HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 09/08/1987 AGENDA
ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL
CLOSED SESSION
FOURTH FLOOR ROTUNDA ROOM
CITY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
SEPTEMBER 8, 1987
6:00 P.M.
1 . LABOR MATTERS
A. MID MANAGERS ( VERBAL )
B. SERGEANTS (VERBAL )
C. DEPARTMENT HEADS (PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED )
2. REAL -ESTATE
A. ACQUISITION OF GUIDRY PROPERTY (ATTACHED )
3 GRAND JURY =liEE-TI,NG REPORT - GRAHAM LAWSUIT (VERBAL )
r wry F m:A'
' x
♦.w
J �
S _r5 °� a „_. __ u��_�_-__o� ✓c� ,_/6�3__ ��s
- e_ s
T�C?PF'
qzF) 6m
C-C
_
r _
SCHENBERCER, AYLOR,
MC CORMICK & JECKER
I N C O R P O R A T E D Real Estate Appraisers. Consultants and Investment Analysts
August 28, 1987
Mr. Bob Best , Director
Parks and Recreation
City of Atascadero
P. 0. Box 747
Atascadero, CA 93423
RE: Land appraisals for the city
Dear Mr. Best :
This is to confirm our meeting of about 1 1/2 weeks ago,
regarding our firm appraising those lots in the city of Atas-
cadero, as outlined in the memo dated August 13, 1987, from you
to the City Council.
As I indicated at the time , I am very heavily scheduled . How-
ever , I will start one of my associates on the project next
week . With any luck at all, we should have it completed within
2 weeks. However , if everything goes awry, as it sometimes
does , it will take about 3 weeks .
I hope this meets with your approval.
If you !lave any further questions , or additional information
that you feel would be of assistance , please give me a call.
Sincerely,
Richard L. Schenberger
1306 HIGUERA STREET • SAN LUIS OBISPO • CALIFORNIA • 93401 • (805) 544-2472
NOTE: THERE WILE A CLOSED COUNCIL SESSIAT 6 :00 P.M.
IN THE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING FOURTH FLOOR CLUB ROOM
REGARDING LABOR NEGOTIATIONS, REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATIONS
LITIGATION
CINDY WILKINS
DEPUTY CITY CLERK
A G E N D A
ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
ATASCADERO ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
FOURTH FLOOR, ROTUNDA ROOM
SEPTEMBER 8, 1987
7: 30 P, M,
RULES OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
* Members of the audience may speak on any item on the agenda.
* A person may speak for three (3) minutes. If a group has a
spokesperson, the spokesperson may speak for five• (5) minutes.
* No one may speak for a second time until everyone wishing to
speak has had an opportunity to do so.
* No one may speak more than twice on any item.
* Council members may question any speaker ; the speaker may
respond; but after the alloted time has expired, may not
initiate further discussion.
* The floor will then be closed to public participation and open
for Council discussion.
Call to Order
Pledge of Allegiance
Roll Call
** Proclamation - Acknowledgement of September 17, 1987 as "Bells
Across America Day" (200th Anniversary of the Signing of the
United States Constitution)
City Council Comment
Committee Reports - (The following represent Ad Hoc or Standing
Committees. Informative status reports will be given, as felt
necessary.
1. City/School Committee 6. Equal Opportunity Commission
2. North Coastal Transit 7. Police Facility Committee
3. San Luis Obispo Area 8. Atascadero Lake Acquistion
Coordinating Council Committee
4. Traffic Committee 9. Tree Committee
• 5. Solid Waste Mgmt Committee 10 . Bicentennial Committee
1
(Approximate Time - 30 Minutes)
• COMMUNITY FORUM
The City Council values and encourages exchange of ideas and
comments from you the citizen. The public comment period is provided
to receive comments from the public on matters other than scheduled
agenda items. To increase the effectiveness of Community Forum, the
following rules will be enforced:
* A maximum of 30 minutes will be allowed for Community Forum,
unless Council authorizes an extension.
* All remarks shall be addressed to Council as a whole and not to
any individual member thereof.
* No questions shall be asked of a Council Member or City staff
without permission of the Mayor.
* No person shall be allowed to make slanderous, profane,
* impertinent, or personal remarks against any Council Member.
Any person desiring to submit written statements may do so by
forwarding to Council, prior to the Council Meeting, nine (9)
copies to the City Clerk by 5 :00 p.m. on the Wednesday, preceeding
.the Council Meeting.
A. CONSENT CALENDAR
All matters listed under Item A, Consent Calendar , are considered to
be routine, and will be enacted by one motion in the form listed be-
low. There will be no separate discussion of these items. A member
of the Council or public may, by request, have any item removed from
the Consent Agenda, which shall then be added to and taken up at the
end of the "New Business" section of the agenda.
1. Approval of City Council• Minutes - August 25, 1987
2. Tentative Parcel Map 24-87 - 9122 Atascadero Avenue - Subdivision
of One Parcel of 1. 433 Acres into Three Lots of 21,700 , 20,000,
and 20, 200 Square Feet Each - O'Bannon/Cuesta Engineering
3. Tentative Tract Map 13-87 - 8519 El Dorado Road - Proposed
Subdivision of Six Parcels Totaling 6.81 Acres into Twelve
Lots Containing Approximately 20 ,000 Square Feet Each -
Peterson Development Corporation (Steve Devencenzi)
4. Denial of Proposed Lot Line Adjustment 13-87 - 7905 Marchant
To Adjust the Property Line Between Two Existing Lots of Record
Kling/Cuesta Engineering
5. Acceptance of Final Tract Map 20-86 - 8305 Coromar - Molina/
Twin Cities Engineering
• 2
6. Proclamation Acknowledgement of Septem#r 8, 1987 , as "World
Literacy Day"
7. Proclamation - Acknowledgement of September , October , November,
and December, 1987, as "Good Neighbor Months"
B. HEARINGS/APPEARANCES/REPORTS
(Approximate Time - 10 Minutes)
1. General Plan Amendment 2G-87 - Architectural Review Standards
Element Amendment - Initiated by City of Atascadero (Cont'd
from 8/25/87)
A. Public Hearing
B. Resolution 88-87 - Amendment .to General Plan Text of
the Community Appearance and Standards Element by
Deleting Reference to Design Review Commission
C. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
(Approximate Time - 10 Minutes)
1. Council reconsideration of Resolution 81-87 - Proposed
Vacation of a Portion of Curbaril, Adjacent to 9404 Curbaril
Avenue (Cont'd from 8/11/87)
D. NEW BUSINESS
(Approximate Time - 15 Minutes)
1. Tentative Parcel Map 26-87 - 11300 Viejo Camino - Proposed
Subdivision of 27.01 Acres into Four Lots of 8. 52, 4. 23 ,
6. 59 & 7. 67 Acres Each - Bordeaux House (Yamabe/Horn)
(Approximate Time - 15 Minutes)
2. Authorization to Solicit Proposals - Historic Structures
Report (Historic Preservation Grant Requirement)
(Approximate Time - 15 Minutes)
3. Resolution 93-87 - Approval to Purchase Data Processing
Equipment and Software (IBM Hardware/DLH Software)
(Approximate Time - 15 Minutes)
4. Resolution 92-87 - Approval_ of Lease Purchase Agreement with
Security Pacific Merchant Bank for Data Processing Equipment/
Related Software ($96 ,154) , New Fire Truck ($137, 318. 76) ,
and Refinancing of Existing Fire Truck
• 3
(Approximateome - 5 Minutes) 9
5. Resolution 94-87 - Appropriation of Council Contingency Funds
of 137.02 for "Employee Softball Tournament"
SE. ATASCADERO SANITATION DISTRICT
(Council will recess and convene as the Atascadero County
Sanitation t tion
District Board of Directors)
(Approximate Time - 10 Minutes)
1. Septic Tank Dump Facility - Fee Structure
(The Board of Director will adjourn and reconvene as the
City Council)
F. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION
1. City Council
2. City Attorney
3. City Clerk
.4. City Treasurer
5. City Manager
** NOTE: THE CITY COUNCIL WILL ADJOURN TO A SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL
MEETING ON SEPTEMBER 16, 1987 AT 6 : 30 P.M. IN THE CITY
• ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, FOURTH FLOOR CLUB ROOM REGARDING
A COUNCIL PROCEDURES WORKSHOP ON LEADERSHIP, STRUCTURE AND
PROCESS (FOLLOW-UP TO MORRO BAY WORKSHOP)
• 4
•
P R O C L A M A T I O N
BELLS ACROSS AMERICA
SEPTEMBER 17, 1987
WHEREAS, September 17, 1987, is the 200th anniversary of
one of the most significant events in history, the signing of he
United States Constitution; and
WHEREAS, on September 17, 1787, 39 men signed their names to
a document which established the world's first government of the
people, by the people, and for the people; and
WHEREAS, the United States Constitution is the world' s oldest
written instrument of national government. It is the national
ideals of freedom, justice, and equal opportunity; and
WHEREAS, to commemorate the signing of the United States
Constitution, every American and every institution is asked to
join in a ringing tribute starting at 4 :00 p.m. and lasting 200
• seconds.
THEREFORE, I Barbara Norris, Mayor of the City of Atascadero
encourage all to join in the ringing tribute, and reflect on the
blessings of liberty and the ideals of justice and equal oppor-
tunity made possible by the Constitution.
BARBARA NORRIS
Mayor
September 8, 1987
E�
AGENDA 14_z
M E M O R A N D U M
•
TO: City Council September 8, 1987
VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager
FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director ,�2
SUBJECT: Tentative Parcel Map 24-87
LOCATION: 9122 Atascadero Avenue
APPLICANT: Richard and Theresa O'Bannon
REQUEST: Request to subdivide one parcel containing 1.433 acres
into 3 lots containing: Lot 1 =21, 700; Lot 2 = 20, 000;
Lot 3. = 20 ,000 square feet in area
BACKGROUND/RECOMMENDATION:
On August 4, 1987 , the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing
on the above-referenced matter and recommended approval of request
• subject to the findings and conditions contained in the attached staff
report. There was a discussion of off-site drainage requirements,
which were subsequently modified by the Public Works Department (Con-
dition #4) .
HE:ph
Encl: Staff Report - August 4, 1987
Conditions of Approval (Revised)
cc: Richard and Theresa O'Bannon
Cuesta Engineering
City of Atascadero Item: B-1 •
STAFF REPORT
FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: 8/4/87
0�
BY: n Ecklund, Assistant Planner File No: TPM 24-87
Project Address: 9122 Atascadero Avenue
SUBJECT:
Subdivision of one parcel containing 1.433 acres into 3 lots contain-
ing: Lot 1 = 21, 700; Lot 2 =20,000; lot 3 = 20, 000 square feet in
area.
A. SITUATION AND FACTS:
1. Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Richard and Theresa O'Bannon
2. Representative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Cuesta Engineering
3. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1. 443 acres
4. Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .RSF-X (20 , 000 square foot mini-
mum lot size)
5. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Parcel 1 - Single Family home
Parcel 2 - storage sheds
Parcel 3 - vacant
6 . General Plan Designation. . . . .High Density Single Family
7. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Negative Declaration
B. ANALYSIS:
The application before the Commission proposes the subdivision of one
parcel containing 1.433 acres into three parcels containing approxi-
mately 20,000 square feet each. The property proposed for subdivision
is located in a RS-X zoning district. The minimum lot size in this
zone is 20, 000 square feet where sewers are available and 0 . 5 acre
without sewers. Because sewers are available to the subject property,
the 20,000 square foot minimum is applicable.
The front parcel proposed for subdivision contains a single family
residence. The new lots being created will be located to the rear of
this existing dwelling. Access to that parcel will be by an easement
crossing the front lot. The ingress/egress easement will also serve
as a Public Utilities Easement allowing the rear lot to be connected
to the existing water mains in Atascadero Avenue. The sewer service
will be provided via easements in the access roadway to a sewer ease-
• 0
Tentative Parcel Map 24-87 (O'Bannon/Cuesta Engineering)
ment along the back of Lot 3.
The area surrounding the affected parcels was the subject of recent
General Plan and Zoning ordinance amendments allowing for the estab-
lishment of one-half acre and 20 ,000 square foot lots. The proposal
before the Commission is in conformance with the new General Plan and
Zoning Ordinance provisions. Staff believes that the type and density
of development proposed is appropriate for the neighborhood.
C. RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends conditional approval of Tentative Parcel Map 24-87
based on the Findings in Exhibit C and the Conditions of Approval in
Exhibit D.
JE:ps
. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Location and Zoning Map
Exhibit B - Tentative Parcel Map
Exhibit C - Findings for Approval
Exhibit D - Conditions of Approval
2
tv
AR
ll►• M,. .�� ♦ •e •. r
FA
� r ������■��_.�--fes
LEON
■
�� 1
Exhibit "B"
Tentative Parcel Map
CITY
"Al :.. . � OF ATASCADERO
187•- Tentative Parcel Map 24-87
CAD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
owrx5 earlrlurr
I NEREEY AM AOR AA/AAAL Of JWf AWN"A•4641 AROA1.fTY
$I/ONN OY ma rENumf NAP ANO CEfr//Y TNA!L AM THE O N61A
- 6f AUTMMUP fVW4PA6NrAT/yi N'Af/O 41✓.Yfi(ANO 1>/41 r/f1
/N/RfNA/IAV 4HOWN HEREAY H NO MW A42Uar TO AVE 6191 A
/VPWFAI
Y L [1
i
f' r �• '.VGO•�•f %
/ h_t. y1 � Lip 40 .. _
.4.PCfL/ / .%AOLL r 101 %ARCLL !'�� L� _ Nft'OG•.'N/'E�,�•:.J.1'
41, -' ' '_-� 7ENTAT/VE oARIEL MAO AT 87/04
jp0 N S"�L'J?•� /2/SJ':'t. V BLAILAO`�LYAVfY Of
AAV LCL//S�OS7Arl Cf 4U O /
i /,73/�,?s/z
1 Q LUES?4 ENG/NEED?/Nd
140114 C.47/.40 RLAL 'B'
f �� .e� I! .Y A7A>cA✓Lw'J,.:AL�fD1N/A 9!/11
4b*//66 4eZ7
r
SCAcc r•so'
Tentative Parcel Map 24-87 (O'Bannon/Cuesta Engineering)
EXHIBIT C - Findings for Approval
Tentative Parcel Map 24-87
August 4, 1987
FINDINGS:
1. The creation of these parcels conforms to the Zoning Ordinance and
General Plan.
2. The creation of these parcels, in conformance with the recommended
conditions of approval, will not have a significant adverse effect
upon the environment. The Negative Declaration prepared for the
project is adequate.
3. The site is physically suitable for the type of development
proposed.
4. The site is physically suitable for the density of development
proposed.
5. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements will
not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and
avoidably injure fish and wildlife or their habitat.
6. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvement will not
conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access
through or use of property within the proposed subdivision; or
that substantially equivalent alternate easements are provided.
7. The proposed subdivision complies with Section 66474. 6 of the
State Subdivision Map Act as to methods of handling and discharge
of waste.
3
EXHIBIT "D" - Tentative Parcel Map 24-87
Conditions of Approval (Revised 8/4/87)
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. Water shall be obtained from the Atascadero Mutual Water
Company and water lines shall exist at the frontage of each
parcel or its public utility easement prior to recordation of the
final map.
2. All existing and proposed utility easements, pipelines and
other easements are to be shown on the final map. If there are
building or other restrictions related to the easements, they
shal be noted on the final map.
3. Grading, drainage, and erosion control plans, prepared by a
registered civil engineer, shall be submitted for review and
approval by the Community Development and Public Works
Departments prior to recording the final map.
4. Drainage work and facilities shall be constructed to City of
Atascadero standards prior to recording a final map. Drainage
easements (and/or drainage releases) shall be provided from points
concentration of stormwater leaving the project through adjoining
properties to the nearest natural watercourse as approved by the
Public Works Department.
5. Road improvement plans prepared by a registered civil engineer
must be submitted to and approved by the Public Works Department
prior to recording the final map.
6. An Offer of Dedication to the City of Atascadero of 5 feet
along entire property frontage of Atascadero Avenue which will
result in a right of way width of 30 feet from center line of
existing roadway.
7. Construction of road improvements shall be completed (or
guaranteed) prior to recording the final map and shall include
the following:
a) A 20 foot paved roadway improvement from center line of
right of way along entire property frontage with City
standard drive approach to serve as common encroachment
for access to all 3 parcels.
b) Future 5 ' sidewalk shall be indicated in plan view and
street section detail.
c) An encroachment permit from the City of Atascadero
(Public Works Department) shall be obtained prior to
the commencement of any work in the right of way.
• •
8. The subdivider shall contribute $187.50 ($1. 50 x 5 'x 25 L.F. )
to a sidewalk sinking fund for future installation of sidewalk
along the entire frontage of property along Atascadero Avenue.
9. Construct an Atascadero City standard cul-de-sac or approved
hammerhead at the terminus of the access road.
10. Offer for Dedication to the Public, the Public Utilities
easements.
11. Offers of dedication shall be completed and recorded prior to
or simultaneous with recordation of the final map.
12. All wastewater disposal shall be connected to the Public
Sewer. A 10 foot (minimum) private sewer easement to serve all
parcels shall be created to allow access to the existing
sanitary sewer easement along the rear property. The easement
shall be shown on the final map.
13. A sewer annexation fee shall be paid for all newly
created parcels prior to the recordation of the final map. A
sewer connection permit shall be obtained from the Public Works
Department prior to hooking up to the public sewer.
14. Access road shall be constructed (or guaranteed to the
satisfaction of the Public Works Director) to private road
standards (20 feet of roadway, 16 feet of all weather travel
way, with 2 feet of bladed shoulders each side of travel
way) prior to recording the final map.
15. The access road shall be designed to meet all applicable Fire
Department standards.
16. A road maintenance agreement, in a form acceptable to the
City Attorney, shall be recorded with the deed to each parcel at
the time it is first conveyed, and a note to this effect shall be
placed on the final map.
17. Plan and profile drawings of proposed individual driveways,
driveway easements and private roads shall be submitted for
approval by the Community Development and Public Works Department
in order to determine average grade and appropriate improvement
requirements.
18. A final map drawn in substantial conformance with the
approved tentative map and in compliance with all conditions set
forth herin shall be submitted for review and approval in
accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and the City Lot Division
Ordinance prior to recordation.
r •
a. Monuments shall be set at all new property corners created
and a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor
shall indicate, by certificate on the final map, that
corners have been set or shall be set by a date specific
and that they will be sufficient to enable the survey to
be retraced.
b. A recently updated preliminary title report shall be
submitted for review in conjunction with the processing of
the final map.
19. Approval of this tentative parcel map shall expire two years
from the date of final approval unless an extension of time is
granted pursuant to a written request prior to the expiration
date.
• i
EXHIBIT "D" - Tentative Parcel Map 24-87
Conditions of Approval (Revised 8/4/87)
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. Water shall be obtained from the Atascadero Mutual Water
Company and water lines shall exist at the frontage of each
parcel or its public utility easement prior to recordation of the
final map.
2. All existing and proposed utility easements, pipelines and
other easements are to be shown on the final map. If there are
building or other restrictions related to the easements, they
shal be noted on the final map.
3. Grading, drainage, and erosion control plans, prepared by a
registered civil engineer, shall be submitted for review and
approval by the Community Development and Public Works
Departments prior to recording the final map.
4. Drainage work and facilities shall be constructed to City of
Atascadero standards prior to recording a final map.
5. Road improvement plans prepared by a registered civil engineer
must be submitted to and approved by the Public Works Department
prior to recording the final map.
6. An Offer of Dedication to the City of Atascadero of 5 feet
along entire property frontage of Atascadero Avenue which will
result in a right of way width of 30 feet from center line of
existing roadway.
7. Construction of road improvements shall be completed (or
guaranteed) prior to recording the final map and shall include
the following:
a) A 20 foot paved roadway improvement from center line of
right of way along entire property frontage with City
standard drive approach to serve as common encroachment
for access to all 3 parcels.
b) Future 5 ' sidewalk shall be indicated in plan view and
street section detail.
c) An encroachment permit from the City of Atascadero
(Public Works Department) shall be obtained prior to
the commencement of any work in the right of way.
11odified
• •
8. The subdivider shall contribute $187. 50 ($1.50 x 5'x 25 L.F. )
to a sidewalk sinking fund for future installation of sidewalk
along the entire frontage of property along Atascadero Avenue.
9. Construct an Atascadero City standard cul-de-sac or approved
hammerhead at the terminus of the access road.
10. Offer for Dedication to the Public, the Public Utilities
easements.
11. Offers of dedication shall be completed and recorded prior to
or simultaneous with recordation of the final map.
12. All wastewater disposal shall be connected to the Public
Sewer. A 10 foot (minimum) private sewer easement to serve all
parcels shall be created to allow access to the existing
sanitary sewer easement along the rear property. The easement
shall be shown on the final map.
13. A sewer annexation fee shall be paid for all newly
created parcels prior to the recordation of the final map. A
sewer connection permit shall be obtained from the Public Works
Department prior to hooking up to the public sewer.
14. Access road shall be constructed (or guaranteed to the
satisfaction of the Public Works Director) to private road
standards (20 feet of roadway, 16 feet of all weather travel
way, with 2 feet of bladed shoulders each side of travel
way) prior to recording the final map.
15. The access road shall be designed to meet all applicable Fire
Department standards.
16. A road maintenance agreement, in a form acceptable to the
City Attorney, shall be recorded with the deed to each parcel at
the time it is first conveyed, and a note to this effect shall be
placed on the final map.
17. Plan and profile drawings of proposed individual driveways,
driveway easements and private roads shall be submitted for
approval by the Community Development and Public Works Department
in order to determine average grade and appropriate improvement
requirements.
18. A final map drawn in substantial conformance with the
approved tentative map and in compliance with all conditions set
forth herin shall be submitted for review and approval in
accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and the City Lot Division
Ordinance prior to recordation.
a. Monuments shall be set at all new property corners created
and a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor
shall indicate, by certificate on the final map, that
corners have been set or shall be set by a date specific
and that they will be sufficient to enable the survey to
be retraced.
b. A recently updated preliminary title report shall be
submitted for review in conjunction with the processing of
the final map.
19. Approval of this tentative parcel map shall expire two years
from the date of final approval unless an extension of time is
granted pursuant to a written request prior to the expiration
date.
• *ETING j� �_ AGENDA
Ti fTEm# A- 3
M E M O R A N D U M
•
TO: City Council September 8, 1987
VIA: Michael Shelton, City Managerf� ,
FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Tentative Tract Map 13-87
LOCATION: 8519 E1 Dorado
APPLICANT: Peterson Development Corporation (Devencenzi)
REQUEST: To allow subdivision of six parcels containing 6.81 acres
into twelve lots containing approximately 20,000 square
feet each.
BACKGROUND:
The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the above sub-
• ject on August 4, 1987 and August 18, 1987, approving on a 5:1 vote
the subdivision request subject to the attached findings and revised
conditions of approval.
There was discussion on this matter focusing on condition #18 pertain-
ing to contributions to off-site improvements, as reflected in the
attached minutes excerpts.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approval of Tentative Tract Map 13-87 per the Planning Commission's
recommendation and based on the revised conditions of approval.
HE:ps
CC: Peterson Development Corporation
Steven Devencenzi
Attachments: Revised Conditions of Approval - August 18, 1987
Staff Report - August 4 and 18, 1987
Minutes Excerpt - August 4 , 1987 and August 18, 1987
EXHIBIT D - Tentative Tract Map 13-87
Conditions of Approval
August 4, 1987 (REVISED AUGUST 18, 1987)
* denotes revised conditions
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. Water shall be obtained from the Atascadero Mutual Water Company
and water lines shall exist at the frontage of each parcel or its
public utility easement prior to recordation of the final map.
2. All existing and proposed utility, pipeline, and other easements
are to be shown on the final map. If there are building or other
restrictions related to the easements, they shall be noted on the
final map.
3. Grading, drainage, and erosion control plans, prepared by a regis-
tered civil engineer , shall be submitted for review and approval
by the Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to
recording the final map.
4. Drainage work and facilities shall be constructed (or guaranteed)
to City of Atascadero standards prior to recording a final map.
5. Road improvement plans, prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer , •
shall be submitted for review and approval by the Public Works
Department prior to recording the final map. Said plans shall be
for reconstruction to City standards, one-half road sections along
the entire property frontage of El Dorado, Santa Fe, and E1 Corte
Roads. Said plans shall include, but not be limited to, design
and/or upgrading of drainage facilities, one (1) City standard
drive approach to serve each lot, and location of existing utili-
ties within the rights-of-way. AC pavement width shall be fifteen
(15) feet from the centerline of the right-of-way with two (2)
foot graded shoulders, typical.
6. Construction of road improvements shall be completed, or guaran-
teed to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director, prior to
recording the final map.
7. Obtain an Encroachment Permit from the City. Sign an Inspection
Agreement guaranteeing that the work will be done, and inspections
paid for , and construct all improvements as directed by the En-
croachment Permit prior to recording the final map.
8. Provide drainage easements for conveyance of storm drainage across
newly created lots to subdivision boundary.
9. All drainage improvements shall require written certification by
a Registered Civil Engineer that all work has been completed and
is in full compliance with the approved plans.
9 !
10. An irrevocable offer of dedication to the City of Atascadero for
the following rights-of-way for future road and P.U.E. purposes
shall be made and noted on the final map:
a. Street Names: E1 Dorado Road, Santa Fe Road, and E1 Corte
Road
Limits: Entire property frontage
Minimum Width: Twenty (20) feet from centerline of R.O.W.
b. Corner rounding at intersections of El Dorado and Santa Fe
Roads, and Santa Fe and E1 Corte Roads, along subdivision
boundary, minimum twenty-five (25) foot radius at right-of-
way.
C. Public Utilities Easements five (5) feet wide along all road
rights-of-way within subdivision boundaries.
d. Storm drainage easements a minimum of ten (10) feet wide over
areas that will convey storm water and where drainage im-
provements will be constructed within the subdivision. Said
drainage easements shall be consented to but not accepted by
the City.
11. All offers of dedication shall be completed and recorded prior to
or simultaneously with recording the final map.
12. A drainage maintenance agreement, in a form acceptable to the City
Attorney, shall be recorded with the deed to each parcel affected
by storm drainage easements or facilities at the time it is first
conveyed. A note to this effect shall be placed on the final map.
13. Submit proof, as required by the Department of Public Works, that
roads are constructed within their legal easements.
14. Note on the final map that a soils report has been prepared, and
is on file with the Community Development Department, which indi-
cated the presence of critically expansive soil or other soil
problems which, if not corrected or special design measures taken,
would lead to structural defects, and that said report does recom-
mend corrective action which is likely to prevent such structural
damage to each structure proposed to be constructed in the area
where soils problems exist.
15. Wastewater disposal shall be by connection to the public sewer.
16. Obtain a sewer connection permit from the Public Works Department
prior to connecting to the public sewer.
17. Pay sewer annexation fees for all newly created lots prior to re-
cording the final map.
18. Participate in the cost of the following improvements: The amount
of participation and credit against development fees shall be
determined by the Director of Public Works.
• i
*a. Extension of Cascada from Arcade Road to Palomar Avenue: 1% 0
not to exceed $750 .00.
*b. Extension of El Centro easterly to E1 Dorado: 1% not to ex-
ceed $275.00.
*c. Design and construction of one traffic signal to be located
at the intersection of Palomar and El Camino Real: 1% not to
exceed $1,000.00.
*d. Widening Palomar and E1 Camino Real intersection: 1% not to
exceed $50 . 00.
*e. Elimination of left turn - Arcade at E1 Camino Real: 3% not
to exceed $25. 00.
*f. Upgrading downstream drainage facilities within watershed:
3% not to exceed $625. 00.
19 . Install City standard fire hydrants at the following locations:
a. Intersection of E1 Dorado and Santa Fe
b. Intersection of Santa Fe and El Corte
C. Entrance to Lots 11 and 12 on El Corte
20. 'The entrance to Lots 11 and 12 shall be redesigned to provide for
a single ingress/egress easement or driveway to serve the two (2)
lots. Said easement shall be a minimum twenty (20) feet wide.
21. A final map drawn in substantial conformance with the approved
tentative map and in compliance with all conditions set forth
herein shall be submitted for review and approval in accordance
with the Subdivision Map Act and the City Lot Division Ordinance
prior to recordation.
a. Monuments shall be set at all new property corners created
and a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor
shall indicate, by certificate on the final map, that corners
have been set or shall be set by a date specific and that
they will be sufficient to enable the survey to be retraced.
b. A recently updated preliminary title report shall be submit-
ted for review in conjunction with the processing of the
final map.
C. A preliminary subdivision guarantee shall be submitted for
review in conjunction with the processing of the final map.
22. Approval of this tentative tract map shall expire two years from
the date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted
pursuant to a written request prior to the expiration date.
City of Atascadero Item: B.1
STAFF REPORT
FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: 8/4/87
8/18/87
BY:pip Steven L. DeCamp, Senior Planner File No: TTM 13-87
Project Address: 8519 E1 Dorado Road
SUBJECT:
Subdivision of six (6) parcels containing 6 .81 acres into twelve (12)
lots containing approximately 20, 000 square feet each.
A. SITUATION AND FACTS:
1. Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Peterson Development Corporation
2. Representative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Steve Devencenzi
3. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.81 acres
4. Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .RSF-X (20, 000 square foot mini-
mum lot size with sewers)
5. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Six (6) single family dwellings
6. General Plan Designation. . . . .High Density Single Family
7. Environmental Status. : . . . . . . .Negative Declaration posted
July 20 , 1987
B. ANALYSIS:
The application before the Commission proposes the subdivision of
six (6) parcels containing 6.81 acres into twelve (12) parcels con-
taining between 20 ,010 square feet and 33 ,330 square feet. The prop-
erty proposed for subdivision is located in a RSF-X zoning district.
The minimum lot size in this zone is 20 , 000 square feet when sewers
are available and 0. 5 acres where there are no sanitary sewers. Be-
cause sewers are available to the subject property, the 20 ,000 square
foot minimum lot size is applicable.
The property proposed for subdivision contains one single family
dwelling on each of the six existing lots. Six additional lots will
be created which will be appropriate for the development of single
family homes. Parcels of 20,000+ square feet are consistent with the
size of the residential lots in the rest of the neighborhood.
i 0
Portions of the subject site have been filled over the years without
proper attention to soil compaction or quality of the fill material.
For this reason, and as required by the Subdivision Map Act, a soil
engineering report was prepared. This report indicates significant
site preparation work will be required, but that the fill areas can be
made useable. The final map will be required to note the existence of
the soils report so that future purchasers will be made aware of the
on-site soil conditions.
When the zoning in this neighborhood was amended to allow for 0.5 acre
and 20, 000 square foot lots, it was recognized that circulation in the
area would need attention. The Public Works Department has determined
that in addition to general roadway improvements, several roads need
to be extended. Cascada is to be extended from its current terminus
at Arcade through to Palomar. El Centro will also be completed
through to E1 Dorado. In addition, traffic lights will be installed
at the intersections of Palomar and El Camino Real, and at Santa Rosa
and El Camino Real. Each development project in the area affected by
these improvements will be conditioned to pay a fair share of the cost
. of these improvements. In this way, developments which contribute to
increased congestion will be responsible for mitigating those impacts.
Development of the property as proposed is in keeping with the general
neighborhood character and is in conformance with the General Plan and
Zoning Ordinance. The project can be conditioned to mitigate its
effects on neighborhood drainage and circulation concerns. In gener-
al, staff believes that the proposed development, as conditioned, is
appropriate for the site in question.
C. RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends conditional approval of Tentative Tract Map 13-87
based on the Findings in Exhibit C and Conditions of Approval in
Exhibit D.
SLD:ps
ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Location and Zoning Map
Exhibit B - Tentative Tract Map
Exhibit C - Findings for Approval
Exhibit D - Conditions of Approval
CXNI$IT A
CITY
�1d OF ATASCADERO (�
��g .e-. 1 78-7 LOGZeTLO^ 4 ZGMihl
scAn COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT J
DEPARTMENT 13
1 0
L • 1 \ `
-51 TIE
v
MF` SsJ9
M app
-nor-p zi Ec I z
. °0.
t-4
C R
Asc
T
-P " .,
�� E x A 5 i 6
`� CITY OF ATASCADERO
�t1 �, 19-78-7 T•�K-•�'a-�a�w —l"ra-4 BVI a
�,OCAD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
�� DEPARTMENT
1
• i
A y O
IL
/
/ 1
r
M
I f y 96�• - i III � f O � / 1 i�
1 a t 1
t4OO h � 1 • � I
s
' �1 1 g J•ti—;• N a —� �
J K O a- ♦.
r! 4
a•.
0 9
EXHIBIT C - Findings for Approval
Tentative Tract Map 13-87 (Peterson/Devencenzi)
August 4, 1987
FINDINGS:
1. The creation of these parcels conforms to the Zoning Ordinance and
the General Plan.
2. The creation of these parcels, in conformance with the recommended
conditions of approval, will not have a significant adverse effect
upon the environment. The Negative Declaration prepared for the
project is adequate.
3. The site is physically suitable for the type of development
proposed.
4. The site is physically suitable for the density of development
proposed.
5. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements will
not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and
avoidably injure fish and wildlife or their habitat.
6. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvement will not
conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access
through or use of property within the proposed subdivision; or
that substantially equivalent alternate easements are provided.
7. The proposed subdivision complies with Section 66474.6 of the
State Subdivision Map Act as to methods of handling and discharge
of waste.
0 0
EXHIBIT D - Tentative Tract Map 13-87
Conditions of Approval
August 4, 1987
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. Water shall be obtained from the Atascadero Mutual Water Company
and water lines shall exist at the frontage of each parcel or its
public utility easement prior to recordation of the final map.
2. All existing and proposed utility, pipeline, and other easements
are to be shown on the final map. If there are building or other
restrictions related to the easements, they shall be noted on the
final map.
3. Grading, drainage, and erosion control plans, prepared by a regis-
tered civil engineer , shall be submitted for review and approval
by the Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to
recording the final map.
4. Drainage work and facilities shall be constructed (or guaranteed)
to City of Atascadero standards prior to recording a• final map.
5. Road improvement plans, prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer ,
shall be submitted for review and approval by the Public Works
Department prior to recording the final map. Said plans shall be
for reconstruction to City standards, one-half road sections along
the entire property frontage of El Dorado, Santa Fe, and El Corte
Roads. Said plans shall include, but not be limited to, design
and/or upgrading of drainage facilities, one (1) City standard
drive approach to serve each lot, and location of existing utili-
ties within the rights-of-way. AC pavement width shall be fifteen
(15) feet from the centerline of the right-of-way with two (2)
foot graded shoulders, typical.
6. Construction of road improvements shall be completed, or guaran-
teed to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director, prior to
recording the final map.
7. Obtain an Encroachment Permit from the City. Sign an Inspection
Agreement guaranteeing that the work will be done, and inspections
paid for , and construct all improvements as directed by the En-
croachment Permit prior to recording the final map.
8. Provide drainage easements for conveyance of storm drainage across
newly created lots to subdivision boundary.
9. All drainage improvements shall require written certification by
a Registered Civil Engineer that all work has been completed and
is in full compliance with the approved plans.
• 0
10. An irrevocable offer of dedication to the City of Atascadero for
the following rights-of-way for future road and P.U.E. purposes
shall be made and noted on the final map:
a. Street Names: E1 Dorado Road, Santa Fe Road, and E1 Corte
Road
Limits: Entire property frontage
Minimum Width: Twenty (20) feet from centerline of R.O.W.
b. Corner rounding at intersections of E1 Dorado and Santa Fe
Roads, and Santa Fe and El Corte Roads, along subdivision
boundary, minimum twenty-five (25) foot radius at right-of-
way.
C. Public Utilities Easements five (5) feet wide along all road
rights-of-way within subdivision boundaries.
d. Storm drainage easements a minimum of ten (10) feet wide over
areas that will convey storm water and where drainage im-
provements will be constructed within the subdivision. Said
drainage easements shall be consented to but not accepted by
the City.
11. All offers of dedication shall be completed and recorded prior to
or simultaneously with recording the final map.
12. A drainage maintenance agreement, in a form acceptable to the City
Attorney, shall be recorded with the deed to each parcel affected
by storm drainage easements or facilities at the time it is first
conveyed. A note to this effect shall be placed on the final map.
13. Submit proof, as required by the Department of Public Works, that
roads are constructed within their legal easements.
14. Note on the final map that a soils report has been prepared, and
is on file with the Community Development Department, which indi-
cated the presence of critically expansive soil or other soil
problems which, if not corrected or special design measures taken,
would lead to structural defects , and that said report does recom-
mend corrective action which is likely to prevent such structural
damage to each structure proposed to be constructed in the area
where soils problems exist.
15. Wastewater disposal shall be by connection to the public sewer .
16. Obtain a sewer connection permit from the Public Works Department
prior to connecting to the public sewer .
17. Pay sewer annexation fees for all newly created lots prior to re-
cording the final map.
18. Participate in the cost of the following improvements. The amount
of participation and credit against development fees shall be
determined by the Director of Public Works.
0 0
a. Extension of Cascada from Arcade Road to Palomar Avenue (5%)
b. Extension of E1 centro easterly to El Dorado (5%)
C. Design and construction of two traffic signals to be located
at the intersections of Santa Rosa and El Camino Real (1%) ,
and Palomar and El Camino Real (3%)
d. Widening Palomar and El Camino Real intersection (5%)
e. Elimination of left turn - Arcade at E1 Camino Real (10%)
C. Upgrading downstream drainage facilities within watershed
(10%)
19. Install City standard fire hydrants at the following locations:
a. Intersection of E1 Dorado and Santa Fe
b. Intersection of Santa Fe and El Corte
C. Entrance to Lots 11 and 12 on E1 Corte
20. The entrance to Lots 11 and 12 shall be redesigned to provide for
a single ingress/egress easement or driveway to serve the two (2)
lots. Said easement shall be a minimum twenty (20) feet wide.
21. A final map drawn in substantial conformance with the approved
tentative map and in compliance with all conditions set forth i
herein shall be submitted for review and approval in accordance
with the Subdivision Map Act and the City Lot Division Ordinance
prior to recordation.
a. Monuments shall be set at all new property corners created
and a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor
shall indicate, by certificate on the final map, that corners
have been set or shall be set by a date specific and that
they will be sufficient to enable the survey to be retraced.
b. A recently updated preliminary title report shall be submit-
ted for review in conjunction with the processing of the
final map.
C. A preliminary subdivision guarantee shall be submitted for
review in conjunction with the processing of the final map.
22. Approval of this tentative tract map shall expire two years from
the date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted
pursuant to a written request prior to the expiration date.
0 0
Minutes - Planning Commission - Au ust , 1987
Tentative Tract-Map 13-87 :
Request initiated by Peterson Development Corporation (Steve
Devencenzi) to allow subdivision of six parcels containing
6.81 acres into twelve lots containing approximately 20,000
square feet each. Subject site is located at 8519 E1 Dorado
Road.
Mr. Decamp noted that a request for continuance to the August 18th
meeting had been received earlier to day from the applicant noting
that the applicant' s representative was out of town. Staff has no
problem with the continuance.
Chairman Bond noted that public testimony could be taken, however ,
no action would be taken until the August 18th meeting.
Patty Woods, 8545 El Dorado, stated she lives next door to the
site and asked how the property would be graded. She noted that
there is a large mound of dirt next to her property and expressed
concern that at some point this dirt could shift causing the dirt
to go onto her property.
Mr: DeCamp stated the site has been the subject of extensive grad-
ing over the past years without benefit of any permits. He noted
the area will have extensive conditions imposed so no significant
offsite impacts will occur as a result of this grading.
MOTION: Made by Commissioner Copelan, seconded by Commissioner
Lopez-Balbontin, and carried unanimously to continue the
hearing on Tentative Tract Map 12-87 to the meeting of
August 18, 1987 .
3. General Plan Amendment 2G-87:
equest initiated by City of Atascadero to revis the General
P n' s Community Appearance and Standards Ele nt by elimin-
atin reference to a formal architectural view process and
by del ing Appendix D "Draft Ordinance - esign Review Com-
mission. '
Mr . DeCamp gave the resentation on thi matter .
Commissioner Copelan ref red to A achment A of the Resolution
(Appearance Review) and a ed f clarification of the term "vis-
ually sensitive Discussion nsued.
Chairman Bond complimente staff o a concise, well written re-
port.
MOTION: Made by C missioner Copelan, sec ded by Commissioner
Lopez-B bontin and carried unanimo ly to recommend ap-
prov of General Plan Amendment 2G-87 s referenced in
st f ' s recommendation.
4. eneral Plan Amendment 2A-87 and Zone Change 4-87 :
Request initiated by Joseph and Mary Lindsey (Donald Fu ) to
revise the existing General Plan land use designation m
EM: A-1
ETING DATE : 9/1/87
MINUTES - ATASCADERO PLANNING COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, _ August 18 , 1987 7 :30 p.m.
T\rder
ng of the Atascadero Planning Commission was
calle :31 p.m. by Chairman Bond, fol wed by thePledge
of Alommissioner Nolan.
ROLL
Present: Commissioner Kidwell, Michiel en, Nolan, Lopez-Balbontin
(7:36 p.m. ) , elan and Cha ' man Bond
Absent: Commissioner Hatc 11 (e used)
Staff Present: Henry Engen, Co unity Development Director ; Steven
DeCamp, Senio P1 ner ; Joel Moses, Associate Planner ;
Paul Sensib gh, Pu lic Works Director ; and Patricia
Shepphard Administra ive Secretary I
A. CONSENT CALEND
1. Appro 1 of minutes of the regular Plan ing Commission meet-
ing f August 4, 1987
MOTI Made by Commissioner Copelan, seconded b Commissioner
Michielssen and .carried unanimously to a rove the Con-
sent Calendar as presented.
B. HEARINGS, APPEARANCES , AND REPORTS
1. Tentative Tract Ma 13-87 :
Request initiated by Peterson Development Corporation (Steve
Devencenzi) to allow subdivision of six parcels containing
6.81 acres into twelve lots containing approximately 20 , 000
square feet each. Subject site is located at 8519 El Dorado
Road. (CONTINUED FROM COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 4 , 1987)
(7: 36 p.m. - Commissioner Lopez-Balbontin is now present)
Mr. DeCamp presented the staff report on this tract map request
recommending approval subject to certain conditions. Paul Sensi-
baugh, Public Works Director , then responded to various questions
from the Commission pertaining to the conditions. Mr . Sensibaugh
elaborated on cost estimates for improvements needed in the area
for this project and other proposed projects (i .e. Poe, Lindsey) .
He presented a revised worksheet concerning percentages and cost
estimates for off-site improvements for the area and explained the
0 !
Minutes - Planning Commission - August 18 , 1987
intent of the worksheet.
Steve Devencenzi , agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the
request. He indicated concern with condition #18 as originally
presented in the staff report. Mr . Sensibaugh presented a revised
set of percentages and cost figures for offsite improvements in
response to Mr. Devencenzi ' s concerns. Mr . Devencenzi then clari-
fied some of the Commission' s concerns relative to the conditions.
There was no public testimony given.
There was discussion by the Commission concerning how fees will be
paid for the improvements (i.e. , securities, bond posting, letters
of credit, etc. ) . There was also discussion concerning suggested
changes and modifications to condition #18.
MOTION: Made by Commissioner Copelan and seconded by Commis-
sioner Nolan to approve Tentative Tract Map 13-87 subject
to the findings and conditions contained in the staff re-
port with modification to condition #18 (a-f) as follows:
a. Extension of Cascada from Arcade Road to Palomar
Avenue: 1% not to exceed $750 . 00 .
b. Extension of El Centro easterly to El Dorado: 1% not
to exceed $275.00 .
C. Design and construction of one traffic signal to be
located at the intersection of Palomar and E1 Camino
Real: 1% not to exceed $1, 000 . 00 .
d. Widening Palomar and E1 Camino Real intersection:
1% not to exceed $50 .00.
e. Elimination of left turn - Arcade at El Camino Real:
3% not to exceed $25 . 00.
f. Upgrading downstream drainage facilities within
watershed: 3% not to exceed $625. 00.
The motion carried with a 5 :1 roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Copelan, Nolan, Michielssen,
Kidwell , and Chairman Bond
NOES: Commissioner Lopez-Balbontin
Chairman Bond complimented staff on an excellent staff report.
Commissioner Copelan stated that with the figures presented by the
Public Works Department, she was able to achieve a clearer picture
Of that area.
2
'ETNGAGTIDA
0 *ATE 9/IRIS _7
_ !MIA 7
• MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council September 8, 1987
VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager l ,
FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director �f
SUBJECT: Lot Line Adjustment 13-87
LOCATION: 7905 Marchant
APPLICANT: Al Kling (Cuesta Engineering)
REQUEST: To adjust the property line between two existing lots of
record
BACKGROUND:
This matter was considered by the Planning Commission at its August
4, 1987 and August 18, 1987 meeting. There was considerable discus-
sion and testimony given as reflected in the attached minutes ex-
cerpts. The Commission voted 5 : 1 to deny the request as not complying
with the City' s zoning, subdivision, or General Plan regulations.
RECOMMENDATION:
Uphold the Planning Commission' s recommendation for denial of Lot Line
Adjustment 13-87 per the findings reflected in the attached staff
report.
HE:ps
Attachments: Staff Report - August 4, 1987 and August 18, 1987
Minutes Excerpts - August 4, 1987 and August 18, 1987
cc: Al Kling
Cuesta Engineering
Ken Wilson
City of Atascadero Item: C.1 •
STAFF REPORT
FOR: Planning Commssion Meeting Date: 8/4/87
BY:A0nn-- 8/18/87
3teven L. DeCamp, Senior Planner File No: LLA 13-87
Project Address : 7905 Marchant (Ptn. Lots 20 , 21, Block 7; A.C. )
SUBJECT:
Request to adjust the property line between two existing lots of
record.
A. SITUATION AND FACTS:
1. Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Al Kling
2. Representative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Cuesta Engineering
3. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Par. 1: 11,460 s.f./13,253 s.f.
Par. 2: 24 ,835 s. f./23 , 042 s. f.
4. Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .RSF-Y (1. 0 acres with sewer ;
1. 5 acres without sewer)
5. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Parcel 1 - garage, pool
Parcel 2 - SFR, guest house,
shed, patio
6. General Plan Designation. . . . .Moderate Density Single Family
7. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Categorically Exempt (Class 5)
B. ANALYSIS:
The property in question is located in an RSF-Y zoning district. The
minimum lot size in that zone is 1. 0 acres with sewers and 1. 5 acres
when sewers are not available. Sewers are available to this site;
however , neitherofthe parcels meet the 1.0 acre minimum lot size.
The proposed lot line adjustment raises three significant issues.
These issues involve: (1) the reduction in size of an existing non-
conforming lot, (2) this City' s criteria for lot line adjustments, and
(3) existing site development.
Nonconforming Lots:
As noted above, both of the affected lots are considered to be noncon-
forming because they are smaller than required by the zoning ordi-
nance. In the majority of cases, lot line adjustments between noncon-
forming lots of record are allowed when there is an equal exchange of
territory between the two lots. In this way the net size of the lots
0 0
Lot Line Adjustment 13-87 (Kling/Cuesta Engineering)
remains the same with no increase in the degree of nonconformity
occurring.
The application before the Commission proposed to further reduce the
size of an already nonconforming lot. In rare circumstances, such re-
ductions are allowed if specific variance findings can be made. The
making of those findings does not appear appropriate or possible in
this instance. In the absence of the variance findings, a further re-
duction in lot size should not be allowed.
Lot Line Adjustment Criteria:
In order to implement the intent of the State Subdivision Map Act, the
Community Development Director, in cooperation with the City Engineer
and City Attorney, developed criteria regarding lot line adjustments.
This criteria requires that: (1) the lot line adjustment be limited to
the movement of a lot line roughly parallel to the existing lot line,
and (2) the overall orientation of the lots is to remain unchanged.
. As proposed, the subject lot line adjustment does not appear to meet
the above criteria. In some cases, a simple redrafting of the tenta-
tive map might bring a plan into conformance with the criteria. In
this case, however , the existing improvements on the property preclude
such redrawing of the property lines.
Site Development:
Existing improvements on the subject property include a single family
dwelling, a guest house, garage, shed, and swimming pool. These im-
provements have been completed without respect for the existence of
the second "legal" lot. Indeed, the site has been developed as if it
were a single parcel. Because of this, any attempt to create a second
building site on the parcel results in the creation of two awkward
lots. In fact, the existing garage would impinge on the required
front yard setback if the property line is adjusted as proposed.
Given the size and shape of the smaller lot, development of that par-
cel could prove difficult. In addition, such a lot would not be in
keeping with the character of the surrounding neighborhood.
C. SUMMARY:
The proposed lot line adjustment would result in the further reduction
in size of an existing substandard lot. This is neither good planning
practice nor is it sanctioned by the Zoning Ordinance or General Plan.
Because of existing site development, the lot line adjustment can not
be accomplished within the constraints of the normally imposed criter-
ia for lot line adjustments. Finally, the property has been developed
as a single parcel, rendering any adjusted "lot" very difficult to
adequately develop and utilize.
2
Lot Line Adjustment 13-87 (Kling/Cuesta Engineering)
D. RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of Lot Line Adjustment 13-87 based on the
Findings contained in Exhibit C.
SLD:ps
ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Location and Zoning
Exhibit B - Tentative Lot Line Adjustment Map
Exhibit C - Findings for Denial
3
s
' 1 •
MR
up
III. P-
INA
• •fir//% •��i �- � �� ��► �
Alaft- $VIP
.10
l=
� s
CX4l BI 8
CITY OF ATASCADERO ah4a
`arasc�►nF� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT L►�!!, AJJJs MSH
DEPARTMENT LLA 13_87
O k
�� •`aw `4���i[ pJ A '
urt
IfAS[Iq.RO �''
VI6/NItY MAO
�� OLLO UA!-� N SS'SZ'Ss'N_ 6070'fl ��
/?S
V
7 11S OI'H
z vAacec i �J� JJ b t I tX.bAZAbE I
/l1JJ 60.Ar R I I I I
3�' xLv Lary x
4,1 so'r[ I icAC
tr.5N[v
LX.4LG57 �--�--.---�-•�
Z oaGwO7t0 i LY.N4Y/5L i I'
corcwe �'/�
h
\ ��B•u x
?JOI?60.ff.
N[r
\ c
� 7:L __ -- l
~'- N SS•sS'OJ'J4 177 37' M
APIb/NAL 407"WO
i
Ono
6c.[ct r•1v �
Z
t
0 •
Lot Line Adjustment 13-87 (Kling/Cuesta Engineering)
EXHIBIT C - Findings for Denial
Lot Line Adjustment 13-87 (Kling/Cuesta Engineering)
August 4, 1987
FINDINGS
1. The application as submitted has been determined to be categori-
cally exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act.
2. The application as submitted does not conform with all applicable
zoning, general plan, or subdivision regulations of the City of
Atascadero.
• 0
Minutes - Planning Commission - August 4 , 1987
roceed with this project.
Mr. LaSalle referenced a past meeting of the Bo d noting that his
inte retation of the minutes from that meetin was that the Board
had gi en the administration the authority t contact the property
owners determine whether they were inter sted in selling. He
added tha he has been a minority member that board in terms of
that parti lar issue all along ; howeve the majority of the
Board has ' rected the administration o proceed with acquisition
of the propert
Commissioner Lope -Balbontin felt his was a poor choice for a
school. Commissi ner Michiel sen .feels the site is appropriate
for a school based o the dens ' y in that area; commented on the
easy access for travel to sch ol.
MOTION: Made by Commiss ' n r Lopez-Balbontin and seconded by
Commissioner ichie ssen to continue General Plan Amend-
ment 2D-87 u it the hool Board has determined the sta-
tus of the roperty in uestion. The motion carried 6:0
with a ro call vote.
6. General P an Amendment 2H-87 :
Request initiated by City of Atasca ero to revise the exist- 0
ing neral Plan Circulation Ele nt by eliminating Table
VIII "RECAPITULATION OF PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
WI IN THE COLONY UNDER VARIOUS FISCAL RISDICTIONS. "
Mr. ses presented the staff report on this ame dment request and
res onded to questions from the Commission.
OTION: Made by Commissioner Nolan, seconded by mmissioner
Kidwell and carried 6 : 0 to recommend Genera Plan 2H-87
as reflected in the staff recommendation.
(Item A-2) : Consideration of staff report for Lot Line Adjustment
13-87 at 7905 Marchant - Al Kling (Cuesta Engineering)
Mr. DeCamp presented the staff report pointing out the reasons for
staff' s recommendation for denial and responded to questions from
the Commission.
Deborah Hollowell, agent for the applicant, explained the intent
of this lot line adjustment request and noted the applicant is
willing to do an equal acreage split; she clarified that neighbor-
hood lots in that area approximately 20, 000 square feet and some
at even 11, 000 square feet. She did not feel this. proposal was
out of character with the neighborhood.
0 0
Minutes - Planning Commission - August 4 , 1987
Ken Wilson, also representing the applicant, referenced the Sub-
division Map Act doesn' t restrict lot line adjustments except that
they conform with the existing zoning and building regulations.
He talked about the site plan and the owner ' s reasoning for want-
ing- this adjustment.
Chairman Bond talked about the previous owner of the property who j
had developed the parcel as a single one. Commissioner Michiels-
sen felt this application presented a good solution to an other-
wise long and narrow parcel and would be in favor of approving the
request. Commissioner Kidwell felt the previous owner ' s intent
was for one parcel.
MOTION: Made by Commissioner Kidwell and seconded by Commis-
sioner Nolan to deny Lot Line Adjustment 13-87 based on
the findings contained in the staff report. The motion
failed to pass with a 3 :3 vote:
AYES: Commissioners Kidwell, Nolan and Chairman Bond
NOES : Commissioners Michielssen, Lopez-Balbontin and
Copelan
MOTION: Made by Commissioner Michielssen and seconded by Com-
missioner Copelan to continue this matter to the August
18th meeting in order have a full Commission to take a
vote. The motion carried 4 :2 with a roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Michielssen, Copelan, Lopez-Balbon-
tin, and Nolan
NOES: Commissioner Kidwell and Chairman Bond
C. LIC COMMENT
There s no public comment at this time.
D. INDIVIDUAL ACT AND/OR DETERMINATION
1. Planning Commis • n
Chairman Bond would apprec to r eiving the minutes from the pre-
vious meeting prior to the be inning of the next meeting.
He noted he has receive everal co ents concerning Davis Auto
Body' s freeway sign i .e. , too bri t, etc. He asked that Mr .
Davis be contacted o adjust the lightin
Commissioner opez-Balbontin stated he would 1 e to see a cross-
walk and top sign at the corner of Santa Ysab and Highway 41
(by the ank of America and Brookhill Restaurant). asked that
this e referred to the Traffic Committee for considera 'on.
0
Minutes - Planning Commission - August 18, 1987
Mr. Moses presented the background involved with this reque and
ted that the applicant and staff have been working on revised
de lopment plan; however , the plan is not ready for con ideration
by t Commission. He asked that this matter be conti ed to the
meetin of September lst.
There was o public testimony given.
MOTION Made y Commissioner Copelan, seconde by Commissioner
Kidwel and carried unanimously t continue the hearing
on Gener 1 Plan Amendment 2C-87 a Zone Change 6-87 to
September , 1987.
4. Tentative Parcel Ma 26-87:
Request initiated by ordeaux ouse to allow the division of
27 . 01 acres into 4 lots of . 52, 4.23, 6. 59, and 7. 67 acres
each. Subject site is 1 ted at 11300 Viejo Camino.
In presenting the staffrep t, M DeCamp pointed out that the
reason for this request i to obtai permanent financing of the
project and that no othe entitlement are being requested. He
emphasized the importa ce of imposing rict CC&Rs for the project
to ensure that the p ject will be maint ' ned as one. unit instead
of four . Mr. DeCa responded to question from the Commission.
Gary Horn, agen for the applicant, spoke in s port of the re-
quest and ex ained that the change in tax laws necessitated div-
iding the pr erty for financial reasons. He add e that one man-
agement f' m would be in charge of all the units, and indicated
his conc rence with the recommended conditions.
There as no public testimony given.
MO ION: Made by Commissioner Copelan, seconded by Commissio er
Nolan and carried unanimously to approve Tentative Pa el
Map 26-87 subject to the findings and conditions co
tained in the staff report.
C. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Consideration of staff report for Lot Line Adjustment 13-87
at 7905 Marchant - Al Kling (Cuesta Engineering) - (CONTINUED
FROM COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 4 , 1987 TO ALLOW CONSIDERA-
TION BY THE FULL COMMISSION) .
In presenting the staff report with a recommendation for denial,
Mr. DeCamp pointed out three concerns staff has with this request
which include nonconforming lots, the lot line adjustment cri-
teria, and site development.
5
0 •
Minutes - Planning Commission - August 18 , 1987
Mr . Sensibaugh stated that if this request were to be approved,
the City Engineer is responsible for signing the final lot line
adjustment map that would eventually come before him. He noted he
would have difficulty in signing the map as he felt this is out-
side the intent of what lot line adjustments are within the con-
straints of the Subdivision Map Act. He would strongly recommend
denial of the request for these reasons.
Commissioner Michielssen asked if Lot 20 is a legal, buildable
parcel to which a building permit could be obtained. Mr . DeCamp
stated the lot is a legal lot, but added he cannot guarantee that
all legal lots are buildable lots. Discussion ensued.
Commissioner Kidwell summarized the actions on the voting which
took place at the last meeting and asked what procedure is now
involved since there is still not a full commission this evening.
Mr. DeCamp explained the options available. Mr. Engen added that
he raised the question with the City Attorney concerning City
legal practice with respect to tie votes and was advised that a
tie vote is no action; the matter would be voted upon at each
meeting until the tie vote is broken.
John Falkenstien, agent for the applicant, spoke in support of
approving the requested application and responded to staff ' s con-
cerns outlined in the staff report. He then presented several
. alternatives concerning lot size configurations for this site in
support of approval.
Barbara Reiter asked what the minimum lot size is in this area
and felt a better alternative would be to consolidate both lots
into one.
Sharon Morin, local realtor , talked about the economic feasibility
of being able to work with two lots rather than one lot.
Al Kling , applicant, stated that when he purchased the property
it was his understanding that the property was two legal lots. He
explained his intent for the lot line adjustment request and felt
that what the previous owner did with the property should not
affect what he now wishes to do.
Ken Wilson, representing the applicant, stated these types of
situations occur frequently and felt there would be no problem
with meeting the setback requirements.
Commissioner Michielssen stated he concurs with staff' s concerns,
but felt that individual property owners have rights as well and
felt that there currently exist two legal, buildable lots. He
noted his concurrence that the neighborhood character would be
better suited by the applicant' s proposal.
In response to question from Commissioner Lopez-Balbontin, Mr .
DeCamp clarified the difference between this request and other
lot line adjustments which have been previously considered as they
pertain to applying the lot line adjustment criteria.
6
• •
Minutes - Planning Commission - August 18 ,_
Commissioner Copelan noted she would be in opposition to the re-
quest as proposed as she felt that the setback would be too
shallow for the rest of the neighborhood.
Commissioner Kidwell concurred with Commissioner Copelan and felt
that no property rights are being denied as there are two separate
parcels. She warned that by approving this, a precedent could be
set, and added comments in opposition to the adjustment.
In response to question from Commissioner Nolan, Mr . DeCamp stated
that even if one of the alternatives proposed by the applicants
were chosen, it would still address one of the three concerns
raised by staff.
Chairman Bond stated he is not in favor of creating flag lots and
felt this proposal would create a flag lot.
MOTION: Made by Commissioner Michielssen and seconded by Chair-
man Bond to approve Lot Line Adjustment 13-87 with the
stipulation that the applicant come back with a revised
map that would not result in any increase or decrease in
the size of the lots, and to direct staff to prepare
findings and conditions of approval. The motion failed
4: 2 with a roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Michielssen and Lopez-Balbontin
NOES: Commissioners Kidwell, Copelan, Nolan and Chairman
Bond
MOTION: Made by Commissioner Nolan and seconded by Commissioner
Copelan to deny Lat Line Adjustment 13-87 based on the
findings for denial. The motion carried 5:1 with a roll
call vote :
AYES: Commissioners Nolan, Copelan, Kidwell, Lopez-Bal-
bontin, and Chairman Bond
NOES : Commissioner Michielssen
D. PUB
L COMMENT
There was n ublic comment at this time.
E. INDIVIDUAL ACTION AND Z DETERMINAT
1. Planning Commission
a. Election of Ch ' rman and a Chairman .
At this point, C rman Bond turned the m ting over to Mr . Engen
for the elect ' Mr . Engen opened the nomin ions for Chairman.
7
• _ 9/
•
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: City Council September 8, 1987
VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager
FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director ,
SUBJECT: Acceptance of Final Tract Map 20-86
LOCATION: 8305 Coromar
APPLICANT: George Molina (Twin Cities Engineering)
On September 8, 1986 , the City Council approved Tentative Tract
Map 20-86 subject to certain conditions and in concurrence with
the recommendation of the Planning Commission. The required con-
ditions have been complied with and the final map is recommended
for approval.
HE:ps
cc: George Molina
Twin Cities Engineering
•
1
- EXE ►X31 i �
1 EN
•
w
!`
8 Coro-O t '
�L
bt
4..4 Oslo 00• 1
A-y
o i
411
�C VgQ � tgtio
Am
a
I. �
j7
•
P R O C L A M A T I O N
"WORLD LITERACY DAY"
September 8, 1987
WHEREAS, the United Nations has proclaimed September 8, 1987,
as "World Literacy Day; and
WHEREAS, the social, policital, and economic structure of the
United States is dependent on the ability of its citizens to read
and write; and
WHEREAS, reading is a life skill and a job skill needed to
improve quality of life; and
WHEREAS, those who cannot read or write English must be
informed that help is available through adult schools, public
libraries, community colleges, and volunteer literacy programs;
and
• THEREFORE, the City of Atascadero does hereby urge the
g
citizens of Atascadero to join the Literacy Coalition of San Luis
Obispo County in celebrating "World Literacy Day, and supporting
literacy efforts throughout the year.
BARBARA NORRIS
Mayor
September 8, 1987
•
P R O C L A M A T I O N
GOOD NEIGHBOR MONTHS
OCTOBER, NOVEMBER, AND DECEMBER, 1987
WHEREAS, Neighbors Helping Neighbors (A. I.D. ) is a voluntary
grouping together of donors to provide financial support to local
and national charitable health, welfare, research and youth
organizations; and
WHEREAS, this organization was formed by the efforts of
representatives of labor , management, and general public; and
WHEREAS, these representatives, acting as a volunteer board
of directors, are responsible for directing Neighbors Helping
Neighbors activities, and are to insure that the wishes of the
givers will receive first priority in fund distributions; and
WHEREAS, Neighbors Helping Neighbors provide the donors
with the knowledge that their gift is collected, processed, and
distributed in the most efficient way possible; and
WHEREAS, this City Council encourages all citizens who so
desire, and who find it within their means, to contribute to the
charities of their choice through Neighbors Helping Neighbors
(A.I.D. ) Neighbors, as well as through the volunteering of their
time to community organizations.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Barbara Norris, Mayor of the City of
Atascadero, do hereby proclaim the months of October, November,
and December, 1987 as "Good Neighbor" months.
BARBARA NORRIS
Mayor
September 8 , 1987
M E M p R A N D U M
•
TO: City Council September 8,, 1987
VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager �%1�-
FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment 2G-87: Revision to Resolution 88-87
(Amending the text of the Community Appearance and Standards
Element Referring to a Design Review Commission)
BACKGROUND:
The above-referenced subject was continued from the City Council ' s
August 25th meeting in order to bring back a revised resolution which
maintains the option of designating a Design Review Commission in the
future.
• RECOMMENDATION:
Approval of Resolution No. 88-87 as revised.
HE:ps
Attachments: Staff Report dated August 25, 1987
Resolution No. 88-87 (Revised)
r..t
ZS-18 ; 1,
MEMORANDUM •
TO: City Council ` August 25, 1987
VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager
FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director l
SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment 2G-87
APPLICANT: City of Atascadero
REQUEST: To revise the Community Appearance and Standards Element
by eliminating reference to a formal architectural review
process and by deleting Appendix D "Draft Ordinance - De-
sign Review Commission"
BACKGROUND:
At their August 4, 1987 meeting, the Planning Commission conducted a
public hearing on the above-referenced subject unanimously recommend-
ing approval of the amendment as outlined in the attached staff re- •
port. The Amendment brings the General Plan into harmony with the
City' s Appearance Review process.
There was no public testimony given and only brief discussion by the
Commission on the matter.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approval of General Plan Amendment 2G-87 per the Planning Commission' s
recommendation and approval of Resolution No. 88-87.
HE:ps
Enclosures: Staff Report - August 4, 1987
Resolution No. 88-87
Cit of
City Atascadero Item:-B-3
STAFF REPORT
FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: Aug. 4, 1987
BY: ��Nteven L. DeCamp, Senior Planner File No. 2G-87
Project Address: City Wide
SUBJECT:
City initiated amendment to the General Plan to revise the Community
Appearance and Standards Element by eliminating reference to a
formal architectural review process and by deleting Appendix D
"Draft Ordinance - Design Review Commission" .
A. ANALYSIS:
When the current General Plan was adopted in 1980, it was envisioned
that a Design Review Committee or Commission would be established
with the power to review and approve development projects. As a
result, specific goals and responsibilities for this Design Reviw
Committee were included in the Community Appearance and Standards
Element as well as Appendix D of the Plan. The Community Appearance
and Standards Element and Appgndix D are attached to this report as
Exhibits A and B for your information.
After considerable review and discussion of the General Plan and
various other alternatives for architectural or design review, a
committee appointed by the City Council recommended adoption and
implementation of an Appearance Review Manual. This manual was the
subject of public hearings by both the Planning Commission and the
City Council prior to its adoption by Resolution #35-87 on April
14, 1987. The guidelines for appearance review contained in the
manual are now being utilized by staff during the project review
process.
The procedures that were adopted by the City Council vary somewhat
from those originally envisioned by the General Plan. Primary among
these changes is the elimination of the Design Review Commission,
and assignment of the review responsibility to the Planning Division
staff. Also modified were the techniques used and the types of
projects subjected to the appearance review process. Because of
these and other minor changes, the Community Appearance and
Standards Element should be amended to reflect the Council ' s intent
• 0
in adopting Resolution #35-87. In addition Appendix D should hould be
deleted because it is no longer relevant.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Community Appearance and Standards Element
of the General Plan be amended as shown in the attached Resolution.
Staff further recommends that Appendix D of the General Plan be
deleted in its entirety.
Attachments: Exhibit A - Community Appearance and Standards
Exhibit B - Appendix D: Design Review Commission
Exhibit C - Draft Resolution
2 -
. • EXHIBIT A
GP 2G-87
XIII. COMMUNITY APPEARANCE AND STANDARDS
Philosophy
Edward Gardner Lewis repeatedly spoke and wrote of his
dream that Atascadero would become "the most beautiful and
desirable rural community in the world" and "the most
desirable place to live in the nation. " He envisioned a
Civic Center of majestic buildings, surrounded by well laid
out and attractive homes and orchards, and an Industrial
City separated from the residential and civic areas by
parklike boulevards . To this end, he platted the entire
Colony and imposed restrictions which would assure not only
that the City would be beautifully built, but also that it
would remain that way, with no unsightly shacks , neglected
yards or orchards, unkempt homes, billboards, etc. "It is
no place, " he said, "for a man who wants to keep his pig in
the parlour or dump his refuse in his front yard. "
Mr . Lewis laid out roads that radiated from the Civic
Center hub and others that crossed them in concentric
circles out to the farthest reaches of the Colony. They
were winding, avoiding trees rather than replacing them, so
the whole area had a natural and rural character. Houses
blended with the hills . The hills and the agricultural
land provided open space. These are among the qualities
which attracted residents to Atascadero in 1914 and which
still attract them in ever-increasing numbers . This was
emphasized in the Policy Statement adopted at public
hearings in 1973. The residents have chosen Atascadero as
a home because of its unique character, and it is, there-
fore, fair to assume that they are willing to do whatever
is necessary to preserve that character.
Goals
The following goals and principles shall govern the develop-
ment of Atascadero, as outlined. in the Policy Statement of
1973:
1 . The contours of the hills shall be preserved . Resi-
dences built on hillsides shall conform to the
topography, using the slope of the land as the basis
for the design of the structure . Any land use or
activity which would result in major alteration of the
land shall require a grading permit . Theermit
should require restoration of the land (pe - g - ,
replanting of vegetation) .
157
• •
2 . Permits for both residential and commercial development
shall take into consideration the trees existing on
the property. Buildings shall be designed to utilize
existing trees in the landscaping pattern. Any trees
removed shall be replaced.
3 . The architectural style of residential and commercial
buildings shall harmonize with the environment . If*
fencing is used, it shall be consistent in style with
the building.
4. Multi-use trails shall be encouraged to provide
facilities for walking and riding throughout the
community.
5 • The winding street pattern shall be retained.
6. All overhead utility wires shall be replaced with
underground service.
7. Freeway and other vehicular approaches to Atascadero
shall be made more attractive through judicious
application of the elements of landscaping and site
development ( i .e. , setbacks , building location, signs,
and vacant space) . An abatement program to encourage
removal of deteriorating out-buildings and cleanup of
premises and vacant lots shall be instituted. Mainte-
nance and beautification of existing facilities shall
be encouraged.
8. Weed abatement and cleanup campaigns shall be insti-
tuted, applying equally to private dwellings , business
establishments, vacant lots, and stream courses.
9. The threat to the community ' s environment and well
being that is presented in all forms of pollution must
be recognized . A strong program shall be instituted
for the immediate elimination of such abuses and
prevention of future pollution. Acceptable environ-
mental standards shall be developed and set for
discharges into the air, water, or soil.
10. A program to achieve maximum recycling of resources,
goods , and waste products generated by the community
shall be instituted .
11 . Atascadero ' s historic buildings and features shall be
preserved and protected in recognition of the role the
community' s past plays in its present and future .
12 . A program of tree planting to enhance the beauty of
the Central Business District and all major routes and
158
approaches to the community shall be undertaken. Tree
lists and locations are given in the APPENDIX.
Central Business District
In general, people shop where access is easy, where parking
is adequate , and where the environment is pleasant and
attractive . In order to improve the Central Business
District and make it more attractive, the following steps
shall be taken:
1 . Street Trees : An appropriate program of planting
tees in sidewalk niches along the streets , where
needed to complement the existing trees , shall be
implemented. (See APPENDIX C. )
2 . Center Dividers :
a. A center divider strip shall be installed on E1
Camino Real , through the Central Business
District, and shall be appropriately planted and
maintained.
b. A landscaped triangular divider on Rosario
Avenue, at its intersection with E1 Camino Real
and separating its east and westbound lanes ,
shall be constructed , planted and maintained .
3 . Street Furniture:
a. The use of other plantings , where space is
available , shall be encouraged . This can be
accomplished by formation of an improvement
district.
b. Additional trash receptacles , functional and
attractive , shall be installed in the downtown
area, at least one per block, and in the Sunken
Gardens. Emptying of trash receptacles shall be
a requirement of the garbage collection franchise .
4. Signing: Well designed and maintained signs, properly
related to the activities to which they pertain, are a
necessary part of the community. Proper use of color,
materials, and lighting, compatible with the surround-
ing area, is important.
a. Signing shall be in harmony with community
standards , as applied to each development.
159
• •
b . Standards for maximum allowable height, length,
width, and area shall be adopted, related in each
instance to bulding size, site development, etc.
C. Signing shall not J
project into the street or
_
sidewalk nor above the building.
d . Lighting of signing shall be constant and be
directed or shielded so as not to interfere with
pedestrian or vehicular movement.
e. Provisions of the signing ordinance shall be
vigorously enforced.
f. Off-site commercial signing shall not be permit-
ted.
5 . Litter Control: A strong program of street maintenance
ana trash removal shall be instituted in the downtown
area.
6. Street Lighting: Two types of street lighting systems
are needed:
a. Lighting for vehicular traffic shall be bright,
on tall ( 15-18 foot ) standards , shall overhang
the motorway, and be directed downward over it.
b. Lighting for pedestrian traffic shall be of lower
intensity, on lower standards (8-10 foot) , shall
be spaced at closer intervals and directed
downward to the pedestrian walkway.
Tree-Lined irterials and Streets
Most of Atascadero ' s winding streets have ample trees and
shrubs. Some of the major approaches to the community and
some of the streets with heavier use, close to the Central
Business District , would be made more attractive by the
planting of trees . A program of tree planting in these
areas shall be initiated, with first priority being given
to landscaping the Central Business District . Other
plantings shall be done in the following priorities .
1 . E1 Camino Real from Morro Road to Curbaril.
2 . Atascadero Mall from Highway 101 to Atascadero Avenue.
3 . Ardilla Way from Atascadero Mall to Santa Lucia Road .
4. Traffic Way from Olmeda Avenue to Via Avenue.
5 . Morro Road from Highway 101 to San Gabriel Road .
6 . Frontage Road from Portola Road to Santa Rosa Road .
160
! !
Industrial Parks
A zoning designation for industrial parks shall be estab-
lished and the following standards applied:
1 . All industrial processes shall be conducted solely
within a building.
2 . Minimum land-to-building ratios shall be established.
3 • Minimum building setbacks from roads shall be estab-
lished.
4. Minimum side and rear yard setbacks shall be estab-
lished.
5 • All setbacks shall be landscaped with trees, shrubbery,
lawns , or other ground cover and maintained.
6 . Building exteriors shall exhibit continuity of accept-
able materials and design.
7. Joint agreements among adjacent operations shall be
encouraged to develop common parking areas.
8. Outside storage areas shall be appropriately screened
with shrubbery.
9. Loading docks shall , where possible, be on sides or
rear of building.
10. Outside lighting shall be directed downward or shielded
to eliminate glare on other properties.
11 . Signing shall conform with standards set forth on
pages 165 and 166 .
12. All utilities shall be installed underground.
13. All building, signing, and landscaping designs shall
be subject to review.
14. Minimum off-street parking requirements shall be
established for each type and size of operation.
15 • Industries which adversely affect the environment by
air, noise, physical or chemical pollution shall be
prohibited .
161
Design Reviev
The jurisdiction on of the Design Review Committee ( see
APPENDIX D) shall include, but not be limited to, applica-
tions for permits for:
1 . Residential tracts.
2 . Industrial parks.
3 • Excavation and grading.
4. Buildings on potentially unstable soil (see Chapter
XI , SAFETY) .
5• Commercial signing.
6 . Street landscaping.
7. Design and landscaping of all public buildings .
8. Removal of trees from private and public properties.
162
EXHIBIT B
GP 2G-87
APPENDIX D
DRAFT ORD1HANCES
Design Review Commission
The Design Review Commission shall approve plans for
structures and other physical improvements if it finds that
these projects meet the criteria below. It is not intended
to control architectural character so rigidly that individ-
ual initiative is stifled in the design of any particular
building, or substantial additional expense is required;
rather, it is the intent of this Section that any control
exercised be that necessary to achieve the overall objec-
tives of the Plan. Good architectural design includes the
suitability of a building for its purposes, the appropriate
use of sound materials and the principles of harmony and
proportion in the elements of the building. The relation-
ship of a building to its surroundings is of equal impor-
tance to the quality of design of the individual structure.
In setting forth the criteria below, it is not intended that
any single style of architecture predominate or be unaccept-
able . The Design Review Commission shall designate by
resolution a number of structures and sites in the community
as "Design Reference Buildings, " which will accomplish the
objectives set forth in the General Plan and which exemplify
the criteria outlined.
Criteria for Considering Plans
Building Design
Functional Relationships . The project shall be
suitable for its purpose and functions , with all
activities in proper relationship to each other.
Effect on Community. The project shall contribute to
the character and image of the community as a place of
beauty and spaciousness . Stock building plans ,
particularly those used by chain or franchise stores,
may not be acceptable to the Design Review Commission.
Because they represent a national image does not
necessarily mean that they are acceptable to Atasca-
dero . The merit of a design shall be judged on its
suitability for a particular site. The design may not
be acceptable just because it is the only design the
applicant has or uses.
187
0
Effect on Neighboring Properties. The project shall
not impair, direct y or In a cumulative manner , the
orderly and attractive development, use or enjoyment
of other prop-erties in its vicinity, including public
lands and rights of way. The project shall be oriented
to minimize the impact on adjoining and neighboring
lots and streets from the aspect of privacy, visual
obstruction, noise and traffic congestion.
Environmental Harmony . The project shall not be
unsightly , present a congested appearance or create
substantial disharmony with its locale and surround-
ings. The exterior design, appearance and quality of
materials shall not cause the local environment to
materially depreciate in appearance and/or value.
Environmental Protection. The plan for the proposed
project shaii indicate the manner in which the proposed
development and surrounding properties are protected
against noise, vibrations and other factors which may
have an adverse effect on the environment. The manner
in which mechanical equipment , trash, storage and
loading areas are screened from any public ways shall
also be indicated.
Design Variation . Monotony of design in .single or
mu tip e tiuI Ing projects shall be avoided. Variation
of detail, form, and siting shall be used to provide
visual interest.
Proportion . The structures shall be in good propor-
Ion, ave simplicity in mass and detail and should
not appear congested.
Structural Harmony . Structures and other elements
shall be designed in harmony with each other. When a
new structure is proposed for erection in front of, on
the same site with, or as an addition to an existing
building, either the existing structure shall be
remodeled to be in harmony with the design of the
proposed structure or addition or the proposed
construction shall extend or harmonize with the
prevailing style of the existing physical improvements .
Building Design. Structures at the street level shall
eb e sensitive to the pedestrian. Attention to design
criteria and detail in consideration of pedestrians
shall be utilized .
Colors and Textures. Exterior treatment shall not be
arse or garish , and broad plain surfaces shall be
avoided through the use of thoughtful detailing .
188
• 0
Colors and textures shall be in harmony with each
other, existing developments in area and the environ-
ment.
Materials and Finishes. Exterior materials shall be
selected for their durability and wear as well as for
beauty. Proper measures and devices shall be incorpo-
rated for protection against the elements, neglect,
damage and abuse.
Mechanical Equipment . Equipment shall be designed
into the ui Ings ; roof-mounted equipment and vents
should be completely screened from view by walls or
materials which are a part of the building design.
Appurtenant structures added for screening will not be
acceptable.
Historic Structures. It is the intent of the Design
Review Commission to provide for the protection,
enhancement and perpetuation of buildings possessing
historic value by virtue of historic association,
special architectural character or antiquity.
Site Planning
Natural Topography. Where natural or existing topo-
graphic patterns contribute to beauty and utility of a
development, they shall be preserved. Modification to
topography will be permitted where it contributes to
good appearance. Attention shall be given to retaining
natural grades and - ground cover , and excessive cuts
and fills shall be avoided.
Site Transition. The site shall be planned to accom-
plish a desirable transition with the streetscape and
to provide for adequate planting, pedestrian movement
and parking.
Parking Areas . Parking areas shall be treated with
ecoratiive elements, planting, berm or other innovative
means to screen parking areas from public ways and to
break up large areas of paving. Parking areas shall
be screened from street view by a decorative fence or
wall not less than 3 feet in height . Said screening
shall be set back a distance eaual to the street yard
setback, and the space between such screening and the
abutting street shall be landscaped.
Li htin . Exterior lighting, when used , shall enhance
e building design and adjoining landscape . Lighting
standards and fixtures shall be of a design that is
189
0 •
compatible with the building and adjacent areas .
Lighting shall not create glare on adjoining or nearby
property.
Garbage and Refuse Collection Areas. Areas provided
for trasn shall be screened from view both from within
and without the property and located to be convenient
both to the users thereof and to those who remove the
contents therefrom. They shall be of sufficient size
to accommodate within their confines the garbage and
refuse generated within the area they are designed to
serve. Areas for trash collection must be located
away from public streets and store entrances and shall
be completely enclosed with building materials which
are compatible with those used in the exterior of the
building.
Temporary Visual Pollution Resultina from Construction.
isual poi ution sha a minimized through retention
of natural vegetation, rock formations and topography
until the applicant is prepared to carry the construc-
tion to completion as one continuous process. The
construction proposed shall be of a duration consistent
with the size and complexity of the development .
Material waste and trash accumulation due to construc-
tion shall be screened from view from public ways and
shall be contained to prevent littering neighboring
properties.
Sensitive Site . A potential project site may be
considered sensitive" when:
- It involves natural formations such as hillsides,
lakesides , flood plains or waterways.
- There is visual impact upon structures which are
of historic value or association, special archi-
tectural character and/or antiquity.
- The cumulative impact of successive projects of
the same type in the same area over a period of
time is significant.
- It is visible from public buildings , major
streets and similar places where the public
gathers.
Vegetation and Landscaping. Natural vegetation and
rock formations shaii be retained where they constitute
visual enhancement of the site or the proposed use.
Generous planting shall be selected with consideration
of size , height , color, seasonal characteristics and
190
ultimate growth . Landscaping shall be designed to
integrate with and enhance the site . Landscaping
shall be provided to soften the effect of the building
and surrounding asphalt or concrete areas. Perimeter
landscaping shall be provided on all interior property
lines where possible . The use of trees in such
landscaped areas may be required in order to provide
screening for the subject property or for adjacent
properties . Dispersed interior planting areas shall
be provided with provisions for trees. Street trees
shall be planted in accordance with the Street Tree
Standards for Atascadero. All landscaped areas shall
be provided with some form of permanent irrigation
System, including sprinklers , bubblers , hose bibbs ,
etc.
Landscaped areas shall be established on all developed
sites to promote visual aesthetic appeal and -to
maintain environmental balance.
Landscaped areas shall ordinarily comprise a minimum
of 15 percent of the net site area and shall include,
but not be limited to, the following minimum require-
ments:
Planting on street frontages shall be in
scale with the total development proposal ;
such planting shall have a minimum width of
10 feet. A five foot wide strip shall be
provided on all interior property lines
where reasonable. Innovative site planning
is encouraged.
Landscaping shall consist of trees, shrubs and ground
cover . Ground cover alone shall not constitute
adequate landscaping.
Trees shall be planted in all landscaped strips in
accordance with good horticultural practice .
Planting beds shall be enclosed with protective wood,
masonry or concrete curbing where necessary.
Every effort shall be made to incorporate existing
on-site healthy plant material into proposed landscape
plans.
Landscaped areas shall have irrigation facilities
adequate to maintain plant materials at all times .
Use of automatic watering systems is encouraged to
facilitate maintenance . Hose bibbs shall be located
191
within serviceable proximity to every planter where
automatic watering systems are not in use.
Landscaping of parking areas shall ordinarily include
the following:
Ends of parking rows capped with a landscape bed
to define rows.
Planting areas along parking rows spaced 35 to 45
feet apart.
Tree planting in parking areas so spaced that at
maturity adequate visual relief and shading are
provided.
Street trees shall be planted as part of the approved
landscape plan at all locations where they do not
already exist . They shall conform to the adopted
street tree list as set forth in the General Plan ,
APPENDIX C .
Planting areas shall be drawn to scale and plants
within clearly located and labeled . A plant list
shall be prepared giving the following infomration:
- Botanical name
- Common name
Sizes to be planted (gallon size)
- Quantity of each
Landscaping of the unused portion of the right of way
in residential areas should be encouraged . Necessary
technical and other assistance would be furnished by
the City.
Maintenance - Planning and Design Factors
Continued good appearance depends upon the extent and
quality of maintenance. The choice of materials and their
use, together with the types of finishing and other protec-
tive measures , should be conducive to easy maintenance.
Materials and finishes shall be selected for their durabilty
and wear as well as for their beauty. Proper measures and
devices shall be incorporated for protection against the
elements, neglect, damage and abuse .
Provision for washing and cleaning of new buildings and
structures and control of dirt and refuse shall be included
192
• •
in the design . Configurations that tend to catch and
accumulate debris, leaves , trash, dirt and rubbish shall be
avoided.
Premises shall be maintained in a neat and orderly manner.
Signs
Signs shall be an integral part of the building design,
using compatible materials when possible. Wall signs shall
be part of the architectural concept. Size, color, letter-
ing, location and arrangement shall be harmonious with the
building design and shall be compatible with approved signs
on adjoining buildings.
Ground signs shall be signed to be compatible with the
architecture of the building. The same criteria applicable
to wall signs shall apply to ground signs. Free standing
signs also shall relate to the design of the main structure
and be located so as not to detract from the aesthetic
appeal of the development. The height shall not exceed 14
feet above finished grade.
Materials used in signs shall have good architectural
character and be harmonious with building design and
surrounding landscape.
Every sign shall have good scale in its design and in its
visual relationship to buildings and surroundings .
Colors shall be used harmoniously and with restraint .
Lighting shall be harmonious with the design. If external
spot or flood lighting is used , it shall be so arranged
that the light source is shielded from view. No flashing
or flickering lights shall be used.
Signing in shopping centers shall be consistent in location
and design throughout the center.
Signing for pedestrians shall be provided on structures and
in locations where appropriate.
All signs shall conform to the standards set forth in
Chapter XIII , COMMUNITY APPEARANCE. The applicant should
familiarize himself with all restrictions set forth therein
pertaining to the zone in which the subject development is
located .
Adapted from "Architectural Review Commission, " City of San
Luis Obispo, 1973 . Used by permission.
193
i
RESOLUTION NO. 88-87
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ATASCADERO APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO
AMEND THE TEXT OF THE COMMUNITY APPEARANCE AND
STANDARDS ELEMENT OF THE CITY' S GENERAL PLAN
DELETING REFERENCE TO A DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION
(GP 2G-87 : CITY OF ATASCADERO)
WHEREAS, the City of Atascadero has grown considerably since in-
corporation; and
WHEREAS, the City' s General Plan, which was prepared in the 1970 ' s
and adopted in 1980 to guide the City' s general growth is in need of
updating; and
WHEREAS, the City' s Planning Commission has initiated a general
plan amendment relative to Community Appearance and Standards to
update that component of the general plan; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Atascadero conduc-
ted a public hearing on the subject matter on August 4 , 1987 ; and
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65356 provides that a general
plan be amended by the adoption of a resolution; and
WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Atascadero finds as follows:
1. The proposed general plan amendment recommended by the Plan-
ning Commission is consistent with the goals and policies of
the general plan by providing standards and direction for
appearance review.
2. The proposed general plan amendment will not have a signifi-
cant adverse effect on the environment. The Negative Decla-
ration prepared for the project is adequate.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Atascadero does resolve
to approve General Plan Amendment GP 2G-87 as follows :
1. Amendments to the text as shown on attached Exhibit "A" .
2. Deletion of Appendix D: "Draft Ordinance - Design Review
Commission. "
Resolution No. 88-8� 0
On motion by and seconded by
the resolution was approved by the following roll
call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
DATE ADOPTED:
By:
BARBARA NORRIS, Mayor
City of Atascadero, California
ATTEST:
BOYD C. SHARITZ, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
. MICHAEL SHELTON, City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
JEFFREY G. JORGENSEN, City Attorney
PREPARED BY:
HENRY ENG , Comm ty Development Director
2
ATTACHMENT A
RESOLUTION #88-87
GP 2G-87
Design Appearance Review
The jlaElsdietle e€ the gesig Review Gemnittee {see APPEND!! -R)
�• ..1. �J,-AL�tif^J
E - �• app �T
• $ `n e 1 ...i a l l CI
1 STSSTI ei b! 4 see G 'SSS
L ST►TAFETS}.
V. norr_._ �seap�.�i-�.
The Community Development Department shall utilize the Appearance
Review Manual in the review of the following types of projects:
1. Those projects requiring a preciselP an, conditional use permit,
or variance.
2. All projects in commercial, industrial, multi-family zoning
districts, and sometimes in residential districts.
3. Any. project, except single family residences that occurs within
a hillside development area or is visually sensitive from public
view, as determined by the Community Development Director.
DELETE DASHED BASHB& TEXT.
ADD UNDERLINED TEXT.
162
REVISED
9/8/87
RESOLUTION NO. 88-87
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ATASCADERO APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO
AMEND THE TEXT OF THE COMMUNITY APPEARANCE AND
STANDARDS ELEMENT OF THE CITY' S GENERAL PLAN
REFERRING TO A DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION
(GP 2G-87 : CITY OF ATASCADERO)
WHEREAS, the City of Atascadero has grown considerably since in-
corporation; and
WHEREAS, the City' s General Plan, which was prepared in the 1970 ' s
and adopted in 1980 to guide the City' s general growth is in need of
updating; and
WHEREAS, the City' s Planning Commission has initiated a general
plan amendment relative to Community Appearance and Standards to
update that component of the general plan; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Atascadero conduc-
ted a public hearing on the subject matter on August 4 , 1987 ; and
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65356 provides that a general
plan be amended by the adoption of a resolution; and
WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Atascadero finds as follows:
1. The proposed general plan amendment recommended by the Plan-
ning Commission is consistent with the goals and policies of
the general plan by providing standards and direction for
appearance review.
2. The proposed general plan amendment will not have a signifi-
cant adverse effect on the environment. The Negative Decla-
ration prepared for the project is adequate.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Atascadero does resolve
to approve General Plan Amendment GP 2G-87 as follows:
1. Amendments to the text as shown on attached Exhibit "A" .
On motion by and seconded by
the resolution was approved by the following roll
call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
DATE ADOPTED:
By:
BARBARA NORRIS, Mayor
City of Atascadero, California
ATTEST:
BOYD C. SHARITZ, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
MICHAEL SHELTON, City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
JEFFREY G. JORGENSEN, City Attorney
PR PARED BY:
HENRY EN EN, ComnAnity Development Director
2
Exhibit A
RESOLUTION NO. 88-87
GP 2G-87
$es4:gn- Appearance Review
The jurisdiction of the Design Review Committee (see APPENDIX D)
shall include, but not be limited to, applications for permits
for:
4r• Resident ,,l is.
• 'a.1T4 •
4. ilt pebent:ial-l-r unstable se4:1 +aee G�iapter X-1-
S nnrr s-*) .
6'. Street
$. goer! e€ trees ate e p
The Community Development Department shall utilize the Appearance
Review Manual in the review of the following types of projects :
1. Those projects requiring a precise plan, conditional useep rmit,
or variance.
2. All projects in commercial, industrial, multi-family zoning
districts , and sometimes ,in residential districts.
3. Any project, except single family residences that occurs
within a hillside development area or is visually sensitive
from up blic view, as determined jjZ the Community Development
Director.
The appearance review function may be delegated to a Design Review
Commission see Appendix D upon adoption of an I—mpTementing ordi-
nancethe City Council.
DELETE DASHED PA-S14ED TEXT.
ADD UNDERLINED TEXT.
•
• M E M O R A N D U M
TO: City Council
VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager -
FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director 1�f
SUBJECT: Road Abandonment 1-87
LOCATION: 9404 Curbaril
APPLICANT: Charles Gray
REQUEST: To vacate a portion of Curbaril Avenue
BACKGROUND:
The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on this matter at
its July 21, 1987 meeting, and recommended approval of the request.
• Road vacations are accomplished by City Council resolution. This is a
summary or "short-form" vacation, in that adoption of a separate reso-
lution of intent is not necessary.
RECOMMENDATION•
Concept approval with Resolution No. 81-87, brought back by staff
after completion of negotiations with the applicant by the Public
Works Director .
HE:ph
Enclosure: Resolution No. 81-87
Staff Report — July 21, 1987
cc: Charles Gray
•
RESOLUTION NO. 81-87
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO
SUMMARILY VACATING A PORTION OF A ROAD PURSUANT TO STREETS
AND HIGHWAYS CODE; PART 3 , PUBLIC STREETS, HIGHWAYS
AND SERVICE EASEMENTS VACATION LAW;
CHAPTER 4 , SUMMARY VACATION; 8333
(BEING THE PORTION OF THE CURBARIL
RIGHT-OF-WAY ADJOINING PARCEL 1, PM 14-80)
WHEREAS, Streets and Highways Code 8330 permits summary vacation
of a street or highway by adoption of a resolution of summary vaca-
tion; and
WHEREAS, this portion of Curbaril Avenue, as shown on the attached
Exhibit A, has been determined to be actually superseded by relocation
and has been impassable for vehicular travel for at least five consec-
utive years and no public money was expended for its maintenance dur-
ing that time; and
WHEREAS, the vacation of this portion of Curbaril Avenue, now
superseded by relocation will not work to cut off access to any per-
son' s property which, prior to relocation, adjoined the street or •
highway to be vacated; and
WHEREAS, the vacation of this portion of Curbaril Avenue will
not affect any in-place, in-use public utility facility or will not
terminate a public service easement; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code 65402, the City Planning
Commission has recommended to the Council its ' finding that vacation
of this portion of Curbaril Avenue is in conformance with the City' s
General Plan; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Streets and Highways Code 2381, the City
Planning Commission has recommended to the Council its ' finding that
this portion of Curbaril Avenue is not suitable or useful as a non-
motorized transportation facility.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby resolved as follows:
1. Based upon the above findings , the Council now finds and de-
clares the above-described road portion superseded by reloca-
tion to be unusable as a non-motorized transportation facil-
ity.
2. Based upon the above findings, the Council now finds and de-
clares the proposed vacation of this road portion superseded•
by relocation to be in conformance with the City' s General
Plan.
• 9
Resolution No. 81-87
Page Two
3. The Council now summarily vacates, pursuant to Streets and
Highways Code, Part 3 , Chapter 4, 8330 , that portion of Cur-
baril Avenue as shown on Exhibit A subject to the following
conditions of approval:
(1) The property owner shall obtain fee title to the portion
of Curbaril Avenue to be vacated.
(2) The property owner shall seek and obtain the declaration
of this portion of Curbaril as City surplus property
and purchase accordingly.
(3) The property owner shall indemnify and "hold harmless"
the City from claims that may arise from the vacation
procedure.
(4) Utility easements shall be reserved, pursuant to Section
8340 of the Streets and Highways Code for the benefit of
Pacific Bell and the U.S. Department of the Navy to
maintain and service their facilities.
(5) A lot merger shall be recorded prior to recordation of
the vacation resolution.
(6) A legal description of the portion of the street to be
vacated shall be provided prior to recording the vaca-
tion resolution. '
(7) All conditions of approval must be completed prior to or
simultaneously with the recording of the vacation resolution_.
4. That from and after the date this resolution is recorded with
the County Recorder , the road portion shown on Exhibit A
shall no longer be or constitute a street or highway.
5. The City Clerk shall cause a certified copy of this Resolu-
tion of Summary Vacation, attested by him/her under seal, to
be recorded without acknowledgment, certificate -of acknowl-
edgment, or further proof in the office of the County Re-
corder.
On motion by and seconded by
the motion was approved by the following roll call vote:
0 i
Resolution No. 81-87
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
DATE ADOPTED:
By:
BARBARA NORRIS, Mayor
City of Atascadero, California
ATTEST:
BOYD C. SHARITZ , City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
MICHAEL SHELTON, City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
� FR Y G JO , NS ,
iFy tt rney'
P�EPARED BY%
HENRY ENGE ,
Community velopmeroDirector
.r.. 7.. . CITY OF O
E TASCADER
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTE X H 16 IT A
,�. DEPARTMENT PI?D PD 5 ED
I-VA C-A T I DN
""t- VII r UvIASCAUtHU
_28-41
el O s'aN`CS..\ 4G'
�� sJr°E '" :��� ��°' „r2 =�� r'.zoo' •,,
P �O-19 74 /° \
5 ,.1 1.2�11aG \,y 1 1 m'U Jd•OJ
\�\• � 'a
0500
s
11
.9ldC
CG L'ROA1494
D o
ORtoo
(
»
.y s°A`ac e ag �bl PTN.9 lod O ,,—A�Ra r rr
Iry nL
0" ne oc
c
�i 12 41 f r qaC :of E ^n rA ^^ �l
iidc
cnar. ,o`uC
'1.0� O YO'•
I ' Ry JO r)y L 11 \ xl2 20 K 4f2 ,4)
� •4 0 1
i \
G4 r 12A tirs •1c a ` !O?i
G
S4'0got� �•�
rrr I r+
•4 .O n D c 14A „
B X13
'Sc'
(41 a ^ HA
413 C R R
3 r
705Q � �cGRTE2 q E c, 4 I' '.z,*/++ j N E.tlr2-aJ-NA •' R04
YN I4-60 Pd R.7 •+
- - •gam +CORTEZ
% \NOPE,Pa,2 P.N Id BJ`
1
1y _ q�E
�Bk.
Amendment'B'Atascadero Colony,R.M.Bk.AC3,Pq,7q
CITY OF ATASCADERO
Assessor's Mop Bk.28,P9.41
County of San Luis Obispo,Calif.
City of Atascadero Item: B-2 is
STAFF REPORT
FOR: City Planning Commission Meeting Date: July 21, 1987
BY: 0Doug Davidson, Associate Planner File No: Road Abandon-
ment 1-87
Project Address: 9404 Curbaril
SUBJECT:
Request to vacate a portion of Curbaril Avenue.
BACKGROUND:
Notice of public hearing was published in the Atascadero News on July
10 , 1987 and all owners of property within 300 feet were notified on
that date.
A. SITUATION AND FACTS:
1. Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Charles Gray
2. Streets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Curbaril is a City maintained
• Street.
3. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Adjacent single-family resi-
dence
4 . Environmental Status. . . . . . . . . . . . . .Categorically exempt (Class 5)
B. ANALYSIS•
Road vacations are accomplished by City Council resolution. This is a
summary or "short-form" vacation, in that adoption of a separate reso-
lution of intent is not necessary. Under the Streets and Highways
Code, the Planning Commission must make two findings:
1. That the vacation is in compliance with the General Plan.
2. That the right-of-way is unsuited for development as a non-
motorized transportation facility, i .e. primarily for the use of
pedestrians, bicyclists, or equestrians.
• Staff Report - Road Abandonment 1-87 (Charles Gray)
Page Two
Both findings can be made.
Letters were sent to all the utility agencies notifying them of the
application to vacate this right-of-way. Pacific Bell and the U.S.
Department of the Navy are requesting permanent easements to be re-
served to service their facilities.
This right-of-way is unnecessary for road purposes because Curbaril
has been constructed outside this area. Thus, the Public Works De-
partment has recommended approval of the request. The property be-
comes City surplus property after the vacation is complete. The ap-
plicant has obtained an appraisal of the property which concludes that
the market value is $2, 500 . 00 The sale of this land as City surplus
property does not frustrate any General Plan goals or policies.
C. RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find that Road Abandon-
ment 1-87 is in conformance with the City' s General Plan and not suit-
able as a non-motorized transportation facility. Furthermore, staff
recommends that the Planning Commission find that the sale of this
land as surplus City property is in conformance with the General Plan.
DD:ph
Attachments: Exhibit A: Location Map
Exhibit B: Proposed Vacation
Exhibit C: Draft Resolution
CI
TY OF ATASCADERO
` �as-c�wn -4 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT LOCAT I O M
�r DEPARTMENT
K
F�
P
1/ 40C1{Y��4NYON�pWO
•SICAyp{E >
a
L )
0
a �
LS0 0
row MORA
Fj 4
r
P
' all
ALL
Y q
o �
FH If WA
MF•4(PD6 , 11
II 41
q4ljrl
• ,
"C,H
0
�. CITY OF ATASCADERO
1914 ff —^
7*-7 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT E X H 1 b JT E
• DEPARTMENT PRO Ply 5 ED
VACAT10N
i i 114. W r UP IAbGAUtKU
28-41
/4r- _
O J S (\
zoo
Jo
� P 5 JO-79 34 t i 21 dC
oAD
15)
O
�9JAE ,••,: -{' DA .
C
� ~ tie" � R y S / Ss
� 9A ;` a toe
.�J sti 1. \e'-i y o 10d
,F,., •B ±� PTN.9 +;"
-./i-/�``+• , �\ Iz 41 O) ' as „as vc IID
17E-JAC'J09I7A Ile 11/r
T
Il 1G
OAA
Ou''_ 129
O fUAC �wf> .tel- ... .,..,,_..PTN. 9
Dldt ✓ e
1 R.J JO�Iy L II 0 ^12.4 o Za 16 412
i 12A
?6 IC
RDA h wOo 14 , lu .i.. ,. .
{{{
. TeI ft' ^`Pr.2HE.B12-40-NA ,80407U �•`
PAR.J
B�c� CDRiEZ__.
` \NorE.P -
• / Pe2 YM IdAU�
/7 3 k\
L,9, .- qV
E,
15 5,`
��Bk.
Amendment"B"Atoscodero Colony,R.M.Bk.AC3,Pg.7A *-z 0�
CITY OF ATASCADERO
Assessor's Map Bk.28,Pg.41
County of Son Luis Obispo,Calif.
AGSM=JA
DATE 7
ITE M
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: City Council September 8, 1987
VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager .
FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director .W.-I
SUBJECT: Tentative Parcel Map 26-87
LOCATION: 11300 Viejo Camino
APPLICANT: Bordeaux House (Yamabe and Horn)
REQUEST: To allow the division of 27.01 acres into four lots of
8. 52, 4. 23, 6.59, and 7. 67 acres each.
BACKGROUND:
On August 18 , 1987 , the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing
on the above-referenced subect, unanimously approving the land divi-
sion request subject to the findings and conditions contained in the
attached staff report.
Gary Horn, agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the request
and explained that the recent change in tax laws necessitated dividing
the property for financial reasons. -He noted that the apartment com-
plex would be handled by one management firm, so there would be no
division of management. He concurred with the proposed CC&R condi-
tions to assure unified site management.
There was no public testimony given.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approval of Tentative Parcel Map 26-87 per the Planning Commission' s
recommendation.
HE:ps
cc: Bordeaux House
Yamabe & Horn Engineering
City of Atascadero Item: g.4
STAFF REPORT
FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: August 18, 1987
�Associate Planner File No: TPM 26-87
BY: Doug Davidson�
Project Address: 11300 Viejo Camino
SUBJECT:
Division of one parcel containing 27 .01 acres into four lots con-
taining 8. 52, 4. 23, 6. 59, and 7. 67 acres each.
BACKGROUND:
The Bordeaux House 400 unit apartment project is currently under con-
struction. Project review included certification of an EIR, Precise
Plan approval, and issuance of building permits. The reason for this
request is to obtain permanent financing of the project.
A. SITUATION AND FACTS:
1. Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Bordeaux House
2. Representative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Yamabe & Horn Engineering
3. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.01 acres
4. Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .RMF/16
5. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .400 apartment units (under
construction)
6. Adjacent Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . .North: RMF/16 , Villa Margarita
Mobile Home Park'
South: RS, Residential
East: State Hospital, vacant
West: RS, Residential
7 . General Plan Designation. . . . .High Density Multiple Family
8 . Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Negative Declaration posted
B. ANALYSIS-
The minimum lot size in the RMF/16 zone is one-half acre. Thus,
lot size is not an issue here, with these proposed lots being to
well in excess of one-half acre. Staff review will concentrate
on the effect of this proposal on maintenance and function.
0
0 Reason for Request
The applicant is stating that this request is to obtain perman-
ent financing and not to sell off individual parcels. However ,
the creation of four separate parcels allows the potential for
individual ownership and management, even though the entire apart-
ment project is interrelated. Staff ' s main objective is to insure
that the project will function efficiently.
Shared Access/Facilities
The Bordeaux House apartments are now under construction and will
share the following amenities and improvements upon completion:
A. Roadways (3 private roads)
B. Parking (800 required spaces)
C. Drainage
D. Sewer
E. Other Utilities (gas, electric, water , cable)
F. Open Space (4. 5 acres)
G. Recreational Facilities (4 pools)
The Precise Plan approval of this project did not envision sep-
arate ownership of individual parcels. The project was approved
and is being constructed as one project with common access and
shared facilities. Common access easements and maintenance agree-
ments are necessary to ensure reciprocal access over all four
parcels for the items listed above. Staff feels that CC&R' s are a
more all-inclusive method to obtain reciprocal agreements, as
opposed to one road maintenance agreement, one drainage mainten-
ance agreement, etc. We are also recommending that the CC&R' s in-
clude a provision to assure common management regardless of the
individual parcel ownership.
Density/Parcel Design
The proposed parcel map would result in the following densities:
Parcel Ana Plan B Plan C Total Density
1 8. 52AC. 72 52 124 14. 55
2 4. 23AC. 38 44 82 19.39
3 6 . 59AC. 62 36 98 14. 87
4 7 . 67AC. 28 68 96 12 . 51
None of the proposed parcels are eligible for additional units
because the density approved (400 units) exceeds that allowed
under the new Multiple Family Density Standards.
The proposed parcel design does consider the topography and site
layout. Each parcel contains its required number of parking
spaces. Each parcel also contains a pool and associated recrea-
tional facilities.
C. SUMMARY:
Recorded access easements and maintenance agreements (embodied in
CC&R' s) can insure that this project will function adequately and
be maintained appropriately in the event of a sale of any parcels.
The project is currently being developed to the maximum allowable
density and the proposed parcels are a logical division of the
site improvements and terrain. The 4.5 acre open space area will
remain for the benefit and use of the entire project. On-site and
off-site improvements have been conditioned as part of the Precise
Plan (see Exhibit D) . The recommended conditions of this parcel
map strive to make sure those improvements function as a whole.
D. RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of Tentative Parcel Map 26-87 based
on the Findings in Exhibit E and the Conditions of Approval in
< Exhibit F.
DD:ph
Attachments: Exhibit A Location Map
Exhibit B - Parcel Map
Exhibit C - Street Names
Exhibit D - Precise Plan 9-85 - Findings and Conditions
Exhibit E - Findings for Approval
Exhibit F - Conditions of Approval
CI
TY OF ATASCADERO E� -1 1/\[� IT
Tn A
r,e„ile
� LI � LJ I �.'
' scan COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT TF/VA ZL —�37
I,
i
J
� �Aq
i
l '�:; I TE
o �
R P` a
CR
T r /"
�y o
—r4
� Op
/ 0
Z R C e*P
/ •, 6 / ��-
"Eo
�0 E, �
�y � qE.� SPNT�
ECE`o Ka
o;
N�
.T.SC.pEqo
40.E
a
RS'(FH) '
CITY
v1; ;i�• .... . ..u�� OF ATASCADERO EXHIBIT B
Iola,, FA SPL L L MAP
� �asCADF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT TFM IG — E7
J.
fit •\\\ o �®, - �
T-
lI
- � I
t l
ti
-.ate _ ••� I�-0....Q.�+rti�l { I 1 _ -I,I
.e o�
9 -
gg s
ae , o S g6bt a a Qi
riti
A
Zt "
} 4
CIT
��_:,�. �• Y OF ATASCADERO E X H I K i T- C-
1979-7COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STT E ET NA M E S
DEPARTMENT TPM 26 - 37
•-� it lig' i r.;':�j Y?.E����i, kc
Egt�F�ic\
� { I'a _: •.i t-�� I i I� a��,' � O;�i�r i, \ ?6g �� F� F� 8 �\$�b� - li,
ry C / .✓ Z cy7 + cbn �zF 2�
13
ly
4 C;�_/
O
M
via
/ ton a E J
Zii
,..�� . ,� J?��,��_.• ��. ,• -'`.,j..':' . � � �.� I•� ccs
•E; I' j r it 0 T I C E
EXHIBIT - Precise Plan 9-85 •
Findings/Conditions of Approval
December 16 , 1985 (REVISED 12/16/85 and 12/30/85)
FINDINGS:
1. The proposed project with the recommended conditions of approval
is consistent with City zoning regulations.
2. The proposed project, with the recommended conditions of approval,
will not be inconsistent with the character of the immediate
neighborhood or contrary to its orderly development.
3. That the proposed project, with the recommended conditions of ap-
proval, will not generate a volume of traffic beyond the safe cap-
acity of all roads providing access to the project, either exist-
ing or 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.
4. Based on a parking survey of the adjacent 64 unit apartment pro-
ject, the on-street parking problems occurring in this area, and
the recommendation of the City' s Traffic Committee based on evalu-
ation of recent multi-family development, two parking spaces per
unit (800 total) are necessary to ensure adequate on-site parking
for residents and visitors alike.
5. Development of this proposed project will result in a substantial
impact on City services and utilities , thus making the imposition
of additional mitigation measures a necessary requirement.
6 . The Environmental Impact Report is hereby certified as a complete
and accurate document consistent with the provisions of the Calif-
ornia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) .
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. Proposed construction shall comply with the submitted development
plans (Exhibit B, site plan) , (Exhibit D, elevations) , conditions
of approval, and all other applicable codes and ordinances of the
City of Atascadero. Site plan shall be redesigned to reflect the
conditions of approval. Any subsequent modification shall require
approval by the Community Development Department prior to imple-
menting any change.
0
Re: Precise Plan 9-85 (VandenBerghe/Forsher & Guthrie)
2. Complete landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to, and
require approval by the Community Development Department prior to
issuance of buiding permits (See Zoning Ordinance Section 9-4 .
124) . The following items shall be noted or detailed on these
plans:
a. All areas including setbacks, parking lots, and unused areas
shall be landscaped appropriately per Zoning Ordinance Sec-
tion 9-4.125 (a) .
b. Concrete curbing, or a functional equivalent, shall be pro-
vided to enclose all required landscaping.
C. All existing trees with a diameter of eight inches or more
shall be shown. Trees which are to be removed shall be noted
as such.
d. Proposed landscaping shall be accompanied with a planting
schedule which includes species, container sizes, number of
plants or flats, and the space distribution of ground cover .
e. Trash enclosures shall be provided with appropriate details
per Zoning Ordinance Section 9-4.129 . Construction standards
require the bottom of the trash enclosure area to be concrete
or an equivalent impervious material and that trash collec-
tion facilities shall be provided within 100 feet of said
units.
f. Parking areas which abut an adjacent residential area shall
be screened with solid fencing six feet in height and a
landscaping strip five feet in width. This shall be in-
creased to ten feet on the rear property line, adjacent to
the mobile home park , tb provide an adequate buffer zone.
g. Perimeter fencing shall be compatible with the rural charac-
ter of the area and attempt to preserve views as much as
possible: solid wood fencing along Viejo Camino and an open
wood fence (50% or more open around the perimeter of the
site should accomplish these goals) .
h. Ten percent (10%) of all parking areas shall be landscaped
with shade trees approximately 30 feet on center .
i. A tree protection plan shall be submitted and approved prior
to the issuance of permits , including the temporary fencing
of oak trees, to insure their safety during construction.
3. 800 parking stalls are required:
a. 400 carport spaces with one reserved for each unit; 200 un-
covered, unreserved spaces ; and 200 uncovered spaces designa-
ted for visitor parking.
2
// • 0
Re: Precise Plan 9-85 (VandenBerghe/Forsher & Guthrie)
b. Nine handicapped stalls shall be appropriately designated in
conformance with Zoning Ordinance Section 9-4 . 115 (c) .
C. Parking shall be prohibited along Viejo Camino and on E1 Cam-
ino Real along the Mira Vista Apartments frontage as required
by the Public Works Department.
d. The storage of recreational vehicles and boats shall be
prohibited.
4. On-site circulation improvements shown in Figure 11 (page 50 of
the Draft E. I.R. ) shall be implemented (Exhibit F) .
5. Drainage and erosion control plans prepared by a registered civil
engineer shall be submitted to and approved by the Public Works
Department prior to the issuance of building permits. This shall
include the submittal of a preliminary soils re-oort to determine
the structural design of footings for the prorosed structures.
The proposed drainage plan shall be redesigned to eliminate the
proposed detention basin, resiting of structures proposed in
swales, and additions to the drainage system to protect project
buildings.
6. Road improvement plans, prepared by a registered civil engineer ,
shall be submitted to and approved by the Public Works Department
prior to issuance of building permits. Construction of these im-
provements shall be completed prior to final building inspection •
for the initial apartment building. Road improvement plans shall
include the following :
a. Install curb, gutter and five foot sidewalk and paveout along
property frontage along Viejo Camino, to include a bus stop
for Dial-A-Ride and school buses, with a shelter (passenger)
with a ten foot, or wider , sidewalk in the vicinity of the
bus stop.
b. Reconstruct the intersection of Santa Barbara Road with Viejo
Camino and with El Camino Real, and Santa Barbara Road within
those limits. Rework the profile and cross-section of Santa
Barbara to a minimum width of 20 feet and appropriate thick-
ness based on R-value as directed by Public Works Department.
C. Improve the intersection of E1 Camino Real and Viejo Camino
and provide left turn lane on E1 Camino Real into Viejo Cam-
ino with 200 feet of storage and provide appropriate widening
to accommodate tapers , including curb and gutter .
d. The applicant shall be required to pay a fair share (or post
securities) for future traffic signal improvement at Santa
Rosa and El Camino, and Santa Rosa and West Front, in the
amount of 14% of the total cost prior to the issuance of any
building permits.
3
e. Construct a left turn lane and right turn lane in Viejo Cam-
ino from El Camino Real to 100 feet south of the north fork
of Palomar Creek , widen bridge at north fork of Paloma Creek
to allow for widening to be provided to accommodate tapers,
including curb and gutter .
f. Applicant shall grant an easement for public improvements and
maintenance of improvements on private property, particularly
at bus stop shelter and sidewalk .
7. Sanitary sewer facility plans, prepared by a registered civil en-
gineer , shall be submitted to and approved by, the Public Works
Department prior to issuance of building permits. Construction of
these improvements shall be completed prior to final building in-
spection for the initial apartment building. Sanitary plans shall
include the following:
a. Pay an in-lieu sewer connection fee of $795 per dwelling unit
prior to issuance of building permits for Phase I (total =
$318 ,000 : $159 , 000 per phase) .
b. Sanitary sewer facilities shall be designed to accommodate
Paloma Creek Park facilities in addition to the project. A
lift station shall be provided for gravity flow from park
facilities and shall have adequate capacity as determined by
the Public Works Department. Plans shall be submitted to the
Public Works Department prior to the issuance of a building
permit for Phase I , and the park lateral shall be run from
the lift station to the Park restrooms prior to final build-
ing inspection for Phase I.
C. Do other work as recommended by the Sanitary Sewer Study
(prepared by Wallace and Associates) and required by the Pub-
lic Works Department to accommodate this project or work in-
cluding, but not limited to: increasing existing line sizes
and expansion of wastewater treatment plant and lift sta-
tions, not to exceed $350 , 000 , prior to final building in-
spection of Phase I.
8. The following additional fees for public improvement purposes
shall be paid prior to final building inspection for Phase I.
a. Pay $27 ,850. 00 , which is approximately the equivalent to the
proposed Drainage Development Fee.
b. Pay $7, 900 . 00 , which is approximately the equivalent to the
proposed Parks Development Fee.
C. Pay $101, 750 . 00 ; which is approximately the equivalent to the
proposed Bridge Development fee.
I
4
i'
r
! 9. The following additional fees shall be paid, or improvements made,
r
prior to any final building inspection for Phase I:
1
a. Construct to City plans and specifications the Paloma Creek
Park restroom as soon as practicable in 1986 (goal: April) .
(Not to exceed $65 , 000) .
b. Design and construct to City standards and specifications a
satellite fire station and/or its associated 'equipment, as
soon as practicable in 1986 (goal: prior to combustible
construction) (not to exceed $270 ,000) .
C. Pay $235 ,000 . 00 toward improvement/construction of a police
station facility and its associated equipment.
10. The project applicant shall provide security guards or security
measures on the site during construction, including enclosure of
the site by a cyclone or chain link fence, until final inspection
of the last building.
11. Carports and areas around buildings shall be well lit; however ,
lighting shall be directed away from Viejo Camino and surrounding
residences (Zoning Ordinance Section 9-4.137) .
12. An eight inch water main shall be installed as a loop throughout
the site as directed by the Fire Marshall.
13. The project shall comply with the City' s fire code provisions and
Zoning Regulations . These shall include the following :
a. Driveway access width shall be a minimum of 20 feet with a
maximum slope of 20% .
b. Turning radii shall be a minimum of 28 feet inside and 48
feet outside.
C. Fire hydrant spacing shall be a maximum of 300 feet; location
and type to be determined by the Fire Department, prior to
the issuance of any building permits.
d. Hydrants and water lines shall be installed prior to com-
mencement of combustible construction.
14. A determination by a qualified biologist shall be made as to
whether the pond area in the western portion of the site is a true
vernal pool. This shall be completed prior to issuance of permits
for Phase II , with no disturbance of the "vernal pool" area to
occur during Phase I construction. If it is determined that any
rare plants are present on the site , adequate protection measures
shall be taken.
15 . All new utilities required for this site shall be installed
underground.
5
16. All applicable development standards shall be complied with as a
part of Phase I to ensure that the initial phase can function in-
dependently. This shall include the provision of 2. 0 parking
1' spaces per unit and adequate circulation in conformance with the
!i zoning ordinance and this precise plan approval.
r 17. Internal signage and directories, including addresses, shall be
reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director prior
to issuance of any permits.
18 . The design of the three proposed recreational centers shall be re-
viewed and approved by the Community Development Department prior
to the issuance of any permits and shall include outdoor use areas
for younger children.
19 . This phased project precise plan is approved for a period of three
years from the date of final approval, provided that substantial
site work commences within the first year of approval. Further
extensions may be granted pursuant to Section 9-2.118 of the
Zoning Ordinance.
20. In addition to the developer fee currently in place, pay an addi-
tional $150, 000 . 00 to the Atascadero Unified School District to
mitigate the impact of the Bordeaux project on the school of the
District. Said additional fee is to be paid prior to final build-
ing inspection.
• I
6
• •
EXHIBIT E - Findings for Approval
Tentative Parcel Map 26-87
August 18, 1987
FINDINGS:
1. The creation of these parcels conforms to the Zoning Ordinance
and the General Plan.
2. The creation of these parcels, in conformance with the recommended
conditions of approval, will not have a significant adverse effect
upon the environment. The Negative Declaration prepared for the
project is adequate.
3. The site is physically suitable for the type of development pro-
posed.
4. The site is physically suitable for the density of development
proposed.
5. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements will
not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and
avoidably injure fish and wildlife of their habitat. .
6 . The design of the subdivision and the type of improvement will not
conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access
through or use of property within the proposed subdivision; or
that substantially equivalent alternate easements are provided.
7. The proposed subdivision complies with Section 66474. 6 of the
State Subdivision Map Act as to methods of handling and discharge
of waste.
• •
• EXHIBIT F - Conditions of Approval
Tentative Parcel Map 26-87
August 18 , 1987
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. The applicant shall establish Covenants, Conditions, and Restric-
tions (CC&Rs) for the regulation of land use, control of nuisances
and architectural control of all buildings.
a. These CC&Rs shall be submitted for review and approval by the
City Attorney and Community Development Department prior to
approval of the final map.
b. These CC&Rs shall be administered by the property owners.
C. These CC&Rs shall include common access easements, utility
easements, and shared parking agreements.
d. These CC&Rs shall include maintenance agreements for streets,
parking areas, drainage, sewer lines, utilities, and any
other shared facilities.
. e. These CC&Rs shall assure common management of the entire
400-unit project.
2. A final map, in compliance with all conditions set forth herein,
shall be submitted for review and approval in accordance with the
Subdivision Map Act and thb City Lot Division Ordinance prior to
recordation.
a. Monuments shall be set at all new property corners created
and a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor
shall indicate, by certificate on the final map, that corners
have been set or shall be set by a date specific and that
they will be sufficient to enable the survey to be retraced.
b. A recently updated preliminary title report shall be submit-
ted for review in conjunction with the processing of the
final map.
3. All conditions imposed on the project by Precise Plan 9-85 and
building permits shall be satisfied prior to recording the final
map.
4. Final map shall show street names and location of all utilities.
5. Approval of this tentative parcel map shall expire two years from
the date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted
pursuant to a written request prior to the expiration date.
MEMORANDUM
To : Honorable Mayor and City Council
Through: Michael Shelton, City Manager ,
From: Paul M. Sensibaugh, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Subject : Historic Structures Report
Date : August 18, 1987
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that council direct staff to request proposals
for the Historic Structures Report and to prepare a letter for
• council 's signature requesting that the Heating, Ventilating and Air
Conditioning be put to bid concurrently with the development of the
above study, and that the decision to go forward on the study itself
be based upon the cost of the same.
Background:
Plans and Specifications have been prepared for the Heating,
Ventilating and Air Conditioning for the City Administration
building. However, the Historic Preservation Office that administers
the grant received for renovation has decided to require a Historic
Structures report prior to bidding. Refer to the attached letters
from Marion Mitchell Wilson, Mark Moore and Paul Sensibaugh.
Discussion:
Staff has resisted OHP ' s efforts to require a study that was not
a condition of the grant and for which no monies are available. OHP,
however, is not backing off of the new requirement and is asking
council ' s desire regarding this issue and the implementation of the
remaining funds .
Unfortunately staff is faced with several unanswered questions :
How much will the study cost?
Can another grhnt be obtained to pay for the study?
• What will the study tell us?
What affect will the study have on the HVAC design?
How long will the study delay the accepted project?
• 0
Options available to Council are : •
1) Complete the study at City cost .
2) Complete the study if a grant is obtained for the same .
3) Request proposals and review the cost prior to a decision.
4) Ignore the decision and bid the project at City expense, facing any
consequences .
5) Return the unused portion of the grant and proceed with City funds,
and ask for release from contract commitments of OHP future review.
b) Pay back all grant monies and proceed as in #5 above .
7) Request assistance from political allies at the state level to
reason with OHP.
Fiscal Impact :
The fiscal impact is unknown until the cost of the study is
determined. The study may cost $20, 000 and up . The construction
costs are expected to rise as time goes on and the scope could easily
change based on the outcome of the study. If the scope changes
additional engineering and construction costs will be realized.
•
1
4
mune '71Z
VI-Ir. lari! Moore, Pro-4,eCt .73- naqer
Fred 1. Schott and Associatie-S, Im.
2.11.1 zulz ttrLAn -"Ro3.1, 5,-tfte :".
San Luis .3hTSPO' CA -?V01
Dear
Ates-C.--rIere r''!Mntstration �quil4ipa
TN4 Nst^rir. Prrserv-"tion U11fornia Parl. �.-;d ylecrc&tior�.-I?
U2 it
Facilities -el. of !,D?4 "-a J
A y,4 of 11-3-0.1,091 to the Atascadera Administlati3vt
6i) I - 6 �. -- I
wuildiltl is t -e larS-A-rt girant and zuede un-e- this pre-Iram. T"C Ataac:vjer'.
A
Moblistration 11mildir-ig is a hj!;�Iq structu
L , y sinnificant ,jistartz -- not vnly to
Vl-� 'Imal tmt stav�Ade. T2 ,? overall resWration and
reia')il nation of is i5 building is compl�x in terims of strnct'aral and
cal. sySt ,7,s, Zirc�,itft�f- -^ t
-,—fu al 4eta ils, and r�nQyvtion of zl', n '-stoic wind
4rc:!,f*--2ctr4IIy Sit.nfffca
nt f3bric whi-ch convey i4s sa!%5e of -!Ame and plzma.
to dpVI.1qp a scllzit-i-lte znel logicall.1, rpasor,�t' cn.-inprehensive
to the mh-3bilitition of Administration 3 thistaric structvres
r" Yta -is -Pr--cnC'.jra-A ;3uide, -is a virtual
"M
J , a da C ra i q o and I ni e e r.n,n o r 151 e '-.i a r.4:?r i a 1-3 r,t cy, 3-a r
of 'the rIitv :)f " rpn'-- Dt;rI 'e5u
+4 -ter
�st. ntcreFI
41`3c:Issed thp. rztces:;I-,.-. a `Istoric structifres r--port aril canct,-pral
V-- e.r,t''r e r a t a t n o-F 1;-h i i e-i
understam"I's the 7je;!.v for report. and mr-it-,rchensive 'r,,-t-A to ensuam
C-4it7's I :' . - j -
als an-I 4 el r- w s ara f-et Ip prcsemjatior, ta s i.j PO i
14
I rc
--Y IfId "112 "1'.7 N and to
frau 4ill -,rob-il.-ly hear -r-cm V-c w4tf Ii, t,'-,e near future as
ncer--
Surwv an-11 Local t.s-A-,tance
Off"
7'" !
Fred H. Schott & Associates, Inc. •
CIVIL&STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING •LAND PLANNING&ARCHITECTURE Fred H.Schott,P.E. Greg D.Wynn
Leonard G.Hoeger.AIA Mark A.Moore
SAN LUIS OBISPO OFFICE (805)544-1216 Kevin T.Devaney,P.E. Lane R.Bader
2C1- Sucurcc;r a.Srme it . -an SUS Cans" f-rt n v ,.I
Mark G.Wittgrat W.Tim McPartia
SANTA MARIA OFFICE !: (805)925-3433 Jeffrey T Okamoto Clarence G.RoIA
222 P:esr Ccrrnen�cr. .7._ e!-`4 ^nic Pr1�r;�. .ui:;Grn c<> .i� David C.Poulson
May 27 , 1987
Marion Mitchell-Wilson, Supervisor,
Survey and Local Assistance
Office of Historic Preservation
Department of Parks and Recreation
Post Office Box 2390
Sacramento, California 95811
Subject: Atascadero City Hall Rehabilitation
(Project No. 619-84-HP-40-135)
Dear Marion:
In reference to your April 14 , 1987 letter , we would like to
clarify our understanding of the January 8 , 1987 on-site meeting.
It was our purpose when requesting a site visit of the Office of
Historic Preservation, to explain our intent in regard to the
mechanical system previously proposed and designed for the
Atascadero City Hall . We had communicated our proposal for the
installation of the hydronic piping to Mr. Tom Winter on several
occasions. Our understanding of OHP' s desires as explained by Mr.
Winter, was the hydronic piping should be limited to the existing%
vertical mechanical chases with horizontal runs excluded from the
central corridors. We attempted to explain that this solution
would necessitate added cutting and patching of existing walls and
plaster and substantially greater construction costs. It would
have also required the mechanical engineer to redesign the
hydronic system creating a substantial additional fee for both
design and revisions to the mechanical drawings.
We supplied photographs documenting the existing fire sprinkler
piping which already creates a visual intrusion and proposed three
alternatives for an economically efficient solution with minimal
visual impact. On November 19 , 1986 during a telephone
conversation with Mr. Winter, he indicated that our solution of
furring the flat ceiling at the first and second floor corridors
12" was acceptable provided that we used gypsum board rather than
lath and plaster . On December 18 , 1986 we requested an on-site
meeting with the Office of Historic Preservation. On December 23 ,
1986 , Mr. Winter stated he could not and would not give approval
on the bid documents. He deferred the decision to Marion
Mitchell-Wilson, and said that the decision was to be made
following her meeting in Atascadero.
Fred H. Schott & Associates, Inc.
CML&STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING • LAND PLANNING&ARCHITECTURE Fred H.Schott.P.E. Greg D.Wynn
Leonard G.Haeger,AIA Mork A.Moore
SAN LUIS OBISPO OFFICE (805)544-1216 Kevin T.Devaney.P.E. Lane R.Bader
2C0 Suburocn ieccd.Suite.+. = n�r:, i r�.�;c,.Ccaf,�n e 93uO1 Mark G.Wittgraf W.TIm McPartland
SANTA MARIA OFFICE (805)925-3433 Jeffrey T Okamoto Clarence G.Rolllns
222 West Ccrmen Lane S.nte ;,.1 • . ,:r:?a^.13na.C:uidtc;rr va
David C.Poulson
MARION MITCHELL-WILSON, SUPERVISOR, page 2
May 27 , 1987
On January 8 , 1987 an on-site meeting was held with Marion
Mitchell-Wilson, Fred Schott, Mark Moore, Paul Sensibaugh, and Don
Lieb in attendance. Mrs. Mitchell-Wilson discussed the Office of
Historic Preservation policy in administration of bond funds,
after which Paul Sensibaugh, City of Atascadero Director of Public
Works, presented the City's intentions and overall goals. Mr.
Schott reviewed the progression of decisions leading to the design
of the mechanical system. Following the discussion, a brief tour
of the building was made. Recently completed Phase II B work was
viewed, in particular, the changes referred to in the September
10 , 1986 progress report. At the first and second floor
corridors, the three aforementioned alternatives, their inherent
problems and possible remedies, were discussed.
The tour ended in the first floor rotunda (now being used as a
museum) . Conversation turned toward the abundance of historic
memorabilia contained in the museum. Mrs. Mitchell-Wilson said
there were several sources of grants to finance historical studies
(Historic Structure Report) , i.e. documentation of building
changes from start of construction to the present. By compiling
this report Mrs. Mitchell-Wilson felt it would be easier in the
future to recieve funding for specific projects, i. e. relocation
of fire sprinkler piping.
It was our understanding the Historic Structure Report was a
document possibly necessary for future funding of specific
projects but would not effect work under the previously approved
grant. Had we realized this document was to become a requirement
to proceed with bid document approval , we would have immediately
clarified our position.
On August 19 , 1986 this office sent working drawings for Phase IIC
of the Atascadero City Hall Rehabilitation to the Office of
Historic Preservation for approval . On September 11 , 1986r
specifications and bidding documents followed. This office has
had numerous conversations and discussions with the Office of
Historic Preservation since August. It would seem that there was
ample opportunity to request, require, or discuss the need for a
Historic Structure Report. The first indication that this report
was to become a prerequisite for approval came during a telephone
conversation with Mrs. Mitchell-Wilson on February 11 , 1987 , six
months from our initial submission of Phase IIC documents, and one
year seven months from the beginning of the original performance
period (July 23 , 1985) .
Fred H. Schott & Associates, Inc.
CIVIL&STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING • LAND PLANNING&ARCHITECTURE Fred H.Schott.P.E. Greg D.Wynn
Leonard G.Haeger,AIA Mark A Moore
SAN LUIS OBISPO OFFICE (805)544-1216 Kevin T.Devaney,P.E. Lane R.Bader
2 v SuburCcn i C :7 ;;re.: _, ,S {!cam, ,fir f rrl i J I Mark G.Wiftgraf W.TIm MCPartla
SANTA MARIA OFFICE _ (805)925_-3433 Jeffrey T Okamoto Clarence G.Roll,
222 Otte?f--armet l ic.re .,, • w I Z
M0!10.c.Cc ifur::•a�-„,:;,,4 David C.Poulson
MARION MITCHELL-WILSON, SUPERVISOR, page 3
May 27 , 1987
Page 10 , paragraph 4 of the Historic Preservation Component
Procedural Guide states "The Historic Structure Report is used
when the rehabilitation, restoration, or reconstruction of a
historic building involves fabricating significant missing
a-rchitectural” or landscape features, recapturing the appearance of
a property at one particular period of its history, or removing
later additions. " As our project falls into none of the
aforementioned categories, we could ' not have been expected to
assume that an Historic Structure Report would be required. We do
not feel we are being unreasonable in requesting that this
requirement be applied to future phases of the work and that this
project be allowed to proceed without further delays.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call us .
Thank you for your cooperation and continued interest in our
project.
Sincerely yours,
Mark A. Moore
Project Manager
MAM:mns
ADMINISTRATION BUILDING . ..��
POST OFFICE BOX 747
ATASCADERO. CALIFORNIA 93423
PHONE: (805( 466-8000 POLICE DEPARTMENT
POST OFFICE BOX 747
ATASCADERO*
CALIFORNIA 93423
CITY COUNCIL - PHONE: (8051 466.8600
CITY CLERK
CITY TREASURER
CITY MANAGER INCORPORATED JULY 2, 1979
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT FIRE DEPARTMENT
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
6005 LEWIS AVENUE
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ATASCADERO. CALIFORNIA 93422
PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT PHONE: (805) 466-2141
May`12, 1987
State of California
Department of Parks & Recreation
P.O. Box 2390
Sacramento, CA 95811 .
Attention Eugene Itogawa
Subject : Historic Preservation Grants
Dear Mr. Itogawa:
I am in receipt of your letter of April 29, 1987
regarding OHP' s anxiousness to provide for prompt .closure
of existing grant projects . As you may know the City of
Atascadero has received an extension on our completion date
due to the size and complexity of our project .
Unfortunately we cannot expect to meet your goal when
OHP itself continues to slow our progress for matters that
are critical to our design . As you can see by the attached
letter from Ms . Wilson, OHP is now asking for a report in
the middle of our project that was clearly never
anticipated by the City . We have been trying to bid the
third of four phases of our project for 7-1/2 months
without success .
In short it is difficult to be efficient in our
management when OPH itself is blocking our path . With the
experience we have had it is unlikely that I could
recommend pursuing the additional grant to which you alude .
Thank you for your information and allowing me to
unload the City Council' s frustration with this project .
They are questioning their $270, 000 match to the $300, 000
grant received.
Very truly yours ,
PAUL M. SENSIBAUGH
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
cc : City Council
City Manager
.__.Fred _Shott .& Associates
STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN,Governor
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
P.O. BOX 2390 _
SACRAMENTO 95811
(916) 445-8006
April 29, 1987
Mr. Paul Sensibaugh, Public Works Director
City of Atascadero
P.O. Box 747
Atascadero, CA 93423
Dear Mr. Sensibaugh:
The Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) is currently in the process of
reviewing and updating the project files of grant recipients awarded State
funds during the first year cycle of the Historic Preservation Component of
the California Park and Recreational Facilities Act of 1984. First year grant
recipients were allocated funding starting with fiscal year July 1985.
This letter is sent to all first year grant recipients in the interest of
reminding all project managers of the importance of being aware of the grant
completion schedule. All first year grant recipients should have a fully
executed project agreement by this time. A valid project agreement must,
without fail , be in place by June 30, 1988. Only project recipients with
valid project agreements are eligible for financial compensation from the
State. Once the project agreement has been signed, advancement of 10% of the
State grant amount may be authorized to pay for planning cost expenses such as
preparation of Historic Structures Report and the architecture plans.
Reimbursement of expenses is allowable provided that the work is included in
the project work scope, has been identified in the architectural plan, and has
been completed during the project performance period.
First year grant projects must be completed before June 30, 1990. In some
cases , the existing project agreements with the State must be amended to
provide an extension of time if the work will not be completed within the
specified project performance period. Please evaluate your current work
schedule to determine if an extension of time will be necessary.
OHP has been advised that two separate legislations have been introduced in
March 1987 for a possible 1988 Park Bond program. Provisions for $20 million
for a historic preservation program are included in the language of both
Prospective legislations. OHP is anxious to provide for the prompt closure of
existing grant projects in anticipation of awarding future State grant funds
to project recipients demonstrating timely completion of successful
Preservation projects.
Mr. Paul Sensibaugh
Page 2
April 29, 1987
Projects which have not demonstrated a significant degree of progress by
July 1987 shall be subject to program reevaluations. All first year project
files are currently under review to insure that projects are completed in a
timely manner.
Project managers are requested to examine their project planning and
development time frame and advise the OHP of potential project delays or
changes in schedule.
Please do not hesitate to contact this office, should you have any questions.
Sincerely,
=awa
State Park Grants Administrator
Office of Historic Preservation
Y-4590H/4592H
0 •
STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN.Governor
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
P.O. BOX 2390
SACRAMENTO 95811
(916 ) 445-8006
April 17, 1987
Mr. Paul M. Sensibaugh
Director of Public Works
City Engineer
P.O. Box 747
Atascadero, CA 93423
Dear Paul :
Atascadero City Hall Bond Act Grant Project
Please excuse the delay in my sending a written confirmation of our discussion of
January 8, during my on-site inspection. I have been in telephone contact with
the project architect, Mark Moore, and reaffirmed the issues which we discussed at
our meeting.
The Office of Historic Preservation administers the Historic Preservation •
Component: California Park and Recreational Facilities Act of 1984 for the
purpose of preserving the most significant resources in the State of California.
The highly competitive and limited funds available under this program are
distributed for the purpose of assuring that the architectural and historical
integrity of these significant resources is preserved in perpetuity. These are
not "public works" grants, these funds should make the difference between a
standard public works project and a quality preservation project. They are to be
used in combination with local public funds already budgeted for the
rehabilitation of a civic building. The Atascadero City Hall project application
met these goals and therefore received the highest award possible under the
1984 Bond. It is for these reasons that we are committed to working with you to
design the most sympathetic preservation project possible.
We are aware that the City acquired the building from the County after they had
done some very intrusive work. However, to continue in the same incremental
fashion would not be in the best interest of the resource and will only acerbate
the mistakes which have already been made. Therefore, it would be inappropriate
for either the City or this office to initiate any further increment of work on
this important civic building without understanding the overview for the entire
preservation of the resource.
For these reasons, I recommended at our meeting and have reaffirmed to Mr. Moore
that a Historic Structures Report be compiled as soon as possible. An outline for
such a report is enclosed. The documentation for a fine report exists within
Mr. Paul M. Sensibaugh
Page 2
April 17 , 1987
the museum on the first floor of the buildings. Volunteer work in coordination
with the architectural work from Mr. Moore could develop a useful document that
would serve to guide the City Council , the architect, and this Office, and could
be developed into a sale publication for the museum as well . Based on the
Historic Structures Report, schematic drawings of the overall restoration of the
building for a multi-phased project for several years, if need be, could be
developed. Out of these selected working drawings for the increments of work for
which funds are available from a variety of sources, including the 1984 Bond,
should be developed as those funds become available. The first priority, from the
City's point of view, could be the mechanical system to make the building more
comfortable. The heating and mechanical systems, however, should not be installed
in an incremental fashion which might preclude the best and most economical design
solutions for the future.
We are aware of the City Council 's concern that they may have involved themselves
in a .program which requires the expansion of the project scope beyond their
original intentions. However, the purpose of this grant program and its
requirements were clearly outlined in the grant application, procedural guide, and
project agreement. If, after reading this letter and understanding the goals and
objectives of the Office of Historic Preservation and the 1984 Bond Act, the City
Council chooses to withdraw from the rest of the program, the Office of Historic
Preservation will be happy to revise the scope of work in the project agreement
to that already completed. The City would be absolved from further obligation
upon return of the remaining money. Please understand, however, that by entering
into the contract agreement in the first place and having received funds from this
Office•, you have committed to this Office's review in the future. We are
concerned that all work done on this property whether incremental or interrelated
be done according to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards.
If you have any further questions, do not hesitate to contact me at the above
number.
Sincerely,
Ms . Marion Mitchell 44ilson
Supervisor, Survey and Local Assistance
Office of Historic Preservation
Y-4571H
Enclosure
• i
Mr. Paul M. Sensibaugh
Page 3
April 17 , 1987
cc: Mr. Mark Moore
Mr. Fred Schott Associates Inc.
Civil and Structural Engineering
Landscaping and Architecture
200 Suburban Road, Suite A
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
A
0 BANG AGEIRDA
'
M E M O R A N D U M DATE ITEM
• To: City Council
Through: Mike Shelton
,4
i
From: David G. Jorgense /
Date: August 31, 1987
Subject: Purchase of Computer Hardware and Software
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council approve the purchase
of computer hardware manufactured by IBM and computer software
developed by DLH/INE for a total cost of $96 ,154.
DISCUSSION
The City requested bids in April 1987 for the purpose of
comparing the current market for computer hardware and financial
software with the hardware and software the City has been using
for the past five to six years.
• There were two proposals submitted by hardware manufacturers,
IBM and Hewlett Packard and two proposals submitted by software
companies DLH/INE and Infocomp.
These proposals were reviewed and times for demonstrations
were scheduled. The last demonstration was held on August 13,
1987. The Director of Administrative Services and the employees
in the Finance Department were present at all demonstrations.
The Finance Department recommendation is attached.
In reviewing the proposals and in evaluating the many aspects
of the systems during the demonstrations, the City staff was
primarily concerned with the following criteria:
1. Does the new system provide a level of service superior
to the existing system?
2. Does the new system allow for easy expansion and growth
should the need arise?
3. Is the new system easy to learn and operate?
4. Is the new system able to be easily modified?
5. Is the new system cost effective both immediately (pur-
chase price) and long-range (on-going maintenance) ?
While the cost of a new system compared to the existing
system is important, the most important criteria for us to
• consider is can we provide a better more usable level of service
with a new system.
It was determ&d by all involved in the lection and demon-
stration process that the IBM hardware and the DLH/INE software
consistently met or exceeded the primary criteria for a computer
system.
FINANCIAL DISCUSSION i
The proposals were submitted in three different ways as far
as costs were concerned:
1. One-time purchase price
2. On-going maintenance costs
3. Proposed lease costs
Computer System Cost Comparison
(adjusted)
Existing IBM/ HP/ HP/
System DLH Infocomp Infocomp
Purchase Price -0- $72, 117 $93 ,831 $82,231
Annual Lease Pmt.## -0- 17,628 22, 380
Hardware Svc. Costs $12,480/yr 2,060/yr 6, 000/yr
Software Svc. Costs 2,800** 3,480/yr 6,048/yr 3, 576
Total Annual Costs $15,280 $23 ,168 $34, 428 $31,000
## These were quoted by the hardware manufacturers. Both interest
rates are higher than interest rate quoted by Security Pacific
Merchant Bank. •
** Actual amount paid during 1986-1987 fiscal year .
During the period between the opening of proposals and the
demonstrations, Infocomp had a price reduction on all their systems.
This resulted in a reduction in their bid of $11,600 . The HP/
Infocomp total cost would be $82,231. This also reduces the ongoing
software service to $3, 576 instead of $6 , 048, producing a new annual
cost of approximately $31, 000.
The Council approved a Data Processing budget of $31,340. The
data processing proposed budget is comprised of the following:
Anticipated Lease Costs $20 ,000
Service and Maintenance Costs 6, 000
Software Consultant Services 5,340
Both proposals as they stand are below the appropriation approved by
the Council.
FURTHER DISCUSSION
After the proposals had been requested and during the evaluation
period, three other City departments expressed their desire to pur-
chase computer hardware compatable with the Finance Department. The
additional equipment was not part of the RFP approved by Council nor
was the equipment *dgeted in this fiscal yea*udget.
I put the four vendors who responded to my bid in touch with
these departments to discuss their needs and the products available
to meet those needs. Each department felt comfortable that, at least,
from a hardware standpoint they could go along with any decision I
made.
I then talked to each department concerning their equipment needs.
This resulted in the following:
Recreation:
3 Personal Computers
1 Printer
3 Mouse
1 Scanner
Planning
2-3 Personal Computers
1 Printer
Building
2-4 Personal Computers
1 Printer
From the perspective of availability of software, compatability
of systems (both Public Works and Finance) and on-going maintenance
costs, the IBM/DLH package is the most cost effective.
Adding computer capabilities to these departments at this time
benefits the City as follows:
1. Provides the capacity for a more efficient department opera-
tion.
2. Allows interface with these departments (Public Works, Fire,
Finance) already cortputerized.
3. Makes response to special Council and citizen requests more
accessable and cost effective.
4. The current proposed lease-rate of 7.07 percent is the lowest
rate possible and makes it more economical, if financing is
necessary, to add the additional equipment to the proposed
lease package.
5. The opportunity exists to get Planning and Building software
now at a significantly reduced rate by becoming a develop-
mental site for the software vendor .
6. Allows recreation the capability of doing more creative pub-
lic information flyers in-house rather than on a contract
basis.
(For a more detailed explanation see attached department
memos. )
This additional equipment was not requested at budget time
because of financial constraints and meeting existing priorities
within the Capital Improvement Budget process. Recreation did
receive a $3, 000 allocation for computer related items. Planning
has purchased-a personal cumputer because of the demands of pre-
paring the General Plan through the General Plan budget. (This
computer will be a patable with the propose Aquipment in this
package. )
Additionally, a wait and see attitude existed in these depart-
ments while the RFP and evaluation processes were going on for the
Finance Department hardware. They were interested in the results
of this process being finalized before they expressed their needs.
B waiting, it was intended
By g, to save the City money duplica-
ting
not du lica-
ting a hardware evaluation process.
Both hardware bidders were given the opportunity to respond to
the additional needs expressed by the departments. Because of this
it is my opinion that the departments can use the results of this
bid and not have to go to bid again.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
I am recommending that the following hardware be included in
my original Finance Department request:
Recreation
2 Personal Computers
1 Printer
Planning
2 Personal Computers
1 Printer
Building
2 Personal Computers
1 Printer
These will add $10 ,863. 00 to the total purchase cost proposed.
Additionally, I recommend adding $5,000 to purchase DLH/INE
application software for Planning and Building.
This makes the total computer package cost with tax of $96 ,154.
By entering into a 5 year lease/purchase agreement with Security
Pacific Merchant Bank , the annual lease cost will be $24 , 424. 87.
maintenance costs will remain the same. Therefore, the annual com-
costs will be $27, 964.87 . This is $3 ,375.13 less than the $31,340
appropriated in the budget. All equipment and software needs can be
met within existing funds - no additional funds are requested.
M E M O RAN D U M
TO: Dave Jorgensen, Administrative Services Director
Nb)
FROM: Jette Christiansson', Accounting Supervisor
SUBJECT: Selection of Computer Software/Hardware
DATE: August 28 , 1987
Based upon my observation of the two computer systems demonstrated,
I recommend the purchase of IBM Hardware/DLH Software for the
following reasons :
Software
1. The menu screens are less complicated and easier to interpret
in DLH. Selecting options (getting in and out •of screens)
is also less complicated.
2. Infocomp programs (working screens) contain too much
information. There are too many fields required to be
filled in. The screens. are a real strain on the eyes (too
much is packed into the program) .
3. Payroll software-DLH software has more relating to the
Personnel aspect of payroll than Infocomp. It is also
easier to make salary rate changes and change tax rates
with DLH. It is not too much of a change (except improve-
ments) from what we are currently using. Infocomp' s
payroll system involves a major change-totally different
from what we are used to. Infocomp does not have very good
personnel software. Infocomp cannot suppress the address
from printing on paychecks-so necessary for our police
officers.
4. DLH has some nice features. Help option on work screens
will give you on-screen documentation. You are able to
pull up on-screen appropriations and expenditures (detail) .
Purchase order screen will enable others to input their
own P.O. ' s and print copies of them.
5. Both systems had a good Business License program but I
preferred DLH' s because it had a very good format-very
easy to follow. Seemed very complete.
Memo
Computer Select
< August 28, 1987
6. The DLH budget program has the ability to do experimental
budgeting (what if. . . That will be very useful for
payroll purposes.
7. DLH' s Fixed Asset program has an extended description field
for more detail-I believe this will be useful as we begin
to set up a fixed asset program.
8. One final reason I prefer DLH over Infocomp-Software
Support. DLH' s staff made me feel more comfortable. I
know I would enjoy working with them and not feel hesitant
about calling for assistance. Also, the person in charge
of DLH' s software support was a former Finance Director-
better able to understand and anticipate any problems or
questions we might have. She was more knowledgeable about
all aspects of the financial and payroll software.
Hardware
I really don't know which hardware is the best, but I
personally prefer IBM. I know we probably won't be
getting the multi-color terminals but they seemed ex-
tremely practical to me-less of an eye-strain: , Screens
became easier to look at and work with. If we do get
one-color terminals, I would prefer the green screen
rather than the amber. To me, the green was easier
to read (especially if you have to work at the terminal
for an extended period of time) .
One final note-Infocomp did not demonstrate their word
processing software, but I was very impressed with DLH' s
word processing software. It has many nice features
our current software does not have. I especially liked
the spellcheck, mail merge and math features. These
could even be used for double checking financial reports.
In conclusion, I have listed my reasons for selecting DLH
Software/IBM Hardware. If you have any questions about my
recommendation, please feel free to discuss them with me.
RESOLUTION 93-87
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ATASCADERO
AWARDING BID OF COMPUTER HARDWARE
AND SOFTWARE TO IBM AND DLH/INE
WHEREAS, the City finance system was inadequate to meet current
need for information; and
WHEREAS, the computer hardware the City has been using has
reached technical obsolescence; and
WHEREAS, the City Council approved the bid process for looking
at current computer hardware and software; and
WHEREAS, it is cost effective to include other department equip-
ment needs to the bid and lease package; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Atascadero City Council
does hereby award the bid for new computer hardware to IBM Corporation
and computer software to DLH/INE.
On motion by Councilperson and seconded
by Councilperson , the foregoing resolution is
hereby adopted in its entirety on the following roll call votes:
AYES:
• �I
NOES:
ABSENT:
ADOPTED:
CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA
By:
BARBARA NORRIS, Mayor
(Resolution No. 93-87, con' t. )
ATTEST:
BOYD C. SHARITZ, City Clerk
PREPARED BY:
c
LIS"
DAVID G., -jrOtGENSEN, Admin. Svcs. Director
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
MICHAEL SHELTON, City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
JEFFREY G. JORGENSEN, City Attorney
M E M O R A N D U M
September 4, 1987
TO: Michael Shelton, City Manager
Dave Jorgensen, Administrative Services Director
FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director "
SUBJECT: Personal Computer Proposals: Building and Planning
Divisions
BACKGROUND:
This request evolved out of our on-going review of services that could
be enha.nced through use of computers in the Building and Planning Di-
visions. It should be noted, that the Division Heads had requested
additional computer capabilities prior to budget submission but these
did not make it through the request process owing to (1) recognition
that City-wide computer evaluation was incomplete at that time, and
is (2) high cost of vehicles being requested.
PROPOSAL:
Following are the proposed uses for four (4) personal computers and
two (2) printers to be housed in Planning and Building Divisions on
the third floor :
Building Division:
One PC and impact printer for processing building permits, calculating
fees, tracking plan check process, etc.
One PC for plan checking and corrections; inspection tracking; and
general file access.
Planning Division:
Two PCs and one printer to be located at planners ' desks with the fol-
lowing capabilities:
(1) Provide data base for up to thirty-eight items - zoning, land use,
business license, reports, etc. - for each accessor ' s parcel in
the City.
(2) Generate reports regarding data stored for the parcels, e.g. , ex-
isting undeveloped industrially zoned lots, locations of home oc-
cupations, etc.
0 •
(3) Use as a word processer for staff reports to Planning Commission
and City Council.
(4) Enable faster, more accurate response for citizens' requests; sys-
tem will interface with the building permit system.
(5) Expand use of existing software to generate spreadsheet data base
management, development proposal impact analysis, etc.
HE:ph
enclosure: DLH/INE System Overview, August 24, 1987
B � •
NDLHANE
C O R P O R A T I O N
August 24, 1987
Steve DeCamp
Building & Planning
City of Atascadero
P.O. Box 747
Atascadero, CA 93423
Dear Steve:
Enclosed are the overview pages of our Building Permits and Parcel
Systems. We feel that your department could be an excellent source of
information and consultation in our perfecting of this system. With
the discount we are offering, I believe we both can benefit.
Please feel free to contact Carolyn Sullivan if you have any technical
questions. Again, her number is (209) 474-2900. Thank you for your
interest and please feel free to call me if you need any more
information.
Sin r 1
ohn R Hode1
Marketing Representative
NATIONAL MARKETING DIVISION 31 UNION STREET NEW BEDFORD, MA 02740 •617-992-9200
May 7, 1987
Building Permit and Parcel System Overview
PB - The link between the Building Permit and Parcel systems
The PB system is provided with the sale of either system and
its sole purpose is to allow either system to be installed
alone, or to tie the systems together if both are installed.
Any common programs and files are part of the PB system. Value
Table Master File maintenance and listing are PB functions.
System Maintenance procedures (File Builds, File Saves, etc. )
are also PB system functions.
In addition, menu option control, report option and printer
control are examples of PB system functions that are
transparent to the user .
BP - Building Permits Overview
The Building Permit system works integrally with the Parcel system,
but does not require the Parcel system. This apparent
contradiction is handled through special programming which allows
the capability of automatically creating the portions of the Parcel
system which are required by the Building Permits system, but only
if Parcel is not loaded onto the computer.
A detailed account of the system functions follow:
1. At permit application time, the detail information for a parcel
(owner information, zoning code, etc. ) is retrieved from the
parcel system. Required parcel information may be added or
updated from the Plan Application Maintenance program. (The
parcel information that can be updated from the Plan
Application Maintenance program is limited to that data which
is pertinent to the Building Permit function and does not
include Parcel Transaction History information. )
2. Detail information stored in the Plan Application file is job
type, building type, valuation, contractor & architect
information, and so on.
3. Once a Plan Application has been entered, additional functions
are supported for that Plan Number.
A. Plan Check Status. "Out To" Dept. , Revision Number , Date
Out, Date Returned, Status Code, and Remarks. This
information allows close monitoring of the status of the
plan check by department.
B. Permit Fee Selection and Calculation. All the applicable
fees are selected from the Fee Master File, a calculation
quantity is entered, and the program calculates the fee.
Fees can be overridden manually.
C. Permit Transaction Maintenance. An unlimited number of
transactions may be entered relating to a given permit.
Examples of Transactions would be inspection scheduling,
permit and inspection time limit expiration, and so on.
4. Fee Master File Maintenance allows the entry of "fee tables"
that define the allowable permit fees. All fees are user
defined, and the individual agency can set up as many or as few
fees as necessary. Fees can be entered to be payable either at
the time of application or at the time the permit is issued.
Fees are separated into "Groups"- Plumbing, Electrical,
Mechanical, etc. The heading record for each group contains
the group description and controls the printing of the detail
fees on the permit.
Within the group, individual fees are defined. This includes
the calculation quantity label to be prompted, (for example,
"Number of Fixtures: ") , the type of fee (Set, Extended,
Graduated, or Percent) , and the instructions or table for
calculating the fee.
5. Building Permit Reports.
A. Printing of a generic Building Permit. Several
different printing options are included, and the user may
choose any one of them. They all use plain paper in either
8 1/2 x 11, 11 x 8 1/2, or legal size. In order to utilize
a preprinted permit, either custom programming would be
required, or the preprinted form could be designed to
conform with the existing DLH output specifications.
B. Listing of fees by fee type. This report will show the
fees collected within a range of dates, broken down by fee
type. Either Detail or Summary listings, or both, can be
selected. This will provide the typical "Report of the
Building (or Electrical, Mechanical, or Plumbing) Inspector
for the Month of" reports.
C. Listing of fees by permit. This report will show the fees
collected for a range of dates, broken down by permit.
Either Detail or Summary listings, or both, can be
selected.
D. Building Activity Summary. This report shows the number
of units, valuation and fees collected, for a range of
dates, broken down by type of construction, use group, and
occupancy group.
E. Effective transaction listing. Shows all permit
transactions that were, are, or will be in effect for a day
or range of days. Optionally, can be limited to one type
of transaction.
F. Expired transaction listing. Shows all permit transactions
that were, are, or will expire on a day or range of days.
Optionally, can be limited to one type of transaction.
G. Plan Check Status Listing. Lists the status of all plan
checks for a range of dates.
H. Fee Master File Listing. Lists the Fee Master file,
showing all the detail information for each fee.
PL - Parcel System Overview
The Parcel System can be purchased and used as a standalone
application. It does not require any of the Building Permit system
to function, but is so closely linked to it through the PB system
explained at the beginning of this overview that the two
applications can still be thought of as a common product.
1. The Parcel System' s primary functions are the linking of
Parcel Numbers and Addresses, and the capturing of data about
the parcel, both static and historical. One address may have
more than one parcel number and one parcel number may have more
than one address. Multiple parcels may reference the
information in one detail record, so mutiple records containing
identical information are not required (one detail record for
an apartment building, for example) . The detail information
for each parcel is owner information, zoning code, general plan
code, lot number , subdivision, etc. In addition, there are 38
user defined fields. These fields are set up by each agency to
contain the required information for that agency.
In this system, a "Parcel" is any address, linked with any APN
(assesor ' s parcel number) . More than one Parcel can have the
same address, or the same APN. Each Parcel has a unique ID# ,
assigned by the system. For example:
Address APN ID #
----------------- ------------ -------
Parcel 1: 123 Main St. 21-10-109 106
Parcel 2: 123 Main St. 21-10-110 107
Parcel 3: 321 Elm St. 22-27-310 108
Parcel 4: 322 Elm St. 22-27-310 109
The example above shows that even though Parcels 1 & 2 have the
same address, they are considered to be two separate Parcels
because they have two different APNs. The system will assign
each a seperate ID number . Likewise, Parcels 3 & 4 have the
same APN, but two different addresses, so they are two unique
Parcels to the system.
2. Up to 999 . Tr ansaction History records may be attached to any
parcel record. These records would contain any information the
user wants to track, such as permits, variances, licenses, code
violations, and so on. The fields on the Transaction History
file are effective date, expiration date, transaction type
code, description text and an exception flag. The transaction
type codes are user defined.
3. Up to 98 Text records may be attached to any Transaction
History record. Each record has room for 50 characters of
freeform text that may be used to describe in detail the
transaction, its history, the parties involved, and so on.
4. Inquiries
A. All data, both static and historical, may be accessed
through an inquiry program which puts the entire database
at the fingertips of the user .
5. Reports.
A. Parcel Listings, showing all the detail information for a
parcel, along with all the transactions and the text for
each transaction. This report may be run either as a stand
alone menu option, or from within the Parcel Maintenance
and Parcel Inquiry programs.
B. Effective Transaction Listings, by a date range and,
optionally, for a particular transaction type.
C. Expired Transaction Listings, by a date range and,
optionally, for a particular transaction type.
D. Address and Parcel Number Cross Reference Listings, in
either address or parcel number order and, optionally, for
a range of addresses or parcel numbers.
SM0012 / BONNDEBB
i
M E M 0 R .A N D U M
To: City Council
Thru: Mike Shelton, City Manager ,
From: David G. Jorgensen, Admin. Svcs. Directo
Date: March 30, 1987
Subject: Computer System Request for Proposals (RFP)
RECOMMENDATION -
It is recommended that the City Council approve the time
schedule and bid documents to solicit proposals for a finan-
cial computer system and departmental word processing.
DISCUSSION
As part of the most recent presentation of the City' s audit
by the independent auditor, it was suggested that the City explore
the possibility of replacing the existing financial system hard-
ware. and software.
In working with the City' s software support consultant, he
has suggested the City explore the possibilites of new computer
hardware and -application software because of the obsolescence
of the hardware and the inadequacy of the software. Prior to
bringing the bid package to the Council he has reviewed it and
his suggested changes have been made.
Software Needs
For quite a long time, the financial system software has been
inadequate for our needs. As the city grows this inadequacy
becomes more acute.
We do not have a usable general ledger by account number. This
makes accurate tracking of revenue, expenditures and fund balances
difficult and time consuming, with a greater possibility for error.
Our payroll system should automatically update the general
ledger by fund and account number. This is not happening with the
current system.
Beginning in 1988-89 , the City will be required to submit a
detailed business license report to the State of California. We
do not have an automated business license system. To do this
report manually would be time consuming and nearly impossible with
the current number of personnel on staff.
Computer Cost_ Comparison
All costs except current are estimates only. Actual costs
will be determined by the bid process.
Current (1)
Costs Vendor A(2) Vendor B(2)
Lease/Purchase Payment Hardware $ 2,699 .00 (3) $ 618.46 (3) $ 1,002.00 (3)
Lease/Purchase Pmt. App Software -0- Not Quoted 529.00
Maintenance - Hardware 1,007.00 199.00 317.91
Maintenance - Software 164.30 205.00 -0-
Maintenance - App. Software 253. 50 Not Quoted -0-
monthly total $ 4 ,123. 80 $ 1, 022.46 $ 1,848.91
x 12 months $49,485.60 $12,269 .52 $22,186.92
1. Based on expenses paid during 1986-1987 fiscal year.
2. These are quotes from actual vendors, but are unofficial and may
change when official bids are submitted. Also they represent
different hardware configurations.
3. All rates are monthly.
file: bids2
Each year the auditor suggests. the need for a detailed fixed
asset system. Once again, this can not be done with the current
computer software or manually with the current level of staffing.
The bid RFP is designed to respond to these reporting needs,
as well as others, so that the finance department can supply the
Council and departments with accurate usuable information at all
times.
Hardware Needs
The existing computer hardware is over five years old. In
terms of technology, it has become obsolete. Because of this,
the manufacturer, each year , increases the cost to the City of
maintaining the hardware in workable condition. With the cost
of maintenance as high as it is and the cost of new systems
becoming lower, it is conceivable that new system hardware can
be obtained at the same cost as the cost of maintenance on the
current system.
FISCAL CONSIDERATIONS
An example of cost comparisons is attached. These examples
show that the City could buy new financial system hardware and
software for less than was allocated for computer costs in the
1986-87 budget. A more detailed cost analysis will be included
with the final report after the bids have been received and
evaluated.
ALTERNATIVES
At this point the alternatives for the Council to consider ,
are to allow us to request proposals or not. After the pro-
posals are received there will be additional alternatives based
on actual price comparisons for either replacing the existing
system, or not. These alternatives will be based on the cost
effectiveness of new systems .proposals compared to the existing
system.
file: bids2
ING
AGENDA
OFT2 ITEM
RESOLUTION 92-87
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ATASCADERO
APPROVING AN EQUIPMENT LEASE WITH
SECURITY PACIFIC MERCHANT BANK
WHEREAS, the City is desirous of purchasing a new fire
truck for $137,318.76 and new computer hardware and software
for $96 ,154. 00 ; and
WHEREAS, the City feels it prudent to refinance an existing
loan on a fire truck in order to save financing costs; and
WHEREAS, the lowest interest rate available for leasing this
package of equipment was submitted by Security Pacific Merchant
Bank; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Atascadero• City Council
does hereby approve and enter into a five year lease with Security
• Pacific Merchant Bank for the lease/purchase of the aforementioned
equipment. (Copy of lease attached. )
On motion by Councilperson and seconded
by- Councilperson , the foregoing resolution is
hereby adopted in its entirety on the following roll call votes:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ADOPTED:
CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA
By:
BARBARA NORRIS, Mayor
• •
(Resolution No. 92-87, con' t. )
ATTEST: •
BOYD C. SHARITZ, City Clerk
PREPARED BY
DAVID G � JqRGENSEN, Admin. Svcs. Director
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
I f
MICHAEL SHELTON, City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM: •
JEFFREY G. JORGENSEN, City Attorney
M E M O R A N D U M
To: City Council
Through: Mike Shelton
From: David G. Jorgensen
Date: September 1, 1987
Subject: Financing Package for Equipment Purchases
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council approve the proposed
financing package in the amount of $320,772.76 with Securitv
Pacific Merchant Bank at an interest rate of 7.07 percent.
DISCUSSION
The Council has authorized the purchase of a new fire engine
and has also approved going to bid in order to purchase new
computer hardware and software. Additionally, we have an exist-
ing loan on a recently purchased fire engine. This loan is with
Mid-State Bank and has an interest rate of 9 percent and 55
months left to pay.
The total amount of these three items is $320 ,772. 76 .
New Fire Engine $137 ,318. 76
New Computer System 96 ,154. 00
Payoff on Existing Fire Engine Loan 87 . 300. 00
Total $320 ,772. 76
By refinancing the existing fire engine the City will save
approximately $5,000 in finance charges over the five years of
the financing period. We did considerable research into the best
financing package available to the City. (See Attachment A -
Financing Options) . By comparing these options we have determined
that the proposal by Security Pacific Merchant Bank is the most cost
effective package for the City. The interest rate is 7. 07 percent.
This is the lowest rate quoted. The term of the financing is five
years.
•
The annual coo is $74 ,824. 40. In paying Of the lease/purchase
within a five-year period, Security Pacific offers the lowest total
cost. Other terms of payments are for longer periods, which would
reduce the annual payment, but cost more over the life of the lease.
The shorter term of five years is recommended to be utilized, which
is within the City' s financial means and the anticipated adopted
budget payment appropriations.
Financial Discussion
In the Fire Department Capital Improvement program $45,000 was
budgeted to make the lease payments. The annual lease payment for the
fire equipment only is $52, 399. 53. The existing annual payment for
the fire truck is $23,665. We underestimated the finance cost of the
new truck. We thought the annual payment amount would be about the
same. This isn' t so, since the cost to purchase the new truck is so
much greater than the amount financed on the existing truck. There is
enough unallocated fund balance in the Fire Department Capital
Improvement Account to cover the difference between the actual and
budgeted amounts.
Annual ongoing data processing equipment and maintnenance cost
was budgeted at $31,340 in the Administrative Services Department
budget for computer hardware and software. The annual lease payment
for the computer equipment is $22, 424. 87.
Attachment A
Financing Options*
4
Financial Interest Annual Total
Institution Rate Term Type Cost Cost
Security Pacific 7.07% 5 yrs. Advance $ 70 ,186 $350,930
Security Pacific 7.45% 5 yrs. Arrears 73,492 367,460
Security Pacific 7.71% 7 yrs. Advance 54, 502 381, 514
Security Pacific 7.77% 7 yrs. Arrears 56,792 397,544
Municipal Leasing Assoc. 7. 60% 7 yrs. Advance 24,720 173, 040
dba Mid-State Bank 5 yrs. 42,100 210,500
Municipal Leasing Assoc. 7. 60% 7 yrs. Arrears 25,658 179, 606
dba Mid-State Bank 5 yrs. 43,700 218,500
Bank of America 10.25% 4 yrs. --- n/a n/a
(80% of total cost only)
Prudential/Bache Tied to Large Bond Rate Variable n/a
First Continental Finan. 7.56% 3 yrs. Arrears 119,731 359, 194
First Continental Finan. 7.44% 5 yrs. Arrears 76 ,861 384 ,304
* These figures in the annual cost and total cost columns represent
an estimated total amount to be financed.
0 6T,:
M E M O R A N D U M
• TO: City Council Members September 8, 1987
FROM: Michael Shelton
City Manager
SUBJECT: EMPLOYEE SOFTBALL TOURNAMENT
RECOMMENDATION:
Council Adopt Resolution 94-87, appropriating $137.10 from the
Council Contingency Fund for an Employee Softball Tournament.
DISCUSSION:
Considerable discussion has transpired as to social events
employees may be interested in besides an annual picnic.
Enthusiasm has focused on a softball tournament. Accordingly,
Lieuntenant Hazelton has organized a tournament, scheduled for
October 3-4. Every effort has been taken to defray and reduce
costs. It is felt that memorabilia should be provided for the
winning team.
• The softball tournament (first annual) , will provide an
opportunity for employees to interact and socialize away from the
working environment. The funding of the requested memorabilia
(t-shirts and trophy to be displayed in the lobby) , represents
an expression of appreciation by the City to its employees.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Employees can be charged a tournament entrance fee to cover
costs.
2. Contribution can be solicited from vendors or. other private
individuals.
3. Awards and recognition not be considered.
MS:kv
File: Msoftbl
I
M E M O R A N D U M
TO : City Manager
FROM: Lieutenant Hazeltoncreh'?��''
J
SUBJECT: Employee Softball Tournament
DATE: September 2, 1987
Recommendation
Appropriate $137. 10 from general funds to pay expenses for a city
employees ' softball tournament.
Background
During the Department Head Meeting of August 10, staff discussed
the desirability of hosting softball games for city employees .
We felt that this activity would be a morale builder for employees
and departments . We decided that we should have the softball games .
You appointed me to plan and coordinate the games .
To date, four teams have been formed. The teams consist of up to
eighteen players per team. The games will be co-ed, and at least
half the players in the game must be women. Employees (including
contract employees as of August 10) and their spouses may play.
Employees seem to be quite pleased with the idea of a softball
tournament, and even more teams may be formed. Existing teams
have already chosen team colors , and some are ordering uniforms •
(at their cost) .
A field at Paloma Creek Park has been reserved for Saturday,
September 26, for the entire day. Teams will be allowed to
sign up for team practices on that day. Both fields at Paloma
Creek Park have been reserved for the weekend of October 3-4.
We expect to play a "round robin" tournament on October 3, when
each team will play at least three games . The winning teams will
play a best-of-three series for the championship on October 4.
Each member of the winning team will receive (in addition to
considerable "bragging rights") a T-shirt which reads "1987
Champions" and "Atascadero City Employees Softball Tournament."
These shirts will no doubt be worn with pride and will further
enhance employee morale. In addition, I am ordering a plaque
which will depict the name and picture of the winning team. We
can display this plaque in the city hall lobby and list the
names of winners of the softball tournaments as they occur in
future years .
Fiscal Impact
The Parks and Recreation Department has agreed to allow us to use
the fields , maintenance equipment and lights at no cost. I will
prepare the fields (lime and drag the infields) , and I will umpire
the games . The plaque will cost approximately $30.00. The eighteen
shirts can be purchased @$5. 95 for the sum of $107 . 10 . Funds are
requested for the shirts and the plaque.
RESOLUTION NUMER 94-87
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO
APPROPRIATING COUNCIL CONTINGENCY FUNDS
FOR AN EMPLOYEE SOFTBALL TOURNAMENT
WHEREAS, extensive enthusiasm and plans have been made for an
"Employee Softball Tournament" ; and
WHEREAS, the softball tournament will provide the employer
with an opportunityto interact and socialize away from the work-
ing environment.
WHEREAS, providing awards to the tournament champions
provides team pride; and
WHEREAS, the funding awards by the City provides an
expression of appreciation by the City to its employees.
THEREFORE, be it resolved that the Atascadero City
Council appropriates $137. 10 in Council Contingency Funds to
cover expenses for a "City Employees Softball Tournament" .
On motion by Councilmember and seconded
by Councilmember the foregoing resolution is
hereby adopted in its entirety by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
DATE ADOPTED:
CITY OF ATASCADERO
BARBARA NORRIS
Mayor
ATTEST:
BOYD C. SHARITZ
City Clerk
0 ,t G..
MEMORANDUM
To: Board of Directors, ACSD At4
Through: Michael Shelton, City Manager
From: Paul M. Sensibaugh, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
�S
Subject : Septic Tank Dump Site
Date : August 17, 1987
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Board make no changes in the present
use, fee structure, or C. I .P. for the septic tank dump facility.
Backround:
• Mayor Norris received information at a recent meeting on
hazardous waste that the Atascadero Waste Water Treatment Plant was
the only septic tank dump site in San Luis Obispo County.
Consequently, staff was requested to give a report on the implications
of this fact with regard . to serving businesses or property owners
outside the corporate limits and with respect to the sufficiency of
the fees presently charged.
Discussion:
Although the Atascadero WWTP is the only treatment facilty in the
county that currently accepts septic tank dumpage, there are several
septic tank dump sites using direct land application. Other disposal
sites are Nipomo, Los Osos, Chicago Grade, two sites east of Cayucos,
one above Cambria and others . Winter dumping is mostly handled at
Nipomo and Atascadero.
Unlike the AWWTP, most waste water treatment plants are not
lagoon systems which. require a lot of land area to function. Systems
such as activated sludge cannot handle a huge concentration of waste
without pretreatment or a process to add the waste a slow rate . Grit,
oil and grease, and heavy concentrations of waste all have an adverse
affects on these systems.
To our knowledge the AWWTP is the only plant in the county that
was specifically designed to include a formal septic tank dump site .
EPA grant funds are normally given to treat wastes on a regional or
watershed basis and wastes must be accepted regardless of t
residence address of the effluent . Obvious exceptions of this gene
rule are that no hazardous wastes need to be accepted nor waste tha
may upset the treatment process . Also distance from the site and
capacity are usually controlling factors on the amount of waste
received as well as the cost associated with the service .
EPA does encourage the governing body to set fees at a level that
will assure that the system is self supporting and does allow
different fees for service to areas outside the corporate limits. For
normal sewer service increased fees are usually justified due to the
investments made by those within the taxing boundary that have not
been shared by outsiders, as well as additional costs associated with
the distance traveled for maintenance and reserve capacity at the
plant . In the case of a septic tank dump added costs may be associated
with unknown or questionable wastes or for added maintenance or
operation above the normal level .
Connections to a sanitary sewer are easily monitored and inside
and outside rates are routinely collected. However, the mobile
business of septic tank pumping is not confined to a definite boundary
and outside businesses are not required to have a business license in
our city. The overall goal perhaps should be to provide a necessary
service to all and to assure that all users pay their own fair share
regardless of their origin.
Condition of Septic Tank Dump Facility: •
The septic tank dump facility has a questionable design and has
not performed well since the plant began full operation in 1984. The
suction line is often clogged due to the intake position and grit
settles in the sloped section near this line . A partial redesign or a
completely new design must occur this fiscal year to continue to
Provide the service intended. The construction costs could range from
$20, 000 to about $50, 000 dependent upon the scope of the project .
Presently steps have been taken to insure that the outlet line
can be combined into the Bordeaux House bypass line grinder (Muffin
Monster) prior to emptying into the aerated lagoon. This tactic will
increase the treatment efficiency for septic tank waste .
Fiscal Impact :
The present cost of dumping is $20 for a single load and $40 for
a double load. Revenue to date for this calendar year is $8, 200 .
Projected for 12 months it is estimated that about $13, 000 will be
generated from fees at the current rate . The previous three years,
using estimated loads and adjusted hourly rates, show costs at $14,700
and revenues at about $33, 000. Therefore, approximately $18,300 of
the C. I .P. fund can be attributable to the septic tank dump . However,
the total cost of replacement could be up to $50, 000 .
0 0
. Analyzing the above over the next ten (10) years :
Operation Costs : ($17.75/hr.x 850 loads, 1/2hr:/load,
Plus 10% admin. ) $ 8,300/yr,
Maintenance Costs : 2, 000/yr.
Debt Service : ($50, 000 @ 10%) 8, 150/yr.
Total Costs: $18,450/yr.
($18,450 x 10yrs . ) $184,500
Revenues : (850 loads x$20/load) $17, 000/yr.
($17,000 x 10yrs . )=$170,000
Total Revenues: Plus net gained 1st 3yrs .=$18,300
($170,000+18,300) $188,300
Net Result : $3, 800 gained over 10 years
Conclusion:
Therefore, it appears that the current fee of $20 per load dumped
is adequate to pay for operation, maintenance and replacement of the
subject facility. Obviously the above is based upon several
assumptions and should be monitored annually to make sure that once
the facility is renovated or replaced the fee rate will continue to
keep up with associated costs.