Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 03/12/1991 PUBLIC REVIEW COPY PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE FROM COUNTER A G E N D A ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING ATASCADERO ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 6500 PALMA FOURTH FLOOR, ROTUNDA ROOM MARCH 12, 1991 7 :00 P.M. This agenda is prepared and posted pursuant 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 initiate further discussion. The floor will then be closed to public participation and open for Council discussion. Call to Order Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call City Council Comment: - Proclamations . "ArborDay" , March 21- 1991 "Camp Fire Birthday Week" , 3/17 3/23/91 1 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 & staff. A. CONSENT CALENDAR All matters listed under Item A, Consent Calendar, are con- sidered to be routine, and will be enacted by one motion in the form listed below. There will be no separate discussion on these items. A member of the Council or public may, by request, have any item removed from the Consent Calendar, which shall then be reviewed and acted upon separately after the adoption of the Con- sent Calendar. 1. FEBRUARY 12, 1991 'CITY COUNCIL MINUTES (Cont' d from 2/26/91) 2-. RESOLUTION NO. 20-91 - ESTABLISHING A STOP INTERSECTION ON SAN 0 ANDRES AT THE INTERSECTION WITH SAN MARCOS AND NAVARETTE 3. RESOLUTION NO. 21-91 - ESTABLISHING A NO PARKING AREA ALONG A PORTION OF PALOMAR AVENUE' 4 . AUTHORIZING MID-YEAR BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS A. RESOLUTION NO. 22-91 - IMPLEMENTING THE MID-YEAR BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS DISCUSSED AT COUNCIL' S 2/26/91 MEETING B. RESOLUTION NO. 2391 - INCREASING THE SALARY OF THE PARKS, RECREATION & ZOO DIRECTOR BY 5%, RETROACTIVE TO 1/1/91 5. RECOMMENDATION OF NAME CHANGE FOR PARKS, RECREATION & ZOO DE- PARTMENT 6. RESOLUTION NO. 19-91 - SUPPORTING COUNTY SATELLITE FACILITIES IN THE NORTH COUNTY 7 . RESOLUTION NO. 15-91 SUPPORTING THE LEAGUE OF 'CALIFORNIA CITIES IN ITS EFFORTS TO REPEAL SENATE BILL 2557 BY ENDORSING SENATE BILL 169 AND IMPLEMENTING THE VEHICLE LICENSE FEE (VLF) 8 RESOLUTION NO. 18-91 - ESTABLISHING FEES FOR NOTARIAL SERVICES 2 B. HEARINGS/APPEARANCES : 1 . ARDILLA ROAD EXTENSION/TREE REMOVAL REQUEST AND RELATED APPEAL OF TIME NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROPOSED FOR THE EXTENSION OF ARDILLA ROAD (Cont'd from 1/22/91 meeting) A. Appeal of Negative Declaration (Joan O' Keefe) B. Tree removals for road extension 2. RESOLUTION NO. 17-91 - CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF DRAFT PARKS & RECREATION ELEMENT OF THE CITY' S GENERAL PLAN C. REGULAR BUSINESS: 1. GORDON DAVIS ROADS RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION 2. WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT UPDATE> 3. ARBOR DAY OBSERVANCE (Verbal) 4 . SCHEDULE WORKSHOP DATE D. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION: • 1. City Council: A. Committee Reports (The following represents ad hoc or standing committees . Informative status reports will be given, as felt necessary. ) 1 . City/School Committee 2 . North Coastal Transit/S.L.O. Area Coordinating Council 3 . Traffic Committee 4 . Solid/Hazardous Waste Mgmt. Committee 5 . Recycling Committee 6 . Economic Opportunity Commission 7 . B. I .A. S. Downtown Interim Sign Committee 2 . City Attorney 3. City Clerk 4 City Treasurer 5 . City Manager 3 PROCLAMATION "ARBOR DAY" March 21, 1991 WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Atascadero is proud of the City's street, park and home garden trees, and recognizes the importance of tree care and appreciation, and the contribution of such to a cleaner and healthier environment; and WHEREAS, in 1872, J. Sterling Morton proposed to the Nebraska Board of Agriculture that a special day be set aside for the planting of trees; and WHEREAS, this holiday, called "Arbor Day", was first observed with the planting of more than a million trees in the State of Nebraska; and WHEREAS, Arbor Day is now observed throughout the nation and the work; and WHEREAS, trees can reduce the erosion of our precious topsoil by wind and water, cut heating and cooling costs, moderate the • temperature, clean the air, produce oxygen and provide habitat for wildlife; and WHEREAS, trees are a renewable resource, giving us paper, wood for our homes, fuel for our fires and countless other wood products; and WHEREAS, trees in our city increase property values, enhance the economic vitality of business areas, and beautify our community; and WHEREAS, trees, wherever they are planted, are a source of joy and spiritual renewal; NOW, THEREFORE, I, Robert Lilley, Mayor of the City of Atascadero, do hereby proclaim March 21, 1991 as ARBOR DAY and urge all residents to recognize the importance trees have in brightening our lives and protecting our environment, and I urge all citizens to plant trees to promote the well-being of this and future generations. I ROBERT LILLEY Mayor • Chumash Council of Camp Fire , Inc. Camp Fire PHONE (805) 238-4753 P.O. BOX 302 244 19th STREET PASO ROBLES, CALIFORNIA 93446 PROCLAMATION WHEREAS, Camp Fire, the national youth organization, will be celebrating its 81st birthday on March 17, 1991, and WHEREAS, "the Chumash Council of Camp Fire" in the City of Atascadero teaches boys and girls self-reliance and good citizenship; and WHEREAS, through contemporary programs and by speaking out on issues that affect youth and their families, today' s Camp Fire is helping kids cope with their changing world; and WHEREAS, in Camp Fire, the choices and opportunities are wide open for boys and girls; and WHEREAS , through Camp Fire, young people are learning to • develop confidence and to gain skills needed to become tomorrow' s leaders; and WHEREAS, Camp Fire is commended for the opportunities its programs offer to young people in the City of Atascadero and throughout the nation and for the many services these young people perform for their communities through Camp Fire; NOW, THEREFORE, I , Robert Lilley, Mayor of the City of Atascadero do hereby officially proclaim March 17 to March 23 , 1991 to be CAMP FIRE BIRTHDAY WEEK in the City of Atascadero. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Great Seal of the City of Atascadero to be affixed at the City Hall this twelfth day of March in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and ninety one. Mayor • ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS AGENDA MINUTES DATE 3/12/91 ITEMt A-1 February 12, 1991 The meeting was called to order by Mayor Lilley at 7 : 05 p.m. , followed by the Pledge of Allegiance . Roll Call: Present: Councilmembers Borgeson, Dexter, Nimmo, Shiers and Mayor Lilley Also Present: Micki Korba, City Treasurer Staff : Ray Windsor, City Manager; Greg Luke, Public Works Director; Henry Engen, Community Development Director Mark Joseph, Administrative v ' P e Ser ices Director; Chief Michael Hicks, Fire Department; Chief Bud McHale, Police Department; Andrew Takata, Parks, Recreation & Zoo Director; Art Montandon, City Attorney; Cindy Wilkins, Admin. Secy. /Dep. City Clerk. COUNCIL COMMENTS: • Councilwoman Borgeson noted a recent Atascadero News article re- garding a City Fire Department practice burn on Traffic Way for which water was trucked in from Templeton . Chief Hicks explained that, due to the current water situation, the Fire Department has maintained a policy of not using City water for training purposes but trucks it in. Councilmember Borgeson suggested that more water be brought in as the fire is still active at the subject location. Councilman Nimmo commended local citizens and businesses who have displayed the United States flag in the spirit of support for U. S . troops engaged in the Persian Gulf conflict . Mayor Lilley noted the recent installation of two new, , replica light standards at the Palma Ave . corners of the Administration Building, which are very close to those which E .G. Lewis , the City' s founder, had planned for the community. He extended thanks to the members of the Parks and Streets Divisions for their cost- saving efforts in this regard. Presentation : In introducing the upcoming speaker, Mayor Lilley indicated that the Council is receiving this presentation as an informational piece of discussion and does not necessarily intend to act or issue a statement on this topic this evening. • Mr. Hal Hunsberger, Chairman, Nacimiento Regional Water Management Advisory Committee (NRWMAC) , introduced the committee, which was cc2/12/91 Page 1 organized in the fall of 1989 by concerned property owners of North SLO County and other concerned parties . He noted the committee was appointed in August of 1990 as an advisory group to the SLO Co . i Board of Supervisors . Its basic objective is to develop better utilization of water in the ,greater region of the Salinas River Watershed. He then provided an approximate 10-minute presentation which included a summary of recent NRWMAC actions and its objec- tives , indicating that the objective of this presentation is to focus attention on the coordinated actions that Monterey County is taking with regard to the greater Salinas River Valley and the long-term impact it will impose on SLO County. In summary, Mr . Hunsberger stated that NRWMAC sees a strong central Monterey County water agency moving in an aggressive manner with government support on a multitude of water projects , many of which collect and use water which falls on the lands of SLO County ( approx. 40%) . NRWMAC believes that the actions of Monterey County in regard to water resources have not been given adequate attention by SLO County officials , and this is not equitable to the North County residents who have invested millions of dollars for development in the great- er Nacimiento area, to the North County trade and business persons who depend on orderly growth, nor to the visitors who have come Uo enjoy the full -recreational opportunities of the lake area. The Council was requested to agree, by resolution, with the committee on those concerns and to forward copies to the Boards of Super visors of Monterey and SLO Counties . He noted that, to date, the cities of Morro Bay and San Luis Obispo have adopted similar reso- lutions , and the City of Paso Robles is preparing a resolution for presentation to its council . • Public Comment Don Hanauer, 5555 Vida, who owns a home in Oak Shores , noted that the water contracts for the Lake Nacimiento area are very old. Since their ratification, hundreds of homes have been, and continue to be built around the lake whose owners depend on the lake water and consider it theirs; a court battle can be expected by anyone who makes a move on that water. He expressed the wish that the City Council and the water company become involved in the dis- cussions of the Councils of Morro Bay and San Luis Obispo to cooperatively consider a desalination plant and then figure out a system to pump water to our area. Motion: By Councilmember Borgeson, seconded by Councilman Shiers, for approval of Res . No. 6-91 , urging the SLO Co. Board of Supvrs . to initiate discussion with Monterey Co. and Nacimiento water officials regard- ing Nacimiento Reservoir as a supplemental water source. Motion passed on a unanimous voice vote. COMMUNITY FORUM: Connie Morris , Manager, Atascadero Century Cinemas , announced tickets are now available for the March 3rd showing of "Lawrence • of Arabia" , a benefit to raise funds for the Lake Park Pavilion cc2/12/91 Page 2 Project . Mayor Lilley initiated the fundraiser by purchasing the first two tickets. • Norm Rogers, 8 Quail Ridge Dr. , regarding Item A-9 (Falcon Cable TV rate increase) , encouraged the Council and future Councils not to make long-term contractual arrangements with community providers when a dynamic technology is involved. He expressed the opinion that the community is not being well-served by Falcon Cable in comparison with cable services available in other California com- munities . He added that certain like matters and concerns are currently before Congress , and he urged citizens to contact their congressman to let their views be known. Councilwoman Borgeson noted that, of the current members, -s' he is the only one who was on the Council at the time the 10-year cable contract extension was approved and voted in opposition to it . A. CONSENT CALENDAR: 1 . January 22 , 1991 City Council Minutes 2 . Ordinance 217 - Zone Change 3-90, 7970 Sinaloa - Establishing a Planned Development Overlay Zone (PD7 ) ( Second reading & Adoption ) (Best/Cuesta Engineering) 3 . Resolution No. 7-91 - Adopting new solid waste rates 4 . Resolution No. 10-91 - Authorizing contract for fixed asset appraisal services 5 . Acceptance of Phase I of Tract Map 25-89 (Tract 1858) Hotel • Park, 5805 Capistrano Ave. 6 . Resolution No. 8-91 - Authorizing issuance of Notice of Com- pletion for recordation - Lake Park Pavilion, Phase I 7 . Resolution No. 9-91 - Authorizing issuance of Notice of Com- pletion for recordation - Sycamore Bridge Replacement Project 8 . Resolution No. 11-91 - Award of Bid #91-1 , Fire Station #1 Parking Lot 9 . Falcon Cable TV rate increase ( Information only) Re: Item A-3 - Mr. Joseph noted that an addendum (Page 2 ) to Exhib- it I has been added to include some additional rates , primarily commercial can services; this information was inadvertently not included and in the agenda material . Re: Item A-2 - Councilwoman Borgeson and Councilman Shiers asked that the record reflect their "No" votes on the first reading of Ordinance No . 217 . Re: Item A-4 - Mayor Lilley asked that a commencement date for said services of March 1 , 1991 , be inserted to the document . Public Comment Re: Item A-2 - Doug Lewis , resident, requested that this item be pulled. He expressed concern that placing ordinances for second reading on the consent agenda may be improper procedure. Mr. • Montandon responded that this item was placed under consent pur- suant to a memo he issued many months ago, and this is not the cc2/12/91 Page 3 first ordinance which has appeared on the Consent Calendar for second reading since that time . He added that placing ordinances under Consent is a matter of Council preference, and he believes • it is legal . Mr. Montandon noted that public hearings on ordi- riances are generally not mandatory, but those which do require hearings (often those involving land use) require only one . Mayor Lilley asked that the City Manager resurrect the City Attorney's memo for the Council ' s review and determination on whether or not to continue this practice and that a copy of the memo be made available to Mr. Lewis . Motion: By Councilman Dexter, seconded by Councilman Nimmo to approve the Consent Calendar, including the above-noted addendums to Items A-3 and A-4 and re- quested notation regarding the vote on Item A-2; motion passed unanimously by roll-call . B. HEARINGS/APPEARANCES : 1 . TREE ORDINANCE ( Cont' d from 12/11/90) A. Ordinance No. 214 - Repealing Chap. 19 of Title 2 and Sec. 9-4 .155 , and adding Chap. 11 , 12 and 13 to Title 9 of the Atas Muni . Code regarding tree protection (Rec- ommend motion to waive reading in full and approve on first reading by title only) B. Resolution No. 125-90 - Adopting Tree Standards & Guide- • lines Mr. Engen reviewed the staff report, noting that, if adopted, both the ordinance and resolution would be effective 31 days from the second reading of the ordinance . Former City Arborist Lisa Schicker reviewed proposed grammar and minor text changes : - Sec . 9-11 . 02. - Applicability: Subsection ( a) amended to read, " ( a) The provisions . . . shall apply to all native trees ( as defined by the City Council) . . . 11 , thus removing that phrase from its proposed location in parenthesis in the second sentence . Subsection (b) amended to read, "The provisions . . . . shall apply to all public and private property and protected native trees within the City. . . - Sec . 9-11 . 06 - Tree Removal: Subsection (b) (3 ) amended to move the last sentence, "Any private or public entity.. . " , to become the last sentence of Subsection ( a) . Mr. Engen recom- mended that Subsection (b) ( 5 ) be amended to add, "In single family zoning districts" after "single family residences" . Council discussion ensued regarding the above-noted amendments. City Attorney Art Montandon indicated that he believes the proposed ordinance is both within the scope of the City' s authority and is drafted with a preciseness which would allow criminal enforcement, • if necessary. There was Council consensus to include headnotes-- cc2/12/91 Page 4 reference to specific numbered sections--throughout the document where references are made to the Tree Standards & Guidelines . Mayor Lilley reviewed and clarified the proposed amendments for the • benefit of those in attendance. Councilwoman Borgeson noted receipt of a letter from Fred Frank, registered Professor of Forestry, asking the Council when the For- estry and Woodlot Management Plan in the proposed Tree Ordinance is going to be submitted. Mr. Engen responded that item is sched- uled to co before the Planning Commission next Tuesday, Feb . 19th . Public Comment Doug Lewis, resident , expressed concern that the Council would take action on first reading of this item tonight, as the discussion and proposed amendments suggest that the agenda item has now changed from that originally proposed. He spoke in favor of de- ferring adoption for as long as necessary in order to present a document which is ready in its proposed state, with no further amendments necessary. Eric Greening, 7365 Valle, requested reassurance that a timetable is set for adoption of a creekside preservation ordinance, to which the riparian tree species were referred from an earlier draft of the Revised Tree Ordinance . Jack Stinchfield, business and property owner, expressed concern that the tree replacement formula could create some very expensive • pressures on future developments, and he encouraged careful review of the extremes that might exist. Whitey Thorpe, 8025 Santa Ynez , expressed that he deplores the last-minutes wording changes to the proposed ordinance, which suggest meaning changes , and he asked, "Is it legal? Is it right?" Further Council and staff discussion ensued. Mr. Engen responded to Mr. Greening' s concern that the creekside preservation ordinance is on a tentative list of items scheduled to go before the Planning Commission in the near future (within the next couple of months , although he could not be date-specific) , and it will not be gone and forgotten. To Mr. Stinchfield' s concern, Mr. Engen reviewed that the current interim tree replacement formula is two 15-gal . trees per tree removed, or $200 towards the tree replacement fund on heavily wooded properties . However, the proposed Guidelines , p. 17 , would increase the dollar contribution and number of re- placement trees by a different formula that breaks replacements down into single-family vs . multi-family and splits the tree cat- egories into deciduous vs . non-deciduous; he conceded this formula does impose increased costs and was heavily debated at the Planning Commission level along with others proposed. He added that this formula is in resolution form, which lends itself to coming back for changes as deemed necessary. There was some concern expressed by Council as to how to address �I • the aspect of tree survival when a costly replacement might well cc2/12/91 Page 5 have to compete with the existing tree canopy. Mr. Engen indicated that Council could act on the ordinance tonight and allow staff to bring back some examples of how it might apply in past cases . Lisa Schicker added that tree replacements by money or planting are only • two of the five options listed, referring to Chapter 8, "Tree Re- placement and Mitigation" Motion: By Councilman Dexter, seconded by Councilwoman Bor- geson to adopt Ord. No. 214 , repealing Chap. 19 of Title 2 and Sec . 9-4 . 155, and adding Chapters 11 , 12 and 13 to Title 9 of the Atas . Muni. Code regard- ing tree protection, as amended, on first reading by title only; motion passed unanimously by voice vote. Motion: By Coundilwoman Borgeson, seconded by Councilman Shiers, to adopt Res . No. 125-90, Tree Standards and Guidelines; motion passed unanimously by voice vote. COUNCIL RECESSED FOR A BREAK AT 8 : 30 P .M. MAYOR LILLEY CALLED THE MEETING BACK TO ORDER AT 8 : 50 P .M. 2 . ZONE CHANGE 5-90/TPM 27-90 - Consideration of a proposed zone change to amend the existing LS zoning to include a PD7 Overlay Zone, with an associated tentative parcal map which proposes to divide a 21 . 66 ac . parcel into four parcels for single-family residential use, and a "remainder" parcel of approx. 17 . 3 ac . to be offered for dedication to the City for • parkland/open space use at the Cortez Ave . extension ( lot 3 , Pine Mtn. Park) (Noakes/RRM Design) A. ORDINANCE NO. 218 - Amending Map 7 of the official zoning maps by rezoning that certain real property described as Lot 3 , Pine Mtn. Park of Atascadero, recorded in Book 4 at Page 76 , SLO Co. official records , from LS to LS (PD7 ) (Recommend motion to waive reading in full and approve on first reading by title only) B. TENTATIVE PARCAL MAP 27-90 - Approve, subject to the Planning Commission' s Findings and Revised Conditions of Approval Mr. Engen gave the staff report and responded to various questions and concerns from Council . There was specific concern expressed regarding the feasibility of septic systems on the subject, proper- ties, and Mr. Engen reviewed Conditions of Approval # ' s 5 & 14 . There was also some question as to the potential use of the 17 . 3 acre parcel offered for dedication in view of its steep character- istics . Mr. Takata responded that a Trails Committee , a sub- committee appointed by the Parks & Recreation Commission, is currently reviewing potential trails City-wide , and this property might be a viable location for an equestrian trail . Mr. Engen briefly reviewed the history of the LS zoning, explaining that houses are allowed uses on such properties, provided the lot sizes • are 1 . 5 acres without and 1 acre with sewer. He also reviewed the cc2/12/91 Page 6 history of PD' s (Planned Developments ) , noting the PD( 7 ) came into being in approx. 1985 . • Public Comment Jeff White, representing RRM Design Group and the applicant, re- viewed and spoke in support of this proposal . He noted that this project was designed to be sensitive to the unique characteristics of the land, with minimal impact to the environment. Marj Mackey expressed concerned that allowing 1/2 acre lots without sewer could be precedent-setting and is concerned about future sewer problems on Cortez such as those experienced in the Separado area. She feels that most of the 17 . 3 acres is virtually unbuild able and would serve no use to the City. She spoke in favor of developing most of what remains open on Pine Mtn. into a park, however, encouraged Council not to make a trade which could become a disservice to future owners of the subject property and to the general public . Eric Greening, '7365 Valle, feels the usefulness of the open space involved with this project depends largely on what happens with the space to the west. He expressed concern about potential drainage problems and urged that it be carefully addressed. He feels the project has been sensitively designed, expressing that his main interest is to see the use of the open space as part of a holistic plan, perhaps setting a precedent for deeding the uphill land for public use and building around the base of the mountain. • Mary McTaggart, 5200 Maleza, voiced her concerns and opposition to this project for a number of reasons, expressing her main objection is to the layout of the residential lots and especially the small size of two of them. She differs with many of the developer' s statements and does not feel that the PD overlay will have a bene- ficial effect on the area . She asked if a condition could be in- serted to assure that the architectural style, color and/or visual affect of the proposed homes will add to and not detract from the City' s and residents ' enjoyment of the view of the mountainside. Grading and drainage is also of concern, and ,it appears that the City has not taken any real thought about the future use of and access to the open space. Additional Council discussion followed. Motion: By Councilman Nimmo that the Council waive the read- ing of Ord No. 218 in full and approve by title only, seconded by Councilman Dexter. Councilwoman Borgeson requested that the record reflect her opposition to allowing septic systems on 1/2 acre lots, citing potential problems which could result, and she requested Coun- cil ' s consideration of this when voti..g. • The former motion passed by 3 : 2 voice vote, with Councilmembers Borgeson and Shiers opposed. cc2/12/91 Page 7 Motion: By Councilman Nimmo to approve Ord. No. 218 on first reading, seconded by Mayor Lilley. Councilwoman Borgeson requested that a roll-call vote beta • ken on ordinances. Mayor Lilley responded by directing that the Clerk note the names of those dissenting to the motion. The former motion passed by 3 : 2 voice vote, with Councilmembers Borgeson and Shiers opposed. Motion: By Councilman Nimmo, seconded by Councilman Dexter, to approve TPM 27-90, subject to the Planning Commission' s findings and revised Conditions of Approval; motion passed by 3 : 2 voice vote, with Councilmembers Borgeson and Shiers opposed. 3 . TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 2-90, 11145 EL CAMINO REAL - Consideration of appeal by Michael S . Krout on behalf of Richard Montanaro of conditions of approval ( separate water meters ) proposed by the Planning Commission in order to convert 64 multi-family residential rental units to air-space condominiums (cont' d from 11/27/90) Mr. Engen briefly reported on this item, noting that requested sup- plementary information and/or arguments from the appellant have not been received, and staff maintains its former recommendation to deny the appeal . It was clarified that the correct address is • "11145" E1 Camino Real . There was no public comment . Motion: By Councilman Shiers, seconded by Councilman Dexter, to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commis- sion' s recommended Conditions of Approval; motion passed by unanimous voice vote. C. REGULAR BUSINESS : 1 . PETITION RE: EL CENTRO STREET City Manager Ray Windsor reported on this item, indicating he was approached subsequent to Council ' s approval of TTM 21-89 as to whether or not there would be an opportunity for reconsideration by Mr. Bunnell , as the applicant, to request that Council delete ` the requirement for the extension of El Centro St. He has since contacted Mr. Bunnell , who has indicated he had no problem with the reconsideration and the deletion of that requirement, but he did not feel that he wanted to be the person to ask for it without knowing whether or not he could be assured of maintaining the map and as to what condition would supplant the El Centro extension. In the meantime, he has had additional conversations with residents in the area and hoped to continue to follow through with Mr. Bun- nell but has not had further communications with him. Via Mr. Engen, Mr. Bunnell has relayed that, having obtained map approval , • he would rather not chance another public hearing on this matter before the Planning Commission and City Council . When asked by cc2/12/91 Page 8 the residents what action might trigger further consideration, Mr. Windsor suggested a petition, which was submitted and is dated • December 27 , 1990 . Mr. Engen indicated there is a procedure where anyone who has had a use permit or map approved through 'the normal process can ask for reconsideration and make application, but the application has to be processed in the same manner as the original entitlement . Council discussion followed, and it was the general consensus that, without specific request from Mr. Bunnell, the Council would take no further action on this item. Public Comment David Mosher, 8895 E1 Centro, requested permission to read a state- ment on behalf of Citizens for Preservation of El Centro Street into the record and proceeded to do so; said statement is attached to these minutes as Exhibit I . Councilwoman Borgeson requested that the record reflect that she would like to see E1 Centro St. kept closed and not open for any reason. There was additional discussion on this matter, and no action was taken by Council, • 2 . ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - ROUNDTABLE Mayor Lilley reviewed this subject, noting that staff is in the process of drafting a statement of purpose for this body. Council- woman Borgeson expressed the importance of having balanced input to the Council and that perhaps a committee be appointed to provide advice on other important issues, such as aesthetics , the impact of services , air quality, etc . There was no public comment. Motion: By Councilwoman Borgeson to appoint former Planning Commissioner Mildred Copelan and City Treasurer Micki Korba to the two citizen-at-large positions on the Round Table, expressing that both have strong financial backgrounds and are well respected in the business community. Councilman Lilley asked for consideration of adding a third citizen-at-large and that Jack Stinchfield be appointed to that position. Council consensus was to allow a third citizen-az-large on the Round Table. The question of Atas- cadero residency vs . community business interests of the appointees was debated, with the consensus being that resi- dency not be a requirement. • Motion: By Councilman Dexter to appoint Mildred Copelan, Micki Korba and Jack Stinchfield as the citizens cc2/12/91 Page 9 -at-large to the Round Table, seconded by Councilman Nimmo; passed unanimously by voice vote. • 3 . REQUESTED FREEDOM RALLY - FEBRUARY 17 , 1991 Council discussed the possibility of setting some policy with regard to the commitment of City services during events when the public is exercising free speech in the form of any kind of rally. Mr. Windsor clarified that placing this item on the agenda was not intended to- seek a denial from the Council of the public ' s freedom of speech right . He advised that it was staff' s desire to inform the Council of the proposed rally in case of any concerns they may have, due to the estimated size of the crowd to attend, and that perhaps the Sunken Gardens was not an appropriate location. There was no public comment. Council received this as an informa- tional item, and there was no action taken. D. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION: 1 . City Council A. Committee Reports : City/School Committee - Councilman Dexter reported that this committee has met, and there has been ongoing discussion on • SB-2557--now SB-169 , which is the repealing legislation and bail-out or the counties . Council will be kept informed of events transpiring. Councilman Dexter noted that the tenor of the meeting was good, and the relationship between the City and AUSD was well-expressed. North Coastal Transit/SLO Area Coordinating Council - Council- woman Borgeson reported that an emergency meeting was held on 1/31/91 , the County is now running the buses, and things seem to be working out well; Santa Barbara could not or did not want to keep their contract, so the County took over. She also received the final JPA, dated 2/6/91 , which she will submit to the City Clerk for placement on the Council reading table. As regards SLOACC, she reported: There was recently a trial transit program for General Hospital dialysis pa- tients, which was approved; regional bus ridership was up 280 this year; there is a transportation vision statement being prepared by the task force; the feasibility of social service transportation consolidation is being examined; three outgoing Area Council delegates were honored with Resolutions of Com- mendation on 1/9/91 . SLOACC' s next meeting is tomorrow, and the minutes of the last meeting will be left on the Council desk in the City Manager' s Office for the benefit of the Council and the public . Traffic Committee - Councilman Dexter reported that this • committee has met and made some recommendations to Public cc2/12/91 Page 10 Works regarding the placement of stop signs on Santa Ynez & San Marcos Roads (near the high school) and also has referred • the traffic patterns at the front of the high school to that department for further study. "No parking" areas are proposed near Downs Automotive and will be coming before Council at a future date following staff, review. Recycling Committee - Mr. Luke noted there was extensive con- versation at the last meeting on how to implement the green wastes program in terms of costs . Bill Gibbs and a represen- tative of Dirt Man agreed to provide a free green wastes pick- up service for three months so some data can be collected on this subject . ;Mayor Lilley expressed he dopes the City can obtain a grinder, perhaps on a shared basis with the City of Paso Robles . He indicated he has had preliminary discussion with that city' s, mayor, -who has expressed possible interest in exploring the feasibility of this concept . Mr. Luke indi- cated there is a good working relationship with the Paso Robles Public Works Director, and staff will follow-up on his suggestion. Sign Committee - Mayor Lilley reported that this committee is waiting for the Chamber of Commerce to finalize their work on proposed revisions to the Sign Ordinance before bringing sug- gestions to the Council . He has also had some individual conversations with downtown merchants to see what they per- ceive the signing problems to be in terms of effectiveness and • costs . 2 . City Attorney - No report 3 . City Clerk - No report 4 . City Treasurer - Micki Korba reported that Santa Barbara County has made the decision to charge each city for the number of bookings going into the jail . She also noted the news reported a large number of auto dealers going out of business and wonders what that will do to our tax situation. 5 . City Manager - Mr. Windsor informed the Council that he has been called for jury duty on 2/25/91 . He noted that Council- man Nimmo has advised that he will arrive at the next Council meeting at approx. 9 : 00 p .m. ; he indicated that the budget update is expected to be brief, and the five-year capital program will be placed on the latter part of the agenda so Mr. Nimmo is included in that discussion. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10 : 35 P.M. Minutes prepared by: • CINDY WILKINS Admin. Secy. /Dep. City Clerk cc2/12%91 Page 11 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 2/1. EXHIBIT I February 12, 1991 0 CITIZENS FOR PRESERVATION OF EL CENTRO STREET I am here along with every neighbor on El Centro to stop the proposed opening of El Centro into El Dorado. El Centro is a narrow, winding, quiet, dead end street, which has poor access to El Camino because of the exit driveways from the Lucky Plaza. El Centro is only 20 feet wide at its narrowest areas because it is only half a street wide in width. It is not now and never has been a city dedicated street and has never been city maintained. El Centro is only a little over a block long and all the people that are affected live here, and on El Centro where the proposed entrance is, are against of El Centro Street. The petition. turned in to the City Manager verifies this. The opening of El Centro will not be an asset to the Bunnell Developement for access either coming in or coming out, as the three existing roads; Arcade, Salano and La Linia, provide much better direct • access and are of normal width and provide much better access for emergency vehicles. Salano provides the safest and best access to El Camino. These three streets provide ready access, and all are city maintained. and make the opening of El Centro unnecessary for it is narrow and has poor access. El Centro is a quiet little rural, dead end street and eF the residents have bought and built homes on this street because of its charming, quiet and rural atmosphere. This should not be destroyed, when there is a safer, more direct route of access. We're asking for the city's help in correcting this matter. David F. Mosher • REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Meeting Date: 3-12-91 Agenda Item: A-2 Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager From: Greg Luke, Director of Public Works SUBJECT Establishment of Stop intersection. RECOMMENDATION The Traffic Committee recommends that Council adopt Resolution No. 20-91 establishing a stop intersection on San Andres at the intersection with San Marcos and Navarette. I BACKGROUND: This intersection has ,been a recurring sou rce of i-nts for years. The traffic generated by the High School c usesmplaserious traffic flow problems at this intersection. • DISCUSSION Currently there are stop signs located on Navaratte and the exit from the High School. It is S nticipated that the installation of stop signs on both directions of San Andres will provide for a less hazardous and confusing intersection. OPTIONS 1) Approve Resolution No. 20-91 2) Deny Resolution No. 20-91 3) Return to Traffic Committee for further consideration. FISCAL IMPACT The cost of this installation is estimated to be approximately $100.00 to be paid out of current fiscal year budgeted funds. • RESOLUTION NO. 20-91 RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO DESIGNATING A STOP INTERSECTION ON SAN ANDRES AVENUE WHEREAS, Section 4-2 .801 et seq. of the Atascadero Municipal Code allows the City Traffic Engineer to determine the location of STOP intersections, and to place and maintain appropriate signs or markings indicating the same; and WHEREAS, the Atascadero Traffic committee has recommended that establishing a STOP intersection on San Andres Avenue at the intersection with San Marcos and Navarette will improve a potentially hazardous traffic situation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Atascadero directs the City Traffic Engineer to place and maintain appropriate signs or markings indicating STOP intersections at the locations listed above. On motion by and seconded by the foregoing Resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety on the following roll all vote: AYES: • NOES: ABSENT: ADOPTED• ATTEST• LEE DAYKA, City Clerk ROBERT B. LILLEY, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: ARTHER MONTANDON GREG LUKE City Attorney Director of Public Works City Engineer • REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL • CITY OF ATASCADERO Meeting Date: 3-12-91 Agenda Item; A-3 THROUGH: Ray Windsor, City Manager FROM: Greg Luke, Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Est lishment of a No Par g area along a portion of Palomar Palo, . RECOMMENDATION• Traffic Committee recommends that Council adopt Resolution No. 21-91 establishing a No Parking area as stated above. BACKGROUND: The request for this modification was made by Brian Sword, Street Department Supervisor. DISCUSSION• • The property at this location was recently improved with the addition of curb, gutter and sidewalk. This improvement is on one side of the street only and because of this, on-street parking should be prohibited until both sides of Palomar are improved. OPTIONS: 1) Approve Resolution No. 21-91 2) Deny Resolution No. 21-91 3) Return to Committee for review. FISCAL IMPACT: The cost of this modification is approximately $100. 00 to be paid out of currently budgeted funds. • RESOLUTION NO. 21-91 • RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO DESIGNATING NO PARKING ZONES ON PALOMAR AVENUE WHEREAS, Section 4-2 .1101 et sequence of the Atascadero Municipal Code allows the City Traffic Engineer to designate No Parking areas, and to place and maintain appropriate signs or markings indicating the same; and WHEREAS, The Traffic Committee has studied the traffic problems at this location and has determined that establishing a No Parking zone along a portion of Palomar Avenue would alleviate a hazardous traffic condition. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Atascadero directs the City Traffic Engineer to place and maintain appropriate signs or markings as indicated above. On motion by , and seconded by Councilman ,the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ADOPTED: ATTEST: LEE DAYKA,City Clerk ROBERT B. LILLEY, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: ARTHER MONTANDON GREG LUKE City Attorney Director of Public Works City Engineer • • REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL Agenda Item: A-4 (A&B) CITY OF ATASCADERO Through : Ray Windsor , City Manager Meeting Date: 3/ 12/91 From: Mark Joseph , Administrative Services Director, SUBJECT: Adopting Mid-Year Budget Adjustments RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Council adopt the attached two resolutions: 1 . Resolution No. 22-91 , implementing the midyear budget adjustments discussed at Council ' s February 26, 1991 meeting . 2. Resolution No . 23-91 , increasing the salary of the Parks, Recreation and Zoo Director by 5 percent , retroactive to January 1 , 1991 . • BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The first resolution reflects the issues highlighted at the last Council session. Although only the General Fund was discussed , other funds are impacted as well . For the most , the amounts for non-General Funds are due to reappropriating the prior vear encumbrances. The Dial-A-Ride increase also reflects higher vehicle maintenance costs, noted in Greg ' s memo of 2/8/91 . The salary adjustment is the result of the Management Compensation Study prepared by staff and submitted by Council in the Fall of 1990. The study ' s findings suggested overall management compensation was comparable to like positions throughout the County. In the case of the Parks, Recreation and Zoo Director , the added responsibilities of Streets and Facilities, not to mention the Zoo itself, warranted the increase in salary. c\myadjust • • RESOLUTION NO. 22-91 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO TO MAKE MID—YEAR BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS Be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Atascadero : Section 1 . That the total Departmental appropriations by Fund shall be adjusted as shown in the attached Exhibit I , which is made a part of this Resolution. Section 2. That this resolution shall be effective upon adoption. On motion by Councilperson and seconded by Councilperson , the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety, by the following Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: • ABSENT : ADOPTED: ATTEST: By: LEE DAYKA, City Clerk ROBERT B. LILLEY, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: ARTHER MONTANDON, City Attorney MARK JO H, D ector of Adminis Vativeervices • c\myadjust • MIDYEAR BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS BY FUND, BY DEPARTMENT EXHIBIT I EFFECTED DEPARTMENTS ONLY CURRENT INCREASED REVISED DEPT DEPARTMENT NAME BUDGET AMOUNT BUDGET FUND 001 - GENERAL FUND 150 City Manager 129, 175 4, 000 133, 175 200 Police 2, 053, 140 178 2, 053, 318 300 Fire 1 , 146, 770 17, 722 1 , 164, 492 410 PW Admin. /Engineering 367, 480 21 , 530 389, 010 500 Community Development 773, 410 22, 279 795, 689 605 Parks, Recreation 8 Zo6-Admin. 53, 985 2, 500 56, 485 710 Personnel 114, 625 1 , 750 116, 375 720 Finance 274, 400 8, 000 282, 400 820 Non-Department 450, 293 14, 500 464, 793 GENERAL FUND SUBTOTAL 92, 459 FUND 200 - DIAL-A-RIDE ENTERPRISE 450 Dial-A-Ride Operations 291 , 655 96, 738 388, 393 FUND 201 - WASTEWATER ENTERPRISE 430 Wasterwater Operations 801 , 585 74, 564 876, 149 FUND 501 - C. O. P. CONSTRUCTION 900 Capital Improvements 411 , 900 209, 595 621 , 495 FUND 550 - POLICE IMPACT FEES 900 Capital Improvements 0 14, 045 14,045 FUND 575 - FIRE IMPACT FEES 900 Capital Improvements 47, 000 18, 610 65, 610 FUND 600 - PARKS IMPACT FEES 900 Capital Improvements 65, 900 6, 777 72, 677 FUND 710 - TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES 900 Capital Improvements 140, 000 8, 000 148, 000 FUND 740 - BU-ILDING/GROUNDS/EQUIP. IMPACT FEES 900 Capital Improvements 55, 050 33, 416 88, 466 • FUND 745 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT/ENGINEERING IMPACT FEES 900 Capital Improvements 31 , 000 1 , 913 32, 913 07-Mar-91 • RESOLUTION NO. 23-91 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO TO INCREASE THE SALARY OF THE PARKS, RECREATION AND ZOO DIRECTOR Be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Atascadero : Section 1 . That the monthly salary of the Parks, Recreation and Zoo Director shall be increased 5 percent from $4,393.70 per month to $4 ,613.39. Section 2. That this resolution shall take effect January 1 , 1991 . On motion by Councilperson , and seconded by Councilperson , the following resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety, by the following Roll Call Vote. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ADOPTED: ATTEST: By: LEE DAYKA, City Clerk ROBERT B. LILLEY, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: ARTHER MONTANDON, City Attorney MARK JOSEI Dirkjtar of Admi Vtrative Services • • REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL ITEM: n-S FROM: Parks and Recreation Commission DATE: 3/12/91 SUBJECT: RENAMING OF THE PARRS, RECREATION AND ZOO DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION: The Parks and Recreation Commission recommends to the City Council to rename the Parks, Recreation and Zoo Department name to "Community Services Department", per Parks, Recreation and Zoo Department staff's recommendation. ANALYSIS: Due to the incorporation of the Facility Maintenance and Streets Division into the Parks, Recreation and Zoo Department, it is • important for the public to know which Department to call for their needs. Staff feels that the present department name does not recognize the two additional divisions, and it is hoped that the renaming will assist the community in understanding that there are more divisions than what is presently depicted in the Department name. Staff also feels that extending the name of the Department to acknowledge each division would be too cumbersome. Staff has investigated the names of other Departments throughout the State who are mainly parks and recreation departments which are as follow: Department of Parks and Leisure Services Human Services Department Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department Cultural and Recreational Services Department Public Services Department General Services Department Recreation and Human Resources Department Community and Public Services Department Parks and Recreation Department Recreation and Leisure Services Department Recreation and Community Services Department Municipal Services Department Parks, Recreation, and Municipal Maintenance Department • Leisure Services, Zoo and Municipal Maintenance Department Parks, Recreation, Streets and Zoo Department The supervisorial staff of the Department recommended the title of "Community Services Department". • Staff feels that a specific division should not be emphasized over other divisions in the title. In order to educate the public, all news releases flyers, and brochures will emphasize the appropriate division. Listings in the phone book would be under the department name with each division listed under it. Example: CITY OF ATASCADERO DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES Recreation Division Streets Division Parks Division Facilities Division Zoo Division AJT;kv ;prz3 • I! • REPORT TO PARRS AND RECREATION COMMISSION ITEM: 6 - A STAFF REPORT FROM: Andrew J. Takata, Director DATE: 2/21/91 Department of Parks Recreation and Zoo SUBJECT: RENAMING OF THE PARRS, RECREATION AND 200 DEPARTMENT BACKGROUND: The Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed this item at their January, 1991 meeting and voted to continue it to the February Meeting to allow additional time to consider alternative Department names. One year ago, two additional divisions, Facility Maintenance and Streets, were added to the Department. It has now been determined that the divisions will remain in the Department. ANALYSIS: In order to accommodate these two additional divisions, staff feels the Department title should be renamed. Staff feels that renaming the Department will help the community understand what divisions are covered. Staff also feels that extending the name of the Department to acknowledge each division would be too cumbersome. Staff has investigated the names of other Departments throughout the State who are mainly parks and recreation departments which are as follow: Department of Parks and Leisure Services Human Services Department Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department Cultural and Recreational Services Department Public Services Department General Services Department Recreation n and Human Resources Department nt Community and Public Services Department Parks and Recreation Department Recreation and Leisure Services Department Recreation and Community Services Department Municipal Services Department Parks, Recreation, and Municipal Maintenance Department Leisure Services; Zoo and Municipal Maintenance Department The supervisorial staff of the Department recommended the title of "Community Services Department" . Staff feels that a specific division should not be emphasize other divisions in the title. d over In order to educate the public, all news releases flyers brochures will emphasize the appropriate division. Listings in and phone book would be under the department name with each divisithe on listed under it. RECOMMENDATION: The Parks and Recreation Commission recommend to the City Mana e to rename the department "Community Services Department". 9 r AJT;kv ;prz3 Parks and Recreation Commisison Minutes i utes - Approved Copy January 17, 1991 Item: 6-A ITEM 6 - NEW BUSINESS: ITEM 6-A - RENAMING OF THE PARRS RECREATION AND ZOO DEPARTMENT: Two divisions, Facility Maintenance and Street Maintenance, were temporarily relocated to the Parks, Recreation and Zoo Department in January, 1990, The City Manager has now determined to have both divisions remain permanently in the department. The City Manager has requested the Commission's recommendation as to a new name for the department. • Staff notes that with five divisions in the department, the present department name is misleading to the public and does not acknowledge all divisions. Staff suggests the department be renamed "Community Services Department" . All news releases and activity flyers will accentuate the division involved. Commissioner Cooper feels the name Community Services Department is too generalized. She also questions the logic of placement of facility and street maintenance under the department. Commissioner Meyer expresses concerns related to additional divisions, and probable impacts to department effectiveness. Commissioners discuss Commissioner Schulte's proposed title of Leisure Services, Zoo and Municipal Maintenance Department without reaching a consensus. MOTION: Commissioner Schulte moves to rename the department "Leisure Services, Zoo, and Municipal Maintenance; Commissioner Smart seconds (Motion withdrawn) Commissioners agree to continue this item one month to allow additional time to consider alternative name suggestions. Staff encourages Commissioners to call in any suggestions they may have prior to the next meeting. Commissioner Schulte recommends the department being renamed "Leisure Services, Zoo and Municipal Maintenance Department". Parks and Recreation Commission • Minutes Draft February 21, 1991 Item 6-A ITEM 6-A - RENAMING THE PARRS, RECREATION AND ZOO DEPARTMENT: This item was presented to the Commission on January 17, 1991, and was continued to the February meeting to allow additional time to consider alternative Department titles. Commissioner Meyer feels- that staff's recommendation of Community Services Department is generalized, but a name that would depict each division would be too cumbersome. Commissioner Bench feels that many people have voiced concerns to him not wanting the Department's title to be changed. Commissioner Cooper feels that the title, "Community services Department" is too generalized. Commissioner Smart feels that depicting all divisions in the Department title would be nice, but would be too lengthy to vocalize. Commissioner Schulte is comfortable with staff's recommendation of • Community Services Department, but feels all divisions should be documented in the telephone book and publications to the public. It was determined by Commissioners that the Department's title will not have an affect on the Commission's title nor their function. MOTION: Commissioner Meyer moves to recommend the renaming of the Parks, Recreation and Zoo Department to Community Services Department, per staff's recommendation; Commissioner Schulte seconds; Motion carries 3-2 (Commissioners Cooper and Bench oppose) Submitted by: Karen Vaughan Secretary to the Parks and Recreation Commission • MEETI AGENDA DATE._"J ITEM N RESOLUTION NO. 19-91 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO • SUPPORTING COUNTY SATELLITE FACILITIES IN THE NORTH COUNTY WHEREAS, The City of Atascadero strongly supports the concept of a County center north of the Cuesta Grade; and WHEREAS, Until such time as a facility is financially feasi- ble, we would urge the County to continue to locate office space for essential services in the North County; and WHEREAS , We base this conviction on the fact that local gov- ernment should make every effort to maximize the convenience of its services "to its constituency; and WHEREAS, We also firmly believe that local government should take a lead role in attempting to minimize congestion due to the required distances to obtain essential services; NOW, THEREFORE , The City of Atascadero wishes to pledge its support for any efforts to secure office space for satellite services to the North County and stands ready to assist in such endeavors . ' On motion by Councilmember seconded by Council- member , the foregoing reso ution is hereby adopted in its entirety on the following roll-call vote : AYES : NOES : ABSENT: ADOPTED: ATTEST: City of Atascadero, CA By: ROBERT B . LILLEY, Mayor LEE DAYKA, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO CORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: • ARTHER R. MONTANDON, City Attorney RAY WINDSOR, City Manager DMIA�TE- /91 MIMI - RESOLUTION NO. 15-91 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO SUPPORTING THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES IN ITS EFFORTS TO REPEAL SENATE BILL 2557 BY ENDORSING SENATE BILL 169 AND IMPLEMENTING THE VEHICLE LICENSE FEE (VLF) WHEREAS, -the City of Atascadero is on record strongly opposing SB-25579 an ill-conceived piece of legislation which Pits local governments against each other in the struggle for diminishing revenues, instead of addressing legitimate and demonstrated County fiscal needs, burdened largely by State mandates; and WHEREAS, the City of Atascadero recognizes that , in order to have the State Legislature reconsider this matter , it will require the wholehearted support and cooperation of every county, school district and city; and WHEREAS, the League of California Cities has proposed a solution (SB 169) which will provide additional revenue for • counties without the necessity of a tax increase; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Atascadero City Council does hereby endorse SB 169 to : 1 . Freeze the vehicle license fee depreciation schedule for one additional year ; 2. Retain the County taxing authority with respect to business license and utility users tax contained in SB 2557; and 3. Repeal all other provisions of SB-2557. On motion by Councilperson by Councilperson , and seconded ion is hereby adopted in its entirety, by thehfollowing1Roll CallforeongtVote. AYES: NOES : ABSENT: ADOPTED: • ATTEST: • By: LEE DAYKA, City Clerk ROBERT B. LILLEY , Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: ARTHER MONTANDON City Attorney • • • REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL MeetingDate:te: 3f22/91 CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item• A-8 Through : Ray Windsor , City Manager From Lee Dayka , City Clerk SUBJECT: Adoption of fees related to notarial services. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No . 18-91 establishing maximum fees, as set forth by the Government Code, for notary services. BACKGROUND- On February 4, 1991 , I was appointed by the Secretary of State as a Notary Public; to act for and on behalf of the City of Atascadero . I have taken the Oath of Office before the County • Clerk and have filed the required $10,000 bond . California Government Code Section 9205 makes it the duty of a notary public to provide notary services to all persons who present a proper request and pay the required fees. These fees are set forth pursuant to Government Code Sections 8206, 8211 and 8223. In addition, Section 8202.5 specifies that when a public entity pays the bond premiums and other commission related fees, monies received for providing notarial services must be remitted to same. DISCUSSION: By formally adopting fees for notary services, the City can establish an accounting system for commission related fees and revenues. Although the fiscal impact is riot great, the City will now be in a position to offer an additional service to the public , as well as streamline its own official transactions. Attachments: Proposed Resolution No . 18-91 • RESOLUTION NO. 18-91 • A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA ESTABLISHING FEES FOR NOTARIAL SERVICES WHEREAS, Sections 8206, 8211 and 8223 of the Government , Code provide that certain fees may be collected for notarial services; and WHEREAS, it is appropriate to establish such fees to offset notary commission fees paid by the City of Atascadero . NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the Atascadero City Council does hereby adopt the following fees for notarial services: Acknowledgments $ 5.00 per signature Jurats $ 5.00 per signature Immigration Forms $10.00 for each set of forms, not including fee for Jurat or acknowledgment • Depositions $10.00 for all deposition services, not including $2.00 for oath and $2.00 for certificate Protest of Nonpayment $ 4 .00 Notice of Protest $ 2 . 00 Recording a Protest $ 2.00 Photocopy of a Journal Entry $ .30 per copy of a Notary journal entry On motion by Councilmember , seconded by Councilmember , the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: • Resolution 18-91 Page 2 ADOPTED: By: ROBERT 8. LILLEY, Mayor ATTEST: LEE DAYKA City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: AR ER ON AN ON, ity Attorney APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: i RAY WINDSOR, City Manager • REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL • CITY OF ATASCADERO Age nda Item: B-1 (A&B) Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 3/12/91 Pile #: Ardilla Road Extension From: Henry Engen, Community Development Director V*, SUBJECT: Ardilla Road Extension/Tree Removal Request and related appeal by Joan O'Keefe of the Negative Declaration ration pro osed for the exten- sion of Ardilla Road. RECOMMENDATION: • A. Approval of mitigated Negative Declaration posted on January 19, 1991. B. Approval of tree removals for the proposed road extension, subject to the recommended mitigation measures in the Nega- tive Declaration. BACKGROUND: This matter was last on the City Council' s agenda on January 22, 1991. It commenced as an appeal by Joan O'Keefe on October 30, 1990, of the Negative Declaration that had originally been posted on October 10th of 1990. There was no staff report at that time owing to the resignation of the City's Arborist and the matter was continued to January 8, 1991. At that meeting, the Council considered the City Attorney's opinion relative to the legal issues raised and continued the matter to the January 22nd, 1991 meeting to allow for a reposting of the proposed mitigated Nega- tive Declaration, based on the applicant submitting drawings reflecting the mitigation measures. Since then, .the applicant has submitted revised plans following a meeting in the field with City staff and the consulting City Arborist. ANALYSIS• Staff believes that the environmental work undertaken in response to the application to extend Ardilla Road meets the test outlined by the City Attorney. Specifically, this segment of Ardilla Road was covered as part of the Long Valley Ranch EIR prepared in • 1979, and certified by the Department of Real Estate. That EIR noted the existance of some 243 lots that had the theoretical ability to be subdivided into some 494 lots or an additional 251 parcels. Approximately 14% of this increase has been realized • with the addition of some 36 lots through subsequent lot splits. The segment of Ardilla Road being proposed for extension would complete the local neighborhood street system, albeit at the expense of trees that would have to be taken as a result of ex- tending said road. The revised plan calls for the removal of a total of 210 trees of which 194 are Live Oaks and Valley Oaks for the road extension, and an additional 16 are designated in potential driveway locations. The applicant has not committed to positioning houses at those exact locations, but this analysis reflects the scale of impact involved. Some 46 trees are 20 inches or more, or heritage trees under the current Tree Ordinance, requiring City Council approval for removal. As indicated in the attached Arborist's report by Chuck Scovell, a large retaining wall is proposed to save a 48" Live Oak (#50) . Staff has prepared what is termed an "Expanded Initial Study" to deal with the issues unique to the project. There have been allegations of geologic- problems on the property and the developer has submitted a geologic report, whose recommendations have been incorporated into the proposed mitigated Negative Declaration The geologic report has found that the landslides identified in the EIR have stabilized and that road and single family residential development may be safely undertaken subject to appropriate development standards. HE:ph • Enclosures: Project Area Maps Long Valley Ranch EIR Project Area Map Applicant' s Arborist letter r - Chuck Scovell February19 r 1991 Negative Declaration posted February 19, 1991 (refer to earlier staff reports for Geology Hazard Report) Council Reading Desk: Road Improvement Plans and related Tree Removal Drawings Staff Reports - January 22, 1991/November 27, 1990 cc: Joan O'Keefe Bill Barnes Tom Vaughan • r QZEA MAP Lands of Atascadero Highlands etal. in the vicinity of the proposed Ardilla Road extension APN's 050-141-19,28,29,30,31,32; and APN's 050-151-02,05,06,07 ' Ci i \ r Ir • �� A 1 � i 1 i i 4040 o RS ( y .t o s • + . i V `yi. hyo }F IL wi T VL ©. • w � Ou Ao ,, � �; ;ate .. • o i •. i � i 90 ��� � t +'aVF .�, .� °' �C �-�`' ,� �• \. t• i. t �•s. J •f 1 r / ire INN IN WV ��\.���?�F' '' �. ���y tY1 dirt s�1i•� LONG VALLEY RANCHES EIR 1000 2000' PROJECT sjTE Includes ptn. of Graves Creek (See text} Q Q d SCOVELL TREE SURGERY , P.O. BOX 1375 PASO ROBLES,CALIFORNIA 93446 805/238-0654 • February 19, 1991 City of Atascadero 6500 Palma - Atascadero, CA 93422 �. Subject: Ardilla Road Alignment On January 24, 1991, an on-site inspection was done by City staff, Wes Conner (Tree Consultant for the City), Bill Barnes, and me. The following list reflects our suggested treatment of trees tagged and numbered by the City Consultant (numbers used are City Consultant's): # 3 Save w/trim # 25 Save w/trim # 4 Remove # 26 Save w/trim # 6 Save # 27 Save w/trim # 7 Save # 29 Save w/trim # 8 Save # 31 Save w/trim # 9 Save # 34 Save w/trim #10 Save # 35 Save w/trim #14 Save w/retaining w/trim # 36 Remove #15 Save w/trim # 39 Remove #20 Save w/retaining w/trim # 99 Save • #24 Save w/trim #100 Save Most of the trees tagged by the City Consultant were designated to be saved. Two trees, listed as numbers 20 and 14, have recommended retaining walls to preserve ahem. #14 was commonly agreed upon to be a substantially sized heritage tree that warrants special-attention. It has a 48" diameter base and appears to be in good health. The road was realigned to avoid most of the dripline and a study was done to implement a retaining wall to limit the grading under the dripline. This proposed retaining wall will measure 80' long and 8' high on the up-hill side of the slope, keeping at least 20' away from the main stem of the tree. See additional information sheet provided by Surveyor showing complete dimensions and grades. A minimum of 80% of feeder roots and support roots should remain intact if retaining wall is used. The tree tagged #20 by the City Consultant should have enough clearance after the road is realigned to allow it to live without a need for a retaining wall to protect the root zone. It should also be noted that the new tree count for removal is 210. This includes trees that are located in projected driveways for possible future building sites. Sincerely, Chuck Scovell Certified Arborist #346 CS:skh _ D1.si�P R467, �tIIMG WAL 5Tvn \ • 1 Y ' ' • FO�e 'PR�SE�L�AT1oN D�¢g" CMAE ,AV. cr ' 294 � ll 4/ `� 50 293 Ur ,n 292 ` I - \\ \ 0, 289 ' 14C1 87 CITY OF ATASCADERO ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATO NEGATIVE DECLARATIO Y* COMMUNUY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 6500 PALMA AVE. ATASCADERO. CA 93422 (805) 461-5035 APPLICANT: Atascadero Highlands 10385 Santa Ana Atascadero, CA 93423 (805) 466-2826 PROJECT TITLE: Ardilla Road Extension PROJECT LOCATION: Ardilla Road between Graves Creek Road and Balboa Road PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construction of an extension of Ardilla Road to serve existing parcels zoned for single-family residential development. 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. DETERNMNATION: 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 Enge Community evelopment Director Date Posted: February 19, 1991 Date Adopted: • CDD 11-M NEGATIVE DECLARATION RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES ARDILLA ROAD E I XTEN3 ON 1 . Tree #110 shall be retained by realignment of the proposed extension of Ardilla Road as shown on the Improvement Plans dated 2-15-91 . 2 . Tree #50 can be retained by realignment of the proposed extension of Ardilla Road and acquisition of a slope easement on the adjacent, down-hill parcel, or through construction of retaining walls in the vicinity of the tree. 3 . The recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Engineering Field Exploration report dated October 27, 1989 shall be implemented. 4 . The on-site inspector shall insure that all soil erosion and sediment control measures are in place at all times. 5 . The on-site inspector shall insure that all tree protection measures specified on the Improvement Plans are in-place and maintained through the life of the project . 6 . All trees removed as part of the construction of the Ardilla • Road extension shall be replaced with similar species trees of a minimum five (5) gallon size at a ratio of 2 :1 . Replacement trees shall be planted within the project area. Alternatively, a contribution of two hundred ($200) per tree removed may be made to the City' s Tree Replacement Fund. A combination of tree planting and cash contribution to satisfy the tree replacement requirement is acceptable. 7 . If any cultural or archaeological resources are encountered during the course of construction, all work shall cease and appropriate authorities shall be consulted prior to the commencement of any further construction. • r -- CITY OF ATASCADERO ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATOR ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORpo COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 6500 PALMA AVE, ATASCADERO, CA 93422 (805)461-5035 Please type or print clearly to ink. Incomplete forms wtU be returned. GENERAL WFORMATION Applicant: Address: AA A2,C' Co% f?D. P3ox Z84-5 v Phone 43+e3 #: � � Project Address: Avrf i • 50- 1 1 - 14,t .�q.'3013t,3aC w �So-t5t-t,5,�,7,8Cip1Er•� Assessor's Parcel #: 570 - 7 34-,35,36(PQ Legal Description: A�d 1 IQ I�raa . b fw t .��va s C v ( a r-d E3ae l b Q List and describe any other permits or public agency(Federal. State or local) approvals required for this project: r'hP_ Proposed Use of Site: TWd PROJECT DESt^Rlzmnrt; • I. , Site area (in acres): 146t 2. Square footage of buildings: ,U IA 3. Square footage of parking areas: SIAL 4. Number of on-site parking spaces: 5. Describe proposed scheduling: 40 bU 14 a t� 5Gb tT a5 4 wM Vet 6. Describe associated projects: t1Qtl°e 7. If residential. include the number of units,schedule of unit sizes, anticipated sale prices or rents. and anticipated household size. NIA 8. If commercial, indicate the type (neighborhood.regional. etca. and square footage of sales areas. N1*1 9• If industrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift.and products/byproducts produced. Hl-q 10. If institutional. indicate major functions. estimated employment per shift, estimated occupancy. and community benefits to be derived from the project. N/A • ENVfRONMENT i. SETTING`. 1. Describe the project site as it exists before thero ect. Including p j ding information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals. availability of utilities, and any cultural, historlcal or scenic aspects. Describe any existing structures on the site. and the use of the structures. 2. Describe the surrounding properties. including information on plants and animals, and any cultural. historical. or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land use (residential. commercial, etc,), intensity of development, and scale of development (building height, setback. etc.). ENVIRONVEML EFFECTS Are the following MtGaW effects of your project? Provide a written response to each item checked"YES". YES �Q 1. Change in eadsting features of any stream. swale, drainage pattern. or substantial alteration to existing topography? See piQrt (� ❑ 2. . Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas, public lands, or roads? ❑ 0 3. Change in pattern. scale. or character of the general area of the project? ❑ • 4. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter? ❑ 5. Change in dust, ash. smoke, fumes. or oders in vicinity? ❑ 6. Change in stream or ground water quality or quantity? ❑ Q� 7. Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels? ❑ S. Is the site on ed land or on slo es of 1 or more? 13some 61VPQes d"ee� ioo, 9. use or disposal of hazardous materials? ❑ 2-o' 10. Substantial change in demand for municipal services? ❑ 11. Substantial increase in fossil fuel consumption? ❑ 12. Is the project related to a larger project or series of projects? ❑ �� 13. Removal of. or grading within the dripline of mature trees? L7 ❑ See Pio►rt Discuss in detail the other development • p alternatives that were considered for this site'or project. Explain why each of the alternatives was rejected. Provide any additional information that you believe will be beneficial in the mental affects of your project. Such additional supportinganalysis °fth �Potential environ- data may include. Maps Photographs Charts Drainage Studies Soils Reports Geologic Reports Archaeological Reports Traffic Studies CEEMFICAMON I hereby certify that the statements • furnished above. and in the attached exhibits. present the data and information required for this initial evaluation, to the best of my ability. and that the facts. statements. and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. R Signature Date CWUW • r CITY OF ATASCADERO ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATOR INITIAL STUDY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 6500 PALMA AVE. ATASCADERO,CA 93422 (805)461-5035 I. BACKGROUND: 1. Proposal Title: Ardilla Road Extension 2. File Number(s): N/A 3. Brief Description of Proposal: An extension of Ardilla Road to serve existing parcels zoned for single—family residential use. II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are provided on attached sheets.) YES MAYBE NO 1. Edith. Will the proposal result in: • a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures) ❑ ❑ b. Disruptions,displacements,compaction or overcovering of the soil? 0 ❑ c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? 0 ❑ ❑ Y d. The destruction,covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical ❑ 0 r features? 1:1 e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils,either on or off the site? ❑ 0 ❑ f. Changes in siltation,.deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of any lake? ❑ ❑ ❑ g. Exposure of people or property to geological hazards such as earthquakes, landslides,mudslides,ground failure,or similar hazards? ❑ ❑ 0 ' 2. Alt• Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? ❑ ❑ ❑ b. The creation of objectionable odors? ❑ ❑ 0 c. Alteration of air movement,moisture,temperature,or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? ❑ ❑ ❑ • 3. Water Will the proposal result in: MAYBE CLQ a. Changes in currents,or the course or direction of water movements? ❑ ❑ X❑ ' b. Changes in absorption rates,drainage patterns,or the rate and amount of • surface runoff? X❑ ❑ c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood water? ❑ ❑ X❑ d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? ❑ ❑ 0 e. Discharge into surface waters or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to,temperature,dissolved oxygen or turbidity? ❑ ❑ X❑ f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? ❑ ❑ X❑ g. Change in the quantity of ground waters,either through direct additions or withdrawals,or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? ❑ ❑ X❑ h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? ❑ ❑ ❑ i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? ❑ ❑ 0 4. 1?l nt d . Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species,or number of any species of plants(in- cluding trees,shrubs,grass,crops,aquatic plants)? 0 ❑ ❑ b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, • rare,or endangered species of plants? ❑ ❑ ❑X c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area,or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? 7 ❑ d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? ❑ ❑ Q 5. Animal Life, Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species,or numbers of any species of animals(birds, land animals including reptiles,fish and shellfish,benthic organisms,or in- sects)? a ❑ ❑ b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique,rare,or endangered species of animals? ❑ ❑ ❑ c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area,or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? ❑ 7X ❑ 6. lyse Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? ❑X ❑ ❑ b. Exposure of people to severe noise? ❑ ❑ ❑X 7. Light and-Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? 7 ❑ ❑ • YES M0Y$ig N 8. LandUse Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? ❑ ❑ ❑X • 9. Natural Reaeu_ya& Will the-proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? ❑ ❑ ❑X b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? ❑ ❑ ❑X 10. Risk of U2.qel. Will the proposal involve: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances(including,but not limited to,oil,pesticides,chemicals or radiation)in the event of an accident ❑ ❑ FX upset conditions? b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency ❑ evacuation plan? 0 U. Population Will the proposal alter the location,distribution,density,or growth rate of the human population of an area? 0 ❑ ❑ 12. Ho,uning. Will the proposal affect existing housing,or create a demand for additional housing? ❑ ❑ 0 13. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movements? ❑ 0 ❑ • b. Effects on existing parking facilities or demand for new parking? ❑ ❑ 0 c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? ❑ Q ❑ d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? ❑ ❑ ❑ e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? ❑ ❑ f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? ❑ 0 El 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon,or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ b. Police protection? 0 ❑ ❑ c. Schools? ❑ ❑ d. Parks or other recreational facilities? ❑X ❑ ❑ e. Maintenance of public facilities,including roads? ❑ ❑ ❑ f. Other governmental services? ❑ ❑ ❑ • MAYBF 15. Enemy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? ® • b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy,or require the development of new sources of energy? 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems,or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? ❑ ❑ b. Communications systems? ❑ ❑ 0; c. Water? ❑ 7 d. Sewer or septic tanks? ❑ 0 e. Storm water drainage? �X f. Solid waste and disposal? 0 17. Human H al h_ Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard(excluding mental health)? ❑ b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? 18. Aeatr..h:tirg. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public,or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? ❑ 19. Reandm Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? ❑ ❑ 20. Cultural R ao+r Pa, a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric archaeological site? ❑ b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building,structure,or object? ❑ ❑ c. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ❑ YES MAYBE NQ 21. Mandator;Findings nf Aivnifiranra a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major a a periods of California history or prehistory? a b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term,to the disadvantage of long-term,environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief,definitive period of time while long- term impacts will endure well into the future.) ❑ ❑ 0 c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited,but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate Iresources where the impact on each resource is relatively small,but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) ❑ 0 ❑ d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or indirectly? ❑ ❑ ❑ Id DEI IIiM M'IION On the basis of this initial study: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ • I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project,and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑X I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on.the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ Date: February 19, 1991 enry ungen Community DeAcrdinator pment D tor/ Environmental ATTACHMENTS: Explanations Location Map Project Map Environmental Information Form • CDD 890 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES ARDILLA ROAD EXTENSION 1 .a. See attached Geologic Report dated October 16, 1989 and report dated October 27, 1989 (re: Geotechnical Engineering Field Exploration) regarding the extent of any geologic hazards or unstable earth conditions . b. The grading necessary for the construction of Ardilla Road will result in the displacement and compaction of the native soils .- The extent of the grading for this road is no greater than would be anticipated for any road building project of this magnitude. The compaction of the soil is unavoidable, and in most cases, is required for the purposes of obtaining a stable road bed. Additional grading resulting in overcovering and compaction of native soils will occur as a result of construction of homes on the parcels accessed by the proposed extension of Ardilla Road. C . The grading required for the construction of the road • will change the topography and ground surface relief features in the immediate vicinity of the construction. Changes in drainage localized patterns will be accommodated through dikes and ditches constructed as part of the road. e. Construction activity will remove native grasses and other vegetation exposing the surface soil to rain and wind which may cause soil erosion. Soil that is stockpiled may also be, subject to wind or water erosion. Soil erosion and sedimentation controls should be imposed as part of any road improvement plans. f. If not properly controlled, soil which is eroded from the construction area may be transported to Graves Creek. Such siltation could adversely affect the channel of the Creek. Soil erosion and sedimentation control methods should be installed prior to the commencement of construction activities, and should be monitored through the life of the project . g. Although the project area is shown as a potential landslide hazard area in the City' s General Plan, no evidence of such hazard was discovered during site specific geotechnical testing. See attached Geologic • Report dated October 16, 1989 and report dated October 27, 1989 (re: Geotechnical Engineering Field Exploration) . 3 .b. Compaction of the soil in the area affected by the construction of the road will alter and increase storm water runoff. Grading that is done will alter local drainage patterns . Drainage facilities will be constructed in conjunction with the road which will redirect the drainage and avoid adverse impacts on adjacent parcels . Eventual development of the residential lots accessed by the proposed extension of Ardilla Road will also alter local drainage patterns . Drainage facilities will be constructed in conjunction with the road and driveways which will avoid adverse impacts on the road and adjacent properties . 4 .a. The construction of the road will necessitate the removal of 194 Live Oak and Valley Oak trees . An additional 16 oak trees could be removed if driveways are constructed as shown on the conceptual driveway and house site plans . Forty six of these trees have a dbh in excess of 20 inches which makes them "Heritage Trees" as defined by the City' s Tree Ordinance. The City' s consulting arborist has recommended the removal of two additional trees located outside the bounds of • the project for health reasons . Two trees (#50 and #110) of heritage size can be retained through movement of the road and/or construction of retaining walls. These two trees are not included in the totals above. The revised plans show these trees to be retained. C. Grading and the soil compaction necessary to construct the road may result in a barrier to the natural replenishment of the vegetation removed. Future residential development of the parcels accessed by the road may likewise inhibit natural replenishment of native plant species . 5 .a. The removal of the natural vegetation necessary to accommodate road -construction will affect the native animals dependent upon that vegetation as a source of food and shelter. Eventual development of the adjacent parcels for residential uses will also impact the number and diversity of animals which utilize the area. The most severely impacted will be those species with the least tolerance for contact with humans. • 2 b. No rare or endangered species of wildlife have been identified as resident within the affected area. C . To the extent that new residents of the area accessed by the extension of Ardilla Road have, or acquire, domestic animals, new species of animals will be introduced into the area. Free roaming dogs may discourage certain wildlife species from using the area and livestock (horses, etc. ) may compete for food sources with native wildlife. 6 .a. Noise levels will be elevated during construction of the road due to the operation of construction equipment . Hours of operation of the construction equipment will be limited by the Zoning Ordinance. There are a limited number of residences that will be directly affected by the increased noise levels . The duration of the increased noise levels will be limited to the construction period of the road. Use of the road by motorized vehicles after its construction will increase ambient noise levels in areas near the road. 8 . The area to be accessed by the new road has been designated on the City' s General Plan and Zoning Maps for single family residential use. No change in the planned land use of the area is proposed or anticipated as a result of providing access to the area. There are no known plans for further subdivision of the parcels to be accessed by the extension of Ardilla Road. It would be of little value to speculate as to attempts to subdivide any or all of the subject parcels . Application of current planning standards and the provisions of the City' s Subdivision Ordinance to this property argues against further subdivision. 11 . The population of the immediate area accessed by the road can be expected to increase as a result of the construction of single family homes . The population increase is anticipated by the General Plan, however. 13.a. The extension of Ardilla Road will provide access to twelve (12) single family parcels . If each parcel is developed, and if it is assumed that each dwelling will generate ten (10) vehicle trips per day, a total of 120 additional vehicle trips may be generated from the subject area. This number of trips may be seen by existing residents of the area as a significant increase in traffic volumes on the streets leading to the area. 3 • C . See response to item 13 .a. above. • d. The extension of Ardilla Road will provide for improved circulation through the affected residential area and will complete a portion of the originally proposed circulation plan. f. See response to items 13 .a. above. 14 . a - f. Increased demands on all public services can be anticipated as a result of the residential development that is expected to follow the construction of the Ardilla Road extension. The density and number of dwelling units planned is within the limits established by the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The parcels to be accessed are existing legal lots that can be developed after access is secured and building permits are issued. The construction of the road extension will not increase the planned land use of the subject area. Development fees and property taxes will be utilized to offset the cost of providing the required governmental services . 16 .c. The eventual development of the affected parcels for • residential use will require the provision of a potable water supply. The Atascadero Mutual Water Company has, in the past, advised that adequate supplies of water are available to serve anticipated residential growth. Water lines to serve the residential parcels will be extended within the Right-of-Way of Ardilla Road. No distinguishable environmental effects should occur as a result of the installation of the water lines with road construction. d. Waste disposal from new single family dwellings will be handled on-site by septic tanks and leachfields . All public health and building code requirements will be met in the design of the individual waste disposal systems . e. An extension of Ardilla Road and the construction of additional single family dwellings will increase the amount, duration, and velocity of storm water runoff. The road improvement plans contain provisions for handling storm water runoff. The site design for future single family homes will address site specific storm water runoff both on and off site. • 4 18 . The grading necessary for road construction, and the removal of native trees may be aesthetically offensive • to some observers, particularly those already residing in the immediate area. 20 . No known archaeological resources exist in the area that would be impacted by road construction activities . Standard conditions regarding archaeological resources will be attached to the project which will require all work to cease until an appropriate authority has reviewed the site if any cultural resources are encountered during the course of construction. 21 .c . The impacts of the proposed construction of the Ardilla Road extension on native flora and fauna may be seen by some observers as significant . These impacts have been reduced through alternative construction techniques, and will be mitigated, in part, through planting of replacement trees . However, unless the City or some other organization is willing and able to acquire the property and preserve it in an undisturbed state, some impact to the environment as a result of the construction of a road and dwellings is inevitable. Revised 2-19-91 • 5 i i � v Cq �ti0 COL I tAA RD. a �y°c�� z } SI A 2 ROM Lobos IEC REgL +3 h ( RD. �`r PO Rp.\ q4 IOI , PAI jEREy NA EL •� i t� R\`' EG / RQ. VENAC p� MARI PA Q z ;a�� 'O 'q�Q� L� PQ• ,y� � n SITErr -- P r SaN FF 00 1 Ry4N 9eF� RD. C► RD ` q 0ACEI ATASCADERO RD. VICINITY MAP N. T.S. i { E r f/ March 7 1991 RFP.FIF.1) 9985 Old Morro Rd. East MAR Atascadero, Ca 93422 COMMUNITY CEYEIpPmENT Re: Negative Declaration, 2-19-91 Ardilla Rd. Extension Appeal Dear Mr. Engen; I am appealing the finding of a Negative Declaration for the Ardilla Road extension project. By arrangement with the City the previous filing fee for the appeal of the Negative Declaration for the Ardilla Road extension, posted prematurely, is applied to this appeal, the second posting of the Negative Declaration. I have reviewed the Initial Study and I do not agree with findings 1, 2 and 3. The Initial Study does not adequately address the cumulative impacts of this project on the environment and to the people living in Atascadero. This project, the extension of . 66 miles of Ardilla Rd, is really only one phase of a larger project which will be the construction of twelve single familyparcels. T he Declaration of February 19, 1991 ontheArdillaRd Negative Extension, hereafter referred to as The Report, does not address the possibility of future lot splits which could increase this number. Subdivision is a common occurrence in Atascadero, and the planning department has within its means the ability to forecast (not speculate) future developments on and beyond the project site. Indeed, it has the responsibility to do so (art.15144) . The City has a formula for minimum lot size in this area. Lot splits have already occurred on this section of Ardilla Road. The lots are relatively large. Suggesting building sites and driveways does not assure that the impacts on vegetation, wild life, aesthetics and grading will be minimized. Making it a condition to identify and record driveways and building envelopes will assure minimizing the impacts. Without these conditions it is impossible to know what this project will look like when it is completed. This also adds to the difficulty of discussing the project and to evaluate its environmental impacts. Following is a list of the items which I believe were not covered in sufficient detail or were not considered in your report. I. Earth and 3 Water. In l.b, p.l, staff states, Additional grading resulting in overcovering and compaction of native soils will occur as a result of construction of homes on the parcels accessed by the proposed extension of Ardilla Road. " However, since no plans exist it is impossible to assess the impacts or to mitigate them. This also applies to 3.b, p.2. Drainage, soil erosion and sediment control have been a problem in this area, for example, the Dovica Tract which is in the immediate vicinity (see enclosure 5) . The Initial Study, Environmental Checklist, Supplemental Responses, p.l says in (1)e and (1) f there may be a problem with wind or water erosion. In (3) b, page 2, the report states there will be changes in drainage and surface runoff. The mitigation measure for addressing these impacts does not state what control measures will be installed and how they will be monitored. Public Resources Code Sec. 21081.6. "Reporting and monitoring programs for project changes implementing mitigation findings or negative declarations, states that "the public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program . . . in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. " This information does not appear in the report. In Sundstrom v.County of Mendocino another important principle is that the Negative Declaration cannot be based on the presumed success of mitigation measures that have not been formulated at the time of project approval. In the words of Atascadero planner Doug Davidson (see enclosure 5) "How can the Community Development Department issue an environmental determination if it does not have all the necessary information? The Engineering Division also now operates under these guidelines and procedures. . . . You do not need to be a land use attorney to realize the significance of Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino for review of development projects . . . In summary, the court found that "determining mitigation measures after, rather than prior to, the adoption of the negative declaration conflicted with CEQA's policy requiring review at the earliest feasible stage in the planning process. " Furthermore, the court determined that "reliance on a future study improperly removed review of the studies from the CEQA process, precluding public scrutiny and review by other agencies." (see enclosure 5) 4. Plant Life a. and c. The Initial Study, p.2 indicates there will be significant impacts on plant life. Mitigation measure 12 is deficient. It states that "Tree 050 can be retained by realignment of the proposed extension of Ardilla Road and acquisition of a slope easement on the adjacent, down-hili parcel, or through construction of retaining walls in the vicinity of the tree. " The applicant should be required to comply with one of the two options. The word "can" implies a possibility, not a requirement. Mitigation measure 16 requires a replacement at a 2:1 ratio. It does not make any provisions to get the trees established or replaced if they don't survive. This is especially important in times of drought. A tree protection plan was not included with the Report. I have no way of knowing if 2 the consulting arborist, Wes Conner's recommendations are being followed or for that matter if there is a tree protection plan. (See Enclosure 2) The importance of having well defined and clear mitigation measures and plans became obvious when many more trees than were approved were removed on the Garcia Road extension project in September 1990. (see enclosure 2) Staff's report does not state that many, many trees had already been removed when the city allowed a rough cut extension on Ardilla to be constructed without permits or plans. The proposed road extension visually appears to be on the flattest part of the terrain. What remains for building sites appears to be moderate to steep slopes . The geological report describes the land as steeply sloping terrain. Many more trees will have to come out when driveways, building pads and septic go in. Lisa Schicker, consulting arborist, in her report to City Council, 1-22-91 states, "It is difficult to propose a Tree Protection Plan for road construction as an isolated activity when it is known that even without further lot splits, between ten and twelve driveways will be cutting up and down the hillsides along Ardilla Road Extension, perhaps taking out those very trees that are part of the Tree Protection Plan prepared by the arborist. It sees an important issue and one that needs to be discussed as soon as possible for every proposed road project in Atascadero. How are the lots along the length of Ardilla Road to be accessed and how will these driveways affect subsequent tree removal and any tree protection that is place along that roadway in the near future?" Some driveways and building sites are suggested. None of the locations are requirements. It is not known where houses, septics or driveways will go and how many more trees will be lost. In addition to the trees which will have to be removed the remaining plant and animal life will also be impacted as the assessment indicates but no attempt to mitigate the impact has been made. 5.a. I agree that this has a very significant impact on the wildlife of the area. The Ardilla Road extension lies within the Long Valley Ranches project. The EIR for the Long Valley Ranches project identified (enclosure 6, pages A-38,A-39) 24 mammal, 17 reptile and amphibian, and 49 bird species that would be "expected to regularly use the site. . . ". More importantly, in response to the Draft EIR the Department of Fish and Game (enclosure 1, Memorandum to Bill Vierra from Dept. of Fish and Game, May 3, 1979) states : "We have reviewed the draft EIR closely, and have noted the mitigating measures proposed to alleviate or minimize some of our concerns. it is our view, however, that this project, if completed, will have a significant adverse impact on the areas' wildlife, even with the suggested mitigation. 3 .. T Our main concern is for the substantial change in land use should the area be developed, and the effect this changed use will have on the native wildlife species. Even though we realize this particular EIR is for approval of the subdivision only, and not for the development and construction of roads, homes, etc. , it is appropriate at this time to consider the expected development. The expected development will remove habitat, and, of course, irreversibly alter wildlife use patterns for this 1500-acre parcel. These impacts could be lessened by requiring building and driveway envelopes on the lower portion of the lots closest to the road with most of the land surface being left in green belt. It is important to note that the mitigation measures for the Long Valley Ranches EIR were never monitored or enforced (enclosure 7, Memorandum to Henry Engen from A. Montandon, Feb. 20, 1990) , so the cumulative impacts (art. 15130) of this failure will further compound the damage of this project to the wildlife and its habitat. This significant impact, correctly identified by staff, has not been mitigated. Many possible mitigation measures have not been required or considered which might reduce it to a level of insignificance: 1. Clustering housing 2. Restricting future lot splits 3 . Preservation of open space 4. Creating protective corridors of open area 5. Restricting fencing in the residential development 6. Limiting pets and livestock per household 13 . Transportation/Circulation a. ,c,d, f. , Initial Study, p.3 . The Initial Study appears to indicate that there will be an environmental impact from additional vehicular traffic which will be generated by the development. It is the position of the appellant that the generation of only 10 additional vehicular trips per day per house is an unrealistically low standard. This standard is based on the existing General Plan which is admittedly outdated and which further has no current circulation element. The General Plan was last updated in 1980. As part of the Environmental Review Process a traffic study in the area should be undertaken and completed. 14. Public Slices. a.-f. , Initial Study, p.3 . The City of Atascadero cannot currently provided the residents in western Atascadero with adequate fire protection. Atascadero's General Plan (p.196) calls for the location of fire stations so that the City can "provide an average response time of five minutes or less to all parts of the District. While four minutes is considered 4 acceptable, anything over five minutes is unacceptable. " The recent (May 1990) Draft Fire Department Master Plan points out (p.IV-34) that ". . . it became obvious that neither . . . goal can be met within the present fire station configuration, " and further "It should be emphasized that the response time shown is only an average. If the longest response time reported were utilized, the period would be considerably longer. " The report goes on to recommend two new fire stations and their location. A recent Fiscal Analysis done for the City shows that expenditures will exceed revenues in two to four years. Clearly, there will be cutbacks in city services. But, continuing to develop in the fringe areas of the city will increase the need for services at the same time that these cutbacks will occur. The Initial Study does not address this significant impact. 16. Utilities. c.-e. Initial Study, p.3. Atascadero is experiencing a water shortage. The Draft Fire Department Master Pian (p.II-14) states, "This (pressure) system, although adequate for most daily needs is not adequate for supplying the needs of the fire protection system. It has been recommended that these pressure systems be eliminated as soon as practicable and replaced by reservoirs due to their high cost of maintenance." Yet the city continues to allow development and subdivision in the high-risk areas which are threatened by wildfires. The area is not served by city sewer. Slopes and percolation tests have not been assessed for each individual lot to determine if some adjustment in regard to lot lines need to be made or if a central sewage system should be considered for this project. The Report does not indicate if the drainage plans for this area can accommodate this increased run off when homes are built. 18. Aesthetics. Initial Study Supplemental Responses, p 5. Atascadero is a city within a forest of native oak trees or in Lisa Schickers's word, "In Atascadero, it seems that almost every construction project involves tree removal and/or tree protection, due to the fact that the City is located in one of the largest remaining oak woodlands in the state. " (Enclosure 13) With the piecemeal environmental assessment approach the City has taken the native forest is rapidly disappearing. 21. Mandatory Findings of Sicmificance. Initial Study c. The purpose of an initial study (art. 15063) is "to determine if the project may have a significant effect on the environment." Only if the significant impacts can be mitigated to a level of insignificance is a Negative Declaration appropriate. This Negative Declaration fails to do this. The proper time to discuss the reasonableness of s potential mitigation measures is after the EIR has provided the necessary information and options. •� In Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino it is set forth that a Negative Declaration cannot be based on the presumed success of mitigation measures that have not been formulated before the proposed Negative Declaration is released for public review. The following Supplemental Responses of the Initial Study do not meet the above criteria. i.e. "Soil erosion and sedimentation controls should be imposed as part of any road improvement plans. " i.f. "Soil erosion and sedimentation control methods should be installed prior to commencement of construction activities, and should be monitored through the life of the project by City inspectors. " 3 .b. "Drainage facilities will be constructed in conjunction with the road which will redirect the drainage and avoid adverse impacts on adjacent parcels." 16.e. "The site design for future single family homes will need to address storm water, runoff both on and off site. " 20. "No known archaeological resources exist in the area that would be impacted by road construction activities. Standard conditions regarding archaeological resources will be attached to the project which will require all work to cease until an appropriate authority has reviewed the site if any cultural resources are encountered during the course of construction. " 21.c. "The impacts of the proposed construction of the Ardilla Road extension on native flora and fauna may be seen by some observers as significant. These impacts will be reduced by changing the proposed construction techniques, and will be mitigated, in part, through planting of replacement trees". In addition, these principles have been violated in the following recommended mitigation measures: 2. "Tree #50 can be retained by realignment of the proposed extension of Ardilla Road and acquisition of a slope easement on the adjacent, down-hill parcel, or through construction of retaining walls in the vicinity of the tree." 6 • 3 . "The recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Engineering Field Exploration report dated October 27, 1989 shall be implemented. " 4. "The on-site inspector shall insure that all soil erosion and sediment control measures are in place at all times. " 7. "If any cultural or archaeological resources are encountered during the course of construction, all work shall cease and appropriate authorities shall be consulted prior to the commencement of any further construction. " "A project will normally have a significant effect on the environment if it will: (a) conflict with adopted environmental plans and goals of the community where it is located. (Appendix G of Title 14) ". Atascadero's General Plan has a Basic Community Goal of preserving flora and fauna (p.5) . In addition, on page 121, it states "Any transportation improvements system shall be compatible with the environment. There shall be a wise use of available resources, avoidance of despoiling irreplaceable resources, promotion of the aesthetic quality of the area and minimization of environmental change". Staff states in their report to the City Council dated 1-22- 91 that, "this segment of Ardilla Rd. was covered as part of the Long Valley Ranches EIR prepared in 1979 and certified by the Department of Real Estate. " In this area, except for one lot which was excluded from this EIR, Ardilla Rd forms the boundary of the Long Valley Ranches EIR. It is not clear if the road was included in the study. (see enclosure 6, p. 16) In addition Bill Vierra, Department of Fish and Game states in his memorandum, "Even though we realize this particular EIR is for approval of the subdivision only, and not for the development and construction of roads, homes, etc. , it is appropriate at this time to consider the expected development. " Further more none of the lots on the north side of the road were considered in the EIR. For these reason I am requesting that an EIR be completed. for this Project. OA�IV�l�il�e� • 7 LIST OF ENCLOSURES • 1. Memorandum to B. Vierra from the Department of Fish and Game, May 3, 1979. 2 . Special Report to City Council, from Lisa Schicker, Natural Resource Specialist, September 25, 1990. 3 . Report, from Greg Luke, Director of Public Works, to City Council, December 31, 1990. 4. Report, from Wes Conner, Consulting Arborist, to City Council, December 31, 1990. S. Memorandum to R. Windsor from D. Davidson, November 2, 1989. 6. EIR Long Valley Ranches: pages 15, 16, A-23, A-24, A-38, A-39. 7. Memorandum to H. Engen from A. Montandon, February 20, 1990. 8 . Letter to T. Vaughan from L. Schicker, Natural Resource Specialist, October 15, 1990 9. Report to City Council from H. Engen, January 8, 1991 10. Maps of the Ardilla Road extension and list of ownership 11. Letter from W. Barnes to S. Decamp, September 21, 1989 12. Report from Scovell Tree Surgery, February 19, 1991 13 . Report from Lisa Schicker, Consulting Arborist, to City Council, January 22, 1991 tate -9f California The R esources Agenc Memarandum Enclosure! 1h' iO M+^. Bili Vierra, Deputy Co=issioner Date: Subdivision Section May 3, 1979 California State Department.of Real Estate • 714 P Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: A7ss ( ) 485_3531 (916 ) ,445-3531 From Department of Fish and Game Subiect: SCH 790130179 Long Valley Ranches, Atascadero, SDFM Pro- ect #8'1+ 4, Department of Real Estate File No. 14P974 San Luis Obispo.County This is in response to a letter of March 29 from Mr. Bruce-Dodson, Principal,. Stuhr, Dodson, Foster and McClave, San Luis Obispo, regarding subjeCt project. Imo. Dodson requested that we direct any subsequent comments to you. . We have reviewed the draft EIR closely, and have noted the mitigating measures Proposed to alleviate or minimize some.-of our concerns. It is our vies, however, that this project, if completed, Will have a significant adverse impact on the areas wildlife, even with the suggested mitigation. `} Our main concern is for the substantial change in land use should the area be developed, and the effect this changed use will have on the native wildlife species. Even though we realize thio particular ETR is for approval of the • subdivision only, and not for the development and-construction of roads, homes, etc., it is appropriate at this time to consider the expected'development. The expected development Will remove habitat and of courseirreversibly alter wildlife use patterns for this 1500-acre parcel. ' These impacts could be lessened by a cluster type of development with most of the land surface being left in green belt* this less envi�onmerrtally -This would most likely require a recombination of the property and a new subdi4ision plant and we recommend damaging alternative be considered. If we can be of further assistance to you, please contact Mr. E. V. Toffoli, Regional MAnager, Department of Fish and Game, P.O. Box 47, Yountville, CA 91+599, telephone (707) 944_2443 FOR. irector D a^ �� • �Nc�osv re- 14 SPECIAL REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL Enclosure 219 From Lisa Schicker , Natural Resource Specialist Date : September 25 , 1990 SUBJECT: VIOLATION OF TREE ORDINANCE REGARDING HERITAGE TREE REMOVAL AND TREE PROTECTION DURING CONSTRUCTION OF GARCIA ROAD EXTENSION The proposed construction of the Garcia Road extension has been a project on my desk as long as I have worked for the City , and probably some time before that . Because of the complicated nature of this project , I would like to provide Council with a brief history of the events that have led us to the situation that we face today . In September of 1989 , I participated in a field visit ( including Public Works , Community Development and the applicants) that was to determine alternative alignments for a proposed Garcia Road that would reduce the amount of native trees that would need to be removed. On January 23 , 1990 , Council denied an application for tree removal based on the original alignment of Garcia Road extension , which would have required the removal of 150 trees ( 13 of them heritage size) and the impact caused by cut and fill on an additional 159 trees . The denial occurred because it was already known (from that meeting in August) that a more suitable alignment that would require less tre removal existed . 0 On July 10 , 1990 City Council approv- an application for tree removal that would require the removal of 69 trees ( 12 of the heritage size) and impact (caused by cut and fil an additional 75 trees. It was also said that if small shifts in the road were to occ , an additional 13 trees (3 of them heritage) could possibly be saved . This revised road plan was the result of numerous on and off site meetings , tree labeling and hours of field work by both the applicants and City staff. City Council members were escorted to the site to inspect the proposal ; Council used a map that was prepared by the applicant as a guide. This is the map that was used to prepare all o` my reports to City staff and Council . On the map , for the record, trees to be removed were marked in red , trees to be protected (and impacted by cut and fill activities) were marked in green . Several trees contained notes to offer extra protection ; such as "place retaining wall here" . All trees with a red mark on the map should have had a red ribbon in the field and were to be removed, and all green marks on the map should have corresponded to green ribbons on trees in the field , which were to be protected by permanent retaining walls and/or fencing during construction . On July 16, 1990 a letter from the Community Development Director was sent to the .applicants confirming the City Council ' s approval to remove 69 trees (or less if possible) for the purposes of Garcia Road - -- i Enclosure 2,6 construction . The applicants had agreed to pay $200 for each tree removed less any re-Survd the COSal (that 69,tdees orOne to less) wasVe the to be additional 13 trees) and the final tally determined in the field . On August 16 , 1990 , the applicant and the Public Works signed the it for doing the work for Garcia Road papers for the encroachment perm Extension . At this time a set of supplemental encroachment permit conditions were received and signed by the applicants . The conditions �- for tree removal were outlined in these permit conditions, stating that all tree_ protection activities be conducted according to the approved plans and the results of City Council action. In ntheh conditions onrk iti o was t y also Stated that City s�afr may or may state that the Public Works be done . The conditions additionally Director be contacted by the project engineer for any requested field changes . On August 22 , 1.990 , a p reconstruction meeting was held for all of those ntative from involved with the work about toltake place . Aateptheemeeting that res Public Works attended the meeting . ee was designated as the project Doug Brown from Twin Cities Engineering but another m_proje f engineer ; fie was unable to attend the meeting, a o 0 t ei r Staff attended On August 29 , Jack Brazeal , certified aAbOrtst fhador thbesne obrequi�edewere • letter that all tree protection measures that installed on site. Records are kept in Public Works reflectto i s one .pr gross f for these all road construction projects , inc1 udi n9 records , an approximate tally of trees removed was made on August 30 , get an September 4 , 17 , 19 and 20 . These taliys were made inorderreplacement to accurate count of trees removed in order to process conditions , which were based on a fee for actual tree removal (it was supposed to range anywhere between 56 and 69) . According to these field counts and the records , the number of trees 77 removan h -rrem ted dbh and greater 3 ��ncr_�asa.. a The r amo n�by SePteemb_..r?�•act d theoroffds 3ceoenho5ept'ember 17w that Mr. Rto2alert the grading contractor cont city to the fact that additional "trees - of 411 dbh or greater would need to be removed to complete the work . At the time this contact was made , the approximate tree removal count was already - aS the ( 16sizmore than were allowed under the permit) . Unfortunately , es removed as they were removed were not recorded , and it is difficult to know if heritage trees were affected at this time . On September 20 , the discrepancy in the count was brought to the attention of the Public Works Director, the Natural Resource Specialist and the Community Development Director . It was at this time that a Stop Work (2) ice was removal issued because of ( 1 ) nonconformance to the Tree Ordinance , of heritage trees without city Council ng actson ntal/pubconditionslic gthatdwer} nonconformance with the road signed and agreed upon. Under the existing Tree Ordinance, the City had the authority to Stop .2_6 Enclosure 2C i Work for nonconformance to tree protection and unauthorized tree removal . In the case of the removal of heritage - trees, authorization for removal must come from City Council . On site on September 20 , (the day the Stop Work Order was issued) it was communicated to me by the grading contractor Gary Roberson that he assumed that everything within the slope stakes was slated for removal and that he was depending on the engineer ' s staking to do his work . It was explained to me that the grub stakes (yellow, in this case) are set first to assist the contractor in defining the edges of the area to be cleared of vegetation . The slope stakes are set next (pink , in this - _ case) which delineate the limits of the cut and fill for the roadway . He did not look at the tree removal map that was used by City Council , he looked at the pink slope stakes (which showed the limits of cut and fill ) and the yellow grub stakes (which showed areas to clear) to complete his work . Trees on the map which appeared to be OUT of this cut and fill area were actua WITHIN a area in the Held . It was a so state _ y- the contractor that several 'trees exi sfen�the fie Id that never even appeared on the map and they were also removed . Locating trees from a centerline stake and placing them on a map is not an exact science , and its effects are shown by the difference in field and map conditions that have been shown hare . In an attachment , I have provided some alternatives for revising administrative procedures surrounding tree removal for roads in forested areas, in light of our experiences here. 0 On the afternoon of September 20 , I accompanied Jack Srazeal , the applicant ' s certified arborist to the site to complete a field survey of trees that were removed that were supposed to be protected , as shown on the plans that were used to process the original tree removal permit before City Council . Jack Srazeal was also the person who cut the trees for the grading contractor, Gary Roberson. It was determined that 18 trees ranging in size from 6-32" dbh (8 of these heritage size) had been removed. It was also determined that one of the trees slated for removal had been retained . I can only speculate as to the differences in my tree count and that of Public works staff, that which differs by 18 trees. Multi-trunk trees may have been counted as separate trees and it has already been stated that some trees that existed in the field were never even shown on the original map . The eighteen trees that I have marked on a clean copy of the map do correspond to trees that were to be protected and have subsequently been removed and ars listed below: 16" dbh lobata 32" dbh lobata 14" dbh Q. lobata 20" dbh . agrifolia 22" dbh lobata 24-" dbh agrifolia 8" dbh Q. lobata 17" dbh Q. lobata 20" dbh Q. lobata 9" dbh lobata 24" dbh . lobata 12" dbh Q. lobata 15" Q. lobata 28" dbh Q. lobata 36" dbh Q. agrifolia 13" dbh Q. agrifolia 6" dbh Quercus sp . (species unknown) 1 multi-trunk Q. agrifolia (actual dbh unknown) C�esvr� 2C. Enclosure 2D Accordingto don Vaughn and Gar Roberson, tree removal is complete for 3 y p this project. In my report, I have deliberately attempt=_d to stick to the "facts" instead of trying to point fingers at anyone . I would be happy to answer any additional questions if I can, and am sur: that the applicants would like a chance to tell their story . The staff is now seeking a recommendation from the City Council as to the direction they would like us to take. Thank you . Attachments : A Alternatives for Revising Procedures for Tree Removal B Alternatives for Mitigating Unauthorized Tree Removals C June 3 , 1990 Arborist Report (Jack Brazeal ) C July 16 , 1990 Letter Authorizing Tree Removal HIVCIMor e 2-0 ENC los 2 Attachment A Alternatives for Revising Administrative Procedures for Tree Removal Permits Ouring Road Construction Many of the original colony roads that were surveyed, but not built currently lie in the middle of well developed oak woodlands . There is a mason for this ; land that was designat=_d for future road building was not cleared for agricultural uses in the early 1900 ' s and the forest grew up around the surveyed road areas. Part of the difficulty with applying the requirements of the Tree Ordinance to such a situation is the fact that many of these roads are located on steep slopes and in dense woodlands . Therefore, if it is the will of the Council to require accurate tree removal tallys before a tree removal permit is issued for road construction projects , two possible alternatives exist: 1 . Require that all trees to be removed are located on a map through survey and compass techniques. (We currently do not request this , causing some inaccuracy in the plotting of tree locations on the road plans . The City of Thousand Oaks requires such a survey for tree removal permits , but they do not have the extensive oak woodland - forests that we have here. ) 2 . Require that all proposed roads be staked at the center line an* at the limits of cut and fill along the complete length of the road before a tree removal permit application is completed and an accurate count should result. At this time, specimen trees could be identified and alternatives to the proposed alignment or possible tree saving construction (retaining walls, tree wells , etc . ) methods could be proposed. EIV CIUsv�,o 2.E- Attachment B Alternatives for Mitigating Unauthorized Tree Removals Several alternatives could be considered to address and mitigate unauthorized tree removals . t . Enforce Title 1 , Chapter 3 of the Municipal Cods relative to Section (c) on misdemeanors ( "Any parson convicted of a misdemeanor shall be punished by a fine or not more than One Thousand Dollars , or by imprisonment in the County Jail for a period not exceeding six ( 6) months , or by both such fine and imprisonment . ") 2 . Additional Fees . As a penalty , applicants to contribute double the fees into the tree replacement fund to cover the additional trees removed . 3 . Planting Trees . Applicants to plant specimen trees ( 36" box size or greater) along the length of the completed road , based on double the number normally required . If this option is selected , maintenance must be assumed for a period of 2-3 years , depending on the trees . 4 . Conservation/Scenic Easements. Applicantto agree to Applicants designate strips or portions of land as conservation easement lands to protect existing oak woodlands. • • FIVCf0Svh' e— 1 3 9 j REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL �- ' CITY OF ATASCADERO Enclosure 3A Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager December 31, 1990 From: Greg Luke, Director of Public Works RECOMMENDATION: Council postpone issuing the tree permit and direct the applicant to provide the information requested in the October 15, 1990 letter, taking into account the recommendations contained in Mr. Conner's report. DISCUSSION: The Applicant submitted a tree rem,Qval application dated 3-27- 90 which identified 195 Heritage Trees that would be removed to construct Ardilla Road. Subsequently the road alignment was changed to an alignment which requires the removal of 194 trees. On October 15, 1990, staff sent, the Applicant's engineer a letter outlining information which was needed.to complete the tree removal permit (see attached _ letter to Tom Vaughan, dated 10/15/90) . The Applicant. has only partially responded to this letter. To date the Applicant has not submitted the information listed in items 3 and 4 of the October 15, 1990 letter to Mr. Vaughan. This includes an accurate listing by size, species and condition of all trees to be removed, protection measures proposed, and field flagging of trees 'to be removed and saved. The Applicant feels that gathering this remaining information is quite burdensome, not knowing whether the road alignment and tree removal permits will be approved by the City- Council. They argue the tree,• protection measures, including fencing, flagging, and tagging of trees can be worked out after the removal permits are authorized. The,_proponents state that in the past property. stakes and tree flagging have been -vandalized, rendering the work useless. Staff understands - these concerns; however, . current practice with removal permit requests require identification in order to allow field inspection as part of Council deliberation and public . hearing. _ In addition, in light of our experience with Garcia Road, . , staff feels--'strongly-that the measures outlined in Ms. Schicker's letter:.to the applicants are as much for the ultimateprotection of the proponents as- the City.•` Item 9-4.155(b) TREE PROTECTION PLAN- of the Tree _Ordinance speaks clearly to these requirements.. r � - • FNcfvs-v , A- Enclosure 3,6 The proposed new tree ordinance calls for some of these tasks to 1 be delayed until just prior to construction. However, the current tree ordinance does require full tree identification and a complete- tree protection plan prior to the issuance of a tree removal permit. Considering the difficulties encountered recently on Garcia Road, staff feels it prudent to strictly follow all the provisions of Tree Ordinance #168 . Consequently, staff is unable to present to Council a complete tree protection/tree removal plan as required by City Ordinance. �r. �.L s - 4 ' , cC aH^ _ - ..+C y* ; •^ , e_ a Lam+..• C�- -- v1.:. TY. .,C, ..:� 4-t _, x saw' M .4 .iY•.. _. .. .. .. 3 E. Wesley Conner,ASL.A Landscape Architect Enclosure 4 F Lic #1272 REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY .OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager December 31, 1990 Via: Greg Luke, Director of Public Works From: Wes Conner, Consulting Arborist SUBJECT: SAVING TREES AT THE EDGE OF CUTS AND FILLS - ARDILLA ROAD EXTENSION An effort to preserve certain trees (ranging in size from 1" - 54" dbh Live oak, Quercus ag ifolia and Valley oak [Calif. white oak] , Quercus lobata) , outside the proposed roadbed, but within the right-of-way, about 75% of which are of Heritage tree size as defined in the current Tree Ordinance. These trees are in swales and at the edges of cuts and fills for the purposes of road construction for Ardilia Road between Balboa and Graves Creek Roads by applicant Bili Barnes, as shown on Construction Plans by Sierra Pacific Engineering, for Ardilla Road Improvements, File Copy dated December 3 , 1990, and as staked in the field by Vaughan Surveys. RECOMMENDATION• The applicant's arborist's report and Report to City Council by Lisa Schicker, Natural Resource Specialist, dated 10/30/90, a tentatively approved road alignment and the existing Tree Ordinance, recommend approval of most of the removals and accept donations to the'Tree Replacement Fund based on the interim adopted standard of $200 per tree removal of those trees which fall within the roadbed alignment. Endangered trees at the outer edges were not included in those"reports, assuming they were saveable with special treatment. The recommendation is to save them. BACKGROUND: The current tree ordinance specified that live native trees 20" or greater dbh are deemed Heritage trees and cannot be removed unless approved by the City Council following a public hearing. An original tree removal request that came to the City in 1989 required revisions because the alignment and layout have been adjusted several times; Vaughan Surveys is the current firm representing the applicant, and their staff .have worked on these fr- Enclosure 43 changes, including a realignment and staking in the field showing the edges of cuts and fills, . On November 30, 1990 a walk through of the staking conducted by the Director of Public Works, Tom Vaughan, Lisa Schicker and myself. I am in agreement with the work that Lisa started, especially preserving trees which warrant special treatment to be saved. In an effort to progressively continue that work, he has consulted with her on several occasions. ANALYSIS• The Applicant has submitted a list of trees that would potentially need to be removed to construct Ardilla Road. The sizes ranged from 3" to 54" . The total number of trees requested to be removed is 194 . The Applicants tally shows 127 trees 12" dbh or less; 37 between 13" dbh and 24" dbh; and 26 greater than 24" dbh. On December 10-12, 1990 a field survey was made by the Consulting Arborist to-make a preliminary determination on the disposition of (save vs eliminate) , certain trees. That work consisted of tagging and flagging trees at the outer edges of proposed cuts and fills within the road right-of-way and deemed.to be endangered should the current road be constructed. Most of the determinations were made on the basis of survivability, given constructive assistance at the time of project implementation. The report before you is. the result of that work. The relative value of each tree was assessed based upon the following criteria: 1) condition, 2) location, 3) species and 4) size. All trees capable of being saved were first assessed, then tagged with a number. A total of 39 trees were examined as having a potential to be preserved. Each tree was located, when possible, at the approximate surveyors station (starting at 0+00) . Each was also flagged with surveyors tape to indicate status: No Flagging = tree is expendable and may be removed during construction. Blue Flagging=Tree is to be saved by fine adjustments either in alignment or construction practice and will require mulching/pruning. Blue and Green Flagging = tree is of prime value and can be saved with structures or special treatment, such as retaining walls/tree wells, soil aeration treatment, and mulching/pruning. Details of the protection techniques must be developed prior to construction. All structures will be designed by the applicant, and approved by staff. Foundationless retaining walls/tree wells will minimize visual impact and reduce damage to tree roots. Generally retaining walls are less than 5' high and 10' long. t C Conclusion Enclosure 4 Twenty-Eight of the 29 Heritage trees (20" and larger) surveyed on the edge of the road construction should be preserved. This will require retaining wails/tree wells for 21 trees. The remaining 7 trees require mulching/aeration/pruning. A single Heritage tree should be removed due to its poor condition. The remaining 10 non-heritage trees should be preserved with 3 retaining structures and 7 requiring mulching/aeration/pruning. The following table summarizes my recommended tree removal/preservation plan. Heritage Trees preserved 27 Non-Heritage Trees preserved 10 Remaining trees to be removed 156 Recommendation •1. Charge the Developer the $200 per tree for the 156 trees to be removed and/or replaced on 'a 2 to 1 basis (total cost $31, 200) 2 . Require developer to make provisions for preserving the 38 threatened trees as specified by the City Arborist or representative. 3 . Require the developer to develop a plan for the protection of all protected trees in the vicinity of the construction work and install all protective measures prior to the commencement of construction. All protection measures must be approved by the Director of Public Works. 6:11 C/o M E M O R A N D U M TO: Ray Windsor, City Manager November 2, 1989 VIA: Henry .Engen, Community Development. Director :W FROM: Doug Davidson, Associate Planner .. SUBJECT: Tract' 1057 - (Dovica) The meeting. in your office on November 1, 1989 revealed that Tract 1057 encompasses many planning and engineering issues. The conditions of approval for Tract 1057 were. established by the Planning Commission on September- 7, 1982. A brief history of how the City has reacted to changes in State law and .recent -court decisions will show that indeed, the decision on the subject subdivision would be quite different were it proposed today. Since 1982 the City has established development standards and environmental guidelines by the adoption of a Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance, and CEQA Guidelines. Zoning Ordinance In 1982 -'the 'City was :still :operating under ,.the:County .Zoning Ordinance. :_`This set- a minimum lot: size of. 2.50 acres for properties .-in the;!;western-part-of-the:.City;. such-•as .Dovica's. . The City Zoning 'Ordinance 'adopted� on- Julie i27,_ 1983,.established a.. minimum lot size. for-this area. of 2.50 .to. 10 acres depending on- certain .performance -standards, such as slope, - access, and soils suitability.. : -In other- words, lots with. steep slopes and- poor percolation rates have a much higher minimum lot size than level lots with good soils tests. Under the current criteria the minimum lot size for the Dovica Tract is 3.40 acres. Thus, what was an eleven (11) lot subdivision in 1982 would be an eight (8) lot (maximum) subdivision in 1989. Subdivision Ordinance In addition to lot size, the design criteria for subdivisions has also been greatly modified 'since 1982. Prior to the adoption of the City Subdivision Ordinance on February 9, 1988, the City relied on an antiquated County Ordinance. The current Ordinance requires special findings to approve the creation of flag lots (Flag lots are lots situated behind another lot and having access.- to. a ccessto. a street. by the narrow or "flag" portion of the lot) . .The Planning- Commission has scrutinized each request for subdivisions of this type. A quick look at Tract 1057 (see attached)--shows it to contain two 'flag lots. Although this is more -subjective than the lot size criteria, it is safe to assume that the -lot-..layout of Tract 1057- would be different under:.current standards. - 71VCI0Sc rip S/'" �. LC!.f C.- 1B 1B .. r Court Cases, and Cit Policies Environmental Review - State Law, In light of our meeting yesterday, the environmental review process is. the fundamental aspect of your inquiry. ,.. The - California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)b camelaw wtin City. The law has evolved over the years, andconsequently, has become .more stringent in its environmental determinations. The most noticeable City reaction has been the adoption of . Resolution 1-86 on January 13, 1986, which adopted City guidelines for the implementation of CEQA. A common practice in 1982, and for several years tiereaftegradingwand to condition projects, -such as Tract 1057, to P rovdrainage plans. The policy of the City Engineer was to allow bonding of required drainage, road, and other her improrecordedents. Hence the current Dovica situation; a map legal buildable lots have been created, residential constructionais underway, and the drainage problem identified seven y g (see Map conditions X10 And siltuationsilitnot becamelclear.toBtheA upon this and other similar Planning Division that drainage and road improvements needed to be completed before the map recordeddrovementstare requion ired Likewise, to. determine what drainage imp Liknecewise, to. deted. the rminesubmiwh l 'of drainage plans Aurin the -project . review. . How can the.Community Development Department issue an _. environmental'-determination if it does-not have all,_the..-necessary • information? : .The'Engineering .Division a4-s -now operates ..under these guidelines and procedures. Although this -environmental review policy was. entrenched by 1988, a California Court of Appeal decision in 1988 firmly reinforced it.. You do not need to be a land use attorney to realize the significance of Sundstrom v County of Mendocino for review of development projects (see attached Mc�C.0 q tionPaatel . In summary, the court found that "determining measures after, rather than prior to, the adoption of the requiring easible stage in the planning negative declaration conflicted with CEQA's policy rereprocess." review at the earliest f Furthermore, the court determined that "reliance on a future study improperly removed review of the studies from the CEQA process, precluding public scrutiny and review by other agencies. ". Conclusions This overview documents that procedures ions since have.change1982. An regarding1 the processing and approvals of subdivisionseven be lot subdivision of two and ene,n� acres lot seach icould noocation ISconsidered-today because th 3. 4 acres. Thus, under the current Zoning ordinance a maximum of aLot eight parcels could be allowed. Furthermore, bablygffurther standards of. the Subdivision Ordinance would pro Enclosure 5 C, reduce - ane number of lots and could change the low layout. 1 ,, Finally, the environmental review procedures have been strengthened through adoption of City guidelines for the implementation of CEQA. These orocedures call for review of grading and drainage plans as a part of the initial application with the necessary improvements being completed orior to final acoroval. CG:.dd Attachments : Tract 1057 (Location Mao) Tract 1057 (Tract Map) Tract 1057 (Conditionz. of Approval) McCutchen Update i Enclosure I l C. SOILS + 1. EXISTING F WIRCP Z4S,4TAL CONDITICNS The site encompasses the following soil groups as located- on the Soils Map that follows: f _ AVO Ayer and Diablo Soils, 9-15% slopes " DaBC2 Ryer Clay Loam, 2-93 slopes i Hc:3C Arbuckle - San Ysidro Complex, 2-93 slopes 1 HnBC Hanford and Greenfield Soils, 2-93 slopes i LDF Linne-ZaJam Complex, 30-501 slopes 1 LiF2 Linne-Calcdo Complex, 30-501% slopes LoF Lompico Loam, 30-503 slopes MDE Millsholm-Dibble Complex, 15-303 slopes MDF Millsholm-Dibble Complex, 30-503 slopes POEC Pico Fine Sandy Loam, 2-91- slopes RnBC Rincon Clay Loam, 2-93 slopes ^t ShF2 Balcon-Nacimiento Association, 30-50$ slopes SnA Still Clay Loam, 0-23 slopes SnBC Still Clay Loam, 2-93 slopes SOBC Sorrento Clay Loam, 2-93 slopes < SR Gavi.ota-Rack Outcrop Complex, excessively rocky The soils are predominantly clayey with moderate to high surface !' run-off and erosion hazard. According to the U.S. Soil Conservation 5ccvicv, ScAm: uL ttiQ soils (iwic:ated by "s on the tvllowing chart) (, have "severe limitations for building sites, roads, and streets". Additionally, "the slow percolation rate is a severe problem for septic ! � tank absorption fields". Septic systems are also severely limited by [ slope and. depth to rock. Most of the site has the same soil type, MDF, �F ` which has these limitations for development. Some of the soils are shallow with low fertility and thus have.tendancy to grow brush. Consequently wildfire hazards are high. Many of the soils are fragile and any disturbance could cause severe erosion. The DaBC2 soil in the k valley area is the only area of the site of a reasonable size , I classified as primary agricultural soil, Class II. In view of the limitations for the surrounding soils, the loss of this piece to rural residential use is not significant. 2. RESMTANT AMMS, BTACJ:S Arra MITIGATIC N MEASURES a. Actions: Construction of homes and roadways � i Impacts: Erosion/Septic System failures Mitigation: . . project engineering geology report (recommended mitigation - see Geology Sectionl should to prepared r. to indicate- whether the particular lots would be subject � to extensive erosion or septic problemLs; and, to review 1 r the site and grading pians to insure safe development of iy the property. This report should also be reviewed for roadway construction. 12/Soils.l , l JEN c T p.svJ2 E � J� c 'n �, � ,� ,.��; - ;- �_ -� •cam-���`'�,,,J !,�.-.., �,• T��.f,� tS� �,,,».��, •Z, \� �\ ` ,� --.�� .r." /e— �rt l�-^ ���/ cool �• .✓ ' - •i .,}' - :: ..mss f�• �r� :-C•�• t �,�,,;t� �� '�i' ,;�- � -•: � � L _ ti's"_,��1 '/+,.o� _.... ���il,�'�`.' �� I!� � � .-_.f r.?rte � , .-. � '�•��-•��.X ' �,�\� moi) r:% •,'`�'�� _� V! J` •� y ' ` l 1 ` ,.',.- ,r �`f 1� R.. .,f . . ,/,"' � � a� :� � :,;_ �/ � "• � . ., off/` ��:(��t ;rY r I�'`J-v,7TH' i O�� r !p,' "�� •r � \: •�yl. \:.!�_- �I � �'is / i�f �•'.'... •�s _ / �'�.:•r�/.'I�I, 1 1, ) '.+�� �:�'ittr. '\ •l;,i. '/j'•• _� �, •u '(�,�. ,�' L• ,►• �, '� a `Q i� :�' `.};. rit •n�1/' ir. i lY.�-K f .:/ {K:'w/�r i 2�n ✓ .� ' VSs. :.,-:'-'j',� ;;�♦�,;�}) , � .; ��� ;',�( ,� ,�c� ;.,.��, , �'a,; - �l_:�-� ,A�t:..-tom , ; ,- - ':i •,`11 i •' I tom"�'� '�a�n�l l� r,'f'+• ��i ����� •r ��4� ,;Leri;� �•'J!�. l4� �'I� t i"�`� �.�•, t����r..J.\.. .� ,��',I �••1�• �(.�a�`:w ,��asa'C-. •�� .,� OL VA if TZ cr Was- T. �/�. ^• f �. .t ��� a ! .. ._t a. Cr' \dpi♦*-��. �.'♦�• . t `( � ";-._.'- � ;• 'i t' :\ ��1uef,;.:j �'. :j.w •e��� .mom s ..; �i LONG VALLEY RANCHES EIR Q SOILS0 1000 2000 .Source: Soil Conservation Service Q 15 c- N Enclosure 6C, ►'i►Il tr".1.11111a l au (.►u -111.1 I'1_4 b►1,nim Oi,Nsp E ant.) �. . .11. t I�_ul► I.1_ ►�:. .1_lu►_ (. Iv �_i_ .u11 lu•1 .:.._..__. . . Chorizanrh(z. rt2ctispina (chori-Zanthe) Chorizanthe•vortriedel (chorizanthe) LI:Rx4enum yracile var. cith,lraeforine (buckwheat) Malacothamnus Palmeri Palt^.ari (malacothamnus) Scroohularia Atrata (ficwort) .. V. THREATENED SPECIES AND VEGE';'ATICiV Over the last few years great c onceen has been expressed over the " threatened nature of oak trees in California and over the Foothill woodland (Oak tvbW land) as a vw.3etaticn type and wildlife habitat. Or.-warren Roberts (Ullivut:::ity of California ArUix,:tum) nays "As a group 'the oakz sew to be in great danger". Several range managers, foresters, fish and game managers, plant ecologists, land use planners and others have reported their concern for loss of oak trees frori the California landscape both verbally and in scientific and popular.articles. This widespread concern has resulted in the USDA—Forest Service sending_.out a recent (June, 1979-at U.C. Riverside) announcement for a future oak manageryent symposium stating in part "California's vast'oak woodland resource, long neglected and generally mismanaged if managed at all, is`oeming under the scrutiny of land cranagers, conservationists, and others who--are concerned about its welfare". -The areas of concern are: (I) Oak trees are t not successfully reproducing themselves. Therefore, 'as the old oaks"fall or j are eliminated there are no young oaks to replace them.. (2) Oak trees are being cut down and eliminated in many areas. ' (3) Development in goal-Cwoecilands is detrimental to oak trees not.only due to direct"'eli.mination `but also-because of mismana erent duri g ng .the the. phase as'well- as'�-of ter"the developnent " •-'" i�1' is co=leted. l,This report-.will'-•concern:.:itself:only:with the' impact of �FN&cz-yr �. A-2 ....�. ..._�... 11.....<___.+ .._ .._ r.n...w.:iECl1YW1'�1�5=:t1K ti'..Of•f.M+.. '.'..._ 8 Enclosure 60 - project site are development on oak trees. . The oak trees in the Long Valley p ro7 IN .11111' tll.l tl•1 u111 :1• i•I .l) .P 1•' �.1 . 5 ' , 11.OA1 10,1 . 1•1191 .1.111In -ill "ilI"- -oil` IIu, tre- Oak trees in the area "were found to vary from atout "1-2 inches "to about 70 inr.::,:•; in toink t height (four Eeet -frost the soil surface) Some of tie trees are small in stature while others are extrerteiy 'large and well-det.-elcced. ._ Valley oaks were noted at around 5-6 feet "in trunk- diameter. Score of the roast live oaks were also extremely large and sprawling much like those in the Los Osos Oaks State Park. Blue oaks do not typically get as large as Valley Oaks and Coast Live Oaks; however, some of the largest blue .oaks I have ever seen occur in favorable sites on the property. Several oaks have alreac:y been cut down on the property including one that appeared to. be about 5 feet or pore in trunk diameter. Seedlings were found in the steeper areas where cattle were not as cxoamn. Many of the oaks have mistletoe which have been with the oaks for many years and do create a significant problem to VI. I-tPACT ASSESS�.E`i1T AND MITIGATION MEASURES FOR DEVELOPMENT OF PROJECT DOTS A11M CONSTRUCTION OF PRCUECT ROADS From the standpoint of vegetation and consequently wildlife"habitat and watershed managerlent, the proposed Long Valley project would have very significant, irreversible negative impacts. These impacts include destruction of native oaks and other vegetation and wildlife habitat during the initial stages of "road and haresite construction (some of which has already occurred) followed by problers of drainage, flood control, soil erosion, stream sedimentation, increased rung-off,'-water-pollution and other:associated problems" both within the. 15ooacre project site .and down the watershed•le.g. the Salinas River). Residential development can be detrimental to oak trees and other native E AlC/off'U re Co A-2 1;... :..: .. .. .. ..r..-.sw.r.r...aJ.�. ..... ..r.W •...tw1...rv.. .e .sy-., •. +Rbhv—+it f- Enclosure 6F_ �\ Protected Wildlife, The American Peregrine Falcon is not listed on Tables I or TI, but tt inight .-spor:ulLe.-illy unto tlic anvi for hLnting. • The Po!regrine ''alr`.,n 1 i.^ko+•1 nig hi1� r-,1 i rnrnj,& i.int eir FFn4anbrorwi llvar•{o,n„ TAili.i; C. t•'i-1,11 i f ��r thr,it :ziNn that wr.rn ut�r�er+rrd on the :3ita . AMPHI3tANS ©IROS ••• Fi„ri ltt rr:y E stria L Uum Mallard duck California slender salamander Green-Winged teal Pacific treefrog Red-tailed hawk REPTILFS American Pce-atrel (sparrow hawk) California quail Western fence lizard Mourning dove Red-shafted flicker MAMMALS •• Acorn woodpecker . gay's Phoebe Broad-handed mole Horned lark California ground squirrel Scrub jay Western grey squJlrrel Steller's Jay Pnrkat gopher Yellow-billed magpie Dusky-footed woedrat Common crow Black-tailed mule deer Plain titmouse BexicWLs wren 'California thraaher ( western bluebird Ruby-crowned kinglet Brewer's blackbird House finch Lesser goldfinch Brown towhee Lark sparrow Oregon Junco White-crowned sparrow Golden-crowned sparrow '• follows taxonomy of R. C. Stebbins, 1966; A Field Guide to western Reptiles and Amphibians, Houghton Mifflin Co. follows taxonomy of W. Burt and R. Grossenheider, 1952, A Field Guide the Mammals, Houghton Mifflin Co. follows taxonomy of C. S. Robbins, -B. .Bruun, and H. Zim, 1966, Birds o: North America, Golden Press. /V C A-3a - _ir. Enclosure .(,_ F TABLE II. Wildlife expected to regularly use the site* but not ( nhnervNdi 4urin►r .the survey �tttl•Ili.i�I:,rl:: \ Ulltll;; . ., L'1�.'e:t• rtal..uu,ct.irr ,Turkey vulture c%:�11t'��rul:t cu•wt. White-tailed kite ( Cully protected!) nt Fturrat -..�L.u,wut�l+rr Cooper's hawk sharp-shinned hawk ' Culdetl angle (fully pru tac ted) Turkey mid e—blotchcrl lizard Lkattd-tailed pigeon •-• • Western skink Barn owl Western whiptail Screech owl Southern alligator lizard Great- horned owl Ringneck snake Long-eared owl Coachwhiu Poor-will t� Ztrip►:d racer Anna's hummingbird iWestern racer Allen's hummingbird fPacific gopher snake Rufous hummingbird Common kingsaake Downy woodpecker - Cnmmon garter. snake Hairy woodpecker We,te:rn terrestrial garter snake Nuttall's woodpecker Western rattlesnake 4estern kingbird Ash-throated flycatcher MA"iM.ALS Black phoebe Western flycatcher ODOSSLLm Darn swallow Ornate shrew Violet green swallow M Otis (Spp.) bats White-breasted nuthatch Big brown bat Chestnut-backed chickadee . I .'led bat Com..on bushtit Hoary bat Mfreatit. Pallid hat House wren Brazilian free-tailed bat Robin Raccoon Longtail weasel Hermit thrush Badger- Swa.inson's thrush Spotted skunkBlue-gray gaatcatcher S triped skunk Cedar waxwing Coyote Loggerhead shrike Grey f ox .. Brown -h eaded cowbird Bobcat Huttoa's vireo . . .. Merriam chipmunk Warbling vireo - Orange-crowned warbler Seer== kangaroo rat California pocket mouse Yellow-ranged warbler Northern oriole Ueer mouse -Western meadowlark C+►lil'ornin'•vole Western tananger Slacktail jackrabbit Black-headed grosbeak Cottontail 'rabbit. . Lazuli bunting Brush rabbit Rufous-sided t,.whee ... '$age sparrow -'_Fox sparrow. . English sparrow F A- 3 (a Enclosure 714, MEMORANDiJM City of Atascadero February 20, 1990 To: Henry Engen, Community Development Director From: Arther R. Montandon, City Attorney Subject: Planning Commissioner George Luna's Request for Opinion on Lang Valley Ranch EIR INOIIIRI S: 1. If there has been substantial changes in a project, is a new EIR required? 2. What are the City's duties to monitor compliance with EIR's? RESPONSES: 1. If- there are subsequent changes to a project before it is approved, subsequent environmental review is required. Since the project proposed by the- Long Valley EIR is approved, no subsequent review and modification to that EIR is required. Projects concerning the same area must have their. own environmental review. This subsequent, review need not conform to the 'Long Valley EIR. = 2. Prior to January 1`, l989-,..the --City had no duty to monitor mitigation measures. Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 now requires monitoring. I recommend this monitoring be required only y of new projects. The mitigation measures imposed bythe' State _must tie enforced : by the- State. The tCity mayi',4nforce-, ,through its independent authority, :those measures its 'policy makers seek to enforce. The City -- is under -no 'legal `obligation to enforce the Long = Valley EIR's: mitigation:-measures..-- v. BACRGROUBID: -. It is important to discuss 'two points-`before specific responses may be made. First,- what the purposes of an EIR are, and second, what powers under the California. Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) - does the City possess?_ Enrcl0�7 0 r?, g�4- Enclosure sure 7. MEMO: Henry Engen, Community Development Director I � SUBJ: Long Valley Ranch EIR February 20, 1990 — Page 2 Public Resources Code Section 210021 states in subdivision (a) (a) The purpose of an environmental impact report is to identify the significant effects of a project on the environment, to identify alternatives to the project, and to indicate the manner in which those significant effects can be mitigated or avoided. An EIR implements the basic purposes of CEQA, which are to: - .- -- - _ (1.) Inform governmental decision makers and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of proposed activities. (2) Identify the ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced. (3) Prevent significant, avoidable damage to the environ— ment by requiring changes in projects through the use of alternatives or mitigation measures when the governmental ( agency finds the changes to be feasible. (4) Disclose -to the public the reasons .why a governmental agency approved the project in the manner the agency chose if significant. environmental effects are involved.. (California CEQA Guidelines, Section 15002.) In sum, an EIR is a document, prepared with public input, -to provide governmental decision makers- with information about the environmental consequences of their, acts. - It is, important to;note that an EIR is not law 'and CEQA ..provides '` no new powers` to -:`governmental- entities. The authority to implement mitigations must-:exist outside of CEQA and be exercised -, at the time a project is- approved- An- EIR is not the exercise of - .such authority, but -is the information:- upon which to exercise the - authority. (See generally,- California CEQA Guidelines, Section - -The decision for which the Long Valley EIR was prepared was the - State's authorization of the .issuance. of a public report ` for a subdivision. ' (Long Valley EIR, pg..- 1.) This public report., I assume, has been authorized`. Enclosure 7e_ MEMO: ' Henry Engen, Community Development Director SUBJ: Long Valley Ranch EIR February 20, 1990 — Page 3 DISCUSSION: rnauiry One: if there substantial changes in-a. grZ ct _a new MR reau r-d? Where an EIR has been prepared, no additional EIR need be prepared unless: (1) Subsequent changes are proposed in the project which will require important revisions of the previous EIR; (2) Substantial changes occur with respect.-to -the circum— stances under which the project is undertaken; (3) New information of substantial importance to the project becomes available. This information must have not been known and unavailable at the time the previous EIR was prepared. (California CEQA Guidelines, Section 15162.) If the lead agency has riot approved a project,- a subsequent EIR can be required. (California CEQA Guidelines, Section 15162, subd. (b) .) If any minor additions or changes are required, a supplement to the EIR may be prepared. - . (California CEQA Guidelines, Section 15163.) If only-minor technical .changes or additions are necessary, . an-"addendum- to an EIR . can be prepared: (California CEQA Guideliaes, Section 15164.) None of the above is- applicable because the State has already approved the project. The . 'project was : -the ::approval of an application to issue .a public; report for a. subdivision.: A previously-..certified EIR may be:'used for Iater approvals" or be incorporated: : by` . reference '= by ._-environmentaldocuments. compiled later. (California. CEQA Guidelines, _Sections °15150 and 15153.) It is my understanding- that this-: was not__:done:�for .,_ any subsequent environmental review by the City. Iti fact,._the-:'existence of the ' Long Valley EIR was unknown by City staff:-until recently. Given the above, the'`City's approvals,'`past ..and: present, must be L reviewed in light of -_ the environmental--­review"documents before the decision makers at. the ,: time of :the: decisions.' Subsequent approvals involving Long. .; Valley were :;::not based upon the Long Valley EIR, but upon_ subsequent. 'environmental documents.-. This is entirely-legal - and appropriate EIV Os C1 r 72'� Enclosure '7�3 MEMO: Henry Engen, Community Development Director SUBJ: Long Valley Ranch EIR February 20, 1990 - Page 4 Inq,Uiry Two: What are the City's duties to monitor compliance with EIR's? Prior to the enactment of Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, the City had no legal duty to monitor mitigation requirements. This section imposed monitoring requirements, effective January 1, 1989 . Section 21081.6 was enacted because many mitigation measures that were imposed were not implemented. (Tracking CEQA Mitigation Measures Under AB 3180, April, 1989, Governor's Office of - .Planning and Research, pg. 1.) There has been no legislative or judicial requirement that mitigation monitoring should be applied retroactively. The conservative approach to avoid litigation regarding previously approved projects would be to only apply the monitoring requirement _ prospectively. ("AB 3180 - Monitoring Mitigation Measures Under the California Environmental Quality Act," Christine Sierra, California City Attorneys Department Papers, October 22-25, 1989.) This is the approach I recommend. This does not mean that former imposition of mitigation requirements were useless acts. If imposed correctly, they still may be enforced by- the governmental entity who imposed the conditions,.; As stated above,` CEQA provides no independent authority to impose conditions. Similarly, Public. Resources Code Section 21081.6 does not provide any authority . to enforce EIR mitigation measures. (Tracking" CEQA Mitigation Measures Under AB 3180, supra, pg. 4:) ' The _.-authority has to rest with the governmental entity who approved the project. - - - - - In the case "of :the Long:--Valley- EIR, the State was the approving agency.. If_:the>:.State had the authority to condition its approval on the mitigation:measures contained in the EIR and properly did so,.- it-is-.the 'appropriate enforcement agency. - The, City may have . other enforcement ..'tools:•-through'subsequent City approvals, City 1s ordinances;` �or general ''=city ="police < powers The - City is not legally obligated to implement the mitigation measures set. forth in the Long_—Valley_EIP. The City may impose, through its authority, the mitigations- its policy makers feel are the most appropriate for the citizens of Atascadero. These City imposed mitigations. may even conflict with those contained in the Long Valley EIR.; - EIV C/CsUre- 4ZZ) ! Enclosure 7 i!�— ' j MEMO: ` Henry Engen, Community Development Director` I SUBJ: Long Valley Ranch EIR February 20, 1990 -- Page S Respectfully submitted, ARTHER R. MONTANDON City Attorney ARM:fr E l r t - I October 15, 1990 Tom Vaughan Vaughan Surveys 630 14th Street Paso Robles, CA 93446 Dear Mr. Vaughan: This letter is to provide a written follow-up to our phone conversation on October 10, 1990 regarding tree removal along the proposed Ardilla Road Extension project. We are ready to bring the tree removal application before Council and are planning to schedule it for October 30, 1990, but before a staff repot can be prepared, more information is required. Because the road desig has changed several times since the initial tree survey was made, it is difficult to distinguish the different array of stakes and tree markings that are currently in the field. In light of our experience with tree removal and protection during road construction, the following work has been requested: 1. The center line must be re-staked. 2. To get a realistic picture of the amount of trees to be removed, the top of .cut and toe of fill slope lines must also be staked. In other words, all areas that will be disturbed- by construction activities must be identified in the field. These stakes will be used to identify the limits of the project for staff and City Council review, therefore they must be sturdy enough to hold up for some time. 3. Because of road design changes, an updated tree removal application is requested, which reflects a more accurate tally of trees to be removed. It may be easier to accomplish this task once the areas of disturbance have been staked. 4. Proposed tree protection must be discussed and identified on the tree removal and protection maps and in the field. Field suggestions include labeling trees to be removed with red flagging tape and trees to be protected with green flagging tape. Any proposed protection measures f (such as fencing, retaining walls, tree wells, etc.) should also be* ENc.�C<sur� S� identified in writing or on the plans. During our phone conversation, I mentioned that I would need to hear from you soon. In order to present the application before City Council on October 30, the work must be completed before October 22, 1990, so that .I will have time to prepare the staff report. Thank you for your cooperation and please call if you have additional questions and/or concerns. Sincerely, Lisa Schicker Natural Resource Specialist cc Bill Barnes i . i� i • G-'�cL vSUrs .C3 EAC C C) v 4- REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 1/8/91 From: Henry Engen, Comm. Dev. Director rile No: Rddilla SUBJECT: Ardilla Road Extension: Appeal of negative environmental determination (continued from November 27, 1990 City Council meeting) . BACKGROUND: Pursuant to the attached staff report, the City Council continued consideration of this matter to allow it to be evaluated in conjunction with the proposed heritage tree removal request and road improvement. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the report of the Public Works Director (and as may be supplemented by the City Attorney) , it is recommended that this matter be continued pending resolution of issues noted. HE:ps Enclosure: November 27, 1990 Staff Report CC: Joan O'Keefe Bill Barnes Tom Vaughan was Conner E� closv�� 9� EIVC LcSUure `' a REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 1/8/51 From: Henry Engen, Comm. Dev. Director} File No: San Marcos Rd. Exten. SUBJECT: Appeal by Joan O'Keefe of Negative Declaration posted for the proposed extension of San Marcos Road. RECOMMENDATION: Continuance to permit the Council to consider the appeal in conjunction with a completed staff report relative to heritage tree removal and road improvement plans. BACKGROUND: The applicant, Dick Davis, is proposing to extend San Marcos Road westerly for approximately 2,484 feet ( .47 mile) to provide access to 13 lots. A tree protection plan was prepared by D.O. Denny, which with modifications to the proposal indicates some 249 native trees over 4 inches DEH being proposed for removal. Of these, 31 are heritage trees. On November 19, 1990, a Negative Declaration with recommended mitigation measures was filed, and on December 5, 1990, the attached appeal was received from Joan O' Keefe. Owing to the Municipal Code requirement for consideration of an appeal within thirty (30) days, this matter has been scheduled for the January 8, 1991 City Council Meeting. However, as with a related agenda item, the resignation of the City' s Arborist in November inter- fered with the completion of the work on the tree removal/road improvement plan application. In addition, the City Attorney has raised questions relative to the propriety of the filing of the Negative Declaration prior to the completion of associated work, i.e. , the final road improvement plan/tree protection plan. HE.-ph Encls: Project Area Map community Development Letter Acknowledging Receipt of Appeal - 12/11/90 Letter of Appeal - 12/5/90 Project Negative Declaration - 11/19/90 CC: Joan O' Keefe Dick Davis Wes Connner Allen Campbell. Elvc/ o U` e_ �.� flvc-Loscl-, A S �' �Si' .. �Y"- �; 1.�:'�=1F1�4v.Y✓ S .Rr."•' ICE 44 _. 4 lic 1 / c Itr Itt Oy<a a ti 1 y �O s !1 Ii f � Q �t LT 0 1 � ter♦ � �o r k041, • o0 Ane Z. .3�K �.e4 ��• 5 �-'- 'tt }? ` � ..A s ?B •• 3 '4� 9 .F ?3 ° Z. iO ii _ iGs 264 •z l % w 23 ti Z7At i t m m m 6 re• 271 � , -• '+ „RAVES A n O :3 24 •f 3r• = e •„ � ti . ARDl��A.�,: ,o 4,c 268 y ,.szAc= oa9A„t r�c• �/ ` �3��7 0.9�A� ° 1�• Q 9 ACL �{\�~- ,v •- tee: •�sr �•_ VV '\ `f:SS 5.93 A0. a ! . 2 •1 t AC i 425 AG 1• 1:J T � =et► O _ y i /61 -fir O �• t. \1 PY T-70 Afi 25 1394E f �. A. 00 .�: 34 SM AG o+. l � 19 iF, S2S Aa 34 333 4.MAC ',�a�� sa9AG FR. a 152 SAN -0" � 26 ' _ ROAD z _ •.63 AG Al.ASCADERO COLONY ��, SAN.LUIS oatin COUNTI `J CAI,IFORNW ! �EA/c Lcxc;, 1C3 ' L NOTE-ASSCSSOR•S BLOCK B LOT NUMBERS SNOMIN/N pRGLES: w L Nc-Lo.�v s ? ,7 F Y �/ s•<. % / y` C ` 24 PAR 1 K a � � �• ' J mss.. �� - ^O"" 1,, e �� d� � �� (2�$) t �,-� •moi' �r� 5.M K 5.5s AG O v 4.63 • tt E~ AC.' 3.40 31 Ac NR 2 32 _ - - 636 AC h NRS i 437 AC MR` t y 4.57 AC T,TO d. + Y f0 s ?� .PSI,it-,Fd �•�..a.- � FR 25 4J3 AC. i 0-13 33 \ T. W AQ 31 tq &Z Y o •G&AC �~ 4 1 r�4AC 2�; � (+ y.0 P j S£SSIOEN / �- Sp,N AiAsc� a for SAN LUIS 08ISe?'. CIRCLESc,- M v y .. E rtc.Lcsv r ea t 1s _ I `e' -71 _b7.7 � i - � G�I �a7 Iq ESL r.• _ � 1 =0 A q N d N N • A~ _ C 2�•q T GC Y N Y 04 T�6 L O� q pYp i0 G d L O E E O C Y M Y Y Opt LYY N V6: C Oe d T Y N CI� It L i Z A A 0 Y_� q i u r a m o en ar0.4!a y J u.cZ iasa q� � ^� �l N N H 0 L Y • N 13:i Y N O L L L C> > Y Y q N...V �a tC Y y.La�r y L Y T S L m.0 Y O q at Y.Y Y N O d L Et' 4-ZY N O YpA .. VVV JJJ N Q� a q 0 0 N Y L a L C L G 41 N 0.00 Ym go ac>v {y V. 0 atl 0 0-040 mA N C Y •a L^0 0 J yj6 CM � 0 Q� Y S � ej rN 2 H Tr V O Y C C 21. N Og O{•�NO Y rL_O'2q q YVL i� N LaN CLat C Y� ' Atl t• p • 0� Y tl r Y V rp Y L O= tl N cr) .i Y. `0• yL q0�O A M 4>a N 0 L yY Cq q m r�LV ON C n J C rO r` C Y C C CAS y� q mLm q � _ L CI r' � Q LO�q Aq^Lr >Y^ CSO a s q> $ O _ Y 0�• $ n W ' 0o 2Cf�q OY MV tlL L C VYf N •-1 rM .0". LY'l �i0 l.J CN� OO0 1 •�s d q^ y^egLango` iQeaVr�N w n O N q 00�mC YO+a'f 0 O L NH q Q N d L V wt q Ypp��r�O Ly d AYp�A p 40 dd � M L A Al, C0}YT gO 6O6QqV+= b �v LL f P O Y N L 6 O T C O. w+at i�e0 CSL A OgNYN L m>Y m a .Pppl q Y YCl. app 0 r7 Y V Y Q w N N r q^ LaJ LL % i.M O�"O Oat Ya q Y• `�e^ NOdC '0' �Cp!V. >< O++Y N C7qO qNr0 CO r r2Ly`^ awq •p-NO0 C VO YpOYNL �tlLON It OL6 . dA N 40 N d p L. •�"'``.aL+�}NONE O.y U. m N 0 tl m q q•O tl q 'AO a• T V e'. C" pe m en m c m.LeN Neg o4u my o$ A.; p, a 0% Y .si N q b LJ{TI►'� m C d'•' L 2 0 C—at 4 N O q tt Y q N� L otj do.-= 61.7 N YO 00 V q Owp1�y .Y j JOrr.r6 ".0 Pt 6 0 �q N6 at YMS�IM cc, C'r N®AppOYC Gat S fO. C �• >• L C 6 C bp�O q0 00 �+L N LMY 6 0 Oaq Y V1 N= NLq r.pYN jY LY N,r WAJ LOd �0 CL 06 po� 6�ar4��0 OL.L+ rN2OOq ra N ti S C OVELL TREE SURGERY P.O. BOY 1375 PASO ROBLES,CALIFORNIA 93446 805/238-0654 .� February 19, 1991 City of Atascadero 6500 Palma __._:_. ..._. . Atascadero, CA 93422 Subject: Ardilla Road Alignment On January 24, 1991, an on-site inspection was done by City staff, Wes Conner (Tree Consultant for the City) , Bill Barnes, and me. The following list reflects our suggested treatment of trees tagged and numbered by the City Consultant (numbers used are City Consultant`s): 3 Save w/trim 25 Save w/trim 4 Remove J 26 Save w/trim 6 Save # 27 Save w/trim 7 Save # 29 Save w/trim 8 Save # 31 Save w/trim # 9 Save # 34 Save w/trim #10 Save # 35 Save w/trim #14 Save w/retaining w/trim # 36 Remove #15 Save w/trim # 39 Remove #20 Save w/retaining w/trim # 99 Save #24 Save w/trim #100 Save Most of the trees tagged by the City Consultant were designated to be saved. Two trees, listed as numbers 20 and 14, have recommended retaining walls to preserve them. #14 was commonly agreed upon to be a substantially sized heritage tree that warrants special attention. It has a 48" diameter base and appears to be in good health. The road was realigned to avoid most of the dripline and a study was done to implement a retaining wall to limit the grading under the dripline. This proposed retaining wall will measure 80' long and 8' high on the up-hill side of the slope, keeping at least 20' away from the main stem of the tree. See additional information sheet provided by Surveyor showing complete dimensions and grades. A minimum of 80% of feeder roots and support roots should remain intact if retaining wall is used. The tree tagged #20 by the City Consultant should have enough clearance after the road is realigned to allow it to live without a need for a retaining wall to protect the root zone. It should also be noted that the new tree count for removal is 210. This includes trees that are located in projected driveways for possible future building sites. Sincerely, Chuck Scovell Certified Arborist #346 CS:skh REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: Through; Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Datal/22/91 Via Greg Luke, Public Works Director From: Lisa Schicker, Consulting Arborist SIF Comments regarding Tree Protection Plan for trees in cut and fill areas of proposed Ardina Road Extension under existing Tree Ordinance Number 16R EXIStINQ ORDINANCE-- Tree RDINANCETree Ordinance#168 specifies that a Tree Protection Plan be included for construction projects Involving trees, In order to 'maximize chances for their subsequent survW (9-1.15%1 It further specifies that all trees within 2(r of any proposed 'developm t area' shall be Identified and "measures proposed to insure the survival of the remaining trees throagh the construction process and thereafter"VA155b01 and ii})shall be included with the application. The cut and fill areas,along with shoulders roadbed and arty drainage structures for a new road are part of the mdevelopmerit area•of that roadway. Therefore,according to the Ming ordinance,all trees within 20'of any of this area should be identified and protected It is noanally the applicant's respans#b Huty to prdvide this tnbrrnation to the Cly-in the case of the Ardilla Road appikadon,this information was not included The City then requested that cog arborist Wes Conner prepare a Tree Protection Plan to suppternent tine Ardilla Road Tree Removal AppHcatlon. DISCUSSION: In Atascadem it seems that almost every construction project Involves tree removal and/or tree protection,due to the fact that the City is basted in one of the largest remaining oak woodlands in the state. Pot every application that has involved tree protection in the,past: the n drrial requirement has been dripline fencing during { i Drtpline fencing was designed to keep heavy construction equipment off sensitive feeder Toot areas-even if some tree roots were lost to construction,the trees would at least have I i l A- remaining roots healthy and intact and might be able to recover from any damage. DripHne fencing was the main tree protection method required of most applicants;sometimes fencing was an that was really needed and sometimes this method fell far short of protecting trees for survival Into the future. For trees that were identified as exceptional(because of tree size,condition location and/or speciesl additional tree protection measures were taken-retaining and gabion walls were Installed(such as those used on Atajo and Garcia Road projects)to avoid irreparable root damage or tree loss. It is tmpossible to determine the exact amount of construction damage required to kill an Individual tree,especially if one only looks at the short term Trees do not usually die the ffrst or second year after being damaged-it may take ten-fifteen years for a tree to the from construction damage and we are usually not around to keep track It is,however,a researched and doarmented fact that oak trees(especially the valley oak)are very susceptible to root disturbances such as the sal compaction and cut and fill activities that will occur during the�constrvctim of ArdMa Road When tree roots are compacted by heavy machinery,they are crushed and can no longer iprovide food or oxygen for the tree. When soil and the tree roots are ark remaining roots are exposed and they dry out and die and the trees'ability to feed itself is reduced. When IM sod covers tree trunks and roots,trunk rok root rot diseases and lack of oxygen can slowly kilt the tree. It is these documented fads which form the basis for recping additional tree protection for the trees in construction on areas, including Arditla Road MWching morning and the installation of foundationless tree wells/retaining walls and aeration systems are being recommended now because it is probably a good chance that many of the people involved with this project today will not be around in ten to fifteen years to see tf any of those affected trees survtved the construction Impacts around them. Due to the nature of the projeck the applicants` involvement with the road will end when construction Is complete and the condition of the trees and the road will be lit in someone else's hands. This very point is an wdremely important one-the road,with its adjoining residential lots will be left in someone else's hands -how will this affect the Installed tree protection along the road in the long term? It is dif 1cutt to propose a Tree Protection Plan for road 2 construction as an Isolated activity when it is known that even without further lot splits, between ten and twelve driveways will be cutting up and down the hillsides along Ardilla Road Extension,Perhaps 8 tak in out those very trees that are part of the Tree Protection Plan prepared bythe arborist. It seems an important issue and one that needs to be discussed as soon as possible for every proposed road project in Atascader. How are the lots along the length of ArdMa Road to be accessed and how will these driveways affect subsequent tree removal and any tree protection that is placed along that roadway in the near future? Sum for how to deal with this aernma normally would be to require environmental review(including tree protection review)at the earliest possible stage-this is impossible to do forArdiila Road because these lots and road have been mapped since the foumfing of Atascadera It is also hard to ignore the•whole picture when reviewing projects like ArdMa which have an obvious potential to cause more tree removals in the future It is a known fact that the purpose of this road is to access a known number of residential tots-why not deal with this fact now and solve the moues this situation creates once instead of in a piecemeal fashion, over and over again? r There are several ways to address this,each with its own set of consequences. Perhaps driveways to each lot should be designed now,in order to determine low each one will affect the proposed Tree Protection Plan for the road-this has been done for the proposed San Marcos Road Extension. Other suggestions relate to the residential lots along the road-one solution might be to create a set of covenants and restrictions that would go on title to require that driveways and building sites be punned with regard to specific trees and protection plans ahvady in place. Today,C,oundt is being asked to make decisiorts regarding tree protection for the construction of Ardiila goad the arboristrecomm rods saving 38 of the 39 trees which are located on the fringe areas of art and fill or in the swales-his recommendations were based on an individual evaluation of the sim tocatkon,condition and species of each tree His report determines that these 38 trees can be saved with some level of protedfn,ranging in complexity and cost from priming and mull ing to the instiaAation of aeration and retaining stnudums. Tim applicant accotftg to a letter received by the Aubiicc Works Department is interested in reducing the road aort3huction standards to avoid Installing protection for time trees(by rig road widths,shifting the road and tightening the slope in certain a mos)and not installing the protective devices. Because the City will be accepting the road into its system,this option must also be weighed=refuny,as it passes on some level of substandard 3 �ivc%est �3 � conditions that will become the future resporutbfnty of the taxpayers. Qearfy,the two sets of proposals for Tree Phatection do not yet meet and the City must decide the best way to approach this complex issue. MONS, A resolution exists on the books that may be useful in this situation Resolution 59-89(passed in August 1989)requires tree protection for road construction project and limits the costs of tree protection so that the project with tree protection should not cost more than 125%of the cost of bufldtng the road without tree protection. Perhaps this may be a method for coming to some decision about how much and what kind orf tree protection should be required for this project: Staff: corrsunfng arborist and applicant will need to meet to determine the details of how this can be accomplished, It is also important to discuss the impacts or#driveway design and use of the adjacent residential lots as soon as possible-the sooner the better,because these issues are not going to go away. Driveway and building Ming and design will eventually cause additional tree removal and possible damage to tree protection methods that are going to be required for of Ardina Road. Althou $h ft-was not spextficany rrrendoned in the Consulting Aaborisft report,it is irrr;Mtant and required by the�to install drfp&w fencing around any tree within 2(r of the construction area that has the potential to sustain damage from heavy equipment. Attachments: Native Oaks-A Brief Natural History t I 4 t - L Nc l osa.u-", 13 .0 REPORT TO CITY COONCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item: B-2 Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Mtg. Date: 3/12/91 From: Henry Engen, Comm. Dev. Director V File No: Parks//Rec. Element SUBJECT: Consideration of the draft Parks and Recreation Element of the City' s General Plan. RECOMMENDATION Per the Planning Commission' s recommendation, approval of Resolution No. 17-91 adopting the Parks and Recreation Element, with the minor amendments to the text recommended by the Parks, Recreation, and Zoo Director. • BACKGROUND: On February 19, 1991, the Atascadero Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the above-subject. On a 7: 0 vote, the Commission voted to recommend to the City Council adoption of the Parks and Recreation Element to the Atascadero General Plan. There was discussion and public testimony as reflected in the attached minutes. HE:ps Attachments: Staff Report dated 2/19/91 Draft Parks and Recreation Element Minutes Excerpt - 2/19/91 Memorandum - Andy Takata 3/12/91 it CITY OF ATASCADERO Item: STAFF REPORT FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: February 19, 1991 BY: p/,Dsteven L. Decamp, City Planner File No: GP 1B-91 SUBJECT: Consideration of the draft Parks and Recreation Element of the City' s General Plan. RECOMMENDATION: The Commission should recommend that the City Council approve the attached resolution adopting the Parks and Recreation Element . SITUATION AND FACTS: 1 . Applicant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .City of Atascadero 2 . Representative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Parks and Recreation Dept . 3 . Environmental Status . . . . . . . . .Negative Declaration posted • January 16, 1991 ANALYSIS• The California Government Code provides that a city may prepare and adopt, as an element of the city' s general plan, a Parks and Recreation Element . The Parks and Recreation Element will provide guidance for the acquisition and development of park and other open space land within the City. This element is an important adjunct to the Open Space and Conservation Element of the General Plan. The draft plan that is attached to this report was reviewed and approved by the Parks and Recreation Commission. It should be noted that a separate trails plan is being developed by the City' s Parks and Recreation Department . CONCLUSIONS: The adoption of a Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan will aide in the implementation of the Open Space and Conservation Element. It will also provide important guidance . for future capitol improvement budgeting for parks and other • recreation facilities . ATTACHMENTS : Exhibit A - Negative Declaration Exhibit B - Draft Resolution Exhibit C - Draft Parks and Recreation Element • • - EXHIBIT A CITY OF ATASCADERO ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATO1 NEGATIVE DECLARATION COWAUMW DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 6500 PALMA AVE. ATASCADERO. CA 93422 (805) 461-5035 APPLICANT: City of Atascadero 6500 Palma Ave Atascadero, CA 93422 (805) 461-5000 PROJECT TITLE: Parks and Recreation Element of the City General Plan PROJECT LOCATION: Citywide PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Adoption of the Parks and Recreation Element of the City of Atascadero General Plan. The draft Element meets the requirements imposed by the State of California for such elements. 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. DETERMINATION: 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: January 16, 1991 Date Adopted: • CDD 11.89 7 EXHIBIT B RESOLUTION NO. 17-91 A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO APPROVING THE ADOPTION OF THE PARKS AND RECREATION ELENT OF THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN (GP 1B-91; City of Atascadero) WHEREAS, the City of Atascadero has grown considerably since incorporation; and WHEREAS, the City' s General Plan, which was prepared in the 1970' s and adopted in 1980 to guide the City' s general growth is in need of updating; and WHEREAS; the Planning Commission of the City of Atascadero conducted a public hearing on the subject amendment on February 19, 1991; and WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65356 provides that a General Plan be amended by the adoption of a resolution; and • WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Atascadero finds as follows : 1 . The proposed General Plan amendment recommended by the Planning Commission is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan. 2 . The proposed General Plan amendment will not have a significant adverse affect on the environment. The Negative Declaration prepared for the project is adequate. THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Atascadero does resolve to approve General Plan Amendment GP 1B-91 as follows : 1 . Amendment to the General Plan text by adoption of a Parks and Recreation Element as shown in the attached Exhibit A. Resolution #17-91 • On motion by and seconded by the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety by the following roll call vote: AYES : NOES : ABSENT: DATE ADOPTED : CITY OF ATASCADERO, CA ROBERT B. LILLEY, Mayor 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 • • CITY OF ATASCADERO PARKS AND RECREATION ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN • Prepared by PARKS, RECREATION, AND ZOO DEPARTMENT City of Atascadero 6500 Palma Avenue Atascadero, California 93423 Revised February, 1991 ;ELEII (wp4.2) • ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS CITY COUNCIL Robert Lilley, Mayor Alden Shiers Rollin Dexter Bonita Borgeson Robert Nimmo PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION Tom Bench, Chairman Victor Smart Kenneth Meyer t Diana Cooper • Andrea Schulte STAFF Ray Windsor, City Manager Andrew J. Takata, Director Parks, Recreation and Zoo Department Henry Engen, Director Community Development Department • CITY OF ATASCADERO PARKS AND RECREATION ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS Pane I. INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 II. BACKGROUND INFORMATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 -- Legal Authority. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 -- Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 -- Philosophies.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 -- Administration. . . . . . . b. . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . ... . 3 -- Development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 3 Acquisition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 -- Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . 4 -- Financial. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 -- Access. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 -- Population Growth. . . . 000 - o . . . o - oo — . . . . . o . . . . 5 -- Quadrant Descriptions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 III. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 -- Suggested Space Standards and Descriptions 6 • -- Suggested Facility Development Standards 8 IV. RECREATION PROGRAMS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 -- Background. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 -- Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 V. TYPES OF PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES. . . . . . . . . 10 -- Inventory of Current Recreational Facilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 -- Theoretical Recreational Acreage Needs. . . . 10 --Comparison of Usable Acreage to Acreage Needs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 VI. POLICY AND IMPLEMENTATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 --Proposed Goals, Objectives,and Policies. . . 11 -- City-wide Parks and Recreation Goals, objectives, and Policies. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 11 -- General City Park Policies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 --Policies Related to Mini, Neighborhood, ad Community Parks. . . . o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 -- Policies Related to Specialized Rec- reational Facilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 • -ii- VII. THE FINANCIAL PLAN. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 15 • --Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 -- Financing Goals Policy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 -- Parks and Recreation Element Financing 000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 -- General Financing Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 -- The Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 -- Quimby Act Park Dedication Fee and Park Development 7662. . o . . . . . . . . o . . o . . . o - o . . . oo IS -- Adjustment to Current City Development Fees. . . . . . . .-. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 - General Obligation Bonds. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 19 -- Mello Roos Community' Facilities District Bonds. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 -- General Fund Revenues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 -- Revenue Bonds. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 -- Lease Purchase. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 -- Joint Financing. . . . . . oo . . . . . . . . . o . . . . . . 20 -- Public-Private Joint ventures. . . . . . . . . . 20 -- Gas Tax Fund. . . . o . . . . . . oo . o . o . . o . . . o . . . 20 -- Local Transportation Fund. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Sales Tax Override. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 -- Park Development Programming. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 VIII. DEVELOPMENT PRIORITIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 %I. DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE AND GUIDELIMES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 -- Table 1: Parks Development Pro am • P � 1988-2007. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 -- Table 2: Estimated Costa to Implement Program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24/23 -- Geographic Zones Map.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 -iii- • I. INTRODUCTION The development of the first separate Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan presents the city the opportunity of properly developing a long range plan for the improvement of recreational facilities, areas, activities, and other services. The City believes a good municipal park system is vital for maintaining the uniquely livable quality of our community and providing worthwhile recreation close to home. Until now, there has been no detailed plan for developing parks and recreation facilities in the City of Atascadero. As a result, park development has not kept pace with other types of development in many parts of the city. It is important to have a plan which will help correct that imbalance as well as assure adequate park development as the city grows. Current parks and recreation areas are in great demand, existing facilities are overused, and anticipated growth will increase pressure on limited resources. This plan will address those problems. As with all the cities in San Luis Obispo County, Atascadero is a rapidly growing community with many unmet needs. A 1990 population of approximately 23,517 is expected to grow to 32,800+ by the year 2003. The purpose of this Element is to provide general Policy guidelines for managing and rehabilitating existing City facilities and adequately planning for the long term needs of the community relating to parks and recreation. The Parks and Recreation Element will serve as a flexible and long range planning document. The citizens of Atascadero played a vital role in this planning process through a series of public workshops, surveys, and ongoing communication and correspondence. As a result of this participation, the Parks and Recreation Element has essentially been prepared by City residents rather than for them. For purposes of the element, a 20 year planning period is recommended, with formal review periods every five (5) years. This will provide the City adequate time to plan and develop needed parks and recreation facilities in Atascadero. The information on which this element's policies are based is contained in the Technical Report. The Technical Report should be reviewed to fully understand the provisions of this element. Copies of the report are available at the Parks and Recreation Department and Community Development Department in the City of Atascadero. • 1 • II. BACKGROUND INFORMATION i LEGAL AUTHORITY State planning law allows local governments to adopt a recreation element as an optional element of the General Plan. (Government Code Section 65303 (a) . The intent of the statute is to provide a way for communities to determine their recreation needs and develop methods for satisfying them. A general plan that contains a recreation element must contain definite principles and standards (Government Code Section 66477 (d) . Any recreation element that is prepared to implement a Quimby Act Ordinance (to be discussed) must insure that all "park and recreation facilities are in accordance with definite principles and standards contained in the plan." PROCESS The following are specific planning objective areas: Survey public needs. --Involve the public to the greatest extent possible in the planning process. --Assess the adequacy of existing City parks and recreation • facilities. --Project park and recreation needs into the future. --Develop parkland and facility standards for adoption. --Identify critical needs and issues. --Evaluate existing recreation programs and identify future needs. --Recommend a financial plan. --Identify goals, objectives, and policies. --Recommend an action plan. --Identify priorities. --Recommend a development schedule and guidelines. PHILOSOPHIES In reviewing background information, conducting community forums, reviewing questionnaire results, discussions with the Park and Recreation Commission, and discussing the parks and recreation program with City staff, certain issues, needs, and desires were identified. For purposes of this element, these issues are divided into the following areas: Administration, Development, Acquisition, Resources, Financial, and Access. • 2 *** Administration • l *There should be support from the city to allow private enterprise to develop recreation facilities. *Development of joint powers agreement with Atascadero Unified School District for joint use of recreational facilities. *Revenue producing facilities should be developed to offset operating costs. *Consideration of funding from state to develop an off highway vehicle facility. *Safety/insurance concerns identified for high risk recreation activities. *Consideration of National Guard Armory as potential recreation site. *Exploration of all possible fund raising options. *Encourage private venture recreation (youth sports group purchasing property and developing fields) . *Evaluation of city priority for future of Lake Pavilion. *More pre-school programs involving parents. *Agreements with property owners concerning use of private land for recreation. *Development fees revised to adequately provide for future park and recreation needs. *Possible lease of Rocky Canyon Ranch for recreational purposes. *Delineate boundary of Atascadero Creek and Salinas River. *Parks and Recreation Department should be a central • information source for recreation activities of all types in the City. *Master Plans should be developed for each city park facility, including proposed parks. *City should have in place a volunteer program for Parks and Recreation. *A General obligation Bond should be utilized as a possible funding source for the most needed recreational facilities. *A Parks and Recreation Foundation should be established to aid the department in fund raising, securing of grants, and project coordination. *Recreation program emphasis should be on youth activities. ***Development *City should continue to provide parks and expand facilities for recreation. *City/School parks should be developed when possible. *Neighborhood Parks in each quadrant of the City. *Completion of Traffic Way Park. *Tennis Courts, preferably night lighted. 3 • *Mini-parks should be developed in the areas of highest • population concentration and least amount of parklands. *Jogging paths *Bike lanes and walkways should be developed along busy streets connecting to schools and other areas. *Expansion and improvement of facilities at Atascadero Lake Park. *Zoo expansion *Development of community center for multi-purpose use. *Development of activity buildings in each quadrant. *Development of Community swimming pool. *Community park in North Atascadero. *Development of multi-purpose sports facilities. *Special interest recreation facilities development. *Improve inadequate facilities for recreation activities. *Trails system connecting to other recreational areas in the City. San Luis Obispo County and the City of Atascadero should work closely in this area, as the County has established this as a high priority item. *Development of Atascadero Creekway and Graves Creek. This should be developed in coordination with the overall trails system. *Development of an open space element needs to be addressed and have been done in draft form. ***Accuisition • *Parkland acquisition in each quadrant of the city where a need is identified. *Consideration of Pine Mountain Amphitheater/Stadium Park *When possible, property acquisition adjacent to elementary schools for development of parks. *Purchase of needed property as a top priority- if the city does not get it now, may not be available in future. *Purchase of Paloma Park or renewing of long term lease with State of California. ***Resources *Salinas River area as possible site for special interest recreation. *Atascadero Mutual Water Company land as possible off highway vehicle area. *Private land donation for special interest recreation. *Recreation Department as information source for recreation opportunities in the City. • 4 ***Financial *Financing is need4h for recreational improvements within • the City. *Acquisition and development costs should be distributed between current and new residents. *Development fees should provide for the future park needs in the City. ***Access *Trails connecting other recreation areas (Equestrian) . *Access to Salinas River *Park system connecting Salinas River and Atascadero Creek. *Walking trails connecting other recreation areas. *Graves Creek area access for recreation. POPULATION GROWTH The population of Atascadero is expected to continue to grow from its current 1990 population of 23,500 to a projected 32,800+ in the year 2003. The maximum population is a theoretical figure which cannot be attained or surpassed without changing the character of the community. As indicated in the population capacity analysis, there were, • in 1987 approximately 4786 single family housing units throughout the City. This represents 63% of the existing housing in Atascadero. According to the multiple family study, there are approximately 2726 existing multi-family housing units. The City is currently divided into four major geographic zones for purposes of the planning document. Using this document as a guide, current population and potential population figures are listed below: Northeast Quadrant: current population- 5,700 Year 2003 population- 8,800 Southeast Quadrant: Current population- 6,700 Year 2003 population- 9,900 Northwest Quadrant: Current population- 4,400 Year 2003 population- 9,500 Southwest Quadrant: Current population- 2,700 Year 2003 population- 3,800 Total 1987 Population: 20,500 Total Year 2003 Population: 32,800 5 • Combining the current needs for park and recreation facilities • and services with the anticipated population growth in the future makes it imperative the City develop an adequate plan for the needs of the community. Current facilities in the city are inadequate, and this problem will only increase as the population of Atascadero continues to grow. QUADRANT DESCRIPTIONS For planning purposes, the City of Atascadero is divided into planning areas, or quadrants. This element refers to four quadrants. These include the following: Northeast- The area between Highway 101 and the proposed route of Highway 41. This area includes the City Administration Building, Lewis Avenue School, Oak Hills High School, Traffic Way Park, and a portion of Atascadero Creek extending to the Salinas River. Northwest- The area between Highway 101 and existing Highway 41. This area includes Monterey Road Elementary School and Atascadero High School. chool. Southwest- As above, the geographical boundary is Highway 41 easterly to Highway 101. This area includes Atascadero Lake Park, Charles Paddock Zoo, Santa Rosa Elementary School, and San Gabriel Elementary School. Southeast The area between Highway 101 and Salinas River southeast of Atascadero Creek. This area includes Heilman Regional Park and Chalk Mountain Golf Course,. Pine Mountain area, and Paloma Creek Park. III. DEMOPMENT STANDARDS The City has followed an acres-per-population ratio method to assume standards for recreation/park areas and facilities. Suggested Space Standards and Descriptions NRPA Minimum Recommendations The park system, at a minimum, be composed of a "core" system of parklands, with a total of 6.25 to 10.25 acres of developed open space per 1000 population. • 6 Acres/ Per . Component Use Service Area Size 1,000 Mini-Park Specialized Less than 1/4 1 acre or 1/2 facilities- mile radius. less. acre. serve limited pop. or group. Located in residential area. Desirable Site Characteristics: Within neighborhoods and in close proximity to apartment complexes, townhouse development or housing for the elderly. Neighborhood Intense rec. 1/4-1/2 15+ ac. 2.5 ac. Park activities- mile field games, radius to court games, serve pop. crafts, play of 5000. equipment, picnics, wading pools, etc. Desirable site Characteristics: Suited for intense development. Easily accessible to neighborhood population-geographically centered with safe walking and bike access. May be developed as a school-park facility or developed adjacent to school facilities. Community Diverse-may Several 25+ acres 5 Park include areas neighborhoods acres for intense rec. facilities, sports complexes, pools, passive areas; could be combination use. Desirable site Characteristics: Leisure facilities designed to serve the broader recreational needs of several neighborhoods. May include natural features such as water bodies, and areas suited for intense development. Regional Area of natural Several 1000+ 5 acres Park quality for cities nature oriented outdoor rec.- wildlife habitat, swimming, boating, fishing, camping, trail uses. + •7 Desirable Site Characteristics: Provides unique natural areas and • specialized recreational facilities such as campgrounds, wilderness areas, nature study, outdoor education, hiking trails, and equestrian facilities serving persons living throughout a geographical area. ***SUGGESTED FACILITY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ** 1987 population of Atascadero-20,500. Estimated population in 2003-32,800. 2003 Needs is the hypothetical number if the City adopts the proposed standards. (NRPA and local recommendations. Type of Facilitv Guidelines Existing (Atas) 2003 Needs Softball Fields 1/2500 10 13 Baseball Fields 1/2500 6 13 (60') Baseball Diamond 1/8000 (1/30,000-L) 2 4 (2 L) (90') Community Center 1/25;000 0 1 - Swimming Pools 1/10,000 1 3 Tennis Courts 1/2000 8 16 Football/Soccer 1/5000 4 6 Basketball Courts 1/5000 20 20 Public Golf Course 1/25,000 1 1 Outdoor Theater 1/20,000 0 1-2 Picnic Shelters 1/5000* 0 6 Picnic Tables 1/400* 25 82 Horseshoes Courts 1/3000* 4 11 Volleyball Courts 1/5000 2 6 Handball/Racquet. 1/8000 0 4 (4 wall) Trails-Hiking l mi./4000 0 8.2 mi. -Nature 1 mi./2500 0 13 -Bicycle 1 mi./2000 3 16.8 mi. -Equestrian 1 mi./6250 0 5.25 mi. -Exercise 1 trail/7500 0 4 Gymnasium 1/10,000 1 3 ***Inventory. of facilities includes all school, city, and county facilities. Type of Facility Guidelines Existing (Atas) 2003 Needs Mini-Park .5 ac/1000 0 ac. 8-16 ac. Neighborhood Park 2.5 ac/1000 51 ac. 82 ac. Community Park 5 ac/1000 144 ac. 164 ac. Regional Park 5 ac/1000 200 ac. 164 ac. Total. . . . . . . . . . . 13 ac./1000 395 ac. 418-426 ac. 8 • IV. RECREATION PROGRAX8 BACKGROUND The Recreation Division currently offers a wide variety of programs to the community. The type of programs currently offered are based on interest, need, and type of facilities available for program offerings. As part of the element, the programs and services offered by the Division were evaluated, and are included in this chapter. RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations/principles are guidelines for the development of the recreation programs: 1. The city will develop a balanced recreation program that provides activities for all age groups. Special emphasis shall be placed on programs for teenagers and elementary children. Program areas could include sports, special events, cultural activities, music and drama, trips, and special interest classes. 2. The city shall work to increase cooperation with the Atascadero Unified School District to promote joint use of school and city facilities for recreation. 3. The Recreation Division should have a feasibility study done to determine if an Enterprise Fund Budget would provide better programing services. 4. The City shall continuously evaluate its park system and recreation programs to determine the extent of their use, and will support and expand recreation programs, when possible, for which there is a large demand. The more specialized a recreation program, the more financially self-supporting it should become. 5. The Recreation Division should have adequate facilities for conducting its programs offered to the community. Strong emphasis should be placed on appropriate recreational structures. 6. The City shall continuously evaluate its park system and new recreation programs to accommodate special interest groups. 9 ' I V. TYPEB OF PARRS AND RECREATION FACILITIES INVENTORY OF CURRENT RECREATIONAL FACILITIES Usable Land For Neighborhood Total Acres Recreation Santa Rosa Elementary School 12.57 7.5 Monterey Rd. Elementary School 12.75 7.6 Oak Hill Continuation School 12.05 8.4 San Gabriel Elementary School 13.67 6.8 Subtotal: 51.04 30.3 Community Atascadero Junior High School 23.34 16.3 Atascadero Senior High School 41.00 20.5 Sunken Gardens 1.00 1.00 Paloma Creek Park* 23.00 23.00 Traffic Way Park 6.20 6.20 Atascadero Lake Park 50.00 50.00 • Subtotal: 144.54 117. 00 Regional Heilman Regional Park/ 200.00 200.00 Chalk Mtn. Golf Course* Subtotal: 200.00 200.00 TOTAL: 395.58 347.3 *Recreational facilities located outside of City boundaries. THZORZTICAL RECREATIONAL ACREAGE NEEDS Type of Park Acreage Standard(l) Mini 16 .50 acres/1000 population Neighborhood 82 2.5 acres/1000 population Community 164 5 acres/1000 population Regional 16 5 acres/1000 population Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 426 (1) Applied to 32,800 person population holding capacity. • 10 COMPARISON OP USABLE ACREAGE TO ACREAGE NEEDS • Usable Theoretical +Excess/ Location Acreage Need Deficiency Northeast Quadrant 31.9 77 acres -45 Southeast Quadrant 23.0 79 acres -56 Southwest Quadrant 64.3 30 acres +34 Northwest Quadrant 28. 1 76 acres -48 Regional 200.0 164 acres +36.0 TOTAL: 347.3 426 acres -79 VI. POLICY AND IMPLEMENTATION PROPOSED GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES The following goals, objectives, and policies are recommended which respond to those issues identified by the public during public meetings: CITY-WIDE GOALS, OBJECTIVES. AND POLICIES Goal 1: To purchase needed parklands for future development of park and recreation facilities. Objective 1: To provide an adequate supply and equitable geographic distribution of parklands based on the existing and projected distribution of the City's population. Objective 2: To use the park and recreation and open space standards recommended by the National Park and Recreation Association (NRPA) as minimum standards for the acquisition of additional parklands with modifications based on City needs. Goal 2: To provide an adequate supply of City park facilities to all Atascadero residents. Objective I: To provide an adequate supply and equitable geographic distribution of City parks facilities based on the existing and projected distribution of the City's population. objective 2: To use the park and recreation and open space standards recommended by the National Park and Recreation Association (NRPA) as minimum standards for establishing needs for additional parklands and facilities with modifications based on City needs. � 11 • • In order to meet the above goal and objectives, the City should utilize the following policies relating to public parks and recreation facilities: GENERAL CITY PARK POLICIES 1. The Parks and Recreation Commission should continue to provide advisory services to the City Council and Parks and Recreation Director for the future management and development of the City Park system. 2. Adopted park plans should be updated and implemented for existing city parks. Park plans should be developed for all parks without plans and in need of improvement. 3 . The following parkland standards should be used to evaluate existing need and accommodate future growth: **Mini-parks: 1/2 acre per 1000 population **Neighborhood Parks: 2 1/2 acres per 1000 population **Community Parks: 5 acres per 1000 population **Regional Parks: 5 acres per 1000 population 4. The following facility development standards should be used to evaluate existing and future needs: **Softball diamond: 1 per 2500 population • **Baseball diamond (60' bases) : 1 per 2500 population. **Baseball diamond: l per 8000 population (1 per 30,000 if lighted) **Community Center: 1 per 25,000 population **Swimming Pools: 1 per 10, 000 population **Tennis Courts: 1 per 2000 population **Football/Soccer Fields: 1 per 5000 population **Outdoor Basketball Courts: 1 per 5000 population **Public Golf Course: l per 25, 000 population **Outdoor Theater: 1 per 20,000 **Picnic Shelters: 1 per 5000 population* **Picnic Tables: 1 per 400 population* **Horseshoes Courts: i per 3000 population* **volleyball Courts: 1 per 5000 population **Handball/Racquetball Courts: 1 per 8000 population **Trail System Hiking: 1 mile per 4000 population Nature: 1 mile per 2500 population Bicycler 1 mile per 2000 population Equestrian: 1 mile per 6250 population Exercise: 1 trail per 7500 population **Gymnasium: 1 per 10,000 population **Amphitheater: 1 per 5,000 population* * No national standard recommended. Local standard recommended based on projected need. • 12 5. Locations proposed for future City parks should be schematic, and may be located on any suitable lands in the general vicinity. • 6. The Recreation Element should be used as a guide for developing additional park and recreation facilities. 7. Parklands, open space easements, scenic easements, and public access easements may be acquired by the City by purchase negotiations, gifts, and through conditions placed on approvals of development plans. S. A Parks and Recreation Master Plan shall be developed to provide for the long term development needs of the City. This plan is the logical outgrowth of the Recreation Element. ***Policies Related to Mini. Neighborhood, and Community Parks 1. The City should provide mini, neighborhood, and/or, community parks in each geographic quadrant of the City. 2. Where a city-wide recreation need is demonstrated in an area adjacent to county jurisdiction, cooperative park/facility development programs are encouraged on a cost-sharing basis. Joint power agreements between the City and County should be developed to provide for the acquisition and/or development and operation of parks in this context. 3. The City should encourage park development on existing sites • located adjacent to elementary, junior and senior high schools when possible to benefit from shared use of land and facilities. A joint use agreement with the Atascadero Unified School District should be formalized to develop necessary agreements for cost sharing arrangements for parks near schools and to develop the necessary agreements to cover park maintenance and operation. 4. The City should develop park facilities in the City based on identified needs and budgetary restrictions. Needs were identified during a series of public sessions in October, November, and December 1987. Goal 3: To provide some specialized recreation opportunities in each quadrant of the city, including, but not limited to, swimming pools, multi-purpose sports complex, tennis courts, recreation center, play areas for children, equestrian trails, bike and jogging paths, and community center. Objective 1: To provide an adequate supply of specialized recreation facilities in each quadrant of the city based on existing and projected population distribution. 13 • Objective 2: To use facility standards as adopted by the National / • Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) and local needs in t determining the total number of needed specialized recreational facilities. Objective 3: To evaluate needed improvements in each quadrant of the city, and develop facilities in priority order based on need and available funding. ***Policies Related to Specialized Recreational Facilities 1. The City should provide specialized recreation opportunities based on projected need and standards established. 2. In determining development priority for specialized facilities, the City shall evaluate current inventory, needs based on standards, and type of funding available. 3 . The City shall apply for grants whenever possible to finance development of special facilities.. 4. The City and Atascadero Unified School District shall, when possible, cooperate to jointly develop special facilities. Goal 4: Provide a aide range of recreational activities and creative ezperiences for all age groups, designed to encourage and • educate participants in today's leisure society while still striving to achieve their desired degree of self-fulfillment. Objective 1: Develop a balanced recreation program for all groups. Objective 2: Develop for approval by the City Council and Atascadero Board of Education a joint powers agreement for usage of recreational facilities in the Atascadero Unified School District and City of Atascadero. Objective 3: The city will continuously evaluate its recreation programs to determine the extent of their use, and will support and expand recreation programs for which there is a large demand and sufficient staff exists to provide the needed service. The more specialized a recreation program, the more financially self- supporting it should become. In order to provide for recreation activity needs in the community, the following policies should be adopted: 1. A program evaluation should be completed by each program participant providing a rating of that specific activity. This evaluation will be a key factor in determining the future of the program. • 14 2. The Recreation Division shall constantly seek adequate • facilities for new and/or existing programs. 3. A community center should be developed in the city for providing activities. 4. The City should continue to work closely with the School District to insure a close working relationship for continued cooperation for use of school facilities for recreation programs. VII. THE FINANCIAL PLAN INTRODUCTION As part of the Parks and Recreation Element, the City Council will adopt a set of financing goals and policies. Adoption of these policies will require decisions regarding the most cost effective methods to finance the implementation of the Parks and Recreation Element. FINANCING GOALS POLICIES The following financing goals and policies are proposed for the Parks and Recreation Element: • Goal is Develop a method of financing park and recreation facilities and services throughout the City using a variety of revenue sources. The financing methods sources should provide the capability to pay for: --Operations, maintenance, and rehabilitation of existing parks to maintain the current service levels. --Completion of existing park improvement plans. --Land acquisition, capital improvements, rehabilitation, operations and maintenance of new community facilities. The plan must have the ability to fund long term capital project needs. PARKS AND RECREATION ELEMENT FINANCING POLICIES 1.The City should finance land acquisition, capital improvements, and rehabilitation of the Element program through a combination of the following approaches: --General Obligation Bonds --Revenue Bonds --Mello Roos Community Facilities District Bonds 15 • --City General Fund tax increases • --Lease Purchase --Donations --Foundation Support --Joint Funding (City/County, City/School) --Public-private Joint Ventures --Subdivision fees --General Fund --Neighborhood Assessments --Parkland dedication fees --Grants (State, Federal, Foundation, Corporate) --Creative Financing --Gas Tax Revenue --Local Transportation Fund 2. A five year Capital Improvement Program should be used as a means to assist in the planning for acquisition, improvement, and rehabilitation of City park facilities. 3. New parks should be developed and existing parks should be expanded when a financing plan for the park providing for the improvements and ' the on-going operating and maintenance costs is approved by the City Council. 4. A City Grant Specialist should be utilized to obtain any Federal or State Grant for development of facilities consistent with the new General Plan. To the maximum extent possible, all private • donations should be pursued also. 4. Use should be made, to the maximum extent possible, of any federal and/or state grants and private donations for development of facilities consistent with the General Plan. 5. A City-wide development fee ordinance adopted pursuant to the Quimby Act should be applicable to new subdivisions. Developers should contribute to provision of adequate and appropriate public park and recreation facilities by the dedication of land or by the payment of fees in-lieu. Due to the fact that sub-divisions are doubtful in the City, Quimby Act funding is not likely source of funding for Atascadero. Development fees should be periodically 7 Y eriodicall adjusted b ordinance to adequately take care of Parks and Recreation Department needs. This should be applicable to all new residential/multi- family/commercial construction not subject to the Quimby Act Ordinance. (Note: new residential units in existing subdivisions and units in small scale developments will be exempt from the Quimby Act ordinance) . 6. The City should establish a land acquisition reserve fund to purchase areas of high recreation or scenic potential in parts of the City now lacking adequate park facilities. • 16 7. Where a city-wide recreation need is demonstrated in an area which is under county jurisdiction, cooperative park development programs are encouraged on a cost sharing basis. 8. The zoo Division should continue to be under an Enterprise Budget System, with all revenues received being available for zoo commitments to the City and to pay for Capital Projects. 9. The City should consider the following options for funding the maintenance of its park and recreation system: --User Fees --City-wide maintenance district --Use of General Fund Revenues 10. The City's primary responsibility should be to pay for the operations and maintenance of existing park facilities. A second high priority is to help in funding needed community and neighborhood facilities. 11. where a specialized facility provides personal benefits to a special or restricted interest, the facility could be designated as a special revenue fund activity in which operating and maintenance costs will be partly or fully self-supporting from user fees and/or concession revenues. Park facilities subject to this policy could include equestrian centers, off highway vehicle facilities, model car tracks, camping areas, etc. 12. In-Lieu fees should be considered as a funding source for the • development of mini-parks in the City. 13. Adequate funding sources must be developed for short term parks and recreation needs. GENERAL FINANCING PLAN It will be necessary to finance needed parks and recreation projects by incorporating a mix of techniques available to pay for park and facility development and operations. The following analysis presents a general financing plan that will guide the City during implementation of the Parks and Recreation Element. The Plan Under the general financing plan, the City will seek to maximize revenues and assistance from the following existing sources: Federal and State Grants User Fees City General Fund (continuation of existing support) 17 • Donations, volunteer labor, foundation grants, and special events • Development Fees The City could finance all elements of the Park System not funded through the General Financing Plan from a combination of the following revenue sources: --Development Fees on new residential development. --Adjustment in the current development fees already in place. A Facility Survey of other San Luis Obispo County cities provides development fee information in these cities. This can be used to compare fees in Atascadero with other cities in the area. --General Obligation Bonds -Mello Roos Community Facilities District Bonds --Increase in General Fund Support --Revenue Bonds --Lease Purchase --Joint Financing --Public-Private Joint Ventures --Gas Tax Revenues --Local Transportation Fund --Sales Tax Override The following paragraphs briefly review the use of these new funding sources: • Quimby Act Park Dedication Fee and Park Development Fees The Quimby Act (Government Code Section 66477) provides that a city may, by ordinance, require the dedication of land or impose mitigation fees on residential subdivisions as a means of providing park and recreation facilities to serve the subdivision's expanded population. The land, fees, or combination thereof are to be used only for the purpose of developing new or rehabilitating existing neighborhood, community park or recreation facilities to serve the subdivision. The Quimby Act specifies a number of specific rules and regulations governing the amount of fees/dedications and use of the land and resulting revenues. While the Quimby Act Ordinance will apply to many residential development projects, there are many new residential units that may be developed that are exempt from the Quimby Act. These new units would include development in subdivisions created prior to the enactment of the Ordinance and residential developments that are exempt because of other considerations. The City should enact a supplemental park development fee ordinance that applies to the new residential units exempt from the Quimby Act so that all new residential development contributes fairly to the development of the park system. As earlier stated, because subdivisions in Atascadero are uncommon, this is not a strong funding source for the City. • 18 Adjustment to Current City Development Fees • In 1990, the City received $0.337 per square foot for single family homes and $0.593 per square foot for multi-family construction, and 0.070 per squae foot for commercial development. Amounts collected are substantially less than other comparable agencies, and will not provide needed revenues for the City. General Obligation Bonds The City's voters could approve a general obligation bond to finance needed park improvements with a 2/3 majority vote. This option should be considered as a means to pay for a major share of land acquisition, capital improvements and rehabilitation of the park system .outlined in the Parks and Recreation Element or Park Master Plan when developed. If approved, the bond would be repaid by an ad valorem tax override. Mello Roos Community Facilities District Bonds Legislation was passed which enables public agencies to form a special district to erect special facilities. This could be used to finance all aspects of park development and operation not funded from other sources. This would require a 2/3 vote of the qualified electors of the district that would receive the benefit. The Board • of Directors would set the assessment levy and be responsible for determining appropriate park improvements. The assessment fee also must be approved by a 2/3 vote. The Community Facilities District could pay for park operations and improvements either on a "pay as you go" basis or through issuing an assessment bond. General Fund Revenues At the present time it appears unlikely that the City could use General Fund revenues above present levels to finance needed park improvements, either through reallocation or increased taxes. However, this option may be available at some time during the planning period and should remain an option. The Gann Expenditure Limitation (Proposition 4) will limit the City's ability to raise general fund revenues for the park system. The City is near its expenditure limit which may preclude use of general fund monies for parks without a voter approved authorization to increase the spending limit. 19 • • Local Transportation Fund This is another fund which has identified some funding sources for the development of bikeways. This fund has the potential of bikeways which are not necessarily a part of the street system in the City. Funding, however, is currently very limited, but should be explored. SALES TAX OVERRIDE A one-half cent tax override, if approved by the voters, could be used to -help fund needed city projects. This could included many of the projects outlined in this plan. PARK DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMING The City should have in place an on-going five year Capital Improvement Program that guides the implementation of the proposed park projects consistent with the needs. As a park facility enters the planning process, it will be added to the appropriate year in the CIP schedule. This will inform the community about the status of their park in the development process. This also enables park promoters to generate donations and other volunteer actions. • Each expansion or rehabilitation project should have a financial plan that specifies the sources of revenues to pay for planning, land acquisition, capital improvements, rehabilitation, and operations and maintenance. The financing plan should , be developed at the same time the park facilities are designed. It is critical that the CIP system be developed and maintained to guide the implementation of needed park improvement projects. Even though many of the proposed financing sources face considerable difficulty getting approved, many requiring a 2/3 voter approval, a sound CIP program will enable the City to maximize use of existing financial resources. The CIP program will also aid the City in responding to demands for park improvements from community groups by showing where specific parks stand in the planning and development process. VIII. DEVELOPMENT PRIORITIES To meet the recommended goals, priorities for developing and acquiring park and recreation facilities are: * Insure that adequate parkland space is available for the development of future park facilities by acquiring parklands in the community. • 21 * Develop a multi-purpose community center in the City. * Build new neighborhood parks in quadrants of the city that do not have them. Need to utilize available school sites for quadrant parks. * Complete recreation facilities in existing City parks. * Provide a basic structure and framework for a city-wide trails system, including hiking, equestrian, and bicycling trails. * Develop special recreation facilities which may not be included in neighborhood or community parks. * Development of an Open Space Element These priorities will guide preparation of the parks portion of the city's annual capital improvement program (CIP) . The precise scheduling of park projects will be influenced by financial conditions that change from year to year. The city will review the Parks and Recreation Element at least every five years to consider changing priorities and schedules for acquisition and development. (• 22 IX. DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE AND GUIDELINES TABLE 1 PARKS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM 1988-2007 Development Project Type of Period Name Project 1988-1992 Traffic Way Park Development Lake Park Improvement Lake Development Paloma Park Phase 11 Development Property Acquisition- Community center Acquisition Property Acquisition- NE Quadrant Acquisition Zoo Improvements Development Master Plan Document Planning Lake Pavilion Replacement Trail Development Development Lake Park Parking Rehabilitation Recreation Activity ity Development Building Tennis Court Lighting Development Alvord Pield Irrigation Creekway Development Development Community Center Development • 1993-1997 Property Acquisition- Community Pool Development NW Quadrant Acquisition Bikeways/Trails System Development Salinas River Lease/Development Northeast Quadrant Park Development 1998-2002 NW Quadrant Park Development Community Park (North) Development Paloma Park Purchase Acquisition/ Lease Lake Park Improvements Development 2003-2007 River Access (Salinas- Development Atascadero 8 Graves Creek Atascadero Creek/Graves Development Creek Trails Stadium Park Development • 23 TABLE 2 Atascadero Parks and Recreation Element Estimated Costs to Implement -Element Program Land Acquisition Capital Improvements Acres Cost per Total Acres Cost per Project Purchased Acre Cost Developed Acre Total Traffic Way --- --- --- 6 $ 40, 000 $ 240,000 Park Lake Park -- --- --- 25 --- $ 200,000 Improvement (Water Project) Paloma Park- --- --- --- 6 $ 30,000 $ 180,000 Phase II Center Community 4 $125,000 $500, 000 -- --- --- NW Quadrant 45 $40,000 $1,800,000 -- --- --- Zoo -- --- --- 3 --- S 500,000 Community --- --- --- 4 --- --- ( • Center NE Quadrant --- --- --- 45 $ 35, 000 $1,960,000 NW Quadrant 48 $40,000 $1,920,000 --- --- --- Bikeways --- --- -- 16mi $ 25,000 $ 400,000 Master Plan --- --- --- --- --- $ 25,000 Lake Pavilion --- --- --- -- $1, 100, 000 --- (Continued Next Page) 24 TABLE 2 Atascadero Parks and Recreation Element Estimated Costs to implement Element Program Project Land Acquisition Capital Improvements Acres Cost per Total Acres cost per Purchased Acre Cost Developed Acre Total NW Quadrant --- --- --- 48 $40,000 $ 1,920,000 Park Mini-Parks 8 $50,000 $400, 000 8 $20,000 160,000 Salinas --- --- -- --- --- 250,000 River Community --- --- --- --- --- 1,500,000 Pool Paloma Park 23 -0- -0- --- Purchase Lake Park --- --- --- 10 $10,000 100,000 Atascadero Creek/Graves Creek Trails --- --- --- --- --- 75,000 River Access --- -- --- --- --- 75,000 (Salinas from Creek Areas) Activity Building (Lake) --- "" --- --- 75,000 Tennis Court Lighting --- --- --- --- --- 75,000 Land Acquisition Capital Improvements TOTAL COSTS $51I540,000 $9,525,000 GRAND TOTAL: $15,065,000 25 0 0 W Z , A !� ••� N � \ SWRR < i 1 1 � h ( O • C c \ 26 f - JJ/__�r} i;.� a !�,` •'•�_9/ Yy IL CL wujcr LLJ us uj es C3 //— -. L If IK� �" 10, Wf t a / t . 1 26 MINUTES EXCERPT - PLANNING COMMISSION - 2/19/91 MINUTES - ATASCADERO PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting Tuesday, February 19, 1991 7:30 p.m. Atascadero Administration Building The regular meeting of the Atascadero Planning Commission was called to order at 7: 30 p.m. by Chairperson Lu followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Waage, Johnso Kudlac, Highland, Lochridge, Hanauer, and Ch rperson Luna Absents None Staff Present: Steven DeCam , City Planner; Andy Takata, Parks, Recreation and Zoo Director; and Pat Shepphard, Administr tive Secretary PUBLIC COMMENT No public comme was given. • A. CONS CALENDAR XApproval of minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting of February 5, 1991 person Luna advised that this item was not ready for deration at this time. B. HEARINGS, APPEARANCES, AND REPORTS 1. PARKS AND RECREATION ELEMENT Consideration of the draft Parks and Recreation Element of the City' s General Plan Andy Takata presented the staff report noting that this is the first separate Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan. It affords the City an opportunity of properly develop- ing a long range plan for the improvement of recreational facilities, activities, areas, and other services. He then summarized the information contained in the Element. Commission questions and discussion followed. Commissioner Kudlac noted that much of the Graves Creek property is private and asked how acquisition of this property would be accomplished, and asked if this access would be used MINUTES EXCERPT - PLANNING COMMISSION - 2/ 19/91 s for strictly trails that are on City property along creek beds. Mr. Takata stated it would be desirable to have a complete trails system and to acquire the land through easements, but noted that there are no specific proposals at this time. Discussion followed relative to procedures for acquiring land, i.e. imminent domain, monetary compensation, etc. Chairperson Luna recalled that the EIR that was done for Long Valley Ranches specified that the general owner, Gordon Davis, dedicate the Graves Creek Reservations upon incorporation of the City. He asked if this was still going to occur. He referenced the section concerning 1993-94 parkland to be acquired in the northwest quadrant, and inquired if sites other than the creek reservations have been identified. Mr. Takata responded that no specific sites have been identi- fied yet due to property owners thinking their properties would be less valuable if the City were to identify sites. Mr. DeCamp pointed out that the EIR for Long Valley Ranches was done by the Department of Real Estate which had no real • authority to commission the EIR and had no authority to impose conditions. He added that Gordon T. Davis has continued to assure staff that it is his intention to transfer that property at some point in the future. In response to inquiry concerning the status of a skateboard park, Mr. Takata commented that the Parks and Recreation Commission has discussed sites per Council request, but they have encouraged Council not to develop a skateboard park due to insurance risk factors, plus it was felt that it catered to one age group and one gender, to the exclusion of others. Mr. Takata responded to other inquiries concerning the draft Element. In clarifying the intent of the Parks and Recreation Founda- tion, Mr. Takata stated this is an idea similar to the zoological society wherein funds are raised by groups of people for the City' s recreation programs and facilities. Commissioner Kudlac asked if there is a plan to implement a designated area for off-road vehicles. Mr. Takata explained that the trail subcommittee of the Parks and Recreation Commission is discussing all aspects of trails, and the possibility exists that off-road vehicle trails will be recommended. • Commissioner Johnson remarked that it may be unwise for the City to develop areas for off-road vehicles as they tend to be destructive to the environment. MINUTES EXCERPT - PLANNING COMMISSION - 2/19/91 • Commissioner Kudlac disagreed with Commissioner Johnson' s statements and voiced his feeling that the use of off-road vehicles, if in a designated area, can be properly restricted. He added that there are a lot of younger folks in town that have these vehicles but do not have any place to ride them. Chairperson Luna stated that he would certainly rather see them in a designated area than in a creek. - Public Testimony .- Eric Greening, 7365 Valle, stated there are a number of generalities that gloss over decisions that will need to be made later. He stressed that in view of Stadium Park' s configuration (steep slopes, narrow right-of-way, etc. ) , whatever development occurs, private off-road vehicles should be prohibited. He questioned whether this activity would ever need to be promoted inside the City limits. Mr. Greening expressed his hope that the Salinas River area will be considered a riparian resource and treated as gently as any of the tributary creeks that are supposed to be pro- tected when the creekway plan is reviewed in a few months. Commissioner Highland commented that the General Plan is a • "generalized" plan, designed to be a broad brush document without a great deal of the implementing details. Pat Frank, 3615 Ardilla, requested that a skateboard park be considered as it is important for the kids to have a place to skateboard, instead of sidewalks, etc. - End of Public Testimony - Chairperson Luna asserted that the Parks and Recreation Element must be consistent with the Land Use Element. In addressing Mr. Greening' s statement concerning the Salinas River riparian vegetation, Mr. DeCamp clarified that in the Open Space and Conservation Element, the Salinas River receives a fair amount of attention with regard to its protection. He added that the River is looked at for low intensity uses in the river channel itself. Commissioner Kudlac remarked that this Element is an excellent one which addresses all age segments. One of the critical things to look at is to assure that there is adequate recreation for the youth. He added he would not like to see insurance being used to prevent a skateboard park. Discussion ensued concerning different revenue resources that • could be employed for acquisition, development of parks, etc. MINUTES EXCERPT - PLANNING COMMISSION - 2/ 19/91 Commissioner Highland reiterated that every one needs to recognize that accomplishment of land acquisition, facilities development, etc. contained in the Element comes down to fiscal ability in seeing the goals and policies through to completion. He added that in some ways, development schedules will have to be taken "with a grain of salt. " Discussion continued. MOTION: By Commissioner Johnson and seconded by Commission- er Kudlac to recommend to the City Council approval of the Resolution adopting the Parks and Recreation Element to the General Plan. The motion carried 7: 0. Chairperson Luna declared a recess at 8: 10 p.m. ; eting reconvened at 8: 20 p.m. 2. FORESTRY AND WOODLOT MAMAGEMSNT STANDARDS: Consideration of "Forestry and Woodlo Management" standards to be included within the City' Tree Ordinance and Tree Ordinance Standards and Guide ines Steve DeCamp presented the staff rep t and provided a • synopsis on the background concerni this issue. Key features of the ordinance would requir that the parcel (s) to be managed contain a residential p ncipal use; the parcel must be a minimum of 5 acres; and t wood lot must be managed and utilized for private and no for commercial use. He explained that in action taken the Council, single family residential lots that have an xisting residence are exempt from tree removal permit equirements if there is no development activity planne for that lot. Adoption of the Forestry and Woodlot Manag ent provisions as proposed is made moot by the Council ' s ac ion because the stipulations placed in there are same ones at the Council has placed in the Tree Ordinance. Mr. DeCamp further stated that if it is desireable to still have these ovisions in the Tree Ordinance, some of the comments provi d by Fred Frank and Jim Dulitz are worthy of consideration. Commissioner ghland expressed disappointment in that the issue of reg neration and replacement is not recognized in this propo 1. After reviewing various property around Atascader with Mr. Frank and Mr. Dulitz, he voiced his feeling at there is a place for Woodlot Management within the Or nance. Cha' person Luna referenced a section contained in the Tree Or nance relative to thinning adding that if we are • i terested in regeneration, this may not be the time to take out a well established tree that is 200 years old and has survived several droughts and attempt to re-establish seedlings in a period of drought. REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL ITER B-2 . TO: City Council DATE: 3/12/91 FROM: Andrew J. Takata, Director Department of Parks, Recreation and Zoo THROUGH: Ray Windsor, City Manager SUBJECT: RECREATION ELEMENT TO THE ATASCADERO GENERAL PLAN RECOMMENDATION: City Council update the Recreation Element of the Atascadero General Plan with the following amendments to existing text: * Page 41 Chapter 2 - Development: * Development of an open space element needs to be addressed and has (not have) been done in draft form. Page 9, Chapter 4 Recommendations, Number is The City will develop a balanced recreation program that Provides activities for all age groups. Special emphasis shall be placed on programs for teenagers, elementary aged children, and senior citizens. Program areas could include sports, special events, cultural activities, senior citizen oriented activities, music and drama, trips, and special interest classes. Page 24 - Table 2 - Estimated Costs to Implement Programs: NE Quadrant 45 $40, 000 $1,800, 000 --- --- --- (not N/W Quadrant) BACKGROUND: The City Parks and Recreation Commission and Planning Commission recently reviewed the City's Recreation Element, and suggest the above referenced changes be considered for amendment of the document by the City Council. AJT:kv • ;recelel MEETI j DATE 2/91 REM%"C_1 • MEMORANDUM TO: Ray Windsor, City Manager FROM: Greg Luke, Director of Public Works 1� g SUBJECT: Gordon Davis Roads - Right-of-Way Acquisition DATE: March 1, 1991 When the City accepted the Gordon Davis Roads into the City- maintained system we recognized that the roadway meandered out of the old Colony Road right-of-way in a number of locations. This happened because the road was constructed straighter or flatter than the original "horse and buggy" road alignment. In the process of accepting the roads, the City obtained from Gordon Davis and other major land owners the deed to the land where the road migrated from the right-of-way. We did not, however, get the deeds from individual lots that have already been sold to private parties. Since Allen Volbrecht has been working on this matter for • Gordon Davis, I asked him to submit a proposal to assist us in remedying the remaining lots. His proposal is attached. Getting clear title to all our roads is one of those painful but necessary tasks where the money spent hardly seems worth the end result. However, if we do not clear up this matter now while the information is readily available, it will remain a constant problem for years in the future. Please review the attached material and we can discuss a future direction. • VIbrecht SUR V E Y S 7508 Morro Rd. + Atascadero, CA 93422 a 805/466-9296 • j January 23, 1991 Mr. Greg Luke Director of Public Works City of Atascadero Atascadero, California 93422 Subject: Gordon T. Davis Roads - Atascadero i Prop. 9-1-04 Dear Greg, I As you know, the Atascadero City Council, at their January 22, 1991 meeting, voted to accept the subject roads above into the city road system via Council resolution. As-Built surveys of these roads have disclosed many • instances of portions of the construction roadway having been built outside of the colony right of way on private property. As part of our as built package, we have written legal descriptions and exhibit drawings for roadway encroachments along property still retained by Gordon T. Davis and the Atascadero Highlands Group. As we discussed at our meeting, there are additional lots affected by roadway encroachment that were conveyed to others prior to our as built survey. This would be an excellent time to complete individual legal descriptions and exhibit drawings for this encroachment on a per lot basis and begin the process of requesting offers of dedication from the present owners. I This letter is written to provide a cost estimate for providing this service. This estimate is based on the average time that it took to complete the same type of legal description and exhibit drawing for Gordon T. Davis and Atascadero Highlands, which was approximately four hours apiece. Additionally, we had discussed obtaining a list of current owners of record of each affected lot and preparing a mailout to each owner. This mailout package would contain a cover letter of explanation approved by yourself • Surveying - Land Planning • and the City Attorney, Offer of Dedication documents that the owner(s) of record will have to sign before a Notary Public and an exhibit drawing. These documents would be completed. returned and logged at our office until a specified date had passed. At this time all documents received and properly executed would be submitted to the City for review and recordation and a second mailing would go out to all nonrespondents. After a second specified date, any additional dedication documents received would be submitted to the City along with a response summary of all owners of record. We are estimating approximately two hours of clerical time for package preparation, clerical administration and two mailings for each affected property. Description review, signature for approval and overall project administration is estimated to be 0.75 hours per parcel. Linda Richardson has made a preliminary determination of 62 parcels that would fall within the above category. This list is enclosed for your review. • Accordingly, our proposal is as follows: Scope of Work A. Project planning, administration and review. 62 parcels x 0.75 Hrs L.S. $ 2,790.00 B. Legal description and exhibit drawing preparation. 62 parcels x 4 hrs Office Mapping $ 11,160.00 C. Record owner research, package preparation and clerical support. 62 parcels x 2 hrs Clerical $ 2,480.00 Total Project Estimate $ 16,430. 00 Our present workload is relatively light and we would estimate that we could be ready for a first mailing within 90 days of receiving authorization to proceed. All work will be completed on an hourly basis according to the Terms and Conditions on our enclosed Work Agreement. This proposal will not be exceeded without your prior approval. • • Should this proposal meet with your approval please sign the enclosed Work Agreement and return a copy for authorization to proceed. Thank you for the opportunity to propose on this project and please do not hesitate to call if you should have any questions or concerns. _ Sincerely, Alan L. Volbrecht ALV/vlv enc • VOLBRECHT SURVEYS • FEE SCHEDULE Office (per hour) Field (per hour) Clerical $ 20.00 Two Man Crew $ 110.00 Survey Drafting 45.00 Three Man Crew 135.00 Survey Calculations 45.00 Survey Supervisor 55.00 Geographic Information System Mapping 58.00 Licensed Surveyor 58.00 Registered Civil Engineer 58.00 TERMS AND CONDITIONS 1. Billing, Terms & Conditions. All contract work will be 7. Record of Survey. Client acknowledges and agrees that if invoiced monthly for work in progress..invoices are due and Consultant provides surveying services,which require the filing payable upon receipt. A monthly late fee of_1 1/2%per month of a Record of Survey in accordance with Business and on the unpaid balance will be added to all accounts past thirty Professions Code Section 8762, all costs of preparation, days. examination and filing of such Record of Survey will be paid for 2. Payment of Costs. Clients shall pay the costs of checking by Client as extra work. and inspection fees, zoning and annexation application fees, 8. Extra Work. All work requested that is not included in the assessment fees,soils engineering fees,soils testing fees,aerial attached 'Scope of Work'will be accomplished on an hourly topographyfees,and all other fees,permits,bond premiums,title basis according to the fees above. Payment for extra work, company charges, blueprints and reproductions,and all other authorized by the client or his representative,either verbally or charges not specificallycovered by the terms of this agreement. in writing,is the responsibility of the client. 3. GovemmeM Changes. If consultant, pursuant to this 9. Uablllty Urrtlts. Client agrees that Consultant's total liability agreement,produces work product and/or performs field work, to Client, its agents, employees, contractors, subcontractors, • and such work product and/or field work is required by one or successors and assigns,for professional negligence,acts,errors more governmental agencies, and such governmental agency or omissions of Consultant, shall be limited to $100,000 or changes its ordinances,policies,procedures or requirementafter Consultant's fees,whichever is greater. the date of this agreement,any additional office or field work thereby required shall be paid for by Ment as extra work. 10.Cooperation. Client and Consultant agree to cooperate with each other in every way in the performance of this agreement. 4. Governmental Actions. Consultant shall not be liable for damages resulting from the actions or inactions of governmental 11.Attomeys Fees. If any action at law or equity,including agencies including, but not limited to permit processing, arbitration or an action for declaratory relief,is brought to enforce environmental impact reports, dedications,general plans and or interpret the provisions of this agreement,the prevailing party amendments thereto, zoning matters, annexations or therein shall be entitled to receive from the losing party therein, consolidations,use or conditional use permits,project or plan its reasonable attorneys'fees, which fees may be set by the approvals,and building permits. court in the same action or in a separate action brought for that purpose, in addition to any other relief to which it may be S. Advisory Only. Consultant shall only act in an advisory entitled. capacity to Client in governmental relations. Client shall be responsible for all decision making activities therein. 12. Validity. N any term, condition, or covenant of this agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be S. Restaking. In the event that Consultant's staking is invalid,void or unonforesable,the remaining provisions of this do troyed.damaged or disturbed'Sy an act of God or parties agreement shall be vaiid and binding on Client and Consultant. other than Consultant,the cost,of restaking shall be paid for by Client as extra work. Client acknowledges that the work 13.Acceptance and Commencement. By execution of this performed pursuant to this agreement is based upon field and agreement Client accepts the terms hereof, acknowledges other conditions existing at the time of preparation of receipt of a copy hereof,including the attached proposal,and Consultant's work. authorizes Consultant to proceed with the work. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereby execute this CONSLT NT: agreement upon the terms and conditions stated above and on the date below written. ElyV tf CLIENT: Date Title BY J_1.1L Proposal• (,I'n,( Attached Date Cllenrs IMdeis Title Rev.Aug 89 VOLBRECHT SURVEYS FEE SCHEDULE Office (per hour) Field(per hour) Clerical $ 20.00 Two Man Crew $ 110.00 Survey Drafting 45.00 Three Man Crew 135.00 Survey Calculations 45.00 Survey Supervisor 55.00 Geographic Information System Mapping 58.00 Licensed Surveyor 58.00 Registered Civil Engineer 58.00 TERMS AND CONDITIONS 1. Billing, Terms & Conditions. All contract work will be 7. Record of Survey. Client acknowledges and agrees that if invoiced monthly for work in prcgress. Invoicxs are.due and. Consultant provides surveying services,which require the filing payable upon receipt. A monthly late fee of 1 1/2%per month of a Record of Survey in accordance with Business and on the unpaid balance will be added to all accounts past thirty Professions Code Section 8762, ail costs of preparation, days. examination and filing of such Record of Survey will be paid for by Client as extra work. 2. Payment of Costs. Clients shall pay the costs of checking and inspection fees,zoning and annexation application fees, 8. Extra Work. Al work requested that isnot included in the assessment fees,soils engineering fees,soils testing fees,aerial attached 'Scope of Work' will be accomplished on an hourly topographyfees,and all otherfess,permits,bond premiums,title basis according to the fees above. Payment for extra work, company charges, blueprints and reproductions, and all other authorized by the client or his representative,either verbally or charges not specificallycovered by the terms of this agreement. in writing,is the responsibilityof the client. 3. Government Changes. If consultant, pursuant to this 9. Uablilty UmRs. Giant agrees that Consultant's total liability agreement,produces work product and/or performs field work, to Client, its agents, employees, contractors, subcontractors, and such work product and/or field work is required by one or successor;and assigns,for professional negligence,acts,errors • more governmental agencies, and such governmental agency or omissions of Consultant, shall be limited to $100,000 or changes its ordinances,policies,procedures or requirement after Consultant's fees,whichever is greater. the date of this agreement,any additional office or field work thereby required shall be paid for by Client as extra work. to.Cooperatlon. Client and Consultant agree to cooperate with each other in every way in the performance of this agreement. 4. Governmental Actions. Consultant shall not be liable for damages resulting from the actions or inactions of governmental 11.Attorneys Fees. If any action at law or equity,including agencies including, but not limited to permit processing, arbitration or an action for declaratory relief,is brought to enforce environmental impact reports, dedications,general plans and or interpret the provisions of this agreement,the prevailing party amendments thereto, zoning matters, annexations or therein shall be entitled to receive from the losing party therein, consolidations,use or conditional use permits,project or plan its reasonable attorneys'fees, which fees may be set by the approvals,and building permits, court in the same action or in a separate action brought for that purpose, in addition to any other relief to which it may be 5. Advisory Only. Consultant shall only act in an advisory entitled. capacity to Client in governmental relations. Client shall be responsible for all decision making activities therein. 12. Validity. If any term, condition, or covenant of this agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be G. Restaking. In the event that Consultant's staking is invalid,void or unenforceable,the remaining provisions of this destroyed,damaged cr disturbed by an act of and or;.vfiss agfooment shall be valid and binding on Client and-Consultant. other than Consultant,the cost of restaking shall be paid for by Client as extra work. Client acknowledges that the work 13.Acceptance and Commencement. By execution of this Performed pursuant to this agreement is based upon field and agreement Client accepts the terms hereof, acknowledges other conditions existing at the time of preparation of receipt of a copy hereof, including the attached proposal,and Consultants work. authorizes Consultant to proceed with the work. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereby execute this CONSULTANT' agreement upon the terms and conditions stated above and on the date below written. BY Data �-z.8 CUENT: �l� Title Qtn►kti BY . Proposal Attached Date • Client's Initials Title Rev.Aug 89 . . . . �jl'�.s a�' ��.��,n . ,✓�osc�c%v �,�y�i/��rs ,��/s sh«� � 4; Sas- G ze Ss 3os�/G ... 3� SS LO/Ona tau 3os•iG ... 3i Ss SS so-/7j*lz 3�•iG. ... ZG Ss ' �r/boa �a r/ _ SO•/ZL•/S SQvlilfo �u 3 Z7) ---•--- - �4PH-/3 So•ZGZ•/Z _.. _.._ Z 7 97 s C2Z¢•io) 4A _ So-Ziz-/G ¢4 c� 9 _ _ .. .... 3o 27 So-ZGZ-� Ae . 7 u C"�c�iQ-neo 1�4� �z l - -- - - - - - - - - -- - --_ -- . iCaG4�r S/,eCt j ZZ4e -ZB_._. ..._.... _ G. 857° 13 � S So•�8 z 53 3os•o�_. // Ss 53 3 -21 -173 v43- ---- --- - - - ---- ---- --- - - - - - - - --- - - - - - /�OG c/ /�Grh• e a e� - 53 3'7 W S3 (4a S3 Cope- 7Z-Z¢3 •sQ-0 / , 5 s.3 3 Z7 � 14 _. ..3os•oL ... /Z _ Ss _..3os•of .. // SS 2.4 S3 ZS•. S3 So•/�2•/� 44 <S _._...�.... / 373 /7 4Y Z9 S� S/ S'o•o9i /9 50.09/-/7 27 S3 3 Slf ,�o•DY/•/o 4 S¢ s4 .._ ._--- Z So. o Y/• 9 f 33 D67c Gl _ 3 S3 �_..._.�._.. _._. .:.... � MEETING AGENDA DAT 2 1 ITEM N -C-2 • MEMORANDUM TO: Ray Windsor, City Manager FROM: Greg Luke, Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Wastewater Treatment Plant Update DATE: February 25, 1991 As you know, we have been working with Kennedy/Jenks/Chilton and John Wallace to develop a long-term plan for the treatment plant development. Due to a combination of plant operation problems and personnel turnover, the progress of the work has slowed. I talked to John Jenks recently and told him we have hired a new Chief of Wastewater Operations and I am anxious to complete the planning phase of the work so we can move to construction. I also told him I feel John Wallace is too busy to drive the project at the proper pace and therefore I would like him (John Jenks) to be the project manager. Because additional tasks were added to the project during the consultant's initial work, the funds from the original contract • have been expended. The plant expansion planning report is approximately 75% complete. However, we do need additional updated information which is spelled out in John Jenk's letter (copy attached) . The fee for the work is proposed not to exceed $8000.00, which seems reasonable. Unfortunately the budget for the sewage treatment plant did not anticipate this expense. Although money is available in the Sanitation Enterprise Fund, I am uncertain how this should be handled. Please let me know how I should proceed. • Kennedy/Jenks/Chilton Consulting Engineers and Scientists • 2191 East Bayshore Road.Suite 200 Palo Alto.California 94303 415-856-6700 29 January 1991 FAX 415-856.8527 Mr. Gregg Luke Director of Public Works/City Engineer City of Atascadero Post Office Box 747 Atascadero, CA 93423 Subject: Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Facilities K/J/C 885122.00 Dear Gregg: This is a follow-up to our most recent conversations concerning the subject matter. In particular, we have discussed the need for us to re-visit and possibly amend our July 1989 report on, "Long-Range Plan - Wastewater Treatment Facilities, City of Atascadero." As you are aware, this study was initiated now some 3-years ago in order to assist the City in their understanding of modifications and additions to the City's wastewater treatment facilities in order to meet the needs of an increasing development within the service area. An additional consideration was the interest then • being expressed by the County of San Luis Obispo for negotiating a possible agreement with Atascadero to- handle septage originating within the county, but outside the Atascadero service area. Another factor of significance was the development of an odor problem at the City's wastewater treatment facilities. This problem was the result probably of several factors including unusual occurrence of overcast weather and partial overloading of the, "facultative" ponds. In any case, the resultant odors was the subject of Regional Water Quality Control Board enforcement. actions. The City responded to the immediate needs, adopting recommendations we offered with resultant alleviating of the odor problem. The odor incident did serve to further alert the City to the need for anticipating the providing of more adequate wastewater treatment facilities, both in order to accommodate increasing wastewater flows and to do so effectively consistent with requirements of the State. In any case, as a result of continuing good operation of the existing City's wastewater treatment facilities, coupled with a change in City administrative staff, including yourself, there has not been presented an urgent need for the City to confirm our 1988/89 study and report and to implement a recommended project. An additional factor in this regard has been the lack of effort by the Regional Water Quality Control Board to insist upon further, immediate improvements to the City's wastewater facilities, presumably as a result of the success of interim improvements and measures taken at the time of the 1989 odor incident. • I Kennedy/Jenk*Chilton • Mr. Gregg Luke City of Atascadero 29 January 1991 Page 2 An additional factor which you are aware of is our having submitted our July 1989 report to the staff of the Regional Water Quality Control Board for their review and comments. You will recall that we met with John Goni of the Regional Board staff and he indicated concurrence with the report conclusions and recommendations. In the meantime, with the passage of more than two and one-half years since completion of our studies, it does appear to be appropriate that a review be undertaken of study and report conclusions in the context of current conditions, including now a determination of site limitations as a result of a recent archeological study. In view of the foregoing and other factors, it is suggested that an Addendum be prepared to our July 1989 report which would address at least the following: 1. Review prior assumptions in respect to projections of populations and associated wastewater flows. • 2. Review prior assumptions in respect to projections of septage, particularly that derived from county areas outside the Atascadero service area. 3. Review the alternatives for providing wastewater treatment, particularly the option of making use of the existing aerated lagoon as part of an extended aeration process in order to eliminate the need for separate sludge digestion. 4. Determine best location for future wastewater treatment facilities given the now established site limitations. During the course of the proposed additional studies and review, we would anticipate closely working with you and/or assigned staff to the end that the final product meet with your full approval and support. We propose to provide the consulting engineering services described above with payment consistent with the fee schedule outlined in the attached and with a cost not to exceed $8,000, payable upon completion of the report addendum. We look forward to the opportunity of extending and completing this important work for the City. Sincerely yours, J N. Jenks enior Vice President Client/Address: Kennedy/Jenks/Chilton • Contract/Proposal Date: Schedule of Charges January 1, 1991 Personnel Compensation Classification Hourly Rate 'Drafter $ 48 Designer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Engineer-Scientist, Grade 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Engineer-Scientist, Grade 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 Engineer-Scientist, Grade 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 Senior Engineer-Scientist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 Supervising Engineer-Scientist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 Principal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 Laboratory Analyst. . . . . . : . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Word Processor . . . . . . . 39 Non-Technical' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 `Non-technical time will be charged only for preparation of technical reports and similar material and does not apply to routine administrative-type activities. Direct Expenses Reimbursement for direct expenses, as listed below, incurred :n connection sjith the work, will be at cost • plus ten percent for items such as: a. Maps, photographs, reproductions, printing, equipment rental, and special supplies related to the work. b. Consultants, soils engineers, surveyors, contractors, and other outside services. C. Rented vehicles, local public transportation and taxis, travel and subsistence. d. Telecommunications and delivery charges. e. Special fees, insurance, permits, and licenses applicable to the work. f. Outside computer processing. computation, and proprietary programs purchased for the work. Reimbursement for owned automobiles, except trucks and four-wheel drive vehicles, used in connection with the work will be at the rate of 35z per mile. The rate for trucks and four-wheel drive vehicles will be $25 per day and 40¢ per mile. Reimbursement for use of microcomputers will be at the rate of $10 per hour. Reimbursement for use of computerized drafting systems (CADD) will be at the rate of $20 per hour for microcomputer based systems and $40 per hour for minicomputer based systems. Rate for professional staff for legal proceedings or as expert witnesses will be at a rate one and one-half times the Hourly Rates specified above. In-house laboratory analysis, sampling vehicle, and equipment charges will be per current rate schedule or special quotation. Excise taxes, if any, will be added as a direct expense. r Additional processing charges will be added for other than standard invoice backup documentation. The foregoing Schedule of Charges is incorporated into the agreement for the services of the company. REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: C-4 From: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date : 3/12/91 SUBJECT: City Council Workshop DISCUSSION: As indicated at the conclusion of your last regular meeting, ' I am providing some suggested dates for a workshop. Councilman Shiers has indicated that he would be available during the week of March 25th, and since March 26th is a regular meeting date and March 29th Good Friday, I wondered if Council could set aside either Wednesday, March 27th, or Thursday the 28th for this ses- sion. In addition, I would like to suggest that it be held in the morning, although staff would obviously react to whatever schedule is most convenient to the Council . As far as potential workshop items are concerned, we would like to suggest that the agenda include continued discussion of the Five-Year Capital Improvement Program, the status of SB 169 and possible strategies, an update on the Roads Policy and its possible direction, in addition to whatever Council may choose to include. Further, the City Attorney and I would seek a closed session for purposes of continued discussion on lard purchase and personnel matters related to internal organization/reorganization. As far as the timing is concerned, I would suggest either three hours between 9 a .m . and noon or a similar time period in the afternoon. RW: cw