HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 051496 Approved as Submitted
Meeting Date: 6/11/96
ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL
MAY 14, 1996
MINUTES
CLOSED SESSION:
The City met in Closed Session at 6:30 p.m. for purposes of discussions pertaining to:
1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Initiation of litigation: One (1) potential case
2. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Title: City Manager
3. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR:
Agency negotiator: City Manager
Employee organizations: Management; Mid-Management/Professional; Fire
Captains; Firefighters; Atascadero Sergeants Service Orgn.; Atascadero
Police Officers Assoc.; Atascadero Public Safety Technicians Orgn.; Service
Employees Intl. Union; Confidential Employees
Closed Session was adjourned at 7.09 p.m. The City Attorney announced that there
was no action taken.
REGULAR SESSION:
The Mayor called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Councilmembers Bewley, Carden, Johnson, Luna and
Mayor Highland
Absent: None
Also Present: Rudy Hernandez, City Treasurer and Lee Price, City Clerk
Staff Present: Andy Takata, City Manager; Steve DeCamp, City Planner;
Art Montandon, City Attorney; Brady Cherry, Director of
Community Services; Brad Whitty, Finance Director; Lt.
John Barlow, Police Department; Capt. Peter Gaw, Fire
Department and Mark Markwort, Chief of Wastewater
Operations
CC 5/14/96
Page 1
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS:
• Proclaim June 10-21, 1996 as "Grad Nite Weeks" in Atascadero
The Mayor presented the proclamation to DeeDee Hoskins and Terry Sherwin, co-
chairpersons of the Grad Nite Committee. Mrs. Sherwin announced activities
planned for Grad Nite and presented Council and members of staff with Grad Nite
'96 buttons.
• Proclaim May 14, 1996 as "Politeness in Politics Day"
The Mayor read the proclamation.
COMMUNITY FORUM:
• Milihollin Mine Update
Art Montandon provided an update on the matter of pending litigation and reported
that the amended reclamation plan application, including an operations agreement,
would soon be forwarded to the State for review. He mentioned that the
operations agreement will contain provisions regarding fees for wear and tear on
City roads.
• Public Comments
Ray Jansen, 6655 Country Club Drive, spoke regarding quality of life and asserted
that there is too much waste in today's society. He commented that the greatest
waste is the failure to develop our young people in ways other than in the ability
to make money. This leads to teenage delinquency, he proclaimed.
A. CONSENT CALENDAR:
The Mayor read the Consent Calendar, as follows:
1. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - April 23, 1996
(City Clerk's recommendation: Approve)
2. MINUTES OF JOINT CITIES MEETING - April 25, 1996
(Recording Secy. 's recommendation: Approve)
3. APPROVAL OF WARRANTS - April, 1996
(Staff recommendation: Approve)
CC 5/14/96
Page 2
4. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 25-89, 5805 CAPISTRANO AVE. - Consideration
of time extension request (Lewis/No. Coast Engineering)
(Planning Commission recommendation: Approve)
5. APPLICATIONS FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT CYCLE 1-96
(Staff recommendation: Receive & file)
6. RESOLUTION NO. 34-96 - Supporting Test Claim No. CSM-4500,
sponsored by the City of Atascadero and urging approval by the
Commission on State Mandates
(City Clerk recommendation: Adopt)
7. RESOLUTION NO. 33-96 - Supporting AB2342 relative to marine weather
informa-tion, forecasts or advisories
(Mayor recommendation: Adopt)
8. RESOLUTION NO. 32-96 - Authorization to enter into Joint Powers
Agreement for preparation of an updated Safety/Seismic Safety Element
(Staff recommendation: Adopt)
9. RESOLUTION NO. 36-96 - Authorizing the borrowing of funds for Fiscal
Year 1996-97; the issuance and sale of a 1996-97 Tax and Revenue
Anticipation Note (TRANS) and participation intheCalifornia Communities
Cash Flow Financing Program
(Staff recommendation: Adopt)
Doug Lewis, Tunitas Avenue resident, pulled Item #9 for comment.
MOTION: By Councilmember Luna; seconded by Councilmember Bewley
to approve Consent items 1-8; motion passed 5:0 by roll call
vote.
Re: Item #A-9. RESOLUTION NO. 36-96 - Authorizing the borrowing of funds
for Fiscal Year 1996-97; the issuance and sale of a 1996-97 Tax and
Revenue Anticipation Note and participation in the California Communities
Cash Flow Financing Program
(Staff recommendation: Adopt)
Doug Lewis commented that he has some concerns about placing the TRANS item
on the Consent Calendar and pointed out that the matter should be open for public
testimony. Mayor Highland reported that the resolution was procedural and
emphasized that the agenda process provides for an opportunity to comment.
Rush Kolemaine, 4850 Potrero, asked how funds will be used, when it will be
received and if it will be adequate considering the present short-fall of cash. Brad
Whitty reported that the funds will be used to balance out the cash flow
throughout the year and explained that the money is borrowed arinst future
revenues. He added that the TRANS will be paid off by June 30t 1997 and
clarified that the one-year loan costs the City no money. Mr. Kolemaine inquired if
CC 5/14/96
Page 3
the funds would be adequate to cover the City's needs. Mr. Whitty assured him
and the Council that the amount will be adequate.
Eric Greening, 7365 Valle, asked how much money would be recoverable in the
even of an abort if the interest rate goes up. Brad Whitty explained that the City
has earned $12,000 this fiscal year in interest earnings. There have been no
charges for interest, he said, and added that the City can pull out at anytime.
MOTION: By Councilmember Johnson, Councilmember Carden to approve
Item #A-9; motion carried 5.0 by roll call vote.
B. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
95-001, 11750 SAN MARCOS ROAD - Application to divide two (2) lots
containing 17.92 ac. into three (3) lots of 5.60, 5.96 and 5.96 acres
(Lindsay/Wilson Surveys)
(Planning Commission/staff recommendation: Deny)
Doug Davidson provided the staff report and recommendation to deny the appeal.
Councilmember Johnson inquired if the property is build-able as currently
structured. Mr. Davidson reported that if the applicant were to submit a site plan
for the existing lot, it could be approved at the staff level. He clarified that the
application is, however, for subdivision. Councilmember Johnson asked where
staff is recommending that the road be constructed. Mr. Davidson commented
that staff has not developed a recommendation for an exact location for the road.
There was mutual concern shared by members of the Council that because of the
steepness of the terrain, road construction may result in scarring of the hillside and
removal of too many trees.
Councilmember Luna remarked that he would have a problem with abandoning the
road, despite the steepness of the road, since it would deny access to an existing
lot (Lot 7 Block 81). There are property rights to protect, he said, and added that
Mrs. Lindsay also has property rights. Staff must issue a building permit for her
existing lot since approval of a building permit is a ministerial act. He emphasized
that the application is not for a building permit but for a subdivision and argued
that there are numerous problems, including the removal of at least twenty mature
oak trees, a high emergency response time, the length of the proposed driveway
and certain flag lot standards.
Steve DeCamp responded to questions regarding the proposed road abandonment
and explained that a current legal right of access exists along the San Cayetano
right-of-way to provide access to the lots, although not considered by staff to be a
practical alternative. If the road is abandoned, he continued, legal access is
denied. Mr. DeCamp also reported that the City Council, by approval of the lot
line adjustment for the Davis Ranch, has already approved the abandonment of
large portions of the right-of-way, predicated on the availability of the remaining
San Cayetano right-of-way to provide legal access. Doug Davidson remarked that
staff believes access can be obtained through an adjacent lot owned by the
applicant which is not a part of this subdivision. Councilmember Carden
suggested that the least-intrusive method for access may be to use the existing
CC 5/14/96
Page 4
driveway.
The City Attorney advised that the road abandonment, if approved, would not
create significant liability for the City because, the development of the access (to
Lot 7 Block 81) is costly. Councilmember Luna asserted that if the owner (of Lot
7 Block 81) desires to develop the parcel, he could prepare the environmental
impact report and bare the costs of road construction instead of the City Council
abandoning the road and subjecting the City to an inverse condemnation suit.
Public Comments:
Robert M. ("Grigger") Jones, representing the applicant, submitted a prepared
statement and summarized major points in support of the appeal (see Exhibit A).
Ken Wilson of Wilson Land Surveys presented overhead transparencies
demonstrating the project plan.
Upon review of the documents submitted, Councilmember Luna asked staff for
clarification of "defensible space distances" from houses as outlined in the Fire
Department's response to Wilson Land Surveys (included in Exhibit A). Capt.
Peter Gaw reported that defensible space distance is an important aspect for fire
control and prevention. He explained that the department seeks reasonable
clearance and noted that compliance can include clearing, fire breaks and other
fire control-techniques. Capt. Gaw responded to additional Councilquestions
relevant to emergency response.
The City Attorney explained that included in the applicant's handout (Exhibit A) is
a letter from the Fire Department which was not considered by planning staff or by
- the Planning Commission. He advised that it would be appropriate to refer the
matter back to staff and the Planning Commission for review of this new
information before taking any action on the appeal. In addition, Mr. Montandon
noted, for the record, that although Councilmember Luna owns property nearby,
there is no conflict of interest with him deliberating on this matter.
Joy Greenburg, 11655 Cenegal Road, urged the City Council to deny the appeal
and uphold the Planning Commission recommendation. She added that the project
would negatively impact her property and reported that the owner has done some
grading without City approval. Ms. Greenburg read a letter from Cenegal Road
residents John and Hunter Perry, who are also recommending denial.
Jill Stegman, 10660 San Marcos Road, spoke in opposition to the subdivision and
urged denial of the appeal.
Dorothy Flaherty, 12100 Cenegal Road, read a prepared statement urging the City
Council to uphold the Planning Commission recommendation (see Exhibit B).
Eric Greening, 7365 Valle, agreed with the comments of the previous speakers
and pointed out that staff and Commission have followed the General Plan in
making their recommendations.
Marvin Horowitz, 10830 San Marcos, also expressed opposition and urged denial
of the appeal.
CC 5/14/96
Page 5
The City Clerk read letters submitted by Gretchen Gray at 10420 San Marcos
Road and from James and Veda Thomas, 11695 Vista Road (Exhibits C & D
respectively).
Grigger Jones, speaking once more on behalf of the applicant, requested that the
City Council uphold the appeal and make specific findings as addressed in his
letter.
---end of public testimony---
MOTION: By Councilmember Luna, seconded by Mayor Highland to deny
the appeal in accordance with the Findings contained in the
Planning Commission and staff recommendation; motions failed
2:3 (Carden, Bewley, Johnson voting No),
MOTION: By Councilmember Johnson, seconded by Councilmember
Carden to refer the tentative parcel map, including [new] input
from the Fire Department, back to staff for transmittal to the
Planning Commission.
Discussion on the motion: Councilmember Bewley asked if the applicant
would have to pay an additional fee. The City Attorney advisedthatthe
City Council has the discretion to waive the fee.
Motion amended and adopted: Motion amended to include waiving of the
filing fee. Amended motion to refer TPM 95001 back to staff and the
Planning Commission passed 4:1 (Luna).
Steve DeCamp reported that the matter would be noticed for the June 18'
Planning Commission meeting and be brought back to the City Council three
weeks after that date (7/9/96).
Mayor Highland called a recess at 8:47 p.m. At 9:00 p.m., the meeting
reconvened.
2. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DETERMINATION THAT AUTO
REPAIR IS NOT AN ALLOWABLE USE IN THE DOWNTOWN
(Staff recommendation: Continue to 5/28/96, per applicant's request)
Mayor Highland reported that this matter has been requested to be continued.
There was no public testimony. By mutual consent, the matter was continued to
May 28', 1996.
3. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 95-001 - Extension of urban services line to
Commercial Tourist (CT) zone on east side of U.S. 101 at Del Rio Road
(Planning Commission recommendation: Deny)
Doug Davidson provided the staff report and recommendation to deny the General
Plan amendment. He also reported that the Planning Commission was also
CC 5/14/96
Page 6
recommending that Commercial Tourist (CT) properties at freeway interchanges
be served by sewer and, further, that the Commission has urged the City Council
to appropriate the resources necessary to do a comprehensive sewer improvement
plan as soon as possible for the northern part of the City, west of U.S. 101 . Upon
completion of this plan, the Commission also recommends that these CT zoned
properties be reviewed at that time for sewer service, he added.
Mayor Highland stated that it makes sense that the City do a comprehensive plan
before the Urban Services Line (USL) is extended. Council questions to the Chief
of Wastewater Operations followed. Mark Markwort clarified that there are no
immediate plans to prepare a master plan for expansion of the sewer system, but
noted that he would like to see comprehensive plan for the north and south ends
of town. Councilmember Luna asked what would be the cost of the plan and who
would pay for it. Mr. Markwort replied that a former study cost $25,000 and
speculated that the funds would come from the wastewater fund.
Responding to Councilmember Luna's inquiry, the City Attorney reported that
costs of the study could be recouped by applying a deferred reimbursement
condition to new connections. Councilmember Carden voiced a concern that the
General Plan reflects a CT node but yet it is not included within the USL. He
observed that the property cannot be developed as it is zoned and commented
that the City has a piece-meal approach to sewer. He emphasized that technical
costs should be paid for by the project. Mark Markwort reported that on-going
maintenance costs are of concern despite the fact that the developer pays for the
construction costs.
CouncilmemberBewleyagreed that the City needs a comprehensive sewer plan.
He remarked that including the property within theUSLdoes not mean that sewer
will automatically be extended to it.
Public Comments:
Dell Hemingway, 3760 Willow Creek Road in Paso Robles, spoke in support of
including property he owns on Del Rio Road within the USL. He said that a hotel
could bring in needed revenue, but pointed out that it cannot go in without sewer.
The addition of another pump station would benefit others in the community, he
added.
Ron Rolfman, 6060 Ramona Road, spoke in opposition to including the property
within the USL and urged the Council not to make a decision that will change the
vision for the community because of current budgetary problems.
Gloria Watson, 1620 San Ramon, asked the City Council to uphold the Planning
Commission recommendation to deny.
Rush Kolemaine encouraged the City Council to proceed with the study as
recommended by the Planning Commission.
Dell Hemingway, speaking for the second time, proclaimed that he thinks its a
shame that one or two people can influence the Council and are attempting to
thwart their desire to develop their property.
CC 5/14/96
Page 7
---end of public testimony---
MOTION: By Councilmember Carden to extend the USL to include the CT
zone on the east side of Hwy. 101 at Del Rio Road.
Councilmember Johnson seconded the motion and requested
that it be amended to include direction to staff that they move
forward with the study. The maker of the motion agreed to the
amendment.
Discussion on the motion: Councilmember Luna commented that he cannot
agree to approving the General Plan Amendment before completing the
study. He pondered what will happen if it is determined that the extension
is not feasible.
Vote on the motion: Amended motion to extend the USL passed 4:1 (Luna
voting in opposition).
Staff noted that an cost estimate, including how the study will be funded, will be
brought back for final Council approval.
C. REGULAR BUSINESS:
1. PROPOSED MOBILEHOME RENT STABILIZATION ORDINANCE
(Recommendation: Provide direction)
Art Montandon provided the staff report summarizing general principle prevalent in
common law as it relates to mobilehome rent stabilization. He emphasized that the
City Council must determine if there is a legitimate purpose and establish a formula
for a just and reasonable return. Brief Council questions and comments followed.
Public Comments:
Marj McGoff, 10025 El Camino Real Space #78 and spokesperson for many residents
at the Rancho Del Bordo Mobilehome Park, urged the City Council to adopt the
Proposed Mobilehome Rent Stabilization Ordinance for the City of Atascadero,
prepared and submitted by the residents (included in the staff report). Also speaking
in support of adoption of the Rent Stabilization Ordinance were the following
individuals:
Carl , 10900 Las Casitas (Hilltop Manor Mobilehome Park)
David Blakely, San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisor (District#5)
Ed Walk, 10025 EI Camino Real #42
Barbara Reece, Hilltop Manor Mobilehome Park resident
Robin Rameriz, Hilltop Manor Mobilehome Park resident
Helen McGyver, paralegal, Senior Legal Project in San Luis Obispo
Mary Joan Wallace, 10025 El Camino Real #32
Charlene Hall, Oceano mobilehome park resident
Charlotte Byrne, 4060 Tranquilla
Michael Bryne, 4060 Tranquilla
Jim Wolf, Rancho Del Bordo Mobilehome Park
CC 5/14/96
Page 8
Jim Wolf, Rancho Del Bordo Mobilehome Park
John McGoff, 10025 EI Camino Real #78
Wanda Bigg, Villa Margarita Mobilehome Park
Ray Jansen,. 6655 Country Club Drive
Rush Kolemaine, 4850 Potrero Road
Clinton Alford, Rancho Del Bordo Mobilehome Park
Betty Huff,10025 EI Camino Real #25
MOTION: By Councilmember Luna, Councilmember Johnson to continue
past 11 :00 p.m.; motion passed unanimously.
Ron Vanderpool, owner of the Lost Oak Mobilehome Park, submitted a letter in
opposition to a rent stabilization ordinance (see Exhibit "E"). He asserted that
there are many ways to resolve issues between residents and park owners and
suggested that consideration be given to alternatives other than rent stabilization.
---end of public testimony---
Lengthy Council discussion followed. Councilmember Luna spoke in support of the
rent stabilization ordinance proposed by the residents. Councilmember Johnson
suggested that input be sought from the local mobilehome park owners.
Councilmember Carden indicated that he would like to see various options for
ordinance language. The City Manager suggested that a sub-committee
consisting of staff, local park owners and residents meet to review and consider
the issues before bring the matter back for City Council action.
MOTION: By Councilmember Johnson seconded by Councilmember
Bewley to have staff come back to the Council with a proposed
ordinance after getting input from park owners and residents;
motion passed unanimously.
2. ENERGY REDUCTION FEASIBILITY STUDY PRESENTATION BY LANDIS &
GYR, INC.
(Staff recommendation: Review & authorize letter to receive proposal)
Brady Cherry provided the staff report. Barney Path of Landis & Gyr summarized
the proposal and explained that the first step is to determine feasibility. He
encouraged the City Council to allow his firm to complete a thorough energy study
and noted that if it is determined that energy costs can be reduced, a project
contract will be brought back for approval. Questions followed. By mutual
consent, the City Council authorized a letter for Landis & Gyr to present a proposal
to the City.
3. ORDINANCE NO. 302 - Amending the official City zoning map by rezoning
certain real property at 3425/3505 EI Camino Real from RS (Residential
Suburban) to RSF-Y (Residential Single-Family Moderate Density) (ZC
95009/Verheyen)
(Planning Commission recommendation: Motion to waive reading and adopt
on second reading, by title only)
CC 5/14/96
Page 9
MOTION: By Councilmember Bewley seconded by Councilmember
Johnson to adopt Ordinance 302 on second reading; motion
passed 4:1(Luna voting in opposition).
4. FINANCE DIRECTOR'S REPORT FOR YEAR-TO-DATE ENDING MARCH,
1996
(Staff recommendation: Approve)
Brad Whitty provided the staff report and responded to questions. Councilmember
Johnson requested a break-down by department for General Fund expenditures.
The Finance Director indicated he would provide the information request. The
Finance Director's Report was accepted and approved.
D. COMMITTEE REPORTS (The following represent standing committees.
Informative status reports were given, as follows.):
1. S.L.O. Council of Governments/S.L.O. Regional Transit Authority -
Councilmember Carden reported that Atascadero's share of Transit
Development Act funding has been increased.
2.- City/School Committee - Councilmember Johnson reported that the May
meeting has been postponed until May 30" at 1 :30 in the School District
Office.
3. Economic Round Table - Councilmember Johnson reported that that the
Round Table will meet at 7:00 a.m. on May 15tH
4. Finance Committee - Councilmember Luna announced that the Finance
Committee had met to discuss the budget to-date. The year-to-date review
will be conducted at 6:00 p.m. May 28th, he added.
5. Air Pollution Control District - The Mayor reported that the APCD will meet
Wednesday, May 22nd.
6. North County Council - Mayor Highland explained that the executive
committee meeting scheduled for the 16th had been canceled.
7. Ad Hoc Regional Water Management Committee - Mayor Highland reported
that the Salinas Dam Project is moving forward. In addition, he noted that
he had requested that the Paso Robles City Council send a delegate to the
various water committees to ensure sufficient representation for the North
County.
8. Integrated Waste Management Authority - Councilmember Luna reported
that the IWMA had met the proceeding week and had re-organized. He
forwarded to the City Clerk a paper reduction policy approved by the
Authority and suggested that a similar policy be considered.
E. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION:
CC 5/14/96
Page 10
1. City Council
Councilmember Bewley requested a status report on graffiti prevention. Lt. Barlow
responded.
Councilmember Carden mentioned that the Fair Political Practices Commission has
guidelines relating to disclosure of air fare discounts and other in-kind services.
Councilmember Luna requested a update on what progress has been made on
collecting uncollected sewer service fees. The City Manager indicated that staff is
assessing the situation and will be forwarding information to the Council in the
near future.
2. City Treasurer
Rudy Hernandez reported that he is in the process of developing a new investment
policy and provided a progress report on investments. He noted that he is in the
process of diversifying funds by removing some from the State Local Agency
Investment Fund (LAIF) and transferring them into other financial institutions. A
report will follow soon, he added.
THE CITY COUNCIL ADJOURNED AT 12:05 P.M. THE NEXT MEETING WILL BE
TUESDAY, MAY 28T" AT 6:00 P.M. FOR PURPOSES OF YEAR-TO-DATE BUDGET
REVIEW, WITH THE REGULAR MEETING TO FOLLOW AT 7:00 P.M.
MINUTES CORDED D REPARED BY:
LEE Phfbt, C.M C
CITY CLERK
Attachments: Exhibit A (Lindsay)
Exhibit B (Flaherty)
Exhibit C (Gray)
Exhibit D (Thomas)
Exhibit E (Lost Oak Co.)
CC 5/14/96
Page 11
CC 5/14/96
EXHIBIT "A"
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR GEORGE HIGHLAND, MEMBERS OF THE ATASCADERO
CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ROBERTA LINDSAY,Applicant,/Robert M.Jones, Esq.,Applicant's Attorney/
Wilson Surveys,
SUBJECT: APPEAL of Planning Commission's recommendation for denial of
Tentative Map #95001.
DATE: May 14, 1996
BACKGROUND: The Applicant is the owner of a single family residence at 11750 San Marcos
Road. Consisting of a 7.5 acre parcel as well as an adjacent 10.42 parcel. The applicant
proposes to divide the parcels into three parcels of 5.60, 5.96 and 5.96 acres each. The
applicant desires to take advantage of the existing building sites with a minimum of grading, and
vegetation removal. The result will be three parcels, each with a secluded house site, and each
meeting the criteria of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance.The proposal includes
abandonment of San Cayetano which presently divides the existing parcels.
Staff and the applicant disagree on whether the proposed division meet the various
Land Use/Open Space Plan Policies and the more specific Zoning Ordinance Standards. The
applicant submits that the proposed division and abandonment of San Cayetano, will comply
with the Land Use Policies of the City, as well as the specific Zoning Ordinance Standards.
GENERAL PLAN
The subdivision is in accordance with community plans and principles and retains the
desired character of the community.
1. Attached is the list of preliminary conditions for the proposed development
from the Atascadero Fire Department. Please note that the requirements imposed by
the Fire Department are acceptable to the Applicant.
2. Attached are the signatures of 25 individuals who reside in close proximity to the
subject parcels. These neighbors agree that the subdivision is consistent with
applicable General Plan policies.
3. The Applicant elected to proceed with a Tentative Parcel Map application instead
of developing the existing parcel, based on better site design and to keep the
subdivision within proper planning criteria for esthetic land division, minimum disruption
of native vegetation and the maintenance of natural slopes.
4. The Applicant proposal wholeheartedly rejects the Planning Department
recommended access road to the existing site and instead minimizes the grading and
tree removal to substantially less than that proposed by the Planning Department. No
more than 10 trees would be removed and less grading than proposed.
5. The Applicant offers a tree preservation easement on the properties that fulfill
theLand UsePolicy of"Tree-covered hills shall be preserved to retain the distinctive
scenic quality of the community."
6. Abandonment of San Cayetano is in the best interest of proper development The
nature of San Cayetano is of a poorly placed paper road with a potentially disasterous
potential for slope scarring, and tree removal if ever developed. The abandonment of
San Cayetano would not deprive access to any lots to the immediate east, and access to
lots to the immediate west would be from the re-ploted Davis parcels.
SPECIFIC PLAN/ZONING ORDINANCE STANDARDS/FLAG LOT.
1. The proposed lot sizes of 5.60, 5.96 and 5.96 meet the RS zone criteria for lot size.
2. The existing 10.42 acre legal lot is already a Ode facto"flag lot. Access to this lot if
developed as it presently exists would have to be by easement through the adjourning
parcel, since access off San Cayetano would require the development of San Cayetano
and an impermissable disruption of native slopes and existing vegetation. Therefore,
the flag lot criteria for the subdivision ,where "installation of a standard street, either
alone or in conjunction with neighboring properties is not feasible,"
is met.
3. The subdivision is consistent with the immediate neighborhood. Twenty-six owners
and residents of property in the immediately surrounding neighborhood, concur. The
surrounding area has numerous lots with long driveways, privately placed and secluded
building sites.
4. The flag lot is justified by topographical conditions. Contrary to the statement of the
Planning department, the accessway to the proposed lot is not included in the lot area.
And while the accessway is not owned in fee by the lot farthest from the street, nor would
access be owned by the preexisting Ode facto flag lot".
CONCLUSIONS
It is respectfully submitted that the City Council make the following findings:
1. Uphold the Appeal of Tentative Parcel Map#95001, 11750 San Marcos Road.
2. Make the following specific findings:
MAP FINDINGS:
1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable
General and Specific Plans.
2. The design and/or improvement of the proposed subdivisions
is consistent with applicable General and Specific Plans.
3. The Site is physically suitable for the type of development
proposed.
4. The site is physically suitable for the density of the
development proposed.
5. The design of the subdivision, and/or the proposed
improvements,would not could cause substantial
environmental damage nor substantially nor avoidably injure
fish and wildlife or their habitat.
G. The design of the subdivision, and the type of the
improvements, would not conflict with easements acquired by
the public at large for access through or the use of the property
within the proposed subdivision.
FLAG LOT FINDINGS:
1. The subdivision is consistent with the character of the
immediate neighborhood.
2. The creation of flag lots by this subdivision is justified by
topographical conditions,and is in accord with the intent and
purposes of these regulations,the General Plan,and all
specific plans.
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 95001
11750 SAN MARCOS ROAD (LINDSAY/WILSON SURVEYS)
SAN CAYETANO ROAD ABANDONMENT
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED NEIGHBORS OF THE PROPOSED
TENTATIVE MAP 95001, DO HEREBY STATE:
1. We agree that the original alignment for the access road to Lot 19
Block 59 (Parcel 3) and additional Lot (Parcel 2):
a) Is consistant with applicable General and Specific Plans,
b) Is physically suitable for the type and density of the development
proposed,
c) The design of the subdivision would not cause any environmental
damage,
d) Would not conflict with easements acquired by the public for access
through or the use of property within the subdivision,
e) The subdivision is consistant with the character of the immediate
neighborhood,
f) And is aesthetically very appealing.
2. The Road Abandonment of San Cayetano Road is to the best interest
of the residents of 3-F Meadows.
NAME ADD ESS
2Y7L st SS"- —f)1,.j A)_' ww 6�
t%
114 50 ftlartos
IMSO
Iao70
-12 g7z 4 -9'—A.*
'rA n/AA-4o J RA
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 95001
11750 SAN MARCOS ROAD (LINDSAY/WILSON SURVEYS)
SAN CAYETANO ROAD ABANDONMENT
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED NEIGHBORS OF THE PROPOSED
TENTATIVE MAP 95001, DO HEREBY STATE:
1. We agree that the original alignment for the access road to Lot 19
Block 59 (Parcel 3) and additional Lot (Parcel 2):
a) Is consistant with applicable General and Specific Plans,
b) Is physically suitable for the type and density of the development
proposed,
c) The design of the subdivision would not cause any environmental
damage,
d) Would not conflict with easements acquired by the public for access
through or the use of property within the subdivision,
e) The subdivision is consistent with the character of the immediate
neighborhood,
f) And is aesthetically very appealing.
2. The Road Abandonment of San Cayetano Road is to the best interest
of the residents of 3-F Meadows.
NAME ADDRESS
M
17
3900 'T. -tfic 4,41 AY
a l
�'�* �..-^.,Kr,•-'.•.� ` Y,�;,,,fit ��s ;� ��,,��� r� .i�� "�
r
4
.. v
P..
ap
y r
.a
IN,
j t
f !
�cc �7i11GllR ' '� 5
r' CITY OF ATAS CAD ERO
19lA n C on. r 1979 r;
FIRE DEPARTMENT
0,
Wilson Land Surveys May 9, 1996
6715 Morro Road
Atascadero, CA 93422
To: Ken Wilson
Re: Proposed developement, 3-F Meadows area, 11790 San Marcos Road, TPM#95001
Dear Mr. Wilson,
The following is a list of prelimenary conditions for the proposed development located at or near
San Marcos Road, Atascadero, (TPM 95001).
Fire Department comments are present in the early stage of proposed site development as a means
to bring to the attention of the applicant/developer those fire regulations that may have an affect on
the development prior to detailed plans being completed.
Detailed building and fire code requirements are incorporated in to the original plans.Every plan
shall include the minimum information required by California Building Code Section 302. All
requirements shall be addressed either by plan comment or by plan detail. A separate specification
document may not be considered as meeting the Section 302 requirement for a Fire Deparm�ent
review.
The following comments based on the 1991 edition of the Uniform Fire Code (U.F.C.) and
contain amendements required by the California State Fire Marshal. These specific items should be
resolved before a permit is issued. This correction list is not a building permit. The approval of
plans and specifications does not permit the violation of any section of the Uniform Fire Code or
any federal, state or local regulations.
This project is reviewed for specific occupancy and use. A change in use will require the approval
of the Fire Department and will be subject to additional requirements.
I. Fire Apparatus Access [Fire Code Article 10, NFPA 1141, NFPA 299]
Roads, streets, and ways, whether public or private, shall provide for safe simultaneous
access for emergency fire equipment and civilian evacuation. This access spot terminates at
least 50 feet and no more than 150 feet from the structure. Fire apparatus roadway access
shall be provided to within 150' of any portion of the first story of an exterior building
wall. This is measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building.When any
0005 LEIV1S AVENUE_ A'rASCADCRO, CA 93.122 (805) -161-50;"0 FAX 1505) 466-2W7
4. Turnouts shall be constructed every 400 feet along the driveways length, shall be a
minimum 10 feet wide and 30 feet long with a 25 foot taper on each end.
5. A turnaround shall be provide at all building or structure sites on driveways over
300 feet in length and shall be within 50 feet of the building or structure.
Turnarounds may be a 80 foot diameter bulb, or a Hammerhead T 92 feet long,or a
Key Turnaround 56 feet long.
B. Access roads shall be installed and in service prior to beginning combustible
construction.
C. If security gates are desired at any entrances to the project, they shall be
provided with a fire department-approved entry system.
II. It should be noted that this project is outside the 5 minute response time of any current and
proposed Atascadero Fire Department service. Resident cannot anticipate fire,emergency
medical,or then fire department response within that time.
III. Automatic Sprinkler System
A. An automatic residential fire protection sprinkler system will be required.
B. The sprinkler system will be installed according to NFPA Pamphlet#13. Other
NFPA standards contain fire sprinkler design criteria for control or suppression of
specific hazards.These are listed in NFPA#13 Chapter 10.
IV. Water Supply and Fire Hydrants
A. Fire Dept standards per Uniform Fire Code call for one fire hydrant to be installed
in meeting fire hydrant spacing and distribution requirements. However, due to the
poor fire flow existing in the area, and in an effort to avoid a dead end main
situation, the requirement for one fire hydrant to be installed will be waived.
V. Fuel Modification Evaluation
A. Fuel modification should be the primary mitigation measure. All fuel, natural
vegetation, as well as other flammable materials existing within the area shall be
identified and rated as to its potential to increase the hazard.
B. Factors that will be considered in a comprehensive assessment of the fuel hazard
include the Fuel type identification,Fuel Loading (volume), and Size of fuel bed
(acres).
C. Fuel beds should be evaluated in terms of continuity, arrangement, and fire history.
Additionally, fuel beds in heavy brush and/or woodland should be evaluated
for abundance of downed or dead fuels.
D. The purpose of the fuel modification effort shall be to develop defensible space to
protect structures from approaching wildfire as well as to reduce the potential for a
structure fire spreading to the wildland.
E. The defensible space shall be initially provided by the developer and shall be
maintained by the property owner.
1. Create defensible space around buildings.
2. Recognize the impact of steep slopes on fire safety.
3. Identify and manage trees to be fire safe.
4. Set up a continuous management program to maintain a Fire safe property
environment.
5. Develop a fire safe landscape plan for your home or business.
VI. Slope and Aspect Fuel Modification Plan
A. The percent of Slope, incline or slant is calculated as the rise or fall per 100 feet.
The Aspect is the compass direction the slope is facing. Both slope and aspect
greatly affect the potential for carrying Fire, and very little opportunity exists to
modify them directly. Where degree of slope or aspect are determined to affect the
hazards, greenbelts or fuel breaks may offer a solution.
B. Where consistent with ecological factors, less Fire-prone vegetation shall be
encouraged.Trees and brush shall be cleared away from structures for a distance
that is determined to prevent ignition of either the structure or the vegetation, should
the other burn. Vegetation existing away from the immediate area of the structure
shall be thinned and pruned to prevent a fire from being carried toward or away
from the strucut,e. Over-mature, dead, and dying trees shall be evaluated as to their
potential to ignite and carry fire.
DEFENST13LE SPACE DISTANCES*
DISTANCE FROM HOUSE
PERCENT SLOPE UPHILL SIDES DOWNHILL
LEVEL TO 20% 100 ft. 100 ft 100 ft.
21% to 40% 150 ft 150 ft 200 ft
41% to 6O% 200 ft 200 400 ft
VII. Native Trees
A. The City encourages the protection of 13 species of native trees which are 2 inches
and 4 inches or greater. Well-maintained trees,spaced to prevent crown fires and a
few fire-resistant shrubs,can be mai*itained in the defensible space.
B. The Department should be consulted when the building site is in close proximity to
mature trees and encourages only professional pruning of mature trees as provided
by local ordinance. [AMC Sec. 9-11.01]
C. Before abating weeds and other noxious vegetation, a survey should be conducted
to determine the location of tree seedings that may be protected.
PHOTOGRAPHS OF SITE
11750 San Marcos Rd.
#1 VIEW OF SITE FROM SAN MARCOS RD.
George & Ursula Luna house Foreground
#2 CLOSE-UP VIEW OF SOUTHEASTERN
PORTION OF SITE. VIEW TOWARD SAN
MARCOS RD. APPLICANT'S HOUSE TO
NORTH (right in photo) WITH DRIVEWAY
OFF OF SAN MARCOS TO PROPOSED
PARCELS.
#3 CLOSE-UP VIEW OF SOUTHEASTERN
PORTION OF SITE. VIEW TOWARD SAN
MARCOS RD. OVERLAY OF SAN
CAYETANO PAPER ROAD.
#4 CLOSE-UP VIEW OF SOUTHEASTERN
PORTION OF SITE. VIEW TOWARD SAN
MARCOS RD. OVERLAY OF EXPOSED
PORTION OF EASEMENT TO BUILDING
SITES.
#5 VIEW OF SITE FROM SAN MARCOS RD.
Luna house in foreground - OVERLAY
OF GRADING BEHIND TREE SCREEN.
CC 5/14/96
EXHIBIT "B"
Good Evening! My name is Dorothy Flaherty and I am a resident of 12100 Cenegal
Road, Atascadero.
1 wish to ask that the Council deny the Ms. Roberta Lindsay's appeal for a lot split on
her property on San Marcos Road.
Since the Planning Commission has denied this lot split for very good reasons
including grading problems and the removal of 20 old trees, I believe the Council
should not overrule this decision.
The heavy winter rains which we have experienced the past few years cause the
seasonal streams to run and if improper grading up above should affect the natural
stream flow, neighbors below on Cenegal Road could be facing mudslides and
erosion problems.
Why not uphold the decision of the Planning Commission who have examined this
plan and found it unsatisfactory.
Thank you.
CC 5/14/96
EXHIBIT "C"
May 14, 1996
ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL
I am a resident of San Marcos Road and have just become aware of a
proposed lot split at 11750 San Marcos Road.
After viewing the site, I am shocked that anyone would propose a further
splitting of this acreage. I am surprised, indeed, that there are actually
three allowable building parcels. The land dropped off so precipitously
from San Marcos Road that it is difficult to conceive of any building on
that steep land. Any construction that does occur will, I am sure, cause
significant degradation of the extremely steep slope and grove of oak trees.
To effect a further splitting of the lots would only exacerbate the
degradation.
It seems to me that, in this area, lots with that kind of topography are
usually of a 15-30 acre size, with a small building pad and the remainder
containing the steep drop-offs. I am, therefore, writing this letter to
support the Planning Commission's decision to deny any further lot
splitting of Tentative Parcel Map 95001 and to commend them for their
commitment to responsible land use planning.
Gretchen Gray
10420 San Marcos Road
Atascadero
CC 5/14/96
EXHIBIT "D"
City Council:
We are writing this letter in support of the Planning Department's
staff recommendation of a denial of a proposed three-way lot split on
Tentative Parcel Map 95001 at 11750 San Marcos Road. This plan is not
the sort of precedent that we would wish to be set for our 3-F Meadows
residential area for several reasons:
1. Substantial grading will result in substantial loss of our
landmark oaks and make the steep hillsides more prone to
erosion.
2.Creation of extra flag lots is not suitable to and does not
conform to existing development in this area.
3.This area is high hazard for fires due to the steepness of the
terrain. For this reason residential density should be lessened,
not increased.
Thank you for considering our concerns about this proposed
development.
Yo rs truly,
James E. and Veda S. Thomas
10695 Vista Road
3-F Meadows ,
Atascadero, C.A.
• CC 5/14/96
EXHIBIT "E"
GLOST OAK
a Planned Family Mobilehome Communty4acoo
w
Date: May 14, 1996
TO: George Highland, Atascadero City Mayor
and Members of the Atascadero City Counsel
FROM: Tloost Oak bVoilehane Park ,
SU-a1ECT: Proposed Mobilehome Park Rent Control
We believe that the issue of rent control is imposing;the desires of a-few upon
the entire community. Mobilehome Park rent control is particularly sensitive
to us because we are Mobilehome Park Owners. As mobilehome park owners, we, as
a group, have great difficulty accepting the fact that governmental agencies
feel free to "impose" a value to a space when no attempt is being made to control
other types of rental property.
The mobilehome parks in this area have tried over the years to remain competitive
with their rents, their maintenance, their rules and, regulations, their leases
and their relationships with their tenants. Up to now, this has been very success-
ful.
It appears that now we are faced with a group of mobilehome owners who are victims
of a 'greedy' parkowner and who have been victims of two previous owners since
the original park owner sold a number of years ago.
First, we must face the fact that Atascadero is a very lovely place to live and
is known as the "Beverly Hills of the Central Coast". Until the economic down-
turn hit, the values continued to escalate. to the point where it was to far too
fast than was even realistic, regardless of the area in which we live.
We do have to realize though, that there area number of other areas of California
that are as wonderful as ours and are reflecting that in their hone values, apart-
ment and condo rents and mobilehome park lot rents.
For instance, in San Jose there are many lots that are leased at $900.00 a month.
In the March, 1996 issue of The Californian (the publication sent to thousands
of mobilehome owners throughout the state by the Golden State Mobilehome Owners
League, or GSMOL) it was reported that the AVERAGE rents range between $230.00
and $400.00 per month with some ranging between $500.00 and $700.00. These figures
are for 1990. The amounts charged for lot rental and the value of the mobilehones
which rest on them are usually set by supply and demand,. the area in which they are
located, with each and every mobilehane park establishing their own values by the
community. These values also vary according to the level of maintenance of both
the hones and the parks, the leases and the rules and regulations by-which the
homeowners agree to abide.
The majority of cities that presently have rent control grant up to 6% per year
per lot with a 10% increase upon acquiring a new owner and a new lease. In
Concord, for example, they allow an increase of 600 of their local CPI or a per-
centage of the existing rent not'to exceed 5%, whichever is greater. Source: The
Californian, by GSMOL.
Proposed Mobilehome Park Rent Control
Atascadero City Council
Page 2
In Lost Oak Mobilehone Park, our park, the majority of leases are now at $350.00.
A 6% increase per year (as allowed by our leases) would amount to an additional
$21 per month, a 5% would be $17.50 and a 4% would be $14 per month. A 100
increase to a new owner would be $35.00 or $385.00 per month. For the past two
years we have increased the leases $10/month and only raise the Lot upon change
of ownership to the prevailing rent if that Lot had not experienced an increase
for that year.
In the setter to the F_;ditor, May 10, 1996 from Mary Jo Wallace, it was stated that
the 'residents of Rancho del Bordo Mobile Park were required to sign or not sign
by May 1 an additional five-year lease' ! It is California State Mobilehome Resi-
dency Law that a tenant does not have to execute a lease longer than a month-to-
month term if they so desire. The carrot seems to be the exemption for five years
and after that an increase of 4% to 8% coranences. Our lease is based upon the CPI
Index also, however allows for a 6% increase, whichever is greater'. We have not
taken advantage of it and have never increased 6% with the majority of the in-
creases less than 4% (last year being under 30).
We acknowledge that a mobilehome park is a unique creature with two owners of
property - the mobilehome and the land. Problems arise when one or the other
does not take care of their obligations as set forth in the lease and the rules
and regulations. The cost set forth in the leases for rent is just one problem,
but an important one. This should be cured either by the Court system or arbi-
bration, but certainly not by a City Government stepping in and mandating the
amounts to be charged for leasing lots, thereby interfering with park and home
values that automatically set themselves in the market.
Rather than disturb the free market place here in Atascadero because of one
mobilehome park's problems with their owner(s) we would much prefer an arbi-
tration-type resolution instead.
Respectfully submitted:
Ronald B. Vanderpool Jackie A. Vanderpool
Owner/Manager Owner/Manager
cc: Mr. Andy Takata
Atascadero City Manager
u
d �
ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 28, 1996
CITY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
6500 PALMA AVENUE, 4T" FLOOR ROTUNDA ROOM
7:00 P.M.
George Ray George Harold David
Luna Johnson Highland Carden Bewley
This agenda is prepared and posted pursuant to the requirements of Government code
Section 54954.2. By listing a topic on this agenda, the City Council has expressed its intent to
discuss and act on each item. In addition to any action identified in the brief general
description of each item, the action that may be taken shall include: A referral to staff with
specific requests for information; continuance;specific direction to staff concerning the policy
or mission of the(tem;discontinuance of consideration;authorization to enter into negotiations
and execute agreements pertaining to the item;adoption or approval;and, disapproval
Copies of the staff reports or other documentation relating to each item of business
referred to on the agenda are on file in the office of the City Clerk (Room 208) and in the
Information Office (Room 103), available for public inspection during City Hall business hours.
The City Clerk will answer any questions regarding the agenda.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance
to participate in a City meeting or other services offered by this City, please contact the City
Manager's Office, (805) 461-5010, or the City Clerk's Office, (805)461-5074. Notification at
least 48 hours prior to the meeting or time when services are needed will assist the City staff
in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility to the meeting
or service.
6:00 P.M. - YEAR-TO-DATE FISCAL REVIEW (e Floor Club Rm.)
6:30 P.M. - CLOSED SESSION (4en Floor Club Rm.):
1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Initiation of litigation: One (1) potential case
2. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR:
Agency negotiator: City Manager
Employee organizations: Management; Mid-Management/Professional; Fire
Captains; Firefighters; Atascadero Sergeants Service Orgn.; Atascadero Police
Officers Assoc.; Atascadero Public Safety Technicians Orgn.; Service Employees
Intl. Union; Confidential Employees
7:00 P.M. - REGULAR SESSION: (P/ease see Ru/es of Public Participation, back page)
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
COMMUNITY FORUM
PRESENTATIONS:
1. ECONOMIC RECOVERY TASK FORCE REPORT & RECOMMENDATIONS
(Staff recommendation: Receive report)
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 below.
There will be no separate discussion on these items. A member of the Council or
public may, by request, have any item removed from the Consent Calendar, which
shall then be reviewed and acted upon separately after the adoption of the Consent
Calendar.
1. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - May 14, 1996
(City Clerk's recommendation: Approve)
2. CITY TREASURER'S REPORT - April, 1996
(City Treasurer's recommendation: Review & Accept)
3. RESOLUTION NO. 37-96 - Authorizing the execution of an agreement with Jack R.
Bridwell for weed abatement services
(Staff recommendation: Adopt)
4. RESOLUTION NO. 39-96 - Authorizing application for a multi-agency traffic
safety/enforcement grant
(Staff recommendation: Adopt)
B. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DETERMINATION THAT AUTO REPAIR IS
NOT AN ALLOWABLE USE IN THE DOWNTOWN (Cont'd from 5/14/96)
(Planning Commission/Staff recommendation: Deny)
2. WEED ABATEMENT PUBLIC HEARING
(Staff recommendation: Hear protests, and authorize Fire Chief to abate weeds)
3. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 95004 (Lanini/Messer)
A. Resolution No. 29-96 - Redesignating certain real property between Old
Santa Rosa Rd., West Frontage Rd., Atascadero Ave. and Portola Rd. from
Moderate Density Single Family to High Density Single Family (GPA #95004:
Lanini)
(Planning Commission recommendation: Adopt)
B. Ordinance No. 305 - Amending Official Zoning Map 19 by rezoning all that
real property located between Old Santa Rosa Rd., West Frontage Rd., Atas-
cadero Ave. and Portola Rd. presently zoned Residential Single Family with a
one acre minimum lot size (RSF-Y) to Residential Single Family with a one-
half acre minimum lot size (RSF-X) (ZC #95007: Lanini)
(Planning Commission recommendation: Motion to waive reading in full and 2
introduce on first reading, by title only)
C. REGULAR BUSINESS:
1. RESOLUTION NO. 41-96 - Approving amendments to the 1995/96 adopted budget
(Staff recommendation: Adopt)
2. RESOLUTION NO. 40-96 - Adopting a City of Atascadero Mission Statement
(Staff recommendation: Adopt)
D. COMMITTEE REPORTS (The following represent standing committees. Informative
status reports will be given, as felt necessary.):
1. S.L.O. Council of Governments/S.L.O. Regional Transit Authority
2. City/School Committee
3. County Water Advisory Board/Nacimiento Water Purveyors Advisory Group
4. Economic Round Table
5. Finance Committee
6. Air Pollution Control District
7. North County Council
8. Ad Hoc Regional Water Management Committee
9. Integrated Waste Management Authority
E. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION:
1. City Council
2. City Attorney
3. City Clerk: Schedule interviews for Board of Directors, Community Services
Foundation
4. City Treasurer
5. City Manager
3