Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 01/27/1986 DEPUTY CITY CLERK • NOTE: THE MEETING WILL COMMENCE AT 6 :30 P.M. FOR THE PURPOSE OF MID-YEAR BUDGET STUDY SESSION REVIEW. AGENDA - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting ATASCADERO ADMINISTRATION BUILDING FOURTH FLOOR, ROTUNDA ROOM January 27, 1986, 7:30 p.m. ** ALL COUNCILMEMBERS, STAFFMEMBERS AND CITIZENS ARE REMINDED TO PLEASE SPEAK DIRECTLY INTO THE MICROPHONE. Call to Order Pledge of Allegiance Invocation Roll Call City Council Comments Introduction of New Employees Receipt & Recognition of Color City Aeriel Photos (Per Contract with Volbrecht Surveyors and Pacific Western Aerial Surveyors) • A. CONSENT CALENDAR NOTICE TO PUBLIC All matters listed under Item A, Consent Calendar, are considered to be routine and will be enacted by one motion in the form list- ed below. There will be no separate discussion of these items. If discussion is required, that item will be removed from the Consent Calendar and considered separately. Vote may be by roll- call. 1. Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of January 13, 1986 2. Finance Director ' s Report - December 1-31, 1985 3. Treasurer ' s Report - December 1-31, 1985 4. Motion Setting Appropriation Limitation for Fiscal Year 1985-86 5. Proposed Resolution No. 5-86 - "Americanism" 6. Motion Approving Extension of Membership in� he J P.A. Liability Fund to the City of Santa Maria (( • 1 7. Acceptance of Final Parcel Map 17-85 - 4650 Portola Rd. (Jim Parsons/Kennaly) 8. Tentative Parcel Map AT 821007 :1 (time extension) - 6990 Valle (W.D. Lee/Greenaway Const. ) 9. Lot Line Adjustment 12-85 - 9250 Santa Lucia (M. Hawkins/Kennaly) 10. Lot Line Adjustment 14-85 - 8335 Atascadero Ave. (F. & J. Bishop/Twin Cities) 11. Lot Line Adjustment 15-85 - 9220/9240/9260 Vista Bonita (Yeomans/North Coast Eng. ) 12. Lot Line Adjustment 16-85 - 7125 Sycamore (Vaughn/Kennaly) 13. Lot Line Adjustment 17-85 - 9125/9145 Mountain View (Rockstad/Kennaly) 14. Tentative Parcel Map 29-85 - 9750 Atascadero Rd. (B. & L. Ramay) 15. Tentative Parcel Map 33-85 - 7355 Sombrilla/7350 Encinal (Parsons & Graybill/Kennaly) • 16. Tentative Tract Map 35-85 —5760/5820 Ardilla Rd. (L.W.D. Inc./Shannon) 17. Request to ask County Board of Supervisors to re-evaluate the grading operation adjacent to the City Limits behind River Gardens (Sycamore Road Pit) 18. Agreement to Permit Construction & Maintenance of Drainage System in City of Atascadero Right-of-Way 19. Authorization for Public Works Director to Advertise for Bids - Misc. Small Projects B. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Development Fee Task Force Report and Recommendations 2. Appeal by Nancy Jacobson of Curb, Gutter and Sidewalk Re- quirement and Paved Parking Requirement for C.U.P. 22-85 (Kaleidoscope Kids Preschool) - 6300 Marchant Ave. (Cont'd from 1/13/86) 3. Ordinance No. 116 - Establishing the Downtown Parking and Business Improvement Assn. (B.I.A. ) Area Boundaries (SECOND • READING) 2 • C. NEW BUSINESS 1. Consideration of Zoning Text Amendment Relative to Tree Removal (Request further study) 2. Status Report on Post Office Relocation Study 3. Proposed Resolution No. 7-86 - Granting 18.3% Rate Increase Requested by Wil-Mar Disposal Co. 4. Proposed Request Authorizing Staff to Solicit Proposals for Atascadero Police Services Facility 5. Mid-Year Budget Review: a. Resolution Approving Mid-Year Budget Amendments for Fiscal Year 1985-86 b. Verbal Report on Mid-Year Budget Objectives Achievements (Council will recess and convene as the Atascadero County Sanita- tion District Board of Directors) D. ATASCADERO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT (ACSD) • 1. Motion to Accept the Wallace Sewer Study (Report previously delivered - Verbal presentation by Public Works Director) (The Board of Directors will adjourn and reconvene as the City Council) E. COMMUNITY FORUM F. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION 1. City Council 2. City Attorney 3. City Clerk 4. City Treasurer 5. City Manager NOTE: THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL WILL BE HELD ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 1986 , DUE TO THE OBSERVANCE OF THE LINCOLN' S BIRTHDAY HOLIDAY ON MONDAY THE 10TH. • 3 l/2718 '3�u 1-7 -/ • MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting, January 13 , 1986 Atascadero Administration Building The Regular Meeting of the Atascadero City Council was called to order at 7 :30 p.m. by Mayor Nelson, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmembers Handshy, Mackey, Molina, Norris and Mayor Nelson Absent: None STAFF Mike Shelton, City Manager ; Robert Jones, City Attorney/City Clerk; Bud McHale, Police Chief; Mike Hicks, Fire Chief; Henry Engen, Community Development Director ; Paul Sensibaugh, Public Works Director; Cindy Wilkins, Dep. City Clerk. COUNCIL COMMENT Councilwoman Mackey expressed concern about trees being cut with • out permits and her desire to see tighter enforcement of City development standards, in general, especially with regard to non- permitted tree removals; she stated she' s been working (for about the past 6 months) with a committee drafting a tighter tree ordi- nance, which will include penalties for illegal tree removals, and hopes to have it available for presentation to Council by next meeting; Henry Engen, Commun. Develop. Director, concurred with Councilwoman Mackey that he believes there is a need for Penalties (for those types of infractions that aren' t worth res- cinding an entire permit) to serve as a reminder to permittees to be more honest/careful in their development; Mayor Nelson direct- ed Mr. Engen to have Planning staff prepare a report reflecting violations vs. enforcements in this area. Councilwoman Norris commented on herself, Councilman Handshy, Mike Shelton and Henry Engen having attended the Vision 2000 Con- ference (held at Cuesta College) last Saturday, which focused attention on growth issues/concerns in the County; she noted she has a copy of a report from the conference available for review. She also mentioned she' s anxious for Council and staff to study * together and, possibly, amend the City' s Zoning Ordinance. Councilman Handshy noted he submitted (to fellow Councilmembers) a proposed resolution entitled "Americanism" and hopes it will be considered for adoption at the next meeting. • Mayor Nelson presented two proclamations: The first to Bill Silver for his service representing Atas. on the SLO County Area Coordinating Council' s Citizens' Advisory Transportation Commit- tee (Bill presented a burl, hand-carved candle holder as a gift 1 \ 13. Request by Public Works Director for authorization to advertise for bids and enter into Consulting Agreement with Fred Schott & Assoc. for the final design of Phase IIC-HVAC and Interior Renovation - City Hall Renovation Project MOTION: By Councilman Molina to approve Consent Calendar Items 1-13, seconded by Councilwoman Mackey; passed unanimous- ly by roll-call vote. MOTION: By Councilman Handshy for Council to recess and convene as the Atascadero County Sanitation District Board of Directors, seconded by Councilwoman Mackey; passed unan- imously. B. ATASCADERO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT (ACSD) 1. Public Hearing on proposed formation of Sanitary Sewer Improvement District No. 3 (Cont'd from 10/14, 10/28, 11/12 & 11/25/85) 2. Public Hearing on proposed annexation of Improvement District No. 3 into ACSD - Proposed Res. No. 123-85 (Cont'd from 10/14, 10/28, 11/12& 11/25/85) : a. Lots 73-87, Marchant Way b. Lots 66-72, Santa Rosa Road City Attorney, Robert Jones, announced to Board that the two res- olutions (just delivered prior to meeting) proposed should be numbered 123-85 (proposing formation) & 124-85 (proposing annexa- tion) . Paul Sensibaugh, Public Works Director , gave staff report, noting that six written objections (from property owners) to the pro- posed formation/annexation were received prior to meeting time, which is less than a majority. City Attorney Jones reiterated, for the purpose of the record, that this area is under the Cease and Desist Order, and the Regional Water Quality Control Board has mandated that it be served within a reasonable period of time. Public Comment Terrill Graham, 6205 Conejo Rd. , asked if all the property owners in the area proposed were properly notified, to which Paul Sensi- baugh responded, noting the numerous public notices, public hear- ings and the neighborhood-organized meeting which was attended by some staff as well as Councilmembers. Mr . Graham inquired if the City staff has had consent from the majority of property-owners in the proposed district, or are they basing their judgement on a non-action of property-owners who oppose such a district. 3 nj Mr . Carl Lownes, 9550 Marchant Way, who has spearheaded the ef- fort along with a majority of the owners, reviewed the history ofl this issue (which was originally started two years ago but the effort had to be abandoned due to the individual's illness) , not- ing that everyone in the area was petitioned before this process began, and (at last count) only two persons were not in favor of' exploring the possibility of being annexed into the Sanitation District - the effort was initiated at the request of the pro- perty-owners; Mr. Lownes added that the present proposed cost is almost 50% less than the City' s original estimate. Terrill Graham addressed Chmn. Nelson: "Have a majority, one over 50% of the people within this area, requested the City to estab- lish a special assessment district for this sewage system?" ; Chmn. Nelson responded yes. MOTION: By Director Molina to adopt Res. 123 & 124-85, seconded by Director Handshy; both resolutions passed by 5 :0 roll-call vote. MOTION: By Director Handshy to adjourn as ACSD Board of Directors and reconvene as City Council, seconded by Director Mackey; passed unanimously. City Atty. Jones noted that, after the work is completed, the matter will be brought back to the Board, at which time they can elect to have the charges placed on the property tax rolls, which has been the expressed desire of the property-owners, to be paid over a period of approx. 15 years at a set rate of interest. C. HEARINGS, APPEARANCES AND REPORTS 1. Consideration of Ord. No. 116 establishing Business Improvement Assn. (B. I.A. ) area boundaries (PUBLIC HEARING) Robert Jones, City Attorney, gave staff report. Mike Shelton, City Manager, noted that this process has been tran- spiring for approximately the past six months, with numerous meetings having been held by the B.I .A. formation committee as well as an open house meeting for all members of the down- town business area. Public Comment Harry Sackrider , Chmn. of the Interim Committee for the For- mation of a B. I.A. , spoke in support of the formation of a B.I.A. and relayed the efforts of the committee to date. He noted the information meeting held on Sept. 26th (Prather Bldg. , Jr. High) which 87 local business persons attended; those individuals were petitioned on their interest in the formation of a B. I.A. , and findings supported working to put an ordinance before the City Council (of the 46 local busi- nesses represented, 33 - or 71% - signed in favor) . 4 . Bill Silver, 10025 El Camino Real, Sp. 48 , based on a person- al survey within the last four months, advised local business owners of the importance of making the customer feel impor- tant. Maggie Rice, Chamber of Commerce, spoke in support of revi- talizing the downtown area, noting the Chamber ' s support of a B.I .A. , believing it' s the best solution to current problems. MOTION: By Councilman Handshy to read Ord. 116 by title only, seconded by Councilman Molina; Mayor Nelson read Ord. 116 by title. MOTION: By Councilman Molina that this constitutes the first reading of Ord. 116, seconded by Councilwoman Mackey; passed unanimously. Second reading to be Jan. 27, 1986 . 2. Appeal by Nancy Jacobson of curb, gutter and sidewalk requirement and paved parking requirement for C.U.P. 22-85 (_Kaleidoscope Kids Preschool) - 6300 Marchant Avenue Henry Engen, Commun. Developmt. Director, gave staff report. Public Comment Nancy Jacobson, applicant, spoke in support of her appeal. She inquired when the adjoining properties will be required to install curb, gutter & sidewalk, which do not presently exist. Also, since she currently is leasing subject property with option to buy, she requested if the improvements could be postponed for about one year until the purchase goes through. Mayor Nelson suggested Ms. Jacobson discuss the issues fur- ther with staff, researching the possibility of a guarantee bond for the required improvements. MOTION: By Councilwoman Norris to continue this item to Jan. 27th, seconded by Councilwoman Mackey; passed unanimous- ly. D. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Proposed Resolution No. 134-85 - Authorizing Comm. Developmt. Director to enter into agreement for electrical service prior to final inspection (Cont'd from 12/9/85) Robert Jones, City Atty. , gave staff report. Public Comment Mike Sherer , 8090 Cristobal, requesting such agreement, said he finds the resolution and agreement acceptable. He asked 5 0 0 whether or not, as a result of this action, the resolution that created the Board of Appeals will be revised. Mr. Engen stated staff intends, as a special study item at Council di- rection, to research the possibility of amending the wording in the current ordinance, working with the City Attorney, as to the assigning of functions to the Board of Appeals. Mayor Nelson directed Mr . Engen to solicit input from the staff/de- velopers ad hoc committee on this subject and report back to Council. Robert Fielding, Chief Bldg. Inspector (as a member of the audience) , expressed his opinion that the Board of Appeals, according to the Uniform Building Code, has no jurisdiction in administrativeP ractices. He added that, should Council adopt this resolution, it may be difficult to enforce and may cause a backlog of final inspections, but we'd seek to make it work. Mike Shelton added that this was an approach intended to fa- cilitate the process and, if any problems develop, we can recommend changes. MOTION: Councilman Molina to adopt Res. 134-85 , seconded by Councilwoman Norris; passed unanimously by roll-call vote. 2. Appeal by Gifford of Planning Commission denial of Conditional Use Permit 16-85, 6455 Santa Lucia (23-Unit Elderly Facility) (Report of staff findings with regard to density issues) (Cont'd from 11/25/85) Henry Engen, Comm. Develop. Director, gave staff report. Public Comment David Brannon, architect representing Mr . Gifford, spoke in support of the Council allowing the project to proceed with the 20-unit proposal; other than that, he indicated they have no difficulties with the requirements outlined in the pro- posed resolution. Mr . Brannon added that he wanted Council to be aware that staff, and particularly Henry Engen, have been "extremely efficient and helpful" during this appeal process. Mr . Engen responded to questions from Council. MOTION: By Councilwoman Norris to adopt Res. 2-86 and its findings and conditions of approval for a 19-unit pro- ject, seconded by Councilman Handshy; passed by 4 :1 roll-call vote, with Councilwoman Mackey voting NO. 6 0 0 3. Council appointment to Citizens' Transportation Advisory Committee Mayor Nelson announced that, prior to tonight' s meeting, Council interviewed Mr. James Rodger , and he has agreed to accept a 3-year term as representative of Atascadero on the Citizens' Transportation Advisory Committee (C.T.A.C. ) . MOTION: By Councilman Handshy to approve the appointment of James Rodger to C.T.A.C. , seconded by Councilwoman Mackey; passed unanimously. E. NEW BUSINESS 1. Consideration of possible additional General Plan Amendments for Cycle 1 - 1986 (Report by Commun. Development Director Henry Engen gave staff report. He proposed that, on receipt of the Wallace Sewer Study, the Coromar Study Area (GP 2G-85, Lopus/Kennaly) be considered in order to expedite that pro- posed amendment, as Coromar St. has been 'on hold' awaiting the results of that study; also, he noted that the Hilchey/ Kennaly (GP 2E-85 , 2205 El Camino) request has been informal- ly withdrawn, and Planning staff is awaiting a formal letter to that effect. Councilwoman Mackey requested that possible expansion of Area C be considered by the Planning Commission (Rosario, down to Palma; include Bajada and Tunitas) . Public Comment Maggie Rice, in response to Councilwoman Mackey' s comments (beginning of meeting) regarding the issue of trees, ex- pressed that she feels the current ordinance is OK and would like to see it enforced rather than a new one (with more re- strictions) adopted; sometimes, it' s to the best interest of both the tree and the business to remove a tree. MOTION: By Councilman Molina that Council approve of Cycle 1, 1986, getting started (as outlined in staff report, with the study area expansion requested by Councilwoman Mackey) , seconded by Councilwoman Mackey; passed unani- mously. 2. Adoption of California Environmental Quality Act (C.E.Q.A. ) Guidelines Henry Engen gave staff report. 7 Public Comment Terrill Graham, 6205 Conejo, asked if the City is under State guidelines (referring to tree removal issues) or are we auto- nomous in the way those issues are handled? Mr . Engen res- ponded that, in the area of trees, Planning staff operates under the City' s own set of rules; in cases where an E. I.R. (Environmental Impact Report) becomes necessary because of tree removal issues, the process is clearly mandated by State guidelines. MOTION: By Councilman Handshy to adopt Res. No. 1-86, seconded by Councilwoman Mackey; passed unanimously by roll-call vote. F.• COMMUNITY FORUM John Cole asked why the Community Forum was moved from the beginning of the meetings to the end; he expressed that he believes it might discourage people from attending Council meetings because of the lateness of their opportunity for input relating to non-agenda items. Mayor Nelson responded that Council felt members of the audience who had items on the agenda benefitted from having that business come first; he invited Mr. Cole to request items for discussion, and he' ll put them on the agenda. Mr. Cole asked if there was a permit issued to destroy the oak tree at the new Best Western complex. Mr. Engen respond- ed that Planning staff questioned the subject, and it was added to the Planning Commission' s last agenda and discussed; Best Western developers indicated they were acting on the advice of a landscape consultant, but it was not supposed to be removed according to the site plan. Mr. Cole feels an injustice was done to Mr . Vest when he was denied the request to remove the sycamore tree (at Kentucky Fried Chicken) after complying with the City appeal requirements. Mr. Cole pro- poses that what' s left of the tree at Best Western be left as a symbol of growth in Atascadero. Terrill Graham read a prepared statement, addressing several issues of concern to him and expressing his negative feelings regarding how Council has approached them. Irene Bishop, resident on Serena Rd. , complained that she could see only one Councilmember during the meeting, asking that their individual lights be left on. G. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION 1. City Council - Councilwoman Mackey has received citizens' complaints regarding the proposed location of the new Post Office, feeling that Council should make a concerted effort 8 �} 0 to offer a package at< a different location; she also ex- pressed residents' concerns about excessive speeders on Portola & Santa Lucia Avenues. Councilman Handshy commented on issues discussed at the Vi- sion 2000 Conference, noting the four main economic growth and management issues in the County, which were discussed at length; S.L.O. County is expected to grow by over 66% during the next 14 years. A report should be forthcoming (in Feb- ruary) based on the expressed concerns of attendants at the conference representing the various cities in the County. Mike Shelton, City Manager, highlighted the items which will be discussed at public hearing relating to Item #11 of the Consent Calendar, (1) proposing a 2-hour parking limit on El Camino Real, and (2) eliminating parking of vehicles of 6 ' and over in height within 100 ' of intersections. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10 :30 P.M. TO A CLOSED SESSION TO DISCUSS LITIGATION IN THE CASE OF JACKSON VS. CITY OF ATASCADERO, BARRETT VS. CITY OF ATASCADERO AND PROPERTY ACQUISITION FROM THE COUNTY OF S.L.O. COUNCIL ADJOURNED TO JAN. 23, 1986 AT 7 :30 P.M. FOR A SPECIAL JOINT STUDY SESSION WITH THE DEVELOPMENT FEE AD HOC COMMITTEE, WHICH IS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC; MEETING ADJOURNED TO JAN. 27, 1986 AT 6 :30 P.M. FOR A SPECIAL STUDY SESSION (PRIOR TO NEXT REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING) FOR MID-YEAR BUDGET REVIEW, WHICH IS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. RECORDED-BY: 11-7 ROBERT 'M. JONES, City Clerk PREPARED 'BY: CINDY WILKINS, Dep. City Clerk 9 Q ,7A CITY OF ATASCADERO FINANCE DIRECTOR'S REPORT DECEMBER 1, 1985 TO DECEMBER 31, 1985 BALANCE AS OF NOVEMBER 30 , 1985 72, 544. 32 DEPOSITED BY TREASURER, SEE RECEIPTS, TREASURER'S REPORT, PAGE 1 1, 099,198.71 TOTAL 1,171,743.03 HAND CHECK REGISTER DATED 12/31/85 560,924.78 CHECK REGISTER DATED 12/06/85 35,502.82 CHECK REGISTER DATED 12/12/85 2,109. 75 CHECK REGISTER DATED 12/13/85 331, 549. 24 CHECK REGISTER DATED 12/20/85 54 ,892.73 CHECK REGISTER DATED 12/23/85 2,122. 25 CHECK REGISTER DATED 12/30/85 44 ,956 .41 EXPENSE LISTING 131,194.94 TOTAL 1,163 ,252. 92 BALANCE AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1985 8, 490.11 PETTY CASH 200 .00 • TREASURY INVESTMENTS SEE TREASURER' S REPORT, PAGE 2 1, 385 ,000 . 00 TOTAL 1,393 ,690 .11 I, DAVE JORGENSEN, do hereby certify and declare that demands enumerated and referred to in the foregoing register are accurate and just claims against the City and that there are funds available for payment thereof in the City Treasury. DATED: January 23, 1986 t DAVE JORGENSEN Admin. 3prvtces Director 4 • NO JANUARY 23, 1986 To All Council Members: The breakdown detail on all accounts is available for your viewing in the Finance Department. �v Dave Jo ge se Admini ra ive Services Director 3 • CITY OF ATASCADERO TREASURER'S REPORT DECEMBER 1, 1985 TO DECEMBER 31, 1985 RECEIPTS TAXES Property Tax 332, 686 .63 Cigarette Tax 3,892.89 Motor Vehicle "In Lieu" 33 ,192.93 Sales Tax 110 ,920 .37 Franchise Tax 1,950.57 Occupancy Tax 1,111. 77 Livestock-Head Day Tax 9.24 Miscellaneous Taxes 7,116.61 LICENSE/PERMITS/FEES 56 ,001.43 GAS TAX 19,136.43 RECREATION FEES 7,728.25 RETURNED FROM LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUND AND MATURED TIME DEPOSITS 465,000.00 TRANSPORTATION SB-325 2,726.80 MISCELLANEOUS Rents/Concessions 375 .33 Sale Maps/Publications/Reports 289 . 70 Special Police Services 69 .00 Fines & Penalties 878 . 54 Planning Permit Deposits (4,392.99) Bails/Bonds 2, 595 .00 Traffic Safety 5,860. 84 Reimbursement from Sanitation District 27 , 202. 70 Reimbursement to Expense 1, 384.15 P.O.S.T. 6 , 233.39 Refunds 375 .00 Appeals 100 .00 Overages & Shortages . 50 Traffic Safety Officer 2,742.87 Narcotic' s Officer 4,405.80 Weed Abatement 9 , 223. 78 Voucher ' s Payable 381.18 TOTAL 1, 099 ,198.71 1 • 1� l M E M O- R -A N D- U M • TO: City Council 11 e THROUGH: Mike Shelton, City Manager FROM: David G. Jorgensen, Director of Administrative Services SUBJECT: Proposition 4 Limitation DATE: January 20, 1986 Recommendation: We recommend that the Council approve setting the 1985-1986 Fiscal Year Proposition 4 appropriation limit at $3, 660, 876. Background: Proposition 4 has been a law since November 6, 1979 . It impacted California Cities effective July 1 , 1980. Each year we are required to calculate the change in the Proposition 4 appropriation limit. This in effect limits the amount of revenue the City can appropriate through Proceeds of Taxes. • Analysis: The two elements affecting the change in the Proposition 4 appropriation limit are the National Consumer Price Index or the California' s per capita growth in personal income (whichever is less) and change in population. These are multiplied to establish a factor which then is multiplied against the previous year' s Proposition 4 appropriation limit. The result is the new Proposition 4 appropriation limit. Fiscal Impact: The Proposition 4 appropriation limit places a limitation on the amount of revenue the City can raise from Proceeds of Taxes. Conclusion: The City of Atascadero is below the Proposition 4 appropriation limit of $3 , 660 , 876 for Fiscal Year 1985-1986 . Thus we are in compliance with the provisions of Proposition 4. • i a — M E M O R A N D U M TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Wayne "Bear" Handshy W _ SUBJECT: Proposed Resolution on Americanism DATE: January 13, 1986 Recommendation City Council adopt attached proposed Res. 5-86 , entitled "Ameri- canism" . Background • I would like to submit the attached statement in the form of a resolution to be adopted by this City Council. Since January is the month for New Years resolutions, I feel it would be befitting for this Council to promote an understanding of maintaining "the American way of life" . WH/cw • (RES, NO. 5-86) AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ADOPTED: ROLFE NELSON, Mayor ATTEST: ROBERT JONES, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: BE JONES, City Attorney 2 1°� _M_E M O R A P1 D U M TO: City Council THROUGH: Mike Shelton, City Manager r FROM: David G. Jorgensen, Director of Administrative Services SUBJECT: Admission of the City of Santa Maria to the Central Coast Cities Liability Insurance Fund JPA DATE: January 20, 1986 Recommendation: Approval of Resolution admitting the City of Santa Maria as a Liability Plan Participant in the Central Coast Cities Insurance Fund Joint Powers Authority (see attached) . Background: The City of Santa Maria has petitioned the Central Coast Cities • Joint Powers Authority for membership in the Liability Plan. They have been unanimously approved by the Board of Directors of the JPA. But to officially become a member they need to receive a two-thirds majority vote of the cities participating in the fund. Discussion: By accepting the City of Santa Maria for membership in the JPA, the cities currently in the fund will not be increasing their premiums or liability exposure. Santa Maria will be assessed their fees based on their own liability history and will be responsible for maintaining their premiums at a level that adequately covers their claims. Since the Board of Directors, of which we are a member, has unanimously approved their admittance, I can see no valid reason for the City of Atascadero to object. i Resolution No. _ Lcl'� *On motion b Councilman and seconded b Councilman Y Y , the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety on the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ADOPTED: ROLFE NELSON, Mayor ATTEST: ' -Z t R69ERT M. JONES, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: n MICHAEL SHELTON, City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROBERT M. JONES, City Attorney PREPARED BY: DAVID G. JORGENSEN, Adminstrative Services Director -• OA AlM E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council January 27, 1986 VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Acceptance of Final Parcel Map 17-85 LOCATION: 4650 Portola Road APPLICANT: Jim Parsons (Kennaly Engineering) . • On August 26 , 1985, the City Council approved Parcel Map 17-85, subject to certain conditions and in concurrence with the recom- mendation of the Planning Commission. The required conditions have been complied with and the final map is recommended for approval. HE:ps cc: Jim Parsons Kennaly Engineering • 'Y. M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council January 27, 1986 VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director 416 SUBJECT: Tentative Parcel Map AT 821007 :1 (time extension) LOCATION: 6990 Valle APPLICANT: Willie D. Lee (Greenaway Construction) REQUEST: To extend the time allowed to complete the conditions of approval for a tentative map. • On January 6, 1986 , the Planning Commission considered the above- referenced request on its consent calendar , unanimously approving a time extension to December 3, 1986 , subject to the findings and conditions set forth at the time the project was originally approved. There was no public testimony given. HE:ps cc: Willie D. Lee Greenaway Construction i 0 • Re: Parcel Map AT 821007 :1 (Willie D. Lee) C. ANALYSIS: On November 4, 1982, the Subdivision Review Board discussed this item and expressed concerns regarding access to the site as well as the question of sewer connections. Although the site is in the Sewer Improvement District and can be served from Valle, the ap- plicant requested an exception to the requirement to connect Par- cel B to the sewer system. Staff found that the granting of an exception to this requirement was inappropriate due to the steep topography of the site and its potential adverse effect upon the operation of a private sewage disposal system. The Planning Commission, on December 6, 1982, and the City Council on January 10, 1982, both approved this parcel map subject to the conditions in the attached staff report. The applicant received a one year time extension on December 3, 1984. Staff sees no reason not to grant another extension since the proposed lot sizes con- form to the current Zoning Ordinance. D. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the time extension request subject to the conditions set forth at the time the project was originally approved. Approval of this one year time extension shall expire on December 3, 1986. DGD:ps ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Location Map Exhibit B - Site Plan Exhibit C - Staff Report dated December 6, 1982 2 2� .IT12i2-aII+ AT1�.SCADERO � Depn ent 13 l . rr IrT.1974). Map No. '7 `•"` � -r F2- 100-7 ° - a , a P(F, LE F } In / BRAS L(FH) R(FH) , 1 �T ��J, ` r;`c,,<:Cy:•`�F/ tt .,t,�cwf�,�.,/ \� ' ,� \ . ?, IFH' �Ji° "�J ..W� �^t `moi I',�•C••,i \ C � F-Y ': LE uC tEe♦ 4 . L- 12 18 M F: •� //(ms.\µ'• t!\�1- /U�\ _ .( 1,p SL Ilk ER,.r J / t> �� •,='<""e�.'a�? a•^j RSF °' „p / f`\'� l c..n•. �.r✓�) t \) 0 7 1,r ,,`'-:��i? •/ ��._' I{-t' CR \ C�\� rw> p r `� a��4/ r\♦ / �� y /^ r \'1/,�„o E•' ' �� i ,,` Coy 7 a,°'�•ti. y 64 io� 4 or ea iIt EX 14 ( BjT `t E►�T„v�i l v CSA P-cp-� C- P,&AD G9 9SOC v ieis 9 ;,9-r9 CITY OF ATASCADERO Planning Department December 6, 1982 STAFF REPORT SUBJECT: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP AT 821007 : 1 LOCATION: 6990 Valle Avenue (Parcel 4 of CO 73-06) APPLICANT: Willie D. Lee (Jack Bray) REQUEST: To allow division of four acres into .two parcels of 1. 07 and 2.93 acres each. The applicant is also requesting exception to the requirement to .connect the larger of the two proposed parcels to the sewer . BACKGROUND 1. Existing Zoning: R-A 2. General Plan: Moderate Density Single Family Residential 3. Environmental Determination: An initial study environmental de- scription form has been completed. The Planning Director has pre- pared a Draft Conditional Negative Declaration indicating the project will not have a significant adverse effect upon the envir- onment if certain mitigation measures are incorporated into the project. 4. Site Conditions : The parcel is located at the end of Valle Avenue (the loop portion) . The parcel fronts on Valle Avenue and runs through to the proposed route of Highway 41 (a fifty foot dedica- tion along the northwest property line has been made) . A thirty foot wide Southern California Gas Company easement cuts through a small portion of the most westerly corner of proposed Parcel B. There is also a Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company easement for a phone line running north/south through the center of pro- posed Parcel B. The site is extremely steep with the exception of about a half acre of land at the bottom of proposed Parcel B. Average grade on the hillside portion of the lot is 45%; the lower flat portion has about a 28% grade. The site contains natural grasses and approximately 57 oak trees of significant size. Valle Avenue is gravel along the frontage of the property. Two power poles are located along the property frontage and a fire hydrant is located in the street approximately fifty feet from the edge of proposed Parcel B. Tentative Parcel Map AT 821007: 1 (Lee) 5 Project Description: The applicant requests approval ivid the four acre parcel into two parcels of 1. 07 andSewer Improvement District 2.93 acrresdeache b nity sewer) . The property is in they strict Minimum lot size for this area is one acre (when served and can be served b y sewer from Valle Avenue. The applicant also requests an exception fo the requirement to connect the larger parcel to the community sewer system. It is the applicant' s tention to construct a house for the larger lon hel in- g flatter portion of the lot and utilize anonsite parcel for waste disposal. The applicant requests an exception frsystem om the community sewer due to the expense of engineering and sewer pumps to connect the proposed house to the line on Valle Avenue. Access for both lots would be from Valle Avenue. STAFF COMMENTS On November 4 , 1982 the Subdivision Review Board met with Jack Bray, the applicant' s surveyor , to discuss were: this application. Also attending Lawrence Stevens, Planning Director ; Vern Elliott, Fire Cap- tain; Patsy West, Senior Engineering Technician; Fred Buss, Associate Planner ; and Wayne LaPrade, Planning Commissioner . The following items were discussed: g 1. Access from Valle Avenue - ing and cutbacks to remaincbelowel B w20% gradeould lforre eatdrivewa ensive grad- ing house on the bottom. y 2. Sewer connection to the lots from Valle Avenue versus lea waste disposal. ch field 3. Location of building sites, . 4. Road improvements back to nearest improved road section - may re- quire relocation of power poles. 5. Possible fire hydrant reimbursement. 6 . Submit separate letter for exception request for hookup to commu- nity sewer . Staff has no problem with allowing the existing lot to be split. Con- cerns relate to the exception request and the P house at the bottom of Parcel B. Proposal to locate the Should the house be constructed at the bottom of Parcel B substantial grading and at least one switchback would be required to accessthe house from Valle Avenue and still maintain a driveway e of less than 20%. The stability of such a driveway would alsobeadquestion- able since these slopes are known to contain sandstone and fractured shale at shallow depth. Such a cut would be highly visibleCamino Real and the central part of town and coulddramatiicallyrom affecEl t the hillside aesthetics in a negative manner . Tentative Parcel Map AT 821007 : 1 (Lee) Private sewage disposal systems on greater than 20% slope are required le to be designed by a registered civil engineer . Such systems frequent- ly require extensive grading and are more susceptible to failure due to a lesser degree of reliability. This would likely make installa- tion of such a system on the lower portion of Parcel B (28% slope) expensive. Expense is the applicant' s reason for requesting an excep- tion from community sewer hookup, however , the costs involved with the alternatives may outweigh the costs of connection to the sewer . Staff is very concerned about the effects such a steep driveway may have on the hillside if a house is built on the lower portion of the lot. Staff is also concerned about the reliability of a septic system developed on this site. It should be noted that a final decision on the exception requests rests with the Sanitation District, but this recommendation has been reviewed. FINDINGS 1. Approval of this application will not have a significant adverse impact upon the environment and the preparation of an Environ- mental Impact Report is not necessary . 2. The lot division application as submitted conforms to applicable zoning and subdivision regulations and is consistent with the 1980 Atascadero General Plan, if recommended conditions are incorpora- ted into the project. 3. Granting of an execption to the requirement to connect Parcel B to the public sewer is inappropriate due to the steep topography of the site and its potential adverse effect on the operation of a private sewage disposal system. RECOMMENDATION Based upon the above Findings , the Planning Department recommends the following: A. Denial of the exception to connect to the community sewer system. B. Issuance of a Conditional Negative Declaration subject to the following conditions: 1. Adequate provisions shall be made for drainage and erosion control and protection in conjunction with site development. 2. Grading and tree removal shall be minimized during all phases of site and road development. 3 �� 0 i Tentative Parcel Map AT 821007 :1 (Lee) 3. Adequate provision shall be made to minimize fire hazards in conjunction with site development; and, C. Approval of Tentative Parcel Map AT 821007 : 1 subject to the fol- lowing conditions : 1. Provision shall be made for both parcels to connect to the City sewer system at time of development, and a Note so stating shall appear on the Final Map. 2. Water shall be obtained from the Atascadero Mutual Water Com- pany and water lines shall exist at each parcel frontage prior to filing of the Final Map. A letter from the Water Company indicating they are willing and able to serve the property shall be submitted to the Planning Department prior to recordation of the Final Map. 3. All other available utilities not already in place shall be extended underground to each parcel frontage at the time of building permit. 4. All driveways providing access to building sites shall be subject to Planning Department review and approval at the time of building permit application. Plan and profile draw- ings may be required. If average slope exceeds 12%, paved improvement would be required, otherwise, an all-weather sur- face would be required similarly. In no event will driveways be allowed which exceed 20% in slope. A Note to this effect shall appear on the Final Map. 5 . The driveway access shall be improved to at least the follow- ing minimum standards: - an improved width of 12 feet - unobstructed vertical clearance of fourteen (14) feet Notes to these effect shall appear on the Final Map. 6 . Effort shall. be made to minimize grading that would be dis- ruptive to the natural topography and removal of existing mature trees . The following shall appear as a Note on the Final Map: "No trees shall be removed without compliance with applicable City ordinances. No grading shall commence without an appro- priate permit and compliance with applicable City ordinances. 7 . All pipeline and other easements of record shall be shown on the Final Map. A letter shall be submitted from each utility company indicating the nature and extent of any building re- strictions. A Note so stating such restrictions shall appear on the Final Map. 4 ,fj Tentative Parcel Map AT 821007 : 1 (Lee) 8 . Roof materials for all structures shall be Class C rating or le better and a Note to that effect shall appear on the Final Map. 9 . Drainage and erosion control plans, prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer , shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Department prior to issuance of building permits in conjunction with installation of private driveways, access easements or public road improvements. 10. Valle Avenue shall be constructed along the frontage of the property back to the nearest improved portion of Valle Avenue including a minimum paved width of twenty (20) feet with three (3) feet of graded shoulder on each side of the paving prior to recordation of the Final Map. a. Improvements shall be constructed under an inspection agreement and encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. b. Improvement drawings, including improvements to control grading and erosion within the road right-of-way, shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval. 11. A Final Map in compliance with all conditions set forth here- in shall be submitted for review and approval in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and the City Lot Division Ordi- nance prior to recordation. a. Monuments shall be set at all new property corners cre- ated and a Registered Civil Engineer or licensed land surveyor shall submit a letter certifying that the mon- uments have been set prior to recordation of the Final Map. b. A recently updated preliminary title report shall be submitted for review in conjunction with processing of the Final Map. 12. 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 expi- ration date. 5 �, 0 • Tentative Parcel Map AT 821007 : 1 (Lee) ACTION The Planning Commission should, by motion, direct Staff as deemed appropriate. REPORT PREPARED BY: fX fyC, FRED BUSS Associate Planner REPORT APPROVED BY: � LAWRENCE STEVENS Planning Director 6J M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council January 27, 1986 VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director 4t SUBJECT: Lot Line Adjustment 12-85 LOCATION: 9250 Santa Lucia APPLICANT: Mike Hawkins (Kennaly Engineering) REQUEST: To redesignate a property line for better utilization the property. • On January 6, 1986 , the Planning Commission considered the above- referenced request on its consent calendar, unanimously approving the application subject to the findings and conditions contained in the attached staff report. There was no public testimony given. HE:ps cc: Mike Hawkins Kennaly Engineering • ��0 • • Lot Line Adjustment 12-85 (Hawkins/Kennaly Engineering) C. ANALYSIS: The minimum lot size in the RS (Residential Suburban) zone is 2 1/2 to 10 acres, depending on the sum of the minimum lot size standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance. The lots being con- sidered in this application are existing nonconforming legal lots of record. City policy has been to permit lot line adjustments in such cases provided the degree of nonconformity is not increased. (This pol- icy is under reconsideration as a General Plan amendment) . The proposed map involves an equal exchange of land and would, therefore, comply with City policies. D. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of Lot Line Adjustment 12-85 based on the findings and conditions contained in Exhibit A. MM:ps ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Findings/Conditions of Approval Exhibit B - Location Map 0 Exhibit C - Lot Line Adjustment Map 2 �j$ Lot Line Adjustment 12-85 (Hawkins/Kennaly Engineering) EXHIBIT A - Lot Line Adjustment 12-85 Findings/Conditions of Approval January 6, 1986 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 conforms with all applicable zoning and subdivision regulations. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The Lot Line Adjustment as generally shown on the map attachment provided herein shall be submitted in final map format to be ap- proved by the Community Development Department prior to recorda- tion by the County Recorder ' s Office. 2. The proposed adjusted lot lines shall be surveyed and monuments set at the new property corners prior to recordation of the final map. 3. The location of all improvements and easements shall be delineated on the Final Map. 4. Approval of this lot line adjustment shall expire two years from the date of final approval unless a time extension has been gran- ted pursuant to a written request prior to the expiration date. 3 '�� to ROAn ♦ v 1' r•l Lir, Or((4 .J Yi•]h .,,f .y ♦ ' .�I I• rtO 0. \ �°3'• �'" \ti 1• ,i ti r a i 12 C ti.c (,,,°,a °✓ A . I'' `a )r, � .. - w►N{�' R f\41pi Iyt T\ ,`..a+tt 1 y ••1: S'ef h it re •^ t♦ J2rP. 'r 3 Is a'S y to i to p ti If• r i.' e .o rf• ° 113 "w 3y50 ` ,tJ°° 4v�9+ _ - 117•A ....;•,,. `�� 'S"� '`•''' r`' J^• 3 STo§ 1 n JiiS �� o $ w 7a ,• a` r ' '1 w<.e � ",y'I � ... � SLa .�`r90 "�• �'h n [t o w e• Sr. 5t°c, tt.. moi.{iR .1e° �1: s¢w 11 f �. °t3 Y. ti a n.A S2oo I t L - f-^, `t'A�•9 .•'f'- -a sl'IS U 'r w 05 1 0� w•tf;ae' •�qey, ` '53 5� 1 rav: s 'ir', tep s ft_3r))Yto la • 0 5300 f/, t°,t• 6's '� • R�J ` 1.•.A♦^a'1' 10 y 1a�O •.. p-0' .�- J '\�ntf \\ f` ' r.'..'I +' `• rt �" a... .. $• W 20 - t...•.t 1 \ t 9`°° 9j0�' •i >•�P .4 b'`q'%3 N ')..\ ..c�+ 14 0 5 •Yr•• .s�. ' 1°� ti' lO 1 )r ` e._ !� � , :\ o ° r,a f�� '.a1°, f %° .`'4♦+'� ,ti4 ; t[ u' ;• 1.7. ,' ' •' •bt V Fe�urP. Y•p 544f ��' a° ,°< . r�Za.J - iid: L'F [rte )r at�1>< S,.a'' , , O,o+\ S �0�t5'oo St•S• r•, >;<•�.at ) )• � �e) x? ♦a�� 6 . ••:%,+� ° ) A 1 1. r <A.,z.�a S�ti9 fa) e,r,s t ; •5j°0'. ," 1] ISA g )+�.-.•a t.• ' r '��'':�•. - 1. -]6- ' � 3" , 50�• � • l�•IGr • ' r ,r'ra � - R e Ft SBSo SsoS . \I44 p•oro '.y° 1 ddd j 6 s •:n g c) c rr ' as <� as t ] 3 33 S• `7L:..+4.ri� t t] \`�b d,l�tt3i` '•r'° �i3'.•. 6s ;< )y r��'t [• :<[ �V�'v r _e 9°g nn t• '1• 11+�8b- a i;°• 'o ..__-, ► _ �• �r .tO a. '•f ° e:° , °O 2a l ' i,� t�wt rr; <. •,ia i y, p 7e , 41 .tr D 13 .' 'x' ,•,1 ht 10 C O �a•'i•' - .77, ri Z9 ` It •r • ! N ' 0 A39 d 1 ° s '•yie° •v�dt + 1 Jp° ,r:u rF�r _ a,a .� 'q ' n )r 20 � d y , 81 O .' 93, v"• Y .<•f,\ •,.a,t 11 ;"4`a •. yam' •.tI ,•off ,•,2<[ r,� .t�S • i �,//`\ v 9 t V O , t3 ,r S3 ��AA ; ��� YaN+re'«l + .4� r.. as er 2 � e<,:a ! '+ • 1! , n� !11 ! 13+t'•"✓°� w5° r y2SO i,` •1.•.1 65 e° -i• <y ).Ya '�•�< '). \ .r I N �e 6 �� 52 n I S t�•„•' .•+ •. >•t,�6 Yl� • � :' [r`fi. •.• 4'+• 27 ale.•J wt . IS-A1 .'31 .. .��" .a:dla\ 4 a'; S • . P ,13y/ m 171 ' �.e j� •°•, •wee _°,°° .pw'J• a — °�' ..w• '�•a� )'�� Y.a�` ,' '{ ze a l ''ss a 1 k+ Fria •1� Ss +�;a s`!�9'"" .. 15 dao Vy° '°'; '' b elle +l •.J`r •" `r ' .;. G2a5 SO A9 , o s! �. •r:� �Lit -st 4 .* _ 2! yT �A 3,7•°a t^<.:i F p .�sl ;� ),'•" 64<0 LP: rriJ \ o ' - ee +60✓�' .• " �, .I'•~1h A.a ". ♦ )a�l a•"' .a "ar' ar N<'Q / 4155 30 2tT• �.... e sl n„ ,,,,;�•�' '� /:��• r''^' +'r,•.t w •..'�o 7x Asn °' ,\ ry10 v �* b• •�' `, •t J. , ] .155 .3t 1 -7'� VvO . :�,U o,Ny-• /• a L e o' ei r+ei +r at V , 41 So 1.+5 ` b;t '• 7."4 D -7sltte, • ycp5 a.<, t 43 23 ♦♦ 49r, K3' t Pte` o° �w° t~ �Sr<?� ncp •� Y��:\', 7/�)� 'RS; 5 '< � o. 26 2 tel' WIS. .• Ao � 27 1 r.e)r q' o S 1.. o ]s :i t rr %♦: 13 T. 4105 3T ]94 0 � ?b Lj55 t 6JAU 39.8 37•A rp f��/ 67) /. S ^O E ♦•H 6 '! 14 Je B L 3e•• c MAr 3e �D h 9a C�yc,W Zl v hQ � ��Qa la Q � W $•r aW 2�v � acti V Qis � �e 3 xK`.�a T ••_L. W ��� • -1J t R� W SE'ly/ MGC•ZIM .allil •Df LD/ l� 8 i n a 1 77C— ;,V,7 107 031JW LP'►6Z .. ....... 6SAS1 t ' i t DA L. . . . ..)IZ;LY12 i L-:i'A • M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council January 27, 1986 VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director �kZ SUBJECT: Lot Line Adjustment 14-85 LOCATION: 8335 Atascadero Avenue APPLICANT: Frank and Judy Bishop (Twin Cities Engineering) REQUEST: To adjust the lot line between two existing parcels. On January 6, 1986, the Planning Commission considered the above- referenced request on its consent calendar, unanimously approving the application subject to the findings and conditions contained in the attached staff report, with modification to condition #4 to change ,the wording " . . . . .prior to recordation of the lot line adjustment" to " . . . .prior to issuance of building permits There was no public testimony given. HE:ps cc: Frank and Judy Bishop Twin Cities Engineering • w ! 11. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Categorically Exempt C. ANALYSIS: Background: This application was originally applied for on April 13 , 1981. A short time later it was withdrawn due to a 1960 San Luis Obispo County ordinance that required a plat map for the creation of four or fewer parcels less than three acres each, making these lots not legally created. The State of California has since passed a re- vision to the Subdivision Map Act to alleviate these types of problems. It states that" . . .any parcel created prior to March 4, 1972 shall be presumed to have been lawfully created if a sub- sequent purchase acquired that parcel for valuable consideration without actual or constructive knowledge of a violation of the Subdivision Map Act. " This situation is true for this applicant. A certificate of compliance is usually required prior to issuance of a building permit to verify the legality of the lots; however , this parcel map process satisfies this requirement. The minimum lot size in the RSF-Y zone is one acre with sewer available; one and one half acre without sewer . The two parcels are currently 0. 50 and 1. 0 acres each in size. Thus, one lot (the half acre lot) is presently nonconforming under the zoning ordi- nance. This request proposes to reverse the existing lot sizes. The half acre lot becomes an acre while the one acre lot becomes a half acre. No new lots are being created nor is the degree of nonconformity being increased. Staff has no concern over main- taining these two existing lot sizes, only in reverse form. D. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of Lot Line Adjustment 14-85 based on the findings and conditions contained in Exhibit A. DD:ps ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Findings/Conditions of Approval Exhibit B - Location Map Exhibit C - Lot Line Adjustment Map 2 �� • • EXHIBIT A - Lot Line Adjustment 14-85 Findings/Conditions of Approval January 6, 1986 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 conforms with all applicable zoning and subdivision regulations. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The Lot Line Adjustment as generally shown on the map attachment provided herein shall be submitted in final map format to be ap- proved by the Community Development Department prior to recorda- tion by the County Recorder ' s Office. 2. The proposed adjusted lot lines shall be surveyed and monuments set at the new property corners prior to recordation of the final map. 3. The location of all improvements and easements shall be delineated on the Final Map. 4. An encroachment permit shall be obtained from the Public Works Department. The applicant shall construct a standard driveway connection on Atascadero Road, as directed by the encroachment permit, prior to recordation of the lot line adjustment. 5. Approval of this lot line adjustment shall expire two years from the date of final approval unless a time extension has been gran- ted pursuant to a written request prior to the expiration date. 3 �i� r\ S i RMF/16 e 'i � r+ -[,I,'. K)!1 •i-c.. �•`��a-� ' � :.fin`' ,\�N- i.'..\�1., ( , LSF—Y io `^ N ro. r-_�—. yii J'�• �,[•. VA;i.'. e 8 •�`v. o , . 3 °+ "tY+l•" ,.?:+,� s� r, + RMF/16 " ...: "� "as'so Yo`•�• la+_.- �'C3 a i °• } • �T `a pq i;. e;, ` I U . Y, ,i1 loo ,/ �•. � a• �i e° .W'' °a .i�,=�° ^r;�- � ,.,,•/s .:iT��u°n ..5' ".• '.m 1• '1 w5 ,` �.°, �ts ao 'Y!r\ ,r"•hr -a-S b , •mn , 1•+�Sa +IS uSi ,,,,sN ,..'f•�"� �t. � � ° ^rL 4 >._ {} S C nom °o , a1. •J' ,` . i � �, � �,' ;'•` '•',, �..r io s e a it ,'+p 1` �. .ly '.• a,l� >CiP s� ,= tti '•,.° •as •,. rn �p m s s° � _ �� r,o,.� t�A �� ..+,,' 18 meq' '•`p- v1 ''+y ,O 1° a ,ro19 Lj} :a •'oSX� '' ,a�' J LSF— • `� ... Y ,_t++r_+,-� •.ss2 D"CS; tz.° •n,o • r.ro 7. I •D6°o .r.f+- J� .+'"' y` -^ 'lt+t A )•� SIs• >fr. +,°lffo -t •I) `' K� t� •- AT- L: 80-C41 1291 !,'ter•. e ,r LSF- AT-7&-109 C14(PD3) �: `e a ' i•,7.�°< .a 1f` Y(FH) A7 78 GS 12-81 E AT — f'1`�• '?, YJ� ''� ux s Tic ^; \.'> 78'212 IL-31 IVJz ,,z, ,-_?. ''.e' '° ,'• I —, •''V TRACT 1004 IVJK LSF—Y(FH) T_ 1 LSF—Y tt10 +,, 9 C'. "M • ro•.a TP .. � ,., .� ,r, ns •. ,o eY`. �O' •'tP°-, ePma.LL bt•P .. _. � , l �,•[ ys ��' Z•'ii I': - 5 ' an` r° • If .•.• �rua IS-C ,��� a•, 'moi 'a s•, vra R='V I5I0t: p, 20 t• " `f .;`c R +� s�H ', s.• a ASF—Y(FH) `� Aly Q A, EXHIBIT B 3 sri ;l '° •'e • pty2 T :.j Saa' •{ as,s •t,! .°r,r, _° ``•) °'•� �/ S i i` —Y 2 7 �o+� v�- LOCATION i •f+ •• /', ^>,•,t \�J' t , ayyi .`_•, >>' cam° _ II r+ •` t2r> •ys'��'\ °+�•. d °mos ' �� `�'• y�rt • ,s;"s-� 0 rss� • e9' 2� ' fi ee.N 6+mo � •�T •'•' s vy +`a'T '' ra;,''• ` es .F19,i >>.. ep °' e s< =a , �RMF/16(FH) tvo 1, + -.�e•^.; j 7} 6 ' /\^ n.Il�1u fl-' __ 12a I.S•I le/ ' �, 2... •.s71S. 1 Q F+'•Is. .71 qJ /1•.l ?`L..CLIC b A « 1\\V\ 0 UA O CITY OF ATASCADERO _---?- Planning b Departments} (I � ''l- �.r. )ri� "'1 b••rrLtaJ �' �ti,l rwl:. .t :rj I •a.� } �' ��j D 11�;)� 1(r s �Ls.•u..I�+r Orsi••r Irol r •A` A� A' Pik Map No. 1'7 , `-_ ...'�.,"`-+;1-�1_.iS'. �- -• ... �U'Iiu . . 2 1• rL��...r e\ 2,.-is -sT:.• '�'� �,'i�_ + v r S7 roC- gC- CP i° • s � \ o `b�O Iov 1.et Lwo • �a I $cp i? I rq TK dl n Cy5 79 d, ITt v �i a o v Cly ( 41 G D G C— t,l c 0 N W oEv-mss - o M.Z �st��a, cam- ({pDCIS �'� �LCtLp 10 -r�� a w p" CV G v` A Fe III M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council January 27, 1986 VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director N . SUBJECT:, Lot Line Adjustment 15-85 LOCATION: 9220/9240/9260 Vista Bonita APPLICANT: Michael Yeomans (North Coast Engineering) REQUEST: To adjust the lot lines between three existing lots to create buildable sites on each lot. On January 6, 1986, the Planning Commission pulled this item from the consent calendar , at the request of the applicant, for further discus- sion and review. The Commission voted to unanimously approve the application subject to the findings and conditions contained in the attached staff report with modification to the following: - Deletion of conditions #5 and #6 , with a new condition #5 to read: "5. The property owner shall enter into an agreement with the City, acceptable to the City Attorney, to participate in the formation of an assessment district for road improvements along Vista Bonita. " There was considerable testimony given by Mr. Yeomans as well as dis- cussion by the Commission as referenced in the attached minutes excerpt. No one else appeared on this matter. HE:ps ATTACHMENTS : Staff Report - January 6 , 1986 Minutes Excerpt - Planning Commission - January 6, 1986 • l�D Lot Line Adjustment 15-85 (Yeomans/North Coast Engineering) 6. Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .,. . . . . .RSF-Z (Residential Single Fam- ily, Low Density, 1 1/2 to 2 1/2 acres minimum lot size) 7. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Vacant 8. Adjacent Zoning and Use. . . . . .North: RSF-Z, vacant South: RSF-Z, vacant East: RSF-Z, vacant West: RSF-Y, vacant 9. General Plan Designation. . . . .Low Density Single Family Residential 10. Terrain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Steeply sloping downward toward E1 Bordo, vegetated with natural grasses and chaparral. 11. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Categorically Exempt C. ANALYSIS: The minimum lot size in the RSF-Z zone is 1 1/2 to 2 1/2 acres, depending on the sum of the minimum lot size standards in the Zon- ing Ordinance. Thus, these three lots of 1. 16 , .94, and .92 are nonconforming under the Zoning Ordinance. It has been City policy not to allow lot line adjustments on two nonconforming lots unless an equal amount of acreage is exchanged. In effect, the policy has been not to make a nonconforming lot more so. This request is consistent with this policy. (Staff notes that the City Attorney has initiated a General Plan amendment to allow for lot line ad- justments on nonconforming lots in certain situations. It is being considered this cycle. ) Development of Site: Although this lot line adjustment will create feasible building sites, there are still substantial difficulties remaining in dev- eloping these lots for single family residential uses. Grading on these slopes of over 40% will require precise plan approval by the Community Development Department to determine if the proposed grading is appropriate for the use. Staff has discussed with the applicant the possibility of a variance from the required 25 foot front setback. Staff agrees that due to the site' s special cir- cumstances, the granting of a variance may be appropriate. A variance requires a public hearing before the Planning Commission and may include the grading plan review. Zoning Ordinance Section 9-4. 106 (3) (Sloping Lot Adjustment) allows for a garage to be lo- cated as close as five feet to the street property line if the elevation of the natural grade at a point 50 feet from the street right-of-way is seven feet above or below the elevation of the centerline. These sites are eligible for this adjustment. 2 �� . Lot Line Adjustment 15-85 (Yeomans/North Coast Engineering) Other issues to be reviewed include the method of sewage disposal (septic versus sewer) , fire code requirements, and road improve- ments. These requirements are not a part of this lot line adjust- ment approval, but are necessary for the development of the area. The twenty (20) foot wide roadway is the minimum width required for Fire Department access. Staff notes, however, that these re- quired road improvements will not bring this road up to City standards and, thus, its condition will not be maintained by the City. 3 �� 0 0, Lot Line Adjustment 15-85 (Yeomans/North Coast Engineering) D. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Lot Line Adjustment 15-85 based on the findings and conditions of approval contained in Exhibit A. DGD:ps ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Findings/Conditions of Approval Exhibit B - Location Map Exhibit C - Lot Line Adjustment Map Exhibit D - Staff Report - Parcel Map AT 820108 :1 4 �Z Lot Line Adjustment 15-85 (Yeomans/North Coast Engineering) EXHIBIT A - Lot Line Adjustment 15-85 Findings/Conditions of Approval January 6, 1986 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 conforms with all applicable zoning and subdivision regulations. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The lot line adjustment as generally shown on the map attachment provided herein shall be submitted in final map format to be ap- proved by the Community Development Department prior to recorda- tion by the County Recorder ' s Office. 2. The proposed adjusted lot lines shall be surveyed and monuments set at the new property corners prior to recordation of the final map. 3. The location of all improvements and easements shall be delineated on the final map. 4. A grading and drainage plan, prepared by a registered civil engin- eer , shall be submitted to and approved by the Comunity Develop- ment and Public Works Departments prior to the issuance of build- ing permits. 5. A grading permit shall be obtained from the City of Atascadero for the access road. Construction shall be a minimum twenty (20) foot roadbed with a sixteen (16) foot traveled way, as directed by the Public Works Department. 6. Fire code provisions will be addressed during the development re- view process, and are to be reviewed and approved by the Fire Department. These include the provision of City standard fire hydrants on 500 feet of spacing along Vista Bonita and the en- largement of the cul-de-sac to a minimum 48 foot radius. 7. Approval of this lot line adjustment shall expire two years from the date of final approval unless a time extension has been gran- ted pursuant to a written request prior to the expiration date. '3 5 18 L2,�_:_ .amu!•� •.b� . ,' i +i �\Q`coF� +,� ';' \ 4r\ 2 ,r: , r, x. nT-eo•srl It et `11� + I 3 AT-76-05 t2 61- .off �' ./ 7 PIT-76 w3 12•el. � a+ •, t3M) ..i•1•r ' >9` Ar-19-Z3 1z-a .'}�, a - '\r•.e 'y '• \• °�:� .s vs44 .S AT-81-183 12'Ci + '!per a'S °. �e+,]� ..f�a 't •/`S , .�j- \ - AIT 81 ZS6.. 82 ✓ 5 25 ° u•o� y ;,, t• ,n �.� 4 r. � a •'•$s w4 e T 1 .: G'F.' ,'g �'� < /�, .'� -• -•s+.gee ;:t. ems. 1,... G .i•` -. e1� \ `• •• ''"2 a' a•' , at'° Pt'V IS lG:: DATA 4 't •,'b' >b• _ Iia Ile R F `r° P„�• .' +'nom -y � ? h ,'"co-,J',s- C/) ., t , vqfl Z3 - - 3 ' 34 ms 1117W, b -.j �� • •oa d�J3. -Iwo .;,,. • - 3asYa 0 aD"r.� C 3'w} Sao r• .l ' •a d 1 1 .. • CO 7F.377�:b •.u, .H 2y • ,a3 .if.C�$ IO-A , Ig ' \ �••.o2g 11 = 10 �Yr' �Y q� •4 R I ;i;f---:ti,.n�' 2 `a . •'14 I" 28 10 /w' •D' 31 - CT 10 34 3b�� '• AJC' 1 S POS' 2s\ .• b ° '`,u'rCf«15�6 dk ;�� e•\^tbN'� ^s.,, a :-, ', :RMF/ ',' ,, ,; - C^ I4J�-i RM ,tea°. v"•�.: •,y5 ,`FY° O Ii$•]e a ' 12 34 c [� I Ys F �i eD 7 at •J 'y��i / 3m ak '.mac ice; �L °"^► -"r�� ) -� 22 `., \ - c h U� ..f.•i.3 .as�.•�av~`'•.-.tnw .sem RSA- Yey..,�.a,r,.:�..��L,.:....r. 20 i6 rs - vGi a-La.<rr.a•r..r,ar3"ti_ay.l at a•+ ... 14 ��' ' �ws.,. •.....asp.,a' s`...-s-^^NN''3�v-e_ ,c..l.. C/°� F/ ' ,7.. 1 °�%�, >Q\ J t�r�r Ir3tjc�, •h �.3.� 1' ' CITY OF ATASCADE ii,,Planning Departme nil lr�lr ','J—t L: o G fl 1' I o Nv 5✓` O N O n i A Y 9 R - • ��� O N >..SAp i .1 134zz .00 1iOnia t -40 001. If r N S< Y a=• ^� .,L, � � z yyYx•iO S C �• ( ` L m 11 �, ku i Y r� I < p n n Y�Y w Nnp 'f agiii� V) aOs o m Azo 02.1 s' Ira �J 8!oil i9iA q F A 979 CITY OF ATASCADERO .�sSrAD Planning Department June 29, 1982 (Revised) STAFF REPORT SUBJECT: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP AT 820108: 1 LOCATION: 9365 El Bordo (Lots 18-23 , Tract No. 5) APPLICANT: Don Jensen (Stewart) REQUEST: To resubdivide six existing lots totaling 6 .3 acres into four parcels of 1. 001, 1.007, 1.205 and 3.00 acres. BACKGROUND 1. Existing Zoning: A-1 2. General Plan: Low Density Single Family Residential 3 . Environmental Determination: An initial study environmental de- scription form has been . completed. The Planning Director has prepared a Draft Conditional Negative Declaration indicating the project will not have a significant adverse effect upon the envir- onment if certain mitigating measures are incorporated into the project. 4. Site Conditions: The subject property slopes gently from El Bordo for approximately 100 feet at which point it begins to slope steeply to E1 Dorado. Existing structures consist of a house, garage and shop. The vegetation on the site consists of natural grasses and chapparal. 5 . Project Description: The applicant is proposing to create four larger parcels (1.001, 1.007, 1. 205, and 3.0 acres) from six smaller lots. Proposed Parcels 1, 2, and 3 will have frontage along and access from E1 Dorado which is not currently improved. Parcel 4 will be accessed from an existing alley off of E1 Bordo and contains the existing house, shop and utility building. STAFF COMMENTS On Thursday, February 11, 1982 the Subdivision Review Board met to re- view the project. The following items of concern were discussed: 1) The possibility that E1 Dorado may have to be improved as a condi- tion of the map. �XHI-B17r P TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP AT 820108:1 (Jensen) 2) The status of the alley in terms of current use and possible abandonment. 3) Percolation tests will be required at the time of building permit application. 4) Question as to whether the creation of undersized lots should be allowed even though there will be fewer of them. 5) Existing water pump. 6) Access to neighboring property from the other side of the property. 7) The number and location of fire hydrants will depend on whether or not road improvements will be required on E1 Dorado. 8) Road name corrections can be done on Map. 9) Ability to impose any requirements will . depend on review of Map Act provisions. On Thursday, April 8, 1982, the Subdivision Review Board met again to discuss the proposed parcel map with the applicant' s engineer , Dan Stewart. Also attending were: Larry Stevens, Planning Director; Fred Buss, Associate Planner; Joel Moses, Associate Planner; Jill Kollmann, Planning Intern; Patience West, Engineering Aide; and Mike Sherer , Planning Commissioner. The following items of concern from the prev- ious meeting were discussed: 1) E1 Dorado will have to be improved as a condition of the map. 2) The status of the alley was determined to be private access to two adjoining properties. 3) The created lots will be of a conforming size according to the General Plan. 4) Fire hydrants will be required at the time of the road improvements. 5) The improvement to E1 Dorado must be all weather to E1 Bordo. 6) Determination that the application is a parcel map this allows for the ability to require off-street improvements. FINDINGS 1. The application, if revised as recommended, conforms to applicable zoning and subdivision regulations and is consistent with the 1980 Atascadero General Plan. 2 �� Tentative Parcel Map AT 820108 :1 (Jensen) 2. The application as submitted together with the recommended condi- tions will not have a significant adverse effect upon the environ- ment, and therefore, the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is not necessary. 3. Improvements to facilities including roads, waterlines, utilities, and hydrants are unreasonable since the reduction in the number of lots, with a corresponding increase in lot sizes, brings the sub- ject property into closer conformance with density-related goals set forth in the General Plan. Imposition of said improvements would discourage achievement of this goal. RECOMMENDATION Based upon the above Findings, the Planning Department recommends the following: A) Issuance of a Conditional Negative Declaration as follows: 1. Adequate provisions shall be made for drainage and erosion control and protection in conjunction with site development and road construction; and, B) Approval of Tentative Parcel Map AT 820108 :1 subject to the fol- lowing conditions: 1. Private sewage disposal systems will be an acceptable method of sewage disposal if reports and design are acceptable. All tests, reports and designs shall conform to methods and guidelines prescribed by the Manual of Septic Tank Practice and other applicable City ordinances. The following shall appear on the Final Map: "Appropriate soils reports including a percolation test, a test to determine the presence of ground water, and a log of a soil boring to a minimum depth of ten (10) feet shall be submitted to the Planning Department prior to the issuance of a building permit. Where soils reports indicate the conven- tional soil absorption systems are not acceptable, City ap- proval of plans for an alternative private sewage disposal system, designed by a Registered Civil Engineer, shall be re- quired. Depending upon the system, more restrictive require- ments may be imposed. " 2. Water shall be obtained from the Atascadero Mutual Water Com- pany. A letter from the water company indicating they are willing and able to serve the property shall be submitted to the Planning Department prior to recordation of the Final Map. 3 �� Tentative Parcel Map AT 820108 :1 (Jensen) 3. All other available utilities not already in place shall be extended underground to each parcel frontage at the time of building permit. 4. The driveway access shall be improved to at least the follow- ing minimum standards: - an improved width of 12 feet - unobstructed vertical clearance of fourteen (14) feet These standards shall appear as notes on the Final Map. 5. All driveways providing access to building sites shall be subject to Planning Department review and approval at the time of building permit application for each parcel. Plan and profile drawings may be required. If average slope ex- ceeds 12%, paved improvement would be required, otherwise, an all-weather surface would be required similarly. In no event will driveways be allowed which exceed 20% in slope. In the event any portion of a driveway is shared, improvement of the shared portion shall be a requirement made in conjunc- tion with the first building ,permit. Notes to these effects shall appear on the Final Map. 6. Effort shall be made to minimize grading that would be dis- ruptivp to the natural topography and removal of existing mature trees. The following shall appera as a Note on the Final Map: "No trees shall be removed without compliance with applicable City ordinances. No grading shall commence without an appro- priate permit and compliance with applicable City ordinances. 7. Roof materials for all structures shall be Class C rating or better and a Note to that effect shall appear on the Final Map. 8. Final grading and drainage plans prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer for development on each parcel may be required to be submitted for review and approval by the Planning and Public Works Departments prior to issuance of building per- mits. A Note to this effect shall appear on the Final Map. 9. El Dorado shall be renamed in conjunction with the Final Map and in compliance with the following requirements: a. All road names shall be of Spanish origin or shall be the names of non-living persons of historical importance. b. Road names shall not be duplicative of nor similar to other road names within the City of Atascadero or the nearby unincorporated areas of San Luis Obispo County. 4 �� Tentative Parcel Map AT 820108:1 (Jensen) 10. A Final Map in compliance with all conditions set forth here- in shall be submitted for review and approval in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and the City Lot Division Ordi- nance prior to recordation. a. Monuments shall be set at all new property corners cre- ated and a Registered Civil Engineer or licensed land surveyor shall submit a letter certifying that the monu- ments have been set prior to recordation of the Final Map. b. A recently updated preliminary title report shall be submitted for review in conjunction with the processing of the Final Parcel Map. 11. 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 expi- ration date. ACTION The Planning Commission should, by motion, direct Staff as deemed appropriate. REPORT PREPARED BY: KAMI GRIFFIN Planning Intern REPORT APPROVED BY: LAWRENCE STEVENS Planning Director ps 5 �� Minutes - Planning Commission - January 6 . 1986_ is. Mr. Engen stated that there is a set o/this rehensive s o fees which includes traffic fees, draes, etc. , or whi a report will be scheduled for Council ration in the near ture. Commissio er Sanders commented on the findingis ract map and noted h r difficulty in making these find Commissioner M hielssen stated that the issud this eve- ning have been previously reviewed and dias to whetherthis development s physically suitable for e, and notedthat the property o ers had been quite concet the project appeared not to be go g toward a condomini project, but instead an apartment project. MOTION: Made by Commission r Michiels n and seconded by Com- missioner Hatchell to appy ve Tentative Tract Map 35-85 subject to the findin a conditions contained in the staff report. Commissioner Sanders spoke on a fi dings that were required to be made for the precise pi n approv which involved the finding that the project is consis nt with the oning in comparison with the findings which mu be made for th tract map which is man- dated by the Subdivisi Map Act. She stat d that she did not agree that the de ity is suitable for th site because of the slope. The mo on carried with a roll call vote, s follows: AYE Commissioners Michielssen, Hatchell, lan and Bond NOES : Commissioners Sanders and Kennedy At is point, Commissioner Bond turned the gavel over to Chai an L rade. Chairman LaPrade noted that Item A-5 would now be co idered as Item B-4. 4. Lot Line Adjustment 15-85 : Request submitted by Michael Yeomans (North Coast Engineer- ing) to adjust the lot lines between three existing lots to create buildable sites on each lot. Subject property is lo- cated at 9220/9240/9260 Vista Bonita, also known as Parcels 1, 2, and 3 of Parcel Map AT 81-281. In presenting the staff report, Mr . Davidson pointed out that the subject lots have had previous approval, and proceeded to briefly explain the background involved. It was pointed out that these are difficult lots to develop because of the steep topography, and suggested that the property may be eligible for a variance or a sloping lot adjustment with respect to required setbacks. 8 vl Minutes - Planning Commission - January 6 , 1986 Mike Yeomans, applicant, stated that this application is not cre- ating any new lots, but is simply an adjustment to these lots, and noted that the original parcels had not taken into consideration the types of difficulties in making the three parcels useable. He expressed concern that instituting these conditions at this time is inappropriate. He went on to say that when he purchased the property, two public hearings had already been held to determine what the conditions of development would be for the three parcels, and felt that he already had to comply with the conditions for the parcel map, so he disagreed with these new proposed conditions. Mr . Yeomans also stated his opposition to conditions 4, 5, and 6 that are presently proposed. He feels the City has the necessary tools to protect this property. He further stated that his main concern is the means to establish ways that vehicles and emergen- cy vehicles can travel onto and off the site. There was discussion concerning the difference between the parcel map conditions in relation to the proposed conditions for this project, with the Commission' s general consensus that all of the necessary requirements are complied with for the site. Mr. Yeomans elaborated further on his reasonings for deletion of conditions 4, 5, and 6. Mr. Davidson stated that as a result of discussions with the Pub- lic Works Director , it would be possible to delete conditions #5 and 6 and substitute a new condition 5 which would involve parti- cipation in the formation of an assessment district for road improvements along Vista Bonita. There was further discussion concerning road widths for the property. MOTION: Made by Commissioner Hatchell, seconded by Commissioner Nolan and carried unanimously to approve Lot Line Adjust- ment 15-85 subject to the findings and conditions, with modifications to the following: Deletion of conditions #5 and #6 , with a new condition #5 to read: "5. The property owner shall enter into an agreement with the City, acceptable to the City Attorney, to parti- cipate in the formation of an assessment district for road improvements along Vista Bonita. " C. PUBLIC C T There was no public co at this time D. INDIVIDUAL ACTION AND/OR DET AT � • 1. Planning C ssion 9 (��' L r1 M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council January 27, 1986 VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director , SUBJECT: Lot Line Adjustment 16-85 LOCATION: 7125 Sycamore APPLICANT: Don Vaughn (Kennaly Engineering) REQUEST: To adjust the lot lines so that the property line does not bisect any existing structures. • On January 6 , 1986 , the Planning Commission considered the above- referenced request on its consent calendar, unanimously approving the application subject to the findings and conditions contained in the attached staff report. There was no public testimony given. HE:ps cc: Don Vaughn Kennaly Engineering • (03 0 0 Lot Line Adjustment 16-85 (Don Vaughn/Kennaly Engineering) C. ANALYSIS: The minimum lot size in the RS (Residential Suburban) zone is 2 1/2 to 10 acres, depending on the sum of the minimum lot size standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance. These lots are pres- ently nonconforming in that they are both 1. 25 acres in size. It has been City policy not to allow lot line adjustments on two non- conforming lots unless an equal amount of acreage is exchanged. In effect, the policy has been not to make a nonconforming lot more so. This request is consistent with that policy in that each parcel is remaining 1. 25 acres in size. (Staff notes that the City Attorney has initiated a General Plan amendment to correct encroachment problems on nonconforming lots without an equal amount of property exchange. It is being considered during this present cycle. ) In sum, this lot line adjustment corrects the existing encroach- ment problem and is also consistent with City policy and zoning regulations. D. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of Lot Line Adjustment 16-85 based on the findings and conditions contained in Exhibit A. MM:ps ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Findings/Conditions of Approval Exhibit B - Location Map Exhibit C - Lot Line Adjustment Map 2 �'7 • 0 Lot Line Adjustment 16-85 (Don Vaughn/Kennaly Engineering) EXHIBIT A - Lot Line Adjustment 16-85 Findings/Conditions of Approval January 6, 1986 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 conforms with all applicable zoning and subdivision regulations. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The Lot Line Adjustment as generally shown on the map attachment provided herein shall be submitted in final map format to be ap- proved by the Community Development Department prior to recorda- tion by the County Recorder ' s Office. 2. The proposed adjusted lot lines shall be surveyed and monuments set at the new property corners prior to recordation of the final map. 3. The location of all improvements and easements shall be delineated on the Final Map. 4. Approval of this lot line adjustment shall expire two years from the date of final approval unless a time extension has been gran- ted pursuant to a written request prior to the expiration date. 3 (v� _' P(FH) 0-14to it2. r • a,!/ SLIFH) I .,p I . ' ,pc •Ayz 11 �� \\ P.CV:SIG:: C.1: Tito ••12 IC +'r3 RS(FH) 2 , „ ,9f . 1 - - ,. • - y' �. 441If NV '1Y e4 ?5 � a ,yso zs to I , 44 \ t• 0,06 • sae Iy a 2 3� t ?! ••• /• �ro 17 n.. ���) ..»'f° 9Jo C�; ` -';i a'•\1 ll..'. 7A,7 7 t7 r{ ' "°. n. /)r 5i �• � � Iy,` yr~ .. / '�>Z';'.I...an...wf"„t.w rr..'s`.r�..' �^ r • t! 1 -.»n ^'•�/�' Z IJ Y� )fl ,,,`� -13 � tT.�t/�Vfr4.�.a�..urw......r�N . ':c+ �r`E• JI.'�J/�JL• ,MCi,tet _ i�y1'%��^• i.�^•�..�{��.rl. .��• .. CITY OF ATASCA DT Departme: I r 1:)I:T r. •r- ,,�l^1, 1'J�! EX l 1,91 T ..3 LOCATION N YR f'y i07 !/A/T A i i l L ^:L n Chu p rw0, • M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council i \ January 27 , 1986 VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director t\y_ SUBJECT: Lot Line Adjustment 17-85 LOCATION: 9125/9145 Mountain View APPLICANT: Jim Rockstad (Kennaly Engineering) REQUEST: To adjust the lot lines to alleviate an encroachment problem. On January 6 , 1986, the Planning Commission considered the above- referenced request on its consent calendar, unanimously approving the application subject to the findings and conditions contained in the attached staff report. There was no public testimony given. HE:ps cc: Jim Rockstad Kennaly Engineering • • Lot Line Adjustment 17-85 (Rockstad/Kennaly Engineering) C. ANALYSIS• The minimum lot size in the RSF-Y zone is one acre with sewers, and one and one-half acres without sewers; however, these lots of 0.89 View are served by sewers, thus these lots of .89 acres each are presently nonconforming under the Zoning Ordinance. It has been City policy not to allow lot line adjustments on two noncon- forming lots unless an equal amount of acreage is exchanged. In effect, the policy has been not to make a conconforming lot more SO. This request is consistent with this policy. (Staff notes that the City Attorney has initiated a General Plan amendment to allow for lot line adjustments on nonconforming lots of unequal amounts of acreage to correct encroachments such as this. It is being considered during this cycle. ) Staff' s concern with this type of request is to make sure that the rear parcel (Parcel 2) is suitable for development. The lot is relatively level and served by sewer lines available along Moun- tain View. Staff agrees that the rear parcel is suitable for the proposed density of development (single family residence) , as well as being consistent with City policies and zoning regulations. D. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of Lot Line Adjustment 17-85 based on the findings and conditions contained in Exhibit A. DD:ps ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Findings/Conditions of Approval Exhibit B - Location Map Exhibit C - Lot Line Adjustment Map 2 �� 0 • Lot Line Adjustment 17-85 (Rockstad/Kennaly Engineering) EXHIBIT A - Lot Line Adjustment 17-85 Findings/Conditions of Approval January 6, 1986 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 conforms with all applicable zoning and subdivision regulations. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The Lot Line Adjustment as generally shown on the map attachment provided herein shall be submitted in final map format to be ap- proved by the Community Development Department prior to recorda- tion by the County Recorder ' s Office. 2. The proposed adjusted lot lines shall be surveyed and monuments set at the new property corners prior to recordation of the final map. 3. The location of all improvements and easements shall be delineated on the Final Map. 4. The applicant shall modify the tentative map to include a twenty (20) foot wide access and utility easement to serve Parcel 2. The easement shall appear on and be recorded as part of the final map. 5. Approval of this lot line adjustment shall expire two years from the date of final approval unless a time extension has been gran- ted pursuant to a written request prior to the expiration date. 3 '�2 31 . _ i 1' „'.�J•.'.. L2.,1•O•�o'^•y^\.�•-a.'>R•x-/�er sat/e-5`02/,t 7/"`19` moo�'z❑y-f O�8'M1i 0ayIH.�,S'/Y�/,�,r.2`w-.,SR1r.t�~/J'»5�`�1JL-.m,6a!fl.r,/E n_,:/'+Of>�•.1!S/ �!cP r_./y.�fS.c•R'f iw8.`�'?rb/.j�/Z%i/++,•l_��il9,��p 7JI$„SN♦\:oa/? m/N��i 7'o,�.`�°a3,�'/,'}.`A•1m'.'3 6 Cye.rno,lP.T'+'�g`4�+'"...�111,.1113Jco,tr4p5`�'�.1•7�.s`n,r8�wTP�\u w��/'..P♦faj motno 15 0s'•o„,/^a J.,rJ f/•m�mt4t:.,�3,a._.`0�,,_+-�,.m3•Me_,2",c•��i♦d'-P0 stqoa`obSfa/Y`s,°6.'`'',i9t-•''m1••r •..re+.•N: �l.�,`o�••','4`�o-`�.N\�d'3S\i. T Atuii"o�i.•\/ \��\��e♦a'O\d o•v R=+o\^+�'.r\4>o.r�`d�'`\>�'� " .-,•w�•..,>`�.•qT.a.�'�aS'N >�•�c�•.S�V`�A�.A.eT. c'-•7,Bo11O• r14 0ra'• >”r�03\O't0.•�ae's` ? x.\ Ae.ro�oou't�.p/De�2. cJ .. S •-ar.31 12 1 Ar-78.07 AT-78-zU-el AT-78-161 1z.1-1 81 LIQ17 J POP LA PP.V:Ci1... D\TF: I•, rn RSF- (Fil) 7 ''31 j:fc s 22 I-Am 39' 26 24 6 600 6 .25 25A 414 23 33 34 49 ` tn00 4 7]A 32 41 11 . 20I ♦ 2 C 16 AD 2e 79 31 J3 - 46 ] 36p 1 36 39 4140 4S TyEXHl3tr L..,QCA T to N �. - ./c � \��1�1,yjt1l��:/'� �)lr I���.i�i4�—,'i�lr r_1 JtI._j_�_.�,_j1_Fr'`���,'.II r'+c1i•.�l�`e11ii 1'{/l�Y// .-. _�ra���^��t1fS3- .777 CIT 7CITY OF ATASCADERO j�Plannino- Department : l=y i.:.. fJtlaly :A c PSD.7P' . 1 1-4 LI ( m •, ~ m m ; �- - ' Z75?-IV -_ - �1 tZ, 4 16 .,rmyo ti 1zz �21r Q� C 3ommm gti Z f 1Z U M E D N A R M O M TO: City Council January 27, 1986 VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director Wc., SUBJECT: Tentative Parcel Map 29-85 LOCATION: 9750 Atascadero Road APPLICANT: Bill and Linda Ramay REQUEST: To allow the division of 2. 45 acres into two lots of 1.10 and 1. 35 acres each. On January 6, 1986 , the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing concerning the above-referenced subject unanimously approving the land division request subject to the findings and conditions contained in the attached staff report with modification to condition #3 to read: " : . . . . . . . shall be noted on the final map. The proposed 12 foot access easement shall be enlarged to 16 feet wide with a 12 foot wide traveled way. This shall be shown on the final map. There was some discussion on this matter as reflected in the attached Minutes excerpt. Bill Ramay, applicant, appeared and noted his agreement with the rec- ommended conditions. No one else appeared on the matter . HE:ps ATTACHMENTS: Staff Report - January 6 , 1986 Minutes Excerpt - Planning Commission - January 6, 1986 • 0 Tentative Parcel Map 29-85 (Ramay) 8. General Plan Designation. . . . .Moderate Density Single Family Residential 9. Terrain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .Level to gently sloping with several large trees. 10. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Negative Declaration C. ANALYSIS: The minimum lot size in the RSF-Y zone is one acre with sewer available and one and one-half acre without sewer . These parcels are located in the sewer improvement district and development of the rear parcel will require sewer connection. The fact that the site is on the sewer system, as well as relatively level, presents few problems for development of the site. There are several large oak trees on the site, some of which are near the proposed access to the rear parcel. Removal of existing trees should be minimized and conform to City policies. The major result of allowing lot splits in this area is the in- creased drainage to the Amapoa-Tecorida flood area. Thus, the applicant is being required to participate in an assessment dis- trict for drainage and related improvements. This requirement along with the other recommended conditions of approval will en- sure that the site is physically suitable for the proposed development. D. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Tentative Parcel Map 29-85 based on the findings and conditions of approval contained in Exhibit A. DGD:ps ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Findings/Conditions of Approval Exhibit B - Location Map Exhibit C - Parcel Map 2 �� • Tentative Parcel Map 29-85 (Ramat') EXHIBIT A - Tentative Parcel Map 29-85 Findings/Conditions of Approval January 6, 1986 FINDINGS: 1. The creation of these parcels conform to all applicable zoning 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 that is proposed. 4. The site is physically suitable for the density of development proposed. 5. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvement will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large for ac- cess through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision; or that substantially equivalent alternate easements are provided. 6. The proposed subdivision complies with Section 66474.6 of the State Subdivision Map Act, as to methods of handling and discharge of waste. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. A preliminary soils report shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer and reviewed prior to the issuance of building permits. If tests indicate critically expansive soils or other soils prob- lems, corrective measures shall be taken. 2. 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. 3. All existing and proposed utility easements, pipelines, and other easements are to be shown on the final map. If there are other building or other restrictions related to the easements, they shall be noted on the Final Map. 4. Drainage and erosion control plans, prepared by a registered civil engineer , shall be submitted for review and approval by the Commu- nity Development Department prior to issuance of building permits in conjunction with installation of driveways, access easements or structures. 3 �o • 0 Tentative Parcel Map 29-85 (Ramay) 5. Plan and profile drawings of proposed individual driveways and driveway easements shall be submitted for approval by the Communi- ty Development and Public Works Departments in order to determine average grade and appropriate improvement requirements. 6. An encroachment permit shall be obtained from the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of building permits. The im- provements shall be constructed as directed by the encroachment permit, prior to final building inspection. 7. A sewer connection permit shall be obtained from the Public Works Department. An in-lieu sewer connection fee of $850.00 per single family lot shall be due in addition to the usual connection, tap- in, and installation fees, prior to issuance of a building permit. 8. The property owner shall enter into an agreement with the City, acceptable to the City Attorney, to waive their right to protest the formation of an assessment district for drainage and related improvements intended to mitigate flooding in the Amapoa/Tecorida drainage areas and in those areas impacted by that drainage. 9. All conditions herein specified shall be complied with prior to filing of the final map. 10. 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 will 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. 11. 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. 4 �� AT- 1_ . - A _-71 12 AS-78-1o7 KBS - - - AT-70.121 IL ?� �� AT 81 LI? /r — <:• rtr,,.•e'..., reit .'., �'� ti 4` , a s \ ,.w,.• 2� n ayr r v,� //FrrrpOq�/'7�'� l ° 'f. —a' i o„• sc RSF- 12 cs I� �. �` � \ � a+. .ice =I - c a \ � '�' 13 ,�.•.:'�. .? �� ' so .,tom �• :oo- +g*�s..�,,e. m _ ro 16 ,13•A $ �G "4•..p ` �� M:Sa c2S, L �° ' e.•, ^�' `\ r \•' N�0 4 - t p .•20 ° u,^•y', ",'h f'°c ' >!g as z '\ O a .4 3 q D+ x` a,. .o•'•r `2i w. 1! acerb J},�0�� h8 � �9.`�ysl/ p�y�� p m 1 A I-A _!'.'•^y `22 ��.Y4 '\ � 1 s�. i ra i \ O` _ •loo°- r, 27 of 1 & � p � 3 _. +. .26 / w 24 ru�� $ 0 11 0 0 9 ! 'w.z .�:n4° e 0•a_6`ate' 10 ^�t5A /24 ��?/ra��•nat. �6 �r'•'� I .Nq,, - Y om,\, '° S a 9 ,`, ;"JS a i. A ` ° jO` 4 I _ 73A v —34- 32 a a."'." S, m m I°.�• ,"- / p ,r.is + a I a 2. 20 u, o L/�Y..•�.•• s 27 ` . / - 19 - � m� � Q.' w e 1 6 / D / 17 16 A E 1 F ` r 6 i / i 33 C F "n� zo It s .9 33 >^ to 2 30 i c K3 2� 32 `y 33 ♦6 D �•` O b/ 34 35 36 37 38 4 . IN N 39 4 41 43 -'a O 44 N 42 j m N c/TY .LIM\�S - EX141BIT B t LOCATION TY OF ATA _ . SCADDR,O a }, . _ . +� Planning Department � , > �-�� ` � � �• \ `��.lr 1 i'• \..(- �(' ,�. `(I,/ .. - - I•nami,..,a.'.....V•r'••.C.( ,, ar' ... D 1 `�'+'-.'„ w tiu �4!=) 3w�,rt'".., � '1<--r�.�y-•�'i x �*,T � ex a S �_ X...r 1 �'�i r� �a�w?� t $ i LF 1, �..`�r�" F 3 7 't ..�7>d mow- i. r � 1 t }. �- 'C`+" �� �.�^`Y" t 3 ?X/1't""C � t•;• .1 "-1.•. �j'•.•}i �i�.}�j,��.':i' r� `�"M. /��4 T�i '[t7]r ... , . `�_ 1 F `-.3, ..�•t } �{ a.' r..«-...,�.t .4yt�y� w ',p '•y e -CA P r ^a .._ ._:.�- •-� •_: _ EJ�'� AVE _.. _ .. --- - - -. _. _- - ��-�'��-� �-�-�- ru 1 h A � 7 nz.° - z -- - X I p'11 -�I tp a }" rp . D; - *t r _.. y r - °el - v. -,' 1 -.' ,... ... -A _ .... .fie. ^Y, �. t' f--a�� t-• w '�moi•-}- — �}. • 0 IT CD -P 7, jl fT� t f�i '%--j' 1 ,f}-"4` t "'T_"--1". -T"r..'y"'E'�_'� --"-•-• - .. -1t -�'—: 1 -.,x �lc � a {'T' r 7 z ."•_• - _,.. ' t r 7 �,y tf r_.-t. �..'' 4.-1}}»��✓. a+y...�y .ky 1 �..-.�-__.r �: J ,..7. r _.( Pik y 4 -�'} •ty� } { r � . -'+"st -"r--Z' >•—i'.--� +s F'i°$ yt''#r�•'3�A��� �y �•l�= 1 } y "I t f }_ �- t S- •ti'."+� � 1 t sY, m - _ r �•— -�... ..t„'J.i"'�'fW'��^"„"�rc :irl- ��y�t� �� i �r f or � '}'•. a ,. 'rk 77+ 7 . 'T 1 f'_.}'_'f� yj "391 h .Fb 1'9• .5 > r } ,..i may'."/. } L R i _ E ;:. :f '�•}4•+. t Fh l,•.-. .sem {.. ,! �.�t.a.. i � :. -�� r t aN t ':�. ! r .1 t -� �� „S- xi;6 r-t�•-111-.s..1,..{ :"' f i lT { ' '} k" ` t_-+^+,_ti. i'I � •. �'E .r . �.I.r,� ,(�� �*-4� - �g�.,�� p�'-f 1`s 1d:�¢ � ` r 'r �'.� � ,r ^t 1 I.� .�t }•,f .t�} L A 19 1 a F..' fY,..�1.3 � - T.. FP}.'"_ f"'f y I :j"';'�^`" .'fir"'•".�. �; r -r ,.r- »r_'" 1_}s•^ . �� �.,1 r•- ..� y'� s ''y��� .:r Ff `s tc �.+ t r R. pit S.j'�'�y�•�'_�,_ q.�`r ~ � , �''`r Y 1 • i Minutes - Planning Commission - January 6 , 1986 It was decided that Item A-5 would be considered at the end of the public hearings. B. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Tentative Parcel Map 29-85 : Request submitted by Bill and Linda Ramay to allow division of 2.45 acres into two lots of 1.10 and 1. 35 acres each. Subject property is located at 9750 Atascadero Road, also known as Parcel 2, Lot 2 of Block 13. Doug Davidson presented the staff report and noted that the site plan shows a 12 foot wide proposed access easement to the rear parcel, and as an addition to condition #3, it is recommended that this proposed easement be enlarged to 16 feet wide with a 12 foot wide traveled way and that this be shown on the final map. Commissioner Sanders talked about the seven findings mandated by the Subdivision Map Act and noted that this staff report reflects six findings, and stated she would feel more comfortable with the seven findings as required by the State. Mr . Engen responded that by indicating that a negative declaration has been prepared and no E. I.R. will be required, it is kind of a double coverage of the same point on damage to floura and fauna and environmental compatibility. He added that there would be no problem in going back to the original seven findings. Bill Ramay, applicant, indicated his concurrence with the staff report. Commissioner Michielssen asked for clarification on the condition requiring participation of the drainage improvement assessment. Mr. Davidson explained that the Public Works Director is preparing a report on several areas within the City that have had a history of drainage problems and pointed out that the subject site is within the major drainage problem (Amapoa-Tecorida) area. Commissioner Michielssen expressed concern that with the way this condition is worded, the applicant will have no idea as to the exact dollar figure involved with this lot split. MOTION: Made by Commissioner Hatchell, seconded by Commissioner Nolan and carried unanimously to approve Tentative Parcel Map 29-85 subject to the findings and conditions con- tained in the staff report, with modification to Condi- tion #3 as follows: 113. All existing and proposed utility easements, pipe- lines, and other easements are to be shown on the final map. If there are building or other restric- tions related to the easements , they shall be noted on the final map. The proposed 12 foot access easement shall be enlarged to 16 feet wide with a 12 foot wide traveled way. This shall be shown on the final map. " Z 3 • M E M O RAN D U M TO: City Council January 27, 1986 VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director 4-V SUBJECT: Tentative Parcel Map 33-85 LOCATION: 7355 Sombrilla/7350 Encinal APPLICANT: Jay Parsons/Gerald Graybill (Kennaly Engineering) REQUEST: To allow the division of two lots into four lots of . 50, . 50, .53, and .61 acres each On January 6, 1986, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the above-referenced subject approving the land division request (with Commissioner Sanders dissenting) , subject to the findings and conditions contained in the staff report with modifications to the • following: #1 - addition of wording, " . . .prepared by a registered civil engineer or qualified geologist and. . . . " #7a - "A city standard cul-de-sac shall be constructed at the terminus of Encinal Avenue. " #7b - "The property owner shall enter into an agreement with the City, acceptable to the City Attorney, to participate in the formation of an assessment district for road improvements along Encinal Avenue. " #10 - The property owner shall enter into an agreement with the City, acceptable to the City Attorney, to participate in the formation of an assessment district for drainage and related improvements intended to mitigate flooding in the drainage area and in areas impacted by that drainage. If the drainage development fee is adopted by ordinance, it will supercede this condition. " There was considerable discussion on this matter as reflected in the attached minutes excerpt. Jay Parsons, applicant, express his opposition to Condition #10 con- cerning his having to waive his right to protest in the formation of • an assessment district. He stated he would be agreeable to some type of drainage fee when this has been decided. �3 City of Atascadero Item:—B-2 STAFF REPORT FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: 1/6/85 BY: Doug Davidson, Assistant Planner File No: TPM 33-85 Project Address: 7355 Sombrilla/7350 Encirial SUBJECT: To divide two lots into four lots of .50 , .50 , .53, and .61 acres each. BACKGROUND: Notice of public hearing was published in the Atascadero News on Fri- day, December 27, 1985 and all property owners of record located with- in 300 feet were notified on that date. A. LOCATION: 7355 Sombrilla/7350 Encinal (Lots 7, 8 , Block E) B. SITUATION AND FACTS: 1. Request. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .To divide two lots into four lots of . 50, . 50 , . 53 and .61 acres each. 2. Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Jay Parsons/Gerald Graybill 3. Representative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .John Kennaly 4. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.14 acres 5. Streets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Sombrilla is a City maintained street with a 50 foot wide right of-way. Encinal is a private road with a 40 foot wide right- of-way. 6. Zoning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .RSF-X (minimum lot size, 1/2 acre) 7. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Single family residence on pro- posed Parcel A. The other three proposed parcels are vacant. 8. Adjacent Zoning and Use. . . . . .North: RSF-Y, SFR South: RSF-X, SFR East: RSF-X, vacant West: RSF-X, SFR g� Tentative Parcel Map 33-85 (Parsons/Graybill/Kennaly) 9. General Plan Designation. . . . .High Density Single Family Residential 10. Terrain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Steeply sloped (30-45%) , heavily covered with oak trees and natural grasses. 11. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Negative Declaration C. ANALYSIS: The minimum lot size in the RSF-X zone is one-half acre. RSF-X zones are located within the sewer improvement district, thus these four lots are required to hook up to the sewer available along Sombrilla. The easements for sewer and public utilities are to be offered for dedication and shown on the final map. The major limitation on development of these lots is the steep slopes. The existing residence on Parcel A is located on slopes of approximately 30% slopes. From there it becomes steeper (45%) toward Encinal. Grading on these slopes will require precise plan approval by the Community Development Department to determine if the proposed grading is appropriate for the use. Road improve- ments are required along the Encinal Avenue cul-de-sac, as well as participation in future drainage improvements to help alleviate drainage problems in the greater El Camino Real area. These re- views and requirements are necessary to insure that the area can accommodate the proposed density of development. D. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Tentative Parcel Map 33-85 based on the findings and conditions of approvla contained in Exhibit A. DGD:ps ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Findings/Conditions of Approval Exhibit B - Location Map Exhibit C - Parcel Map 2G, Tentative Parcel MaParsons Gra bill Kenal P *_85 ( / Y / nY) b. A recently updated preliminary title report shall be submit- ted for review in conjunction with the processing of the final map. 13. 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. Tentative Parcel Map P-85 (Parsons/Graybill/Kennaly) EXHIBIT A - Tentative Parcel Map 33-85 Findings/Conditions of Approval January 6, 1986 FINDINGS: 1. The creation of these parcels conform to all applicable zoning 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 that is proposed. 4. The site is physically suitable for the density of development proposed. 5. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvement will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large for ac- cess through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision; or that substantially equivalent alternate easements are provided. 6. The proposed subdivision complies with Section 66474. 6 of the State Subdivision Map Act, as to methods of handling and discharge of waste. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. A preliminary soils report shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer and reviewed prior to the issuance of building permits. If tests indicate critically expansive soils or other soils prob- lems, corrective measures shall be taken. 2. 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. 3. All existing and proposed utility easements, pipelines, and other easements are to be shown on the final map. If there are other building or other restrictions related to the easements, they shall be noted on the Final Map. 4. Drainage and erosion control plans, prepared by a registered civil engineer , shall be submitted for review and approval by the Commu- nity Development Department prior to issuance of building permits in conjunction with installation of driveways, access easements or structures. Tentative Parcel Map #85 (Parsons/Gra bill/Kennal Y y) 5. Plan and profile drawings of proposed individual driveways and driveway easements shall be submitted for approval by the Communi- ty Development and Public Works Departments in order to determine average grade and appropriate improvement requirements. 6. The fire hydrant at the end of Encinal shall be upgraded to City standards. 7. Road improvement plans, prepared by a registered civil engineer, shall be submitted to and approved by the Public Works Department prior to recording the parcel map. These shall include: a. The construction of the road improvements shall be completed (or bonded for) prior to recording the final map. b. A city standard cul-de-sac shall be constructed at the ter- minus of Encinal Avenue. B. The following offers of dedication shall be completed and recorded prior to recording the parcel map: a. Offer of dedication to the City of Atascadero for the Encinal Avenue frontage of Parcels B and C. b. Offer for dedication to the public the public utilities easements. 9. Wastewater disposal for the four parcels shall be by connection to the public sewer located in Sombrilla Avenue, via independent sewer laterals. A sewer connection permit shall be obtained prior to hooking up to the public sewer . An in-lieu sewer connection fee of $850. 00 per single family lot shall be due in addition to the usual connection, tap-in, and installation fees, prior to the issuance of a building permit. 10. The property owner shall enter into an agreement with the City, acceptable to the City Attorney, to waive their right to protest the formation of an assessment district for drainage and related improvements intended to mitigate flooding in the drainage area and in areas impacted by that drainage. 11. All conditions herein specified shall be complied with prior to filing of the final map. 12. 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 will be set by a date specific, and that they will be sufficient to enable the survey to be retraced. ARROVF/10 QD .. ,.,1. �`��.• I �.a .. I ��•Y -yrs u„ J' �� ` a<.` 'Y\R S •,L,V1 F_ . — ` ry BB4 •'J �''�� `'- .r.s l• vA �«�.e'o � aD � ,, �,a• /, � I.�•ti\ .•�? y' � / _ _! as - ��•I c f{ /c as �'` 4 9 J• 'l� �° .jq' .. k, •7 'r z, ,v '• fKo •' , ' 16 i..•T; ,, a , _ „j 1?`'' �;' !�7 •• ;'L J ,•\�i •-, e .air er.� ••..rD sir , � _% \... �,. -. "•i 18 .. a >rw ` - 'i•, ,,��•..\ t� i0 Js\ � s �� v 7 ,' �• ,ty )!� ��° s r b t• y^ r't. - a n s f •J D L }A i; �• .. "� .. �! .�Y-D� ,a,� rz• L` •�` Ft � ,>,le° xiO 1't 1 -� c ' s�L. a` , o r hw ",i` • r.-� ----r-"�Fr �a,' Lf.tiaw Q'J Y4- '- �x tr ;�,` - P .0 E v.cs L�3 = _ a.•. \",, LSF—Y AT-W-C41 I X2.:1 !;C� __�� T;� xt< > ,rrsf >se° • 7 ,. 2]' ri • �1 •. AT-7e-L��IL.'_''I Ip•. �y:F� l LSF—Y(FH) AT-78-05 12-CI •e .. PD >>yH) �° AT 7.-21 f . y .., TRACT =4 C x LSF-Y(FH) - 1A 14'A r •D:=• r - r- - is U N Iia tyl Iff t °°^' 1�./ & is '«�` 'ati n:, •r '�• .'fP'', .!C'`O.Ls' ct'' -3 � 20 :��- 'l ., l•. � art ���8�•r s.. ¢i in. ♦1.a „ .f F's T7 27 ze 4. .1�/7 /' �•jar�/�' + �..� _'O _ "e! q'R.: 'd-2 y. ' ,e `�w 30 t,LJ II•', .�+ 'res .i, r y. �3: 1 ' rho i `a r \ 122 =—�AU 7-` ��' CITY OF ATASCADERO Planning Department 1, �� ' •, --ti � � �.t 1.1`x•rnl••. r.i LL M•.r,•... - 1 l .• I. ,•' „� _ fY- mer a. •i......+.. -.�� •w tt J - ?59 3 1 t6/ 0' x i `1 t i f l II 1-n �oaz� �� ti O v in --a IWW Minutes - Planning Commission - January 6 , 1986 2. Tentative Parcel Map 33-85: Request submitted by Jay Parsons/Gerald Graybill (Kennaly Engineering) to allow division of two lots into four lots of . 50 , .50, .53 and . 61 acres each. Subject property is loca- ted at 7355 Sombrilla/7350 Encinal, also known as Lots 7 and 8 of Block E. Mr . Davidson presented the staff report and noted this area is within the sewer improvement district which alleviates one of the major concerns due to the steep slopes of the site which would be a private sewage disposal system. It was pointed out that a pre- cise plan will be required to determine if the grading proposed is appropriate for the use. Mr. Davidson noted that modifications to the language in Conditions #1 and #7 should be incorporated within the conditions. Chairman LaPrade expressed concern over condition #10 where ref- erence is made to the applicant "waiving his right to protest" , with regard to not knowing exactly what fees are involved, and hoped that this will be a very temporary position. Commissioner Nolan referenced Condition 7b and asked if the intent of the condition is to dedicate the land to get the full width of the cul-de-sac now and leave it unpaved until some future date. Mr. Davidson responded that the intent was to show the cul-de-sac I* in the road improvement plans and to follow-up with the assess- ment district language. Commissioner Sanders noted that in the RSF-Z and RS zones, there is a formula applied which takes slopes and access into consider- ation, and asked if this formula is not applied to this zoning. Mr. Davidson replied that the formula is not applied to the RSF-X zoning which is 1/2 acre minimum lot size and is within the sewer district which alleviates the major problem of steep slopes. Chairman LaPrade added that there have been similar applications considered where this concern has been raised and that the only area that this matter seems to appear is the area between Som- brilla and Valle which has sewer . Jay Parsons, applicant, expressed his opposition to Condition #10 concerning his having to waive his right to protest. He stated he would be agreeable to some type of drainage fee when this has been decided. Mr. Davidson responded that the Public Works De- partment has requested the wording in condition #10 to remain, with the addition of language of the fee adoption superceding this condition. Commissioner Hatchell asked what percentage of a vote is required to protest an assessment district. Mr . Engen responded that 51% is required. Commissioner Hatchell then asked for clarification in the condition' s wording which would prohibit an applicant from casting a "no" vote. Mr . Engen stated this was his understanding 4 A� Minutes - Planning Commission - January 6 , 1986 and elaborated on the procedures involved in the initiation of an assessment district. Commissioner Hatchell stated he would feel more comfortable if the City Attorney would render an opinion on this issue. Chairman LaPrade asked if the City Attorney has been questioned as to the legality of this type of condition. Mr. Engen replied that the City Attorney has been involved in general meetings of this nature and did not indicate that there was any problem. Discussion ensued relative to what types of fees will be assessed and the working out of an equitable fee solution, as well as the possible changing of the wording to eliminate "to waive the right to protest" . It was suggested that a recommendation could be made to the City Council to restructure the wording to have an appli- cant agree to participate in a reasonable type of assessment. Chairman LaPrade felt that this issue be passed on to the City Council with the Commission' s recommendation that strong consid- eration be given to adjusting the wording on this requirement to waive the right to protest and expedite the actual fees as they will be applied as rapidly as possible. There was further discussion on what wording would be appropriate for this particular requirement. Commissioner Sanders noted it would be difficult for her to accept Finding #4 with regard to the site being physically suitable for the density of development proposed, after viewing the site be- cause of the slope and the steepness of the land. Commissioner Bond stated he had no problem with the property having an adequate building site, and added that a home could be designed on just about any kind of slope. Commissioner Hatchell asked if the applicant would be willing to have a continuance until the issue involving condition #10 is resolved with an opinion from the City Attorney. Mr . Parsons stated he did not wish to have a continuance. MOTION: Made by Commissioner Bond, seconded by Commissioner Nolan to approve Tentative Parcel Map 33-85 subject to the findings and conditions with modifications to the following : #1 - addition of wording, " . . .prepared by a registered civil engineer or qualified geologist and. . . . " #7a. "A city standard cul-de-sac shall be constructed at terminus of Encinal Avenue. " #7b. "The property owner shall enter into an agreement with the City, acceptable to the City Attorney, to participate in the formation of an asssessment dis- trict for road improvements along Encinal Avenue. " 5 Oq a r Minutes - Planning Commission - January 6 , 1986 #10. The property owner shall enter into an agreement with the City, acceptable to the City Attorney, to participate in the formation of an assessment dis- trict for drainage and related improvements intended to mitigate flooding in the drainage area and in areas impacted by that drainage. If the drainage development fee is adopted to ordinance, it will supercede this condition. " The motion carried with Commissioner Sanders dissenting. 3. Tentative Tract Map 35-85: Request submitted by L.W.D. Inc. (Richard Shannon) to cre e 36 airspace residential condominium units. Subject prop rty is located at 5760/5820 Ardilla Road, also known as Lo 29 and 30 of Block KB. Chair n LaPrade stepped down from the Commission due t a possi- ble con ict of interest. Commissioner Bond then took he gavel. Mr. Davids n presented the staff report and ummarized the background a sequence of events involved with t s project. Commissioner San rs stated it was her underst ding that through the SubdivisionAct, the State requires hat certain findings be made for project pprovals. The precise _ lan findings required to be made when this oject was initiall reviewed was one, that it was consistent with the zoning ordin nce. She went on to com- ment that the State now quires seven different findings (from that of the precise pla approval) which must be made this eve- ning. She stated this was h unde standing of how this works. Mr. Engen replied that this pro ct has encountered much discus- sion at both the Commission n Council levels and it was noted at that time that findings fo a tr ct map are more comprehensive than findings for precis plan ap roval. Commissioner Sanders then stated that, accordi to the Sta law, that six new ques- tions have to be asked at were not as d previously. Mr . Engen replied that some are overlap but some re new. Commission Nolan re renced condition #6b and sked if the retain- ing walls were bei g eliminated based on staff review of the grading plan. r. Davidson replied that this i sue was reviewed as part of the recise plan application and noted at five sets of plans hav been submitted by the applicant which re currently being revie d to see if the plans meet the conditions intent. Wally Du , applicant, appeared but made no statement. Rober Berg, 5764 Venado, stated he had not been notified for this hear ng. He also stated that trees over 8 inches in diameter h ve be removed on the site, and asked about the fencing require en at were previously considered. 6 .. ter. *`�. -21 5 r �,� • M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council 61� January 27, 1986 VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Tentative Tract Map 35-85 LOCATION: 5760/5820 Ardilla Road APPLICANT: L.W.D. Inc. (Richard Shannon) REQUEST: To create 36 air-space residential condominium units in the RMF/16 zone. On January 6, 1986, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing concerning the above referenced subject approving (with Chairman La- Prade abstaining and Commissioners Sanders and Kennedy dissenting) the request subject to the findings and conditions contained in the attached staff report. There was considerable discussion among the Commission as well as pub- lic testimony as referenced in the attached minutes excerpt. Wally Dunn, applicant, appeared but made no statement on the matter. HE:ps ATTACHMENTS: Staff Report - January 6 , 1986 Minutes Excerpt - Planning Commission - January 6, 1986 Tentative Tract Map 35-85 (L.W.D. , Inc./Shannon)` 2. Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .L.W.D. , Inc. 3. Representative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Richard Shannon 4. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. 2 acres 5. Streets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Ardilla Road is City-maintained with a 50 foot right-of-way. 6. Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .RMF/16 (Residential Multiple Family, 16 dwelling units per acre maximum) 7. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Vacant 8. Adjacent Zoning and Use. . . . . .North: RSF-Z, SFR South: RSF-Z, SFR East: RMF/16 , motel West: RMF/16, SFR 9. General Plan Designation. . . . .High Density Single Family Residential 10. Terrain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Steeply sloped (20-30%) and heavily covered with trees and shrubs. 11. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Negative Declaration C. ANALYSIS: With previous precise plan approval, this item becomes a matter of ownership. The applicant desires to establish 36 airspace condo- minium units. This will allow individual ownership of a dwelling unit and common ownership of the parking and open space areas. One of the conditions of approval of the precise plan was that a lot merger be recorded, prior to the issuance of building permits. The recording of this tract map will satisfy this condition. Staff agrees that this tract map application is consistent with the precise plan approval and conforms to City policies and zoning regulations. D. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Tentative Tract Map 35-85 based on the findings and conditions of approval contained in Exhibit A. DGD:ps ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Findings/Conditions of Approval 2 Al Tentative Tract Map 35-85 (L.W.D. , Inc./Shannon) EXHIBIT A - Tentative Tract Map 35-85 Findings/Conditions of Approval January 6, 1986 FINDINGS: 1. The creation of this tract map conforms to all applicable zoning and the General Plan. 2. The creation of this tract map, in conformance with the recommen- ded 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 that is proposed. 4. The site is physically suitable for the density of development proposed. 5. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvement will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large for ac- cess through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision; or that substantially equivalent alternate easements are provided. 6. The proposed subdivision complies with Section 66474. 6 of the State Subdivision Map Act, as to methods of handling and discharge of waste. 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 a Condominium Homeowners Association. 2. All conditions of approval herein specified are to be complied with prior to filing of the final map. 3. 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 City Lot Division Ordinance prior to recordation. 4 Qq Tentative Tract Map 35-85 (L.W.D. , Inc./Shannon) 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. 4. 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. 5 too Af-77 Z}o -I 12 I��k- Ar `'c4/ e0 o -13 12 RI Jn 3 5/ 9 AT e'_ IZ 5'ZS'OZ. •i�,� _ ��t Vf CR AL oa a RMF/gyp �� `4^�N , 3� 1 o ti is 'vr . I CATF' 9Y SAN 16 �,,... ;.;,,. ^y� ,. r;. RMF/16 _ *0 mac:+ �` r u-r+.., =I + , ^y�• h`�, ." >C� '1 ROrC C s \I\na, ID 1 !!-0 •, M/�.-. _.y '��� C�-�a t<4f.Yf 2! _ � t°a 24 X10 a 23 T`. ,:T.. �^i': V ♦ �] T - U� •o rjy0 5'ry Itto is :s f/jam i Pte. .•l•�f-' �.fY 1G5 1 17 , S/75 ry° O,t u rH t o - a o i✓ sc sr p . �' u c u .� a' R - v+A 13 r z a 1 SIT I.r•,° ' �. IR' • J T 'y `JAI° 10 65�� .,•'. .�i ` �° 1 i y b 20 t)a `;V 'o t© ,n. .�' Y\.°3p ����'. l0 yGo5 •;S\'a45 � ',,tit+,•' ,' +yy F `I == 3•° �so t•r' > .i $.a'\, 40\0 'S�qf �- a°5 .° ,;,,>,•°i - '' LSn F14 -+Y °Q tic js'• ,'t, `t� �'S, S y / c 4 AG / aF6 LSF—Y a 13 15 6t- 0 .Y 1a g 6D r.: ,f.''r er .•1 ��/11F��� �y ,�` ,�Ip - 14- 9s S" Y '., •„',y 9., ,,� :> \\'. .,, .�+, z> ' s' oes LSF—Y, ,• �. \ z-,-7Z; 15 2 �'j: LAS YB N 3 •r J L(FH. 54 .. 4^ yam. - � v ��• � ' 1`' + .• ,� f, �:os A ��%- ; LSF ` D �,S w,w 0c,o ,S • �.: 1 a•�� fs. � ?r_ f.Q EO� A ���, a '' nh..+ \•fin �`t°FJro ��' ( +,` i g N'',o ,r , .� Vn 1 , • t .d•'a `\ 1/' ,�° oa S ,p, 6 y •5 :,o °T��so.o.° a \1�Ssf[d_ <� v D VVt.•1 ° v-'f•-" uv9 1� �N,c./ \wA\� 0�\q• s• ..7 'l es s �f` 't;�. .cs ?"� 9.+C 0 .,z I,I. "JJ\; _�'•".e EXRIBIT .H LO CA TIO A/ ,o5i` e + �e�o .,•s �, � �� �� `tea—.l.s CITY OF ATASCADER - �, • Planning Department +- C ,a_'ii.=.11.. ��� r�al1\s-�.�--`: 7._ - 1.1 _.... ., • _...,..r-+.�•, .. _ __ ,.. �`�;,F �> E;�EIVEDDEC 2 D OWNEP S C£Pr/1'/CIJT£ .wLrL.•riiarnL..../LY�a �! IMr � T£NT.OI/VE 7P4CT N0.1974 eCNOI�I•N•r✓ /IKl/l!WN IN /N•1 K/.M I(OrpOr••N•ar•I pr/O!MKltJ IM ILI•YL ,MII.rYO ell r•rY 1'1Ma•I/IM lwf al(Ia ONr(I N/r/rN+IlI KLKJINnnK �•�•~ Jf/NO JO Nlloi[!!I.I7/!L.fb OYI aV IN! _ L///OI/Ml0/OLLO,lWNI/O/JIN d JIM b•/NLL /YO rII I �•/N.•NIION lY•! OL•JN.JlI/r f/L/Ya10IN•I. lwyw wL!(N •f IJ`/l acro llLNal H rut \ ``• Ji/! Ila/(!//r rYe.•a!N!. i C` ota JN s•l�.rro(aa Le! R.". vgc/Ni rY ra4P w aela[ Je/tr•t'•Je' Nrr•,w-•,a iesrL- Y rr JJ'!J-y •Je IJ• r RESTRICTED COMMON T AREA I a ® m I © ® 0 • I I i Ault: w !Jr•J n.•••b+••(✓aaoih•Z..d{Jbr . I x 4 I ` z ® ® 0 1 E O A w • 1 ® ® g ® ® I O O A 1 I + LQ I RESTRICTEDFALWON i AREA l a 0 0 a, Caw.w•Le/ 37 I I ul i 0 0 ¢I � ;v •e Li C too ' I Un:f 1 Floor O/on too _ G C I /on by'/ Z F/onr I!M ies re' ATPD/L[A AVENUE IQ� ADMINISTRATION BUILDING ' POST OFFICE BOX 747 gy �'+ CITY ATTORNEY ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA 93423 .� . .. POST OFFICE BOX 749 / PHONE: (805( 466-8000 ATASCADERO,CALIFORNIA I / PHONE: (805( 466-5678 CITY COUNCIL AA -- CITY CLERK R � •• CITY TREASURER POLICE DEPARTMENT CITY MANAGER INCORPORATED JULY 2. 1979 POST OFFICE BOX 747 FINANCE DEPARTMENT ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA f PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT PHONE: (805( 466.8600 PLANNING DEPARTMENT PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT RECREATION DEPARTMENT FIRE DEPARTMENT 6005 LEWIS AVENUE r-f-- ATASCADERO,CALIFORNIA 5 PHONE: (805( 466-2141 July 9 , 1985 L.N.D. , Inc. Mr . Wally Dunn 1731 San Fernando Road Atascadero, CA 93422 RE: PRECISE PLAN 36-85 5760 to 5820 Ardilla Dear Mr . Dunn: The City of Atascadero has received and reviewed your application for a Precise Plan and Environmental Determination for approval of a 36 unit single phase condominium development. The proposed site is zoned RMF/16 and the proposed use would be allow- able as defined as multiple family dwellings (Section 9-3 .172 (f) ) . The surrounding properties are zoned RMF/16 to the south, and RSF-Z to the north, east and west. The proposed project is in compliance with the provisions of the Zon- ing Ordinance with the exception of: - Section 9-4. 142 (d) (1) - Grading permit approval A review by the Planning Director of the Environmental Description form and application along with other background information shows that the project will have no detrimental effect upon the environment, therefore, a Negative Declaration has been prepared. The Director has also found the project to be in compliance with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance with the exception of the section stated above. The proposed Precise Plan is approved as shown on attached Exhibit A (location map) , Exhibit B (site plan) and subject to the conditions of approval listed in Exhibit C. Final approval of the precise plan will become effective 5:00 p.m. on July 23, 1985, unless appealed. In the event you intend to appeal any of the conditions, your appeal should be in writing and should state the reasons for the appeal. Any appeal would be scheduled for Planning Commission consideration as a Public hearing. You should, however, discuss any objections to the conditions with the Planning Staff. Ex E,I I.6 I T 0 PI? EC IS E PLA11 If you should have any questions concerning this project, you are wel- come to contact the Planning Department for assistance. Sincerely, Meg Morris Assistant Planner MM:ps cc: Herb LaPrade, et al Richard Shannon Attachments: Exhibit A - Location Map Exhibit B - Site Plan Exhibit C - Conditions of Approval LOC�� RMF/10 FE:'ISIO.: DATE BYSA it �� •r7 ,RMF/i. sr!> 10 wr IF r.wa • e .. • `•bt;�1:,L"; o`''l b°_ .fl' _ `Pat "9,'a•''' � S .''� I ° 4� .`,1'F: ;.a,'n. ,�� '.`+,' !' - .. .• *O r..<.`..¢o y` .w, V:m' 9r 2` t•(X ;,r ).�. .a;y�. •"'_"L./ .i�• .. PD a.>� +1 .� .°. IS t'� � y` ., wi/'•. l h..f,,� '�l 1 ' l a .a'•a``eo S=�r"tt ,Qat6'Ka° `} IS 14h St_o . ti 1 N s?��•N 'a C•' `� � a.:.'7T� e ,``� :`.e6: S Rs.♦ S� ' w+w 13 sf>J �> y t!' J':�,• /:'�! : `Stf^ti us°5%,`� 6 .,•` 4ya\ Sre 4,°" ` Et 1t 'Si*, "CClI�,,;��,(,L-v�..v • yy',•j\ ..mz ,y 'r S It "lo y4 .,u, •l�• '��"� 1 �` fr{:.;i • iT 5 � e •1• '�• , • ••• '/l ?�' 10 •S po�,,�< x•13 Sips13 silo ;i t� IS is k' fs !r i>Ie .1`.• .. •:.!,; • 10 �I It tiD S P.r•' T ♦°., .A 3S� _>ij'i•.a V r , E 41 C '.,:-"L„. S�Af �� •e5” °,: ^,`c°`�:., �� LSF tr„•. ” °Q�i-c s�a , ' %a �o �•' .iL••A.� -�",: w GY ",�,Ih, t•• Ota •'•FS 3 ' ° ^ `$ ?l•. res ` 5a a � f o 'i• 17' s.as•. A I I N e or._ ;a'a 't.•: r:,,r,-�,w �' _ - ' �•,, ,�"aF8 / T�•!� a f a,.L_ `•moi�• a ;' ` •4e. C/' j U�v LSF—y' 1 ' � 6a y e Pa ',r' •a p '(e"y.Sr•�a +o a �'"i;"� - d>Yi�n c•",•-r ��S.Y, 60, •i r.; 1✓.n u � r� - .Wa . - _ . . ,t#,,.�' ,.,I r.• Ic�e cT'.i' •' ._f,• r: 19 r. li ' '•, , .. s?j S ••`IO° •�,•s`,,, 1 `oA � �,>p0 i n d�, _ • ,' '.� .i• n ar � .,� cwm 99'� y 7' ..'•r, •�, t • ,��'t 06 V•� 1•'I •bo ,•,� '• `a.ba`r .ntilJ •a t•' y�. ra LSF- ••'• rl`•-'v" : Y' a•. L °• ' , . •10 -•` It r • o.„c �B`• So •t]':a 66 (i••'� • a•r` •>�•� '' - ° � ►` �'°� t .. as a,•• Y.�J ��• , � „'� :.a>s to I q' "o.> �� �rrl. � 5 at>° +a• -t`:<�w •> 2s3• •, / S L lF n '!`�sy .. 15 :�'> •,pa °rs r,�i .`T '•�. •- t• ,. s>•s � � ,r'/•;i�:/{ silo r.l't `• �: `� / 'R•:''�}70 ,�� •.., ° ,� .'��1^>, , •...• •. ` as , d 1' '•'.e ,t>q `� r.-• , ¢ cod•' �,•. `,'t,J•'•�" r.>; �-.�;",�,• ,, �'�°'sr,>e �;. `t1�. �', Z' r "`� ••� °'� a x`.4 •'4 >•:1��� -1'' '�f•'•+..�,'� \UD .•.>�. - • •o �u,'• a :. -` •.;a,` ,a•°`° T�D LS C_Y a?>'' r,•7 T O,jJ v0°°a r,AJ 'ra / Iv CITY OF ATA SCADE R 0 m''v Planning Department 4: ":����.;'�;;'I:-'�.1al"r-+:rte: 7_ �-: ' '.' . ' �.._]�•••r>�;'..���`'~����.�Y�, ov.� 44 1 O a a th TO I I T 'kit I .0 :•` t;'i , ' ,/� E ..P;� 3 '_ a `�' I a I �� 5 f RM 77 El 0- 44 i„ � ' .�.• t •�tb ���o t I n f iI I 1 I. lu .1 `•o — €ZLi,^y`ARxex S`k� \� '.wW!'•._ i" S: �ql &4'1 3. e�cKya f J • t'.z :�i� n�s�'F I �"L� � G F X �s t omit 11 G. KIN I I I_H i 3 / `c 1 .� I 6 R .$a",oil C L ;, � i „a„ nom} i;11 "e LS EXHIBIT C Conditions of Approval Precise Plan 36-85 5760 to 5820 Ardilla Road (L.W.D. Inc./Laprade/Shannon) 1. All construction shall be in conformance with Exhibit B (site plan) , and Exhibit C (conditions of approval) , and all other ap- plicable codes and ordinances of the City of Atascadero. 2. Complete landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to, and subsequently approved by, the Planning Department prior to issu- ance of building permits (see Section 9-4 .124 of the Zoning Ordi- nance) . 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 as per Section 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 (8) 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 covers. e. A trash enclosure shall be provided with appropriate details as per Section 9-4. 129. Please note that the construction standards require the bottom of the trash enclosure area to be concrete or an equivalent impervious material. f. Parking areas which abut an adjacent residential area shall be screened with solid fencing six (6) feet in height. g. Handicapped parking stalls shall be appropriately striped, marked, and posted as per Section 9-4 .115 (c) . 3. Parking shall be designed according to Sections 9-4. 117 and 9-4. 118 on parking design standards. 4. Trash enclosures shall be located within 100 feet of each building (per Section 9-4.129) . 5. A lot merger shall be completed prior to the issuance of building permits. A lot merger can be accomplished at time of the tract map and its recordation with the County Recorder ' s Office. 6 . Grading shall be redesigned so as to minimize site disturbance (per Section 9-4 . 142 (d) ) . The revised grading plan shall include details on the following : a. Eliminate fill area to the west of the driveway. Retaining walls shall be used to reduce cut and fill along driveway. b. Retaining walls along the back of the site shall be eliminated. 7. Prior to issuance of any permits, a tree protection plan shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Department showing trees to be removed and retained. Plans shall also include methods for protection of trees during grading and construction as well as after the completion of the project. 8. One new fire hydrant is to be installed in the landscape area at the entrance to the farthest parking lot. 9. The one fire hydrant existing at the driveway entrance on Ardilla shall be upgraded to meet City standards. 10. Install curb, gutter, and five foot sidewalk, and paveout along the property frontage. 11. Submit road improvement plans designed by a registered civil en- gineer for review and approval by the Public Works Department. 12. The pavement width of Ardilla Road from curb face to centerline shall be 15 feet. 13. It is the applicant' s sole responsibility to have removed or relo- cated or brought to grade any public utility facilities that may conflict with the approved road improvement plan. 14. Submit a drainage plan prepared by a Civil Engineer for review and approval by the Public Works Department. 15. Submit design, details, `and calculations for a storm water deten- tion basin. Construction of the detention basin and any on-site drainage structures shall be certified by the designing engineer prior to final inspection. 16 . Wastewater disposal shall be by connection to the public sewer . 17. Submit sewer main extension plans prepared by a registered civil engineer. The sewer shall be extended from the end of the main to the westernmost property line. 18 . Provide a downstream capacity sewer analysis prepared by a regis- tered civil engineer indicating the effect that this project will have on the existing sewer lines during peak flow. 19. An in-lieu sewer connection fee of $26 . 35 per fixture unit shall be due in addition to usual connection, tap-in, and installation fees. �U� 20. Obtain a sewer connection permit from the Public Works Department prior to hooking up to public sewer. 21. Obtain an encroachment prior to beginning work in the public right-of-way. Sign an inspection agreement and a curb and gutter agreement guaranteeing that the work will be done and inspections paid for. 22. This precise plan is approved for one year from the date of final approval (July 23, 1985) . w «Minutes - Planning Commission - January 6 , 1986 #10. The property owner shall enter in an agreement with the City, acceptable t e City Attorney, to articipate in the forma ' of an assessment dis- tri or drainage related improvements intended to mitiga i.ng in the drainage area and in areas i to that drainage. If the drainage de v pment fee is ado to ordinance, it will upercede this condition. " The motion carried with Commissioner Sanders di. ing. 3. Tentative Tract Map 35-85: Request submitted by L.W.D. Inc. (Richard Shannon) to create 36 airspace residential condominium units. Subject property is located at 5760/5820 Ardilla Road, also known as Lots 29 and 30 of Block KB. Chairman LaPrade stepped down from the Commission due to a possi- ble conflict of interest. Commissioner Bond then took the gavel. Mr. Davidson presented the staff report and summarized the background and sequence of events involved with this project. Commissioner Sanders stated it was her understanding that through the Subdivision Map Act, the State requires that certain findings be made for project approvals. The precise plan findings required to be made when this project was initially reviewed was one, that it was consistent with the zoning ordinance. She went on to com- ment that the State now requires seven different findings (from that of the precise plan approval) which must be made this eve- ning. She stated this was her understanding of how this works. Mr. Engen replied that this project has encountered much discus- sion at both the Commission and Council levels and it was noted at that time that findings for a tract map are more comprehensive than findings for precise plan approval. Commissioner Sanders then stated that, according to the State law, that six new ques- tions have to be asked that were not asked previously. Mr . Engen replied that some are an overlap but some are new. Commission Nolan referenced condition #6b and asked if the retain- ing walls were being eliminated based on staff ' s review of the grading plan. Mr. Davidson replied that this issue was reviewed as part of the precise plan application and noted that five sets of plans have been submitted by the applicant which are currently being reviewed to see if the plans meet the conditions' intent. Wally Dunn, applicant, appeared but made no statement. Robert Berg, 5764 Venado, stated he had not been notified for this hearing. He also stated that trees over 8 inches in diameter have been removed on the site, and asked about the fencing requirements that were previously considered. 6 Minutes - Planning Commission - January 6 , 1986 Mr. Davidson explained the problem with receiving property owner lists yearly but noted that this has been corrected. He further explained that the conditions approved by the City Council still apply and that this application being heard this evening involves a change of ownership to condominiums. It was noted that the ap- plicant has submitted a tree protection plan which is being re- viewed and a site check has been made in response to a neighbor ' s inquiry about the tree removal, but it was not noted that any trees over 8 inches in diameter have been removed. Richard Shannon, representative for the project, stated that no permission has been given for tree removal on the site. He noted that a lot of brush has been removed from the property and re- sponded to the inquiry by the neighbor which was reviewed by staff. Jayne Sacks, 5170 Ardilla, referenced the Subdivision Map Act with regard to density and the slope and asked if the number of units would not be changed, and asked if, as a part of this tract map and the Subdivision Map Act, would the applicant be required to participate in traffic improvements toward signalization at Ar- dilla and Traffic Way. Mr. Engen explained that this application mirrors the site plan of the precise plan but it creates air space condominiums so that these units can be sold individually. With regard to the traffic light contributions, should there be a fee schedule on the books at the time of building permit, the applicant would have to make some type of contribution. If this is not on the books, no con- tribution would be required. It was pointed out that the only applicable fee in effect now is the $. 50 per square foot tax which goes generally toward any capital improvement needs of the City. He went on to say that the Map Act does not require a different density on the property than is provided for in the zoning ordinance. Commissioner Sanders compared the Bordeaux House condition rela- tive to fencing with the precise plan condition for this project and felt that a sensitive approach was taken with the Bordeaux House requirement for fencing, more so than with this project. Commissioner Hatchell pointed out that it was his understanding that the conditions of approval for the precise plan were not being considered this evening. Mr . Engen responded that the ap- plicants have reviewed with staff the revised architectural eleva- tions as they have evolved after Council approval, and have indi- cated that they would be willing to put up a fence along the back property line for screening and tresspassing purposes. It was also noted that the applicants will not be putting up any air con- ditioning equipment on rooftops of the units. Commissioner Kennedy commented on a traffic light which is needed at the Ardilla/Traffic Way intersection and felt the developer should be partly responsible for contributing toward these costs, and asked for further clarification of what fees would go toward 7 ��� Minutes - Planning 705mmission January 6 , 1986 this. Mr. Engen stated that there is a set of comprehensive set ' of fees which includes traffic fees, drainage fees, etc. , forle which a report will be scheduled for Council consideration in the near future. Commissioner Sanders commented on the findings for this tract map and noted her difficulty in making these findings. Commissioner Michielssen stated that the issues raised this eve- ning have been previously reviewed and discussed as to whether this development was physically suitable for this. site, and noted that the property owners had been quite concerned that the project appeared not to be going toward a condominium project, but instead an apartment project. MOTION: Made by Commissioner Michielssen and seconded by Com- missioner Hatchell to approve Tentative Tract Map 35-85 subject to the findings and conditions contained in the staff report. Commissioner Sanders spoke on the findings that were required to be made for the precise plan approval which involved the finding that the project is consistent with the zoning in comparison with the findings which must be made for the tract map which is man- dated by the Subdivision Map Act. She stated that she did not agree that the density is suitable for the site because of the slope. The motion carried with a roll call vote, as follows: AYES: Commissioners Michielssen, Hatchell, Nolan and Bond NOES: Commissioners Sanders and Kennedy At this point, Commissioner Bond turned the gavel over to Cha ' an L ade. Chairman LaPrade noted that Item A-5 would now - sidere s Item B-4. con 4. Lot Line 'ustment 15-85 : Request submi by Michael Yeomans orth Coast Engineer- ing) to adjust t . lot lines be en three existing lots to create buildable sites eac ot. Subject property is lo- cated at 9220/9240/9260 to Bonita, also known as Parcels 1, 2, and 3 of Parcel AT 8 81. In presenting the s f report, Mr . Davidson inted out that the subject lots h had previous approval, and pr eded to briefly explain the kground involved. It was pointed out hat these are diff ' It lots to develop because of the steep topogr sug ed that the property may be eligible for a variance and ping lot adjustment with respect to required setbacks. 8 M E M O R A N D U M • TO: City Council t January 27, 1986 VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director .!A�, SUBJECT: Request to ask County Board of Supervisors to re-evaluate the grading operation adjacent to the City Limits behind River Gardens (Sycamore Road pit) . RECOMMENDATION• Direct staff to prepare a request to the County Board of Supervisors to re-examine the grading operation by Mr. William Collins, adjacent to the Atascadero Mutual Water Company holdings, to determine its legality. BACKGROUND: The City has received the enclosed letter from Mrs. Donna Porter who lives in the River Gardens area and Dr. David C. Hixon who lives on • River Road in the unincorporated portion of the County. They contend (refer to attached communication) that Pioneer Sand and Gravel Company has greatly expanded the sand removal activity in violation of the understandings under which sand removal has been permitted. In discussing the matter with the aggrieved parties, it appears that there is a compatible relationship between the neighborhood and Atas- cadero Mutual Water Company' s sand removal practices which include limitations of hours from 7 : 30 a.m. to 5: 00 p.m. , no work on Saturday or Sunday keeping the scale of the operation as it had been and scale of equipment used (refer to County abatement order - February 17, 1978) . However , they contend that Mr. Collins has converted to noisy automatic sifters, does not comply with the County order, and has greatly expanded the excavation area. The latter is all in the unincorporated area of the County and the request before the City Council is to formally request that the County Board of Supervisors re-examine this operation to see if it is, in fact, complying with County standards. HE:ps ENCLOSURE: January 20 , 1986 communication: Porter and Hixon October 18, 1983 communication: Attorneys to Rocky Canyon Sand and Gravel February 17, 1978 County Board of Supervisors order cc: Donna Porter David C. Hixson 'I� Wendt,'litehell,Ronea &Woolpert ROBERT D.WENOT A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION DALE C.MITCHELL ATTORNEYS AT LAW JOHN A.RONCA.JR. 1201 PALM STREET MARK WOOLPERT BARBARA I.MCCALLUM SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA 93401 GREGORY D.ABEL I8051 543-3287 October 18 , 1983 Mr. David P. Grimsley President Rocky Canyon Sand & Gravel, Inc. 4990 Traffic Way Atascadero, CA 93422 Re: Quarry operations commonly known as Sycamore Road Pit Dear Mr. Grimsley: This office has been retained by Dr . & Mrs. David C. Hixon and Mr. & Mrs. E. F. Porter for purposes of seeking relief from the outrageous noise, vibration, and dust problems caused by the use of excavation equipment at the above described mining operations. We have analyzed the history of the mining operations , includ- ing a careful study of the Planning Department' s files for the County of San Luis Obispo and the City of Atascadero, a review of the pertinent zoning ordinances of the County of San Luis Obispo and the City of Atascadero, as well as numerous dis- cussions with enforcement officers at the Planing Department for the County of San Luis Obispo and a general review of Calif- ornia law in the area of public and private nuisances. As a result of our research and investigations , we have come to the inescapable conclusion that at no time did any entity oper- ating in the so called "Sycamore Road Pit" have a validly is- sued Use Permit for any mining operation. During the course of the nuisance abatement hearing held on July 19, 1976, mention was made that the Atascadero Mutual Water Company had been removing sand from the Salinas riverbed as far back as 1942. This brief statement was unsupported by facts. Furthermore, the County ordinance in effect in 1942 , Ordinance No. 101, specifically states in Section 25 thereof, that a Use Permit may be issued for removal of minerals and natural materials, including building and construction materials in any district. At the time that ordinance 101 came into full force and effect, all the unincorporated territory of the County not included in any other district was catagorized as an A-1 district. That would include what is now known as the "Sycamore Road Pit". That same ordinance further provides 1 � that no commercial excavation of building or construction mate- rials shall be made in any A-1 district within a distance of 1000 feet from any public street , unless and until a Use Per- mit, as provided in Section 25 of said ordinance, is first secured for such use. As I am sure you are already aware, the Planning Department file for the County of San Luis Obispo contains a memorandum to the Board of Supervisors from the Planning Department dated February 17 , 1978 , wherein the Planning Department informed the Board that the history of removal of material from the riverbed suggested that sand had been removed from the river prior to the establishment of the County Code in 1942. The report goes on to state that it is therefore possible that an operation of sand removal by skip-loader was a current non-conforming use. Such statements regarding past sand removal operations from the riverbed are pure speculation without any basis whatsoever in fact, and cannot be relied upon to support the proposition that a non-conforming use existed. Indeed, this very proposition is not supported by the evidence of the past mine owners and opera- tors. A-Jay Trucking, Inc. , in its reclamation plan appli- cation dated May 2 , 1980 , stated that the date the mine was opened was 1958. Mr. Collins' reclamation plan application, received by the Planning Department of the County of San Luis Obispo on February 16 , 1982, also states that 1958 was the year the mine was opened. In a letter from A-Jay Excavating to the Planning Department of the County of San Luis Obispo, dated February 19 , 1980 , a Mr. Robert Lee Dellaire states, in perti- nent part: "May this letter verify that in 1958 the Atascadero Mutual Water Company - Sycamore Road Pit was started by A-Jay Excavating and operated on a permanent basis for processing sand" . In a letter dated January 22 , 1981 , from A-Jay Excavating to the Planning Department of San Luis Obispo County, Mr. Robert W. Paver states, in pertinent part: " . . .may this letter verify that in 1958 the Atasca- dero Mutual Water Company - Sycamore Road Pit was started by A-Jay Excavating and operated on a perma- nent basis for processing sand" . Your attention is also directed to the Certification of Vested Mining Right application form filed by A-Jay Trucking, Inc. When asked to state the history of mine activity and ownership on page 3 of said application form, A-Jay Trucking, Inc. stated that the mine was first opened in 1958 and repeated this admis- sion again on that same page in its review of the production 2 '1� Once again, on the attachment to the Pit mine. the mining history history of the p date above described certification documen . set forth and in particular describes the initial activity as the year 1958. prior to use could be estabished hen the Of course , if a non-conforming Ordinance Num use can/ be trans- clear County Ordinance, provided the is be continued, law is quite clear th to this nand may ming ed or arty use be enlarg in- ferred from one party non-conforming use be extended to however , that a such non-conforming ied by such use at creased, nor shall any that Occup ordinance, occupy a greater area of land than use is of the adoption of the relative n a such controlling timeproviding be in P that if and further , subsequent use of such land shall ordinance subseq the controlling abandoned any elation specified by is located. ity to the reg land for the district in which such n0 factual basis to find your records, if While it is our position that there is it is quite prior to the 1942 ordinaOntherwise , an actual use pri clarify this point. operations in the any, could help the illegal , and violative of apparent from the eVreeand aret all mining Sycamore Pit area and City ordinances. and applicable County prior to 1942 , i a use could be established P there would still Even assuming time, planning u any The County that such use was not abandoned such use. Hogue, has scope of with Mr . Warren be a problem with the plan which con- Department, by way of communication with P ite the fact single desp informed me that there is amining operations plan separatelyr trols the entire field of. ed to file the same P one year that Mr . Collins was Leq Of all operations in production believe that and that the total P ards. We are informed and While 000 Y exceed such limitations. ate the cannot exceed 100 , ness to investigate current operations already a willing County Planning has indicated so, my clients are concerThe requested to f°om their long nightmare. matter if formally most of 1983 , with obtaining immediate relief especially operations are now, and have been for has been most upsetting , l9 , 1976 ► fact that op July going almost 24 hours a day supervisors order of 00 m. Monday in light of the Board tionss from 7 : 30 a.m. to 5: P• limiting hours of A clients' pleas for on weree not Friday. After my and action porter through for & Mrs' repeated requests & Mrs. Hixson and Mral options they satisfactorily an Dr • what leg contacted this office for advice as to might have. through the Planning u -sue this matter Obispo and the City Those options are to P County of San Luis Departments of both the 3 � s of Atascadero, or to present our findings to the District Attor- ney of this County and request that an appropriate cease and desist order be issued, or to file suit to abate a public and private nuisance. We have already had numerous discussions with the County of San Luis Obispo Planning Department. We have received assurances from that department that tests to determine the volume of noise generated from the operation would be performed. As mentioned earlier, Mr. Warren Hough, County Planning Depart- ment , informed me that if he received a formal request regard- ing the amount of material excavated on site, he would seek the records of all entities excavating materials, and if such rec- ords show that , over 100,000 yards have already been mined in 1983 , he will seek to shut down all operations for the remain- der of the year. This , however , is not satisfactory to my clients for several reasons. The Planning Department apparently does not have the manpower to conduct an active and prompt investigation. By the time an investigation is completed, it could be 1984, and any action taken would afford temporary relief only. A complete review which would separate fact from assumption is apparently not contemplated by that department at this time. My clients are then left with two options. The first option is to present our findings to the District Attorney for the County of San Luis Obispo and request that he immediately close down the illegal mining operation. The second option is to file suit and seek an immediate restraining order to prevent further illegal mining operations. While we cannot anticipate the actions of the District Attor- ney' s office, please be advised that our clients have already authorized us to present their complaint to the District Attor- ney' s office. As to the second option, our clients have been informed and advised as to the cost of litigation, including the possibility of being ordered to post bond as a condition for obtaining an injunction. However , after suffering through years of vir- tually an uninterrupted breach of their peace and enjoyment, after seeing their once peaceful neighborhood turned into an industrial zone for all practical purposes, and after years of concern over the well-being of their families and young child- ren, our clients have arrived at the conclusion that it is money well spent to try to restore the neighborhood to the condition it was in prior to the intensive mining operation which commenced sometime in 1974 . 4 For those that work for one of the entities involved in the removal of material from the riverbed, the Sycamore Pit pro- vides them with a living that enables them to enjoy a better quality of life. For those unfortunate residents who live near the Sycamore Pit, the mining operation represents a destructive force in the quality of their lives. Plans and dreams for a better quality of life made prior to today's intensity of min- ing operations have been frustrated without any real, just, or fair compensation. In your letter of May 25, 1983, to the Atascadero Mutual Water Company, you stated that Rocky Canyon Sand and Gravel , Inc. most sincerely wished and intended to be a good neighbor and realized its obligation to this relation- ship. If you do recognize that you have an obligation to be a good neighbor, and if you do recognize that some of your neigh- bors are more than merely concerned, but rather are totally frustrated by what they view as complete indifference to their rights, then you must have some idea of the frustration my clients have suffered over these past several years, day in and day out. Besides the pain, suffering, and anguish your activi- ties have caused my clients, they have also suffered a real and certain loss in the value of their real property. Therefore, be advised that my clients have authorized this office to file a lawsuit, if necessary, on their behalf seeking a total abate- ment of the nuisance created by the illegal mining, as well as damages in the sum of $2 , 500 ,000. Be assured that my clients are well aware of the value of your business not only to the owners and operators of the mining operations, but also to the County generally because of the great source of natural building materials located within the County. We also recognize that the current situation may be regarded as a political football and that the Planning Depart- ment of both the County and the City of Atascadero may be hesi- tant to act. We are also aware that a successful suit to abate the nuisance may be only temporary in effect; if the mining operations are profitable to the owners and operators and to the County, we cannot overlook the very real possibility that even in the event we prevail in Court, the owners and operators will merely go back to square one and obtain the proper permit to continue their operation at some future date, albeit at some considerable expense to themselves. I am informed that in the event your company is required to obtain proper permits, you will be required to appear before both City and County Plan- ning. As you are probably aware , this process could easily take more than a year , especially in light of the fact that there is a split of authority between the City and County in the general mining area. In order to spare all parties the burdensome costsand expenses necessarily involved in litigation, it is our proposition that 5 all those potential parties claiming some ownership interest in any of the mining operations, including your company, meet with my clients at the earliest possible time in order to discuss alternatives to suit. One suggested alternative would be to set up an apparatus whereby all parties could agree to a stated value of my clients property, have the property put up for sale and have the mine owners and operators pay any difference be- tween the agreed upon market value less the actual value re- ceived from the sale of the property. The market value formula would have to include some compensation for the pain and suffering of my clients. Another alternative would be for the mine owner and operators to pay P-•- clients the fair market value of their property outris};: ` In any event, we would like to be informed as soon as possible, and in no event, 1-ter than one week from the date of receipt of this letter as to whether or not the mine owners and opera- tors would be agreeable to such a meeting. Unfortunately, my clients have experienced years of seeming indifference and inactivity from the appropriately charged officials. Their election to proceed to suit if other arrangements cannot be agreed upon was not an easy choice for them. They recognize the emotional and financial commitment such suit would entail. I am therefore sure that you can appreciate their request that you contact this office as soon as possible, and in no event, no later than seven ( 7) days from receipt of this letter and indicate whether or not you are agreeable to a private conference as outlined above. Please direct any and all inquiries ; questions , or staut. -+nasty to this office and not to our clients. I look forward to ing from you within one week. Yours truly, WENDT, MITCHELL, RONCA & WOOLPERT A Professional Corporation R GDA:bjb cc: Dr. & Mrs. David C. Hixon Mr. & Mrs. E.F. Porter Atascadero Mutual Water Co. Mr. William Collins A-Jay Trucking, Inc. Rocky Canyon Sand & Gravel County Planning Attn: Larry Kelly City Planning, Atascadero Attn : Larry Stevens 6 NED A: ROCOWAY, Director �a�- ;� Y'r lcicphone 543.1550, EXT. 365 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Courthouse Annex .SAN Luis OwsP0, CALIFORNIA - 93401 TO: Honorable Board of DATE: February 17, 19 '8 Supervisors FROM: Planning Department, Enforcement Section - SUBJECT: REPLY TO ITEM "D" , BOARD OF SUPERVISORS' AGENDA FOR TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 1978. On February 14, 1978 Mr. Ernie Porter appeared before your Board regarding the sand quarry operation in the Salin:;s River, east of the River Gardens area of Atascadero. The result of this matter was that you directed this department and Engineering to report back_ on the re-examination of the "permit on - the River Gardens quarry" . SUMMARY: On July 19, 1976 a Nuisance Abatement hearing was held, at which time you were presented sufficient proof by the Planning Department to satisfy you that a nuisance did exist on prop- erty located on Lots 11, 11B, 11C and 11D in Pine Mountain Park, as per Amendment "H" to map of Atascadero filed April 7, 1921 ; Lot 12 in Pine Mountain Park Amendment "L" to map of Atascadero filed August 23, 1926; and Lot 13 in Pine Mountain Park as per map of Atascadero filed October 21 , 1914 (Assessor' s Parcel Nos. 28-011-1 and 28-0111-2) . Your order dated July 26, 1976 to the Atascadero Mutual Water Company stated the following: "IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. The nuisance existing on the above described property, to wit : Illegal quarry and grading operation be abated. 2. The action taken to abate said nuisance be accomplished by the Atascadero Mutual Water Company. 3. The screen be moved to the Salinas River Bed. 4 . The hours of operation be limited to 7 : 30 a.m, to 5 : 00 p.m. Monday through Friday only. 5. The sand removal operation be confined to the Salinas River bed. 6• The abatement of said nuisance be completed within 30 days from receipt of this notice. a REPLY TO IT M "cj", BS AGENDA 2/14/78- Page two February 21 , 1978 7. The Atascadero Creek be restored to the satisfaction of the County Planning Department and State of California t Department of Fish and Game within 90 days. " Conditions of the above Board Order were complied with. No further complaints from neighboring residences were registered ' with this Department until the early part of this month, which resulted in Mr. Porter 's appearance at your February 14, 1978 meeting. Periodic inspections of the site since the Board Order was issued in 1976 have been made to verify compliance of said Order. BACKGROUND: Investigation into the history of the removal of material from the river bed suggested that sand has been removed from the Salinas River prior to the establishment of the County Code in 1942. However, it must be realized that this removal was limited to the area shown on the attached map on location"A", and that it was limited to that of stripping the river sand from the main channel. Conflicting stories had been presented as to the actual amount removed in any specific time, with the Water Company suggesting that an excess of 3-5 truck loads per week were removed; however, no records are available to support this.10 It is therefore possible that an operation of sand removal by skip-loader was a current legal non-conforming use. In 1970, an Excavating and Grading permit was issued to A-Jay Excavating for sand removal from the river in the amount of 30, 000 yards. It is assumed that this permit was taken out because the material removal rate was going to be increased over the past rate, due to flood damage repair and sewer construction in the Atascadero area. At the time this permit was issued, the Building Code stated that unless a time limit was indicated on the permit, it was automatically limited for 180 days; this permit did not have a completion. date indi- cated. Between the implied completion date of the permit and the early part of 1976, the operation continued at a minor level ; at least it is assumed so, as the Department received no complaints from neighbors until that time when the opera- tion started to intensify in March or April of 1976. At that time we made inspections of the site, contacted the various governmental agencies who were involved. A consensus of opinions were that the complaints being generated were due to the fact that the operations had been moved to a new loca- tion (see "B" on attached map) and at a level exceeding the intensity of the earlier operation . It was also noted that now the operation involved heavy equipment , where before it was only a light operation . Justification by the Water Company for this new location was to help the flow of the Atascadero Creek where it dumps into the Salinas by removing the material and debris which had collected over the years . A permit for ,�v I REPLY TO ITEM "D" , BS AGENDA 2/14/78 Page three February 17, 1978 this operation was issued by the California Department of Fish and Game. One problem stemming from this operation was the fact that a heavy screen and loader was being used in conjunction with the heavy equipment , resulting in a noisy and dusty operation. The reason for this type equipment, as opposed ' to what -had'�been used in the past, was because .now a pit orquarry type opera- tion was being used, as opposed to strip sand removal. Rock, which apparently is found at lower levels of the river strata were also being removed. Another problem was that some days the operations continued from around 7 a.m. until 11 p.m. Pursuant to Chapter 22 . 97 of the County Code, a hearing on the abatement of the above described nuisance was held on July 19, 1976, at which time your Board considered all the pertinent facts . A motion was made to eliminate the operation completely, but died due to lack of a second. An order was then approved as outlined in the Summary section of this report . Compliance of said Order was met with .the operation moving to the required location. CONCLUSION: 1. The County, in 1976, reviewed the complaints, history, and then current situation, as it existed in the area where the Atascadero Creek and Salinas River meet, adjacent to the River Gardens area in Atascadero. 2. Your Board concluded that the operation in the Atascadero Creek was, in fact , a public nuisance and should be abated and that the operation be moved to the Salinas River, where it would be a continuance of a legal non-conforming use. 3. All conditions of the Order by Your Board have been complied with. RECOMMENDATION: No further action is required to administer the above mentioned Board Order . BOARD OF SUPER VISORS COURTHOUSE ANNEX SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA 93401 805-543-1550, EXT. 321 ' Members of the Board HANS HEILMANN M. E. WILLEFORD KURT P. KUPPER ORDER - Jul 26 1976 HOWARD MANKINS July DR. RICHARD J. KREJSA TO: Atascadero Mutual Water Co . The notice to show cause why a nuisance existing on property located on lots 11 , 11B, 11C and 11D in Pine Mountain Park, as per Amendment "H" to map of Atascadero filed April 7, 1921 ; lot 12 in Pine Mountain Park Amend- ment "L" to map of Atascadero filed August 23 , 1926 ; and lot 13 in Pine Mountain Park as per map of Atascadero filed October 215, 1914 (Assessor ' s Parcel No . 28-011-1 and 28-111-2) should not be abated, having come on regularly for hearing before the Board of Supervisors on July 19 , 1976 , and proof being made to the satisfaction of the Board that a nuisance exists on said property as a result of illegal quarry operation and the conducting of grading without a current permit from the County, and that the Atascadero Mutual Water Company is responsible for the nuisance on said property, ar.d good cause appearing therefore ,- IT herefore ,IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: The nuisance existing on the above described property to wit : illegal quarry and grading operation , be abated 2 . The action taken to abate said nuisance be accomplished by the Atascadero Mutual Water Co . 3. The screen be moved to the Salinas River Bed. 4 . The hours of operation be limited to 7 : 30 a .m. - to S : 00 p .m. Monday through Friday only. S . The sand removal operation be confined to the Salinas River Bed. 6 . The abatement of said nuisance be completed within 30 days from receipt of this notice . 7 . The Atascadero Creek be restored to the satisfaction of the County Planning Department and State of California Department of Fish .and Game within 90 days . HANS HEILMA,\'N, Chairman- Board of Supervisors San Luis Obispo County 1� yo CX- i •�l.. J r Q I , to Ji1 • _ J I �1�� � N�, U HEARING PROCEDURE BEFORE THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS (Section 22 . 97 .CS0 Lt . Seq. County Ordinance Code) 1. Chairman of the Board regularly calls the agenda item. 2 . County Planning Director or Enforcement Officer states that the item is a hearing at which `�1u. (�-�.. �o _�w �Mt+•"�� � °"'"� c&-s-s to show cause why �a nuisance should-not be abated: A. hearing being 'conductedcpersuant to a notice which was served on _ ._B. Director or Enforcement Officer then reads notice., C. All persons who will be testifying should be sworn in by the Clerk. D. Evidence is .presented by the Enforcement Officer consisting testimcny and other evidence concerning the conditions con- - stituting the nuisance, the estimated cost -of abatement and ssuch other matters as the Board may deem pertinent . 3 . Chairman of­the Board then asks Respondent to state his case . 4. Respondent states his case . A. Respondent may produce witnesses who will give testimony. Respondent may ask direct questions for testimonial response or -have any witness make a statement of the facts known to _... _ -him. B. Respondent may offer into evidence any document which he feels supports his petition. C. Respondent may introduce into evidence sworn statements whic are notarized and represent the testimony of witnesses that to petitioner is unable to have physically present at the hearing. D. Any Board member may ask questions of any witness during the hearing. 6 . The Chairman of the Board may limit the evidence to be introduced to the specific issues of the hearing. A. Whether a nuisance exists on the property. B Whether the Petitioner is responsible for the existence of the nuisance . C. Whether the nuisance should be abated by the County. D. Under what terms the nuisance may be voluntarily abated. The Chairman should limit testimony or documentary evidence to that which relates specifically to the above issues. He may interrupt testimony to so limit it (for example when a witness begins to ramble or talk about things not relating to these - issues) and direct the witness to direct his comments more specifically to the issues , or conclude his testimony. Before any documentary evidence is introduced , the Respondent should disclose to the Board the nature of the evidence and what it is -intended to prove . The ehairman of the Board should then accept the evidence , or reject it as not relating to the issues . 7 . When the Respondent concludes his presentation, the Planning Dir- ector or any other individual who has personal knowledge of the facts should be permitted to testify. A. Testimony and evidence presented during this portion of the hearing should be in the nature of rebuttal evidence . If a witness wishes merely to confirm or corroborate that which went before , the Chairman may exclude this evidence because it is merely cumulative and adds nothing to the evidence al- ready before the Board. B. The Chairman should apply the same guide set forth in Item 6 to limit the evidence produced at this point to the issues of the hearing. 9. When all the evidence has been submitted, the Chairman may, ' upon his own motion, duly seconded, or a motion from a Board member duly seconded, convey the decision of the Board. The decision of the Board may be: A. To terminate the abatement proceedings . B. To order the owner or other affected person to abate the nui- sance , prescribing the requirements of such abatement and pre0 - ' scribing a reasonable time , not less than thirty UO) days fo the completion of such abatement. At the discretion of the Board the order may also provide that: (1) In the event such abatement is not commenced and completed in accordance with the terms set by the Board, the Plan- ning Department shall be empowered and authorized to abate the nuisance. 9 . If the Board' s decision is to order abatement , the Planning Depart- ment should be authorized to prepare the order for signature of the Chairman and that it be served on the owner or other responsible . person in accordance with Section 22 . 97 . 030 of the County Ordinance Code. MEMORANDUM TO: City Council �� II THROUGH: Mike Shelton, City Manager FROM: Paul Sensibaugh, Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: Detention Basin in Street Right-of-Way DATE: January 24, 1986 Recommendation: Staff recommends that Council authorize the Public Works Director to enter into a maintenance agreement with Madrid Plaza to allow a detention basin in the street right-of-way as on extension of the West Front Street drainage plan. Background: • Madrid Plaza has submitted a drainage plan which includes a detention basin which has been approved by the Engineering Division. Detention basins are only used when and where they are the best solution to correct downstream drainage problems which may arise from development. Discussion: Due to the proximity of this development to Highway 101, Caltrans requires a detention basin to mitigate impact on their downstream culverts. The best design in this case that would assure proper maintenance and safety was to extend a portion of the basin into the street right-of-way which is already used for drainage. Fiscal Impact: Since the improvement is completed entirely by the developer and since a maintenance agreement is being signed and because this agreement takes away any liability from the city, there is no financial obligation to the city. PMS/vjh • lti� NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED by and between the Parties hereto as follows: 1. Design and Construction of Improvements DEVELOPER at his sole cost and expense, shall design, construct, and install drainage channel and drainage basins in that portion of the CITY right-of-way on West Front Street contiguous to Highway 101 Santa Rosa Road and Portola Road to be designed, approved, and filed in the office of the Director of Public Works, of the CITY in which improvements shall be constructed in accordance with all applicable CITY standards and regulations, as finally approved by the Director of Public Works of the CITY, and which are referred to and in- corporated herein as though set forth in full. 2. Inspection and Acceptance of Drainage Improvements The Director of Public Works or his duly authorized representative upon written request of DEVELOPER, shall inspect the improvements herein agreed to be constructed and installed by DEVELOPER, and, if determined to be in accordance with any applicable CITY standards and improvement plans, shall approve the same. Any all actual costs of inspection of said improvements shall be paid by DEVELOPER. 3. Maintenance of Improvements DEVELOPER shall maintain all drainage improvements provided for in this agreement, at DEVELOPER'S sole cost and expense. Maintenance of improvements shall include replacement of any drainage system, periodic mainteannce including the removal of weeds dirt, or debris that would effect the operation of the drainage system. 4. Guarantee of Improvements DEVELOPER shall guarantee such drainage improvements for a perioe of THREE (3) years, following completion by DEVELOPER, and approval by CITY, against any defective work or labor done, or defective materials furnished in the performance of this Agreement by DEVELOPER. In the event any such improvements are determined to be defective within a period provided herein, DEVELOPER shall without delay and without cost to the CITY, repair or reconstruct any such defective work or materials. Should DEVELOPER fail to act promptly or in accordance with this requirement, or should the CITY, in its absolute discretion determine that repairs or replacements are necessary, before DEVELOPER can be notified, then the CITY may at its option make such necessary repairs or replacements or perform such necessary work and DEVELOPER shall pay to CITY the actual cost of suc} I repairs as determined by CITY. 5. Title to Improvements Title to, and ownership of, all improvements constructed hereunder by DEVELOPER shall vest absolutely in CITY, upon completion and acceptance of such improvements by CITY. 2 l�' 0 0 6. Successors in Interest All provisions of this Agreement shall be binding on the pa*es hereto, their executors, administrators, assigns, and successors in interest. 7. No Assignment Without Consent DEVELOPER shall not have the right to assign or transfer this Agreement or any part hereof, without the prior consent of CITY. 8. Indemnification The DEVELOPER, and its assigns or successors in interest, shall defend, indemnify and save harmless the CITY OF ATASCADERO, its officers, agents and employees from any and all claims, demands, damages, costs, expenses or liability occasioned by the performance or attempted performance of the provisions hereof, or in any way arising out of this Agreement, including, but not limited to, in- verse condemnation, equitable relief, or any wrongful act or any negligent act or admission on the part of the DEVELOPER or of agents, employees, independent contractors, or invitees upon DEVELOPER'S land, providing further that the foregoing shall apply to any wrongful acts, committed, jointly or concurrently by the DEVELOPER, the DEVELOPER' S agents, employees or independent contractors and the CITY, its agents, employees, or independent con- tractors. Nothing contained in the foregoing indemnity provisi shall be construed to require the applicant to indemnify the CI against any responsibility or liability in contravention of Section 2782 (a) or (b) of the Civil Code. 9. Notices Unless otherwise provided, all notices herein required shall be in writing and delivered in person or sent by registered mail, postage prepaid. Notices required to be given to CITY shall be addressed as follows: City Clerk, City of Atascadero, P.O. Box 747, Atascadero, CA 93423. Notices required to be given to the DEVELOPER shall be addressed as follows: Provided that any party may change such address by notice in writing to the other party and thereafter notices shall be addressed and transmitted to the new address. If either party fails after a change of address to so notify the other, any notice sent pursuant to this paragraph shall be deemed proper . 3 ��')/ IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first above written. ATTEST: CITY OF ATASCADERO: ROBERT M. JONES, City Clerk ROLFE NELSON, Mayor APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: PAUL M. SENSIBAUGH Director of Public Works/ City Engineer APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL EFFECT: ROBERT M. JONES, City Attorney DEVELOPER: 4 ��3 MEMORANDUM TO: City Council THROUGH: Mike Shelton, City Manager FROM: Paul Sensibaugh, Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: Authorization to Bid DATE: January 23, 1986 Recommendation: It is recommended that Council authorize staff to prepare specifications and advertise for bids for the various Public Works projects. Background: The projects proposed to be let out to bid include herbicide spraying along city roads, storm drains at various locations and concrete work in the city parking lot. • Discussion: All of the items proposed have been previously approved during the budget process. Fiscal Impact: Funds are budgeted in the F.Y. 1985-86 budget for all projects requested. • MEMORANDUM TO: City Council THROUGH: Mike Shelton, City Manager FROM: Paul Sensibaugh, Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: Development Impact Fees DATE: January 17, 1986 Recommendation: The Development Fee Task Force recommends that Council: 1) Adopt an ordinance establishing the Development Impact Fees as shown in the attached schedule, 2) That the fees go into effect on July 1, 1986 , (Any applications accepted prior to July 1 will not pay fees) 3) That the fees be paid upon issuance of building permit, • 4) That development without buildings be subject to similar fees and that other equivalent parameters besides sq. ft. be used to determine the fees. 5) That offsite improvement, except for pave-out and curb, gutter and sidewalk not be required unless triggered as determined by the Director of Community Development, by the following criteria, 6) That certain criteria will trigger offsite improvements, namely; a) The development requires an Environmental Impact Review b) The development requires certain reports or studies, e.g. traffic or drainage, c) The development does not have buildings, e.g. recreational etc. 7) That a credit against normal fees be given to developments that provide offsite improvements triggered as discussed, and, • 1i That the fee schedule be by resolution, and that the fees 0 be adjusted annually according to the Engineering News Record Cost Index published by McGraw Hill. r Background: Council established, at the September 23 regular meeting, an ad hoc Development Fee Task Force to study the reasonable distribution of development fees that would be designated for specific capital improvement categories, recommend the amount of such fees and report back to Council with it' s recommendations. The Committee members are within the following disciplines: developer, builder , real estate, business and government. They are: Wally Dunn, Tom McNamara, Norm Norton, Jud Porter , Paul Sensibaugh and Jack Stinchfield. Mike Shelton, City Manager, attended and participated in all meetings. The task force committee met seven times over a three-month period and spent several hours on their own digesting material and concepts. Basis of Fees: The recommended fees are intended to be used to solve specific problems initiated or aggrevated by the impact of growth. The fee is intended to be fair and reasonable and legally sound. The fees are intended to be the reasonable cost of providing the services for which the respective fee is charged and the basis for determining the amounts of the fees bears a reasonable relationship to the mitigation derived from the fee for the respective impacts. The Purpose and Scope of the Development Fee Task Force as well as a detailed scenario for the basis of all fees is contained in the booklet used by the committee and made a part of this report. Fiscal Impact: The suggested development impact fees should derive approximately $517,000 per year and is based on an average of $0.79 per sq. ft. The $0.50 tax is estimated to provide about $327 ,500/year. Thus, if adopted, the City could realize approximately $845,000 per year for capital improvements. It is noted that the need without the Amapoa- Tecorida and Lewis Avenue Bridge projects is about $855,000 per year for capital improvements. 3 • M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council January 27, 1986 VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Directorl- SUBJECT: Continued appeal by Nancy Jacobson of curb, gutter, and sidewalk requirement and paved parking requirement for Con- ditional Use Permit 22-85 (Kaleidoscope Kids pre-school) : 6300 Marchant Avenue. RECOMMENDATION: Denial of the appeal with the applicant encouraged to enter into a one year deferred improvement agreement with the City Engineer ' s office. BACKGROUND: On January 13, 1986 , the City Council considered the appeal of Ms. Jacobson (see attached staff report) and continued the matter to Janu- ary 27th to allow the applicant time to confer with staff regarding the deferring of improvements for curb, gutter, and sidewalk. Staff has discussed the matter with Ms. Jacobson and noted that in addition to being able to defer those improvement for one year from the date of Council action, it would also be possible for the appli- cant to defer initiating the project to any time within the year and then getting a time extension from the Community Development Depart- ment on the permit which, in turn, would allow continuing the defer- ring of street requirements for a year beyond that. The applicant is considering this possibility also. With respect to area projects which do not have curb, gutter and side- walk installed, we were able to determine that the apartment project across Marchant was constructed prior to incorporation. As noted in the last meeting, the adjoining condominium project at Marchant and Alcantara has provided curb, gutter and sidewalk. Although the applicant is using an existing building , the use permit for a 30 children pre-school triggers the requirement for curb, gutter and sidewalk. ATTACHMENTS: January 13, 1986 staff report •cc: Nancy Jacobson Paul Sensibaugh �3$ 0 0 December 2 , 1985 CITY OF ATASCADERO Re : File No. CUP 22-85 I am appealing the following conditions on the conditional use permit for KALEIDOSCOPE KIDS PRESCHOOL at 6300 Marchant Ave. , Atascadero, for these reasons : Condition #2b. Required parking spaces and driveways shall be paved. Condition #12. Install curb, gutter and five foot sidewalk and paveout along the property frontage. We are presently renting the property at 6300 Marchant. The conditions required above would be a permanent fixture to this property and a major expense for us as renters. There are many expenses we are required to do for the children 's use , safety-wise and educationally. Currently , we are adding a permanent fixture in the backyard : a play structure for the physical growth of the children. Our budget is limited and we must set priorities. We do not oppose these improvements recommended but find them low priorities at this time. We will be addino a circular driveway made of r0 Qd base to improve the added traffic situation caused by the preschool. We feel this will adequately suit the traffic needs at the present time and as the business grows we can make further improvements. Sincerely, �1" jkZ06� Nancy Jacobson 8155 Castenada Atascadero, CA 93422 (805) 466-3066 �1 • City of Atascadero Item: B-2 STAFF REPORT FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: 11/18/85 BY: Meg Morris, Assistant Planner File No: CUP 22-85 Project Address: 6300 Marchant SUBJECT• To allow for the conversion of an existing residential structure into a children' s day care center and preschool for approximately 30 children. BACKGROUND: Notice of public hearing was published in the Atascadero News on Fri- day, November 8, 1985 and all owners of record property located with- in 300 feet were notified by mail that same date. A. LOCATION: 6300 Marchant (Lot 6, Block VA) B. SITUATION AND FACTS: 0 1. Request. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .To allow the conversion of a residential structure into a children' s day care center and preschool for approximately 30 children. 2. Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Kaleidoscope Kids 3. Representative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Nancy Jacobson 4. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Approximately .36 acres 5. Streets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Marchant is a City-maintained street with a 30 foot right-of way. 6. Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .RMF/16 (FH) (Residential Multiple Family with an allowable density of 16 units per acre and flood hazard overlay) 7. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Two residential structures 8. Adjacent Zoning and Use. . . . . .North: RMF/16 (FH) , residential South: RMF/16 (FH) , residential East: RMF/16 (FH) , residential West: RMF/16 (FH) , residential 0 0 Conditional Use Permit 22-85 (Kaleidoscope Kids/Jacobson) 9. General Plan Designation. . . . .High density multiple family 10. Terrain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Generally level 11. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Negative Declaration C. ANALYSIS: The City zoning ordinance states that a preschool may be estab- lished in a residential multiple family zone as a conditional use. This conditional use permit will evaluate applicable development standards for the establishment of this use. State Licensing Requirements: Title 22, Division 2 of the California Administration Code estab- lishes State regulations and laws pertaining to the licensing of children' s preschool facilities. These regulations are based on the number of children attending the school as well as size of the facility and staff. The applicant is requesting approval for a maximum of 30 students at this facility. Staffing requirements are one teacher for every 12 children enrolled. Space requirements are 35 square feet per child indoors and 75 square feet per child outdoors. One toilet and washroom facility is required for every 15 students. Also re- qired are one toilet and sink for staff and emergency use. One of these must be accessible to the handicapped. Each of these re- quirements are regulated by the State and, therefore, must be com- plied with prior to obtaining the State license necessary for starting the operation of the facility. It will be necessary for the applicant to undergo interior building and plumbing modifica- tions in order to comply with applicable licensing requirements. Zoning Ordinance Standards: The following standards apply from the City zoning ordinance, in addition to the State licensing requirements: 1. Minimum site area is 6,000 square feet where a facility is to accommodate seven or more children. 2. All outdoor play areas are to be enclosed with a solid fence a minimum of four feet high and a minimum of six feet in height on any property line abutting a residential use on an adjoining lot. 3. For facilities with seven to twelve children, an off-street drop-off area is to be provided with the capability to ac- commodate at least two cars, in addition to the parking nor- mally required for the residence. Parking and loading re- quirements for more than ten children are to be established through conditional use permit process. �v 2 Conditional Use Permit 22-85 (Kaleidoscope Kids/Jacobson) The proposed site for the preschool is well above the required minimum site area. In addition, the application as submitted will include the fencing of the outdoor play areas which complies with zoning requirements. Parking: The zoning ordinance does not set specific standards for preschool off-street parking requirements. Staff' s review of off-street parking needs was based on the following criteria: . 1. One space per each staff member . 2. Two spaces per every 40 students or fraction thereof. Using state guidelines, the staffing required for 30 children would be three teachers; therefore, a minimum of five parking spaces will be needed for the site. There is an existing two car garage which provides for two spaces. There is also an open area along the western property line which provides room for additional parking. Staff feels that the applicant will be able to work out a parking design that can meet necessary requirements. The applicant is proposing a circular driveway to be installed in the front of the site. This driveway design is intended to pre- vent loading and unloading of children in the public street. Section 9-4. 158-160 of the zoning ordinance establishes standards for street and frontage improvements required with development projects authorized by an entitlement. The ordinance requires that curb, gutter , and sidewalk be installed in a RMF/16 zone along the entire frontage of the site. Installation of street improvements would make it necessary to remove the existing hedge which presently screens the house as well as the proposed drop-off area. The City would require replacement landscaping in the front yard to minimize the visual appearance of the parking and drop-off area. Overall, staff feels that the applicant has proposed a well thought out project which is sensitive to the residential charac- ter of the neighborhood. D. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit 22-85 based on the findings and conditions of approval contained in Exhibit A. MM:ps ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Findings/Conditions of Approval Exhibit B - Location Map Exhibit C - Site Plan Exhibit D - Supplemental Development Statement `3 3 • 9 Conditional Use Permit 22-85 (Kaleidoscope Kids/Jacobson) EXHIBIT A - Conditional Use Permit 22-85 Findings/Conditions of Approval November 18, 1985 FINDINGS- 1. The application together with the recommended conditions of ap- proval complies with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan. 2. The application as submitted will not have a significant adverse effect upon the environment and preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is not necessary. 3. The site of the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to ac- commodate all yards, parking, landscaping, and fencing required by the Atascadero Zoning Ordinance. 4. The site is adequate in size to carry the kind and quantity of traffic generated. 5. The proposed preschool use will not have an adverse effect on abutting property. 6. The proposed project will not be detrimental to public welfare or be injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. Site development is to be consistent with the submitted site plan and all modifications required for this use shall be installed prior to the opening of the preschool. 2. Provide a minimum of five (5) off-street parking spaces with three (3) of the spaces designated for employee parking. Design and placement of these spaces will be reviewed in conjunction with building permits and/or business license approval. a. No spaces are to be designed to allow backing directly into the street. b. Required parking spaces and driveways shall be paved. 3. The applicant shall submit detailed landscape and irrigation plans for review and approval by the Community Development Department. Approved landscaping shall be installed prior to the issuance of a City business license. 4 i 0 Conditional Use Permit 22-85 (Kaleidoscope Kids/Jacobson) 4. All outdoor areas are to be enclosed with a solid fence a minimum of four feet high. Any fence along the property line shall be a minimum of six feet high. 5. On-site signing shall be limited to an aggregate area of two (2) square feet for the entire project and not to exceed the height of the building. All signing is to be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department. 6. The applicant shall design one bathroom to meet handicapped re- quirements and shall provide any necessary ramps to comply to standards of Part 2, Title 24 of the California Administrative Code. 7. This approval is granted for a preschool with a maximum of 30 students. 8. This project shall meet all requirements of the Facilities Licen- sing Division of the Department of Social Services for a preschool (Title 22, Division 2 of the California Administrative Code) , Group E-3 occupancies of the Uniform Building Code and all condi- tions of approval established herein prior to the start-up of the preschool operation. 9. A letter or similar documentation verifying approval by the Facil- ities Licensing Section of the State Department of Social Services shall be submitted prior to occupancy of the building by the pro- 0 posed use. 10. The applicant shall obtain a "Change of Occupancy" permit from the Community Development Department and shall comply with all Uniform Building Code requirements applicable to Group E-3 occupancies. 11. Prior to any construction or modification to the existing struc- ture, the applicant shall obtain all necessary building permits from the City. 12. Install curb, gutter and five foot sidewalk and paveout along the property frontage. a. Submit road improvement plans designed by a registered civil engineer for review and approval by the Public Works Department. b. the pavement width of Marchant Avenue from curb face to cen- terline shall be 15 feet. 13. The building shall comply with all applicable fire codes which may include a fire alarm system, fire extinguishers and smoke detec- tors. The Fire Department shall conduct a full compliance inspec- tion prior to opening of the facility. 5 0 9 Conditional Use Permit 22-85 (Kaleidoscope Kids/Jacobson) 14. This conditional use permit shall expire one year from the date of final approval, unless all conditions are satisfied and the pro- ject shows substantial progress, or unless an extension is granted pursuant to Section 9-2.118 of the Zoning Ordinance. 6 A kaleidoscope is a spectrum of color and creativity. Each individual can create his or her own unique image. Each image is beautiful in its own right , just as our children are to us. KALEIDOSCOPE KIDS Preschool is a unique alternative to typical child care. Conveniently located and open hours to accomodate working parents, we offer creativity in learning along with rest and play in a bright country HOME atmosphere. Each child is treated as an individual, allowed to work and play at his or her own capability, and is cared and nurtured for by qualified teachers. We believe that the child profits from the opportunity to make choices. In order to facilitate meaningful choice-making we will give the child the chance to move about in an environment which offers many attractive, interesting, valid , and stimulating things to do. We will be open, flexible, and always willing to experiment with the environment for, as the child grows, so must his surroundings. By educating, nurturinq and caring for our children today, they will qrow up to be educated and caring citizens for Atascadero, tomorrow. Allva Minutes - Planning Aission - November 18 , 19 John Kennaly, representing the applicants , noted his concur nce h the staff report. Commis ' ner Michielssen questioned the $12, 500 amoun referenced in the re rt to help fund necessary future drain improvements and asked if is amount was what the applicants ave deposited. Mr. Engen rep ' d that there has been som fine tuning to this deposit wherein the eposit has been reduce to about $10 ,000. He also noted that there ' an ongoing re-e luation of how to best solve the flooding proble in the are There was some discussion conce ' g an assessment district being formed in this area, as well r very payments being asssessed for those who have made dep its with egard to projects along Morro Road. Mr. Eng e stated that Trans has been formally asked to include this ea as one of their s to-wide projects. Commissioner Nola asked if Amapoa is going to be roved. MOTION: Ma by Commissioner Michielssen, seconded by ommis- oner Bond and carried unanimously to approve Te ative Tract Map 28-85 subject to the findings and condit s contained in the staff report. 2. Conditional Use Permit 22-85 : Request submitted by Kaleidoscope Kids (Nancy Jacobson) to allow the conversion of an existing residential structure into a children ' s day care center and preschool for approxi- mately 30 children. Subject property is located at 6300 Mar- chant, also known as Lot 6 of Block VA. Mr . Davidson presented the staff report noting that interior building modifications will be necessary for establishment of the proposed use. He also stated that Condition #2 should reflect seven parking spaces instead of the five listed, and that Condi- tion #5 concerning signing should be deleted. Nancy Jacobson, applicant, spoke about the background involved in desiring to establish a day care facility and noted her only ob- jection to the recommendation concerns installation of curb, gut- ter , five foot sidewalk and paveout along the property frontage (Condition 412) . She stated this would be quite an expensive im- provement to the property that she is leasing from the property owner . Carmen Salvato, owner of an adjacent condominium on Marchant, felt that some sort of E. I .R. should be prepared due to the impact of parking and traffic that will result from the project. He also spoke about fencing around the condominium project and noted that the condominium homeowners association had put the fence in, and asked to see more details on what is involved with the project, i.e. , safety considerations, hours of operation. 2 ,J' Minutes - Planning Comission - November 18 , 19 Mrs. Jacobson explained the operating hours would be 7 : 00 a.m. to 6: 00 p.m. and the age range of the children will be 3-5 year olds, and spoke about the quality of a day care center . She also pointed out that the state requirements in order to open a, day care center are very strict and stated that she intends to have one teacher for every eight children instead of twelve children. There was some discussion on the state requirements for these facilities. Commissioner Bond stated that a day care center such as this proposed one is very much needed in this area. Commis- sioner Kennedy concurred and noted she is in favor of the philo- sophy behind this project. Commissioner Sanders talked about the quality of a day care center , but addressed the concerns of the condominium owners. She asked if there would be avenues open to bring this matter back traffic, noise and other related factors were to cause a problem in the neighborhood. MOTION: Made by Commissioner Kennedy, seconded by Commissioner Commissioner Bond and carried unanimously to approve Conditional Use Permit 22-85 subject to the findings and conditions contained in the staff report with modifica- tion to the following: Condition #2 to reflect seven (7) off-street parking spaces instead of five (5) listed in the report. Deletion of Condition #5 . 3. Zone Change 8-85 : Request submitted by Urban Sciences, Inc. (Bruce Dodson) a change the zoning map from RSF-Z (Residential Single F mily Density) to L (PD5) (Recreation - ' Planned Dev opment Ove ay No. 5) in order to allow for the devel ent of a parkin and administration area for an outdoor r reation use (waters11 } . Subject property is located at 25 E1 Bordo, also known Lots 30 and 31 of Tract 5. Chairman LaPrade step- down from the Comm' sion due to a possi- ble conflict of interest. Mr . Davidson presented the sta rep t and noted that this re- quest was in conjunction with Z Change 7-85 which had been ap- proved by the Commission at the as meeting. He explained that the property involved with his req st would be utilized for a parking area to provide a , ch needed 75 aces, and pointed out that since the site pl is conceptual in ature only, there are still issues and ques ' ons which will remain u nswered until such time as development lans are submitted for a on ' tional use per- mit process. Commissione anders asked why this application was not b ng pro- cessed s general plan amendment. Mr . Davidson explain the "wavy ne" concept involved in making this determination. 3 � 'RMF/16 r /L. GRs sc I —RMF/16 ` <. ion C'l`\ �I „` ,•'a .�,ps �• + 9 '* '�•/^C.�4 ' ` ' � �'♦- ,,.,.• ,"/,, �➢ �,♦ � � �' t, yo °• �♦' :��:: .. 'UCC. \/�� ♦i 1. LSF-Y "` 'y�°{,� z—` u �f �-.�/7 r us+• �t.,fC � t ..�it� Imo/ ai .\••. +-. Orf t �� ".C� �y♦ t`� , - ..R,." J. l :l i, RMF/16 . � _I __ 2y.1� +,Ff• ..7� aft.• sa ,•( � ��' ♦ •`. L e'+' �t .-rr '. •k••••�I lx.. '?'N-t . 'a�°to • �? ..i ♦♦ a�' r♦ �a�4` •M • -16 ''�1;6•=` �° •,y I1 ,fit{ r,.• a to £m 1. II i t� ai;� .1.1�i'e. t �,A ♦- i.q,, ,Fj e �.r T 'I• s 'ei♦ -:?.it\ �*� i0 _+,\ ?',, it '•' ,.,. '• . �1+� !-d`- '♦ ,- a• .a �=v fns` f f ' �,o^,' Yf}At • �♦+ �-� I to ;Lr . ` ..•,Z s � • �� •._f_: �.`t ;�P-D;J ,ar.�,° IZ o �:- � f• �= rals° awo •��a r H a tom••. �l+ a . Y4'�' ��e '� �� Rte " .OE •fo:f LB ao "_� a af°•� ♦ti"�•2o\ I r••o l r tt f0 :1f •� .. L-SF-Y '•,o Y> >,s�2 .` as ''� .eao h =O1 ••` !o i e a ``'� � •�� +� .:.fes t � as ¢t' .4._ . . 4~ ] ■a$ -ja`ti -� . �-. .� T.:•.'^� ,° •�j? s:lr. � to ,.� ',.�. ns .----d• - T-'_' ) >rrr! twee •ra ..SS� - •t1 t U1tPo3l "�` r<a'l�. "' .��'" 'i c LSF—Y(FH) ' ➢ _,. re/�. '•,a' a „`'♦' ,'" o„ - "i::• i $... , ;'` „_r ==.3.�• _ ' • LSF—Y(FH) ;. q ro! •r rr• tn. �A s: }�r ,r��•, _ __ I- ll� �� _ LSF—Y19 -:c'.� '.'I. .�.� �.- .o~ -• .ego 10 IS-ii e.� e; +:"cJ "a as S ,.�• lbt • .x Pil a r r•s, tom_ rf "2 ,a•• ,o• •\♦ ,K '?,. ,.�,> �.,��a. etst . ' �] ,( � (� ,lr.. 'IBJ/r\ 1}}}' I��4��+ 2� l i`�[(��[�{( f,�O r -P •!f` .. +r1` A).`� ' ,, .` /I�l h � G. }'�Ir°"r' L GO""S•iIa•8 S �~' •'" "la >♦ /. 'ter �i 5.: /ten` �/ +y�� -,.,SF—Y(FH) + 'J� - •Lu' � �rtr r�r'r' ,e��t>�~ '� •�` ar0 / �'^1 C7 —Y 27 moo!\.,�•" , P62 0 23 Cr+i='7 /� ,�r� /`! ��t ',;\rte• a r ''+ham "' �y.�r ' • /may ,�� .,'�' Bess :V .L� • y 8 •y. �3.• ea°^";^ ^.so••'� 'I'��•'�a� RMF/16(FH) .,f a =�•� ]o ��'^ LA - cup rz- z I'TF___ r L/It U: C U P Ott CllCaJ� d� 454)JD .� 6,1rA c • � ROG.t-1 l �' C1051cf�('i05E(~ CID I Vii-• F-- � � jl�% ROOM _ _ KblIE Acti�rr� a�Ea j e�hraZA 5c J,:coRc�; r i i i 12 -rjn,E • M E M O R A N D U M TO: Honorable City Council Members FROM: Mike Shelton A,& , SUBJECT: Second Reading of Ordinance Establishing Parking and Business Improvement Area (B.I.A. ) for City of Atascadero DATE: January 27, 1986 Recommendation City Council adopt Ordinance No. 116 - An Ordinance of the City of Atascadero Establishing the Downtown Parking and Business Improvement Area. Background City Council, at your January 13, 1986 meeting, conducted a pub- lic hearing and received a report by Interim Committee Chairper- son Harry Sackrider petitioning the City Council to formulate a Downtown Business Improvement Assn. District. Appropriate legal documents were provided by the City Attorney in accordance with recommendations of the organizing task force. No opposing input was offered by the public. Council unanimously introduced Ordi- nance No. 116. MBS/cw • 0 # ORDINANCE NO. 116 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO ESTABLISHING THE DOWNTOW11 PARKING ANM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREA WHEREAS ,E EAS , o n November 25 , 1985 , this Council adopted Resolution Nutnber 127-85 , entitled, A Resolution of the Council of the City of Atascadero of intention to establish a parking and business improve- ment area within. the Downtown section of the City of Atascadero and setting a Hearing date therefore pursuant to Streets and Highways Code Section 36500 et seq. ; and WHEREAS , at 7 : 30 P .M. , January 13 , 1986 , this Council held a duly noticed Public Hearing at the City Council Chambers , Atascadero City Hall , pursuant to Resolution No. 127-35 , to consider the estab- lishment of a parking and business improvement area within the portions of the Downtown Business District described in Resolution 127-85 ; and WHE-'.EAS , this Council finds that there was no majority protest at said Hearing to the formation of said area; and WHEREAS , this Council :finds that the public interest would be served by the formation of such an area within the boundaries proposed in 'resolution No. 127-85 . NOW, THEREFORE , BE IT ORDAINTED by the Council of the City of Atascadero as follows : SECTION 1 . The Municipal Code of the City of Atascadero is hereby amended by adding Chapter 6 to Title 3 of the Atascadero Municipal Code as follows : CHAPTER 6 DO4JNTOWN PARKING AND BUSINESS IMPROVE11UNT AREA Sections Title of Section 3-6 . 01 Creation 3-6 . 02 Boundaries 3-6 . 03 Businesses Affected 3-6 . 04 Proposed Uses for Revenues 3-6 . 05 Char4es 3-6 . 06 Assessments 3-6 . 07 Collection of Assessments and Charges 3-6 . 08 Benefit to Business and Area 3-6 . 09 Business Improvement Association 3-6 . 01 CREATION. There is hereby created and established the Downtown Parking and Business Improvement Area of the City of Atascadero. 3-6 . 02 BOUNDARIES . The boundaries of said area generally shown on Exhibit 'A map attached hereto , and more specifically described as follows : 1h From the South corner of Morro Road at the Highway 101 over-crossing then in the generally northwest direction immediately adjacent to Highway 101 , to a point , at the 0 intersection of El Camino Real and Rosario Ave. , then easterly along Rosario Ave. , to a point at the intersection of Rosario and Palma Ave. , then easterly along Palma Ave. to the rear lot line of parcels on the west side of Traffic Way, then north along said rear lot lines to the rear lot line of parcels on the south side of Olmeda Ave. , then easterly to the rear lot line or parcels on the west side of Traffic Way, then north along said rear lot lines to include Lot 24 of Block LA, of Atascadero , then northerly along the center line of Traffic Way, to a point , then easterly to include the presently existing National Guard Armory Property, then to a point easterly to the intersection of [,]est Mall and Santa Ysabel Ave. at the West Mall bridge , then southerly along Santa Ysabel Ave. to a point at the intersection of the southerly leg of Hospital Drive and Santa Ysabel Ave. , then easterly from that point to the ex- tension of proposed Highway 41 , then southwesterly to the PIorro Road/Highway 101 over-crossing, point of beginning. The area shall include all businesses located on parcels contiguous to the Traffic Way boundary. 3-6 . 03 BUSINESSES AFFECTED. Each and every business in the Dountwon Parking and Business Imrpove!:lent Area as defined by Section 36502 of the Streets and Highways Code, shall be subject to , and shall pay , such ne separate and additional charges that may from time to time be levied 4 to carry out the purposes of the Downtown Parking and Business Improve- ment Area as setforth in this Ordinance and Section 36500 et seq. of the Street and Highways Code. 3-6. 04 POPOSED USES FOR REVENUES. The proposed uses for which the proposed revenues prom said area s all be expended are: (1) The acquisition, construction, or maintenance of parking facilities for the benefit of the area. (2) Decoration of any public place in the area. (3) Promotion of public events which are to take place on or in public places in the area. (4) The general promotion of business activities in the area. 3-6 . 05 CHARGES. Charges for obtaining -funds to provide services and programs for the area shall be levied on all businesses in the area in amounts equal to the business license charge on such businesses . based upon the following percentages and in the following years . (a) 1986 - 25% of applicable business license charge on such businesses . -2- # 0 (b) 1987 - 50% of applicable business _License charge on such businesses . (c) 1988 - 75% of applicable business license charge on such businesses . (d) 1989 -100 / of applicable buiiness license charge on such businesses . 3-6 . 06 ASSESSMENTS . Assessments as defined in Section 36504 or the Streets and Highways Code , for the purpose of construction of physical_ improvements shall_ be made only after furtler learings and findings are required under the Streets and Highways Code Section 36500 et seq. 3-6 . 07 COLLECTION OF ASSESSEENT AND CHANCES. Collection of assessment and charges imposed herein shall be made at the same time and in the same manner as any other City business license fee. 3-6 . 08 DENEFIT TO BUSINJSS AND AREA. TYis Council finds and determines that parking and other deficiencies are so generally in the Downtown Section of the City, and that the size of the new area is so small , that each business in the area will benefit from expenditures for parking facilities substantially in proportion to the amount of additional charges and assessments to be levied upon all businesses . 3-6 . 09 BUSINESS liLPROVE` ENT ASSOCIATION. The Atascadero City Council_ s.. a._._ ave cu aut ,ority to enter into annual agreements with the Atas- cadero Downto�.m Business Improvement Association , consisting of repre- sentatives among those who had businesses in the area and who are sub- ject to the charges and assessments under this Or6inance. The Business Improvement Association pursuant to its agreements with the City Council of Atascadero , shall be authorized to expend area revenues in accordance with City budgetary and accounting procedures . The Business Improvement Association shall , as a first order of business , establish By-Laws for its operation , which By-Laws shall be subject to approval by the City Council. of Atascadero. .SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall cause this Ordinance to be published once with- in fifteen (15) days after its passage in the Atascadero News , a news- paper of general_ circulation , printed, publish_ed and circulated in this city it accordance with Governmental Coje Section 36933 ; shall certify the adoption of this Ordinance; anj shall cause this Ordinance and cert- ification to be entered in the Book o! Crdinances of this city. SECTION 3 . This Ordinance shall go into effect and shall be in full force anj and effect at 12 : 01 A.M. on the 31st day al=ter its passage . On Notion by and seconded by the foregoing Ordinance is hereby adoptee. in its entirty by the following roll call vote: -3- I AYES : NOES : AB.SENI DATE ADOPTED: ATTEST: CITY OF ATASCADERO o ert e . Jones , City Clerk Ro L.e Nelson , Mayor APpI'_OVED AS TO CONTENT : Michael Shelton, City I1anager APPI:OVED AS TO r ORI-i: zj�-� Robert MrJones , City Attorney syn E X H I B IT 9' „ A „ :•lh:.•i•;t.;,v!. nom.?,;.;. : :?:•,.}-:�;.}:: ;:�.: - ... .ir... .•.... ... ..�/ .. .. ,. .... v. ... .. :::::.},:+-... ... }:•: :,L.�t4. :I�:K:vii .�.. .... .....:.... . .... ..p. ...... ... .. ..... .. ...< ... . ... w ........ ....... ..,.. .. .. .. ::.w::. ... ... .. ..:•:14':1:4:•::.:�' ):::: t...•.....,. ..... r.«.r•i :::�y.. ::.•:. ::. .. .. ..... .. ... .... .. .. ... ........ ,... .. .... .. ... ..vim::;. ....v•a• i.i .... .'t . ... .4 ., M f .. ... .. .. .•:Y'!'!... .. .!1.12.;: ......................... ... ...... .... 1p tam LU •.. .t. .....2�.. ..• ... :: .. +. �R :ki .. ... .. . [ .). . ....S.f. .. .d. xv.t .. :.�:::::::::.................... <�2<:�$••'::Y$i 5�::;iia: ►.•�::ac:•:;•ii r1:!!;Y:•::..::,.•:„ ;•':?�•'•��<:••i'''':;.•:: .:.•i'S2:4�:: :•:;':'l::t''a:;::t: %::4•::::i::i.2;# ::::;�:��:`=::;:2�::i::;c.i�::::••;;:.>.+.++i•. .�� •r /� :' :.,}�...!+:•r:•i• ::: R:. .,. :c• .:i«ii:::o-:':-i:•ii:•:;:•1: y1:•1:a>:r}':1�1�Y•>ZY 1. '�'" :a•'•:-'4>ti:: ,�:.;. .,,��•• •.i•�X.: •• ::iii:•::t ♦ uj J �'�: �. ..`:iiii.•.''•:iii`i�c:i.•''�;� ori ?r:•:..c•::1;. :'• �: Z i r 00 rrrr::> cc 'Lis V O _ y,, � W w Xxu c t s rn F- ::;ti�•ii� V W ✓� 7 IL LU t�� J #' ?i:•:a Q c� v :::� M d O co } ( 4i11i:ti'• �:.•:f �...r. ..�. .:fe ... :.... .............. � ':.... .......... W :::: ... ... iii ... . . •.i:•: '::.. ....... ::: ::. ::. " •: .::. :�»::;. ::�: ::a 'iii ';:•>. �:��r:�ii..'':'1 ..... ..':::... CL .:�::� + {•):is':: ':.i: 4:::i`:: ::•:::iii:is ii-': �.+::•:^:':' ��::/'i: '•: ...: :':' ::::". �':.:i. ..r.. .... ... �.. .............. :::: �::.. :v.... ... :•.. .... �: �._ ..... ::is i'r',}:�. i:i:;;•ii�ii•� ;ti::. :::. :::.i. �!" :::: :.i:•i:4i is .. .,•:: ... .... ..... ..r.•}: .... ..... .. '.i:�i. ... :::. ... .:•.42•.x::� ...... ... .. :.:.:.....: ::$i ;•i -sip �%'� ::... ''2::ii1i:. '� iii :i: »>. >::4iii. ::;:::...... ::�i. i:...::: .....4•:::- .. i:::: ::i:i:�;ii9 ::% :i:�:;;•i i:iiii�ii: :� S. :.: ::;::: Ali:x �>:..... :�''. !.. ::•i' ::4 :. iii: .:iii}}' :ii: 4:•ii'•:44:' ::•i:. '.};.; , .::'!^: ''i::i•iii. :.ilii}i::.. :.i'•i:::•i: 4:- :'4:4:' ::V;•i:4:L:•: !: :4:4. 'i v'. ::4:;4:43::M: •.���: ..:1i1ii'' .:::•ii.�: ':.; :•i1�:•:. •,:X::;: ;•x•Yi'�-::.'�i:i> •i`:::;r ._.. ..... . .. ,. ... ... ..... f,. ......,.__ (� 11 Z. TO: City Council Members November 25, 1985 FROM: Michael ,Shelton City Manager SUBJECT: BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION (B. I.A. ) - NOTICE OF INTENT - PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 127-85 RECOMMENDATION: City Council adopt the attached proposed resolution of intention to establish a Business Improvement Association area. BACKGROUND• Attached is a memorandum from Harry H. Sackrider , Interim Committee Chairman for organizing a Downtown Revitalization Task Force, who is petitioning the City Council to undertake the necessary steps to formulate a Business Improvement Association for the downtown area. The staff report provides considerable detail as to the background history and events transpiring and resulting in the formulation request. B.I.A. FORMULATION REQUIREMENTS: The following steps are required for the formation of the Business Improvement Association: 1. The 0 ity Council must adopt a "Resolution of Intent" to establish the project area. The resolution must contain the following information: A. A description of the boundaries of the proposed area. B. The time and place of a hearing to be held by the City Council to consider establishment of an area. C. The proposed uses to which the proposed revenues shall be utilized. D. A description of the system of assessments or charges, which will be used and the businesses upon which the levey will be made. 2. The City Clerk must publicize, 10 days prior to the hearing, a "Notice of Public Hearing" in two ways: 1 V- • • A. One publication of the Resolution of Intention in a newspaper of general circulation. B. Mailing a complete copy of the Resolution of Intention to each business in the proposed area. 3. City Council holds a public hearing - Proceedings terminate if a 51% majority protest is made. 4. City Council acts on an ordinance to establish the proposed Business Improvement Association District. In accordance with these requirements, the action requested of the Council at your November 25, 1985 Meeting is to adopt the Resolution of Intention, setting a public hearing date to receive public input and to consider the enabling ordinance. The reso- lution sets the hearing for January 13, 1985. A presentation by the Formulation Committee and public input will be received at that time. FISCAL IMPACT: Council, in adopting the Fiscal Year 1985-86 Budget, appropriated $5, 000 as money for the Business Improvement Association, should it be formulated. Noticing cost and all other direct costs will be charged against this appropriation. Staff and Council time will be required for both formulation and administration, per State statute. Implementation of the District creates an assess- ment against all business and revenues derived would be new revenues and utilized for the purpose of the district. MS:kv File: MBIA 2 �O November 19 , 1985 P_TErTORANDUM TO: Honorable Rolfe Nelson, Members of t; e City Council FROM: Robert M. Jones , City Attorney RE : Resolution of Intention to Establishing Downtowns Parking and Business Area: Dated November 25 , 1985 The attached Resolution of Intention to Establish a Downtown_ Par)-ing and Business Area is proposed pursuant to Section 36509 et seq. of the Streets and Highways Code. The Resolution provides for a description of the boundaries of the proposed area, the time and place of a Tearing to be held by the City Council to consider the establisiunent of an area, the proposed uses to which the proposed revenue shall be put and a de- scription of the system of assessments or charges which will be used and businesses upon which the levy will be made. There is an accompanying me-morandum from Harry Sackrider , Committee Chairman for the "Business Improvement Association" which has met on many occasions with members of the proposed Business Improvement Association including election of directors and with myself to formalize the Business Improvement Associ ation, Resolution and Ordinance. 0 The Resolution provides for a Hearing for the first (1st) meeting in January at which time the City Council shall hear all -protests and re- ceive evidence for or against the proposed action. If the City Council following the Nearing, decides to establish the proposed area, it shall adopt an Ordinance to that effect which esentially will formally adopt the description of the boundaries of- the area estate , estate of t'ne business in the area shall be benefitted by the parking and business improvement area and the uses to which the revenue shall be put. It should be pointed out to City Council that businesses recently estab- lished in the area may be exempt from the assessment or charges imposed for a period not exceeding one (1) year from the date the business commenced in the area, this has been discussed with Marry Sackrider, as well as Mike Lucas , or members of the Interim Formation Committee of the Business improvement Association. Any questions concerning the Resolution and Proposed Ordinance may be directed to this office or to the Business Improvement Association. nobert 1'. Jones , City Attorney 4 • 0 CQPY11V FILE November 15 , 1985 Mr. Michael Sheldon r C I W �= City Manager �I P.O . Box 747 �'� J Atascadero , Calif . CITY Mrd. 93423 Dear Mike: At the July 23rd 1984 City Council Meeting, Mayor Rolfe Nelson named Councilman George Molina and the then Chamber of Commerce Executive Director , Gary Larson as Co-Chairman to head a "Downtown Revitalization Task Force" to explore several persistant problems relating to the Central Business District. By creating this task force , the Mayor insured citizen participation of those most affected by the downtown problems. The property owners and business owners of the down town area. During the formation of their recommendation, the Revitalization Task Force pursued various avenues of solution. The recommendation that came out of this "Task Force" was the creation of a "Business Improvement Association" . More commonally known as a "BIA" . By using the form of a "BIA" the needed solutions can be implemented and infuenced directly by the people in the BIA area. As a direct result of this recommendation, on May 2 , 1985 , an Organizing Task Force of local business people was formed to study the feasability of forming a "Business Improvement Association" . This committee consisted of the following people : Chairman Mike Lucas Floyd Anderson Garry Brill Henry Engen, City Planner Joe Grisanti Tom Hatchell John Kennaly Shirley Marengo Irwin Manning Mary Pearson Joe PeBenito Don Price Maggie Rice , Exec . Dir. A. C . C. Harry Sackrider Mary Walsh Jack Stinchfield This committee , I think you will agree , represents a good cross section of the business community. Beginning with it ' s first meeting on May 23 , 1985 , and continuing periodically, until it ' s last meeting on September 19 , 1985 , the committee worked on defining the area, and the following concepts to present to the business owners within the designated boundries . Based on the recommendations made by the original committees questionaire results . 1b� " l� A. FUNCTIONS I . Parking To provide adequate parking in the defined area. II . Beautification To work towards the overall beautification of the defined area. III . Promotion To provide adequate promotion for all businesses within the defined area. IV. Representation To provide a unified voice and to consolidate efforts towards the emplementation of the goals that will be established by the B. I .A. board of directors . The above are the planned functions to be established by the initial board of the new Business Improvement Association. B. FEES Annual dues will be based on the city business license fee. They will be levied in the following manner: In the first year of the Associaion the assessment will be 25% of the business license fee. In the second year 50% of the business license fee , and third and fourth years , 75% of the buisness license fee , and the fifth year and therafter will be equal to 100% of the business license fee. C . MANAGEMENT A Board of Directors will be established to direct the business of the BIA. It will consist of not more than nine members of the BIA who will serve without salary. Each director will serve for three years and will be elected by the general membership of the BIA. The above concepts were presented to the business owners within the defined area at a meeting held on September 26, 1985 . This meeting was attended by 87 people representing 46 businesses . Of the business owners present , thirty-three (71%) signed petitions in support of forming the above proposed BIA. Subsequent to this meeting , an additional twenty-one petitions have been received for a total of 54• Our survey shows that approximately 148 businesses are located within the proposed boundries . All have been notified at least 3 times inviting their participation in the development and formation planning as well as the public meeting which was held on September 26, �(�3 1985 . To this date , I have no knowledge of any organized opposition to the establishment of "Business Improvement Association" for our recommended downtown area of Atascadero. Based on the findings of the Task Force and the overwhelming support shown at the September 26th meeting , we are now requesting that you proceed as quickly as possible to adopt a " Resolution of Intention" to establish a BIA. Should you need further information, contact either Jack Stinchfield, Mike Lucas , or myself. Inc1 , 1 arry ac rider Inte ' m• Committee Chairman cc : Grigger Jones Members of Interim Formation Committee RESOLUTION NO. 127-85 A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO OF INTENTION TO ESTABLISH A PARKING AND BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREA WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN SECTION OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO AND SETTING A HEARING DATE THEREFORE PURSUANT TO STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE SECTION 36500 ET SEQ. WHEREAS, the City of Atascadero has received a request from busi- nesses located in the downtown area of Atascadero to formulate�a park- ing and business improvement area pursuant to Section 36500 et seq . of the Streets and Highways Code; and WHEREAS, in 1979 the California Legislature enacted Streets and Highways Code Section 36500 et seq. (Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1979) ; and WHEREAS, it is therefore in the best interest of the City and downtown business improvement area to establish the area, under Streets and Highways Code Section 36500 et seq. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Atas- cadero as follows: 1. The City of Atascadero intends to establish a parking and business improvement area in the downtown section of the City pursuant to the provisions of California Streets and Highways Code Section 36500 et seq. 2. The purpose in establishing a parking and business improve- ment area is to impose assessment or charges or both within a parking and business improvement area which is in addition to any assessments, fees, charges, or taxes imposed in the City and to use such proceeds for the benefit of businesses within such parking and business improvement area by doing any of the following: a. The acquisition, construction, or maintenance of parking facilities for the benefit of the area. b. Decoration of any public place in the area. C. The promotion of public events which are to take place on or in public places in the area. d. Furnishing of music in a public place in the area. e. For general promotion of business activities in the area. 3. The boundaries of said proposed area are generally shown on l • • Resolution No. 127-85 Exhibit "A" (Map attached hereto) , and more specifically de- scribed as follows: From the south corner of Morro Road at the Highway 101 overcrossing then in a general northwest dir- ection immediately adjacent to Highway 101, then easterly along Rosario Avenue to a point at the intersection of Rosario and Palma Avenue, then easterly along Palma Avenue to the rear lot line of parcels on the west side of Traffic Way, then north along said rear lot lines to the rear lot line of parcels on the south side of Olmeda then easterly to the rear lot line of parcels on the west side of Traffic Way, then north along said rear lot line to include Lot 24 of Block LA, then northerly along the centerline of Traffic Way, then easterly to include the presently existing National Guard Armory property, then to a point easterly to the intersection of West Mall and Santa Ysabel Avenue at the West Mall bridge, then southerly along Santa Ysabel Avenue to a point at the intersection of the southerly leg of Hospital Drive and Santa Ysabel Avenue, then easterly from that point to the extension of proposed Highway 41, then southwesterly to the Morro Road/ Highway 101 overcrossing, point of beginning. The area shall include all businesses located on parcels con- tiguous to the Traffic Way boundary. 4. The Council will hold a public hearing at 7:30 p.m. Monday, January 13, 1986 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 6500 Palma Avenue, Atascadero, San Luis Obispo County, California, to consider the establishment of said area. 5. Charges for obtaining funds to provide services and programs for the area shall be levied on all business in the area in amounts equal to the business license charge (exempt busi- ness categorized as general fee) on such businesses based upon the following percentages and in the following years: a. 1986 - Twenty-five percent (25%) of applicable business license charge on such business. b. 1987 - Fifty percent (50%) of applicable business li- cense charge on such business. C. 1988 - Seventy-five percent (75%) of applicable business license charge of such business. d. 1989 - One hundred percent (100%) of applicable business license charge of such business. Charges based upon the percentages and levies against such businesses for that year shall be from the date that any ordinance is enacted adopting the proposed downtown parking and business improvement area boundaries. 2 /� Resolution No. 127-85 6. Assessments for the purposes of construction of physical im- provements shall be made only after further hearings and findings are required under Streets and Highways Code Section 36500 et seq. 7. On direction of the City Attorney, the City Clerk shall pub- lish and mail notices as required by Section 36522, Streets and Highway Code. On motion by Councilmember HANDSITY seconded by Council- member NORRIS , the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety by the following roll call vote : AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS HANDSITY, MACKEY., MOLINA, NORRIS _AND 14AYOR NELSON NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE DATE ADOPTED: 11/25/85 CITY <aGgATASCyA�D�EQROO, CALIFORNIA ROLFE D/ NELSON, Mayor ATTESi�1 ROBERT M. JONES, City Clerk APPR D AS TO CONTENT: Michael- Shelton, City Manager APPRQV9D AS TO ORM: ROBERT M. JON��ity Attorney 3 EXHIB IT !' AWar. t.f.,+...... •.4.......... r..r.. .. .. u..... ` ::::........r N ).n1... ...5,. .. ..F.2. ..+. .lt.. ::.y:::•%• wit.;.: . ::,Zt.: •::,.. .. .<:•�:, •::::. ;:.; •. .::: ::•. :•: .. ..•:i#�::?�>• :: ••: •:.:t:•is•::•i:::iY:•Yi:•iY::i:::::ti::•i:•Y:•:::S:i:- ' ............. ......... . ..... .,.Y}....� ..� . . + ..;, r.,?>. .: Y:•i Y:•:?c•:?•i i:•Y:•i i:•Y:ii:•:cY:' :::• :...i::• ....:... ........ . .............. ..:...;.:•:._:::: ...... . .,. int. .�•.. .. .� }. ,,. •• .;............................. .... ... ..... .v. S+ ......+..... ....ia:i .:..... � A .; is W ::..:......:..:: .:... .�k< .;•::::::•eta. •. .:•:::• •; ::x•}..!.;.}:4:•. (<,•�i•:.x•:.Yi::?:•:Y..!t::-M:4:•ir}i;C:}iY.;;.... �.. :$':\ir:`va`v�'�••'Z:%%'::�;Sw'. +::?:•Y':•i;}T►.,�:R�:•Y: - ` :•}Y>x•J::. •. i::!t;: 2:•+ :i•:1;:':;?:;fi'Y:::i:;:%;:;t;Y:i.;•:::;!:#J:::ri:.`•:=:2::5:::!::•:::.;... •' S •iii:�•:S•:;.it; :: ::t::•::;ai�i►::t:: :. � ..r" :' :;►:;i:;jx�:�.::!:%:Y::rY::2 :�1T3 •:�:'.••.F:!..4t,�',.,+fit•44r<!:•:`:{` :' '••''1fv�•>•::::: •::.;:. .<•::4:•4:::: `• Y {}. J t., 4 uwj :,•.?{;. :ii:X':'•+:.Yi.:--''i.:;i. :iy��;.:ii:'i>?:r`':•r..v. - N f CO a• O _ i •i -�: ii 11 7 y • 7 L Lt 9 M .. t Q tVW F- Q w Wac , `.t 3 L .J l .� ..�:::?:::R:it::S::S::Sit:?%::•Si y .•t Vb� d �• v M a................... ................ O O . y t, IN w:. m <:•}:•iii:•:. i V.>n. �...... `y :,�•.:v. ` ;:;tib•::t.••: •:F.'••Y. .s. x�k.. a... .... . ... .... . :::.<.::.:' G .t� . :... .::•iii;: .. W .i.:. . ::. .......... :;:i::;::!,:;%:;:i•':: :::::iii:. ii:j•iY:•?: v:S .:...... . ..:. .:::::. >::•: ••::�>. is?: .::•::' �:::::::::. ki:?: :•:%�. ;:;5;,.•.: ::•i: •::::.f�k.::.'::t:::' :::'<.: :k:' �::;;i:; :-. ......... ii: �::::..: <:.:.... . :.:: .: : Y •i:•:•: •>:: ':r:tt:�'•:��<::: S' :::>::<.>:�>::.>:<. .::�: ... .. :SS: '::'� '::... '?:;:•i:ti.''� •>::: :�. '�>:•. :. .:�:..';:... �... •ii. '•::...... :... ..:•: �:::�:> •:>::•:>:::� •:: i�:i::::?• i:•iii:•i:;?::�' ::� :: :•: :S:'t:: ::: :i: :•::•:.::�:"� •. .?•?• ::;?:�' •:S+ �� ::•ii:�:: :•}:. •:•>:•::.: :?:•: ;!•. ••:;•}.?•iJ: ii: ::•},:.!;:: .:•i}:�••::::::.. '•:?.}{:•}:. ::•. �:::.}: :C•Y:•i:•>:•:' :•:. ::.i:•i:•: .�i:•i:•i:•::.}: •i: •: •i �:::.. '•} ;:• '•Y:•:::.}:•::!�:. fo ,�� 07 M E M O R A N D U M • TO: City Council January 13, 1986 VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director 4f: SUBJECT: Consideration of Zoning Text Amendment Relative to Tree Removal RECOMMENDATION: Following discussion of the material contained herein, authorize staff to: 1) Retain landscape expertise to evaluate tree protection standards and species worthy of protection. 2) Bring back recommendations from the Architectural Standards Review . Committee and City/Contractors Permit Review Group pertaining to • tree protection policies. 3) Acknowledge receipt of citizens ' tree committee proposal, . but hold in abeyance until Council has opportunity to receive and act on current requested committee and staff recommendations . 4) Recommend a comprehensive program clarifying City policies rela- tive to tree protection (General Plan amendments, zoning text amendments, and administrative practices) . BACKGROUND: At the end of the City Council' s November 25 , 1985 meeting, Community Development staff was directed to look into the "tree ordinance" as it relates to protecting existing trees in industrial, commercial, and high density residential areas. ANALYSIS: The City' s Zoning Ordinance contains a section regulating tree removal (see attached excerpt) . Except where a tree is in hazardous condition the ordinance requires a permit for removal of any tree eight inches in diameter at four feet above grade (regardless of species) . This may take the form of a tree removal permit or be done as part of a plot plan, precise plan, or conditional use permit approval. Before that approval may be made, it must be found to conform with the remov- al criteria listed in Section 9-4.157 (b) . These standards, in turn, were designed to implement the City' s General Plan which includes the • following language with respect to saving trees: 0 • Tree Lined Arterials 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 planting 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. Adilla 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" (page 172) Design Review: The jurisdiction of the design review committee (see Appendix D) shall include, but not be limited to, applications for permits for : . . . .Item 8, "Removal of trees from private and public properties. " (page 173) Appendix C - A Plan for Street Planting. Pages 187 through 198 of this appendix contain guidelines and illus- trated techniques for street tree plantings including an analysis of where street trees are needed, where center dividers are needed, and a master list of desirable trees, shrubs, and groundcovers. Appendix D, Design Review Commission - Vegetation and Landscaping : "Natural vegetation and rock formations shall be retained where they constitute visual enhancement of the site or the proposed use. . . . (page 202) "Every effort shall be made to incorporate existing on-site healthy plant material into proposed landscape plans. " (page 203) ENFORCEMENT ISSUES: There have been several complaints lately over tree removal and/or excessive trimming of trees on projects which have had City approval as either precise plans or conditional use permits. Once a precise plan or conditional use permit has been approved which shows trees to be saved, the applicant is obliged to protect same. In some in- stances, applicant' s projects have changed hands and the new develop- er has not proceeded carefully. In other cases, site plans do not show tree locations in exact locations and this has led to conflicts with foundations and underground utilities damaging roots. The City 3 0 0 Planning Commission has supported staff in requiring a tree protection plan as part of project development approvals to protect trees during the construction period. Were an applicant to intentionally remove or destroy a tree designated as one to be saved, the City currently has limited options open to it, i.e: 1) issue a stop-work order and bring the project back to the Planning Commission for public hearing to consider revocation; 2) cite the applicant and go to court. Neither of the foregoing are appealing especially where there can be an honest question as to whether inten- tional damage was done. As noted in the attached zoning excerpt, there is no built-in penalty for destroying trees designated as trees to be saved. The City could amend the zoning standards to enable establishing as a condition of project approval that a performance bond guaranteeing preservation of the tree for a specific period of time be established which would put a value and a built-in penalty for damaging such trees. RELATED STUDY COMMITTEES: There are two City designated ad-hoc committees which are reviewing issues that bear on the question of tree protection. These are the City/Contractors Permit Review Group and the Architectural Standards Review Committee. The City/Contractors Permit Review Group is looking at the zoning ordinance and procedures with a view to trying to streamline the pro- cess to obtain more expeditious turn-around time for permits. This group will be meeting on January 30th to conclude recommendations for areas in the zoning ordinance and elsewhere where they feel procedures could be streamlined and City practices clarified which have caused that group to experience delays. One of the complaints of this group historically has been the detail required in site plans relative to location of utility lines, existing trees, etc. and they should re- spond to the issue at hand from their perspective. The Architectural Standards Review Committee has been meeting on a regular basis over the past three months and have discussed at length landscaping as it relates to architectural criteria. This committee has been requested to respond on these issues for recommendations to the Council and also should provide input as part of a comprehensive approach to tree protection policies. In addition, we have just received a draft proposal from a non-city appointed tree committee (see attached) which is recommended to be held in abeyance until all of the foregoing issues. are brought back to the City Council . ALTERNATIVES: With respect to implementing a program to modify current practices with respect to protecting existing trees in industrial, commercial and multi-family residential areas, the following actions could be considered: 4 of s • 1) General Plan amendments: a. Delete reference to the design review board and its current mandate "to review removal of all trees from private and pub- lic property" . b. Language could be added, "Where economic development in com- mercial, industrial and multi-family areas conflicts with protection of existing trees, new development should be given priority subject to extensive mitigation measures. " C. Street tree standards could be evaluated and modified based on outside expertise with emphasis on utilizing native plant materials in corridor areas as mitigation for any on-site tree removal of trees worthy of preservation.. 2. Zoning amendments: a. Add as a tree removal criteria standard under Section 9-4. 157 "Trees unworthy of preservation" with a landscaping expert to provide the City with a list of trees worthy of preservation. b. Strengthen enforcement by enabling performance guarantees (performance bond) to protect trees that are shown on ap- proved plans as being saved. C. Retain a landscape expert to recommend for preservation any unique landmark or heritage trees located within the exist- ing commercial, industrial or multi-family districts. d. Exempt commercial, industrial and multi-family residential districts from current removal standards except for specifi- cally designated landmark or heritage trees. e. Mitigate any tree removal with stringent replacement require- ments of large calibre approved native specimens (Ratio of 3 or 4 to each large tree removed) . Placement as street trees may be required. 3. Administrative practices: a. Continue requiring tree protection plans as a condition of precise plan or conditional use permit approval. b. Retain staff decision-making process; utilize contracted landscape expertise when it is necessary for a specialist' s opinion when there is disagreement on application of any tree removal criteria. HE:ps Enclosure: Zoning Ordinance Excerpt - Tree Removal Citizen' s Tree Committee Proposal - January 22, 1986 5 �3 ADOPTED JUNE 27 , 1983 -4. 152 : Drainage Plan Review and Approval: All drainage plans s 11 be submitted to the City Engineer for review and are subje to e approval of the City Engineer. 9-4. 153. Plan Check, Inspection and Completion: Where r uired by the Ci Engineer , a plan check and inspection agreem t shall be entered int and the drainage facilities inspected and pproved befor a Certificate of Occupancy is issued. 9-4 . 154. Draina e Standards: (a) Design and struction: Drainage s stems and facilities subject to drainage plan review an approval that shall be located in exis ' ng or future pub is right-of-way shall be designed and cons ucted as set orth in the City Engineer- ing Department Stan and Improv ment Specifications and Draw- ings. Other systems nd fac ' ities subject to drainage plan review and approval sh 1 designed in accordance with good engineering practi (b) Natural Channels and not Proposed projects may include design provisions to etain f-site natural drainage pat- terns and limit pe runoff to redevelopment levels when required by the C ' y Engineer. (c) Flood Hazard A eas: Buildings are t permitted in an area determined b the City Engineer to be subject to flood hazar by reason o inundation, overflow or e Sion, except where provision are made to eliminate such ha rds to the satis- faction f the City Engineer . Such provis ' ons may include provid'ng adequate drainage facilities, pro ctive walls, suita-gile fill, raising the floor level of th building or b other means. The placement of the building an other struc- t es (including walls and fences) on the buildin site shal e such that water or mudflow will not be a hazard o the building or adjacent property. The City Engineer in the ap- plication of this standard shall enforce as a minimum he current federal flood plain management, regulations as defined in Title 24 , Chapter X, Subchapter B, National F1 d Insurance Program, Part 1910. 9-4. 155. Tree Removal: The purpose of these standards is to pro- tect existing trees from indiscriminate or unnecessary removal. Tree removal means the destruction or displacement of a tree by cutting, bulldozing, or other mechanical or chemical methods, which results in physical transportation of the tree from its site and/or death of the tree. 9-4. 156 Tree Removal Permit Required 9-4 . 157 Tree Removal Standards 4-53 �� 'ADOPTED JUNE 27, 1983 9-4. 156 . Tree Removal Permit Required: No person shall allow or cause the removal of any tree located within the City limits subject to these standards, without first obtaining a tree removal permit, as follows: (a) When Required: Plot Plan approval (Section 9-2.107) is required before the removal or replacement of any existing trees except trees that are: (1) Identified and approved for removal in an approved Plot Plan, Precise Plan and Conditional Use Permit, provided that such removal is subject to the standards of Section 9-4.157 (Tree Removal Standards) ; or (2) In a hazardous condition which presents an immediate danger to health or property; or (3) With trunks measuring less than eight inches in diameter at four feet above grade; or 0�3. !G to a /1 ,^ ;R/� /emsjp.aratl!/�n 96E agz rein -�.Y l 1 tSV21 �T� l".Y/'1Y1 T1 bI�11tr�. ion o ((�a^✓� i It gement- praeticoin u v a.la 11 a ca t La j ef eefnfeeEeial-agEies1to (b) Application Content: Applications that propose tree remov- al shall include all information specified by Section 9-2.107b (Plot Plan Content) , and the following: (1) The size, species and condition (e.g. diseased, healthy, etc. ) of each tree proposed For removal. (2) The purpose of removal. (3) The size and species of any trees proposed to replace those intended for removal. 9-4. 157 . Tree Removal Standards: Applications for tree removal in accordance with Section 9-4 . 156 shall be approved only when the following conditions are satisfied. (a) Tagging Required: Trees proposed for removal shall be identified for field inspection by means of flagging, staking, or, other means readily visible but not detrimental to a healthy tree. (b) Removal Criteria: A tree may be removed only when the tree is any of the following : (1) Dead, diseased beyond reclamation, or hazardous; 4-54 ADOPTED JUNE 27 , 1983 (2) Crowded, with good horticultural practices dictating thinning; (3) Interfering with existing utilities, structures or right-of way improvements. (4) Obstructing existing or proposed improvements that cannot be reasonably designed to avoid the need for tree removal; (5) Inhibiting sunlight needed for either active or passive solar heating or cooling, and the building or solar col- lectors cannot be oriented to collect sufficient sun- light without total removal of the tree. (c) Trees removed shall be replaced by a tree that will provide equal or better shade, screening, solar efficiency or visual amenity within a 10-year period, as verified in writing by a registered landscape architect, licensed landscaping con- tractor, or certified nurseryman, unless the removal- is with- in an area where there still exists sufficient tree cover to accommodate site needs. 4. 158. Street and Frontage Improvements: Section 9-4. 159 and establishes standards for street frontage improvements r quire with development projects authorized by an entitlement. t 9-4. 159. Cu s, Gutters and Sidewalks: The installati of curb, gutter and sid alks shall be as set forth in this Sezoion. (a) When Requi d: Curb, gutter and sidewa is required to be installed s set forth in this Sec on when: (1) The value o ny structures roposed during a period of 12 months (as dicated b all building permits issued for the site dur th 2-month period) exceed 25% of the total value of improvements existing on the sit as determined by t sessment roll at the time the first of the bui ing p its is applied for. (2) A new struc re is moved on a site (rather than con- structed place) where stree frontage improvements would required by Subsection b f this Section. (b) Where R uired: Within the Urban Services%ine, concrete curb, utter , and sidewalk is required with atg_ project in th following areas: (1) In all commercial zones, except in commercial a ,eas oriented to highway travel unless pedestrian, veh`iular _ and use characteristics of the project and surroundSng area indicate a need for the improvements. 4-55 l c,rT i z Eel T 79-49comwt IT_T --P_ 4��lx OUTLINE FOR TREE ORDINANCE RECEiVEO JAN 2 2 ;036 1. Title 2. Purpose and Intent 3. Definitions 4. Application of Article S. Site Plan — Arborist Report Required A. Subdivision/Planned Unit Development Approval B. Building Permit Approval C. Other 6. Information Required On Arborist Report 7. Incentives (Variances) For Preserving Trees 8. Safeguarding Trees During Construction 9. Abuse and Mutilation of Trees Prohibited 10. Removal Requires Permit 11. Exceptions to Permit Required 12. Application for Permit — Information Required on Permit 13. Standards for Evaluating Permits A. Criteria B. Decision by C. Additional Recommendations 14. Appeals 15. Violations, Penalties 16. Designation of "Specimen" and "Historic" Trees. s PREFACEANDINTENT: Value of Urban Trees Atascadero, California is situated in an area covered with a wide variety le of trees and shrubs that are a vital part of heritage passed to us by nature and our forefathers. However, there is much concern over the recent, indiscriminate destruction of trees in both public and private places. Trees are recognized as a valued asset, providing a healthier and more beautiful environment in which to live. They provide oxygen, shade, esthe- tics, and a priceless psychological counterpoint to the manmade, urban setting. Trees aid in preventing erosion, siltation of streams and reservoirs, flash flooding, and air, noise, and visual pollution. Trees are economically beneficial in attracting new industry, creating the the identity and quality of the city which is necessary for successful business to continue, improving the attractiveness of the city to visitors and residents Healthy trees of the right size and species, growing in the right places enhance the value and marketability of property, and promote the stabi.li.ty of desirable neighborhoods, thus helping to prevent the emergence of blighted area and slum conditions. Purpose: The City Council finds that the city is primarily a residential community; that the economics of property values is inseparable connected with the rural attractiveness of the area, much of which is attributable . to the wooded hill- sides and the native and ornamental trees scattered throughout the city. Intent: It is the intent of 'this Article to establish regulations for the instal- lation, maintenance. preservation and removal of trees within the city, con- sistent with the reasonable use of private property. The town is forested with trees , and contains individual trees of great beauty, the preservation of *h is necessary for the health and welfare of the citizens of the Town in order to preserve the scenic beauty, prevent erosion of topsoil, protect against 1 of + flood hazards and rish of landslides , counteract the pollutants in the air, 0maintain the climatic balance and decrease wind velocities, and which con- tribute greatly to the value of land in the Town. It is hereby declared that the public interest and welfare requires that the City establish, adopt and maintain a comprehensive program for the in- stallation, maintenance and preservation of trees within the City of Atascadero. This article, provides policies, regulations and specifications necessary to govern the preservation of trees and especially to preserve trees with 4 .0 t ? historic or unusual value, subject to the availability of City finds for such purposes. It is hereby declared to be the policy of the City tb provide a consistent and adequate program for miantenance and preservation of such trees Pn.uvI pt S Thispolicy p._ivdes for the planting of trees in all areas of the City, and &or the selection of appropriate species to achieve as much uniformity as possible for beauty and economy. It shall be the duty of to enforce, implement and carry out this policy and the provisions of this article. The Tree Committee shall act as an advisory body to the and the City Council. DEFINITIONS OF' A' CITY 'STREET TREE: Any tree planted, maintained, and/or assumed by the City of Atascadero within the public easement which is in a ten foot strip inside of the curb running parallel to the street and is a tree species which is listed in the current and/or past Master Street Tree List. (All new replacements will be selected from the current approved list. ) The current Master Street Tree List supersedes any or all others upon annual review and approval by City Council action. 10 Tree means a woody perennial plant characterized b having ma ' Y g a in stem or trunk, or multistemmed trunk system with a more or less definitely formed 2 of �- �� crown, and is usually over ten feel high at maturity. This definition shall not include treesplanted, grown and held for sale by licensed nurseries or the first removal or transplanting of such trees pursuant to and as part 0 operation of a licensed nursery business. Oak trees mean Valley Oak (Quercus lobata) , California Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia) , and any other trees of the oak genus. This definition shall not include oak trees planted, grown and held for sale by licensed nurseries or the first removal or transplanting of such trees pursuant .to and as part of the operation of a licensed nursery business . Street Trees means any trees within the public street or right of way, or within five feet of the right of way. Public Trees shall include all trees now or hereafter growing on any street park, or any other public place. Property Owner shall mean the person owning such property as shown by the County Plat of San Luis Obispo County, State of California. Tree Removal includes any act that will cause a tree to die within a three (3) year period. Park and Street D'epa'rtment is. the department of "Parks and Street Trees" , it Parks and Forestry" , "Forestry" , Street Trees" , or other designated department of the City under whose jurisdiction park and/or street trees fall. City Arborist is the City Arborist, Forest, Horticulturist, Landscape Arch- itect, or other qualified designated official of the City of Atascadero assign to carry out the enforcement of this Ordinance. Person is any person, firm, partnership, assiciation, corporation, company, or organization of any kind, including public utility and Municipal department Tree : Any living tree that has a well-defined stem with a caliper of at least 6 inches (15. 24cm) , at 4 . 5 feet (1. 4 m) from the ground level. Heritage Tree shall mean any tree existing within the city limits which has 3 of + �D r / • * ` L( been designated as such by resolution of the Council. It shall have been found 46y a qualifying committee that the tree existed when the Colony was established. Pruning means the cutting or taking away of more than thirty-three percent (33%) of the living foliage material (including branches) of a tree in any twelve (12) month period or as otherwise determined by the ] ETERMINATION OF'DEFINITATTON In any case, the shall have the right to determine whether any specific woody plant shall be considered a tree or a shrub. 4 0f �- M E M O R A N D U M • TO: Honorable City Council FROM: Mike Shelton ,� , SUBJECT: Post Office Relocation DATE: January 27 , 1986 Recommendation City Council ac nowledge attached communication and receive ver- bal report from Postal authorities. Provide further direction as deemed appropriate. Discussion Attached is a series of recent communications regarding Post Of- fice relocation. Staff is including the communication on the agenda so Council and the community is aware of the status of this project. Doug Leeds, Postmaster, will be present at your meeting should you have any questions. Mr. Leeds committed, • also, to contact the Los Angeles Field Real Estate Office to re- quest a representative to provide a verbal status update on the Postal Service' s search for an appropriate location and to re- ceive any feedback you may wish to convey. Per Mayor Nelson' s request, staff is researching a possible alternative Post Office site on Highway 41 at Atascadero Avenue to present to Postal au- thorities. MBS/cw cc: Douglas Leeds, Postmaster • 1 To date, we have received no response from postal authorities addressing our concerns. We request the opportunity to study with you site alternatives and exchange communications. The City urges that no decision be finalized until communication is initi- ated with the City and concerns resolved. Very truly yours, MICHAEL B. SHELTON City Manager MBS/cw cc: Henry Engen City Councilmembers e"ES POST; _ C m W A H C 2 � 7 U.SMMAiI m United States 3 X5$6 Posta! Service CITY January 22, 1986 Mayor Rolfe Nelson P.O. Box 747 Atascadero Ca. 93423-0747 There apparently has been a failure to clearly communicate the intentions of the Postal Service regarding service to the downtown area of the city after our relocation to a larger facility. The attached letter should have been shared with the officials of Atascadero but due to an oversight, was not . To add to the letter from the Sequoia District Manager, let rr.e say that it is also my intent to see that there is adequate service provided in the downtown area after our relocation. I regret the failure to relay this information to you earlier and I hope that our intention to continue to pro- vide service in the downtown area will ease the concerns expressed. Si cerely, Doug ,as ds Fos aster Atascadero Ca. 93422-9998 cc : All Council Members City Manager `V UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE DISTRICT OFFICE P.O.Box 7777/Orange,CA 92667-0777 DATE: November 7 , 1985 OUR REF: WED7 :HGod inez:DSR:mag SUBJECT: New Postal Facility Atascadero, CA Main Office To: J. B. Harrell, Manager Los Angeles Field Real Estate Office U.S. Postal Service Inglewood, CA 90311-9202 Attn: Terry Cherene This is to inform you that the Sequoia District will be studying various alternatives for providing retail and post office box services for the downtown area of Atascadero upon completion of the new facility. Realizing that.- the new Atascadero Main Post Office will be located out of the downtown area, our intent is to consider alternate means for providing postal services to the residents and businesses in the downtown area. Should you have any questions, or require additional information, please contact Dominick S. Riggi, Sequoia District BMEO at (714 )543-93 or G. Godinez equoia District Manager P. 0. Box 7777 Orange, CA 92667-0777 cc : Postmaster..,•,:Ata adeno, CA , : 93422-9.998. MSC Manager/Po master , Santa Barbara, CA 93102-9998 • M E M O R A N D U M • TO: City Council THROUGH: Mike Shelton, City Managed, , FROM: David G. Jorgensen, Director of Administrative Services SUBJECT: Garbage Collection Fee Increase DATE: January 20, 1986 Recommendation: It is the recommendation of the staff for the Council to approve an across the board 18. 3 per cent increase to garbage colletion fees charged by Wil-Mar Disposal Company, Inc. , effective February 1,1986. (See attached rate schedule for each category of fees. ) Background: The current rate schedule was approved by the City Council on September 27, 1982. From that time to the present the cost • of doing business has increased for many reasons. On May 12, 1985 , the Council entered into a new contract with Wil-Mar that extended their contract period for five years beginning January 1, 1986 . The contract further established that "after each two (2) years of service" that an additional two (2) year extension could be granted at the discretion of the City. On October 26 , 1985 , David K. Smith, CPA acting in behalf of Wil-Mar, submitted a report with exhibits requesting :a rate increase effective January 1, 1986 as well as two (2) annual increases each subsequent January 1st through January 31, 1989 . The same package of increases was presented to San Luis Obispo County. We met with County staff and jointly negotiated the proposed increases, so that the percent of increase would be uniform. Discussion and Analysis: The first year rate increase requested by Wil-Mar increased current rates by 450; the second increase 30; the third increase 4% . The justification for the size of the first rate increase of 45% was basically: 1. The increases from anticipated population and commercial growth were inadequate to meet the additional cost of conducting business. • -1- Irl 1 Garbage Collectioee Increase (cont. ) Working independentally from each other, the two City represen- tatives and the County representative conducted a cost analysis of the Wil-Mar report. The percent increase from these three analyses were 15 percent, 18 . 7 percent and 19 . 1 percent. In applying these percentages to the existing rates it was determined that 18. 3 percent came the closest to establishing the rates at the nearest 5 cent amount. Coincidentally, the aggregate 18. 3 percent increase over three years equals the City budget annual average increase of 6 . 1 percent per year (three years x 6. 1 percent = 18. 3 percent) . Conclusion: It was the concensus of both City and County staff, that an 18 .3 percent increase was justified. It was also agreed, that the City would take a look at the rate structure within 6-12 '.months, whenever Wil-Mar could: 1. Separate City operating costs from all others. 2. Demonstrate the impact of the sale of the Baywood/Los Osos areas on total company operating costs. The County Board of Supervisors is scheduled to hear the rate increase on January 28 , 1986 . They will be looking at the same approximate 18. 3 percent that we are. Fiscal Impact: The rate increase will have an impact on the City in two ways: First, individual residents will see their bill go up (see attached fee schedule) . A comparison of the proposed rates with the rates in other cities show: Rate Comparison with other County Cities (Monthly fee based o �2 c ns; Once p wee resicen i.al pickup) -` pe-lod14 �?r9 - �'1'�'�'/ Atascadero Cayucos Grover City Morro Bay Pismo Beach SLO Paso Robles $7. 75 $5 . 50 $4 . 25 $5 .95 $4 .25 $5. 60 $7 .00 Atascadero will have the highest monthly fee of the cities in the County. There are, however, some mitigating factors: 1 . All the cities except Atascadero and San Luis Obispo, have mandatory collection of refuse. It is estimated that 40 percent of Atascadero takes their own refuse to the dump. This increases the cost of those who avail themselves of Wil-Mar 's service. The operating costs to collect a street are the same whether the company is collecting one house or twenty houses. There is an economy of scale that mandatory collection has in spreading operating costs among more accounts. -3- �� Garbage Collection Fee Increase (cont. ) 0 2. Of all the cities Atascadero has the lowest density. With large lot sizes , the driving distance between pickups can be substantial. This increases the operating costs for those receiving the service. The other cities have a higher density (smaller lot sizes) in their residential area. This shortens the driving distance and cost between pickups. Second, with the increased rates and increase population and commercial growth (assuming the higher rates don' t discourage use of the service) the City will annually receive an approximate $4 ,600 additional revenue in Franchise Tax. The 18. 3 percent was the result of a joint analysis of the increase in operating costs outlined in the Wil-Mar proposal . They were each studied to determine their actual impact on the total cost of operating. It was determined that the rates should be increased by the following percentages associated with specific cost increases: COST DESCRIPTION % EFFECT" ON TOTAL COSTS Dump Fees increased approx. 60% 4. 0% Insurance costs doubled 6. 3 Tire costs due to additional axle required . 4 Staff increases to service growing routes 6 . 0 Capital costs of new trucks 1. 6 Total cost Increase Identified 18. 3% I am available to answer any questions or clarify anything in this report, as you see necessary. 1�A -4- Wil-Mar Disposal Co. , Inc. Proposed Monthly Residential Rates City of Atascadero Proposed Curb Service (1) : Rates 1 can $ 4.95 2-4 cans 7.75 5 it 8.95 6 if11.30 7 if13.65 8 it 15.20 Walk-in Service (1 & 2) : 1 can 6.85 2 cans 8.70 3 10.60 4 " 12.40 5 14.20 Special Pick-ups: Curb service - per yard of material 4.75 Yard service - it " (3) Drive-in Service Surcharge (4) : 100 - 200 ft. 2.50 200 - 300 ft. 4.95 Over 300 f t. 7.45 (1) All rates based on standard garbage can of 35 gallons, or smaller, with a 75 pound weight limit. Cans must be readily accessible. (2) Walk-in rate to be applied when cans must be carried in excess of ten feet to the refuse truck. The distance from the curb or street line shall not exceed 75 feet. For elderly or handicapped persons yard service is to be billed at curb rates after applica- tion is approved. (3) Due to extreme variability of terrain, architecture, and nature of refuse to be picked,up charges for walk-in service will depend on individual circumstances. (4) An additional drive-in rate is to be added to normal curb, walk- in or special pick-up where cans or material are picked up by truck service from a private drive where the distance from a maintained public road is in excess of 100 feet. The customer must assume all responsibility for the use of the drive- way by Wil-Mar trucks for pick-up service. Wil-Mar Disposal Co. , Inc. Proposed Monthly Commercial Rates City of Atascadero Can Service (1) : Number of Pick-ups Per Week 1 2 3 1 - can curb service $ 4.95 8.70 13.05 2 - cans " 6.85 13.65 18.05 3 - " 8.70 16.15 22.35 4 - " 10.60 19.30 26. 10 5 - " 12.40 21.75 29.80 6 - " 14.30 24.25 33.55 Walk-in service (2) (2) (2) Container Service (3) : Number of Pick-ups Per Week Container Size 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 cubic yard $18.65 29.50 40.40 51.20 62. 10 73.00 lZ cubic yards 23.00 35.10 50.65 66.15 81.70 97.85 2 " " 27.35 40.40 60.55 80.75 100.90 121.15 3 it 34.80 54.35 77.65 104.65 126. 10 151.25 4 it 47.20 69.55 100.90 135.10 170.85 201.90 (1) All can rates based on standard garbage can of 35 gallons, or smaller, with a 75 pound weight limit. Cans must be readily accessible. (2) Due to extreme variability of commercial architechture,charges for walk-in service will depend upon individual circumstances. (3) All rates are based upon level containers with lids closed. All containers must be on hard, level surfaces and readily accessible for mechanical pick- up by truck handling gear. The customer must assume all responsibility for the use of the driveway by Wil- Mar trucks for pick-up service. r \� RESOLUTION NO. 7-86 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO AUTHORIZING ADJUSTMENT OF THE COLLECTION REATES CHARGED BY THE WIL-MAR DISPOSAL COMPANY, INC. FOR GARBAGE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL The following resolution is hereby offered and read: WHEREAS , in May of 1985 , the City entered into a new five year Franchise Agreement with Wil-Mar Disposal Company, Inc. ; and WHEREAS, Said Chapter 6-4.13 of the City Code requires certain operating conditions and collection rates to be established by resolution; and WHEREAS, Wil-Mar Disposal Company, Inc. has held a franchise in the Atascadero area as granted by the County Board of Super- visors by Resolution 75-527, dated August 25, 1975 ; and WHEREAS, since the last increase granted to Wil-Mar Disposal Company, Inc. was granted on September 27, 1982; and WHEREAS, it is in the public interest that an adjustment in rates be executed to assure the profitable continuation of solid waste collection service with the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Atascadero as follows: 1. Wil-Mar Disposal Company, Inc. is hereby authorized to implement the attached rate changes effective February 1, 1986 . 2 . The City Manager be and and is hereby authorized to administer said agreement of behalf of the City. On motion by Councilman and seconded by Councilman , the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety on the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ADOPTED: ROLFE NELSON, Mayor ATTEST: ROBERT -97- JONES, City er APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: t: MICHAEL SHELTON, City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROBERT M. JONES,-"City Attorney M E M O R A N D U M • TO: CITY MANAGER MIKE SHE I LTOr AND COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: CHIEF OF POLICE SUBJECT: PROPOSED REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL - ATASCADERO POLICE SERVICES FACILITY DATE: JANUARY 21 , 1986 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that staff be authorized to request proposals from architectural firms to include: statement of qualifications for the site selection, design and project budget for the Atas cadero Police Services Facility. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Authorize staff by motion to request proposal as herein outlined. STATEMENT OF PROBLEM I believe it is well established that there is a need for a police • facility which is specifically designed for the delivery of public services. It now appears timely and feasible to undertake this project as the renovation of our City Administration Building is being planned. (Current plans for remodeling of City Hall do not call for expansion or improvement of space occupied by the P.D. ) As the County Library prepares to move into a new facility, other City departments may develop design plans for City use of the old library space . It is clear that other City departments, particu- larly the Community Development Department, are in dire need of additional operating space which is convenient to the needs of our residents . While there seems to be an abundance of space in our Admin. Bldg. , there are more activities and departments competing for the space at this time than ever before. BACKGROUND Present police facilities are inadequate and space now occupied by police operations can be better utilized by other departments of general government. Police employees and many. local residents have long recognized the need & importance of a separate police facility. (Please see attached R.F.P. for additional background information. ) ALTERNATIVES 1 . Remain in offices currently occupied. • 2 . Remodel interior andx e terror of Admin. Bldg . to properly accommodate police operations. ADMINISTRATION BUILDING , CITY ATTORNEY POST OFFICE BOX 747 POST OFFICE BOX 606 ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA 93423 ATASCADERO,CALIFORNIA 93423 PHONE: (805 466-8000 PHONE: (805) 466-4422 -�. CITY COUNCIL j aseade�� CITY CLERK 1/ POLICE DEPARTMENT CITY TREASURER POST OFFICE BOX 747 CITY MANAGER INCORPORATED JULY 2. 1979 ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA 93423 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT PHONE: (805( 466-8600 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT +- PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT FIRE DEPARTMENT 6005 LEWIS AVENUE ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA 93422 PHONE: 1805( 466-2141 REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL AND STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS FOR THE SITE SELECTION, DESIGN AND PROJECT BUDGET FOR THE ATASCADERO POLICE SERVICES FACILITY January, 1986 City of Atascadero Police Department 6500 Palma Avenue P.O. Box 747 Atascadero, CA 93423 1�1 REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL AND STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS INTRODUCTION The City of Atascadero requests proposals and qualifications from architectural firms for site selection, design and project budget. It is the City of Atascadero' s anticipation that the Police Services Facility will be of sufficient size to adequately house all existing police services and functions. The design of the building should provide for planned expansion over both short and long terms. The facility will be located and designed with community and City staff input. PROJECT HISTORY At the present time, city police operations are housed within the Atascadero City Administration Building at 6500 Palma Avenue. The police department occupies approximately 3500 square feet of office space on four floors of the building. Over the past five and one-half years since the police department began operations, police employees and many residents have been recommending the building or acquisition of an appropriate, sepa- rate police facility. Some complaints frequently stated by police staff regarding the present facilities include: 1 . Inadequate overall space to accommodate various police functions. 2 . Office space provided is not contiguous , thus supervision and functional work relationships are negatively impacted. 3. Internal security for the P.D. is lacking in that the Administration Building is of necessity a multi-use community facility. 4 . Police vehicles are frequently vandalized making them temporarily inoperable. Limited parking space and loca- tion of parking areas make surveillance difficult and impractical . 5 . Physical layout of police offices is detrimental to maintenance of confidential and/or sensitive investiga- tions . 6 . A safety hazard exists in mixing in-custody prisoners with citizens and general City employees who must come within close proximity of one another. SCOPE OF DESIGN SERVICES The project will involve two phases to complete . Phase I will } involve the review of current and future police operations and space needs and a recommendation for an appropriate site will be made . The site selection process will include an opportunity for community and staff involvement. Funding sources must be identified and preliminary arrangements should be proposed also in Phase I . Following the City Council approval of the site selection, Phase II will begin. Phase II will consist of for- mulating the construction and project budget and the preliminary building design which must include floor plans , site plan, building elevations and colored renderings. The firm selected must anti- cipate making presentations at no less than four public and City staff meetings . Site selections should be limited to not more than three options. REQUIREMENTS OF SUBMITTAL 1. Name, address, telephone number of the firm. 2 . Past record of performance on previous contacts on similar projects. 3. Specialized experience in designing law enforcement facilities. 4 . Specific approach to design tasks for this project. 5. Resumes ofkey project team members to be assigned. 6. Proposed sub-consultants and their qualifications. 7 . Proposed project schedule. 8 . Estimated fee to complete the project. EVALUATION CRITERIA The firms selected to -interview for this project will be evaluated by the following criteria: a. Design ability. b. Relevant project experience. C. Technical ability. d. Client/project references. e. Key personnel . f. Fee. TIMELINE 1 . Pre-proposal meetinge` am. to 11 : 00 AM. Friday, February 14 , 1986 , in Room 304 of the Atascadero Administration Building, 6500 Palma Avenue. Contact person for the meeting: R.H. "Bud" McHale, Police Chief 6500 Palma Ave. P.O. Box 747 Atascadero, CA 93423 (805) 466-8600 2 . Proposals must be submitted by 12 :00 noon Monday, March 10 , 1986 . 3 . Those firms selected based upon a paper screening of proposals and qualifications will be invited for a presentation inter- view on , March .1,9 1986 . 4 . A recommendation to the City Council for the selection of .a firm will be made Monday, March -3T, 1986 . * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Please submit all proposals to: R.H. "Bud" McHale, Police Chief (Project Director) Police Department 6500 Palma Ave. P.O. Box 747 Atascadero, CA 93423 M_E M_O_R A N_D_U M_ • TO: City Council THROUGH: Mike Shelton, City Managers _. t FROM: David G. Jorgensen, Director of Administrative Services SUBJECT: Midyear Budget Adjustments DATA;: January 22, 1986 Recommendations: Approve the resolution providing for the following midyear budget adjustments: I. General Fund Revenue A. Appropriate revenue from the Community Development Block Grant by $66,500. B. Appropriate as new revenue from the development mitigation tax $150, 000. II_ . General Fund Expenditures A. Appropriate from the City Council Reserve for contingencies for the following: ® 1. Fire Department Walkie-Talkies- $3, 160 (See attached Report #1) 2. Recreation Department Zoo Marketing Study - $3, 000 (See attached Report #2 Alternate #1) B. Appropriate $51,500 in the Community Development Department to cover the expenditures for the CDBG waterline project (completed) and the audit fees. C. Allow the Recreation Department to shift priorities in the already existing budget to construct a metal workshop building. (See attached Report #3) III. Gas Tax Revenue A. Appropriate $63 , 422 of new revenue from SB300. IV. Sanitation Fund Expenditures A. Appropriate an additional $46 , 372 to the depre- ciation account to agree with the figure in the Audit Report. B. Appropriate $4 ,000 for the two IBM personal computers. V. Capital Projects - Revenue Sharing A. Allow $18 ,025 to be expended from the $100, 000 already budgeted in the account "Paloma Restrooms" to be used for the completion of Paloma Park. (See attached Report #4) -1- Midyear Budget Ad0tments (cont. ) • the funds at this time we will be able to offset projected deficits in other revenue accounts. It should not be assumed that these new revenues can be used for additional expenditures in this fiscal year but may be looked at again during the 1986-1987 fiscal year budget submittal. Council Contingency: This was established by the Council in the event that unanticipated needs arose within the departments ' operations before the end of the 1985-1986 fiscal year. The Council allocated $33 ,800 to be set aside for this purpose. We are recommending that $6,160 be used to fund special circum- stances which have arisen at this time. (See Department Reports #1 & #2) SB300: This is a new funding source allocated by the State in order to allow cities to do more road and street main- tenance. We are eligible to receive approximately $172, 000 through fiscal year 1986-1987. While we recommend adjusting the current budget to receive the revenue we do not recommend expending that revenue until the 1986-1987 fiscal year. By combining both years revenue ' -,,e be able to complete a more comprehensive maintenance program. Depreciation - Sanitation: This is the first year the City has budgeted for depreciation of the Sewer Plant fixed Assets. The amount contained in the adopted budget was an estimate. When the Auditors finished their audit we had a more accurate figure for depreciation. This adjustment is to use the Auditors' figure for the Depreciation Expense. IBM Computers: With the completion of the Sewer Study, the City received from the consultant computer information that is compatible with the IBM equipment. In order for this information to have any future value to the city it is necessary to have the IBM equipment available to process the data. Engi- neering has requested the purchase of 2 IBM personal computers that will have the capability of retrieving and processing the : sewer information. Paloma Park: Paloma Park is scheduled to open in the Spring of 1986 . Without the expenditure of the $18, 025 the Park will not open by this date. This is not a request for additional funds but for the use of the funds already allo- cated by the Council for the Paloma Park Restrooms. A shift in priorities is demanded due to the projected completion date of the park and the unavailability of any other funding source to cover the completion costs. (See Department Report #4) Metal Building: Once again this is not a request for additional funds but for the redirection of already budgeted funds to a higher priority. (See Department Report #3) -3- Z _M_E_M_O_R_A_N_D_U_M_ DATE: 1-14-86 TO: David Jorgensen, Administrative Services Director FROM: Mike Hicks, Fire Chief SUBJECT: Mid-year budget review request Due to unforeseen equipment failures involving hand-held radios (walkie-talkies) , I request $3160 from contingency reserves to replace radios that have failed since the last budget request. There were funds budgeted for replacement of radios this fiscal year and purchases have been made, however, this request is in addition to the original budget request. The replacement of radios is of extreme importance because these radios are used on a 24-hour basis and are used to activate call-back personnel on a daily basis. I had hoped we could wait until the next budget cycle for additional replacement funds, however the radios didn't cooperate. If we should have to wait until the next budget, assuming the budget was passed on 7-1-86 and delivery takes approximately 90 days from order, we wouldn't receive the radios until the end of next fire season which would greatly affect suppression activities. Thank you for your consideration. /`" Z- L MIKE HICKS MH:pg b� � ��-��F r r 1't r►'l r1`--�t��t`r MEMORANDUM January 21, 1986 To: City Council Via: Mike Shelton From: Bob Best, Director parks & Recreation Subject: Mid Year Budget - Zoo Consultant and Zoo Market Study INTRODUCTION During FY 1985-86 Budget Hearings, the San Luis Obispo County Zoologi- cal Society requested $3,000 for a Zoo Consultant and $3,000 for a Zoo Market Study. The Consultant and the Market Study results would provide the basis for information gathering toward the development of a Master Plan for the Zoo/Lake Park. BACKGROUND As Council is aware of, three of the recommendations for the Zoo Advisory Committee were to hire a qualified Zoological Park Consultant to assist in preliminary work for a master plan, provide funding for a Zoo Market Study, and begin work on a Master Plan as soon as possible. Day recommendation to Council at that time (Budget Hearings) was to delay these requests until the mid-year budget review, and at that time I will make my recommendations concerning these two items. The reasoning was based on not knowing who our new Zoo Curator would be and the specialized skills this person may bring to the job. In the brief period of time our new Curator has been with the City, I have discussed these items with him and evaluated his skills and time avail- able to possibly work toward the development of a master plan and a market study for the zoo. RECOMMENDATION Approve the request for $3,000 for a market study and $3,000 for hiring a qualified consultant. FISCAL IMPACT A total of $6,000 is recommended for funding for these two related projects. i Page 2 ALTERNATIVES Time is the major factor concerning the above recommendations. Alan Metzler, the Curator, indicates an interest and knowledge concerning these areas, particualrly knowledge in recommending Master Plan ideas. Due to his heavy work schedule and skills, Alternative #1 is listed below. ALTERNATIVE #1 Approve the request for $3,000 for the Zoo Market Study and utilize Alan's talents toward Master Plan development for zoos in conjunction with the Parks and Recreation Commission, the Zoo Advisory Committee, and the Parks and Recreation staff to develop a Master Plan. This would utilize Alan's talents and provide for direct community involvement in the de- velopment of the Master Plan. ti f M E M O R A N D U M January 2, 1986 To: City Council Via: Mike Shelton, City Manager From: Bob Best, Director Parks and Recreation Department Subject: Park Workshop Building Bid INTRODUCTION City Council approved, as part of the Capital Improvement Projects Budget for FY 1985-86 $15,000 for a Park Workshop and Storage Building, and $11,000 under Capital Outlay for Renovation of the Quanset Hut at the Zoo. RECOMMENDATION Authorize the Parks and Recreation Director to prepare plans and specifi- cations and request bids for construction of a metal workshop building, to be located at the Zoo. No additional funding is requested, as the concrete slab, building materials, and installation will be paid for out of the existing funding discussed above. BACKGROUND As mentioned in the introduction, funding for two projects totalling $26, 000 was approved in the FY 1985-86 budget. Since that time I have re-considered these projects, particularly the $15,000 for the Workshop. In my opinion the remodeling of the garage at the old ranger house into a workshop area will not adequately serve the department needs. Department staff have researched cost factors to have a 40'X60' metal building installed at the rear of the zoo. Not including electrical or plumbing, the cost to have the building installed is approximately $15,000. This is a higher priority than remodeling or re- habilitating the existing structure at the zoo. As relates to finishing work (electricial, etc. ) , department staff are very skilled in some of these areas, and considerable savings could result by doing the work with- City employees. FISCAL IMPACT For FY 1985-86 no additional funding is requests, as there are adequate funds available to pay for this building. It is my intention that any future items needed which are considred capital improvements will compete with other projects on a priority system basis. It may take 2-3 years to complete every phase of the building, but it is the best method currently available to de- partment staff. M E M O R A N D U M January 2, 1986 To: City Council Via: Mike Shelton, City Manager From: Bob Best, Director Parks & Recreation"+fir ti Subject: Mid-year Budget Request INTRODUCTION The development of the City's newest facility, Paloma Creek Park, is approximately 90% complete (Phase I) . The department has been working con- stantly on the project during the past year, and has tentatively scheduled its grand opening for April 26th. Scheduled to be complete at that time are two large multi-purpose playfields, two night lighted softball fields, security lighting, irrigation for all four fields, bleachers, dugouts, and planting of shade trees. PROBLEM STATEMENT Initial cost estimate for Phase I was $338,600. The City received grant funds totalling approximately $171,000, making it necessary to seek volunteer labor, donations of time, materials, and cash, plus the extensive time of department personnel to work on the project. To date approximately $171,000 in grant funds has been spent. In other words, all grant funds, with the exception of interest applied to the project, have been expended. From inception of the project the department was aware it would be extremely difficult to complete Phase I with available grant funds. The progress has been remarkable considering the method which was necessary to make the park a reality. Remaining costs for Phase I include the following: Concrete - $1,500 Trees - $800 Infield Preparation - $9,525 Equipment Rental - $1,200 Electricial - $3,500 Fencing - $1,500 Sub-total - $18,025 Staff (3 months) - $6,900* Total - $24,925 *Staff cost to be paid from interest earned on the Paloma Creek Park account. 4� Page 2 • 0 The project has reached a point where all remaining Phase I projects require either technical assistance or direct costs for materials. Volunteer contributions for these projects are not feasible at this time due to the many donations already made by local contractors/vendors. RECOMMENDATION Request a mid-year budget adjustment of $18,025 to allow completion of the above mentioned projects. This would be credited to the Parks department budget. FISCAL IMPACT The approval of the requested funding would, of course, result in an additional $ 18,025 in expenditures for the City. However, there are other factors which need to be considered. These include our committment to the community that this facility will open in the Spring; the additional revenue that a Spring softball program would generate; additional softball tourna- ments generating revenue; and additional revenue from advertising. All these are important factors to consider. 0 RESOLUTION NO. 6-86 RESOLUTION OF THE ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL APPROVING MID-YEAR BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1985- 1986 AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS , THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Atascadero City Council as follows: SECTION 1. Pursuant to the provisions of Resolution 37-84 , Section 3 , which states , "the Council, from time to time, by motion, may approve and authorize the payment of non-budgeted demands from appropriated funds; and may appropriate funds for budgeted or non-budgeted items , and any such appropriation for a non-budgeted item shall constitute an approval to issue a warrant in payment of a property demand or demands therefore" , the attached staff report from the Finance Director dated January 22 , 1986; subject: Mid_ Year Budget Adjustments , is hereby approved as an ammendment to the previously adopted City Budget for the Fiscal Year 1985-1986. SECTION 2 . That upon approval of this resolution, the Finance Department is authorized to make the necessary changes to the budget ., as currently maintained in the City Computer System. SECTION 3 . This resolution shall become effective and in full force immediately upon its passage. On motion by Councilman , and seconded by Councilman the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety on the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ROLFE D. NELSON, Mayor ATTEST: ROBERT M. JONES , City Clerk APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: MICHAEL SHELT N, City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROBERT M. JONES , City Attorney