Santa
Barbara Road and San Diego Road.
DISCUSSION:
Background: Sections of the pavement on Atascadero Avenue between Santa Barbara
Road and San Diego road have deteriorated and require repair. City staff has identified
these sections of Atascadero Avenue for re -paving under the Atascadero Roads
Program. The City Council previously appropriated funds in the FY 2005-2006 budget
to complete this road repair project.
Analysis: The project was advertised from February 6, 2006 through March 7, 2006.
Four bids were received. The bids were reviewed for accuracy and compliance with the
City of Atascadero bidding requirements. Granite Construction is the lowest
responsible bidder at $ 168,768.00.
Conclusion: Staff recommends that the City Council award a contract Granite
Construction in the amount $ 168,768.00 for the Atascadero Avenue Overlay Project.
20
FISCAL IMPACT:
ITEM NUMBER: A-2
DATE: 03/28/06
i
ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES
General Capital Funds
Design
$ 10,000
Construction (Engineers Estimate)
$ 168,770
Inspection / Testing / Construction Administration- 10%
$ 16,880
Contingency -20%
$ 33,760
Total Estimated Expenditures:
$ 229,410
BUDGETED SOURCES
General Capital Funds
1 $ 300,000
Total Budgeted Sources:
1 $ 300,000
ALTERNATIVES:
Do not award the contracts. Direct staff to re -bid or defer the project:
ATTACHMENTS:
Bid Summary
21
Cit
of A
Office of the City Clerk
BID SUMMARY
TO: Public Works Department
FROM: Marcia McClure Togerson, C.M.C., City Clerk
BID NO.: 2006-001
OPENED: March 7, 2006
PROJECT: Atascadero Avenue Overlay
Four (4) were received and opened today, as follows:
Bidder Amount
Michael Frederick Paving Corp. $181,011.00
P.O. Box 573
Atascadero, CA 93423
Granite Construction Company $168,768.00
P.O. Box 6744
Santa Barbara, CA 93160
A.J. Diani Construction Co. Inc. $226,452.80
P.O. Box 636
Santa Maria, CA 93456
R.Burke Corporation $184,068.35
P.O. Box 957
San Luis Obispo, CA 93406
•
22
•
•
ITEM NUMBER: A-3
DATE: 03/28/06
Atascadero City Council
Staff Report - Public Works Department
Asphalt Purchasing and Delivery Services
(Request authorization to enter into ongoing contracts
for asphalt purchasing with two separate vendors.)
RECOMMENDATION:
Council authorize the City Manager to enter into ongoing contracts for asphalt
purchasing and delivery with Hanson Aggregates and with Union Asphalt.
DISCUSSION:
The City has several local road paving projects planned and funded for fiscal years
2005-2007.
Staff requests the ability to create ongoing contracts with multiple firms that sell and
deliver asphalt. This allows the City to purchase asphalt for road paving projects as
needed. Due to limited availability of material on any given day, and due to daily
fluctuating price of asphalt, staff is unable to secure quotes in advance for the purchase
and delivery of this product. Multiple on-going contracts will allow City staff to
effectively secure the purchase and delivery of asphalt as needed.
On February 17, 2006, staff solicited proposals from qualified asphalt plants for the
purpose of establishing a qualified vendors list. Responses were received from two
plants by the proposal due date of March 9, 2006. The responses were reviewed for
qualifications, previous experience and references. The two vendors were found
qualified and staff is recommending that they both be awarded on-going contracts.
24
ITEM NUMBER: A-3
DATE: 03/28/06
FISCAL IMPACT:
Funds for the purchase and delivery of asphalt is included in annual Street Maintenance
Division budget:
ATTACHMENT:
Attachment "A" - Qualified Vendor List
25
ITEM NUMBER: A-3
DATE: 03/28/06
'Attachment "A"
CITY OF ATASCADERO
ASPHALT PURCHASING AND DELIVERY SERVICES
QUALIFIED VENDOR LIST
March 2006
Firm
Plant Location
Asphalt
Purchase
Asphalt
Delivery
Hanson Aggregates
Yes
Yes
131 Suburban Road
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
805 438-5778
Union Asphalt
2480 Ramada Dr.
Yes
Yes
1625 East Donovan Rd.
Paso Robles
Santa Maria, CA 93454
(805) 925-2505
(805) 238-3363
40 Approved by the City Council 3/28/06
•
26
•
•
0
Atascadero City Council
Staff Report Public Works Department
ITEM NUMBER: A-4
DATE: 03/28/06
Annual Sewer -Line Cleaning Services
(Request for authorization to hire Mark Simon Sewer Maintenance
to conduct the City's annual sanitary sewer -line cleaning.)
RECOMMENDATION:
Council authorize the City Manager to execute a four year contract with Mark Simon
Sewer Maintenance in the amount of $15,400.00 annually, for sanitary sewer -line
cleaning services.
DISCUSSION:
Background: Each year the City of Atascadero contracts for the cleaning and swabbing
of approximately one-quarter of the approximately 200,000 linear or sanitary sewer -lines
owned and maintained by the City of Atascadero. Staff utilizes- outside contractors to
perform this portion of our annual sanitary sewer -line maintenance program for cost
effectiveness.
Analysis: The annual Sewer -line cleaning project was advertised from February 2, 2006
through February 23, 2006. Three bids were received. The bids were reviewed for
accuracy and compliance with bidding requirements and Mark Simon Sewer
Maintenance was found to be the low qualified bidder, with a proposal of $61,600.00 for
the four year contract period. The Bidders were asked to provide a four-year cost.
Conclusion: Mark Simon Sewer Maintenance is the successful low qualified bidder and
is qualified and prepared to complete annual sanitary sewer -line cleaning contract.
Staff recommends that the City Council award the project to Mark Simon Sewer
Maintenance, and authorize the City Manager to enter into an agreement with Mark
Simon Sewer Maintenance for these services.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Approval of this agreement will result in the expenditures of $61,600.00 in Wastewater
funds over the next four years.
0.
C.
Atascadero City Council
Staff Report - Public Works Department
ITEM NUMBER: A-5
DATE: 03/28/06
Final Map 2005-0110 (Tract 2626)
Santa Barbara Road / EI Camino Real
(TTM 2003-0033) (Centex Homes)
(Approval of a one hundred fifty-four lot subdivision.)
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Council:
1. Accept Final Tract Map 2005-0110 (Tract 2626); and,
2. Accept the offers of dedication for Street purposes, the Public Sewer
Easements, and Lot OS -15 in fee simple; and,
3. Reject, without prejudice to future acceptance, the offers of dedication for
Public Storm Drain Easements and Public Pedestrian Access Easements;
and,
4. Authorize City Manager to execute a Subdivision Improvement
Agreement, a Subdivision Annexation and Assessment and Parcel Tax
Authorization Deferral Agreement, and an Affordable Housing Agreement;
and,
5. Execute a Memorandum of Development Condition.
DISCUSSION:
Tentative Tract Map 2003-0033 / Tract 2626 was approved by the City Council on
September 14, 2004. The approved division was a one hundred fifty-four lot subdivision
consistent with a master plan of development.
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. The legislative body is also required to accept, accept subject to improvement, or
reject on behalf of the public, any real property offered for dedication for public use in
conformity with the terms of the offer of dedication. Staff recommends accepting the
offers of dedication for street purposes on EI Camino Real and Santa Barbara Road, the
public sewer easements, and Lot OS -15 in fee simple. Staff recommends. rejecting the
offers of dedication for public storm drain easements and public pedestrian access
easements, without prejudice to future acceptance, as shown on the final map. Staff
has determined that the Final Tract Map is consistent with approved Tentative Tract
Map.
ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Final Map 2005-0110 (Tract 2626)
30
ITEM NUMBER: A-5
DATE: 03/28/06
Exhibit A
Final Map 2005-0110 (Tract 2626)
Santa Barbara Road / El Camino Real
Centex Homes
31
•
•
ITEM NUMBER: A-5
DATE: 03/28/06
cjj
Si
tj
AllR�
IN
of
0
bp
At
b 1.
32
r ~'I
er
cjj
Si
tj
AllR�
IN
of
0
bp
At
b 1.
32
•
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/28/06
Atascadero City Council
Staff Report -Community Development Department
Appeal 2005-0006
Appeal of Planning Commission Action on November 1, 2005
For Reconsideration of Conditional Use Permit 2000-0022
(6125 San Anselmo Avenue) Amendment of CUP 2000-0022
(Shores)
(Appeal of the Planning Commission decision concerning the non permitted
driveway at the Car Wash on San Anselmo Road.)
.RECOMMENDATION:
Council require the placement of a new median in San Anselmo Road in lieu of
removing a non -permitted ingress/egress driveway.
REPORT -IN -BRIEF:
This is an appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of an Amendment to
Conditional Use Permit 2000-0022 revising the Master Plan of Development to address
site development inconsistencies. This appeal is to review issues relative to the
Planning Commission's modified condition to remove a non -permitted driveway on San
Anselmo Road and install required landscaping in front of the driveway.
Situation and Facts:
1. Appellant: Jerry Clay, Sr., Council Member
2. Applicant / Property Owner: Jim Shores
P.O. Box 216
Atascadero, CA 93423 (805/466-2767)
34
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/28/06
3. Representative: Russ Thompson, Engineer
7600 Morro Road
Atascadero, CA 93422 (805/462-1375)
4. Project Address: 6135 San Anselmo Road,
Atascadero, CA 93422; APN 049-225-024
5. General Plan Designation: GC (General Commercial)
6. Zoning District:
7. Site Area:
8. Existing Use:
9. Environmental Status:.
DISCUSSION:
CT (Commercial Tourist)
.53± acres
Temporary Occupancy for carwash
Class 1, Categorical Exemption Section 15315
The site is located at 6135 San Anselmo Road, west of Highway 101. The property is
approximately 0.53± acres and is surrounded by similar sized lots. The site is currently
developed as a carwash facility with three small retail buildings along San Anselmo
Road.
The retail buildings and majority of the site improvements were constructed prior to
purchase by this applicant. However, the overall project site improvements have not
been finaled by the City and are inconsistent with the original conditions of approval.
The applicant was notified in September 2003 of the outstanding issues, which
included:
■ Installation of a 10 -foot wide landscape planting area between the parking area
and San Anselmo Road
■ Screening of mechanical, heating and air conditioning equipment
■ Installation of street trees
■ Incorporation of native oak trees into the landscape plan
■ installation of an additional vacuum station
■ Excessive noise from car wash blowers
• Illegal Driveway on San Anselmo Road
■ Installation of masonry and iron fencing along western property boundary to
match the eastern property boundary
■ Installation of facia trim on the car wash building
• Installation of decorative gooseneck style lighting
■ Monument sign design
■ Bicycle parking spaces
35
•
•
•
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/28/06
The Planning Commission heard the reconsideration on November 1, 2005. The
Applicant had requested the reconsideration in order to allow for a shade structure over
the vacuum stations and to allow a San Anselmo driveway that was not allowed on the
original Master Plan of Development. The Planning Commission also reconsidered
outstanding conditions of approval that prevented issuance of a final certificate of
occupancy. (See Attachment A for Planning Commission minutes and Attachment C for
Planning Commission Staff report)
The original conditions specifically did not allow a driveway at this location. Staff was
concerned about adding left-hand turns in an area on San Anselmo Road that already
had turning movement problems. The driveway was installed without City approval or
inspection.
The Applicant had worked with Public Works staff in an attempt to resolve the illegal
driveway issues prior to the Planning Commission Meeting. The driveway was narrowed
and right turn only signage was added in an attempt to restrict left hand turns. Vehicles
continued turning left onto San Anselmo Road out of the driveway after it was narrowed.
The Applicant and his engineer then recommended the installation of,a raised median in
San Anselmo that would limit left turns in and out of the non -permitted driveway. Staff
supported the median and that was the recommendation that was brought to Planning
Commission.
The Applicant changed his mind, at the Planning Commission Meeting, and decided he
• wanted to request that the driveway be allowed to remain as it is. He felt he had already
complied with Public Works by narrowing the driveway and adding signage. The
Planning Commission did not agree and required the driveway on San Anselmo Road
be removed, sidewalk be installed and landscaping be placed in front of the new
sidewalk. The Commission determined that additional area on the site, would be
available for the installation of the required landscaping and street trees by removing
the driveway.
Vehicular traffic on San Anselmo Road, between US 101 Interchange and Monterey
Road, experiences a low level -of -service. This is due to high volumes of traffic and
turning movements. Left hand turning movements on and off US 101, San Palo Road
and surrounding commercial uses cause San Anselmo Road traffic to back up. Drivers
can become impatient with the delays and make risky left hand turns on and off the
Road.
The Planning Commission, after receiving comments from the Applicant, the Applicant's
Representative and members of the public, approved modified conditions to resolve the
above outstanding issues.
Staff continues to recommend restriction of left-hand turns on and off of San Anselmo
Road. For this project, that would require either closure of the driveway or the
construction of a raised median.
36
Street Improvements—Median Curb
�� � � �Hr��' � ..: l���ry�4a r ` ■CSI . i ��
37
•
0-
ITEM NUMBER: B - 1
DATE: 03/28/06
ALTERNATIVES:
1. The City Council may uphold the Planning Commission's approval of the
Reconsideration of Conditional Use Permit 2002-0022 based on the modified
conditions of approval and deny the appeal.
2. The City Council may grant the appeal with modifications to the project. Listed
below are potential modifications:
a) Planning Commission's Recommendation: Close driveway. Estimated
construction cost $1,500.00. Landscaping can be added behind the closed
driveway.
b) Construct median. Estimated construction cost $15,000.00.
c) Enter into development agreement to participate in the improvements of
the final recommendations of the Operational Improvement to
Interchanges in Atascadero. This may include turning restrictions,
driveway closure and cost sharing in improvements. Cost unknown.
d) Allow Driveway to remain open. This will not mitigate the increased left
hand turns onto San Anselmo Road.
. 3. The City Council may determine that more information is needed on some aspect
of the project and may refer the item back to the applicant and staff to develop
the additional information. The Council should clearly state the type of
information that is required and move to' -continue the item to a future date.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A Planning Commission Minutes
Attachment B: Appeal Application
Attachment C: Planning Commission Staff Report
Attachment D: Draft Resolution A: Council Resolution of Denying
Appeal (includes Planning Commission's conditions of
Approval)
0
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/28/06
Attachment A: Application for Appeal
CUP 2000-0022
Planning Commission Minutes
1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2000-0022 RECONSIDERATION
U
Owner,
Jimmie D. Shores, P O Box 216, Atascadero, CA 93423
Project Tit/e:
San Anselmo Carwash - Reconsideration of Conditional Use Permit 2000-0022.
Project
6125 San Anselmo Road, Atascadero, CA 93422
Location;
(San Luis Obispo County) APN 049-225-024
Project
The proposed project is a reconsideration of an approved Conditional Use Permit to allow
Description;
for an additional ingress/egress on San Anselmo near the northwest corner of the site.
The ingress/egress request includes installation of a berm median that limits movement to
right turns only.
General Plan Designation: GC (General Commercial)
Zoning District: (CT) Commercial Tourist
Proposed
CEQA Categorical Exemption Section 15301- Existing Facilities.
Environmental
Determination:
Associate Planner Kerry Margason gave the staff report, City Engineer Steve Kahn
spoke about circulation issues for this project and both answered questions of the
Commission.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Russ Thompson, applicant's representative, spoke about the project and requested
several changes including: 1) Condition Nos. 7 and 10 amended to permit the option
of either constructing the median or removing the driveway if the median is not built,
and 2) installation of a wooden planter or decorative urn to screen the air-
conditioning condensers. Mr. Thompson answered questions of the Commission.
Jim Shores, applicant, expressed concern with the Conditions of Approval for the
driveway, fencing, lighting, and monument sign. Mr. Shores answered questions of
the Commission.
Chairperson Porter closed the Public Comment period.
There was Commission discussion regarding the driveway and median, fencing,
lighting, signage, screening of the air-conditioning equipment, curbing at back of
property, trees and landscaping, the shade structure, noise mitigation for dryers, and
the fairness of requesting the applicant to make further changes. 0
39
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/28/06
MOTION: By Commissioner Kelley and seconded by Chairperson
Porter to adopt Resolution PC 2005-78 approving
Reconsideration of Conditional Use Permit 2000-0022,
subject to conditions of approval and with the following
changes to the Conditions on Page 14 of the staff report:
■ Condition 1: Applicant has agreed to this condition—no
change.
■ Condition 2: Add that ornamental planters similar, to
what the city has installed in the downtown
redevelopment agency could be put on either side of the
air-conditioning units.
■ Condition 3: To be waived
■ Condition 4: To stand as written
■ Condition 5: Applicant has agreed to work with staff
and reduce the blowers from five to three.
■ Condition 6: Applicant advised to reduce driveway and
did so, therefore he met his responsibility, and it was
done in good faith, so Commission must accept that.
■ Condition 7: Fence will be an open one.
■ Condition 8: Applicant has agreed with this condition—
no change.
■ Condition 9: Lights okay as are.
■ Condition 10: Sign will be replaced between the two
masonry pillars that are in place.
■ Condition 11: Bicycle rack should be put in.
Motion failed 3:3 by a roll -call vote. (O'Keefe, Fonzi, Beraud
opposed)
MOTION: By Commissioner O'Keefe and seconded by Commissioner
Fonzi to adopt Resolution PC 2005-78 approving
Reconsideration of Conditional Use Permit 2000-0022,
subject to conditions of approval and with the following
changes to the Conditions on Page 14 of the staff report.
■ Condition 1: Site access will be limited to one driveway
and that's where the landscaping would be done.
■ Condition 2: Sidewalks must be removed and the
details to be worked out between staff and applicant.
■ Condition 3: With additional landscaping after closing
off the exit, won't need to do as many trees and the
details could be worked out with staff.
• Condition 4: Native oak trees will be planted in the
back
■ Condition 5: Carwash blowers will be reduced from five
to three to reduce noise.
■ Condition 6: Site access will be limited to one driveway
on San Anselmo.
,N
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/28/06
■ Condition 7. Iron picket fence to be used to add
consistency to tie project together.
■ Condition 9: Lighting is okay as is—no changes to
condition.
■ Condition 10: Applicant can decide where to put sign as
long as it is attractive
■ Condition 11 No changes.
■ New shade structure.
■ Remove card -lock gas station.
■ Landscaping in driveway area will include trees.
Motion passed 4.2 by a roll -call vote. (Kelley, Porter
opposed)
41
•
•
0
0
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/28106
Attachment B: Application for Appeal
CUP 2000-0022
Application Form
PLANNING APPLICATION
OWNER I APPLICANT:
ADDRESS: ADDRESS:
PHONE P14ONE
FAX t: FAX 4:
OWNER 2:
ADDRESS:
Pi
Appellant: Jerry Clay, Council Member
I FAX #: FA- #: I
PROJECT ADDRESS: '5ail 4Y-,-,mhfA0Nl
LEGAL DESCRIPTi Z2.-5 —'l
ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER(S) 7-7,-52-4
EXISTING USE(SI: 6mie LA -Li
PROJECT Ti
PROJECT DESCRIPTION (Proposed land use, development itypt, (retail, commercial) & size (squart-feet); hours of
operation, nature
LAVE. consent to the filing of this apph—cuion and declare that this application and rein ned docunicrits are true and correct.
(Note: the signature of the pro l 07) quired on this application before 13 WitiLbe accepted. Wet signature required. Fail
sigi re wit[ not be accepted
dw w6 —rI 1' 0 Ori2inal signature Yquuired Date
Owner 2 Original signature required Date
Agent Original signature required Date
For staff use only
Fee;
Recoil t.':
42
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/28/06
•
Attachment C: Planning Commission Staff Report, November 1, 2005
CUP 2000-0022
Planning Commission Staff Report
Staff Report - Community Development Department
Reconsideration of Conditional Use Permit 2000-0022
6125 San Anselmo Avenue
Amendment of CUP 2000-0022
(Jim Shores)
SUBJECT:
The proposed project consists of an Amendment to Conditional Use Permit 2000-0022
revising the Master Plan of Development to: (1) address site development
inconsistencies; (2) propose a new shade structure over the vacuum stations; (3)
remove the card lock gas station from the Master Plan of Development; and (4) propose
a new median in San Anselmo Road in lieu of removing a non -permitted ingress/egress
driveway. 0
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff Recommends:
The Planning Commission adopt Resolution PC 2005-78 approving Reconsideration of
Conditional Use Permit 2000-0022, subject to conditions of approval.
SITUATION AND FACTS:
1. Applicant / Property Owner Jim Shores
P.O. Box 216
Atascadero, CA 93423 (805/466-2767)
2. Representative: Russ Thompson, Engineer
7600 Morro Road
Atascadero, CA 93422 (805/462-1375)
3. Project Address: 6135 San Anselmo Road, Atascadero, CA 93422
APN 049-225-024
4. General Plan Designation: GC (General Commercial)
43
•
•
L-1
5. Zoning District:
6. Site Area:
7. Existing Use:
8. Environmental Status:
DISCUSSION:
Background:
ITEM NUMBER: B - 1
DATE: 03/28/06
CT (Commercial Tourist)
.53± acres
Temporary Occupancy for Carwash
Class 1, Categorical Exemption Section 15315
The site is located at 6135 San Anselmo Road, west of Highway 101. The property is
approximately .53± acres and is surrounded by similar sized lots. The project lies within
a block of commercial uses including Union 76 Gasoline Station to the east, Arco
AM/PM Gasoline Station and In & Out Burger Drive -Through Restaurant to the north,
Kentucky Fried Chicken Drive -Through Restaurant and a motel to the south, and
residential properties. The. site is currently developed as a carwash facility with three
small retail buildings along San Anselmo Road.
The retail buildings and majority of the site improvements were constructed prior to
purchase by the current applicant. However, the overall project site improvements have
not been finaled by the City.
31
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/28/06
Summary:
The proposed project is a request to revise the Master Plan of Development to (1)
address site development inconsistencies; (2) propose a new shade structure over the
vacuum stations; (3) remove the card lock gas station from the Master Plan of
Development; and (4) propose a new median in San Anselmo Road in lieu of removing
a non -permitted ingress/egress driveway. The new median would limit ingress and
egress to and from the site to a right turn only.
The items under reconsideration are stated below. Following each item is the condition
number within the original, approved conditions of approval for reference. These
original conditions required the following:
1. Installation of a 10 -foot wide landscape planting area with a raised berm between
the parking area and the San Anselmo sidewalk(Condition 12c);
2. All mechanical, heating and air conditioning equipment to be architecturally
compatible and screened from public view (Condition 15);
3. Installation of London Plane street trees 30 feet on center (Condition 19.a) along
San Anselmo;
4. Incorporation of native oak trees into the landscape plan (Condition 19. c.);
5. Car wash blower and vacuum stations to comply with the City's Noise Ordinance
'(Conditions 37 and 38);
6. Site access be limited to one driveway at the intersection of San Anselmo and
Monterey Road and shared access off of San Palo. Driveway apron on San
Anselmo Road adjacent to Union 76 to be removed (Condition 39);
45
L
•
0
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/28/06
7. Installation of a masonry and iron picket fence and landscape planter on the
western edge of the property consistent with the fence on the eastern edge of the
property (Condition 11);
8. Installation of facia trim to the car wash building (Condition 11 and exhibits);
9. All lighting to be decorative gooseneck style as approved and downshielded to
prevent offsite glare (Condition 13b and 24 and Approved Exhibits); and
10. Installation of the monument sign to be surrounded with architectural masonry
material (Condition 16).
11. Installation of bicycle parking spaces.
In addition, the project was conditioned to be consistent with the approved exhibits as
attached to the original staff report. Inconsistencies with approved exhibits include the
non -permitted installation of a third vacuum station, failure to construct the curbing
around the rear parking area, and failure to install a landscape planter with additional
oak trees along the western property line.
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/28/06
47
C
ITEM NUMBER: B -1
DATE: 03/28/06
• Analysis:
The above-described site and building deficiencies were constructed without
authorization from the Planning Commission or staff. The deficiencies were noted upon
a call for final inspection by the applicant. At that time, staff noted that the site was not
constructed according to the approved plans and deficiencies were cited. Each issue
area is further analyzed below. The project had been operating on a temporary
occupancy permit and the project has not been finaled to date.
(1) Site Development Inconsistencies
Site development inconsistencies were constructed by both the original developer
through completion of the three retail buildings, and the current applicant through
completion of the car wash facility. Although the retail buildings were permitted and
finaled, the project was still considered under construction and subject to completion
and correction of all site improvements (i.e. landscaping, pavement, curbing, signage,
fencing, lighting, etc). Staff does not have the authority to waive these inconsistencies.
The Planning Commission must review each item and determine if the item can be
waived or modified.per original CUP approval, or have the CUP Master Plan amended
to reflect the non -permitted improvements constructed to date. The items for
consideration are as follows:
. 1. Installation of a 10 -foot wide landscape planting area along the parking lot with a
raised berm along San Anselmo (Original CUP Condition 12c).
Staff Comment: The parking lot was constructed without this landscape berm.
Staff recommends that the only opportunity for additional landscape is with the
installation of additional trees and shrubbery at other locations on the site as
identified in item 3 below and as conditioned in New CUP Condition 13.
2. All mechanical, heating. and air 'conditioning equipment to be architecturally
compatible and screened from public view (Original CUP Condition 15).
Staff Comment: After completion of the three retail buildings, the owner
constructed ground -mounted air conditioning units on the sidewalks to the side of
each building without permits.- Staff recommends that the concrete sidewalks be
removed and infilled with landscaping (New CUP Condition 15).
3. Installation of London Plane street trees 30 feet on center along San Anselmo
(Original Condition 19.a).
Staff Comment: As the public sidewalk contains no tree planters and no
landscape berm was provided along San Anselmo, staff recommends planting
two London Plan Trees in the parking lot planter along the public sidewalk
between two of the retail buildings (New CUP Condition 13).
M.
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/28/06
4. Incorporation of native oak trees into the landscape plan (Original Condition 19.
C.).
Staff Comment: Native oak trees have not been planted.on site to date. Staff
recommends planting several native oak trees (minimum of 5) at the rear of the
site within the level area between the base of the slope and the paved parking
area (New CUP Condition 18).
5. Car wash blower and vacuum stations to comply with the City's Noise Ordinance
(Original CUP Conditions 37 and 38).
Staff Comment: Staff's observation is that the ground -mounted vacuum cleaners
are not noise problematic. However, an overhead rack of five exposed high
powered blower fans in the automated car wash stall presents significant noise
impacts on and off site. Staff recommends that the fans be removed and.
redesign to reduce noise and provide architectural screening. Staff recommends
that the applicant propose a noise -sensitive blower unit, subject to staff review
and approval (New CUP Condition 11).
6. Site access be limited to one driveway at the intersection of San Anselmo and
Monterey Road and shared access off of San Palo. Driveway apron on San
Anselmo Road adjacent to Union 76 to be removed (Condition 39); i
Staff Comment: In accordance with a traffic study that was prepared to address
the third access point, the applicant has submitted a design for a median to be
installed in San Anselmo that would prevent left -turn vehicular movement.
Planning staff is recommending that the design be modified as to width and
appearance, requiring a minimum of 2'6" in width with cobblestone filler, similar
to the median in Del Rio Road, east of the Highway 101 on ramp.
7. Installation of a high quality masonry and iron picket fence and landscape planter
on the western edge of the property consistent with the fence on the eastern
edge of the property (Original Condition 11 and approved Exhibits).
Staff Comment: Staff recommends that the existing wood fence be replaced
with an upgraded architectural fence. The Commission may comment on
whether the fence should match the easterly fence or may be constructed of a
different, high quality material. Staff recommends that the height of the fence not
exceed three feet and that the fence be constructed of high-quality durable
material (New CUP Condition 9).
8. Installation of fascia trim to the car wash building (Original Condition 11 and
exhibits). 0
•
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/28/06
Staff Comment: Staff recommends installing the fascia trim per plan and painting
it a putty color to match the existing retail building fascia (New CUP Condition 8).
9. All lighting to be decorative gooseneck style as approved and down shielded to
prevent offsite glare (Condition 13b and 24 and Approved Exhibits)
Staff Comment: Staff's observation is that the overhead wall mounted security
lights on the car wash facility present a significant light and glare impact on and
off site. Staff recommends that the lights be reduced to one per each stall and
re -mounted in a location above the fascia within the inside of each stall. All
exposed wall lighting shall be shielded. If a light is required over the change
machine, it is recommended that it be an architectural gooseneck lamp as
originally approved (New CUP Condition 10).
10. Installation of the monument sign to be surrounded with an architectural masonry
material.
Staff Comment: Staff recommends adding a masonry surround per plan to
match the existing car wash building fascia (New CUP Condition 12).
11. Installation of bicycle parking spaces at a ratio of one bicycle parking space for
every 10 -vehicle parking spaces. (Condition 26)
• has conditioned the project to install the required,
Staff Comment. Staff a
commercial grade bicycle racks. (New CUP Condition 16)
(2) Proposed Shade Structure
The applicant proposes to install a shade structure over the vacuum stations. The
structure would be designed to conform to the existing architectural style of the
development, as shown in Exhibit C attached to the draft resolution.
(3) Original Card Lock Gas Station
The card lock station has not been constructed on the site. After completion of the
three retail buildings and car wash facility, it appears that removal of the Card Lock Gas
Fueling facility is necessary to insure that onsite vehicular and pedestrian circulation
operates in a safe and orderly manner. Staff has included a condition to remove the
card lock station from the Master Plan of Development and add curbing and parking lot
striping to the rear paved portion of the site (New CUP Conditions 14 and 17).
(4) Proposed San Anselmo Road median or remove the non -permitted
ingress/egress driveway.
•
50
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/28/06
The original project approval allowed two ingress/egress points, one at the intersection
of Monterey Road and one shared access onto San Palo Road. During development of
the site, a third ingress/egress driveway was constructed without City permits (see map
below). The applicant requests retention of the third ingress/egress point. To date, staff
has been unable to resolve ,this issue noting that the driveway was constructed without
permits and the driveway apron is out of alignment with the driveway causing exiting
vehicles to drive over the six-inch curb rather than over the driveway apron. At present,
the car wash facility has been operating only under temporary occupancy status.
Public Works staff has identified a partial solution by recommending construction of a
median in San Anselmo to create a right -in / right -out movement for this driveway. If a
median is constructed, the Planning staff recommends that the median be a minimum of
2 feet 6 inches wide and be filled with cobblestone, consistent with the median in Del
Rio Road (New CUP Condition 7). Staff also notes that the site is posted with signs
that direct traffic entering and leaving the site which has proven ineffective.
51
•
•
0
•
ITEM NUMBER: B -1
DATE: 03/28/06
Conditional Use Permit Findincts:
There are five standard Conditional Use Permit findings that need to be made for the
project. With implementation of the conditions of approval, Staff has determined that all
of the following findings can be made:
1. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan.
Staff Response: The revised site plan continues to meet the requirements of the
General Plan.
2. The proposed use satisfies all applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.
52
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/28/06
Staff Response: The revised site plan continues to meet the requirements of the
Zoning Ordinance.
3. The establishment, and subsequent operation or conduct of the use will not,
because of the circumstances and conditions applied in this particular case, be
detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of the general public or persons
residing or working in the neighborhood of the use, or be detrimental or injurious
to the property or improvements in the vicinity of the use.
Staff Response: As conditioned, the project will not be detrimental to the health,
safety or welfare of the general public or people residing or working in the
neighborhood of the use, or be detrimental or injurious to the property or
improvements in the vicinity of the use. The use of the median in San Anselmo
Road will reduce left turns into the project site, thereby reducing the number of
vehicles that could turn across traffic.
4. The proposed use will not be inconsistent with the character of the immediate
neighborhood or contrary to its orderly development.
Staff Response: The proposed use is consistent with the character of the
immediate neighborhood of fast food restaurants, and gas stations.
5. The proposed use will not generate a volume of traffic beyond the safe capacity
of all roads providing access to the project, either existing or to be improved in
conjunction with the project, or beyond the normal traffic volume of the
surrounding neighborhood that would result from full development in accordance
with the Land Use Element.
Staff Response: The proposed use will not generate a volume of traffic beyond
the safe capacity of the roads.
Environmental Review:
A Mitigated Negative Declaration was certified for the original Conditional Use Permit on
October 2, 2001. Staff has determined that with implementation of the new CUP
conditions regarding noise, lighting, circulation, site improvements, and landscaping,
this reconsideration request would be consistent with the original Mitigated Negative
Declaration. All mitigation measures of the original Negative Declaration will continue to
apply to this project site.
53
•
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 03/28/06
Is CONCLUSION:
The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and satisfies all applicable
provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. The project as conditioned will not be detrimental
to the health, safety or welfare of the general public and the proposed use is consistent
with the character of the immediate neighborhood.
ALTERNATIVES:
4. The Planning Commission may approve this Reconsideration of Conditional Use
Permit 2002-0022 with modified conditions of approval.
5. The Planning Commission may deny Conditional Use Permit 2002-0022 based
on appropriate findings. To deny the application, the Commission must find that
it is inconsistent with one of the required findings. The motion to deny must
include a finding for denial.
3. The Planning Commission may continue the application and refer the project
back to staff for additional information or analysis. Direction should be given to
staff and the applicant.
PREPARED BY: Kerry Margason, Associate Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1: Zoning and General Plan Designation
Attachment 2: Original Conditions of Approval
Attachment 3: Draft Resolution PC 2005-0078
•
54
Attachment D: Council Resolution
DRAFT RESOLUTION
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO GRANTING AN APPEAL OF A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
WITH MODIFIED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR PROJECT
ACCESS LOCATED AT 6135 SAN ANSELMO ROAD
(RECONSIDERATION OF CUP 2000-0022; JIM SHORES)
WHEREAS, an appeal of the Planning Commission's action approving a
Reconsideration for Conditional Use Permit 2000-0022, with modified conditions of
approval has been received from Jerry Clay, Sr., 7285 Sycamore Road, Atascadero,
California 93422; and,
WHEREAS, the reconsideration of Conditional Use Permit was requested to
allow for a third ingress/egress and installation of a shade structure over the vacuum
stations; and,
•
WHEREAS, the project, as currently developed is inconsistent with the approved
Master Plan of Development (CUP 2000-0022); and, 0
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted modified conditions of approval
to bring the project into compliance with the scope and intent of the approved Master
Plan Development (CUP 2000-0022); and,
WHEREAS, the Project has been operating under a Temporary Certificate of
Occupancy since September 25, 2003, at which time the Project Owner was notified that
the Master Plan of Development was inconsistent with the conditions of approval and
would need to be brought into compliance prior to issuance of a Final Certificate of
Occupancy; and,
WHEREAS, the site is located within the General Commercial (GC) land use
designation of the City of Atascadero's General Plan Land Use Diagram; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed project site is located in the Commercial Tourist (CT)
zoning district; and,
WHEREAS; the Planning Commission reviewed the Reconsideration of
Conditional Use Permit 2000-0022 application on November 1, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. and
considered testimony and reports from staff, the applicant, and the public; and,
55
•
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted PC Resolution 2005-0078
(attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A), approving the Reconsideration of
Conditional Use Permit 2000-0022 with modified conditions of approval; and
WHEREAS, an appeal of the Planning Commission's action, in regards to the
modified condition of approval requiring the removal of third point of ingress/egress for
the project has been filed; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the appeal of the Planning Commission
action on January 24, 2006, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers located at 6907 El
Camino Real and considered testimony and reports from staff, the appellant, and the
public; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council takes the following actions:
SECTION 1. Grant of Appeal. The City Council grants the appeal of of
Conditional Use Permit 2000-0022, with modified conditions of approval and finds as
follows:
A raised median shall be installed in San Anselmo Road and the northeastern
driveway shall be allowed to remain open to right turns only as shown in Exhibit
Al.
SECTION 2. Findings for Granting of the Appeal. The City Council finds as
follows:
1. The modified conditions of approval are consistent with the Master Plan
of Development, CUP 2000-0022; and,
2. The proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with the General Plan;
and,
3. The proposed project, as conditioned, satisfies all applicable provisions of
the Zoning Ordinance; and,
4. The establishment, and subsequent operation or conduct of the use will
not, because of the circumstances and conditions applied in this particular
case, be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of the general public
or people 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,
5. The proposed project, as amended and conditioned, will not be
inconsistent with the character of the immediate neighborhood or contrary
to its orderly development; and,
56
6. The proposed project, as amended and conditioned, will not generate a
volume of traffic beyond the safe capacity of all roads providing access to
the project, either existing or to be improved in conjunction with the
project, or beyond the normal traffic volume of the surrounding
neighborhood that would result from the full development in accordance
with the Land Use Element.
On motion by Council Member , and seconded by Council Member
the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety by the
following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ADOPTED:
Attest:
Marcia McClure Torgerson, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Patrick Enright, City Attorney
57
CITY OF ATASCADERO
Tom O'Malley, Mayor
•
0
L71
•
K-1
•
EXHIBIT Al: Site Plan
•
Atascadero City Council
Staff Report City Attorney
ITEM NUMBER: B-2
DATE: 03/28/06
Interim Urgency Ordinance Establishing
A Moratorium on Conversion of Residential Units
To Condominiums
(Temporary Ordinance establishing a moratorium on conversion
of residential units to condominiums.)
RECOMMENDATION:
Council adopt the interim urgency ordinance establishing a moratorium on conversions
of residential units to condominiums.
• DISCUSSION:
Background: In the past year, the City of Atascadero has received an increasing
number of applications and inquiries from apartment owners interested in converting
their rental units into for -sale condominiums. The issue was presented to the Council
on September 9, 2005 and on March 14, 2006,. and the Council expressed interest in
exploring ways to control the rate of condominium conversions and to preserve the
City's affordable housing stock.
Over the years, typically during times when housing prices have been disproportional to
rental levels, there has been an interest by individual property owners in converting `
existing rental units to ownership housing. Many communities have responded to the
concerns with regard to these conversions --typically rental housing and tenant
protection issues --through the adoption of condominium conversion regulations. The
City of Atascadero did this in 2000, with the adoption of Chapter 11-12 of the City's
Code. Chapter 11-12 regulates the process for the conversion of apartment to
condominium including the application process, tenant provisions, hearing
requirements, and property improvement standards. The Chapter does not address
controlling the rate of conversions and the preservation of affordable housing stock in
the City.
L�
ITEM NUMBER: B-2
DATE: 03/2at06
In 2002, the City Council adopted a General Plan for the City, and the Housing Element
provides: 0
"Goal HOS 3: Ensure that an adequate amount of rental housing exists."
"Policy 3.1: Ensure that the proportion of low and moderate housing is not
significantly reduced."
Recently the City retained the firm of Goldfarb Lipman LLP to review the condominium
ordinance. In particular, staff and Goldfarb Lipman LLP is to study and give options to
the Council on reducing the rate of condominium conversions, including requirements
for retention existing affordable housing units and any additional protections for tenants.
The review will also evaluate the development standards and whether CC&Rs should
be required on future condominium conversions. The purpose of the review is to
ensure, as required by the City's General Plan, that the proportion of low and moderate
housing in the City is not significantly reduced.
The City Council may, pending a study of a contemplated zoning proposal, adopt a
temporary interim ordinance, as an emergency measure. Interim ordinances enacting
moratoria and other growth management measures are lawful exercises of the police
power and do not amount to a temporary taking under First English Evangelical Church
v. County of Los Angeles (1987) 482 U.S. 304, 320 so long as they do not "go too far."
In California an interim moratorium ordinance must be adopted pursuant to Government
Code section 65858, which prohibits approval of new development plans so that a City
can re-evaluate its land use policies. The ordinance is lawful provided the period of
delay is reasonable and there are valid governmental reasons justifying its adoption. -
(Tahoe -Sierra Preservation Council v. Tahoe Regl Planning Agency (2002) 535 U.S.
302, 353; First English Evangelical Church v. County of Los Angeles, supra at 320.)
The interim ordinance must be approved by a 4/5 voteand remains in effect only 45
days unless extended for 22 months and 15 days, after notice and hearing. The
ordinance must contain legislative findings that there is a current and immediate threat
to the public health, safety, or welfare, and that the approval of additional subdivisions,
use permits, variances, building permits, or other applicable uses which is required in
order to comply with a zoning ordinance would result in a threat to public health, safety,
or welfare. Ten days prior to the expiration of the interim ordinance or any extension,
the City Council must issue a written report describing the measures that have been
taken to alleviate the condition which led to the adoption of the ordinance.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact.
61
•
ALTERNATIVES:
• Adopt the attached Ordinance;
• Modify and adopt the attached Ordinance
• Do not adopt the attached Ordinance;
• Provide direction to Staff.
ATTACHMENT:
Interim Urgency Ordinance
lie
Ki
ITEM NUMBER: B-2
DATE: 03/28/06
Attachment 1: Draft Ordinance
DRAFT ORDINANCE
ITEM NUMBER: B-2
DATE: 03/28/06
AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO
ADOPTING A MORATORIUM ON CONDOMINIUM CONVERSIONS,
AND DECLARING THE URGENCY THEREOF
The City Council of the City of Atascadero DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Findings. The City Council finds as follows.
A. The City's Housing Element to its General Plan provides as one of its
goals that there is an adequate amount of rental housing in the City. Policy 3.1 of the Housing
Element requires that the Council "ensure that the proportion of low and moderate housing is not
significantly reduced."
B. In the last 18 months, the City has seen an significant increase in the
number of multifamily projects requesting a condominium conversion.
C. The City has received applications for the conversion of 60 rentals to
condominiums; and inquiries have been made about the conversion of an additional 200 rental
units.
D. If all of these rental units were converted to condominiums, it would
represent the loss of over 12 percent of the 2,100 rental units in the City.
E. The City Council has retained Goldfarb Lipman LLP to review and study
the City's condominium conversion ordinance regarding the preservation, acquisition of the
City's multifamily rental units, and to examine the need for inclusionary housing and/or fees for
the loss of low and moderate income housing.
F. Due to the foregoing, the City intends to continue to study the extent to
which the conversion of rental units to condominiums are affecting the affordability of rental
units and the impacts of increasing rental prices on very low- and moderate -income residents in
the City. In the meantime, if a temporary moratorium on condominium conversions is not
immediately imposed, substantial rent increases are likely to occur. Such increases would defeat
the intent and purpose of the City's General Plan policy of protecting the proportion of low and
moderate housing in the City.
G. A final report from Goldfarb Lipman, LLP has not been received,
however, the consultant and the City Council have preliminarily concluded that the conversion of
a significant number of multifamily units to condominiums in the City will produce economic
inequities which may be exacerbated by a lack of rental units.
Section 2. Imposition of Moratorium
The City Council hereby declares that a temporary condominium conversion
moratorium on the review and/or approval of the Condominium Conversions for buildings is
necessary in order to permit the city the time to conduct research and consider appropriate
63
•
ITEM NUMBER: B-2
DATE: 03/28/06
regulations, amendments and/or clarifications to protect the public health, safety, welfare and
economic prosperity of the City.
Section 3.
While this Ordinance remains in effect, no permit, other applicable entitlement,
which entails in whole or in part the conversion of any existing rental housing or on residential
structures to residential condominiums or community apartment projects within the City shall be
issued, except as specified in Section 13 below.
Section 4.
While this Ordinance remains in effect, no person, firm, partnership, association,
corporation, company or organization of any kind shall convert, in whole or in part, or attempt to
convert, in whole or in part, any existing rental housing to residential condominium within the
City, except as specified in Section 13 below.
Section 5.
Pursuant to the provisions of California Government Code section 65858, this
Ordinance is adopted as an urgency interim zoning ordinance and shall take effect immediately.
The facts demonstrating the urgency that forms the basis for this ordinance are as follows:
A. According to the City's General Plan adopted in 2002, in 2001there were
approximately 9,663 total housing units in the City. Of this total, there were approximately, (1)
3,062 units in multi -family structures (31.7% of all City housing) and. 3,282 renters. According
to the 2000 Census data, there were approximately 9,531 households, 3,282 or thirty-four percent
(34%) of which were renters;
B. The City has most recently experienced an unprecedented increase in
applications seeking to convert existing rental housing to residential condominiums;
C. The approval or adoption of additional such Condominium Conversions
within the City of Atascadero would result in a threat to public health, safety and welfare in that
they could alter, in a radical and fundamental manner, the current way of life for the City's
residents. By their unique characteristics and requirements, conversion projects tend to magnify
the effects associated with higher urban densities to the point where public health, safety,
welfare, and economic' prosperity of the City are significantly affected. Such projects may
conflict with the City's policy, set forth in the General Plan, to provide a reasonable balance of
rental and ownership housing within the City, to provide a variety of individual choices of tenure,
type, price and location of housing and to maintain the supply of rental housing for low and
moderate income persons and families. It is thus necessary to establish a temporary moratorium
to allow for: (1). research and study to determine how to address this use, the type of regulation
that may be imposed on this use, and the potential impact this use may have on the City's
neighborhoods; and (2) the preparation and presentation of any proposed ordinance, amendments
or regulations to address this use.
D. It is necessary that this Ordinance go into effect immediately in order to
maintain the City's environment pending the outcome of the above -referenced research, study,
and analysis, which may dictate the need to further regulate such Condominium Conversions and
which, in turn, will help the City Council better understand the detrimental effects, if any, should
such Condominium Conversions be allowed to proceed at a pace which, based on past
experience, conversions will continue to occur but for the adoption of this interim ordinance;
E. . It is necessary that this interim Ordinance remain in effect until the afore -
referenced research, study, and analysis have been completed and the recommendations of
Planning Department staff and the Planning Commission can be received and considered by the
64
ITEM NUMBER: B-2
DATE: 03/28/06
City Council and the City Council, in turn, can consider amendment of the City's Condominium
Conversions Ordinance or otherwise regulate future conversions.
Section 6. The City Council therefore finds that there is a current and immediate threat to the
public health, welfare, and that the approval of additional Condominium Conversions through
the issuance of permits authorizing such activities would result in a threat to, or breach of, that
public health and welfare.
Section 7. The City Council hereby finds that adoption of this Ordinance will not have the effect
of denying approvals needed for the development of projects with a significant component of
multifamily housing.
Section 8. Pursuant to Government Code Section 36937(b), this interim urgency Ordinance shall
take effect immediately upon its passage and adoption.
Section 9. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65858, this Ordinance shall expire on a date 45
days following the date of its passage and adoption, unless its term is extended by action of the
City Council in accordance with the procedures set forth in Section 65858, or at such earlier time
as the City Council acts to repeal this Ordinance and replace it with.a successor Ordinance.
Section 10. At least ten days prior to the 45 day interim period provided for in Section 9, the City
Council shall issue a written report describing any measures taken to alleviate those conditions
herein referenced which lead to the adoption of this Ordinance.
Section 11. This Ordinance or a comprehensive summary thereof shall be published once in a
newspaper of general circulation in the City of Atascadero within 15 days after its adoption.
Section 12. The adoption of this interim ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental
Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to sections 15061(b)(3), 15262 and 15306 of the State CEQA
Guidelines because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that such adoption
may have significant effect on the environment; such adoption involves only feasibility and
planning studies for possible future adoption of an ordinance "that has not yet been prepared or
adopted. In addition, the adoption of this interim ordinance is partially exempt from CEQA
pursuant to Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines in that it primarily pertains to the conversion
of existing small structures from one use to another where only minor modifications are made in
the exterior of the structure.
Section 13. This Ordinance shall apply to all applications filed on or after March 1, 2006.
Section 14. This Ordinance shall be liberally construed to accomplish its intended purposes.
Nothing contained in this Ordinance is intended to limit the continuation of lawful
nonconforming uses or structures.
Section 15. Severability. The City Council hereby declares that should any section, paragraph,
sentence, phrase, term, or word of this Ordinance hereby adopted be declared for any reason to be
invalid, it is the intent of the City Council that it would have adopted all other portions of this
Ordinance irrespective of any such portion declared invalid.
65
ITEM NUMBER: B-2
DATE: 03/28/06
INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council held on , 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:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
Marcia McClure Torgerson, C.M.C.,
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Patrick L. Enright, City Attorney
C,
CITY OF ATASCADERO
Tom O'Malley, Mayor
•
•
Atascadero Cit
Council
Staff Report Public Works Department
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 03/28/06
Sewer Reimbursement Agreement
Colima Avenue
(Approval of a sewer reimbursement agreement
for Colima Avenue.)
RECOMMENDATION:
Council approve the Colima Avenue Sewer Extension Reimbursement Agreement.
DISCUSSION:
Background: A project consisting of a zone change from RSF-Y (Residential Single -
Family -Y) to RSF-Y / PD -21 (Residential Single -Family -Y with Planned Development
Overlay #21) with the adoption of a Master Plan of Development, and a five -lot
residential Tentative Parcel Map was approved by the City Council on March 9, 2004.
This project was part of the Pine Mountain Transfer of Development Rights. A sewer
main was extended to Colima Ave as part of this project.
A Sewer Extension Reimbursement Agreement, between the City and Kelly Gearhart
for the extension of a public sewer main in Colima Avenue, was brought to the City
Council on February 28, 2006. Several residents on Colima Avenue objected to the
reimbursement at the meeting. It was their understanding that the requirement to
provide sewer service to the area was mitigation for the increase in density resulting
from Mr. Gearhart's Colima Court project and therefore reimbursement- was not
required.
Staff was directed to obtain the transcripts of the February 17th, 2004 Planning
Commission meeting; the March 9th, 2004 City Council meeting, review the Conditions
of Approval relating to this project and bring the item back for Council review. The City
Attorney was also directed to provide an opinion on the ability for cities to require offsite
improvements on developers that have no nexus to the subdivision.
0
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: D3/28/06
Analysis:
• Staff has reviewed the transcripts of both the Planning Commission and City
Council meetings. We have'found no specific comments that would imply that a
reimbursement would not be allowed.
• Tentative Tract Map Condition of Approval No. 45 of is as follows:
"Sewer main shall extend along the Colima Avenue frontage and to all on-site and all
off-site locations identified on Exhibit C. The City Engineer shall approve the final
design of the sewer. The applicant shall submit a map showing the extents of possible
service."
Exhibit "C" is included in this report's Attachment "C." The Sewer was extended in
Colima Ave a little further than depicted in Exhibit "C." The Conditions of Approval do
not disallow any reimbursement. -
• The Conclusion from the City Attorney Memo is as follows:
The City must enter into a reimbursement agreement with the subdivider when the
subdivider is required to construct public improvements that benefit property not within
the proposed subdivision. A subdivider may agree to waive the requirement for
reimbursement, however, in this instance there is no evidence in the record before the
Planning Commission or City Council that he promised that he would pay the costs for
the public improvements without any reimbursements. In fact, there is very little
discussion on the issue in the record. Therefore, in this instance, the Council has no
discretion but to enter into the reimbursement agreement for Colima Avenue.
Conclusion: Based on the above analysis, staff is recommending approval of the
Colima Avenue Sewer Extension Reimbursement Agreement.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The City will collect a 2% Administrative Charge from all reimbursements. This charge
will be deducted from the total amount refunded.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment "A" - Excerpt from Planning Commission Meeting 2-17-04
Attachment "B" -Excerpt from City Council Meeting 3-9-04
Attachment "C" - Resolution for Tentative Map 2003-0042 Colima Ave
Attachment "D" - City Attorney Opinion dated 3-13-06
Attachment "E" - Sewer Extension Reimbursement Agreement
C'�
Excerpts of Atascadero Planning Commission Meeting
0 February 17, 2004
•
•
3. PI_NE MOUNTAIN TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS, GPA
2003-0009/ZCH 2003-0073/DAG 2004-0001, COROMAR AVENUE ZCH
2003-0072/ZCH 2003-0074/CUP 2003-0120/TTM 2003-0041, COLIMA
ROAD ZCH 2003-0076/TTM 2003-0042FERROCARIL ROAD - DE ANZA
ESTATES, CUP AMENDMENT 2002-0067/TTM 2003-0045 (GEARHART,
MOLINA, JOHNSON)
Applicant/
Kelly Gearhart, 6205 Alcantara Avenue, Atascadero, CA 93422
Representative:
William Johnson, 8955 Coromar Avenue, Atascadero, CA 93422
George Molina, 5000 Marchant Avenue, Atascadero, CA 93422
Project Title:
Pine Mountain Transfer of Development Rights, GPA 2003-0009/ZCH 2003-0073/DAG 2004-0001,
Coromar Avenue ZCH 2003-0072/ZCH 2003-0074/ CUP 2003-0120/TTM 2003-0041, Colima Road ZCH
2003-0076fM M 2003-0042 Ferrocaril Road - De Anza Estates, CUP Amendment 2002-0067/T7M 2003-
0045 (Gearhart, Molina, Johnson)
Location:
Pine Mountain (APN 028-231-003), 8825, 8955 Coromar Ave (APN 056-111-027, 056-111-023),
3680, 3700 Colima (Tentative Tract Map 2557), Ferrocaril Rd - De Anza Estates (049-011-004),
Atascadero (SLO County)
Project
Development Agreement: The project will be processed with a development agreement. The
Description:
development agreement will be utilized as a legal vehicle to provide for a transfer of site-specific
development credits without creating a program that will produce unintended consequences, or a
precedent requiring that the City allow increased density on any other sites in Atascadero. The
development agreement will incorporate specific government code section procedures to limit its use to
the proposed project type and restrict its use in situations where development agreements may be
inappropriate. The development agreement will be reviewed by the Planning Commission prior to
consideration for adoption in ordinance form by the City Council
The proposed development agreement is for a transfer of eight single-family residential lots from Pine
Mountain to two receiver sites under a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change process. In
addition, a site located along Coromar Avenue will receive a land use and zone change to allow 16
single-family residential lots. The project includes the following additional actions at each site:
A. Coromar Avenue: General Plan Amendment from General Commercial to SFR -X (Maximum
density of 4 units per acre with a minimum lot area of 0.5 acres net. Smaller lot sizes up to 4 units per
acre allowed through a planned development overlay process). Zone. Change from CR & CT to RSF-X
zone with Planned Development Overlay No. 17/Conditional Use Permit corresponds to the general
plan amendment. The Planned Development Overlay No. 17 may be established in the RSF-X single-
family residential zones on lots with a net acreage exceeding one (1) acre. The maximum density
within the planned development shall not exceed a gross density of four (4) units per acre. This overlay
zone contains specific site development standards that are incorporated into the proposed project. A
Vesting Tentative Tract Map is also included corresponding to the proposed 16 residential lots
(maximum project entitlement) and site improvements. In addition, a zone change is proposed fora
separate but contiguous single-family residential property located at 8955 Coromar Avenue for land
use consistency, not subject to the proposed development agreement or above-mentioned planed
development.
B. Colima Road: General Plan Amendment from SE (2.5 —10 ac lot size) to RSF-Y (Minimum lot size
I acre - second units allowed subject to zoning requirements). Zone Change from RS to RSF-Y
corresponds to the general plan amendment. A new Planned Development Overlay No. 21 is required
to allow one preexisting lot to remain less than one acre and to restrict all lots from adding second
dwelling units. A Tentative Tract Map is also included corresponding to the proposed 5 residential
lots and site improvements. Maximum project entitlementfive (5) lots, three (3) of which are
Excerpts of 021704 PC Meeting
Page 1 of 21
70
Deputy Community Development Director Steve McHarris
Thank you Chairman Kelley, members of the Planning Commission. Before us
tonight is Pine Mountain Transfer of Development Rights. This is a rather
complex project being that it covers several sites so I'm going to give you a Kittle
bit of introduction and background and take you through the, the, each site. I
have several exhibits that are included in your packets and are your adoption
exhibits as well; I may not spend as much time as you need, but they're in here
so that we can refer back to them during questions, um to shorten the
presentation, it could be rather lengthy. In this case there are, there's a variety
of, of numbers here in front of you, but rather than just read them all off I'll explain
them as we, as I walk you through this project. The applicant's are Gearhart,
Molina and Johnson, I believe they are each present in the audience tonight.
Just as a preface, the Pine Mountain Transfer of Development Rights also
referred to as the TDR project effects four separate project sites, each with
separate land uses and zoning amendment proposals. As such the staff report
and this presentation are organized into the following four subsections: A. for the
Coromar Avenue Planned Development Overlay site, B. for the Colima Road
Planned Development Overlay Site, C. for the Ferrocaril Road also referred to as
the de Anza Estates Master Plan of Development Amendment, and D. for the
Pine Mountain General Plan Amendment and Zone Change.
This is a summary of the overall project, um, what happens here is, what
Planning Commission is considering is a recommendation to the City Council to
approve this overall project. What it is, is the Pine Mountain TDR Project is
premised on first the CEQA document, which is a Mitigated Negative Declaration
Excerpts of 021704.PC Meeting
Page 2 of 21
71
•
transferred units from the Pine Mountain property plus two (2) lots that currently exist.
C. Ferrocaril Road (De Anza Estates): General Plan Amendment from SE (2.5 —10 ac lot size) to
RSF-Y (Minimum lot size 1 acre. Second units allowed subject to zoning requirements). Zone Change
from RS to RSF-Y corresponding to the general plan amendment and an amendment to an existing
Master Plan of Development to reflect the additional lots and to restrict second dwelling units on all
20 lots within the on-site Planned Development No. 16. A Tentative Tract Map is also included
corresponding to the new proposed lots. Maximum project entitlement: twenty (20) units (Five (5)
additional units, all of which are transferred units from Pine Mountain plus fifteen (15) lots that
currently exist).
As an amendment to the existing Master Plan of Development, the project includes conceptual building
locations and architectural floor plans and elevations. In the event these buildings are proposed for
construction, conditions of approval have been included to meet the original Planned development
design intent.
D. Pine Mountain: No additional applications. Maximum project entitlement: 0 units, eight (8) units will
be transferred from the Pine Mountain property leaving no development credits on the property. The
property will be provided to the City free and clear upon project approval through terms of the
development agreement.
Based on the initial study prepared for the project, a Mitigated Negative Declaration is proposed. The
Proposed
proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration is available for public review from 1/12/04 through 2/10/04 at
Environmental
6905 El Camino Real Suite 6, Community Development Department, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.,
Determination:
Monday through Friday.
Deputy Community Development Director Steve McHarris
Thank you Chairman Kelley, members of the Planning Commission. Before us
tonight is Pine Mountain Transfer of Development Rights. This is a rather
complex project being that it covers several sites so I'm going to give you a Kittle
bit of introduction and background and take you through the, the, each site. I
have several exhibits that are included in your packets and are your adoption
exhibits as well; I may not spend as much time as you need, but they're in here
so that we can refer back to them during questions, um to shorten the
presentation, it could be rather lengthy. In this case there are, there's a variety
of, of numbers here in front of you, but rather than just read them all off I'll explain
them as we, as I walk you through this project. The applicant's are Gearhart,
Molina and Johnson, I believe they are each present in the audience tonight.
Just as a preface, the Pine Mountain Transfer of Development Rights also
referred to as the TDR project effects four separate project sites, each with
separate land uses and zoning amendment proposals. As such the staff report
and this presentation are organized into the following four subsections: A. for the
Coromar Avenue Planned Development Overlay site, B. for the Colima Road
Planned Development Overlay Site, C. for the Ferrocaril Road also referred to as
the de Anza Estates Master Plan of Development Amendment, and D. for the
Pine Mountain General Plan Amendment and Zone Change.
This is a summary of the overall project, um, what happens here is, what
Planning Commission is considering is a recommendation to the City Council to
approve this overall project. What it is, is the Pine Mountain TDR Project is
premised on first the CEQA document, which is a Mitigated Negative Declaration
Excerpts of 021704.PC Meeting
Page 2 of 21
71
•
2003-069, under that is the Development Agreement, which encompasses all the
items below it, which is 2004-0001, then we have the Pine Mountain TDR, which
is the General Plan Amendment, that, that action amends the General Plan
designations for these sites below, so that we don't go into a number of separate
actions that's covered under this action. As well as below that then is the Zoning
Map Change. That also occurs for each of these sites. Then from there we go
into each particular site which has additional actions, the Ferrocaril site, the
Colima site, Coromar and the Pine Mountain, and each of these I will walk
through with you tonight.
Just a little bit of background, on October 28th of 2003 the City Council did direct
staff to process this proposed TDR project and the corresponding environmental
documentation. The City Council did apply a value of eight potential single-family
residential lots to be transferred from the Pine Mountain site to two receiver sites
located on Ferrocaril and Colima under a General Plan Amendment and Zone
Change process. In addition, a site located along Coromar Avenue would
receive a land use and zone change to allow 16 single-family residential lots.
A little bit about the Development Agreement, it is to be applied to the Pine
Mountain proposal only. The transfers, this transfer cites specific development
credits without creating a policy or program for future use within the city. The
Development Agreement encompasses elements of the entire project.
The next section referenced the Coromar Avenue site and is not included in
this document. Verbatim minutes can be done if required.
Steve McHarris
Site B, Colima Road, this is the General Plan Amendment from the 'Suburban
Estates, which is the 2 1/2 to 10 acre lot size to the RSF-Y, Residential Single -
Family minimum lot size one acre. This project, this zone does normally allow
second units subject to zoning requirement. Zone Change, the project does also
include a zone change from Residential Suburban to Residential Single -Family
Y, corresponding to the General Plan Amendment. The new PD Overlay -21 is
being applied to this site, um this is to address one lot that would be less than the
one acre required. And the reason for that PD is to avoid zoning this to any
higher density than, than need be. The project also includes a Tentative Tract
Map corresponding to the five lots and we'll review those lots in a moment here.
This is the site, currently there is one lot located along Colima and then there is a
lot in the back with an access easement. Oh, sorry, you know when I was
running through that last slide I, I, did not mention or it may just come up in
another slide here that the second units are restricted in the sense, SFR -Y zone
under the PD -21. That was another reason to, to use the PD -21. Um, again,
we've go the two lots existing, the one lot is less than an acre and as you'll see
as we get to the site plan here, and when we get to the tract map, you'll see
what's happening. Essentially the house that exists on this lot remains, um,
Sthrough the subdivision process, the back site is required to have a stem having
Excerpts of 021704 PC Meeting
Page 3 of 21
72
access to Colima Road so this lot does become a little bit smaller than it currently
is to accommodation this stem condition. Other than that, the lot size stays very
similar to its current configuration. In the meantime, the large lot in the back
becomes. four lots rather than the one.
Uh, in terms of utilities, this has been the source of some questions from the
neighbors in terms of sanitary sewer. The blue dots here represent an eight -inch
sanitary sewer line being proposed by the applicant, not only within and
throughout the project, but also along Colima Road running north of Colima past
uh two driveways actually, there's a driveway to the left, a concrete driveway
identified and a brick driveway to the right. So there was some discussion about
what the dimensions are here and the dimensions are not as important to us, um,
as in this approval exhibit as is the identification of the brick driveway. So no
matter what that dimension is to this brick driveway, sewer is proposed to extend
just a little bit beyond the brick driveway, in fact actually almost a little bit beyond
center of the concrete driveway across the street from the property with the brick
driveway. Ah, in addition the sewer is also extended via an easement to the
existing cul-de-sac located here.
As to grading a drainage, there were also some questions from staff to the public
as to what's happening with drainage. The project, as with most projects we see
is required and conditioned to not impact adjacent properties with anymore storm
drainage flows than currently exist, or historically exist. Currently the drainage
pattern in the area in question was the property um in this location. What's
happening is, the applicant's showing a proposed drainage detention basin which
would pick up flows into the basin and then meter them out at a historic or um,
historic or better flow out so there would not be additional flows from
development of three additional homes impacting this site.
This is the tract map showing the lots, um, probably the noteworthy point of this
exhibit is the original lot is identified, what it is, is this acreage here, I pulled it up
so its legible, is .94, it was .94 acres and intheproposal it will become .70, so it
will be a little bit less than it is today. The remaining lots are all an acre or, or
larger.
The next section referenced the Ferrocaril Road/ de Anza Estates and Pine
Mountain sites and is not included in this document. Verbatim minutes can
be done if required.
Steve McHarris
These are General Plan goals that um, kind of walk us through as they are walk,
or as they are explained in your staff report, the project is consistent with. There
are a few errata items that I'd like to point out, um, I have supplied you tonight
with a couple pages that we noticed were incorrect and we just wanted to make
sure they were correct. These don't affect your full-size packets, they are
correct, but if you looked in the small reductions, there were a couple exhibits
Excerpts of 021704 PC Meeting
Page 4 of 21
73
that needed to be changed out. So page 231 the exhibit for Coromar Avenue is
incorrect and should be replaced with the exhibit we provided you tonight, which
does reflect the full-size exhibit you did receive in your packet. On page 259,
similar occurrence appeared to us that there was an incorrect exhibit just a dated
exhibit, it was a revised one that had a little bit better information and that one
needs to be in there. So we just would like the Planning Commission to
recognize those two replacements, and then on page 196 for the Coromar CUP
2003-120, on page 278 for the Ferrocaril CUP 2002-067 amendment, we'd like
you to add the following underscored section which is simply the findings for tree
removal that were absent from your resolutions.
So in conclusion staff does recommend that each of the resolutions contained in
your packet be forwarded to the City Council for recommendation for approval
including the errata items that I've listed here. That concludes staff's
presentation and we are available for any questions. Thank you.
Chairperson Kelley
Fine, is there uh, the applicant or any of the applicants or their representative,
would they like to make a statement? And I think the best way after you make
your initial statement, I think we'll go over each one of these properties separate,
so we're not bouncing back and forth through all of them. So, after you make an
initial statement, if you'd like to, we'll address the Coromar property, and open it
up to the public for statements and what have you and do each property
is separate. George, would you like to make a statement?
Commissioner Beraud
Commissioner Kelley, could I make a suggestion that maybe we ask some of our
questions of staff first?
Chairperson Kellev
Well, I'm gonna run the meetings uh, with the applicant's making their statement
and then we can ask questions while the applicant's up there.
Commissioner Beraud
Okay and then have the rest of the public comment.
George Molina
George Molina, 5000 Marchant Avenue. This has been a long drawn out
process, been quite a few months involved. It's been a pleasure working with
staff; they've done an excellent job. I think their presentation speaks for itself
and I wholeheartedly concur with the staff recommendation and my hope is that
you will approve this, this project.
Chairperson Kellev
Fine, thank you. Is there anyone else from the public that would like to speak, or
applicant? Eric Greening.
Excerpts of 021704 PC Meeting
Page 5 of 21
74
Eric Greening
1 am Eric Greening, 7365 Valle Avenue, and uh, I'm not sure that this is specific
to Coromar, but I guess I will ask these questions now just so that they can be
part of what's on everyone's mind as we look at the total picture. Uh, I'm still
unsure of how the determination was made that there are eight potential legal
building sites on that mountain from which the rest of the arithmetic derives, and
I'm also confused as to how the 16 building sites on Coromar have been added
to the eight that are otherwise being moved down the mountain. Uh, I must say
that I do believe that Pine Mountain is a very, very important place to save and
we need to save it anyway we can, but we need to do it in such a way that is
consistent with ordinances and general plan, and even thought we're being told
we're not setting a precedent per se, we're not essentially creating an ordinance
with this action, we could be creating expectations as to what desirable open
space is worth in a way that could come back to haunt us. And so I would hope
that before you may take any action on this package as a whole, you actually find
those. values that are being transferred on the property that they are being
transferred from. And I think uh, 1 don't blame staff for this because the City
Council essentially told them to find it, but I still don't believe it has been found
and explained to us. I do have one additional question and that is um, it's very
valuable to have the contiguous open space from the Stadium Park over to the
open space above Cortez Avenue, and I think having this increment can be very
valuable, but um, my question is, what is the status of the property between this
and the current public cemetery property. It looks like there's a significant chunk
of mountain that still is potentially zoned for residential and uh, my concern is if
that were to be developed in some way, it could still compromise the experience
of the open space on the top of the mountain, and so I'm again, I, 1 would just like
to know what the total picture on the mountain is. I certainly compliment the
applicants for attempting to get to a package that saves the mountain, but I think
what you don't have in front of you is a range of alternatives. You're given the
TDC alternative as if it's the only way you can do it. And uh, there obviously are
various sources of funding out there for buying up uh easements or even for
buying in fee simple, land that is ecologically valuable and again, before you
jump in one particular direction or set expectations in that direction, I would hope
that you could have the full picture. So, uh, while this didn't deal specifically with
Coromar it gets my concerns out there earlier in the hearing and my specific
consideration with Coromar is if you find evidence in front of you that there were
eight building sites on the mountain, how did the 16 parcels being created on
Coromar relate to those eight building sites because I am having trouble with that
arithmetic. Thank you.
Chairperson Kelley
Thank you Eric. Is there any other people from the public that would like to make
a comment? Mrs. Johnson.
Excerpts of 021704 PC Meeting
Page 6 of 21
75
•
Annette Johnson
I'm Annette Johnson and I own that little corner ah, on the corner of Portola and
Coromar, and I just want the zone change. We are sitting on a commercial zone,
which is ridiculous we're a residence. So that's, that's all I want.
Chairperson Kelley
Fine, thank you. Mr. Gearhart
Kelly Gearhart
Yeah, I'm Kelly Gearhart; um I guess I'm an Applicant also. Uh, I'm just here to
answer any questions that, anybody has any on the sites, the receiver sites, so.
Chairperson Kelley
Fine, is there anyone else from the public that would like to get up and speak?
Jennifer Eichmeyer
Good evening, I'm Jennifer Eichmeyer I live at 3605 Colima Road, and I'm the
brick driveway that was designated on the site map on Colima. I want to say that
I am delighted to see a sewer going down our street and being made available to
our home. This will greatly benefit our neighborhood and improve the
community. 1 have been trying for long time to get this and I see it as a very
good beginning.
Chairperson Kelley
Fine, thank you.
Linda Zirk
Good evening, my name is Linda Zirk, my husband and I own the property at
5405 Marco Lane, which is immediately adjacent to Lot #4 on the Colima project.
I wish to address the proposal um, from ah, a drainage issue. Uh, we have
experienced in the past excessive water coming from the Colima Road area
through an underground water source, which I'm not sure if um everybody is
aware of this. Um, during winter storms we have had flooding in the backyard of
our property, in an effort to ah stop the erosion this underground water source
has caused and carry the water away from our property we installed a year ago a
retaining wall which faces north, um in our backyard and underneath the wall we
have installed a perforated drainpipe, which starts in our backyard, extends along
the west side of our home parallel to the driveway. This is approximately 150
feet in, in length down the side of the driveway. Um, along the back of our lot
parallel to the Colima Road property is a swale and I think on your drainage um
slide you actually had arrows going toward the swale, um that runs down the east
side of our property and then it turns south and goes, and the water actually exits
into the Marco Lane roadway. Uh, that swale carries uh, surface water only, so
storms, etc. Uh, according to the staff report that my husband and I were able to
pull off the Internet, uh, the, um there is a 10 percent site slope to the southwest
Excerpts of 021704 PC Meeting
Page 7 of 21
W
and in plain terms that um drains and slopes onto our property. Uh since we
currently have a lot of water coming from the project site going underground
water source and also the surface water, which dumps, into our swale, we are
concerned about the ongoing erosion which will have an adverse effect on our
landscaping plans and the future value of our property. Um, as a condition of
approval we would request that a modification to the plans be made to include a
more detailed um drainage improvement to address and correct the underground
and surface water from flowing onto our property and potential flooding and
erosion this may cause. Uh, we ask that we be held harmless and indemnified
from any underground or surface water that causes flooding and damage to our
property should any drainage improvements prove to be insufficient or
inadequate, and then we would also request that any setback for Lot #4 for any
structures be a minimum of 35 feet from our property line.
Chairperson Kelley
Fine, thank you.
Linda Zirk
Thank you.
Chairperson Kelley
Is there anyone else in the public?
Irene Bishop
Hi, I'm Irene Bishop, I live at 7151 Serena Court, on, on Pine Mountain nearest,
near uh adjacent to George's property and um I was wondering as a neighboring
property owner why didn't I receive any notice about this item? And I suggest
that before it goes back to the City Council for approval that there should be
some sort of a public hearing regarding this issue because it doesn't, it does look
rather complex. Um, the Molina property has a lot of problems that would effect
any development on it even a residence and some of them were kind of
addressed um', the slope is very steep, and an access road would be
challenging. And the zoning would need to be changed because as far as I know
its still just one parcel and that would equal one residence. And also there's a
water issue. I live at the lowest elevation of the, of the property in question and l
have very low water pressure even with a booster pump installed. I wonder, I
wonder what it would be like at a higher elevation and because of these thoughts
I believe that an appraisal should be done in order to better determine what
monetary value the city is exchanging for the development credits. It is also
interesting to note that the property in question has been on the market for years
without being sold. And finally, I also believe that the city's vision for the
remainder of open land on Pine Mountain surrounding the Stadium Park is to
keep it open and undeveloped and I don't think it should be held ransom for un -
altruistic motives. Thank you.
Excerpts of 021704 PC Meeting
Page 8 of 21
77
0 �
•
Chairperson Kellev
Thank you. Is there anyone else from the public that would like to speak? If not
I'll close the Public Comment part of the hearing. Uh, just a couple of questions
for staff possibly before we get going. Uh, one was the notices sent out to all the
adjoining property owners.
Community Development Director Warren Frace
Yes, we did send out notices to all the adjoining property owners. We'll have to
check and see um, why Mrs. Bishop wasn't notified, but all the other sites as well
as Pine Mountain were noticed per the um Zoning Ordinance requirements.
Chairperson Kellev
Fine, thank you. Okay, I think we'll go and address the Coromar property at this
time and I'll bring it back to the Commission and Mrs. Beraud, uh, we'll start at
that end of the table if we have any questions of staff or the applicant.
Commissioner Beraud
Um, are we going to have the staff answer some of the questions from the public
like we've done historically?
Chairperson Kellev
Yes, we'll get to those.
Commissioner Beraud
So you wanna do that later?
Chairperson Kelley
We'll get to those as we go through here, or you can ask them, if you want to
reiterate em that's fine.
Commissioner Beraud
Okay. Um, well I, 1 thought some of Eric's questions, Eric Greening's questions
were pretty important, um could staff address um the status of the other parcels
that are on Pine Mountain just so the public is aware of who are the other people
who own the parcels up there.
Director Frace
I believe the other parcel in question that would be north of the Molina parcel is
owned by the Atascadero Mutual Water Company. And then the parcels that are
on the east side facing back toward the Salinas River are the Sanitary District
parcels.
Commissioner Beraud
So they're mostly in public hands? Correct, they're not, they're not potential
residential lots?
Excerpts of 021704 PC Meeting
Page 9 of 21
Director Frace
They're not controlled by a public agency, they're controlled by other districts, so
we don't believe those districts have any plans for residential use.
Commissioner Beraud
Okay, um and then um could you just go for the uh benefit of the public, how the
eight credits were determined, cause 1, 1 remember during Steve's presentation
he said that there was possibly two building sites on the, on the Molina property.
Director Frace
Yeah, let, let me explain that, my, I don't have my slide available right now. The
way this works in terms of calculating the development potential on Pine
Mountain is you have to go to the General Plan and zoning. The General Plan
District Land Use on this site is Rural Residential. If you go to your General Plan
under Rural Residential the General Plan assumes the density in that of
anywhere from 2'/2 acre to 10 acre parcels. In terms of the General Plan analysis
that was done, in the General Plan all the lots in the R, in the Rural Zones, the
RR Zone, the SE Zone and the RE Zone, were all assumed to be 2.5 -acre lots.
So that was the assumption .that was made as part of the General Plan EIR. So
if you'd just calculate what the General Plan density assumption was for the lot,
28 acres at 2, 28 -acre lot with 2 1/2 acre lot sizes assumed at the General Plan
level that would give you an entitlement of approximately 11 units. Now in most
of our other R Rural zones, which are zoned RS, there's a calculation formula
that determines lot size. There is not actually a zoning ordinance for this site.
This site is zoned RR which is Rural Residential but there isn't actually a zoning
code that's adopted, so there isn't a formula or minimum lot size standard that
currently exists. For development to occur on this site the city would have to
adopt some sort of ordinance and zoning size. So from a zoning standpoint, we
don't have an answer as to what the minimum or maximum number of lots that
would be allowed if you processed a map, but we know from the General Plan
that you could go up to 11 units. Now the City Council addressed this issue
when it came before them in terms of the Guidance Resolution. The City Council
was comfortable with the number of eight units being transferred off the site.
Those eight units will go to the Colima site, which will absorb three units, and the
Ferrocaril site that'll absorb five units. As part of the overall project, the City
Council also allowed a General Plan Amendment to be processed on the
Coromar site that allows for the residential rezone and the 16 single-family units.
This would be consistent with the Council's current policy on how to process
mixed use projects where single family might be allowed where sites could be
trans, or re -designated from commercial to single family.
Commissioner Beraud
I'll, I'll skip for now and come back.
Excerpts of 021704 PC Meeting
Page 10 of 21
79
•
•
•
Chairperson Kelley
Mrs. O'Keefe.
Commissioner O'Keefe
Okay. Are we covering um Coromar, excuse me, or are we covering all of it now,
the question and answer...
Chairperson Kelley
I'd like to go over Coromar just try to keep each project individually so we could
get all the conditions...
Commissioner O'Keefe
Okay so then this will come back and...
Chairperson Kelley
Uh hum.
The next section referenced the Coromar Avenue site and is not included in
this document. Verbatim minutes can be done if required.
Chairperson Kelley
We'll move on to the Colima project then, and initially if the City Engineer could
address the uh question regarding the drainage that the uh lady presented
earlier.
Associate Civil Engineer Jeff van den Eikhof
The applicant is actually proposing to create a basin at, near the, the property
line that would um prevent some of the runoff from the, from the property,
entering that, her property. So that should mitigate most of the runoff from that.
Chairperson Kelley
You said some and most, what, what does that, what does that mean?
Mr. van den Eikhof
The uh, the applicant is required to design a basin that will capture a 50 -year flow
and release a two-year flow. Um so that is, that is exactly what it would be, we
would release a pre -constructed two-year flow.
Chairperson Kelley
That flow is that, will that follow a natural drainage flow that exists right now?
Mr. van den Eikhof
Yes.
Excerpts of 021704 PC Meeting
Page 11 of 21
:1
Chairperson Kelley !
And that would be going on her property so that flow should not change unless
we have some catastrophe or something. Is that correct?
Mr. van den Eikhof
That's correct.
Chairperson Kellen
Thank you. Uh let's start down at this end this time. Commissioner...
Commissioner Peterson
No questions.
Chairperson Kelley
Commissioner Fonzi.
Commissioner Fonzi
Yeah, uh, the uh lady mentioned that this was an underwater drainage issue as if
it were a spring. Are you aware of a spring in the area?
Mr. van den Eikhof
I'm not aware of a particular spring that she is referring to, um although this area
there is ah, quite a concentration of ground water.
Commissioner Fonzi
•
Well, what I'm trying to get at is if you put in a drainage basin that's generally for
the surface water, correct? Not for necessarily a spring that may be underground.
Mr. van den Eikhof
That is correct, um but it really depends on how the water is flowing across the
site. If it's flowing across the site it would be captured in the basin itself as well, if
it's coming up um beyond that, then it would not be captured by the basin.
Commissioner Fonzi
Mr. Kelley, I don't know whether it would be appropriate to ask the person who
had the adjacent property if she could answer a question for me.
Chairperson Kellen
That would be fine. Could, could you step up to the podium please cause, so we
get it on the tape and everyone can hear.
Commissioner Fonzi
When you said that this was an underground source of water, could you explain
what you mean?
Excerpts of 021704 PC Meeting
Page 12 of 21
rA
•
Linda Zirk
Um a year ago um after the heavy winter storms, um and first of all I should
preface this by saying that we don't live full-time in this house at the moment. My
husband and I are building it for our retirement. So we're down here on
weekends and um on one particular weekend about a year ago we came down
and um noticed that we have a big walnut tree in the back and we noticed that
from the walnut tree, which is approximately 50 feet from the uh property line, we
had water, not standing water, but water bubbling up from the ground, and as the
winter progressed it was getting worse, which. caused us to put in perforated
drain and the retaining wall.
Commissioner Fonzi
So the spring probably is on your property?
Linda Zirk
We don't know, we have, we have not had any other work done to determine
I
here, but since we're on the down slope from Lot #4, um is it coming from
further up the hill or is it on ours?
Commissioner Fonzi
Thank you, I appreciate that.
Chairperson Kelley
During the process I guess if ah this is approved and someone applies for a
building permit for that lot, there'll be uh, soils testing that has to be performed on
that lot. Is that true Warren? And if there were underground springs or
something they would probably be discovered. then and uh some action would
have to be taken to ah control that.
Director Frace
Yeah, they'd have to do a soils report basically in the area where the foundation
is if we found any unusual water or groundwater situations they'd have to design
to accommodate those.
Chairperson Kelley
Fine, would the applicant like to address that issue?
Mr. Gearhart
Uh, yeah, I'd like to kinda clarify for um for the app, uh the, the lady before me
and for Roberta there, um what we got over there is a lot of sewer, a lot of septic
runnin' down there underground I'm sure. Ah so I think that sewer line might help
uh cause there's a little valley right through there and I think um, you know, that
whole side of town right there from at the top of the hill which runs down to Traffic
Way and runs back down EI Camino has a lot of groundwater from septic
systems. You know, I think it's down about approximately six or eight feet is
Excerpts of 021704 PC Meeting
Page 13 of 21
where it comes and I think on her site if I remember correctly when they built the
new homes on the EI Camino site up on that road there's, her house when they
cut the pad, um that site used to be probably at a, you know, 10 percent slope
like it was existing. So when they cut the pads there they lowered it down
approximately four/five foot cut eh to make their flat pads away from the property
line probably, but I'm not exactly sure how far she's away, but and I think that's
probably where she gets the bleeding of the groundwater coming out of there
because they've cut the ground down and now it bleeds to the side of the slope.
And uh, so, and uh a little of that is, is I would, what I would understand as the
groundwater coming from the ground is where she sees that from. Now the
surface drainage, you know, I intend on dealing with it on a basin, drainage basin
and uh maybe I'll contact her uh later, at a later date we could actually maybe
bypass her house and run to the street and uh which would help her, you know
tremendously I think and all the other portions of it. So I, I'll discuss it with her at
the later date maybe we can help her out on that basis, um when it's developed
it's probably much better to do it that way than it is to have a basin, have a basin
and bypass her house and run to the street where it would run out on the, into
the storm drain system. But uh I think there was any other questions um on that I
can answer.
Chairperson Kellen
Fine, ah Commissioner Jones anything? Mrs. O'Keefe? Mrs. Beraud? No other
questions of any other Commissioners? Fine, we'll move down to the Ferrocaril
Road, ah, if there's any of the Commissioners have any questions or comments
for that project.
The next sections referenced the Ferrocaril Road and Pine Mountain sites
and are not included in this document. Verbatim minutes can be done if
required.
Director Frace
Mr. Chairman, before you make a motion, I just wanna make a couple points.
Um, one of the things in terms of the votes tonight, what will be viewed as a
positive vote, we have to keep in mind, is the state law governing general plan
amendments requires that a majority of the body make a positive
recommendation for general plan amendments. So that means the General Plan
Amendment item needs four votes to be viewed as a positive recommendation to
Council. The other items, the maps, the PD's, the CEQA Certification, those can
pass with just a majority of the body here tonight. So I just wanted you to know
that depending on how the votes work out, that general plan does need at least
four votes to move forward.
Vice Chairperson Jones
I have a question for the Chair and that is, um and maybe this is for staff, I'll start
with there. You have a recommendation on transfer development rights and then
you have one, two, three areas then on the master plan developments, um if I
Excerpts of 021704 PC Meeting
Page 14 of 21
were to make a motion would that be each one of those resolutions as we go
down the page or can we do a blanket uh motion for resolution adopting all with
some, I do have a, a change on one of the, um, on the Coromar area. It's not
gonna change the project necessarily but uh it's gonna go towards um, uh road
assessment district.
Director Frace
I believe you could make a single motion adopting all of them, there are 13,12
separate resolutions, it may be kind of complex and convoluted especially if you
try to amend any of those to do that all in one. Um, you may try just breaking it
into the four sub areas and trying to do them individually.
Vice Chairperson Jones
I'm, I'm just, I'm wondering how best to do this uh for certainly for record keeping
purposes so that it solves the purpose which you suggested there is a problem
on for state law, at the same time that we, there's, there's an area in the Coromar
that l would like to make a recommendation on, so perhaps IT start out this way
and I'll start on the Transfer of Development Rights. Before it I'll make a
comment, um 1, 1 have some discomfort on some of this area and how it came to
us at the same time I understand there's a lot of work that's been done on this, it
seems to me that the City Council is directing us to.do certain things, um so, with
that I'm gonna make a, um, I'll make a motion that as far as the four items one
through four, Transfer of Development Rights, uh that we recommend that the
City Council certify uh the Proposed Negative, uh, Mitigated Negative Declaration
and the General Plan Amendments uh, and the first reading by title only of the
draft ordinance and approve the development agreements uh, 2004-0001 based
on findings, and I'll make that as the initial motion.
Chairperson Kelley
Fine. I'll second that. Could we have a roll call please?
Recording Secretary Grace Pucci
Commissioner O'Keefe?
Commissioner O'Keefe
No.
Ms.Pucci
Commissioner Beraud?
Commissioner Beraud
No.
Ms. Pucci
Commissioner Peterson?
Excerpts of 021704 PC Meeting
Page 15 of 21
Commissioner Peterson
Yes.
Ms. Pucci
Commissioner Fonzi?
Commissioner Fonzi
Yes.
Ms. Pucci
Vice Chairperson Jones?
Vice Chairperson Jones
Yes.
Ms. Pucci
And Chairperson Kelley?
Chairperson Kelley
Yes.
Ms. Pucci
Four, two, motion passes.
Vice Chairperson Jones
Next I'll make a uh, we'll deal with Coromar, um the items five through eight's ah,
resolutions, I move that the Planning Commission recommend to the City um,
adopt those resolutions, uh as to the condition relative to the road maintenance,
that I would recommend that uh the staff work with the applicant to have a road
maintenance district for that uh that driveway and that roadway there.
Chairperson Kelley
I'll second. Roll call please.
Ms. Pucci
Commissioner Fonzi?
Director Frace
Excuse me, before we vote real quick, um the errata items that staff had
mentioned earlier would need to be incorporated as applicable for this motion.
Vice Chairperson Jones
That is correct, they are.
Ms. Pucci
Commissioner Fonzi?
Excerpts of 021704 PC Meeting
Page 16 of 21
01
01
J
10
10
I*
Commissioner Fonzi
No.
Ms. Pucci
Commissioner Peterson?
Commissioner Peterson
Yes.
Ms. Pucci
Commissioner Beraud?
Commissioner Beraud
No.
Ms. Pucci
Commissioner O'Keefe?
Commissioner O'Keefe
No.
Ms. Pucci
Vice Chairperson Jones?
Vice Chairperson Jones
Yes.
Ms. Pucci
And Chairperson Fonzi, I'm sorry, Chairperson Kelley, I'm sorry.
Chairperson Kelley
That's okay, yes
Ms. Pucci
Okay so that's three, three.
Vice Chairperson Jones
Next as to Colima Road uh, a motion, I would make a motion that uh we adopt
Resolution uh nine through, nine and ten, based upon the findings of the
conditions of approval and mitigations.
Commissioner Fonzi
I'll second.
Excerpts of 021704 PC Meeting
Page 17 of 21
:•
Ms. Pucci
Commissioner Fonzi?
Commissioner Fonzi
Yes.
Ms. Pucci
Commissioner Beraud?
Commissioner Beraud
Yes.
Ms. Pucci
Commissioner O'Keefe?
Commissioner O'Keefe
No.
Ms. Pucci
Commissioner Peterson?
Commissioner Peterson
Yes.
Ms. Pucci
Vice Chairperson Jones?
Vice Chairperson Jones
Yes.
Ms. Pucci
And Chairperson Kelley?
Chairperson Kelley
Yes.
Ms. Pucci
Five, one, motion passes.
Vice Chairperson Jones
And finally as to the Ferrocaril/de Anza Estates, I'll make a motion that the
Planning Commission adopt the two resolutions eleven and twelve, recommend
the City Council approve Master Plan of Developments and the Vesting Tentative
Tract Map, subject to the findings and conditions of approval.
Excerpts of 021704 PC Meeting
Page 18 of 21
01
01
Cl
I *
I *
10
Chairperson Kellev
I'll second.
Ms. Pucci
Commissioner O'Keefe?
Commissioner O'Keefe
No.
Ms. Pucci
Commissioner Beraud?
Commissioner Beraud
Yes.
Ms. Pucci
Commissioner Peterson?
Commissioner Peterson
Yes.
Ms. Pucci
Commissioner Fonzi?
Commissioner Fonzi
Yes.
Ms. Pucci
Vice Chairperson Jones?
Vice Chairperson Jones
Yes.
Ms. Pucci
And Chairperson Kelley?
Chairperson Kelley
Yes.
Ms. Pucci
Five, one, motion passes.
Chairperson Kellev
Fine, we'll send those recommendations on to the City Council and we'll move on
to uh, Item number...
Excerpts of 021704 PC Meeting
Page 19 of 21
City Attorney Roy Hanley
Mr. Chair, I'm sorry to interrupt, ,but I want to clear one thing up so, this has been
a confusing process because it's so different and I just wanted to prevent a little
confusion in the future. As we take this forward to the City Council, um l will be
making some changes to the language of the Development Agreement to make it
comply with all of the rec, the recommendations and the way the project has
been put together. Now as long as all of those changes are in tune with your
actions tonight and with your discussions, it won't have to come back. If, if I do
something way unusual that brings in something that you didn't consider, then it
might have to be, it might have to be back to the Planning Commission. But I
don't want you to be surprised if there's some textural changes in the
Development Agreement itself.
Chairperson Kelley
Please don't be unusual. Thank you.
MOTION: Vice Chairperson Jones and seconded by Commissioner Fonzi to
adopt Resolution No. PC 2004-0015 recommending that the City
Council introduce for first reading, by title only, draft ordinance for
first reading to approve Zone Change 2003-0076 based on
findings; and, adopt Resolution No. PC 2004-0016 recommending
the City Council approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map 2003-0042
based on findings and subject to Conditions of Approval and
Mitigation Monitoring.
AYES: Commissioners Fonzi, Beraud, Peterson, Jones and Chairperson
Kelley
NOES: Commissioner O'Keefe
ABSTAIN: None
Motion passed 5:1 by a roll -call vote.
MOTION: Vice Chairperson Jones and seconded by Chairperson Kelley to
adopt Resolution No. PC 2004-0018 recommending that the City
Council approve the Master Plan of Development Amendment
(CUP 2002-0067) based on findings and subject to Conditions of
Approval and Mitigation Monitoring; and, adopt Resolution No. PC
2004-0019 recommending the City Council approve Vesting
Tentative Tract Map 2003-0045 based on findings and subject to
Conditions of Approval and .Mitigation Monitoring.
AYES: Commissioners Beraud, Peterson, Fonzi, Jones and Chairperson
Kelley
Excerpts of 021704 PC Meeting
Page 20 of 21
0
•
•
I*
NOES:. Commissioner O'Keefe
ABSTAIN: None
Motion passed 5:1 by a roll -call vote.
EXCERPT MINUTES PREPARED BY:
Grace Pucci, Recording Secretary
Excerpts of 021704 PC Meeting
Page 21 of 21
Excerpts of Atascadero City Council Meeting
March 9, 2004 0
2. Pine Mountain Transfer of Develoument Riahts - GPA 2003-0009
• Fiscal impact: The project would likely have a slight negative impact on
City revenues. As a general rule, single-family dwellings require services
that exceed the revenue generated by the proposed uses. In addition, the
retention of Pine Mountain as additional undeveloped passive open space
would likely have a slight negative impact on City revenues.
■ Planning Commission Recommends: Approval (1 — 4):
Transfer of Development Rights
1. Adopt Resolution A certifying Proposed Mitigated Negative
Declaration 2003-0069; and,
2. Adopt Resolution B approving General Plan Amendment 2003-
0009 based on findings; and,
3. Introduce for first reading by title only, draft Ordinance.A approving
Zone Change 2003-0073 based on findings; and,
4. introduce for first reading by title only draft Ordinance F, approving
Development Agreement 2004-0001 based on findings; and,
■ Planning Commission Recommends: Denial (5 8):
Coromar Avenue
5. Introduce for first reading by title only, draft Ordinance B approving
Zone Change 2003-0072 based on findings; and,
6. Introduce for first reading by title only, draft Ordinance C approving
Zone Change 2003-0074 based on findings; and,
7. Adopt Resolution D approving the Master Plan of Development (CUP
2003-0120) based on findings and subject to Conditions of Approval
and Mitigation Monitoring; and,
8. Adopt Resolution E approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map 2003-0041
based on findings and subject to Conditions of Approval and Mitigation
Monitoring.
■ Planning Commission Recommends: Approval (9 — 10) 0
Excerpt of 030904 CC Meeting
Page 1 of 30
91
Colima Road
9. Introduce for first reading by title only, draft Ordinance D (Zoning Text)
and draft Ordinance E (Zoning Map Change) approving Zone Change
2003-0076 based on findings; and,
10. Adopt Resolution F approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map 2003-0042
based on findings and subject to Conditions of Approval and Mitigation
Monitoring.
■ Planning Commission Recommends: Approval (11 — 12)
Ferrocaril Road — De Anza Estates
11. Adopt Resolution G approving the Master Plan of Development
Amendment (CUP 2002-0067) based on findings and subject to
Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Monitoring; and,
12. Adopt Resolution H approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map 2003-0045
based on findings and subject to Conditions of Approval and Mitigation
Monitoring. (Community Development)
(The Staff report was not recorded.)
Council Member Clay
...forty, somewhere in the number 17 come up, is there any other property that uh the
city owns there?
Community Development Director Warren Frace
There's, there's this parcel here that's adjacent that's another 28 acres, so there's the 24
acres here that's Stadium Park's and Molina Parcel here is the 28.6 acres, there's an
existing open space parcel next to that that's 28.6 acres also.
Council Member Clay
Okay so that's all owned by the City then? Right?
Mr. Frace
Yes.
Council Member Clay
Oh, that's very interesting. Um just uh there's been some talk out there that somehow
uh things were not done properly, that uh, they were uh done under the table or
something like that and you know ah, I just wanted to stress that when I was Mayor I
appointed Tom and, and George to uh, uh when I heard that this property was uh
possibly available to uh, uh to look into it as a committee and I thought we uh did
Excerpt of 030904 CC Meeting
Page 2 of 30
92
everything properly and uh, um I'm disappointed that those types of ah accusations are
out there. 0
Mayor Luna
Uh, any other Council questions? Okay seeing none I'll close it to the Council and open
it to the Public. Uh the developer or the developer's representative first. Mr. Molina do,
would you like to speak?
George Molina
Yes, George Molina, the applicant. Uh, I think Warren did a great job in bringing out
how all the details would work out. This is been a long tedious process uh staff has
been very cooperative so has the Council Committee. Uh, I agree with staff report and
uh I hope you pass it. Thank you.
Mayor Luna
Uh, um, George, Mr. Molina, um one of the things uh, I just want to make clear that this
is a package and if any part of this, for example the Coromar or whatever fails, then the
development agreement as far as you're concerned is void? That's correct?
Mr. Molina
Yes, that's correct, and I'll come back with another one.
Mayor'Luna
Okay, thank you. Mr. Gearhart.
Kelly Gearhart
Yeah, I'm Kelly Gearhart. Um, I think I'm just here to answer any questions and maybe
clarify some things on the Ferrocaril project there to um, ah I think to satisfy some of the
neighbors maybe there. Um, just ,in general I was um, I listened to the public forum
there for a little bit there, um, as of today I was instructing my ah contractors there to,
you know, we had to deal with this road issue and not knowing what was gonna happen
tonight here with the neighbors there, um but what I've got there is I, you know, I had a
situation with the bridge uh, I noticed that the one lady discussed that the bridge has
been goin' on and on, and I am in agreement with that, it has been going on for
approximately 3'/2 years to get approval. And at one point we thought we had it
approved uh through the PUC process and I think the Council uh approved it to process
it and then we are under the understanding the permit was ready to be issued but the,
the PUC approved it, the railroad approved it, but the, uh, uh on a, ah my fault or city
fault, staff fault, we uh, I guess assumed the railroad was already approved it at one
level but the one, one level they did not approve it, so we've been waiting for that
approval process for quite some time now, and that's what's been delaying the bridge at
the crossing, so it's been taking longer than we thought and using the uh of the access
way along Ferrocaril Way. Now under the impression of phase one of the project uh is
coming to an end now, which is the three houses that are being completed, and I
believe in my phase one um thing I needed to have the trail system installed uh before
the houses are to be finaled there. So now the houses are all becoming final within the
Excerpt of 03090.4 CC Meeting
Page 3 of 30
93
•
next week to two weeks, I was trying to wrap up the trail 'system and the trail system
that's goin' in is what I use for the access way, uh for the vehicles to travel down. So it's
just been now uh wrapped up in the last few days and uh, you know, the fence was
went into place where the, to protect the vehicles from, to stop the vehicles from going
down the trails so the people have been using the Ferrocaril for the access. I'm trying to
work with the, uh, ah, another alternate access underneath Home Depot, uh underneath
the trestle there, uh from Home Depot, which is gonna become another trail at a later
date, but I have, I'm close to finishing that so we can actually use that as vehicle
access, but not big truck vehicles, uh the trucks cannot fit underneath the trestle. So I'm
within uh ten days of paving that street, uh of ah, the extension of Ferrocaril there, North
Ferrocaril we call it, and within about ten days of that, so as of, what I'm saying I guess
today I uh, tonight, tomorrow morning I'll be dealing with it the best I can. I assume the
trucks will be goin' up and down there one more day until I can get it straightened out
tomorrow of tryin' to work out another issue how we're gonna get it over there without,
you know, disturbing the neighbors. I was in to, ah, heavy discussion with the
contractor who's doin' the job about it so um, you know, I'm doin' my best I can to satisfy
the neighbors, you know, I don't want 'em to think that I'm not just disregarding their
feelings of what they want there. Believe me I, you know, went through a lot, they don't
like the dust in the back, they don't like the traffic down Ferrocaril, I mean I'm, I'm doing
everything that's possible. I wasn't allowed to use water, eh, uh to keep the dust
controlled from the city, uh just recently and now I've been annexed into the Water
District so I've been having to fight all kinda avenues to satisfy everybody there, but also
under the rules what I can, can work with so keeping the dust down was a problem
because I wasn't allowed to use city water to keep the dust down and then I wasn't
allowed to drill any wells to satisfy the Water Company so I mean it was kind of a tough
situation and I'm, I'm glad the neighbors worked with me I've, I've done the best I can,
and I, 1 will try to do a little better job as of tonight, as of tomorrow to deal with the trucks
that are, you know, been going down there for the last four or five days. Uh and uh, if
there's anything else, you know, I'm here to answer.
Mayor Luna
Well, thank you very much for clarifying that and I, 1 want to apologize for letting some of
the ad hominem arguments uh, uh take place at Public Comment, but I, I'm really happy
that you stepped forward and, and clarified some of that. Any Council, Councilman
Clay?
Council Member Clay
Yes, I have a question. Uh, first of all 1, uh I know Tom and uh George worked hard on
this and I hesitate to uh, uh try to change things in any way, but uh I noticed that uh
there's, ah, you know I'm always pullin' for workforce housing and uh, uh, uh deed
restricted housing, and I know that in the uh 16 units on Coromar there's uh, l believe
there's three units uh, uh that are gonna be deed restricted, uh, uh moderate income uh
workforce housing and then on the eight units uh, uh you're gonna pay in -lieu fees uh
personally I prefer to see the units on the ground rather than in -lieu fees so uh if, if ah
0 you combine the uh, uh the uh, (unintelligible) to 16, you'd come up with five units that
Excerpt of 030904 CC Meeting
Page 4 of 30
would be um, ah, you know other words workforce housing be built and be deed
restricted, would that bother you any, uh Kelly? 9
Mr. Gearhart
Um, I don't know maybe I'm wrong, Warren, what are we doin' on the Coromar for the
affordable housing?
Mr. Frace
Well consistent with the City Council's interim policy on affordable inclusionary housing,
this project's been conditioned that way that on the Coromar site, which is the Planned
Development 16, which is the smaller lot, the more affordable project, um, there's three
units there that will be the deed restricted affordable units. On the other projects, which
are under the ten unit cap that requires the project to be built and those are larger lots
that are less likely to be affordable, those projects were conditioned just to pay the in -
lieu fee, So that is consistent with the Council's policy and, based on the unit type and
the lot sized, seems like it probably makes sense.
Council Member Clay
Okay, yeah, I understand where you're comin' from...
City Manager Wade McKinney
Ah, if I could help, jump in there, I think that the Council Member is asking if we could
move the in -lieu fees to build more units on the Coromar. If instead of paying in -lieu
fees on the, on the projects on De Anza and Colima, if you would increase the Coromar IF
ah, affordable units to five.
Mr. Gearhart
Yes.
Council Member Clay
Okay, thank you.
Mayor Luna
Ah, while we're at that, so the, the comparable dollars would go for the affordable
housing? Is that what we're saying?
Mr. McKinney
Yes, the in -lieu fees would normally go for affordable housing.
Council Member Clay
My point George is we'd get it built, we'd get the two units built.
Mayor Luna
Well, I, 1 would agree with that but I just want to make sure that the dollars are, equate
to uh, to the two affordable units, extra affordable units that we're getting. Do we,
Excerpt of 030904 CC Meeting
Page 5 of 30
95
what's that? (Unintelligible voice in the background) No, ah, did we get an answer from
you uh Mr. Gearhart?
Mr. Gearhart
Yes, that's no problem.
Mayor Luna
No problem, okay. Any other Council questions? Council Member O'Malley.
Council Member O'Malley
Yeah, maybe, I, 1 do think one thing that was a requirement from our committee was to
work with the neighborhoods affected and I, 1 do think um you guys did a good job with
that. Could you elaborate a little bit on the sewer we're getting for septic failures
basically. Do you know how many neighbors or houses are affected,in that uh I think it's
Coromar area 'where we're gonna be getting, (unintelligible voice in the background)
Colima, sorry, thank you, um do you know how many existing residences are affected
by that or will be able to hook up to sewer because of this project?
Mr. Gearhart
Um, probably you could, just put it up on the screen there, I could probably do a little
better but, under memory the two existing houses uh that I um will be Lakin' it in um
there's also the lot there that's uh in the middle there, the largest one that seems to look
like there's not line, not topo through it, will be hooking up on this side. There's another
existing house to the south uh that's there that has a poor septic system uh usage uh
it's a friend of mine, I know him pretty well, uh will be hooking up. Uh availability to hook
in right there and then another one, another south the Jot there which has availability to
hook in um south, so south would be another that there and then one more lot to the,
right there, uh on that side of the road. Uh, it's all...
Council Member Clay
What's the total? What's the total?
Mr. Gearhart
So that'd be what, one, two, three, four, five, six of 'em at that point there on that side of
the road. And then I believe there's approximately six, six houses on the other side of
the street that have the availability to hook in uh right away. And then by allowing that
sewer line to go on Colima it allows uh, if you notice we brought it all the way down to
the uh south there just, just uh above the proposed sewer lines right there. We brought
it all the way to there and the reason is there's also a line that brings down there, which
isn't pertinent to this project, but it is pertinent for the people on Colima that in the future
to be able to hook up that is south of it, that's, it can flow back north to that manhole
because the sewer in uh San Anselmo, depth is, uh, is shallow and 1, and I don't, we
have a dip in there which are some flooding issues that doesn't allow the sewer to flow
gravity to that point. So by bringing that sewer line there and allowing that manhole to
be there, the people to the south of it can flow back north and into that manhole and be
serviced. And then the people to the north from the uh, from the brick driveway, there's
Excerpt of 030904 CC Meeting
Page 6 of 30
0
a belly right there we're at the lowest point of the, of uh Colima then anybody from the
north future could hook on also. 0
Council Member O'Malley
Okay, thank you.
Mayor Luna
Any other Council questions of the applicant? Thank you Mr. Gearhart. So if people
who want to speak on this item would line up behind Mr. Greening who is next.
Eric Greening
Thank you, I am Eric Greening and uh I certainly appreciate Mr. Molina's uh attempt to
work with the sub committee and come up with a solution to what is a very valuable
community asset, which should never be built on and which could be contiguous with
other city open spaces to make something special. Unfortunately the process being
used this time has a 'fatal flaw in it in that the calculations are not based on anything
intrinsic to this lot, they are based on this city-wide averaging process and I still do not
see how either the 11 figure that was supposedly compromised from or the figure of
eight units has anything to do with that lot. It's a lot so a lot split would be required; a
multiple lot split would be required to get eight units. I don't see where the findings
would be made that this would be a split able lot. I don't see where the eight units
would go or how they would be accessed so the whole premise on which this entire
trade, I won't say TDC because we don't have a TDC ordinance, but this whole horse
trade is based has nothing to do with the lot itself that, that these units would be traded
from. So I just don't see the logic behind the entire package. I'm sorry that I don't see it
because I do believe this is an important property to save, but I think it's even more
important that we not set a precedent when we don't even have a TDC ordinance for a
kind of trading that affects the build out of our General Plan, affects the entire process
that led to our General Plan Update that uh can change things in neighborhoods all over
the city based on uh calculations that just don't pencil out. So I, I, I'm afraid I have this
concern and since this seems to be uh an accept the package as a whole or don't
accept the package as a whole, uh, I just don't see that you have a package right now
that you can accept. Thank You.
Mayor Luna
Thank you Mr. Greening.
Jenny Corn
Um, Jenny Corn, um I'd like to see that they would just not do this until they put that
bridge in that they haven't got an approval for. Because it seems to me like if they're
gonna add five more units to an area that already, I mean they've got, there's supposed
to be a fire road, we're supposed to be a dead end street but they don't have approval
for a bridge and I guess they still don't have that approval where I was told it was
supposed to be in, in April, I guess its not coming in, in April. So, I mean you intend to
build all the houses plus those five extra houses using our street and then use our street
to get all the way from Home Depot all the way down to that other lot where maybe
Excerpt -of 030904 CC Meeting
Page 7 of 30
97
there's gonna be a bicycle park or something, past home depot? Because, you know,
you're approving something on an assumption that there's a bridge there, but nobody
seems to be able to get approval for, and you add five more lots, we're just gonna be
five more houses terrorized because they are gonna come in now and they're gonna
rework all that land that they've already reworked, they're gonna rush on in tomorrow
and start reworking all that land again, a lot more people going down there and, and you
have 65 children that are endangered on this project plus everybody else, and, and I
don't see how you can approve that on an assumption that well maybe we're gonna a
bridge and if we don't, well, we'll just knock down the fire road and we'll just drive
through their neighborhood forever.
Mayor Luna
Thank you.
Joan O'Keefe
Joan O'Keefe, ah, Mayor Luna, Council Persons, I agree with everything that uh Eric
said and the whole process is contingent on uh the fact that somehow or another you
coming up with more lots. Some of you may have read the letter that I sent the editor in
the Atascadero News so you know that I'm strongly opposed to this project. But like
Eric I would like to see the City own this piece of property, but definitely not under the
conditions that are being asked. There are so many things wrong that it's really hard for
me to believe that you're actually voting on this. Somehow you bought Mr. Molina's
argument with the City Attorney's blessing that there's more than one entitlement on this
property. I have to assume that he threatened to sue the City. You created an ad hoc
transfer of development program to set the process in the, in motion. The public has
had no input into this whole thing. For as long as I can remember there's been one lot
zoned Rural Residential there. The General Plan refers to Rural Residential as an area
intended for detached single homes on lots 2'/2 to 10 acres. One lot is what I see there.
Subdivision or lot splits are not an automatic process, it's a privilege, and there have to,
certain findings have to be made. They are subject to CEQA review, in this case
probably a negative dec. Certain findings have to be made as I said and I don't think
those findings can be made to allow more than one lot because it would require
extensive grading to reach the top where there's a relatively flat bench up there. And
this is a high profile area and the General Plan addresses that also. When I first talked
to the city planners about how it was determined there were eight entitlements, I was
told they were handed a deal that included eight entitlements and the locations and they
were to make the presentation. Later the planners expanded on how the entitlements
were determined as explained to you and that was a simple process of division. But
that's not how lots are determined. And then watching what they did up there with all
the arrows, it looks like a shell game. Further the city doesn't even try to explain or
justify the rezoning of our shrinking commercial to residential, which adds another 16
units, so you mushroom these eight entitlements into 24. Now the Johnson property
could be rezoned to residential, it's currently zoned commercial, without going through
all of this. Mr. Gearhart has made million of dollars doing business in Atascadero, Mr.
Molina was the Chamber Citizen of the Year last year, and this is how they treat the
City. That lot was on the market for about 15 years and no one bought it, probably
Excerpt of 030904 CC Meeting
Page 8 of 30
because it has so many building constraints and was overpriced. It was last listed for
$389,000. If you approve this Mr. Molina and Mr. Gearhart will be laughing all the way
to the bank because they leveraged an un -salable lot into a mil, multi-million dollar deal.
Mayor Luna
Thank you Ms. O'Keefe.
Annette Johnson
I'm Annette Johnson; I live on that corner there that they're talking about. Um I don't
understand why getting a zone change for my corner should be tied in with something
that Mr. Gearhart wants to build. Our house right now is for sale, it's in escrow, the loan
company won't release any money to the buyers until the zone change is complete.
We're sitting; not, we're not able to do anything. Why is that tied in with Gearhart's zone
change?
Mayor Luna
Maybe staff wants to cover that. I understood you from the Planning Commission that,
that you wanted it changed to residential.
Ms. Johnson
Yes, I do want it changed to residential. They uh, the lo, the loan company won't loan
money on a residence that's on commercial property.
Mayor Luna
Warren, you wanna answer that?
Mr. Frace
Yes, um, typically, you know, the City doesn't entertain a lot of general plan
amendments to change commercial parcels um to residential, there's a lot of non-
conforming residential buildings in uh commercial zones. Um when this project came
through and Mr. Gearhart was proposing with Mr. Molina the change of this site um from
commercial to um residential, we were contacted by Ms. Johnson's real estate agent
about her concerns, her escrow problems, so we did offer the ability to basically
piggyback on this process so that she could go through the environmental process that
we were already doing. It'd simplify her process. Had she just applied individually, it
likely wouldn't have moved as smoothly or as quickly as it has as part of this project. So
I believe they actually benefited as being part of this application.
Mayor Luna
Ms. Johnson are...
Ms. Johnson
Yeah, on the uh paper here it says that um, uh, Planning Commission recommends
denial on five to eight, numbers five to eight. Is that including us?
C7
Excerpt of 030904 CC Meeting
Page 9 of 30
Mayor Luna
Yes. That was the Planning Commission recommendation.
Ms. Johnson
But that doesn't necessarily mean that you will vote that way.
Mayor Luna
That's exactly correct.
Ms. Johnson
Okay, thank you
Mayor Luna
Thank you Ms. Johnson. Anyone else?
Nick Burton
Hi, my name's Nick Burton: I just want to address the FerrocariI .development, er part
of the development. Um right now there's just one, one way to access um where those
houses are gonna be built, and that's at the end of a cul-de-sac. And, you know, people
bought houses in that area on the cul-de-sac to be on a cul-de-sac. Um, there's plans
to have a bridge put in, why not finish the bridge first and it's gonna be there, it's gonna
be paid for, finish the bridge and then build the houses. Access the lot where it's not
gonna bother anyone. I mean its gonna be there anyway, why, because I'll tell you
what, if that bridge doesn't get finished the whole um development is gonna be built by
trucks rolling down Ferrocaril and your constituents are gonna be just annoyed for, you
know, what two years? I mean we, we all know that's gonna happen so um you know, if
you could just stipulate somehow that that bridge needs to be finished first before um,
before any other development could, could happen. I mean that, that would make a lot
of people happy, you know, the builders would get their houses, um, it just makes
sense. Otherwise we all know what's gonna happen, there's just gonna be a lot of
upset people.
Mayor Luna
Thank you Mr. Burton. Uh, maybe we can get some idea about the bridge, the PUC,
the access, the phasing, the timing of this.
Mr. Frace
I'll refer that to City Engineer, he's been working on that.
City Engineer Steve Kahn
We have been working with the applicant on the bridge submittals and the uh California
uh Public Utilities Commission has approved the bridge and we have two submittals to
the Union Pacific Railroad Currently the applicant's working with the Union Pacific
Railroad on specifics of the easement um that is required for him to gain, he's gaining a
space easement over the railroad and, and, finalizing the last few details. He has given
the City $25,000 in order to process the permit because the railroad will not accept an
Excerpt of 030904 CC Meeting
Page 10 of 30
100
application from an individual, it must be from an agency and that's why you as a City
Council authorized me to submit an application to the railroad and I've been doing so
and processing it with uh with the applicant. Once we have um approval from the
railroad he still has to finalize his construction documents with the City, details on the
foundation design and the bridge design with the City and then he's able to build his
bridge.
Mayor Luna
So that doesn't answer some of these people on Ferrocaril who are upset because they
have the feeling that overnight, and it certainly won't be overnight because this one's
gonna take a second reading, but that, that uh for a while now the houses will be
constructed using the Ferrocaril access as long as the, the bridge is not in. So could
you give us an idea of how long that is?
Mr. Kahn
Uh, to answer the first part of your question, as I understand it he's constructing three
houses that are supposed to have access through Ferrocaril and there'll be no houses
that will be uh occupied that would access the bridge and use the other access way until
the bridge is in place.
Mayor Luna
So there would be no construction that'll take place uh until the bridge is in?
Mr. Frace
No, those houses, those houses can be built without the bridge, they can't be occupied.
That was the Council's condition on the original map when it came through. So there
are bonds in place guaranteeing that the bridge be constructed and there's a
requirement that none of the houses can be occupied until that's in place, but that
doesn't prevent the applicant from moving forward on construction of the subdivision or
the houses while he's continuing to work on installation of the bridge.
Mayor Luna
So he just can't final the houses until the bridge is in.
Mr. Frace
Correct.
Mayor Luna
Council Member Clay.
Council Member Clay
A question of staff. Uh, when uh he was using access behind the Ferrocaril, why is that
no longer available?
Excerpt of 030904 CC Meeting
Page 11 of 30
101
•
rl
Mr. Frace
That's the location of the horse trail. The horse trail is a condition that that has to be
installed to final Phase 1. Phase 1 is what the applicant's trying to final right now, so
he's installed the pipe rail fences along the trail, which cuts off the access for the trucks
through the site.
Council Member Clay
Okay, and then my second question, uh, uh, as far as the bridge goes on EI Camino
Real, uh is that like a slam dunk, is that a sure, an absolute sure thing or...
Mr. Kahn
The railroad is finalizing the final details and they have insinuated that they would be
granting a permit and so the only other permit he needs through the City is a foundation
and then the structure itself and those could be done, so nothing's a slam dunk, but
certainly he's moving forward.
Council Member Clay
So are we lookin' at six months? Or nine months, or...
Mr. Khan
wouldn't want to, to estimate the timeframe.
Council Member Clay
Right, okay.
Mayor Luna
Okay, next speaker..
Unidentified speaker
May uh add something? You just, Jerry you just asked why did that alternative route, it
was a dirt road that went along the railroad tracks that Kelly was using to take the trucks
back there, it did not get blocked off by a horse trail, he built two houses right in the
way. You know, I like Kelly, I appreciate the work he's done, but that dirt road went right
behind my house and that was really annoying. It caused a lot of dirt, it caused a lot of
commotion, but I figured at least that was better than the street. I did not understand
why he cut his access off to that back. He could have used that back road but he built
two houses there that cut off that route, so now he should be stopped, no more houses
should be built until that bridge is built, because now all those kids, the number is 65 or
so, are all in danger because we're gonna have construction for six to 12 months till that
bridge goes in and you're gonna allow all those houses to be built and all those
neighbors are gonna get together and bring law suits against, there's gonna be all kinds
of problems.
Mayor Luna
Could we have your name for the record please?
Excerpt of 030904 CC Meeting
Page 12 of 30
102
Unidentified speaker
My name's Joy Rogalla.
Mayor Luna
Okay, thank you.
Joy Rogalla
So could you tell, I mean I understood that that gate, like I said before was gonna be
locked for emergencies only. That is a cul-de-sac, -they're gonna allow all that
construction to be done? I mean he can complete all those houses and all those trucks
are gonna be going up and down the street and if he wouldn't of built those two houses
where he built them on that alternative route, he'd still be able to use that dirt road, but
he built the two houses, it's not the horse trail that's cuttin' off that road, it's the houses.
Mayor Luna
Okay, thank you. Is there anyone who wants to speak for the first time? Okay, uh who
wants to speak for the second time?
Council Member Clay
Maybe we could hear from Kelly on that.
Mr. Gearhart
Well, sounds like Warren gave a little detail on this Ferrocaril so we might as well get
right into it I guess. Um, on the Ferrocaril the deal there is this; uh, the trail goes in, the
trail starts at Chico Road, it's uh the whole access way was used by Kaiser, uh the
concrete company, for years, it's a paved road, uh somewhat dirt, some broken down
pavement, whatever, but that whole section is the trail. Once it gets to lot 12 I believe
on the um tract map there it narrows down to 20 feet and then it goes for 20 feet and
hooks into Ferrocaril at the cul-de-sac, crosses the Ferrocaril, runs into the river. So
under the conditions of Phase I, it said to build the trail, that's what I did. So, uh, you
know, I met with the trail people numerous times, I've talked to them in here numerous
times and tried to comply the best I could on that. Now when I, 1 just discussed it with a
neighbor there, what I'm gonna do and ah, you know I'm not lookin' for a neighborhood,
uh deal, I'm not lookin' to offend anybody, I'm just doin' what I do and that's what I have
been doin' for the last 20 years. So, so what I'm gonna try to do is this; today is
Tuesday, by Thursday I will have that straightened out, what we're gonna do there to
stop the people from goin' down Ferrocaril. So uh,1 can let the neighbors know this, as
of, by Thursday to Friday I will have that road shut off, um the gate in place and nobody
will go through that gate until we get this bridge straightened out, unless I have an
alternative access way. So I will take em down Ferrocaril, I will possibly take em down
the trail of the property, veer out onto the railroad property and come back in another
alternate way, which I believe I can do. So what I'm tellin' you hear tonight is by Friday
I'll have that gate shut off, where there's no trucks that'll be rollin' or construction
vehicles other than the three homes that are being built at the end of the cul-de-sac.
And also I want to clarify one other thing, the Water Company can also go down that
property and, and that's how they access their property to do their construction. So I'm
Excerpt of 030904 CC Meeting
Page 13 of 30
103
•
•
•
•
not the only culprit that goes up and down that road. So, I want everybody to know that
I will be lockin' that gate as of Friday, uh where the emergency gate's supposed to go.
And uh, I'll be installing it, so I need to probably get together with the Fire Chief I got a
few alternatives I've got to work out. So, and I, I'll, I will deal with that.
Mayor Luna
Well, thank you. Council Member O'Malley has a question.
Council Member O'Malley
Yes, so I, 1 take it then the five additional units uh related to Ferrocaril will be tied to,
they won't be worked on until the bridge is in.
Mr. Gearhart
Well, the, the five additional units for that site for that phase of that prop, project is, was
10 lots; it'll be 15 now with these five additional. What we've done there is um, the sites
are installed, the water line that just got approved, the water line has been installed
there. That's the work is been going on there uh on that site and they're basing and
basing the road to pave it. So as of, as of uh the trucks of last week was what I believe
the neighbors were worrying about, it's the base trucks were coming down there
extensively to, to base the road. So, and I was, uh dealing with the paving. By Monday
or Tuesday I believe of next week I'm pavin' that road out. where that would be, then if
there was construction going on it would be uh, you know, the houses being built ah and
the process of the bridge being built at the same time. So, but we would not be using
Ferrocaril at that point, so...
Council Member O'Malley
Okay, that, cause that was my understanding as I recollect is there was an alternate
route that uh construction equipment and trucks would use and Ferrocaril wouldn't be
used and I guess there was something happened, but you're gonna fix that and I guess
we've been accused of handshaking before, I'm wondering if there is a way that we can
tie this in, if, if this item is approved if I, I'll check with staff.
Unidentified speaker
What's that?
Council Member O'Malley
Yeah, well...
Council Member Pacas
He can add that mitigation to this project.
Council Member O'Malley
So you're ah suggesting you...
Excerpt of 030904 CC Meeting
Page 14 of 30
104
Mr. Gearhart
Well, let's put it this way, we've got to come back for a second reading, two weeks, so if
it's not done, we'll know.
Mayor Luna
Yeah, there you go.
Council Member Clay
I have a question....
Council Member Pacas
If you could even add mitigation that there'd be fines for him if he violates it, so there
would be some incentive to keep his word.
Council Member O'Malley
So I'm hearing that Councilwoman...
Mr. Gearhart
According to Joan I've got millions of dollars, so I might be able, I might want to skip that
fining issue.
Council Member O'Malley
Yeah, well, I'm hearing Councilwoman Pacas may be in support of this motion if we add
a condition that, what you've offered, that we will um make sure that construction traffic
doesn't go down Ferrocaril after Friday.
Mr. Gearhart
Well, what I'm lettin' you know is I'm gonna have a secured gate on there to satisfy the
Fire Chief and myself and the neighbors that they will, other than the three homes that
are at the of the cul-de-sac and the Water Company.
Council Member Clay
And I have a question.
Council Member O'Malley
Thank you.
Mayor Luna
Council Member Clay.
Council Member Clay
I wanted to get this straight. So you're saying that on Friday this week Kelly that uh
you'll um have the gate locked so to speak. The three houses that are, are they under
construction now, are they past the gate?
Excerpt of 030904 CC Meeting
Page 15 of 30
105
•
Mr. Gearhart
No. They're before the gate.
Council Member Clay
They're before the gate. And then what you're sayin' is that you may uh find uh, an
alternate route to behind uh along the railroad tracks to get back to that property at a
later date.
Mr. Gearhart
Yes. Yes.
Council Member Clay
And you'd use that route and you wouldn't use Ferrocaril.
Mr. Gearhart
Right.
Council Member Clay
And you're gonna do that by Friday.
Mr. Gearhart
Right.
Council Member Clay
I'm okay with that.
Mayor Luna
Thank you Mr. Gearhart. Ms. Corn. Any else who wants to speak to this for the second
time please line up behind the speaker.
Ms. Corn
When we originally, when they put this um this whole project together and you guys
voted on it, it, I mean you were here too, they said that they wouldn't do, they would not
permit any of the houses to be built except in Phase II, except via the bridge. Now all of
a sudden we're hearing that, that it's just possible that these houses are permitted they
just can't be lived in until the bridge is in. I mean uh, uh, did somebody write something
somewhere that they changed this that they didn't tell the people. I mean it seems to
me you guys do a lot of changing that's not, and writing things in that you don't tell
anybody. But, I was here at the original meeting and the agreement was that those
houses wouldn't, in Phase II would not be permitted until the bridge was in because
there would be no construction of those houses going down our street, granted he's
gon, said he's gonna close the thing on Friday, but, but, you know, come a couple
weeks and they don't get permits for the bridge yet and suddenly there's lumber going
down the street, and there's, you know, uh, I don't understand how this can, you guys
were sitting here, you agreed to that, is that you wouldn't permit even beginning of
construction on these houses in Phase II unless the bridge was there. That's what you
Excerpt of 030904 CC Meeting
Page 16 of 30
106
agreed to, to the residents who wrote all the petitions and, and, did you, were you not
here at the meeting, didn't you hear that when you voted on that. Didn't you remember is
that you did that? Did anybody want to address that?
Mayor Luna
Yeah, we're gonna get a, we're gonna get an answer to that question.
Council Member Pacas
Usually we take public comment and then we'll make our comments.
Ms. Corn
Oh okay, because um I mean it's nice that this'll all happen but, but maybe it won't and
we're stuck being, I, I, 1 mean I have people that (unintelligible) go down my street and
they stop in front of my house and they make obscene gestures to my family outside,
and I have people stop and they run their engines, and, and you know right in front of
our house. I mean it's like we're being terrorized in our own neighborhood. And, and, if,
if this was you would you be real happy with that? Would you be happy seeing your
kids you know being chased by a, a utility truck that's on a horse, you know a little kid
on a horse...
Manor Luna
Warren, you wanna address that uh that original question.
Council Member Clay
What was the agreement, that's what I want to know.
Mayor Luna
The original condition about the...
Ms. Corn
It wasn't that people were gonna live..
Mayor Luna
Go, go ahead Warren.
Mr. Frace
When the project came before the City Council the staff recommendation to the
Planning Commission was that no construction be allowed, the Phase 11 area until the
bridge was in. The Council changed that condition during deliberations.
Council Member Clay
What'd we change it to?
Mr. Frace
That you would allow recordation of the map with bonding and therefore permit
construction. 0
Excerpt of 030904 CC Meeting
Page 17 of 30
107
•
Mavor Luna
Okay, Council's mistake.
Ms. Corn
Now, I don't know what means, I don't know what that means because, because we
were there and I don't remember anybody voting on, I don't hear that change. When,
when we left we were told that, that, you they weren't gonna permit these houses in
Phase II until the bridge was in. That's when we left that's what it said so, so when did
they change this and didn't tell anybody?
Mavor Luna
At that Council meeting obviously.
Ms. Corn
Well....
Council Member Clay
It was voted ma'am. It was voted on.
Ms. Corn
That's right .and when we were here and its funny that you guys hear something
different than, you know that, that, that hand thing that you guys were talking about, I'm
afraid you've got a really bad reputation and I'm afraid you...
Council Member Clay
That's a bunch of baloney.
Ms. Corn
...live up to it.
Mayor Luna
Thank you Ms: Corn.
Joy Rogalla
Just one more quick thing, Joy Rogalla again, I understand, we all understood the gate
was gonna be locked, it was gonna be for emergency only. I know Roland Snow was
here, he said that, he was the Fire Chief at the time, anyway, my bottom line is there's
been a lot of damage done to Ferrocaril the road, um even if Kelly, I really appreciate
Kelly if he really does stop that on Friday, so who's gonna fix the damage now. If he
stops the trucks on Friday, which I hope, if, if he doesn't in two weeks the neighborhood
will be back here if that's when they're gonna address it again. And um tell me who's
gonna fix the road.
Excerpt of 030904 CC Meeting
Page 18 of 30
Council Member Pacas
Well, that's a privately owned road, so those of you who own it are responsible for it; it's
not city -maintained road. Um if you ah manage to get your association together for
that neighborhood, you actually might have some control to stop stuff like this that's
going on, but my understanding is that you don't have an association together yet for
Ferrocaril development, for the French Brothers development there.
Joy Rogalla
So all these trucks...
Council Member Pacas
You probably, with the association, you could have stopped it. I think it was actually
one of the items in your association bylaws that were supposed to be adopted, was that
there would nothing done by any of the owners that would increase traffic to the
neighborhood and there are actually, you have had a few violators and Mr. Gearhart
would have been a huge violator of that, if you guys had your association in place, you
would have had a pretty powerful um tool against this.
Joy Rogalla
Okay, so we have no repercussions now?
Council Member Pacas
You might still be able to do that, I don't know.
Joy Rogalla
Or is there anything the City Council could do?
Mayor Luna
Well, we, I, 1 wanna get uh the City Engineer in on this, uh Steve, you want to comment,
comment on Ferrocaril...
Council Member O'Malley
Well before we get off track, we've got a project before us...
Mayor Luna
I'd like to get an answer to that, that question from the Engineer.
Council Member Clay
What's the question?
Mr. Kahn
Ferrocaril is a non city -maintained road. And I would be happy to visit with, the site with
the uh Mr. Gearhart and look for damage. I have been out there recently and I haven't
seen any damage, but I would be happy to inspect the road and look for damage.
Excerpt of 030904 CC Meeting
Page 19 of 30
109
•
Joy Rogalla
Look at the end of the cul-de-sac where he's been building the three houses right now,
it's really heavily damaged. And the whole street, the trucks have been goin' up and
down.
Mayor Luna
And who would be responsible for the cost on that?
Mr. Kahn
Currently the City of Atascadero has not accepted that road for, for maintenance, so the
residents -that live on, well actually Mr. Gearhart would be responsible because they're
the one that's doing construction, if the, if the damage is caused by Mr. Gearhart's
contractors, they would be responsible for the repair.
Mayor Luna
Okay, thank you.
Joy Rogalla
Could we ask for help from the City Council to help us with that?
Mayor Luna
Well, it's already been offered, the City Engineer's willing to go out and Took at
IsFerrocaril. Council Member Clay.
Council Member Clay
Ah George, could, you know, it seems to me that the problem is, is that the
recommendation from the Planning Commission was one thing and that the Council
determined another and that's were the misunderstanding is with the...
0
Mayor Luna
Yes, and, and frankly, without going back and looking at my notes, I'd, I, 1 can't
remember what uh what actually happened there, uh, because we don't have that
project in front of us. Any other people want to speak on this item? Seeing none, I'll
close it to the public, bring it back to the Council. Now, one of the things uh that we've
been told is uh we need to vote on this as a package. If we approach this as the
Planning did then there's a possibility that some things might get approved, for example
approving the General Plan Amendment and then voting down Coromar, we've already
given certain entitlements, uh so, we need to take this as an entire package and so
what I'd dike to do before we do that is to have questions answered and then in addition
to that have any comments uh on what uh; uh, people support or don't support in the
package. Um, I do have one question I'd like to clarify and that is the number of units.
Is it 24, is it 16, is it eight? What is exactly the number of units being um, that was that
overhead you...
Excerpt of 030904 CC Meeting
Page 20 of 30
110
Mr. Frace
The project that the Committee recommended to the Council that the Council adopted is
um with the Guidance Resolution was to take eight units off Pine Mountain, transfer
those to the um Colima and Ferrocaril sites, and then this being the, Coromar, sorry not
Colima site, would be re -designated to PD, which would allow 16 units which would be
consistent with the mixed use General Plan policies for non prime commercial sites. In
exchange for this action the City ends up acquiring Pine Mountain, which normally isn't
part of a TDC type process.
Mayor Luna
Council Member Clay.
Council Member Clay
The question is the 16 something that would be allowed under the mixed use. Anyway
is that what you're saying Warren?
Mr. Frace
That's what the committee looked at; if this site is like the site that would have qualified
possibly for a mixed-use project of 16 units. So that was part of the committee's
consideration in recommending this to the Council
Council Member Clay
Yeah, I'd like to address like the Pine Mountain property, uh, when I was a kid it was my
playground and uh I can always remember sittin' up there thinkin' man I would like to
have a house up there some day, you know, that was my goal, unfortunately I never
reached that. Uh I think we're comparin' apples and oranges here. We're talkin' about
the possibility of eight, uh what I would call trophy homes or trophy lots on Pine
Mountain probably homes in the neighborhood of seven, eight hundred thousand, lots in
the neighborhood of 400,000 uh and we're comparin' them to, to uh lots down in the
flats that possibly uh, uh you're talkin' about maybe a $200,000 uh lot and up and about
three, four hundred thousand dollar home. So in a way we're comparin' apples and
oranges. Uh I think the benefits as I see it and, and I'm always pushin' for this is uh, is
uh is our workforce type housing and the fact that we would get five deed restricted
units on the Coromar property I think is, is uh is a good point and uh we get additional
workforce housing because those units would, uh would work, the additional units would
work, do we have the workforce uh, uh 50 percent that we've had on, on the other...
Mr. Frace
Yes, that condition's incorporated in.
Council Member Clay
Okay, so uh, uh, those are the important points from, from my standpoint of view and
I've got faith in George and Tom.
Mayor Luna
Council Member Pacas.
Excerpt of 030904 CC Meeting
Page 21 of 30
111
Council Member Pacas
I don't usually have my mind made up on something before I come to a meeting, but
um, we looked at this before, I'm the only one here I think who opposed it, and I, 1 still
oppose it, um I did write down a few of my comments. There's, there's a little that
actually changed during the meeting tonight that I was um convinced otherwise and so
I've crossed those out, but I still have a lot of things that I put down in, on paper
because I think this is so critically flawed and such a bad idea. I haven't been feeling
well so I, I wanted to put it down in writing so that I'd be sure to try to get my point
across here well enough. Um, I'm one of the Council Members who expressed an
interest in uh acquiring open space for the City of Atascadero. Um to me it, it's kind of
um, it's extremely sad to see a lot of staff time and effort uh put into something that is so
far from what l was looking for, so far from what I would support and especially being
someone who was asking for acquisition of open space to see it presented in such a
way that it really um doesn't look like a good idea at all. While um the environmental
review for the transfer of eight development credits from Pine Mountain to other areas in
the city might look good, no original environmental review has taken place for the
creation of the additional seven development credits that are being associated with the
Pine Mountain property for this deal. The Pine Mountain parcel is currently one
buildable lot, no environmental review process has transpired nor has any rezoning or
lot splits taken place toward the creation of eight buildable lots. We are not dealing with
eight outrageous Colony lots, uh a map from 1966 and the, the lot is exactly the same
thing, there are no extra entitlements here that we could look back on and say he can
build eight homes there or eleven homes or whatever the number be. We don't have to
say that he's entitled to eight lots, no matter how absurd. There is no reason why those
building rights must be associated with the parcel. In fact, this is precisely an area that
the consultants omitted from the General Plan setting because it is not conducive to
development and during the study process this area, including that lot, was left off. It's
not conducive to development under our General Plan guidelines. The entire Negative
Declaration for this proposal was based on eight development rights, seven of which
don't exist. A lot of times I have, there are fellow members on the City Council here who
refer to almost anything that increases density as smart, smart growth. The word is
abused so much and another word always comes to my mind and in my family it's
considered a bad word, so I'm going to just say that this is not smart and point out the
reasons why I believe this is not smart. The Pine Mountain parcel, first of all, accepting
that the person that you are bargaining with is offering eight times as much as they
actually are, this is not smart. The second thing that isn't smart, Coromar. We have
another general plan amendment request, requesting a change from commercial to
residential. Giving up commercial property that has the potential to pay retail taxes into
the city for conversion to housing, which sucks money out of the city in services and
turns money over to the state in property taxes, this is not smart. This commercial
location is right at an exit from the freeway. It would be a prime location for a restaurant
like an Olive Garden or a Red Lobster, with a shopping mall across Portola. But how
can desirable companies like that come in and compete with the select few who are
allowed to change the rules as they please to maximize their profits. It is impossible
and risky. Furthermore, this general plan amendment will encourage additional costly
Excerpt of 030904 CC Meeting
Page 22 of 30
112
changes from commercial to residential. The third thing that is not smart on Ferrocaril,
locating additional housing density at the outskirts of town over the railroad tracks, far
from amenities requiring more travel and more traffic, and rewarding a developer who's
blatant violations have provoked complaints precisely in this location that we have heard
tonight. The four, the fourth thing I crossed out, I changed my mind on that one. This
arrangement for the swap of property and development rights is at an inflated price. It
will degrade the city as a whole and indebt the city to continue to pay for this purchase
for eternity. The city gets one residential lot and the applicants, with Coromar included,
get 24 lot sites to build homes that do not currently exist. I do not believe that it would
be smart, I do believe that it would be smart to preserve the parcel and as I said before,
I am one of the Council Members who thought that we should develop an open space
acquisition program. But this is not a proposal that staff has dreamed up, it is certainly
not what I had in mind, it is divisive and it is degrading and costly. It will appeal to those
who are always happy to see an increase in housing density, no matter what the cost to
the city. Thank you:
Mayor Luna
Thank you. Um Mayor Pro Tem Scalise.
Mayor Pro Tem Scalise
Thank you Mayor Luna and I'd like to just thank you and uh Councilman O'Malley for
your... (loud tone is heard on tape):
Mayor Luna
You're welcome.
Mayor Pro Tem Scalise
Yeah, one more time, um I do know that this has been um a labor of love, because you
you've tried to do something that is really a benefit to everybody in this community and
save Pine Mountain. That was certainly something that came up, the reason it was left
out in the General Plan is because we saw that and .uh and saw that in the future as an
area that we wanted to uh save for the city. There was certainly complete consensus at
that time that that was um something that was the little jewel in Atascadero that needed
to be saved, and so we've come a long way from that vision and now to actuality, and
so I commend you both for meeting, and with staff, I thank you. So um, it is a good
project, and um nice that the Johnson's were able to piggyback, that saved them a lot of
time and energy, so, I thank staff for putting that together.
Mayor Luna
Council Member O'Malley.
Council Member O'Malley
Thank you, and there were two points Councilwoman Pacas mentioned that 1, in away I
agree with. Uh she mentioned that uh there is a problem converting commercial to
residential; now that is an area we're looking at. I do think though just as she
mentioned, uh the Pine Mountain parcel has been the way it is for a long time, uh while.
Excerpt of 030904 CC Meeting
Page 23 of 30
113
•
uh the commercial corner's been there the same amount of time, a long time and
nothing has happened, so uh I think that's one reason we're, we're lookin' at that area to
maybe do somethin' different. Um, mentioned the word costly, 1 guess that's what
stimulated me to work so hard on this because my dream for Atascadero is to acquire
open space, preferably at no cost for the city and, and I think that's what we've
accomplished here. I, I was actually proud to be uh appointed on this committee, uh,
with uh, Mayor Luna by then Mayor Clay because um I, 1 took this serious as I do many
projects. But I put a lot of time into researching this; I think we uh put to work all of
Mayor Luna's degrees in mathematics and mine in economics. It is a very complex uh
problem we tackled and it, there are a lot of things, and I did a lot of research with um
uh folks around the state and a .lot of folks in San Luis. Uh surprisingly most of the folks
I worked with out of our area were environmentalists who were pretty excited about
what we had accomplished. Uh, and 1, and I learned from them. I do think, and l don't
want to loose sight of the goal, we are acquiring 28 acres um and not only preventing
development, but this will be open space. It will be added to what we already own,
Stadium Park, and I think that's just a, a great accomplishment. I think, you know, our
committee wanted to address um other concerns of the Council and 1, I know we uh
worked hard on that. We did start out with a request from the applicant for 40 transfer
credits. Um we, we researched it, had staff look at this, I believe in an unbiased
approach and they decided that the maximum was, was 11, uh we worked down to
where we agreed on to eight and uh when we looked at these ah projects as a nexus of
several projects, it could have been considered individually, but as in this one case with
this one woman, that, that stated, you know, her project just, it would, it would be a
great cost for one individual to process this. Uh we were able to incorporate several
projects that would have been approved individually, but there was some economy of
scale of, of lookin' at 'em together, and, and in most cases I think a goal that, that I, 1
believe I support from Councilwoman Pacas is to raise our consciousness about
neighborhoods. One thing we really did direct the applicant's to do is you've got to work
with neighborhoods. There's a number of times um Mayor Luna and I directed folks to
go back and work a little harder on some of these things. Um, I probably would of uh, I
was probably so excited to add the 28 acres adjoining Pine Mountain I probably would
of gone for a, a less good of a deal, but I stuck with my partner um Mayor Luna who
kept holdin' out for more and I was always surprised what he could get away with. Uh
we gave up ah -second units on some parcels that uh normally we would allow that, um
Councilman Clay added some more affordable workforce housing tonight, I'm surprised,
but that's good I think we, it is a good deal for the community. I'm especially pleased
that, I haven't heard a lot of um, there's some problems with Ferrocaril that, that have
got to be fixed from another project and I do think um this project will be looked at very
carefully in two weeks if that problem isn't resolved, but, you know, the other neighbors
aren't complaining with the, the new uh projects being considered associated with. We
did a good job getting' a lot of sewer for some neighborhoods that had some problems.
Uh, you know,. neighborhoods were benefited by this, so, I, 1 .look for the nexus to the
whole project. Yes, I understand that it's very complex, but we, we accomplished
something that a lot of cities that I've talked to around the state uh covet, and, and that
we were able to put together a, a complex project like this for the benefit of I believe for
the whole community. So I'm, I guess I feel very strongly, probably as passionately as
Excerpt of 030904 CC Meeting
Page 24 of 30
114
Councilwoman Pacas feels that, you know, we worked hard for this. I think it's good for
the community and I wholeheartedly support this. 0
Mayor Luna
Council Member Clay.
Council Member Clay
Yeah, I just, I have a, a question of staff. Uh you mentioned the fact that usually uh
when uh development transfer credits are transferred that the ownership stays with the
person and if it did stay with the person that transferred the credits why they could do
things like shut out the public, uh they could uh, uh, they make it a private area or
something on that order, is that not right Warren?
Mr. Frace
Well, if it remained as private property the development agreement would restrict its use
so it, it would have to be open space. You couldn't develop it in any way, but as private
property you could restrict access to it so it wouldn't be available for public access;
that's the main benefit of this city acquiring it, is we can choose how to develop it tc
maximize use and enjoyment.
Council Member Clay
I think it's a great uh spot for, for trails to connect the whole group. Uh in lookin' at the
positives, I think uh the sewer situation on Colima is a positive thing. Uh the uh the 24
homes, you know, I, I'm gonna go back to, we had an ethics meeting today with the
Chamber and young high school students and one of the concerns at our table was uh
whether these kids were gonna be able to stay in our town and uh, uh whether they'd be
able to ever have housing or ever afford a house and certainly uh, uh, you know the 24
homes will not be considered trophy homes, I, 1 could care less about trophy homes
myself. I'm interested in workforce housing, I'm interested in homes that, that uh, you
know, our people here, our workforce can, can handle, and I think that's part of it and
certainly those kids this morning brought that out. So the other thing is, I would since it
was Tom and George that uh, that negotiated this I'd like to see the motion and second
come from those two and then we go from there.
Mayor Luna
Well, I, 1 think it's my turn. I had struggled with this for probably ten months, maybe
more than that and the prize is really, as far as I'm concerned, is the open space on
Pine Mountain. It is strategically placed. Uh you have Stadium Park, you have 17
acres of uh city -owned open space already, you have the Water Company property.
There are a few homes up on Pine Mountain, but uh, but for the most part it's in public
ownership. So getting this piece of property assures that the property will stay in public
ownership and not be developed um and just as an aside, I, 1 have heard many people
say that it's not developable, its steep, whatever, well, I know, I know better. I've seen,
all you have to do is, you can drive around Atascadero, much less some of the places in
Los Angeles and see that you can pretty much build anywhere uh if you can afford the
engineering, and, and uh and willing to go through the, the uh construction costs. Uh as
Excerpt of 030904 CC Meeting
Page 25 of 30
115
•
you saw when we were talking about um the legal agreement with ECOSLO, um this
city has really never turned down a development. I mean it's pretty much any...(tape
ended on side A) (Side B begins) ...turned down unless somebody steps down and it's a
two to two uh vote. I can't remember any project being turned down on a three to two
vote. That's the difficulty that I find here, because I can assure you that uh if this deal
does not go through, that these projects will be back, maybe they'll be even denser than
they actually are, but uh these are identified places where development is gonna take
place and it only takes three votes up here to uh to approve uh such a development.
Most of the time I'm not one of them, but in this particular case, I can see that uh for the
community uh the 28 acres on Pine Mountain strategically placed is, I think, a
community benefit that, that I don't want to loose um because um, uh, because uh this,
this project did not go through. So 1, I'm going to support this and um even though this
is a very clumsy, ugly and probably the kind of process that I will never deal with again, I
can never support this kind of a process again because it is confusing and um and so I
will support this one, but um it's probably gonna be the last. So with that, um
Councilman O'Malley, a motion.
Council Member O'Malley
I don't know if we have it up to put up on the board, but I, 1 would move uh staff's
recommendation if that's uh Warren you have uh...
Mr. Frace
I, just to um clarify, there was a discussion earlier in um the meeting about amending
the conditions on the affordable housing to move all the affordable units to the Coromar
site. If you want to make that change, we need to amend, one, two, three, four, five
separate resolutions and conditions, so I could give those to you right now so you'd
know which resolutions to make those changes into, or whatever the Council pleases.
Council Member O'Malley
I think there's consensus to accept that.
Mayor Luna
I certainly accept that. What about uh,
uh, uh from construction from Ferrocaril?
Council Member Clay
Let's deal with that in two weeks.
uh some kind of mitigation for the gate locked
Council Member O'Malley
Right I thought Councilwoman Pacas was gonna join in on that, but maybe...
Council Member Pacas -
I, I'm not supporting this, but this is something that you should put in your mitigation
tonight, not at second reading.
Excerpt of 030904 CC Meeting
Page 26 of 30
116
Mayor Luna
Let's do it tonight, what does it hurt?
Council Member Clay
We'll have another opportunity in my opinion if uh, if uh...
Mayor Luna
He's already said he'll do it.
Council Member O'Malley
I'd support it.
Mayor Luna
Okay, let's hear from the City Attorney on that, you understand what we're talking about
as far as the...
City Attorney Roy Hanley
Yes, I just wanted to chime a little bit, the ordinances will be coming back for second
reading um, the resolutions do not have to. So we would not have the ability to change
um conditions that are not part of ordinances, so if that's something you wanted to do,
you would have to do that tonight. You would not have the opportunity to do that on
second reading.
Mayor Luna
Let's do that tonight.
Council Member O'Malley
Okay, I'll support staff's recommendation with the modification um what's required to
implement Councilman Clay's modification and to include Councilwoman Paca's
mitigation request.
Council Member Clay
Uh, is it mitigation or just...
Mayor Luna
It's an attached condition.
Council Member O'Malley
Okay, it's a condition. Would you like to state...
Mayor Luna
Wanna clarify that Councilwoman Pacas?
Council Member Pacas
Kelly what did you agree to as far as the construction, you said it, you wouldn't take it
through the gate? Could you put that in your words?
Excerpt of 030904 CC Meeting
Page 27 of 30
117
Mr. Gearhart
Uh, uh I'm not gonna allow any construction beyond the, I guess the gate that's there
now. There's actually agate that's there now, it just needs to be locked. There. won't be
any construction in the Phase II of the De Anza tract um, (unintelligible voice in
background) right.
Council Member Clay
Is that...
Council Member O'Malley
Beyond March 12t ,, t�riday?
Mr. Gearhart
Right, so no construction will be goin' down that uh drive, uh road, to my property, let's
put it that way.
Council Member Clay
Well let's clarify that, that's just through Ferrocaril, right?
Mr., Gearhart
Right.
Council Member Clay
If you find another route...
Mr. Gearhart
Right.
Council Member Clay
Okay, is that all right?
Council Member O'Malley
Right. Uh do you have all components of that motion as modified?
Mr. McKinney
So we understand Mr. Gearhart, it will be uh that no construction traffic for Phase II will
be allowed beyond the emergency gate toward Ferrocaril.
Council Member Clay
Get a date on that.
Mr. McKinney
As of Friday, March 12t"
•
Excerpt of 030904 CC Meeting
Page 28 of 30
118
Council Member Pacas
With the gate locked.
Mr. Gearhart
Yeah, you can call me Kelly too, Wade, that's all right.
Mr. McKinney
Thank you.
Council Member O'Malley
We'll call you a lot of things if you don't have that gate locked by Friday.
Mayor Luna
We won't have to.
Council Member Clay
How about those five conditions Warren? Do we need that clarified?
Mr. Frace
Yep. Okay, the conditions to amend regarding the affordable housing would be on
action number seven that's Resolution D, page 131, Condition 11 currently states three
affordable units, you want that to state five units.
Mayor Luna
And what about the in -lieu fees?
Mr. Frace
I'm gonna go through all of them, they're all combined. So that's item seven. Then on
item eight, page 162, Condition eight, you want to amend that also to read five units
rather than three units. Then on item 10, that's the Colima site, page 190, Condition six,
that condition should just be dropped altogether, that's the requirement for the in -lieu
fees. Then on page 209, which is item number 11, Condition number 11, you should
drop that condition altogether. And on Item 12, that's the Ferrocaril map, page 234,
Condition six, you should drop that condition altogether. Then the Ferrocaril access
condition that we want to add should be added to Resolution H, with the text as read
back by the City Manager.
Council Member O'Malley
I again so move.
Mayor Luna
I'll second it.
Council Member Clay
Call for the question.
Excerpt of 030904 CC Meeting
Page 29 of 30
119
•
•
10
Mayor Luna
Let's have discussion first, any discussion? Okay, call the question.
Deputy City Clerk Grace Pucci
Council Member O'Malley.
Council Member O'Malley
Yes.
Ms. Pucci
Council Member Pacas.
Council Member Pacas
No.
Ms. Pucci
Council Member Clay.
Council Member Clay
Yes.
Ms. Pucci
Mayor Pro Tem Scalise.
Mayor Pro Tem Scalise
Aye.
Ms. Pucci
Mayor Luna.
Mayor Luna
Yes.
Ms. Pucci
Four, one, motion passes.
Mayor Luna
Okay.
EXCERPT OF MINUTES PREPARED BY:
10 Grace Pucci, Deputy City Clerk
Excerpt of 030904 CC Meeting
Page 30 of 30
120
ATTACHMENT C •
Tentative Tract Map 2003-0042
Colima Avenue Site
RESOLUTION F
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO APPROVING
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 2003-0042,
A FIVE -LOT MAP CONSISTENT WITH A PD -21 OVERLAY ZONE
OF APN 49-163-013 AND 49-163-015
(3680, 3700 Colima Avenue /Gearhart)
WHEREAS, an application has been received from Kelly Gearhart (6205 Alcantara
Avenue, Atascadero, CA 93422), Applicant and Property Owner to consider a project
consisting of a zone change from RSF-Y (Residential Single -Family -Y) to RSF-Y / PD -21
(Residential Single -Family -Y with Planned Development Overlay #21) with the adoption of
a Master Plan of Development, and a five -lot residential Tentative Parcel Map on APN 049-
163-013 AND 049-163-015 and,
WHEREAS an Initial Stud and Draft Mitigated -
Study g Negative Declaration 2003 0069
were prepared for the project and made available for public review in accordance with the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended that the site's General Plan
designation be amended from SE (Suburban Estate) to SFR -Y (Single -Family Residential -
Y); and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended that the site be rezoned to
from RS (Residential Suburban) to.RSF-Y (Residential Single Family -Y) and to include a .
PD -21 overlay for a five lot subdivision with one lot less than the one -acre minimum lot size;
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,
WHEREAS, a timely and properly noticed Public Hearing upon the subject Tentative
Tract Map 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 application; and,
121
•
.7
0 NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council takes the following actions:
Section 1. Findings of Approval for Tentative Tract Map, the City Council of the
City of Atascadero finds as follows:
1. The proposed subdivision, as conditioned, is consistent with the General Plan and
applicable zoning requirements.
2. The design and improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the
General Plan and applicable zoning requirements.
3. The proposed subdivision, as conditioned, is consistent with the proposed Planned
Development Overlay District #21 (ZCH 2003-0076).
4. The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed.
5. The site is physically suitable for the density of development proposed.
6. The design and improvement of the proposed subdivision will not cause substantial
environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish and wildlife or
their habitat.
7. The design of the subdivision will not conflict with easements acquired by the public
at large for access through, or the use of property within, the proposed subdivision; or
substantially equivalent alternative easements are provided.
8. Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's) shall be required that incorporate
the planned development conditions of approval to ensure that the site retains the
qualities (architecture, colors, materials, street amenities, fencing, and landscaping)
over time.
9. The proposedsubdivision design and type of improvements proposed will not be
detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of the general public.
SECTION 2. Recommendation of Approval. The City Council of the City of
Atascadero, in a regular session assembled on March 9, 2004, resolves to approve Vesting
Tentative Tract Map (TTM 2003-0042) subject to the following:
Exhibit A: Vesting Tentative Tract Map 2003-0042
Exhibit B: TTM 2003-0042 Grading & Drainage Plan
Exhibit C: TTM 2003-0042 Utility Plan
Exhibit D: Conditions of Approval / Mitigation Monitoring Program.
122
On motion by Council Member and seconded by Council Member
the foregoing Resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety by the following roll call
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ADOPTED:
CITY OF ATASCADERO
Bv:
ATTEST:
Marcia McClure Torgerson, C.M.C., City Clerk-
APPROVED
lerkAPPROVED AS TO FORM:
Roy A. Hanley, City Attorney
123
George Luna, Mayor
01
01
*I
10
10
I*
Exhibit A: Resolution F
Tentative Tract Map 2003-0042
Colima Avenue Tract Map
i
-i
124
Exhibit B: Resolution F
Tentative Tract Map 2003-0042
Colima Avenue Grading & Drainage Plan
125
•
•
C7
•
•
Exhibit C: Resolution F
Tentative Tract Map 2003-0042
Colima Avenue Utility Plan
126
Exhibit D: Resolution IF
Tentative Tract Map 2003-0042
Conditions of Approval / Mitigation Monitoring Program
Colima Avenue Site
Conditions of Approval /
Timing
Responsibility
Mitigation
Mitigation Monitoring Program
IMonitoring
Measure
PS: Planning Services
BL: Busiress License
BS: Building Services
COLIMA ROAD TTM
G� Grading Pernd
F0: Fre Deparin ant
BP: Building Perml
PD: Police Department
Fl: Final Inspection
CE: City Engineer
Exhibit D
TO: Temporary Occupancy
Fa.FrdO=pancy
WW: Wasteveler
CA CityAtomey
Mitigation Monitoring, Program
Pine Mountain Transfer of Development Rights (GPA 2003-
0009/ZCH 2003-00732CH 2003-00722CH 2003-00742CH
2003-0076/CUP 2003-0120/7TM 2003-0041/TTM 2003-
0042/CUP 2002-0067/TTM 2003-0045).
8825, 8955 Coromar Avenue, 3680 & 3700 Colima Road,
Ferrocaril Road — De Anza Estates, Pine Mountain
Planning Services
1. The approval of this zone change and use permit shall
BP
PS
become final and effective following City Council
approval.
2. In the event of any encroachment under the canopy of
BP
PS
the one native oak tree, an arborist report with
preservation recommendations shall be completed prior
to building permit issuance.
3. The Community Development Department shall have the
BP / FM
PS
authority to approve the following minor changes to the
project the (1) modify the site plan project by less than
10%, (2) result in a superior site design or appearance,
and/or (3) address a construction design issue that is not
substantive to the Tentative Map. The Planning
Commission shall have the final authority to approve any
other changes to the Tentative Map.
4. The Tentative Tract Map and subsequent construction
BP / FM
PS
permits shall be consistent with Exhibits A, B and C
contained herein.
5. All site development shall be consistent with the
BP/FM
PS
maximum intensities described in the statistical project
summary as shown on Exhibit A.
fQA hARACI QR r4 0
FM,13PJas,
Ge
7. Affordable Workforce Housing
FM, BP
PS, CE
Prior to recordation of final map, the applicant shall enter
127
1 ]
•
•
•
r�
Conditions of Approval /
Timing
Responsibility
Mitigation
Mitigation Monitoring Program
/Monitoring
Measure
PS: Planning Services
BL Bumoss License
BS: Building Service
COLIMA ROAD TTM
GR GradingPemiil
FD: FireDepardnent
BP: Building Penn!
PD: Police Depadment
Fl: Final Inspection
CE City Engineer
Exhibit D
Fo Fme�occupupa�ncyy
CWancy ACilyAtbm�
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Pine Mountain Transfer of Development Rights (GPA 2003-
0009/ZCH 2003-00732CH 2003-0072/ZCH 2003-0074/ZCH
2003-0076/CUP 2003-0120/TTM 2003-0041/TTM 2003-
0042/CUP 2002-0067/TTM 2003-0045).
8825, 8955 Coromar Avenue, 3680 & 3700 Colima Road,
Ferrocaril Road — De Anza Estates, Pine Mountain
into a legal agreement with the City to reserve 1/2 of the
units for sale to residents or workers within the City of
Atascadero, including the affordable units. The
agreement shall include the following provisions:
a. The units shall be offered for sale to residents or
workers within the City of Atascadero for minimum
of 60 -days. During this time period offers may only
be accepted from Atascadero residents or workers;
b. The applicant shall provide reasonable proof to the
City that at least one of the qualified buyers is a
resident or worker within the City Limits of
Atascadero;
c. The Atascadero resident or worker restriction shall
apply to the initial sale only;
d. The applicant shall identify which units will be
reserved; and
The City Attorney shall approve the final form of the
agreement.
Building Services
8. A soils investigation prepared by a licensed
BP
FM
Geotechnical Engineer is to be provided for the
project. The report is to be provided at the time of
building permit submittal along with the building plans
for review by the Building Division. Recommendations
contained in the report are to be incorporated into the
project plans.
Fire Marshal
9. Provide a letter from the Atascadero Mutual Water
BP
BS
Company stating the minimum expected water
available to the site. Amount available must meet min.
requirement specified in the California Fire Code.
10. Note approved address signage is to be provided.
BP
BS
11. Note on plans that fire lanes shall be delineated to
BP
BS
restrict parking as required by the Fire Authority.
City Engineer
Standard Conditions
128
Conditions of Approval /
Timing
Responsibility
Mitigation
Mitigation Monitoring Program
/Monitoring
Measure
PS: Planning Services
COLIMA ROAD TTM
BL: Business License
GP: Grading Pemet
BS: Building Services
FD: Fire Depadrnent
BP: Building Pemd
PD: Police Department
FI: Final Irspectbn
CE City Engineer
Exhibit D
o:F
cCA:C�aaiom�
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Pine Mountain Transfer of Development Rights (GPA 2003-
0009/ZCH 2003-0073/ZCH 2003-00722CH 2003-0074/ZCH
2003-0076/CUP 2003-01201TTM 2003-004111TM 2003-
0042/CUP 2002-006757M 2003-0045).
8825, 8955 Coromar Avenue, 3680 & 3700 Colima Road,
Ferrocaril Road — De Anza Estates, Pine Mountain
Drainage:
12. In the event that the applicant bonds for the public
FM
CE
improvements required as a condition of this map, the
applicant shall enter into a Subdivision Improvement
Agreement with the City Council.
13. An engineers estimate of probable cost shall be
FM
CE
submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer
to determine the amount of the bond.
14. The Subdivision Improvement Agreement shall record
FM
CE
concurrently with the Final Map.
15. The applicant shall enter into a Plan Check/inspection
GP, BP
CE
agreement with the City.
16. A six (6) foot Public Utility Easement (PUE) shall be
FM
CE
provided contiguous to the property frontage.
17. The applicant shall acquire title interest in any off-site
FM
CE
land that may be required to allow for the construction
of the improvements. The applicant shall bear all costs
associated with the necessary acquisitions. The
applicant shall also gain concurrence from all adjacent
property owners whose ingress and egress is affected
by these improvements.
18. Slope easements shall be obtained by the applicant as
GP, BP
CE
needed to accommodate cut or fill slopes.
19. Drainage easements shall be obtained by the applicant
GP, BP
CE
as needed to accommodate both public and private
drainage facilities.
20. A preliminary subdivision guarantee shall be submitted
FM
CE
for review in conjunction with the processing of the
tract map.
21. The final map shall be signed by the City Engineer
FM
CE
prior to the map being placed on the agenda for City
Council acceptance.
22. Prior to recording the tract map, the applicant shall pay
PM
CE
all outstanding plan check/inspection fees.
23. Prior to recording the map, the applicant shall bond for
FM
CE
or complete all improvements required by these
conditions of approval.
129
•
•
•
•
•
•
Conditions of Approval /
Timing
Responsibility
Mitigation
Mitigation Monitoring Program
/Monitoring
Measure
PS: Planning Services
BL: Business License
BS: Building Services
COLIMA ROAD TTM
GP: Grading Permit
FD: Fire Department
BP: Building Pemd
PD: Police Department
FI: Feral Inspection
CE Cly Engineer
Exhibit D
Fo Temporary Occupancy
cac Amey
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Pine Mountain Transfer of Development Rights (GPA 2003-
0009/ZCH 2003-00732CH 2003-0072/2CH 2003-00742CH
2003-0076/CUP 2003-0120/TTM 2003-0041/TTM 2003-
0042/CUP 2002-00675TM 2003-0045).
8825, 8955 Coromar Avenue, 3680 & 3700 Colima Road,
Ferrocaril Road — De Anza Estates, Pine Mountain
24. Prior to recording the tract map, the applicant shall
FM
CE
bond for or set monuments at all new property corners.
A registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor
shall indicate by certificate on the parcel map, that
corners have been set or shall be set by a date
specific and that they will be sufficient to enable the
survey to be retraced.
25. Prior to recording the tract map, the applicant shall
FM
CE
submit a map drawn in substantial conformance with
the approved tentative map and in compliance with all
conditions set forth herein. The map shall be submitted
for review and approval by the City in accordance with
the Subdivision Map Act and the City's Subdivision
Ordinance.
26. All existing and proposed utility, pipeline, open space,
FM
CE
or other easements are to be shown on the final/parcel
map. If there are building or other restrictions related
to the easements, they shall be noted on the
final/parcel map. The applicant shall show all access
restrictions on the final/parcel map.
27. Prior to recording the tract map, the applicant shall
FM
CE
have the map reviewed by all applicable public and
private utility companies (cable, telephone, gas,
electric, Atascadero Mutual Water Company). The
applicant shall obtain a letter from each utility company
indicating their review of the map. The letter shall
identify any new easements that may be required by
the utility company. A copy of the letter shall be
submitted to the City. New easements shall be shown
on the parcel map.
28. Prior to the issuance of building permits the applicant
GP, BP
CE
shall submit plans and supporting calculations/reports
including street improvements, underground utilities,
composite utilities, and grading/drainage plans
prepared by a registered civil engineer for review and
approval by the City Engineer.
29. The applicant must provide for the maintenance of on-
FM
CE
site shared improvements. This includes roads,
sidewalks, street trees, streetlights, drainage facilities,
sewer, recreation areas and common landscaping. The
two methods that may be used are:
a. Homeowners Association. This private organization
would be responsible for the maintenance, repair and
replacement of the facilities.
130
Conditions of Approval /
Timing
Responsibility
Mitigation
Mitigation Monitoring Program
!Monitoring
Measure
PS: Plane g Services
BL: Business License
BS: Building Services
COLIMA ROAD TTM
GP. Grading Pemel
FD: Fee Deparhmnt
BF. Building Pem1t
PD: Police Department
Fl: Final Inspecton
CE: Cily Fnginwr
Exhibit D
TO: Temporary Occipancy
FO: Final Occupancy
WW: Wastewater
CA CityNtomey
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Pine Mountain Transfer of Development Rights (GPA 2003-
0009/ZCH 2003-00732CH 2003-00722CH 2003-00742CH
2003-0076/CUP 2003-0120/TTM 2003-0041/TTM 2003-
0042/CUP 2002-0067/TTM 2003-0045).
8825, 8955 Coromar Avenue; 3680 & 3700 Colima Road,
Ferrocaril Road — De Anza Estates, Pine Mountain
b. Assessment District and Landscape and Lighting
District. Funds for the maintenance, repair and
replacement of the facilities would be collected on the
property tax bill and distributed to the City.
City Engineer
Site Specific Conditions
Drainage:
GP, BP
CE
30. Provide for the detention of the 50 year developed
storm runoff, while metering out the 2 year
undeveloped storm runoff.
31. Drainage basins shall be designed to desilt, detain and
GP, BP
CE
meter storm flows as well as release them to natural
runoff locations.
32. The drainage basins shall be landscaped with native
GP, BP
CE
plantings.
33. A mechanism for funding and maintenance of the
GP, BP
CE
storm drain facilities shall be provided.
34. Show the method of dispersal at all pipe outlets.
GP, BP
CE
Include specifications for size & type.
35. Show method of conduct to approved off-site drainage
GP, BP
CE
facilities.
36. Concentrated drainage from off-site areas shall be
GP, BP
CE
conveyed across the project site in drainage
easements. Acquire drainage easements where
needed. Drainage shall cross lot lines only where a
drainage easement has been provided. If drainage
easement cannot be obtained the storm water release
must follow the exact historic path, rate and velocity as
prior to the subdivision.
37. Applicant shall submit erosion control plans and a
GP, BP
CE
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The
Regional Water Quality Control Board shall approve
the SWPPP.
Colima Sight Distance Condition
GP, BP
CE
38. Applicant shall locate private street entrance as
necessary to meet minimum sight distance
requirements. Final alignment shall be approved by
the City Engineer.
Public Improvements
131
J
•
•
•
•
Conditions of Approval /
Timing
Responsibility
Mitigation
Mitigation Monitoring Program
/Monitoring
Measure
PS: Planning Services
BL: Business License
BS: Building Services
COLIMA ROAD TTM
GP: GradingPennli
FD: FireDepamrent
BP: Building Permit
PD: Police DepaMient
FI: Final Urspection
CE: City Engineer
Exhibit D
FO:FinalO "paw ncy
acVnnomey
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Pine Mountain Transfer of Development Rights (GPA 2003-
0009/ZCH 2003-0073/ZCH 2003-00722CH 2003-0074/ZCH
2003-0076/CUP 2003-0120/TTM 2003-0041/TTM 2003-
0042/CUP 2002-0067/TTM 2003-0045).
8825, 8955 Coromar Avenue, 3680 & 3700 Colima Road,
Ferrocaril Road — De Anza Estates, Pine Mountain
39. Prior to recording the final map, provisions for the
FM
CE
repair and maintenance of the paving of the private
road shall be included in the CC&R's for this tract.
Included shall be a mechanism to maintain the private
street, private sewer, and drainage swale and
structures, such as a homeowners association. The
City Engineer and City Attorney shall approve the final
form prior to recordation
40. The applicant shall enter a Subdivision Improvement
FM
CE
Agreement with the City of Atascadero prior to
recording the final map.
41. All public improvements shall be constructed in
GP, BP
CE
conformance with the City of Atascadero Engineering
Department Standard Specifications and Drawings or
as directed by the City Engineer
Wastewater
42: The Public Works Department shall approve all
GP, BP
WW
wastewater facilities prior to construction. This includes
pumps, force mains, cleanouts, manholes and
connections.
43. Gravity mains and other sewer facilities within the
GP, BP
WW
subdivision shall be privately owned and maintained.
44. Gravity mains within the subdivision shall be eight (8)
GP, BP
WW
inches in diameter.
Colima
45. Sewer main shall extend along the Colima Avenue
GP, BP
CE
frontage and to all on-site and all off-site locations
identified on Exhibit C. The City Engineer shall approve
the final design of the sewer. The applicant shall submit
a map showing the extents of possible service.
Atascadero Mutual Water Company
46. Before recordation of the final map, the applicant shall
BP
BS
submit plans to AMWC for the water distribution
facilities needed to serve the project. AMWC shall
review and approve the plans before construction
begins on the waters stem improvements. All new
132
Conditions of Approval I
Timing
Responsibility
Mitigation
Mitigation Monitoring Program
/Monitoring
Measure
PS: Planning Services
BL: Business License
BS: Building Services
COLIMA ROAD TTM
GP. GradingPemdl
FD: FireDepanment
BP: Briding Permit
PD: Police Department
FI: Fatal MpwfiDn
CE: City Engineer
Exhibit D
FO:F� n
ter
QkCia arom
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Pine Mountain Transfer of Development Rights (GPA 2003-
0009/ZCH 2003-0073/ZCH 2003-0072/ZCH 2003-0074/ZCH
2003-0076/CUP 2003-01205TM 2003-0041/TTM 2003-
0042/CUP 2002-00675TM 2003-0045).
8825, 8955 Coromar Avenue, 3680 & 3700 Colima Road,
Ferrocaril Road — De Anza Estates, Pine Mountain
water distribution facilities shall be constructed in
conformance with AMWC Standards and Details and
the California Waterworks Standards (Code of
Regulations Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 16).. All
cross-connection devices shall conform to AWWA and
California Department of Health Services standards.
47. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant
BP
BS
shall obtain a "Will Serve" letter from the Atascadero
Mutual Water Company for the newly created lots.
48. Before the start of construction on the water system
BP
BS
improvements, the applicant shall pay all installation
and connection fees required by AMWC. Subject to
the approval of AMWC, the applicant may enter in to a
"deferred connection" agreement.
49. All water distribution facilities shall be constructed in
BP
BS
conformance with Atascadero Mutual Water Company
standards, policies and approved procedures. All
cross-connection devices shall be constructed in
conformance with AWWA and Department of Health
Services standards.
50. Before the issuance of building or permits, the
BP
BS
applicant shall provide AMWC with easements for
those water facilities proposed for operation and
maintenance by AMWC that are constructed outside of
publicly maintained right-of-ways. AMWC shall review
the form and content of the easements before
recordation.
51. The FequiFed to Gewe the prejegt shall be
BP
BS
52. The Applicant shall submit a hydraulic analysis with
BP
BS
the first plan check submittal of the water system
improvements for the project. The analysis should
take into account the fire flows required by the Uniform
Fire Code and requirements of the California
Waterworks Standards. The Analysis should identify
any offsite improvements that may be required.
53. The applicant is responsible for designing and
BP
BS
constructing water system improvements that will
provide water at pressures and flows adequate for the
domestic and fire protection needs of the project.
133
•
•
•
•
•
•
Conditions of Approval /
riming
Responsibility
Mitigation
Mitigation Monitoring Program
/Monitoring
Measure
PS: Planning ssvices
SL Business License
BS: Building Services
COLIMA ROAD TTM
GP: Grading Perms
BP: Building Perm t
FD: Fire Department
PD: Police Department
FI: Final Inspection
CE Co Engineer
Exhibit D
Fo:F n ncy
ader
cacavAM
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Pine Mountain Transfer of Development Rights (GPA 2003-
00092CH 2003-00732CH 2003-0072/ZCH 2003-00742CH
2003-0076/CUP 2003-0120[TTM 2003-004lfTfM 2003-
0042/CUP 2002-0067/TTM 2003-0045).
8825, 8955 Coromar Avenue, 3680 & 3700 Colima Road,
Ferrocaril Road — De Anza Estates, Pine Mountain
54. Lots 1, 2, 3 & 4 of proposed TTM 2003-0041 shall be
BP
BS
served from existing water main on Portola Road.
Mitigation Measure 1.d.1: All lighting shall be designed to
BP
BS, PS, CE
1.d.1
eliminate any off site glare. All exterior site lights shall utilize full
cut-off, "hooded" lighting fixtures to prevent offsite light spillage
and glare.
Mitigation Measure 3.b.1: The project shall be conditioned to
BP; GP
BS, PS, CE
3.b.1
comply with all applicable District regulations pertaining to the
control of fugitive dust (PM -10) as contained in sections 6.3, 6.4
and 6.5 of the April 2003 Air Quality Handbook.
Section 6.3: Construction Equipment
■ Maintain all construction equipment in proper tune
according to manufacturer's specifications.
■ Fuel all off-road and portable diesel powered
equipment, including but not limited to bulldozers,
graders, cranes, loaders, scrapers, backhoes,
generator sets, compressors, auxiliary power units,
with ARB certified motor vehicle diesel fuel (Non -
taxed version suitable for use off-road).
■ Maximize to the extent feasible, the use of diesel
construction equipment meeting the ARB's 1996 or
newer certification standard for off-road heavy-duty
diesel engines.
■ Install diesel oxidation catalysts (DOC), catalyzed
diesels particulate filters (CDPF) or other District
approved emission reduction retrofit services
(Required for projects grading more than 4.0 acres
of continuously worked area).
Section 6.4: Activity Management Techniques
• Develop a comprehensive construction activity
management plan designed to minimize the amount
of large construction equipment operating during any
given time period.
■ Schedule of construction truck trips during non -peak
hours to reduce peak hour emissions.
■ Limit the length of the construction workday period, if
necessary.
■ Phase construction activities, if appropriate.
Section 6.5: Fugitive PM10
All of the following measures shall be included on grading,
demolition and building plan notes:
134
Conditions of Approval /
Mitigation Monitoring Program
COLIMA ROAD TTM
Exhibit D
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Pine Mountain Transfer of Development Rights (GPA 2003-
00092CH 2003-0073/ZCH 2003-0072/ZCH 2003-0074/ZCH
2003-0076/CUP 2003-0120/TTM 2003-0041/7TM 2003-
0042/CUP 2002-0067/T'M 2003-0045).
8825, 8955 Coromar Avenue, 3680 & 3700 Colima Road,
Ferrocaril.Road — De Anza Estates, Pine Mountain
Timing
BL Business License
GP: Grading Permit
BP: Building PemO
FI: Final IrspecWn
TO: TerMorary Oa upancy
FO: Final0xupancy
Responsibility
(Monitoring
PS: Planning Services
BS: Buddkq Sewicm
FD: Fre Department
PD: Police Depart nent
CE: City Engineer
WN: Wastewater
CA, CoAltomey
Mitigation
Measure
A Reduce the amount of the disturbed area where
possible.
B Use of water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient
quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the
site. Increased watering frequency would be required
whenever wind speeds exceed 15 mph. Reclaimed
(non -potable) water should be used whenever
possible.
C All dirt stockpile areas should be sprayed daily as
needed.
D Permanent dust control measures identified in the
approved project re -vegetation and landscape plans
should be implemented as soon as possible following
completion of any soil disturbing activities.
E Exposed ground areas that are plann4ed to be
reworked at dates greater than one month after initial
grading should be sown with a fast -germinating native
grass seed and watered until vegetation is established.
F All disturbed soil areas not subject to re -vegetation
should be stabilized using approved chemical soil
binder, jute netting, or other methods approved in
advance by the APCD.
G All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc, to be paved
should be complete as soon as possible. In addition,
building pads should be laid as soon as possible after
grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
H Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not
exceed 15 mph on any unpaved surface at the
construction site.
I All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose
materials are to be covered or should maintain at least
two feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance
between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance
with CVC Section 23114.
J Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit
unpaved roads onto streets, or was off trucks and
equipment leaving the site.
K Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil
material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water
sweepers with reclaimed water should be used where
feasible.
L The contractor or builder shall designate a person or
persons to monitor the dust control program and to
order increased watering, as necessary, to prevent
transport of dust off site.
M The name and telephone number of such persons
135
•
0
•
I*
10
10
Conditions of Approval /
Timing
Responsibility
Mitigation
Mitigation Monitoring Program
/Monitoring
Measure
PS: Planning Services
BL Business Lienee
BS: Building Ser*es
COLIMA ROAD TTM
GP: Grading Pemel
FD: Fire Depadment
BP: Building Permit
PD: Poke Department
FI: Final Inspection
CE City Engineer
Exhibit D
TO: Temporary Occupancy
FO: Final Oxupancy
WW: Wastevaster
CA: CityAttomey
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Pine Mountain Transfer of Development Rights (GPA 2003-
0009/ZCH 2003-0073/ZCH 2003-00722CH 2003-00742CH
2003-0076/CUP 2003-0120/TTM 2003-0041/TTM 2003-
0042/CUP 2002-0067/7TM 2003-0045).
8825, 8955 Coromar Avenue, 3680 & 3700 Colima Road,
Ferrocaril Road - De Anza Estates, Pine Mountain
shall be provided to the APCD prior to land use
clearance for map recordation and land use clearance
for finish grading of any structure.
Mitigation Measure 4.e.l: The building permit site plan shall
BP
PS, BS, CE
identify all protection and enhancement measures
recommended by the Certified Arborist in the Tree Protection
Plan. Tree protection fencing shall be installed at the locations
called out in the Tree Protection Plan.
136
Conditions of Approval /
Mitigation Monitoring Program
COLIMA ROAD TTM
Exhibit D
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Pine Mountain Transfer of Development Rights (GPA 2003-
0009/ZCH 2003-0073/ZCH 2003-00722CH 2003-00742CH
2003-0076/CUP 2003-0120MM 2003-0041MM 2003-
0042/CUP 2002-0067/TTM 2003-0045).
8825, 8955 Coromar Avenue, 3680 & 3700 Colima Road,
Ferrocaril Road — De Anza Estates, Pine Mountain
Timing
BL Business License
GP: Grading Penin
BP: Building Perat
FI: Final Inspection
T0: Temporary Occupancy
FO: FinalO=pancy
Responsibility
/Monitoring
PS: Planning Services
BS: Building Services
FD: Fre Departnsnt
PD: Police Deparbrent
CE Cry Engineer
WW: Wastemter
CACk ftmey
Mitigation
Measure
Mitigation Measure 4.e.2: The developer shall contract with a
BP, GP
PS, BS, CE
4.e.2
certified arborist during all phases of project implementation.
The certified arborists shall be responsible for monitoring the
project during all phases of construction through project
completion, as follows:
(a) A written agreement between the arborist and the
developer outlining a arborist monitoring schedule for each
construction phase through final inspection shall be
submitted to and approved by planning staff prior to the
issuance of building/grading permits.
(b) Arborist shall schedule a pre -construction meeting with
engineering /planning staff, grading equipment operators,
project superintendent to review the project conditions and
requirements prior to any grubbing or earth work for any
portion of the project site. All tree protection fencing and
trunk protection shall be installed for inspection during the
meeting. Tree protection fencing shall be installed at the
line of encroachment into the tree's root zone area unless
otherwise directed by project arborist with city approval.
(c.) As specified by the arborist report and City staff:
• Fencing: The proposed fencing is highlighted in
orange on the grading plan. It must be a minimum
of 4' high chain link, snow or safety fence staked
at the drip line or line of encroachment for each
tree or group of trees. The fence must be up
before any construction or earth moving begins.
The owner shall be responsible for maintaining an
erect fence throughout the construction period.
The arborist(s), upon notification, will inspect the
fence placement once it is erected.
■ Soil Aeration Methods: Soils under the drip -
lines that have been compacted by heavy
equipment and/or construction activities must be
.returned to their original state before all work is
completed. Methods include water jetting, adding
organic matter, and boring small holes with an
auger (18" deep, 2-3' apart with 2-4" auger) and
the application of moderate amounts of nitrogen
fertilizer. The arborist(s) shall advise.
■ Chip Mulch: All areas within the drip -line of the
trees that cannot be fenced shall receive a 4-6"
layer of chip mulch to retain moisture, soil
structure and reduce the effects of soil compaction
137
•
•
8825, 8955 Coromar Avenue, 3680 & 3700 Colima Road,
Ferrocaril Road — De Anza Estates, Pine Mountain
■ Grading Within the Drip -Line: Grading should
not encroach within the drip -line. If grading is
necessary, construction of retaining walls or tree
wells or other protection necessary may be
necessary to insure the survivability of the trees.
Chip mulch 4-6" in depth may also be required in
these areas. Grading should not disrupt the
normal drainage pattern around the trees. Fills
should not create a ponding condition and
excavations should not leave the tree on a rapidly
draining mound.
Exposed Roots: Any exposed roots shall be
recovered the same day they were exposed. If
they cannot, they must be covered with burlap or
another suitable material and wetted down 2X per
day until re -buried.
■ Paving With the Drip -Line: Pervious surfacing is
preferred within the drip -line of any oak tree.
Arborist(s) will advise.
■ Equipment Operation: 'Vehicles and all heavy
equipment shall not be driven under the trees, as
this will contribute to soil compaction. Also there
is to be no parking of equipment or personal
vehicles in these areas.
■ Existing Surfaces: The existing ground surface
within the drip -line of all oak trees shall not be cut,
filled, compacted or pared.
■ Construction Materials and Water: No liquid or
solid construction waste shall be dumped on the
ground within the drip -line of any oak tree.
■ Arborist Meeting: An arborist shall be present
for selected activities (trees identified on
spreadsheet) and pre -construction fence
placement. The monitoring does not necessarily
have to be continuous but observational at times
during the above activities. If there is a "yes" in
the monitoring column, this is 100% mandatory.
■ Pre -Construction Meeting: An on-site pre -
construction meeting with the arborist(s), owner,
planning staff, and the earthy moving team may
be required for this project. Prior to final
occupancy, a letter from the arborist(s) shall be
required verifying the health/condition of all
impacted trees and providing any
recommendations for any additional mitigation.
The letter shall verify that the arborist(s) were on
site for all grading and/or trenching activity that
encroached into the drip -line of the selected native
trees, and that all work done in these areas was
completed to the standards set forth above.
138
Conditions of Approval I
Timing
Responsibility
Mitigation
Mitigation Monitoring Program
/Monitoring
Measure
PS: Planning Services
BL: Business License
BS: Building Services
COLIMA ROAD TTM
GP: Grading Pemrl
FD: Fire Depaement
BP: Building Penmil
PD: Police Department
FI: Final Inspection
CE City Engineer
TO: Temporary Occupancy
WW: Wastawater
Exhibit D
FO: FinalOccupancy
caComomey
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Pine Mountain Transfer of Development Rights (GPA 2003-
0009/ZCH 2003-00732CH 2003-0072/ZCH 2003-0074/ZCH
2003-0076/CUP 2003-0120/TTM 2003-0041 /TTM 2003-
0042/CUP 2002-0067/TTM 2003-0045).
•
8825, 8955 Coromar Avenue, 3680 & 3700 Colima Road,
Ferrocaril Road — De Anza Estates, Pine Mountain
■ Grading Within the Drip -Line: Grading should
not encroach within the drip -line. If grading is
necessary, construction of retaining walls or tree
wells or other protection necessary may be
necessary to insure the survivability of the trees.
Chip mulch 4-6" in depth may also be required in
these areas. Grading should not disrupt the
normal drainage pattern around the trees. Fills
should not create a ponding condition and
excavations should not leave the tree on a rapidly
draining mound.
Exposed Roots: Any exposed roots shall be
recovered the same day they were exposed. If
they cannot, they must be covered with burlap or
another suitable material and wetted down 2X per
day until re -buried.
■ Paving With the Drip -Line: Pervious surfacing is
preferred within the drip -line of any oak tree.
Arborist(s) will advise.
■ Equipment Operation: 'Vehicles and all heavy
equipment shall not be driven under the trees, as
this will contribute to soil compaction. Also there
is to be no parking of equipment or personal
vehicles in these areas.
■ Existing Surfaces: The existing ground surface
within the drip -line of all oak trees shall not be cut,
filled, compacted or pared.
■ Construction Materials and Water: No liquid or
solid construction waste shall be dumped on the
ground within the drip -line of any oak tree.
■ Arborist Meeting: An arborist shall be present
for selected activities (trees identified on
spreadsheet) and pre -construction fence
placement. The monitoring does not necessarily
have to be continuous but observational at times
during the above activities. If there is a "yes" in
the monitoring column, this is 100% mandatory.
■ Pre -Construction Meeting: An on-site pre -
construction meeting with the arborist(s), owner,
planning staff, and the earthy moving team may
be required for this project. Prior to final
occupancy, a letter from the arborist(s) shall be
required verifying the health/condition of all
impacted trees and providing any
recommendations for any additional mitigation.
The letter shall verify that the arborist(s) were on
site for all grading and/or trenching activity that
encroached into the drip -line of the selected native
trees, and that all work done in these areas was
completed to the standards set forth above.
138
Conditions of Approval /
Timing
Responsibility
Mitigation
Mitigation Monitoring Program
/Monitoring
Measure
PS: Planning Services
COLIMA ROAD TTM
BL: Business Ikense
GP: Grading Permit
BS: Buibing Services
FD: Fire Department
BP: Building Pemit
PD: Poice Department
FI: Final inspecibn
CE: Ciy Engineer
Exhibit D
T0: Tempary Occupancy
FO: FinalOxupency
WW: Wastewater
CA: CAyftmW
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Pine Mountain Transfer of Development Rights (GPA 2003-
0009/ZCH 2003-00732CH 2003-00722CH 2003-0074/ZCH
2003-0076/CUP 2003-0120/TTM2003-0041/7TM 2003
0042/CUP 2002-0067/TTM 2003-0045).
8825; 8955 Coromar Avenue, 3680 & 3700 Colima Road,
Ferrocaril Road — De Anza Estates, Pine Mountain
Mitigation Measure 6.b.1: The grading permit application
GP
PS, BS, CE
6.b.1
plans shall include erosion control measures to prevent soil,
dirt, and debris from entering the storm drain system during and
after construction. A separate plan shall be submitted for this
purpose and shall be subject to review and approval of the City
Engineer at the time of Building Permit application.
Mitigation Measure 6.b.2: All cut and fill slopes shall be
GP
BP, BS
6.b.2
hydroseeded with an appropriate erosion control method
(erosion control blanket, hydro -mulch, or straw mulch
appropriately anchored) immediately after completion of
earthwork between the months of October 15 through April 15.
All disturbed slopes shall have appropriate erosion control
methods in place. Duration of the project: The contractor will
be responsible for the clean-up of any mud or debris that is
tracked onto public streets by construction vehicles.
Mitigation Measure 6.e.1: Percolation tests are required for all
BP, GP
PS. BS. CE
6.e.1
lots not served by sewer before building permits for residences
can be issued.
Mitigation Measure 8e.f.1: A Stormwater Pollution Prevention
GP
PS, BS, CE
8.e.f.1
Plan (SWPPP)/Erosion Control Plan shall be submitted and
approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of the
building permit. The plan shall include storm water measures
for the operation and maintenance of the project for the review
and approval of the City Engineer. The Building Permit
application plans shall identify Best. Management Practices
(BMPs) appropriate to the uses conducted on site that
effectively prohibit the entry of pollutants into storm water runoff.
Mitigation Measure 8.e.f.2: The developer is responsible for
GP
PS, BS, CE
8.e.f.2
ensuring that all contractors are aware of all storm water quality
measures and that such measures are implemented. Failure to
comply with the approved construction Best Management
Practices will result in the issuance of correction notices,
citations, or stop orders.
139
•
•
•
Conditions of Approval /
Timing
Responsibility
Mitigation
Mitigation Monitoring Program
/Monitoring
Measure
PS: Planning Services
BL Business License
BS: Building Services
COLIMA ROAD TTM
GP; GradingPemd
FD: FireDepenment
BP: Building Pemit
PD: Pulte Depadment
FI: Final Irspectbn
CE: Ciy Engineer
Exhibit D
T0: Temporary Occupancy
FO: Final Occupancy
WW: Wastewater
Ca Cily ftmey
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Pine Mountain Transfer of Development Rights (GPA 2003-
0009/ZCH 2003-0073/ZCH 2003-0072/ZCH 2003-0074/ZCH
2003-0076/CUP 2003-0120/TTM 2003-0041/TTM 2003-
0042/CUP 2002-0067/T7M 2003-0045).
8825, 8955 Coromar Avenue, 3680 & 3700 Colima Road,
Ferrocaril Road — De Anza Estates, Pine Mountain
Mitigation Measure 11.d.1: All construction activities shall
BP, GP
PS, BS, CE
1141
comply with the City of Atascadero Noise Ordinance for hours
of operation, and as follows:
Construction activities shall be limited to the following hours of
operation:,
• 7 a.m, to 7 p.m. Monday through Friday
• 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. Saturday & Sunday
Further, particularly loud noises shall not occur before 8 a.m. on
weekdays and not at all on weekends.
The Community Development Director upon a determination
that unusually loud construction activities are having a
significant impact on the neighbors may modify the hours of
construction.
Failure to comply with the above-described hours of operation
may result in withholding of inspections and possible
construction prohibitions, subject to the review and approval of
the Community Development Director.
A sign shall be posted on-site with the hours of operation and a
telephone number of the person to be contacted in the event of
any violations. Staff shall approve the details of such a sign
during the Grading Plan/Building Permit review process.
140
MOSDOVIT
KZ
IEDEMANN
G IRARD
PROFESSIONAL
MEMORANDUM
TO: Honorable Members of the City Council
City ofAtascadero
FROM: Patrick Enright, City Attorney
Kronick, Moskovitz, Tiedemann & Girard
DATE: March 13, 2006
RE: Reimbursement Agreement for Colima Avenue
FILE NO.: 11335.1
On February 28, 2006, the City Council considered the approval of a Sewer Extension
Reimbursement Agreement for Colima Avenue. The extension of the sewer line along Colima
Avenue was conditioned as part of a Tentative Tract Map for five residential lots as approved in
2004 by the City Council. The condition of approval that required the sewer line extension reads
as follows:
Sewer main shall extend along the Colima Avenue frontage and to all on-site and
all off-site locations identified on Exhibit C. The City Engineer shall approve the
final design of the sewer. The applicant shall submit a map showing the extents
of possible service.l
The issue that was raised at the Council meeting was who was to pay for the extension. Was the
cost to be borne by the applicant, or by the individual property owners as they connect to the
sewer system. Several property owners adjacent to Colima Avenue believe the developer
promised to pay for the sewer extension, but the developer disagrees. The developer is
requesting that the City enter into a reimbursement agreement for the costs of installing the
sewer pipeline along Colima Avenue. The conditions of approval make no mention of the City
entering into a reimbursement agreement with the developer to cover any of the costs for off-site
improvements or who will pay for the costs of the sewer line extension.
The Council continued the agreement for Colima Avenue pending staff reporting back on the
conditions of approvals and a review of the record before the Planning Commission and City
Council in approving this project to determine if the developer agreed to pay for the costs of
installing the sewer line.
QUESTION: Must the City enter into a reimbursement agreement with a subdivider when the
subdivider is required to construct public improvements, such as sewer, water and storm
drainage that benefit property not within the proposed subdivision.
This was condition 45.
823524.1
141
•
•
•
Memo
Page 2
CONCLUSION: The City must enter into a reimbursement agreement with the subdivider
when the subdivider is required to construct public improvements that benefit property not
within the proposed subdivision. A subdivder may agree to waive the requirement for
reimbursement, however, in this instance there is no evidence in the record before the Planning
Commission and/or City Council that he promised that he would pay the costs for the public
improvements without any reimbursements. In fact, there is very little discussion on the issue in
the record. Therefore, in this instance, the Council has no discretion but to enter into the
reimbursement agreement for Colima Avenue.
ANALYSIS:
1. Authority for Construction of Off -Site Improvements/Reimbursement Agreement
The Subdivision Map Act (Gov. Code, 66410-66499.37; "Act" )2 establishes general statewide
criteria for land development. It grants authority to cities and counties to determine the
compatibility of the design of a proposed subdivision in relation to the surrounding area. Under
the Act's provisions a subdivider may be required to construct public improvements such as
streets and sewers and to donate land or money for public facilities such as schools and parks.
The requirements of the Act and local ordinances adopted thereunder are administered and
enforced through a system in which the subdivider files maps of the proposed suddivision with
the governing city or county for its approval (See The Pinesy. City of Santa Monica (1981) 29
. Cal.3d 656, 659, John Taft Corp. v. Advisory Agency (1984) 161 Cal.App.3d 749, 755; Simac
Design. Inc. v. Alciati (1979) 92 Cal. App. 146. 157-158: Bright v. Bd. of Supervisors (1977) 66
Cal. App. 3d 191, 194; Cal. Subdivision Map Act Practice (Cont.Ed.Bar 1987) §§ 1. 1, 1.5-1.7,
pp. 1-2, 6-7; 2 Longtin, Cal. Land Use (2d ed. 1987) § 6.03, pp. 583-584.)
Not only may a subdivider be required to construct improvements benefiting the proposed
subdivision, he or she may be required to install improvements benefiting property not within the
proposed subdivision. Section 66485 states:
There may be imposed by local ordinance a requirement that improvements installed by the
subdivider for the benefit of the subdivision shall contain supplemental size, capacity, number, or
length for the benefit of property not within the subdivision, and that those improvements be
dedicated to the public. Supplemental length may include minimum sized offsite sewer lines
necessary to reach a sewer outlet in existence at that time.
The question presented for analysis concerns a the requirement to have the sewer line extend to
property near the subdivision. The property benefits from the extension of the sewer line.
constructed by the subdivider under the terms of section 66485.
Besides section 66485, two other statutes require examination and interpretation. Section 66486
provides:
2 All references hereafter to the Government Code are by section number only.
823524.1
142
Memo
Page 3
In the event of the installation of improvements required by an ordinance •
adopted pursuant to Section 66485, the local agency shall enter into an
agreement with the subdivider to reimburse the subdivider for that portion of
the cost of those improvements, including an amount attributable to interest,
in excess of the construction required for the subdivision. (Emphasis added)
Thus, if the City requires the supplemental capacity requirements (or the extension in length in
this case), it must enter into an agreement to reimburse the subdivider for the costs attributable
to that portion of the improvements needed for property outside the subdivision. (81
Ops.Ca.Atty.Gen. 373, 374-375 (1998)).3
Concerning the sources of the funds for the reimbursement agreement of the subdivider, section
66487 states:
In order to pay the costs as required by the reimbursement agreement, the
local agency may:
(a) Collect from other persons, including public agencies, using such
improvements for the benefit of real property not within the subdivision, a
reasonable charge for such use.
(b) Contribute to the subdivider that part of the benefit of real property
outside the subdivision and levy a charge upon the real property benefited
to reimburse itself for such cost, together with interest thereon, if any, paid
to the subdivider.
(c) Establish and maintain local benefit districts for the levy and collection
of such charge or costs from the property benefited." (Emphasis added.)
The City's Municipal Code provides the following:
7-5:002 Reimbursement when. The City may approve a reimbursement agreement
with persons who have paid for public sewer extensions. Application for reimbursement
must be submitted with six (6) months of acceptance of sewer extension. Said
agreements shall provide for reimbursement of the excess cost borne by said persons, at
such time within fifteen (15) years as money is paid to the City for service from said
sewer extension. The City shall require the applicant to file and have approved by the
City Engineer a reimbursement map showing the method and amount of cost spread to
each future connection to the sewer extension.
3 This is an interesting Attorney General opinion where the one of the Board of Supervisors lived on the
street to be benefited from the installation of a larger storm drain system. The question was whether the
Board was prohibited from entering into the agreement under Government Code 1090 (which prohibits
the Board (and Councils) from entering into contracts that any of their members have a financial interest.
The Attorney General opined that the Board may enter into the reimbursement agreement.
823524.1
143
Memo
Page 4
The purpose of sections 66485-66487 is to construct public improvements such as water and
sewer lines and storm drains serving a subdivision with increased capacity to serve land outside
the subdivision and to reimburse the subdivider by charging the owners of land outside the
subdivision who re benefited by such capacity for the supplemental construction costs. (71
Ops.Ca.Atty.Gen. 163, 165 (1988)4 Therefore, there is no question that the City is authorized to
entered into the reimbursement and notwithstanding the City's use of the word "may," its
ordinance code, the City must enter into the reimbursement agreement under section 66485-
66487.
2. Agreement/Consent of the Subdivider
The law is clear that a landowner is barred from challenging a condition imposed in a land -use
regulation if he has acquiesced by either specially agreeing to the condition or by failing to
challenge its validity while accepting the benefits afforded. (Tahoe Keys Property Owners'
Assn. v. State Water Resources Control Bd. (1994 2) 3 Cal.AppAth 1459,1484; County of
Imperial v. McDougal (1977)19 Cal.#d 505 510-511; Edmonds J -Marion Co. v. County of
Sacramento 0977) 76 Cal.App.3d 517 523• Pfeiffer v. City of La Mesa (1977 6� 9 Cal.App.3d
74 78). Any action to attack any decision concerning a subdivision or a subdivison regulation
must be commenced and summons must be served within 90 days after the date of the decision.
(Government Code section 66499.37; See Also, Maginn v. City of Glendale (1999) 72
Cal.App.4th 1102) The time to attack conditions imposed on a tentative map runs from approval
of the tentative map, not from final map approval. (Soderling v. City of Santa Monica (1983)
142 Cal.App.3d 501, 505).5
The City may impose any condition to which the applicant agrees. If the applicant agreed to pay
the costs of the off-site improvements without any reimbursement then that condition could have
be added as a condition of approval. The difficulty in this case, is that despite the contentions of
the property owners on Colima Avenue, there is no evidence that the subdivider agreed to waive
the costs of the improvements. Additionally, if the subdivider did agree to the condition it was
not added as a condition to the Tentative Tract Map or any other approval for the project. The
short statute of limitations for land -use decision works both ways, if applies equally to the
applicant (subdivider) and any aggrieved party (the neighbors). Therefore, barring a condition
being placed on the Tentative Tract Map that stated that the subdivider would not be reimbursed
for the off-site improvements that benefit other properties, there is no legal basis not to enter into
the reimbursement agreement. In fact, as stated above, the Council has no choice but to approve
a reimbursement agreement.b
4 The opinion held that reimbursement agreements applied to school districts if they owned of the
benefited parcels.
s There are similar statute of limitations periods to challenge all land -use decisions, including general
plans, specific plans, conditional use permits and variance. The period is normally 90 days.
823524.1
144
PUBLIC EXTENSION REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF ATASCADERO
AND
KELLY GEARHART
FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE
COLIMA AVENUE SEWER EXTENSION
THIS AGREEMENT is made this day of , 2006, in San Luis
Obispo County, California, by and between the City of Atascadero, California,
hereinafter referred to as "City", and KELLY GEARHART, hereinafter referred to as
"Applicant" with reference to the following recitals.
A. Applicant has developed certain property on COLIMA AVENUE; and
B. In order to develop The Property, Applicant opted to construct a public
sewer extension along COLIMA AVENUE to serve the property.
C. The public sewer extension will serve adjacent landowners as shown in
Exhibit A, as provided in the rules and regulations of the City.
D. Said public sewer extension is to be shown on a map attached hereto as
Exhibit B.
E. The Applicant's cost descriptions in construction of the public sewer
extension are described as follows:
Description Total
Construction $83,065.00
Applicant Benefit* -15,102.72
$67,962.28
*049-163-082
049-164-007
F. Applicant has agreed to dedicate, or has dedicated the public sewer
extension to the City.
G. The City will reimburse Applicant for part of Applicant's costs in
constructing the public sewer extension from adjacent landowners as
herein provided. The total reimbursement to the Applicant shall not
exceed $66,603.03, which represents total project expenses less Applicant
Benefit and Administrative Fee.
145
*I
•
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual conveyance contained
herein, applicant and City Agree as follows:
1 . Term
The term of this agreement shall be for 15 years from the date it is
approved by the City Council of City.
2. Rate of Reimbursement
During the term of this Agreement, the City will reimburse Applicant for
his costs in constructing the public sewer extension from adjacent
landowners pursuant to the methodology described in Exhibit B. The City
will collect said amount from each adjacent landowner before permitting
said owner to connect to the public sewer extension.
3. Administrative Costs
Two percent (2%) of all, monies collected pursuant to this agreement shall
accrue to the City as administrative fees.
4. Conditions of Reimbursement
City's obligation to reimburse Applicant is conditioned on the following:
4.1 Applicant providing City with an engineer's certification that
extensions are constructed in substantial conformance with the
plans and standard improvement drawings submitted to the City.
4.2 The sewer line extension has been inspected and approved by City.
4.3 Applicable easements have been offered and accepted by the City.
4.4 Applicant providing the City with a detailed accounting,
satisfactory to the City of the amounts expended for the
construction and installation of the public sewer extension.
4.5 Applicant has provided the City with a maintenance bond, letter of
credit or other financial security satisfactory to the City in a sum
equal to ten percent (10%) of the cost of constructing the public
service extension, or such agreement satisfactory to the City
whereby the Contractor and/or it's surety will repair or replace to
the satisfaction of the City, any and all such work that may prove
defective in workmanship or materials for a one year period,
ordinary wear and tear excepted, together with any other work
which may be damaged or displaced in so doing.
•
146
5. Obligation of City
If, for any reason, the reimbursement fee is or becomes legally
uncollectable, the City shall not be responsible in any way for collecting
the reimbursement fee and/or reimbursing the Applicant for the costs of
the public sewer extension. Reimbursement shall be made only when the
City collects money from the owners of properties whose buildings are to
be connected to the public sewer along COLIMA AVENUE
notwithstanding any provision of any law, this code, or the
Reimbursement Agreement.
6. Place of PaMrr ent
The City shall make payment to Applicant at:
KELLY GEARHART
6205 ALCANTARA
ATASCADERO, CA 93422
7. Successors and Heirs
This Agreement shall be binding on and shall ensure to the benefit of the
heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns of the parties
hereto.
8. Severability
Shall any provision of this Agreement be held by a court of competent
jurisdiction to be either invalid, void, or unenforceable, the remaining
provisions of this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect
unimpaired by the court ruling.
9. Captions
The captions of the Sections of the Agreement are for convenience and
reference only. They shall not be construed to define or limit the
provisions to which they relate.
10. Indemnity
Applicant agrees to save, indemnify and hold harmless, the City of
Atascadero, its officers, employees and agents, from all liabilities,
judgements, costs and expenses, due to any and all activities related to the
implementation of the rights and privileges granted in this agreement,
except for liabilities, judgements, costs and expenses due to the City's
negligence.(
147
I•
1 0
I*
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this agreement
effective as of the day approved by the City Council of the City of Atascadero.
AGREED.
Date: Z /V
4LLY tiEARHART
Approved by the Council of the City of Atascadero on this day of
12006.
Attest:
By:
Marcia M. Torgerson, City Clerk
Approved as to Form:
By:
Patrick L. Enright, City Attorney
City of Atascadero
By:
Tom O'Malley, Mayor
6
EXHIBIT A
COLIMA AVENUE
SEWER REIMBURSEMENT AREA
PROPERTY ;QW
) IM$TIRSEIuIENT
AMOUNT
049-302-017
$7,551.36
JAMES AND JENNIFER EICKEMEYER
3605 COLIMA AVENUE
ATASCADERO, CA 93422
049-302-014
$7,551.36
DONALD AND TAMMY JORDAN
3625 COLIMA AVENUE
ATASCADERO, CA 93422
049-302-013
$7,551.36
ROBERT ALLEY
3725 COLIMA AVENUE
ATASCADERO, CA 93422
049-302-012
$7,551.36
ROBERT ALLEY
3725 COLIMA AVENUE
ATASCADERO,CA 93422
049-302-009
$7,551.36
MICHAEL RAMIREZ
3855 COLIMA AVENUE
ATASCADERO, CA 93422
049-163-011
$7,551.36
MARTIN RICHARDSON
3800 COLIMA AVENUE
ATASCADERO, CA 93422
049-163-012
$7,551.36
VIVIAN MC COY
3740 COLIMA AVENUE
ATASCADERO, CA 39422
049-164-007
$7,551.36
BRIAN DUGAS*
3680 COLIMA AVENUE
ATASCADERO, CA 93422
049-163-056
$7,551.36
MICHAEL GARROTTO
3620 COLIMA AVENUE
ATASCADERO, CA 93422
049-163-010
$7,551.36
COE
3780 COLIMA AVENUE
ATASCADERO, CA 93422
049-163-082
$7,551.36
GEARHART
6205 ALCANTARA
ATASCADERO, CA 93422
*Connected to the benefit of the. Developer
149
•
— a
' �' �
049 t026
"v.+�4 =,-'ro)'�
`�• � � '�'/3'{` "" �/ (�+ ]�°Q .� S �. afa � z' �¢ i ; (��.�a 1 ��, . 43 `k" ,�� - ' e� , r ", ,,`r,� Pd d
r
� �Q
�3w
ami , s
..30 C _
So-
p..
0'Z
r .o .0
!> "
49 'oZQ'Z4
N�
XS
"Ib' ... V
_Q g a 13 �'
Q �,
GSA �� �qr ✓ „Sfi�
�r
Cp
1.0
ad
b Fv T3I
(� `ten_ f Y ✓ # : S
f r f { 5 1� 3' r . V'+ �Ai �' 1\Q715
fGG
� e `�� `a �4 .� � . y V •J"i'`� O �
���Nie lffj'/�f+y�}2� •»A`N.au:. L.2'-�kY aJ`Ke ��1' �'�"� 4� '.'..n.a
f �qd� il9r 302 0 049
r s�
04Q�'� a0�4�3OMy'�
yy
`.'.x.1 N
Al
aT rafil� ~ . afpt ,� { o e '.;^,a't,,� . w�',
-i,SV —e7 ` q;�t
_ 1�� �: �(,7L '��r ;�, �. � a by",x ;1 �.,'r� "� J�£ �' '�^ 1 �^•4'��m 6 � `'F *` t ,,r E� i'ii' `" 4Q�t i*�y a ,r
-
,`''..
01
*I
0 �
151
I•
10
Atascadero City Council
Staff Report Public Works Department
ITEM NUMBER: C-2
DATE: 03/28/06
Atascadero Road Program
(An update report on the Atascadero Road Program)
RECOMMENDATION:
Council receive this report on the Atascadero Road Program.
DISCUSSION:
Atascadero Road Proaram Update
Like all cities and counties in California, Atascadero suffers from a funding short fall for
road maintenance due to the aging road system and State budget reductions.
Atascadero has 141 miles of City Maintained Roads and 29 miles of Non -City
Maintained Roads. This is the most road miles per capita of any city in the County.
Atascadero's rural nature exacerbates the problem because its low population and high
road miles translate to low funding levels, since many road maintenance funds are
derived from population statistics.
The U.S. Department of Transportation's 1991 report to Congress states that roadways
in poor condition cost users as much as 25-30 percent more per mile than roadways in
good condition. Well-timed preventative maintenance of a roadway's surface increases
its service life and delays the need for expensive rehabilitation or reconstruction.
Approximately $850,000 to $1,100,000 is required annually to maintain the roads in our
community. The total amount of deferred rehabilitation is estimated to be a staggering
$17,000,000.
Road maintenance and rehabilitation for Circulation Plan Roads have been budgeted at
$1.3 million for fiscal years 2005-2007, yet even with funding at that level, there remains
a huge deficit.
152
ITEM NUMBER: C-2
DATE: 03/28/06
The Atascadero Road Program was developed to focus the City's efforts in maintaining
and protecting the roads of Atascadero in an organized, efficient and cost-effective
manner. While the program has been effective with the funding that it has been given,
it is clear that the existing sources (Gas Tax, General Fund, Local Transportation Funds
and STIP funds) are inadequate to completely fund this commitment. Additionally, the
stability of some of the current funding sources is uncertain.
Through this perfect storm, however, the Program has prevailed and made significant
progress in improving the roads and decreasing the maintenance deficit since it's
inception in 1999. The Program has been successful so far in reducing the deferred
maintenance by more than $7 million in only the last six (6) years, but we still have a
long way to go.
Some of the highlights of this Program are:
• Created strategies for road repair, maintenance and rehabilitation to use our
funds effectively and provide a well maintained circulation system for the
traveling public. Well-timed preventative maintenance of a roadway surface
increases its service life and delays the need for expensive rehabilitation or
reconstruction. Since 2000, we have paved 13 miles of Circulation plan roads
and 6 miles of local roads through the various programs.
• Increased funding for road maintenance. This includes the use of the General
Fund for road paving.
• Approved the Trench Cut Ordinance. Studies have concluded that utility S
trenching degrades and shortens the life of the surface of the road. This
degradation increases the frequency and cost of. maintaining the road surface.
The Ordinance requires that trench cuts be constructed to City Standards and
inspected.
• Approved provisions for non -licensed persons to work in the Colony right-of-way.
This will help citizens maintain non -city maintained roads.
• Approved Ordinance for road improvement requirements for the construction and
maintenance of roads for new developments to mitigate the impact on the
circulation system.
• Purchase of a paving machine and equipment to allow City Maintenance Staff to
pave local roads.
• Creation of a Cold Mix Program. This Program makes asphalt -patching cold mix
material available to residents to fill potholes on non -city maintained roads. The
cold mix is available at Fire Station #1 off Traffic Way. The public can access and
load the material into their vehicles off of the Traffic Way driveway ramp.
• Creation of the Road Loan Program. This is a City backed Program that allows
low interest loans to neighborhoods that want to maintain and pave their non -City
maintained road.
C7
153
ITEM NUMBER: C-2
DATE: 03/28/06
0 Public Works Operations
We have made many changes in Public Works Operations to focus the use of time, staff
and funding on improving the condition of our roads. We have:
• Included all Public Works,. Operations staff in the annual local road repair program.
• Begun a program to inspect and clean all culverts on an annual basis. This will help
keep water off our roads.
• Worked with residences to trim and remove vegetation from the traveled way.
• Begun more aggressive campaign to repair pot holes and failed trenches.
• Created a program to identify and repair road problems as they are found.
Circulation Plan Road Maintenance
Circulation Plan Roads are roads that have higher volumes of traffic and affect a larger
percentage of the community. They are also roads that are eligible for State and
Federal funding. These are roads on which the City spends a majority of its funding and
efforts. Staff monitors the condition of the roads and the traffic volumes to create a
Pavement Management System. This information is used to select roads for
rehabilitation. For a complete list of Circulation Plan Roads, including unfunded
projects, please see Attachment B.
Council has budgeted $1,300,000.00 in the 2005/2007 Budget for the paving of
Circulation Plan Roads. Listed below are roads that will be paved this summer:
✓ Curbaril Ave — SR 41 to US 101
✓ Atascadero Ave — various locations
Listed below are roads that are planned to be paved next summer:
✓ San Jacinto Road — EI Camino Real to Nogales Ave
✓ Del Rio Road — Obispo Road to Chico Road
Staff will continue to update and use the Pavement Management System to select
future projects.
is
154
ITEM NUMBER: C-2
DATE: 03/28/06
Local Road Maintenance
Public Works Operations Division will be continuing to perform "maintenance work"
paving City Maintained Local Roads in the spring and fall. These are roads where
Federal and State funding is not available. The purchase of asphalt and other materials
will be funded from the Public Works Operations Operating Supplies. Contract services
such as street sweeping, water truck rental, tack coat application and other service to
assist the operation will be funded out of Public Works Operations Contract Services.
The criteria that is used in selecting City Maintained Local Roads for paving is as
follows:
• Poor condition of road surface. (Pot holes, base failure, alligator cracking)
• City Maintained Local Road per the Circulation Element.
• Traffic Control. Public Works Maintenance has a small staff. Proper traffic control
can require considerable manpower. We will look for roads that can easily be closed
to through traffic or traffic control is not too difficult.
• Population served by the road. We will select Local Roads that serve the most
residences.
Last year Public Works Operations Staff repaired the following roads:
✓ Arena — San Anselmo to Yerba
✓ Yerba — Dolores to Estrada
✓ Nacimiento Atascadero Ave to End
✓ Via Ave —Traffic Way to Bridge
✓ El Dorado - La Linea to Arcade
Public Works Operations Staff will be repairing the following road in the Spring and Fall
of 2006:
✓ Devon Court — Santa Ynez to End
✓ San Gabriel Road — Atascadero Ave to West Front
✓ San Rafael Road — West Front Street to Atascadero Ave
Following is a list of potential roads to pave in the upcoming two years. Roads with
,were paved in previous years. For a complete list of Local Road Paving
Projects, including almost $11.5 million in Unfunded Road Paving Projects, please see
Attachment C.
155
•
•
•
•
ITEM NUMBER: C-2
DATE: 03/28/06
Increasing Local Road Maintenance
Council asked Staff to look for ways to increase the amount of Local Road paving our
staff could complete in-house. Staff has evaluated this concept.
Based on staffing levels, work load and department budgets it is not possible to
increase Local Road paving without drastically reducing our level of service in the parks,
streets and facilities. To increase the Local Road paving, without reducing the level of
service elsewhere the following funding would be needed:
2 new maintenance workers $135,000.00
Public Works Operations Operating Supplies $60,000.00
Public Works Operations Contract Services $20,000.00
Total $215,000.00
Local Road Maintenance - Proposition 42 Funds
Proposition 42 is a State Program to reduce congestion and improve roads. A portion of
the funds goes to local agencies for road maintenance and repair. This funding is
156
LOCAL ROAD PAVING PROJECTS
Road
From
To
Devon Court
Santa Ynez
End
San Gabriel
Atascadero Ave
West Front
San Rafael Rd.
West Front Street
Atascadero Ave
Dolores
San Jacinto
San Anselmo
Alamo Ave.
Barrenda Ave.
Rosario Ave.
Cortez Ave.
Curbaril Ave.
End
Mountain View Dr.
Portola Road
Santa Rosa Rd.
Violeta Ave.
Santa Lucia Rd.
Aguila Ave.
AA r..
Con -le -res Ave
Cn�rra-l.+ A. -in
Cn+rn/dn A,...Qnn
AMC
Coin Inanot
Qc3m jj*ij=^0t_ All-
in All -
E
Gastla-Rlo Ave,Wffidnicin
Read
Hidalgo AN19
All
Increasing Local Road Maintenance
Council asked Staff to look for ways to increase the amount of Local Road paving our
staff could complete in-house. Staff has evaluated this concept.
Based on staffing levels, work load and department budgets it is not possible to
increase Local Road paving without drastically reducing our level of service in the parks,
streets and facilities. To increase the Local Road paving, without reducing the level of
service elsewhere the following funding would be needed:
2 new maintenance workers $135,000.00
Public Works Operations Operating Supplies $60,000.00
Public Works Operations Contract Services $20,000.00
Total $215,000.00
Local Road Maintenance - Proposition 42 Funds
Proposition 42 is a State Program to reduce congestion and improve roads. A portion of
the funds goes to local agencies for road maintenance and repair. This funding is
156
ITEM NUMBER: C-2
DATE: 03/28/06
difficult to program and predict since it is tied to the State Budge and politics. Currently
the City has $241,790.00 programmed in the 2005/2007 budget. Staff is proposing to is
expend these funds on Old Morro Road. The road paved surface is failing in many
areas and in need or repair. before the road becomes impassable. Some sections of the
road will be overlayed and others require complete reconstruction. This project will be
completed this summer.
Atascadero Streetscape Proiects
City .Staff is working on the conceptual design of Streetscape Project, Phase 11. The
Council budgeted $1,000,000.00 of Redevelopment Bond Project Funds and
$500,000.00 of Federal Transportation Enhancement (TE) Funds for the project. This
will be a continuation of the Phase I Project on EI Camino Real and Traffic Way and the
Sunken Gardens Project. We will be using the same concepts and Streetscape
furnishings on EI Camino Real and Traffic Way to enhance Downtown Atascadero,
make it more pedestrian friendly and calm traffic. The asphalt road surface will be
repaved in areas where the streetscape improvements are installed. Staff will be
bringing concepts to the City Council for input and approval.
Interchange Operational Improvements
The City is initiating a study of the interchanges in Atascadero to identify operational
improvements to improve circulation and safety. We will be studying Santa Barbara,
Santa Rosa, Curbaril, Traffic Way, San Anselmo and Del Rio interchanges. We will be
identifying cost effective improvements such as; striping, road closures, ramp
relocations, medians, signage and round -a -bouts that will not require the interchange
deck to be rebuilt.
Road Rehabilitation Loan Program
The City Council created the Road Loan Program to allow neighborhood the ability to
pave local roads. A local bank loans the funds for the work to the homeowners. The City
guarantees the loan, which provides a low fixed rate for the homeowner. Residences on
Otero Road and Ortega Road have already taken advantage of this program and their
roads have been repaved. Residences on Encinal Ave are preparing to pave their road
this summer through the program. City Staff is briefing the neighborhoods of Piedras
Altos Ave and Llano Road about the program. For a complete list of Non -City
Maintained Roads, please see Attachment D.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A — Atascadero Road Program Map
Attachment B — List of Circulation Plan Roads
Attachment C — City Maintained Local Road Lists
Attachment D — Non City Maintained Local Road Lists
157
if
0
k
0
�
X
)
w
d
�
u
j q
cl:
nn
§ E
I
§
w§
� w
m
-0w w
C--
U
CII
Q
w
@ y
F U
N
W
2 p
¢Q
a)
E
E
U)
aI al
Am Am Tm Tm mZ Aa>) Aa> T`@m> -(on >v>^ -m M.
>n CZ5 ' nZS
n
> > 2 `a ```
>>> d a >> >> > > > > 0 0 > >>>OOo
OO>00> o> >- - .0ZO000OO�OON���0w
U U U U
C m 41 = N C •L C. C U y C C C C U V C p L G L C L YU d
.O1_Lt- LF- oa=- 5 F-� c 3 F -F- F-F-LLF- m V5 0Z= c Cl)F-� F-F-F-F-l-rnF-m� SHF 3F c
7 O 7 ~ 7 ~~ ~ ~ �� LL LL LLLLLL
LL LL LL LL LL
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0-o O o O o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o D o 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000
0000 0M 0000toONInDo OO 0 000ln. to 000NODOO W W O011)t!') [[7O0000NIn lf7 O Oto OO
m N O� o V r O W Itr r W O 'o � r� W M W -V M N O O N r- O Ln Mn Ln M tri V �' V M NNN (V O O O
(p r0 mOj N.(D rh M.o 000 M to In N 'q 'q V MM MCo MCo MM M N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NN
nn M r
x
7 <t M V M r r M r M M MM -IT- M .M Cl) .M 'd""t M 0 N Cl) M Cl) N t M V r M M. NM -M M Cl) Cl)- N M N N r' M M
a c
0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O D 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O 0 0 O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 fV N If) OO r- r N N O O Ln d' M r O 0 (° 7 V -O O o In In W ^C d' M M W O d• Ln r (D � r r r d' (CV! R 1, ln' r c- O O
�Q O°ti Ln W d - Or -n d' -V Vv -MMM M M NNNr MNNN MrNr W rrN rN rNN d-rr st r[t d'
t �rrr rr r menti -Mc ODtn N.W N'tt�VCOWONMV NNNOO
y tT M 7 N M m MOO W M lA t` O N'M m LC) to MOON, to CD O
C7MM V Mr Mtb Mt - Nm N7Mm V r r(A (Omtn W.O (D (DOrV OD e -r � O. 0)'IT Nlnrd•r V m MN N(OM WN(° W
W C O O O O -00000-0-000 0 0 0 000-0 0 0 0' O D O O N O 000 D 06 r O r N 0 0 0 �- O O r 0 0 0
cu
m
L- ° d v
O m y E L > c 1° > c o c c� tY m
L- 3 Q' @ U) Q Q 'E U 0 0 0 0 N c o
N
° L o O A O (EO o o O` -m O C.N LL LL N E C —E
-0 c o=oym a 4 @�� dUmc� mU mm �wina�U� 02 >,3
M o 2 E v = E •a c o o O) ,Lo °3 -o m ° o n = E a) a m m @ U o m y o
Im $ @?� @@ o o @w.00E2 cm3•- oo @c E @cco@o : o =
O a 8 N N w a) .N v a O 0 m o �= Z c ° � m�@@ (0 o Q) 9 -E c U m o o U c@ i ce° � w -E� Q U°
r,rU @ m U C > o° o o L o o d
N m Q @ m c° o° ° o CO 2 @ w Q m o w cn m Q°� Q E U Q w o m m o cA o m a o @, LL ; 0)o ay d
OL Elf 3: O o c> "+ ° F o y o m o$ m w o o a) m° t) -°o 0 0 0 o m o U o c Q Q —.2 C° o o� o w Cl) 0 o m o o tY
N T v (@n o v°@ m tY m o (� E E U'o o L v Q@ n .A W m, N o'm o o v .o co
m m m o o o° m a: C� E� (n
M
O N @ O O C_ .,0 L .O L ..0 C E N O O a) C O O j m ? O o o _>, m a) 0) p �. 0 CL)0 c i N C .O .°+ N O O
CC3 of o Iia o tY � m E- E, m° E U c° m < fno m m@ m aN c @@ m m m N@ °@ Q @ m E C7 v o Q ° ani
U) E u@ N L E c U U° L mn U° L ',> E E in c o m r c c° w c o p> L) c c y c c rn o U m o m m o
C6 R `o o@ m `O o m_ c_ o-.� d ° @ o o m@ o m m m m m m ro m@ o
Q t-�LZQ U) �(nWUWOU')LYW � rim)3 0 �Qmn=a.w oF-=(o0=(n4¢(n U) cocn(4z2w(nrn�m(n a�
a)
•
m m a) a)
c o c o
C L C C
_ w
m (a ro N @ a @ m @ > N N > > O �> O °O
a) d v a v m o m Q o o Q Q a v m
Cfd' Ad' �.,>.TO� @ � @ co N� E L � O N-. O,N m fa � 0 E O 0 F
C C_ C_ C_ C L @_ @@@ C A m@ !Y @ C O fn j .n G N> N N E N _`p ` :� 713 U N N N E }}
0�> E��@mQ�$�c' cQUmU_�MM LL@��wMI c@ LLL
EEE E EEoE Uoo m a o:° ° °Q:°Q@Q noc'-�UC7 oQ oEm(9 Qm Q -_
CO m ro� ro� @ @w @�;c;cw w N N w c �
UUUOUoUUmUm`m`mmUoomommmommUm�-°)@m�1°m02 m`mmmm�mmmmm°mm
ww W ULUU wwF-LUDHF F-�w��'S IL U) U) -1 cow inJ>QO UQ(na�wC�mUm(n(D0co U) U) U) CI) Cl)
rn
158
c
1
1
1
1
1 18121
1
1
1
1
1
1 1
1 1
1
11
1 1
1 1
1
121
11
14
I
I
I
M
I
I
1
101
0
0
0
M8
0
0
0
0
w
o o
m o
00'T
Oo00
0
0 0 0 1- 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0 V o
N O 0 0 M 0 0 00 0 0 V O o
DOONOOOo641�.00
.ti
(o0 00 70 o M 0(fl O m 64 o 696969
00 0(° 0064
Vf 06` 0000.m ua
O o (Q
It 0 0r--000
N O 0 0 In 0 0 C 0 0 C m co O O O
M O O_ t° 0 C C Cn CO D m O � 0
0 0 0 (D 0 0
M
.O
O O'
n
O) N In Ln N O N M17 tl- 0 O 'V M 7 to W
O (3) m M fV V r- N CD tb. ti M R V
OM
CD N (o (T
In M M V (D r
O
M
M co 0.7
N (O N `* O
'q m M Cn 1n 00 0 (O In 64 m CO M
M 69 d•' N M r c)• N V 69 N(D
MFl9 69 64 69 SEH. r69 69 Vg N(fl fA
Ef} N 69
69
r 69 69
69 64 69 69 N 69 69 y-} 69 fA 69 V69
,(fl 69
6 } 64 Hi N -T
69 69
(fl ffl 64 69
aI al
Am Am Tm Tm mZ Aa>) Aa> T`@m> -(on >v>^ -m M.
>n CZ5 ' nZS
n
> > 2 `a ```
>>> d a >> >> > > > > 0 0 > >>>OOo
OO>00> o> >- - .0ZO000OO�OON���0w
U U U U
C m 41 = N C •L C. C U y C C C C U V C p L G L C L YU d
.O1_Lt- LF- oa=- 5 F-� c 3 F -F- F-F-LLF- m V5 0Z= c Cl)F-� F-F-F-F-l-rnF-m� SHF 3F c
7 O 7 ~ 7 ~~ ~ ~ �� LL LL LLLLLL
LL LL LL LL LL
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0-o O o O o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o D o 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000
0000 0M 0000toONInDo OO 0 000ln. to 000NODOO W W O011)t!') [[7O0000NIn lf7 O Oto OO
m N O� o V r O W Itr r W O 'o � r� W M W -V M N O O N r- O Ln Mn Ln M tri V �' V M NNN (V O O O
(p r0 mOj N.(D rh M.o 000 M to In N 'q 'q V MM MCo MCo MM M N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NN
nn M r
x
7 <t M V M r r M r M M MM -IT- M .M Cl) .M 'd""t M 0 N Cl) M Cl) N t M V r M M. NM -M M Cl) Cl)- N M N N r' M M
a c
0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O D 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O 0 0 O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 fV N If) OO r- r N N O O Ln d' M r O 0 (° 7 V -O O o In In W ^C d' M M W O d• Ln r (D � r r r d' (CV! R 1, ln' r c- O O
�Q O°ti Ln W d - Or -n d' -V Vv -MMM M M NNNr MNNN MrNr W rrN rN rNN d-rr st r[t d'
t �rrr rr r menti -Mc ODtn N.W N'tt�VCOWONMV NNNOO
y tT M 7 N M m MOO W M lA t` O N'M m LC) to MOON, to CD O
C7MM V Mr Mtb Mt - Nm N7Mm V r r(A (Omtn W.O (D (DOrV OD e -r � O. 0)'IT Nlnrd•r V m MN N(OM WN(° W
W C O O O O -00000-0-000 0 0 0 000-0 0 0 0' O D O O N O 000 D 06 r O r N 0 0 0 �- O O r 0 0 0
cu
m
L- ° d v
O m y E L > c 1° > c o c c� tY m
L- 3 Q' @ U) Q Q 'E U 0 0 0 0 N c o
N
° L o O A O (EO o o O` -m O C.N LL LL N E C —E
-0 c o=oym a 4 @�� dUmc� mU mm �wina�U� 02 >,3
M o 2 E v = E •a c o o O) ,Lo °3 -o m ° o n = E a) a m m @ U o m y o
Im $ @?� @@ o o @w.00E2 cm3•- oo @c E @cco@o : o =
O a 8 N N w a) .N v a O 0 m o �= Z c ° � m�@@ (0 o Q) 9 -E c U m o o U c@ i ce° � w -E� Q U°
r,rU @ m U C > o° o o L o o d
N m Q @ m c° o° ° o CO 2 @ w Q m o w cn m Q°� Q E U Q w o m m o cA o m a o @, LL ; 0)o ay d
OL Elf 3: O o c> "+ ° F o y o m o$ m w o o a) m° t) -°o 0 0 0 o m o U o c Q Q —.2 C° o o� o w Cl) 0 o m o o tY
N T v (@n o v°@ m tY m o (� E E U'o o L v Q@ n .A W m, N o'm o o v .o co
m m m o o o° m a: C� E� (n
M
O N @ O O C_ .,0 L .O L ..0 C E N O O a) C O O j m ? O o o _>, m a) 0) p �. 0 CL)0 c i N C .O .°+ N O O
CC3 of o Iia o tY � m E- E, m° E U c° m < fno m m@ m aN c @@ m m m N@ °@ Q @ m E C7 v o Q ° ani
U) E u@ N L E c U U° L mn U° L ',> E E in c o m r c c° w c o p> L) c c y c c rn o U m o m m o
C6 R `o o@ m `O o m_ c_ o-.� d ° @ o o m@ o m m m m m m ro m@ o
Q t-�LZQ U) �(nWUWOU')LYW � rim)3 0 �Qmn=a.w oF-=(o0=(n4¢(n U) cocn(4z2w(nrn�m(n a�
a)
•
m m a) a)
c o c o
C L C C
_ w
m (a ro N @ a @ m @ > N N > > O �> O °O
a) d v a v m o m Q o o Q Q a v m
Cfd' Ad' �.,>.TO� @ � @ co N� E L � O N-. O,N m fa � 0 E O 0 F
C C_ C_ C_ C L @_ @@@ C A m@ !Y @ C O fn j .n G N> N N E N _`p ` :� 713 U N N N E }}
0�> E��@mQ�$�c' cQUmU_�MM LL@��wMI c@ LLL
EEE E EEoE Uoo m a o:° ° °Q:°Q@Q noc'-�UC7 oQ oEm(9 Qm Q -_
CO m ro� ro� @ @w @�;c;cw w N N w c �
UUUOUoUUmUm`m`mmUoomommmommUm�-°)@m�1°m02 m`mmmm�mmmmm°mm
ww W ULUU wwF-LUDHF F-�w��'S IL U) U) -1 cow inJ>QO UQ(na�wC�mUm(n(D0co U) U) U) CI) Cl)
rn
158
o'CD,0'0'0'0'0'0'm'O'o'0'0''0'0 0,0 O o -O.O -o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O o o o m m
O M O O O 69 O 69 LI) 69 -O O 696-1 O 69.0 O 6Fi 69 Co.). O 69 69 69 2. O 69 O O 69 69 69 OCD O O O O Lt) 'V
CCL Cn V V m m N O N CD O O - (D 0 O O V O O O '7 O rY cl
O m O M.= oM LnM r- CSO - U) m 769 mN mwmtor DD
69 64 64 64 64 69 V 69 M 64 69 6469 69 69 00
69 69 69 69 LC)
69
m o o is m m m m m m m m m m m m m w
(n (n (n - co M tu to >" N Cf) U) Cn cn Cn co Cn U) m !n M M
(lJ > Cn m fn . (n M= co 7 7 [n 7>>> 7 w 7 7 7 7> 7>> 7 7 CO m>> >> W C7 o O o O
0 0 0
�FTO�cncnm �cncncncnOcn��m�m ZOO �O� a �oU)io0
O o a) a) 7 N C U N d 7 Q1 m d N L N U C N N N O G C j C U N e- N to
_ _ E
m cn 3 a>> c s o c o o 0 0 0 o c o H FL O ur64tA
> > o 5 5 0>> 5 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0
LL LL LL LLLL LL LL LLLL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL U
0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m o
O to O O O m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ln O O U) o O 0 In U) U) O N O O O. LD to 0 0 0 0 0 LC) N O
O m m m m Ll (D CD tD U) N LD er V V M N N D O O m m m m m ti r0 0 In M M N O M M N N r
cir r r rr.�rr�r rrrr� r w J
r w z
U) _j <
N M N N N r N r N `- to N r N r M ,t r r. N <- r r '"' M of M r N 'N M M N M "V to w --L
0 0 0 0 o O O o 0 0 0 0 o O O 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O O 0 o O 0 O O O 0 O o 0 0 ) > O
00 000 0 0 0 000000 0 00.0000 0000000000000o0oR)LDLn Im h�OYz
M(PmmLn(DNCDr0 LQ C( ccar�m 0 r0m r. F. r.tD .m VM Q r r 0_O Lt) N N N r wC> 0
N. N r N N N N r .- r r r r enw
M NhM M V M (D�N(D0M m- tTmMN wmmm m mmL`N0r-wL-OVn�OMNLLO r m,t CC r 0 T-IDr m 00 m C Mr .-ct NOMO�1700q-CL-rM(D to tnrN 0 r 0 0 0 r 0 0. E 0. 0 0 O O M 0 e- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0m .
J
Q
O
H
f
a)
O m `) O
'a CDG O
cu
Q m rn o' o 4`�v w Ln 0�7 C7 mmtn.N
O O to O m O m i ,� C z V V V
.2° U n E: c m f0 `w ' m 1Q > E m m
cv oo ° m' m ° To `o U -v m� - c coLL m m(1) LL UUU
It
3 Ln o DST m� m u rn'v m v m a a.aa�
coin o > � o :4 r to U C, Q o `m m > Q N f- ° EEO o 'o T o o V v .v- U
o m o N o 0 o m m s c S o m o goo m m o m U m= o o o a a m er N n
N o U o Q to Q m>= o c a) o o (� m Q- U m o 0 o rn `m c c
m m o o m a r
m o o `o o a) $ am c o� ami ami m m o m o> o o o m m d v o U o `m o E E
U . IIw m� to m_`m mam�$.o o �� m o 0 o N a mmov� La coUUx
o m v o 0 o '� o 0 oto D o c c m a) c m c_ c `m o m 2 o o c to � m° m o 0 0 0 o> >
a) )o = EJ E m ° E E c m Q Co E J m0 � m m o E° t o U c m o o m d a`)
L° LL `m o m m m 010 m :4 m m m o U ;° a m m U o D E m Q a o m o m o t
o 0 0 U U >a m m U Lco m o 2 m m v V o o m m` o o o m o o
U Cn 2U�LU(n W dQdMC.1 W W> W QMcn W mz2zwwDW_,2U'>mLl.d0m L°n N
m m o
3 c z
CU
m > m L
> L6 Y O O N
mQ `m
U) V) m a cE ¢ � w > c m
m o
a T - c°) o o Lmn c c U E a c m m �° c L w T> °:°� E =°
o f} v Cw m m `m m LL= E -) = n m c Q a v m m m d d c •� •� m o
E °3 m y U' m C7 o o o �' =° > _o Q :° m cmi o m m o °1 o E E m m E
> o m m Lma m m ° m o m° m o °� m m 3 E v m m :° m y o o V m m o o m m m m° a m
cn2cn¢cncn(n�(nacos(nUwUCnUC7>cn(n¢¢QaUw(ncn2 a=UUf cn¢QU
N
D
O
2
U
N M 'R U) - N
rn�
w
F
O
z
•
•
Maintained Local Roads
treet
Segment
0.74
Dolores to Honda
75AIcantara,
Marchant to Marchant
$32,727.27
Atascadero Road to end
$11,988.64
Balboa to Del Rio
Amargon
FaIda to San Anselmo
Andrita
Sierra Vista to Casanova
Arcade
IS Camino Real to EI Corte
Ardilla
I Monterey to south of Balboa
Ardilla
lAtascadero Mall to San Anseimo
Arena
I San Benito to Yerba
Arizona
I Estrada to San Jacinto
Arroyo
IGancho to Rosario
Ash Street
JEI Camino Real to Catalpa
Bajada
ITraffic. Way to Duizura
Balboa
Graves Creek to San Fernando
Barranco
Carmelita to end
Barranco Heights
Barranco to Lucinda Lane
•
LI
Attachment "C"
Length Cost
(miles)
0.74
0.55
$83,096.59
0.22
$32,727.27
0.08
$11,988.64
1.04
$156,250.00
0.32
$48,295.45
0.10
$15,028.41
0.35
$52',130.68
030
$104,687..50
$48,295.45
$69,715.91
Carrizo
ITraffic Way to EI Camino Real
6,960.23
$83,607.95
5,681.82
lAndrita..to Carmelita
8,750.00
W4361,761.36
2,698.869,431.828,863.646,875.0016,875.00
I Santa Lucia to Ardilla
0.69
$103,267.05
Cascada
I EI Centro to EI Camino Real
0.09
$12,897.73
Castano
Barrenda
JAIaMO to i ratnc vvayNBellaista San Marcos to end
0.74
$110,738.64
Catalpa to end0.05
$7,556.82
Miramon to end0.16
$23,437.50
Ensenada to Capistrano
0.32
$48,153.41
ano
Carmelita
lWest Mall to Santa Ysabel
I San Andres to Curbaril
0.32
0.46
$48,295.45
$69,715.91
Carrizo
ITraffic Way to EI Camino Real
0.56
$83,607.95
Casanova
lAndrita..to Carmelita
0.60
$89,829.55
Cascabel
I Santa Lucia to Ardilla
0.69
$103,267.05
Cascada
I EI Centro to EI Camino Real
0.09
$12,897.73
Castano
I Maleza to Palomar
0.55
$83,096.59
Castenada Lane
IToloso to end
0.20
$29,829:55
Catalpa
Cebada
I San Rafael to end
I Santa Ana to end
0.23
0.30
$34,801.14
$44,971.59
Cemetery
Cenegal
Chandler Lane
I Capistrano to Mercedes
I Laurel to end
I San Rafael to end
0.15
1.08
0.10
$22,443.18
$161,931.82
$14,318.18
Chico
ITraffic Way to Del Rio
0.20
$29,261.36
Colima
I San Benito to San Anselmo
0.61
$91,477.27
Colorado
I San Rafael to San Diego
0.50
$74,829.55
Conejo
Coromar
Ramona to end
I Marchant to Portola
0.15
0.72
$22,727.27
$107,698.86
Corona
I Santa Ana to end
0.76
$113,636.36
Corriente
I San Fernando to end
0.76
$113,636.36
Corriente
ILlano to end
0.14
$21,306.82
Cortez
Maleza to end
0.49
$73,494.32
Country Club
Cristobal
Capistrano to Mercedes
San Andres to Curbaril
0.13
0.41
$20,028.41
$61,903.41
Cuesta Court
San Rafael to end
0.13
$19,886.36
Del Rio
San Gregorio to San Gregorio
1.70
$255,681.82
160
Devon Court
I Santa Ynez to end
0.051
$6,875.00
Dolores
Isan Anselmo to Traffic Way
0.96
$143,607.95
Dulzura
I Gancho to Fresno
0.591
$88,068.18
East Front
Isan Gabriel to Santa Rosa
0.381
$57,301.14
East Mall
JEI Camino Real to Lewis
0.151
$22,727.27
EI Centro
jArcade to Cascada
0.071
$9,801.14
EI Corte
jArcade to La Linea
0.291
$42,840.91
EI Dorado
jArcade to La Linea 1
0.241
$35,426.14
EI Monte
ISanta Lucia to City Limits
0.76
$113,636.36
EI Verano
IDolores to Vida
0.511
$76,704.55
Enchanto
I Balboa to end
0.49
$73,863.64
Ensenada
ICapistrano to Capistrano
0.421
$63,210.23
Entrada
I Lewis to EI Camino Real
0.151
$22,159.09
Escalon
IMiramon to Hildago
0.081
$11;647.73
Estrada
ISan Ansemo to San Jacinto
0.371
$55,397.73
Falda
I San Benito to Amargon
0.301
$45,596.59
Flores
ISanta Lucia to Los Gatos
0.211
$31,306.82
Fresno
Isan Jacinto to Rosario
0.341
$50,284.09
Gabarda
Icurbaril to Wastewater Plant
0.441
$65,823.86
Gancho
IDolores to Rosario
0.46
$69,744.32
Garcero
I Santa Ana to end
0.451
$67,045.45
Garcia
Isanta Cruz to east end
0.611
$91,988.64
Graves Creek
Isan Fernando to Santa Ana
0.38
-$56,818.18
Hermosa
INavarette to San Clemente
0.191
$28,323.86
Hermosilla
ICayucosto San Jacinto
0.301
$45,738.64
Hildago
I Sycamore to Sycamore
0.35
$52;272.73
Honda
ITraffic Way to Bajada
0.30
$45,738.64
Junipero
JEI Camino Real to end
0.68
$101,988.64
La Canada
IDel Rio to end
0.28
$42,613.64
La Linea
I EI Corte to State Route 101
0.461
$69,659.09
La Luz
Isan Benito to Arena
0.46
$69,460.23
La Paz
lAtascadero Road to end
0.27
$41,221.59
Lake View
IPortola to Santa Rosa
0.47
$70,511.36
Las Lomas
JEI Bordo to end
0.45
$68,039.77
Laurel
Santa Lucia to end
0.43
$63,920.45
Lewis
Traffic to East Mall
0.38
$56;818.18
Liga
jArena to Amargon
0.181
$27,500.00
Llano
I Santa Lucia west to Balboa
1.61
$241,477.27
Lomitas
ISanta Lucia to end 1
0.99
$149,147.73
Los Gatos
Isanta Lucia to end
0.48
$72,244.32
Los Osos
I San Rafael to Old Morro Road East
1.14
$170,596.59
Lucinda Lane
I Entire length
0.35
$52,982.95
Magdelena
ICemetery to Mercedes
0.22
$33,380.68
Magnolia
I Capistrano to Mercedes
0.27
$39,772.73
Maleza
I Castano to Cortez
0.08
$11,931.82
Maple
JEI Camino Real to Catalpa
0.08
$12,698.86
Marchant
Morro Road to Portola
1.37
$205,255.68
Marchant Way
Pismo to Santa Rosa
0.331
$49,318.18
Maricopa
San Anselmo to end
0.54
$80,397.73
Mariquita
Rosario to Olmeda
0.261
$38,778;41
Miramon
Sycamore to Sycamore
0.481
$72,727.27
-161
•
•
•
Monita Isan
Gabriel to Sierra Vista
0.19
$28,948.86
Montecito I
Las Lomas to East Front
0.16
$24,573.86
onterey Court
in View
Monterey to end
Portoia to Santa Rosa
0.09
0.46
$14,204.55
$69,403.41
man
EI Camino Real to end
0.27
$40,767:05
ento
Nav
Atascadero Mall to end
0.11
$15,965.91
a
tte
Santa Ynez to Curbaril
San Marcos to Santa Lucia
0.79
0.59
$119,034.09
$87,869.32
Naviciad
JEI Verano to Vida
0.21
$31,420.45
Nogales
Obispo
Old Morro Road
IDolores to Dulzura
ITraffic Way to Del Rio
I Morro Road to Morro Road
0.78
0.63
1.64
$116,818.18
$94,772.73
$245,880.68
Old Morro Road East
IMorro Road to Morro Road
0.43
$63,920.45
Olmeda
I San Jacinto to West Mall
0.76
$113,636.36
Palma
San Jacinto To East Mall
0.81
$122,159.09
Palomar
Yesal to EI Camino Real
0.97
$145,965.91
Paseo Pacifico
Santa. Cruz to end
0.13
$19,062.50
Pinewood Court
Pino Solo
Catalpa to end
La Linea to Principal
0.05
0.33
$6,931.82
$49,659.09
Plata Lane
EI Camino Real to end
0.09
$13,863.64
Potrero
ITraffic Way to Del Rio
0.34
$50,482.95
Prado Court
.
San Rafael to end
" ---: o 1 4„ 1 -,
0.09
n 15
$13,920.45
$22.159.09
•
•
I r- 1 11 1-Ipui
Pueblo
1-1
Sombrilla to San Luis Avenue
0.34
$50,284.09
Ramona
Del Rio to Monterey
1.17
$175,028.41
Rayar
Ridgeway Court
Robles
Lomitas to Nudoso
Rosario to end
Santa Ysabel to Sombrilla
0.06
0.04
0.09
$8,522.73
$5,681.82
$13,778.41
San Andres
Atascadero Avenue to Marchant
0.27
$4Q,056.82
San Ardo
Arena to Dolores
0.23
$35,227.27
San Clemente
San Marcos to San Marcos
0.44
$65,568.18
San Diego Road
San Diego Road
San Diego Way
San Dimas Lane
Atascadero Road to State Route 101
ISan Dimas to City Limits
I EI Camino Real to State Route 101
Los Osos to end
0.59
0.52
0.24t-$36,'022.73
0.10
$88;068.18
$78,125.00
$14,6.87.50
San Dimas Road
Los Osos to San Diego Road
0.66
$99,431.82
San Gregorio
San Guillermo
Garcia to Santa Ana
San Gabriel to end
2.37
0.17
$355,113.64
$25,085.23
San Lucas
EI Monte to end
0.21
$31,250.00
San Luis Avenue
Pueblo to Curbaril
0,23
$34,517.05
San Palo
San Anselmo to Ardilla
0.47
$71,221.59
San Pedro
jGancho, to Aiamo
0.19
$28,409.09
San Rafael
JEI Camino Real to State Route 101
0.12
$18,210.23
San Rafael
jAtascadero, Road to West Front
0.511
$77,130.68
San Rafael
I San Gabriel to Los Osos
0.461
$69,034.09
San Ramon
Del Rio to Caltrans right of way
028
$42,471.59
San Vincente
Dolores to San Jacinto
0.31
$46,022.73
Santa Ana
Santa Cruz to Lot 10
0.30
$45,454.55
Santa Ana
Santa Lucia to Balboa
2.46
$369,318.18
Santa Fe
EI Corte to EI Dorado
0.12
$17,755.68
Santa Ynez
Morro Road to Morro Road
1.14
$170,312.50
162
Serra
Atascadero Avenue to San Andres
0.17
$25,369.32
Sierra Vista
Monita to San Marcos
0.31
$47,017.05
Sinaloa
Curbaril to Pueblo
0.24
$35,653.41
Solano
EI Camino Real to La Linea
0.15
$22,301.14
Sombrilla
Curbaril to end
0.64
$96,022.73
Sycamore
I Capistrano to Miramon
0.85
$126,988.64
Tampico
jGabarda to end
0.331
$49,715.91
Tecolote
I Llano to gate 1
-0.081
$11,363.64
Toloso
ISan Dimas to City Limits 1
0.441
$65,568.18
Tunitas
jBajada to Traffic Way 1
0.36
$53,409.09
Valle
I Palomar to end 1
1.15
$172,869.32
Venado
ISanta Lucia to Ardilla 1
0.78
$116,363.64
Via
ITraffic Way to Ensenada
0.131
$19,034.09
Vida
INogales to San Jacinto
0.641
$96,676.14
Violeta
ISanta Lucia to Aguila
0.301
$45,653.41
Vista
ISan Marcos to Ibsen Tract
0.281
$41,789.77
West Front
jPortoia to State Route 101
0.96
$143.,409.09
Willow
JEI Camino Real to end
0.021
$3,181.82
Verba
jEstrada to Dolores
0.291
$43,181.82
Yesal
Icurbaril to Castano
0.211
$31,704.55
TOTAILI
76.311
$11,447,073.86
163
•
C
•
Non -City Maintained Roads
Attachment T"
.
Length
Street
Segment
(miles)
Aguila
Venado to Venado
0.85
Alondra
Santa Barbara to end
.0.23
Alta Vista
Navarette to Navarette
0.38
Amapoa
Curbaril to Portola
0.40
Aragon
Tampico to end
0.05
Ardilla
Portola west to end
0.14
Ardilla
Graves Creek to end
0.11
Ardilla
Balboa to end
0.38
Artiga
Balboa to end
0.05
Atajo
Chauplin to end
0.05
Atascadero Mall
EI Camino Real to State Route 101
0.04
Atascadero. Road
Santa Barbara to end
0,09
Aurora
Tampico to end
0.05
Avenal
Pismo to Santa Rosa
0.05
Azucena
Curbaril to Portola
0.42
Balboa
Otereo to Llano
0.47
Bolsa
Santa Lucia to end
0.28
Calle Cynthia
EI Camino Real to end
0.09
Calle Refugio
Via Tortuga to end
0.07
Campbell Cane
EI Camino Real to end
0.11
Campo
Monterey to end
0.14
Casitas
Sierra Vista to end
0.24
Cayucos
San Anselmo to Lobos
0.33
Cemetary
Mercedes to end
0.28
Chauplin
Venado to Santa Lucia
0.57
Cholare
Morro Road to end
0.14
Chorro
Santa Lucia to end
0.38
circle Oak
San Rafael to end
0,14.
Cole Court
Portola to end
0.09
Constancia
Marchant to end
0:05
Corta
Santa Lucia to end
0.04
Cortez
North end
0.05
Cortina
Pinal to Valle
0.19
Cristobal .
Curbaril east to end
0.21
Curvado Circle
Dolores to Dolores
0.14
Eagle Creek Court
Santa Barbara to end
0.14
El Centro
Cascada to end
0.14
El Descanso
Larga to end (2 sections)
0.09
EI Parque
Pismo to Santa Rosa
0.09
EI Retiro
San Andres to end
0.11
Encinal
Valle to end
0.28
Encino
Santa Lucia to end
0.42
Escarpa
Pinal to Valle
0.19
Escondido
Portal to end
0.47
Falda
Amargonto San Anselmo
0.30
Gallina
Llano to end
0.11
Gusta
EI Camino Real to end
0.09
Hermosilla
Cayucos to Lobos
0.09
164
Hospital Drive
Capistrano to Capistrano
0.22
Jaquima
Corona to end
0.09
Jolon
Barrano to end
0.11
Jornada Lane
EI Camino Real to end
0.19
Juanita
Sombrilla to end
0.09
Juarez
Barrenda to end
0.09
La Costa
EI Camino Real to end
0.11
La Uva
EI Camino Real to end
0.05
Larga
Navarette to San Clemente
0.38
Las Casitas
EI Camino Real to Los Pueblos
0.24
Linda Vista
Navarette to end
0.11
Lobos
San Anselmo to Nogales
0.43
Lobos Court
Lobos Lane to end
0.05
Lobos Lane
Nogales to end
0.19
Los Cerritos
San Andres to Navarette
0.09
Los Pueblos
Las Casitas to Las Casitas
0.28
Madera. Place
EI Camino Real to end
0.09
Maleza
Castano to Pinal
0.28
Mananita
Dolores to Estrada
0.24
Marco Lane
EI Camino Real to end
0.15
Maya Lane
EI Camino Real to end
0.15
Mira Flores
San Andres to end
0.11
Montura Lane
Coromarto end
0.05
Nudoso
Rayar to Lomitas
0.57
Ortega
Atascadero Road south to City Limits
0.52
Otero
Balboa to end
0.38 ,
Pajaro
Coromar to end
0.19
Palo Verde
Old Morro Road to Lot 19
0.76
Pequina
Larga to Larga
0.19
Pescado
Venado to end
0.13
Piedras Altos
Curbaril to Portola
0.38
Pinar
Curbaril to end
0.66
Portal
San Marcos to end
1.04
Portola Way
Portola to end
0.09
Ramage
Portola to end
0.09
Realito
Vista to end
0.38
Rio Rita
Del Rio to end
0.24
Rivera
Bbnica to Maduro
0.14
Ropa Court
San Gregorio to end
0.38
Rosita Avenue
San Anselmo to Nogales
0.38
Rosita Court
San Anselmo to end
0.09
San Benito
EI Camino Real to State Route 101
0.09
San Carlos
San Rafael to City Limits
0.14
SanCayetano
rCenegal to end
0.38
San Fernando
Monterey to Balboa
0.85
San Francisco
Marchant to Azucena
0.19
San Gabriel
San Marcos to Santa Lucia
1.04
San Marcos
Sierra Vista to Portal
0.85
San Marcos
Los Altos westerly to end
0.71
San Rafael
Los Osos to easterly end
0.19
Santa Barbara
Atascadero Road to Atascadero Road
0.13
165
•
•
•
Santa Cruz
Ramona to Graves Creek
0.09
Santa Cruz
EI Camino Real to Traffic Way
0.47
Santa Cruz
Garcia to Graves Creek
0.28
0.14
Sausalito
Balboa to end
Seperado
San Jacinto to San Anselmo (2 sections)
0.38
Serena
Mercedes to end
0.38
Sierra Vista
Monita easterly
0.19
Silla
Colima to end
0.23
Sonora
Pinal to Valle
0.28
Tecorida
San Andres north to end
0.19
Tecorida
Curbaril to end
0.05
Tecorida
Marchant to end
0.05
Tecorida
San Andres south to end
0.14
Tranquilla
Ban Anselmo to Rosita
0.24
Vega
Ardilla to end (2 sections)
0.28
Vernalis
Tampico to end
0.19'
Via Tortuga
Atascadero Road to Coromar
0.25
Viscano
Dolores to end
0.24
Vista
Ibsen Tract
0.47
TOTAL
29.43
•
•
166