Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 04/09/1991 PUBLIC REVIEW COPY # PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE FROM COUNTER AGENDA ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING ATASCADERO ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 6500 PALMA FOURTH FLOOR, ROTUNDA ROOM APRIL 9, 1991 7:00 P.M. This agenda is prepared and postedpursuant to the require- ments of Government Code Section 54954.2. By listing a topic on this agenda, the City Council has expressed its intent to discuss and act on each item. In addition to any action identified in the brief general description of each item, the action that may be tak- en shall include:-- A referral to staff with specific requests for information; continuance; specific direction to staff concerning the policy or mission of the item; discontinuance of consideration; authorization to enter into negotiations and execute agreements pertaining to the item; adoption or approval; and, disapproval. Copies of the staff reports or other documentation relating to each item of business referred to on the agenda are on file in the office of the City Clerk, available for public inspection during City Hall business hours. The City Clerk will answer any questions regarding the agenda. RULES OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: * Members of the audience may speak on any item on the agenda. * A person may speak for five (5) minutes. * No one may speak for a second time until everyone wishing to speak has had an opportunity to do so. * No one may speak more than twice on any item. * Council Members may question any speaker; the speaker may respond but, after the allotted time has expired, may not 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: 1 Presentation of Plaque of Recognition to H. John Edens, Jr. , outgoing Board of Appeals member Presentation of Zoo Accreditation Plaque Proclamation: "National Library Week", April 14-21, 1991 Letter from Dave Transportation re: Dial-A-Ride 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 consid- ered to be routine, and will be enacted by one motion in the form listed below. There will be no separate discussion on these items. A member of the Council or public may, by request, have any item removed from the Consent Calendar, which shall then be reviewed and acted upon separately after the adoption of the Consent Calendar. 1. MARCH 12, 1991 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 2. RESOLUTION NO. 27-91 - AUTHORIZING THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE 'RIGHT-OF-WAY CERTIFICATIONS TO THE STATE OF CALI- FORNIA FOR PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS 3. RESOLUTION NO. 29-91 -- AUTHORIZING APPLICATION FOR STATE LICENSING UNDER THE SCHOOL-AGE CHILD CARE PROGRAM 4. PROPOSED CONTRACT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES - DESIGNING SEIS- MIC STRUCTURAL RETROFIT OF THE CITY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING (Fred H. Schott & Associates) 5. BID AWARD FOR PURCHASE OF UNMARKED POLICE SEDAN 2 B. HEARINGS/APPEARANCES: 1. GENERAL PLAN A14ENDMENT 1B-90, ZONE CHANGE 10-89 & TTM 31-90 - Consideration of application to (1) change the land use designation of approximately 24 acres from Retail Commercial to Special Recreation, (2) change the zoning of said 24 'acre site from CT(FH) (Commercial Tourist/Flood hazard Overlay) to LS(FH) (PD8) (Special Recreation/flood Hazard` Overlay/P'lanned Development Overlay) , and (3) divide the same 24 acre site into 15 parcels for single-family residential use and two larger parcels for recreational use. Subject property is located on the southwest corner of the Highway 101 & Santa Barbara Road ; intersection (Bond & Associates/Eagle Creek Associates) A. Approval of General Plan Amendment 1B-90 based on the Findings contained in Resolution No. 31-91. B. Ordinance No. 221 - Amending Map 23 of the official zon- ing maps by rezoning that certain real property described as Lots '18-25 and "Park Reservation A" of"Block 72, Atas- cadero Colony, from CT(FH) to LS(FH) (PD8) ; and amending the text of the City Zoning ordinance to include the provisions for the PD8 'Zone created herein. (Recommend motion to waive reading in full and approve on first reading by title only.) C. Approval of Tentative Tract Map 31-90 subject to the Planning Commission's Findings and Revised Conditions of Approval, ,Exhibit 'B, March '5, 1991. 2. FORESTRY & WOODLOT MANAGEMENT A. Ordinance No. 220 Adding Forestry and Woodlot Manage- ment Provisions to the City's Tree Ordinance (Ord. #214) (Recommend motion to waive reading in full and approve on first reading by title only. ) B. Resolution No. 28-91 - Adding Forestry and Woodlot Man- agement Standards to the Tree Ordinance Standards and Guidelines (Res. #125-90) 3. RESOLUTION NO. 24-91 AUTHORIZING NEW PLANNING & ENGINEERING FEES 4. RESOLUTION NO 14-91 ADOPTING UPDATED DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES 3 C. REGULAR BUSINESS: 1. ORDI CE NO. 219 AMENDING MAP 16 OF TEE OFFICIAL ZONING MAPS BY REZONING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY AT 5160 AND 5180 PALMA AVE. FROM 11MF/10 TO RMF/10 (PD7) (Zone Change 6-90) (Hazard/ Tartaglia-Hughes) (Recommend motion to waive reading in full and approve on second reading by title only. ) 2. COUNTY AUDITOR-CONTROLLER'S LETTER RE: SB 2557 3. STATUS OF TREE PLANTING TRUST FUND D. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION ANDIOR ACTION: 1. City Council: A. Committee Regorts (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. 8. Downtown Interim Sign Committee 2. City Attorney 3. City Clerk 4. City Treasurer 5:. City Manager 4 P R O C L A M A T I O N "National Library Week" April 14 - 21, 1991 WHEREAS, We are fortunate to have the excellent library facilities that are available and convenient for our use in this community; and WHEREAS, In books are stored the accumulated wisdom of the ages, and the individual who does not read has very little advan- tage over the person who cannot read; and WHEREAS, The theme for this year' s Library Week celebration is "Kids who read succeed"; WHEREAS, A special week of activities, open to the public, has been planned at the County Branch Library in Atascadero; rNOW, THEREFORE, I hereby proclaim the week of April 14-21, 1991 as "National Library Week" in Atascadero and urge all citi- zens to visit the library during this special time to acquaint themselves with the many fine services offered. ROBERT B. LILLEY, Mayor City of Atascadero, CA Dated: April 9, 1991 MEETING AGEMDA Council DATE 4/___ 9 9 - ffEM/ Commp� March 20, 1991 DAVE File: C:CA-Atascadero transportation REG-03211-PC/GS-FC services,inc. "A Standard of Excellence Gregory Luke coast to Coast" Public Works Director CITY OF ATASCADERO Post Office Box 747 Atascadero, CA 93422 Dear Mr. Luke: Each year, as part of our internal efforts to improve our own performance and that of the services we operate, DAVE Transportation Services evaluates each of the transportation services we operate and presents Awards of Excellence to the top achievers in each of four service categories: • Fixed-Route Services; • Demand-Responsive Services; • Special Transportation; and • Regional Center Transportation. I am pleased to inform you that the the Atascadero Dial-A-Ride was awarded the First Place Award of Excellence in the category of Demand-Responsive Services for the period July 1, 1989 through September 30, 1990. The criteria for this award are Productivity, Accident Frequency, Employee Turnover, Overtime Labor and Profitability, compared against either the service's own performance in the prior year or the other systems within that service category. We're proud of the performance of the the Atascadero Dial-A-Ride and intend to work for continued improvement in the months ahead. I hope you'll join me in congratulating your service's management and staff for a job well done. ]Ja ' erely, esL. Pierson ident/Chief Executive Officer JLP/gs xc: R. Snyder P. Orrin M. Wells • 201 E.Sandpointe Suite 800 Santa Ana California 92707 (714)549.3283 FAX:(714)755.5552 1 MEETING AGENDA DATE„_4/9-.�. REM• A-1 ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 12, 1991 Mayor Lilley called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilman Dexter. ROLL CALL: Present: Councilmembers Shiers, Borgeson, Nimmo, Dexter and Mayor Lilley Also Present: Muriel Korba, City Treasurer and Lee Dayka, City Clerk Staff Present: Ray Windsor, City Manager; Mary Gayle, Acting City Attorney; Mark Joseph, Administrative Services Director; Henry Engen, Community Development Director; Greg Luke, Public Works Director; Andy Takata, Director of Parks, Recreation & Zoo; and Bud McHale, Police Chief • COUNCIL COMMENT Councilwoman Borgeson recognized the fine work done by Sligh Cabinets for their construction of the extended dais. PROCLAMATIONS: Mayor Lilley read the proclamation for "Arbor Day", March 21, 1991. Andy Takata, Director of Parks, Recreation and Zoo presented an outline of the special activities planned for City observation. The mayor read the proclamation for "Camp Fire Birthday Week", 3/17 through 3/23/91. Sue Huntley, leader, and Camp Fire Girls from the Chumash Council of Camp Fire were present to receive the proclamation and distributed gifts of candy to Council and staff. COMMUNITY FORUM: George Luna, Chairman of the Planning Commission, read a prepared statement (see Exhibit A) regarding Final Parcel Map 83-040 (relating to Ardilla Road) . The City Manager indicated that staff was aware of the complaint and would be following up on the matter. CC3/12/91 Page 1 Richard Moen, 4200 Portola Road, spoke regarding the community's water crisis. He urged the Council to look further into the matter before granting any new building permits and ensure that there is adequate water for the existing residents. Councilwoman Borgeson asked that this matter be placed on the Council' s agenda and asked for a status report on the City's Water Conservation Committee. The City Manager indicated that an update in the form of a memo would be coming to Council within the next day or so. A. CONSENT CALENDAR: Before reading the Consent Calendar, Mayor Lilley announced Mary Gayle of Burke, Williams & Sorensen, who would be sitting in for City Attorney, Art Montandon. The Consent Calendar was read, as follows: 1. FEBRUARY 12, 1991 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES (Cont'd from 2/26/91) 2. RESOLUTION NO. 20-91 - ESTABLISHING A STOP INTERSECTION ON SAN 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. 23-91 - 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 DEPARTMENT 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 There were no requests from Council or the public to pull any matters from the Consent Calendar. Mark Joseph, Administrative CC3/12/91 • Page 2 Services Director, submitted for the record revised tables illustrating revenue projections and budget comparisons (relating to Items A-4 (a)&(b) (see Exhibit B) . MOTION: By Councilman Dexter and seconded by Councilwoman Borgeson to approve the Consent Calendar; motion unanimously carried by roll call vote. Mayor Lilley commended Andy Takata for fine work in performing a wide scope of duties. B. HEARINGS/APPEARANCES: 1. ARDILLA ROAD EXTENSION/TREE REMOVAL REQUEST AND RELATED APPEAL OF THE 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 Henry Engen presented the staff report recommending approval of the tree removal request. He presented background on the 1979 Environ- mental Impact Report prepared by the Department of Real Estate and noted that only 14% of the potential cumulative impact in Long Valley Ranches had occurred. Using overhead projections, the Community Development Director described the potential sites and • gave an overview of the seven mitigation measures proposed by staff. In addition, he remarked that staff utilizing Wes Conner as City Arborist believed that the proposed mitigated negative declaration was in harmony with the legal opinion rendered relating to CEQA compliance by the City Attorney on January 7, 1991. Mr. Engen responded to a question from Councilwoman Borgeson relating to lot split potential of the Bill Barnes' properties. He remarked that future lot splits would be unlikely due to the steep slopes. Councilwoman Borgeson recognized that there has been a history of concern relating to drainage in the Graves Creek/Balboa Road area and asked staff whether there had been any complaints from area residents about drainage problems resulting from recent rains. The Community Development Director deferred the question relating to complaints to the Public Works Director and responded to the past history of the area. He stated that problems associated with the Dovica Tract had resulted from the fact that drainage elements were erroneously deferred until after the final map was filed. He reported that the mitigated negative declaration for the present project would require that the road improvement plans deal with matters relating to drainage, adding that each home' s location on • CC3/12/91 Page 3 a site will be subject to staff review and will be custom designed to fit the terrain so as not to adversely affect the neighbor. The Public Works Director indicated that no specific complaints had been received regarding drainage problems associated with the recent rains. He added that one of the routine functions conducted by the Engineering Department is to look at every building permit and track any problems relating to water run-off. Councilwoman Borgeson asked the Community Development Director to clarify a statement made by City Planner, Steve DeCamp during the Planning Commission meeting of February 19, 1991 regarding the E.I.R. for Long Valley Ranches prepared by the Department of Real Estate. Mr. Engen validated the City Planner' s comment adding that the City Attorney had verified that the State did not, at that time, monitor enforcement of the E.I.R. ' s mitigation measures. Councilman Dexter questioned staff regarding the water company' s ability to serve and other matters relating to drainage. Mr. Engen confirmed that Atascadero Mutual Water Company has indicated that it has sufficient water for this project. In addition, he reported that no perk or soils tests have been done at this point, indicating that these tests are done later in either the subdivision or building permit process. Addressing drainage, the Public Works Director, reported that, regardless of additional construction, the Graves Creek area is of high priority in the department' s capital improvement program and explained that a • variety of engineering techniques can be used to reduce the quantity of run-off. Public Comments: Joan O'Keefe, appellant, read a prepared statement supporting her appeal (see Exhibit C) . Tom Vaughn, speaking for the applicant, urged Council to approve the tree removal permit reporting that the road had been designed to City standards and that the plans included erosion control and tree protection measures. He noted that if allowed more flexibility with the road design, additional trees could be saved. Mr. Vaughn also asked that the applicant be granted the right to replace trees at some other site, as the project area is already heavily forested. Eric Greening, 7365 Valle, read a prepared statement (see Exhi- bit D) in support of the appeal. Jim Langford, Templeton resident, announced that he owned property adjacent to the proposed Ardilla Road extension and read a prepared statement (see Exhibit E) urging Council to consider modifying CC3/12/91 • Page 4 SII • standards for the road. Karen Coniglio, 7600 Graves Creek Road, presented a copy of a citizens' petition requesting that a full environmental impact report be done on the proposed Ardilla Road extension (see Exhi- bit F) . Maurice Lane, 3105 Ardilla Road, emphasized concerns relating to drainage and road safety. The Community Development Director, responding to public comments, assured Council that documentation had been received prior to the posting of the negative declaration and that tree protection plans had indeed been included in the report. He related that staff, upon review, did not feel that the lots could be further subdivided and indicated that any request to have designs including houses and driveways would be impractical. This, he explained, was because it is up to the future individual lot owner(s) to prepare plans of this kind to in accordance with City standards. Regarding fire protection concerns, the Community Development Director clarified that the proposed project does not fall into the "fringe area" because it falls into the 8,000-10,000 foot ring from the center of town. Addressing some of the suggested alternatives, Mr. Engen emphasized that clustering housing, restrictions on lot splits, requirements • of preservation of open space and creation of corridors of open space are all things that can be incorporated into planned development re-zoning or subdivision activity; but not road improvement plans. He stressed that because the applicant only owns one side of the street, there is not the flexibility to relocate the road. Explaining that restricting fencing in residential areas or limiting pets and livestock per household has not yet been done in RS-Suburban areas; Mr. Engen questioned whether the Council would wish to address this subject. The Community Development Director also clarified that ten trips/dwelling was a current standard released by the Institute of Traffic Engineers and in closing, pointed out that there exists a 1980 E.I.R. , done as part of the City' s General Plan, which indicates that the kinds of development and lot sizes in the General Plan will assure the protection of flora and fauna by having built-in open space as part of it. Councilman Shiers referred to a letter from the Department of Fish & Game (May 8, 1979) which suggested the alterative of cluster-type development and asked whether or not the Long Valley E.I.R. responded. Mr. Engen stated that, to his knowledge, it had not. In reply to Councilwoman Borgeson' s further inquiry regarding recombination of property (as suggested by the Dept. of Fish & • CC3/12/91 Page 5 Game) , Mr. Engen reported that staff had spoken to various large • landowners and encouraged resubdividing to achieve optimum building sites; but added that there have been no reviews of overall subdivisions to accomplish this. The mayor asked the Public Works Director to comment on the road design standards. Mr. Luke stated that staff had worked closely with the applicant' s engineer in designing a road that meets minimum standards adopted by the City Council, adding that it would be a safe road as presently designed. Mayor Lilley asked the City Attorney to clarify the reliability of the 1979 E.I.R. Mary Gayle confirmed that the lead jurisdiction was with the State Department of Real Estate, who was charged with the preparation of the Environmental Impact Report. The standard in California, she explained, for a negative declaration with mitigation measures is that there are no fair arguments that there can be significant impacts. She also pointed out that City Attorney Art Montandon believes the document to be adequate for the purposes of having a mitigated negative declaration. Ms. Gayle advised that if Council feels that there could be significant impacts not addressed by the mitigated negative declaration, appropriate action would be to ask for additional information. This, she explained, could include a full environmental impact review, an addendum or supplement to the existing E.I.R. prepared by the Department of Real Estate. • Councilman Nimmo stated that staff had spent an enormous amount of time on this matter and asserted that it is time for Council to take the recommendations of staff and allow the applicant to proceed. Councilman Dexter indicated that his questions had been answered by staff. Councilman Shiers responded that he had some concerns relating to drainage and alternative designs and believed that there were significant impacts not yet addressed. He stated that it was time to put in a road the correct way and discontinue the piecemeal type of development which has already occurred. In addition, referencing the geological report, Councilman Shiers noted that findings in that report should no longer be relied upon because it had been well over one year since the report had been issued. Continuing, Councilman Shiers asserted that the appeal should be upheld and environmental impacts and alternatives should be studied in more detail. Councilwoman Borgeson agreed with his comments and made the following motion: CC3/12/91 Page 6 • MOTION: By Councilwoman Borgeson to ask staff to bring back more information and prepare a focused E.I.R. addressing drainage, road design and trees. Mayor Lilley asked Councilwoman Borgeson if her motion was to include granting the appeal Councilwoman Borgeson indicated that it was and amended her motion to read , as follows: To grant the appellant' s appeal and request a focused E.I.R. on issues of drainage, roads and trees; Councilman Shiers seconded the motion as amended. Motion failed 2:3 with Councilmembers Dexter, Nimmo and Mayor Lilley voting in opposition. MOTION: By Councilman Nimmo and seconded by Councilman Dexter to approve the mitigated negative declaration posted on January 19,1991 and approve the tree removals for the proposed road extension subject to the recommended mitigation measures in the negative declaration; motion seconded by Councilman Dexter. Motion carried 3:2 with Councilmembers Shiers and Borgeson opposing. 2. RESOLUTION NO. 17-91 - CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF DRAFT PARKS & RECREATION ELEMENT OF THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN Andy Takata, Community Services Director, presented the staff • report with the recommendation to adopt, by resolution, the Parks and Recreation Element of the City' s General Plan. Mr. Takata noted the presence of Tom Bench, Chairman and Vic Smart, Vice- Chairman of the Parks & Recreation Commission and responded to questions from Council. Councilman Nimmo commended the Community Services Director and the Commission for their fine work. He reiterated concern he had shared earlier with Mr. Takata about providing unstrenuous outdoor execise for senior citizens. Mr. Takata noted that in his staff report he had proposed amending Chapter 4, page 9 of the Element to include recommendations for seniors. Other members of Council concurred with this direction and with the overall plan. Public Comment: Eric Greening, 7365 Valle, urged Council to approve the plan and set high goals for the City. Mr. Takata noted that much of document had been prepared by the previous director. MOTION: By Councilman Nimmo, seconded by Councilwoman Borgeson to CC3/12/91 Page 7 approve Resolution No. 17-91 approving the adoption of the Parks and Recreation Element of the City' s General Plan, as amended; motion unanimously carried by roll call vote. Mayor Lilley called for a recess at 8:54 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at -9:15 p.m. C. REGULAR BUSINESS• 1. GORDON DAVIS ROADS - RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION The City Manager requested a continuance on the matter until issues relating to "Wells Fargo Roads" have been resolved. Mayor Lilley then gave a brief status report relating to the year-long endeavors of the City Attorney and the Roads Committee. He stated that efforts to come to a legal resolution regarding roads has been challenging, adding that he was encouraged by the fact that the committee was reaching closure. The mayor recognized Mary Gayle for her work and expertise in the matter and asked for a motion to continue this matter. MOTION: By Councilman Shiers and seconded by Councilman Dexter to continue the matter; unanimously passed by voice vote. 2. WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT UPDATE • Greg Luke, Public Works Director, reported that he had recently hired Mark Markwort as Chief of Waste Water Operations and that his department was now ready to continue planning for long-needed upgrading and expansion of the sewage treatment plant. Mr. Luke reported that due to a combination of plant operation problems and personnel turnover, work had been delayed and asked Council to authorize funds in an amount not to exceed $8, 000 to complete the plant expansion planning report. In response to questions from Council, the City Manager explained that during the course of preparing a long range plan for the wastewater treatment facility, Council had given direction to staff to work with consultants John Jenks and John Wallace to address excessive odor problems at the plant. No specific amount of money was appropriated for this purpose, he reported, adding that the long range plan had never been completed. In addition, the City Manager explained that during this time there was also a decision to cease accepting septage from recreational vehicles. He noted that the County has asked staff to look at this issue once again and Mr. Windsor remarked that it was his hope to address .this on-going issue as part of the requested addendum. CC3/12/91 • Page 8 • Councilwoman Borgeson asked the Public Works Director if he could provide a time period for the completion of the tasks. Mr. Luke advised that, if Council authorizes the monies spent, a contract will be drawn up specifying the tasks, dollar amounts and the schedule. MOTION: By Councilwoman Borgeson and Councilman Shiers to authorize funds in an amount not to exceed $8,000 for the purpose of entering into a contract with Kennedy/ Jenks/Chilton to provide consultant services relating to the wastewater treatment plant; and, in addition, to direct staff to specify in the contract the tasks, dollar amounts and time schedule for completion; motion carried unanimously. 3. ARBOR DAY OBSERVANCE (Verbal) It was noted that Andy Takata had already given the report for activities planned for Arbor Day, March 21, 1991. The City Clerk read a poem entitled, "Arbor Day" submitted by Donald Curtis and written by his grand-daugher Jane Ramos, a fifth- grade student at Santa Rosa School. 4. SCHEDULE WORKSHOP DATE • The City Manager suggested dates and times. Brief discussion followed. Councilwoman Borgeson proposed that the meeting be held after the normal work day to ensure the most attendance by the public. The City Manager asked that Council meet in a closed session for the purpose of discussing personnel and potential property purchase. He suggested that this be scheduled in conjunction with the workshop. Council agreed to meet on Friday, April 5, 1991 at 3:00 for a closed session regarding personnel and potential property purchase, followed by an open workshop beginning at 4:30 p.m. to continue discussions on the City's capital improvement plan and to receive an update on the Roads Policy. D. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION: 1. City Council: A. Mayor's Report: Mayor Lilley reported that he had received a letter from Councilwoman Borgeson pertaining to numerous complaints she • CC3/12/91 Page 9 had received regarding the new volume-based rate structure for Wil-Mar Disposal. Noting that he and other members of the Council had also received such complaints, Mayor Lilley emphasized that most of these comments were not in opposition to the new rates, but rather to the method in which it had been done and to the lack of explanation regarding bags and rented containers. He stated that he had apprised Betty Sanders, attorney for Wil-Mar, of these complaints and had received correspondence from her dated March 12, 1991 (see Exhibit G) announcing that Wil-Mar would be launching a public awareness campaign in an effort to facilitate community understanding. B. Committee Repbrts (The following represents ad hoc or standing committees. Informative status reports were given, as follows. ) : 1. City/School Committee - The City Manager announced that the next meeting would be March 21, 1991. 2. North Coastal Transit/S.L.O. Area Coordinating Council Councilwoman Borgeson announced the next meeting would be on March 13, 1991 and presented an overview of the agenda. She added that the agenda would be on the Council table for review. 3. Traffic Committee - Councilman Dexter reported that • this committee would be meeting on March 20, 1991. 4. Solid/Hazardous Waste Mgmt. Committee - Councilman Nimmo reported that the committee had recently received the completed Solid Waste Characterization Study for San Luis Obispo County and indicated that it was on the Council desk for review. 5. Recycling Committee - Councilman Shiers reported that the next meeting would be Thursday, March 14, 1991. Greg Luke stated that the committee was working on implementing the pilot green waste pick- up program slated to begin April 1, 1991. Mayor Lilley urged that this program be well- publicized. 6. Interim Sign Committee - Mayor Lilley reported that the committee had met with representatives from the Chamber of Commerce and had received a draft sign ordinance prepared by the Chamber reflecting changes proposed to the current sign ordinance. The mayor stated that he had advised the Chamber to CC3/12/91 Page 10 • contact the City Manager to determine their next course of action. He also reported that the Interim Sign Committee is presently developing ideas for alternatives to conventional signs involving awnings and architecturally significant buildings downtown. On this note, he mentioned that project plans for the Carlton Hotel are moving forward. 7. Economic Roundtable - Mayor Lilley relayed that the first meeting was scheduled for March 20, 1991 at 8: 00 a.m. 2. City Attorney - No report. 3. City Clerk - No report. 4. City Treasurer Ms. Korba briefly remarked on revenue charts she recently produced, adding that the graphics could be illuminated with the use of color. S. City Manager • Mr. Windsor indicated he was seeking direction from Council relating to its , opposition to SB2557. He asked that, in addition to the resolution approved earlier (Resolution No. 15-91) endorsing SB169, if he could have a letter from the mayor urging the Board of Supervisors to join with the City and the Coalition for Cooperative Government in overturning SB2557. and giving support to SB169. Mr. Windsor noted that the letter would need to drafted, signed and hand-carried to San Luis Obispo the following morning. The City Attorney reminded Council that this matter, because it required immediate action, would require a 4/5 vote to be place upon the agenda. MOTION: By Mayor Lilley and seconded by Councilman Dexter to place the matter on the agenda; motion carried 5:0. Mayor Lilley expressed support and asked for opinions from the Council. Councilman Dexter stated that he was supportive of proposed correspondence. Councilman Nimmo indicated that he hoped that the letter would be temperant in its ' criticism of SB2557 and emphasize, rather, the alternate measure. MOTION: - By Councilman Dexter and seconded by Councilman Shiers to direct the City Manager to prepare said letter for the • CC3/12/91 Page 11 mayor' s signature; motion uanimously carried. • 6. Additional Report(s) from Staff: Greg Luke introduced John Grindstaff, Contract Engineer, who managed the Sycamore Bridge Replacement Project. Mr. Grindstaff, he explained, will handle the construction management for the Pavilion and has informed the Public Works Director that the target date for ground breaking is April 15, 1991. MOTION: By Councilman Dexter and seconded by Councilman Nimmo to adjourn the meeting; motion unanimous. The meeting was adjourned at 9:52 p.m. The next regular meeting is sched a for ch 25, 1991 at 7 :00 p.m. NU CO E D P PARED BY: LE D YKA, ity ClArk Attachments: Exhibit A (George Una) Exhibit B (Mark Joseph, Admin. Services Director) Exhibit C (Joan O'Keefe) • Exhibit D (Eric Greening) Exhibit E (Jim Langford) Exhibit F (Citizen Petition, copy) Exhibit G (Betty Sanders/Wil-Mar Disposal) CC3/12/91 • Page 12 CC3/12/91 Mr. Mayor and Members of the Council, EXHIBIT A r My name is George Luna, and I speak tonight as,,Chairman of your • Planning Commission about a serious issue which has been brought to my attention. In 1983, a planning commission (of which I was not a member) approved Tentative Tract Map (830311 ) with the following condition: #11. Ardilla Road shall be constructed along the frontage of the property to City standards including a minimum paved width of twenty (20) feet with three feet of graded shoulder on each side of the paving prior to recordation of the Final Man The Tentative Map was approved by the Council and the Final Map was approved and recorded as Parcel Map 83-040 on Feb 29, 1987. I looked up the final map, and I quote from the Engineer's Certificate: "I hereby certify that it (the map) conforms to the approved tentative map and the conditions of approval thereof." Thus, the final map was recorded four years ago, and still condition #11 has not been met! However, there does appear to be "an improvement security " in the amount of $20,800. Does staff have the authority to receive money in lieu of conditions of approval even when the conditions do not provide for it? The money was not used for the road. Does the city still have the money; if so, how does it intend to use it . In order that the Commission, Council, and public can be assured that conditions attached to Tentative Maps are secure, I respectfully request that the Council: (1) Determine if this was proper and legal. If not, what can be done. (2) Determine if this is an aberration, and if procedures are necessary to prevent such abuses. (3) Determine if other such cases exist, and establish procedures for handling them. • Clearly this has shaken the faith of some in our community in our subdivision process. I ask that you restore that faith . Thank you. CC3/12/91 EXHIBIT B REVISED • TABLE A: FY 90-91 REVENUE PROJECTIONS AS OF DECEMBER 31 , 1990 (General Fund Only) Revenue estimated Actual Projected Prooerty Tax 2,050,000 1 ,236 , 131 2, 100,000 Sales Tax 1 ,850,000 899,977 1 ,850,000 Transient Occupancy ( Bed ) Ta,: 110,000 60, 184 110,000 Property Transfer Tax 60,000 19,614 401000 Franchise Fees 330,000 31 ,592 350 ,000 Other Taxes 1 ,230 662 1 ,230 Licenses and Permits 486 ,585 226,723 450,000 Motor Vehicle In-Lieu e60,000 409, 116 e50,000 Cigarette Tax 35,000 23,612 40,000 Other State Subventions 60 ,900 5, 109 50,000 Other Intergovernmental 425,700 71 ,065 425,700 Recreation Fees 270,200 135,750 270,200 Planning & Inspection Fees 192 ,612 73,262 192,612 Other Fees 37 ,800 27, 42.0 40,000 Fines and Penalties 11 , 550 6 ,412 12,000 Interest and Rents 127,200 396 ,578* 155 ,000 Miscellaneous Revenues 23,500 18, 141 25,000 Transfers In: Traffic Safety 72,500 27 ,070 60,000 Dial-A-Ride 19 ,000 8,250 19,000 Developer Fees 37 , 050 -0 37.050 Wastewater 88400 43,500 88,400 TOTAL 7, 149,227 3,720, 168 7, 166, 192 *Interest reflects total earnings on all invested funds . since revenues have not been distributed at this time. Estimated interest earnings to date is $80,000 . • REVISED • TABLE B: FY 90-91 BUDGET VS. ACTUAL BY DEPARTMENT, AS OF DECEMBER 31 , 1990 (General Fund Only) Percent Department Budget Actual Spent Council 40,785 16,635 40.8 City Clerk 47 ,500 21 ,575 45.4 City Treasurer 3,765 879 23.3 City Attorney 65,000 38,571 59.3 City Manager 129, 175 66,586 51 .3 Police 2,053, 140 1 ,035,798 50.4 Fire 1 , 146,770 569,664 49 .7 P .W. /Engineering 367,480 181 ,787 49.5 Community Devel . 773,410 369,996 47.8 Parks, Rec . & Zoo Admin. 53,985 29,036 53.8 Recreation 368 ,970 234,034 63.4 Parks 344,005 167,064 48.6 Facilities 200,525 86,762 43. 3 • Streets 460,565 227,010 49 ._3 Subtotal 1 ,428,050 743,906 52 . 1 Admin. Services Personnel 114,625 60,975 53.2 Finance 274 ,400 186,979 68. 1 Risk Mgmt . 307,300 260,965 84 .9 Subtotal 696,325 508,919 73. 1 Non-Department* 629,393 420,416 66.8 C.O.P. Deb t Ser v . 96,000 -------- -0-_ Transfers Out : Z00 173,600 71 ,802 41 .4 Capital 196,000 ------- -0- TOTALS 7,846, 393 4,046,534 51 .6% *Non-Department includes equipment replacement vehicles c/myadjust • CC3/12/91 EXHIBIT C • Joan Okeefe '-�,,, ✓Ojcce�� 9985 Old Morro Rd. East 3-12-91 I am appealing the reposting February 19 , 1991 of the Negative Declaration for the Ardilla Road Extension because in the Initial Study I do not believe the mitigation measures set forth adequately mitigate the long list of environmental effects set forth. Frequent reference has been made to the Long Valley EIR which includes about half of this project . The City Attorney on 2-20-90 stated that projects have been approved in this area that were not based on the Long Valley EIR and that this is entirely legal and proper. So depending upon the whim of the City the EIR is evoked or ignored. The Long Valley EIR was an EIR for approval of a subdivision for the sale of individual lots on a very large parcel of land, 2500 Acres . The writers of the document said that it would be appropriate to consider the expected development of this area but the type of EIR being done didn' t allow for this . They went on further to say that dividing this type of terrain and vegetation into parcels averaging 4 . 39 acres each will have significant negative environmental impacts . • Among the most important are: ( 1 ) a reduction of an already diminishing vegetation type and threatened group of tree -- the oaks-- blue oak and valley oak are found in California and nowhere else in the world. ( 2) increased run-off, soil erosion, stream sedimentation and potential flood problems due to vegetation and watershed disturbances ( 3 ) reduction of prime wild life habitat which is diminishing in size each day both in the County and State . Two parcels have already been subdivided into 4 equal lots of 4 . 7 acres each. This is a tainted lot split in that the applicant, for the subdivision, Gordon Davis , did not even have to meet the conditions set forth for approval . So the process of subdividing into the minimal parcel size has already begun and the Long Valley EIR said that by doing this there will be a significant impact on the environment. The number of trees to be removed, just for the road and two driveway is 210, about 400 of these are valley oak. Wes Conner' s consulting arborist for the City gave these trees a valuation of$349 , 879 . 00 ( International Society of Arborists valuation standard) . With increased urbanization there will be increased runoff . The impacts of this runoff can be decreased by careful • planning. Planning cannot occur if a project is piecemealed. It is important to plan drainage for total build out, which includes the exact number of lots in the area, driveways and building sites . . The Dovica Project which is in that area is a prime example of project that was • allowed to begin when it was in its conceptual stages and one that violated many of the basic requirements of CEQA. The City is still trying to correct the drainage problems from this project. During the recent rain the Berry' s who live in that area video taped the increase in run off from the Dovica Project as well as the increased run off from the Ardilla Rd grading and grubbing. On 1-7-91 the City Attorney stated, "This project has been modified to minimize 'environmental impacts . These modifications were made in reliance upon expert report and other environment documentation (Long Valley EIR) . " Lisa Schicker, who was the City Arborist, until she resigned has recommended that in terms of tree protection the project should be evaluated in its entirety. "It is difficult to propose a Tree Protection Plan for road construction as an isolated activity when it is know 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 seems an important issue and one that needs to be discussed as soon • as possible for every proposed road project in Atascadero. This is the City' s own expert testimony yet it is not reflected in the mitigation measures . Two driveways have been identified. One of these appears to access 3 lots . The future owners are not bound by these suggestions so there is nothing to stop the -owners of the two adjoining lots from putting in their own driveways at different locations . Have the trees which will need to be removed to access the two adjacent lots been included in the total tree removal count? The Negative Declaration was posted 2-19-91 . The documents I received from the City did not include a map of the project, nor a tree protection plan. One of the reasons for ; reposting the project was to have a reproducible map of the project. The map I received about a week later from Community Development identified lots on both sides of Ardilla Rd. About half of these lots and possibly the road are outside of the Long Valley EIR area. The Geologic Hazard Report and the Geotechnical Engineering Field Report described the site as 9 lots . The project description is for 12 lots . Was all of the project area included in this study. It is impossible to tell from the information provided. • Attached to a copy of the site map was a one page report from the developer' s arborist regarding 22 trees . Is this the total tree protection plan? Additionally this document is dated 2-19-91 the same date the Negative Declaration was posted. This document is a part of the tree protection plan • and should have ben submitted prior to posting the Negative Declaration, The Ardilla Rd Extension is only one part of this project which will ultimately open up the area to a minimum of 12 residential homes . The impacts of this subsequent development have not been addressed or assessed in the Report. This Project I believe could be mitigated to a point of no significant impact by disallowing further lot splits , by identifying building envelopes and driveways, by planning drainage for future build out and by following the city arborist' s recommendations for tree protection. • • CC3/12/91 EXHIBIT D Testimony presented at the Atascadero City Council Meeting of March 12th, regarding the appeal of the Negative Declaration on the Ardilla Road Project by Eric Greening,7365 Valle Ave.,Atascadero,CA, 93422 I'm sorry this whole appeals process is proving to be so cumbersome for all concerned, and I imagine that Mr. Barnes feels about like someone who gets picked for a tax audit by the luck of the draw, but I do feel some important citywide issues are raised by this appeal that have to be faced sooner or later, and I believe that sooner is better. It is becoming increasgingly clear to me that, at least in present times, the greatest threat to our urban forest is not homeowners who might decide to cut down the trees in their front yards,it is road construction. Within a short period of time we had Garcia Road, now Ardilla, and San Marcos still pending. Each of these roads opens up a handful of lots at a cost of 100, 200, 300 trees. The ratio of lots accessed to trees taken runs between 10 and 25 trees per lot served. How many trees will be taken in the next decade as we reach General Plan buildout if we don't consi- der new ways of building roads? Even if replacement trees find a place to grow and live to adult- hood, it could take them longer than the probable lifetime of these roads to replace the lost canopy. Is this truly a Tree City, U.S.A.? It is also sobering to realize that,aesthetics aside,the monetary value,or measurement of the degree to which they enhance property value, according to ISA standards,of the trees taken to access each lot at these ratios,is a significant portion of the value of the lots themselves! How many trees could be saved by building roads for a slightly lower speed? Many commu- nities,even treeless ones,introduce curves,cul-de-sacs,etc. fpor the sole purpose of slowing the flow of traffic to promote public safety. Could a lower-speed road with a more careful tree-pro- • tection plan promote safety and protect community assets? What's an extra minute driving home if home is that much more desirable as a place to live? I'll leave it for the people of the affected neighborhood to raise the particular issues important to them. My interest as a citizen of this beautiful city is in the cumulative impacts of the road building policies that seem to be becoming established. It is time to closely examine the direc- tion we're going in the last decade toward buildout; mistakes made now will be with us for a long time. Therefore, I support the appeal and ask for this project to be more carefully designed in a way that sets a workable precedent so we don't have to go through something like this every time. I'm sorry this proving so cumbersome for Mr. Barnes and all concerned,but reforesting a deforested city would be even more cumbersome! Thank you,and have a happy Arbor Day! d�•h,y • CC3/1.2/91 EXHIBIT E PUBLIC HEARING • ARDILLA ROAD EXTENSION My name is Jim Langford. I own property adjacent to the proposed Ardilla Road extension. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the City Council and express my concerns in regard to this road extension and some of the proposed modifications involved. First, I want it to be known that I have an extensive background in natural resources management, having served with the National Park Service, Dept. of the Interior, for over 20 years, at locations such as Grand Teton, Everglades, Joshua Tree and Pinnacles National Parks. For the past 13 years I have been employed by the Army on the Fort Ord and Fort Hunter Liggett complex as a land manager and range conservationist. • I say this to assure you that I have a legitimate concern for the environment and some understanding of the problems associated with developing master plans for rural roads and developments. I 've helped in the planning of hiking trails, scenic roads, campgrounds, housing areas, vistor centers, and resort complexes. All under the close scrutiny of conservation organizations such as The Sierra Club, The Nature Conservancy, Friends of the Earth, etc. I have a personal interest in what happens on that hillside because I have waited for many years in anticipation of the Ardilla Road extension so that I could build my retirement home there. Needless to say, I concur with the proposed construction of that road. However, I also feel very strongly about making every effort to preserve as many of those oaks as possible. And I feel very strongly about a road design that has minimal impact on the environment! • • Two things my experience taught me (and I will be quite blunt in saying this! ) : The first is that policies and standards are necessary. You can't plan unless you have policies to guide you and standards to meet . The second is: unless those policies and standards are set by God Almighty, there MUST BE EXCEPTIONS TO THEM! Where there is serious conflict, especially where only a road is concerned, THE STANDARDS MUST ALSO BEND--not just the environment ! Allow me to simply state some facts: 1 . The Ardilla Road Extension is just that--an extension. It is not a thoroughfare where there will be much traffic. 2 . The extension is only about 3, 000 feet in length. It traverses a steep hillside through one of the finest stands of live and white oaks in the city. 3 . The road will serve about 6 or 7 parcels which otherwise would be landlocked. These parcels average from 2 to 10 acres or more in • size. 4 . The present road width standards specified for this project will insure a highly visible cutbank exposure and the loss of a maximum number of trees. My personal observations and recommendations are: 1 . This road extension does not warrant the standards imposed on it . It ' s short length, the few parcels it serves, the terrain it crosses and the limited traffic it will attract demand no more than a 16 to 18 foot paved surface. In fact, there is sufficient justification to reduce it to one-way status. Ardilla Road, at the point where the extension begins, is only 18 feet wide with no shoulders. Many, many roads in Atascadero, a unique rural community, have been functioning just fine with far lower standards. 2 . Although modifications to the original 40 foot road right-of- way are being considered to lesson the impact on certain heritage trees, the overall impact on the environment will still be excessive. • 2 The proposed construction of retaining wall to maintain road • elevation and grade at one point is inexcusable and would seriously degrade the value of property immediately below it . 3 . I urge the City Council to seriously consider modifying the standards for this particular road and to adopt an alignment plat that places the road at a higher elevation on the hillside. These two considerations would reduce the cut-bank exposure significantly and greatly reduce the number of trees sacrificed. Thank you, James M. Langford 1446 Osprey Ct . Templeton, CA. 93465 (805)434-3668 • • 3 _ CC3/12/al LXtiT BIi' F Whereas the citizens have no other way to insure that a project of the magnitude of the ,.proposed Ardilla Road extension will be carried out with the greatest possible sensitivity • to environmental concerns,and Whereas the negative declaration process gives the citizens no opportunity to:evaluate alternate routings of the road and configurations of homesites that would spare some of the 191 trees slated for removal, and Whereas the area that would gather the enhanced runoff from the new construction shows an already-existing propensity to sheet flooding,and Whereas the signatures here gathered demonstrate a level of public concern that warrants the level of attention we call for, We respectfully request that a full Environmental Impact Report to be done on the Ardilla Road extension and associated development, including full consideration of alternate routings and designs, to assure an outcome that takes full advantage of Atascadero's naturalheritage and preserves this heritage for fu ege generations. _...._ _._ _.. .._._._._._.� ._. d &raves Name me ddre A ss as C E Name D — �, Address —3/0,S'Nam Address -3d 30 Y e _ ? 1 .; Address 7650 A ddress NameKIP NAME , �. , ADD .1/J.� / Whereas the citizens have no other way to insure that a project of the magnitude of the .proposed Ardilla Road extension will be carried out with the greatest possible sensitivity • to environmental concerns,and Whereas the negative declaration process gives the citizens no opportunity to evaluate alternate routings of the road and configurations of homesites that would spare some of the 191 trees slated for removal, and Whereas the area that would gather the enhanced runoff from the new construction shows an already-existing propensity to sheet flooding, and Whereas the signatures here gathered demonstrate a level of public concern that warrants the level of attention we call for, We respectfully request that a full Environmental Impact Report to be done on the Ardilla Road extension and associated development, including full consideration of alternate routings and designs, to assure an outcome that takes full advantage of Atascadero's natural heritage and preserves this heritage for future generations. --_ ..._ _ _._ 76 v o a,e Ac;:b< .;ems_ AZ ddresq 791o) Lwwta � 8 G SS CrrQ ve s Creek -lQ �- Address '1"7 FO Nam e 114ttd 75-00 6.v�✓e.S ' � c Nameol-t iC -- -77gD PelU n AQ rPcc � C r� Cd Address 77,TO ICU- 1�cf Dame i"T�..�.., i f ,' AddrPiec �� L6� ece s f Whereas the citizens have no other way to insure that a project of the magnitude of th proposed Ardilla Road extension will be carried out with the greatest e to enviro�nental concerns, and �' Possible sensitivity • - Whereas the negative declaration process gives the citizens no opportunity to evaluate alternate routings of the road.and configurations of homesites that would spare some of the 191 trees slated for removal, and Whereas the area that would gather the enhanced runoff from the new construction shows an already-existing propensity to sheet flooding, and Whereas the signatures here gathered demonstrate a level of public concern that warrants the level of attention we call for, We respectfully request that a full Environmental Impact Report to be done on the Ardilla Road extension and associated development, including full consideration of alternate routings and designs, to assure an outcome that takes full advantage of Atascadero's .............,natural heritage and preserves this heritage _- .--_...._.-----------------------e for future generations_ ar � . boy 23S L4n— fir. d Ss o�• Ad Add MR am , • �`C �L 39SS ave ,Q�1 9�Y✓ 4AYen 7365 Ktle- A��, 147�<-r ahfio Ssf Nam Address Name kdd 120 z !� ,qq ' /OC& • Name A[�f�TPce F e f `s s1 Whereas the citizens have no other way to insure that a project of the magnitude of the ..proposed Ardilla Road extension will be'carried out with the greatest possible sensitivity to environmental concerns,and Whereas the negative declaration process' ives the citizens no opportunity to evaluate alternate routings of the road and configurations of homesites that would spare some of the 191 trees slated for removal, and Whereas the area that would gather the enhanced runoff from the new construction shows an already-existing propensity to sheet flooding,and Whereas the signatures here gathered demonstrate a level of public concern that wan-ants the level of attention we call for, We respectfully request that a full Environmental Impact Report to be done on the Ardilla Road extension and associated development, including full consideration of alternate routings and designs, to assure an outcome that takes full advantage of 'zi , Atascadero's natural heritage and preserves this heritage for future generations. _ _._._._._ .. .._._._._._ Name 0 Address 7c 2&t4e6 06 Address 734 -A�Address —75'0 Name Address 7600 .-a Ue. G/c. Ie..al. a��VAddress7720 ves ere . 01�ame A"& 7a d ampT p hl' Address -7-976os Name IAC� � y�r� �� ,.�Addrecc 7 o &/� 22-60 (LA CAQ0 dki�2- A Whereas the citizens have no other way to insure that a project of the magnitude of the proposed Ardilla Road extension will be'carried out with the greatest possible sensitivity • to environmental concerns, and Whereas the negative declaration process, gives the citizens no opportunity to evaluate alternate routings of the road and configurations of homesites that would spare some of the 191 trees slated for removal, and Whereas the area that would gather the enhanced runoff from the new construction shows an already-existing propensity to sheet flooding,and Whereas the signatures here gathered demonstrate a level of public concern that wan-ants the level of attention we call for, We respectfully request that a full Environmental Impact Report to be done on the Ardilla Road extension and associated development, including full consideration of alternate routings and designs; to assure an outcome that takes full advantage of Atascadero.'s natural heritage and preserves this heritage for future generations. - .-.�� _._._._.___.._.____._ _._. _._._._._._._._._.__._._. _ ._-----------... Name S 3 Name YEbA S, TD/jl/9 s Address /D 61 �Z21 Name J-6-MP-> F. ;2-hom•4 s Ad reqs /Ole 9s- e, sT e/N 19,i/f S '73 .0,17-2 Name Address Name Address Name Address ' Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name_ Ad recc Name Address : a U Whereas the citizens have no other way„to insure that a project of the magnitude of the proposed Ardilla Road extension will be carried out with the greatest possible sensitivity to environamental concerns, and Whereas the negative declaration process gives the citizens no opportunity to evaluate alternate routings of the road and configurations of-homesites that would spare some of the 191 trees slated for removal, and Whereas the area that would gather the enhanced runoff from the new construction shows an-aheady-existing propensity to sheet flooding,and Whereas the signatures here gathered demonstrate a level of public concern that warrants the level of attention we call for, . We respectfully request that a full Environmental Impact Report to be done on the Ardilla Road extension and associated development, including full consideration of alternate routings and designs, to assure an outcome that takes full advantage of Atascadero's natural heritage and preserves this heritage for future generations IT AA Addrtug silo 6tall 0/t' d 8217- 4 RL Nme r s: caaett� Flu. = ,4 ,etasCa c, a. KQ, e. M aY\ J4 �" 146 3 arc, a Y kare n Nam Address 1365" Salle he A14femderyico, 93427 'YNam 15�(Jl 3 a—c}- Name ' Name R `_.A1,�C1n— Address 76 77 S 16d 'S F- Name ._.__ Addroy2-o 8 Pl = IS L----) 93 4-o Name 0 o W41 Name ccu• GiJu � C7seS �ft�o Name – 11-- 5�;, - Address l3,L� 3 Hol 0 i Whereas the citizens have no other way to insure that a project of the magnitude of the proposed Ardilla Road extension will be carried out with the greatest possible sensitivity to enviroCaamental concerns, and • Whereas the negative declaration process gives the citizens no opportunity to evaluate alternate routings of the road and configurations of homesites that would spare some of the 191 trees slated for removal, and Whereas the area that would gather the enhanced runoff from the new construction shows an already-existing propensity to sheet flooding, and Whereas the signatures here gathered demonstrate a level of public concern that warrants the level of attention we call for, We respectfully request that a full Environmental Impact Report to be done on the Ardilla Road extension and associated development, including full consideration of alternate routings and designs, to assure an outcome that takes full advantage of Atascadero's natural herita a and preserves this heritage for future __._.__.._._. ._...._._._._._._._... ................................................................._.____.__._generations _.__. ._.__ ..._ a AdJ--ss 65 UG �l /T V�o< <I c� lS�U p a r o 9.7 /L c Z � s �e SS 35�2Z Address YO-7N Name yzz- ame AddresslrN - yZ ess • Name Address CC3/12/91 EXHIBIT G WRIGHT & SANDERS A LAW CORPORATION TELEPHONE (805) 466-902 5950 ENTRADA AVENUE WILLIAM D. WRIGHT (RETIRED) FAX BETTY R. SANDERS ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA 93422 (805) 466-9098 March 12 , 1991 Honorable Mayor Robert Lilley City of Atascadero 6500 Palma Avenue Atascadero, CA 93422 Dear Mayor Lilley: On behalf of Wil-Mar Disposal Company, Inc. , I thought it expedient to advise you of steps taken to assist the public in understanding and accepting the recent change in rate structure and to advise the public of procedural changes to alleviate problems which have arisen as a result of the volume based structure. I enclose a copy of the ad which will appear in the Atascadero News on Wednesday and in the Northern Edition of the Telegram Tribune on Thursday. This is the first step in our public awareness campaign • for which we have initially budgeted $15 . 000 . As you may know, this is a new endeavor for Wil-Mar . We look forward to continuing cooperation with the Recycling Committee in bringing the Green Waste program on-line April 1st . This will be a "first" in San Luis Obispo County and an event in which we should all take pride. As this public awareness campaign continues we will keep you apprised of its development . We would appreciate any suggestions or constructive criticism which you and the Council may have to offer . We appreciate your continued support . Very truly yours , BETTY �R. SANDERS BRS/bah Encl . C. C. Bill Gibbs Wil-Mar Disposal Co. n. 11 >% > > �L O c V O — • O oo a a, Q i V, V fy H to I Z .� � G ami O m .V i .L� 8 O •m u Iri b0 w v .. a y liztec ° r o a � •� � Rooec -- - a � � � ,c on cn Gem .9 .o .� 3 u cx+r. a a .o a� L .•G. ` : C - 3 3 �, (z 3 •C < to to r- ~gy m M�.T��11 o b'o In c0 H LC co L'1 y S7 ►+r Q O M 1 1 1 v� • REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: A-2 Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 04/09/91 From: Greg Luke, Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Proiect Certification - Authorized Signature: Authorization to execute Right-of-Way Certifications to the State of California in conjunction with Public Works Projects. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution authorizing the Public Works Director to execute Right-of-Way Certifications. BACKGROUND: The Department of Public Works often undertakes projects which incorporate the use of Federal funds. When these funds are administered by CALTRANS, CALTRANS requires a Right-of-Way Certification to confirm that the right to enter has been properly • obtained and that the Right-of-Way is free and clear of obstructions. Federal LPA guidelines require the submittal of a resolution by the Council to authorize execution of the document (certification) . As an alternative, the City Council may adopt a resolution giving the Public Works Director a blanket authority to execute Right-of-Way Certifications. DISCUSSION: CALTRANS requires execution of a Right-of-Way Certificate in order to verify that all the necessary paperwork has been completed prior to construction. The certification process is a simple task requiring no decisions of policy. Therefore, to save Council the time necessary to review each Certification request, it is recommended that the Director of Public Works be authorized to perform the task. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. RESOLUTION NO. 27-91 • RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS TO EXECUTE RIGHT-OF-WAY CERTIFICATIONS TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS WHEREAS, the Department of Public Works often undertakes projects which incorporate the use of Federal funds in some phase of such projects; and WHEREAS, when said Federal funds are to be administered by CALTRANS, CALTRANS requires that the City of Atascadero execute a Right-Of-Way Certification to the State of California prior to any construction on such projects; and WHEREAS, CALTRANS is willing to accept said Right-Of-Way Certifications which have been executed by a party other than the Council provided CALTRANS has proof on record in their office that the City Council has properly authorized another City Official to execute said Right-of-Way Certifications on behalf of the City of Atascadero. NOW, THEREFORE, effective upon the adoption of this Resolution, the City Council hereby authorizes the Director of Public Works of the City of Atascadero to execute, on behalf of • said City, those Right-of-Way Certifications that may be required by CALTRANS in conjunction with Public Works Projects. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Atascadero this day of 1991, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: LEE DAYKA, City Clerk ROBERT B. LILLEY, Mayor APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO FORM: GREG LUKE ARTHER MONTANDON Director of Public Works City Attorney • REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL : AGENDA ITEM. A_3 CITY OF ATASCADERO THROUGH: Ray Windsor, City Manager MEETING DATE: 4/9/91 FROM: Andrew J. Takata, Director Community services Department SUBJECT: CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICE CHILD CARE PROGRAM LICENSING RECOMMENDATION: Approve Resolsution Number 29-91, authorizing the application for State licensingunder the School 1 Age Child Care Program. DISCUSSIONIANALYSIS: The City of Atascadero Community Services Department sponsors an After School Child Care Program for children in grades kindergarten • through sixth at five elementary school sites. The State Department of Social Services has recently required the City to apply for licensing under the School Age Child Care Program in order to comply with all State regulations. In order to receive licensing the City is required to provide an application, including a resolution authorizing the application for licensing. • • RESOLUTION NUMBER 29-91 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO AUTHORIZING THE APPLICATION FOR STATE LICENSING UNDER THE SCHOOL AGE CHILD CARE PROGRAM WHEREAS, the State of California, Department of Social Services, requires all school age child care programs to be licensed; and WHEREAS, the City of Atascadero Department of Community Services sponsors an After School Child Care Program for children, grades kindergarten through sixth, at five (5) elementary school sites; and NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the City Council of the City of Atascadero does hereby authorize the Department of Community Services to apply for licensing under the school age child care program through the State of California, Department of Social Services. • BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Geoffrey English, Recreation Supervisor, is hereby authorized to act as the City's agent to apply for licensing for After School Program, and to receive documents, reports, or inspections, consultations, accusations, 'and to delegate to recreation site directors and aides. On motion by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember , the foregoing resolution is approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: DATE ADOPTED: BY: ROBERT B. LILLEY, Mayor City of Atascadero, California • APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: RAY WINDSOR, City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: ARTHER MONTANDON, City Attorney ATTEST: LEE DAYKA, City Clerk • REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM: A-4 CITY OF ATASCADERO THROUGH: Ray Windsor, City Manager MEETING DATE: 4/9/91 FROM: Andrew J. Takata, Director Community services Department SUBJECT: PROPOSED CONTRACT - FRED H. SCHOTT AND ASSOCIATES - PROFESSIONAL SERVICES - DESIGNING SEISMIC STRUCTURAL RETROFIT OF THE CITY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, FOURTH FLOOR ROTUNDA RECOMMENDATION: City Council approve the attached proposed contract with Fred H. Schott and Associates for professional services in an amount not to exceed $20,000. DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS: • Per updated State requirements pertaining to retrofitting unreinforced masonry buildings, staff is pursuing professional services to design the retrofitting of the Administration Building fourth floor rotunda. It is noted that Fred H. Schott and Associates, Inc. , specializing in seismic structural engineering, does not have Errors and Omissions Insurance. After discussion with the Public Works Director, it was felt that the type of work being performed by the contractor in this agreement would not require the need for such insurance due to the difficulty of proving an error or omission after an earthquake. FISCAL IMPACT: Funds for the above professional services have been appropriated in the 1990/91 fiscal year budget. AJT:kv ;admin.bldg CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREMAENT FRED H. SCHOTT AND ASSOCIATES THIS AGREEMENT, made this 9th day of April, 1991 , by and between the CITY OF ATASCADERO, hereinafter referred to as "City", and Fred H. Schott and Associates, Inc. , hereinafter referred to as "Consultant". Witnesseth For and in consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained, the parties hereto agree as follows: Article 1 Authorization A. Consultant will perform this Agreement in conjunction with the Purchase Order issued by the Department of Community Services. Exhibit "A" Proposal/Fee Schedule Article 2 • Responsibilities of Consultant A. Scope. Consultant will provide the following professional services as described herein and under Exhibit "A" for the City project hereinafter described: Seismic structural retrofit of the fourth floor walls and roof for Atascadero City Administration Building B. Coordination. In the performance of Consultant's service under this Agreement, Consultant agrees that he will maintain such coordination with City officials as may be requested and desirable, including primary coordination with the Project Coordinator, herein designated as Andrew J. Takata, Director of the Community Services Department, and also with the following city officials: City Manager, Public Works Director, and Community Services Director. C. Consultant's Services. Insofar as they may be applicable to the project contemplated by this Agreement, Consultant shall render the services and furnish the work tasks 1 • commencing with receipt of a written Notice to Proceed signed by the Project Coordinator and by the City Manager. Article 3 Responsibilities of city City shall cooperate with Consultant on all phases of the work covered by this Agreement and will make available to him, as his needs indicate, all existing maps, topographic maps, aerial photographs, soils reports, and other similar data in possession of City covering the site, as selected. Article 4 Fee and Provision for Payment City will pay Consultant a fee according to Exhibit "A" as modified by Exhibit "B", for work contracted in this agreement and billed for based on the payment schedule in Exhibit "A" . Consultant shall be paid no later than thirty (30) days following receipt by City of Consultant's progress report and invoice. Any additional applicable hourly rate billings as authorized in Article 5 shall be based on the Fee Schedule contained in Exhibit "A". Article 5 • Payment for Extra Work or Changes Any claim for payment for extra work or changes in the work will be paid by city only upon certification by the City Manager that the claimed extra work or changes was authorized in advance by the Project Coordinator and the City Manager, and that the work has been satisfactorily completed. Claims for such extra work must be submitted by Consultant within thirty (30) days of completion of such work and must be accompanied by a statement of itemized costs covering said work. Article 6 suspension or Termination of Agreement A. susRension of Agreement. If Consultant fails to comply with the conditions of the Agreement, City may, by written notice of the Project Coordinator and the City Manager, suspend the Agreement and withhold further payments pending corrective action by Consultant or a decision to terminate the Agreement. After receipt of notice of suspension, Consultant may not incur additional obligations of Agreement funds during the suspension unless specifically authorized by the Project Coordinator and the City Manager. B. Termination for Convenience. Either party hereto shall have the right to terminate this Agreement upon giving ten (10) days written notice of such termination of this project in its 2 entirety, notwithstanding any other fee provisions of this • Agreement, based upon work accomplished by Consultant prior to notice of such termination, City shall determine the amount of fee to be paid to Consultant for his services based upon the provision in Exhibit "A", and such findings of City shall be final and conclusive as to the amount of such fee. In the event of termination of any portion of this project, Consultant shall be entitled to the reasonable value of his services involved in the termination, as determined by City, upon a finding which shall be final and conclusive as to the amount of fee due and owing. Article 7 Time of Completion Consultant agrees to diligently pursue his work under this Agreement and to complete the work within ninety (90) days, as described in Exhibit "A" . Consultant shall not be responsible for any delay which is caused by City review, action or inaction of City and/or any state or federal agency, or acts of God, but shall be responsible for his own fault or negligence or that of any of his subcontractors. Article 8 Conflicts of Interest No member, officer, or employee of City, during his or her tenure, or for one (1) year thereafter, shall have any interest, • direct or indirect, in this Agreement or the proceeds thereof. Article 9 Ownership of Data The ownership of all data collected for use by Consultant under this Agreement, together with working papers, drawings, and other materials necessary for a complete understanding of the plans and necessary for the practical use of the plans shall be vested in City. Ownership of original drawings and documents shall be vested in City. Consultant may retain a copy of all work for his own use. Consultant shall provide six (6) copies of schematic design documents to City as part of this agreement. Article 10 Covenant Against Contingent Fees Consultant warrants that he has not employed or retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for him, to solicit or secure this Agreement, and that he has not paid or agreed to pay any company or person, other than bona fide employee working solely for him, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift, or any other consideration contingent on or resulting from the award or making of this Agreement. For breach or violation of this warranty, City shall have the right to annul 3 this Agreement without liability or, in its discretion, to deduct • from the contract price or consideration or otherwise recover, the full amount of such fee, commission, percentage fee, gift, or contingency. Article 11 Contract Personnel The work to be done pursuant to this Agreement shall be done by Fred Schott, Civil Engineer (#13QQ4) /Structural Engineer (#1387) , and such other personnel in the employ or under the supervision of Consultant who shall be approved by City. The City official who shall be vested with the right of approval of such additional personnel or outside contracting parties shall be the City Manager. City reserves the right to reject any of Consultant's personnel or proposed outside consultants, and City reserves the right to request that acceptable replacement personnel be assigned to the project. Article 12 Indemnity Clause Consultant shall defend, indemnify, and save harmless the City of Atascadero, its officers, agents, and employees, from any and all claims, demands, damages, costs, expenses, and liabilities • arising out of this Agreement or occasioned by the negligent performance or attempted negligent performance of the provisions hereof, including, but not limited to, any negligent act or omission to act on the part of Consultant or his agents or employees or independent contractors directly responsible to him, except that the above shall not apply to the sole negligence or willful misconduct of City or City's agents, servants, or independent contractors who are directly responsible to City. This indemnification provision shall apply even if there is concurrent or joint negligence of indemnitor and indemnitee, and even if there is active or passive negligence by either or both parties. Article 13 Insurance A. Automobile and Public Liability Insurance. Consultant shall also maintain in full force and effect for the duration of this Agreement, automobile insurance and public liability insurance with an insurance carrier satisfactory to City, which insurance shall include protection against claims arising from personal injury, including death resulting therefrom, and damage to property resulting from any actual occurrence arising out of the performance of this Agreement. The amounts of insurance shall be not less than 4 the following: • Single limit coverage applying to bodily and personal injury, including death resulting therefrom, and property damage or a combination thereof in an amount not less than $500, 000. The following endorsements must be attached to the policy or policies: (1) If the insurance policy covers on an "accident" basis, it must be changed to "occurrence" . (2) The policy must cover personal injury as well as bodily injury. (3) Broad form property damage liability must be afforded. (4) The City of Atascadero, its officers, employees, and agents, shall be named as insured under the policy, and the policy shall stipulate that the insurance will operate as primary insurance and that no other insurance effected by City will be called upon to contribute to a loss hereunder. (5) The policy shall contain contractual liability, either on a blanket basis or by identifying this Agreement within a contractual liability endorsement. (6) The policy shall contain "cross-liability" such that each insured is covered as if separate policies had been issued to each insured. (7) City shall be given thirty (30) days notice prior to cancellation or reduction in coverage of the insurance. B. Workers Compensation Insurance. In accordance with the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code, Consultant shall be insured against liability for workers compensation or undertake self-insurance. Consultant agrees to comply with such provisions before commencing performance of any work under this Agreement. C. Certificates of Insurance. Consultant shall submit to the City Manager all certificates of insurance evidencing that Consultant has the insurance required by this Agreement within ten ( (10) days after receipt of Notice of Award. Said certificates shall state the project number and that the policy shall not be assigned, canceled, or reduced in coverage without thirty (30) days written notice to City, and that such insurance not relieve or decrease the extent to which Consultant may be held responsible for payment of damages resulting from any service or operation performed pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant shall not perform any work under this Agreement until the required insurance certificates have been submitted to City and approved by these provisions, or fails or refuses to furnish City required proof that insurance has been procured and is in force and paid for, City shall have the right, at its discretion, to forthwith terminate this Agreement. 5 • Article 14 Status Consultant shall, during the entire term of this Agreement, be construed to be an independent contractor, and in no event shall any of his personnel or subcontractors be construed to be employees of City. Article 15 Non-Discrimination Consultant shall comply with the provisions of Presidential Executive Order No. 11246 of September 24, 1965, and all other orders, regulations, and laws governing non-discrimination in employment, including in particular, Section 122 (a) of the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972. Article 16 Modification of Agreement ree 4 nt This Agreement ment may be modified only by a written amendment signed by both parties hereto. Article 17 Law This Agreement shall begoverned nby the laws of the State o California. f Article 18 Communicatins Communications between the parties to this Agreement ma be sent to the following address: y City: CITY OF ATASCADERO 6500 Palma Avenue Atascadero , Ca . 93422 Attn: Andrew J. Takata, Director Community Services Department Consultant: Fred H. Schott and Associates 200 Suburban Road, Suite A San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93401 Attn: Fred Schott (805) 544-1216 6 ACCEPTED AND AGREED this 9th day of April, 1991. • CITY: CONSULTANT: CITY OF ATASCADERO, a municipal corporation By By Robert Lilley, Mayor Fred H. Schott, Engineer ATTEST: Lee Dayka, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Andrew J. Takata Art Montandon, City Attorney Project Coordinator 7 Exhibit A Fred H. Schott & Associates, Inc. CIVIL & STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING • LAND PLANNING&ARCHITECTURE • May 17 , 1990 City of Atascadero Mr . Henry Engen Director of Community Development 6500 Palma Avenue Atascadero, CA 93422 Subject : Seismic Structural Retrofit of the Fourth Floor Walls and Roof for Atascadero City Hall Dear Mr . Engen ; This is in answer to your request for a proposal to design the next phase of seismic upgrade construction for the subject building. During a site visit made, by our office on May 14 , 1990 , we confirmed that the next weakest links in the lateral force resisting system of the Atascadero City Hall are the fourth floor masonry walls, the masonry veneered stud walls above, and the domed roof framing connection to the support elements . The great height and mass of the 22 foot high fourth floor masonry walls • pose a threat to public safety in the event of any credible earthquake. These unreinforced masonry walls do not have the capacity to span 22 ' between the horizontal support elements that were installed in phases previous p s of retrofit construction. In order to meet minimum code requirements , vertical steel mullions spanninganni.ng between horizontalsupports would be installed at the interior or exterior face of these walls at 6 to 8 feet centers. However, either location would noticeably change the appearance of this historical structure, and it is very likely that it would be extremely difficult and time consuming to obtain approvals from the State Office of Historic Preservation. -A second alternative which would not preclude later installation of smaller vertical mullions would be to create a horizontal ring truss at the balcony level. This solution would cut the vertical span in approximately half increasing the wall capacity to resist lateral forces by a factor of 4 . This alternative could be accomplished with little or no visible impact, and it is likely that the State Office of Historic Preservation would voice little if any opposition to the solution. It should be noted that a segment of the subject fourth floor walls on the North side has moved outward at the top a .noticeable distance opening a sizeable crack at each end of the segment. This wall segment needs to' be pulled back into place and re-anchored to it' s support elements. • SAN LUIS OBISPO OFFICE 20J Su ur: ar 05)544-1216 SANTA MARIA OFFICE Lane. �,; l,`4 . (805)925 343 - Santa P,�ana.C�•I,f err;. . Mr . Henry Engen Page 2 • The masonry veneered stud walls above the 22 ' high walls have no capacity to resist in plane shears. They are not properly anchored to horizontal support elements at the roof level and at the top of. the 22 ' high masonry walls. These walls must be supported top and bottom as required to resist loads perpendicular to the walls, and they should be sheathed with plywood on the interior face of the studs to provide in plane shear resistance. The masonry veneer should be securely attached to the stud wall to prevent the bricks from collapsing onto the structure below. It is highly unlikely that the original veneer anchors are still capable of providing the required lateral support for the veneer . This assumption needs to be confirmed, but we have little doubt that new anchors will be required. The existing roof sheathing is 1x6 tongue and groove straight sheathing. Straight sheathing has little lateral shear resistance capability. Ultimately, the roof framing should be sheathed to create a proper roof diaphragm, but we do not feel that this is a priority item since the basic dome framing provides some capacity to resist loads in one direction and transfer them to walls parallel to the direction of loading. We do feel that it is imperative that the existing dome framing be adequately tied to the vertical and lateral support elements as required to preserve the structural integrity of the roof and fourth floor walls during a seismic event. We , propose to prepare structural calculations, retrofit construction plans, details and specifications, along with bid documents for the work described above. Our services will include: 1 . Detailed site investigations to determine conditions, dimensions and sizes of existing framing. 2 . Preparation of structural calculations, plans and details for the lateral support of the fourth floor masonry walls, the lateral force resisting system and support of the masonry veneered stud walls above the fourth floor walls, the connection of the domed roof framing to the lateral support elements below and the realignment of the North fourth floor masonry wall. 3 . Preparation of general structural notes, specifications and bid documents . 4 . Checking of shop drawings and on—site construction inspection, services as required to certify compliance of the construction Lc the approved plans, details and specifications. 5 . Contract Administration. • Mr. Henry Engen Page 3 We propose to perform the noted professional engineering work on an hourly basis: Items 1 , 2 , and 3 will be performed for a fee which will • not exceed $20 ,000 . The costs for Items 4 and 5 depend upon too man items which are unknown at this time and can only be estimated after bids are received, construction schedules and etc. Work done on an hourly basis will be charged establisher; ar , principal 'cost with the p ' g 5 times salary s time charged at $80 .00 per hour. Overtime will be charged at 1 .5 times normal rates. Reimbursable expenses including printing, long distance phone calls, mileage, and postage, etc. will be charged at cost. Should you have any questions, comments or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact us . Sincerely, Fred H. Schott FHS:nsb (ATASCADE. Pilo) • REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: A - 5 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: • 4/9/91 From: Richard H. McHale, Chief of Police ----------------------------------------------------------------- SUBJECT: Bid Award for Purchase of Unmarked Police Sedan RECOMMENDATION: By motion, award the current bid proposal to Atascadero Ford for the purchase of one unmarked 1991 police sedan (mid-sized Taurus) for an amount not to exceed the low bid meeting the specifications of $12,614.00 including tax. BACKGROUND: Council will recall that the purchase of this administrative/investigative sedan was previously authorized in the current 1990-91 fiscal year budget. Bid packages including all specifications were prepared and mailed out by the Finance Division and City Clerk to twenty • dealerships (including all within our city) both inside and outside California. There were nine bid proposals submitted for consideration. Folsom Lake Ford of Folsom, California chose to bid five different vehicles with option packages. Of the five units Folsom proposed, one met the specifications and it was $187. 62 more than the car bid by Atascadero Ford. (See attached bid summary sheet. ) FISCAL IMPACT: As stated, this purchase was previously authorized by Council action in the adoption of our current budget. RHM:sb Attachments: • BID SUMMARY • TO: Chief McHale FROM: Lee Dayka ; - City Clerk BID NO. : 91-4 OPENED : 3/26/91 2:00 A.M. PROJECT: Unmarked Police Sedan The following proposals were received and opened as follows. As you can see, each bid is different and will, if course, need to be reviewed to determine which dealer can provide the best price, but prompt service as well. Name of Dealer Make/Model Price Folsom Lake Ford (5 proposals) Ford Taurus L 11,658.94 9479 Madison Ave. if Taurus LW/201G 11,763.88 Folsom, CA 95630 Taurus LW/203A 11,764.94 Taurus GL/205W 12, 801.62 Taurus w/police pkg 12,531.32 Atascadero Ford Ford Taurus 12,614.00 3850 El Camino Real Atascadero, CA 93422 Ted Miles Jeep-Eagle Eagle Premier 13,923.00 7380 El Camino Real Atascadero, CA 93422 Kimball Motor Co. (2 proposals) Chev Lumina Euro 13,948.64 P.O. Box 4010 Preferred 14,633.40 San Luis Obispo, CA 93403 Pete Johnson Chevrolet Chev Lumina Euro 14,266.69 Theatre Drive Paso Robles, CA 93446 C&M Chevrolet (2 proposals) Chev. Lumina Euro 14,745.22 7978 Balboa Ave. if of If 15,455.91 San Diego, CA 92111 Stewart Olds (2 proposals) Cutlass Supreme (w/o anti-locks) 14,919.33 901 West Main 19 of (with ) 15,900.00 Santa Maria, CA 93456 Hysen-Johnson Taurus GL 15, 109.24 12200 Los Osos Valley Road (1% disc. offere San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (continued) O�UL-'TS Sa��3-i,Z c r4rl or.� til •'�•o eft 60e4&CZ Bid No. 91-4 Page 2 Dealer Make/Model Price Fair City Ford Ford Taurus GL 16, 123. 04 3328 Spring Street Paso Robles, CA 93446 Attachments: 9 proposals c: Cathy, Finance • City of Atascadera Purchasing Agent 6500 Palma Avenue Atascadero , CA 93422 NOTICE OF BID AWARD Issue Date Bid No . Resolu-. ion NO . You are hereby notified that the commodities andior services listed have been awarded to you subject to the terms and conditions of the bid number shown and to the General Conditions Of this Notice of Hid Award : V E N D 0 R ITEM QUANTITY UNIT DESCRIPTICN PRICE Purchasing Department Bv: Vendor ' s Representative �hvne • REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda I tem: B-1 (A,B&C) Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Mtg. Date: 4/9/91 From: Henry Engen, Community Dev. Dir. 1til4r7 File No: GPA 1B-90 ZC 10-89 TTM 31-90 SUBJECT: Consideration of the following applications: (1) General Plan Amendment 1B-90 to change the land use designation of approximately 24 acres from Retail Commercial to Special Recreation; (2) Zone Change 10-89 to change the zoning of said 24 acre site from CT (FH) (Commercial Tourist/Flood Hazard Overlay) to LS (FH) (PD8) (Special Recreation/Flood Hazard Overlay/Planned Development Overlay) ; and (3) Tentative Tract Map 31-90 that would divide the same 24 acre site into 15 parcels for single family residential use, and two larger parcels for recreational use. The project is located on the southwest corner of the Highway 101 and Santa Barbara Road intersection - Eagle Creek Associates (Joe Boud & Associates) • RECOMMENDATION: Per the Planning Commission' s recommendation: 1) Approval of General Plan Amendment 1B-90 based on the Findings contained in Resolution No. 31-91; 2) Waive reading of Ordinance No. 221 in full and approve by title only; and 3) Approve Ordinance No. 221 on first reading 4) Approve Tentative Tract Map 31-90 subject to the Planning Commission' s Findings and Revised Conditions of Approval, Exhibit B, March 5, 1991. BACKGROUND: On February 5, 1991 and March 5, 1991, the Planning Commission conducted public hearings on this proposed project. On a 6 : 1 vote, the Commission recommended approval of the three applications as reflected in the above recommendation. There was considerable discussion and public testimony as referenced in the attached Conditions of Approval. The project was revised from 15 to 12 single family lots by the Planning Commission. • HE:ps Attachments: Staff Report dated March 5, 1991 Minutes Excerpt - March 5, 1991 Minutes Excerpt - February 5, 1991 Resolution No. 31-91 Ordinance No. 221 Revised Conditions of Approval - March 5, 1991 Separate Cover: Eagle Creek Project Addendum cc: Eagle Creek Associates Joe Boud & Associates • • F{EETING� AGENDA • MEMORANDUM DATE: March 5, 1991 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Gary V. Kaiser, Assistant Planner�'�' SUBJECT: Eagle Creek Project -- General Plan Amendment #1B-90 Zone Change #10-89 Tentative Tract Map #31-90 (Michielssen/Boud) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends: ( 1) approval of General Plan Amendment #1B-90, based on the Findings contained in the Draft Resolution (Exhibit D) ; (2) approval of Zone Change #10-89, based on the Findings contained in the Draft Ordinance (Exhibit D) and being subject to the development standards also contained therein; and (3) • approval of Tentative Tract Map #31-90, based on the Findings contained in Exhibit A and subject to the Conditions of Approval contained in Exhibit B. BACKGROUND: The above-referenced project was considered by the Planning Commission at its February 5, 1991 meeting. At that time, the recommendation of staff was for approval of the proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change. However, there was not sufficient information available at that time to allow staff to recommend approval of the "map" aspect of the project. The Commission will recall its reluctance to separate the "map" from the rest of the project. With the consent of the applicant, the Planning Commission opted to postpone action on the matter until all the necessary information could be provided, and all three applications associated with the project could be considered by the Commission simultaneously. ANALYSIS: The February 5, 1991 staff report offers a detailed analysis of the entire project, and describes those areas either not adequately addressed or where inconclusive data precluded staff from recommending approval of the subject tentative tract map portion of the project (Exhibit D) . In addition to the unresolved matters disclosed in said staff report, the Planning Commission, at its February 5, 1991 meeting, • expressed concerns regarding the use of existing on-site wells and/or use of a "greywater" system for the purpose of irrigation of the golf course. Specifically, the Commission was concerned about the effects of drawing the necessary groundwater, and/or the use of the necessary amount of "greywater", on the quality and quantity of water in existing wells. This additional unresolved matter seemed to be an offshoot of the fact that water from the Atascadero Mutual Water Company would not be available for use on the golf course. The unresolved matters discussed in the February 5, 1991 staff report, and those that became apparent at the public hearing on that date, have now been addressed by the applicant (Exhibit C) . Based on this new information, staff offers the following: Sewage Disposal One of the unresolved matters discussed in the February 5, 1991 staff report dealt with sewage disposal on the proposed residential lots. The Planning Commission will recall that percolation tests were not performed on each proposed parcel, and that some of the tests that were performed yielded poor results. Additional percolation tests were performed on February 8 & 9, 1991. The results of said tests indicate that conventional septic/leachfield systems would be an acceptable method of sewage disposal on proposed parcels 2 through 12. However, such positive results were not obtained for proposed parcels 1, 13, 14, and 15. The applicants have not changed the design of the tentative tract map based on the information gained by the additional percolation tests. The applicants continue to propose conventional septic/leachfield systems on parcels 2 through 12, but now propose to serve parcels 1, 13, 14, and 15 with one of the following: (a) excavation and placement of compacted backfill with a suitable soil material that would enable these lots to meet percolation standards; (b) design alternative on-site sewage disposal systems; or (c) establish an off-site community system located on the "golf course" parcel, either separate from or connected to the larger system proposed for the "clubhouse" parcel. Based on review of the additional percolation test results, it is staff' s opinion that the residential portion of the project site is simply not suitable for the type and density of development proposed. This is reflected in Condition of Approval #1, which requires a reduction in the number of residential lots to ensure that each lot has an acceptable conventional leachfield location. • Paloma Creek Another unresolved matter discussed in the February 5, 1991 staff report on this subject involves the presence of Paloma Creek, and the fact that a minimum setback of one-hundred ( 100) feet must be provided between said creek and any leachfield. The tentative tract map and preliminary grading plan provided for the meeting on that date showed the proposed 4,500-gallon community leachfield for the clubhouse within this required setback area. The tentative tract map and preliminary grading plan have since been redesigned to show that the required 100-foot setback from Paloma Creek can be met. Condition #3 ensures that the necessary Waste Discharge Permit will be secured from the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, prior to the issuance of any building permits for the clubhouse. The Waste Discharge Permit is required because of the size of the system, rather than because of its location. Fire Protection Another issue discussed in the February 5, 1991 staff report concerned a secondary fire access to the proposed clubhouse from Atascadero Road. The concern at that meeting was that this requirement could result in a substantial change in the design of • the project. The applicants have revised their preliminary grading plan to show such a secondary access. This access is proposed to begin at a crash gate located immediately northwest of the junction of Paloma Creek and Atascadero Road, and is proposed to terminate with a modified hammerhead at the southern-most property line of proposed parcel 16. The secondary access, which would be twelve ( 12) feet in width and surfaced with an all-weather base, has been approved in concept by the City Fire Department. This second review by the Fire Department also ensures that the other necessary improvements related to fire protection can also be constructed in a manner approvable by the Fire Department, without substantially changing the design of the project. Such other improvements include interior sprinklers for the clubhouse and golf course maintenance structures, fire hydrants, and a City standard turnaround at the entrance to the clubhouse facility. Water Supply Correspondence from the Atascadero Mutual Water Company, indicating that water would not be provided for use on the golf course, was also discussed in the February 5, 1991 staff report as an unresolved issue. • The applicants have prepared a water demand model to illustrate • the amount of water that the proposed golf course would require. This model, contained in Exhibit C, assumes that astro turf would be used for the tees, that Tall Fescue would be used for the aprons and greens, and that Bermuda/Zoiza grass would be used for the fairways. The model shows that the golf course would demand approximately 12,018 GPD (gallons per day) . The applicants propose to meet this demand through the combined use of on-site wells ( 8,246 GPD) and a greywater system (3,772 GPD) . The greywater system would collect from the clubhouse and each of the residential structures, using plumbing systems that can separate the blackwater (sewer water) from the usable greywater. The greywatet would then be stored, either in holding ponds or storage tanks, until its eventual dispersal onto the fairways following treatment. Exhibit C includes the tabulations that show that the necessary quantity of greywater would be available. The test results of a newly constructed well located on the property immediately to the south of the project site is also contained in Exhibit C. This well, which was drilled to a depth of 220 feet, has been shown to produce 15 gallons per minute (well driller' s report also contained in Exhibit C) . If the two existing wells on the project site are also extended to a depth of 220 feet, it can be assumed that the necessary combined quantity of 20 gallons per minute can be produced on-site. In staff' s opinion, whether or not an adequate supply of water • can be made available for use on the golf course should not effect the Commission' s action on the project. Approval of the proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change would preclude any uses other than a golf course on that parcel. Prior to development of the golf course all applicable state permits must be obtained for the use of greywater (Regional Water Quality Control Board and State Department of Health Services), and an actual on-site well drillers report must show an adequate supply of water is available to supplement any greywater system. This is assured by way of the attached Conditions of Approval. If all of the pertinent information and permits are not obtained, the golf course will simply not be developed. This, in staff ' s opinion, results in a no-lose situation for the City; if the golf course is not developed, that parcel would be held in perpetual open space. Errant Golf Balls The final unresolved issue discussed in the February 5, 1991 staff report had to do with the possibility of errant golf balls entering the Highway 101 traveled way, and the adverse health and safety impacts that could result. The applicants hold that the existing natural vegetation together with the topography of the project site (between the proposed • golf course and the Highway 101 right-of-way) is sufficient to preclude golf balls from traveling onto Highway 101. The • applicants have proposed to incorporate additional landscaping into the final design of the golf course. Condition #4 ensures that the specific layout and design of the golf course will be reviewed and approved by the City Community Development Department prior to its development, and that highway safety will be a major focus of that review. Again, if the golf course cannot be developed in a save manner, that parcel would be held in perpetual open space. Water Supply/Effect on Aquafer As noted above, another issue was revealed at the Planning Commission' s February 5, 1991 meeting, which concerned the impact of this project on the aquafer and on surrounding wells in the region. The applicants have arranged to have this matter addressed by an engineering geologist who specializes in ground water. The results of this investigation are contained in Exhibit C. This letter establishes that the golf course property is underlain by sandstone, and that wells drilled in this location would not have a significant effect on surrounding wells drilled in shale deposits. The letter further states that wells drilled in the location of the golf course would probably not effect other wells drilled in sandstone over one-quarter of a mile away. Mr. Cleath • goes on in his letter to state that securing the necessary Waste Discharge Permits for the community leachfield system (clubhouse) and use of greywater for irrigation of the golf course would preclude any adverse impacts to the quality of the groundwater in the region. Staff agrees that the necessary State permits would ensure that the project will not adversely effect the quality and/or quantity of groundwater in the project area. Staff feels that the attached Conditions of Approval adequately protect surrounding property owners who are currently receiving water supplies from individual wells. For instance, the applicants will be required to make potable water hook-ups available to each adjacent property owner. CONCLUSIONS: The applications currently before the Commission only propose to change the General Plan designation and zoning of the subject property and create separate parcels. It is important to recognize that ( 1) any development of the site must be in conformance with the Master Plan of Development (Concept Plan) , and (2) that there will be independent and careful review of all new developments and construction activities by appropriate City and State agencies, prior to the issuance of any building • permits. Staff believes that the proposed project, together with the • Conditions of Approval, are adequate to preclude any significant adverse impacts. Furthermore, staff feels that the project would indeed be a benefit to the neighborhood, and community as a whole, that would not be realized under the current General Plan designation and zoning. The application currently before the Planning Commission proposes a no-lose situation for the City of Atascadero. Attachments: Exhibit A -- Findings for Approval Exhibit B -- Conditions of Approval Exhibit C -- Project Addendum Exhibit D -- February 5, 1991 staff report • • • EXHIBIT A - Findings for Approval Tentative Tract Map 31-90 Highway 101 & Santa Barbara Road (Eagle Creek Associates/Boud) March 5, 1991 ENVIRONMENTAL FINDING: The proposed project will not have a significant impact on the environment. The Negative Declaration prepared for the project is adequate. MAP FINDINGS: 1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable General and Specific Plans. 2. The design and/or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable General and Specific Plans. 3. The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed, and as conditioned. • 4. The site is physically suitable for the density of the development proposed, and as conditioned. 5. The design of the subdivision, and/or the proposed improvements, will not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish and wildlife or their habitat. 6. The design of the subdivision, and the type of the improvements, will not conflict with easements acquired by theublic at large f p g or access through or the use of property within the proposed subdivision; or substantially equivalent alternate easements are provided. 7. The proposed subdivision design, and/or the type of improvements proposed, will not cause serious public health problems. TPM-31-90.fin • C EXHIBIT B - Conditions of Approval • Tentative Tract Map #31-90 Highway 101 & Santa Barbara Road (Eagle Creek Associates/Boud) March 5, 1991 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The number of residential lots shall be reduced from fifteen ( 15) to eleven ( 11) , and each of the eleven ( 11) residential lots shall contain a site determined to be adequate for placement of a conventional septic/leachfield system, as shown in the percolation data reports prepared by Tierra Tech Testing Labs. , Inc. dated September 4, 1990 and February 15, 1991 (percolation rates of 60 min./inch or less) . The reduction in the number of residential lots shall not change the overall orientation of the lots, nor shall it result in any "flag lots" or lots less than one- half acre in size. 2. All development shall be in conformance with the Master Plan of Development, and shall adhere to the provisions of Planned Development Overlay Zone No. 8. No new development or construction activities of any kind shall occur on the • site without prior review and approval of the Community Development Department. 3. Prior to the issuance of any building permits for the proposed "clubhouse, " the following conditions shall be satisfied: a. Improvement plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City Fire Department, Community Development Department, and Public Works Department. b. A Waste Discharge Permit shall be secured from the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board for the placement of any (community] septic/leachfield system exceeding 2,500 gallons per day. 4. Prior to any permits being issued for the golf course, the following conditions shall be satisfied: a. A Stream Alteration Permit shall be secured from the California Department of Fish and Game. b. Improvement plans, including the precise layout of the course and landscaping, shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and • approval. Special attention shall given to ensure that aesthetic and health and safety impacts are minimized. • C. All applicable State permits shall be secured for any use of treated wastewater, or greywater, for the purposes of irrigation. d. Water quality and quantity tests shall be performed by a licensed drilling and pump contractor and submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval, if water from an on-site well is to be utilized. e. The applicant shall provide potable water hook-ups to all adjacent property owners. Said water hook-ups shall be extensions of the facilities of, and shall be served by, the' Atascadero Mutual Water Company. This particular condition applies only if on-site wells are proposed to be utilized for irrigation of the golf course. 5. Water shall be obtained from the Atascadero Mutual Water Company, with the exception of the parcel nearest to Highway 101, which will either remain in open space or will be developed as a golf course with its own source of water. Water lines, electric power, telephone, natural gas, and cable television services shall be stubbed to the property line of each lot, except water lines to the aforementioned golf course parcel nearest the Highway, and facilities to • distribute such services shall be provided according 'to the requirements of the responsible utility companies. All underground facilities within the travel way or improved shoulders of a road shall be installed prior to the paving of any road improvements. 6. All existing and proposed utility, pipeline, open space, or other easements are to be shown on the final map. If there are building or other restrictions related to the easements, they shall be noted on the final map. 7. All relocation and/or alteration of existing utilities shall be the responsibility of the developer. 8. A grading and drainage plan prepared by a registered civil engineer shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval by the Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to the recording of the final map. The plan shall delineate the limits of flooding for a 10 year storm and a 100 year storm. 9. The applicant shall arrange a pre-design conference with the Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to the development of any improvement plans. • 10. Road improvement plans prepared by a registered civil engineer shall be submitted to the Community , Development Department for review and approval by the Public Works Department, prior to the construction of the improvements. • Plans shall include, but are not limited to, the following: Atascadero Road shall be improved to City minimum road standards along the entire property frontage as directed by the Director of Public Works. Private roads shall be constructed to conform to City minimum road standards under the direction of the City Engineering Division. 11. A road maintenance agreement, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, shall be included in the C.C.& R. ' s. This agreement shall be for the maintenance of the interior roads. 12. The subdivider shall install all street signs, traffic delineation devices, warning and regulatory signs, guardrails, barricades, and other similar devices where required by the Director of Public Works. Signs shall be in conformance with the current State of California uniform sign chart. Installation of traffic devices shall be subject to review and modifications after construction. 13. Construction of the public road improvements shall be completed or bonded for prior to the recording of the map. Bonding shall be subject to approval by the Director • of Public Works and the Director of Community Development. 14. All public improvements shall be covered with a 100% Performance Guarantee and a 100% Labor and Material Guarantee until construction is deemed substantially complete and then by a 10% Maintenance Guarantee to remain in effect until 1 year after substantial completion. 15. All grading and erosion control measures shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and constructed in accordance with the City of Atascadero grading codes and standards. Prior to the final building inspection, said engineer shall submit to the City written certification that grading is in conformance with said codes and standards and the approved plans. 16. A Drainage Maintenance Agreement, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, shall be included in the C.C.& R' s. 17. Offer to dedicate to the City of Atascadero the following right-of-way . Street Names: Santa Barbara Road and Atascadero Road Limits: From centerline of right-of-way to property line. • . 18. Offers of dedication shall be completed and recorded prior to or in conjunction with the recording of the map. 19. Prior to the recording of the final map, a soils investigation as required by the Subdivision Map Act shall be submitted, recommending corrective actions which will prevent structural damage to each structure proposed to be constructed in the area where soil problems exist, as indicated in the Preliminary Soils Report. The date of such reports, the name of the Engineer making the report, and the location where the reports are on file shall be noted on the final map. 20. A final map in substantial conformance with the approved tentative map and in compliance with all conditions set forth herein shall be submitted for review and approval in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and the City's Subdivision Ordinance prior to the recording of the final map. a. Monuments shall be set at all new property corners by a Registered Civil Engineer or Licensed Land Surveyor as required by the Land Surveyors Act and Subdivision Map Act. Monuments set within any road right of way shall conform to city standard drawing M-1. • b. Pursuant to section 66497 of the Subdivision Map Act the engineer or surveyor shall notice the City Engineer in writing that the monuments have been set. C. A recently updated preliminary title report shall be submitted for review in conjunction with the processing of the final map. d. A preliminary subdivision guarantee shall be submitted for review in conjunction with the processing of the final map. • EXHIBIT D FEBRUARY 5, 1991 STAFF REPORT • CITY OF ATASCADERO Item: B-2 STAFF REPORT FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: February 5, 1991 BY: Gary V. Kaiser, Assistant Planner File No: GP 1B-90 ZC 10-89 TPM 31-90 SUBJECT: Consideration of the following applications: ( 1) A General Plan Amendment (GP #1B-90) to change the land use designation of approximately 24 acres from Retail Commercial to Special Recreation; (2) A Zone Change (Zone Change #10-89) to change the zoning of said 24-acre site from CT(FH) (Commercial Tourist/Flood Hazard Overlay) to LS(FH) (PD8) (Special Recreation/Flood Hazard Overlay/Planned Development Overlay) ; and (3) a Tentative Tract Map (TTM #31-90) that would divide the same 24-acre site into fifteen ( 15) parcels for single-family residential use, and two (2) larger parcels for recreational use. • RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends: ( 1) approval of General Plan Amendment #1B-90; (2) approval of Zone Change #10-89; and (3) a continuance of Tentative Parcel Map #31-90. A. SITUATION AND FACTS: 1. Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Eagle Creek Associates 2. Representative. . . . . . . . . . . .Joseph Boud & Associates 3. Project Address. . . . . . . . . . .Highway 101 & Santa Barbara Rd. (SW corner) 4. Legal Description. . . . . . . . .Portions of Lots 18-25 and Park Reservation "A", Block 72, Atascadero Colony 5. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 acres (approx. ) 6. Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .CT(FH) (Commercial Tourist/Flood Hazard) 7. General Plan Designation. . . . .Retail Commercial 8. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Vacant/Pasture 9. Environmental Status. • • • • • " 'Posted JanuaryDeclaration 1991 • B. ANALYSIS: The applicant has proposed to amend the current General Plan by changing the designation of the above-referenced site from Retail Commercial to Special Recreation (Exhibit A) . The applicant has also requested an associated Zone Change at said site from CT(FH) (Commercial Tourist/Flood Hazard Overlay) to LS(FH) (PD8) (Special Recreation/Flood Hazard Overlay/Planned Development Overlay) (Exhibit B) . Thirdly, the applicant requests approval of a Tentative Tract Map application to divide the same 24-acre site into: parcels 1 through 15, each at or slightly exceeding one- half acre; parcel 16 at 5.0 acres; and parcel 17 at 19.3 acres (Exhibit C) . Parcels 1 through 15 are intended for single-family residential use, while parcels 16 and 17 are intended for use as a private tennis and swim club and public nine-hole golf course, respectively (Exhibit D) . The project site is located on the southwest corner of the Highway 101 and Santa Barbara Road intersection. The fifteen ( 15) residential lots are proposed to be served by a new private road from Atascadero Road. The recreational facilities are proposed to be served by a new private road off Santa Barbara Road. • Environmental Review In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , the City of Atascadero has adopted Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEOA) . These Guidelines (Resolution #1-86) state: "In the certification of a Negative Declaration, the decision-making body shall determine the project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment, specifically: 1. It will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment 2. It will not achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals. 3. It will have no impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. 4. It will not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. " (Section 309) 0 2 The Negative Declaration posted on January 22, 1991 (Exhibit E) is adequate and satisfies the requirements of CEQA, and the City' s Guidelines, with respect to the proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change. This Negative Declaration does not pertain to the tentative tract map, however, because too many questions remain unresolved. These unresolved issues, which stem from the Map aspect of this project only, are described under discussions regarding the tentative map. The Initial Study materials were distributed under separate cover. The General Plan Amendment The "re-designation" of the project site from Retail Commercial to Special Recreation is supported by staff. Such a change in planned land use would ( 1) better recognize the physical constraints of the site, (2) would result in the development of new land uses which are more compatible with each other and with existing land uses in the area, and (3) would result in a more "site-sensitive" use of the subject property from an environmental perspective. The major physical constraints of the site include the topography, the presence of Paloma Creek and its associated floodplain, and the fact that this portion of Paloma Creek appears as a "blue-line" on USGS maps. Approximately two-thirds of the site is low-lying and affected by the 100-year floodplain • of Paloma Creek, while the remaining acreage is situated on a knoll approximately thirty-five (35) feet above the rest of the site. The low-lying area and portions of the site situated upon the knoll are relatively flat, slopes on the transitional portions of the site, however, range from 20 to 30 percent. In addition, the site is not served by sewer services and is located in an area surrounded by agricultural, and very low-density residential, land uses. Potential growth-inducing impacts, and impacts related to noise, air pollution, traffic, and aesthetics would generally be more significant under a purely commercial development scheme than under the proposed special recreation designation. The combination of site, and neighborhood, characteristics that exist suggest that the less intensive special recreational uses, especially considering the addition of the proposed planned development overlay zone to recognize the unique qualities of the site, would be more feasible at this location. The Zone Change The uses that are allowed under the current CT (Commercial Tourist) zoning are geared primarily towards the needs of the traveling public, and include such uses as motels, restaurants, and service stations. 3 The proposed LS (Special Recreation) zoning would preclude the most intensive uses allowed in the CT zone (i.e. used car lots, • service stations, and auto repair) , and would shift other more intense commercial uses from "allowed" to "conditionally allowed" (i.e. restaurants, motels, recreational vehicle parks, and general merchandise stores) . Another substantial difference between the two zones is that the LS zone would allow for single- family residential use. It also sets forth a minimum lot size for residential use. The introduction of a Planned Development Overlay zone enables the Planning Commission to further scrutinize, and modify as deemed appropriate, the full range of uses that will be allowed at this location. Moreover, the Planning Commission has an opportunity to incorporate special development standards into this PD8 zone that will be pertinent only to this particular property and will cater to the unique qualities of the site and its surroundings (see Exhibit G -- Draft Ordinance) . Minimum Lot Size/Density The existing CT zoning establishes no minimum lot size. The proposed LS zone also does not have a minimum lot size, except that a minimum of 1.5 acres is required for new parcels intended for residential use, in areas not served by sewer services. The City General Plan (page 53) establishes a minimum lot size of one-half acre for the creation of new single-family residential parcels throughout the City. It is clear that the development standards that can be modified during the planned development process include minimum lot sizes, provided the overall density of- the site is maintained. The proposed fifteen ( 15) residential lots, for example, would result in an overall on-site residential density of 1.6 acres per dwelling unit. Staff agrees that both the minimum lot size of one-half acre for residential use should be maintained, as should the overall site density of 1.5 acres per dwelling unit. This application proposes to meet both of these lot size and density standards. Planned Development Overlay Zone The purpose of the Planned Development Overlay Zones, and the Findings that must be made to approve the establishment of a Planned Development Overlay Zone, are contained within the Zoning Ordinance. The purpose of the PD Zones, as found in Section 9- 3.641 of the City Zoning Ordinance, is as follows: "The Planned Development Overlay Zone identifies areas where development standards or processing requirements different from those established by the underlying zoning district are deemed necessary to promote orderly and harmonious 4 i • development and to enhance the opportunity to best utilize special characteristics of an area. ,, Pursuant to Section 9-3.644 of the City Zoning Ordinance, the following findings must be made to approve the establishment of a PD Overlay Zone: "i. Modification of development standards or processing requirements is warranted to promote orderly and harmonious development. 2. Modification of development standards or processing requirements will enhance the opportunity to best utilize special characteristics of an area and will have a beneficial effect on the area. 3. Benefits derived from the overlay zone cannot be reasonably achieved through existing development standards or processing requirements. 4. The proposed plans offer certain redeeming features to compensate for the requested modifications. " Staff feels that all of the above mandatory findings for the establishment of a Planned Development Overlay zone can be made, • and that the establishment of this particular planned development overlay zone is consistent with the intent of the planned development philosophy. This is particularly true regarding the enhanced opportunities for the unique qualities of the site to be recognized and preserved. Staff feels that confining the use of the low-lying portions of the site, representing over 50 percent of the total site area, as either open space or low-intensity recreational uses, would be a great benefit to the project, neighborhood, and community as a whole, and could justify the creation of some lots smaller than 1.5 acres on the knoll. The Tentative Tract Map The primary goals of the State Subdivision Map Act (Government Code Section 66410 et seq. ) have been summarized as follows: I. To encourage orderly community development by providing for the regulation and control of the design and improvement of the subdivision, with a proper consideration of its relation to adjoining areas; 2. To ensure that the areas within the subdivision that are dedicated for public purposes will be properly improved by the subdivider so that they will not become an undue burden on the community; is 3. To protect the public and individual transferee from 5 fraud and exploitation. • (61 Ops. Atty. Gen. 299, 301, 1978) While the Map Act generally grants authority to the local agency to regulate and control the design and improvement of subdivisions within its boundaries, local ordinances and actions cannot be contrary to the specific provisions contained within the Map Act. Therefore, pursuant to the Map Act, and the City Subdivision Ordinance, if the City cannot make all of the required findings, it shall deny the tentative map. Assuming the proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change are approved, findings I and 2 can be made. There is not sufficient information available at this time, however, for any of the remaining five findings to be made. On the other hand, there is also insufficient information to determinate that the required findings cannot be made, given the additional information necessary. Furthermore, and as previously noted, there is not sufficient information available at this time for staff to recommend certification of a negative declaration that would encompass the tentative map aspect of this project. The information lacking, or matters otherwise not adequately addressed, that prevent the appropriate findings from being made for both approval of the tentative map and certification of a negative declaration are as follows: • 1. SEWAGE DISPOSAL -- A percolation data report has been prepared for this site by Tierra Tech Testing Labs, Inc. . This data report, and accompanying map, shows the locations and results of percolation tests and exploratory borings throughout the site. Percolation tests were performed in twenty-five (25) different locations (SP1 thru SP25) . The percolation rates for these 25 locations range from 5 minutes per inch to 480 minutes per inch. Pursuant to the City' s Building Regulations (Atascadero Municipal Code, Title 8, Chapter 4) , when percolation rates exceed 30 minutes per inch, the private sewage disposal system must be designed, inspected, and certified to work by a registered civil engineer. Also pursuant to said Building Regulations, when percolation rates exceed 60 minutes per inch, a private sewage disposal system using soil absorption shall not be allowed. Most importantly, percolation tests were not performed on each of the proposed parcels. With some of the percolation test results being exceptionally poor, it is especially important that percolation tests be performed, and found to yield satisfactory results, prior to certifying any environmental document and prior to approving any tentative 6 • map. The tentative map may have to be redesigned substantially to show that acceptable sewage disposal systems can be established on each lot. 2. WATER -- Correspondence from the Atascadero Mutual Water Company indicates that water will not be available to the site for golf course purposes. It is unclear in this letter whether or not said Water Company will supply water for tennis and swim club purposes. Providing water for the golf course is possible through the use of "gray water" or through use of on-site well(s) . More information would be necessary to show that either of these two possible water sources can be feasibly developed in a manner that does have potentially significant adverse effects on human beings and/or the environment. It should be emphasized that the creation of lot(s) under conditions where water supply and sanitary sewage disposal is in question would circumvent the primary goals of the State Subdivision Map Act in that the parcels created could be rendered "un-developable" in a manner consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. 3. PALOMA CREEK -- Paloma Creek, which appears as a "blue line" on the 7 1/2 minute USGS maps and is a well-defined drainage �. channel, traverses the project site. The above-referenced City Building Regulations require a 100-foot setback between such "blue line" swales and any leachfield. The tentative map, with its associated grading plan (Exhibit F) , proposed to locate a 4,500 gallon per day septic system (consisting of approximately 1, 125 lineal feet of leachline) within this 100-foot setback area. In addition• commercial septic systems receiving flows greater than 2,500 gallons per day are subject to the Waste Discharge Requirements of the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. Although the State Waste Discharge Permit ca g g n be addressed as a condition of approval, the setback issue must be resolved prior to approval of the tentative map, as it may result in a substantial change in the design of the subdivision, and leaves yet another potentially significant environmental impact unresolved. 4. FIRE PROTECTION -- In addition to finding that additional fire hydrants (4) and sprinkler systems would be necessary to adequately serve the project, the City Fire Department has indicated a need for an additional access road to access the rear portion of the proposed "clubhouse" from Atascadero Road. Meeting this requirement could also result in substantial changes in the design of the subdivision; and, therefore, the matter must be resolved (to the preliminary approval of the City Fire Department) prior to approval of • the tentative map. 7 5. ERRANT GOLF BALLS -- The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) , as well as the City Planning • Division, has raised concerns with the possibility of errant golf balls entering the Highway 101 right-of-way, and the health and safety threat that may be associated with such occurrences. Efforts to remedy this situation through use of netting may alleviate Caltrans ' concerns, but would raise the question of aesthetic impacts. Any necessary rede'sign of the golf course, or incorporation of appropriate measures to mitigate these potential impacts, could substantially change the design of the project, and should be resolved prior to approval of the tentative map. This health and safety question, as well as questions related to fire protection, also hinders staff' s ability to recommend that the appropriate Findings be made for certification of a negative declaration for the tentative map. CONCLUSIONS: The areas where sufficient information is not presently available pertain only to the tentative map aspect of this project. Staff supports the entire project in concept, but cannot recommend approval of the tentative map aspect of the project with the above matters unresolved. Because staff does conceptually support the map, and because it is a matter of not enough information rather than information that would prescribe denial, staff suggests the Commission continue its consideration of the • tentative map until its next regular current planning meeting. During this one ( 1) month period, the applicant should have enough time to address the above concerns of staff. Although there may be slight modifications in the design of the tentative map upon resolution of these matters, the Commission could now preliminarily consider the merits of this kind of a project, yet defer taking its final action on the matter. Staff believes that the necessary findings can be made for the establishment of the new Planned Development Overlay Zone (PD8) . In fact, staff feels that this project epitomizes the intent of the planned development philosophy by taking into account the unique qualities of the particular site to the benefit of all involved, in a manner that would not likely be realized under the current zoning. Staff agrees with the applicant that the tentative map shows a potentially feasible Master Plan for the site, and that the project represented by the tentative map is indicative of what would be pursued under the proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change. That is, the Master Plan that would be required for any development of this site may or may not come in the form of a tentative map. • 8 • ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Location Map/General Plan Map Exhibit B - Zoning Map Exhibit C - Tentative Tract Map Exhibit D - Concept Plan Exhibit E —Negative Declaration Exhibit F - Grading Plan Exhibit G - Draft Ordinance Exhibit H - Resolution Amending the General Plan • • TTM-31-90.sr 9 „ \ CITY OF ATASCADERO EXHIBIT A ,;, �: COMMUNITY DEVUOPMENT LOCATION/GENERAL PLAN MAP D EPARTM 1,4T TTM - 31-90 • ' GP #1B--990 Zone Change #10-1.9 s .,,� 'tee. •-. -T a Isl •/ t�q OENSJ REC. • 00.0 ONS” ' FAMILYJ 911. y ,y� N19N/ /�� ._;- ••� r� Q DEN;IrY -MU • • •• FA IL • • •••• • LOW c ECREATION/ • • �' LTI• AMILY • / = 0 ►!U TI AMILY RETAIL OMMERCIA f OE TS 1 a AMYL f, Vii! ► ,`'� j - SITE �` . � �\�� � . 0��'�Yti��:i CITY OF ATASCADERO EXHIBIT c to COMMUNITYTENTATIVE TRACT MAP DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TTM 31-90cP' #1B-90 Zone Change #10-89 Subdivision Map 1 EAGLE CREEK TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 2049 �� y ,• 1 ♦SUBDIVISION Of PMN RES%.'Ar. LOTS 21. 22. . •\�• : v 2yw,�, \ '` S• �. ANO PORTIONS OF 10. 19, 20. 23. 24. Amo 25 �� �� •r, `�_��� NA W BLOCK 72.♦TASCMERO COLONY. 4 \ .��,. •.•� ` n. •\ •..� City.1 YYfCod... nt `f\., ,^ +► ... • 1 Couy d Son Luis ON.Ps. Q*#*,w �• •�\ ,� 211 SF 'I w... SEPTEMBER 1990 \2'4Iz5r• . :- L ,- \/_,.lr \ �/ , ' •!`�!';.of p191eY IV . l U.S. HIGHWAY 101 SOUTHBOUND* Owner/Dareloper Eagle Creek Associates•6895 Morro Rood•Atattadero.CA 93422.1805►461-0888 DesienlPlannia`Joseph Bond&Associates•1009 Morro Street•San Luis Obispo,CA 93101•(805)S430565 14 • CITY OF ATASCADERO EXHIBIT D CONCEPT PLAN ,7 N COMM M DEVELOPMENT TTM 31-90 • DEPARTMENT GP #1B-90 .Zone Change #10-89 Conce t''daI Site Plan ,.r ..••_ •• agle Creek Conceptual Plan � r � t �� 1.. < o Iidentiai states A. • - - Owiar/Orrt4/r,We Creek Assoriaas•6ii95 Morro Rood•Awsradero.CA 93422•(305)461-OUR VeWgWPAmmft lonpb Bood d Assa•iaets•1009 Morro Serer•Son Luis Obispo.CA 93.10/•A)5)543 056 �7 CITY uF ATASCADERO ,,.. EXHIBIT E �;, .r CONMUNITY DEVELOFNI NEGATIVE DECLARATION D EPARTMENT GP #1B-90 • Zone Change #10-89 TTM #31-90 CITY OF ATASCADERO son 10, ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION COMMUN1TY DEVELOPMENT DEPT.. 6500 PALMA AVE. ATASCADERO.CA 93422 (805)461-5035 APPLICANT: Eagle Creek Associates 8575 Morro Road Atascadero, California 93422 PROJECT TITLE: General Plan Amendment #1B-90 Zone Change#10-89 PROJECT LOCATION: Highway 101 & Santa Barbara Road (SW corner) (APN 045-391-01) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Amend the General Plan designation of the site from Retail Commercial to Special Recreation, and change the zoning • of the site from CT(FH) (Commercial Tourist/Flood Hazard) to P,INDINCiS (FH) (PD8) (Special Recreation/Flood Hazard/Planned Development) . 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 ffie in the Community Development Department).it has been determined that the above project will not have an adverse impact on the environment. Henry Eng Community Development Director Date Posted: January 22, 1991 Date Adopted: i �zft, CITY UF ATASC46DERO EXHIBIT F Nil C0WNILI M DEVELOPMENT Grading Plan TTM 31-90 • DEPARTIMENT Zone Change 10-89 GP." 1B-90 Grading & Drainage Plan EAGLE CREEK PRELIMINARY \- GRADING PLAN GOLF COURSE & TENNIS CLUB "! r:r" •, CUSTOM RESIDENTIAL ESTATES \ �.•t • \ _ Counly ul :un lws OG � .\�,� ,� � t- 2` �...� � •.... "„"iii.• J ,v a 9 i \ �'f_ �n � y rj Owntr/Ueregapr£auk Creek Assrn•iates•4895 Morro Road•Atawadero,CA 93422•(805)461.0888 Dtsign/P/anning losepb Bout&Associates•1009 Morro Strett•San Luis Obispo,CA 9310/•(805)5434 565 16 • EXHIBIT G r Draft Ordinance TPM 31-90 Zone Change 10-89 ORDINANCE NO. nPA 1R-qn AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO AMENDING MAP 23 OF THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAPS BY REZONING THAT CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, AND "PARK RESERVATION A" OF BLOCK 72, ATASCADERO COLONY, FROM CT(FH) TO LS(FH) (PD8) ; AND AMENDING THE TEXT OF THE CITY ZONING ORDINANCE TO INCLUDE THE PROVISIONS FOR THE PD8 ZONE CREATED HEREIN. (ZC 10-89: EAGLE CREEK ASSOCIATES) WHEREAS, the proposed zoning map amendments are consistent with the General Plan as required by Section 65860 of the California Government Code; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendments are in conformance with Section 65800 et seq. of the California Government Code concerning zoning regulations; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendments will not have a significant adverse impact upon the environment. The Negative Declaration prepared for the project is adequate; and WHEREAS, the Atascadero Planning Commission held a public hearing on February 5, 1991 and has recommended approval of Zone Change 10-89. • NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Atascadero does ordain as follows: Section 1. Council Findings. 1. The proposal is compatible with the surrounding land use and zoning. 2. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan land use element. 3. The proposal will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts. The Negative Declaration prepared for the project is adequate. 4. Modification of development standards or processing requirements is warranted to promote orderly and harmonious development. 5. Modification of development standards or processing requirements will enhance the opportunity to best utilize special characteristics of an area and will have a beneficial effect on the area. 6. Benefits derived from the overlay zone cannot be reasonably achieved through existing development • standards or processing requirements. 7. The proposed plans offer certain redeeming features to compensate for requested modifications. Section 2. Zoning Map. Map number 23 of the Official Zoning Maps of the City of Atascadero on file in the City Community Development Department is hereby amended to reclassify the parcel(s) listed below, and shown on the attached Attachment A, which is hereby made a part of this ordinance 'by reference. Lots 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, and "Park Reservation A", in Block 72, Atascadero Colony. Section 3. Zoning Ordinance Text. Development of said parcel shall be in conformance with the standards of Planned Development Overlay Zone No. 8, as established in Attachment B, which is hereby made a part of this ordinance by reference. Section 4. Publication. • The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published once within fifteen ( 15) days after its passage in the Atascadero News, a newspaper of general circulation, printed, published, and circulated in the City in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code; shall certify the adopting and posting of this ordinance and shall cause this ordinance and this certification together with proof of posting to be entered into the Book of Ordinances of the City. Section 5. Effective Date. This ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and effect at 12: 01 a.m. on the 31st day after its passage. On motion by and seconded by , the foregoing Ordinance is approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: DATE ADOPTED: • By. ROBERT LILLEY, Mayor City of Atascadero, California • ATTEST: LEE DAYKA, City Clerk RAY WINDSOR, City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: ARTHER R. MONTANDON, City Attorney PREPARED BY: HENRY ENGEN, Community Development Directof* • CITY OF AT, -k ER Attachment A ,. CO NLNfUINT Y O EVEL 0 P:tiiEYT • D EP�,R'I'�,fE�I' d RS F a Z ,o a �1 R (FH) S TE • I I i I Attachment B • 9-3.652. Establishment of Planned Development Overlay Zone No 8 (PDS) .- Planned Development Overlay Zone No. 8 is established as shown on the Official Zoning Maps (Section 9-1. 102) . The following development standards are established: (a) A Master Plan of Development shall be approved prior to any development of the site. Said Master Plan shall be processed in the same manner as a Conditional Use Permit, except that the Master Plan may be submitted and processed in the same manner set forth for the processing of a tentative map. (b) In approving a Master Plan of Development for the site, the uses allowed shall be limited to: 1. Single family dwellings 2. Residential accessory uses (See Section 9-6. 106) 3. Crop production and grazing 4. Farm animal raising (See Section 9-6.111) 5. Home Occupation (See Section 9-6. 105) • 6. Libraries and museums 7. Temporary dwelling (See Section 9-6. 176) 8. Temporary events (See Section 9-6. 177) 9. Temporary or seasonal retail sales (See Section 9- 6. 174) 10. Agricultural accessory uses (See Section 9-6. 109) 11. Bed and Breakfast 12. Amusement services 13. Cemeteries 14. Eating and drinking places 15. Fisheries and game preserves 16. Horticultural specialties (See Section 9-6. 115) 17. Indoor recreation services • 18. Outdoor recreation services (See Section 9-6. 123) • 19. Recreational vehicle parks (See Section 9-6. 180) 23. Rural sports and group facilities (See Section 9- 6. 124) 24. Pipelines (c) No uses shall be established, or expanded, unless approved pursuant to a Master Plan, or Revised Master Plan, following a public hearing. (d) The grove of Oak Trees located on the slope between the top of the knoll and the intersection of Santa Barbara and Atascadero Roads shall be preserved. In approving a Master Plan, or Tentative Map, efforts shall be made to place this extreme western portion of the property into open space easement, or otherwise ensure its preservation. (e) Nonresidential uses shall use Santa Barbara Road for the principal access. (f) Residential uses shall be subject to Appearance Review. • • LGP IBIT H ol. Amending G.P. 1B-90 e Change 10-89 RESOLUTION NO. 31-90 • A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE MAP OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN (GP 1B-90 Eagle Creek Associates) 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 5, 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-90 as follows: 1. Amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element, Land Use Map as shown of the attached Attachment "A" . 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: i Resolution No. • CITY OF ATASCADERO, CA Robert Lilley, Mayor ATTEST: LEE DAYKA, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: RAY WINDSOR, City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: ARTHER R. MONTANDON, City Attorney • PREPARED BY: HENRY ENGEN, Community Development Director • 1 ?` CITY CSF ATASCA DERO Attachment A CONLN L,NI ITY DEVELOPMENT' • D E'A rMENI' REG. _Y' • ! i ((( _MuLTt� /� •/ ••••• b / i• ' / / / RECREATION 1� i• � Low aalrslrr _�_� • pip i )riAJUP AMILY • / /IA 0MULTI AMILT I / ARK/ RETAIL OMMERCIAL BU �1kM1LY ` ''••••• / / r - s `����= _:-- •♦ = � - .. -5 ATE _ � � IX - _ MINUTES EXCERPT - PLANNING (DMMISSION - 3/5/91 • Chairperson Luna noted that Item was not ready for consideration at this time. MOTION: By Co loner Highland, seconded by Commissioner auer and carried 7: 0 to approve Items A-1 and A-2 of the Consent Calendar. B. HEARINGS, APPEARANCES AND REPORTS 1 . GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 1B-90/ZONE CHANGE 10-89/TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 11-90: Applications filed by Eagle Creek Asso- ciates to: change the land use designation of approxi- mately 24 acres from Retail Commercial ` to Special Recreation; to change the zoning from CT(FH) (Commercial Tourist/Flood Hazard Overlay) to LS (FH) (PD8) (Special Recreation/Flood Hazard Overlay/Planned Development Overlay) ; and to divide same 24 acre site into 15 parcels for single family residential use and 2 larger parcels for recreational use. Each of the residential parcels would be at, or slightly exceeding, 1/2 acre in size. The larger parcels intended for recreational use would be 5. 0 and 10. 3 acres each. Subject site is located at the Intersection of Highway 101 and Santa Barbara Road (South-west Corner) (Continued from 2/5/91 meeting) • Gary Kaiser presented the staff report and provided a synopsis of the February 5th meeting. He reported on issues from the prior hearing for which the applicant has since provided the information. These included: sewage disposal, Paloma Creek, fire protection, water supply, errant golf balls, water supply/effect on aquafer, etc. Mr. Kaiser noted that Condi- tion #1 reflects a reduction in the number of lots from 15 to 11 , and referenced a letter from the applicant submitted to the Commission just prior to the meeting. Mr. Kaiser offered language for a new condition (new #19) which would preclude building on steep slopes and provide more open space along with the preservation of trees. He suggested substitute wording for condition #4-e which refers to providing water to adjacent properties. Commission questions and discussion followed. Chairperson Luna questioned the intent of Condition #4e. Mr. DeCamp explained that properties adjacent to the project site should be afforded the opportunity to hook up to the new water line without having to tear up the newly constructed roads. Mr. DeCamp added that the condition was imposed, and is justified, because of the potential lowering of the water • table that the project could trigger in the immediate area. MINUTES EXCERPT - PLANNING COMMISSION - 3/5/91 • - Public Testimony - 'Joe Boud, representing the applicant, spoke in support of the project, noting his general concurrence with the staff report. Mr. Boud objected to Condition #1, however, concerning the reduction in the number of lots and stated that if the lines were to be shifted, twelve lots could be served with conventional septic systems. Mr. Boud also commented on Condition #3 concerning the improvement plans, 'indicating that a secondary access should be provided only if necessary. Greg Luke, Public Works Director, stated that the conditions reflect a conservative posture with regard to road improvements. Public Works would want all Colony rights-of- way to be developed to minimum road standards (20 feet with 4 foot shoulders) and recalled the minimum road standards policy the City Council has adopted. Mr. Boud stated that only one property owner would benefit from extending Atascadero Road. He also discussed building • constraints which will be addressed through the CC&Rs. Mr. Boud stressed that the main concern was that the number of residential lots be reduced to 12 rather than 11. Eric Michielssen, applicant and co-owner, clarified issues related to the percolation tests, restating that 12 lots could be served by conventional septic/leachfield systems. He stressed that this is not a large project and there will not be a large profit, but that revenue generated by the sale of the lots will go toward the overall project development. He emphasized that the loss of the 12th lot would be a financial burden, and may make the project unworkable. In response to questions, Mr. Michielssen explained that the club will be an open membership, and will be the first such project for Atascadero. Gene Humphrey, co-owner, stated he would just like to be able to proceed with the project, and that a reduction from 15 lots would be a significant loss to the project. A resident at 9095 Santa Barbara Road stated that this is the best project she has seen for this site, and that it would be a benefit to the City. Joan Centasario stated she is a tennis professional adding • that there. is a real need for a facility such as this to pro- vide tennis, swimming, golf, etc. , especially in Atascadero. - End of Public Testimony - MINUTES EXCERPT - PLANNING COMMISSION - 3/5/91 Discussion focused on the property' s septic suitability and whether a twelfth site would be appropriate. Chairperson Luna expressed concern with Atascadero Road improvements. Discussion continued. Commissioner Hanauer commented that the language suggested in the letter submitted by the applicants is excellent with respect to Atascadero Road improvements. Commissioner Highland commended staff for not attempting to redesign the project. Commissioner Johnson voiced concerns about the overall density of the septic systems on the site, and added that he also has a problem with the amount of water useage that will be involved in light of the current statewide drought. The Commission discussed proposed language for Condition #4e concerning the stubbing of water lines to adjacent properties. Also discussed was what the minimum road widths should be, and if there should be a condition requiring bridge improvements. Mr. Michielssen pointed out that the bridge is strong and has • been there for 60 years. He requested that he not be required to stub out water lines to the Eagle Ranch property at this time as the ranch owners could not develop the property for at least ten years. Discussion continued relative to assurances being provided in the CC&Rs for building setbacks, architectural treatment, exposed foundations, etc. , and prohibitions related to secondary access to the residential lots. Commissioner Lochridge concurred with Mr. Michielssen' s request that Eagle Ranch should be excluded from having a water line stubbed out to it, and suggested a modification to Condition #4e to apply this condition only "in the City limits. " Commissioner Waage asked if provisions could be made to require water conservation fixtures for the residential units. Mr. DeCamp remarked that the Building Regulations are currently being updated to incorporate water conservation measures, and that a condition could be added to this project to that effect. Mr. DeCamp pointed out that Exhibit G (draft ordinance for the zone change) , which lists allowed uses for the PD8 zone, should be revised to not be a generic overlay zone. He e • proposed several allowed principal uses. Mr. Michielssen asked for clarification on principal versus accessory uses related to his project. MINUTES EXCERPT - PLANNING COMMISSION - 3/5/91 • MOTION: By Commissioner Highland and seconded by Commissioner Lochridge to recommend to the City Council approval of General Plan Amendment 1B-90 as reflected in the Resolution. The motion carried 6: 1 with Commissioner Johnson dissenting. MOTION: By Commissioner Highland and seconded by Commissioner Lochridge to recommend to the City Council approval of Zone Change 10-89 as amended in Section 9-3. 652. The motion carried 6: 1 with Commissioner Johnson dissenting. MOTION: By Commissioner Highland, seconded by Commissioner Lochridge and carried 6: 1 with Commissioner Johnson dissenting to recommend approval of Tentative Tract Map 31-90 subject to the Findings and Conditions of Approval as modified: 1. The number of residential lots shall be reduced from fifteen (15) to a maximum of twelve (12) . Each of the residential lots shall contain a site determined to be adequate for placement of a conventional septic/leach-field system, plus 100% expansion area, as shown in the percolation data • reports prepared by Tierra Tech Testing Labs , inc. dated September 4, 1990 and September 15, 1990 (percolation rates of 60 min. /inch or less) . The reduction in the number of residential lots shall not change the overall orientation of the lots, nor shall it result- in any "flag lots" or lots less than one-half acre in size. 4e. The applicant shall stub water lines to all adjacent parcels within the City limits. Said water stubs shall be extensions of the facilities of the Atascadero Mutual Water Company. 10. All residential lots shall gain access from the proposed private road off of Atascadero Road. Road improvement plans prepared by a registered civil engineer shall be submitted to the Community Devel- opment Department for review and approval by the Public Works and Fire Departments, prior to the construction of the improvements. Plans shall include, but are not limited to, the following: Atascadero Road shall be improved to City minimum road standards from its junction with Santa Barbara Road to the existing bridge at Paloma Creek, as • directed by the Director of Public 'Works. Private roads shall be constructed to conform to . City minimum road standards under the direction of the City Engineering Division. MINUTES EXCERPT - PLANNING COMMISSION - 3/5/91 • 19. (new) CC&Rs shall address the subject of building locations on the lots intended for residential use and shall include language addressing the preservation of the grove of oak trees affecting the lots on the west side of the proposed private road. Said CC&Rs shall also include language adequate for precluding construction of buildings on the steeper portions of the residential lots, and shall preclude any extensive grading and exposed foundations in excess of eighteen (18) inches on said residential lots. This portion of the CC&Rs shall be subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Department prior to their recordation. 22. (new) The final map shall include an access denial strip, one (1) foot in width, on each residential parcel which abuts the public road right-of-way of Santa Barbara and/or Atascadero Roads. 23. (new) All new buildings on the site shall be equipped with low-flow water conservation devices on all toilets and shower heads. Chairperson Luna declared a recess at 9: 17 p.m. • meeting • reconvened at 9: 30 p.m. 2. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 18-90 - Conditio of Approval: Application filed by Russel Best (Cu to Engineering) to consider conditions of approval r the creation of a three lot residential subdivisio Project would result in the division of 0. 25 acr into three parcels of approximately 3, 426, 3, 435, nd 4, 016 square feet each. Subject site is located a 970 Sinaloa Avenue. Mr. Kaiser presented th staff report and provided a background on the Commis on and Council actions concerning this application in onjunction with Zone Change 3-90 (establishment of pl ned unit development) . Commission Waage requested that a condition be added to require low fl water conservation devices. Deborah Ho owell with Cuesta Engineering, stated that the applican is in concurrence with staff' s recommendation and would ve no problem with Commissioner Waage' s request. MO ON: By Commissioner Highland and seconded by Commissioner Lochridge to recommend approval of the Conditions of Approval for Tentative Parcel Map 18- 90 as modified: f PAGE FIVE MINUTES EXCERPT - PLANNING COMMISSION - 2/5/91 • Commissioner Lochridge stated he still has strong cerns with the density and traffic as it relates to t existing neighborhood. Chairperson Luna concurred with Comm' sioners Waage and Lochridge' s statements. The motion carried :3 with the following roll call: AYES: Co sioners Highland, Hanauer, Kudlac, and son S: Commissioners Lochridge, Waage, and Chair- person Luna C rperson Luna declared a break at 8:30 p.m. ; meeting econvened at 8: 40 p.m. 2. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 1B-90/ZONE CHANGE 10-89/TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31-90: Applications filed by Eagle Creek Asso- ciates to: change the land use designation of approximately 24 acres from Retail Commercial to Special Recreation; to change the zoning from CT (FH) (Commercial • Tourist/Flood Hazard Overlay) to LS (FH) (PD8) (Special Recreation/Flood Hazard Overlay/Planned Development Over- lay) ; and to divide same 24 acre site into 15 parcels for single family residential use and 2 larger parcels for recreational use. Each of the residential parcels would be at, or slightly exceeding, 1/2 acre in size. The larger parcels intended for recreational use would be 5. 0 and 10. 3 acres each. Subject site is located at the intersection of Highway 101 and Santa Barbara Road (Southwest Corner) . Mr. Kaiser presented the staff report which focused on issues including the General Plan amendment, zone change request, minimum lot size and density, planned development overlay zone, and the tentative tract map. He explained that there is not sufficient information available at this time to recommend certification of a negative declaration that would encompass the tentative map aspect of the project. Mr. Kaiser referenced a letter from Roger Briggs commenting on the project. Commission questions and discussion followed. Commissioner Lochridge asked what type of benefits will be derived from the planned development. Mr. Kaiser stated that there is more compatability of this use with surrounding uses • as opposed to the restaurants, gas stations, auto repair uses, etc. that would be allowed under the current zoning. He explained how this proposal reflects the physical constraints PAGE SIX MINUTES EXCERPT - PLANNING COMMISSION - 2/5/91 of the site. • Chairperson Luna stated that this is a complicated matter adding that this could come back in the form of a conditional use permit instead of the map, in which case, the findings would be different, and inquired what the project is comprised of. Mr. Kaiser noted that the General Plan amendment and Zoning change is the project covered by the current Negative Declaration. Mr. DeCamp clarified that the planned development is part of the zone change and planned development overlay. What is lacking is the development scenario and how the applicant will affectuate the planned development overlay on that property. He further stated that the tentative map and development scheme is one possibility for the property' s development given the new General Plan and Zoning designations that are being recommended. Chairperson Luna pointed out that the initial study was done on the basis of a certain project which included a club house, residential subdivision, etc. , and that the Commission is being asked to certify the Negative Declaration without really knowing what the project is going to be. Mr. DeCamp clarified that the environmental review was done on • a worst case scenario (for development) and reiterated that the project is the General Plan amendment and Zone change for which the Negative Declaration is to be certified. Chairperson Luna referenced a court case (City of Carmel-By The Sea vs. Board of Supervisors, 1986) which asked if rezoning is a project, and read an excerpt from that case in which the court responded that an agency cannot term each stage of a project development with no significant impact and thereby issue a series of Negative Declarations when the project, as a whole, would require an EIR. Mr. DeCamp pointed out that in this case, an EIR is not in the process of being prepared for a subsequent project which was the key issue in the Monterey case. He stressed that the General Plan amendment is a project as is the rezoning, and that the initial study has addressed the environmental effects of all three of the potential projects (including the tentative map) . Mr. DeCamp reiterated that the main item lacking for recommendation of the map involves the State Water Resources Control Board approval for discharge of waste water. Chairperson Luna expressed concern that the initial study has been done for a specific development project and if the Commission certifies the Negative Declaration, isn' t this the • same as certifying the project itself? Discussion continued. PAGE SEVEN f MINUTES EXCERPT - PLANNING COMMISSION - 2/5/91 • Chairperson Luna declared a break at 9: 10 p.m. ; meeting reconvened at 9: 20 p.m. Commissioner Highland questioned what the advantages and disadvantages are of considering just the zone change and General Plan amendment. Mr. DeCamp responded that it is every one' s intention (applicant and staff) to bring back the map to the Planning Commission in a month. Adoption or some movement on the General Plan amendment and Zone Change would give the applicant assurances that the additional work on the map has some reasonable expectation of meeting with approval. Chairperson Luna explained that the problem he has involves the Council finding concerning the project not having any significant adverse effect on the environment and that the Negative Declaration is adequate. He stated it is not clear to him because the tentative map, zone change, and GP amendment are coupled in the resolution itself and it is impossible for him to uncouple them. Mr. DeCamp noted the only assurance he can give the Commission is based on all of the information included within the initial study which was based on all three applications. He added • that there is the assurance given by the State legislature that the discharge permit which will ultimately be issued by the Water Resoucres Board is the functional equivalent of an EIR so this portion of the environmental review can be deferred to another agency. Mr. DeCamp pointed out that the environmental review was determined on a "worst case" scenario (maximum density allowed under proposed zoning, etc. ) . There was further discussion. - Public Testimony - Joe Boud, representing the applicant, stated that his firm was responsible for the preparation of the material and added that if there is a procedural problem in proceeding with actions on rezoning and GP amendment, the applicant would agree to continue this until the next hearing and then deal with the whole package. He asked for solicitation of comments from the audience and Commission on the project. Mr. Boud then provided a background on the initiation of the project and a synopsis of the master plan. With regard to sewage disposal, he offered that perc tests will be conducted on each site for the individual systems. In addressing the water issue, Mr. Boud noted that the Atascadero Mutual Water Company is excluding serving the golf course property, and if the golf course cannot be built because of water issues, the • City would. be the benefactor since impacts would be lessened and the City would still have a perpetual open space due to approval of a master plan. Mr. Boud then discussed other PAGE EIGHT MINUTES EXCERPT - PLANNING COMMISSION - 215191 areas of the staff report including the permit for waste water • discharge, fire code requirements, errant golf balls, etc. Chairperson Luna reiterated that his comments were basically procedural with regard to separating various actions under the Negative Declaration. Jill Austin, 13105 Atascadero Road, expressed concern for the adequacy of water and noted that she has a well on her property that ran dry once last year. She asked what the possibility is of hooking up to City water at some future point. Mr. DeCamp explained that her house is part of the Colony but the requisite water lines are not there. One of the benefits to the neighborhood would be the installation of water lines to serve the project with the probability that additional users could be hooked to those lines. Joan O'Keefe, 9985 Old Morro Road East, commented on the procedural aspects adding that she supports the recommendation for the zone change and the project, but thinks that it is important that the entire project be planned out and not just presented in its conceptual stage. She added that it is very refreshing to hear that the applicant is in agreement. Eric Michielssen with Eagle Creek Associates, applicant, • echoed Mrs. O'Keefe' s comments, and added that the entire package had been assembled but had to be split because of III procedure. He stated he would like to see the project reviewed in its entirety and stressed that this project has been in the making for over -18 months. He voiced his feeling that this is a good project in which everything ties together quite nicely. Robert Cheung, 11605 Atascadero Road, stated this is the best proposal he has seen in 13 years, and urged the Commission to support the project. - End of Public Testimony - Commissioner Johnson stated he supports Chairperson Luna' s concerns as he, too, has a problem with the procedural aspect. He added that the Commission needs to give the applicant direction on some of the issues the Commission might be considering which would include: errant golf balls and how the highway would be protected with fencing which would create a visual impact; concern with septic systems on one-half acre lots; reservations with recycled grey water and what impacts this would have on surrounding wells and septic systems. Commissioner Johnson commented that this is one of the best • projects for Atascadero which he felt will enhance the area and benefit the City. f PAGE NINE MINUTES EXCERPT PLANNING COMMISSION - 2/5/91 • Commissioner Hanauer stated his belief that the Water Quality Control Board will advise the applicant whether grey water can be used and whether the septic systems as proposed will be adequate on the site. As well, the Water Company will make the final determination as to whether this project will be served. Commissioner Kudlac asked if there have been any negative problems associated with Chalk Mountain' s grey water useage. Mr. DeCamp stated the operation seems to be beneficial for both the golf course and State Hospital. There are restrictions on the hours at which they can irrigate and restrictions on wind conditions that govern when they can irrigate. There does not appear to be any other adverse effects of using the recycled water over the last several years. Discussion continued. Commissioner Kudlac spoke on errant golf balls noting he has seen other cities use netting or different types of landscaping, although this issue needs to be addressed to some degree. He added he supports the project which would be an excellent asset to the community, although there are a number of matters that need to be resolved with water being the biggest issue. • Chairperson Luna referenced CalTrans ' statement concerning consideration being given to mitigating future cumulative traffic impacts such as setting up an assessment district for local road and highway improvements. He asked that if a trend of new development appears imminent in this general area, why not address it now, and he inquired about the status of the Circulation Element. Mr. DeCamp advised that Public Works has begun work on the Circulation Element but they are constrained by lack of final action on the Land Use Element. He added that CalTrans continues to identify overpasses within Atascadero as being in need of repair, replacement, or upgrading. There has been some disagreement over funding responsibility for the improve- ments along those ramps. Discussion followed relative to the Circulation Element and Land Use Element and these elements tying together. By order of the chair, this item will be continued to the March 5, 1991 meeting. • RESOLUTION NO. 31-91 • A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE MAP OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN (GP 1B-90 Eagle Creek Associates) 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 5, 1991 and March 5, 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: I. 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-90 as follows: 1. Amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element, Land Use Map as shown of the attached Attachment "A" . 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: • • Resolution No. 31-91 CITY OF ATASCADERO, CA Robert Lilley, Mayor ATTEST: LEE DAYKA, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: RAY WINDSOR, City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: • ARTHER R. MONTANDON, City Attorney PREPARED BY: HENRY ENGEN, Community Development Director • CITY Cir ATASCADERO Attachment A CONI TjNITY DEVELOPMENT Resolution 31-91 D EPARTINIENT 1i31�REC. 40 0 MI'SH 0,010 DENSITY���• + • i� ��/ _.MU L %� • �00•0 • dry FA • + •� � �•/i • • RECREATION • Low • • 1 OLTPANILYi C V/ :.. yU TI• AMILY P RK RETAIL M OM MERCIAL �kirU Y ���• �� 11 0 / 1 F • ORDINANCE NO. 221 AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO AMENDING MAP 23 OF THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAPS BY REZONING THAT CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, AND "PARK RESERVATION A" OF BLOCK 72, ATASCADERO COLONY, FROM CT(FH) TO LS(FH) (PD8) ; AND AMENDING THE TEXT OF THE CITY ZONING ORDINANCE TO INCLUDE THE PROVISIONS FOR THE PD8 ZONE CREATED HEREIN. (ZC 10-89: EAGLE CREEK ASSOCIATES) WHEREAS, the proposed zoning map amendments are consistent with the General Plan as required by Section 65860 of the California Government Code; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendments are in conformance with Section 65800 et seq. of the California Government Code concerning zoning regulations; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendments will not have a significant adverse impact upon the environment. The Negative Declaration prepared for the project is adequate; and WHEREAS, the Atascadero Planning Commission held a public hearing on February 5, 1991 and March 5, 1991, and has recommended • approval of Zone Change 10-89. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Atascadero does ordain as follows: Section 1. Council Findings. 1. The proposal is compatible with the surrounding land use and zoning. 2. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan land use element. 3. The proposal will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts. The Negative Declaration prepared for the project is adequate. 4. Modification of development standards or processing requirements is warranted to promote orderly and harmonious development. 5. Modification of development standards or processing requirements will enhance the opportunity to best utilize special characteristics of an area and will have a beneficial effect on the area. 6. Benefits derived from the overlay zone cannot be reasonably achieved through existing development standards or processing requirements. 7. The proposed plans offer certain redeeming features to compensate for requested modifications. Section 2. Zoning Map. Map number 23 of the Official Zoning Maps of the City of Atascadero on file in the City Community Development Department is hereby amended to reclassify the parcel(s) listed below, and shown on the attached Attachment A, which is hereby made a part of this ordinance by reference. Lots 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, and "Park Reservation A", in Block 72, Atascadero Colony. Section 3. Zoning Ordinance Text. Development of said parcel shall be in conformance with the standards of Planned Development Overlay Zone No. 8 (Attachment B) and the Master Plan of Development (Attachment C) , which are hereby made a part of this ordinance by reference. Section 4. Publication. The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published • once within fifteen ( 15) days after its passage in the Atascadero News, a newspaper of general circulation, printed, published, and circulated in the City in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code; shall certify the adopting and posting of this ordinance and shall cause this ordinance and this certification together with proof of posting to be entered into the Book of Ordinances of the City. Section 5. Effective Date. This ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and effect at 12:01 a.m. on the 31st day after its passage. On motion by and seconded by , the foregoing Ordinance is approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: DATE ADOPTED: BY: • ROBERT LILLEY, Mayor City of Atascadero, California • ATTEST: LEE DAYKA, City Clerk RAY WINDSOR, City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: ARTHER R. MONTANDON, City Attorney PREPARED BY: HENRY ENGEN, Community Development Director • CITY CSF ATASCAD ERO Attachment A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Ordinance 221 D EPARTMENT liZ7:, /7 a R S -F R a i M I /Q a �1 R (FH) a S TE 9 i. • Attachment B 9-3.652. Establishment of Planned Development Overlay Zone No. 8 PD8 Planned Development Overlay Zone No. 8 is established as shown on the Official Zoning Maps (Section 9-1. 102) . The following development standards are established: (a) A Master Plan of Development shall be approved prior to any development of the site. Said Master Plan shall be processed in the same manner as a Conditional Use Permit, except that the Master Plan may be submitted and processed in the same manner set forth for the processing of a tentative map. (b) In approving a Master Plan of Development for the site, the uses allowed shall be limited to: 1. Single family dwellings 2. Residential accessory uses (See Section 9-6.106) 3. Crop production and grazing 4. Farm animal raising (See Section 9-6. 111) • 5. Home Occupation (See Section 9-6. 105) 6. Temporary dwelling (See Section 9-6. 176) 7. Agricultural accessory uses (See Section 9-6. 109) 8. Outdoor recreation services, limited to a golf course and/or Tennis and Swim club (See Section 9- 6. 123) 9. Pipelines (c) No uses shall be established, or expanded, unless approved pursuant to a Master Plan, or Revised Master Plan, following a public hearing. (d) The grove of Oak Trees located on the slope between the top of the knoll and the intersection of Santa Barbara and Atascadero Roads shall be preserved. In approving a Master Plan, or Tentative Map, efforts shall be made to place this extreme western portion of the property into open space easement, or otherwise ensure its preservation. (e) Nonresidential uses shall use Santa Barbara Road for • the principal access. (f) Residential uses shall be subject tq Appearance Review. N CITY O F RTAS CAD ER O ATTACHMENT C „=. C0NLNlLNI7Y D EVELO PMEN7 D E?�IZTtitE�i' Ordinance 221 — pa lib � gg• � � TS TS � � Y <�s mss_ � O � _ O � J � m8 e' N �/ •I C T • � Tn: — I � I - m • � ) T r � 3 N = ��3CbJ Ems- � •=e,_ v�1b �... � �`�.p\\ I peg R Eq ul IML:' 1 T T::T;;777:7: IT _—•._ . - I • EXHIBIT B - Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract Map #31-90 Highway 101 & Santa Barbara Road (Eagle Creek Associates/Boud) March 5, 1991 - Revised at Planning Commission Hearing CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: I. The number of residential lots shall be reduced from fifteen ( 15) to a maximum of twelve ( 12) . Each of the residential lots shall contain a site determined to be adequate for placement of a conventional septic/leachfield system, plus 100% expansion area, as shown in the percolation data reports prepared by Tierra Tech Testing Labs. , Inc. dated September 4, 1990 and February 15, 1991 (percolation rates of 60 min./inch or less) . The reduction in the number of residential lots shall not change the overall orientation of the lots, nor shall it result in any "flag lots" or lots less than one-half acre in size. 2 . All development shall be in conformance with the Master Plan of Development, and shall adhere to the provisions of Planned Development Overlay Zone No. 8. No new development or construction activities of any kind shall occur on the site without prior review and approval of the Community Development Department. 3 . Prior to the issuance of any building permits for the proposed "clubhouse, " the following conditions shall be satisfied: a. Improvement plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City Fire Department, Community Development Department, and Public Works Department. b. A Waste Discharge Permit shall be secured from the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board for the placement of any (community] septic/leachfield system exceeding 2,500 gallons per day. 4. Prior to any permits being issued for the golf course, the following conditions shall be satisfied: a. A Stream Alteration ,Permit shall be secured from the California Department of Fish and Game. b. Improvement plans, including the precise layout of the course and landscaping, shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and • approval. Special attention shall given to ensure that aesthetic and health and safety impacts are minimized. C. All applicable State permits shall be secured for any • use of treated wastewater, or greywater, for the purposes of irrigation. d. Water quality and quantity tests shall be performed by a licensed drilling and pump contractor and submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval, if water from an on-site well is to be utilized. e. The applicant shall stub water lines to all adjacent parcels within the City Limits. Said water stubs shall be extensions of the facilities of the Atascadero Mutual Water Company. 5 . Water shall be obtained from the Atascadero Mutual Water Company, with the exception of the parcel nearest to Highway 101, which will either remain in open space or will be developed as a golf .course with its own source of water. Water lines, electric power, telephone, natural gas, and cable television services shall be stubbed to the property line of each lot, except water lines to the aforementioned golf course parcel nearest the Highway, and facilities to distribute such services shall be provided according to the requirements of the responsible utility companies. All underground facilities within the travel way or improved shoulders of a road shall be installed prior to the paving of any road improvements. 6. All existing and proposed utility, pipeline, open space, or other easements are to be shown on the final map. If there are building or other restrictions related to the easements, they shall be noted on the final map. 7. All relocation and/or alteration of existing utilities shall be the responsibility of the developer. 8 . A grading and drainage plan prepared by a registered civil engineer shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval by the Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to the recording of the final map. The plan shall delineate the limits of flooding for a 10 year storm and a 100 year storm. 9 . The applicant shall arrange a pre-design conference with the Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to the development of any improvement plans. 10. All residential lots shall gain access from the proposed private road off of Atascadero Road. Road improvement plans prepared by a registered civil engineer shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval by the Public Works and Fire Departments, prior to the construction of the improvements. Plans shall include, • but are not limited to, the following: Atascadero Road shall be improved to City minimum road standards from its junction with Santa Barbara Road to the existing bridge at Paloma Creek, as directed by the Director of Public Works. Private roads shall be constructed to conform to City minimum road standards under the direction of the City Engineering Division. 11. A road maintenance agreement, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, shall be included in the C.C.& R. ' s. This agreement shall be for the maintenance of the interior roads. 12. The subdivider shall install all street signs, traffic delineation devices, warning and regulatory signs, guardrails, barricades, and other similar devices where required by the Director of Public Works. Signs shall be in conformance with the current State of California uniform sign chart. Installation of traffic devices shall be subject to review and modifications after construction. 13. Construction of the public road improvements shall be completed or bonded for prior to the recording of the • map. Bonding shall be subject to approval by the Director of Public Works and the Director of Community Development. 14 . All public improvements shall be covered with a 100% Performance Guarantee and a 100% Labor and Material Guarantee until construction is deemed substantially complete and then by a 10% Maintenance Guarantee to remain in effect until 1 year after substantial completion. 15. All grading and erosion control measures shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and constructed in accordance with the City of Atascadero grading codes and standards. Prior to the final building inspection, said engineer shall submit to the City written certification that grading is in conformance with said codes and standards and the approved plans. 16 . A Drainage Maintenance Agreement, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, shall be included in the C.C.& R' s. 17 . Offer to dedicate to the City of Atascadero the following right-of-way . Street Names: Santa Barbara Road and Atascadero Road Limits: From centerline of right-of-way to property • line.. 18. Offers of dedication shall be completed and recorded prior • to or in conjunction with the recording of the map. 19. CC&R' s shall address the subject of building locations on the lots intended for residential use and shall include language addressing the preservation of the grove of Oak trees affecting the lots on the west side of the proposed private road. Said CC&R's shall also include language adequate for precluding construction of buildings on the steeper portions of the residential lots, and shall preclude any extensive grading and exposed foundations in excess of eighteen ( 18) inches on said residential lots. This portion of the CC&R' s shall be subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Department prior to their recordation. 20. Prior to the recording of the final map, a soils investigation as required by the Subdivision Map Act shall be submitted, recommending corrective actions which will prevent structural damage to each structure proposed to be constructed in the area where soil problems exist, as indicated in the Preliminary Soils Report. The date of such reports, the name of the Engineer making the report, and the location where the reports are on file shall be noted on the final map. 21. A final map in substantial conformance with the approved • tentative map and in compliance with all conditions set forth herein shall be submitted for review and approval in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and the City's Subdivision Ordinance prior to the recording of the final map. a. Monuments shall be set at all new property corners by a Registered Civil Engineer or Licensed Land Surveyor as required by the Land Surveyors Act and Subdivision Map Act. Monuments set within any road right of way' shall conform to city standard drawing M-1. b. Pursuant to section 66497 of the Subdivision Map Act the engineer or surveyor shall notice the City Engineer in writing that the monuments have been set. C. A recently updated preliminary title report shall be submitted for review in conjunction with the processing of the final map. d. A preliminary subdivision guarantee shall be submitted for review in conjunction with the processing of the final map. 22. The final. map shall include an access denial strip, one ( 1) is foot in width, on each residential parcel which abuts the public road right-of-way of Santa Barbara and/or Atascadero Roads. • REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: B-2(A&B) Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Mtg. Date: 4/9/91 From: Henry Engen, Community Dev. Dir. File No: Forestry/ Woodlot Ord SUBJECT: Consideration of "Forestry and Woodlot Management" standards to be included within the City' s Tree Ordinance and Tree Ordinance Standards and Guidelines. RECOMMENDATION: 1) Waive reading of Ordinance No. 220 in full and approve by title only; and 2) Approve Ordinance No. 220 adding "Forestry and Woodlot Management" Section to the "Tree Ordinance" on first reading 3) Approval of Resolution No. 28-91 adding "Chapter 14. Forestry and Woodlot Management Plans" to the City' s "Tree Standards • and Guidelines" BACKGROUND: On February 19, 1991 and March_ 19, 1991, public hearings were conducted by the Planning Commission on the above subject matter. After much discussion and public testimony, the Commission, on a 6: 1 vote, recommended approval of Ordinance No. 220 and Resolution No. 28-91 . HE:ps Attachments : Staff Report - March 19, 1991 Staff Report - February 19, 1991 Minutes Excerpt - March 19, 1991 Minutes Excerpt - February 19, 1991 Ordinance No. 220 Resolution No. 28-91 • ITEM: B- 1 MEMORANDUM • TO: Planning Commission FROM:,$oSteven L. Decamp, City Planner DATE: March 19, 1991 RE: Forestry and Woodlot Management Plans At your February 19, 1991 meeting, the Commission held a public hearing on the subject of amending the City' s Tree Ordinance and implementing guidelines by the addition of "Forestry and Woodlot Management" standards . At the conclusion of that hearing, the Commission directed staff to incorporate various revisions into the draft proposals and- return for further public hearing. RECOI-SENDATION: The Commission should recommend that the City Council approve and adopt the attached Resolution and Ordinance amending the Tree Ordinance relative to "Forestry and Woodlot Management" plans . DISCUSSION: • The attachments to this memorandum contain the ordinance and guideline amendments agreed to by consensus of the Commission. One additional amendment to these documents is the inclusion of "Agriculture" zones as candidate sites for woodlot and forestry management activities . This amendment is recommended because there are areas zoned agriculture within Atascadero which contain stands of native trees that may benefit from improved forestry management practices . One issue upon which the Commission did not reach consensus was that of personal versus commercial utilization of the products generated by the forestry and woodlot management programs . Staff continues to recommend against commercial utilization of the resource. Neighboring residences should not be subjected to the adverse effects (eg. , dust, noise, and traffic) of firewood cutting, splitting, and hauling. Commercial utilization of this resources may also tend to encourage more cutting than what would need to occur to ensure proper forestry management . Attachments : Attachment A - Draft Ordinance Attachment B - Draft Resolution • ATTACHMENT A • ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO ADDING FORESTRY AND WOODLOT MANAGEMENT PROVISIONS TO THE CITY'S TREE ORDINANCE (ORDINANCE #214) WHEREAS, the City' s Tree Ordinance does not contain provisions relative to Forestry and Woodlot Management; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendments will address the need for the Tree Ordinance to contain provisions relative to Forestry and Woodlot Management; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendments will not have a significant adverse impact upon the environment . The Negative Declaration previously prepared for the Tree Ordinance is adequate; and WHEREAS, the Atascadero Planning Commission held public hearings on February 19, 1991 and March 19, 1991 and has recommended addition of the Forestry and Woodlot Management provisions to the Tree Ordinance . NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Atascadero does ordain as follows : Section 1 . Council Findings . 1 . The proposal is compatible with the stated purpose of the Tree Ordinance (Ordinance #214) . 2 . The proposal will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts . The Negative Declaration previously certified for the Tree Ordinance is adequate. Section 2 . Ordinance Text . The Tree Ordinance (Ordinance #214) text is hereby amended by the addition of the language shown on Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference . Section 3 . Publication. The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published once within fifteen (15) days after its passage in the Atascadero News, a newspaper of general circulation, printed, published, and circulated in the City in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code; shall certify the adopting and posting of this • ordinance and shall cause this ordinance and this certification together with proof of posting to be entered into the Book of Ordinances of the City. Ordinance # • Section 5 . Effective Date . This ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and effect at 12 : 01 a .m. on the 31st day after its passage . On motion by and seconded by , the foregoing Ordinance is approved by the following role call vote: AYES : NOES : ABSENT : DATE ADOPTED: By: ROBERT B. LILLEY, Mayor City of Atascadero, California ATTEST : • LEE DAYKA, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO CONTENT RAY WINDSOR, City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: ART MONTANDON, City Attorney PREPARED BY: HENRY ENGEN, Community Development Director • EXHIBIT A • Sec. 9-11 . 13 Forestry and Woodlot Management (a) Tree Management Plans . Tree Management Plans allow for the management of trees as a resource for the benefit of both the land owner and the community. Tree Management Plans will allow for comprehensive woodlot management practices as an alternative to the submission of individual Tree Removal Applications . Tree Management Plans may be permitted on the following types of property: (1) Minimum area of site of 5 . 0 acres or larger in single, contiguous ownership; and (2) Parcels where the existing zoning is single-family residential or agriculture; and (3) Canopy cover of site is equal to or greater than 50%; and (4) The woodlot will be managed for personal use only. (b) Standards for Tree Removal . The standards for tree removal and contents of the Tree Management Plan shall be set forth in Chapter 13 of the "Tree Standards and Guidelines" . • • ATTACHMENT B • RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO ADDING FORESTRY AND WOODLOT MANAGEMENT STANDARDS TO THE TREE ORDINANCE STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES (RESOLUTION # 125-90) WHEREAS, the City of Atascadero has adopted Standards and Guidelines (Resolution #125-90) for the implementation of the Tree Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the adopted Standards and Guidelines do not contain provisions for submittal, review, and adoption of Forestry and Woodlot Management plans; and WHEREAS; the Planning Commission of the City of Atascadero conducted public hearings on the subject provisions on February • 19, 1991 and March 19, 1991; and WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Atascadero finds as follows : 1 . The proposed Forestry and Woodlot Management Standards and Guidelines are necessary for the implementation of Ordinance #214 as amended by Ordinance # 2 . The proposed Standards and Guidelines will not have a significant adverse affect on the environment . The Negative Declaration previously certified for the Tree Ordinance is adequate . THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Atascadero does resolve as follows : The Tree Ordinance Standards and Guidelines (Resolution #215) is hereby amended by the addition of the language shown on Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference . • • Resolution # 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,w 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 • EXHIBIT A_ 13. FORESTRY AND WOODLOT MANAGEMENT PLANS A. PURPOSE: Recognizing that Atascadero has some unique residential • areas and that some of these areas are heavily forested, it was determined that the Tree Removal Permit Process would not adequately address unique situations that may exist . Therefore, the submission of a Forestry/Woodlot Management Plan is the alternative solution. These plans can be utilized when: 1 . Minimum area of the site is 5 . 0 acres or larger in contiguous, single ownership; and 2 . The existing zoning of the property is single-family residential or agriculture; and 3 . Canopy cover of site is equal to or greater than 50%; and 4 . The woodlot will be managed for personal and not commercial use B. STANDARDS FOR TREE REMOVAL AS PART OF A TREE MANAGEMENT PLAN: The applicant must provide the factual data that demonstrates their ability to regulate the trees on site so as to preserve, enhance and maintain the rural and visual atmosphere of the community. The following minimum standards must be met : (1) During a 20 year period, the crown cover of the property shall not be reduced more than 25% (2) If any stand (or cluster) of trees on the site has less than 25% crown cover, only removals for disease, infestation or hazardous conditions shall be permitted. • (3) No more than 5% of the crown cover shall be reduced in any one year, and in no case shall the tree removal be concentrated in one area, or strip (4) A second cutting shall not be permitted until successful regeneration has been established. C. CONTENT: Tree Management Plans shall include but not be limited to the following information: 1 . Cover Sheet (See Appendix F for example) . 2 . Vicinity or location map. 3 . Site plan and other maps as required to show: (a) Topography (20 foot contour intervals minimum) (b) Location of creeks, riparian zones and ponds (c) Location of proposed and existing roads, driveways and structures (d) Vegetation (e) Soils information (f) Wildlife use areas (g) Fire history (h) North arrow, written and graphic scale, legal description • of property, preparer' s name and phone number, and date of preparation. (i) Other information as required 27 4 . Tree Information, including (a) Percent of site covered by forest canopy • (b) Forest type (c) Inventory of trees (d) Condition of trees (e) Report of any existing damage (fire, disease, animal damage, etc . ) 5 . Tree Management Plan, including: (a) Landowner' s objective (written statement) (b) Proposed methods of tree removal including site preparation, thinning, pruning, etc. (c) Intended schedule of removal (d) Tree and site protection measures such as erosion control, fire protection, insect and disease protection, and wildlife protection. (e) Tree replacement plans - shall include practices to ensure effective stocking and survival of an optimum number of trees to provide continuation of the stand in perpetuity. (f) Seedling protection - replacement plantings shall be protected from wildlife damage (until they reach 6' height to prevent deer browsing) . D. PREPARATION: Tree Management Plans must be prepared by a California Registered Professional Forester E. APPROVAL: • 1 . Tree Management Plans shall be approved, conditionally approved or denied by the Natural Resource Specialist. 2 . Tree Management Plans shall be approved for a five year period. The property and application shall be reviewed annually. At the end of five years, the property owner may apply to continue the management plan. The renewal application may be approved, conditionally approved, or denied. 3 . All decisions made by the Natural Resource Specialist are appealable to the Planning Commission. • 28 CITY OF ATASCADERO Item: B_2 • STAFF REPORT FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date : February 19, 1991 BY: ,/40Steven L. DeCamp, City Planner SUBJECT: Consideration of "Forestry and Woodlot Management" standards to be included within the City' s Tree Ordinance and Tree Ordinance Standards and Guidelines . RECOI-MNDATION: The Planning Commission should recommend that the City Council : 1 . Adopt, and include within the Tree Ordinance, "Section 9-11 . 13 Forestry and Woodlot Management"; and 2 . Adopt, and add to the Tree Ordinance Standards and Guidelines, "Section 13 . Forestry and Woodlot Management Plans" . SITUATION AND FACTS: 1 . Applicant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .City of Atascadero 2 . Environmental Status . . . . . . . . .Negative Declaration previously certified BACKGROUND: During consideration of the revised Tree Ordinance, the Planning Commission requested consideration of standards and procedures to allow for the private management of woodlots . A proposed Ordinance section as well as amended language for the "Tree Standards" is attached to this report . ANALYSIS• The attached Ordinance section and standards provide for private forestry and wood lot management . Key features of the Ordinance section require that (1) the parcel or parcels to be managed contain a residential principal use; (2) the parcel must be a minimum of 5 . 0 acres; and (3) the woodlot must be managed and utilized for private and not commercial use . The standards which accompany the Forestry and Woodlot Management • section provide guidelines for the preparation, review, and approval of management plans . In their review of the revised Tree Ordinance, the City Council • has tentatively decided to exempt residential lots with an existing dwelling from the provisions of the ordinance regarding tree removal permits . If this tentative decision holds, much of the impetus for the establishment of forestry and woodlot management standards will be moot . Adoption of such standards should, however, encourage owners of large, forested parcels to utilize sound forestry practices in the management of their property. CONCLUSIONS: The "Forestry and Woodlot Management" Ordinance section and standards respond to the Commission' s and Community' s request for such provisions within the revised Tree Ordinance. ATTACHMENTS : Attachment A - Draft Ordinance (Tree Ordinance Revision) Attachment B - Draft Resolution (Standards and Guidelines addition) • • ATTACHMENT A • ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO ADDING FORESTRY AND WOODLOT MANAGEMENT PROVISIONS TO THE CITY' S TREE ORDINANCE (ORDINANCE #214) WHEREAS, the City' s Tree Ordinance does not contain provisions relative to Forestry and Woodlot Management; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendments will address the need for the Tree Ordinance to contain provisions relative to Forestry and Woodlot Management; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendments will not have a significant adverse impact upon the environment . The Negative Declaration previously prepared for the Tree Ordinance is adequate; and WHEREAS, the Atascadero Planning Commission held a public hearing on February 19, 1991 and has recommended addition of the Forestry and Woodlot Management provisions to the Tree Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Atascadero does ordain as follows : • Section 1 . Council Findings . 1 . The proposal is compatible with the stated purpose of the Tree Ordinance (Ordinance #214) . 2 . The proposal will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts . The Negative Declaration previously certified for the Tree Ordinance is adequate . Section 2 . Ordinance Text . The Tree Ordinance (Ordinance #214) text is hereby amended by the addition of the language shown on Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference. Section 3 . Publication. The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published once within fifteen (15) days after its passage in the Atascadero News, a newspaper of general circulation, printed, published, and circulated in the City in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code; shall certify the adopting and posting of this ordinance and shall cause this ordinance and this certification • together with proof of posting to be entered into the Book of Ordinances of the City. • Ordinance # Section 5 . Effective Date. This ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and effect at 12 : 01 a.m. on the 31st day after its passage . On motion by and seconded by ' the foregoing Ordinance is approved by the following role call vote : AYES : NOES : ABSENT: DATE ADOPTED: By: ROBERT B. LILLEY, Mayor City of Atascadero, California • ATTEST: LEE DAYKA, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO CONTENT RAY WINDSOR, City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: ART MONTANDON, City Attorney PREPARED BY : HENRY ENGEN, Community Development Director • EXHIBIT A • Sec. 9-11 .13 Forestry and Woodlot Management (a) Tree Management Plans. Tree Management Plans allow for the management of trees as a resource on large lots for the benefit of both the land owner and the community. Tree Management Plans will allow for comprehensive woodlot management practices as an alternative to the submission of individual Tree Removal Applications . Tree Management Plans may be permitted on the following types of property: (1) Minimum lot size of 5 . 0 acres or larger (2) Parcels where the principal existing use is residential (3) Canopy cover of site is equal to or greater- than 50% (4) The woodlot will be managed for personal use only (b) Standards for Tree. Removal . The standards for tree removal and contents of the Tree Management Plan shall be set forth in Chapter 13 of the "Tree Standards and Guidelines" . • ATTACHMENT B • RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO ADDING FORESTRY AND WOODLOT MANAGEMENT STANDARDS TO THE TREE ORDINANCE STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES (RESOLUTION # 125-90) WHEREAS, the City of Atascadero has adopted Standards and Guidelines (Resolution #125-90) for the implementation of the Tree Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the adopted Standards and Guidelines do not contain provisions for submittal, review, and adoption of Forestry and Woodlot Management plans; and WHEREAS; the Planning Commission of the City of Atascadero • conducted a public hearing on the subject provisions on February 19, 1991; and WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Atascadero finds as follows : 1 . The proposed Forestry and Woodlot Management Standards and Guidelines are necessary for the implementation of Ordinance #214 as amended by Ordinance # 2 . The proposed Standards and Guidelines will not have a significant adverse affect on the environment The Negative Declaration previously certified for the Tree Ordinance is adequate. THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Atascadero does resolve as follows : The Tree Ordinance Standards and Guidelines (Resolution #215) is hereby amended by the addition of the language shown on Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference. • Resolution # • 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 • EXHIBIT A 13 . FORESTRY AND w00DLOT MANAGEMENT PLANS A. PURPOSE: Recognizing that Atascadero has some unique residential areas and that some of these areas are heavily forested, it was determined that the Tree Removal Permit Process would not adequately address unique situations that may exist . Therefore, the submission of a Forestry/Woodlot Management Plan is the alternative solution. These plans can be utilized when: 1 . Minimum lot size = 5 . 0 acres or larger 2 . The principle existing use of the property is residential 3 . Canopy cover of site is equal to or greater than 50% 4 . The woodlot will be managed for personal and not commercial use B. STANDARDS FOR TREE REMOVAL AS PART OF A TREE MANAGEMENT PLAN: The applicant must provide the factual data that demonstrates their ability to regulate the trees on site so as to preserve, enhance and maintain the rural and visual atmosphere of the community. The following minimum standards must be met : (1) During a 20 year period, the crown cover of the property shall not be reduced more than 25% (2) If any stand (or cluster) of trees on the property has less than 25% crown cover, only removals for disease, infestation or hazardous conditions shall be permitted. • (3) No more than 5% of the crown cover shall be reduced in any one year, and in no case shall the tree removal be concentrated in one area. (4) A second cutting shall not be permitted until successful regeneration has been established. C. CONTENT: Tree Management Plans shall include but not be limited to the following information: 1 . Cover Sheet (See Appendix F for example) . 2 . Vicinity or location map. 3 . Site plan and other maps as required to show: (a) Topography (2 foot contour intervals minimum) (b) Location of creeks, riparian zones and ponds (c) Location of proposed and existing roads, driveways and structures (d) Vegetation (e) Soils information (f) Wildlife use areas (g) Fire history (h) North arrow, written and graphic scale, legal description of property, preparer' s name and phone number, and date of • preparation. (i) Other information as required 27 4 . Tree Information, including (a) Percent of site covered by forest canopy (b) Forest type (c) Inventory of trees • (d) Condition of trees (e) Report of any existing damage _ire, cease, animal damage, etc . ) 5 . Tree Management Plan, including: (a) Landowner' s objective (written statement) (b) Proposed methods of tree removal including site preparation, thinning, pruning, etc. (c) Intended schedule of removal (d) Tree and site protection measures such as erosion control, fire protection, insect and disease protection, and wildlife protection. (e) Tree replacement plans - Conditions set forth in Section 9-11 . 11 shall apply to tree removals as part of Tree Management Plans . v (f) Seedling protection - replacement plantings shall be protected from wildlife damage (until they reach 6' height to prevent deer browsing) . D . PREPARATION: Tree Management Plans must - --pared by a qualified professional (such as a California Regis -essional Forester, ISA Certified Arborist, Landscape Archi- ) E'. APPROVAL: 1 . Tree Management Plans shall be approved, cc wally approved • or denied by the Natural Resource Special 2 . Tree Management Plans shall be approved a five year period. At the end of five years, the property owner may apply to continue the management plan. The property and application shall be reviewed at that time; the renewal application may be approved, conditionally approved, or denied. 3 . All decisions made by the Natural Resource Specialist are appealable to the Planning Commission. i • 28 MINUTES EXCERPT - PLANNING COMMISSION — 3/19/91 • MOTION: By Commissioner Johnson, seconded by Commissioner Lochridge and carried 7: 0 to approve Item A-1 of the Consent Calendar with the above clarification. B. HEARINGS, APPEARANCES, AND REPORTS 1. Forestry and Woodlot Management Plan: Public hearing to amend the City' s Tree Ordinance and implementing Guidelines by the addition of "Forestry and Woodlot Management" standards. Steve DeCamp presented the staff report and provided a background from the February 19th hearing noting that the changes directed by the Planning Commission have been incorporated within the staff report. There is one additional change that was not discussed which is the inclusion of agricultural zones within areas that would be appropriate for woodlot management. Mr. DeCamp reported that the one area left unresolved at the prior hearing was the question of whether or. not the forestry and woodlot management plans would be used for commercial or personal use. Commissioner Highland stated that the only reason that he raised the question originally of selling off some of the wood from these lots was because of the amount of wood he saw that • could be taken out within a year' s time. He asked if an indi- vidual would be precluded from requesting a temporary permit to sell a given amount of wood that they had stocked on a periodic basis. Mr. DeCamp replied this could be possible through the business licensing procedure. He added that one of the City' s concerns would be that the ultimate disposal of the wood and any major processing of the wood occur in a commercial or industrial zone. Discussion ensued. In response to question, Mr. DeCamp discussed instances of documented enforcement cases for firewood operations that were extremely disrupting to the neighborhood. Chairperson Luna pointed out that the Forestry and Woodlot Management Plan was supposed to be based on regeneration, not for selling of firewood, and asked who will be monitoring the plan. Mr. DeCamp explained that the existing City staff will monitor the program and will review on an annual basis using the forestry plan prepared by the registered forester to ensure conformance. Discussion continued relative to what constitutes successful regeneration. • Fred Frank, 3615 Ardilla Road, thanked the Planning Commission for taking the time to respond to his and Jim Dulitz ' PLANNING COMMISSION - 3/ 19/91 MINUTES EXCERPT comments. He noted his agreement with the staff recommenda- • tion and commended staff for being responsive to his concerns. With regard to the issue of regeneration, Mr. Frank pointed out that most of the cutting will be for thinning purposes and for the reduction of fire hazards, and added that regeneration would be present before any cutting would be done. He then responded to questions from the Commission. Eric Greening expressed concern that this plan may be subject to abuse with regard to the commercial use issue. MOTION: By Commissioner Johnson and seconded by Commis- sioner Lochridge to recommend to the City Council approval and adoption of the Resolution and Ordinance amending the Tree Ordinance relative to "Forestry and Woodlot Management" plans. Chairperson Luna stated he would vote against the motion as it was his feeling that the Negative Declaration is inadequate, the cumulative effects on Atascadero' s urban forests have not been addressed, nor the impacts of the City' s current road policy, or the new tree ordinance where there is no native tree protection on developed lots, and now a woodlot manage- ment plan with large scale forestry principles treating a native forest as a crop will be used to micromanage five acre lots in the last existing California woodland containing blue, valley and live oaks. • The motion carried 6:1 with Chairperson Luna dissenting. 2. Long Range Fiscal Analysis —General Plan Policie s: Review and discussion of the draft General Pla olicies and Programs contained within the Long ge Fiscal Analysis for adoption as a fiscal elemen f the General Plan. Mr. DeCamp presented the staff report roviding a background on a final report prepared by the rm of Crawford Multari & Starr on the long range anal is of Atascadero' s fiscal condition. Commission questions an comments followed. Chairperson Luna ated he had hoped that a representative from the firm uld be present to answer questions . With regard to ca ' al outlays for Public Works projects, he asked if the $2 million includes acceptance of the City roads. Mr. eCamp responded that this figure does not include a eptance of the roads, but does includes expansion and • improvement of the City' s sewage treatment plan and various drainage improvements in the core area. -4- MINUTES EXCERPT - PLANNING COMMI{(SSION - 2/19/91 • Commissioner Highland reiterated that every on eeds to recognize that accomplishment of land acquisi • , facilities development, etc. contained in the E1 t comes down to fiscal ability in seeing the goals policies through to completion. He added that in so ays, development schedules will have to be taken "wi a grain of salt. " Discussion continued. MOTION: By issioner Johnson and seconded by Commission- r 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. ; meeting reconvened at 8: 20 p.m. 2. FORESTRY AND WOODLOT MANAGEMENT STANDARDS: Consideration of "Forestry and Woodlot Management standards to be included within the City' s Tree Ordinance and Tree Ordinance Standards and Guidelines Steve DeCamp presented the staff report and provided a synopsis on the background concerning this issue. Key • features of the ordinance would require that the parcel (s) to be managed contain a residential principal use; the parcel must be a minimum of 5 acres; and the wood lot must be managed and utilized for private and not for commercial use. He explained that in action taken by the Council, single family residential lots that have an existing residence are exempt from tree removal permit requirements if there is no development activity planned for that lot. Adoption of the Forestry and Woodlot Management provisions as proposed is made moot by the Council ' s action because the stipulations placed there are same ones that the Council has placed in the Tree Ordinance. Mr. DeCamp further stated that if it is desireable to still have these provisions in the Tree Ordinance, the comments provided by Fred Frank and Jim Dulitz are worthy of consideration. Commissioner Highland expressed disappointment in that the issue of regeneration and replacement is not recognized in this proposal. After reviewing various properties around Atascadero with Mr. Frank and Mr. Dulitz, he voiced his feeling that there is a place for Woodlot Management within the Ordinance. Chairperson Luna referenced a section contained in the Tree Ordinance relative to thinning adding that if we are • interested 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. • r -5- MINUTES EXCERPT - PLANNING COMMISSION - 2/ 19/91 Public Testimony - • Fred Frank, 3615 Ardilla Road, thanked Commission members who were able to visit his and Mr. DulitzI property to look at the situation. He stated he is quite pleased that this section is being considered, but noted that the proposed section has some serious drawbacks and is basically unworkable as written. He spoke on the background drafts that he and other individuals prepared and explained that his proposed plan provides for fire hazard reduction and encourages thinning to reduce fire hazard; disease control, insect management; provides for watershed and riparian habitat protection, and wildlife management, none of which are addressed in staff' s proposal. He then summarized specifics of amendments he and Mr. Dulitz are proposing to the Forest and Woodlot Management section (attached - Exhibit A) . Commissioner Kudlac asked Mr. Frank why a five acre minimum was chosen. Mr. ' Frank responded that this number was basically a compromise between 10 and 2 1/2 acres. He added he would like to see as many people be encouraged to take advantage of the opportunity to file a management plan but added that costs associated with preparing a plan are expensive so five acres seemed like a practical limit. Chairperson Luna questioned why Mr. Frank disputed the • requirement for two foot contour invervals stating that perhaps this number was proposed out of concern because the potential exists that thinning on steep slopes might cause erosion, siltation of creeks, etc. Mr. Frank explained that any watershed management plan would have to accompany the forest management plan so it would not be necessary to have two foot contour intervals to determine whether it was an unstable slope. Two foot contour lines would be used for excavation (road, grading, etc. ) He voiced his feeling that 20 foot contour intervals are adequate. Mr. Decamp clarified that two foot contour intervals are required for precise plans, conditional use permits, etc. , so the cuts and fill can be reviewed. He cautioned that a parcel may not have an access for bringing in equipment to cut down a tree or take the tree back out. There may be the need for minor grading for an access road. Discussion continued. Eric Greening concurred with Commissioner Highland and Mr. Frank' s comments concerning the need for regeneration and referenced the General Plan' s statements concerning the differences in Atascadero' s variable physical climate which makes a difference when "thinning" a virtually closed canopy forest (in the higher western sections of the City) and a more • arid part with scattered oaks (vicinity of the Salinas River) . -6- MINUTES EXCERPT - PLANNING COMMISSION - 2/19/91 • Joan O'Keefe, 9985 Old ,Morro Road East, noted her support of Mssrs. Frank and Dulitz plan because it involves a total land management concept. She related information that her husband, Tim O'Keefe, had developed in working on the plan which included a recommendation for an annual compliance check and that the plan be a five year one and be prepared by a licensed forester. She asked that the amendments be given a great deal of consideration because as it stands now, there are no limitations on the number of trees that can be cut down when there is a residence. Ben Parker, Forester with the State Department of Forestry and Fire Protection in San Luis Obispo stated that he does not know what is best for a given stand of trees in Atascadero. Elements that need to be taken into consideration include micro climate of that area, stocking, soils, objectives of land owner and all things that should be covered in a management plan. Mr. Parker stated that a good tree ordinance doesn't just look at large old trees; there is the need to consider varied species and ages and need to consider regeneration and both a forest wildlife and ecosystem relationship. He urged the Commission to adopt Mssrs. Frank and Dulitz ' proposal. Jim Dulitz, 1300 Garcia Road, stated he has been involved with • this project for several years and would like to urge that the commission adopt a workable Forest and Woodlot Management Plan. Chairperson Luna stated that in light of objections expressed with the staff proposal, perhaps it would be advantageous for Mssrs. Frank and Dulitz to meet with the Natural Resource Specialist or designee to incorporate their suggestions to the proposal. Commissioner Highland recommended that Section 9-11. 13 and the accompanying resolution that were submitted to the Commission be sent back to staff with some revisions to the document, which he proceeded to go through. On Section 9-11. 13 (a) (second line) , he would like the words "on large lots" taken out. For 9-11. 13 (a) (1) , Commissioner Highland suggested: Minimum area of the site of five acres or larger. He reasoned that this would help property owners who own multiple lots who can submit a plan for a heavily forested portion of those lots which may not exist solely on a single lot. 9-11. 13 (a) (2) - he suggested this read: Parcels where the 'existing' zoning is residential. • 9-11. 13 (a) (4) - Eliminate sentence. -7- MINUTES EXCERPT - PLANNING COMMISSION - 2 /19/91 With regard to the Standards and Guidelines Section (Chapter • 13) -B (1) - he suggested that "crown cover of the property" should read "area" or "site" which would make it consistent with the ordinance section. Chapter 13 - B (3) - Add the word "or strip" at end of sentence. Chapter 13 - C (3) (a) - Commissioner Highland concurred with Mr. Frank that 2 foot contour line intervals for a management plan are not necessary - would like to see at 7 1/2. If a grading permit is needed for grading an access way, that permit can specify what kind of contour lines are needed. Chapter 13 - C (5) (e) - Commissioner Highland suggested that this section be eliminated as he felt that applying tree replacement plans to a woodlot management plan is inappropriate as the management plan will address that area with regard to regeneration, etc. Chapter 13 - D: Commissioner Highland concurred that these plans should be prepared by a registered professional forester. It would provide City protection against liability. He agreed with Dr. and Mrs. O'Keefe that there should be an annual evaluation of the plan. • Commissioner Johnson stated that 10 foot contour intervals would be more appropriate or could follow 20 foot intervals (which would follow the USGS quad maps) . He agreed that the tree management plans must be prepared by a California Registered Professional Forester. Commissioner Johnson commented that thinning should be regulated by the professional forester and not rely on the 5% standard. This should be deferred to the professional to make that determination. Chairperson Luna stated he would feel uncomfortable with incorporating suggested changes without having it first be reviewed by a staff professional. Commissioners Waage and Highland concurred that these changes should be voted on at this hearing and then be brought back as a consent item before the Commission. Discussion ensued. MOTION: By Commissioner Highland and seconded by Commissioner Hanauer to make revisions to Section 9-11 . 13 of the Tree Ordinance and revisions to Section 13. Forestry and Woodlot Management Plans. The motion carried 4: 3 with the following roll call vote: • AYES: Commissioners Highland, Hanauer, Waage, and Kudlac -s- MINUTES EXCERPT - PLANNING COMMISSION - 2/19/91 • NOES: Commissioners Johnson, Lochridge, and Chair- person Luna At this point, it was decided that with each revision a consensus would be taken. Chairperson Luna added it will not be necessary to vote on each one if every one gives an indication of their feelings. Commissioner Highland proceeded to read the suggested amendments: Section 9-11.13 - (a) - line 2 - eliminate 'on large lots' (a) (1) - change to read: "Minimum area of site of 5. 0 acres or larger Commissioner Johnson stressed that the site area should be in contiguous ownership inasmuch as there could be more than one property owner for one woodlot management which could present a problem with enforcement. Chairperson Luna inquired what the City' s role would be in • enforcing the management plan when the City approves or conditionally approves via the Natural Resource Specialist. Mr. DeCamp responded that the City would enforce the plan if information and indications show that the forestry practices were not in conformance with the approved plan. At that point, the permit could be revoked. Discussion followed relative to annual compliance reviews, the City' s ability to have a staff professional conduct that review, and whether the amendments suggested by the foresters should be referred back to staff. Mr. DeCamp commented that the ordinance could be redrafted incorporating amendments by Mr. Frank and Mr. Dulitz for their review. Chairperson Luna noted this would be satisfactory provided that somehow a City professional also reviews the document. Commissioner Highland expressed disgust with the interminal delay. In response to inquiry by Commissioner Waage, Mr. Frank remarked that with the changes he has recommended, the ordinance would be a workable one. Mr. Dulitz concurred. r -9- MINUTES EXCERPT - PLANNING COMMISSION- 2/ 19/91 MOTION: Commissioner Johnson moved that these recommended • changes submitted by the foresters be referred to staff to rewrite the ordinance accordingly and bring it back on the consent calendar. Commissioner Waage stressed that if this matter is not acted on now by the Commission, it cannot come back as a consent calendar item. Commissioner Johnson withdrew his motion. After further discussion, it was the general consensus to recommend Section •9-11. 13 (a) (1) to read: "Minimum area of site of 5. 0 acres or larger in contiguous ownership. ' Section 9-11. 13 (a) (2) to read: Parcels where the existing zoning is single family residential. A consensus was reached. Section 9-11. 13 (a) (4) Eliminate. (The woodlot will be managed for personal use only) . Chairperson Luna disagreed stating he would hate to see this valuable natural resource possibly be used for commercial purposes. Commissioner Waage stated he would have a problem with eliminating this sentence entirely. Discussion followed. Mr. DeCamp explained that the reason it was suggested that the • woodlot not be used for commercial use is based on the number of complaints received by the City on illegal home occupations regarding wood cutting, and discussed the problems involved. Commissioner Highland suggested that this section be rewritten. With regard to appropriate changes to the Forestry and Woodlot Management Standards to the Tree Ordinance Standards and Guidelines (Chapter 13) , Commissioner Highland suggested .the following amendments: Chapter 13. Forestry and Woodlot Management Plans: Make appropriate changes in A(1) , A(2) and rewrite A(4) to correspond with Section 9-11 . 13. Commissioner Highland suggested that BM be deleted as it was his feeling that whether the crown cover of property during a 20 year period not be reduced more than 25% should rely on the professional judgement of the forester who prepares the management plan. After discussion and question, the consensus was to leave B (1) as it presently reads. C (3) (a) should read: "Topography (20 foot contour intervals • minimum. Consensus was reached. -10- MINUTES EXCERPT - PLANNING COMMISSION - 2/19/91 • C (5) (e) Commissioner Highland suggested that this section be eliminated entirely. Part of the management plan involves regeneration, and expressedhis hope that the woodlot management plan is more than just cutting down trees. Commissioner Johnson disagreed with a total elimination and proposed an amendment as suggested by Mssrs. Frank and Dulitz: "Tree replacement plans - shall include practices to ensure effective stocking and survival of an optimum number of trees to provide continuation of the stand in perpetuity. ' Chairperson Luna took issue since the present General Plan mentions that every tree removed shall be replaced. He added that the suggested language alludes to merely the survival of a stand of trees. One could go from 500 to 250 trees and still have the stand of trees survive in perpetuity. Commissioner Highland asserted that to attain the canopy that currently exists does not mean that every tree that is taken out has to be replaced on a 1 : 1 basis on that site. Commissioner Johnson stated it was his understanding that the purpose of the plan is to recognize the fact that there are properties within the City that are heavily wooded, and that requiring replacement planting would not be a workable solution. • Commissioner Highland added that if this conflicts with the General Plan, the solution would be to address tree replacement through the update process. Commissioner Waage spoke about making a stand of trees healthier so that the ones that are there can keep growing which is tree replacement within in itself. After further debate and discussion, there was a general consensus to substitute the above mentioned language for C (5) (e) . With regard to Section D. (Preparation) , Commissioner Highland suggested that the proposed language be removed and replace it with: "Forest management plans must be prepared by a registered professional forester to meet legal requirements.' Consensus. There was discussion relative to requiring that the management plan be reviewed annually, and who will do the reviewing. There was general consensus to modify E (2) to read: 'Tree Management Plans shall be approved for a five year period. The property and application shall be reviewed annually. At the end of five years, the property owner may apply to • continue the management plan. The renewal application may be approved, conditionally approved, or denied. ' - 11- MINUTES EXCERPT - PLANNING COMMISSION - 2 /19/91 MOTION: By Commissioner Johnson and seconded by Commission- • er Lochridge to direct staff to rewrite Section 9- 11 . 13 (Forestry and Woodlot Management) and Chapter 13 (Forestry and Woodlot Management Plans) of the Tree Ordinance Standards and Guidelines as discussed and bring back for a public hearing. The motion passed 5: 2 with the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Johnson, Lochridge, Waage, Kudlac, and Hanauer NOES: Commissioner Highland and Chairperson Luna C. INDIVIDUAL COMMENT 1. Planning Commission There was nothing to report. 2. City Planner Mr. DeCamp reported on the memorandum in response to Commissioner Hanauer' s question regarding the number of items that have been considered by the Commission in the last year • that have gone to Council on appeal and the outcome of the appeal. Mr. DeCamp pointed out that this report does not represent all of the items that have been acted on by the Commission that have gone to Council. There is about a 30% appeal rate. Mr. DeCamp reported that confirmations have been received regarding the Planning Commissioners Institute. The Commissioners will receive mileage and per diem in advance of the meeting. The meeting adjourned at 10 : 10 p.m. MINUTES RECORDED BY: PATRICIA SHEPPHA D, Administrative Secretary MINUTES APPROVED BY.- STEVEN Y�STEVEN DECAMP, City Planner • MINUTES EXCERPT - PLANNING COMMIfSION - 2/19/91 3615 Ardilla Atascadero, CA 93422 ATTACHMENT A • February 19, 1991 George Luna, Chairman Planning Commision City of Atascadero 6500 Palma Ave. Atascadero, CA 93422 RE: Tree Ordinance - Forestry and Woodlot Management Plan Dear Chairman Luna: We are pleased that the "Forestry and Woodlot Management" plan will be considered by your commission but surprised by the many restrictions rendering it unworkable. Our suggestions made at previous public hearings to make this a practical and workable proposal have not been addressed. Furthermore, additional restrictions, not previously considered at public hearings, have been added. The attached proposal Sec. 9-11.13, Forestry and Woodlot Manage- ment Plans, includes marginal notes showing items of concern to us and suggested amendments. • Additional correspondence to your commission outlining our pre- vious concerns and suggestions should be included in your staff report. A letter to the mayor expressing our frustration is also attached. The concept of the Forest Management Plan goes far beyond the tree ordinance in protection of our valuable oak forest. It pro- vides for fire hazard reduction, regeneration of the forest, disease control, watershed protection, grazing management and wildlife protection. We hope that your commission will seriously consider our suggestions and adopt a workable proposal that will greatly benefit the ccmmun- ity. Sincerely, m s 1 Fred Frank gistered Profess •onal Forester Registered Professional, Forester CC: Members of the commission • MINUTES EXCERPT - PLNG. COM. 2/ 19/91 EXHIBIT A • ` 13 . , FORESTRY r ND WOODLOT MANAGEt :NT PLANS A.'- PURPOSE: Recognizing that Atascadero ha's,' so me unique residential • areas and that some of these areas are heavily forested, it was determined that the Tree Removal Permit Process would not adequately address unique situations that may exist. Therefore; the submission of a Forestry/Woodlot Management Plan is the alternative solution. These plans can be utilized when. - C11 * 1 . Minimum lot size' -"'5.Q acres or larger C21 2 . The principle existing use of the property is residential (3) 3 . Canopy cover of site is equal to or greater than 50% (4) 4 . The woodlot will be managed for personal and not commercial use B. STANDARDS FOR TREE REMOVAL AS PART OF A TREE MANAGEMENT PLAN: The applicant must provide -the factual--data that demonstrates their ability to regulate the trees on site so as to preserve, enhance and maintain the rural and visual atmosphere of the community. The following minimum standards must be met: - - (1) During a 20 year period, the crown cover of the property shall not be reduced more than 25$ (2) If any stand (or cluster) of trees on the property has less than 25% crown cover, only removals for disease, infestation or hazardous conditions shall be permitted. (5) (3) No more than 5% of the crown cover shall be reduced in any one • year, and in no case shall the tree removal be concentrated in one area. - (4) A second cutting shall not - be permitted until successful regeneration has been established. C. - CONTENT: Tree Management Plans shall include but not be limited to the following information: 1 . Cover Sheet (See Appendix F for example) . - 2. Vicinity or location map. 3 . Site plan and other maps as required to show: + (6) (a) Topography (2 foot contour intervals minimum) (b) Location of creeks, riparian zones and ponds (c) Location of proposed and existing roads, driveways and structures ^ (d) Vegetation (e) Soils information (f) Wildlife use areas _ _ (g) Fire history (h) ,North arrow, written and graphic scale, legal description -of property, preparer' s name and phone number,-. and date'of - W -Other information as required - 27 *See attached MINUTES .E CERP N � COMM I5_SION. 4 . Tree Informal ,n; -including ::. z - r. , ev la) Percent. of site covered by forest canopy (b) -Forest..ty'p@ _ rr � Fy (c) Inventory of trees ' 41— (e) (d) Conditionof trees:Re ort =of p any existing damage (fire, -disease, animal damage; etc.} fi �. . .. E-' ►-..r..,,�.,.�� G•�. •_r'�sc -Y. .t/t'+tiY .lei'�i`�-.. naw t; t. 3`t.3• -�w•it,r. '�.• t ud Lain: 5. y ` Tree Management zCa) •-�Landowre=rs'"ob fectfve'Ca=ftten "statement) "". �r �- " (b) Pro posedethods j'bf �tree` '«removal ."including site preparation, thinning,,,4runing, <etc. , - (c) Intended schedule of removal (d) 3__Tree and-site protection measures such as erosion control, -',fire protection,'.'-,insect -,and disease protection, and .,4wildlife protection.----",­ (7) rotection:(7) (e) Tree replacement plans Conditions 'set forth in Section 9=11:11 --shall'.` apply 'to :tree removals as -part of _.Tree - Management Plans. _ _ (f .. Seedling protection replacement -plantings shall be :_ protected from wildlife damage ,(until they reach 6'_ height ~ to prevent deer browsing) . ` (g) D. PREPARATION Tree Management Plans must be prepared by-a*qualified professional (such as a California Registered Professional Forester, ISA Certified Arborist, Landscape Architect, etc. E'. APPROVAL: - - 1. Tree Management Plans shall be approved, conditionally approved orl.denied by the Natural Resource Specialist 2. Tree Management Plans shall be approved a five year period. At the 'end of five years, the property owner may apply to continue the management plan. The property and application shall be reviewed at that time; the renewal application may be approved, - conditionally approved, or denied. 3. . All decisions made by the Natural Resource Specialist-are appealable to the Planning Commission..77 - K MINUTES EXCERPT - PLANNING COMMISSION - 2 /19/91 Feb. 19, 1991 Suggested ammer_dments for Sec. 9-11. 13 Forest and Woodlot Management (1) Many ownerships have over five acres of oaks but are made up of smaller parcels. It is recommended that an area of five, acres or larger be the minimum. (2) As the staff re4ized this requirement renders the whole con- cept of the tree management plan moot since it would apply only to properties exempted by t e tree ordinance. It is recommended that this requirement be a0nnended so as to apply to residentially zoned property with 'no development plans pending. (3) This requirement would rule out most properties since many in- clude open areas. A better option might be, " canopy cover of the site to be treated 50% or greater (4) This restiction may hinder or discourage some property owners. Some owners may want to allow public recreation or sell some wood generated from thinning. (5) Suggest adding " or strip " to end of sentence to prevent clear- ing for roads or utilities. (6) This requireMpt is much too expensive and " overkill " since no • excavation will be allowed. A 7. 5 Minute Topographic Quad. map should be required. (7) This requirement would render " The Tree Management Plan " un- workable. The cost to replace unneeded trees where thinning is conducted would be prohibitive. we suggest the following a$1,mend- ment, " Tree replacement plans- shall include practices ta=:easure effective stocking and survival of an optimum number of trees to provide continuation of the stand in perpetuity (3) Forest management plans must be prepared by a registered pro- fessional forester to meet legal requirements. Documentaion of this requirement by the State Board of Forestry was provided to your staff in October, 1990. • ORDINANCE N0. 220 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO ADDING FORESTRY AND WOODLOT MANAGEMENT PROVISIONS TO THE CITY' S TREE ORDINANCE (ORDINANCE #214) WHEREAS, the City' s Tree Ordinance does not contain provisions relative to Forestry and Woodlot Management; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendments will address the need for the Tree Ordinance to contain provisions relative to Forestry and Woodlot Management; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendments will not have a significant adverse impact upon the environment . The Negative Declaration previously prepared for the Tree Ordinance is adequate; and WHEREAS, the Atascadero Planning Commission held public hearings on February 19, 1991 and March 19, 1991 and has recommended addition of the Forestry and Woodlot Management provisions to the Tree Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Atascadero does • ordain as follows : Section 1 . Council Findings . 1 . The proposal is compatible with the stated purpose of the Tree Ordinance (Ordinance #214) . 2 . The proposal will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts . The Negative Declaration previously certified for the Tree Ordinance is adequate . Section 2 . Ordinance Text . The Tree Ordinance (Ordinance #214) text is hereby amended by the addition of the language shown on Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference . Section 3 . Publication . The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published once within fifteen (15) days after its passage in the Atascadero News, a newspaper of general circulation, printed, published, and circulated in the City in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code; shall certify the adopting and posting of this ordinance and shall cause this ordinance and this certification • together with proof of posting to be entered into the Book of Ordinances of the City. Ordinance # 220 • Section 5 . Effective Date. This ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and effect at 12 : 01 a.m, on the 31st day after its passage . On motion by and seconded by , the foregoing Ordinance is approved by the following role call vote : AYES : NOES : ABSENT: DATE ADOPTED : By: ROBERT B. LILLEY, Mayor City of Atascadero, California ATTEST: • LEE DAYKA, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO CONTENT RAY WINDSOR, City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: ART MONTANDON, City Attorney PREPARED BY : HENRY ENGEN, Community Development Director • EXHIBIT A • Sec. 9-11 . 13 Forestry and Woodlot Management (a) Tree Management Plans . Tree Management Plans allow for the management of trees as a resource for the benefit of both the land owner and the community. Tree Management Plans will allow for comprehensive woodlot management practices as an alternative to the submission of individual Tree Removal Applications . Tree Management Plans may be permitted on the following types of property: (1) Minimum area of site of 5 . 0 acres or larger in single, contiguous ownership; and (2) Parcels where the existing zoning is single-family residential or agriculture; and (3) Canopy cover of site is equal to or greater than 50%; and (4) The woodlot will be managed for personal use only. (b) Standards for Tree Removal . The standards for tree removal and contents of the Tree Management Plan shall be set forth in Chapter 13 of the "Tree Standards and Guidelines" . • RESOLUTION NO. 28-91 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO ADDING FORESTRY AND WOODLOT MANAGEMENT STANDARDS TO THE TREE ORDINANCE STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES (RESOLUTION # 125-90) WHEREAS, the City of Atascadero has adopted Standards and Guidelines (Resolution #125-90) for the implementation of the Tree Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the adopted Standards and Guidelines do not contain provisions for submittal, review, and adoption of Forestry and Woodlot Management plans; and WHEREAS; the Planning Commission of the City of Atascadero conducted public hearings on the subject provisions on February 19, 1991 and March 19, 1991; and WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Atascadero finds as follows : 1 . The proposed Forestry and Woodlot Management Standards and Guidelines are necessary for the implementation of Ordinance #214 as amended by Ordinance # 220 2 . The proposed Standards and Guidelines will not have a significant adverse affect on the environment . The Negative Declaration previously certified for the Tree Ordinance is adequate . THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Atascadero does resolve as follows : The Tree Ordinance Standards and Guidelines (Resolution #215) is hereby amended by the addition of the language shown on Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference . • Resolution # 28-91 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 • 14. FORESTRY AND WOODLOT MANAGEMENT PLANS EXHIBIT A A: PURPOSE: Recognizing that Atascadero has some unique residential areas and that some of these areas are heavily forested, it was determined that the Tree Removal Permit Process would not adequately address unique situations that may exist . Therefore, the submission of a Forestry/Woodlot Management Plan is the alternative solution. These plans can be utilized when: 1 . Minimum area of the site is 5 . 0 acres or larger in contiguous, single ownership; and 2 . The existing zoning of the property is single-family residential or agriculture; and 3 . Canopy cover of site is equal to or greater than 50%; and 4 . The woodlot will be managed for personal and not commercial use B . STANDARDS FOR TREE REMOVAL AS PART OF A TREE MANAGEMENT PLAN: The applicant must provide the factual data that demonstrates their ability to regulate the trees on site so as to preserve, enhance and maintain the rural and visual atmosphere of the community. The following minimum standards must be met : (1) During a 20 year period, the crown cover of the property shall not be reduced more than 25% (2) If any stand (or cluster) of trees on the site has less than 25% crown cover, only removals for disease, infestation or hazardous conditions shall be permitted. (3) No more than 50 of the crown cover shall be reduced in any one year, and in no case shall the tree removal be concentrated in one area, or strip (4) A second cutting shall not be permitted until successful regeneration has been established. C. CONTENT: Tree Management Plans shall include but not be limited to the following information: 1 . Cover Sheet (See Appendix F for example) . 2 . Vicinity or location map. 3 . Site plan and other maps as required to show: (a) Topography (20 foot contour intervals minimum) (b) Location of creeks, riparian zones and ponds (c) Location of proposed and existing roads, driveways and structures (d) Vegetation (e) Soils information (f) Wildlife use areas (g) Fire history (h) North arrow, written and graphic scale, legal description • of property, preparer' s name and phone number, and date of preparation. (i) Other information as required 27 4 . Tree Information, including (a) Percent of site covered by forest canopy • (b) Forest type (c) Inventory of trees (d) Condition of trees (e) Report of any existing damage (fire, disease, animal damage, etc . ) 5 . Tree Management Plan, including: (a) Landowner' s objective (written statement) (b) Proposed methods of tree removal including site preparation, thinning, pruning, etc . (c) Intended schedule of removal (d) Tree and site protection measures such as erosion control, fire protection, insect and disease protection, and wildlife protection. (e) Tree replacement plans - shall include practices to ensure effective stocking and survival of an optimum number of trees to provide continuation of the stand in perpetuity. (f) Seedling protection - replacement plantings shall be protected from wildlife damage (until they reach 6' height to prevent deer browsing) . D. PREPARATION: Tree Management Plans must be prepared by a California Registered Professional Forester E . APPROVAL: • 1 . Tree Management Plans shall be approved, conditionally approved or denied by the Natural Resource Specialist . 2 . Tree Management Plans shall be approved for a five year period. The property and application shall be reviewed annually. At the end of five years, the property owner may apply to continue the management plan. The renewal application may be approved, conditionally approved, or denied. 3 . All decisions made by the Natural Resource Specialist are appealable to the Planning Commission. 28 • REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL Agenda Item: B-3 CITY OF ATASCADERO Through : Ray Windsor , City Manager Meeting Date: 4/9/91 From: Mark Joseph, Administrative Services Director SUBJECT: Adopting New Planning and Engineering Fees RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends Council adopt Resolution No. 24-91 authorizing new Planning and Engineering Fees. BACKGROUND: Council directed staff to analyze existing fees, particularly land use related. After considerable research, including comparisons with other cities and developing a cost allocation plan ( to assure all reasonable costs were included) staff developed new fees for Planning and Engineering. Building • Inspection fees were left intact fornow, because they currently are recovering most of their full costs. The full report has already been distributed to Council , as well as to the Chamber of Commerce, the Board of Realtors and the No . County Contractors Association. A copy is also available at the City Clerk ' s Office for public review. ANALYSIS: The new fee increases as shown in Exhibit I of the attached Resolution, can be ,justified for the following reasons: 1 . There has been no increase in the fees for over six years -- actual Departmental costs have more than doubled over this same period . 2. The current fees were not recovering even the direct costs, let alone reasonable overhead costs. This is particularly the case with Planning and Engineering . 3. The new fees still do not recover all costs as suggested by staff . 4. The new fees are still very competitive to the "full" costs of comparable services in other cities. See the chart labelled "Table 49The cities of SLO and Santa ,Maria paid outside consultants to determine their user fees. As can be seen, Atascadero ' s proposed rates are generally below the full cost in those cities. • 5 . A policy of making development pay its "fair share" of incidental costs is a function of managed growth : b . Increasing these fees protects the General Fund for essential public service costs, such as Police and Fire. 7. Increasing user fees, such as these, was strongly recommended by Crawford , Multari and Starr (CMS ) in their Long Range Fiscal Plan for the City. With respect to implementation, Staff r-ecommends the effective date be immediate upon adoption. However , staff also recommends any plans or projects already accepted as complete will be charged the existing rates (grandfathered) . This should discourage the kind of frenzied rush that the County experienced when it initiated a temporary building moratorium. Beyond the current fees increase, staff also recommends ( along with CMS) City fees be reviewed/updated annually, at budget adoption time. • • MEETING AGENDA DATE-412LU- ITEM# • NOTE: THE STAFF REPORT REGARDING ADOPTION OF THE UPDATED DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES WAS NOT AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF AGENDA PREPARATION AND WILL BE DISTRIBUTED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE ON FRIDAY, APRIL STH. �I • TABLE 48 : COMPARISON OF ,FULL COST" TO ATASCADERO ' S PROPOSED FEES ATASCADERO SANTA FEE DESCRIPTION PROPOSED SLO CITY MARIA Bldg. Permit . 015 x AV . 02-. 04 . 03-. 05 ( Includes Plan Ck ) x AV x AV Prelim/Tent. Maps Parcel $865 $ 1 , 703 $ 1 , 744 Tract $865 $4 , 179 $2, 356 Final Map (Total ) $535 $2, 511 $ 1591 +20/lot Cert, of Compliance $ 150 $ 151 $ 167 Gen. Plan Amend. $850 $782 $2, 479 Rezoning $825 $631 -781 $835 Cond. Use Permit $550 $573 $334-557 Lot Line Adj . $325 $300 $464 • Road Abandonment $550 $452 $456 Encroachments $30 $ 143 $50+60/hr Appeals $ 100 $442 $334-557 Environmental Review Environ. Deter. * $ 100 $402 $877 EIR . 15 x EIR DC $2000+DC * For comparison purposes only ; Atascadero ' s cost is included in permits. 01 -Apr-91 • RESOLUTION NO. 24-91 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO ADOPTING NEW PLANNING AND ENGINEERING FEES. Be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Atascadero : Section 1 . Resolution No . 6-85 is hereby resEl nded ; Section 2. New Planning and Engineering fees shall be as proposed in Exhibit I , made a part of this Resolution; Section 3. These new fees shall be effective immediately upon adoption; provided , however that any project currently pending shall be charged the fees in effect prior to 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: /P - / I ARTHER MONTANDON MARK JOSEPH City Attorney Administrative Services Director • TABLE THREE: PROPOSED NEW FEES FOR PLANNING AND INSPECTION SERVICES FEE DESCRIPTION CURRENT PROPOSED COMMENTS ZONING APPLICATIONS Home Occupation/Business License $ 15 $25 Non-Refundable Precise Plan $200 $400 Includes Env. Det. Conditional Use Permit $300 $550 Includes Env. Det. Adjustment $35 $50 Variance $250 $475 Includes Env. Det. Tree Removal Permits $35 Defer to New Tree Ord. Rezoning: $825 One Flat Fee Map $650 Map-Planned Development $900 Text $550 Pre-Zoning $ 1 , 100 $1 , 650 GENERAL/SPECIFIC PLANS General Plan Admendments: $850 One Flat Fee Text $650 Map $750 Specific Plan: Initial Review $200 $300 • If Authorized DC+24% DC+24% No change SUBDIVISION APPLICATIONS Tentative Maps: Lot Line Adjustments $325 $325 No Change Parcel Map $400 $865 Includes Env. Det. Tract Map $485 $865 Includes Env. Det. Condominium Map $770 $ 1 , 075 Includes Env. Det. Condo Conversion Map $640 $ 1 , 075 Final Map $ 190 $285 See also Engineering Lot Merger $35 $55 Certificate Of Compliance $75 $ 150 ROADS Road Abandonment $330 $550 Road Name Change $330 $475 Address Change $ 170 $255 PROCEDURAL REQUESTS Time Extensions : Precise Plan $ 10 $ 15 Conditional Use Permit $40 $60 Subdivision/Parcel Maps $220 $330 Reconsideration (of approved entitlement ) $ 150 $225 Applicant-requested Continuance $40 $60 Ag Preserve Cancellation $420 $630 Appeals (Ping or Inspections) : Planning Commission $ 100 $ 100 No Change 01-Apr-91 • TABLE THREE: PROPOSED NEW FEES FOR PLANNING AND INSPECTION SERVICES FEE DESCRIPTION CURRENT PROPOSED COMMENTS - ------------------------ City Council $ 100 $ 100 No Change Planning Commision Interpretation $ 150 $0 Deleted OTHER SERVICES Annexations: Initial Review $200 $300 If Authorized DC+24% DC+24% No Change Environmental Impact Report CC+ 107 CC+ 15% 15% Deposit; No Refund Special Research Requests DC+247 DC+24% No Chang% Reports & Documents Cost or Cost or $. 10/pg $. 50/pg ENGINEERING SERVICES Improvement Plan Review-Minor $40 $60 Improvement Plan Review-Major NEW $250 Final Map-Engineering NEW $250 Encroachment Permit $20 $30 DC-Direct Costs CC-Consultant ' s Cost plus 15% for City administrative fee. • • 01 -Apr-91 REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL Agenda Item: B - 4 CITY OF ATASCADERO Meeting Date: 4/9/91 Through : Ray Windsor , City Manager From: Mark Joseph , Administrative Services Director SUBJECT: Adopting Updated Development Impact Fees RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Council adopt the attached Resolution 14-91 , revising development impact fees, effective upon adoption. BACKGROUND: As part of the Long Range Fiscal Plan, prepared by Crawford , Multari and Starr (CMS) , the City ' s Development Impact Fees were reviewed . The consultants analyzed our methodology, related the fees to the Capital Improvement Plans projected over the next 10- 20 vears and proposed new fees as appropriate. The relevant appendix is attached to this report as Exhibit I . The project listings are also attached to this report , as exhibits II , III , IV, and V. The balance of this report is to explain variances between the Consultant ' s findings and what staff recommends. 1 . :streets, Roads and Bridges (Exhibit II ) - No changes are proposed . 2. Drainage (Exhibit II ) - No change is proposed regarding the amount to be collected . The consultants proposed establishing fees based on the various drainage basins in the City. Although this is technically appropriate, it does pose two problems. First , because legal lot lines do not neatly parallel topography, disputes are likely. This is particularly the case since the fee is very high in the Atascadero Creek area and low elsewhere. Second , since Atascadero is relatively small , it may be overly complicating the process with too many levels of fees . For example, residents living in the Graves Creek area must still drive into the Atascadero Creek basin, because that is where the bulgy: of all commercial activity is found . For these reasons, a weighted average was established for drainage impact fees . • 3. Parks and Open Space (Exhibit III ) - The same methodology was used ; the difference is the amount of projects included . In addition to what was identified in the study, three other areas need to be included. They are the revised cost of the Pavilion (along with debt service costs) , land acquisition (which , due to current circumstances, must remain somewhat vague) and Zoo Improvements, identified in the City ' s Five Year C. I .P. 4 . Public Safety (Exhibit IV) - This area experienced the most significant changes. First, the dollar amount was increased to reflect the full cost of the Police Facility ( including debt service) , and approximately $100,000 in additional police capital items. Second , the methodology was slightly modified. For all costs except Fire Stations 3 and 4, the same methodology proposed by the Consultants was used . This was applied Citywide. Next , the costs of the two new Fire Stations were assigned exclusively to the area outside the Urban Service Line (USL) , and the percentage assigned to new development increased from one-third to two-thirds. This is because the new stations are intended to primarily service the areas outside the USL. S. Miscellaneous Projects (Exhibit V) - This is a new fee category, including studies and Downtown Improvements (street lights, trees, etc . ) . Exhibit V lists the projects and the proportions to be received from new development . This fee was then applied uniformly throughout the City for .023 cents per square foot . Reviewing the new fees against the current ones, it is apparent that residential development outside the USL will pay substantially more, not only compared to the current fees, but compared to development inside the USL. In contrast , non- residential growth would pay 20-30 percent less. From a "nexus" point of view, the new fees are more appropriate. Single family development is the primary type of growth at present and in the foreseeable future. It is reasonable to expect such growth to pay a larger share . This is particularly so outside the USL, since this is where most of the new infrastructure will be required . Finally, commercial growth does not really generate that much new infrastructure , except for road and traffic impacts . Thus, even though nonresidential rates are less that at present , the Streets, Roads and Bridges section is actually 10 percent higher than its current counterpart , and almost four times greater than the proposed residential rates. 0 s Because the rates vary depending upon where the development takes place, staff calculated the total projected revenues from the current fees and the new ones proposed . In 1991 dollars, the current fees should produce approximately $11 ,760,500. The new rates should generate roughly $14, 140,000, an increase of just over 20 percent . These amounts are expected to be received from now until build out , some ten years hence. Annual revenues will vary, depending upon the degree of development . On an individual home basis, a typical house (2,200 square feet ) costs $2,504 in fees at present. Under the proposed rates, the unit would be assessed as low as $2,444 ( inside the USL) and as high as $4,705 (outside USL) . The single family fees do not appear to be overly excessive, compared to other cities throughout California. Table A shows a comparison of the current fees and those being proposed by staff. Some final notes need to be made regarding implementation of the new fees. This report has already been forwarded for comments to the same outside groups that received a copy of the • Planning/Engineering User Fee study. Second , these fees would have no effect on our existing Amapoa-Tecorida Fees (Ordinance 117) . Third , these new fees would establish specific rates per square foot . Alternative fees based on Average Daily Trips (ADT) or Cubic Feet per Second (CFS) were not included . This approach was recommended by the consultants, as well as by our Public Works Director . Finally, staff proposes the new fees become effective upon adoption. However , staff recommends "grandfathering" the fees; that is, the new fees would only effect projects submitted after the adoption date. Projects submitted beforehand , but not paid for , would still be charged the old rates. TABLE A: COMPARISON OF NEW AND EXISTING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES USING WEIGHTED AVERAGE OPTION FOR DRAINAGE (FEES PER SQUARE FOOT) SINGLE- MULTI- NON- SERVICE TYPE FAMILY FAMILY RESID' AL 1 . INSIDE URBAN SERVICES LINE (USL) Drainage 0. 245 0. 245 0. 245 Streets, Roads 8 Bridges 0. 219 0. 300 1 . 166 Public Safety 0. 113 0. 224 0. 452 Parks 0. 511 1 . 011 0. 128 Miscellaneous 0. 023 0. 023 0. 023 ------------------------------ TOTALS: 1 . 111 1 . 803 2. 014 CURRENT FEE 1 . 138 1 . 674 2. 758 PERCENT CHANGE: -2. 4% 7. 7% -27. 0% II . OUTSIDE URBAN SERVICES LINE (USL) Drainage 0. 245 0. 245 0. 245 Streets, Roads 8 Bridges 0. 747 0. 747 0. 747 Public Safety 0. 613 0. 724 0. 952 Parks 0. 511 1 . 011 0. 128 Miscellaneous 0. 023 0. 023 0. 023 ------------------------------ TOTALS: 2. 139 2. 750 2. 095 CURRENT FEE 1 . 138 1 . 674 2. 758 PERCENT CHANGE: 88. 0% 64. 3% -24. 0% 04-Aor-91 ( 1600FEES. WK3) City of Atascadero EXHIBIT I Fiscal Analysis I I Appendix D: Developer Fees Background. Communities increasingly use fees to make new development pay its "fair share" of the cost of needed public facilities. In most states, including California,the"rational nexus"has been adopted either explicitly by statute or by case law as the general rule for determining what idevelopers can be legally charged. In essence,this legal standard requires developer fees to be directly linked, in a reasonable way, to the cost of the facilities needed to serve the development. A number of new laws and court cases are further defining other legal bounds for development fees and exactions. Subjects which have been of interest to the courts include the uniformity of service standards among new and existing development,the exclusion of existing infrastructure deficiencies from the fee formula, and the requirement that the revenues must be spent for the benefit of those paying the fees. i i In California,AB 1600,which went into effect in 1989, explicitly sets legal limits on charging new development fees. In brief, a city must establish a reasonable relationship between development projects and the public improvements for which developer fees are charged;that is,the city must identify the purpose of the fee and establish the "nexus"or connection between need for a facility and the development. AB 1600 also requires that fees be kept in identifiable funds, be earmarked for facilities as called out in some adopted plan or schedule,and be spent within a certain amount of time or refunded. Atascadero's fee structure was recently amended to comply with these requirements. i Earlier, in 1985,the City had imposed a development fee in the form of a$0.50 per square foot (s.f.)tax . At the same time,an ad hoc development fee task force was established to recommend a reasonable and equitable fee structure to provide revenues for the capital improvements needed in the City. Based on their recommendations, the City Council adopted a development impact fee schedule in 1986. This consisted of fees for various improvement categories such as ICrawford Multarl& Starr planning •archaecture•public policy D-1 City of Atascadero Fiscal Analysis 1 roads, parks,police and fire facilities,etc. In addition,the Council established special development impact fees for construction of the Lewis Avenue Bridge and for drainage f improvements in the Amapoa-Tecorida area. 1 I In 1988,in order to comply the requirements of AB 1600 and the limitations imposed by 1 Proposition 62, the City adopted a new development fee structure. At the end of that year,the Lewis Avenue Bridge Fee was repealed (the Lewis Avenue Bridge was thereafter included among the other bridge projects and covered by the overall bridge fee) and the$SO tax was voided. (The Amapoa-Tecorida Drainage Fee was left intact.) The new fee structure went into effect on January 1, 1989 and remains in effect today. Current Fee Structure. Table D-1 summarizes current development impact fees in Atascadero. The general method used to derive these fees involved 1)totaling the costs of capital improvement needs in each improvement category;2)determining a reasonable share of these costs attributable to new development;3) apportioning the costs between new residential and non-residential development; and,4) distributing the residential share between single-family f and multi-family development. 1 The technical bases used for assigning the share of costs among the different uses varies with the kinds of facilities. For example,the cost of needed drainage improvements is allocated on the basis of runoff coefficients for different types of development. The fees for bridges and roads are based on estimates of average daily trips(ADT)generated by each type of use. The fees for parks are based on an analysis which concluded that approximately three percent of costs can be related to non-residential development,with the remainder attributable to residential growth. The share of costs assigned to single-family and to multi-family units is in proportion to projected population growth for each type of development. The cost of needed police and fire facilities are allocated 50 percent to non-residential and 50 percent to residential development. The residential share is further distributed between single-family and multi-family units based on projected population growth in these categories, as is done in the case of parks. The approach used by the City is satisfactory, and is generally more sophisticated than fee ordinances in most other cities in this region. We, therefore,do not recommend changing the basic approach. We do discuss some possible adjustments to the fee schedule in the r Crawford Muttari&Starr planning • architecture •public policy D-2 i i i g i i Table D-1 Summary of Current Developer Fees i Type of Fee Type of Land Use Residential Single Family ResidentialMulti-Family Non-residential [$/s.f.l ($/s.f.) [$/s.f.] Drainage 0.127 0.172 0.634 Traffic 0.001 0.010 0.439 Bridges 0.260 0.393 0.537 i Roads 0.036 0.055 0.075 Parks 0.337 0.593 0.079 Police 0.032 0.056 0.234 Fre 0.065 0.115 0.480 Bldg/Equipment 0.244 0.244 0.244 Com Dev/Eng o.036 0,036 0.036 Total 1.138 1.674 2.758 Source: City of Atascadero, 1990 i I � City of Atascadero: Long Range Fiscal Analysis 0-9 City ty of Atascadero Fiscal Analysis subsections below. However, these should be viewed as possible refinements for the City to consider rather than recommendations for wholesale revision in methodology. I Possible Adjustments. There is no single agreed-upon technique for calculating development fees. The law requires a reasonable relationship between the fees and the cost of facilities needed to serve the development,but this allows significant latitude in approach. As noted just above, the methodology used by Atascadero is, in general, reasonable, and no major modifications are necessary(one exception may the fire fee which is discussed further below). What follows are possible adjustments which the City should review and consider. Our suggested adjustments focus on three areas: 1)updating facility costs to reflect the list of the City's capital improvement needs as described earlier in this report;2) using the household size,population projections, unit size and other assumptions used earlier in our revenue model; and 3) refining how much of the cost of each facility is reasonably attributable to new development. Each of these is discussed further below. Updated List of Capital Facility Needs. This item is the most straightforward. The lists of capital facilities derived earlier in the report tend to be more inclusive than the capital facility lists used to compute current fees. Regardless of other changes in approach, this kind of updating should take place at regular intervals. In all the fee calculations made later in this section,the updated capital needs lists in Chapter V above are used. Population, Household Size and Development Potential Assumptions. Table D-2 summarizes the parameters used in the revenue model which are also important for computing different categories of developer fees. We feel these assumptions are conservative, reasonable and informed. However,they are simply assumptions, and others can certainly be substituted and still be considered reasonable. For consistency,we based our fee calculations on the same assumptions we used earlier. Further,two other assumptions were made to simplify the fee computations. First,the ratio of current population in 1990 (about 22,500) to the build-out population(about 33,000 to 35,000 ), was considered to be two to three. Given the uncertainty about projecting that far into the future, Crawford Multari&Starr planning •architecture •public policy D4 Table D-2 Revenue Model Assumptions Relevant to Developer Fee Calculations Tyne of Development Existing Future Residential Single Family No.of Units 5200 1730 Persons/Household 3.0 3.0 Average Unit Size 2200 s.f. 2200 s.f. Residential Mufti-family I No.of UnOs 2800 2600 Persons/Household 2.7 2.7 Average Unit Size 1000 s.f. 1000 s f. Non-Residential Gross Acres 298 102 Coverage 25% 25% Source: CMS Revenue Model and Atascadero General Plan, 1990 City of Atascadero: Long Range Fiscal Analysis D-5 City of Atascadero Fiscal Analysis this is, in our opinion, a reasonable simplification. Accordingly,potential growth after 1990 was assumed to represent one-third of total City population at build-out. Second,the existing developed commercial land in the City was considered to be 298 acres. This includes, however, government offices and some residential uses. To simplify the calculations, this area was all treated as a single"non-residential"category for estimating the non-residential share of impacts,even though we know that there are some public and residential uses mixed in. For the purposes used here,this is a reasonable approximation. Adjustments In Attributing Costs to Development. The following summarizes some possible adjustments to how the share of costs attributable to new development for each improvement category can be estimated. The City staff should review these suggestions, consider which ones may be improvements to the existing approach and recommend such changes to the City Council. Again,we point out that there is no single"correct"way of calculating fees and that the existing methodology is generally sound. In some cases (eg:circulation),we found that limits on available data may constrain the usefulness ofh t e refinements. In those case,without further data collection and/or further assumptions, some of the refinements may not be improvements over the currently applied methodology. We focused on the principal fee categories affecting the General Fund. Our results are summarized for each of them here. The actual formulas and calculations were provided to the City in a separate document. Drainage Fee. The current approach applies a uniform fee throughout the City. Atascadero, however, may be meaningfully divided into three watersheds,the areas that drain into(1)Graves Creek, (2)Atascadero Creek and(3)those that drain directly into the Salinas River. The City may prefer to charge different drainage fees in each of these areas since the impacts of new development and the drainage improvements needed to solve flooding problems is different in each watershed. Crawford Muitari&Starr planning-architecture - public policy D-6 City of Atascadero Fiscal Analysis • To try this alternative approach,the drainage projects identified in the capital improvements section were first assigned to the three watersheds as follows (using the numbering from Chapter V,Table 7A): Graves Creek Basin: Projects#6, 7, 11, 21 and 31 (Total estimated cost: $515,000) Salinas River: Projects#1,13,15,16 and 25 ($825,000) Atascadero Creek: all others ($4,785,000) Clearly, most of the improvements affect Atascadero Creek. The next step was to estimate the ratio of existing to future potential development for each of the drainage areas. Data about existing land use and about future development potential has been disaggregated into various"planning areas"by the City. Each planning area was assigned to one of the three watersheds. (There are some cases where a planning area overlaps two basins,but the overlaps are small and do not significantly affect the results. Further refinements in land use breakdowns were beyond . the scope of this exercise. ) Using this information,the total amount of existing development and the amount of potential development in terms of total square footage was estimated for each drainage area. In this way,the proportion of new development to existing was calculated for each. Further breakdowns among single family, multi-family and non-commercial uses was not done, because it was assumed that a square foot of development, regardless of type, affected drainage equally. One might argue that a better measure of drainage impacts would be total impervious surface rather than simply square footage of actual development. It is not clear that this would yield significantly different results, but this may be a useful adjustment which would further increase the level of sophistication in the fee calculation. These proportions were then applied to the total costs of drainage improvements in each basin, yielding the following: Crawford Multari&Starr planning - architecture -public policy I}7 City of Atascadero Fiscal Analysis • Graves Creek: $.072/s.f. Salinas River: $.116/s.f. Atascadero Creek: $.446/s.f. This fee structure would have development in the Atascadero Creek watershed pay higher fees than than other areas, because the majority of the drainage improvements serve that area. Overall,this alternative fee structure generates approximately the same amount of money for the City as the current drainage fee rates;the difference,therefore, is in how the costs are distributed to new development. It is not Gear that having separate fees for each ( drainage area is an improvement from an administrative or political perspective, even though it may be technically more correct. Streets, Roads and Bridges. We treated these improvements as one category because they are related to circulation. We noted again that there may be some meaningful way of differentiating impacts geographically in the City. Looking at the lists of road and bridge projects in Chapter V, we observed that the majority are near the older city center. We tried to draw a boundary around the area most impacted by deficiencies near the town center and which would most benefit from improvements there. For practical purposes,that boundary roughly coincided with the Urban Service Line(USL). Similarly, most road improvements outside the USL generally serve only the single family residential areas there and do not seem to significantly benefit development closer to the city core. Thus,we tried an approach under which all uses inside the USL pay for the improvements inside the USL,while uses outside the USL would pay only for improvements there. (in this exercise,we only computed a fee for single family residences outside the USL; if this approach were adopted, a fee for the small amount of multi-family and non-residential outside the USL would also need to be computed.) Crawford Multari&Starr planning -architecture•public policy DS City of Atascadero Fiscal Analysis I As before,we used data disagreggated at the planning area level. The City's planning areas 2,3,4, 5,8,9 and 10 were considered to Ge inside the USL for estimating future development potential there. (Again, as in the case of drainage basins,the boundaries do not match exactly, but the differences are not significant for this purpose.) From the capital facilities lists in Chapter V-Tables 7B and 7C, project numbers 1,3, 10, 11, 17, 23,24 and 27 of Streets and Roads and project numbers 1, 3,4, 5, 9,13,14,15,16, 17 and 19 of the Bridges were located outside the USL. The remaining projects were all located inside the USL. The cost of improvements outside the USL was divided between new and existing development in the ratio of number of potential and existing single-family residential units. i The resulting impact fee is about$164.30 a unit or$0.747/s.f. (if we assume an average unit size of 2.200 s.f.) This is significantly lower than the combined bridge and road fees currently assessed on single family residences. • The cost of improvements within the USL were divided between new and existing development and then among single-family, mufti-family and non-residential on the basis of ADT generation factors. Residential single family:9.5 ADT/unit Residential mufti-family: 5.9 ADT/unit Non-residential: 1000 ADT/net acre of development (coverage factor of 25%was used to convert gross acres to net developed acres) We based our ADT factors on Institute of Traffic Engineers information. The City uses in its current fees schedule 10 ADT/unit for single family, 8 ADT/unit for mufti-family and 500 ADT/acre of non-residential. The biggest difference is in the non-residential category. This is also the most speculative because it involves averaging numerous dissimilar uses (retail,offices, services, restaurants, etc.). Again,there is no one standard, and the factors used in Atascadero should be ones the City Engineer feels are best. The resulting fees for development inside the USL are as follows: Crawford Multari&Starr planning - architecture - public policy D-9 City of Atascadero Fiscal Analysis i Residential single family: $.219/s.f. Residential multifamily:$.300/s.f. Non-residential: $1.166ls.f. or for all types,$50.77/ADT f I Compared to current road and bridge fees,this adjustment reduces the fee for residential uses, both in and out of the USI, but increases the fee for non-residential uses. As in the case of drainage,it is not Gear that having two fees for I`ke development in two areas is politically or administratively superior. Without a more extensive traffic analysis than the overly simple differentiation made here,the technical basis for the geographic breakdown is weaker in the case of circulation than for drainage. The upcoming Circulation Element revision would likely provide traffic zone data which could be used to more precisely set different circulation impact fees for different parts of the City,if that is preferred. r Police Fees. Development impact fees should be charged to help service the debt which was incurred to pay for the new police facility. (The total estimated cost of the police facility amounts to approximately$2.0 million,when the cost of acquisition is included.) In our roach,we assumed that the app appropriate share of these costs attributable to new development is one-third of the total cost of the facility, corresponding to the proportion of new to total development at build-out. Thus,one-third of these costs can be attributed to new development. Further, in consultation with the Police Chief,we assumed that commercial uses account for roughly one-third of the total calls for service while residential accounts for the remainder. Thus, among the costs assigned to new development, one- third will be attributed to non-residential growth,the remainder to new residential units. The residential share is further adjusted between single family and multi-family units, based on the projected numbers of units in each category and the estimated household sizes. This adjustment yields the following rates: • Crawford Muitari&Starr planning •architecture•public policy D-10 City of Atascadero Fiscal Analysis f� Residential single-family: $.061/s.f. Residential mufti-family:$.120/s.f. Non-residential: $.245/s.f. Compared to current fees,these are approximately twice as high for residential uses,and the same as the current ones for non-residential development. Fire Fee. The capital improvements needed for building the new fire stations should be supported in part by a development impact fee. The costs include land,building and equipment needed to operate the stations. How these costs should be attributed to new development is not entirely clear. The Draft Fire Master Plan suggests that the new stations are needed to relieve existing deficiencies,to improve service levels to existing residents and to serve new development. It does not quantity, however,the proportion of costs that should be assigned existing and future developments. In light of this uncertainty,we used the same breakdowns as for the police fee. (This is a very conservative approach and a higher share to new development could likely be justified.) The resulting fees are as follows: Residential single family: .058/s.f. Residential multi-family: $.115/s.f. Non-residential: $.235/s.f. Curiously,this approach resulted in lower fees than currently charged for the single family and non-residential categories, despite using much higher total capital costs than are used in the City's current fire fee calculation. The present approach used by the City to calculate this fee is very different from most of the others used by the City or discussed here and probably warrants some more detailed review. Instead of comparing total costs to total build-out potential,fire facility costs are broken down into annual increments which are assigned to an estimate of annual development. Among all the currently used techniques,this is one that most warrants re-assessment. Crawford Nultari& Starr planning-architecture -public policy D-11 f r Table D-3 ti Summary of Possible Fee Adjustments Type of Fee Type of Land Use Residential Single Family Residential Multir-Family Non-residential Drainage i Graves Creek 0.072 0.072 0.072 Salinas River 0.116 0.116 0.116 Atascadero Creek 0.446 0.446 0.446 f Streets, Roads and Bridges Inside USL 0.219 0.300 1.166 { Outside USL 0.747 it Police 0.061 0.120 0.245 Fire 0.058 0.115 0.235 Parks 0.402 0.796 0.100 jTypical Subtotal* in USL 1.186 1.777 2.192 out USL 1.714 bldg/equip& com.dev. 0.280 0.280 0.280 Typical Total' in USL 1.466 2.057 2.472 out USL 1.994 totals with existing comdev.and bldg/equip fees provided for easy comparison to current fees 'in Atascadero Creek Watershed City of Atascadero: Long Range Fiscal Analysis i D-12 City of Atascadero Fiscal Analysis i l i Parks Fee. We felt that many of the improvements listed in the area of parks and f recreation, such as a new bike trail system, pavilion improvements, community center, swimming center, etc.,either address existing deficiencies or enhance levels of service. In those cases,the benefits would be shared by the community at large and,therefore, the costs can not be attributed to new growth alone. For these kinds of improvements, we allocated one-third of the total costs to new development,the proportion that new growth represents relative to the City at build-out. The need for the two major new parks that are proposed(NW Quad and SW Quad) may be more to accommodate new growth than the other community-wide facilities. But even f these facilities will clearly benefit the existing residents and help offset existing deficiencies. Accordingly,we assumed it reasonable to divide the costs of these parks equally between new and existing development. Three percent of the costs of new development was assigned to non-residential uses as is currently done in the existing fee schedule. The remaining was apportioned between single-family and nvifti-family types in the ratio of projected population in these categories. { The resulting impact fees are as follows: I Residential single family: $.402/s.f. Residential multi-family:$796/s.f. Non-residential: $.100/s.f. All of these are significantly higher than current rates, and reflect primarily,the ambitious park and recreation improvement program listed in Chapter V. Summary. Table D-3 lists the results of these adjustments for the drainage, roads and bridges, fire, police and parks fees. These adjustment would result in significantly higher fees for residential uses, but slightly lower fees for non-residential development. Single family residences i outside the USL would bear the greatest increase, about 75 percent above current rates. Overall, i i Crawford Multari& Starr planning - architecture •public policy D-13 City of Atascadero Fiscal Analysis the revenue e enue model protects development fee contributions to the General Fund would be about 10 percent higher using the adjusted fee schedule than the current fee rates. Although the total cost g per square foot is higher for muni-family than single family residences,this i really reflects assumptions about average unit sizes. On a per unit basis, using our assumptions, the average fee for a single family house outside the USL would be about$4387;for a single family house inside the the USL,$3225;for a multi-family unit, $2057. The next step in re-assessing these fees would be for City staff to consider the adjustments discussed above, to refine the assumptions according to their judgement and experience, and to make recommendations as to which are superior to the current structure. Our review here ( suggests that setting different traffic and drainage fees for different geographic areas of the City i may be justified. But such refinements may be better postponed until more extensive technical analyses (eg:the Circulation Element update) are conducted. Once the formulas are agreed upon, annual adjustments to take into account changes to the capital improvement program and for inflation are relatively simple.' Less frequently, perhaps on five year intervals,the underlying assumptions about unit size, household size, and the size and i coverage of non-residential development should be re-examined, too. Generally,with annual adjustments for inflation and CIP changes, and regular but less frequent fine tuning of the demographic assumptions, the revised fee schedule should remain useful for a long time. f 'The formulas used in calculating these adjusted fees, highlighting the variables that should be j periodically updated, have been provided to the City separately. I . Crawford Vtultari& Starr planning •architecture•public polity D-14 EXHIBIT II Table 70 1 Projected Capital Improvements Public Works Dept YEAR PROPOSED PROJECTS EST.COST (1990$) 1990-91 -Street Improvements $924,150 -Bridges $360,000 1991-92 -Drainage $791,500 StreeWRoads $738,000 -Bridges $250,000 1992.93 -Drainage $791500 -Streets/Roads $738,000 ,000 1993-94 -Drainage $791,500 Streets/Roads $738,000 -Bridges $250.000 ` 199495 -Drainage $791,500 -Streetsftads $738.000 Bridges $250,000 ( 1995-96 -Drainage $791,500 Streets/Roads $738,000 Bridges $250.000 1996-97 -Drainage $368,000 -Streets/Roads $700,000 -Bridges $375,000 1997-98 -Drainage $368,000 i -Streets/Roads $700,000 Bridges $375,000 1998-99 -Drainage $368,000 i -StreetsiRoads $700,000 I -Bridges $375,000 1999-00 -Drainage $368,000 -Streets/Roads $700,000 -Bridges $375,000 2000-01 -Drainage $368,000 -Streemgloads $700,000 -Bridges $375,000 2001-02 -Drainage ? -Streets/Roads $357,500 -Bridges $365,000 2002-03 Same as in 2001-02 2003.04 Same as in 2001-02 t 2004-05 Same as in 2001-02 City of Atascadero: Long Range Fiscal Analysis 30 1 Exhibit III PUBLIC SAFETY PROJECT LISTING PROJECT COST RATE DEV. SHARE Fire Station #3 900,000 .66 600,000 Fire Station #4 1 ,200,000 .66 800,000 Police Facility 3,390,000 .33 1 , 186,500 ( includes Debt Service) Emerg. Supply Containers 30,000 .33 10,000 Snorkel (Aerial Eq. ) 300,000 .33 100,000 Quick Attack Eq . (2) 100,000 .33 33,300 Radio Repeater Site 50,000 .33 16,500 Computer-Assisted Dispatch 200,000 .33 66,000 Lighting Eq. 75,000 .33 25,000 Training Tower (Fire) 325,000 .33 107,250 Police Station Pkg . Cover 10,000 .33 3,300 Base Station/Radios (PD) 90,000 .33 30,000 TOTALS 6,670,000 NA 2,977,850 EXHIBIT IV PARKS AND OPEN SPACE PROJECT COST RATE DEV. SHARE Lake Pavilion 1 ,950,000 .33 643,500 ( includes Debt Service) SW Quad Park 2,420,000 .50 1 ,210,000 NW Quad Park 2,300,000 .50 1 , 150,000 Land Acq. (Est . ) 1 , 150,000 .33 379,500 Tennis Ct . Lights 75,000 .33 25,000 Corporate Yard Renovation 662,000 .33 218,460 Community Center/Gym 1 ,000,000 .33 333,300 Creekway/Trail Development 300,000 .33 100,000 Community Pool 1 ,500,000 .33 500,000 Bikeways 400,000 .33 132,000 Zoo Improvements 120,000 .33 40,000 TOTALS 11 ,877,000 NA 4,731 ,760 EXHIBIT V MISCELLANEOUS PROJECTS PROJECT COST RATE DEV. SHARE Fiscal Costing Model 11 ,000 100% 11 ,000 (Balance) Traffic Circulation/Safety 130,000 50% 65,000 Downtown Improvements 300,000 33% 100,000 TOTALS 441 ,000 NA 176,000 RESOLUTION NO. 14-91 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO REVISING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES FOR ALL DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN THE INCORPORATED AREA OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE NO. 119 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Atascadero has adopted Ordinance 119 creating and establishing the authority for imposing and charging a Development Fee; and WHEREAS, Exhibit A is a study of the impacts of planned future development on existing public facilities in the incorporated areas, along with an analysis of the need for new public facilities and improvements required by new development , and said study set forth the relationship between new development , the needed facilities, and the estimated costs of those improvements. The study, entitled "Appendix D: Developer Fees" was prepared by the firm of Crawford , Multari and Starr and is dated December , 1990; and WHEREAS, this study was available for public inspection and review fourteen ( 14) days prior to this public hearing ; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds as follows: A. The purpose of this fee is to finance facilities shown in Exhibit A to reduce the impacts of runoff , traffic and other impacts show in the exhibits, caused by new development , within the incorporated area. B. The development fees collected pursuant to this resolution shall be used to finance only the public facilities described or identified in Exhibit "A" , attached hereto ; C. After considering the above study and analysis and the testimony received at this public hearing , the Council approves said study, and incorporates such herein, and further finds that the new development in the incorporated area will generate additional runoff, traffic , and other impacts shown in the exhibits within the impacted area and will contribute to the degradation of public facilities and services in that incorporated area . D. There is a need in this described impact area for the improvements shown in Exhibit A which have not been constructed . or have been constructed , but new development has not contributed its fair share toward these facility costs and said facilities have been called for in or are consistent with the City ' s General Plan; E. The facts and evidence presented establish that there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the described public facilities and the impacts of the types of development described in paragraph 2 below, for which the corresponding fee is charged, and, also there is a reasonable relationship between the fee ' s use and the type of development for which the fee is charged, as these reasonable relationships or nexus are in more detail described in the study referred to above; F. The cost estimates set forth in Exhibit "A" are reasonable cost estimates for constructing these facilities, and the fees expected to be generated by new development will not exceed the total of these costs. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby resolved by the City Council of the City of Atascadero that: 1 . A development fee shall be charged prior to the issuance of any building permit and shall be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit or a certificate of occupancy in the case that a building permit is not applicable. The City Community Development Department shall determine if the development lies within this benefit area, the type of development and the corresponding fee to be charged in accordance 0 with this resolution, including proportionate fees for alterations or additions, if applicable. 2. Fees. SINGLE MULTI- NON- SERVICE TYPE FAMILY FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 1 . Inside Urban Service Line Drainage 0.245 0.245 0.245 Streets, Roads & Bridges 0.219 0.300 1 . 166 Public Safety O. 113 0.224 0.452 Parks 0.511 1 .011 0. 128 Miscellaneous 0.023 0.023 0.023 TOTALS: 1 .1 1 1 1 .803 2.014 2. Outside Urban Service Line Drainage 0.245 0.245 0.245 Streets, Roads & Bridges 0.747 0.747 0.747 Public Safety 0.613 0.724 0.952 Parks 0.511 1 .011 0. 128 Miscellaneous 0.023 0.023 0.023 TOTALS: 2. 139 2.750 2.095 3. Use of Fee. The fee shall be solely used to pay for ( 1 ) the described public facilities to be constructed by the City; or (2) reimbursing the City of the development ' s fair share of those capital improvements already constructed by the City. 4. Fee Review. On or about June, 1991 and each following year , the Public Works Department shall review the estimated cost of the described capital improvements, the continued need for those improvements and the reasonable relationships between such need and the impacts of the various types of development pending or anticipated and for which this fee is charged. The Public Works Department shall report its findings to the City Council at a noticed public hearing and recommend any adjustment to this fee or other action as may be needed. 5. Judicial Action to Challenge this Resolution. Any judicial action or proceeding to attack , review, set aside, void or annul this resolution shall be brought within 120 days. b. Exhibit A is hereby adopted by reference and is considered a part of this resolution. 7. Resolution 100-88 is hereby repealed . 8. These new fees shall become effective upon adoption, provided , however , that any project submitted for review prior to the adoption date shall be charged the rates in effect prior to 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 MARK J PH City Attorney Administrative Services Director ii MEETING AGENDA DAT 4E /9/91 ITEM# -1„ M E M O R A N D U M • To: Ray Windsor, City Manager From: Arther R. Montandon, City A t ney Subject: Council Voting Requirements Date: April 2, 1991 A question was raised at the March 26, 1991, City Council meeting regarding the required number of votes for an ,ordinance. As you remember, only three members of the City Council could be present, and the vote was 2-1 to introduce the ordinance. The Atascadero Municipal Code provides, in Section 2-1.09, as follows: "A majority of the Council shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. A majority of the Council is sufficient to do business, and motions may be passed two (2 ) to one ( 1) if only three (3) attend, but ordi- nances, resolutions granting franchises, and payment of money require at least three (3) affirmative votes. . . " A similar provision exists in State Law at Government Code Section 36936. It provides: "Resolutions and orders for the payment of money, and all ordinances, require the votes of at least three council- men for passage. " (emphasis added] I have reviewed the ordinance procedures for land use ordi- nances (Govt. Code Sec. 65850, et seq) , since the City Council was considering the introduction of a land use ordinance. Though these sections provide an "exclusive" procedure (Govt. Code Sec. 65802) , they do not refer to a minimum vote requirement at the City Council level. As such, an ordinance does require three affirmative votes to pass. It does not require three affirmative votes to be intro- duced. The ordinance is on the April 9, 1991, City Council agenda for adoption. At that meeting, it must have three affirmative votes to pass. ARM:cw • (f:Atty/Vote) REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: C-1 Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Mtg. Date: 4/9/91 From: Henry Engen, Community Dev. Dir.. File No: ZC 06-90 SUBJECT: Zone Change 06-90 - to rezone property from RMF/10 to RMF/10 (PD7) at 5160 and 5180 Palma Avenue - Jim & Kris Hazard/Tartaglia-Hughes BACKGROUND: ° On March 26, 1991, the City Council conducted a public hearing on the above referenced subject and approved Ordinance No. 219 on first reading. RECOMMENDATION: Adoption of Ordinance No. 219 on second reading. HE:ps Attachments: Ordinance No. 219 cc: James & Kris Hazard Tartaglia-Hughes Engineering • ORDINANCE NO. 219 AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO AMENDING MAP 16 OF THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAPS BY REZONING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY AT 5160 AND 5180 PALMA AVE. FROM RMF/10 TO RMF/10 (PD7) (ZC 06-90: Hazard/Tartaglia-Hughes) WHEREAS, the proposed zoning map amendments are consistent with the General Plan as required by Section 65860 of the California Government Code; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendments are in conformance with Section 65800 et seq. of the California Government Code concerning zoning regulations; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendments will not have a significant adverse impact upon the environment. The Negative Declaration prepared for the project is adequate; and WHEREAS, the Atascadero Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 5, 1991 and has recommended approval of Zone Change 06-90. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Atascadero does • ordain as follows: Section 1. Council Findings. 1. The proposal is compatible with the surrounding land use and zoning. 2. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan land use element. 3. The proposal will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts. The Negative Declaration prepared for the project is adequate. 4. Modification of development standards or processing requirements is warranted to promote orderly and harmonius development. 5. Modification of development standards or processing requirements will enhance the opportunity to best utilize special characteristics of an area and will have a beneficial effect on the area. 6. Benefits derived from the overlay zone cannot be reasonably achieved through existing development • standards or processing requirements. Ordinance No. • 7. The proposed plans offer certain redeeming features to compensate for requested modifications. Section 2. Zoning Map. Map number 16 of the Official Zoning Maps of the City of Atascadero on file in the City Community Development Department is hereby amended to reclassify the parcels listed below and as shown on the attached Exhibit-A which is hereby made a part of this ordinance by reference. Lots 32 and 33 of Block RA; Atascadero Colony Development of said parcels shall be in accordance with the standards of the Planned Development Overlay No. 7, and consistent with attached Exhibit B. Section 3. Publication. The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published • once within fifteen ( 15) days after its passage in the Atascadero News, a newspaper of general circulation, printed, published, and circulated in the City in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code; shall certify the adopting and posting of this ordinance and shall cause this ordinance and this certification together with proof of posting to be entered into the Book of Ordinances of the City. Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and effect at 12: 01 a.m. on the 31st day after its passage. On motion by and seconded by , the foregoing Ordinance is approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: DATE ADOPTED: By: •ROBERT LILLEY, Mayor City of Atascadero, California • ATTEST: LEE DAYKA, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: RAY WINDSOR, City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: ARTHER MONTANDON, City Attorney PREPARED BY: HENR ENGET, Co ity Development Director �A I IV �� ♦ • NI ME _ '1111 '� :.�1►.tl[ i � � __ - ; _ 1 � t EXHIBIT B CITY OF ATA A ORDINANCE NO. Irl ; SC DERO C�"�'�}ne ! L%• / SITE PLAN/TRACT MAP • COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT tUTATI 9 L1dGT wu Ne_ roS! Iw THE CITY W ATASCAOERO. COUNT.OF SAN LUIS Oel{PO. CA.. EfmQ A 0IYI t ION OP LO r' !Pf ar P r.r ' ATAWAG400 COLPn a SAfO lOf{ Aw[ LTOMN OM 1N[ MAP FILED IN HA► ,OON♦ . PAO!IRi •ECOROt D/ YID COIwIf T. i ; 1: A \ LMOLMttd[ 3 tor' �w �7S,IS• , .`, o •E� *�?►I •rt \ r. 1 HIM OT Cutin THIS NAP WAS PREPARED SY ME Amo To THE toy OP HY %•6. __ I �, ' __ \1 _—i �V-/S• I �EON COMPLIES NIT" ME {UMIYI{Id MAP ACT 1M0 LOCAL 1 �• - {IGNEe: II jr wWERI C. fMTAOII• t .l. 2.0" AOOREEt:RO Y /9.1 'TS LOT o I/ \ COT J I GN[R'■CERt TITGA Tt 1 Hufrr APPLY FOR APPNWAL OP TNS OIYISIOI OP WEAL ONO"."SHORN 1 ' ( p 7 ARJ/Oln2C 7 J d THIS PLAT ANO CERTItY THAT I AN THE LEGAL OMEN 00{ATO PROPERTY ANO THAT•y \ itis 1� 7 A['CC I S• 2 1 HT KNOWLET0OIS AND/ lEd NEMd to TWA AND C01111/C7 to THE MOST 0E q /PGJ/orA•CG\ \ _'- ur.l rlY 1 _� 1 Sf OH[O:. �/ 1 Y"C�f_! � 1 .` •-� .. I T I AE pwp 1Aoowt{e� 100 O' ATAJGA OLRO 2 1 \ \ T• �' ! rJMAa- ARfAI�' 1171_s�.eeFnp GO' SJ./SI i I0 •v. � ( - 'r-t•r pt E.iro d � q ' � I I '.•'i3 � f � a � LOT • `LLOrS_. L�r6 � I ,i I • � �• � �r�"�� P[I/GING[ � I �PIOJCC •A. •1'T r '� S/TC ; �f•�r�Qai 'W A .� 1 uw•e[ I i� \`E. •.T •'�., H�,ntA WN I' 4c •, '. 1= 3� �L �} S-• _f ._:Wit'x:L" � `I I `\ •..^ ! •T 1.21 IS •'o``_�>' ~�^ 1, F }` eo.po'� � -'•'evis�o� (o, I 1 .mnA qtr-�. .aoo: _ .< � .;A� VICIN/TY MAP s I Nr.a. .74- Z° i .r TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO 2055 S" BEING A SIX LOT SUBDIVISION OF LOTS 32 AND 33, BLOCK RA. TOWN OF ATASCAOERO.CA. • REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL Agenda Items C-3 CITY OF ATASCADERO Through : Ray Windsor , City Manager Meeting Date: 4/9/91 From: Mark Joseph , Administrative Services Director SUBJECT: Status of Tree Planting Trust Fund RECOMMENDATION: Staff is seeking Council directiohoon the use of the Tree Planting Trust Fund. BACKGROUND: Recently during a Planning Commission Meeting a question was raised about the status of the City' s Tree Fund. The Tree Fund was established in 1989 to account for tree replacement fees, tree-related donations and the proceeds from the City ' s in-house office paper recycling program. Based on the latest accounting records, the Fund Balance is identified below: Tree Replacement Fees 11 ,094 Recycling proceeds 248 Donations* 1 ,500 Interest Earnings 571 Total Revenue 13,413 Less: BIA Tree Proposal <8,248> Current Balance 5, 165 Plus: Garcia Fees** 20,400 Projected Balance 25,565 *The $1 ,500 donation is for planting trees along Halcon Road . ** This amount has been billed but not yet received . A performance Bond in excess of this amount is still retained by the City. Staff is seeking clarification on the following issues: Should these monies be limited only to tree purchases as well as incidental expenses associated with ongoing maintenance? For example, should cutting tree wells in the sidewalks be included? What about the initial watering and other costs associated with assuring the new tree ' s success such as pruning, etc? Should Arbor Day expenses be charged to the Fund? • Staff is also seeking clarification on another issue. When as a result of issuing a tree removal permit a developer indicates a desire to purchase replacement trees rather than contribute to the tree replacement fund, even though the site in question is not suitable for replacement trees, is this option valid , in the sense that said trees will become the property of the City and planted on another receiver site. As it stands now the option is either to provide replacement trees on site or contribute an in-lieu fee to the tree fund . c\treefund MEETING AGENDA GATE 4 9 91 REM 1 County of San Luis Obispo GERE W. SIBBACH, CPA • Office of the Auditor-Controller i Auditor-Controller Room 300 County Government Center San Luis Obispo, California 93408 BILL ESTIZADA�\ (805) 549-5040 FAX (805) 546.1074 ,� , Assistant t A.A '} r -, 19 CITY NIGR. March 251 1991 Ray Windsor, Administrator City of Atascadero , 6500 Palma Avenue Atascadero, California 93423 Dear Ray : On July 31 , 1990, Senate Bill 2557 was enacted into law by the State of California. One aspect of this legislation mandated that counties charge cities with their fair share of the costs associated with the administration of the property tax system. Specifically , SB2557 states ". . . that the amount of property tax revenue deemed received by a county in the prior fiscal year shall be increased by property tax administrative costs attributable to incorporated cities within that county, as determined by the county auditor according to specified procedures . " In accordance with SB2557, the County has calculated each city 's share of the property tax administration costs and those amounts are reflected in the attached schedule. In April of this year, your property tax distributions will be reduced by the amount shown on the schedule. Each city will receive an accounting of total taxes collected and the tax administration costs when the reduction is made from your taxes . Please contact this office should you have any questions regarding the above. Sincerely, A� 1 � `" , I. IL Gere W. Sibbach , CPA Auditor-Controller Attachment 11828 Attachment SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY PROPERTY TAX ADMINISTRATION COSTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1990191 Local Jurisdiction Administration Cost Arroyo Grande $ 440101 Atascadero 579670 Grover City 22,771 Morro Bay 38,198 Paso Robles 55,569 Pismo Beach 310565 San Luis Obispo 117,221 1196g is e� CITY OF ATASCADERO April 5, 1991 Gere W. Sibbach , C.P.A. Auditor-Controller Room 300, County Government Center San Luis Obispo , CA 93408 Dear Mr . Sibbach : The City of Atascadero has received your Property Tax Administration invoice dated March 25, 1991 for the 1990-91 fiscal year . This letter represents the City ' s written dispute pursuant to Government Code Section 907 regarding the above referenced invoice. It is the City ' s position that the method and procedures used by the County in the adoption and calculation of property tax administration charges does not comply with the authorizing legislation. It is also the City ' s position that the payment of such fees would not be appropriate while legislative proposals to repeal the provisions of SH 2557 are under active consideration by the State Legislature. With regard to the method and procedures used to adopt the charges and' determination of the amount of fees, the following issues are raised: 1 . The information included with the invoice does not provide sufficient information to substantiate that the calculation of costs for property tax administration activities of the Auditor-Controller , Tax Collector and County Assessor are in compliance with Section 97 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. Information provided with the invoice does not indicate i methodology to ensure that the funds from any such property tax administration fees are to be used solely for the actual costs of assessing, collecting, and allocating property taxes as required by the authorizing legislation. f ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES • 6500 PALMA AVENUE • ATASCADERO, CA 93422 City Council: 8051461-5086 • City Manager: 461-5010 • City Clerk: 461-5074 • City Attorney: 461-5010 • City FAX: 46140606 1. 2. The adoption of property tax administration fees is subject to the procedures. in Government Code Section 54986(b ) which requires new county fees` to be adopted by ordinance, not resolution. The County of San Luis Obispo did not adopt these fees in accordance with this section. 3 The property tax administration fee constitutes double taxation of city residents. 4. These receipts should be included in the County ' s "Appropriation limit" -.not the City ' s. 5. There are also other issues regarding., the legality of the County ' s actions that need to be addressed . The above-stated issues must be resolved prior to consideration 'b'y the City of any invoices for property tax administration charges. Sincerely, RAY WINDSOR C`i ty Manager cc: City Council - San. Luis Obispo County City Managers/Administrators County Administrator City Attorney Finance Director "c\sibbach P