HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 06/25/1991 PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE
FROM COUNTER
AGENDA
ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
ATASCADERO ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
6500 PALMA
FOURTH FLOOR, ROTUNDA ROOM
JUNE 25r 1991
7:00 P.M.
This agenda is prepared and postedpursuant to the require-
ments of Government Code Section 54954.2. By listing a topic on
this agenda, the City Council has expressed its intent to discuss
and act on each item. In addition to any action identified; in the
brief general description of each item, the action that may be tak-
en shall include: A referral to staff with specific requests for
information; continuance; specific direction to staff concerning
the policy or mission of the item; discontinuance of consideration;
authorization to enter into negotiations and execute agreements
pertaining to the item; adoption or approval; and, disapproval.
Copies of the staff reports or other documentation relating to
each item of business referred to on the agenda are on file in the
office- of the City Clerk, available for public inspection during
City ,Hall business hours. The City Clerk will answer any questions
regarding the agenda.
RULES OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:
* Members of the audience may speak on any item on the agenda:
* A person may speak for five (5) minutes.
* No one may speak for a second time until everyone wishing to
speak has had an opportunity to do so.
_ * No one may speak more than twice on any_item.
* Council Members may question any speaker; the speaker may
respond but, after the allotted time has expired, may not
initiatefurtherdiscussion.
* The floor will then be closed to public, participation and
open for Council discussion.
Call to Order t�
Pledge of Allegiance
Roll Call
CITY COUNCILREORGANIZATION:
A. COUNCIL APPOINTMENT OF MAYOR AND MAYOR PRO TEMPORE
B. COUNCIL COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS
CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS
CERTIFICATE OF APPRECIATION: To P.G.&E. (Dave Vega)
PROCLAMATION: "Parks & Recreation Month" July 1991
COMMUNITY FORUM:
The City Council values and encourages exchange of ideas and
comments from you, the citizen. The Community Forum period is
provided to receive comments from the public on matters other than
scheduled agenda items To increase the effectiveness of Community
Forum, the following rules will be enforced:
* A maximum of 30 minutes will be allowed for Community Forum,
unless Council authorizes an extension.
* All remarks shall be addressed to Council, as a whole, and
not to any individual member thereof.
* No person shall be permitted to make slanderous, profane or
personal remarks against any Council Member, commissions and
staff.
A. COMMITTEE REPORTS (The following represents ad hoc or standing
committees. Informative status reports will be given, as felt
necessary. )
1. S.L.O. Area Coordinating Council/North Coastal Transit
`2. Solid/Hazardous Waste Management Committee
3. Recycling Committee
4. Economic Opportunity Commission
5. City/School Committee
6. Traffic Committee
7. Downtown Interim Sign Committee
8. County Water Advisory Board
9. Economic Round Table
10. B.I.A.
11. Colony Roads Committee
12. County-wide Fee Study
B. CONSENT CALENDAR:
All matters listed under Item A, Consent Calendar, are consid-
ered to be routine, and will be enacted by one motion in the form
listed below. There will be no separate discussion on these items. `
A member of the Council or public may, by request, have any item
1. CONSOLIDATED TREASURER'S REPORT - MAY 1991
2. RESOLUTION NO. 50-91 - YEAR END BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS
3. RESOLUTION NO. 48--91 - ADOPTING ANNUAL BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR
1991-92
4. AMENDING THE FY 1990-91 APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT AND ADOPTING A
NEW LIMIT FOR FY 1991-92
A. RESOLUTION NO. 49-91. AMENDING SPENDING LIMITS FOR
FISCAL YEARS 1987 - 91
B. RESOLUTION NO. 51-91 AMENDING SPENDING LIMIT FOR FISCAL
YEAR 1991-92<
5. ADOPTING A DEFERRED COMPENSATION PROGRAM FOR TEMPORARY
EMPLOYEES IN LIEU OF MANDATORY SOCIAL SECURITY
6. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 29-90 Subdivision of 4.81 acres into
three lots at 3450 E1 Camino Real (Derosier (Chapel of the
Roses)/Stewart
7. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 26-90 - 4-Unit Condominium project at
5540 Tunitas (Tunitas Group)
8. TENTATIVE' PARCEL MAP 32-90 Subdivision of 12.5 acres into
four parcels at 5`85 Garcia Road (Langille)
9. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 02-87 - Request for time extension, 9385
Vista Bonita
10. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 24-89 Acceptance of Final Map, 10750
Santa Ana (Vaughan/Kamm/Dohan)
11. ACCEPTANCE OF FINAL MAP 10-90 - Subdivision of. two lots of
28.37 acres into four lots containing, approx .mately 7.01 and
7.16, acres at 1048,0, 10660 Santa Ana Road
12. REAFFIRMING DEVELOPMENT FEES
C. HEARINGSIAPPEARANCES:
1. RESOLUTION NO. 47-91 - RESOLUTION EXTENDING AND AMENDING RESO-
LUTION NO. 24-91 ESTABLISHING CURRENT PLANNING AND ENGINEERING
FEES (Cont'd from April 9, 1991 agenda)
2. ORDINANCE NO. 225 CONSIDERATION OF EXTENSION OF INTERIM
URGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 224 REQUIRING CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS
40 FOR CERTAIN UTILITY TRANSMISSION FACILITIES (4/5 VOTE
3
REQUIRED; First heard at the City Council meeting,of May 28,
1991
D. REGULAR BUSINESS:
1. ZONE CHANGE 03-91 (City of Atascadero)
A. Ordinance No. 222 - Amending , Section 9-3.651
(Establishment of Planned Development Overlay Zone No. 7)
of the Zoning Ordinance by the addition of development
standards (Recommend motion to waive reading in full and
approve on second reading)
2. AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION MAPPING OF EL CAMINO REAL
3. DISCUSSION OF APPROPRIATE ENTITY TO ADMINISTER DONATIONS FOR
COMMUNITY SERVICES (Verbal)
4. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE SECOND ANNUAL "MAIN STREET
BASIC TRAINING" CONFERENCE August 25-28, 1991
E. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION:
1. City Council
2. City Attorney
3. City Clerk (Vacation June 26 - July 8)
4. City Treasurer
5. City Manager
NOTICE: THE CITY COUNCIL WILL ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION FOR
PURPOSE OF DISCUSSIONS RELATING TO
1. PENDING LITIGATION ENTITLED O'REEFE v. CITY OF
ATASCADERO. Said ,Closed Session is held pursuant to
Government Code Section 54956.9(a)
2. LABOR NEGOTIATIONS Said Closed Session is held
pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6
4
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: City Council
FROM: Ray Windsor, City Manager
fbvr
SUBJECT: Council Reorganization and Committee Appointments
DATE: June 18, 1991
Attached for you information are two items from your second meeting
in June last year. The first relates to the appointment of mayor
and Mayor Pro Tem; and the second reflects committee appointments.
With respect to committee appointments, the attached list reflects
current assignments because, as you are aware, several were created
after the initial assignments were made on June 26, 1990.
•
Attachments: 6/26/90 City Council Minutes Excerpt
List - City Council Representatives to Area
Committees
•
CITY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVES TO AREA COMMITTEES
s
Committee/Agency Appointees) Alternate Date apptd.
City-School Committee Bob Nimmo 6/26/90
Rollin Dexter*
S.L.O. Area Coordinating Bonita Borgeson* 7/10/90
Council/No. Coastal Transit Alden Shiers 6/26/90
(* NCT)
Traffic Committee Rollin Dexter 6/26/90
Solid/Hazardous Waste Mgmt. Bob Nimmo Greg Luke 6/26/90
Commission
Economic Opportunity Commis- Rollin Dexter* 6/26/90
sion
Recycling Committee Alden Shiers Greg Luke 6/26/90
Finance Committee Bob Lilley* 6/26/90
Alden Shiers*
Interim Growth Management Bob Lilley* 6/26/90
Alden Shiers* •
County Water Resources Ad- Bonita Borgeson* Greg Luke 6/26/90
visory Committee
United Way, FEMA Local Board Alden Shiers* 6/26/90
CalTrans Advisory Committee Bonita Borgeson* 6/26/90
Bob Nimmo
Colony Roads Committee Bonita Borgeson* 6/26/90
Bob Lilley*
Countywide Fee Study Bob Nimmo Mark Joseph 9/25/90
Committee
Claims Review Committee Bob Lilley* 6/26/90
Downtown Signage Committee Bob Lilley 12/11/90
(Interim) Rollin Dexter
Economic Round Table Bob Lilley 2/12/91
* Denotes reappointment e
(Revised June 1991)
.cw/data/committe
v
� AT TING AGENDA
Q
EZLZiLM ITEM! A-1
(Cont'd from 7/10/90)'
ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES �Cue�-rpPJ
JUNE 26, 1990 . .
5. Council Appointment of Mayor and Mayor Pro Tempore : '. :
MOTION: Mayor Dexter nominated Councilman Lilley as Mayor for
the year 1990-91 . Councilman Nimmo seconded the
nomination. There were - . no other . -nominations.
Appointment was. unanimously confirmed by roll call
vote. _
MOTIONt Councilman-Lilley nominated Councilman Shiers as Mayor
Pro Tempore. Councilwoman Horgeson seconded the motion
- and there were no other nominations. Council
unanimously approved the nomination by role call vote.
Councilman Dexter noted the accomplishments of the past year and
extended his personal gratitude to the Council and to staff.
Additionally, the councilman thanked Marj" Mackey for her years of
service to the City.
Mayor Lilley commented on some of the difficult issues recently
faced by the Council and expressed his hope for a continued
spirit a f cooperation. - -- -'--- _.y. ------------� -•_< • -
Mr . Lilley presented a plague in recognition of his service as
Mayor to Mr. Dexter.
,.v'`-• AWA
- �. ry.. . ..f• a� •, - k v ..� 1 --: ;.: •n � a # I•r�.a.yr,3�'*a atertr r y, 'S
S.
•awr<.,.a..sr.�.'•:4'�+._yi.....ti:�ifv.'-�...+,44r[.ws '
.. .. ' 1.
`` '. .... -.1•. -�T :'t _ � 7;.
�
•
PROCLAMATION
"PARIS AND RECREATION MONTH"
JULY, 1991
WHEREAS, throughout California, we are fortunate to have a
variety of parks providing countless recreational opportunities for
citizens and visitors from around the world; and
WHEREAS, positive recreational experiences in our beautiful
parks contribute to good health and enhance the quality of life for
all people; and
WHEREAS, our parks help preserve and protect the natural and
cultural resources of California; and
• WHEREAS, all levels of government and private enterprise
throughout the State participate in the planning, development and
operation of parks and recreational facilities; and
WHEREAS, it is appropriate that attention be focused on the
mental and physical benefits derived from involvement in leisure
activities in private and public park areas; and
WHEREAS, park and recreation opportunities provide something
of value for everyone.
NOW, THEREFORE, I Robert Lilley, Mayor of the City of
Atascadero, do proclaim the month of July as "Parks and Recreation
Month", and urge the citizens of Atascadero to use and enjoy our
parks, taking into consideration their beneficial effect to the
well being of all.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set me hand and caused the
Seal of California to be affixed on this day of July,
1991.
• ROBERT LILLEY, Mayor
•
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL Agenda Item: B_1
CITY OF ATASCADERO
Through : Ray Windsor , City Manager Meeting Date: 6/25/91
From: Mark Joseph, Administrative Services Director
SUBJECT: Notes to Consolidated Treasurer ' s Report
RECOMMENDATION: No action required; for Council information
only.
BACKGROUND:
At the City Treasurer ' s request , this report is intended to
explain the status and treatment of the Certificates of
Participation ' s (COP) reserve fund of $194,000. The monies are
held by the Trustee ( The Bank of New York Trust Company of
California) in two separate C.D. ' s. One for $99,000 with
Independence Bank of Encino , CA, (earning a rate of 7.011:; expires
• on 6/3/92) ; and one for $95,000 with First National Bank (earning
a rate of 8.5%; expires on 11 /1/94) .
Interest proceeds are used to offset service payments on the
bonds.
Because the funds are held by an outside trustee, we have
not shown the amounts on our monthly reports.
rn M N 0 1-- et W. -i TJ 30r' 0 1 Z I
N x ,- -% N J 3 m O m r• m • -1 1 a {
GI a i, \ m < n K -.f rt O. 7 D a 1 3 I
Z m -n rt r m m N
3 fo
m 3 w7r0N n r- \ (1) r ►a1r7 1 1
d a n (D \r• n• rt rn It m I 1
•• r• w •0 rt 3 W. C) a K Tf 1 {
rt to Ci is`< m + I— z a It m I 1
= W. - 3 X \ !
rr rt o rt a s � m to C
ID N a I •
ID K -+, rt • rb 3 i 1
N n 7 N .. a m rt I 1
DA 0aDa a Z 3 -1 `< I 1
N r :t 3 rt -n O a I {
7 m n a a rt r + l 1
't O.N It H 3 I {
-h x 9 n W. J 3
- K a N t'• rt O a m l I
O a N m a < N I I
E O m �• -I Y• H. rt I I
-1 0 m N a t0 I {
w J rt n o rt cr N -0 1 I
m J a 0 0 r 0 1 1
0 w to 3 't -0 m O t I
r rr N -. rt a r I
CL N o W. I
3I r• < art -, -1 a co i ro { D
C I rt m m a 3 m I 13 I
� 1 \ N N eti- -%
t' I et m + 5: Lq I r •0 Am I C I
ml 3 r 0. < m a 10 1 r 0070 1 3 I
�I fim = n Z 1 I rt I
1 O 3 rt W. rt It W t 07 A m m m I I to
X I rt r- 3 £ N m FJ I L4 V m 9 m 1 1 f l
11 :3 3 rta m l 00000 I
1
01m '0 ;o7r K Ul I WLQmmm f I b
al m -i r• m r A I mA sism I 1 C
I
It O N N 1 I 1 i
i to o rt In I i m-4 C-)
ClI a r O 1 ! T M
W-1 3 a < m < I
rt 1 m 3 a rt m I i LO-n D
`< I x w r• n I I W
I rt7r0 M3
-f l m a 3 3 3 r 1 O 1 -n D� -n
1 n !T
ml m
3 m rZm 3 \ I W. I XmXI.
a l 0 m O N rt Z Z r+ Z Z I t7 0 I D •• -1
NI 3 DUID
CI rt Z fn
'1 f 7N rt m 10 1 m a 1 ►`t7 A 0
ml + 7 r 3 D to 1 rt1 0 mD
I N 0 tJfifm 1 H. 1 10H10IV
1 £ rt0 m 1 O 1 rZOm
I 3 J 1 3 I 3 1 <;l ;o
I m m own I I m-•f0
I N '0 to0K 1 I UI
I rt -1 r I I -4
i r• O O F+••O I f 3
3 < -b a n 0I 3 I m
a \ Is •
W al• •,, O m I a ! Z
rt a r• rt 1- \ I tI rt 1 -f
m m n m O m Z Z r Z Z I w = 1 iA
\ \ r \ \ I rt -1 I
DD \ DD t m H. 1
•0 1 rt
r I `< I
1
1 I
1 1
r-r I
I 3 1
UI CO V 0) I 7P rt I
Z • l a m {
\ mAWL9 I rt ' I
DL9Lq V A I m m 1
xx :tx I N t
I rh 1
I I
t I
I 1 N 3: 1
I 1 7 0 1
1 1 rt I
I t m rt I
I 1 m I
W 1 P tN I iA Ut l
A l A 10 1 It i
rJ I LII V m Is I I
1 Z• I f
FJ t \mrS, is I I
r I D10r+l9m I I
i
1
1
A I A I t rt l
FJ I m I rt m I
m 1 10 A 0. 1 0 -1 1
I I m
rJ I W L9 W 1 t7 N i
tJ I tJ V FJ I all rt I
0• 1 r V a m I r+
I Z . • I m I
r I \ A Ili 10m I I
N I Db-` VAm 1 I
•
W r D w TI 0 -0 -0 m,m r-f -W '-1 -n m m D 7p
D m 0 m c a D0Crz0 -< c o m
a U) :: N x r <rzo � z -0 z
d D t-�f-rCNm0 m C � C[N O.'A . r--i
z •• z o Ln Z " .. -4 m
C7 z w fx7 rmmzmT N SC) _
M m m 1-+ m m H m t:'I N
x < Z ►� m S m m rt
< m z GI {t D Z D m rI C) A FI D 7J T Z
< t omomm ra+ m t7 N N m D tri<NDm < O S m- ;n
c m t"•t xrm -4z+v m z z D D
r ►+ N Z m r D " NzN z N M m z N
co W C -< 0 too m z m T N m S
M N � n z m '-' m c c N '' m
-i T N N
7D -1 2 r DO
m a o x < m 0
o m
m ci x x co `xi T
T
co r i1i -n C') m
z c N
z o m c o Ef)m d a m
tv � z cy o
►• a r Cl)
Z _ C -ian
C'1 m D N 1T1) -i
-I zm = -I
-/ IN x m D
7] m N D
c , , z xCMo
N �� --IOTli 'ri
-4 N Zmr+
T< D
S N -i
N 1 a
O •[ N
1 I r FJ m m to D
D x ?+ Cty
_ t•J I parr S Cn DOxm
S I rNOrOS -i0 -< Ta T
Lq i 0 WV I ODSASSS xC -iD0
I r T
A
wI A ,p �' I `SSSSSS x 0 0
S I SSSSSS t•rf.t
N 1 0 t9 S S 1 SSSSSS N r r
1 • • • • I . . . .
0 I S S SSSSSS d
Ut I S S N S I SSSSSS
I ^ ^ N O 0 W 1 14
I IM -f
I •. r N I r A 0 S 0 S D S I 0 h�J V w
C9 I O W V I OCnA oUIS mr .. Cn 1 ►' A S N
0 I A CC
►' i hJ W +Cn 1 '0 A t9 1fl S t o 'x0 ; a f„1 1 W V A Ln
• Lq I A N10 Cn I SVSVSS mm hJ 1 10 SLn Q
UI I O N S S I SNSOSSz < [0 10. N V D
►` I S SSSSSS m CR I S VS 0
S I S UI UI S I S S S S S S " C A I S W S r
v v v v m 1
1 1 m
I
t z
^ t n
Is do mossom z
1 ��
1 S 1 S
t m S m i S S m S S S m
S I S S S S I SSSSSS N
I i � �
FJ I FJWrr S a
UI I OS I Cn -bS005 r
I W w
O� I S. Ava+nS
I-- I N W UI I OAt9SSS D
0l I A SVS VSS t
UI 1 0 N S S I SNSOSS W
1 . . . . I . . . . . . ..
t-• I S r .0 S i SSSSSS
S I S L4 L4 S I SSSSSS
I I r r t•J FJ
I I
1 r r FJ i FJAVvOSS �
UI I UI W W S I SN0 V0S w m
• I + . O- 1 01 UI Ln L 4 S D "rt x
S 1 0� µ W VI I UI A'0 -40 S S DZ"
L4 I UI W S S t 0SPJN00 0 CN
r 1 r t. 1 . . . . . . m Z
S I S S UI S I S o m s S m
• t 1
m rJ a O m p D X � iD , r O £ ? Cvt rs �.! Tn �C+ On 3 Sr 2t P 1 ?t lyN n7! II
s v. r ?, rt rD O W. rD ], � O rD 4 v m -t r O a _ � y 7 rD .r
rt O ! r = 3 _• �! w v n n z -t 3 J p y < N or O n J D N J O rt r• N tD �+ o a t+ O < 11 N D O
7 r. n 7 rD iD w N N rD r r rD :t D tD L O r r• n _I a to O m If f7 Z
Cnr rD 7 n rp n F rD } , tD n D r DrD Thy - a r• n 1N N Z N
tD � w r• N r1 D rD D O £ r• a w rD a rD r• rD o, J o, s C N . N
-- y N N to rt tD y 1 v 3 rt 1 n x Cn rt < O N r w -4 x --q rt m II O c')
: O
< v rJ '� Y O C:1 C � Cn T 3 rt U3 r w � tD rt rt rD+n N L" -1 Oi K
T1 rD rt tD CL tD tD N O rt w T ' tD J if i m v •
rn x < m G s m N.
a 3 -tN 3 Dv D rt r• ?tr- DN ? x II O C ~ D
rD r, rD r D tD N + N O -t C7 < ry rt rD r• rt n :D -f n rD r• N -t N lb II ? r
` n r < -1 N 3 rp J T! rD O TI!n N In, d r -. n rD tD -t. x !! m
�i ° �• s r. r.Wrodr`Do �� m �o < ' rtxro3mNmto tD 1 m µ v
D c G UI , 0 A N N . -t 1 -4 -t N 3 N N q O X
i N N r ,� N n1 N m N r- m r
J) rt N rt rA ;D m N H. x N z d Ii m
N N m 't x If C rrjj
I I N if T
I !I T X
I r, !I m rn
r
µ i V 'nr1' ry � N j DtJ Z HJT
J 1 m J : J n - --o !-' W T r f+ r ''L. t•+ 1 ..{ I ti
�'nx q I rJT hJ W m W TTCnO ;A T A TT II -n Ln
W 1 •aA TGILI Ll WX A I W XrJ rJA�+W TrJLn9 �pA �OC'19�0 T -PgJnV qW C.- t•J W 11 BOJ Z mm
0 I Cl. co V A W LnLnmN Cn I oo00ON Ll J ig tjw rJLn VT 'O 'i w03 TrTOpt� TNmm W !I 10D -I vT
0 m V WHA tJtJgT
i V 1 NODr mLnLntJ V r,1 W NNLnTT -OIS) OoNJJATq V T s
1 I
If
! I
If D
i I II C) m
I fl D T
i I II v -t \ O
! I 11 3 L < r T
I !I 1 C H N
i !I Z N -1 \ -i
m 199 9mmmm �m m r if am
i II 2 ?+
_ i u v m
II 7i
Co t V t j Ln T LqCOo 0 I 4+ W 9 Ln T A C, Ol tj If ?t ~
W�J-J .. .p COp q 1 N C, JJ T ~ "+ �• If 7.1 O
i + I W 9W TTCn OrN r•JrJ µ CnAAANtJV N fr v
W I 00 O0 A T m q r N m d I rb q N N d r + + + + + + + + .• + .• + .• + + + II 3: Z T
10 1 TNVA WLnNmO Ln I Ta) rJ �pWpJ WTtJCn9 �0A �OLnm �0 TAmLnV W W grJW
l 0
T I mVTWr+ t•Jr•JN T V i qqf+ Wr•JCn \rT 'OVrD WN p. rTgrTgmmW 11 Dm Z
mLnNtJ V W WrACOCno' 0, wGNq •'0 ?T0V0. 0 V
j I
I n m t•r
Z
r.jI j.J If T
w 19 .AC* .1bT -OCOm0, d 1 1s Q~. LnT a0, QLn W W V W �' W Ln (m 11107 D
T I ,Jw WT '• .� r„! r.J , g W LI MtJLn01tJmTWW drVAwwli a oc 7?
+ ! + . . . un I 'o Ln V WNW -0OrJm a1OQ- AW + m WLng VIJ0C410LnNT fl 1 T. H
TII.IW0T�� ecnVa .• I + . . . + + + . 1! vr. a
W 1 Vm -OTTwt-• mf. p, 10 1 In Ln " tJV'ONlaLnNA0' r'J WhJTD W W NNGI-J07n+ WLnd II Dm 2
W I LnCn1a Or9LnTNT T I
'A 0- V TNCnW �' T V A .p .plaA WT VT WNq'OW V OhJW II � Z C)
i I d � _Ot•Jt-+ TTAo-• TA !j 'Or3gN VTFJON II m -4 m
! �' I II Cn •
r0 i .r m ! if -<
r ! 11 T
m i F+ ? tJ^• WT II I
N ! C tJ� W LI 0 d V 0 W ! ►+ Cj A W t.r r TLn I.;PQcmW V W " W i+ Ln10 11 -i
f -O L1 L' '-0WO � O A I WCq O to EAWm JVTm 'amT W WLn1,JQGW + gq tI O
. ! . • . . .. . ., . + ,; 1 + rj WTLnWmmANrWL+. m0. CC4p b, CnW WTTmW
W I u � w tJJ W .! W .0 r Co r 1 g V t•- d rA Ln rJ W V V LR T V T W W m Ln V1 W V O 0, V T W W 1 D F•+
W i tuJ .I N d T t+ T W J f Ln Ln '0 '0�•+ q t.J _. �, Ln .-0 A A m m tit 10 PJ Ln V ,0 '0 r•J W!.s m CO A if -1 O
d i - m ,a@m •OSOTAT V 1 07mW tJ 'aWVtJ !Ur„iVLr
! ! tr9Vt-' tJWL4tJtJmhJmwW CO ow 1 f'' T.
1 II
t t Ln ! 11
co ! l 1 d y
Lnw61 mm VIJ t T mW r. a) " O ! FJrJptV ! wLn I � Cd II < �!
1 . . . . . . , . . . OLnma• NrN WNr+ t9 �+ W VTLnmd fl D 7
N I _t W mN ,..W Tx. T 1 LnTCnt. ' • • - - • V If T
X ! :: d. .. ,' X :, .:XXX J `pO` m 'OtJT �O V� rtJCR � OW •aLn Ln Wtr•
I .\• XX XX .\\• .\' ..\' XX :: X .\' X \ XX .\• XKXX \' X .\• XX .\• II
t! aZD1-1nT - -71Clm -r
Ta, O 20 O r r• O tD X � ' TiO £ ?rrJ E � N ;n0 -4 0c) !r wcn -1 -v In -v) ;a II C �a
3 3 3 " -, r j T tD , r rt tD O r. D d r O tp rt O 9 rt w O . .0 y -5 Ip d 1 m II m i-I C7
N 0 0 rt O O r a, < N a, O n J D N J t0 rt w N to d O CL N D O
.t O 1• 3 3 rD n rip ? n n It m N !D CL r ,� rp .•t 3 -, N rD m O r N• n O v O � < 11 to •<Z
to tD 0 3 n tD ICY Fl. a, tv t0+ ID t-. t4 N S n I �-' rD 3 D N Tt -I ? -! -t d 0 W. n • -1 N t0 Z N N
n ami a, N rt rt£ ~ ~ ►+6 N N 7 m u � DI 'OJ oar 3 3 It t-t n X tD r to d J ar � C p ►-t x FW,Or
-f N N rt rD W N T- 3 rt to w w 3 It rt rt 210 w t. W. x -1 rt m n C t~
< v rD K `< O CIC 3 TIO rt tD r• D t0 N O t w 7J Gt t0 J N N -1 a' X q II -♦ C
• wn r:t• ro
J 7X O T rD --h mO to3 Cq !o x n O �i
9 m r0 •rD rD N pI C O n C7 rD *• -t•1 I t O TI t0 N tD O --�n.,n F'' N T!N a, 11 2 `a m
O ri N < 'i N 3 J rD S j n -tl TI t0 N r tD O r t-t X � 3 n Ip tp + x p ! M b
O r r• L rt tD a, t0 rD N rD < C 3 z N t0 tD t0 0 -I
•- T ar to r• 3 -1 N = rt N T m N N r• 3 N N 7 N 11 O X
r N rD O D or O N to t0 N m N r m N It to 3 to Ip -i II I m
CII rt 'P rt t j p 41 r' X N 0 a+ Itn !�l
r••. ! N .t x it rD
I N !1 C C
VJ i rJ J.� IQ .0 1 D T
jJ II r Zt m
A I
01 0- VC� VCnr9hJ P I W L-1 01 W AAW OD L4 F+ rW OD Sl Iif I C7 71 TT
M I A V .t- W A 'a V PLnq q 1 rPr qq W W PP `0 Vrrgm aO. W7, q C� WO. r`00 II wC tT1 TmjN
1 o WP J0m tq W P V 1 -aq A Ot-' CJ9AArJ9rJo-• 9LntJ W 9Ln9,+
! . I �tlj 919999 II C� D
N I W tagplt•JP `0 AWN A I AGI rJt-+ Ln99g9PriP9q VLnt-• �OS'+9Ln9 V99999 11 61171 0 7.1T
Cn i � rJ �O V Aqq �a >' IQ Cn I W99rnL ws 'D !9t9 . gCntpFJ "'0S0St dP(9 V trLn99999 !t m2 7.1 mm
V 1 P9 W Lnt-+ •a ^.,J Ngcn r 19ImwCr9999r999t•J999 - 9999Ln0W 99999 ti :7T
I
b 1 N T
I N if <
f+ I IQ 00 A A0• r t•JC9W W VC1 rW II T 9
W 19AP VAP Og9P A I AP GIP W W A97rJLnPrJ 4P W WA !+ V AW W Vt]O V 1 -�C
P 1 rJgWPjJAW JJ ' ATI
! . �' 9 CN 1 �OLn V Wq W •OCnt•J9A 0Cl - W �-+ 9WUq V Vtg %0 LmI•JP II O77 t\+ 0
P 1 V W`OPN .00n V At+ ! .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. . . .
W 1 V9 oPP Wri9t+ 0 9 1 CnNPtJ V `OgA 'mm1. a, WNPA W WNrJ9 Vgr+ WCnA N dm q
0 I VA V W gAW!+ q VA `O o I A Va.Wgq OW V°ONW n D2 \ �
W I CnLq b. 10 9Ln ITNP 0- 1 a+P V PgLntJA A10N) , A ► p. Ar+ ,OrJggV p.FJ ,ON n m-1 110x
1 i
i
i I II
i II m
1 ! n m
I ! n tti
V 1 t•JAq `OggV qq �0 %0 1 0 .9h, 0t�Pi l'iN rt-+ O
W 1 VtJVCn`3w0 & V9 qW Wt� a V9P Vgt+ V oLn9tbq V `09P0-w0 tf "!7_+ C
i W I Lnr AP A rFJtJCnq W V `00AAI- Ar V W W r•J0Cn00 N m0 m
W I A 10 P 0 r•J P P A V I • • • • • • . . . • • • • • • • • II 2-I
x l xxxxxxxxxx X I xxxLgALgM00 AV W W9q �0 Vt099hJA0DPWC�LnW N -1 Z
Xx .t :C .\• .LXAt .tA• X ?tA• xAtAt3t X ?tX3tXX ?t it C
I i
I
i j•J I �'J r+ it C1
9 ! Cn A Ln +tJ P \1 `a r•+ q rJ g I A m WW W rJ q rJ r If
If
P I tJ `J VrJWP009 �a0- CnP !� r
N I ACnrg0 "J WP Vt•JCnO P OgAA ,+ O OCn9P9 qA It hp
9 f qv WPW A V Oq W 1 V -JPt•J •OW0-l- " 'J •rQPggP W Vt•J00M9CnWP0 Ln it C �}
W rJ `a V P A 0. 9 t-` P is I t+ 9 O Cn JJ 9 6 Ll•9 9 9 9 W A A 0 A P 9 9 9 A `0 9 9 9 P it Gi"
Cn 1 !+ ►+ Tt•JrJ !- P 9r V N 1 V 99 S1t•J99rJ99GI99C9r999999 W 099999 II m
9 I PLnCO `OCOLg1• P10 W 9 I Ln999 W 99P9Sig 9999W 999999 W99999 II -17.7
• I t
n 7+
9 I t+ AtJ
0, -4 qPr FJ I !' V A PLnr tJrJW r•J J W f+ W F` Ln 0 11 �
rJ ! -OyF_ A
CA LFT 310W
l •a
'InGt010 W9r0 W I t' Cn f. NW W9 JVP 3 09P W WLnVN9Wt+ gq II O
t . A i J !• t+ Pv1PLnW � ArJ !• WP9PgAACtIW gPP9G' 11 I Z+
C9 I t••.. Wr
YW tilW VG9 .,arq t-+ I qV ►• t•+ AgCnFJ W V VC9PV PW W9UtCn WJ • • • • • • t tvM
W i rJ +►, t+CO A P r 0. W J 1 Cn Cn x.1 `0 - 00 Fj -+ Ln 'a A A 9 9 V `0 IJ Ln V V `O P V P W W iI D t-•t
A ! t-` 9 `0 Stp ,0 ,OP AP V I q9 WIQ '0 W VtJCO W V Ln9V ,••' rJ W Lnt•Jt•J9tj9W WCl) .OW it mm
t !
i I If
! II
Ln I WWW Vgrr•, coTeJ V V I rJ`0 9CnPA -` 9t•JgW 6� qV 10 V `OW V g9P9100 11 MT!
`0 I V V 0 V � P9S0? W 0 I CnA 'j NC' P' W 0M03 .09V 9A •a9P 099 .+WLq V N m0
i . I .
0 I V !JA VP 3scr, I C4 P i LnPGIIJCO � rJ - A '9CntSq � 0vr'JwV W II Z1
1�. 1 X .t.\• .\•A• ;C x x .tx x I xX :t ,t xA! \�,! x .\• .t .\• .\• .! .\• .\• .\• x .tx vx xXxx Xx I11 I �•
•
y� cr V 2 C7
m O 3 D O
N N a -< 2
0 Q m µ O
N N
fr
1 O y r L d
n m O t D
rt rt n
I rt m � •
I rtN rm
ID O
TII 0 7
r+ 0m T
-�, m 0
o D
m1 a
rt,I'D c
! t+ T
O1 7 w m T T
m
rtI T7.7
j m
o + O a mm
� ! r rt3 I T.
1 a 7 ^ r+ co
m w ,, i
N a
m ~ ol -n
rt \ O
'f n 7 �- .T
m O m A
p art
s w rt 1.0 S
rtrt . m
N w m T
�• 3 d m
a a a ='
o
c -a< �
nom
d -
r• 2
d rt 3 t7
w� -
hrti
rt m O S
m -c Ci
a� 3
m a
n �
or r•r•
O O
a a
N
3 w
to to
X v •
m o,
It n n
Sr• n
m m
as
kart
o m
n
m
•
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL Agenda Item: B-2
CITY OF ATASCADERO
Through : Ray Windsor , City Manager Meeting Date: 6/25/91
From: Mark Joseph , Administrative Services Director
SUBJECT: Year-End Budget Adjustments
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Council adopt the attached
Resolution No . 50-91 , amending certain General Fund
appropriations for the current fiscal year .
BACKGROUND:
As part of the year-end review of departmental expenditures,
it is often necessary to adjust overall departmental
appropriations. Such is the case this year .
The attached two memos highlight the specific adjustments
• and offer reasons for those adjustments. In summarv, a total of
$99,000 of General Fund appropriations are being transferred from
one department to another . Furthermore, $163,465 of additional
appropriations are being requested --- $38, 465 for Recreation and
$125,000 for Equipment Replacement . In both cases, the
additional expenses are offset by additional revenues.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Because the increases are offset by either transfers from
other Departments or new revenues, there should be no negative
effect on our General Fund reserves .
•
•
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: June 181 1991
TO: Mark Joseph, Director
Department of Administrative Services
FROM: Andrew J. Takata, Director
Department of community services
SUBJECT: 1990/91 END OF FISCAL YEAR BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS
After reviewing the May end funding printouts, the Department of
Community Services is anticipating the following adjustments.
These adjustments will not require any additional funding, and can
be adjusted from within the Department's budget.
Anticipated savings for year ending in each division:
Streets Division. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 18, 000
Parks Division. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 14, 000
Building Division. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 91000 •
Total Savings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 41,000
Anticipated Recreation Division expenditures
through June 30, 1991. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $448,435
Anticipated Recreation Division revenues
through June 30, 1991 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $308, 666
Anticipated net expenditures
through June 30, 1991. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $139,769
Budgeted Net Expenditures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 98,770
Remaining. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 40,999
I propose that the savings from the divisions listed above be
applied towards the Recreation Division expenditures.
Please let me know if you have any questions or comments.
AJT:kv
;budget2 •
•
M E M O R A N D U M
Date: June 17, 1991
To : Ray Windsor , City Manager
From: Mark Joseph , Administrative Services Director'
Subject : Year-End Budget Adjustments
I have reviewed the General Government , Administrative
Services and Non-Department Budgets, through May of this year .
Below, by budget , are the adjustments requested , and a brief
recap of the reasons behind the adjustments.
1 . City Attorney - I project an increase of $25,000 to cover
additional legal expenses associated with the Wells Fargo
Roads issue, special litigation and personnel matters.
• Approximately $10,000 is available from the City Council ' s
budget ( i .e. , Council is expected to be $10,000 under
budget ) . The balance is available from the Non-Department
budget .
2. Finance - There are two reasons for additional funding: one,
the higher than expected start-up costs associated with the
new accounting system (extra overtime to input data ,
additional training expenses) ; and , two , the early pay-off
on the Capital Lease, which also related to the new computer
hardware/software. Funding for the start-up costs can be
absorbed ( i .e. , from savings in Personnel and Risk
Management ) ; the $20,000 for the early pay-off is requested
from Non-Department .
3. Equipment Replacement - An additional $125,000 is requested
to cover the cost of the early Capital Lease pay-off as well
as the Fire Truck bid , awarded by Council . This
appropriation is more than offset by the new Capital Lease
proceeds -- in fact , this adjustment is for accounting
purposes only .
In closing , the Non-Department budget is expected to show an
available balance of at least $40,000, so the requests noted
above ($15,000 for the attorney budget and $20,000 for Finance)
should pose no overall problems.
•
RESOLUTION NO. 50-91
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ATASCADERO TO MAKE YEAR-END ADJUSTMENTS
TO THE FISCAL YEAR 1990-91 BUDGET
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ATASCADERO:
That the following adjustments to departmental
appropriations are effective upon adoption of this Resolution.
Department Adjustment
City Council <10,000>
City Attorney 25,000
Recreation 79,465
Parks <14 ,000>
Building Maintenance < 9,000>
Streets <18,000>
Personnel < 3,000>
Finance 33,000 •
Risk Management <10,000>
Equipment Replacement 125,000
Non-Department <35.000>
Total - General Fund 163,465
On motion by Councilmember and seconded by
Councilmember , the foregoing resolution is
hereby adopted in its entirety on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ADOPTED:
CITY OF ATASCADERO
By:
ROBERT B. LILLEY, Mayor
•
•
ATTEST:
LEE DAYKA, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ARTHER MONTANDON
City Attorney
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
MARK JOSEPH, Director of
• Administrative Services
I
•
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL Agenda Item: B-3
CITY OF ATASCADERO
Through: Ray Windsor , City Mana Meeting Date: 6/25/91
From: Mark Joseph , Administrat ve Services Director
SUBJECT: Adopting the FY 91-92 Annual Budget .
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Resolution 48-91 ,
which establishes appropriations for each department in the City,
by fund.
BACKGROUND:
The Recommended Budget< for :FY 91-92 was reviewed at the
Public Hearing June 11 , 1991 . A second hearing was held on June
19 to consider Community Group Funding requests.
As a result of these two hearings, the following adjustments
• to the Recommended Budget are in order :
1. Community Group Requests A total of $47,432 was
approved. Attachment A lists specific amounts by
Agency.
2. Treasurer ' s Budget - An increase of $1 ,830 is included
to cover the increased salary approved by Council for
the City Treasurer .
3`. Dial-A-Ride Bus -` A second bus for $42,500 was
authorized. The cost ,is offset by an 80 percent
Federal match, with the remaining 20 percent from Dial-
A-Ride monies.
4. Carryover Capital 'Projects - A limited number of
Capital Projects need to be carried over to next year .
The project and amount carried over are listed below:
*Paloma Creek Improvements= $29,200
*City Hall Rekeying 5,000
*Seismic Repairs at City Hall 35,000
$69,200
5. Deferred Capital Projects Certain drainage projects
are proposed to be deferred until at least 'FY 92-93,
due to the significant use of General Fund reserves
(p rtrj ec t s--ens t i-m a t ed a t--$244,004,—Certe r�1- Ftm"o,-t-inert--
$200,000) .
Attachment A
COMMUNITY GROUP FUNDING REQUESTS, FY 91-92
NOTE: Certain agencies have been included for historical purposes,
even though they are not currently requesting funds.
FY 85-89 FY 89-90 FY 90-9.1 FY 91-92 FY 91-92
AGENCY NAME ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL REQUEST APPROVED
AAUW (Art Park) 750 750 750 750 750
Ad Care Assoc 0 0 500 11000 500
AFAR 17, 000 81800 1 , 500 13, 000 0
'
American Red Cross 500 500 250 11000 7510
Atas. Babe 'Ruth 7, 850 10, 000 5, 000 15, 000 51000
Atas. Community Band 500 5, 000 5, 000 0 0
Atas. Girls Softball 0 0 0 2, 432 2, 432
Atas. Little League--s 0' 4, 600 5, 000 0 0
Atas. Youth Cheerleaders 0 0 0 3, 440 0
Atas. Youth Football 0 0 5, 000 12, 500 51000
Bronze Tiger Project 0 0 11000 0 0
Cal Poly Arts 0 loo 250 350 350
Care 8 Counseling Ctr 0 0 0 5, 000 21000
Caring Callers 250 175 175 200 175
Children at Risk 0° 0 0 11000 0
Chumash Campfire Girls 500 Soo Soo 1 , 1oo Soo
Crime 'Stoppers 400 912 500 500 500
Easter Seal Society 0` 200 250 600 250
EOC 1 , 662 1 , 383 1 , 628 2, 850 2, 850
EOC - Homeless Shelter 0 0 0 6, 250 2, 000
Family Service Center 300 500 500 11000 750
Food Bank Coalition 0 0 11000 2, 500 11000
Hospice of SLO County Soo 500' Soo Soo 500
Hotline 300 300 500 11000 300
} Loaves 6 Fishes--2 0" 0, 0 0 0
No. Co. Connection 0 0 0 1 , 300 600
No. Co. Cycling o' 500 11000 2, 000 0
} No. Co. Women's Shelter 61000 7, 000 10, 000 20, 000 151000
Ombudsman Service 0' 200 300 300 300
RSVP 300 300 500 525 525
SLO Co. Youth Symphony 0 0 250 500 250
SLO Mozart' Festival 250 250 250 300 250
Soviets Meet Middle Amer 0 Soo 0 0 0
Sr. Citizens United 2, 400 2, 400 2, 400 2, 400 2, 400
Sr. Nutrition Program Soo 750 Soo 11500 1 , 500
We Tip 0 0 0 11500 0
Eagle S Bear (Soviets) 31500 11000
Environmental Center 12, 000 0
---------------------------------------------
TOTALS
--------------------------------------- ---TOTALS 39, 962 46, 120 45, 003 118, 097 47, 432
NOTES:
I . Little League is requesting the City build a facility at Paloma
Creek Park, with the Little; League <contributing their own funds
and volunteer labor.
2.. Loaves 8 Fishes is _requesting storage ap_ace_,,_not money.
•
RESOLUTION NO. 48-91
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ATASCADERO APPROVING A BUDGET
FOR THE 1991-92 FISCAL YEAR AND
APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREOF
BE IT RESOLVED by the Atascadero City Council as follows :
Section 1 : Pursuant to provisions of the Government Code, a
budget is hereby approved , per attached entitled "Annual
Appropriations by Fund , by Department" , and as may be amended by
City Council for the City of Atascadero for Fiscal Year 1991-92.
Section 2: The City Manager may transfer appropriations
within, but not between, each of the departmental activities, as
required to achieve the orderly and efficient functioning of the
City.
Section 3: The Council , from time to time, by motion, may
approve additional appropriations, as they deem necessary.
On motion by Councilperson and seconded by
Councilperson , the foregoing resolution is
hereby adopted in its entirety on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ADOPTED:
CITY OF ATASCADERO
By: _
ROBERT B. LILLEY, Mayor
ATTEST:
LEE DAYKA, City Clerk
ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS BY FUND, BY DEPARTMENT
FISCAL YEAR 1991-92
1, DEPARTMENT AMOUNT
FUND 001 - GENERAL FUND
City Council 39, 540
City Clerk 58, 120
City Treasurer 4, 630
City Attorney 80, 000
City Manager 135, 795
Police 2, 054, 300
Fire 1 , 066, 300
Public Works/Engineering a Administration 346, 905
Community Development/Administration 193, 062
Community Development/Planning 256, 065
Community Development/Building 255, 705
Community Development/Code Enforcement 60, 785
Community Services/Administration 63, 607
Community Services/Recreation 409, 511
Community Services/Parks 349, 035
Community Services/Building Maintenance 188, 645
Community Services/Streets 399, 925
Personnel 1111550
Finance 253, 850
Risk Management 300, 935
Equipment Replacement 121 , 000
Non-Department 362, 688
Community Group Funding 47, 432
------------
TOTAL GENERAL FUND 7, 159, 385
FUND 002 - GAS TAX
Streets/Gas Tax 165, 000
FUND 015 - ZOO ENTERPRISE
Zoo Operations 221 , 275
Capital Improvements 51000
------------
TOTAL ZOO ENTERPRISE 226, 275
FUND 200 - DIAL-A-RIDE
Dial-A-Ride Operations 299, 245
Capital Improvements 60, 000
------------
TOTAL DIAL-A-RIDE 359, 245
FUND 201 - WASTEWATER
.j Wastewater Operations 808, 960
Capital Improvements 883, 000
TOTAL WASTEWATER 1 , 691 , 960
FUND 202 - PARK CONCESSIONS
3 Park Concession Operations 40, 730
ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS BY FUND, BY DEPARTMENT
FISCAL YEAR 1991-92
DEPARTMENT AMOUNT
FUND 310 - POLICE TRAINING TRUST
Police Training 30, 000
FUND 311 - WEED ABATEMENT TRUST
Weed Abatement 400000
FUND 312 - OUTSIDE PLAN CHECKS TRUST
Plan Checks 20, 000
FUND 403 - ASSESSMENT DISTRICT #3/REDEMPTION
Assessment District #3 6, 420
FUND 404 - ASSESSMENT DISTRICT :94/REDEMPTION
Assessment District #4 153, 940
FUND 405 - ASSESSMENT DISTRICT #5/REDEMPTION
Assessment District #5 56, 332
3 FUND 452 - C. O. P. REDEMPTION .
C. O. P. Debt Service 186, 000
FUND 500 - CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND
Capital Improvements 2, 733, 000
FUND 501 - C. O. P. . CONSTRUCTION FUND
Capital Improvements 11165, 000
FUND 731 - STREET MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS
Street Maintenance Districts 70, 500
GRAND TOTAL 14, 103, 787
NOTE: Interfund Transfers are not included in these appropriations.
r
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL Agenda Item: B-4 (a) & (b)
CITY OF ATASCADERO
Through : Ray Windsor , City Manager Meeting Date: 6/25/91
From: Mark Joseph , Administrative Services Director
SUBJECT: Amending the FY 90-91 Appropriations Limit and Adopting
a new limit for FY 91-92.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Council Adopt Resolutions
No . 49-91 and No . 51-91 , amending our spending limits for FY 87-
88 through FY 90-91 , and adopting a new spending limit for FY 91-
92.
BACKGROUND:
With the passage of Prop . 111 in the June, 1990 election,
significant changes were approved regarding how cities set their
Annual Spending Limits (Gann Limit ) . On the one hand , new
criteria allowed cities to increase their limits; on the other
hand , the new law required the limits be reviewed and validated
by outside auditors.
With this in mind , Finance recalculated our Spending Limits,
and have reviewed those calculations with our auditors. As a
result , the FY 90-91 limit should be amended from $5,350,491 to
$5,576,767, or an increase of $226,276. In addition, the new
limit for FY 91-92 is set at $5,984,428.
Based on the revenue projections for next fiscal year ,
including "excludable" items ( i .e. , the General Fund ' s portion of
debt service on the C.U.P. bonds) , we expect to have a cushion of
over $600,000. The table below sets the exact amounts.
FY 91-92 SPENDING LIMITS
Proceeds of Taxes 5,464,500
Less: Exclusions (96,000)
Appropriations subject to Limitation 5,368,500
Current Year Limit 5,984 .428
Amount Under Limit 615,928
Pursuant to our Auditor ' s recommendation, two resolutions
need to be adopted . Resolution No . 49-91 establishes specific
criteria for fiscal years 1987-88 through 1990-91 , and declares
is the new limits for each fiscal year . Resolution No . 51-91
achieves the same result for the next fiscal year .
•
RESOLUTION NO. 49-91
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ATASCADERO AMENDING THE ANNUAL SPENDING LIMITS
FOR FISCAL YEARS 1987-88 THROUGH 1990-91
WHEREAS, Proposition Ill revises the methodology used to
calculate Annual Spending Limits, and
WHEREAS, the City of Atascadero must select the most
appropriate criteria to be used in calculating the new limits ;
WHEREAS, recalculating the City of Atascadero ' s spending
limits from the new base year of 1907-00 increases our current
spending limit ,
THEREFORE, Be it Resolved by the City Council of the City of
Atascadero :
• Section 1 . That the City of Atascadero elects to use the
following criteria for the following fiscal years , for the
purposes of revising the City ' s Annual Spending Limits :
FY 87-88 - City Population and Per Capita Income;
FY 98--09 - City Population and Per Capita Income;
FY 09-90 County Population and Per Capita Income;
FY 90-91 County Population and Per Capita Income;
Section 2. That the revised Annual Spending Limits are
calculated as follows:
FISCAL YEAR PERCENT CHANGE NEW LIMIT
07-88 8.50'/1. 11 ,212,530
e8-89 11 . 12 4 ,6809972
89-90 9.31 5, 116,770
90-91 8.99 5,576,767
Section 3. That a judicial action or challenge must be
commenced within 45 days of the effective date of this
Resolution.
Section 4. Documentation used in determining the Annual
Spending Limits is available to the Public in the Office of the
Administrative Services Director , Administration Building , Room
• 203, 6500 Palma Avenue , Atascadero , CA.
•
On motion by Councilmembey- and seconded by
Councilmember thf_- foregoinq resolution i -,
hereby adopted in its entirety nn the following roll cal 1 vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT :
ADOPTED:
'_' t I Y OF AT ASCADERO
ROBERT B. LILI.E') , f,17?yor
ATTEST :
•
LEE DAYKA, C i t v Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ARTHER MONTANDOH
City Attorney
APPROVED AS TO
----------
MARK JOSEPH, Director of
Administrative Servicrs
•
CITY OF ATASCADERO
F3
ROBERT B. LILLEY , Mayor
ATTEST :
LEE DAYI A. Citv Cleric
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
• ARTHER MON T-ANDONN
City Attorney
APPROVED AS TO CON-TI=NT :
MARK, JOSEPH, Director of
Administrative Services
•
•
RESOLUTION NO. 51-91
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ATASCADERO ADOPTING THE FISCAL YEAR 1991-92
ANNUAL SPENDING LIMIT.
WHEREAS, Proposition III revises the methodology used to
calculate the Annual Spending Limit ; and
WHEREAS, the City of Atascadero must select the most
appropriate criteria to be used in calculating the new limits;
THEREFORE, BE 11' RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Atascadero :
S3ection 1 . That the City of Atascadero elects to use the
-following criteria for fiscal year 1991-92, in establishing it a
new Annual Spending limit :
County Population and California Per Capita Income.
• Section 2. That the Annual Spending Limit is calculated as
follows:
FISCAL YEAR PERCENT CHANGE 1,,JEW LIMI T
91-92 7.31'/'* $5,984 ,428.
Section 3. That any judicial action or challenge must be
commenced within 145 days of the effective date of this
Resolution.
Section 4 . Documentation used in determining the Annual
Spending Limits is available to the Public in the Office of the
Administrative Services Director , Administration Building , Room
203, 6500 Palma Avenue, Atascadero , CA.
On motion by Councilmember and seconded by
COUncilmember , the foregoing resolution is
hereby adopted in its entirety on the following roll call. vote:
OYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ADOPTED:
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL Agenda Item: B-5
CITY OF ATASCADERO
Through : Ray Windsor , City Manager- Meeting Date: 6/25/91
From: Mark Joseph , Administrative Services Director
SUBJECT: Utilizing a Deferred Compensation Plan in Lieu of
mandatory Social Security for Temporary/Seasonal Employees.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommendF, Council endorse the concept of
using a deferred compensation plan for temporary/seasonal
employees and authorize the City Manager to execute an
agreement ( s) with Great Western and/or the Hartford Companies.
BACKGROUND:
Effective July 1 , 1991 any emploype not covered under a
City ' s retirement plan (e.g . PERS) must be covered under Social
Security. In Atascadero ' s case, this refers to all of its
• temporary and seasonal employees who work less than 1 ,000 hours
in any given fiscal year .
IRS regulations were recently is:sued whirh allow a Defined
Contribution Plan to qualify as a Cit y--sponsored retirement plan
and thereby avoid Social Security . 1-ur-ther , the IRS agrees that
a deferred compensation plan would rfi�-Rt the retirement
requirements,, provided the total contribution is at least '_1 7 .5
percent of gross earnings . Thic; collf-'ributinn amount can cU(Y)p
from the employee, the employer or both .
PROPOSAL:
With thic; iT) mind , staff rrrf�mmr,)Os, the followinq plan:
The City would r-iitf-r into an with either Grp-at
Western and/or the Hartford ( the tt:)o firms that currently (-)f-fE--r
Deferred Compensation plans to Fe'it ,,, r-mployeec; ) . Under this plan,
any employee not enrolled in PERS 1,jr7t.ild be required to CiPfef' 5 .0
percent of his/her gros-, earninqThe City would match this,
with the remaining 2.5 percent , v7z' tir,11 as pay any administrative
expenses . Upon leaving City emfiln,vmerit , the Deferred Comp
account would be closed out and the C�[T)Ploype would receive the
full amount , in(- 1Ljdinq any inter est. (narned .
The advantage to the City is th,-,it its costs would be
• considerably less than Social ( 6.2 percent ) or PERS
( slightly over 7 percent ) . The -Adv-k-,,)taae to the seasonal
employee is the same . with the additional benefit of rrueivinq
the full amount upon departurc?.
•
If approved, staff will complete the necessary paperwork and
notify all effected employees. The first deductions would appear
on the July 17, 1991 paycheck .
FISCAL IMPACT
Increases were anticipated and included in the Recommended
FY 91-92 Budget . Staff ' s proposal is clearly more cost effective
than either alternative -- PERS or Social Security.
•
• REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: B-6
Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager MMtg. Date: 6/25/91
From: Henry Engen, Community Dev. Dir. File No: TPM 29-90
SUBJECT:
Request to divide 4. 81 acres into three lots of 1. 01, 1. 72, and
2. 08 acres each at 3450 El Camino Real - Victor Desrosier, Inc.
(Chapel of the Roses) /Daniel J. Stewart.
RECOMMENDATION:
Per the Planning Commission' s recommendation approve TPM 29-90
based on the Findings and revised Conditions of Approval.
BACKGROUND:
On April 2, 1991 , May 7, 1991 , and June 4, 1991 , the Planning
Commission conducted public hearings on the above subject matter
• and on a 6: 0 vote, approved the parcel map subject to the Findings
and revised Conditions of Approval (attached) . There was
discussion and public testimony as reflected in the attached
minutes excerpt.
HE:ps
Attachments: Staff Report - June 4 , 1991
Revised Conditions of Approval - June 4, 1991
Minutes Excerpt - June 4, 1991
cc: Victor Desrosier Inc.
Daniel J. Stewart
•
• CITY OF ATASCADERO Item: B-1
STAFF REPORT
FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: June 4, 1991
BY: Doug Davidson, Senior Planner File No: TPM 29-90
SUBJECT:
Consideration of a request to divide one 4. 81 acre parcel into
three lots of 1. 01, 1.72, and 2.08 acres each.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of Tentative Parcel Map 29-90 based on
the Findings for Approval in Attachment H and the Conditions of
Approval in Attachment I.
SITUATION AND FACTS:
• 1. Owner. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Victor Desrosier, Inc.
2. Representative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Daniel Stewart
3. Project Address. . . . . . . . . . . . . .3450 El Camino Real
4. General Plan Designation. . . . .Retail Commercial
5. Zoning District. . . . . . . . . . . . . .CR (Commercial Retail)
6. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.81 acres
7. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Mortuary
8. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Negative Declaration posted
on March 12, 1991.
BACKGROUND:
On April 2nd and May 7th of 1991, the Planning Commission
continued the above-referenced item in order to allow the
applicant to prepare preliminary grading plans, particularly for
proposed Parcel #3. Staff ' s recommendation on both of these
previous dates was for approval of a two-way division, not
• including proposed Parcel #3. A second preliminary grading plan
to justify creation of Parcel #3 was received on May 21, 1991.
t
The grading plan is shown in Attachment D with a supplemental
• development statement in Attachment E.
ANALYSIS:
The request is a division of one parcel of 4. 81 acres into three
(3) lots of 1. 01, 1.72, and 2. 08 acres each. There is no
required minimum lot size in the CR (Commercial Retail) zone.
Appropriate lot sizes are determined by the proposed
improvements, site constraints, and market factors. Proposed
Parcel #1 encompasses the existing Chapel of the Roses Mortuary
(Attachment C) . Attachments D and E contain possible improvement
plans for proposed Parcel #3, while an expansion of Kennedy
Nautilus with outdoor recreation facilities is the intended
development for proposed Parcel #2 (Attachment F) .
Proposed Parcel #3
The City' s fundamental requirement to create new lots is
contained in Subdivision Ordinance Section 11-8.201. This reads
that, "the design of lots should be based on intended use,
topography, and access requirements. Lots which are impractical
for intended uses due to terrain, location of natural features,
inadequate access, frontage or buildable area, or other physical
limitations will not be approved. " This is reflective of the
mandatory Subdivision Map Act Findings to ensure that the newly
• created lots are physically suitable for the type and density of
proposed development. The applicant' s have strived to prove that
proposed Parcel#3 upholds this standard.
Staff ' s initial reaction to the creation of Parcel #3 was
negative; no improvements plans were submitted with the
application. Absent any intended plans for commercial
development and given the site' s 20 percent slopes and drainage
course, staff believed that Parcel #3 was simply leftover land
area.
The second submittal was a preliminary grading plan for proposed
Parcels #2 and #3. This confirmed staff's original belief. The
proposed grading to develop a building pad for Parcel #3 was not
sensitive to the natural topography. An excessive amount of fill
was proposed to raise the site and no retaining walls or other
methods to reduce cut and fill slopes were incorporated.
Moreover, much of this fill was to come from the excavation of
proposed Parcel #2, resulting in an unnecessary amount of grading
for the outdoor recreational use. Again, with this submittal, no
plans for commercial development were included.
The current submittal is a more comprehensive grading plan,
including proposed grading and drainage measures, with two
approximately 4,000 square feet commercial buildings and the
corresponding parking. By comparison, this plan recognizes the
natural topography by incorporating retaining walls in the
•
design. The walls, an average height of five feet, greatly
reduce the extent of cut and fill slopes. Also, the proposed
parking area is 6-8 feet lower than the two building pads,
resulting in less fill than the previous plan. Lastly, drainage
measures, such as retention ponds are shown to prevent an
increase in runoff onto adjacent properties.
As attachment E states, this is not an actual development plan
for proposed Parcel #3. Staff believes, however, that it does
show that the site could be developed in a manner sensitive to
the natural terrain. It appears that this is a maximum intensity
of development for the site - future reviews might call for
reducing the square footage of the commercial use to lessen the
space devoted to parking. It does provide the staff with an
excellent example to show prospective developers what type of
site design techniques the City favors.
Proposed Parcel #2
Parcel #2 is a flag lot. The map has been revised to reflect the
required thirty (30) feet wide accessway to the rear. Most of
the other flag lots requirements are aimed at residential
development, such as house address signs, ten foot setbacks from
the accessway, and not including the area of the accessway in the
determination of minimum lot size.
• The Planning Commission must make three additional Findings for
approval of flag lots. The first is that the subdivision is
consistent with the character of the neighborhood. As
Attachments A and B show, there are several similar lot designs
in the area, including both the immediate commercial area and
residential land to the north and east. Secondly, the
installation of a standard street must not be feasible, either
alone or in conjunction with neighboring properties. In this
case, vehicular access from the existing Kennedy Nautilus
facility is not possible due to layout of the Colony Park
project. As called out in the flag lot development standards,
construction of a twenty-four (24 ) feet wide access road will be
a condition of the project. Lastly, the flag lot must be
justified by the topography. The fact that a paved road exists
from El Camino Real to the freeway right-of-way supports the flag
lot concept. This road simply needs to be widened to provide the
required access.
Proposed Parcel #2 is a viable commercial lot. Its size, shape,
and gentle slopes are conducive for commercial development.
Attachment F shows a preliminary design for outdoor recreation to
complement the adjacent indoor recreational facility of the
Kennedy Nautilus Center. At first glance, this seems an ideal
location for outdoor recreation, however such a development would
be subject to Conditional Use Permit review.
•
• CONCLUSIONS:
Applications for subdivisions have to prove that the proposed new
lots are suitable for the intended development. In this case,
after a concerted effort, the design of the subdivision blends
with the topography and feasible development schemes have been
provided for the two proposed new lots.
ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A - Zoning Map
Attachment B - General Plan Land Use Map
Attachment C - Tentative Parcel Map
Attachment D - Grading/Site Plan - Parcel #3
Attachment E - Development Statement
Attachment F - Proposed Recreational Use
Attachment G - Negative Declaration
Attachment H - Findings for Approval
Attachment I - Conditions of Approval
•
•
�tl
a
1
s
{
, . � ATTACHMENT B
.41 i ` .; CITY OF ZONING MAP
,R ATASCADERO
V,- TENTATIVE-� TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 29-90
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
• DEPARTMENT
O
Z
NA J
o
A NA ^ t
r Z
a N r I+
O �
O6► �1
AVE w
N
O a
RO y, IZ 7a
4
4F
S
rpANQUILL 4L,
COI A�
1LLA i L
>
C,ArvcQ`' I I t
� I
C�N' EAMOSI 1
El CAMINO EAIi ll I I i
I S
II Z• ' I � /
\1 I I
t
� i 5 HWY IOI
�4
#40A04 I i
Off, ' I O�—
l—_ ROAp �a
aoAD °a
A.
OIL
olo
N
1_ C
6
ATTACHMENT C
CITY OF ATASC.ADERO PARCEL MAP
X10TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 29-90
M COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
• > ,, DEPARTMENT
us l0/
.r•tr-ru".-•fo uo',7�^•rte ' TEN TA T(VE
- PARCEL AJW P AT90-342
of �' sl. A PROPOSED OlV/S/ON OFPAAr-a
PER 2/IPUI73(A 0/V/SlaV OF LOTS 6,7B
AND A PORMS OF S/N BLOEX 10
"' PgRCEL Z IN THE C/TY OFATASCAAFRO
` rarrr of s.,<u;f cs.tAo,J+Ar[w uc.rawnu
S /.TAG. Y � I'd .A.r. n•:,•-q
I y I
11. A-&FEZ[Elcar
A(.CJr w
{� t . � �„ i ; t a net r.r+.a rrnr✓r n.Ar r Ar n.(�[a+�w[.a r.ro
I :v
`� (..wffn of n.[wn:o,•r[a.Jrrr a r..(uu<o..or.+.o
I �w, '• • Y�� \ u..r nar..•rorAnnv Jrarn r.atw a fllu(s.o Cow�ec(m nr
/ � — �r I , rte. KJr 0 rr swaRmCf.
__
JPf1RCEL 3 _fNG/NE R CfRrlF1CAr
` P/�/�C jc L / �� � ./.OIAc f ^� \—����iJ'�i�J r.Je[o.rJwnrr rw r ;t.r✓.is irnuv c..c[.rr
k i ZCS c.t Y ' i -I �. � f anrrr•fw A,a ro r„(.(sr v rr,..o»J(xt ra.Rn.ra
r r : nt✓ornf;wr o(orrArc[ar»t Cann w—ut a
i 1 1 1 • I r k � r i.
1 t nor[
r.n
/ —1 MAI,-m..r uer,�.c cawif
/ V
I I 1
I _
r"_•i ! ' r !-- r I,i*`,,ur,�; - _ _ 04N/E4✓.S7E'WART B ASSOC/A7FS s�!A
597 /.7N ST%?EE7•
eft , P.O.BOX elve
CAL/PORN/A
931.17
,p y.• n-.tw-;t rrn:-(,•.r. a:rrl —____'__— •erwt ;.u�,rP
�OQ�. n'•rirrJ ..... trr�u
RECEIVED MAR J act
1 4 1991-
•
CITY OF ATASCADERO ATTACHMENT D
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT GRADING PLAN - PARCEL 43
DEPARTMENT TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 29-90
woo Cr haTlimaN POW
1 R
• e Dt )ea
�u��►t �; � ' c vuv� o]
r I RETAINING WALL
; POO oaiv6-
1 , • I , ;b,r ,, l
C
�l 1
_ _ Y 6vas[
N .
17lJ!' t4.10 •;•COY; .C�%h� I`rat_�;� � t :�;�'. 1 ` `�� ��` �� •..a'
PARKING - ^
ONSITE-, 25 tTANOA
OFFSM: sTANOAl10 ,I'
-INCL
TOTAL,; 30
. I
ATTACHMENT E
DEVELOPERS STATEMENT
• PM AT 90-302
This conceptual development plan represents a factual feasibility study
for the subject parcel and is submitted at Elie request of planning
StAff snlplp for the nnrPASAA of JnRtifying A, Int nplit. It Is lint. r,n
he construed as a plan to be approved with, nor conditions of the
application to which this is attached. The intent is to demonstrate
that the proposed Parcel 3 can effectively be developed into a functional
project that is not only aesthetically appealing, but site sensitive
as well.
The plan minimizes impacts by ',Mending well into the e.;isting terrain
and maintaining existing perimeter grades. All retaining walls are
contained intheinterior of the lot and average 4 foot high to
reLaln vlbu4l openuet;s.
The existing drainage Swale across the property is re-channeled through
a landscaped retention pond and additional storm drain pipe. The out-
let would have energy dissipation controls. Onsite storm water for
the most part is funneled into another retention pond before being
allowed to bleed-off. All storm waters, however, exit the property
at the existing cross-gutter.
The traffic flow into and across the project appears quite adequate
while allowing for required fire vehicle acne%%_ nnP rnmmnn Arrpnq
IiLIVCW&Y Wlll hr-lp mluLmIzt: yuLGuLlul LLafflu Ild'L.dl.db L;
• ingress/egress turns.
While not necessarily flawless in design, we feel that this concept
Justifies the requested lot split by demonstrating the potential
of a realistic project such as this. We trust that planning staff
will concur with this finding and grant approval to PM AT 90-302
as submitted.
Respectfully ctfull submitted,
P y
Robert Wirtz
i
�+ � I ATTACHMENT F
CITY OF AaSCADERO PROPOSED RECREATIONAL USE
TPM 29-90
;*T COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
• DEPARTMENT
H4yY 101 ,
LANDSCAPE SCnEENIN6. _
INI OLLEYBALI ��•
KENNEDY Ett.AN• � .;. i
NAUTILUS SIONI
6'-4..� PARKING i
L .•�� \`�\J f(' IS E NI BA SKETBAII�
\OOU T OU COURT
CHILDREN'S
C
if PLAY AREA I i
1 I )
• v � i
• BUILDING BUILDING j
.f
(E)
BUILDING
BUILDING
1
_� EL
CA!!To—REAL
1 u 1
I I 1
I
KENNEDY NAUTILAS CENTER
NOR
INOUTDOOR �' - � • i -_i- ---'
ACTIVITY EXPANSION
•
ATTACHMENT G
CITY OF ATASCADERO
left ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATOR
CM"�°' NEGATIVE DECLA
TION
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 6,500 PALMA AVE. ATASCADERO. CA 93422 (805) 461-5035
APPLICANT: VICTOR V. DESROSIER DANIEL J. STEWART
CHAPEL OF THE ROSES P.O. BOX 2038
3450 EL CAMINO REAL PASO ROBLES, CA 93447
ATASCADERO, CA 93422
PROJECT TITLE: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 29-90
PROJECT LOCATION: 3450 EL CAMI No REAL
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: PROPOSED DIVISION OF ONE 4 . 81 ACRE PARCEL
INTO THREE (3) LOTS OF 1. 01, 1.72, AND 2 . 08
ACRES EACH.
FINDINGS:
1. The project does not have the potential to degrade the environment.
• 2. The project will not achieve short-term to the disadvantage of to -term environmental
g ng goals.
3. The project does not have impacts which are individually limited. but comulatively considerable.
4. The project will not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings either directly or indirectly.
DETEMMATION:
Based on the above findings. and the information contained in the initial study (made a part hereof by refer-
ence and on file in the Community Development Department). it has been determined that the above project
will not have an adverse impact on the environment.
Henry Engen ` c
Community Development Director
Date Posted: INI ARCH 12, 1991
Date Adopted:
•
• CDD 11-d9
ATTACHMENT' H - Findings for Approval
• Tentative Parcel Map 29-90
3450 El Camino Real (Desrosier/Dan Stewart)
June 4, 1991
ENVIRONMENTAL FINDING:
The proposed project will not have a significant impact upon the
environment. The Negative Declaration prepared for the project
is adequate.
MAP FINDINGS:
1. The proposed map is consistent with the applicable
General or Specific Plan.
2. The design and/or improvement of the proposed
subdivision is consistent with the applicable General or
Specific Plan.
3. The site is physically suitable for the proposed type of
development.
• 4. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of
development.
5. The design of the subdivision, and/or the proposed
improvements, will not cause substantial environmental
damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish and
wildlife or their habitat.
6. The design of the subdivision, and the type of the
improvements, will not conflict with easements acquired by
the public at large for access through or the use of
property within the proposed subdivision; or substantially
equivalent alternate easements are provided.
7. The design of the subdivision and/or the type of proposed
improvements will not cause serious public health problems.
FLAG LOT FINDINGS:
8. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the character of
the neighborhood.
9. The installation of a standard street, either alone or in
conjunction with neighboring properties, is not feasible.
10. The proposed subdivision is justified by topographical and
• existing conditions.
• ATTACHMENT I - Conditions of Approval
Tentative Parcel Map 29-90
3450 E1 Camino Real (Desrosier/Stewart)
June, 4, 1991
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
I. All existing and proposed utility, pipeline, open space, or
other easements are to be shown on the final map. If there
are building or other restrictions related to the easements,
they shall be noted on the final map. All relocation and/or
alteration of existing utilities shall be the responsibility
of the developer at his sole expense.
2. The newly formed lot shall be connected to public sewer.
All annexation permit fees in effect at the time of
recordation shall be paid for the newly created lot prior to
the recording of the final map.
3. An encroachment permit shall be obtained from the Public
Works Department for all work to be done within the public
right-of-way prior to recording of the final map. The City
• Engineer may require some sections of the curb, gutter, and
sidewalk to be replaced. The existing drainage inlet in the
gutter toward the northerly end of the property shall be
removed and replaced with a standard inlet unless otherwise
directed by the City Engineer. The construction of these
improvements, as directed by the encroachment permit, shall
be completed prior to recording the final map.
4. The developer shall construct and maintain a minimum 24 feet
wide paved access to Parcel #2. Improvement plans shall be
reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department and
Community Development Department prior to beginning of any
construction. The accessway shall be constructed prior to
recording the parcel map. This condition shall be
incorporated into the title for Parcel #2.
5. A grading and drainage plan prepared by a registered civil
engineer shall be submitted to the Community Development
Department for review and approval by the Community
Development Department and Public Works Department prior to
the issuance of building permits.
6. A City standard fire hydrant shall be installed in a
location determined by the Fire Department prior to
recording of the final map.
•
•
7. A final map drawn in substantial conformance with the
approved tentative map and 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 by a registered civil engineer or licensed
land surveyor as required by the Land Surveyor' s Act and
the Subdivision Map Act. Monuments set within any road
right-of-way shall conform to City standard M-1.
b. Pursuant to Section 66497 of the Subdivision Map Act the
engineer or surveyor shall notify the City Engineer in
writing that the monuments have been set.
C. A recently updated preliminary title report shall be
submitted for review in conjunction with the processing
of the final map.
d. A preliminary subdivision guarantee shall be submitted
for review in conjunction with the processing of the
final map.
• 8. Approval of this tentative 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.
• ATTACHMENT I - Conditions of Approval
Tentative Parcel Map 29-90
3450 E1 Camino Real (Desrosier/Stewart)
Revised by the Planning Commission on June 4, 1991
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. All existing and proposed utility, pipeline, open space, or
other easements are to be shown on the final map. If there
are building or other restrictions related to the easements,
they shall be noted on the final map. All relocation and/or
alteration of existing utilities shall be the responsibility
of the developer at his sole expense.
2. The newly formed lot shall be connected to public sewer.
All annexation permit fees in effect at the time of
recordation shall be paid for the newly created lot prior to
the recording of the final map.
3. An encroachment permit shall be obtained from the Public
Works Department for all work to be done within the public
right-of-way prior to recording of the final map. The City
Engineer may require some sections of the curb, gutter, and
• sidewalk to be replaced. The existing drainage inlet in the
gutter toward the northerly end of the property shall be
removed and replaced with a standard inlet unless otherwise
directed by the City Engineer. The construction of these
improvements, as directed by the encroachment permit, shall
be completed prior to recording the final map.
•• 4. The developer shall construct and maintain a minimum 24 feet
wide paved access to Parcel #2. Improvement plans shall be
reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department and
Community Development Department prior to beginning of any
construction. The accessway shall be constructed prior to
recording the parcel map. This condition shall be
incorporated into the title for Parcel #2 and Parcel #3.
5. A grading and drainage plan prepared by a registered civil
engineer shall be submitted to the Community Development
Department for review and approval by the Community
Development Department and Public Works Department prior to
the issuance of building permits.
6. A City standard fire hydrant shall be installed in a
location determined by the Fire Department prior to
recording of the final map.
•
•
7. A final map drawn in substantial conformance with the
approved tentative map and 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 by a registered civil engineer or licensed
land surveyor as required by the Land Surveyor' s Act and
the Subdivision Map Act. Monuments set within any road
right-of-way shall conform to City standard M-1.
b. Pursuant to Section 66497 of the Subdivision Map Act the
engineer or surveyor shall notify the City Engineer in
writing that the monuments have been set.
C. A recently updated preliminary title report shall be
submitted for review in conjunction with the processing
of the final map.
d. A preliminary subdivision guarantee shall be submitted
for review in conjunction with the processing of the
final map.
• 8. Approval of this tentative 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.
•
PC 6/4/91 - MINUTES EXCERPT
B. HEARINGS, APPEARANCES,- AND REPORTS
• 1. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 29-90:
Application filed by Victor Desrosier (Dan Stewart) to
subdivide one parcel of approximately 4 . 81 acres into
three (3) lots of 1.01, 1.72, and 2.08 acres each.
Subject site is located at 3450 E1 Camino Real.
Doug Davidson presented the staff report and provided a
synopsis on the background of this project which has been
revised twice to justify the creation of two new lots. Staff
is recommending approval subject to eight conditions. Mr.
Davidson offered the following modification to Condition #4 :
(in last sentence "This condition shall be incorporated into
the title for Parcel #2 and Parcel #3. 11 This relates to
maintenance and construction of the road. )
Commission questions and discussion followed.
Chairperson Luna stated that the map seems to be more suited
for a planned unit development and asked if staff had
considered this. He noted that the proposals are mainly
conceptual and expressed concern that the uses developed on
the created parcels may not be compatible with a mortuary and
outdoor recreation.
•
Mr. Davidson pointed out that the outdoor recreation aspect is
not actually a part of this application but is also
conceptual, and added that Parcel #2 would still be a viable
commercial lot, even without the outdoor recreation use.
Mr. DeCamp noted that with the exception of residential
planned development projects, uses are not specified in
commercial zones, so even with a planned development, the
possibility exists of having uses that may be incompatible
within the bounds of a planned development.
Chairperson Luna stated he would be especially concerned of
some of the uses in the commercial retail zoning (e.g. ,
vehicle and equipment storage, collection stations, etc. ) , and
wondered how the Commission could condition the project to
implement that which is required in the general plan
(landscaping along freeway) . ' Mr. DeCamp responded that
through the precise plan mechanism, the General Plan policies
would be implemented.
- Public Testimony -
Lamon Colvin, with Chapel of the Roses explained that the
Kennedy Nautilus Center desires to lease Parcel 2 and develop
along the freeway. He emphasized that the Chapel will have
control over what uses would be developed on the parcel, and
• that their "neighbors" will be chosen carefully. Mr. Colvin
further stated that at this time, the Chapel has no plans to
PC 6/4/91 - MINUTES EXCERPT
. sell their adjacent property.
• Dan Stewart, applicant' s engineer, concurred with the staff
recommendation.
Kevin Kennedy, owner of Kennedy Nautilus, stated he is
interested in developing Parcel #2 with an outdoor recreation
expansion to his center.
In response to questions by the Commission, Mr. Kennedy
discussed the site design for the proposed expansion.
Discussion followed concerning the concept for Kennedy
Nautilus' expansion and how drainage would be affected.
MOTION: By Commissioner Highland and seconded by Commis-
sioner Hanauer to approve Tentative Parcel Map 29-
90 subject to the Findings and Conditions of
Approval with modification to #4 to read:
" . . . . . . .This condition shall be incorporated into
the title for Parcel #2 and Parcel #3.
Commissioner Johnson stated he would like to see an amendment
to Condition #1 (relocation of utilities, etc. ) to require
that the utilities be placed underground.
• Commissioner Hanauer inquired if there are any other
commercial properties along that strip that have been required
to underground their utilities. Mr. Decamp noted that the
utilities are not underground.
Mr. DeCamp clarified that this requirement has been imposed on
development approvals and not typically on parcel maps. He
pointed out that the frontage of the Chapel of the Roses is
already developed with improvements and to underground the
utilities would entail a significant amount of work and
tearing up of the property. The Commission, however, may
require this condition. Discussion followed.
Mr. DeCamp further stated he would prefer that the City have
the ability to require undergrounding at the time of
development. He explained that conditions of this nature can
become lost, if for example, five or six years goes by before
any development occurs. Then it is hard to track a condition
that is on a map which is pertinent to the project' s
development.
The motion carried 6:0.
SREPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: B-7
Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager V Mtg. Date: 6/25/91
From: Henry Engen, Community Dev. Dir. �i( File No: TPM 26-90
SUBJECT:
Request to create a four unit residential condominium project at
5540 Tunitas Avenue - Tunitas Group/Complete Development Services.
RECOMMENDATION:
Per the Planning Commission' s recommendation approve TPM 26-90
based on the Findings and revised Conditions of Approval.
BACKGROUND:
On June 4, 1991 , the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing
on the above subject matter and on a 6 :0 vote, approved the parcel
map subject to the Findings and revised Conditions of Approval
(attached) . There was discussion and public testimony as reflected
in the attached minutes excerpt.
HE:ps
Attachments: Staff Report - June 4 , 1991
Revised Conditions of Approval - June 4, 1991
Minutes Excerpt - June 4, 1991
cc: Tunitas Group
Complete Development Services
• CITY OF ATASCADERO Item: B-3
STAFF REPORT
FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: June 4, 1991
BY: Doug Davidson, Senior Planner File No: TPM 26-90
D�
SUBJECT:
To consider a request to create a four unit residential
condominium project.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of Tentative Parcel Map 26-90 based on
the Findings in Attachment H and the Conditions of Approval in
Attachment I.
SITUATION AND FACTS:
• 1. Owner. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Tunitas Group
2. Representative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Complete Development
Services
3. Project Address. . . . . . . . . . . . . .5540 Tunitas Ave.
4. General Plan Designation. . . . .Low Density Multiple Family
5. Zoning District. . . . . . . . . . . . . .RMF/10
6. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0.75 acre
7. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Single Family Residence
8. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Negative Declaration posted
on May 14, 1991.
ANALYSIS•
The request is to create a four unit condominium project,
consisting of the conversion of one existing single family
residence and the construction of three new dwellings. The
project will be reviewed in light of the City' s Multiple Family
Development Standards, Condominium Conversion Ordinance, and
• Appearance Review Guidelines.
• Multiple Family Development Standards
The project complies with all of the property development
standards for multiple family zones as contained in Zoning
Ordinance Section 9-3. 176. These include coverage, storage, and
outdoor recreational space. Approximately 25 percent of the site
is covered by structures, allowing a large portion of the site
remain in open space. A condition is recommended to ensure that
the existing residence will also provide adequate storage area.
Other Development Standards
Chapter 4 of the Zoning Ordinance contains development standards
such as setbacks, height, parking, etc. Again, the proposed
project is basically in compliance with the standards.
Conditions are suggested to remedy some design shortcomings and
to guarantee that certain criteria are adhered to. For instance,
the minimum setback between an accessory building and main
residence is six (6) feet. This requirement is slightly short
(plans show 5 feet) for buildings #1 and #2.
Four two-bedroom units require nine parking spaces, four of which
must be covered. The proposed site plan provides nine parking
spaces, five of which are covered. The guest parking space on
the northerly property line is not functional, however, and
• should be shifted to become more easily accessible. One stall
must be widened by five feet for handicapped parking. The
parking layout is also not adequate for turn around of emergency
vehicles. Thus, the Fire Department has required the
installation of automatic fire sprinklers to offset this site
deficiency.
Trash collection will be by a property agreement with Wilmar
Disposal Co. for individual collection. Several recent
condominium approvals have been contained similar provisions.
The City' s new proposed Planned Development standards expressly
require this, as opposed to a common trash collection facility.
The common disposal areas can become unsightly. In light of the
new Condominium Conversion Ordinance, which demands a higher
level of amenities for condominiums, it seems proper to allow
this kind of arrangement.
No tree removal is proposed for the project in an earnest
attempt to preserve the extensive tree cover of the site. The
proposed structures are placed nicely around the trees, providing
a "cabin-like" atmosphere. Tree protection will be under the
supervision of an arborist in conformance with the methods of the
Tree Ordinance.
•
• Condominium Conversion Ordinance
This new Ordinance, adopted on January 8, 1991, requires
submittal of property condition reports, including structural
condition and pest control. Copies of these reports will be on
file in the Community Development Department. A note will be
placed on the map notifying prospective purchasers of the
existence of these reports. The property condition report for
5540 Tunitas Ave. , prepared by a licensed architect, stated that
the substructure and soil treatment recommendations identified in
the earlier termite inspection report had been completed.
Insulation in the perimeter walls and subfloor, as well as
heating unit repair, were recommendations to in order to bring
the existing unit up to energy standards. A recommended
Condition ensures that these improvements will be made prior to
conversion for sale.
Appearance Review Guidelines
Many design features of the Appearance Review Guidelines have
been incorporated into the building and site design of the
project. The basic design theme of individual buildings with
variable siting prevents a monotonous appearance. The height and
bulk of the buildings (Exhibit E) is compatible with the
surrounding neighborhood. The individual new buildings avoid a
• square, "boxy" appearance by containing less square footage of
floor area on the second floor. The buildings are also enhanced
with the addition of upper decks and patios. The existing
residence will be painted to match the earth tone colors of the
new dwellings
CONCLUSIONS:
The project will be an appealing and compatible addition to this
neighborhood, a mix of mostly older single family homes with
scattered multiple family dwellings. The placement of buildings
and parking is constricted by the extensive tree cover. Although
the parking arrangement is tight, it can be revised to function
adequately. The efforts to save the trees should be encouraged,
for they provide a special character to the site and vicinity.
ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A - Zoning Map
Attachment B - General Plan Land Use Map
Attachment C - Tentative Parcel Map
Attachment D - Site Plan
Attachment E - Elevations
Attachment F - Floor Plan
Attachment G - Negative Declaration
Attachment H - Findings for Approval
• Attachment I - Conditions of Approval
3
J
I
■
111 1111/11111 �� _
111111► ' '__-_''
��n■BIT ■� 1■■■��t�„�111� IIIIIIH"a 11►i'a'
■■�■■//. r�//■IJ
_•u���l■..1 ...moi'
ATTACHMENT B
GENERAL PLAN MAP
CITY OF ATASCADERC)
ff . 0
DEPARTMENTCOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Iff
Ib
■
nol ale
�� �iii 1�`�'• , ;� ��' �'�► �r. �
r
ciilYlYY�i ` _ i "911 #maumn
`=
I�j��11■1111 ��II���� ����/�
�1/�111� 11111111"�+1�1
ATTACHMENT C
CITY OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
�►r�jlr•• : • • �,� ATASCADERO TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 26-9(
• � �wF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
1
2;s. zrd Fioor F—nnq I nnry
bunna�on rn be --"-
I 'OS removed. %r
Q ' ,_`••�•1:.. /Nr tna Floor
'9 .so
F '?erOA W E.at. i
4M FMer - N<v. Pd• It
•.r I. _ •:,'Unit 1 °o'� �� •�`��=r•' / WI
14
ro. `0! ,` � •a1�-v �,� �,S amort � W��, -,1=`` ..._.._.:, __ • �✓/
Q)/ Iw•
P�nit 4- Q
l '•' arUnit 2 - Residence ' I
• - rz . 4 Existing 2 BR ' r.Ss.
WJ .-/ to Remain M H
tY
,��. :� r /,j oantrq -E'—��.3_••„�r� iQe- 3rj—w:amine"
rC5. II
t^Carron E.o1.W.er rA91er
^ 1 \ N
V— —Exist—1—dd snee
b tM P r\ dt
rr ar Il re
Unit 3=4t" E �e COMAONAREA ,~
N -\ .o.,z s• .. Ip 6msrq .6321 acres ,\"p a�
:e wn
•. _ arkkq Carron ro'�M
r
27.534s0.It sw,\sen e
y{.
Erhtlrq •/• Ge ver �
peee /
Srorao• b—xin
An.
1"0s1.
\
SM Fiem
e4. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 1' 20'
n jjOP 5540 fumtas Avenue Based on Topographic Survey
Ata6cadero, CA prepared by Steven Arnold Frank
APNa 029 C81-05 440 Country Club Dr.
San Lws 0brspo•CA
Lic.a 30412.
dated April 1990.
•
Co
ATTACHMENT D
A':�
k I'� Clr�,� OF SITE PLAN
1 i ATASCADERO
y: � TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 26-9(
Ic,ens
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
• DEPARTMENT
A
ie
Existing 1 story
bungalow to be
removed.
I
•,�� N 79.08 S
W s
sisL
•rv�c•
Unit 1 I:M"
2sforyS.R. / - .Ar.—
70 ou 809.0/1 i $ f f r
'" Unit 4
nit 2' IB. Exisenq 2 BR r I[
1 e•a ' 2 story S.F. i �•eM 1 e•a.k tr Residence to Remain
444777 t � � 891.5'tf +o•e.� e
v+. •� a
Is* f4 p i 0a7 t 3 Now Wow
r IF woo 1-1
+r•.
• C / •.-...y I eu!! nen.�7C.Tt.1 F�dt Waw
N r I
to"
� `o• / Carpe r _ .. :� �� °• / �
1\
C K" ., n n gym. ,:;�-. ►., ►,d- �
. h ND
41. Fsbt wood xn•tl s' o) ro m I �.�
e Q eaea
`1 °w +40• �� ''mo i r be removed . i •e9' I 'W+{. 1 SV 1
Unit 3 : 1 / I a s
I2 story$.f. � y /��,.. �0 °. � el �iL ' U.P.a
e, 89 11 ( r ro r nr., sem (, ' m r+tib.1 �, s ' seines
�+'Poa trtrtrMMM aawn ' ,
'` I bmm�r/or�en►tlrg rpq , 1 �' \.
\.e h cone Pace Guy P.
• ` ' 4 n Hoge to nmaln _� / 1 _., s s. ,
\\ \` r• l II'l 6C`
\ %� + ` +r Pao sonAron
\ i E
R/Wsk
CL Ponce
- Existing to be removed
Existing \� \ ,. , 2 parking spaces Per unit
ON 1 covered.1 uncovered
1quest space N
9 total
1'-30'
SITE PLAN
Based on T000graohic Survey
Prepared by Steven Arnold Frank 8040 Tunitas Avenue
"0 Country Club Dr. Atascadero. CA
San lu,s Ob,soo.CA APNe 029 •001-05
Lk.0 30412,
•
1
� .
'.'L" A74ul
NMI
EMISSIONS
IS
'Ape ME
�.♦ t y's � '�d� �i_ � �
�.li�la i 111 l 111 7. = ■.a._ M■■■mmo■�"''.
I
IIIII��IiI
.� • •
MEN
INA
.� 0 EMISSION
�
1000010011 rMllllHMllll 111110 --- 0100 ME MEN
_
.■.
. 1 111 '
����� � � •� I li � 11�111� ,
T ■�...� INESMl
Common-
- ••�'.—_■p— � �=� �I III II�III
T.� '■ C �.
ATTACHMENT F
A `` ; �T FLOOR PLAN
I@ S o .. (L TY OF ATASCADERO
.tn I „,;�T'_� TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 26-90
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
• ;� DEPARTMENT
j
TOa'
t?,C
I BATH t 110...
Ir
(W4n t•-” 13EDROCM 2
HALL
V"
J1 tfALL �L�BEa�
fral W-01 W-09
a.ow •, rnew cup"
CN
.............ate... . I' 0
..
DIN
uYlr,r ROOM w W-01
i
.Vol r-- ore. I
I .-..... Open to Below
----------------
1ST FLOOR PLAN Sao e.t• 2ND FLOOR PLAN 5Q&I.
y,e•.r o• t uo•.r. total y,r.r•o• to O s.t. total
•
ATTACHMENT G
CITY OF ATASCADERO
• left
ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATOR
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 6500 PALMA AVE. ATASCADERO, CA 93422 (805) 461-5035
APPLICANT: JOE SILVAGGIO (COMPLETE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES)
1335 BROAD ST.
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401
PROJECT TITLE: TENTATIVE PARCEL TA1AP 26-90
PROJECT LOCATION: 5540 TUNITAS AVE.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: CREATION OF A FOUR UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT -
CONSTRUCTION OF THREE NEW RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS ON A SITE WITH ONE
EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE TO REMAIN.
FINDINGS:
• 1. The project does not have the potential to degrade the environment.
2. The project will not achieve short-term to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals.
3. The project does not have impacts which are individually limited, but comulatively considerable.
4. The project will not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings either directly or indirectly.
DETERNIINATION:
Based on the above findings. and the information contained in the initial study (made a part hereof by refer-
ence and on file in the Community Development Department), it has been determined that the above project
will not have an adverse impact on the environment.
Henry Engen
Community Development Director
Date Posted: MA y l`lJ ! q Cl l
Date Adopted:
•
CDD 71•BB
10
EXHIBIT H - Findings for Approval
• Tentative Parcel Map 26-90
5540 Tunitas Ave. (Tunitas Group)
June 4, 1991
ENVIRONMENTAL FINDING:
The proposed project will not have a significant impact on the
environment. The Negative Declaration prepared for the project
is adequate.
MAP FINDINGS:
1. The proposed map is consistent with the applicable
General or Specific Plan.
2. The design and/or improvements of the proposed subdivision
is consistent with the applicable General or Specific Plan.
3. The site is physically suitable for the proposed type of
development.
4 . The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of
• development.
5. The design of the subdivision, as conditioned, and the
proposed improvements, will not cause substantial
environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure
fish and wildlife or their habitat.
6 . The design of the subdivision, and the type of the
improvements, will not conflict with easements acquired by
the public at large for access through or the use of
property within the proposed subdivision; or substantially
equivalent alternate easements are provided.
7. The design of the subdivision and/or the type of proposed
improvements will not cause serious health problems.
CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION FINDINGS:
1. All provisions of the Condominium Conversion regulations
have been met or will be met;
2. The proposed conversion is consistent with the General Plan;
3. There exists adequate facts to support the findings required
under the Subdivision Map Act (see above) ;
•
� I
• 4. The proposed conversion of one unit will not displace a
significant number of low-income or moderate-income
households or senior citizens at a time when no equivalent
housing is readily available in the City.
PROJECT FINDINGS:
1. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan.
2. The proposed project, as conditioned, satisfies all
applicable provisions of the zoning Ordinance.
3. The establishment and subsequent operation or conduct of the
use will not, because of the circumstances and conditions
applied in the particular case, be detrimental to the
health, safety, or welfare of the general public or
persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the
use, or be detrimental or injurious to property in the
vicinity of the use.
4. The proposed project will not be inconsistent with the
• character of the immediate neighborhood or contrary to its
orderly development.
5. The proposed use or project will not generate a volume of
traffic beyond the safe capacity of all roads providing
access to the project, either existing or to be improved in
conjunction with the project, or beyond the normal traffic
volume of the surrounding neighborhood that would result
from full development in accordance with the Land Use
Element.
6. The proposed project is in compliance with the City' s
Appearance Review Guidelines.
•
EXHIBIT I - Conditions of Approval
. Tentative Parcel Map 26-90
5540 Tunitas Ave. (Tunitas Group)
June 4, 1991
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. All existing and proposed utility, pipeline, open space, or
other easements are to be shown on the final map. If there
are building or other restrictions related to the easements,
they shall be noted on the final map. All relocation and/or
alteration of existing utilities shall be the responsibility
of the developer at his sole expense.
Engineering Division Conditions
2. A grading/drainage plan, prepared by a registered civil
engineer, shall be submitted to the Community Development
Department for review and approval by the Community
Development and Public Works Department prior to issuance of
building permits.
3. All grading and erosion control measures shall be designed
• by a registered civil engineer and constructed in accordance
with City grading standards. Prior to final building
inspection, the project engineer shall submit to the City
written certification that the grading is in conformance
with said standards.
4 . A drainage maintenance agreement, in a form acceptable to
the City Attorney, shall be recorded prior to or
simultaneously with the recording of the map. The agreement
shall be reflected in the CC&Rs.
5. Prior to recording of the final map or issuance of building
permits, a soils investigation shall be submitted, verifying
that the soils of the site are adequate the support the
proposed structures and adjacent roadways. The date of
report, name of engineer, and location where the report is
on file shall be noted on the final map.
6. The applicant shall provide plans for a 4 foot wide shoulder
along the Tunitas Ave. frontage to conform with City Minimum
Road Standard A-1. This improvement shall be constructed
prior to final building inspection, or recording of the map.
7. The applicant shall contribute $25. 00 per linear foot of
frontage to the in-lieu sidewalk fund as directed by the
Director of Public Works, prior to recording of the final
• map. This condition shall apply to the Rosario and Tunitas
Ave. frontages.
� 3
•
8. The applicant shall offer to dedicate along the Tunitas Ave.
frontage, a 20 feet section from centerline of the right-of-
way to property line. Any designated public utility
easement shall be offered to the public for public utility
purposes. Offers of dedication shall be recorded prior to
or in conjunction with recording of the map.
Fire/Building Code Conditions
9. The project shall conform to all Uniform Building Code
requirements, including bringing the existing residence up
to code for seismic safety or other Code shortcomings, as
determined by the Building Official.
10. Residential fire sprinklers, or the equivalent measures,
shall be installed throughout the project, as determined by
the Fire Department.
Planning Division Conditions
11. A minimum setback of six (6) feet shall be provided between
principal buildings and accessory structures.
• 12. Parking shall be revised to provide a handicapped parking
stall and better access for the guest parking space.
13. The following improvements to the existing residence to be
converted shall be completed prior to recording the map:
a. Provision for 100 cubic feet of enclosed private
storage space, exclusive of cabinets and closets within
the unit and the space required for parking a vehicle
in the garage.
b. Provision for 100 square feet of private open space.
C. Provision for smoke detectors mounted on the ceiling or
wall at a point centrally located in the area giving
access to rooms used for sleeping purposes.
d. Install perimeter and subfloor insulation and repair
and replace the heating units per the property
condition report dated February 28, 1991.
e. Paint residence to match color of the three new
dwellings.
14. A note shall be placed on the final map stating the
• existence of the pest control and property inspection
reports for the existing residence (5540 Tunitas Ave. )
• 15. Tree protection, as certified by the project arborist, shall
be installed prior to issuance of permits. Grading and
trenching shall be under the supervision of the arborist. A
written report shall be submitted prior to final inspection
(or recording of the map) stating the condition of the
protected trees and any necessary corrective measures.
16. The provision of gas, electricity, and water within each
unit shall be separately metered with circuit breakers and
shutoff valves for each unit.
17. A written agreement for individual trash collection shall be
received from Wilmar Disposal Co. prior to recording the map
or final inspection. Individual trash containers shall be
stored in garages or other enclosed areas. This agreement
shall be reflected within the CC&Rs.
18. The applicant shall establish Covenants, Conditions, and
Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the regulation of land use, control
of nuisances, and architectural control of the site and
buildings.
a. These CC&Rs shall be submitted for review and approval
to the Community Development Department prior to
approval of the final map.
• b. These CC&Rs shall be administered by a Condominium
Owners Association.
19. A final map drawn in substantial conformance with the
approved tentative map and 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 by a registered civil engineer or licensed
land surveyor as required by the Land Surveyor' s Act and
the Subdivision Map Act. Monuments set within any road
right-of-way shall conform to City standard M-1.
b. Pursuant to Section 66497 of the Subdivision Map Act the
engineer or surveyor shall notify the City Engineer in
writing that the monuments have been set.
c. A recently updated preliminary title report shall be
submitted for review in conjunction with the processing
of the final map.
d. A preliminary subdivision guarantee shall be submitted
• for review in conjunction with the processing of the
final map.
•
20. Approval of this tentative 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.
•
�C�
EXHIBIT I - Conditions of Approval
• Tentative Parcel Map 26-90
5540 Tunitas Ave. (Tunitas Group)
Revised by the Planning Commission June 4, 1991
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. All existing and proposed utility, pipeline, open space, or
other easements are to be shown on the final map. If there
are building or other restrictions related to the easements,
they shall be noted on the final map. All relocation and/or
alteration of existing utilities shall be the responsibility
of the developer at his sole expense.
Engineering Division Conditions
2. A grading/drainage plan, prepared by a registered civil
engineer, shall be submitted to the Community Development
Department for review and approval by the Community
Development and Public Works Department prior to issuance of
building permits.
3. All grading and erosion control measures shall be designed
by a registered civil engineer and constructed in accordance
with City grading standards. Prior to final building
inspection, the project engineer shall submit to the City
• written certification that the grading is in conformance
with said standards.
4. A drainage maintenance agreement, in a form acceptable to
the City Attorney, shall be recorded prior to or
simultaneously with the recording of the map. The agreement
shall be reflected in the CC&Rs.
5. Prior to recording of the final map or issuance of building
permits, a soils investigation shall be submitted, verifying
that the soils of the site are adequate the support the
proposed structures and adjacent roadways. The date of
report, name of engineer, and location where the report is
on file shall be noted on the final map.
6. The applicant shall provide plans for a 4 foot wide shoulder
along the Tunitas Ave. frontage to conform with City Minimum
Road Standard A-1. This improvement shall be constructed
prior to final building inspection, or recording of the map.
•• 7 . The applicant shall contribute $25.00 per linear foot of
Tunitas Ave. frontage to the in-lieu sidewalk fund as
directed by the Director of Public Works, prior to recording
of the final map. As an alternative, the applicant can
elect to construct the sidewalk, prior to the recording of
the map. In this case, engineered road improvement plans
must be submitted for review and final approval by the
Director of Public Works.
•
8. The applicant shall offer to dedicate along the Tunitas Ave.
frontage, a 20 feet section from centerline of the right-of-
way to property line. Any designated public utility
easement shall be offered to the public for public utility
purposes. Offers of dedication shall be recorded prior to
or in conjunction with recording of the map.
Fire/Building Code Conditions
9 . The project shall conform to all Uniform Building Code
requirements, including bringing the existing residence up
to code for seismic safety or other Code shortcomings, as
determined by the Building Official.
10. Residential fire sprinklers, or the equivalent measures,
shall be installed throughout the project, as determined by
the Fire Department.
Planning Division Conditions
11. A minimum setback of six (6 ) feet shall be provided between
• principal buildings and accessory structures.
12. Parking shall be revised to provide a handicapped parking
stall and better access for the guest parking space.
13. The following improvements to the existing residence to be
converted shall be completed prior to recording the map:
a. Provision for 100 cubic feet of enclosed private
storage space, exclusive of cabinets and closets within
the unit and the space required for parking a vehicle
in the garage.
b. Provision for 100 square feet of private open space.
C. Provision for smoke detectors mounted on the ceiling or
wall at a point centrally located in the area giving
access to rooms used for sleeping purposes.
d. Install perimeter and subfloor insulation and repair
and replace the heating units per the property
condition report dated February 28, 1991.
e. Paint residence to match color of the three new
dwellings.
14 . A note shall be placed on the final map stating the
• existence of the pest control and property inspection
reports for the existing residence (5540 Tunitas Ave. )
• 15. Tree protection, as certified by the project arborist, shall
be installed prior to issuance of permits. Grading and
trenching shall be under the supervision of the arborist. A
written report shall be submitted prior to final inspection
(or recording of the map) stating the condition of the
protected trees and any necessary corrective measures.
16. The provision of gas, electricity, and water within each
unit shall be separately metered with circuit breakers and
shutoff valves for each unit.
17. A written agreement for individual trash collection shall be
received from Wilmar Disposal Co. prior to recording the map
or final inspection. Individual trash containers shall be
stored in garages or other enclosed areas. This agreement
shall be reflected within the CC&Rs.
18. The applicant shall establish Covenants, Conditions, and
Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the regulation of land use, control
of nuisances, and architectural control of the site and
buildings.
a. These CC&Rs shall be submitted for review and approval
to the Community Development Department prior to
approval of the final map.
• b. These CC&Rs shall be administered by a Condominium
Owners Association.
19. A final map drawn in substantial conformance with the
approved tentative map and 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 by a registered civil engineer or licensed
land surveyor as required by the Land Surveyor' s Act and
the Subdivision Map Act. Monuments set within any road
right-of-way shall conform to City standard M-1.
b. Pursuant to Section 66497 of the Subdivision Map Act the
engineer or surveyor shall notify the City Engineer in
writing that the monuments have been set.
c. A recently updated preliminary title report shall be
submitted for review in conjunction with the processing
of the final map.
d. A preliminary subdivision guarantee. shall be submitted
• for review in conjunction with the processing of the
final map.
•
20. Approval of this tentative 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.
•
•
PC 6/4/91 - MINUTES EXCERPT
Chairperson Luna declared a break at 8:40 p.m. ; meeting
• reconvened at 8:52 p.m.
3. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 26-90:
Application filed by the Tunitas Group (Complete Develop-
ment Services, agent) to create a four unit condominium
development - three new dwellings with one existing
single family residence to remain. Subject site is
located at 5540 Tunitas Avenue.
Mr. Davidson presented the staff report which focused on
issues including multiple family and other development
standards, condominium conversion ordinance and appearance
review guidelines. Staff is recommending approval subject to
20 conditions.
- Public Testimony -
Gayle Peron, one of the owners of the project, stated that
special care was taken in designing a project that would fit
in with the layout of the property, trees, etc. , and discussed
certain design constraints. She expressed concern with
Condition #7 (sidewalk contribution) noting that this will be
a considerable expense for the Tunitas frontage ($2,000) , but
noted her objection to requiring this contribution for the
• Rosario frontage. She pointed out that the land is very steep
and there is no direct access from Rosario to the units. Ms.
Peron indicated a desire to install a sidewalk along the
Tunitas frontage in lieu of the sidewalk contribution.
With regard to Condition #9, Ms. Peron expressed objection to
the seismic upgrading of the existing residence and requested
relief from this requirement. She indicated that the
residence would be brought up to the standards raised in the
architect and contractor's report on the house.
Ms. Peron expressed strong opposition to Condition #10 (fire
sprinklers) as it was. her feeling that the units would be
within 150 feet from the turn aroundarea for the emergency
vehicles to reach the units. In addition, Ms. Peron pointed
out that since the units are toward the upper end of Rosario,
a fire could be fought from that end of the property.
Commissioner Highland pointed out that the back property line
along Rosario is rather steep and it would be extremely
difficult to bring in fire hoses, etc. down this steep slope.
Heidi Rank with Complete Development Services, representing
the applicant, stated that the existing dwelling has a con-
crete foundation and new sills have been put on, adding that
• she is sure they are bolted but are not up to seismic code.
Mrs. Wolters, 5534 Tunitas, stated that she lives next door to
PC 6/4/91 - MINUTES EXCERPT
• the project, and expressed approval that the project will
consist of individual units. She expressed concern that the
added density will contribute to the traffic and safety
problems on Tunitas, and suggested that perhaps, the project
could have a circular driveway.
William Rouse stated he lives to the south side of the project
and reiterated Mrs. Wolters ' traffic concerns, and noted that
what the map doesn't show is that there is a south bend where
there have been numerous accidents on Tunitas.
- End of Public Testimony -
Mr. Davidson addressed Ms. Peron's concerns noting that the
three conditions ( #7, #9, and #10) contain a clause "as
directed (or determined) by the Public Works Director,
Building Official, and Fire Chief (respectively) . There may
be some flexibility to work with the condition as the
development phase approaches. Mr. Davidson reported on a
conversation he had earlier in the day with the Public Works
Director, who would not have a problem with the applicant
installing the sidewalk on Tunitas, and would encourage this.
Chairperson Luna concurred that a sidewalk would make Tunitas
a little safer with respect to the children' s safety.
• With regard to Condition #9, Mr. Davidson stated that he would
encourage the applicant to meet with the Building Official to
work out the issue of upgrading the existing house to the
applicable codes. Discussion followed.
Mr. Davidson pointed out that Commissioner Highland reiterated
the exact comment from the Fire Marshall in that Rosario is
close enough but would not want to fight a fire with the steep
slopes, heavy brush and tree cover. Mr. Decamp added that the
project is addressed on Tunitas so any response from emergency
services would be to the Tunitas address.
Discussion ensued concerning the feasibility of fire hydrants
to serve the site vs. sprinklering the units.
Commissioner Highland voiced his feeling that the applicant
should have the option to install the sidewalks instead of
contributing to the sidewalk fund. Chairperson Luna
concurred.
Commissioner Johnson stated that the various departments
should be urged to deal reasonably with the applicant as this
is a very nice project and has a lot of merits. He noted he
would have a problem with requiring frontage improvements
along Rosario as the steep slopes are not conducive to
creating foot traffic from the development.
• Commissioner Highland added that it is highly unlikely that
there will ever be any widening of Rosario given the
PC 6/4/91 - MINUTES EXCERPT
topography, and the cut and fill would be massive.
• Commissioners Johnson and Hanauer concurred.
Mr. DeCamp remarked that #7 can be modified to allow
construction of the sidewalk on Tunitas in lieu of the cash
contribution. He reported that the City is most interested in
providing access from residential areas into the schools and
downtown area. He added that there is reason to argue in
favor of sidewalks in this area as it is densely populated.
Mr. DeCamp further noted that it is common practice to require
frontage improvements on both sides when there is a double
frontage lot.
Commissioner Highland argued that realistically, there is a
high probability that there will never be a sidewalk along
that side of Rosario.
Commissioner Waage concurred with Mr. DeCamp adding that it is
only fair that the sidewalk fee be levied on both frontages,
and that consistency needs to be applied throughout the City
for this requirement so precedents are not set.
Commissioner Johnson took exception to these statements noting
that there just is not a frontage on Rosario. He voiced his
feeling that the sidewalk requirement should only be applied
to the Tunitas frontage.
• Commissioner Hanauer stated that Rosario is not a normal
situation and its terrain does not lend itself to any kind of
sidewalk on that side of the street. Discussion continued.
Mr. DeCamp indicated that if it is the consensus of the
Commission that a sidewalk will not be constructed on Rosario,
he would caution that perhaps accepting a donation for a
future sidewalk may not be appropriate, and discussed that a
nexus or relationship needs to be established between an
exaction and the need for improvements to be installed.
MOTION: By Commissioner Highland and seconded by Commis-
sioner Johnson to approve Tentative Parcel Map
26-90 based on the Findings and Conditions of
.Approval with modification to Condition #7 to read:
"7 . The applicant shall contribute $25.00 per
linear foot of the Tunitas Avenue frontage to
the in-lieu sidewalk fund as directed by the
Director of Public Works, prior to recording
of the final map. As an alternative, the
applicant can elect to construct the sidewalk,
prior to the recording of the map. In this
case, engineered road improvement plans must
be submitted for review and final approval by
• the Director of Public Works. "
The motion carried 6:0:1 with the following roll
• call:
AYES: Commissioners Highland, Johnson, Waage,
Kudlac, Hanauer, and Chairperson Luna
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Lochridge
4. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 32-90:
Application filed by Conrad Langille (Twin Cities Engin-
eering) to divide 12.5 acres into four parc s of 3.12
acres each. Subject site is located at 585, 625 and 685
Garcia Road.
Gary Kaiser presented the staff report which f cused on issues
including minimum lot size, existing utility easements,
preliminary grading plan, tree removals, c nditions for Fire
Department access and subdivision d ign. Staff is
recommending approval subject to 21 con tions.
Commission questions and discussion f lowed.
Chairperson Luna stated he is bothe ed by the fact that there
• were no septic areasoutlined and t t further tree removal may
occur. Mr. Kaiser responded at each proposed lot was
provided with percolation test and deep borings to verify
that conventional leach fields could be placed on each of the
sites.
Chairperson Luna reference Parcels 3 and 4 noting that if one
went further up the exist' g driveway and did not cut across,
there is a short piece o easement for access to Parcel 3 on
Parcel 4.
Chairperson Luna ref renced the Fire Master Plan concerning
wildland and urbainterface development and the minimum
wildfire protectio standards applied, and read a section from
the State Respons ' ility Area Fire Safe Regulations concerning
what constitute the basic wildland fire protection standards
of the Califor is State Board of Forestry.
Chairperson una asked to what extent Garcia is a dead end
road and a ed if there is an agreement between the City and
adjacent roperty owner as far as emergency access out of
these ar as.
Mr. Damp stated that the gate was to be a Fire Department
crash gate so there would be emergency access. Chairperson
Luna noted his main concern was that more people may be put in
hazm' s way by subdividing in a wildfire area and not giving
tl4em a way out except for Garcia. He added that the City must
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
• CITY OF ATASCADERO - Agenda Item: B-8
Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Mtg. Date: 6/25/91
From: Henry Engen, Community Dev. Di , . Jif, File No: TPM 32-90
SUBJECT:
Request to subdivide three lots of 12 . 5 acres into four parcels of
3. 12 acres each at 585, 625, and 685 Garcia Road - Conrad
Langille/Twin Cities Engineering.
RECOMMENDATION:
Per the Planning Commission' s recommendation approve TPM 32-90
based on the Findings and Conditions of Approval.
BACKGROUND:
On June 4, 1991 , the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing
on the above subject matter and on a 5 : 1 vote, approved the parcel
map subject to the Findings and Conditions of Approval. There was
• discussion and public testimony as reflected in the attached
minutes excerpt.
HE:ps
Attachments: Staff Report - June 4 , 1991
Minutes Excerpt - June 4, 1991
cc: Conrad Langille
Twin Cities Engineering
•
• CITY OF ATASCADEROB-4
Item:
STAFF REPORT
FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: June 4, 1991
BY: Gary V. Kaiser, Assistant Planner&K File No: TPM #32-90
SUBJECT:
Consideration of a tentative parcel map application to subdivide
three (3) existing contiguous lots of approximately 12.5 acres
into four (4) new parcels, each of 3. 12 acres, for single-family
residential use.
RECOMMENDATION•
Staff recommends approval of Tentative Parcel Map #32-90 based on
the Findings contained in Attachment G and the Conditions of
Approval contained in Attachment H.
A. SITUATION AND FACTS:
• I. Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Conrad Langille
2. Representative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Twin Cities Engineering
3. Project Address. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .585, 625, & 685 Garcia Road
4. Legal Description. . . . . . . . . . . .Lots 8, 11, & 14, Blk 50, AC
5. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .approx. 12.5 acres
6. Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .RS (Residential Suburban)
7. General Plan Designation. . . . . . . . . . .Suburban Single Family
8. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .vacant
9. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . . .Negative Declaration posted
May 14, 1991
B. ANALYSIS•
The applicant requests approval of a tentative parcel map
application to divide three (3) contiguous original Colony Lots
into four (4) parcels, each of 3. 12 acres, for single-family
residential use (Attachment C) . The project is located on the
• east side of the recently-construction portion of Garcia Road
(Attachments A & B) . The site is currently vacant, except for
the overhead and underground utilities discussed below.
• Minimum Lot Size:
The minimum lot size in the RS zone ranges from 2 1/2 to 10
acres, depending on the results of several performance standards,
as described in Section 9-3. 144 of the City Zoning Ordinance.
Staff has performed this analysis on the project site, and
determined that the minimum lot size for the site is 3.04 acres.
Lot Size Factor
Distance from Center ( 16,000' - 18,0001 ) 0.60
Septic Suitability (27 min./inch = moderate) 0.75
Average Slope ( 11 - 20 %) 0.75
Access Condition (Paved Road <15% slope) 0.40
General Neighborhood Character (2.69 ac) 0.54
Minimum Lot Size. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3. 04 acres
Each of the proposed parcels is to have a net area of 3. 12 acres;
therefore, the minimum lot size criteria has been met.
Existing Utility Easements:
Three (3) utility easements are shown on the tentative parcel
map. These easements generally run parallel to Garcia Road, and
occupy almost half of the project site. Since the proposed lot
• lines are more or less perpendicular to Garcia Road, the utility
easements would also occupy almost half the area of each proposed
parcel.
All three of these easements are for the benefit of the Pacific
Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) . Two of the easements are for
existing overhead electrical transmission lines, and the third is
an existing underground high-pressure gas line (natural gas) .
The project has been referred to PG&E for review and comment.
No formal written comments were received from PG&E; however, the
Land Agent for PG&E, Neil Ballweber, met with planning staff on
two occasions and verbally described their concerns. In general,
PG&E does not object to the project, nor do they object to the
proposed grading and driveway construction within these
easements, provided ( 1) there is a provision that PG&E
conceptually approves all construction activities prior to
permits being issued; (2) PG&E is notified prior to the
commencement of any construction activities; (3) all provisions
that are contained within existing easements of record are
maintained; and (4 ) all easements, and all building restrictions
related thereto, are shown and/or noted on the final map to be
recorded.
These concerns expressed by PG&E are reflected and adequately
addressed in the attached Conditions of Approval (Attachment H) .
• 2
The Preliminary Gradin Plan:
A preliminary grading plan, prepared by a registered civil
engineer, has been received for the project (Attachment D) . Said
grading plan was requested by staff to disclose the potential
environmental impacts of the project.
The grading plan shows access to the proposed building sites on
each of the proposed parcels. Each building site has been
carefully positioned to ( 1) stay clear of the overhead utility
lines (PG&E easements) , (2) maintain adequate distance between
residences, and (3) minimize the need for grading and tree
removal. Because of the sensitive placement of building sites on
each lot (in relatively flat areas) , and because a common
driveway is proposed to be shared by parcels 1 & 2, the extent of
grading would probably be substantially the same whether this
project is approved or not (four (4) residences on the site
verses three (3) residences on the site) .
Tree Removals:
A certified arborist has reviewed the preliminary grading plan
and has prepared a complete and detailed tree report. The tree
inventory lists ninety-five (95) trees that would be potentially
• impacted by development; however, this is only a fraction of the
total number of trees on the site. Because of the length of the
report, only the summary sheet has been included as an attachment
hereto (Attachment E) .
According to the certified arborist, eight (8) trees would have
to be removed given the preliminary grading plan: seven (7 ) to
facilitate access to each building site; and one ( 1) for
development of a residence on proposed parcel 2. Of the eight
(8) trees to be removed, three (3) are actually non-native
Coffeeberry shrubs (Rhamnus californica) . One of these
Coffeeberry shrubs is currently dead. The remaining five (5)
trees to be removed are all native Oaks: two (2 ) are dead; two
(2) are described by the certified arborist as being in poor
condition; and one ( 1) is a healthy 16-inch Valley Oak (Quercus
lobata) .
Pursuant to the current Tree Ordinance (Ordinance No. 214 ) ,
replacement trees (similar species, native stock, five-gallon
size) would have to be planted on the site at a "one per 6-inch
dbh removed" basis for non-deciduous Oaks, and at a "two per 6-
inch removed" basis for deciduous Oaks. No replacement trees are
required for dead trees, however.
•
3
1
• Of the three (3) living native trees to be removed, two (2) are
non-deciduous Live Oaks (Quercus agrifolia) and one ( 1) is a
deciduous Valley Oak (Quercus lobata) . The two (2) non-deciduous
Oaks have a total dbh of 24 inches. The one ( 1) Valley Oak has a
dbh of 16 inches. Therefore, ten ( 10) replacement trees would be
required. In addition, said Tree Ordinance mandates that one ( 1)
native tree be planted on a "per residential dwelling unit"
basis. Since four (4 ) residential units would eventually be
constructed, the total replacement trees to be planted, given the
preliminary grading plan, would be fourteen ( 14) .
All other trees on the site can be retained. A tree protection
plan has been included in the certified arborist' s report and is
shown both graphically and with text on the preliminary grading
plan.
It is staff ' s opinion that impacts of this project related to
both grading and tree removal have been minimized and/or
mitigated to the point of not being significant.
Conditions for Fire Department Access:
The preliminary grading plan shows the common driveway serving
parcels 1 & 2 to be twelve ( 12) feet wide, with a two-foot wide
gravel shoulder on one side. This constitutes an unobstructed
• all-weather driving surface of fourteen ( 14) feet.
The City Fire Department, upon review of the project, has imposed
several recommended conditions of approval (Attachment H) . One
of these conditions is that the common driveway, because of its
length, be constructed with an all-weather driving surface twenty
(20) feet in width. Consequently, more grading than that
currently shown on the preliminary grading plan would be
necessary for the construction of this common driveway (at least
where the driveway is to be located on steeper slopes) . This
could, in turn, cause the removal of an additional tree;
specifically, the 14-inch Live Oak shown on the preliminary
grading plan (tree #50) . Any such additional tree removal would,
of course, also increase the number of required tree
replacements.
Other fire access conditions related to driveway turning radii
and turnarounds can easily be met without the need for additional
grading or tree removals. Staff maintains that the project, as
conditioned, would still minimize site disturbance, including but
not limited to grading and tree removals, to an acceptable level.
Subdivision Design:
With respect to the design of the proposed subdivision, staff
offers the following:
• 4
•
1. SOLAR ORIENTATION -- The lots are large enough to allow
proper building orientation and maximum feasible control of
solar exposure by the lot owner, regardless of lot
orientation.
2. DEPTH-WIDTH RELATIONSHIP -- Proposed parcel 3 slightly
exceeds the desired "not greater than 3: 1" rule. However,
given the minimum lot size in the RS zone, there is adequate
assurance that deep lot subdivision will not occur.
3. LOT LINES -- Proposed lot lines are perpendicular to the
street, which is encouraged by the Subdivision Ordinance.
CONCLUSIONS:
Staff believes that this project, with the attached Conditions of
Approval (Attachment H) , is consistent with the General Plan and
complies with all applicable provisions contained within the
General Plan and Atascadero Municipal Code. Moreover, staff
feels that any adverse environmental impacts that may be
associated with subsequent development of the proposed four (4 )
parcels would not be substantially greater than that associated
with the development of the existing three (3) parcels.
• ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A - Location Map (Zoning)
Attachment B - Location Map (General Plan)
Attachment C - Tentative Parcel Map
Attachment D - Preliminary Grading Plan
Attachment E - Arborist' s Summary Sheet
Attachment F - Negative Declaration
Attachment G - Findings for Approval
Attachment H - Conditions of Approval
TPM-32-90.sr
•
5
CITY O F AT-AS CAD ER ATTACHMENT A
w ..
C 0 N LN f Ut\i 1 717( 0 Ev ZLO P.Rv i Location Map ( Zoning)
• _ DE=•�.R-L7%,f ti t TPM #32-90
/R Ste}
R S - Ar=-
TA1.FfK
CT
n �
R S
SITE T /
F. 6
oCrQ
IT s
�a
t L
�omo
7o_
R
CK
CI 4 F AT_A
� SCADERp
+► CO��'Ltijt,�;i�'I D E;,�L ,� ATTACHMENT B
D E
P.�j..y zLocation Map (Gen. Plar
. -,.
�'Z'�j�y 1 TPM #32-90
•
fPUBLI
i..�.r=
--
\`\\ RECO _
74 �1
RETAIL \\�
C 0 Mfill
S ATE
J ENSI Y
J , U TI-F
/
E
�I po a
i "w►
N; R
MM�
i
1 �
CITY OF AT-A5CA D ER
O ATTACHMENT C
ND 1?` 0E'v�L0F.NI Tentative Parcel Map
C0
TPM #32-90
• - D E�.�.R'i ti1��i'
� •— � a i �, � � �i• ��-. 6 Aga
9�5
1
1 ,
(fr
1 1
i ` y 1 1 I � �•� �
f
r why
1.
l �
-Al
i
m
CITY OF .AT_AS C_AD ER
O ATTACHMENT D
COLtiLNfUN l'Y DE"�VEL .N T Prelim. Grading Plan
�r TPM #32-90
dw
,p N 'q�pl�•��I II I�'I'.i:N,iI �LI�I�Il j ISI 1. �'�.
' �;� ;II;y[;��il�lt�i�hp;���j�"•I;'li i�I���al�' I ��
1
lit
- I ( _ �- ,����� i ilk'► i'I ..
� �h 111111111 :
►111 111111111111
11
v VCR
1 �. ���'��_� ► 1111 1
\ �t
1 �11�
CITY O F ATAS CAD ER
0 ATTACHMENT E
�. CO�tiLtilL�iiT1'l DE%.:iOP;y1-ti� Arborist ' s Summary Sheet
• _
.�.Z TPM #32-90
` D E? i yl�v�i
Twin Cities/Langille -8- April 9, 1991
Arborist Report
91 . Double 8" diameter Yalley Oak. Fair to good condition.
To be reained. Install tree protection fence at the
line of encroachment.
92. 6" diameter Live Oak. Fair to good condition. To be
retained. Install tree protection fence at the line of
encroachment.
93. 15" diameter Valley Oak. Fair to good condition. To be
retained. Install tree protection fence at the line of
encroachment.
94. Triple 24" diameter Valley Oak. Fair to good condition.
To be retained. Install tree protection fence at the line
of encroachment.
95. 12" diameter Valley Oak. Fair to good condition. To be
• retained. Install tree protection fence at the line of
encroachment.
COMMENTS:
Ninety-five trees will be impacted by the proposed development of
this tract and eight trees will require removing. The trees to be
removed are trees #17, 43, 47, 48, 51 , 52 & 72 of the attached
tree inventory. Tree #17 is a dead Coffee berry bush and tree #43
is two Coffee berry bushes in the proposed common drive right-of-
way for lots #1 and 2. Trees #47 & 48 are dead Valley Oaks, ad-
jacent to the common drive for lots #1 and 2. Trees 51 and 52 are
Coast Live Oaks that are in poor condition and are in the cut
slope for the common drive for lots 1 and 2. Tree #72 is a healthy
16" diameter Valley Oak located in the center of the proposed
building site for lot #2. The removal of these eight trees will
have no negative impact on the urban forest in this area. j
There are many more trees existing in this area than the trees
inventoried for this project. The ninety-five trees inventoried
will be the only trees impacted by this proposed development and ,
none of the trees remaining will be impacted significantly.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
The proposed building sites and access drives were located so as
not to remove or impact any more trees than necessary. The proposed
sites are of adequate size for development and should be of little
• consequence to the adjacent trees. With the conditions of this
report and the attached "Tree Protection Measures and Requirements",
I recommend that this project be approved.
6124k
Jack Brazeal r`9
Certified Arborist
,. -.�"IN` CITY OF ArAS CAD ER
ATTACHMENT F
.,
Negative Declaration
C0LVLtilLti1 Y DEv:.LCPNG=:�j
• TPM #32-90
D E?A.:Zitii=ti i
CITY OF ATASCADERO
logo ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATOR
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CO.NIMUNITY DEVELOP.MEW DEPT. 6500 PAL AVE. ATASCADERO, CA 93422 (805)461-5035
APPLICANT: CoN f2Rl� iNCa,I-lam
6Z.5 SPetri q `:,i�T
1�F45o �cc3�ES CJS
PROJECT TITLE: -r Pr ` SZ-9c
PROJECT LOCATION:
SF,S; 6 z.S� �# G 65 6A 2C t A P--c►-,,,D
R
3
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: -
l�wis�oc.� � t'�-rQ.EE C3� EX1STiN.E� CoNTIC�oa� ;
LOTS FAP_CELS eAC44 c-P 3. I Z Acne:, I
• �2 S�rlCat =7- i�rv�it.y PEStO Tn.I_./ v E
FINDINGS:
1. The project does not have the potential to degrade the environment.
2. The project will not achieve short-term to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals.
i
3. The project does not have impacts which are individually limited.but comulatively considerable.
4. The project will not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings either directly or indirectly.
DETER51INATION:
Based on the above findings, and the information contained in the initial study(made a part hereof by refer-
ence and on file in the Community Development Department). it has been determined that the above project
will not have an adverse impact on the environment.
i
Henry Engen
Community Development Director
Date Posted: 1 k-i ILa-) n(�I
• Date Adopted:
con I,•as
,i
ATTACHMENT G - Findings for Approval
• Tentative Parcel Map #32-90
585, 625, and 685 Garcia Road
(Langille/Twin Cities)
June 4, 1991
ENVIRONMENTAL FINDING:
The proposed project will not have a significant impact on the
environment. The Negative Declaration prepared for the project
is adequate.
MAP FINDINGS:
1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable
General and Specific Plans.
2. The design and/or improvement of the proposed subdivision is
consistent with applicable General and Specific Plans.
3. The site is physically suitable for the type of development
proposed.
• 4. The site is physically suitable for the density of the
development proposed.
5. The design of the subdivision, and/or the proposed
improvements, will not cause substantial environmental
damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish and
wildlife or their habitat.
6. The design of the subdivision, and the type of the
improvements, will not conflict with easements acquired by
the public at large for access through or the use of
property within the proposed subdivision; or substantially
equivalent alternate easements are provided.
7 . The proposed subdivision design, and/or the type of
improvements proposed, will not cause serious public health
problems.
TPM-32-90.fin
•
• ATTACHMENT H -- Conditions of Approval
Tentative Parcel Map #32-90
585, 625, and 685 Garcia Road
(Langille/Twin Cities)
June 4, 1991
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. All subsequent development of the site shall substantially
conform to the preliminary grading plan contained within the
application and included herein as Attachment D.
2. Designated building sites shall be shown on the final map,
and shall be placed in the same general location as the
building sites shown on the preliminary grading plan
(Attachment D) .
3. All available utility services shall be stubbed to the
property line of each lot prior to the recording of the map.
This shall include water, power, telephone, gas, and cable
television.
4. The driving surface of the common driveway serving parcels 1
& 2 shall have a minimum unobstructed width of twenty (20)
• feet (including shoulders) , shall be paved where driveway
slopes are at or in excess of twelve ( 12) percent, and all
flatter portions of the common driveway shall, at minimum,
be treated with an approved all-weather surface.
5. Access drives to all parcels shall have a minimum inside
turning radius of twenty-eight (28) feet and a minimum
outside turning radius of forty-eight (48) feet.
6. Approved turnarounds shall be provided along driveways to
each residence. The specific design and location of each
turnaround shall be subject to the review and approval of
the City Fire Marshall and Community Development Department.
7. One ( 1) new fire hydrant shall be placed along the common
access to parcels 1 & 2. Said fire hydrant shall generally
be located at the point where the common driveway splits to
serve the individual building sites on parcels 1 & 2; the
specific type and location of the fire hydrant, however,
shall be as approved by the City Fire Marshall.
8. All existing and proposed utility, pipeline, open space, or
other easements are to be shown on the final map. If there
are building or other restrictions related to the easements,
they shall be noted on the map.
• 9 . All terms contained within existing easements of record
shall remain in effect and be complied with.
(Page 1 of 3)
10. Evidence shall be submitted to the Community Development
• Department, prior to the issuance of any and all building
permits, that the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E)
has reviewed and approved, in concept, the work proposed by
the building permit application(s) being reviewed.
11. All relocation and/or alteration of existing utilities shall
be the responsibility of the developer.
12. A grading and drainage plan prepared by a registered civil
engineer shall be submitted to the Community Development
Department for review and approval by the Community
Development and Public Works Departments prior to the
issuance of any building permits. This review may effect
the proposed location, configuration and/or alignment of the
driveways and building sites as shown on the proposed
grading and drainage plan.
13. Garcia Road improvements shall be completed to the
satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and accepted by
the City prior to recording the parcel map.
14. Obtain an encroachment permit from the City of Atascadero
Public Works Department prior to the start of any
construction within the public right of way.
• 15. The subdivider shall install all street signs, traffic
delineation devices, warning and regulatory signs,
guardrails, barricades, and other similar devices where
required by the Director of Public Works. Signs shall be in
conformance with the current State of California uniform
sign chart. Installation of traffic devices shall be
subject to review and modifications after construction.
16. All lot grading and drainage improvements shall require
written statement by a registered Civil Engineer that all
work has been completed and is in full compliance with
the approved plans prior to the final building inspection.
17. Offer to dedicate to the City of Atascadero the following
right-of-way and easement.
Street Name: Garcia Road
Limits: Minimum of 20 feet from the centerline of the
right of way to the property linea In the area of the
cul-de-sac the offer of dedication shall include all of
the pavement and shoulder area. The shoulder area
shall be a minimum of 4 feet off the edge of the
pavement.
18. Offer to dedicate to the public for public utility
• purposes any public utility easement.
(Page 2 of 3)
19. Offers of dedication shall be completed and recorded prior
• to or in conjunction with the recording of the parcel map.
20. A final map 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' s
Subdivision Ordinance prior to the recording of the final
map.
a. Monuments shall be set at all new property corners by a
Registered Civil Engineer or Licensed Land Surveyor
as required by the Land Surveyors Act and Subdivision
Map Act. Monuments set within any road right of way
shall conform to city standard drawing M-1.
b. Pursuant to section 66497 of the Subdivision Map Act
the engineer or surveyor shall notice the City Engineer
in writing that the monuments have been set.
C. A recently updated preliminary title report shall be
submitted for review in conjunction with the processing
of the final map.
• d. A preliminary subdivision guarantee shall be submitted
for review in conjunction with the processing of the
final map.
21. Approval of this tentative map shall expire two (2) years
from the date of final approval, unless an extension of time
is granted pursuant to a written request received prior to
the expiration date.
•
TPM-32-90.con (Page 3 of 3)
l�
PC 6/4/91 - MINUTES EXCERPT
• The motion carried 6:0:1 with the ollowing roll
call:
AYES: Commissioners Hig,4a' nd, Johnson, Waage,
Kudlac, Hanauer;and Chairperson Luna
NOES: None
ABSENT: issioner Lochridge
4. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 32-90:
Application filed by Conrad Langille (Twin Cities Engin-
eering) to divide 12.5 acres into four parcels of 3. 12
acres each. Subject site is located at 585, 625 and 685
Garcia Road.
Gary Kaiser presented the staff report which focused on issues
including minimum lot size, existing utility easements,
preliminary grading plan, tree removals, conditions for Fire
Department access and subdivision design. Staff is
recommending approval subject to 21 conditions.
Commission questions and discussion followed.
• Chairperson Luna stated he is bothered by the fact that there
were no septic areasoutlined and that further tree removal may
occur. Mr. Kaiser responded that each proposed lot was
provided with percolation tests and deep borings to verify
that conventional leach fields could be placed on each of the
sites.
Chairperson Luna referenced Parcels 3 and 4 noting that if one
went further up the existing driveway and did not cut across,
there is a short piece of easement for access to Parcel 3 on
Parcel 4.
Chairperson Luna referenced the Fire Master Plan concerning
wildland and urban interface development and the minimum
wildfire protection standards applied, and read a section from
the State Responsibility Area Fire Safe Regulations concerning
what constitutes the basic wildland fire protection standards
of the California State Board of Forestry.
Chairperson Luna asked to what extent Garcia is a dead end
road and asked if there is an agreement between the City and
adjacent property owner as far as emergency access out of
these areas.
Mr. DeCamp stated that the gate was to be a Fire Department
crash gate so there would be emergency access. Chairperson
• Luna noted his main concern was that more people may be put in
harm's way by subdividing in a wildfire area and not giving
them a way out except for Garcia. He added that the City must
PC 6/4/91 - MINUTES EXCERPT
make an agreement to provide that Garcia Road is not a dead
• end road and one has an emergency exit out.
Chairperson Luna noted that there are two main driveways in
excess of 20%, and expressed concern that the project could be
redesigned so that it would conform to the minimum standards.
- Public Testimony -
Conrad Langille, applicant, proceeded to address issues raised
by Chairperson Luna. He discussed the private easement road
which gives access to 4 parcels only noting that Garcia Road
does not extend down there on a legal basis. The gate was put
up and extended so there would not be a problem with emergency
vehicles gaining access.
Mr. Langille then responded to questions by Chairperson Luna
concerning clarification of the various easements. With
regard to the slope issue, one of the primary issues was
trying to gain an access that was not too steep but yet would
not impact too many trees. He discussed aesthetics involved
in designing the site, and noted he did not have any
objections to the Conditions of Approval.
Ken Romero with Twin Cities Engineering, stated that a 2: 1
slope is the maximum slope that you can get per the UBC based
• on soils reports, etc. Discussion ensued on this issue.
Mr. DeCamp clarified that the only way they're going to be
able to go steeper than 2: 1 is to have a geologic report that
shows that there is sufficient stability in the soils and
underlying material.
Mr. Romero addressed the septic system issues and stated that
there will be no problem with placing systems on each of the
four lots.
- End of Public Testimony -
Commissioner Waage noted that Attachment B shows two lots
between the site and the freeway area, and asked if a road
could be put through there when these lots are developed.
Mr. DeCamp reported that CalTrans has had reservations about
allowing additional access onto their right-of-way. He
emphasized that the City is well aware of the need to
establish an additional access out of that area whether it
occurs on Garcia or Santa Cruz.
In response to question by Chairperson Luna, Mr. DeCamp stated
there is a private crossing on San Ramon that CalTrans allowed
for agricultural purposes on some of that property. It is not
• adequate for the type of traffic from this development. He
further noted that the Circulation Element will address this
PC 6/4/91 - MINUTES EXCERPT
area as it is a major issue at the north end of town.
• There was continued discussion concerning minimum driveway
standards, along with the replacement of the Garcia bridge.
Commissioner Highland remarked that the reality is that full
urban services and rural living are not compatible.
MOTION: By Commissioner Kudlac and seconded by Commissioner
Highland to approve Tentative Parcel Map 32-90
based on the Findings and Conditions of Approval.
The motion carried 5:1:1 with the following roll
call:
AYES: Commissioners Kudlac, Highland, Johnson,
Hanauer, and Waage
NOES: Chairperson Luna
ABSENT: Commissioner Lochridge
5. VARIANCE 01-91:
Application filed by Bruce Riehl and Annie B dford to
consider a request to establish a six foot f nce within
the required front and side yard setbacks. ubject site
• is located at 4590 Lobos Avenue.
Mr. Davidson presented the staff repor and provided a
background concerning the establishment o the fence. Staff
is recommending denial of the variance two of the findings
for a variance could not be made.
Commission questions and discussio followed.
Commissioner Hanauer stated tha he did not find that corner
to be unsafe. He added th with the way the fence is
constructed, one can see any a walking in the street or a car
moving, etc.
Chairperson Luna comme ed that the fence is not a potential
safety hazard.
Commissioner John n added that it is difficult to see in
either direction n the street between the slats of the fence.
He noted that t ere is a big difference between a solid fence
and looking t rough a couple of trees.
Commissio r Highland emphasized that a variance must be based
on hards ip to the property that prevents the property from
being ilized, and cannot be based on hardship to the owners,
their lifestyle, etc. He voiced his feeling that this
• var' nce is not justified.
• REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: B-9
Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Mtg. Date: 6/25/91
From: Henry Engen, Community Dev. Dir. File No: TTM 2-87
(Tr.1488)
SUBJECT:
Request for time extension to allow completion of the map in
conformance with the approved Conditions of Approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Per the Planning Commission' s recommendation, approval of a time
extension to April 26, 1992.
BACKGROUND:
On June 4, 1991 , the Planning Commission considered this item on
its Consent Calendar. On a 6 : 0 vote, the Commission recommended
• approval of a time extension to April 26, 1992.
HE:ps
Attachments: Staff Report - June 4, 1991
CC : PAUL METCHIK
CENTRAL COAST ENGINEERING
•
ITEM: A-3
• MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: D.p . Doug Davidson, Senior Planner
RE: Tentative Parcel Map 02-87 - Metchik/Central Coast Eng.
Tract 1488
DATE: June 4, 1991
The above referenced map was originally Y aPProved by the Planning
Commission on April 7, 1987 and subsequently approved by the City
Council on June 23, 1987. The map was reconsidered by the
Planning Commission on April 5, 1988 and ultimately approved by
the City Council on April 26, 1988. On June 26, 1990, the City
Council granted a one year time extension until April 26, 1991.
A letter requesting a second time extension was received on April
25, 1991.
Substantial improvements, including road plans, sewer extension
• design, and fire prevention, are required prior to recording of
this map. Two final map submittals have been received and
processed during the last year. The map should be extended to
allow completion of the map in conformance with the approved
Conditions of Approval.
RECOMMENDATION•
Staff recommends approval of a second one year time extension for
Tentative Parcel Map 02-87, extending the approval date to April
26, 1992.
Attachments: 1. Request for Extension
2. Prior Staff Report
•
PAUL G. METCHIK
• ATTORNEYLAW
6680 Bay Laurel Drive
Post Office Box 2119
Avila Beach, CA 93424
April l5, 1991 Telephone(805) 595-2450
Telefax(805) 595-7927 ?p eo
i�
Community Development Department APR 2 5
City of Atascadero COiv MUNi i'r' i?LV[IUI'lri :IN i
6500 Palma Avenue
Atascadero, CA 93422
Attn: Planning Department
Re: Tract 1.488 Tentative Map Extension
Gentlemen:
We currently have Tract 1488 in escrow. Final Improvement Plans and the Final Map for
the captioned Tract are being submitted to the Planning Department and the City
Engineer's Office for final review. However, in the event that final approval does not occur
prior to April 26, 1991,we are hereby requesting a one-year extension to the Tentative Tract
Map.
• 3�D
Enclosed is the $Extension Application Fee.
Sincerely,
i
IF I . Metchik D ane Young
Approved:
BDC Development Corporation
1fSY( (
&j
Richard Loughead
Owner
PG M/arn
Enclosure
c:�2�paul�map1488.ext V0
�l 330•
J
1
1
•
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: City Council April 26 , 1988
VIA: Paul Sensibaugh, Acting City Manager
FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director 4w-
SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 2-87
LOCATION: 9385 Vista Bonita
APPLICANT: Robert and Patricia Nimmo (Michael Yeomans )
REQUEST: To modify the resubdivision of 8 existing lots
totaling 6 . 98 acres into 8 lots varying in size
from 5 , 520 to 6 , 750 square feet and open space lot
of 5 . 33 acres , to revise approved road name.
• BACKGROUND:
At their April 5 , 1988 meeting, the Atascadero Planning
Commission conducted a public hearing on this reconsideration
of a previously approved map. On a 6 : 0 vote, the Commission
approved the request subject to the findings and conditions
contained in the attached staff report. There was discussion and
public testimony given as reflected in the attached minutes
excerpts .
RECOMMENDATION:
Approval of Tentative Tract Map 2-87 ( reconsideration of) per the
Planning Commission' s recommendation.
HE :ps
Attachments : Staff Report - April 5 , 1988
Minutes Excerpt - April 5 , 1988
cc : Robert and Patricia Nimmo
Michael Yeomans
N + G AG DA
_ ITEM
• CITY OF ATASCADERO
STAFF REPORT
FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: April 5, 1988
BY: Joel Moses, Associate Planner File No: TTM 2-87
SUBJECT:
Reconsideration of Tentative Tract Map 2-87 to allow for the
resubdivision of 8 existing parcels totaling 6. 98 acres into 8
residential parcels varying in size from 6750 to 5520 square
feet and an open space lot of 5. 33 acres and to revise the
approved road name.
A. SITUATION AND FACTS:
1. Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Robert Nimmo
2 . Representative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Michael Yeomans
• 3. Project Address. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9385 Vista Bonita Road
4. Legal Description. . . . . . . . . . . .Lots 6 , 7 & 10 through 15
Tract 5, Atasc.
5. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. 98 acres
6. Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .RSF-Z (Residential
Single Family) 1 1/2 acre
without sewer, 1 acre with
sewer minimum lot size.
7. General Plan Designation. . . . .Low Density Single Family
8. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Vacant
9. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Prior Negative Declaration
B. ANALYSIS:
The applicant proposes a redesign of the previously approved
tract map. The map proposes to subdivide 8 existing undeveloped
parcel containing 6. 98 acres into 8 residential parcels
containing 6750 to 5520 square feet, and an open space parcel to
• contain 5. 33 acres. The subdivision will be served off of Vista
1
i
I
i
_ 1
l
I
• i
Bonita by a private road currently designated as Trifon Garcia
Road.
The site is located in the RSF-Z (Residential Single Family)
zone. Minimum lot size in this zone ranges between 1 . 5 and 2.5 J
acres depending on the "score" of the various performance
standards. No new lots are being created for residential I'
development so the minimum lot size would not apply due to the
nonconforming status of the lots. The site also has a PD-7
overlay as a part of its zoning. The overlay sets a specific i
conceptual plan for the development of the site. I
I
The applicant is now proposing to shift the development area to
the west. This move will relocate the residential units !'
approximately 180 ' - 0" and the improvements approximately 100 ' -
0" across the face of the hill. The design will also be changed
in that the previously approved turn around will now be located
between two residential units as opposed to being at the end of
the units. Also added is an access to the golf course. Staff
reviewed the redesign and found that the new proposal did not
conform to the approved tentative map. The plan conforms to the
approved conceptual plan for the Planned Development overlay,
however the Planning Commission is only reviewing a revision to
the Tentative Map and not the zoning, unless the Planning
Commission finds that the shift does not conform to the approved
• overlay.
Comments were received from several outside agencies. Our Fire
Department noted no change in the previously approved conditions.
The State Department of Transportation has noted no problem with
the proposal. The Southern California Gas Company has again noted
that the site can be served by an existing 2 inch main in E1
Bordo If additional gas mains are installed, they will need to
be within the Public Right-of-Way or within approved easements.
Public Works presently reviewing the improvement plans for the
development and indicates no problems with the revised project.
They have, however recommended some minor revisions to the
approved conditions. The County has reached a conceptual
approval with the developer on the sewer, and the pedestrian
access to the golf course.
At the time of the prior consideration staff noted a problem
with the approval of Trifon Garcia as a road name. Staff still
recommends the revision of the street name.
C. RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends conditional approval of Tentative Tract Map 2-
87 based on the previous Findings in Exhibit C and Revised
Conditions of Approval in Exhibit D and revising the approved
street name.
• I
2
I
• -
ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A Location Map
Exhibit B - Tentative Map
Exhibit C - Findings for Approval
Exhibit D - Conditions of Approval
Exhibit E - Prior Staff Report
Exhibit F - Project comparison
JM/jm
•
•
3
■
T� EXHIBIT A LOCATION MAP
CITY (ir, ATA Tentative Tract Map 2-87
y11 -1•• 7- � SCADERO Vista Bonita
LAV" , 'YY9=!•Ti.-, Nimmo/Yeomans
• ��� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Reconsideration of Map
DEPARTMENT
SITE: Vista Bonita
TTM 2-87
Vista Bonita
• Nimmo/Yeomans
/V Reconsideation
R F•Z ,
E`100 MF-4
pg)
J I '0
'`, /' RSF• (PD7)
I q6Q`` \`\\ `orb \\�` •
o .o
rP�
J O O
lu
/ , r
_ r
CR
ui, q G T �l
� ; C R CAVEs
✓ ;��a�
P�
Oqq l� l
EXHIBIT B TENTATIVE MAP
Tentative Tract Map 2-87
Vista Bonita
sta
�1. gCITY OF ATASCADERO Nista Yeomans
•
lot■',! , 1U7U-
Reconsideration of Map
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Vol- DEPARTMENT
ZIA—
.��..--v+ �- --•ora ta�:��� �'�,�+.� -., i \.- �� \ jam_' 1.•
- ��_�_�sem• �4�':•••�'.f �'"�` ��\^tr �+-F`.---�._� '; .-.(+ � �,�� `!\ �x- 'ti �,.�
` y 'c�6 tos t1` t3 S I{a N�
VICINITY HAP
7:]..'_t^,r � 1 � ornr..s►acS -'�':.Yy. i,Y�-r��`'��\�\R\_(= ��'t,\`,y�,_�
R OPNER'S CERTIFICATE
:. __ �• •_ A.
fj i1;
•. M :�
� -+-. .\ l�I II' ,\ / 1_.�. t�1, ,� Q. .,i.a ` "Y�1•i I'.
.1 _f \ 1 1 ! !/\'ta � �I I�� � �t `�� a;i'•j��s ��I(.rijii' .- ....�
�� i'� .: •>.� � � . /,/� ilk _ :�_ti� -,,,� /�r,�_ ., ,,
-ice / ) ,I •/ /i '- %/ �� �-� �� l� -�^y 1!1,1, ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATE
REVISED
.TENTATIVE MAP
TrrcAtlecrro. r,u,..o.,eu - \ )' \ /, �•> TRACT 1488
.111UJeC7 i'ATIl TI[] '
I! e1 aN11.n� ;
t.l.11.,LM! .f 01...AI!! l.17 Aa. OP..!0••• !.]!A!. CC MIL C+ NO
'ASi[ INCeHINO ,C," I—'
� uiJfnw.1..
hl,NIN 111. ! !.lNM Ll1. 1.10 M. Irr.. .— r,+,•e.r e.. � r.`�. _
•
`-XHIBIT C TENTATIVE MAP
ENTATIVE TRACT MAP 2-87
`VISTA BONITA
NIMMO/YEOMANS
RECONSIDERATION OF MAP
FINDINGS:
1. The creation of these parcels conforms to the City' s Zoning Ordi-
nance and the General Plan, Land Use Element and policies.
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
that is proposed.
5. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements will
not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and-
avoidably injure fish and wildlife or their habitat.
• 6 . The design of the subdivision and the type of improvement will not
conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access
through or use of property within the proposed subdivision; or
that substantially equivalent alternate easements are provided.
7. The proposed subdivision complies with Section 66474. 6 of the
State Subdivision Map Act as to methods of handling and discharge
of waste.
•
4 r
•
EXHIBIT D - Tentative Tract Map 2-87 Reconsideration
Conditions of Approval
April 15 , 1988
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1 . The applicant shall annex to the sewer district and pay fees
in effect at the time of annexation prior to recording the
final map. All other sewer fees in effect shall be paid at
the time of issuance of connection permits .
a. Waste water disposal shall be connected to the public
sewer.
b . Obtain a sewer connection permit from the Public Works
Department prior to hooking up to public sewer.
2 . Improvement plans prepared by a registered civil engineer
must be submitted to and approved by the Community
Development, Fire and Public Works Departments prior to
recording the final map. Road improvement plans shall
include Vista Bonita and the private road.
• a. Construction of road improvements shall be completed
(or bonded for ) prior to recording final map.
b . Construct Atascadero City standard cul-de-sac or
turnaround as approved by the Fire Department .
C . Upon approval by the Director of Public Works , the
property owner( s) may enter into a deferral agreement
for the construction of Vista Bonita Westerly of
intersection of private road.
d. Prior to approval of the improvement plans by the
Director of Public Works , either the Subdivider shall
acquire sufficient title or interest in the off-site
land to allow the improvements to be made as required
by these conditions; or the City Council , upon request
by and at the expense of the subdivider, shall have
made all appropriate finding and adopted a Resolution
of Necessity as required by law so that the City may
exercise its power of Eminent Domain.
e . Submit proof, as required by the Department of Public
Works , that access roads are constructed within their
legal easements .
• f . Fire hydrants shall be installed at the intersection of
Vista Bonita and the private road and opposite the
property line between Lots 4 and 5 along private road.
Exact design and location to be approved by the Fire
Department .
r �>
i
1
g. water main design shall be reviewed by the Fire
Department and pressure booster pump may be required if
water pressure is found to be inadequate for fire
protection.
h . If road improvements designs require the relocation of
16" water main, the cost shall be paid by the
developer. Relocation of all utilities which conflict
with proposed improvement , shall be at the expense of
the developer.
i . Access road shall not exceed 20% .
j . All utilities serving this site and the lots shall be
underground.
3 . A 6 ' 0" Public Utility Easement shall be provided on all
private property perimeters within the tract .
a . Encroachment Permits are required prior to doing any
work within the public right-of-way.
• 4 . Grading & drainage plans prepared by a Registered Civil
Engineer must be submitted to and approved by the Department
of Public Works and the Community Development Department
prior to recording final map .
a . Secure a drainage acceptance letter from the County
stating that they reviewed the Drainage Plan and find
it acceptable prior to the recording of final map or
issuance of a building permit.
b . Drainage Facilities shall be constructed to City of
Atascadero Standards .
C . All drainage work shall be completed (or bonded for)
prior to recording final map.
5 . Prior to recording the final map, a soil investigation ( as
required by the Map Act ) shall be submitted, recommending
corrective action which will prevent structural damage to
each structure proposed to be constructed in the area where
soil problems exist, as indicated in the Preliminary Soil
Report dated November 1936 and any revisions . The date of
such reports , the name of the engineer making the report,
and the location where the reports are on file shall be
noted on the final map.
• 6 . offer for Dedication to the public of the required Public
Utilities easements .
I
7 . offers of dedication shall be completed and recorded prior
to or simultaneous to recording final map.
8 . All grading and erosion control measures shall be designed
by a registered Civil Engineer and constructed in accordance
with the City of Atascadero grading codes and standards .
Prior to final building inspection, said engineer shall
submit to the City written certification that grading is in
compliance with said codes and standards . '
9 . Install all street signs , traffic delineation devices ,
warning and regulatory signs , guardrail , barricades , and
other similar devices where required by the Director of
Public Works . Signs shall be in conformance with the
Department of Public Works standards and the current State
of California Uniform Sign Chart . Installation of traffic
devices shall be subject to review and modification after
construction.
10 . Offer of Dedication to City of Atascadero the following
rights-of way and/or easements :
Street Name : Vista Bonita
• Limits : Property frontage
Minimum Width: 20 ' from centerline of right-of-way
11 . Improve Vista Bonita to the following standard:
24 ' Road Bed with 20 ' A.C. traveled way, minimum 50 '
centerline radius .
Limits : From E1 Bordo to Westerly Terminus of Vista Bonita.
Improve private road to the following standard:
20 ' A.C. Traveled Way within a 30 ' wide access easement;
minimum 50 ' centerline radius .
12 . Improve Vista Bonita to the following standard:
24 ' Road Bed with 20 ' A.C. Traveled Way
Limits : From E1 Bordo to Private Road. Vista Bonita from
Private Road to Westerly Terminus of El Dorado,
20 ' Road Bed with 16 ' A.C. Traveled Way.
The Director of Public Works may adjust Roadway & Traveled
Way width due to topographies of site.
• The Director of Public works may allow deferral of Vista
Bonita from private road to terminus until other development
would create the need for the road improvement.
3
13 . Provide Sewer Main Extension Plan acceptable to the Director
of Public Works . Main extension shall be thru Golf Course
or Las Lomas to Pina Solo . Easement thru Golf Course, if
this alternate is selected, shall be recorded prior to
recording final map.
14 . Each lot shall have a separate water meter and service .
The applicant shall establish Covenants , Conditions , and
Restrictions (CC&Rs ) for the regulation of land use,
control of nuisances , architectural control of all
buildings , driveway and landscaping maintenance .
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 . A Drainage Maintenance Agreement, in a form acceptable
to the City Attorney shall be recorded with the deed to
each parcel at the time it is first conveyed and a note
to this effect shall be placed in the C.C.R. .
15 . Zone Change 1-87 shall be approved and in effect prior to
• the recording the final map.
16 . Applicant shall gain approval of a street name for the
private road and it shall be shown on the final map .
17 . 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 the City Lot
Division ordinance prior to recordation.
a. Monuments shall be set at all new property corners
created and a Registered Civil Engineer or licensed
Land Surveyor shall indicate, by certificate on the
final map, that corners have been set or shall be set
by a date specific and that they will be sufficient to
enable the survey to be retraced.
b . A recently updated preliminary title report shall be
submitted for review in conjunction with the processing
of the final map .
18 . 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 .
•
4
..LBIT E - Prior Staff Re.
Tentative Tract Map 2-87 (Nimmo/Yeomans) Tentative Tract Map 2-87
Vista Bonita
Nimmo/Yeomans
• City of Atascadero Reconsideration of Map
STAFF REPORT
FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: 4/7/87
BY: Joel Moses, Associate Planner File No: TTM 2-87
Project Address: 9385 Vista Bonita Road j
SUBJECT:
Request proposing a residential resubdivision of 8 lots into 9 lots,
with eight of the lots varying in size from 5, 520 to 6,750 square feet
for residential use and one 4.94 acre lot for open space. The pro-
posal also includes a request to establish Trifon Garcia Lane as a
road name for a proposed private road.
i
BACKGROUND:
f
The applicants have applied for a zone change (ZC 1-87) to allow for a '
small lot subdivision (below the normal 1 1/2 to 2 1/2 acre) that is t
being considered along with the proposed tract map for the site.
Notice of public hearing was published in the Atascadero News on Fri-
day, March 27 , 1987 . All property owners of record located within 300
feet of the subject property were also notified on that date.
A. LOCATION: 9385 Vista Bonita Road (Lots 6,7, & 10 through 15 ,
Tract 5)
B. SITUATION AND FACTS:
1. Request. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Resubdivision of 8 lots totaling
6 .98 acres into 9 lots with 8
lots varying in size from 5, 520
to 6 , 750 square feet for resi-
dential development, and one lot
of 4. 94 acres for open space,
and to establish Trifon Garcia i
Road as a private road name. i
2. Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Robert Nimmo/Michael Yeomans
3. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 .98 acres
4. Streets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Vista Bonita
5. Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .RSF-Z (Residential Single Family
1 1/2 acre without sewer , 1 acre
• with sewer minimum lot size)
6. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Vacant
i
1 � �
Tentative Tract Map 2-87 (Nimmo/Yeomans)
• 7. Adjacent Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . .North: County, golf course
South: RSF-Z, vacant, water
tank , residence
East: County, golf course
West: RSF-Z, residence
8 . General Plan Designation. . . . .Low Density Single Family
9. Terrain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Steeply sloping down to the
north
10. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Proposed Negative Declaration
C. ANALYSIS:
The proposed tentative tract map before the Commission proposes
the resubdivision of eight existing residential lots totaling 6 . 98
acres into eight residential lots and one open space lot. The
current zoning of RSF-Z, allowing for a density of 1 1/2 to 2 1/2
acres, is currently under review for revision. The proposed zone
change application (ZC 1-87) would add a planned development over-
lay allowing for a small lot subdivision. The proposed map con-
forms to the proposed Site Master Plan and the proposal will also
conform to the City' s General Plan.
• In a review of outside agencies, several comments were received
about development of the site. A preliminary soils report has
been submitted and reviewed. The site' s development will require
special attention at the time of construction. Concerns of poten-
tial drainage and septic construction were noted. The site ' s
drainage will have to conform to the existing City ordinances and
a letter of drainage acceptance will be needed. Due to the lots
small size, public sewers will be needed for the project. The
applicant is currently working with Public Works to set a specific
design for the extension of the sewer lines to the site. Public
Works has not yet received a request for annexation to the Sewer
District, but no problem is foreseen in the approval of such a
request since the site is within the Urban Services Line. Other
concerns expressed by outside agencies are routinely covered in
standard conditions.
The site' s Master Plan for development has been reviewed under
Zone Change 1-87. As such, the proposed project has previously
been reviewed and conditions generally set. The approval of the
proposed tract map will simply be the implementation of the zoning
approval.
The proposed road name of Trifon Garcia Lane has been reviewed
with the Emergency Services Agencies and has been deemed to be
inappropriate. The City already has a Garcia Road (north end of
• the City) . Staff would recommend that the applicant submit a new
road name at a later date.
2
� 5
f
Tentative Tract Map 2-87 (Nimmo/Yeomans)
• D. RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends conditional approval of Tentative Tract Map 2-87
based on the Findings in Exhibit D and the Conditions of Approval
in Exhibit E.
JM:ps
ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Location Map
Exhibit B - Site Plan
Exhibit C - Developer ' s Statement
Exhibit D - Findings for Approval
Exhibit E - Conditions of Approval
•
•
3
1=
���
.; II
�► ,• . � of
�.
t�4e�ll
t 1
�,• �—• . , / ,�•� �����'�+,II +�I'II III I� +III. (r� !1�i f !.�i, 4 T:,,.
\ '�,� ,,I � I(:' III+ I �I I�',II �1 i 'i+i �I• • Z
.'j, ilr
lot�+'+ '� :I �� ;�! I I �I► �� .III I `'/�/ '� rS� �_AA
74
+ \' •a -+'� ' /-I/ '�,- - r�+/,�/��, I';�I.I�III'�i II ''� /� �'�/�J ��iuq�ea
O 1 , ; i �r .. t•.� ``+ -I �/ �l.i � �,, '... Y.r 1,� / re.on
;a--.. t .}-,,,_�t,�'••I�Irjl i �' �' JI?'/LI/ -� l/J /// /i+ 'tn.rro
�� � �� '�\ .-�'•_ �-_rte '�'�i, / ' � �
o�� J
• o � l
> N
if t
t s>fii� z —
fj I+11 3
;11 tZ
gs
MOP
rTi
do
$ ua, � ;fit r� + ¢�:?1 a ! :� �.✓r
• ��'= TD f(ai; QCu l�fi'B SITS T7
M = NNv r
V c r V IiLfi
LAN
7ENM U, TIZPCr MAY TTM,-7.87
/ 9385 VISTA IEON IT-R +
N I NINAD • yy��m���
SUPPLEMENTAL DEVELOPMENT STATEMENT
FOR
SPANISH RIDGE
This application seeks to create an eight unit planned develop-
ment of single family homes which we refer" to as Spanish Ridge or
Tract 1488. The site is 6. 98 acres located on the north face of
Chalk Mountain overlooking the Regional Park and Golf Course.
Most of the site is quite steep with slopes well in excess of 30%
and is covered with native brush, some large oaks and a few
pines. The 6.98 acres is currently divided into eight legal lots
as the result of the recordation of Tract 5 in August of 1931.
This proposal is submitted as an alternative development plan to
the construction of eight single family houses; one each on the
existing eight lots. There exist on the eastern portion of this
site an area which is flatter and easier to access. This area
was once used as a quarry site, see preliminary soils report, and
as a result of that activity it has less significant vegetation
than the remainder of the site.
• It is the purpose of this application to employ the planned
development overlay zone, as outlined in Atascadero ' s existing
General Plan and Zoning text, to allow for the construction of
the eight single family homes in the area most suitable for
development. Although the newly created residential lots would
be smaller than those normally found in this existing zoning, the
creation of such lots are allowed as part of a planned develop-
ment. It should be noted that this application does not seek a
density increase. The use of the planned development concept in
this application seeks to create a more sensitive development
solution in regards to this site.
The reasons we feel this plan is a more responsible development
are as follows :
A) 71% of the site will be preserved as an open space.
B) The--access to the development area will be more sensitive
to the existing terrain, and less area will be needed to
make the access.
C) It becomes feasible to bring sanitary sewer to the home-
sites . This is preferable to the use of individual
septics on the existing hillside.
EX 14 ST L UD ELOPM ChfT -STW.
1 TEVMT1 U E ZTlmr Mid' TTM I Z•8,
93 65 V TSTA -8DI1 fm
N i MMD - VED m AUS
r
• D) By limiting the amount of area to be used for development
more of the native vegetation can be preserved.
E) By placing the units in the flatter areas of the hillside
their visual impact will be decreased.
We hope that our planning efforts and design solutions will be
accepted by the City of Atascadero in a positive manner.
Sincerely,
Michael P. Yeomans
•
• 2
Tentative Tract Map 2-87 (Nimmo/Yeomans)
• EXHIBIT D - Tentative Tract Map 2-87
Findings for Approval
April 7, 1987'
FINDINGS:
1. The creation of these parcels conforms to the City' s Zoning Ordi-
nance and the General Plan, Land Use Element and policies.
2. The creation of these parcels, in conformance with the recommended j
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
that is proposed.
5. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements will
not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and
avoidably injure fish and wildlife or their habitat.
• 6 . The design of the subdivision and the type of improvement will not
conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access
through or use of property within the proposed subdivision; or
that substantially equivalent alternate easements are provided.
7 . The proposed subdivision complies with Section 66474.6 of the
State Subdivision Map Act as to methods of handling and discharge
of waste.
4
Tentative Tract Map 2-87 (Nimmo/Yeomans)
EXHIBIT E - Tentative Tract Map 2-87
Conditions of Approval
April 7, 1987
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. The applicant shall annex to the sewer district and pay fees in
effect at the time of annexation prior to recording the final map.
All other sewer fees in effect shall be paid at the time of is-
suance of connection permits.
a. Wastewater disposal shall. be connected to the public sewer .
b. Obtain a sewer connection permit from the Public Works De-
partment prior to hooking up to public sewer .
2. Improvement plans prepared by a registered civil engineer must be
submitted to and approved by the Community Development, Fire, and
Public Works Departments prior to recording the final map. Road
improvement plans shall include Vista Bonita and the private road.
a. Construction of road improvements shall be completed (or
• bonded for) prior to recording final map.
b. Construct Atascadero City standard Cul-De-Sac at the fol-
lowing location: Terminus of the private road.
C. Upon approval by the Director of Public Works, the property
owner (s) may enter into a deferral agreement for the con-
struction of Vista Bonita Westerly of intersection of private
road.
d. Prior to approval of the improvement plans by the Director of
Public Works, either the Subdivider shall acquire suffic-
ient title or interest in the off-site land to allow the im-
provements to be made as required by these conditions; or the
City Council, upon request by and at the expense of the sub-
divider, shall have made all appropriate finding and adopted
a Resolution of Necessity as required by law so that the City
may exercise its power of Imminent Domain.
e. Submit proof, as required by the Department of Public Works,
that access roads are constructed with their legal easements.
f. Fire hydrants shall be installed at the intersection of Vista
Bonita and the private road and opposite the property line
between Lots 4 and 5 along private road. Exact design and
• location to be approved by the Fire Department.
5
r
Tentative Tract Map 2-87 (Nimmo/Yeomans)
i
g. Water main design shall be reviewed by the Fire Department
• and pressure booster pump may be required if water pressure
is found to be inadequate for fire protection.
h. If road improvements designs require the relocation of 16"
water main, the cost shall be paid by the developer . Reloca-
tion of all utilities which conflict with proposed improve-
ment, shall be at the expense of the developer.
i. Access road shall not exceed 20%.
j . All utilities serving this site and the lots shall be under-
ground.
3. A 6 '0" Public Utility Easement shall be provided on all private
property perimeters within the tract.
a. Encroachment Permits are required prior to doing any work
within the public right-of-way.
4. Grading & drainage plans prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer
must be submitted to and approved by the Department of Public
Works (and the Community Development Department) prior to record-
ing final map.
a. Secure a drainage acceptance letter from the County stating
• that they reviewed the Drainage Plan and find it acceptable
prior to the recording of final map or issuance of a building
permit.
b. Drainage Facilities shall be constructed to City of Atasca-
dero Standards.
C. All drainage work shall be completed (or bonded for) prior to
recording final map.
5. Prior to recording the final map, a soil investigation (as re-
quired by the Map Act) shall be submitted, recommending corrective
action which will prevent structural damage to each structure pro-
posed to be constructed in the area where soil problems exist, as
indicated in the Preliminary Soil Report dated November 1986 . The
date of such reports, the name of the engineer making the report,
and the location where the reports are on file shall be noted on
the final map.
6 . Offer for Dedication to the public of the required Public Utili-
ties easements.
7. Offers of dedication shall be completed and recorded prior to or
simultaneous to recording final map.
8 . All grading and erosion control measures shall be designed by a
• registered Civil Engineer and constructed in accordance with the
6
Tentative Tract Map 2-87 (Nimmo/Yeomans) ,
• City of Atascadero grading codes and standards. Prior to final
building inspection, said engineer shall submit to the City writ-
ten certification that grading is in compliance with said codes
and standards.
9 . Install all street signs, traffic delineation devices, warning and
regulatory signs, guardrail, barricades, and other similar devices
where required by the Director of Public Works. Signs shall be in
conformance with the Department of Public Works standards and the
current State of California Uniform Sign Chart. Installation of
traffic devices shall be subject to review and modification after
construction.
10. Offer of Dedication to City of Atascadero the following rights-
of-way and/or easements:
Street Name: Vista Bonita
Limits: Property frontage
Minimum Width: 20 ' from centerline of right-of-way
11. Improve Vista Bonita to the following standard:
24 ' Road Bed with 20 ' A.C. traveled way, minimum 50 ' centerline
radius.
• Limits: From El Bordo to Westerly Terminus of Vista Bonita.
Improve private road to the following standard:
20 ' A.C. Traveled Way within a 30 ' wide access easement; minimum
50 ' centerline radius.
12. Improve Vista Bonita to the following standard:
24' Road Bed with 20 ' A.C. Traveled Way
Limits: From E1 Bordo to Private Road. Vista Bonita from Pri-
vate Road to Westerly Terminus of El Dorado, 20 ' Road Bed
with 16 ' A.C. Traveled Way.
The Director of Public Works may adjust Roadway & Traveled Way
width due to topographics of site.
The Director of Public Works may allow deferral of Vista Bonita
from private road to terminus until other development would create
the need for the road improvement.
13. Provide Sewer Main Extension Plan acceptable to the Director of
Public Works. Main extension shall be thru Golf Course or Las
Lomas to Pina Solo. Easement thru Golf Course, if this alternate
is selected, shall be recorded prior to recording final map.
• 14. Each lot shall have a separate water meter and service
7
f+ ,.-
Tentative Tract Map 2-87 (Nimmo/Yeomans)
• The applicant shall establish bush Covenants, Conditions, and Restric-
tions (CC&Rs) for the regulation of land use, control of nui-
sances, architectural control of all buildings, driveway and land-
scaping maintenance.
a. These CC&Rs shall be submitted for review and approval by the
City Attorney and Community Development Department prior to
aproval of the final map.
b. A Drainage Maintenance Agreement, in a form acceptable to the
City Attorney shall be recorded with the deed to each parcel
at the time it is first conveyed and a note to this effect
shall be placed in the C.C.R.
C. A Road Maintenance Agreement, in a form acceptable to the
City Attorney, shall be recorded with the deed to each parcel
at the time it is first conveyed and a note to this effect
shall be placed in the C.C.R.
15. Zone Change 1-87 shall be approved and in effect prior to the re-
cording the final map.
16 . Applicant shall gain approval of a street name for the private
road and it shall be shown on the final map.
• 17. 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 the City Lot Division Ordinance prior to
recordation.
a. Monuments shall be set at all new property ' corners created
and a Registered Civil Engineer or licensed Land Surveyor
shall indicate, by certificate on the final map, that corners
have been set or shall be set by a date specific and that
they will be sufficient to enable the survey to be retraced.
b. A recently updated preliminary title report shall be sub-
mitted for review in conjunction with the processing of the
final map.
18. 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 priorto the expiration date.
•
i
EXHIBIT F - Map Comp.
Tentative Tract Map 2-87
,', CITY OF ATASCADERO Vista Bonita
• �,—,:;,� - , Nimmo/Yeomans
�s COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Reconsideration of Map
DEPARTMENT
I
1
I
1
I
CURVE 0A7A L/A/E a4m
1,01
r ,1•Jr ,r � r.. .. , .r , .•!.' x• c a'"'� \~`0'f9 ,n rrrr. =••
•.r v' ,r M i/1, ) .. :{`,`� f�.% i CQ_f�' ,'N�\� YN�,ry^•.h,. ..ur
) • .�.�_ , r• �+ \�� 1'w°" .>`�` �; Tari I
r n r ww '�•,`� . '' r+•w ,e r•w r5,ti! ,pl ,`'i+tJ`t�` ✓ o-�.o,� �/,+ Jt.•
t M1'ap t . i,y 1� I,�r�`•_�� Vim. 5.% ` �itf rt'`.Fo vt,:Y' /\���� ;�. j �,�•'i
e ,.� w•r -- � r rf0'� rnn 3�. � �,d� r ., .+? ��.r' .W' / i � J% �
•t ,raw n—„ r,'f `'itl 5.r' .r•. tiT++ Q ` � �if`� ✓ f S' \/ `i`
. r,... 1y.Id +)�J•J,5•i ,^�H /,.-� t �0+ �y. .✓� � �,ir,.' `AJJs'. �,��s y
oPE�I �o ,r .,, 23 _
;5 a
Mars Of 8EAl/Ui' +J11., utw•. •..A reuwrm+ )-�
ar..n. uu�a ur>r a not .oeirrw,r ')\ `"• '
z", 1(1(0(1[0 iV Ema it Y rNJI r.M1 ++\�
) -11- x1..1 n Fr 11 c.
s PEfEQEI/CES
4 a
TRACT 1488
�y� `C1b5 v' ��p° /" nrt r rii BENT A PlJu00A//!/OU Of/OV0f/,rVF ear
4l AAV
r [075 io rwlouaA Ji or T(,(ll J.0!iu T'al C�r7 01
res. /L , AIASEADERO, (wiry W JAU"ll oA/JA0 STArl dr
`WJ ,r �••', " )'� L£6£NO
r,p
__—
/
114 JWfl:Y M, SAW lAt.rAt40 93 I0/
' /t)•J M
I
i
• i
i
I
Minutes - Planning .—inmission - April 5, 1988
No public testimony was given.
MOTION: , Made by Commissioner Hatchell, seconded by Commissioner
Bond and carried 6 :O to recommend approval of La Canada
Lane as a private road as reflected in the staff report.
2. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 2-87 :
Request initiated by Robert and Patricia Nimmo to modify the
resubdivision of 8 existing residential lots totaling 6.98
acres into 8 residential lots varying in size from 5 ,520 to
6,750 square feet and an open space lot of 5.33 acres, and to
revise approved road name. Subject site is located at 9385
Vista Bonita.
Joel Moses presented the staff report on this reconsideration re-
quest to revise the previously approved map. Staff recommendation
is for approval subject to 18 revised conditions of approval along
with revision to the proposed street name from Trifon Garcia to
Pico Blanco.
In response to question from Commissioner Michielssen, Mr. Moses
explained that the applicant is proposing to shift the development
area to the west which will relocate the residential units approx-
imately 180 feet which results in a substantial change from the
approved tentative map. Mr. Engen added that this request in-
volves a lower fee because it is a minor adjustment necessitated
• by the need to have consistency between the tenative and final
map.
Robert Nimmo, applicant, stated he was in agreement with the rec-
ommendation and was available to answer any questions.
Ursula Luna, 10600 San Marcos, asked if this would be considered
by the City Council. Chairperson Nolan responded that the decis-
ion of the Commission would be forwarded to the City Council. She
asked if the open space area would be subject to future lot splits
to which Mr . Moses noted the project has been approved as part of
a planned development overlay and any changes would have to go
through a zone change process.
MOTION: Made by Commissioner Hatchell, seconded by Commissioner
Kidwell and carried 6 :0 to approve reconsideration of
Tentative Tract Map 2-87 subject to the findings and re-
vised conditions of approval contained in the staff
report.
3. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 37-87 :
eque t in�tjate y long Messer (Cuestg Enineering ) to allow
fo tshe su ivision o acres into parcels varying in
size from 1. 00 to 1.14 acres, and to establish Caleta Lane as
a private road name, and to allow annexation to Sanitary Dis-
trict No. 1. Subject site is located at 8430 Santa Rosa
Road.
2
• REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: B-10
Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 6/25/91
File No: TPM 24-89
From: Henry Engen, Community Development Director 1 '.
SUBJECT:
Acceptance of final Parcel Map 24-89 (subdivision of three lots of
18 acres into 3 parcels of 6. 70, 5. 90 , and 5. 80 acres each at 10750
Santa Ana Road - Vaughan/Kamm/Dohan)
RECOMMENDATION:
Acceptance of final Parcel Map 24-89 since all conditions of the
map have been met by the applicant.
• BACKGROUND:
On February 27 , 1990, the City Council approved Parcel Map 24-89,
subject to certain conditions and in concurrence with the recommen-
dation of the Planning Commission.
HE:ps
cc: Tom Vaughan
Kamm & Dohan
•
• r—
'CIO,
ilk
_
>< >< CL t
NMI, 2a
i
X ^=«-7•
W
z m
m
16
• ��,�M KK Y ^�
t67At•igV---�
/isTX •�ntns•M
r[
,K
i CL
L
s
N
U N
Hanas'iSr sfaw•� � .ryj i,q�,
CL
n cr�r Jd s at
0 R 4
.� y3
' 71f3P Y __11Fi � it
�R A N A 1�NN tvcw
SANTA (ioN+�y e
•
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: B_11.
Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 6/25/91
File No: TPM 10-90
From: Henry Engen, Community Development Director INJ,,
SUBJECT:
Acceptance of final Parcel Map ].0-90 (subdivision of two lots of
28. 37 acres into four lots containing approximately 7. 01 and 7. 16
acres (two lots of each size) at 10480, 10660 Santa Ana Road
(Catalaina Oaks II/Vaughan Surveys) .
RECOMMENDATION:
Acceptance of final Parcel Map 10-90 since all conditions of the
map have been met by the applicant.
• BACKGROUND:
On November 27, 1990, the City Council approved Parcel Map 10-90,
subject to certain conditions and in concurrence with the recommen-
dation of the Planning Commission.
HE:ps
cc: Catalina Oaks II
Vaughan Surveys
•
IO
n CITY OF ATASCADFRO TPMA10 -9N 0 MAP
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
-`Fy
i l R S
—40"
R . <:
SITE L(FH,191T
C 4F&4�,.j
;%
i
_ aoAo a
sF0 %� _ L(FH) .
A - �pP�►
O _
ROAD 0
W
LL4NO
I / / / ►Obi\\ � / %' _
f.RS ,
T _
J 4 1 �irk, l � �' r
fl/
•
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL Agenda Item: B-12
CITY OF ATASCADERO
Through : Ray Windsor , City Managei Meeting Date: 6/25/91
From: Mark Joseph , Administrativ Services Director
SUBJECT: Reaffirming the City ' s new Developer Impact Fees.
RECOMMENDATION: By motion, staff recommends that Council
continue the Developer Impact Fees as adopted on April 9, 1991 .
BACKGROUND:
The Developer Impact Fees were significantly revised by
Council on April 9, 1991 . Part of the enabling legislation (AB
1600) requires an annual review in June of each year .
In light of the fact that the fees were extensively revised
less than three months ago , and the fact that no revisions in the
• fees are proposed , staff feels it has met the intent of the
review process and recommends no further action, until next June,
1.992.
•
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL Agenda Item: C-1
CITY OF ATASCADERO
Through : Ray Windsor , City Manager Meeting Date: 6/25/91
From: Mark Joseph , Administrative Services Directo
SUBJECT: Review and Adoption of Planning and Engineering Fees.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Council adopt Resolution 47-91 ,
adopting new Planning and Engineering Fees.
BACKGROUND:
At Council ' s April 9, 1991 meeting , new Planning and
Engineering Fees were adopted . At the time, Council expressed
concern regarding the methodology of calculating the new rates,
as well as reuqesting a comparison of Atascadero ' s proposed new
fees and similar fees Countywide. As a result , Council directed
• staff to return prior to the end of the fiscal year with an
update.
ANALYSIS:
The two attached memos from Henry Engen and Greg Luke,
compare our new fees with other Cities in the County. As can be
seen, it is often difficult to compare different jurisdictions '
fees , since each City can use a different basis for the fee: some
may use a flat amount ; others may charge an hourly rate.
Despite this, staff feels our fees are certainly comparable
overall . In many instances we are still less than other cities.
The next issue is the methodology used in revising
Atascadero ' s fees. Back in 1985, Community Development conducted
an extensive analysis of the time and costs involved in
performing various tasks. The result were the fees adopted in
March , 1985.
The process used in 1991 was to determine the percentage
increase in costs since 1985 and initially apply that increase
uniformly across all fees. The increase was approximately 50
percent .
After this first step , the Community Development Director
• and Public Works Director reviewed the new rates and made
adjustments reflecting procedural changes that have increased or
decreased the time required . As a result , for instance, lot line
adjustment fees were not increased , while Parcel Maps were more
than doubled .
•
Independent of this two-step process, a cost allocation plan
was developed , in order to determine the overall costs of
Planning and Engineering services, especially as they relate to
fee-supported tasks. As a result of this study, a partial
overhead recovery rate was established .
By comparing the overall cost of fee-related services with
the projected revenues from the specific fees , staff feels
comfortable that the City is much closer towards recovering its
full costs than before.
Looking forward , the new computer system installed in
Community Development is capable of tracking actual time spent on
projects. With this in mind , staff expects to report back to
Council next year with new fees that will more accurately reflect
our real costs.
0 limited number of revisions are being proposed at this
time. Specifically, the street address change fee is proposed
for deletion, simply because it has never been used ; an hourly
rate of $25 ,00 will be charged for special engineering
• inspections (when requested by the builder/developer ) ; and
lastly , the actual costs of outside engineering consultants are
proposed to be charged directly to a project .
The final fee that needs to be considered is the Appeal Fee.
Currently set at $100, there are at least four alternatives,
noted below:
1 . Leave the fee at $100 no change;
2. Charge the full amount $450 (based on a 50 percent
increase of $300 from 1905) ;
3. Charge the full amount ., but waive the fee if the appeal
is upheld ; or
4. Charge the full amount , but allow signed petitions to
be submitted in lieu of the fee.
The latter approach has some appeal (pun intended ! ) , but the
exact number of signatures required to qualify would need to be
determined .
Given the options above, as well as the sensitivity of the
issue ( i .e. , the conflict between encouraging full participation
in the process ,,,s recovering reasonable costs ) , staff has left
• the $100 fee as is, pending further Council discussion.
SELECTED FEE COMPARISONS
• Atascadero Vs. SLO County, Paso Robles + San Luis Obispo
Atascadero SLO County Paso Robles San Luis Obispo
Current Current Current Current Actual
Fees Fee Fee (1) Fee (2) Fee (3) Cost (4)
SUBDIVISION
Lot Line Adjustment $ 325 $228 - $348 $ 87 + Eng. $ 150 ($ 502)
Tentative Parcel Map $ 865* $ 915 $148 + Eng. $ 275 ($1,703)
+ Meetings
Tentative Tract Map $ 865* $1,248 $582 + Eng. $ 675 ($4, 179)
+ Meetings
Condo Map $ 1, 075* $1,248 $582 + Eng. $ 675 ($4, 179)
+ Meetings
Condo Conversion $ 1,075 $1,248 $582 + Eng. $ 400 ($1, 105)
+ Meetings
Final Map (Planning) $ 285 Actual Cost -- $275-675 $ 609-
$1,945)
Lot Merger $ 55 $228 - $348 $148 + Eng. $ 150 ($ 502)
+ Meetings
Cert. of Compliance $ 150 $295 - $783 $ 73+$6/Lot $150-200 ($ 151)
ERAL PLAN
$2,240 deposit
Text/Map Amendment $ 850* + cost accting $ 509 $350-450 ($ 782)
Specific Plan:
Future
Initial Review $ 300 $2,240 deposit Permit $ 450
Application DC + 24% + cost accting Charge $ 350 ($ 932)
ZONING
Text/Map Amendment $ 825* See Gen. Plan $ 582 $300-360 ($ 631-
$1, 033)
Prezoning $ 1, 650* NA $ 582 $ 360 ( $ 631-
$1, 033
Variance $ 475* $ 700 $ 218 $ 220 ($ 638)
Adjustment $ 50 $ 23 + NA NA NA
Cond. Use Permit $ 550* $292 - $589 $ 280 $ 360 ($ 573)
Precise Plan $ 400* $ 242 NA $ 50 ($ 437 )
MISCELLANEOUS SERV.
Annexation:
Initial Review $ 300 NA $2,226 + NA NA
Application DC + 24% NA per acre & $ 450 ($2, 138)
Or. Impact Report DC + 15% DC + 25% Per unit
DCDC + 10% ($50/hr)
SELECTED FEE COMPARISONS
10 Two
Atascadero SLO County Paso Robles San Luis Obispo
Current Current Current Current Actual
Fees Fee Fee (1) Fee (2) Fee (3) Cost (4)
ROAD ISSUES
Abandonments $ 550* $ 674 $ 178 $ 280 ($ 452)
Name Change $ 475 $ 474 $ 118 $ 75 ($ 351)
PROCEDURAL REQ.
Time Extensions:
Precise Plan $ 15 $ 40 NA $ 50 ( ---- )
CUPS $ 60 $ 40 - $165 $ 73 $ 50
Parcel/Tract Maps $ 330 $ 118 $ 73 $50-$100 ($ 96,
Reconsideration $ 225 $ 258 $ 144 DC $ 11 2 )
Continuance $ 60 $ 58 - $102 $ 73 $ 40 ($ 40)
AG Preserve cancel. $ 630 $ 589 deposit NA NA NA
+ cost accting.
Appeals $ 100 $ 355 $ 111 $ 0 ($ 442)
ENGINEERING SVC.
a1 Map (Engr. ) $ 250 Actual Costs $19-30/hr $ 0 ($ 566 )
Encroachment Permit $ 30 $ 40 - $600 $22-$118 $ 15 ($ 143)
Improvement Plans:
Actual Actual
Major $ 250 Actual Cost $19-30/hr Cost Cost
Actual Actual
Minor $ 60 Actual Cost $19-30/hr Cost Cost
DC = Direct Costs * = Includes $100 for Environmental Review
NOTES:
( 1) 1991 County Fee does not include: Environmental Review - $30 Categorical
Exemption; $342 to $878 - Determination (Negative Declaration) ; Pre-
application Conference - $50; Pre-application Site Visit $100; and
additional charges for review by the Agriculture Commissioner or Fire
Department of rural projects
(2 ) 1986 Paso Robles fee does not include $111 Environmental Determination
(Negative Declaration) or $87 Architectural Review Fee.
(3) 1983 San Luis Obispo fee does not include $80 Environmental Determination
(Negative Declaration) .
(• 1988 SLO City "Actual Cost" estimate does not include $402 Environmental
Determination (Negative Declaration) or $1, 012 Architectural Review Fee.
• MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 7, 1991
TO: Greg Luke, Director of Public Works
FROM: Kathy Stewart, Engineering Technician II
SUBJECT: Fee Comparison Between Various Public Agencies in
SLO County.
The following is a list of comparable fees charged throughout the
county for engineering services.
FINAL MAP CHECK FEE
Atascadero
Tract Map and Parcel Map: $250
Arroyo Grande
Tract Map: $297 + $11 per lot
Parcel Map: $215 + $11 per lot
Morro Bay
• Tract Map: $856 + $3 per lot
Parcel Map with improvements: $628
Parcel Map without improvements: $217
County of San Luis Obispo
Tract Map and Parcel Map (includes checking of improvement plans
and inspections) : Actual Cost
ENCROACHMENT PERMIT
Atascadero
$30
City of San Luis Obispo
$15
Pismo Beach
$15 minor projects
$150 major projects
$30 per hour for inspection
Arroyo Grande
$14
San Luis Obispo County
• $40 minor projects
$600 major projects
• Morro Bay
$56 minor projects
$400 major projects
IMPROVEMENT PLANS
Atascadero
$60 minor projects
$250 major projects
Arroyo Grande
0. 5% to 1. 0% of the estimated cost of improvements
County of San Luis Obispo
Actual Cost
END
•
•
RESOLUTION NO. 47-91
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ATASCADERO
ADOPTING NEW PLANNING AND ENGINEERING FEES
Be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Atascadero:
Section 1. Resolution No. 24-91 is hereby modified to
establish Planning and Engineering fees indicated in Exhibit A,
made a part of this Resolution;
Section 2. These new fees shall be effective immediately upon
adoption.
On motion by Councilperson , and seconded by Council-
person , the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in its
entirety, by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
• ADOPTED:
ATTEST: CITY OF ATASCADERO
By:
LEE DAYKA, City Clerk ROBERT B. LILLEY, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ARTHER MONTANDON, City Attorney
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
MARK JOSEPH
Administrative Services Director
PREPARED BY:
• HENRY ENG N
Community Developm nt Director
RESOLUTION 47 -91
EXHIBIT "A"
1841w CITY OF ATASCADERO
� '�`� tB7• PLANNING DIVISION
APPLICATION FEES
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 6500 PALMA AVE. ATASCADERO, CA 93422 (805) 461-5035
SUBDIVISION APPLICATIONS PROCEDURAL REQUESTS
LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT $ 325 TIME EXTENSIONS:
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP $ 865* PRECISE PLAN $ 15
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP $ 865* CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS $ 60
CONDOMINIUM MAP $1,075* PARCEL/TRACT MAP $ 330
CONDO CONVERSION MAP $1,075 RECONSIDERATION $ 225
FINAL MAP(PLANNING) $ 285 CONTINUANCE $ 60
LOT MERGER $ 55 AG PRESERVE CANCELLATION $ 630
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE $ 150 APPEALS $ 100
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS TREE APPLICATIONS
TEXT/MAP AMENDMENT $ 850*
SPECIFIC PLAN: REMOVAL:
INITIAL REVIEW $ 300 DEAD/DISEASED TREE $ 0
• APPLICATION DC+24% 2"-23"DBH $ 35
24"DBH OR GREATER $ 50
ZONING APPLICATIONS TREE PROTECTION PLAN:
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE $ 50
TEXT/MAP AMENDMENT $ 825* MULTI-FAMILY,COMMERCIAL,
PREZONING $1,650* ROADS,ETC. $ 200
VARIANCE $ 475* ANNUAL UTILITY PERMIT $ 100
ADJUSTMENT $ 50 WOODLOT MANAGEMENT PLAN
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT $ 550* 5-9 ACRES $ 250
PRECISE PLAN $ 400* 10-39 ACRES $ 400
40+ACRES $ 600
APPEALS:
MISCELLANEOUS SERVICES APPLICANT(1st APPEAL) $ 0
APPLICANT(2nd APPEAL) $ 50
ANNEXATIONS: OTHER PARTY $ 50
INITIAL REVIEW $ 300
APPLICATION DC+24% ENGINEERING SERVICES
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT DC+15%
FINAL MAP(ENGINEERING) $ 250
ROAD ISSUES ENCROACHMENT PERMIT $ 30
IMPROVEMENT PLAN REVIEW:
ROAD ABANDONMENT $ 550* MAJOR $ 250
ROAD NAME CHANGE $ 475 MINOR $ 60
CONTRACT CONSULTANTS COST
SPCL.INSPECTIONS $25/HR
DC=DIRECT COST
*=INCLUDES ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL Item: C-2
CITY OF ATASCADERO
Through: Ray Windsor, City Manage Meeting Date: 6/25/91
File No: Utility
From: Henry Engen, Comm. Dev. Di actor HE Facilities Urgency
Ordinance
SUBJECT:
Adoption of an Urgency Ordinance requiring Conditional Use Permit
approval for certain previously allowed utility facilities to be
located within residential zones (extension of May 28th ordinance
for 22 months and 15 days) .
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Ordinance No. 225 as an urgency measure incorporating revised
language relative to electric substations:
( 1) Waive reading of Ordinance No. 225 in full, and approve by
title only;
• (2) Approve Ordinance No. 225 on first reading (a 4/5th' s vote is
required) .
BACKGROUND:
This issue came before City Council following construction of a
cellular telephone receiving/transmitting antenna on Santa Ana. As
a result, at the meeting of May 8th, Council approved Urgency
Ordinance No. 224, which is in effect for 45 days. The Government
Code allows a second extension, following public hearing, to
continue the ordinance for an additional 22 months and 15 days,
during which time a comprehensive rewrite of the Zoning Ordinance
will be undertaken which will address this particular issue.
LEGAL ISSUE:
At your May 28th meeting, the Pacific Gas and Electric Company
submitted the attached letter seeking deletion of "Electric
Substations" from application of the ordinance. This matter has
been reviewed with the City Attorney and Mr. Wayne Cooper and Neil
Ballweber, representing PG&E. The Government Code has exception
•
language relative to "Electrical Substations in an electrical
transmission system which receives electricity at less than 100, 000
volts" . Hence, the following qualifying phrase is proposed for
inclusion in the definition of "Utility Facilities" :
(unless pre-empted by Government Code Section 53091 or order
of the Public Utilities Commission) .
HE:ph
Attachments: Draft Ordinance No. 225
PG&E Letter - May 28, 1991
cc: Wayne Cooper, P.G. & E.
•
• ORDINANCE NO. 225
AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ATASCADERO AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE
BY EXTENDING ORDINANCE NO. 224 REQUIRING CONDITIONAL
USE PERMITS FOR THE INSTALLATION OF CERTAIN PREVIOUSLY
ALLOWED UTILITY TRANSMISSION FACILITIES WITHIN RESIDENTIAL ZONES
(CITY COUNCIL INITIATED)
WHEREAS, Section 65858 of the Government Code authorizes the
adoption by local legislative bodies of interim ordinances as
urgency measures to protect the public safety, health and welfare;
and
WHEREAS, said ordinances may be adopted as urgency measures
prohibiting actions which may be in conflict with a contemplated
zoning proposal which the legislative body, Planning Commission, or
Community Development Department is considering, or studying, or
intends to study within a reasonable time; and
WHEREAS, the City has undertaken a program to review, revise
and update the City' s Zoning Ordinance text and map; and
WHEREAS, the City' s Zoning Ordinance permits a wide variety of
utility uses within residential zones which could be deleterious to
• the stated objectives of such zones; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted, on an urgency basis,
interim Ordinance No. 224 on May 28, 1991, requiring Conditional
Use Permit approval for the installation of previously allowed
utility transmission facilities within the residential zones; and
WHEREAS, notice was given pursuant to Section 65858 (b) of the
Government Code for public hearing by the City Council on June 25,
1991; and
WHEREAS, passage of Ordinance No. 224 was effective for a
period of forty-five days from its ' adoption, unless extended,
following notice pursuant to Section 65090; and
WHEREAS, consideration of an urgency measure shall require a
4/5ths vote of the legislative body for adoption.
Section 1. Council Findings.
1. The proposed code amendment is in conformance with
Section 65800 et seq of the California Government Code
concerning zoning regulations.
2. The proposed zoning ordinance text amendment is categor-
ically exempt from the provisions of the California
• Environmental Quality Act.
Ordinance No. 225
• Page Two
3. Further study is necessary to determine what, if any,
legislation is necessary and proper for the protection of
the public health, safety, and welfare.
4. The proposed zoning ordinance text amendment designates
uses which are presently allowed to be uses which may be
permitted subject to a conditional use permit to ensure
consistency with the residential goals of the General
Plan.
5. There is a current and immediate threat to the public
health, safety, or welfare, and approval of additional
building permits for the stated uses inconsistent with
the zoning ordinance text amendments provided for herein
would result in a threat to public health, safety, or
welfare.
Section 2. Zoning Ordinance Text Change.
1. Section 9-3.701 (Land Use Descriptions) of the Zoning
Ordinance text is hereby amended as shown in the attached
Exhibit "A", which is hereby made a part of this
• ordinance by reference.
2. Section 9-3. 143, Section 9-3. 153, Section 9-3. 163, and
Section 9-3. 173 of the Zoning Ordinance text are hereby
amended as shown in the attached Exhibit "B" , which is
hereby made a part of this ordinance by reference.
Section 3.
This ordinance is adopted under Government Code Section 65858
and is in full force and effect for 22 months and 15 days.
Section 4.
The City Council hereby declares that this is an urgency
ordinance necessary to preserve the public peace, health and safety
due to the facts set forth above.
Section 5.
This ordinance being an urgency ordinance for the immediate
protection of the public safety, health and general welfare,
containing a declaration of the facts constituting the urgency and
passed by a four-fifths (4/5ths) vote of the Council shall take
effect immediately upon its adoption.
•
• Ordinance No. 225
Page Three
Section 6. Publication.
The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published once
within fifteen ( 15) days after its passage in the Atascadero News,
a newspaper of general circulation, printed, published and circu-
lated in the City in accordance with Section 36933 of the
Government Code; shall certify the adopting and posting of this
ordinance, and shall cause this ordinance and this certification
together with proof of posting to be entered into the Book of
Ordinances of this City.
On motion by Councilperson and seconded by Council-
person , the foregoing ordinance is hereby adopted in
its entirety by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
• ADOPTED:
ATTEST: CITY OF ATASCADERO
By:
LEE DAYKA, City Clerk ROBERT B. LILLEY, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
ARTHER MONTANDON, City Attorney RAYMOND WINDSOR, City Mgr.
PREPARED BY:
HENRY ENGEW
Community pevelolant Director
•
ORDINANCE NO. 225
• EXHIBIT "A"
Section 9-3.701 LAND USE DESCRIPTIONS
Utility Transmission Facilities:
Utility transmission lines and d ,.tr but .. : aei l t � including
substatiens poles and wires for electric, gas, ether eneEgy
g uEeee; water, cable television and telephone service. Does not
include lines serving individual customers.
Utility Facilities:
Includes utility facilities not included in "Utility Service
Centers" or "utility Transmission Facilities" such as substations,
(unless pre-empted by Government Code Section 53091 or order of the
Public Utilities Commission) water tanks, antennas, satellite
receiving or transmitting dishes, or other facilities requiring or
consisting of above-ground structures.
•
Note:
Strikeout indicates text to be deleted.
Underline indicates text to be added.
•
• ORDINANCE NO. 225
EXHIBIT "B"
RS (Residential Suburban) Zone
9-3. 143. Conditional Uses:
(u) Utility facilities
RSF (Residential Single Family) Zone
9-3. 153. Conditional Uses:
(1) Utility facilities
LSF (Limited Single Family Residential) Zone
9-3. 163. Conditional Uses:
• LL Utility facilities
RMF (Residential Multiple Family) Zone
9-3. 173. Conditional Uses:
Utility facilities
Note:
Underline indicates text to be added
•
Pacific Gas and Electric Company f'O.Box 3500 � �
Hohle;,. CA 93+17 FECEIVE-D MAY 2 8
May 28, 1991
Henry Engen, Director
Community Development Department
6500 Palma Avenue
Atascadero, CA 93422
Re: Ordinance No. 224
Dear Mr. Engen:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the draft of the Ordinance
No. 224. Our review indicated that your staff recommends that utility
substations, located in a residential zone, be subject to Conditional
Use Permit approval . This discretionary review by the city is
intended to avoid or mitigate conflicts with the existing uses.
In light of this, our legal department has advised us that, under
California law, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has
the exclusive ,jurisdiction to regulate the design and siting of public
utility facilities. While the CPUC has formal procedures for review
• and approval of utility transmission lines and their related
facilities, they also have established informal procedures that
require the utility to provide the city with sufficient information
that will permit the city to meaningfully comment on a proposed
project. The utility must then, to the maximum extent practicable,
incorporate those comments into the final design of the facility. If,
when the final plans are submitted and the city feels that further
changes should have been made, the city may ask the CPUC to undertake
a formal review.
Based on the above information, we recommend the term "Utility
Facilities," as used in the emergency ordinance, be defined to exclude
electric substations.
I hope this information is useful . I will be happy to work with you
and your staff as you prepare the permanent ordinance. Please don't
hesitate to contact me at 434-4429 if you have any questions about
this or if I can assist you in any way.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
tU E.C-&7�
WAYNE E. COOPER
Service Planning Supervisor
WEC:ch
cc: Steve DeCamp
Ray Windsor
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF ATASCADERO AGENDA ITEM: D-1
THROUGH: RAY WINDSOR, CITY MANAGER MTG. DATE : 6/25/91
FROM: HENRY ENGEN, COMMUNITY DEV. DIR.FjqC, FILE NO: ZC 03-91
SUBJECT :
ZONE CHANGE 03-91 - ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE
TO INCLUDE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR PROJECTS PROPOSED
IN PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ZONE 07 .
RECOMMENDATION:
ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 222 ON SECOND READING .
BACKGROUND:
• ON JUNE 11, 19911 THE CITY COUNCIL CONDUCTED A PUBLIC HEARING
ON THE ABOVE REFERENCED SUBJECT AND APPROVED ORDINANCE NO. 222
ON FIRST READING.
HE : PS
ATTACHMENT: ORDINANCE NO. 222
•
• ORDINANCE NO. 222
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO
AMENDING SECTION 9-3.651 (ESTABLISHMENT OF PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ZONE NO. 7) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE
BY THE ADDITION OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
(ZC 03-91; City of Atascadero)
WHEREAS, the proposed zoning ordinance text amendment is
consistent with the General Plan as required by Section 65860 of
the California Government Code; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment is in conformance with
Section 65800 et seq. of the California Government Code
concerning zoning regulations; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments will not have a significant
adverse impact upon the environment. The Negative Declaration
prepared for the project is adequate; and
WHEREAS, the Atascadero Planning Commission held a public
hearing on April 16, 1991 and has recommended approval of Zone
Change 03-91.
• NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Atascadero does
ordain as follows:
Section 1. Council Findings.
1. The proposal is compatible with the surrounding land
use and zoning.
2. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan
land use element and other elements contained in the
General Plan, and specifically, policies pertaining to
residential development.
3. The proposal will not result in any significant
adverse environmental impacts. The Negative
Declaration prepared for the project is adequate.
Section 2. Zoning Text.
The Zoning Ordinance text is hereby amended by the deletion
of Section 9-3.643 (d) and the amendment of Section 9-3.651 as
shown on the attached Exhibit A.
Section 3. Publication.
The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published
• once within fifteen ( 15) days after its passage in the Atascadero
News, a newspaper of general circulation, printed, published, and
circulated in the City in accordance with Section 36933 of the
• Ordinance #222
Government Code; shall certify the adopting and posting of this
ordinance and shall cause this ordinance and this certification
together with proof of posting to be entered into the Book of
Ordinances of the City.
Section 4. Effective Date.
This ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and
effect at 12:01 a.m. on the 31st day after its passage.
On motion by and seconded by
, the foregoing Ordinance is approved
by the following role call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
DATE ADOPTED:
By:
• ROBERT B. LILLEY, Mayor
City of Atascadero, California
ATTEST:
LEE DAYKA, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT
RAY WINDSOR, City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ART MONTANDON, City Attorney
PREPARED BY:
• HENRY ENGEN, Community Development Director
• EXHIBIT A
9-3.651. Establishment of Planned Development Overlay Zone No. 7
PD7 . A Planned Development Overlay Zone No. 7 may be
established in multiple family residential zones. The following
development standards shall be applied to all projects within
Planned Development Zone No. 7:
(a) A Master Plan of Development of the site shall be
approved. All construction and development shall be
done in conformance with the approved master plan.
(b) No subsequent Tentative Parcel or Tract Map shall be
approved unless found to be consistent with the
approved Master Plan of Development.
(c) A proposed planned development project shall consist of
no fewer than four (4 ) residential units.
(d) The parent lot or lots shall have frontage on a public
street.
(e) Each dwelling unit shall be subject to review under the
City' s Appearance Review Guidelines.
• (f) Building setbacks shall be as follows:
Front yard at residence - 15 feet
Front yard at garage - 20 feet
Side yards (combined) - 10 feet
Side yard (corner lot) - 12 feet
Rear yard (single-story) - 10 feet
Rear yard (two-story) - 15 feet
(g) Building coverage (residence plus garage footprint)
shall not exceed 35% of the individual lot area.
Landscaping shall constitute a minimum of 40% of the
lot area. The measurement of landscaped areas shall be
exclusive of driveways, patios, decks, etc.
(h) Two story residences shall have a second floor that is
limited to 75% of the gross area of the first floor
inclusive of the garage.
(i) All mechanical equipment, including HVAC units and
utility meters, shall be screened from view from
adjacent streets and properties.
( j ) Exterior fencing shall be consistent throughout the
project. Design and appearance of fences and/or walls
shall be compatible with the design of the dwelling
• units.
(k) Accessory buildings (sheds, etc) will be allowed;
however, the footprint of such accessory buildings will
count toward the maximum percent of allowable building
coverage.
(1) Each proposed lot shall have a minimum frontage of
forty-five (45) feet, except that lots at the end of a
cul-de-sac may be forty (40) feet.
(m) Parking for two resident vehicles shall be provided in
a garage with minimum interior dimensions of 20 ' X 20 ' .
One guest parking space of at least 9 ' X 18 ' shall be
provided on each individual lot. The driveway area may
be used to satisfy the guest parking requirement. On-
street parking shall not be used to satisfy the parking
requirements.
(n) Private open space shall be provided for each
residential unit at a ratio of 300 square feet for the
first two (2 ) bedrooms. Each bedroom in excess of two
(2) shall cause the private open space to be increased
by 50 square feet. The required front yard setback
area shall not be used to satisfy the open space
requirement; however, side and rear setback areas may
be utilized. The minimum width of the private open
• space area shall not be less than ten ( 10) feet.
(o) Individual trash collection shall be used for each
residential unit. Provisions shall be made for storage
of trash cans within the garage or fenced area.
(p) All utilities, including electric, telephone and cable,
along the frontage of and within the PD shall be
installed underground.
(q) Alterations or additions to established dwelling units
shall be subject to the density standards of the
underlying zone and shall be reviewed pursuant to the
City' s Appearance Review Guidelines.
(r) All dwelling units shall be equipped with water
conservation devices to include low-flow shower heads
and toilets, and drip irrigation systems.
•
MEETI��25/91 AGENDA D-2
DATE ITEM#
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF ATASCADERO
Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager
From: Greg Luke, Director of Pub is Works (f-,k-
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with
Penfield and Smith to aerial map E1 Camino Real for a fee of
$37,800.
2 . Authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with
Penfield and Smith to aerial map Graves Creek Road and Portola Rd.
for a fee of $15,200.
BACKGROUND:
• The Public Works Department is beginning work on the Capital
Improvement Projects approved by the years FY 90-91 and FY 91-92.
Four of the projects are located along E1 Camino Real, stretching
from the intersection with San Rafael on the south to San Anselmo
on the north. Specifically the projects have been identified as
follows:
Est. Construction Cost
1.ECR - between San Gabriel and San Rafael $200, 000
2 .ECR - between Curbaril and San Anselmo $875, 000
3 .ECR - between Rosario and San Anselmo $75, 000
4 .Downtown Area repaving $100, 000
Clearly, some of these projects overlap. The intent is to
provide a roadway which has continuous sidewalks, safe and
aesthetic medians, controlled traffic turning motions, adequate
ingress and egress to the commercial properties, and has proper
drainage facilities. In addition, the overall appearance of the
roadway and road right-of-way will be upgraded.
•
To date, the improvements required have been identified on a
site-by-site basis. That is, one section of road may be identified
as being too narrow without sidewalks, another section may have a
drainage problem, while a third section may have dangerous turning
motions.
The first step is to formulate a comprehensive program to
upgrade ECR and correct its problems J* to produce a detailed map
of the entire area. Accordingly, staff prepared a Request for
Proposals (RFP) for aerial mapping firms and surveying firms to
prepare a detailed map of ECR from San Diego Avenue to Del Rio
Avenue. The RFP is fairly detailed; refer to Exhibit A for the
complete scope of work.
This map will be used first to prepare a preliminary
engineering document which integrates all of the above listed
projects into a single work program. Second, the map will be used
as base sheets for the future design of the required improvements.
ANALYSIS:
Mapping the entire length of ECR at one time is substantially
less costly than performing the work on one section at a time. The
• City does not have a detailed map of this area, making planning and
engineering quite difficult. Proceeding on the assumption that
Council wishes to upgrade all of ECR for safety, planning, and
aesthetic purposes, staff presents the comprehensive mapping
proposal for your consideration.
The bid results are shown on Exhibit C. The low bid was
submitted by Penfield & Smith of San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara.
They will be working with Pacific Western Aerial Surveys. I have
conducted a check of references for the project team and have
determined they are reliable and produce quality work. They are
fully insured and licensed. The proposal is enclosed for your
review.
OPTIONS:
Upon receiving a favorable bid for the mapping work on ECR, I
contacted Penfield & Smith to request a price to map both Graves
Creek Rd. and Portola Rd. These roads are scheduled for major
rehabilitation, including a pedestrian and/or bikelane. Since much
of the overhead of conducting an aerial survey is sending a private
airplane to photograph the area, I felt the City could save money
by having this additional work done by the same firm at the same
time that ECR was photographed.
•
• I received a price quote for the extra work of $15,200. (See
Exhibit F. ) . From my experience, this is a quite reasonable
charge for this extra work.
According to the Uniform Public Cost Accounting Manual, a
consultant can be awarded this additional work without a formal
bid. When the original proposal for the ECR mapping was sent out,
I did not anticipate the Department would be seeking the additional
services for Graves Creek and Portola Roads at this time.
Therefore, to begin these improvement projects I recommend that the
additional work also be awarded to Penfield & Smith. Alternately,
the Council may wish to direct the Department to competitively bid
this extra work.
•
.EXHIBIT A
May 16, 1991
SUBJECT: Request for Proposal - Survey Work on E1 Camino Real
Dear Consultant:
The City of Atascadero Department of Public Works requires aerial,
boundary and topographic mapping along the entire width of E1
Camino Real including road Right-of-Way and 50 feet outside Right-
of-Way on both sides. The City invites you to submit a proposal
for the scope of work described below.
• Scope of Work:
1. Field Work:
(a) Set panel points using a material that will remain
visible for two weeks. Set nail in center of panel to
provide for permanent identification.
(b) Locate and mark utility covers of electric boxes, water
and gas valves, storm drain and sewer manholes.
(c) Locate and mark all existing recorded boundary monuments.
2 . Aerial Mapping:
(a) Parameters: Take aerial photographs necessary to
prepare a 20 scale map with one foot contours.
(b) Data: Save project data for at least one year in
case additional information is needed or questions arise.
(c) Details: Show all buildings, trees, utility poles,
electric boxes, water and gas valves, storm drain and
sewer manholes, catch basins, striping, signals, signs,
spot elevations, driveways, parking lots, curb, gutter,
sidewalk, lights and crossing streets.
• (d) Boundary: Show Right-of-Way, centerline and street names.
Use record information and located boundary monuments.
(e) Presentation:
• (1) Use 24" x 36" mylar sheets. Provide border, title
block (page number, "City of Atascadero, " date) ,
cross-references, scale and north arrow.
(2) Index: The first sheet shall be an index. The
index must show a small scale version of the map
and how the sheets are cross-referenced.
(3) Use Auto CAD Release 10 computer software. Use
several layers and colors. Plot with multiple line
weights. City will provide additional details.
(f) Controls: Use NGVD Vertical Control and California
Coordinate System Horizontal Control.
(g) Submit the following:
(1) Two sets of contact prints of all aerial
photographs. 2 5-�rr'pJ / ri .
(2) One set of screened mylar printAf the aerial map.
(3) One set of floppy diskettes containing the Auto CAD
Aerial Mapping.
• (4) A separate floppy diskette containing the Aerial
Mapping of the portion of E1 Camino Real shown in
Attachment A. The diskette will be used to complete
the Construction Mapping portion of the project.
3 . Construction Mapping of the portion of El Camino Real shown in
Figure A:
(a) Determine Elevations at endpoints and at 20 ft. intervals
along the following profile lines:
(1) Edge of pavement.
(2) Gutter Flow line.
(3) Top of Curb face.
(4) Centerline.
(b) Import field data from 3 . (a) into diskette made in step
2 . (g) (4) . Combined information is the "construction map. "
(c) Prepare the map for presentation by adding a scale,
border and title block.
• (d) Submit a mylar print and an Auto CAD diskette of the
construction map.
•
FIGURE A: Portion of E1 Camino Real to be Construction Mapped
Fees:
Submit a lump sum fee for the scope of work described above.
• Time Required for Completion:
Include estimates of the amount of time required for each task.
Also include an estimate of the total time required to complete the
project. The work must be completed within six weeks from receipt
of a notice to proceed from the City.
Contractual Agreement:
Successful bidder will be required to sign an agreement with the
City which contains various provisions, including the requirement
for a $1, 000, 000 Errors and Omissions Insurance Policy. A copy of
the contract is available at the Public Works Department.
Submittal Deadline:
Proposals shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works,
located in room 308 of City Hall. Proposals may be hand delivered
or mailed but must be received by 5: 00 p.m. on May 29, 1991. No
late proposals will be accepted.
Sincerely,
• Greg Luke
Director of Public Works
�l
• Z
' w &
r � L
llM auM �H`. ,r if
ell
d 1NI,Yprlj .... n S fib.
„�rY ., d
wo
as i
�
f
• � J� � ; ,� � I OYrala . I
v� 0 t hb�` ra 'S f� f ~•v owrsa Ile. v0°4e v0�'4• •4 I•�
° a,gq+ra •rfty''bx ..i a�,y � +i ar � � ¢�.v a+r,.} ,P`�4`f,'1 w i•
aft+
ov.k Y1-; -
.Ila+a 3 aj+ L 1" i\ li •ra alu r I /�
,rY r ila v,rr,UgMb.c L. w o'f'FE
11 lY 11Y1i W VVOM
a
raw \'MK .w-
`�Y� �a"r � �• ���,` �.� � �° geC �.' � III
M AV WY+YM •�A,IYa,' S
,n�J Y'•+fab � 8a'�'+4,•p tr
� f,
q"wyor
{
t
)t
� I
'fJ �
• � III i
a I
u I
I 9 NyS
oaao�
I
QCID
C`"{,,
•
l
May 24, 1991
ADDENDUM NUMBER ONE
CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA
Request for Proposal - Survey Work on E1 Camino Real
To: All bidders
NOTICE
• This Addendum forms a part of the Contract Documents for the above
identified project and modifies the original Request for Proposal
dated May 16, 1991. Portions of the Request for Proposal not
specifically mentioned in this Addendum remain in force.
Acknowledge receipt of this Addendum in your proposal. Failure to
do so may subject you to disqualification.
This Addendum consists of two (2) pages.
Addendum to Introduction:
1. Change " . . .along the entire width of El Camino Real
including. . . " to read " . . .on E1 Camino Real including. . . "
2 . Add the following paragraph:
The aerial photography portion of the project shall be
completed for the entire length of E1 Camino Real within
the City limits (Map of City will be provided upon
request) . The aerial mapping portion of the project
shall be completed for the length of E1 Camino Real
located between San Diego Avenue and Del Rio Avenue.
• "Scope of Work" Addendum Items•
1. Items 1.b and 2 .c: Delete "electric boxes, water and gas
• valves"
2 . Item 1.c and 2 .d: Delete
3. Item 2 .c: Add "Street names"
4 . Item 2 .e. 1: Add "show two strips per page. "
"Time Required for Completion" Addendum Items:
1. change "six weeks" to "fifteen weeks"
"Submittal Deadline" Addendum Items:
1. change "May 29" to "June 12"
•
s
L111�11s11 1.
PROPOSALS RECEIVED
10 TOPOGRAPHIC MAPPING OF EL CAMINO REAL
FIRM FEE
Penfield & Smith $37,800
111 East Victoria Street
P.O. Box 98
Santa Barbara, CA 93102
Associated Professions $53,000
1005 Railroad Street
Paso Robles, CA 93446
North Coast Engineering $72,354
715 24th Street, Suite O
Paso Robles, CA 93446
Towill, Inc. $74,300
301 Mission Street 1300
• San Francisco,CA 94105
Bestor Engineers, Inc. $74, 600
9701 Blue Larkspur Lane
Monterey, CA 93940
Vaughan Surveys $81,250
630 Fourteenth Street
Paso Robles, CA 93446
Aerial Photomapping Services $86,095
2929 Larkin
Clovis, CA 93612
•
imalBl"I' D
Penfield Smith
• ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS
2530 FINANCIAL SQUARE DRIVE, #I 10 111 EAST VICTORIA STREET 1000 MILL STREET
OXNARD,CALIFORNIA 93030 P.0.BOX 98 • SANTA BARBARA,CALIFORNIA 93102 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CALIFORNIA 93401
805-983-7499 • FAX 805-983-1826 805.963-9532 • FAX 805.966-9801 805-544-5445 • FAX 805-544-4872
W.O. 10023 .01
June 11, 1991
Mr. Greg Luke
Director of Public Works
City of Atascadero
City Hall Room 308
6500 Palma Avenue
Atascadero, CA 93422
Subject: Topographic Mapping on E1 Camino Real
Dear Mr. Luke:
In response to your Request for Proposal and Addendum Number One
for aerial and topographic mapping, Penfield & Smith is pleased
to present our Scope of Services and fee proposal for your
review:
UNDERSTANDING OF PROJECT REQUIREMENTS
It is our understanding that the City of Atascadero requires
topographic mapping along E1 Camino Real between San Diego Avenue
and Del Rio Avenue at a scale of 1"=20 ' with a contour interval
of 1 foot. You also will require aerial photography for E1
Camino Real for its entire length within the City limits. In
addition, you will require construction mapping of a portion of
El Camino Real beginning at E1 Bordo Avenue and covering
approximately 2800 feet southeasterly showing grades at 20-foot
intervals along edge of pavement, gutter flow line, top of curb
face and centerline of pavement.
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Penfield & Smith shall provide the following services:
■ Field survey to establish aerial control panels for aerial
topographic models. Vertical control shall be NGVD and
horizontal control shall be California Coordinate System.
■ Field cross section that portion of E1 Camino Real shown on
Attachment "A" at intervals of 20 feet for elevations at
edge of pavement, gutter flow line, top of curb face and
centerline of pavement.
P S
• Mr. Greg Luke
June 11, 1991
Page two
■ Compilation of topographic mapping by analytical
photogrammetric procedures.
■ Provide two sets of contact prints of all aerial photographs
along E1 Camino Real within the City limits of Atascadero.
■ Provide one set of screened mylar sheets of 1"=20 '
topographic mapping with a 1 ' contour interval of El Camino
Real between San Diego Avenue and Del Rio Avenue. Strips
shall cover E1 Camino Real right-of-way and fifty feet
outside right-of-way on each side. There will be two strips
on each sheet with the first sheet being an index sheet
showing the sheet layout. Details shown on the aerial
mapping will include buildings, drip line of trees and trunk
if visible, utility poles, storm drain and sewer manholes,
catch basins, striping, signals, signs, spot elevations,
driveways, parking lots, curb, gutter, sidewalk, Eights and
crossing streets with their names.
■ One set of floppy diskettes containing the Autocad aerial
• mapping-
■ Provide one set of construction maps of approximately 2800
foot strip shown in Attachment A at a scale of 1"=20 ' and
index sheet. Construction maps will show in addition to the
details shown on the aerial maps, elevations at 20-foot
intervals along edge of pavement, gutter flow line, top of
curb face and centerline of pavement.
■ One set of floppy diskettes containing the Autocad
construction mapping.
PROPOSED FEE AND METHOD OF PAYMENT
Our proposed services will be performed on a fixed fee basis and
shall be billed monthly at the rates then currently in effect.
Payment is due on receipt of statements (net 30 days) . Unpaid
account balances are subject to a finance charge in accordance
with our Standard Form of Agreement. If an account is unpaid and
would be subject to a finance charge in accordance with our
Standard Form of Agreement, we may consider this as constructive
notice to suspend work. Our current fee schedule is attached.
Based on our understanding of your requirements and our
experience with similar projects, the fee required for our
• services will be $37, 800.
P S
Mr. Greg Luke
• June 11, 1991
Page three
SERVICES NOT INCLUDED
The following services and all other services not specifically
listed herein are excluded:
1. Title company reports, services and fees.
2 . Boundary surveying.
3 . Easement analysis and depiction.
4 . Engineering plans and design.
5. Blueprints and reproductions.
TIME OF PERFORMANCE
We anticipate that our work will be completed within the
following schedule from authorization to proceed:
• Field Work 3 weeks
Delivery of Contact Prints 6 weeks
Delivery of Construction Mapping 8 weeks
Delivery of Aerial Mapping 15 weeks
Thank you for your consideration of this proposal. If you have
any questions or require any additional information, please do
not hesitate to contact me. We will be happy to provide a copy
of our Errors and Omissions Insurance Policy in the amount of
$1, 000, 000. 00 and references for similar jobs successfully
completed.
Very truly yours,
PENFIELD & SMITH
t) ( t.
Ken Kuencer, L.S. 5617
Professional Land Surveyor
KHK: jjl
Enclosure
•
P ).
EXHIBIT E
40, � e CITY F- �s�>; ,� -• . � O ATASCADERO
June 14, 1991
Penfield & Smith
111 East Victoria Street
P.O. Box 98
Santa Barbara, CA 93102
Attention: Ken Kuencher
Subject: Topographic Mapping on E1 Camino Real
Dear Ken,
As we discussed on the phone today, I would like a price quote
for some additional aerial mapping. The area is in a more rural
part of town and consequently does not need the level of detail
required for the E1 Camino Real mapping.
• I have enclosed maps showing the location of the mapping. We
will need the following information:
I. The stretch of road shown on the enclosed map needs to be
photographed showing 30 feet of land on either side of the
present road centerline, resulting in a strip which is 60 feet
wide.
2. The photographic strip is to be printed on a mylar sheet,
placing three strips on each sheet, including City title block
and border.
3 . The photographic strip is to be at a scale of 1"=401 .
Slight distortions due to parallax problems are acceptable.
4 . Superimposed over the photographic strip will be contour
lines at 2 foot contour intervals. Also, power poles, tree
trunks and other features not readily identifiable in the
photograph shall be marked on the plans.
5. All recorded centerline monuments will be accurately tied-
in to the aerial control network and shown on the plans.
•
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS • 6500 PALMA AVENUE • ATASCADERO, CA 93422
AJntinisfrntion/Frt�nuerin,�: 8051461-5020 • Wastewater Trratrnent: 461-5077 • City FAX: 461-0606
t
•
I would appreciate a quote on this additional work. .Assuming
the price is acceptable, we will include the entire package for
approval at our June 25, 1991 City Council meeting. I will need
your information before noon on Wednesday, June 19, 1991. Thanks
for your prompt response on this matter.
sincerely
Greg Luke
Public Works Director
•
•
� 1
�I
I
1
PO►O I 1 1
r
7 L00>• �
a
-=Zz
r
R
114,14,
°0 0
AjV
r
2
I "'�`r ERNRN
J O, iy
f
laboilo
\` ._-.qp►ate= - "�ER1bn
M
Y
LL.. `
i
1
\
00"'.A, Nq cr ;
1 ` 'L/• 7
rr / �'►� 1 DO '
�r
f
�S♦ r4
up-owl
�XH1BIT F
Penfield p Smith
ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS
2530 FINANCIAL SQUARE DRIVE, #110 111 EAST VICTORIA SFREET 1000 MILL STREET
OXNARD,CALIFORNIA 93030 P.0.BOX 98 • SANTA BARBARA,CALIFORNIA 93102 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CALIFORNIA 93401
805-983-7499 • FAX 805-983-1826 805-963-9532 • FAX 805-966-9801 805-544-5445 • FAX 805-544-4872
W.O. 10036. 01
June 18, 1991
Mr. Greg Luke
Director of Public Works
City of Atascadero
City Hall Room 308
6500 Palma Avenue
Atascadero, CA 93422
Su,:ject: Topographic Mapping on Portola Road
and Graves Creek Road
Dear Mr. Luke:
In response to your Request for Proposal for additional mapping
on portions of Portola Road and Graves Creek Road, Penfield &
Smith is pleased to present our Scope of Services and fee
proposal for your review:
•
UNDERSTANDING OF PROJECT REQUIREMENTS
It is our understanding that the City of Atascadero requires
topographic mapping on a photo base at a scale of 111=401 along a
portion of Portola Road approximately 8, 000 feet in length and
along a portion of Graves Creek Road approximately 5,000 feet in
length.
SCOPE OF SERVICES
^erC4 ' d & Smith shall provide the following services:
■ Field survey to establish aerial control panels for aerial
topographic models. Vertical control shall be NGVD and
horizontal control shall be California Coordinate System and
will be brought over from the El Camino Real control
network.
■ Field ties to found centerline monuments along Portola Road
and Graves Creek Road.
■ Compilation of topographic mapping by analytical
• photogrammetric procedures.
c�
P
Mr. Greg Luke
• June 18, 1991
Page two
■ Provide two sets of contact prints of all aerial photographs
along Portola Road and Graves Creek Road.
■ Provide one set of mylar sheets with photo strips at a scale
of 1"=401 . Strips will cover an area of 30 feet on each
side of the existing centerline and will show contours at a
2-foot contour interval and call out power poles, trees,
found centerline monuments, and other features not readily
identifiable in the photographic strips, but discernable to
the aerial compiler. Three strips will be shown on each
sheet with the City of Atascadero title black as Eurnished
by the City.
■ Pacific Western will scale all photos to be overlaid by
using the surveyed distance between two control points on
the road at each end of the photograph. Since the
topography of the road is relatively flat, this method will
insure a good scale along the road. The scale accuracy will
decrease slightly at right angle directions from the road,
but this should have little effect on this project since the
• mapping corridor is only 60 feet wide. We will also insist
that the flying service keep the flight lines as level as
possible to minimize any aerial distortion. Please
understand that this method does not guarantee totally
accurate results, but adequate results can be obtained which
would be compatible with the level of accuracy requested.
PROPOSED FEE AND METHOD OF PAYMENT
Our proposed services will be performed on a fixed fee basis and
shall be billed monthly at the rates then currently in effect.
Payment is uue on receipt of statements (net 30 days) . Unpaid
account balances are subject to a finance charge in accordance
with our Standard Form of Agreement. If an account is unpaid and
would be subject to a finance charge in accordance with our
Standard Form of Agreement, we may consider this as constructive
notice to suspend work. Our current fee schedule is attached.
Based on our understanding of your requirements and our
experience with similar projects, the fee required for our
services will be $15, 200.
•
■
p togs
• Mr. Greg Luke
June 18, 1991
Page three
SERVICES NOT INCLUDED
The following services and all other services not specifically
listed herein are excluded:
1. Title company reports, services and fees.
2 . Boundary surveying.
3 . Easement analysis and depiction.
4. Engineering plans and design.
5. Blueprints and reproductions.
Thank you for consideration of Penfield & Smith for this
additional work. I have enclosed a copy of a brief outline of
our surveying department for your information. If you have any
• questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience.
Very truly yours,
PENFIELD & SMITH
6� 6"
Ken Kuencer, L.S. 5617
Professional Land Surveyor
KHK:jjl
Enclosure
•
P07S
MEET I+! AGEND�
DATE ITEM N
• M E M O R A N D U M
TO: City Council
FROM: Ray Windsor, City Manager
SUBJECT: Main Street Basic Trainin
DATE: June 20, 1991
In light of the increasing interest in our downtown, particularly
as a result of the recent work of the sign committee, staff
suggests that Council consider participating in the attached
program. Staff would like to be represented.
•
Attachment: Conference Information:
"Main Street Basic Training"
•
ATTENTION AI,L CITIES UNDER 50,000 IN POPULA`T'ION!
• The California Department of Commerce
announces the State Main Street Program's second annual
MAIN STREET BASIC TRAINING
August 25 - 28 , 1991
ASILOMAR CONFERENCE CENTER
Pacific Grove California
' [7 y ;`,��GuF
California Main Street announces its annual basic training in
the four points of the Main Street approach to downtown
revitalization, open to all cities under 50, 000 in population
(1990 Census, State Department of Finance) . THIS IS NOT A
CONFERENCE, THIS IS AN IN-DEPTH TRAINING.
ELIGIBILITY
In addition to the population criteria, cities must be able to
specify an organization within the community whose program
activities focus on downtown issues (e.g. , a downtown or
merchants' association, chamber of commerce, etc. ) . It is not
required that the downtown program have a paid staff person,
although cities with staffed programs are encouraged to attend.
• DUE TO SPACE LIMITATIONS AND INSTRUCTION FORMAT, 50 ATTENDANCE
SLOTS ARE AVAILABLE ON A FIRST-COME, FIRST-SERVE BASIS AND EACH
CITY IS LIMITED TO A MAXIMUM OF FOUR PRE-REGISTERED SLOTS.
TRAINING COST
Registration fee includes conference, accommodations and
meals. Cost is $195 for the training and three days room and
board (at $65 per person per day) . FINAL DEADLINE FOR ALL
REGISTRATION IS MONDAY, JULY 22 , 1991.
CONTENT
Basic Training consists of a total of three full days of
intense instruction on the four points of Main Street downtown
revitalization strategy--Design, Promotion, Organization and
Economic Restructuring--as developed by the National Trust for
Historic Preservation, Washington D.C.
As illustrated in the attached sample agenda, instruction
topics concentrate on each of the four points of the Main
Street methodology; instructional procedures include lecture,
case studies and group assignments and exercises.
BECAUSE OF THE INTERRELATIONSHIP OF THE TOPIC AREAS, IT IS
IMPORTANT THAT PARTICIPANTS ATTEND THE FULL TRAINING.
•
-2-
WHO SHOULD ATTEND
o Representatives from the public or private sector,
including interest groups and downtown program
volunteers, and/or full time program staff who
lack experience in downtown revitalization
strategy;
o City staff persons who wish to support the program
efforts of their downtown organization;
o Experienced participants from a downtown program who
want additional information and training;
TRAINERS
Instructors include the staff from the state and national Main
Street programs and consultants selected for their expertise in
specific subject areas.
TRAINING SITE
Asilomar is a state-owned conference center located in Pacific
Grove, near Monterey, that provides an informal retreat setting
conducive to in-depth training formats.
• ATTIRE: Very casual (jeans and sneakers are okay) .
START TIME
3 : 00 p.m. Sunday, August 25, and includes dinner.
CHECK-OUT TIME
12 : 00 noon on Wednesday, August 28, and includes lunch.
LODGING
Lodging space is set up to accommodate two to four people per
room. NO SINGLE ROOMS ARE AVAILABLE. If a single paid
registration does not indicate a preference for a specified
roommate(s) , a roommate(s) will be assigned.
TRAINING REGISTRATION
You are encouraged to register as soon as possible using the
registration form attached. REGISTRATION IS ON A FIRST COME,
FIRST SERVE BASIS (up to a total of 50 available spaces) .
Please complete one form per individual registration and return
it with a check or money order (no purchase orders) made
payable to the CALIFORNIA MAIN STREET PROGRAM. To process the
registration, payment of the registration fee must accompany
• this form.
-3-
FINAL DEADLINE FOR ALL REGISTRATION IS MONDAY, JULY 22, 1991.
Registering to attend the training WITHOUT on-site
accommodations is NOT an option.
REGISTRATION FEE REFUND POLICY
Until July 31, advance registrants unable to attend training
will receive a refund of the registration fee, less a $25
processing fee. TO RECEIVE A REFUND, A WRITTEN REQUEST MUST BE
SUBMITTED TO THE CALIFORNIA MAIN STREET PROGRAM OFFICE NO LATER
THAN JULY 31, 1991 . Absolutely no refunds will be given after
this date.
Questions? Call Pat Noyes at (916) 322-1502
1819D
•
•
SAMPLE AGENDA*
Main Street Basic Training
• August 25 - 28 , 1991
ASILOMAR
SUNDAY - Aug. 2.5 AFTERNOON
3 : 00 - 4 : 00 p.m. Check-in and Registration
4 : 00 - 5: 00 p.m. Opening Session/Introduction
EVENING
6 : 00 - 7 : 00 p.m. Dinner
7 : 30 - 8 : 30 p.m. Presentations/Downtown Issues
8 : 30 - 9 : 30 p.m. Main Street Methodology
Adjourn
MONDAY - Aug. 26 MORNING
9 : 00 - 10: 30 a.m. Getting Organized: Building
Community Support
• 10: 30 - 10: 45 a.m. Break
10: 45 - Noon Running a Program: Housing the
Program; Working with Volunteers,
Staff, & Committees; Planning and
Funding
AFTERNOON
Noon - 2 : 00 p.m. Lunch/Organization Workshop
2 : 00 - 3 : 30 p.m. Understanding Market Analysis
3 : 30 - 3 : 45 p.m. Break
3 : 45 - 5: 00 p.m. Market Analysis Workshop
(Homework assigned)
Adjourn
EVENING
6 : 00 - 7 : 00 p.m. Dinner
7 : 30 - 9: 30 p.m. Promotions Roundtable (Optional)
• * Topic content and scheduling are subject to alterations.
-2- i
• TUESDAY -Aug. 7
g. 2 MORNING
9 : 00 - 10: 30 a.m. The Impact of the Baby Boom
On 90's Retailing
10: 30 - 10: 45 a.m. Break
10: 45 - 12 : 00 Repositioning Business To Capture the
Boom
AFTERNOON
1.2 : 00 - 1: 00 p.m. Lunch
1: 30 - 3 : 30 p.m. Recruiting From a Position of
Strength; Developing a Recruitment
Package
3 : 30 - 3 : 45 p.m. Break
3 : 45 - 5: 15 p.m. Target Marketing
Adjourn
• EVENING
6: 00 - 7 : 00 p.m. Dinner
7 : 30 - 8: 30 p.m. Individual Consultations
(Optional/Sign-up)
WEDNESDAY - Aug. 28 MORNING
9 : 00 - 10: 30 a.m. Facilitating Good Design
10: 30 - 10:45 a.m. Break
10: 45 - Noon Design Issues for Downtown
12 : 00 - 12 : 15 p.m. Wrap-up/Presentations
Adjourn, End of Training
12 : 15 - 1 : 00 p.m. Late Check-Out
4200D
•
California Department of Commerce
MAIN STREET BASIC TRAINING
Sunday - Wednesday, August 25 - 28, 1991
Asilomar, Pacific Grove, California
T R A I N I N G R E G I S T R A T I O N F O R M
(DEADLINE JULY 2,2 , 1990)
NAME:
TITLE: AFFILIATION:
MAILING ADDRESS:
CITY/ZIP: PHONE: ( )
COUNTY: _ CITY POPULATION:
NAME OF DOWNTOWN ORGANIZATION:
PAID STAFF? YES/FT , YES/PT___,^-, NO
START DATE/TIME: Sunday, August 25, 1991 , 3 : 00 p.m.
ADJOURN/CHECK-OUT: Wednesday, August 28 , 1991, 12 : 00 noon
ACCOMMODATIONS : STANDARD TRAINING REGISTRATION -- Full attendance
includes training, three nights double occupancy and all meals:
$195. 00 per person, or $65 per person per day. Check appropriate
space below:
I . I am enclosing a check in the amount of $195 for
training and three nights accommodation.
I am enclosing a check in the amount of
$_ for the following day(s) training:
Aug. 25__, Aug. 26_^, Aug. 27 , Aug. 28 ,
and night(s) accommodation(s) :
Aug. 25 , Aug. 26_,_, Aug. 27
II . I will be sharing a room with:
(Name)_—
Please select a rooiriznate for me:
male: female:
III . I want to request an all-vegetarian diet.
Please make check or money order payable to CALIFORNIA MAIN STREET
PROGRAM (no purchase orders, please) .
*** REGISTRATIONS WITHOUT PAYMENT WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED ***
MAIL TO:
CALIFORNIA MAIN STREET PROGRAM
Department of Commerce
801 K Street, Suite 1700
Sacramento, CA 95814
Registrant will receive a receipt and packet of training materials,
final agenda and speakers' list by the end of July, 1991 .
1823D