Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 01/22/1991 PUBIC REVIEW COPY PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE F] OM COUNTER A G E N D A ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING ATASCADERO ADMINISTRATION BUILDINGS 6500 PALMA FOURTH FLOOR, ROTUNDA ROOM JANUARY 22, 1991 7 :00 P.M. This agenda is prepared and posted pursuant to the require- ments of Government Code Section 54954 . 2 . By listing a topic on this agenda, the City Council has expressed its intent to discuss and act on each item. In addition to any action identified in the brief general description of each item, the action that-may be tak- en shall include: A referral to staff with specific requests for information; continuance; specific direction to staff concerning the policy or mission of the item; discontinuance of consideration; authorization to enter into negotiations and execute agreements pertaining to the item; adoption or approval; and, disapproval. Copies of the staff reports or other documentation relating to each item of business referred to on the agenda are on file in the office of the City Clerk, available for public inspection during City Hall business hours . The City Clerk will answer any questions regarding the agenda. RULES OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: i 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 - Proclamation pledging support to local families of military personnel assigned to the Persian Gulf i Recognition to Melinda Price, Support Services Aide, Atascadero Police Department - Administration of Oath of office to newly appointed Ex- Officio Youth Members to City committees: Belinda Wiley (Parks & Recreation Commission) Lindsey Hays (Traffic Committee) Natalie Regoli (Recycling Committee) 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 CALENDARS All matters listed under Item A ' . , Consent Calendar, are con- sidered to be routine, and will be enacted by one motion in the form listed below. There will be no separate discussion on these items A member of the Council or public may; by request, have any item removed from the Consent Calendar, which shall then be re-viewed and acted upon separately after the adoption of the Consent Calendar. where ordinance adoption is involved, action by Council on the Consent Calendar will presuppose waiving of the reading in full of the ordinance in question. 1 . JANUARY 8, 1991 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 2 . JANUARY 17 , 1991 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES (Special Meeting) 3 . CITY TREASURER' S REPORT - DECEMBER 1990 4 . FINANCE DIRECTOR' S REPORT - DECEMBER 1990 5 . RESOLUTION NO. 2-91 - AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 33-88, EXPANDING THE LIST OF CERTIFIED ARBORISTS AUTHORIZED TO PREPARE TREE PROTECTION PLANS IN THE CITY OF ATASCADERO 6. RESOLUTION NO. 3-91 - AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL TO COUNTY RECORDER OF NOTICE OF COMPLETION OF PUMP STATION ##2 FORCE MAIN REPLACE- MENT to 7 . AWARD BID ##90-19 FOR MODULAR PLAY STRUCTURE ADDITIONS (LAKE PARK) 2 8.. RENEWAL OF HEALTH INSURANCE POLICIES B. HEARINGS/APPEARANCES: 1. SOLID WASTE PROGRAM: RATE INCREASE/MANDATORY PICK-UP/CURBSIDE RECYCLING/GREEN WASTE RECYCLING (Cont'd from 11/13/90) 2. TREE REMOVAL REQUEST, ARDILLA ROAD EXTENSION (Continued from 11/27/90 & 1/8/91) A. Appeal of Negative Declaration (Joan O' Keefe) B. Tree removals for road extension 3 . ZONE CHANGE 3-90, 7970 SINALOA AVENUE —CONSIDERATION OF PLAN- NING COMMISSION' S RECOMMENDATION FOR DENIAL OF REQUEST TO ESTABLISH A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ZONE (PD7) (Best/Cues- to Engineering) C. REGULAR BUSINESS : 1 . ACCEPTANCE OF CERTAIN ROADS IN LAS ENCINAS II AND ATASCADERO HIGHLANDS 2. WATER STUDY COST SHARE - RESPONSE FROM ATASCADERO MUTUAL WATER COMPANY (Verbal) 3 . CONSIDERATION OF SELECTION OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - ROUNDTABLE 4 . SET DATE FOR MID-YEAR BUDGET REVIEW s D. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION: 1 . City Council: A. Committee Reports (The following represents ad hoc or standing committees. Informative status reports will be given, as felt necessary. ) : 1 . City/School Committee 2 . North Coastal Transit/S.L.O. Area Coordinating Council 3 . Traffic *Committee 4 . Solid/Hazardous Waste Mgmt. Committee 5 . Recycling Committee 6 . Economic Opportunity Commission 7 . B.I .A. 2 . City Attorney 3 . City Clerk 4 . City Treasurer 5 . City Manager 3 • FIRE DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: POLICE CHIEF BUD MCHALE FROM: FIRE CHIEF MIKE HICKS SUBJECT: SUPPORT SERVICES AIDE RECOGNITION On December 25, 1990 at 2128 hours Atascadero Fire Paramedics were dispatched to a report of an infant choking at 5580 Traffic Way. Our Paramedics were fortunate to have a response time of only one minute and when they arrived they found a three month old baby breathing normally, thanks to the quick reaction of Support Services Aide Melinda Price who gave immediate instructions to the infant's mother on how to clear the infant's airway and to perform the • Heimlich Maneuver. It was the Heimlich Maneuver that opened the airway and led to a quick and immediate recovery of the infant. Atascadero Fire Department paramedics checked the vitals of the infant and fortunately all were within normal limits and they were able to return to quarters with no further action necessary. Melinda is to be congratulated on her quick action and her professionalism in the way she handled this call. %�� Mike Hicks Fire Chief MH:vc c. : City Manager City Council A.F.D. Paramedics • P R O C L A M A T I O N PLEDGING THE CITY OF ATASCADERO' S SUPPORT TO LOCAL FAMILIES OF MILITARY PERSONNEL ASSIGNED TO THE PERSIAN GULF WHEREAS, The world looks with anguish over ways to resolve the conflict in the Middle East; and WHEREAS, While, as individuals, we may not agree on the policies chosen to achieve the goal of peace, yet„ we are united in our concern for and commitment to all of those whose lives are in jeopardy; and WHEREAS, In addition to the hundreds of thousands involved in the conflict who now stand in great peril, there are as many or more individuals representing the families of those called to arms, many of whom reside within our own community; NOW, THEREFORE, let it be proclaimed that the City Council of • the City of Atascadero urges daily prayer for peace as we join behind the men and women of our armed forces who have been called upon to bear the terrible burden of war. BE IT FURTHER PROCLAIMED that we unite in an 'embrace of love and support for the families who wait with great anxiety for the end of hostilities and the safe return of their loved ones . In which regard, the City of Atascadero does express its desire to provide support and comfort where possible to those local family members who may need assistance during these perilous times . 4 ; BERT B. ILLEY, Mayo City of Atascadero, C Dated: January 22, 1991 ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES SUMMARY JANUARY 170 1991 A special meeting of the Atascadero City Council was called to order at 4: 10 p .m. by Mayor Pro Tem Shiers. ROLL CALL: Present : Councilmembers Dexter , Nimmc , Shiers and Mayor Lilley Also Present : City Clerk , Lee Dayka and City Treasurer , Muriel Korba Absent : Councilwoman Borgeson Staff Present: Ray Windsor , City Manager; Henry Engen, Community Development Director ; Greg Luke, Public Works Director ; Mark Joseph , Administrative Services Director ; Andy Takata, Director of Parks, Recreation & Zoo PURPOSE OF THE MEETING: 1 . INTERVIEW FOUR APPLICANTS TO THE CITY' S TRAFFIC COMMITTEE 2, ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION FOR DISCUSSION REGARDING POTENTIAL PROPERTY PURCHASE - ATASCADERO LAKE PARK CGTfNf+ HIGHLIGHTS: Interviews: Council interviewed the following candidates for Traffic Committee: Ray Berry Marjorie Mackey Fred Potthast In addition, Council considered the application and supplemental letter of Jerry Ferguson, who was unable to personally appear. CCO1/17/91 Page 1 Selection • Councilmembers each voted for two candidates and the result was as follows: Ray Berry one vote Jerry Ferguson no votes Marjorie Mackey four votes Fred Potthast three votes The Clerk indicated that the term rotation established by Ordinance No . 112 had been interrupted and asked Council to make a specific appointment for each seat . By common consensus, Council appointed Ms. Mackey to a two- year term, and Mr. Potthast to a one-year term. MOTION: By Councilman Dexter and seconded by Councilman Nimmo to adopt Resolution No . 5-91 appointing two citizen-at- large members to the City of Atascadero 's Traffic Committee; motion unanimously carried. MOTION: By Councilman Shiers and seconded by Councilman Dexter to adjourn to a closed session to discuss potential property purchase in the Atascadero Lake Park area; motion carried . The open session was adjourned at 4:55 p.m. At 5s02 p.m. , the City Council went back into open session. MOTION: By Councilman Shiers and seconded by Councilman Dexter to appropriate funds not to exceed $1 ,500 for an appraisal of property located at 9420 Marchant Way (adjacent to the Lake Park ) ; motion carried 4:0. MOTION: By Councilman Dexter and seconded by Councilman Nimmo to adjourn the special meeting; motion unanimously passed. The meeting was adjourned at 5:04 p.m. MIN,-W1f1ES__RREPARED BY: LE DAYKA City Clark CC01/17/91 Page 2 ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 8, 1991 Mayor Lilley called the meeting to order at 7:01 p .m. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilman Dexter. RILL CALL: Present: Councilmembers. Borgeson, Shiers, Nimmo , Dexter and Mayor Lilley Absent : None Also Present: Muriel Korba, City Treasurer and Lee Dayka, City Clerk Staff Present : Art Montandon, City Attorney; Mark Joseph, Administrative Services Director ; Henry Engen, Community Development Director ; Greg Luke, Public Works Director ; Mike Hicks, Fire Chief; Bud McHale, Police Chief and Andy Takata, Director of Parks, Recreation & Zoo COUNCIL COMMENTS: Councilwoman Borgeson mentioned that Cuesta College is looking for a location for a branch in the North County and expressed hope that the City and the school district would be proactive in attempting to establish the site in Atascadero . Councilman Dexter proposed a Last Will and Testament Donor policy for the City. He added that in view of the limitation on funds for capital projects, this issue might be worth looking into. Mayor Lilley reported that he had distributed to members of Council a tentative suggestion of matters of priority. He explained that he had requested their input and asked that comments be given to him by the first week in February. In addition, Mayor Lilley announced that he had bid farewell to the 649th M.P. Company and had learned that there were a number of dependents who reside in Atascadero. He stated that he had asked the commander of that company to supply him with a list of names of the dependents so that the City can do what it can to CC01/08/91 Page 1 r T assist those families. By common consensus, both matters raised by Councilwoman Borgeson and Councilman Dexter were referred to the City Manager . COMMUNITY FORUM: Robert Skinner , 5285 Palma Avenue, spoke regarding the revised Tree Ordinance. He asserted that there was no protection for heritage trees on private property and asked the Council to reconsider the single-family exemption. A. CONSENT CALENDAR: Mayor Lilley read the Consent Calendar : 1 . DECEMBER 110 1990 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 2. CITY TREASURER'S REPORT - NOVEMBER 1990 3. FINANCE DIRECTOR'S REPORT - NOVEMBER 1990 4. QRDINANCE N0. 2I5 - AMENDING MAPS 6, 16 & 17 OF THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAPS BY REZONING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY IN THE DOWNTOWN AND AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT TO IMPLEMENT • THE "DOWNTOWN ELEMENT" OF THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN (Second Reading & Adoption) (Cont ' d from 12/11/90) 3. ORDINANCE NO. 216 - AMENDING THE ATASCADERO SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE BY ADDING PROVISIONS REGULATING THE CONVERSION OF MULTIPLE-FAMILY RENTAL HOUSING UNITS TO CONDOMINIUMS (Second Reading & Adoption) (Cont ' d from 12/11/90) 6. ORDINANCE N0. 213 - ESTABLISHING BACKYARD BURNING RESTRICTIONS BY ADDING CHAPTER 7 TO TITLE 5 OF THE ATASCADERO MUNICIPAL CODE (Second Reading & Adoption) (Cont 'd from 12/11/90) 7. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 22-909 9305 MUSSELMAN - Consideration to convert an existing nine-unit multiple family project into airspace condominiums (Shahan/North Coast Engineering ) 8. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 23-909 9313-9327 MUSSELMAN - Request for subdivision of one existing lot into eight air-space condo- miniums and a common area (Smith/Cuesta Engineering) 9. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 24-903, 2100 EL CAMINO REAL - Subdivision of three existing lots of 3.24 acres into 33 lots with sizes CCO1/08/91 Page 2 a s ranging from 1 , 100 square feet to 90,350 square feet ( including one common lot) (Del Rio Center ) (Voorhis/Mitsuoka) 10. RESOLUTION NO. 1-91. - SUPPORTING LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES EFFORTS TO REPEAL SB-2557 Councilwoman Borgeson pulled item #A-1 , Minutes of December 11 , 1990, and requested two amendments. The Clerk noted the corrections. Mayor Lilley acknowledged the City Treasurer , who made minor adjustments to item #A-2. Councilwoman Borgeson asked that item #A-9 be pulled for further discussion. MOTION: By Councilwoman Borgeson and seconded by Councilman Shiers to approve the Consent Calendar with noted revisions and with the exception of item #A-9; motion carried. 9. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 24-90, 2100 EL CAMINO REAL - Subdivision of three existing lots of 3.24 acres into 33 lots with sizes ranging from 1 , 100 square feet to 90,350 square feet ( including one common lot ) (Del Rio Center ) (Voorhis/Mitsuoka) Councilwoman Borgeson objected to the lot sizes of the project and asked the Community Development Director to sum up the intent of the CPK zone. She declared that , if passed, the development would conflict with the General Plan and that it would represent a radical departure from past actions. Mr . Engen noted that lot lines would be created and that there would be C.C.&R. ' s and an owners ' association. He clarified that the industrial project would be run as planned development, with each lot being owned individually. Councilman Shiers concurred with Councilwoman Borgeson and stated that the project would not reflect the type of use the zone was created for . Mayor Lilley and Councilman Dexter both commented that they were in support of the subdivision. Councilman Nimmo suggested that the matter of economics as it relates to the General Plan be looked at as part of the update. CC01/08/91 itPage 3 a Councilwoman Borgeson proclaimed that if the tract map is approved , a precedent will be set ; one which deviates from the two-acre minimum of the CPK zone. MOTION: By Councilman Nimmo and seconded by Mayor Lilley to approve item #A-9, Tentative Tract Map 24-90; motion carried 3:2 with Councilmembers Borgeson and Shiers opposing . B. HEARINGS/APPEARANCES: Mayor Lilley noted that the City Attorney had requested that Council recess proceedings to a closed session for discussion regarding potential litigation involving the CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) process and indicated that , although inconvenient for the public , it was timely in light of matters on the agenda. MOTION: By Councilman Nimmo and seconded by Councilman Dexter to recess to closed for the purposes of discussing potential litigation regarding the CEQA process; motion unanimously carried . Council recessed to closed session at approximately 7:35 p.m. The closed session was adjourned at 8:15 p.m. and the open session continued. • Mayor Lilley reported that during the closed session, Council had reviewed an opinion prepared by the City Attorney as to the applicability of CEQA and as it may bear on the following two agenda items. This determination, he indicated , was available to the applicants and appellant. The mayor explained that the City Attorney had recommended that both items #B-1 (a) & (b ) and #8- 2(a) & (b ) be continued to give all parties time to respond to the opinion. Mr . Montandon advised that the tree removal request and the appeal of a negative declaration on the Ardilla Road extension be continued for two weeks. He recommended that the San Marcos Road extension tree removal request and appeal be continued until the second week in February. Mayor Lilley asked if the applicants or appellant had any objections to continuing the matter. Joan O'Keefe responded that during the recess she had filed documents with the City Clerk and had prepared a statement she wished to read into the record . The mayor indicated, because of the request to continue, that he CCO1/08/91 Page 4 l i preferred Mrs. O'Keefe hold her comments and asked again whether she had any objection to continuing the matter . Mrs. O ' Keefe clarified that she had just received additional information relating to the matter and that she wanted the opportunity to make them part of the record . Mayor Lilley noted that the Clerk had distributed the documents to the members of the Council and assured that they would become part of the public record . Councilwoman Borgeson observed that the appellant was not asking that the public hearing be opened and requested that Mrs. O ' Keefe be given the opportunity to address the Council . Councilman Dexter and Councilman Nimmo concurred that it would be to the advantage of all concerned to continue the matter and postpone any testimony related to the matter . Councilman Shiers indicated that he did not mind if Mrs. O 'Keefe made her statement and that it could be considered separate from the public hearing . MOTION: By Councilman Nimmo and seconded by Councilman Dexter to continue both hearing matters; Item #B-1 (a)&(b ) to January 22, 1991 and Item #B-2(a)&(b) to February 2-6, 1991 ; motion unanimously carried. 1 . TREE REMOVAL REQUEST, ARDILLA ROAD EXTENSION (Continued from • 11/27/90) A. Appeal of Negative Declaration (Joan O'Keefe) B. Tree removals for road extension Continued (see above motion) . 2. TREE REMOVAL REQUEST, SAN MARCOS ROAD EXTENSION A. Appeal of Negative Declaration (Joan O'Keefe) B. Tree removals for road extension Continued (see above motion) . C. REGULAR BUSINESS: 1. LAKE PAVILION DESIGN/BIDDING STATUS Andy Takata gave background on the bidding status of the Lake Park Pavilion. He indicated that the final estimate from the architect was higher than had been anticipated. He then introduced Steve Lang of Recreation Systems, Inc . who reviewed the cost breakdown, off-site improvements and factors that had 8 CC01/0 /91 Page 5 contributed to the increase in expected costs. In addition, he presented construction alternatives and emphasized that the bidding climate was currently very favorable. Mr . Lang explained that the building , because of necessary support structure, would gain an additional room in the basement . Councilwoman Borgeson questioned the architect about this matter . Councilman Dexter inquired whether or not the project was ready to go to bid . Mr . Takata indicated that the plans had completed the plan check process and could be taken to bid in approximately two weeks. He added that if Council chose alternative layouts, the bidding process would be delayed while the architect drew up revised plans. Mr . Lang suggested that costs be cut by reducing the size of the main room (Assembly Room #2) . Councilwoman Borgeson suggested that , in exchange, the room in the basement could be used for small meetings. Councilman Nimmo stated that he was not prepared to start scaling down the project . He indicated that the community has certain expectations of the Pavilion and advocated going out to bid with the plan as it is. He added that he wanted to know what the actual costs will be. Additional discussion ensued . Members of the Council expressed concern for the redesign process. Mr . Lang could not commit to a time frame for completion of alternative design plans, but indicated that it would be nothing less than one month . He emphasized that if Council waits to go out to bid , the bidding climate may change. Councilman Dexter asserted that the community deserves a quality building and agreed with Councilman Nimmo that the project should go to bid. Andy Takata cautioned against going to bid unless the Council was truly committed to the design. He reported that he had received calls from firms throughout the state who were interested in bidding on the project and stressed the importance of getting the best possible bid. The Public Works Director pointed out that a contingency had not been built into the numbers presented by Mr . Lang . He also explained that, in terms of timing, staff had geared up for this large project by arranging contractual construction, inspection and management . Mr . Luke indicated that if the work is delayed , CC01/08/91 Page 6 additional time to re-start the project will be necessary. Councilwoman Horgeson expressed desire for a compromise design and remarked that this would allow the option of getting two separate bids for consideration. Mark Joseph , Administrative Services Director , explained that the estimated cost of Phase I (demolition of the old pavilion, grading and retaining wall construction) had been $150,000. The work had been completed for $128,000; which represented a savings of 157.. Mr . Joseph indicated that this savings could be carried over and outlined additional sources of revenue. In addition, he speculated that a delay of two to three months could result in additional expenses and suggested that Council go to bid . Public Comments: Eric Greening , 7365 Valle, proposed that the additional room in basement be used by another unmet need that would require funding elsewhere. He suggested such a use might be a meeting place for local teens. Lon Allan, representing the Friends of the Lake Pavilion, urged Council to go out to bid on the building and see what they get. He remarked that off-site improvements could either be postponed or be completed by volunteers. Mr . Allan noted that fundraising efforts had resulted in $60,000 in the bank with an additional pledge of $25,000. In addition, he explained that Assembly Room #2 had been given a name and indicated that he was not in support of revising the floor plan. R.J. Ray, 5545 Vita, spoke in support of moving forward with the project . Whitey Thorpe, 8025 Santa Ynez , proclaimed that he was confused about the reported 15% and the 20% overrun. Mark Joseph clarified that the 15% figure represented an actual savings on the Phase I project, while the estimate of going 20% over budget on Phase II was speculation. Following the response from the Administrative Services Director , Mr . Thorpe suggested that Council go out to bid on the project and keep a watchful eye on the architect and overruns. Mayor Lilley called for a recess at 9:30 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9x45 p.m. Councilwoman Horgeson stated that the Council had few options and CC01/08/91 It Page 7 asserted that the architectural firm had misled them. Following those comments, she made the following motion: MOTION: By Councilwoman Borgeson and seconded by Councilman Shiers to send the project out to bid eliminating the off-site improvements. Discussion of the motion: Councilwoman Borgeson expounded that the deletion of certain off-site improvements was one of the cost-saving alternatives specified by the architect . She noted that those improvements might later be picked up by community groups, as suggested by Lon Allan. Mr . Lang pointed out that the current plan was drawn up with the off-site improvements as a deductive alternate and can be bid in that way. The mayor clarified that the bid will include incorporating the deductive alternates and called for a vote on the motion; Motion to go out to bid on the Pavilion Phase II unanimously passed. The Administrative Services Director requested, because of the presence of members of the auditor ' s firm, that Item #C-5 be moved up for discussion. He clarified for Council that there were no recommendations other than those already in the staff report . MOTION: By Councilwoman Borgeson and seconded by Councilman Nimmo to move Item #C-5 up ; motion carried. 5. ACCEPTANCE OF FISCAL YEAR 1989-90 AUDIT REPORT AND FINDINGS Councilman Nimmo pointed out that there had been transfers made from enterprise funds; specifically from the Sanitation Fund to the General Fund . He asked if this was a common procedure. i Mr. Joseph confirmed that this indeed was normal proceedings and explained that an enterprise fund , such as the Sanitation Fund , reimburses the General Fund for providing it with accounting, payroll , personnel and other services. He added that Crawford , Multari , and Starr had recommended this type of procedure to ensure that the City gets all it can from it ' s General Fund. There were no public comments. CCO1/08/91 Page 8 MOTION: By Councilman Dexter- and seconded by Councilwoman Borgeson to accept the 1989-90 Audit Report and Findings; motion unanimously carried by roll call vote. Mayor Lilley returned to Item C-2, as calendared . 2. WATER STUDY CONSULTANT SELECTION Greg Luke, Public Works Director , reported that Council had directed staff to solicit bids from qualified consultants to study the long-term dependable yield of the groundwater basin in the vicinity of the Atascadero Mutual Water Company ' s well field. He explained that he had solicited responsive bids from three firms, had received two proposals and was recommending that Council award the contract to Boyle Engineering . Brief questions followed relating to the request for proposals and the responding firms ' qualifications. Councilman Nimmo noted that he had opposed the expenditure from the beginning and reported that Crawford, Multari & Starr would be looking at this issue as part of the General Plan Environmental Impact Report . Councilwoman Borgeson and Councilman Shiers agreed that an independent study was needed . The mayor concurred with the staff ' s recommendation and proposed that the expense be shared with the Water Company. Public Comments : R.J. Ray, 5545 Vita, asked whether an outline had been made and presented to the prospective consultants. He asserted that the City will be paying for data which it already has. He explained that as a past water district manager he believed that the information could be gathered by calling upon governmental geological services, state hydrologists, the Corp of Engineers and others. Whitey Thorpe, agreeing with the previous speaker , stated that staff can put together the information that is needed by researching records that are already available. Mr . Ray addressed the Council once again and suggested that local retired engineers might be asked to volunteer their time and knowledge to provide the City with the information it seeks. Lengthy Council discussion followed relating to inviting CCO1/08/91 Page 9 Atascadero Mutual Water Company to share in the cost and results of the water study. Councilman Dexter suggested that the Water Company be given the opportunity to participate in the selection of the consultant . Councilwoman Borgeson reiterated that the study should be completely independent . She noted that she would go along with asking the Atascadero Mutual Water Company to share the cost and benefits of the study but was not supportive of the Water Company ' s involvement in selecting the consultant . Councilman Shiers agreed that he, too, did not want the Water Company to share in the selection process. He added that in this time of budget overruns, he would tend to support awarding the contract to The Morro Group , who had come in with a lower cost proposal . There was consensus among the Council that both consultant firms were equally qualified to perform the work . MOTION: By Councilman Dexter and seconded by Councilwoman Borgeson; to invite the Atascadero Mutual Water Company to participate with the City in sharing the cost and results of a water study conducted by The Morro Group ; and prior to awarding the contract, staff be directed to come back at the next meeting with acknowledgement of the Atascadero Mutual Water Company' s position; motion carried 4: 1 with Councilman Nimmo voting in opposition. 3. AUTHORIZATION TO AWARD CONSULTANT CONTRACT TO UNDERTAKE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Henry Engen gave the staff report recommending that the City Council accept the proposal of Crawford, Multari , and Starr to undertake the General Plan Update Environment Impact Report. He explained that he had sought proposals from four firms and that two had responded. Mr . Engen summarized the differences in the two proposals and outlined the anticipated time line and public hearing process. Questions and brief discussion followed . Councilman Nimmo indicated that he was troubled by the fact that there had been only four firms who were qualified to complete an E. I .R. ; and that there had been only two responses. He stated that although he believed Crawford, Multari , and Starr could perform the work, he would not support awarding the contract for CCO1/08/91 Page 10 preparation of the E. I .R. He proclaimed that the basis for the E. I .R. had already been formulated by a subcommittee and the result would be an E. I .R. that has locked in to it policy statements that have never been exposed to public hearing or been approved by the City Council . Mr . Nimmo also opposed to the firm ' s use of consultant services rendered by John Wallace and Associates. Councilwoman Borgeson, as a member of the General Plan Subcommittee, described the recommendation process as democratic and stated that it was time to continue that process by authorizing the E. I .R. Councilman Nimmo reiterated that he had not had any input into the Draft General Plan Update and he opposed strongly to controversial policy decisions embedded into the E. I .R. Henry Engen interjected that the Draft General Plan Update is a document that is evaluated , taken to hearing and experience change. He indicated that it was a CEQA requirement to do an E. I .R. as early in the process as possible and that it would be advantageous to prepare a broad-based E. I .R. as it will have to respond to the changes in the General Plan Update. The City Attorney advised that workshop meetings can be held to determine the scope of an E. I .R. , but the official General Plan hearings required by the government code cannot be conducted without the environmental review. He added that if the scope of the proposed E. I .R. is broad enough , changes can take place at the Council and Commission level and still be encompassed in the original document . Councilman Shiers indicated that he favored going ahead with awarding the contract even though there were not many firms to chose from. Councilwoman Borgeson concurred . MOTION: By Councilman Shiers and seconded by Councilwoman Borgeson to accept the proposal of Crawford, Multari , and Starr with Option A for traffic impact analysis together with appropriating an additional $15,000 to cover costs of the work; motion carried 4: 1 with Councilman Nimmo in opposition. 4. SEPERADO/CAYUCOS ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 4 - DEFERRED FEES The City Attorney gave an overview of his staff report and recommended that property owners who had not paid the $850.00 CC01 /08/91 It Page 11 annexation fee be given a specific due date to pay the fee. He advised that after a noticed public hearing a payment plan, including interest , could be scheduled by the City Council . Councilwoman Borgeson inquired as to the City ' s legal authority to assess interest and collect the fees. Mr . Montandon advised that Council could place on an agenda a Resolution of Intent and an ordinance allowing payments and interest. Councilwoman Borgeson expressed support for an easy payment plan. The City Attorney recommended that property owners be given until the end of June 1991 to pay the deferred fees. He reported that the fees could not be placed onto the County tax rolls until January of 1992 and advised that if payment had not been received by the suggested date, the procedure of assessing the properties begin. Installment payments, he suggested , could be spread out over a five year period at an interest rate of approximately 8.5% to 9%. By Council consensus property owners in the Seperado/Cayucos Assessment District were given until July 19 1991 to pay the deferred $850.00 annexation fee. It was agreed that if fees were not paid by this date, staff would be directed to begin the process of assessment and collection. MOTION: By Councilman Dexter and seconded by Councilman Shiers to extend the meeting past 11 :00 p .m. ; motion carried . b. AUTHORIZE TWO—YEAR EXTENSION OF CITY AUDITOR'S CONTRACT Mark Joseph presented the staff report and recommended that Council extend the contract with the current auditing firm of Glenn, Phillips & Bryson. Councilman Shiers announced that he was in agreement with staff ' s recommendation and made the following motion: MOTION: By Councilman Shiers and seconded by Councilman Dexter to extend by two years the existing contract with Glenn, Phillips & Bryson to provide audit services for the City of Atascadero ; motion unanimously carried. Mayor Lilley thanked the consultants for their assistance to the Finance Committee. 7. ATASCADERO LAKE PARK - POTENTIAL PROPERTY PURCHASE MOTION: By Councilman Dexter and seconded by Councilman Nimmo CCO1/08/91 Page 12 to direct staff to schedule a closed session to discuss the matter of potential property purchase in the area of the Lake Park ; motion carried . 8. APPLICATIONS FOR TRAFFIC COMMITTEE AND EX-OFFICIO STUDENT REPRESENTATIVES (Continued from 12/11 /90) The City Clerk presented background and asked Council for direction. Brief discussion followed relating to the Traffic Committee applicants. Councilwoman Borgeson indicated that she wanted -SET the opportunity to interview each of them. Council agreed to interview the four applicants for Traffic Committee and asked the Clerk to schedule the interviews, if possible, on the same day as the closed session for discussion on possible property purchase (see previous item) . Council appointed the following youth representatives: Natalie Regoli - Recycling Committee Lindsey Hays - Traffic Committee Belinda Wiley - Parks & Recreation Commission Nathan Koren - Student Alternate to the Parks & Recreation Commission D. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION: 1 . City Council : A. Committee Reports (The following represents ad hoc or standing committees. Informative status reports were given, as felt follows. ) : 1 . City/School Committee - Henry Engen reported that the committee would be meeting on January 24, 1991 at 1 :30 p .m. and indicated that minutes from the last meeting were included in the agenda packet . Councilwoman Borgeson requested that Council receive a full-up report on possible gang presence in the City. Chief McHale reported that his department was looking into the matter and stated that the City has not been singled out. The Police Chief stated that there were some unknowns to consider, but assured the Council that they, as well as the community, will be kept informed . CC01/08/91 Page 13 2. Interim Sign Committee - Mayor Lilley reported that a joint meeting with the Chamber of Commerce would soon be set and that it was hopeful that agreement might be reached on a theme for the downtown. 2. North Coastal Transit/S.L.O. Area Coordinating Council Councilwoman Borgeson reported that the Area Council had met on January 9, 1991 and presented an overview of the issues being addressed . She reminded the Councilmembers that the minutes of those meetings were mailed out to them. 4. Solid/Hazardous Waste Mgmt. Committee - Councilman Nimmo announced the next meeting date as January 9, 1991 and indicated that the Public Works Director would be in attendance. 5. Recycling Committee - Councilman Shiers announced that the committee had met just before Christmas and had discussed the Christmas Tree Recycling Program. He reported that the program had been successful and that the committee would be looking at other matters relating to green waste at their next meeting, January 10, 1991 . 2. City Attorney - No additional report . 3. City Clerk The City Clerk gave a brief report on her recent attendance at the League of California Cities ' New Law and Election seminar in Costa Mesa, California. In addition, she apprised the Council on her educational endeavors and new associations with professional organizations. The Clerk ' s Office, she added , had also acquired equipment that would enable the Council , staff and community to listen to or copy tapes of meetings held at City Hall . 4. City Treasurer Ms. Korba reported that the Treasurer ' s Report had received a few changes in format and indicated that additional revision could be expected. She explained that she would keep the Council abreast . MOTION: By Councilman Nimmo and seconded by Councilman Dexter to adjourn the meeting; motion carried. THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 11 :30 P.M. THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL WILL HE JANUARY 220 1991. CC01/08/91 Page 14 MEETIN / AGENDA DATE f zZ �1/ ITEM/ CITY OF ATASCADERO SCHEDUt.E OF CASH RECEIPTS AND TRANSFERS TREASURERIS REPORT FOR THE MONTH OF DECEMBER, 1999 CASH RECEIPTS: Property Taxes s 8!8,553.29 Sales Tax 131,692.45 Motor Vehicle In-Lieu 67,755.75 Cigarette Tax 49676.37 Sanitation Fees 271,212.32 License/Permit/Fees 399168.12 Franchise Fees 4,816.86 Fines/Ponalties/Overages 7,629.72 Investment Earnings 49194.49 Sales-Maps/Publications/Reports 495.98 Police Services 172.99 Peed Abatement 29,169.79 Parks and Recreations Fens 12,561.85 Miscellaneous 29326.71_ • Developer Fees 159849.19 Zoo Receipts 29493.55 Dial-A-Ride 29785.32 H.I.A: Dues 39 345.A9 A.D. 94 - Separado/Cayucos 379817.99 A.D. 45 - Chandler Ranch 199442.71 Street Maintenance Districts 49969.52 Gas Tax Receipts 469499.88 Administration Building Donation1.399.9A Sub-Total $1.6&S.591.52 Other Cash Receipts: Reimbursement to Expense 7,433.23 Total Other Receipts 7.433.23 TOTAL CASH RECEIPTS $1,626.9Z4_75 \ 1 i CITY OF ATASCADERO CASH ACTIVITY SUMMARY TREASURERS REPORT _ .. FOR THE MONTH OF DECEMBER, 1998 BEGINNING CASH RESOURCES ADD= RECEIPTS -- . 1.9626.9624.75 OTHER TRANSFERS/MISC. ADJUSTMENTS 269299.86 LESS: DISBURSEMENTS 8959728.68 ENDING CASH RESOURCES t 7.571.683.52 i i •. r ♦ .. v .. .� .. �. v ... .J _ .. w ./ �/ V N 0 in O rh -i ZIxwor l z I H x C N 7 y q O g w b q • b 1 i•1 -A \q < n bi X. It 6 y y D1 I 3 I 0 z q r-Z' q q to D h t w 1+- I q I w m y 7 r P.to •• r K to C H 1 1 d nID \�+•hh M hO 'f • 1 1 •• r•-r• •0 h 3 f7 d -A`f n 1 1 • It A n mK to -4. r z b h 1 1 hx D D S q q II1aaT anr)D "bN ~Z : mD, d r D -nx•y b I 1 la g n h cL C h m .•+ t I 711 O b h r I I TV 10 7 HD bN I 1 I M• K n �+ r y-0 y d 1 1 31\ 3 r d N 0 It C< 1 I m n n o I 1 �+I v 7 '•i y q q 10 I i N I 1 rl N S nO h S t 1 i h r.•I-1 1•b O -1 71 a y m m y h •Oq I i - O I t• C < •+ d I 1 - - 's l �•q A O -1 w• 1 1 CT t'1 CW M -1q C 1 1 bl wh0h3 -p V1 V 1 I DN-i h I ! h 3 O b N•rID + 0:I K g r h h ID. Cnl r N I I N ^ y C g K n Or V I w•O•0 W I 1 Om M. r.1 h h h C h 1 ',17 01 h l O r• N h + 1 • • • 1 3 1 c c K1� Z+0 I+•£ q PI MODmmm 1 0 1 Orx i -1 y y wb -i ml NW mmm 1 C I mmm -11 3 0 hr �+ WI mw mmm 1 y 1 n A ! -1 foto N.A7r \ I . . . 1 h 1 mo '•1 q q •5 Al 10 N1 mCnm m m 1 1 3'TI(n dl hd 0 h0 NI mrJmm@ 1 I w M 3 d 0 70 1 I t mC)A • C I y < r q < 1 1 i A D m 'sIQ q 7b G q 1 1 1 N'0 IDI \ x q rhZ i 1 rxO '1 1 h r I i •O A m 0 < y z 1 g b 0 < 3 I O 1 t0 D 1 I rcy to q I '1 i mz 1 S y r N r q zs 1 hN O q D zzDJrz I y I x 1 SSb yt0 \\NP\ I t7b 1 < i +O h D r h q M. D I d h I m 1 N £ rJ y 10•o Ih I+. 1 to q.0 It 7 a.ZI n m m I to 0 l I h m r S- 0 I I i r O Ot+v I I o. .<•.•o d K O dD 1 3 1 N h C N rt r N m I d l g 0 n q O 0 \\ 1 h I Cm ID C 6C zzNrz 1 C I D D\\D 1 d w I r r 1 0 X 1 1 I 1 2Cn fA o7 W I AH 1 \• 1 d y 1 • D V P A N 1 h h 1 PwN W I n) q I xxxx I -� t 1 q 1 ot A I r r 1 3 H j 10 y 1 r l •0 W VI y h I A I P m@ -m 1 I z• • i r I A l3.m m W mi K 0 1 l mlaamPmi hi W I N I g H l Cn i W� W l d y I It I V I Pimw0 1 rt-1 I J>P•oV l 0 q 1 A f z 1 1 O i W i \PmNtn 1 Ch 1 Ia Ommr 1 d I i MEETINO AGENDA DATE i ZZi ITEM II .CITY OF-ATASCADERO SCHEDULE OF DISBURSEMENTS FINANCE DIRECTORS REPORT FOR THE MONTH OF DECEMBER, 1995 DISBURSEMENTS: Hand Warrant Register for December 1999 S 799769.44 12/5/98 Accounts Payable Warrants 1229156.55 12/14/99 Accounts Payable Warrants 2559697.68 12/20/99 Accounts Payable Warrants 92,345.52 12/28/99 Accounts Payable Warrants 979550.46 12/5/99 Payroll Checks 192811-152963 129,235.83 12/19/99 Payroll Checks 102964-163126 129.395.21 TOTAL $ 197,1543.61 LESS: Voided Check 0 54967 s 98.09 Voided Check 0 54999 155.90 Voided Check # 54923 134.98 • Voided Check 0 53478 179.82 Voided Check 0 54669 390.93 Voided Check * 55149 271.99 Voided Check 9 53997 35.66 Voided Check * 54631 124.89 Voided Check 0 54393 69.00 SUB-TOTAL VOIDED CHECKS 1.429.93 TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS f 895.729.68 I, MARC A. JOSEPH, do. here" certify and declare that demands enumerated and referred to, in the foregoing register are .' accurate and just _ claims against the City and that there are funds available for payment thereof in the city Treasury. The breakdown detail on all accounts is available for your viewing in the Finance Office. MARC. JOSEPW • Administrati rvices Director AGENDA DAi Z ITEM# RESOLUTION NUMBER 2-91 A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO AMENDING RESOLUTION NUMBER 33-88 TO EXPAND THE LIST OF CERTIFIED ARBORISTS AUTHORIZED TO PREPARE; TREE PROTECTION PLANS IN THE CITY OF ATASCADERO WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Atascadero has adopted Resolution Number 33-88 designating arborists certified to prepare tree protection plans pursuant to Section 9-4 .155 (b) ; and WHEREAS, the International Society of Aboriculture (ISA) has certified additional individuals desirous of preparing tree protection plans within the City of Atascadero; and WHEREAS, amending such list is categorically exempt from the pro- visions of the California Environmental Quality Act. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Atascadero does resolve to add the following arborist to the list approved" by Resolution 33-88: • Tim O' Keefe #692 on motion- by and seconded by the motion was approved by the followTng roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: DATE: ADOPTED BY: ROBERT B. LILLEY, Mayor City of Atascadero, California ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: LEE DAYKA, City Clerk ARTHER MONTANDON, City Attorney APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: PREPARED BY: . A� RAY WINDSOR, City Manager HENRY ENGEN Community D velopment Director To: Atascadero City Council Date: January 8, 1990 Via: Mr. Henry Engen, Director Community Development From: Dr. Tim O'Keefe Re: Addition of Dr. O'Keefe to city approved list of certified arborists. As required by the City Tree Ordinance No. 168 (adopted April 12, 1988) section 9-4.155(b), I request- that my name be added to the list of ISA certified arborists recommended by the city. For your information, a copy of my TSA certificate is attached, together with a copy of my registration card, No. 692. Over the past 30 years, I have taught urban forestry at .different colleges and universities, throughout the country and overseas. At present, I am teaching in the Natural Resources Management Department at Cal Poly, and I will be working on a special World Bank forestry school project in Ethiopia this next year. Thank you for your consideration of my request. - '�'3': I 'YA?fXf :/• :.�{( .+ter... i'^•'_. �. '�..'; �. � 4nRA 'b \ i'"J "`a� w • 11111 Lff 7 t 7 hl CDu :. fJp • ,�pS10Mq� CHAPTER s = n fR ~ O � 99B�RICO��J�� � • OKi by ith i• . , : •• lOnal •clet the •.rl OrIzcd Si.,attire r •� e. 6130191 ) . ..ires i REPOR• T TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Items Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 1/22/91 it From: Greg Luke, Director of Public Works L i Subject: Emergency Force Main Replacement, Pump Station No. 2. Notice of Completion Recommendation: 1. Approve proposed Council Resolution 3-91 which will authorize the submission of the Notice of Completion for recordation. Background: During the months of October and November the force main serving Pump Station No. 2 broke five times undernormal working conditions. Sewer Pump Station No. 2 is located adjacent to the entrance to Atascadero State Hospital and the force main extends to the northwest beneath E1 Camino Real. That a force main would -fail so frequently within such a short period, after years of trouble • free service, is a very unusual circumstance. The probable cause of the pipe failure is that the years of pressure cycling has caused the thin walls of the plastic pipe to deteriorate. In order to avoid additional repair costs on the existing force main an emergency contract was entered into with 'Rick Elisarraras Excavation to replace the upstream end of the force main that was subjected to the highest working pressures. The informal bid procedure resulted in a cost of $21.00 per foot of installed pipe. Discussion: 1, 120 feet of pressure pipe were installed under this contract and the work is now complete. The proposed City Council action will serve as acceptance of the construction. Once the Notice of Completion is recorded the date of acceptance will mark the beginning of a 30 day deadline for subcontractors and suppliers to file claims and liens against the Contractor related to this project. Options: 1. Approve the notice of completion, proposed Council Resolution 3-91. 2. Don't approve the notice of completion and direct Staff to complete additional actions. Fiscal Impact: Option 1. The Contractor has been paid $23,770.46. The City currently retains $ 16,800 as a "labor and materials" guarantee. The amount retained will be released following 30 days from the approval of the notice of completion. Enclosures: 1. Proposed Council Resolution 3-91 2. Purchase -Order, City of Atascadero 3. Invoices, Rick Elisarraras Excavation • • RESOLUTION NO. 3-91 • RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO APPROVING THE NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE PUMP STATION NO. 2 FORCE MAIN REPLACEMENT WHEREAS, the Contractor has completed the project within the time constraints specified in the contract documents; and WHEREAS, the construction is complete as specified in the contract documents; and WHEREAS, the City continues to retain $ 16, 800.00 of the Contractor's funds as a "Labor and Materials" guarantee according to the contract documents; and WHEREAS, Section 3093 of the California Civil Code requires that the notice of completion shall be recorded in the office of the county recorder within 10 days after project completion; and WHEREAS, Section 3086 of the California Civil Code deems that completion of the work of improvement shall be the date of acceptance by the public agency. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT: • For the purposes of filing a notice of completion in the office of the county recorder the work specified by the contract documents for the replacement of a portion of the Pump Station No. 2 force main is hereby deemed accepted and complete. On motion by Councilperson , seconded by Councilperson the foregoing resolution is passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ADOPTED: ATTEST: LEE DAYKA, City Clerk ROBERT B. LILLEY, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: ARTHER R. MONTANDON GREG LUKE City Attorney Director of Public Works • • _ PURCHASE` _ x r ORDER NO. . 1918 1919 8 DATE - Ol 11 9I ` ,INVOICECO ESPONDENCE, � SHIPPING _ PAPER AND ALL PACKAGES REFERENCE P.O. NO. TO tick Elisarraras Excavation SEND ALL INVOICES TO: P 0 Boz 122 _ City of Atascadero Atascadero, CA. 93423 6500 Palma Atascadero, CA 93422 Finance Department CONFIRMING ORDER DO NOT DUPLICATE VENDOR I.D.# 1D933 OTY. UNIT DESCRIPTION PRICE ACCOUNT NO. Statement Dated: 12siift 01-08-91 El Camino Real Seser Fsoce ?Iain 1120 ft @ $21.00 per linear ft 23,520.00 201-50501-430 • Statement Dated: 01-08-91 Sewer Force Plain: Test Plug Concrete for Tbtrust Blocks 250.46 201-20140-430 Totals $23,770.46 SSU SHIP TO De t. Public Works/. W.W.T.P. p DEPARTMENT HEAD Address _� • PURCHASING AGENT DEPT.COPY City of Atascaaero,CaIM DESCRIPTION REFERENCE Na ACCOUNT CLASSIFICATION AMOUNT 4 1 I Work on El Camino Real Sewer Force Main 90-153 201-50501-0430 $23,770.46 iE i ISSUE CHECK NET AMOUNT DATE VENDOR N0. NUMBER 49146 OF CHECK $23,770. 46 ❑ CITY OF MID STATE BANK 90.311 ATASCADERO,CA 931231222 — tascade�® - OT INOO�rou,res guar:.�s�� 49146 CHECK NO. 49146 ATASCADERO,CALIFORNIA 93423 ****PAY***23,770*DOLLARS*AND*46*CENTS**** THIS CHECK IS VOID SIX MONTHS AFTER ISSUE DATE WILL PAY TO R2CR ELISARRARAS EXCAVATION ISSUE DATE CHECK AMOUNT • TMEsox 1221/11/91 ORDER OF P• O• 1�l l�91 ATASCADERO, CA 93423 a0u npwum Total: $23,770.46 S� SHIP TO Public Works/ W.W.T.P. ,. '- Deo. DEPARTMENT HEAD • Address � / PURCHASING AGENT DEPT. COPY Rick Elisarraras Excavation Contractor's License Number 324751 • Post Office Box 122 • Atascadero, Califomia 93423 • (805) 466-0659 DATE JOB DESCRIPTION AMOUNT Z 2- ' 00 ApPa°MENS Y'. TOTAL INTEREST AT 1-1/2% PER MONTH (18% PER ANNUM) CHARGED ON DELINQUENT ACCOUNTS. f Rick Elisarraras Excavation • Contractor's License Number324751 Post Office Box 122 • Atascadero, California 93423 • (805) 466-0659 DATE JOB DESCRIPTION y 7 AMOUNT e ; �u % s i 3 TOTAL INTEREST AT 1-1/2% PER MONTH (18% PER ANNUM) CHARGED ON DELINQUENT ACCOUNTS. • REPORT TO CITY COUNCILAGENDA ITEM: CITY OF ATASCADERO THROUGH: Ray Windsor, City Manager MEETING DATE: FROM: Andrew J. Takata, Director Department of Parks. Recreation and Zoo i SUBJECT: BID NUMBER 90-19 - MODULAR PLAY STRUCTURE ADDITIONS RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends City Council award Bid Number 90-19, in the amount of $7,536.98 to: ED HINDT INSTALLATION 125 DANDELION LANE TEMPLETON, CALIFORNIA 93465 • DISCUSSION: Ed Hindt Installation was the only bid received within the required time frame with a bid price. Two other formal bid declines were received. Staff has reviewed the background and qualifications of Ed Hindt Installation and has found them to be acceptable.' FISCAL IMPACT: Funds sufficient to fund this contract have been allocated for fiscal year 1990/91. AJT:kv ;bid90-19 • BID SUMMARY • TO: , Andy Takata , Director Department of Parks , Recreation & Zoo FROM: Lee Dayka City Cl ?rk BID NO. 90-19 OPENED 12/20/90 2:00 A.M. PROJECT: Modular Play Structure Additions The following bias were �-oceived and opened as follows: Name of Company Bid Price B.-i Hindt Installation -- $7,536 . 98 125 Dande l on L..are Templeton, CA 9'34b5 i_ .A . Steelcr—aft P ,, �;cfs - - i No Bid P.'�. 304 Pasadena , CA 91103 • R.G. Detme,-es As-scc =tes No Sic �' .0. ?_ox 2244 Atta--hm2nt : Bid - Fd Nindt Installation cm: . -athy , =ir,anc= • • BID 90-19(cont ' d) Bid Form Page 2 To the CITY PURCHASING AGENT: In compliance with the above invitation for bids, and subject to all the conditions thereof, the undersigned offers, and agrees, if this bid be accepted within 30 days from the date of the opening , to furnish any or all of the items upon which prices are quoted , at the price set opposite each item, delivered at the point as specified and, unless otherwise specified within fifteen days after receipt of order . Discount of ' //T j will be allowed for payment within 30 days from date of delivery. H;(authorized en I IMPORTANT INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDER I A- I Bids must be sealed and I B • I addressed to : I signat re) i CITY OF ATASCADERO I Title City Clerk I 6500 Palma Avenue I I Atascadero , CA 93422 I Mark Envelope: "Bid No . 90-19 1 (ONE COPY OF THIS BID TO BE RETAINED BY BIDDER) ACCEPTED as to items numbered CITY OF ATASCADERO Date Order ( s) No . By Purchasing Agent • Bid 90-19 Page 6 BID FORM The undersigned bids as follows: Item I QtY• I Unit I Description I Total 1 5 ' & 6 ' 6" deck assembly color : brown 2 Climber 3 Ladder 3 ' to 5 ' deck 4 Wall (3 each ) 5 Slide • Subtotal /71=-� Sales Tax TOTAL • REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO _Agenda Item: A- 2 Through : Ray Windsor , City Manager Meeting Date : 1 /22/91 From: Mark Joseph, Administrative Services Director �� SUBJECT: Renewal of Health Insurance Policies RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Council authorize the City Manager to sign the contracts for Medical, Dental . Vision and Life Insurance CoveraQe. BACKGROUND: As Council may recall , our prior insurance cost increases were as high as 47;; . Per Council direction, staff met with the Health Insurance Committee to explore options available to us , with a goal to minimize premium costs for the next renewal period . As a result of the Committee 's efforts, the City has avoided • approximately $35 ,000 in increased premiums that would have occurred if no action were taker. At this point in time, instead of the annual adjustment to o�jr Insurance Budget , we should be able to absoi-b the miner co=t increase . I • Lifeguard Health Maintenance Organization GROUP APPLICATION ~T6 usEOLmo COPY YELLOW—COP43UMNOO suescal"1 COPY 00 not use shaded areas. PINK-LIFEOwoo cow EMPLOYER NAME (INCLUDE PUNCTUATION AND ABBREVIATIONS) Zc;P,ROSPECE NQ�r• -.0- City of Atascadero -a. -' `n - POLICY HOLDER NAME GROUP NQ- ,• City of Atascadero BUSINESS STREET CITY STATE ZIP CODE ADDRESS 6500 Palma Avenue, Atascadero, CA 93422 BILLING STREET CITY STATE ZIP CODE ADDRESS 6500 Palma Avenue, Atascadero, CA 93422 OFFICER NAME TITLE TELEPHONE CONTACT TITLE TELEPHONE PERSON Alicia Lara Personnel Coordinator (805) 461-5015 TYPE OF TOTAL EMPLOYEES TOTAL ELIGIBLE TOTAL.ENROLLED BUSINESS Government I 104 104 43/128. TYPE OF ORGANIZATION DOES THIS GROUP PLAN TO OFFER OTHER/ADDITIONAL COVERAGE? A CORPORATION K POLITICAL SUBDIVISION B SOLE PROPRIETORSHIP F TRUSTEE GROUP YES dC Healthnet HMO NO o C PARTNERSHIP G UNION IF �Ejji�OI&XL�%-d PPO 0 NON-PROFIT H ASSOCIATION (OTHER/ADDITIONAL CARRIERS) SUBSIDIARY OR AFFILIATED COMPANIES: EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTION: (NAMES & ADDRESSES) Single $142.35 A. NA 2 party *-** C Family***Y First�lday olomonthDafter date Of LAN �q anAC C� En PLAN EFFECTIVE DATE: . hire unless hired first da, of S4 Rx November 1 . 1990 PP • ' LtRkBY MAKE APPLICATION FOR LIFEGUARD HEALTH COVERAGE ON BEHALF OF TO BECOME EFFECTIVE ON Nnuiamher 1 1990 THE GROUP HEREWITH TENDERS THE AMOUNT S .— AND, IN CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF TH15 APPLICATION IT PROMISES TO PAY LIFEGUARD AS APPROPRIATE ANY BALA CE NECESSARY TO CONSTITUTE THE FULL INITIAL PAYMENT FCR GROUP BENEFITS HEREIN IDENTIFIED IN THE APPLICATION. IT IS UNDERSTOOD TWAT THE INITIAL AND FUTURE MONTHLY REPAYMENT FEES WILL BE DETERMINED FROM THE ENROLL- MENT OATA. I HEREBY AGREE TO MAKE ANY NECESSARY EMPLOYEE PREMIUM DEDUCTIONS. BY WAY OF PAYROLL WITH- HOLDINGS AND TO REMIT ALL PREMIUMS TO LIFEGUARD ON A TIMELY BASIS. IT IS UNDERSTOOD THAT LIFEGUARD HAS THE RIGHT TO ACCEPT OR REJECT THIS APPLICATION. AND COVERAGE WILL NOT COMMENCE UNTIL THIS APPLICATION HAS BEEN ACCEPTED. aNil EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTION FOR DEPENDENTS IS BASED UPON AGREEMENTS WITH INDIVIDUAL BARGAINING UNITS. SEE ATTACHED SCHEDULE FOR ACTUAL AMOUNTS FOR EACH UNIT. DATED AT THIS DAY OF 19 AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE PRINT OR TYPE NAME AND TITLE NAME HanS Rardel & Barbara Antanavich PRINT OR TYPE AGENT/BROKER NAME AND SSA NO. i ivaf HuM MeirMM" P.Q Box S30Q�Sen Jor.CA 951SOi330s ( 9�3�100 @ ' CITY-PAID DEPENDENT HEALTH CONTRIBUTION • BY BARGAINING UNIT ^lanagemert 9S LG 29"."'5 i-iN 26° .as ^^ic-management/Pro fess io.-jai BS 368. 49 LG 297.75 HN 269.95 Confidential SS 368.49 LG 297.75 HN 269.85 SE.0 - General Services/Clerical BS 22. 15 LG 180. 18 HN 166.86 ASSO. APOA 140. 42 APSTO 140.42 Fire Captains - Firefighters 140.42 *BS Blue Shield Lu - Lifeguard HN - Health Net i w1 _ SUPPLEMENTAL OUTPATIENT PRESCRIPTION DRUG BENEFIT AGREEMENT TO GROUP AGREEMENT#A 7 0 4 • LIFEGUARD, INC. A HEALTH MAINTENANCE ORGANIZATION SERVING SANTA CLARA, ALAMEDA.CONTRA COSTA,STANISLAUS, SAN JOAQUIN, SAN MATEO.SOLANO, SANTA CRUZ, SAN LUIS OBISPO,MERCED, SONOMA,AND NAPA COUNTIES AGREES TO PROVIDE SUPPLEMENTAL OUTPATIENT PRESCRIPTION DRUG BENEFITS, AS HEREIN SPECIFIED, FOR SUCH EMPLOYEES OF: CITY OF ATASCADERO (herein called"the Employer") and such of their eligible Family Members, defined in the Group Agreement, as have been enrolled in the underlying Group Agreement# A7 0 4 subject to all of the temp and conditions set forth on the subsequent pages hereof,which are part of this Agreement as fully as if appearing over the signature hereto. The Supplemental Outpatient Prescription Drug Benefit Agreement will become effective on November 1 . 1 at 12:01 A.M. standard time on the above mentioned date in Santa Clara County and will remain in effect for thj* term of one month from said date,and with the consent of LIFEGUARD,INC,,from month to month thereafter. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, LIFEGUARD, INC. and the Employer have caused this Supplemental Outpatient Prescription Drug Benefit to be signed by their respective officers thereunto duly authorized as of the Effective Date heieoL CITY OF ATASCADERO Lim BY: BY: ECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT BY: BY: (�L '�\, ACCO ECUTIVE DATED: DATED: OV 1 ,5 laa") w� ry Health Maintenance Organization P.O.Box 5506.San Jose.CA 95150 r GROUP AGREEMENT NO. A 7 n a LIFEGUARD, INC. A HEALTH MAINTENANCE ORGANIZATION SERVING SANTA CLARA, ALAMEDA, CONTRA COSTA, STANISLAUS, SAN JOAQUIN, SAN MATEO, SOLANO, SANTA CRUZ, SAN LUIS OBISPO, MERCED, SONOMA, AND NAPA COUNTIES AGREES TO PROVIDE BENEFITS, AS HEREIN SPECIFIED, FOR SUCH EMPLOYEES, OF CITY OF ATASCADERO herein called "the Employer" ALICIA LARA Group Representative "full name" and such of their eligible Family Members, herein defined, as have been enrolled hereunder, subject to all of the terms and conditions set forth on the subsequent pages hereof, which are a part of this Agreement as fully as if appearing over the signature hereto. • This Agreement will become effective on November 1 , 19 90 , at 12:01 a.m. standard time on the above mentioned date in Santa Clara County and will remain in effect for the term of one month from said date, and with the consent of Lifeguard Inc. from month to month thereafter. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Lifeguard Inc. and the Employer have caused this Agreement to be signed by their respective officers thereunto duly authorized as of the Effective Date hereof. CTTY nF aTA4C'Ar)FR0 BY: BY: EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT BY: BY: ACC U CU E DATE: DATE: NOV 1, • w, Health Maintenance Organization P.O.Box 5506,Sen Jose.CA 95150-5506 APPUC4T/ON/S HEREBY MADE TO BLUE SHIELD of California (Califomia Physicians' Service) FOR A GROUP HEALTH SERVICE CONTRACT BY CITZ Or ATASCADESO whose main post office address is: 6500 Palma Atascadero, California 93422 This Contract, number !20355 (VISION), shall be effective November 1, 1990. It has been read and approved, and the terms and conditions are accepted by the Contractholder. This application is executed in duplicate. The Contractholder shall sign, date and return the original application page to Blue Shield of California, Two North Point, San Francisco, California 94133. The Contract shall be retained by the Contractholder. It is agreed that this application supersedes any previous application for this Contract. Dated at • this day of 19 (Legal Nasse of Applicant) By Title As Contra•-tholder. yon are resmnsible for scribers as soon as oossible And 3s aa► case no later than 30 days after receiot) all cbanaes in benefits and in anZ vrovisions affecting benefits PLEASE SIG1/, DA= AND BETURW TM ORIGINAL APPLICATION PAGE TO BLUE SBIRLD Or CALIFORNIA AT TBE ABOVE ADDRESS. MAIN M33 CONTRACT. Inquiries concerning any problems that may develop in the administration of this Contract should be directed to Blue Shield of California at the above address. •s ® BLUE SHIELD of California • GC-AP APPL/C47ION IS HEREBY MADE 70 BLUE SHIELD of California (Caiifomia Physicians' Service) FOR A GROUP HEALTH SERVICE CONTRACT Br MW CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA whose main post office address is: 6500 PALMA ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA 93422 This Contract, number 917156-000, shall be effective November 1, 1990. It has been read and approved, and the terms and conditions are accepted by the Contractholder. This application is executed in duplicate. The Contractholder shall sign, date and return the original application page to Blue Shield of California, Two Horth Point, San Francisco, California 94133. The Contract shall be retained by the Contractholder. It is agreed that this application supersedes any previous application for this Contract. Dated at this day of 19 (Legal Sme of Applicant) ey Title As Contractholder von are resronsible for ccatinq to Subscribers as e�w as Dossible (and in anv case n4 later than 30 days after receivt) all a in benefits and in aav oravisions affecting benefits. PLEASE SIM, DATA AND RNTURff TBE ORIGISAL APPLICATIO>ef PAGE TO BLUE SHIELD O! CALIlOMIA AT TBi A809E ADDRESS. MAIN TBE CONTRACT. Inquiries concerning any problems that may develop in the administration of this Contract should be directed to Blue Shield of California at the above address. ® BLUE SHIELD of California GC-AP APPLICATION IS HEREBY MADE TO • CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS' INSURANCE CORPORATION SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA for the insurance afforded by Group Policy No. 917156-000/001, the terms of which are hereby accepted and approved to take effect on November 1, 1990, as specified in the Policy. It is agreed that this application, which is executed in duplicate, supersedes any previous application for this Policy. Dated at Applicant THE CITY OF ATASCADERO CALIFORNIA Address 6500 PALMA, ATASCADERO CALIFORNIA 93422 By • Title Agent PLIAS! SIGN AND RSZVRN ORIGINAL ZO CALIFORNIA PWSICIABS' INSVRAMM CORPORATI® ° CFTC CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS' INSURANCE CORPORATION P.O. BOX 7725 • SAN FRANCISCO • CA 94120-7725 • QP A^1 roar► 1 • DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF CALIFORNIA (A Not-for-profit Corporation) P.O. BOX 7736, San Francisco, California 94120 Group #9206 I APPLICATION FOR DENTAL CARE SERVICE CONTRACT CITY OF ATASCADERO, herein sometimes called "Applicant", hereby applies for a DENTAL CARE SERVICE CONTRACT with DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF CALIFORNIA, herein called "Delta" on the following terms: I. Applicant agrees to pay to Delta, monthly in advance, the Dues specified on behalf of each Employee eligible under this Contract. II. Upon acceptance of this Application by Delta and payment by the Applicant of the Initial Dues, specified in Section 3.01 of the Contract, the Effective Date of the Contract shall be 12:01 a.m. , on the first day of November, 1990, and the j Contract shall continue until terminated in accordance with the provisions therein. III. Applicant designates a Group Representative, named below, who shall be responsible for providing to each Eligible Employee a copy of the Evidence of Coverage furnished to Applicant by Delta and for disseminating all notices delivered by Delta to Applicant affecting the rights of such employee under this Contract within a reasonable time but in no event later than thirty (30) days after receipt. Date• GROUP REPRESENTATIVE By: (Name) (Authorized Signature) (Address) (Title) By: By: 2-81 AD/RET -1- ,.1 REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: From: Greg Luke, Director of Public Works Recommendations: 1. That the existing waste disposal program be modified to provide residential customer service based upon a volume rate schedule: A. Specifically, that Council adopt a residential rate schedule as indicated in Mark Joseph's memo (designated attachment E) . This approval by Council will adjust residential rates overall by 12%. B. It is also recommended that Council authorize an across-the-board increase for commercial rates of 12% previously requested by Wil-Mar. • 2 . That said rates shall be effective March 1, 1991. 3 . That said rates shall be reviewed by Wil-Mar and staff and reported back to Council in July 1991. 4. That Council indicate its approval for the implementation of an Integrated Waste Management program through Wil-Mar involving the following, all to be effective January 1, 1992• A. Mandatory waste disposal B. Curbside recycling as proposed by the Recycling Committee C. Green waste disposal as proposed by the Recycling Committee 5. That Council direct staff to begin, immediately, to work with Wil-Mar and the Recycling Committee to develop the various components of an Integrated Waste Management Program, including legal documents, proposed rates, etc. ,_ in order that Council may review and act on such no later than September 1, 1991. 6. That, until new contract language, terms and conditions can be formulated related to an Integrated Waste Management Program, Council authorize a two (2) -year extension on the existing contract with Wil-Mar in order • to provide the assurance necessary for Wil-Mar to invest in capital equipment associated with the components of an Integrated Waste Management Program. 7. That Council endorse a comprehensive educational/informational program (i.e. City-wide mailing) related to the Integrated Waste Management Program and direct staff to provide an appropriate budgetary figure. Discussion• The proposal being presented to establish an Integrated Waste Management Program in Atascadero can be broken down into five components: 1) mandatory trash pick-up, 2) curbside pick-up of recyclable materials, 3) recycling of green materials, 4) collection pricing structure and 5) program administration. Together they form a comprehensive integrated waste management and recycling program. This staff report will summarize each component as they have evolved through the work of the recycling committee and through discussion during several City Council workshops. Previously prepared reports are included as reference material • which provide more details on each component. In particular, your attention is directed to the original Recycling Committee Report to the City Council (designated attachment A) which addresses many details -of a comprehensive recycling program not included in this report. As a preface to the discussion it is necessary to point out that the program is comprehensive and therefore has many facets that are detailed and sometimes controversial. Recycling, as a technical subject, is in its infancy and many of the strategies and programs proposed do not have the long history of operational experience enjoyed by other municipal programs, such as safety services or wastewater treatment operations. Because all recycling programs are pioneering new ground, Council is faced with a dilemma. Should the City take a cautions "Go Slow" approach, or a bold and aggressive position? The benefits and drawbacks of each path are fairly evident. The broad complexity of the issue coupled with fundamental questions about how aggressively the City should pursue recycling complicate the Council's decision. By individually addressing each of the components listed below, the entire subject can be reviewed in a thorough- and progressive manner. 1. Mandatory Trash Pick-Up Staff's m emorandumB desi Hated attachment ( g ) addresses this issue. Considerable public debate in previous Council meetings has brought out the salient issues. Arguments for Mandatory Trash Pick-Up a. Allowing people to haul their wastes to the landfill shifts the cost burden for a recycling program onto the citizens who pay for trash pick-up. b. State law requires an overall reduction of solid wastes. This value reduction can be accomplished only if all citizen's in participate an integrated trash collection/recycling program. C. Illegal dumping of solid P g wastes to commercial bins or on the ground will be reduced. d. The contract waste hauler can operate more efficiently, thus reducing the cost of pick-up for each household. Arguments Against Mandatory Trash Pick-Up a. City Government is forcing a service and a fee upon • residents who want neither. b. Most people who do not have trash pick-up service now recycle a large portion of their waste utilizing composting, recycling centers, etc. C. Mandatory trash pick-up will require Wil-Mar to travel into remote sections of the City and actually increase collection costs for all residents. Conclusion Staff believes that positive control of the waste stream and .the associated equitable distribution of costs to recycle make mandatory pick-up essential. 2 . Curbside Pick-Up of Recyclable Materials (Note: The term "curbside pick-up" refers to the collection of the classically recyclable materials, such as glass, aluminum, newspapers, etc. It does not include green materials which will be discussed in the following section) The program proposed by the Recycling Committee for curbside pick-up is presented in the memorandum (designated attachment C) . Basically a program of partially segregated materials is proposed. The Homeowner would be provided with three containers that stack upon each other. Newsprint will be placed in one container. All other items will be placed co-mingled in the third container. Curbside pick-up would be on the same day as the trash pick- up. A three section truck would be used to transport the collected materials. Initially the collection truck would simply transfer its load to large, transport trucks that would carry the material to recycling centers located throughout Central California. Analysis The curbside recycling system being proposed is highly flexible. As technology, equipment, processing facilities and product markets change, the curbside pick-up programs can be easily modified to match almost any future system. To implement the curbside recycling program proposed_ requires that a collection truck and stackable curbside containers be purchased. If, in the future, the City chooses to expand the type of materials collected, chooses to construct and operate a central sorting or processing facility or regional processing facilities come to fruition, the initial equipment will still be necessary to collect the segregated material. Staff believes the proposed curbside recycling program is a reasonable first step. Capital costs will be held to a minimum, a significant amount of recyclable materials will be removed from the waste stream, and it is sufficiently flexible to conform to any future system. 3 . Recycling of Green Materials • The report from the Recycling Committee (designated attachment D) addresses the recycling of green materials, i.e. yard wastes, branches, etc. in detail. Basically their proposal is to collect green materials on a monthly basis. The vegetative material would be placed next to the curb in either garbage cans supplied by the property owner or in 3' long bundles tied together. Green material would be collected by a regular garbage truck capable of compressing the waste. The trucks would carry the material to one of several processing yards that have expressed interest in taking the waste. Those companies that are willing to accept green material includes Dirtman Trucking, Rossi Transport and Western Forest Power. The Recycling Committee report strongly urges the City to become active in the Green Materials Recycling Program by providing a storage yard and some basic equipment to process the materials. A potential site is available at the sewage treatment plant. The acre site in question is archaeologically sensitive and cannot be disturbed without exhaustive (and expensive) archeological analysis. Virtually any new sewage treatment facilities would require underground construction for piping, foundations, utilities, etc. Consequently, the site is of limited use for plant operations. A green material processing yard would not disturb the underlying archaeological site. . Conclusion • Staff believes thero osed Green Material Program, consisting P P g sting of once a month pick up and processing by a private company is a logical way for the City to begin dealing with green material with only minimal financial risk. With vegetative materials consisting of approximately 25% of the waste stream, it seems prudent to direct an effort at reducing this component, thus meeting a substantial reduction required by AB939. With regard to the Committee's suggestion that the City become more actively involved in the processing of green materials, staff feels this step is premature. Implementing a City-wide recycling program will require considerable effort and monitoring. For the City to undertake another aggressive program seems imprudent at this time. Perhaps after 12-18 months of operating history the City will be ready to expand the recycling program, or to take a more active role. 4. Collection Pricing Structure Considerable discussion has occurred regarding a "volume based" rate structure where citizens who produce a low-volume of waste are afforded a cost savings and high volume producers pay proportionately higher for trash pick-up. The enclosed memorandum from Mark Joseph (designated attachment E) examines the rate • structure issue, as it pertains to the existing waste disposal program. Obviously, at such time as the city is ready to implement a Comprehensive Integrated Waste Management program, further rate analysis and recommendations will be necessary. Analysis The volume based rate structure is a logical incentive for each household to reduce their volume of waste generated. With both a curbside recycling program and a green materials program in place, a means will be provided to make the necessary waste reduction. The volume based rate structure will clearly induce people to use the recycling programs. Volume based rate structure has an intended purpose, however, like all rate structures, the change will not necessarily be a relief to everyone. Large families will probably be unable to achieve the "one can" rate regardless of their effort to recycle. Similarly, some households will achieve the lower rate with little effort. However, with this rate structure in place there certainly will be a practical incentive for homeowners to reduce volume. In addition everyone pays equally on a unit basis, in that a cubic foot of -trash will cost approximately the same regardless of the quantity of waste placed for pick-up. • 5. Program Administration Considerable discussion has occurred regarding how the • recycling program should be administered. One option is to expand the contract of the existing waste hauler (Wil-Mar) to include the recycling collection, processing, and disposal functions. This option has numerous advantages, including 1) knowledge of company performance, 2) linkage of similar tasks with waste collection 3) ease of billing and 4) increased control over rates through City audits of the comprehensive program. The second option is to put the recycling tasks out to bid. The advantages of this choice include: 1) the competitive marketplace' could result in more efficient costs and 2) competition may foster innovative methods for improving the overall efficiency of the recycling program. Both options have clear advantages. The Recycling Committee is divided on the question. Wil-Mar's long-term dependability, and consistent service certainly weighs heavily toward simply rolling the recycling duties into their existing waste collection contract as opposed to risking the possible downside of a low bid award. Another administrative matter that must be resolved is the implementation schedule. The following outline lists the time constraints: 1. Mandatory Pick-up - up to 6 months will be required to • identify all households that do not currently have voluntary pick-up. An enabling ordinance will also be required. 2 . Curbside Recycling - up to 8 months is necessary to obtain the necessary collection equipment and distribute the curbside containers, and implement a program. 3 . Green Materials - The program can be implemented in up to 3 months. Conclusion With respect to the contract for recycling services, it is staff's opinion that Wil-Mar should be granted a 5-year extension on their contract for the implementation of the Integrated Waste Management program. The recycling program is closely interwoven with the regular trash collection. A long-term contract is necessary to allow the company to pay for the equipment financing and appropriate overhead. Staff's opinion is predicated upon the condition that periodic reviews be conducted examining both the level of service and the associated cost. These reviews will provide the Council and the community with a clear picture of program effectiveness. • • With regard to the implementation schedule, the following program is recommended: Step Program Implementation Date 1. Volume-Based Rate Structure 3-1-91 2. Green Materials Program 6-1-91 3 . Curbside Recycling Program 9-1-91 4. Mandatory Pick-Up 1-1-92 In light of the time frames indicated above, staff recommends that Council proceed to act on the various elements of the waste management program identified herein. Adopting a phased program alerts the community to the implementation dates. It also permits Wil-Mar time to both acquire the necessary capital equipment as well as complete the necessary legal documentation. Staff recommends that steps 2, 3 and 4 be initiated together on January 1, 1992. While we recognize that such a delay could impact our commitment to meet the goal of AB939, it will allow the City through the Recycling Committee, and Wil-Mar to undertake a more rigorous public education program of the various elements, thus hopefully minimizing confusion over the issue and providing a clearer understanding of the city's goals. • • ATTACHMENT A i RECYCLING COMMITTEE REPORT • TO THE CITY COUNCIL I . Introduction The Recycling Committe was appointed by the Citj Council as an Ad Hoc Committee to investigate methodology for reducing the solid waste stream and promote the recycling of materials that have traditionally been discarded as trash . The Committee has met regularly for the past year to discuss and research the wide range of topics associated with solid waste. The term recycling is often implied to mean the full array of alternative methods for reducing the quantity of waste that is currently disposed _ of at the landfill . The more strict meaning of recycling is the extraction and reuse of materials from the waste stream. The ' Committee quickly realized that recycling is only one component of the larger task of reducing the volume of solid waste . The enactment of tough solid waste legislative mandates coupled with emerging alternative waste handling technology and a growing public concern over the environmental problems caused t by landfills , is causing a complete re-shaping of our waste disposal practices . To achieve more environmentally sensitive • techniques of handling solid waste will require considerable time and effort . The Recycling Committee is pleased to present this report to initiate a program to redirect Atascadero' s waste disposal practices for many decades into the future. II . Administration The administration of an integrated waste management program will require cooperation and manpower. An on-going educational and advertising program must be established. City staff must be available to coordinate th program as well as administer contracts . liaison with regional planning efforts and update the City Council . A group of people trained to assist commercial industrial and multi-family units should be available to the community as ombudsmen and waste auditors . 1 III . Recycling vs Precyclina In an emerging technical field, new terminology often easily conveys important new concepts . The term "Precycling" is such a tern. It refers to the wide variety cr methods to keep solid waste from entering the waste StYea.3. Exam-pies or precycling include : (1) Encouraging product manufacturers to minimize bulky, non—recyclable packaging; (2) encouraging consumers to buy products that are sold in recy-lable packaging; (3) utilizing techniques that do not generate disposable solid waste, such as bringing carrying containers to stores or using cloth diapers rather than disposable ones : and (4) becoming more aware of everyday activities that produce significant quantities of solid waste and then looking for methcs to change that activity to reduce waste production . The concept of recycling is often viewed rather narrowly . Taking glass , aluminum, and newspaper to a recycling center is the common concept of "recycling" . However, reusing materials at home or business -is an often overlooked met:lod of recycling. Composting yard waste, cutting up tree -trimmings and old wood for kindling, swapping excess paint with Neighbors , using newspapers for mulch , taking waste oil , tires , etc . , to area recyclers and a host of other practical techniques can be employed to increase recycling and decrease trash volume . IV . Recvclina Goals and Strategies State law requires that cities reduce the volume of solid waste entering landfills by 25% by 1995 and 50% by the year 2000 . The goal of the recycling program described in this report is to reduce the waste stream 25% . Expansion of this program and the implementation of additiona= waste reduction strategies will be necessary to reach the 50% riaduction mandated by state law. To effectively intercept and control the flow of waste to the landfill , plus fairly distribute the cost c= waste recycling and disposal , it is essential that Atascadero implement a mandatory waste collection system. Monitoring -the volume and composition of the waste stream without total participation would be impossible. Revenues generated from the sale of materials collected for recycling can be exmeczed to cover only a fraction of the total cost of collecting, processing and marketing these materials . This service is best financed by incorporating the cost of the program in the monthly garbage collection rate. Additionally, mandatory garbage collection reduces the incidences of illegal dumping and burning plus reduces the amount of traffic at the landfill . 2 Thearba collection L • g ge coil_ct ' on ramie structure is another factor pro InffllieTCeS the success Of waste reduction recvC ; , - provide 7 _r7radition3L flat-rate and variable-canar3te 3yStor. nz `o no incentive reduce rate S=_ 1CL=r'- chs- t0 _ X111 Wa3_'_ • % vO-6UM�-^�`Sa_ ?'� for the amount - `�a.-mob.! DYr, O: gat dCT3 COL?eCta� •^•g 3n econcmi_ i:lCenti'• e LO reduC- waste basedsyst Sf10LLC ba3e its garbage Collection rate On a Vol=mo- b3Sed 3_/St=m, A. Curbside ColTeC_ion Of Recyclable Ma- The a= A n e thpu_pose o= this Program is to provide a conVenien- m ans or local residents to remove recyclable materials from the waste stream and Promote the concept. o:- _re cycling and waste r„cacti?n� The empilas'_3 is on maxim- ing Participation by (a) ng Pickup convenient , and (b) stricturing the rate schedule t0 provide an incentive to recycle and reduce wast? . This program will initially ba available to all , residences w' eventual single-family with ►ztia_ expansiion to multi-family and Commercial establishments . The materials targetedfor Collection include • gLass aluminum. beverage cont3i 1er3) (-�jr1Z7� tin cans . PET (plastic newspapers . (Plastic milk Containers) and F'rog"'am Description : 1) All single-family residences will receive T rye T � • gallon Stacka'-lo containers . NeWSZrin, n on: wZl_ ':]9 L?13C?i I Container Mixed glass will be placed in another ed e c_ Diner All other i` -mz will be placed co-ming---d in the third container . This system provides for p es rot the can-lenient separation and storage Of recyclable materials in the hor„e. It segre the materials in 3 manner that minimizes contamination on and L3Cilit3teS C?T ?eCtiOn, Processing and marketing. e2) The containers W_11 be DL3Ce2 at :^.e C'1rbS:.dB t? .^.� P1r_:C d up by the . garbage COmnanv On the same l d3� 3S the regular garbage collection . 3) Recycled materials will be trans___ e2 to aProoriate storagelshipping containers and transported directly z �O rec"Cling mills or in the Case of the Co-mingled materials transported to a processing facility wheSe th- e items will be separated and sold. It is vital that reliabLe sources be found to acaePt the collected materials and contracts negotiated. The Ci"Y must take all precautions to : nsu_r9 L.hat 3 marl- �Or ::te reC_Iclable materials be maintained. 3 • B. Curbside Pickup of Yard 'Taste f • Yard waste, which is commonly called " reen material - consists ria_ . consists of lawn clippings , leaves , trimmings , and similar organic waste . Green material represents approximately 3o% of the waste Stream. The material is either tied into bundles or stuffed into large, clearly marked garbaae cans or recyclable paper bags . The bundles and bags are- re collected With a Separate garbage truck which is capable of compressing the Waste material along the pick-up route . The green material is transported -- to a e p processing site . The exact method for processing this material is still under study . However , the general concept is to chip , mulch and screen the material into a form that can be spread along pathways , or used in a variety of landscape applications . Currently , regulations . - regarding the composting of material , particularly when combined with sewage sludge, are somewhat vague and subject to constant change. In addition , composting requires additional equipment and considerable manual labor. It appears prudent to slowly transition into a composting operation . Program Description : 1 . Establish the framework for a green material collection • program by advertising the service and distributing appropriate instructions and materials . 2 . Contract for a garbage truck to collect and compact the materials . This will require establishing rates and routes and pick-up schedules . 3 . Designate a processing yard, purchase a grinder and/or chipper , construct the necessary yard improvement , including overhead covering, ramps , storage bins , electricity and plumbing. Alternatively, this processing operation could be contracted out to a private firm. 4 . Arrange for the material to be transported from the processing yard and used in the community . City parks and maintenance operations could use a small portion of this material , however, it would be necessary to contract with some Private topsoil/mulch distributor to find a permanent market for a reliable source or disposal . 4 • r C. Recycling Of Special 'bastes • Several types of waste materials are not regular curbside Collection . White mater; ondLcive to Wh ma: al Cis large 7- appliances) Can be CisaSSembled at facilities with ;�ecial I equipment to remove recyclable CORiDOrientS . SC. '-3D woodrom construction sites or demolition projects can be' - sold to waste- a e-- chipp='d and, - Other inter= `o- n yy plants . Rubble , broken concrete , a aggreC'iar e c_an be crL'shed and screened and '_sed for 3 variety or construction uses , Such as x111 and eras; protection . -on EaCn Of these Special wastes MUSt be handled w h a separate program. In the case Of white materials and other large household items , is recommended thatth_o ga_r bace company provide for the curbside collection of these materials on a periodic basis perhaps quarterly or semi-annua?ly . Recycling of other special was_es is probably best handle= by independent contractors . The City may facilitate this recycling effort by crovi_inctransferl a fstation to simpii_y the col ect ion and trans:,ortat_on of this mater• 3 1 . _ V . Public Awareness am Education ?'rblic awareness and education is essential to the success of Our recycling and waste reduction program e - = reshaping society' s a=== �h _ac.c o. • ty, t'U,4 and ha involving waste disposal is a formidable one . :t can only be achieved throuch a cooperative and persistant camoaigri of education . -rubiic forums , educatior.3l procrams in the 3ChOols . informational brocnureS and media adver_ising should be used collective y t7 desseminate itformation to AtaScadero residents On recycling and wasT e reduction . =n `_ 1 . forma _or.al campaigns 3hou__ precede imp_ement3t_OR of new procrams andcontinue _hrouc_hout the aura=_on Of the program. T'ne the ReCyCl_nc _°mm i--a ' _ _ e an. -• �arbag� �omD3ry should air take an active role in tr.e 3^_1c3tion 7rOCHSa' V_ Recional Kan.n.inq and C-.)ar nation Atascadero cannot :Onduc _ts recV:-_rte, program a 'Ira c'-Lum. J'tat law A3 j-a and several Ot er laws encourage regional COozerat_On . Cu''_ re.n.t_y . San. -.l:_3 '..b' p0 C_ u ! and S _� O i« seven ci__es are ac __'re_y _nvol -ed _n a _ ?n3_ program =� reduce and racycle _ne waste strum. • It is premature to guess the types of programs this • planning effort will recommend. The magnitude of the regional program indicates that regional recycling facilities will not be in operation before 1993 . However, once in place, the regional facilities will benfit from an economy of scale and a program size that Atascadero can never expect to reach acting alone . This presents a challenge . Dur;ng the next two to three years the City will need to reshape the attitude o?' our Society toward trash collection , processing, and disposal . ?roe.-rams mLLSL be developed LO reduce , reuse , and recyle our waSte products . Yet , it would be imprudent to invest money in expensive trash reduction facilities that Could be replaced by a regional facility in five years . A Key to meeting this challenge is to concentrate on low technology solutions . The . programs described above are representative of these low technology solutions . (1) curbside collection of (n)recyclables and green material , SimDle sorting and grinding to process the material , and (3) the use of independent contractors to recycle the special waste products . finally , a concentrated of=ort must be made to find markets and uses for our diverted materia.. . VIZ . Summary and Recommendations The programs described in this report are designed to • accomplish several important goals . They will begin to reshape the pLLDlic' S attitude about Solid waste and the host of problems it Creates . when fully ouerational . they are expected +. divert approximately 25% of the waste stream from the landfill . cinally , they are designed to easily adapt to the rapidl-r changing technologies and processes of the Solid waste and recycling indust ries andintegrate C?3Ci�y with re:'iond_ aci", planned for the near suture . The Recycling Committee recommends :hat the Ci _y adODt manca.ory garbage collection w: a 'joiume-based rate SLrLLCtLLre . Th15 Service ShOLLIC inC:LLde :ne 7er_od.0 ColleCtioR of "white goods" and other large housenol_ =_rnishings . The Committee further recommends the impleme.^.ta_ion of residential curbside collection of traditional mater_als and yard waste . k 0 ATASCADERO WASTE COLLECTION DATA • Current : Actual commercial TOnnac3 b3 taR3/Wk 33°; Mui_i-=ami_y Res . 37 tons/wk i8a' Si-tgle Family Res . 93 tons/'wt a3 a TOTAL 203 tans/wk TOTAL RAS=tO_N-_P%L TONNAGE = 135 tons/wk 50 Number of Single Family Residential Accounts = 4155 86ro Number of Commercial Accounts (lnc . Apartments) 552 iQ; Wil Ma: c'u=rently ser`/ices approximately 7051* Oi the sing_ Le family residences in Atascadero . Wit:'t M,andatory Collect-ion : Estimated Commercial Tonnage 68 tons/wk 28NO' Multi-Family Res . 37 tons/wk ISa Single Family Res . 140 tons/wk 57a TOTAL 245 tons/wk Number of.' Single Family Residential Accounts = 5935 90a Number of Commercial Accounts (inc . Apartments) 052 1 11a TOTAL R-TSID-NTIAi. TONNAGE = 177 tons/wk 725 • NOTE: This table is not referenced in the report . It is for inLormatlonaL purposes only . 7 ATTACHMENT B REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: • Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: From: Greg Luke, Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Mandatory Solid Waste Collection RECOMMENDATION: Direct staff to prepare regulations to implement mandatory solid waste collection procedures . BACKGROUND : Most counties and cities in California have instituted manda- tory solid waste collect-ion by ordinance. With this system, all property owners are provided with waste collection services as part of the usual city services . Recognizing the inherent benefits of fairness and equity af- forded by such a system, particularly with solid waste recycling, • the City Council has chosen to examine the concept for possible action. DISCUSSION: A. General In Atascadero, public services are provided in a wide variety of ways . In some cases, such as police and fire protection, all of the residents pay for this service, primarily through property and sales taxes. However, the level of service is dependent at any given time on demand, and central to such services is the notion that, while all pay, some taxpayers will, of necessity, benefit more than others over time. in other instances, services are pro- vided by contract, such as Dial-A-Ride, where both the taxpayers and users share in the cost. Here again, some taxpayers may, by choice, benefit less than others . Utilities, such as power and gas, are independent quasi-public companies, either regulated by the State or Federal Government. Here, the service is paid for through a rate structure tied to need and use. Water, of course, is provided by a private mutual company and the service, in the form of water availability, is financed through a rate structure tied to use. Wastewater collection and treatment is provided only within the Urban Service Area and is paid for through a standard charge regardless of volume. 1 The point of the above discussion is that City services oper- ate under a -wide array of rules and structure. With respect to solid waste removal, the City' s past practice has been to contract for such service with a private company, through a non-exclusive franchise, under a voluntary program. In other words, those resi- • dents who desired trash removal were allowed to contract for it. Even without the issue of solid waste reduction and recycling re- quired in AB939, argument can be made for a mandatory trash removal program. This is primarily related to the issue of illegal dump- ing, where some residents not under the voluntary trash removal program find it convenient to dump their refuse in commercial bins or on unimproved property in the community. Experience by other agencies using a mandatory program clearly shows that the temp- tation to abuse the privilege of choice in waste disposal is minimized and/or eliminated. B• Advantages of Mandatory Collection The Positive impacts of implementing mandatory collection include the following: 1. Ensures a fairer and more equitable cost distribution for solid waste handling, better program administration and management and, over the long run, a more efficient and effective removal ser- vice. 2. State Mandates through AB939 : Currently, California cit- ies and counties are facing a fundamental change in the way solid waste is handled. Previously, all solid waste was simply hauled • to a landfull, either by a community garbage collection service or privately. With impending shortages of landfull capacity through- out the State, a new philosophy--referred to as integrated waste management--is being implemented. Integrated waste management is a broad term which refers to a series of measures to reduce the volume of solid waste and recycle any usable portion of the waste stream. The new concept of managing and controlling the quantity and quality of solid waste is fundamentally different than the current "throw away" philosophy. To effectively implement an integrated waste management program requires the participation of all res- idents . Mandatory solid waste collection and a unifo—rm fee structure is an equitable way for all residents to share the re- sponsibility for the full cost of handling solid waste. Otherwise, a comprehensive program will result in a defacto subsidy of non- subscribers, in light of the fact that the overall costs of inte- grated waste management, including meaningful recycling, must still be borne but by fewer participants. Economies of scale would also be affected. The new State law requires that cities divert 25% of their waste stream that would normally enter the landfill by 1995 and 50 by the year 2000. It is estimated that currently up to 30% of the solid waste generated in Atascadero cannot be firmly accounted for. 2 Some of this material is legitimately being transported to a land- fill, some is stockpiled on-site and some is definitely being • illegally dumped. In our opinion, the goals of AB939 and its man- dates to reduce the solid waste stream can only be accomplished in any meaningful sense through the full participation of all resi- dents and the full accountability for all solid waste generated in the community. This alone makes mandatory collection imperative. 3 . Landfill utilization: A mandatory program will undoubt- edly reduce the number of trips by private pick-up trucks and: other vehicles to the landfill, which will also reduce the amount of roadside litter caused by trash which blows off or falls out of the trucks . There should also be a reduction in air pollution. C. Disadvantages of Mandatory Collection The disadvantages of implementing mandatory collection include the following: 1. High cost to provide service in outlying areas. The outlying, rural areas of Atascadero are more costly to serve because of both the long travel time and the narrow, steep roads, -which are difficult for a garbage truck to negotiate. How- ever, this problem is not insurmountable with cooperation. 2 . Difficulty in administering the program and in collecting • the monthly payments . Unlike most other cities, Atascadero does not operate a city- wide utility, such as water or sewer service (sewer limited to Urban Service Area) . Consequently, to implement a mandatory col- lection system will require a new billing system. It will be difficult to ensure that all developed properties participate in the waste collection program. New properties must be added to the list as they are constructed; vacant residences must be served when they are occupied. Basically, the program will require constant attention to ensure full participation. 3 . Additional equipment required to provide the service. To provide waste collection to the presently unserved resi- dences will require an additional garbage truck. The additional truck, plus the additional vehicle required for curbside recycling will result in additional truck traffic in rural areas, as well as additional costs to the hauler. D. Summary The City is under a legal mandate from the State to reduce the volume of solid waste entering the landfill. In addition, conser- vation and recycling of our resources is becoming a practical • necessity. If the City is to accomplish these dual goals of volume 3 reduction and conservation/recycling, the City. must implement a comprehensive waste management program. The first step of such a program is to ensure full control of the waste stream which, from • any meaningful standpoint, means mandatory collection. Mandatory trash removal is the rule and not the exception throughout California. Its greatest argument in favor is tied to issues of fairness and equity in terms of rates, cost of service and economies of scale. Certainly without it, one can argue that a defacto subsidization by service users occurs when non-subscrib- ers engage in illegal dumping. Beyond that, requiring a standard- ized, ongoing removal process will assure timely collection and transportation of waste and makes everyone more conscious of the need to be current with disposal. Voluntary programs of any kind tend to give wide discretion to participants, which in this case works against the desired community goal of beautification. With the mandates in AB939, we can now add the issue of responsible waste management and recycling to the community' s goals . Allowing continued voluntary involvement in waste removal tied to waste management and recycling is not, in our opinion, an incentive to see that we attempt to maximize this goal. FISCAL IMPACT: See mark Joseph' s memo, "Rate Analysis for Wil-Mar Disposal" , dated 11/13/90 . • RW:cw • 4 ATTACHMENT C REPORT TO COUNCIL Meeting Date: • CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: THROUGH: Ray Windsor, City Manager FROM: Greg Luke, Director of Public Works SUBJECT• Analysis of curbside recycling. BACKGROUND: Curbside collection of recyclable materials is a method for encouraging recycling that has grown rapidly with cities throughout the U.S. Curbside collection can occur in many forms: segregated vs. combined materials, limited vs. comprehensive, voluntary vs. mandatory. Although the techniques are varied, curbside recycling has proven effective at removing the 15% of the waste stream that can easily be recycled. DISCUSSION• A. Short-Term Perspective The recycling committee has correctly identified curbside recycling as one of the most cost effective methods of recycling waste material, namely aluminum, glass, newspaper and some plastics. The collection method recommended is known as Partially Co-mingled; that is, all colors of glass are placed in one container, newspaper placed in a second container, and all remaining recyclables placed in a third container. Both the glass and the combined recyclable materials will require post-sorting at a processing site. The partially co-mingled method of curbside recycling is a logical method of collection. Other methods considered include: 1. Total Co-Minaling - All recyclable material is placed in a single container. This method is convenient for the resident, but often results in contamination, such as broken glass mixed with newspapers, etc. • 2 . Total Segrecration - Each category of recyclable material is placed in a separate container. With three colors of glass, newspapers, aluminum cans, and two types of plastic, a total of 6 containers would be required. This number of containers is difficult for a resident to handle and could result in lower participation rates. Numerous publications are available discussing the detailed methodology for conducting a curbside recycling program. I have much of this literature and it is available to any member of the Council for review. Suffice it to say that the curbside recycling program identified by the Committee is quite flexible and versatile. Staff believes it is the preferred method to implement curbside recycling. A larger issue that should be examined is the overall need to implement curbside recycling, and how it fits into a long-term waste management program. While it is clear the method of solid waste disposal is changing, it is difficult to predict how a new system will function. This poses a potential problem. If a regional program is implemented in the future, is it possible that the curbside recycling program would become obsolete? Staff has examined this issue and believes that curbside recycling will play a vital long-term role in the overall integrated waste management program. Please refer to the attached flow chart which shows how the waste management process is expected to develop in the future. Although the diagram is rather complex, it can be seen that material collected by residential curbside service would be transported to a MRF (which is pronounced "MERF" and stands for Materials Recovery Facility) . This same facility would also accept materials from a wide variety of sources, including commercial cardboard and office paper. The MRF would be a processing facility to sort and package recyclable materials into a form that can be sold on the commercial market. Note also that a Composting/Chipping operation would be needed to handle yard wastes and other vegetative materials. Non- recyclable wastes would be taken to the landfill. To operate efficiently, both the composting/chipping and the MRF will probably need to be regional facilities. The current AB939 planning process is expected to identify how and where these regional facilities will be built. Considering the scenario described above, staff believes that curbside recycling is not only a logical first step to implement a city-wide waste reduction program but also will remain a key component of an integrated waste management program in the future. • INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PROCESS Waste SourcelReduction Method Processing Methods Remaining Constrrwdon/DemoU on Grinding for use as mulch or roadbase ' Non-recyclable debris Residential Curbside Buy-back Yard waste Household hazardous waste Non-recyclable wastes Commerical Glass recycling Corregated Office/white paper . Landscaping! yard waste Non-recyclable wastes Industrial Landfill C°rregated Officelwhite paper NtRF Landscaping Mise.recyclables Composting/Chipping Non-recyclable wastes 20-ZS% ste Redaction: 10-15% 15-20% Wa ATTACHMENT D REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager • Froms James Patterson, Recycling Committee SUBJECT: Green Materials Recycling Options for Atascadero RECOMMENDATIONS: ,Implement a green materials (yard waste) curbside =Vection program simulTaneously with the curb- side collection of traditional materials (glass, newspaper, aluminum, plastic, etc. ) . BACKGROUND: On August 28, 1990, the Recycling Committee presented a report to the City Council outlining a solidwaste management strategy that included mandatory resident- ial garbage collection, curbside collection of recycla- bles ( including yardwaste) and an overhaul of the garbage collection rate structure. The Council referred the report to staff for their review and recommendations. A Public Hearing was held November 13, 1990, to address mandatory garbage collection, curbside recycling and other solidwaste issues. As a result of that hearing, the Council directed staff to prepare a report on Green Material Recycling for the Council's consideration at their January 22, 1991, meeting. PURPOSE: This report contains information collected by the Recycling • Committee on Green Material Recycling and outlines a number of options available to the City Council and the - residents of Atascadero. It is presented at this time in order to give the City Staff the opportunity to review its contents by the January 22, Council Meeting. DISCUSSION:- Yard wastes include leaves, grass clippings, tree trimmings and miscellaneous plant material. They comprise 25 to 50% of the residential waste stream in most California communities and approximately 35% of all municipal solid waste. Diverting this material from the landfill would contribute significantly to reaching the waste reduction goals mandated by AB 939• The current single-family residential (SFR) garbage volume (by weight) for Atascadero is 98 tons per week. This represents Wil-Mar customers only and accounts for approximately 70% of the total SFRs in Atascadero. Total participation by SFRs in a yard waste recycling program could reduce the estimated 140 tons of garbage generated per week by 35 to 70 tons. This does not include multi-family residential and commercial-,sources. BACKYARD COMPOSTING Unlike most other components of the solid waste stream, yard waste can be processed and used at home. Back- yard composting is the cheapest and most efficient means of divert- ing yardwaste from the landfill, Many municipalities fund • 1 _ educational campaigns on backyard composting. Several cities in the united States and Canada have provided compost bins to their resi- dents free or at a reduced cost. A variety of bins are available, • ranging in cost from $50.00 to $110.00. When purchased in quantity, these prices are reduced to approximately $25.00 to $65.00. One option is for the city to purchase several hundred bins and sell them at the reduced rate. If a volume-based garbage rate structure were in force, it is quite feasible for a resident, through compost- ing and recycling, to reduce their level of garbage service and save enough money to pay for the composting bin in a very short time. If not composted on site, yard waste essentially follows the same course as other components of the waste stream. This includes: collection* transporting, processing and disposal. COLLECTION AND TRANSPORTING The most successful programs are those that offer curbside collection at the same time and frequency as the regular garbage collection. A pilot program designed to measure the volume of material collected in relation to the fre- quency of collection demonstrated that twice the volume was collected on a weekly basis as compared to twice-monthly and monthly collection. Curbside collection of yard waste is usually done with a standard garbage compactor truck. The material should be contained in paper bags, ventilated garbage cans (to prevent anaerobic decomposition and reduce odor) or tied neatly in bundles three feet or less in length. The use of plastic bags requires an extra step in process- ing and increases the overall cost, so is therefore discouraged. • The compactor truck transports the yard waste to the processing site. Alternatively, the resident could transport the material themselves. Yard waste currently being taken to Chicago Grade Landfill is segre- gated from the other garbage and will probably eventually be chipped and hauled to a waste-to-energy plant. PROCESSING The processing of yard waste ranges from the simple to the complex. The method of processing is, to a large extent, a function of the desired end product. When the objective is simply to divert the material from the landfill, it can be burned at waste- to-energy plants with little or no processing. This is a form of low-grade recycling and provides fewer benefits to the community. To process yard waste into a useable landscape mulch, it must be ground and screened. This produces a useful product of uniform size with minimal expenditures of time and money. There are currently two companies in the area willing to provide this service at a cost of zero to a few dollars per ton, depending on who is to retain ownership of the mulch. Composting is the natural decomposition of organic waste. The rate of decomposition can vary from days to years depending on a variety of factors, most of which can be manipulated. Typically, yard waste composting, on a commercial basis, takes from four to six months. Large investments of capital and land are required. It is not un- common for several nearby cities to share the costs of composting equipment. 2 When yard waste is combined with sewage sludge the composting process is usually accelerated. This procedure is called co- composting. The end product of this process, as well as that of simple composting, is of higher value and has a greater variety of • uses than landscape mulch, but the production costs are much greater and related health and agricultural regulations are more complex. Regardless of the type of processing, a collection site for the yard waste is essential. Simple storage of material awaiting transport to a waste-to-energy plant would only require a site of approxi- mately one acre. Processing for mulch requires one to three acres. Municipal composting could take five acres or more. The disposal of and waste is the final use of the DISPOSAL po y collected material, other than landfilling. Our end products, as described in the preceeding section, include unprocessed yard waste, landscape mulch and compost. The unprocessed yard waste can be burned to generate electricity. Landscape mulch can be used as mulch in local parks, on trails, under oaks on construction sites, for weed control along city streets and highways and sold or given to local residents for landscape use. Compost can be used in the same applications as mulch as well as be sold to residential or commercial customers as a planting medium. AVAILABLE OPTIONS Backyard composting, as previously mentioned, is a very efficient T and effective way of reducing the volume of solid waste and should be given careful consideration. Curbside collection of yard waste is convenient and generates the highest level of participation. With the goal of keeping costs down • and making the service available to all single-family residents in Atascadero, the Recycling Committee, Greg Luke, Atascadero Public Works Director, and Wil-Mar Disposal have developed the following proposal. The proposal calls for the collection of yard waste from partici- pating single family residences once per month. (Studies have shown that monthly collection is half as costly as weekly collection. ) The city would be divided into three geographical areas. Each area would be serviced on the first, second, or third Saturday of each month. Each residence would be able to dispose of up to one cubic yard (6 cans) of yard waste per month. Due to the difficulty in determining the rate of participation and volume of material to be collected (which has large seasonal fluctuations) , Wil-Mar has agreed to equip its trucks with hour meters and bill only for the time it takes to collect and transport the material. The program would be reviewed after six months and adjustments made, if nec- essary. Operational costs for one compactor truck with a two-person crew is approximately $75.00 per hour. To collect the yard waste from one third of the city would take three trucks an estimated six to eight hours. Assuming 69000 residences in Atascadero, the average monthly cost per household would be $.70 to $.90. 3 PROCESSING AND DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES There are a number of pro- cessing and disposal options. A single service or a combination of services may be used. • 1 ) Rossi Transport in Templeton trades combustible constuc- tion wood waste, including yard waste, to a waste-to-energy plant for landscape planting mixes and mulch. No fees would be charged for small volumes of yard waste. A small trucking fee might be charged for larger volumes depending on the available market for landscape materials. The yard waste must be delivered to Rossi's Templeton yard. 2) Dirtman Trucking in Templeton will take ,unlimited amounts of yard waste at no charge provided he keeps the processed material. The yard waste must be delivered to his Templeton yard. 3) Western Forest Power in Salinas, with an affiliate in Nipomo, currently processes construction wood waste and green material in Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, Monterey and Santa Cruz counties. They bring all the necessary equipment to the local processing yard on an as needed basis. .. A processing site of one to three acres is required. Processing includes grinding and screening the material. They pay $_2 to $4 per ton for wood waste and would charge a small fee for grinding yard waste. They will take all or part of the processed material for waste-to-energy or leave it for local distribution as mulch or for composting. There are several potential outlets for landscape mulch. The Department of Parks, Recreation and Zoo can utilize it around plants • to retain moisture and control weeds. It can be used as a ground cover to control dust on horse trails and walkways. Cal Trans and the Public Works Department can utilize it for weed and dust control along streets and highways. It can be spread under oak trees on construction sites to minimize soil compaction. There are numerous agricultural and residential uses and a number of local residents have expressed an interest in acquiring the mulch. As a last resort, the material can be burned in waste-to-energy plants. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Yard wastes comprise a large portion of the waste stream that will have to be addressed if the waste reduction ggals mandated by the passage of AB 939 are to-be met. It is the Committee's opinion that the..curbside collection of these materials has the potential to service the most people and divert the most material. A program of this nature, implemented in concert with a backyard composting program, should adequately address the diversion of yard waste at the single-family residential level. By providing a one to three acre site within the city, commercial and multi-family residential yard waste, as well as construction wood waste could be collected and processed. These sources account for an additional 16% of the municipal waste stream. City-owned property could be designated for such a • facility. Private contractors could be hired to process the materials thus eliminating the immediate need for the 4 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS1 (continued) City to purchase expensive equipment. Until a site can be located and prepared, the City could begin the curbside • collection of single-family residential yard waste and haul it directly to one or both of the Templeton outlets. While cost is an important consideration, the Committee feels that the Community is ultimately best served by a program that returns the processed waste materials to the Community. It is for this reason that the Committee strongly recommends that the City Council direct staff to identify which city-owned properties are suitable for a yard waste collection and processing facility@ property suitable for the eventual development as a recycling center could also be identified at:'this time. The Committee stands ready to answer any questions relevent to this report that the Council may have. 5 • • GREEN MATERIALS RECYCLING SFR MFR - COMMERCIAL P. REMOVAL BACKYARD COMPOSTING PROFESSIONAL LANDSCAPE SERVICE OWNER CURB IDE TRANSPORT COLLECTION TRANSPORT LEAVE AT SITE 41T777r • PROCESSING AND STORAGE Mulch &/or Compost Chip, Screen, Segragate, Store (1 to 5 Acres) DISPOSAL OF MATERIAL Waste to Energy (Private Contractor) Landscape Products Mfg. (Private Contractor) Co - Composting (City or Private) Municipal Use (Dept. Parks & Rec. , Public Works) (SLO County, CALTRANS) Agriculture (Tree Farms, vineyards, Orchards) • Local Residents SFR : Single-family Residential MFR : Multi-family Residential 6 • ATASCADERO WASTE COLLECTION DATA Current : Actual Commercial Tonnage 68 tons/wk 33% Multi-Family Res . 37 tons/wk 18% Single Family Res . 98 tons/wk 48% TOTAL 203 tons/wk TOTAL RESIDENTIAL TONNAGE = 135 tons/wk 66% Number of Single Family Residential Accounts 4155 86% Number of Commercial Accounts (Inc . Apartments) 652 14% Wil Mar currently services approximately 70% of the single family residences in Atascadero . With Mandatory Collection : Estimated Commercial Tonnage 68 tons/wk 28% Multi-Family Res . 37 tons/wk 15% Single Family Res . 140 tons/wk 57% TOTAL 245 tons/wk Number of Single Family Residential Accounts = 5935 90% • Number of Commercial Accounts (Inc . Apartments) 652 10% TOTAL RESIDENTIAL TONNAGE = 177 tons/wk., 72% NOTE: This table is not referenced in the report . It is for informational purposes only . • 7 ATTACHMENT E REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: Throuch : Ray Windsor , City Manager Meeting Date: ' 1/22/9 From: Mark Joseph , Administrative Services Directrr SUBJECT: Updated Rate Analysis for Wil-Mar Disposal RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends option three which would permit Wil-Mar to initiate a volume rate program for residential customers and grant a 12:: overall increase in monthly rates as shown on Table One. BACKGROUND At its public hearing on November 13, 1990, Council continued discussion regarding mandatory collection, recycling and contract/rate issues to the January 22, 1991. Council session. More specifically staff was directed to come back with a rate • structure based on volume. In the meanwhile, Wil-Mar has submitted an across-the-board 12 percent rate increase request , based on existing service levels ( i .e. , without mandatory pickup or curbside recycling ) . Staff ' s proposals are for residential customers only, and thus, the 12;: "across-the-board" increase for commercial container customers proposed by Wil-Mar would take effect regardless of which alternative is adopted . Further , two terms need to be defined . "Service Level " means the type of service either mandatory or voluntary, with or without recycling . In contrast , "Service Rate" refers to how the service is billed -- single can service, 1-4 can, 90-gallon cart , etc . ANALYSIS In addition to Wil-Mar ' s proposal , two "volume-based" rates could be considered . All three are briefly discussed below. Option One: Flat Increase - The approach recommended by Wil-Mar would generate the money required and be the easiest to administer . It would not , however , address volume as directed by Council at the conclusion of the November 13th meeting . • • Option Two: Individual Can Rates - The current 1-4 can service would be eliminated and separate rates established for 1 can service, 2 can service , etc . This alternative would trigger a ✓olume-based structure, in which a customer would pay more for service as volume ( cans ) increase. The disadvantage lies in administering and enforcing the new rates. In discussions with Wil-Mar , they have expressed similar concerns and would prefer option three. Staff agrees because we belive option three provides better flexibility to the customer . Option Three: Condensed Volume-Based Rates - This option would condense service rates to three: single can , 90 gallon carts and "bags'' as shown on Table One below. TABLE 0^1;E : r_ONDENSED VOLUME-BASED RATES (RESIDENTIAL ONLY ) SERVICE CUSTOMER MONTHLY LEVEL FOUNT _ RATE REVENUE S i nc, l e Can 2 , 164 6 .50 14 .063 90-Gallon 2, 6b5 14 . 25* 37,95,- • Bags" ** 714 2.50 1-=785 TOTALS 4 ,528 53 ,817 *Please note that rate does not include cart rental of $2.50 , which is the amount charged at present and will not change. **Bags" is a supplemental service in addition to single can or 90-gallon service , and , thus , not included in the total customer count . The fallowing assumptions are made: 25 percent of 1-4 can customers would sh-ift to single can; 75 percent to 90 gallon; and all of the 5 or more can customers would shift to 90 gallon (or possibly shift to commercial containers ) . The number of bags used is based on one-third of single can customers using one bag per month . If this option is approved , a rate review would be essential after 6 months in order to verify .•,hich serivice rates were actually selected and compare actual costs based on those new rates . We believe this approach is easier to administer and ultimately would improve the efficiency of the Company , since the 90-gallon containers lend themselves to automation. There would not be a complete 3 : 1 ratio in rates at this time ( the 90 qallon cart is equivalent to 3 cans ) , only to avoid too high of an initial increase. As indicated previously , customers will be able to accommodate additional waste disposal beyond the service • level selected by purchasing ''bags" from Wil-Mar in advance and then using them as required to supplement normal waste. revised : 1 / 16/90 ATTACHMENT F REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: • From: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: SUBJECT: Extending Wil ' Mar' s contract associated with mandatory pick-up and curbside recycling. RECOMMENDATION: That the current contract be extended for a period of five years, commencing January 1 , 1991 . BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS : Wil-Mar has requested an extension on their current contract, which is scheduled to expire December 31 , 1992 . Wil-Mar' s request is for a seven-year extension, tied to what they believe to be a reasonable period of time to amortize the additional capital costs associated with mandatory pick-up and curbside recycling and the question of financing such investment. Staff does not object to a seven-year contract but feels more comfortable with five years with options to renew. • Regardless of the amount of time granted, the basis for the request is to provide assurance of contract extension sufficient to allow -the company to make capital expenditure commitments re- quired by mandatory waste collection and curbside recycling. Curbside recycling will require an investment of some $148 , 000-- 563 , 000 for a truck and $85 , 000 for containers . Mandatory pick-up will affect some additional 1 , 100 customers, requiring at least one additional 25-yard rear-loader truck at a cost of $125 , 500 . In our opinion, requiring Wil-Mar or any other hauler to commit to this level of capital investment, beyond the normal replacement of current rolling stock, does require assurance on their part that the financing of these additional capital improvements be covered through contract extension. While there would appear to be at least two other options open to the Council--making no change to the current collection system and/or bidding a new program on mandatory pick-up and curbside re- cycling--neither one, in our opinion, seems viable when approached in the context of the deadlines for solid waste reduction imposed by AB939, if in fact one agrees with the arguments for mandatory pick-up and curbside recycling as the soundest methods to accom- plish the mandates of AB939 . Why? The most compelling reason is that Wil-Mar still has over two years remaining on its current contract ( see attached) ,- and since the only recourse the City now has to terminate it ahead of time is to find that Wil-Mar has "failed to perform" , the very best we can hope for in starting from • scratch is t wait P o alt until the current contract expires in December 1992 . This, of course, would mean putting off the two essential components of mandatory pick-up and curbside recycling until that time. And, since in our opinion it would take a minimum of six • months to structure and adopt a new program along with bidding the system, it is unlikely that we could have any meaningful comprehen- sive integrated waste management program in affect before the end of 1993 . If, in fact, Council sees fit to extend Wil-Mar' s contract beyond its current term, necessary to accomplish a program of man- datory pick-up and curbside recycling effective immediately, staff recommends that the current agreement be reviewed and updated in order to provide or strengthen the language on the City' s rate review capacity, the question of payment for services on default (how collected) , the issue of who maintains property owner and/or resident lists for billing purposes, the desirability of a ter- mination clause beyond just "failure to perform" and any other pertinent issue associated with a change in our contractual ar- rangement as a result of mandatory pick-up and curbside recycling. Finally, it should be noted for the record that the number of complaints received by staff about Wil-Mar' s services is extremely low. In our experience over the past three years , Wil-Mar has provided a consistently high level of customer service at relative- ly low rates . In our opinion, as long as adequate rate review controls exist, we have no reason to believe that Wil-Mar will not continue to provide the highest level of service to the community. • RW: cw Attachments • 2 i� F,� FILE COPY SOLID WASTE COLLECTION CONTRACT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 13th day of nn ay 1985 , by and between the CITY OF ATASCADERO, a political subdivision of the State of California, hereinafter called "City" , and WIL-MAR DISPOSAL COMPANY, INC. , a California corporation , hereinafter called "Contractor" . Witnesseth For and in consideration of the payments to be made by Contractor to City, and in further consideration of • the full and faithful performance by Contractor of all terms , covenants , and conditions of this Agreement, as well as complete compliance with the laws of the State of California and all pertinent present and future ordinances and resolutions of the City; It is mutually agreed as follows : 1 . Scone of Work. Contractor shall provide all labor , materials , tools , and equipment necessary to Perform all work required to collect and haul all solid waste from locations within City in accordance with this Agreement . • 5/8/85 - 1 - . c 2 . Term. The term of this Agreement shall • January 1, 1986. extend for five ( 5 ) years from However , Contractor may appear before the City Council of the City at any time after each two ( 2 ) years of service under this agreement and request an additional two ( 2 ) year contractual period . The granting of an additional two ( 2 ) year contractual period shall be discretionary with the City . The length of contract shall not exceed five ( 5 ) years at any time of contractual period . 3 . Perfo".ance . Contractor shall provide a minimum of weekly regular collection for its customers with collection hours limited to 6 : 30 A.M. to 7: 00 P.m. in residential areas and 6 : 00 A.M. to 9 : 00 P.M. in commercial areas . Contractor shall insure that cans or bins are • returned to the same location from which removed to dumb contents into the collection truck . 4 . Cleanup Efforts . Contractor agrees to participate in official City cleanup efforts and may be required to provide trash bins or trucks at convenient locations for use by the public at no charge to City . This requirement may not be imposed for any longer than one week, once during the calendar year . 5 . Free Services to Citv Facilities . Contractor agrees to provide solid wast` disposal to City facilities , as well as to service public trash receptacles in the business district, at no charge . Such City facilities shall include, but not be limited to , the 5/3/85 2 - Administration Building, the Fire Department, Corporation Yard on Trafficthe • Way, the Sanitation Division, the City Park and Zoo, Alvord Field, Henderson Field, South Atascadero Park, and, any other additional City facilities . This condition does not apply to construction debris or an . other solid waste y generated off the public facilities Premises . Trash receptacles used for City facilities and those lcoated on sidewalks within the business district shall be serviced once per week or sooner if required . 6 . Rates for Service. Contractor agrees to perform such collection services at the rates established b resolution of the Council . y 7 • Maintenance of Eauioment. A. Trucks . All trucks shall be kept in good condition regularly by steam cleaning, • and oil leaks shall be eliminated . All trucks shall pass a California Highway Patrol (C-H.P. ) safety inspection annually. B. Commercial Bins . Commercial bins shall have lids be watertight , cleaned and painted regularly, a minimum of once per year . 8 . Indemnification, Bond, and Insurance Reauirements . A. Indemnification. Contractor agrees to indemnify, defend, and save harmless , City and its officers , agents , and employees from and against any and all liability, claims , demands , costs expenses, damages , Judgments , and causes of action in any way arising out of • 5/ 8/85 3 - this Agreement , or out of the performance or attempted • Performance of the provisions hereof , including but not limited to any act or omission to act by Contractor or its agents , employees , or independent contractors directly responsible to Contractor . B. Bond Recuirements . Contractor agrees to furnish a cash or surety bond to City in the sum of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50 ,000 .00 ) , conditioned upon the faithful performance of this Agreement and the provisions of the City Municipal Code . In lieu of the above , City may , at its discretion , accept some other type of financial arrangement guaranteeing City payment in case of nonperformance under the terms of this Agreement . • C. Workers Compensation Insurance . Contractor agrees to procure , carry, and keep in full force and effect during the life of this Agreement , full compensation insurance with an insurance carrier as defined by and in accordance with the provisions of the Labor Code of the State of California . Contractor shall furnish a copy of the certificate of insurance to City . D . Public Liability Insurance. Contractor agrees to procure , carry , and keep in full force and effect during the life or this Agreement , public liability insurance with a carrier agreeable to City to the extent of Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500 ,000 .00 ) for the death .or injury to one person , and One Million • Dollars ( $1 ,000 ,000 .00 ) for the death or injury to more than 5/8/85 4 - one person , and property damage insurance to the extent of One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100 ,000 .00 ) upon each of the • trucks or vehicles used by Contractor in carrying out the work called for in this Agreement , said insurance to cover both Contractor and City, with City, its officials , and its employees named as additional insureds . Contractor agrees to provide City with a COPY of the insurance contract, with a rider attached thereto providing that the insurance contract shall not be cancelled for nonpayment of premium or otherwise , without thirty (30 ) days prior written notice to City, sent by certified mail , directed to the attention * of the City Manager . 9 . Pavment to Citv. Contractor hereby promises and agrees to pay to City for the rights and • privileges herein granted, five percent ( 5$ ) of the gross cash receipts of the garbage , refuse and rubbish collection business conducted by Contractor within City, said amounts to be payable monthly on or before the fifteenth (15th ) day Of the ensuing month , and said payment shall cover the gross cash receipts for the month preceding the payment date . The revenue received under this provision shall be placed in City ' s General Fund . Payment not made by the fifteenth ( 15th ) day of the month shall bear interest at the rate of twelve percent ( 12% ) . 10 . Accountinq Records . Within Contractor ' s accounting records , all items of revenue and exo_ ense for • 5/8/85 - 5 - operations pertaining to the services provided by this • Agreement shall be complete and clearly defined . The accounting and statistical records of such revenue and expense items shall be adequately segregated to meet the needs of analysis for rate making . Contractor ' s records shall be available for audit at any time during usual business hours . This provision shall be accomplished within one ( 1 ) year of the execution of this Agreement . 11 . Identification of Equipment . Contractor shall clearly identify all refuse trucks and commercial bins with the firm name and telephone number . Contractor shall require its crewmen to wear clean uniforms with a conspicuous firm name and employer identifier on the uniform. • 12 . Identification ofviola-:ions . Contractor shall attach a tag designating a reason for noncollection to any can or container not being collected because of being overweight or for other violations . 13 . Maintenance cf Office . Contractor shall maintain an office within City where bills may be paid , services applied for , and . complaints made , which office shall be equipped with a telephone and shall have a responsible person in charge during usual business hours . 11 . Cc^'plai^ts . A copy of all written cc-olaints and statements of all verbal complaints received by Contractor or its employees shall be maintained by Contractor with a duplicate copy forwarded to City , • 5/8/85 6 - attention of the City Manager , at least once per month , no later than the fifth ( 5th) calendar day following the month in which the complaint was received . Said records shall be maintained for the term of this Agreement . 15 . Rules and Reaulanions . Contractor shall , at its expense , :nail annually to each subscriber a statement of rules , container limitations , fees , telephone numbers , and other pertinent information . 16 . Failure to Perform. Upon the failure or omission of Contractor to keep , fulfill , or perform any of the terms , provisions , or conditions of this Agreement , or of the City Municipal Code , and the failure of Contractor to remedy or correct any such failure or omission within twenty ( 20 ) days after notice in writing of such failure or omission , this Agreement shall , at the option of City • officials by resolution of the City Council , be terminated and ended , and Contractor shall thereafter have no further rights , powers , or privileges as granted by City under or arising through this Agreement . 17 . Assianment Proh_bined This Agreement shall not be assigned or sublet without the approval of the City Council . 18 . Effect of Litication . In the event that a court of competent 4urisdiction declares that this Agreement is void by reason of the application of the Federal Antitrust Law or the California Antitrust Law , then this Agreement shall be of no further force and effect , and City • 5/8/85 - 7 shall Nave the right to contract for solid waste collection • services from other sources . 19 . Notices . All notices to be given to Contractor may be given in writing personally or by depositing in the U. S . Mail , pcstage prepaid , addressed as follows : Wil-Mar Disposal Ccmpany , Inc . P. 0. Box 1199 Atascadero , CA 93423 All notices to be given to City may be given in writing personally or by depositing in the U. S. Mail , postage prepaid, addressed as follows : City Manager City of Atascadero P. 0. Box 747 Atascadero , CA 93423 • IN PiIT`:ESS NEEREOF, the parties '-ave executed this Agreement the day and year first above set forth . This Agreement shall beco.,e after tea.^.udry 1986 . CITY OF ATASC DERO WIL-:�AR DI�:OSAL CO:MpANY INC. r Rc iavor wIAM GI33S , P.esAPPROVE'D AS �dent TO CON T, :MI:.i3I GnRi?iiLOi, Jc�CrEt3r_'- Treasurer . A T-.ST .MIC:yEL SHELTON , City ,Manager / • RC cr T LS 5/9//35 - 8 - WRIGHT & S--\,-N;DERS A LAW CORPORATION NI�.IAM 7, wcIG r.T IRETIREDI 5950 EN77AOA AVENUE SANOERS "- '"ONE ROBERT OIMITRIj EVICM POST OFv10E SOX 6001 '8 CSi ac 26 ATASC.kDERO. CALIFOFirI.k 93423 August 30 , 1988 Mr . Paul Sensibaugh Director of Public Works City of Atascadero 6500 Palma Avenue Atascadero, CA 93422 Re: Solid Waste Collections Contract Dear Mr. Sensibaugh: Pursuant to the terms of the contract entered into between Wil-Mar Disposal and the City of Atascadero in May, 1985, Wil-Mar requests an additional 2 years extension of its contractual period . • The contract language states , "Contractor may appear before the City Council of the City at any time after each two ( 2) years of service under this agreement and request an additional two ( 2) year contractual period . " The present contract became operative on January 1, 1986 . We are, therefore, well beyond the first 2 years . Please advise me if you require further information. Bill Gibbs and I would be pleased to discuss the matter with you at your convenience . I look forward to hearing from you . Very truly.-yours , BETTY' R. SANDERS BRS/baw C .C . Bill Gibbs • ti D ETI .2.2i �MDA ' M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council FROM: Ray Windsor, City Manager SUBJECT: Request for Contract Extension by Wil-Mar Disposal DATE : November 22 , 1988 BACKGROUND am attaching copy of the existing Solid Waste Collection Contract with Wil-Mar, which provides for a five-year franchise agreement . Under the terms of the contract referenced by Attorney Betty Sanders in her letter to the City, dated 8/30/88 , " . . .Contractor may appear before the City Council of the City at any time after • each two ( 2 ) years of service under this agreement and request an additional two ( 2 ) year contractual period" . As indicated by Mrs . Sanders , Wil-Mar is requesting an additional two-year ex- tension,' which, if approved, would become effective in January 1989 . In our meeting with Mrs . Sanders and Bill Gibbs , President of Wil-Mar, it was stated, for the record, that the extension of the agreement would permit Wil-Mar to move ahead with plans to purchase two additional pieces of capital equipment ( roiling stock) . Staff is not aware of any major problems with the trash service, and I have not personally received any negative comments about Tail-Mar. In reading the existing contract , I note that it calls for an annual clean-up effort in conjunction with a City-wide program, and I would just like to say that I strongly urge the City to initiate this in the Spring of 1989 . With respect to the requirement of Wil-Mar to provide various insurances , we have checked the records and find that everything is in line with the terms and conditions as outlined. RECOMMENDATION That Council authorize a two-year extension of the contract with Wil-Mar for solid waste collection and authorize the City Attor- ney to draw up the necessary resolution. • RW: cw Attachment • FIRST AMENDMENT OF SOLID WASTE COLLECTION CONTRACT Re: Solid Waste Collection Contract, dated May 13 , 1985, between CITY OF ATASCAOERO, a political subdivision of the State of California, and WIL-MAR DISPOSAL COMPANY, INC. , a California corporation, covering solid waste collection within the City of Atascadero for a term expiring December 31, 1990 . The undersigned, CITY OF ATASCADERO and WIL-MAR DISPOSAL COMPANY, INC. , do hereby agree to amend the above-referenced Solid Waste Collection Contract, effective January 1, 1989, as follows: Extension of Term. The term of the Solid Waste Collection Contract is extended for a period of two (2) years so that the expiration date of said Solid Waste Collection Contract shall be changed from December 31, 1990 to December 31, 1992 . Notices. Notice to the City of Atascadero shall be changed to City Manager, City of Atascadero, 6500 Palma Avenue, Atascadero, CA 93422 . • All of the other terms, covenants, conditions, provisions , and agreements of said Solid Waste Collection Contract, dated May 13 , 1985, as amended herein, shall remain in full force and effect. Dated: December 13 , 1988 CITY OF ATASCADERO BONITA BORGESON, Mayor~ ATTEST: f BOYD C. SHARITZ, City 151 erk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Y G. 0 ENSEN, City Attorney • 1 MAPPVED AS TO CONTENT: • 7 c,A RA� W�SOR, City Manager WIL-MAR DISPOSAL COMPANY, INC. By _(moi U-i G President Secretary-Treasurer JGJ: fr C:AGATA677 • 2 • REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Mtg. Date: 1122791 From: Henry Engen, Comm. Devel . Director0File No: Ardilla Rd. Extension SUBJECT: Appeal by Joan O'Keefe of Negative Declaration posted for proposed extension of Ardilla Road. RECOMMENDATION: Deny the appeal and uphold the mitigated Negative Declaration calling for soil erosion control measures, tree protection measures, implementation of geotechnical engineering report recommendations, and cessation of work in the event cultural or archaeological resources are encountered during construction. BACKGROUND: The attached staff report of November 27 , 1990 was continued to the City Council ' s meeting of January 8, 1991 to await consideration of the City' s consultant arborist report , for detailed mitigation plans . At the same time, the Council received and considered the attached opinion dated January 7 , 1991 from the City Attorney relative to legal issues raised in this matter (see attached) . Staff believes that the environmental work undertaken in response to the application to extend Ardilla Road meets the test outlined by the City Attorney. Specifically, this segment of Ardilla Road was covered as part of the Long Valley Ranch EIR prepared in 1979 and certified by the Department of Real Estate. That EIR noted the existence of some 243 lots which had a theoretical ability to be subdivided to some 494 lots or an additional 251 parcels . Approximately 14% of this increase has been realized with the addition of some 36 lots through subsequent lot splits. The Segment of Ardilla Road being proposed for extension would complete the local neighborhood street system, albeit at the expense of trees that would have to be taken as a result of extending said road. EXPANDED INITIAL STUDY: In view of this fact and allegations of geologic problems on the property, an expanded initial study was required of the developer which led to the mitigated Negative Declaration proposed on the property. In addition to the recommendation of Wes Conner, acting in the capacity as City Arborist, a more detailed geology report was prepared which has found that the landslides identified in the EIR have stabilized and that road and single family residential development may be safely undertaken subject to appropriate development standards. HE:ps Enclosures: City Attorney' s Opinion: Environmental Review of Colony Road Construction and ]acceptance - 1/7/91 Staff Report - 11/27/90 CC: Joan O'Keefe Bill Barnes Tom Vaughan M E M O R A N D U M To: Mayor and City Council From: Arther R. Montandon, City Attorney Subject: Environmental Review of Colony Road Construction and Acceptance ,Date: January 7 , 1991 Inquiries: 1 . Are roads subject to CEQA review? 2. What is the level of CEQA review required for road extension permits? 3. Is the Mitigated Negative Declaration appropriate for the Ardilla Road extension approval? 4. Is the Mitigated Negative Declaration appropriate for the San Marcos Road extension approval? i5 . What is the level of CEQA review required for accepting roads into the City's maintained road system? Rulings: 1 . Yes, these are discretionary projects subject to CEQA review. 2 . The level of environmental review may be a Negative Declaration or an EIR, depending upon the potential for a significant environmental impact and previous relevant environmental review. 3 . Yes, unless substantial evidence is presented at the hearing which would support a fair argument that the project may have a significant environmental impact. 4 . This Negative Declaration is not as substantiated as that for Ardilla Road. As such, the City Council should hold the hearing or ask for more information to enable them to consider more evidence to make a decision based upon the "fair argument" standard set forth in #3 , above. 5 . These decisions are categorically exempt from CEQA review, absent a special set of circumstances which would result in a significant environmental impact. Introduction: The City Council has requested an opinion as to the applica- • bility of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to the construction, acceptance and maintenance of Atascadero Is Colony roads. Specifically, we were asked to review the legal opinions previously issued regarding this topic . While our research was ongoing, two appeals were filed with the City by Mrs . Joan O'Keefe. These appeals involve the permit- ting of road construction within Colony road right-of-ways . The additional concerns raised by these appeals will also be addressed in this opinoin. The scope of this opinion has been expanded beyond its original intent for another reason. The City Council, Planning Commission and staff are currently faced with many important decisions regarding the City' s road system. These decisions in- clude: Ownership transfer of the Wells Fargo Roads; acceptance of these roads, Gordon Davis roads and other roads into the City' s maintained system; planning for the traffic circulation needs of Atascadero; and, the setting of minimum standards for road con- struction. This opinion will set forth some recommendations and guidance to the decision-makers regarding their future road deci- sions . It is not intended to undo previous acts, nor is it intended to require reprocessing of applications . It is intended to guide Atascadero' s decision-makers in their future deliberations as they address our road issues . Facts The factual background for this opinion arises out of the construction acceptance by the City and maintenance of Atasca- ro d ' s Colon roads . As most of us know, these roads were created e y as separate lots with the subdivision of the Atascadero Colony many Years ago. Man miles of these roads are not, as yet, constructed. Many not awned b miles of the constructed roads are Y the City and are not in the City-maintained road system. Over the years since AtascaderooIs incorporation, the construc- tion and acceptance of these roads have been handled in different ways with differing application of CEQA review. At one time, these roads were constructed without any review. Currently, based upon a previous legal opinion, the construction project undergoes envi- ronmental review. Two appeals arise from the City' s current road approval pro- cedure: One appeal involves the extension of Ardilla Road; the other appeal involves the extension of San Marcos Road. The Ardilla Road appeal involves the completion of a segment of that road between Balboa Road and Graves Creek Road. This con- struction would open twelve lots for development, require grading and would entail the removal of many trees . The City' s permit decisions on this construction are a Road Improvement Plan ( Precise Plan process) and Tree Removal Permit . A Mitigated Negative Declaration is proposed for the project. 2 The San Marcos Road appeal involves the extension of that road. This extension would add to this dead-end road, thus opening thirteen lots for development, require grading and the removal of many trees. The City' s permit decisions on this construction are a Road Improvement Plan (Precise Plan process) and Tree Removal Permit. A Mitigated Negative Declaration is proposed for this project. Both appeals challenge the level of environmental review proposed by City staff. These appeals assert that the proposed Mitigated Negative Declarations are inadequate in many regards . The appellant states that the appropriate level of environmental review is an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) . The issues which are presented by these facts arise at a time when the City' s policy makers are deciding many important issues about Atascadero' s road system. These decisions, as set forth in the "Introduction" above, involve the planning, design, construc- tion, acceptance and maintenance of the City' s road system. Discussion: A. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) CEQA was enacted in 1970 . it is set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq. Additionally, it is implemented through the State and City CEQA guidelines . It has evolved through . twenty years of legislative amendments and judicial interpretation to a sophisticated and complicated set of, laws . The purpose of CEQA is set forth in the State CEQA Guideline 15002, Subsection (a) , which states: (a) Basic Purposes of CEQA. The basic purposes of CEQA are to: ( 1 ) Inform governmental decision-makers and the public about the potential , significant environmental ef- fects of proposed activities . ( 2) Identify the ways that environmental• damage can be avoided or significantly reduced. (3) Prevent significant, avoidable damage to the envi- ronment by requiring changes in projects through the use of alternatives or mitigation measures when the governmental agency finds the changes to be feasible. ( 4 ) Disclose to the public the reasons why a governmen- tal agency approved the project in the manner the agency chose if significant environmental effects are involved. In sum, CEQA provides governmental decision-makers relevant information about the environmental consequences of their actions . 3 CEQA Guideline 15002 goes on to define action: (b) Governmental Action. CEQA applies to governmental action. This action may involve: ( 1) Activities directly undertaken by a governmental agency; ( 2) Activities financed in whole or in part by a gov- ernmental agency; or (3) Private activities which require approval from a governmental agency. (c) Private Action. Private action is not subject to CEQA unless the action involves governmental participa- tion, financing or approval. It should be noted that governments can legislate the very requirements that subject them to environmental review. For exam- ple, if Atascadero did not require tree removal permits, there would be no "discretionary action" (see below) subject to environ- mental determination. This guideline goes on to provide a short introduction to CEQA, setting out its basic concepts, documents and processes . It states in relevent part: (d) Project . A "project" is an activity subject to CEQA. The term "project" has been interpreted to mean far more than the ordinary dictionary definition of the term. (See: Section 15378 . ) (e) Time for Compliance . A governmental agency is required to comply with CEQA procedures when the agency proposes to carry out or approve the activity. ( See: Section 15004 . ) ( f) Environmental Impact Reports and Negative Declar- ations. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is the public document used by the governmental agency to an- alyze the significant environmental effects of a proposed project, to identify alternatives and to disclose possi- ble ways to reduce or avoid the possible environmental damage. ( 1 ) An EIR is prepared when the public agency finds substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. (See: Sec- tion 15064 (a) (1) . ) ( 2 ) When the agency finds that there is no substan- tial evidence that a project may have a significant environmental effect, the agency will prepare a "Negative Declaration" instead of an EIR. (See: Section 15070 . ) 4 (g) Significant Effect on the Environment . A signi- ficant effect on the environment is defined as a substantial adverse change in the physical conditions which exist in the area of f ected by the proposed project. (See: Section 15382 . ) Further, when an EIR identifies a significant effect, the government agency approving the project must make findings on whether the adverse envi- ronmental effects have been substantially reduced or, if not, why not. (See: Section 15091 . ) (h) Methods for Protecting the Environment.. CEQA requires more than merely preparing environmental docu- ments . The EIR by itself does not control the way in which a project can be built or carried out. Rather, when an EIR shows that a project would cause substantial adverse changes in the environment, the governmental agency must respond to the information by one or more of the following methods : ( 1) Changing a proposed project; (2 ) Imposing conditions on the approval of the project; (3) Adopting plans or ordinances to control a broader class of projects to avoid the adverse changes; (4 ) Choosing an alternative way of meeting the same need; ( 5) Disapproving the project; ( 6) Finding that changing or altering the project is not feasible; (7 ) Finding that the unavoidable significant envi- ronmental damage is acceptable as provided in Section 15093 . (i) Discretionary Action . CEQA applies in situations where a governmental agency can use its judgment in de- ciding whether and how to carry out or approve a project . A project subject to such judgmental controls is called a "discretionary project" . ( See: Section 15357 . ) ( 1 ) Where the law requires a governmental agency to act on a project in a set way without allowing the agency to use its own judgment, the project is called "ministerial" , and CEQA does not apply. (See: Section 15369 . ) ( 2 ) Whether an agency has discretionary or minis- terial controls over a project depends on the authority granted by the law providing the controls over the activity. Similar projects may be subject to discretionary controls in one city or county and 5 only ministerial controls in another. (See: Sec- tion 15268 . ) (j ) Public Involvement. Under CEQA, an agency must solicit and respond to comments from the public and other agencies concerned with the project. (See: Sections 15073, 15086, 15087 and 15088 .) (k) Three-Step Process . An agency will normally take up to three separate steps in deciding which document to prepare for a project subject to CEQA: ( 1) In the first step, the Lead Agency examines the project to determine whether the project is subject to CEQA at all. If the project is exempt, the proc- ess does not need to proceed any farther. The agency may prepare a Notice of Exemption. (See Sections 15061 and 15062 . ) (2) If the project is not exempt, the Lead Agency takes the second step and conducts an Initial Study (Section 15063) to determine whether the project may have a significant effect on the environment. If the Initial Study shows that there is no sub- stantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect, the Lead Agency prepares a Negative Declaration. (See: Sections 15070, et seq. ) (3) If the Initial Study shows that the project may have a significant effect, the Lead Agency takes the third step and prepares an EIR. (See: Sections 15080, et seq. ) Two documents should be more fully explained for the purposes of this opinion. These are the "Mitigated Negative Declaration" and the "Environmental Impact Report" . A "Mitigated Negative Declaration" is specifically recognized by Public Resources Code Section 21080, Subsection (c) , and CEQA Guideline 15070. This type of document is prepared when: " . . .An initial study identifies potentially significant effects on the environment, but ( i) revisions in the project plans or, proposals made by or agreed to by the applicant before the proposed Negative Declaration is released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no sig- nificant effects would occur, and ( ii) there is no substantial evidence before the agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the envi- ronment" (Public Resources Code Section 21080) . In practice the applicant modifies his or her project to eliminate or minimize the potential for adverse environmental impact. This modification is, many times, based upon expert analysis and reports . The mitigation measures identified are voluntarily incorporated into the project as submitted. _ 6 The "discussion" of CEQA Guideline 15070 states in relevant part: " . . .The Mitigated Negative Declaration provides effi- ciencies in the process where an applicant can discover environmental problems with his project after submitting his [or her] application. If the applicant can modify his [or her] project to avoid these significant effects, he [or she] can avoid the time and costs involved in pre- paring an EIR and qualify for a Negative Declaration instead. At the same time, he [or she] can avoid the significant effects on the environment as CEQA would seek to accomplish through the EIR process otherwise. The public would still be given an opportunity to review the proposal to determine whether the changes are sufficient to eliminate the significance of the effects . The environmental documents which have been challenged by Mrs . O' Keefe' s appeals are Mitigated Negative Declarations . An Envi- ronmental Impact Report (EIR) is required when it can be fairly argued, on the basis of substantial evidence, that the project may have a significant environmental impact. (Friends of "B" Street v. City of Hayward (1980) 106 Cal. App. 3d 988; No Oil , Inc . v. City of Los Angeles ( 1974) 13 Cal . 3d 68, CEQA Guideline 15064 (g} ( i) ) An EIR shall contain a detailed statement setting forth: ( a) The significant environmental effects of the pro- posed project. (b) Any significant environmental effects which cannot be avoided if the project is implemented. (c) Mitigation measures proposed to minimize the signi- ficant environmental effects including, but not limited to, measures to reduce wasteful, inefficient and unnec- essary consumption of energy. (d) Alternatives to the proposed project. (e) The relationship between local short-term uses of man' s environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity. ( f) Any significant irreversible environmental changes which would be involved in the proposed project should it be implemented. ( g) The growth-inducing impact of the proposed project. The report shall also contain a statement briefly indi- cating the reasons for determining that various effects of a project are not significant and, consequently, have not been discussed in detail in the environmental impact report. (Public Resources Code Section 21100) 7 Sections (e) and (f) are not required for the projects appealed by Mrs. O' Keefe. (Public Resources Code Section 21100. 1) . There are many types of EIRs. There are Project EIRs, Sub- sequent EIRs, Supplements to EIRs, Addendums to EIRs, Staged EIRs, Programmed EIRs and Master Environmental Assessments (Article 11 of the CEQA Guidelines) . Each is for a given situation. In fact, a previously certified EIR may be used for later approvals or incorporated by reference by environmental documents . (CEQA Guidelines 15150 and 15153 . ) The prudent use of the appropriate environmental document will expedite the processing of projects and provide adequate environ- mental information for governmental decisions . In fact, the CEQA Guidelines in Section 15006 emphasize the need to reduce delay and paper work. After an EIR is certified as complete and significant environ- mental impacts remain unmitigated, the City Council may deny the project (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15042) . Also, the City Council may approve a project despite unavoidable significant effects (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15043) . This may be done after an EIR is com- pleted, where the adverse significant impacts are mitigated as much as feasible and the City Council adopts findings that the project benefits outweigh the impacts . Finally, it must be stated that it is impossible to state with complete certainty that a particular permit, project or decision is always subject to or not subject to a certain level of envi- • ronmental review. The applicability of CEQA and the level of environmental review is a function of the potential for environmen- tal damage specific to the project under consideration (Friends of Westwood, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles ( 1987 ) 191 Cal . App. 3d 259; City of Carme -by-t e-Sea v. B . of Supervisors (1986 ) 183 Cal . App. 3d 229) . As such, each project must be considered individu- ally before determining what CEQA compliance is required. The analysis of the issues presented will assist in demonstrating how these decisions should be made. B. The Ardilla Road Appeal This construction project requires the City' s approval of a specific plan for road construction. The City would also consider a Tree Removal Permit. The courts have found building and grading types of permits to be discretionary and, thus, subject to environ- mental review if the City may exercise some discretion in a manner that could reduce environmental impact (Friends of Westwood, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles ( 1987 ) 191 Cal . App. 3d 259 (building per- mit) ; Day v. City of Glendale ( 1975 ) 51 Cal . App. 3d 817 ( grading permit where there was authority to condition grading and access based on geological report); and People v. Dept. of Housing and Community Development ( 1975 ) 45 Cal . App. 3d 185 (construction permit where water supply and drainage• considered) ) . The City of Atascadero exercises discretion regarding the permits required for the Ardilla Road extension project . The City 8 conditions its approvals upon considerations of geology, drainage, access and flora. As such, such approval is subject to CEQA re- view. The level of CEQA review at this time, for this particular project, depends upon the potential environmental impacts unique to this project and the existence of previous environmental review. Road and utility extension decisions by cities may, in the proper circumstance, require an EIR (City of Antioch v. City of Pittsburg ( 1986) 187 Cal . App. 3d 1325) . The City of Antioch case involved a much larger road and sewer project than contemplated at Ardilla Road, but, as stated above, each project must be individually analyzed. If it can be fairly argued that the project will generate significant environmental effects, an EIR is required (Public Resources Code Section 21151, CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064) . The analysis should begin with the project as submitted. This project has been modified to minimize environmental impacts . These modifications were made in reliance upon expert reports and other environmental documentation (Long Valley Ranches EIR, 1979 ) . As such, a Mitigated Negative Declaration is proposed which incorpor- ates the relevant mitigation measures suggested by these reports . The reliance upon previously certified EIRs in developing a Negative Declaration is specifically authorized by the CEQA Guide- lines, Section 15153, Subsection (c) . These reports and resultant • mitigation measures adequately address the potential for adverse environmental impacts . No "fair argument" can be made that signi- ficant impacts remain. C. The San Marcos Road Project The analysis for this project is similar to the Ardilla Road project. CEQA applies to the project, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration is proposed. Absent in this analysis is the use of a comprehensive EIR such as that certified for the Long Valley Ranches . The only EIR which covers this property that can be identified is the 1977 General Plan EIR, which is a four-page document; this EIR is of little use. In this project, the "Mitigated Negative Declaration" must rely only upon those reports utilized to impose mitigation meas- ures . These reports do not provide the scope and depth of information provided by the EIR for the Ardilla Road project. It is much more difficult to overcome the standard set for requiring an EIR. As stated previously, if it can be fairly argued that the project will generate significant environmental effects , an EIR is required (Public Resources Code, Section 21151 , CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064 ) . The City Council should consider the evidence presented at the hearing, both by documents and oral presentation. If substantial 9 evidence would support an EIR, or if the "fair argument" standard is met, an EIR should be required. D. Accepting the Maintenance of Roads The City is also considering acceptance of maintenance for the private roads, once such roads are constructed. Maintenance of private roads has been determined to be a project within the mean- ing of CEQA. (Erven V. Board of Supervisors (1975) 53 Cal . App. 3d 1004 . ) In Erven, the Board of Supervisors of Riverside County adopted a resolution declaring its intention to provide road im- provement and maintenance service in an unincorporated area of the County. The developer did not dedicate the private roads to the County. The Court stated that the Board' s decision to provide road improvement and maintenance as an added extended service was a "project" within the meaning of CEQA. As such, the Court deter- mined that the County had to proceed with the preparation and consideration of an Environmental Impact Report or, at the very least, a Negative Declaration that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment absent the existence of stat- utory or categorical exemptions . The Court held that repair and maintenance of private roads qualified as a Class I categorical exemption. A Class I project consists, in part, of the operation, repair, maintenance or minor alteration of existing public or pri- vate structures, including roads, highways , streets and gutters . (Erven v. Board of Supervisors, 53 Cal . App. 3d at 1014; Guide- lines, Subsection 15301 ) It should be noted that even a Class I exemption will be inapplicable where the repair or maintenance of . roads involves removal of a stand of trees . ( Subsection 15301 (c) ) As in Erven, the developer of the Colony subdivision did not dedicate the private roads to the City. The City is merely con- sidering acceptance of the maintenance of such roads. Under Erven, maintenance of the private streets would be found to qualify as a Class I categorical exemption. However, it should be pointed out that even if such maintenance falls within a Class I exemption, categorical exemptions may be held inapplicable where the cumula- tive impact of successive projects of the same type and in the same place is significant over time or where there is a reasonable pos- sibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances . (Guidelines, Subsection 15300 . 2 (b) (c) ) E. Judicial Remedies for Violations of CEQA For your information, if the City is found to have violated provisions of CEQA, the court may require the following: 1 . Void the City' s environmental determination; 2 . Order the City to comply with CEQA; 3 . Mandate the halting of project activity pending CEQA compliance; 10 4 . The retaining of - court jurisdiction to monitor CEQA compliance; and . 5 . Attorney fees . (Public Resources Code, Section 21168 . 9; Code of Civil Procedure, section 1021 . 5 ) ARM:cw (f:AttyCEQA) c: Ray Windsor, City Manager Henry Engen, Dir. of Community Development • 11 REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Item No. Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: . 11/27/90 File No: Ardilla Road d Extension From: Henry Engen, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Appeal by Joan O'Keefe of Negative Declaration posted for proposed extension of Ardilla Road. RECOMMENDATION: Continuance to permit the Council to consider the appeal in conjunction with proposed heritage tree removal requests and road improvement plans (refer to next Agenda Item) . BACKGROUND: On October 101, 1990, a Negative Declaration was posted (see attached) for the proposed construction of the extension of Ardilla Road between Graves Creek Road and Balboa to enable development of intervening private lots . The posting of the Negative Declaration was done in anticipation of a hearing on November 27th to consider the attendent heritage tree removal request by Bill Barnes (Atascadero Highlands) . The City' s Arborist had been providing direction to Tom Vaughan Surveys for staking of the property and proper designation of trees proposed to be removed. However, the City's Arborist then resigned her position and work on the staff report has not been completed. However, a consulting City Arborist has been retained and is scheduling work in time for the Council ' s next meeting, or December 11, 1990. APPEAL ISSUES: The attached appeal was received on October 30, 1990 and is required by ordinance to be scheduled for hearing within 30 days. Ms. O' Keefe contests the adequacy of the Negative Declaration and requests the preparation of an environmental impact report. it should be noted that an environmental impact report was prepared for Long Valley Ranches in 1979 and was certified by the Division of Real Estate when the land was to be marketed, which includes the . project under discussion. The current proposal is to develop a portion of that overall subdivision by paving the existing paper street Ardilla. The Atascadero Highlands ownership consists of 10 adjoining lots on the south side of Ardilla. Some 191 Live and Valley Oaks are proposed to be removed, including 37 0£ heritage size. The applicant has submitted a tree protection plan and more detailed geologic information, and a Negative Declaration based upon project redesign and mitigation measures was posted. Staff has responded to Ms. O'Keefe' s comments in the attached annotated memorandum opposing the need for an EIR. We have also enclosed the preliminary memorandum from Lisa Schicker, former City Arborist, dated September 26, 1990. ALTERNATIVE: Technically, the Council could act on the independent issue of the Negative Declaration, however, staff would. recommend that in view of the lack of road improvement and tree protection report, that it be continued to your December 11, 1990 meeting. HE:ph Encls: Project Area Map Letter of Appeal - October 29, 1990 Draft Negative Declaration Responses to Comments Environmental. Coordinator' s Negative Declaration - Oct. 10, 1990 City Arborist' s Memorandum - September 26, 1990 cc: Joan O'Keefe Bill Barnes Tom Vaughan • Lands of Atascadero Highlands etal. in the vicinity of the proposed Ardilla Road extension APN's 050-141-19,28,29,30,31,32; and APN`s 050-151-02,05,06,07 F+ . l O C t I RSC �EBbA AH,\ '1 C A NE October 29, 1990 9985 Old Morro Rd. East Atascadero; Ca 93422 s Re: Negative Declaration Ardilla Rd. Extension 10-10-90 Dear Mr. Engen; I am appealing the finding of a Negative Declaration for the Ardilla Road extension project. Enclosed is the $100. 00 fee for filing the appeal . I have reviewed the Initial Study and I do not agree with findings 1, 2 and 3. The Initial Study does not adequately address the cumulative impacts of this project on the environment and to the people living in Atascadero. This project, the extension of .66 miles of Ardilla Rd, is really only one phase of a larger project which will be the l• construction of nine, twelve or twenty four single family parcels. All three figures are given in the report. The Geologic Hazard Report states , "The site consists of 9 lots or parcels which vary in size from 2 . 10 acres to 8 .78 acres ." The Initial Assessment states "twelve (24) single family residents. " The report does not address the possibility of future lot splits which could increase this Z . number. Subdivision is a common occurrence in Atascadero. There are no maps in the packet to provide an overview o-f lot configuration or future site development. Pacific Geoscience describes the project as an extension of Ardilla Road between Balboa Avenue and San Benito Road. Their map and description does not seem to conform to present day maps . It is impossible to know just what this project will look like when it is completed. This also adds to the difficulty of discussing the project. Following is a list of the items which I believe were not covered in sufficient detail or were not considered in your report. I . Earth and 3 . water. Drainage, soil erosion and sediment control have been a problem in this area, for example, the Dovica project. The report says in ( 1)e and ( 1)f there may be a problem with wind or water erosion. In (3 ) b the report states there will be changes in drainage and surface runoff . The mitigation measure for addressing these impacts does not 3. state what control measures will be installed and how they will be monitored. Public Resources Code Sec. 21081 . 6 . "Reporting and monitoring programs for project changes implementing mitigation findings or negative declarations, states that "the public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program . . .in order to mitigate or avoid �• significant effects on the environment. This information does not appear in the report. 4 . Plant Life. The report indicates there will be significant impacts on plant life and the mitigation measure addressing this is that, where practical, the applicant shall preserve significant oak trees at the edges of construction through the measures recommended by the City 5. IArborist. Was a redesign recommended to the developer to reduce the impact? Your report states that 141 live and valley oak will be removed. Your report does not state that an unknown number of additional trees will also be impacted. The arborist's report states, "I have in my possession two different tree removal reports . Because of the differences reported in these two reports, the amount of trees that will be removed is approximately between 190 - 220 trees, with approximately 37 of these being heritage size (20"dbh or greater. ) " Staff's report does not state that many, many trees had already been removed when the city allowed a rough cut extension on Ardilla to be constructed without permits or plans . The proposed road extension visually appears to be on the flattest part of the terrain. What remains for building sites appears to be moderate to steep slopes . The geological report describes the land as steeply sloping �. terrain. How many more trees will have to come out when driveways, building pads and septic go in? In addition to the trees which will have to be removed the regaining plant and animal life will be impacted as the assessment indicates . 13 . Transportation/Circulation a. ,c,d, f . The General Plan �• is inadequate and outdated in regard to Circulation. The primary mode of transportation is by motorized vehicles and the winding, narrow, poorly maintained roads cannot handle the increase in traffic. 14 . Public Services . a.-f. The General Plan is inadequate, $' inconsistent, ignored, outdated , inconsistent with the zoning ordinance and poorly implemented. Atascadero cannot currently provide the residents in western Atascadero with adequate fire protection. All Other services have been impacted and development fees are not sufficient to cover the costs of providing for these services . 9 15 . Utilities . c.-e. Atascadero is experiencing a water shortage and continues to issue building permits . This area is not served by city sewer. Slope and percolation have not been assessed for each individual lot to determine if some adjustments in regard to lot lines need to be made or if a central sewage system should be considered for this project. The report does not indicate if the drainage plans for this area can accommodate the increased run off when homes are built. • fpo 18. Aesthetics . How many trees will be removed for the road, for houses, for septic, for lot splits? What have been and will be the cumulative impacts of this kind of piecemealing of projects on Atascadero' s Urban Forest, 21 . Mandatory Findings of Significance. c. The assessment li. does not indicate that reasonable alternatives such as clustered housing have been addressed. The arborist' s report indicates confusion regarding how many trees are to be removed. Will the road policy for Ardilla be implemented as poorly as the Garcia Road project? Can we expect that this Negative Declaration will be used a boiler-plate for a Negative Declaration on San Marcos Road, just as the Garcia Road project is used for this one. What are the cumulative impacts of such a road policy? Based on the above information I believe that the Initial Study is inadequate because it fails to assess the whole project. The building of a road in an area designed for residential development is only one phase of a project. It is not The Project and this assessment avoids the intent of the environmental review process by taking the approach it has taken. Since the Initial Assessment is inadequate I believe the finding of a Negative Declaration is deficient- , and for this reason 1 am requesting that an EIR be completad for this Project. C;fi° ir►� V 3 DRAFT NEGATIVE DECLARATION RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED ARDILLA ROAD EXTENSION The following responses to the comments contained within the letter from ,Joan O'Keefe dated October 29, 1990 are numbered to correspond with the attached annotated copy of her letter. 1 . There is an error in Section 13.a. of the Supplemental Responses. The correct number of lots to be served by the extension of Ardilla Road is twelve (12) . The total number of vehicle trips per day should read 120 and not 240 . 2. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not require speculation. Therefore, there is no discussion within the Initial Study as to the potential for future subdivision activity. The General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Subdivision Ordinance regulate the division of land within Atascadero. Any subdivision proposed in the future would also be subject to CEQA. 3 . The soil erosion and sedimentation control measures required to reduce potential damage will be "best engineering practices" and will be installed as required by the projects approved plans and verified by the City's inspector as to installation and ongoing maintenance. 4 . Public Resources Code Section 21081 . 6 does not require that each environmental document contain a recital of mitigation monitoring systems. Mitigation monitoring for this project will be undertaken on an ongoing basis by the City' s inspector. 5 . Alternative road designs were proposed by the developer prior to submittal of the preferred design. The developer has moved the proposed extension of Ardilla Road within the Colony right-of-way, and where necessary and feasible, outside the R-0-W to preserve significant trees and reduce grading. The proposed alignment is the least environmentally disruptive alternative. 6. The current project is limited to the construction of a road to provide access to existing legal lots of record which are planned and zoned for single family residential development. Any required environmental review of the development of the individual sites will • be conducted when such development is proposed. 7'. Comment noted. The draft Negative Declaration does not purport to address the adequacy of the General Plan. 8 . Comment noted. See response- 7 above. p # 9. Comments noted. See responses #2 and #6 above. 10 . Comment noted. See response #2 above. 11 . The lots to be accessed by the extension of Ardilla Road are existing, legal lots of record. The imposition of a "cluster housing" alternative on the owner/developer is not reasonable. As noted in #5 above, alternative alignments for the extension of Ardilla Road were considered but rejected because of the increased potential for environmental degradation. 2 CITY OF ATASCADERO i� ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATOR NEGATIVE DECLARATI(e CO1VIrviUNM DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 6500 PALMA AVE' ATASCADERO, CA 93422 (805)461-5035 APPLICANT: Atascadero Highlands 10385 Santa Ana Atascadero, CA 93423 (805) 466-2826 PROJECT TITLE: Ardilla Road Extension PROJECT LOCATION: Ardilla Road between Graves Creek Road and Balboa Road PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construction of an ex tens' ionf o Ardilla Road to serve existing parcels zoned for single-family residential development. FINDINGS: 1. The project does not have the potential to degrade the environment. 2. The project will not achieve short-term to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. 3. The project does not have impacts which are iadtvid ualty limited.but comulattvely considerable. 4. The project will not cause substantial adverse effects on humans either big directly or indirectly, DETERMINATION: Based on the above findings. and the information contained in the initial stu (made a enee and on file in the Community Development Department). it has been determined a t hereof b project will not have an adverse impact on the environment. at Henry Eng Community Development Director Date Posted: October 10, 1990 Date Adopted: cm 111M i NEGATIVE DECLARATION RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES AnIW.A ROAD EXTENSION The on-site inspector shall insure that aall soil eerosion and 1 , Th lace sediment control measures are in p 2. Where practical, the applicant shallopreser a stheignificant oak trees at the edges of construe recommended by the City Arborist. 3 , The recommendations contained re ort datedOhnical ctober27, 1989 Engineering Field Exploration p shall be implemented. red 4 . If any cultural or archaeological resources are enceaseeand during the course of construction, prior to the appropriate authorities shall constructionea p commencement of any further i ...,. CITY OF ATASCADERO —� 1979ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATOR ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FO COMMUNn y DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 6500 PALMA AVE. ATASCADER0. CA 93422 (805)46I-5035 Please We our print clearly in ink lhcornplete jomjs w91 be returned Applicant 4146 5 Address: P,O. f5oX 2845 Phone#: CJ7 1% � Project Address: • 50— !- 14,t .2 Assessor's Parcel#: moi . Legal Description: A i I)a inn b�P ��Pae /'-f►,Qyb�5 Gy a1 bt�q List and describe any other permits or public agency(Federal. State or local) approvals required for this project: J3014 Proposed Use of Site: r=u PR�tF'C'T nFSc^_DmrTn��• 1. Site area fin acres): / f 2. Square footage of buildings: U IA 3. Square footage of parking areas: 4. Number of on site parking spaces: 5. Describe proposed schedules 4 JX po'l 4 Q'.5 :,.5*19 Qj ODS V et 1 6. Describe associated projects: .170tl e 7. If residential. include the number of units, schedule of unit sizes, anticipated sale prices or rents, and anticipated household size. NIA 8. If commercial,indicate the type (neighborhood,reglonaL etcJ. and square footage of sales areas. NI-i 9. If industrial. indicate type. estimated rmpkWment per shift, and products/byproducts produced. NlIq 10. If institutianal. indicate major fu x-tions. estimated employment per shift, estimated occupancy. and community benefits to be derived from the project. NIA ENMONMENTAL SETTING 1. Describe the Project site as it exists before the project, including information on topography. soil stability, plants and antirnals, availability of utilities. and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Describe any existing structures on the site. and the use of the structures. 2. Describe the surrounding properties. including information on plants and animals, and any cultural. historical,or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land use (residential.com mereiaL etc.). intensity of development. and sole of development(building height. setback. etc.). Are the following===effects of your project? Provide a written response to each item checked"YES". 1. Change in existing features of any stream. swale, drainage Pattern. or substantial alteration to ndsting topography? see phn 2 2.. Change in scenic views or vistas from adsting residential areas, public lands. or roads? 3. Change in pattern.scale, or character of the general area of the ❑ project U� 4. Significant amounts of solid waste or Utter? ❑ S. Change in dust. ash. smoke,fumes. or oders in vicinity? ❑ 6. Change in stream or ground water quality or quantity? ?. Substantial change in existing noise Or vibration levels? ❑ S. Is the site on��d land or on�9es!O o or more? 20000 Q M " a 6I©PQ� &t4 eta Q 9. Use or disposal of hazardous materials? 10. Substantial change in demand for municipal services? ❑ 11. Substantial increase in fossil fuel consumption? ❑ 12. is the project related to a larger project or series Of projects? ❑ 13. Removal of. or grading within the dripline of mature trees? ❑ see pian . Discuss in detail the other development alternatives that were considered for this site'orj ro ect. EScplain why each of the alternatives was rejected. P Provide any additional information that you believe will be beneficial in the analysis of the potential environ- mental affects of your project. Such additional supporting data may include: Maps , Photographs Charts . Drainage Studies Soils Reports Geologic Reports Archaeological Reports Traffic Studies RTMC 11Z N I hereby certify that the Statements furnished above, and in the attached exhibits, present the data and information required for this initial evaluation. to the best of my ability. and that the facts. statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. -OOP*)o 43 -7 Signature Date Maw CITY OF ATASCADERO ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATOR INITIAL STUDY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 65M PALMA AVE. ATASCADERO,CA 93422 (80)461-5035 I. BACKGROUND: L Proposal Title: Ardilla Road Extension 2. File Number(s): NA 3. Brief Description of Proposal: An extension of Ardilla Road within the original Colony Right-of-Way to serve existing parcels zoned for single-family residential development. II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: (Explanations of all"yes"and "maybe"answers are provided on attached sheets.) YES MAYBE NO 1. LUtIl. Will the proposal result in a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? ❑ ❑ ❑X. b. Disruptions,displacements,compaction or overcovering of the sod? 0 ❑ ❑ a Change in topography or ground surface relief features? ❑ ❑ d. The destruction,covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical ❑ ❑ D features? e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils,either on or off the site? ❑ 0 ❑ f. Changes in siltation,deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a ❑ 0 river or stream or the bed of any lake?- u g. Exposure of people or property to geological hazards such as earthquakes, ❑ landslides,mudslides,ground failure,or similar hazards? 2. Ak. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? ❑ ❑ Q b. The creation of objectionable odors? ❑ ❑ `T c. Alteration of air movement,moisture,temperature,or any change in climate, (� F7 F7either locally or regionally? NO 3. Water. Will the proposal result in MAYBE a. Changes in currents,or the course or direction of water movements? ❑ ❑ ❑ b. Changes in absorption rates,drainage patterns,or the rate and amount of surface runoff? ® ❑ ❑ C. Alterations to the course or flow of flood water? ❑ ❑ o d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? ❑ ❑ e. Discharge into surface waters or in any alteration of surface water quality, inducting but not limited to,temperature,dissolved oxygen oridity? ❑ ❑ f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? ❑ ❑ X❑ g. Change in the quantity of ground waters,either through direct additions or withdrawals,or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? ❑ ❑ Q h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? ❑ ❑ ❑ i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? ❑ ❑ ❑ 4. Pta_•+t .ife_ Will the proms result in: a. Change in the diversity of species,or number of any species of plants(in- cluding trees,shrubs,grass,crops,aquatic plants)? ❑X ❑ ❑ b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare,or endangered species of plants? ❑ ❑ 0 c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area,or in a barrier to the normal replm-ishment of existing species? Q ❑ ❑ d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? ❑ ❑ Q 5• A. niMa Life- Will the proposal result in: a. Change m the diversity of species,or numbers of any species of animals(birds, land animals including reptiles,fish and shellfish,benthic organisms,or in ) ❑ ❑ ❑ b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique,rare,or endangered species of ❑ ❑ animals? c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area,or result in a barrier to the ❑ migration or movement of animals? IRI 7 6. Noir. Will the proposal result in: - a. Increases in existing rye levels? ❑x ❑ ❑ b. Exposure of people to severe noise? ❑ ❑ 0 7 Light and -1+*a Will the proposal Produce new light or glare? ❑ ❑ 7 YES M�E NO 8. Land Use. Will the proposal resulCin a substantial alteration of the present or ❑ ❑ planned land use of an area? 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? ❑ ❑ 7 b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? El 7X❑ 10. Risk of Ujz set Will the proposal involve: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances(including,but not limited to,oil,pesticides,chemicals or radiation)in the event of an accident ❑ ❑ Q or upset conditions? b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency © ❑ (� evacuation plan? �==� U. PoFylati Will the proposal alter the location,distribution,density,or growth © ❑ ❑ rate of the human population of an area? 12. Housing, Will the proposal affect existing housing,or create a demand for ❑ ❑ 7;Kadditional housing? 13. TransRg=Won&jrculafjon. Will the proposal result in a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movements? ❑ u X 7 b. Effects on existing parking facilities or demand for new parking? ❑ ❑ ❑ c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? ❑ 0 El d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or ❑ 17 goods? e. Alterations to waterborne,rail or air traffic? ❑ ❑ ❑ f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? ❑ Q ❑ 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon,or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? 0 ❑ ❑ b. Police protection? F ❑ 0 c. Schools? a ❑ ❑ d. Parks or other recreational facilities? 0 ❑ ❑ e. Maintenance of public facilities,including roads? Q ❑ ❑ f. Other governmental services? 0 ❑ ❑ MAYBE NO 15. Ene Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? ❑ ❑ Q b. Substantial increase in demand u?pon existing sources of iBY,or require the development of new sources of energy? ❑ ❑ Q 16. Utility. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems,or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? ❑ ❑ b. communications systems? ❑ ❑ 0 c. Water? ❑ 0 d. Sewer or septic tanks? ❑ ❑ e. Storm water drainage? ❑ f. Solid waste and disposal? ❑ ❑ 0 17. Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard(excluding mental ❑ ❑ health)? b. Exposure of people to potential health ❑ ❑ 0 18. Aesthetics. Will theresult in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the Vic,or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? ❑ ® ❑ 19. Recreation- Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? ❑ ❑ 20. Cultural Resourcm a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric ❑ ❑ archaeological site? b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric ❑ F7 0 or historic building,structure,or object? c. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would ❑ ❑ 0 affect unique ethnic cultural values? d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential ❑ ❑ impact area? " . . r YES MAY13E NO 21. Ma_„dat=Findings of Significance, a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the Quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major ❑ ❑ periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term,to the disadvantage of long-term,environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief,definitive period of time while long- term impacts will endure well into the future) c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited,but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small,but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) ❑ Q ❑ d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or indirectly? ❑ ❑ III. DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial study. I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project,and a a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, ❑ and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Date: r a//4190 Henry En Communityevelopment ' r/ Environmental Coordinator A ITACMAENTS: Explanations Location Map Project Map Environmental Information Form cac aao INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES ARDILLA ROAD EXTENSION l .a. See attached Geologic Report dated October 16, 1989 and report dated October 27, 1989 (re: Geotechnical Engineering Field Exploration) regarding the extent of any geologic hazards or unstable earth conditions . b. The grading necessary for the construction of Ardilla Road will result in the displacement and compaction of the native soils. The extent of the grading for this road is no greater than would be anticipated for any road building project of this magnitude. The compaction of the soil is unavoidable, and in most cases, is required for the purposes of obtaining a stable road bed. C. The grading required for the construction of the road will change the topography and ground surface relief features in the immediate vicinity of the construction. Changes in drainage localized patterns will be accommodated through dikes and ditches constructed as part of the road. e. Construction activity will remove native grasses and other vegetation exposing the surface soil to rain and wind which may cause soil erosion. Soil that is stockpiled may also be subject to wind or water erosion. Soil erosion and sedimentation controls should be imposed as part of any road improvement plans. f. If not properly controlled, soil which is eroded from the construction area may be transported to Graves Creek. Such siltation could adversely affect the channel of the Creek. Soil erosion and sedimentation control methods should be installed prior to the commencement of construction activities, and should be monitored through the life of the project. g. See attached Geologic Report dated October 16, 1989 and report dated October 27, 1989 (re: Geotechnical Engineering Field Exploration) . 3 .b. Compaction of the soil in the area affected by the construction of the road will alter and increase storm water runoff. Grading that is done will alter local drainage patterns. Drainage facilities will be constructed in conjunction with the road which will redirect the drainage and avoid adverse impacts on adjacent parcels. 4 .a. The construction of the road will necessitate the removal of 191 Live Oak and Valley Oak trees . Thirty seven of these trees have a dbh in excess of 20 inches which makes them "Heritage Trees" as defined by the City' s Tree Ordinance. Alternative means of reducing the number of trees to be removed are suggested in the Arborist's report dated September 26, 1990 .. C. Grading and the soil compaction necessary to construct the road may result in a barrier to the natural_ replenishment of the vegetation removed. Future residential development of the parcels accessed by the road may likewise inhibit natural replenishment of native plant species. 5 .a. The removal of the natural vegetation necessary to accommodate road construction will affect the native animals dependent upon that vegetation as a source of food and shelter. Eventual development of the adjacent parcels for residential uses will also impact the number and diversity of animals which utilize the area. The most severely impacted will be those species with the least tolerance for contact with humans . b. No rare or endangered species of wildlife have been identified as resident within the affected area. C. To the extent that new residents of the area accessed by the extension of Ardilla Rd. have, or acquire, domestic animals, new species of animals will be introduced into the area. Free roaming dogs may discourage certain wildlife species from using the area and livestock (horses, etc.) may compete for food sources with native wildlife. 6.a. Noise levels will be elevated during construction of the road due to the operation of construction equipment. Hours of operation of the construction equipment will be limited by the Zoning Ordinance. There are a limited number of residences that will be directly affected by the increased noise levels . The duration of the increased noise levels will be limited to the construction period of the road. Use of the road by motorized vehicles after its construction will increase ambient noise levels in areas near the road. 8 . The area to be accessed by the new road has been 2 designated on the City's General Plan and Zoning Maps for single family residential use. No change in the planned land use of the area is proposed or anticipated • as a result of providing access to the area. 11 . The population of the immediate area accessed by the road can be expected to increase as a result of the construction of single family homes. The population increase is anticipated by the General Plan, however. 13.a. The extension of Ardilla Rd. will provide access to twelve 4�single family parcels. If each parcel is developed, and if it is assumed that each dwelling will generate ten (10) vehicle trips per day, a total of -Ql-e /'lo additional vehicle trips may generated from the subject area. This number of trips may be seen by existing residents of the area as a significant increase in traffic volumes on the streets leading to the area. C. See response to item 13.a. above. d. The extension of Ardilla Rd. will provide for improved circulation through the affected residential area and will complete a portion of the originally proposed circulation plan. f. See response to items 13 .a. above. 14 . a - f. Increased demands on all public services can be anticipated as a result of the residential development that is expected to follow the construction of the Ardilla Rd. extension. The density and number of dwelling units planned is within the limits established by the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The parcels to be accessed are existing legal lots that can be developed after access is secured and building permits are issued. The construction of the road extension will not increase the planned land use of the subject area. Development fees and property taxes will be utilized to offset the cost of providing the required governmental services. 16.c. The eventual development of the affected parcels for residential use will require the provision of a potable water supply. The Atascadero Mutual Water Company has, in the past, advised that adequate supplies of water are available to serve anticipated residential growth. 3 Water lines to serve the residential parcels will be extended within the Right-of-Way of Ardilla Rd. No distinguishable environmental effects should occur as a result of the installation of the water lines with road construction. d. Waste disposal from new single family dwellings will be handled on-site by septic tanks and leachfields . All public health and building code requirements will be met in the design of the individual waste disposal systems. e. An extension of Ardilla Road and the construction of additional single family dwellings will increase the amount, duration, and velocity of storm water runoff. The road improvement plans contain provisions for handling storm water runoff. The site design for future single family homes will need to address storm water runoff both on and off site. 18 . The grading necessary for road construction, and the removal of 191 trees may be aesthetically offensive to some observers, particularly those already residing in the immediate area. Any reduction in the number of trees to be removed will reduce the aesthetic impact of the project. 20 . No known archaeological resources exist in the area that would be impacted by road construction activities . Standard conditions regarding archaeological resources will be attached to the project which will require all work to cease until an appropriate authority has reviewed the site if any cultural resources are encountered during the course of construction. 21 .c. The impacts of the proposed construction of the Garcia Road extension on native flora and fauna may be seen by some observers as significant. These impacts may be reduced through alternative construction techniques, or may mitigated, in part, through planting of replacement trees. However, unless the City or some other organization is willing and able to acquire the property and preserve it in an undisturbed state, some impact to the environment as a result of the construction of a road and dwellings is inevitable. 4 i Lit, sKl vM•p _ SPL COLI RO +`�► Y�,� *f �o 'f k � Sl A RO. ►PO RQ1 ,p 4 NSU lot ....,,,,' EI?41 ' y 9 r F i + ( MARtC PA RO �fNAC SITE.--.W SA i �4 �, FgtiAM� �9BF ' RD. R = `EBuoA cEi A ri� -moo. A CADER 0 I VICINITY - MAP _f =t .i r t GEOLOGIC HAZARD REPORT - FOR PARCELS 149 LOTS 2--AD LOCK 25 ARDILLA R ATASCADER09 CALIFORNIA PG-6095-N01 OCTOBER 16, 1989 Pacific Geoscience, Inc. A M=W of The E&M 37swft QMw �R 4378 Santa Fe Road - San Luis Obispo,California 93401 - (805)544-3276 - FAX(805)544-1786 • October 13, 1989 Job No. PG-6095 NO1 89-10-594 Atascadero Highlands - P.O. Box 419 Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 Project: Parcels 1-4, Lots 2-6, Block 25 Ardilla Road Atascadero, California Subject: Geology Hazard Report In accordance with your request, we have prepared a Geologic Hazard Report for Parcels 1-4, Lots 2-6, Block 25, Ardilla Road, Atascadero, California . The purpose of this report was to provide specific information regarding the presence of geologic hazards in the area of the subject site. The scope of our work consisted of a site reconnaissance, review of published and unpublished reports and the preparation of this report. The Seismic Safety Element to the General Plan for the City of Atascadero noted a potential landslide to occur on Lots 5 & 6. As a result, a limited subsurface exploration was conducted within the Potential slide area. This portion of the exploration included the excavation of seven backhoe trenches to depths of 4.0' to 10.5' feet. The-, holes , were logged with respect to geologic structure and formation. The results are summarized in the attached trench logs. • October 13, 1989 Job No. PG-6095-N01 89-10-594 If there should be any questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact this office Respectfully submit PACIFIC GEO CBMM Richard A. ,fo t awcic Engineering ;geologist RAP P. SER File 18 Copies: 2 - Atascadero Highlands 2 - Bill Barnes 1 - File October 13, 1989 1 Job No. PG-6095-NO1 89-10-594 SITE DESCRIPTION The site is located southwest of the intersection of Ardilla Road and Balboa Road in the City of Atascadero, California. The site consists of 9 lots or parcels which vary in size from 2.10 acres to 8.78 acres. It is situated on the north flank of a east-west trending ridge. The flanks of the ridge are sloping at approximately 30% and have a relief of approximately 250 feet. Vegetation on-site consists of native grasses, brush and scattered oaks. GEOLOGIC SETTING The subject site is lies on the north flank of an east-west trending ridge within the Coast Ranges Geomorphic Province of California. The steeply sloping terrain is dissected by tributaries of the Salinas River which is located approximately two miles to the east. Locally, the site is generally underlain by the (oldest to youngest) Upper Cretaceous Aged Atascadero (Chico-U.S.G.S.-1938) Formation, Oligocene Aged Vaqueros Formation and the lower member of the Miocene Aged, Monterey Formation. STRATIGRAPHY Atascadero Formation consists of marine units that conformably underlie the Vaqueros Formation and Monterey Formation. Characteristically, the sandstone is fine-grained, well sorted and massive; where bedded, the beds generally are 6-24 inches thick and dip moderately to the southeast.. They range from friable to well cemented and are noncalcareous. The mudstone unit is siliceous, porous, -easily broken and has a hackly or conoidal fracture characteristic. The Vaqueros Formation is a predominantly coarse- • W October 13, 1989 2 Job No. PG-6095-N01 89-10-594 grained marine. sedimentary rocks. It is thickly bedded of massive, gritty, arkosic sandstone. The sandstone is coarse grained, pebbly, hard, medium gray and poorly to moderately sorted. It dips to the east at approximately 30 degrees. It was not observed northwest of lot 5. The lower member of the Monterey Formation is characterized as being a well-bedded, calcareous shale, mudstone and siltstone. Medium -gray to grayish orange beds of sandstone were noted on- site. The formation was noted to weather to a clayey topsoil which supports grass and forest vegetation. Locally, the formation dips to the northeast between 25 and 30 degrees. STRUCTURE The site is situated within the southern Salinas Valley which mainly lies on the Salinian structural block. The Salinian block is a structural element of the Coast Ranges that is characterized by a basement of granitic and high-grade metamorphic rocks (ref.no. 5) The San Andreas fault zone borders the Salinian block along the northeast side and the complex Jolon-Rinconada fault system along the southwest side. The San Andreas Fault is the closest known active fault to the subject site, located approximately 28 miles northeast. The San Andreas Fault undergoes a major change in character between Parkfield and Choiame. The fault northeast of Cholame moves more or less constantly in a process called creep. On the southeast side the fault is locked, moving only in very large earthquakes. The last major quake on this portion was the 1857 event (magnitude 80 or greater), centered at Fort Tejon in the Tehachapi Mountains. In the immediate vicinity of Parkfield is a twenty (20) mile segment that is locked, giving an earthquake every twenty (20) years or so. Dated quakes on this segment are 1881, 1901, 1922, 1934 and 1966, and are usually in the magnitude 5.5-6.0 range (Chipping, 1987, Ref. No. 6). • s®r-11WUR October 13, 1989 3 Job No. FG-6095-NO1 89-10-594 Mapping conducted by Hart (Hart, 1976, Ref. No. 8), indicated the presence of two minor inactive faults on-site. No direct evidence of their existence was observed, however, based on geomorphology and stratigraphic relationships of on-site units, the faults were inferred to exist. . These faults should pose no greater or lesser threat to the proposed site development than similar faults related to past periods of structural activity. GROUNDWATER No free water was encountered in any exploration trench nor was observed on the surface. Holes T-2 and T-7 were located within shallow swales. However, as we are late into the dry season, high moisture contents were not expected. Free water would be expected in the swale areas during periods of heavy rainfall. SEISMICITY The site is located in a region of generally high seismicity, as is all of Central and Southern California. However, it is not located within any state or county geologic hazard zone. During its design life, the site is expected to experience ground motions from earthquakes on regional and/or local causative faults. The following Table 1 lists known regionally active faults in the general area of the site, their maximum probable earthquake magnitude and seismic parameters for the identified causative faults. • "S� October 13, 1989 4 Job No. PG-6095-N01 89-10-594 TABLE I SEISMICITY FOR ACTIVE FAITL'L'S San Andreas Fault Distance .from Site (Miles) 28 NE Maximum Probable Earthquakel 8.25 Maximum Probable Peak Bedrock Acceleration2 .43g Maximum Probable Repeatable High Ground Acceleration4. .43 g , Estimated Modred Mercalli Intensity3.. X 1. Numbers refer to Richter Magnitude. 2. Krinitzsky et al. (1987). '. 3. For maximum probable earthquake, from "Seismic Design_ for . Nuclear Power Plants '1970: 4. - Ploessel & Slosson (1974)--'. . SECONDARY EARTHOXJAI -EE= A. Earthquake Accelerations We have analyzed the San Andreas fault presented on Table 1 for secondary earthquake effects at the site and determined Sthat for the intended use, a rriaacimum probable 8.25 magnitude S MEW October 13, 1989 5 Job No. PG-6095-NO1 89-10-594 earthquake occurring on the San Andreas fault zone would be the most significant event. The accelerations produced at -the site by such an event would exceed those events on any other known fault. A magnitude 8.25 earthquake occurring on the San Andreas fault zone could produce a peak bedrock acceleration on the order of .43g at the site. Peak acceleration is not, however, always representative of the accelerations for which structures are actually designed (Ploessel and Slosson, 1974). Repeatable high ground accelerations from a 8.25 magnitude earthquake on the San Andreas fault zone are estimated to be on the order of .43g. The design of structures should comply with the requirements of the governing jurisdictions and Title 24 of the Administrative Code. B. LiqUefacion Soil liquefaction is the loss of soil strength during a significant seismic event. It occurs primarily in loose, fine to medium grained, granular material occurring below the groundwater. Liquefaction occurs during rearrangement of the soil particles into a denser condition, resulting in localized areas of settlement. Due to firm bedrock underlying the site, the potential for liquefaction is considered low. C Shallow Ground Cracking Shallow cracking of the ground at the site, due to shaking from seismic events, is not considered a significant hazard and would have a minor impact on the proposed development. DL Landslides Seismically induced landslides have a potential for localized occurrence on-site due to the weak nature of the underlying Monterey Formation and the relatively steep topography. This will be assessed independently in the next section. maw October 13, 1989 6 Job No. PG-6095-NO1 89-10-594 LANDSLIDES A number of slope failures or landslides were observed by this firm and mapped by others (Hart,1976, Ref. No. 8) on Parcel 4 and Lot 5 & 6. Please see the attached geology map. These slides were very subdued in their surface expression. This is a general indication of the relative age and current stable condition. The relatively small size of these slides indicates their shallow nature. They were generally limited to the steeper topography and controlled by the shallow weathering of the Monterey Formation to a clayey soil. Depth of weathering generally limits the depth of the unstable zone. The City of Atascadero Seismic Safety Element to the General Plan, shows a large landslide as mapped by Hart,(Ref. 8). A series of backhoe trenches were excavated at locations within the suspected landslide to confirm it's existence and character. It was found to be a slide complex consisting of a number of episodes of movement. The slide as mapped by Hart was thought to have activated in smaller sections in lieu of as a single mass. Trenches were excavated near the center and toe of the complex which allowed us to approximate area boundaries. It was observed to be 7' feet deep, with the shear zone in the weathered bedrock. No evidence of recent shearing, existence of free water, *nor water carried mineral deposits was observed. It is our opinion that -the slides have become stabilized in their current surface configuration. No -slides were observed within the proposed roadway alignment CLOSURE It is our understanding that site development will initially consist of construction of Ardilla Road along the east side of the property. Subsequently, the lots or parcels served by the roadway will developed on an individual basis. At the present time it is not known where individual structures will be constructed on the 2.1 to i ®r-IftWOR October 13, 1989 7 Job No. PG-6095-NO1 89-10-594 8.7 acre parcels. However, it is assumed that they will be single family residential structures similar the others in the western area- of Atascadero. It is anticipated that each residence will require minor grading to construct a building pad, driveway and sewage disposal area. Based on the geologic study performed, no significant hazards were observed ' nor noted which would prohibit site development. Utilizing proper grading and construction techniques as - per applicable building standards for this area, the site improvements and individual lots or parcels are feasible with respect to geologic .hazards if the following recommendations are followed on the indicated lots. Parcel 4 and Lots 5 & 6, were noted to contain stabilized landslide debris. As a result, it is recommended that development of these parcels should include an Engineering Geology and Soil Engineering Study as required in Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code as well as those requirements of the City of Atascadero. These studies are detailed with respect to individual site improvements and should be conducted at the time of proposed site development. Parcels 1 - 3, Lots 2, 3 & 4, and the roadway improvements should be developed as per the requirements of the City of Atascadero. S October 13, 1989 8 Job No. PG-6095-NO1 89-10-594 REFERENCES 1. Bolt, B.A., 1973, Duration of Strong Motion: Proc. Fifth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Paper No. 292, Rome. 2. Greensfelder, R.W., 1974, Maximum Credible Rock Acceleration from Earthquakes in California, Calif. Div. Mines & Geology, Map Sheet 23. 3. Ploessel, M.R., Slosson, J.E., September, 1974, Repeatable High Ground Accelerations from Earthquakes, California Geology. 4. Seed, H.B., ldriss, I.M., 1982, Ground Motion and Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute Nomograph. 5. Duram, D.L., 1974,"Geology of the Southern Salinas Valley Area, California", U.S.G.S Professional Paper 819. 6. Chipping, D.W., 1987, •"The Geology of San Luis Obispo County". 7. Jennings, C.W., 1975, 'Fault Map of California", California Division of Mines and Geology. 8. Hart, E. W.,1976, "Basic Geology of the Santa Margarita Area, San Luis Obispo County, California", C.D.M.G. Bulletin 199. 9. City of Ataseadero Planning Department, 1975, Seismic Safety Element of the Atascadero General Plan. I)ATE EXCKNITED to-lG-89 LOG OF TRENCH jog NO: PG-6095-NO1 FOR EQUIPMENT Backhoe LOCATION: PER PLAN Atascadero Highlands, Block 25 Parcels 1-4,Lots 2-6 Q 13ACKHOE TRENCH 1 DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS I ! Stiff, Brown Sandy Clay,moist, rooted,voided, CL I (Alluvium) I S T.D. @5.0' t0 I 1 SCAU ITRENCH PROFILE TREMN GRI WATION: T. ■ SPLIT SWEL PACIFIC 6EOSCIENCE, INC. ® KELEM Pff18E GW I EM I CFL EMI BEER i M ®.S= SFI EI'It3IHIMRIM GEOLWY FIGURE 0 M RECOUEW HAI 1 FLS TESTI 113 OHNE ExmuRTED 10-10-89, LOG OF TRENCH JOB HO: PG-6095-NO1 �I f FOR �oMT I ON: PER PLAN E{nJ�Pt1ENT Backhoe I 1-4 r�Lots- 2-6 , Q 8a_ CKHOE TRENCH G Z< yam d DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS Stiff, Brown, Sandy Clay, moist,moderately CL voided, occasional roots f (Slide Debris-Stabilized) '�tii" ,'�€ed=brown to Brower, Tandy Cly,Very moist, slightly voided, common lithic fragment 5 (Slide Debris-Stabilized) Slightly Stiff, Red-Brown, Sandy Clay, slightly voided, common SANDSTONE clasts, Sheared Zone Dense, Light Olive Brown SILTSTONE, sheared, (Bedrock) Monterey Formation. T.D. C8.5' �.s TRENCH PROFILE TRENCH 01UMATION: C:- 1 t • �.4 •.oi "tea/� ice• ■ SPLIT WFIEL PACIFIC GEDSCIENCE, INC. ® "UMEM Sol E< OiICAL EMItIMRIM FIGURE IM BULK SfMLE EMitE miM GEOLWY 0 HO FECOUEIW tFMIR.S TESTIto DATE EXCAVATED 10-10-89 LOG OF TRENCH JOB NO: Pc-6095-x01 Backhoe EQUIpMeq FOR LOCATION: PER PLAN Atascadero Highlands, Block 25, Parcels 1-4, Lots 2-6 BACKHOE TRENCH 3 FsYel <%' Co m W� . ' DESCRtPT10N AND REMARKS 0 Stiff, Orange Brown Sanndy Clay, rooted (top --'� 1.5') , Common SANDSTONE Clasts, (Slide Debris- Stabilized) CL Sheared zone 6.0' to 7.0' Light Olive Brown SILTSTONE, weathered, -� (Bedrock) Mbnterey Formation. _ Un-weathered @I.0' T.D. @10.5' 15 t SCALE t TRENCH PROFILE TRENCH DRI[ENTATION: •. - - m ® SPLIT PacIt=lC GEOSCIENCE, INC. Am ® MXLsA O GMIECMICAL EMIHWIIM KU a 112011 l GEOUXv FIGURE 0 NCRMMqMW Iffil RIALS TESTINR J • OATE EXCAUATED 10-10-89 LOG OF TRENCH jW no: Pg-6095-NOl EQIprFW Backhoe _ FOR t1LOCATION: PEO PLAN !� At ascadero Highlands, Block 25, Parcels 1-4, Lots 2-6 !f Q BACKHOE TRENCH 4 z< ca Ia.cbl ` DESCRIPTION AND REMARKSco ca WC* �� Stiff, Brown to Orange Brown, Sandy Clay, CL_ moist, rooted, moderately voided (Alluvium). no roots below 3.0' 5 T.D. @ 4.0' ! ii i 10 f i 1 SCALE I-= TRENCH PROFILE . TWICH ORIENTATION: . � • � ■ sPL1T PACIFIC GEOSCIENCE, INC. ® NIxx.EAt; PROBE oeaTECI•MnIM EMGIeIEMIM FIGURE 19 BULK SN PLE EMItEMIM GEOLOGY 0 NO FECOUBW NATERIAIS TESTING DATE EXCAVATED 10-10-89 LOG OF TRENCH .SOS n0: PG--6095-x01 FOR Backhoe . EQUIPMENT LOCATION: PER PLAN Atascadero Hi hlands, Block 25, Parcels 1-4, Lots 2-6 BACKHOE TRECH 5 DESCRIPTION A E CR t PT t ON AND REMARKS � 0 I Stiff, Brown to Orange Brown, Sandy Clay, CL moist, rooted, moderately voided. (Alluwi.um). 4 5 T.D. @ 5.0' t - 15-SCALE t'= TRENCH PROFILE . TR>ICH ORIENTATION: f■ SPLIT e�m- PACIFIC GEOSCIENCE, INC. ® Pt�oeE GE01 ICAL eVI�IM FIGURE 0 r 0 r HAI IALS TESTIM3 DATE ExCAUATED 10-10-89 LOG OF TRENCH .fie NO: PG-6095 NO1 EQU I Pt'E w Backhoe F 0 R LOCAT i ON: PER PLAN ,) Atascadero Highlands tBlock 25, Parcels 1-4, Lots 2-6 Q BACKHOE TRENCH 6 W L1 J DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS Col m CA O 1 Stiff, Orange brown Sandy Clay, slighty moist, x I rooted slightly voided, abundant SANDSTONE CL� ! cobbles, (Alluvium) . Medium Dense, Light Gray, SILTSTONE, fracture moist, slightly weathered, (Bedrock) 5 Monterey Formation. T.D. @ 4.0' 1 E SCALE i-= TRENCH PROFILE TREnCH oRSENTATIOH: e':'• - : 1 14-4 • ■ SPLIT BARFEL PACIFIC GEOSCIENCE, jINC.® HVIMM GWI ICFL ENG M® BULK SRIPLE EMS19MRtM GEOFIGURE0 NO tRIIFLS T DATE EXCRVATW 10-10-89 LOG OF TRENCH JOB NO: PG-6095-Nol --!i EQUIPMENT Backhoe FOR LOCATION: PER KLAN Atascadero Highlands, Block 25, Parcels I-4, Lots 2-6 „ 164 II � � � W� BACKHOE TRENCH 7 j � ry� •~c lzoi� o N m coo xQ DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS 0 " 'oil i ..1; Soft, Black Brown, Sandy clayey Silt, voided, , +,li F rooted, dry, (Topsoil) - ML Vi.t: I ! g Stiff, Olive Brawn, Sandy Silt, no voids or ( !� roots, slightly damp (Alluvium). ML I f T.D; @ 8.0` I �� 1 SCALE I's TRENCH PROFILE TRENCH ORIENTATION: ' I ........ * 1 . 1 .Wi : t a SIT - PACIFIC GEOSCIENCE, INC, NUCLEAR PROBE GEATECMIU L EM'ItIMRINGG 0 ENG'I MIf.EA i M' GE0LIM FIGURE tioIlRTF.AIALS TESTING'. ------------------ Pacific Geoscience, Inc. • A M~d Th.EaiW sY Cwouo 4378 Santa Fe Road San Luis Obispo,CaiifOmia 93401 (805}5a4-3276 FAX(805)5+i4-1786 October 27, 1989 Job No. PG-6095-N01 89-10-700 Atascadero Highlands 10385 Santa Ana Road Atascadero, CA 93422 Project: Ardilla Road Extension Ardilla Road at Balboa Road Atascadero, California Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Field Exploration Ref: 1) Tree Removal Plan by Volbrecht Surveys, dated September 18, 1989. 2) Photo-Contour Map, Sheet 21 from the City of Atascadero, dated June 23, 1986. 3) Geologic Hazard Report by Pacific Geoscience, Inc., dated October 18, 1989 INTRODUCTION On October 13, 1989, representatives of this firm conducted a limited field exploration along the proposed alignment for the proposed extension of Ardilla Road between Balboa Avenue and San Benito Road in the City of Atascadero, California.. The roadway will extend from Balboa Avenue for approximately 3300 feet to San Benito Road 100 yards north of it's intersection with San Fernando Road. Field exploration consisted of excavation of fourpits along backhoe John Deere proposed roadway alignment utilizing a Exposed soils were described and a visual description was logged. Field density tests were taken a selected depths within the exploration trenches. Representative samples were obtained and returned to the laboratory. Results of this investigation form the . basis of this report. See attached exploration trench logs. October 27, 1989 Job No. PG-6095-NO1 89-10-700 The north end of the proposed alignment will begin at the existing paved driveway which currently exists at the end of Ardilla Road. The alignment was well marked as defined by the Tree Removal Plan obtained through Volbrecht Surveys. The proposed roadway trends along the base of a southeast-northwest trending ridge. A series of shallow . swales or gullies are to be traversed. The site is essentially undisturbed, with a moderate growth of naturally occurring oak trees, brush and grasses. SOIL.CONDMONS The soils exposed in the exploration trenches generally consisted of only minor amount of loose topsoil as derived from firm, underlying parent soil. Parent soils are weathered derivatives of the bedrock units. Alluvium were logged in those trenches sited in the large swale. A review of the referenced plans suggests that all three types of soil and/or bedrock will be encountered during grading operations. Along the proposed right-of-way, less one (V) foot of topsoil was observed. It generally consisted of a dark brown, sandy silt or clay. It was generally easy to dig, and observed to be in a loose state. This would reflect it's highly voided nature from rooting by the surface vegetation. This material would be suitable as fill, however, it is not thought to have sufficient character to support proposed improvements without added densification. During winter months, this material would contain excess moisture in its present loose state. r Development within this material would require care to insure— groundwater seepage does not threaten improvements. All surface vegetation would require proper grubbing and removal out of proposed road right-of-way. Particularly note the expected rooting from the oak trees located along the alignment. • October 27, 1989 Job No. PG-6095-N01 89-10-700 Firm soils were observed beneath the topsoil in all observation trenches. The alluvium was observed to be a medium to orange brown, sandy clay. It was found to be generally firm to depth. It was observed to be moderately hard to excavate with the backhoe, especially when compared with the shallow surface soils. Bedrock was observed to vary along alignment. Weathered sandstones or siltstones could be anticipated. Either the alluvium or weathered bedrock would be suitable for use either as engineered fill and/or utilized in its present state without additional densification. No free water was observed within this material during the field study, however, moisture contents could be high in the swale areas during wet periods of the year. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the above described field observations and a review of the supplied improvement plans, the following conclusions and recommendations are offered: 1 ) The site appears suitable based on the field observations conducted and included within this report. All soils described above appear suitable for use in the proposed improvements, except that containing debris or vegetation. All organics or vegetation must be collected and deposited properly out of the proposed roadway alignment. 2) Previously described topsoil will require proper processing before being utilized to support proposed improvements. Processing will require scarification of the surface, adjustment of the soil to near optimum moisture, and recompaction to a minimum of 95% relative compaction. Fill may be placed in thin lifts, moisture conditioned and compacted to a minimum 95% relative compaction. s October 27, 1989 Job No. PG-6095-NO1 89-10-700 3) Areas of proposed cut which expose underlying firm native soils will be required to be scarified, adjusted to near optimum moisture and compacted to a minimum 95% relative compaction. 4) It is recommended that final street subgrade be compacted to a minimum of 95% relative compaction prior to the placement of the pavement sections (base and asphalt paving). Pavement section should be determined by the City of Atascadero. 5) It is recommended that prior to the placement of fill on slopes exceeding 20% fall, that proper keying and benching into firm underlying materials be conducted. Observation of the keys and benches should be conducted by representatives of the soil engineer. 6) All surface and subsurface drainage must be carefully controlled. Proper erosion control structures such as the brow ditches must be installed. It is recommended that subdrains or properly engineered culverts should be installed beneath the engineered fills in the swale areas. Subdrains should consist of gravel filled trenches wrapped by a geotextile filter fabric. Should free subsurface water be observed during construction within the roadway alignment, it is recommended that the soil engineer be notified immediately. 7) All slopes should be constructed according to. the criteria as established in the Standard Specifications issued by the State of California, Department of Transportation. This allows for all cut and fill slopes to be at the discretion of the project engineer. Proper revegetation of the slope face to prevent erosion is recommended after construction. 8) If, during construction,' site conditions are noted to vary from those discussed in this report, then the soil engineer should be __- --- ----------__ ------------------------_----------- ---- • ®r-MW October 27, 1989 Job No. PG-6095-NO1 89-10-700 8) If, during construction, site conditions are noted to vary from those discussed in this report, then the soil engineer should be notified. Grading observation and testing should be conducted during construction at the descretion of the project engineer. 9) All construction should be in compliance with the appropriate regulations of the the City of Atascadero and Standard Specifications issued by the State of California, Department of Transportation. LRViTTATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS The analysis and recommendations submitted in this report are based in part upon the data obtained from the four (4) test pits along the roadway alignment, as well as our experience and judgment. The nature and extent of variations between the test pits may not become evident until construction. If variations then appear evident, it will be necessary to re-evaluate the recommendations of this report. Findings of this report are valid as of this date; however, changes in conditions of a property can occur with passage of time whether they be due to natural processes or or works of man on this or adjacent properties. In• addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards occur whether they result from legislation or broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and should not be relied upon after a period of one year. October 27, 1989 Job No. PG-6095-NO1 89-10-700 In the event that any changes in the nature, design or location of the proposed construction are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and conclusions of this report modified or verified in writing. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or of his representative to insure that the information and recommendations contained herein are called to the attention of the City of Atascadero and engineers for the project and incorporated into the plan and that the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractor and subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the field. The soil engineer has prepared this report for the exclusive use of the client and authorized agents. This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted soil engineering practices for roadway extensions. No other warranties either expressed or implied are made as to the professional advice provided under the terms of this agreement, and included in the report. It is recommended that the soil engineer be provided the opportunity for a general review of final design and specifications in order that earthwork recommendations may be properly interpreted and implemented in the design and specifications. (If the soil engineer is not accorded the privilege of making this recommended review, he can assume no responsibility for misinterpretation of his recommendations.) October 27, 1989 Job No. PG-6095-NO1 89-10-700 If there should be any questions concerning this report, please do not hesitate to contact this office at (805) 544-3276. Respectfully s BUENA EN F Reviewed and app G� QROFESSIO� � CERT{ R� Richard ast°' Craig S. Bill " Engineerin ologist Q- Civil Engineer �kCE � 3 RAP ICSH 9TF OF CML RAP 3 ` q OF Copies: 4 - Atascadero Highlands 2 SLO File October 27, 1989 Job No. PG-6095-NO1 89-10-700 TEST RESULTS Descrntion Maximum Density Optimum Moisture Yellow brown, silty clay with gravel CUML 112.3 16.5 Brown, sandy, silty clay CL 118.6 13.2 Field Density Tests Hole Depth Dry Moisture Maximum Relative Density Content Density Density (Ft ) (lb/cuPt ) (%) (lblcuFt.) (%) 1 1.0' 104.2 5.8 118.6 88 1 3.0' 115.8 13.6 118.6 98 2 1.0' 96.2 7.7 112.3 86 2 2.5' 107.8 14.2 112.3 96 3 0.5' 97.5 8.3 112.3 87 3 3.0' 109.5 15.3 112.3 98 4 1.0' 102.3 8.9 112.3 91 ��. } 0 e ry - 03 • ♦• ill • '. .i r • I 1254 DATE EXCAVATED 10-10-89 LOG OF TRENCH jos no: Pc-6095—No1 FOR EQUIPMEW Backhoe LOCATION: P PLAN f) Atascader0 Highlands, Block 25 Parcels: 1-4,Lots 2-6 �! C s BACKHOE TRENCH 1 t: W V J 1-C c �a.C�� Q DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS I � t O � Stiff, Brown Sandy clay,moist, rooted,voided, CL !I (Alluvium) I 5 T.D. @5.0' ! 10 1 SCS t TRENCH PROFILE TRENCH ORIENTATION: ■ SPLIT MMEL PACIFIC GEOSCIENCE, INC_ ® ca. PEKE GEOTOC> IcAL eiGIMEMIm FIGURE ® BULK SNVLE EMItI MIM cEOLM 0 He PIECOLIM MWERIALS TE.STIW GATE EXCAVATED 10-10-89 - LOG OF TRENCH joe n0: Pg-6095-NO1 EOU I PMENT Backhoe FOR LOCATION:: PER PLAN Atascadero Highlands, Block 25, Parcels 1-4, Lots 2-6 ;11 BACKHOE TRENCH 2 cc t: 11gh 5Crj 0. CA d 5 DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS C> 6=11 tni- m cont 00 " W. 0 � Stiff, Brown to Orange Brower, Sandy Clay, CLI moist, rooted, moderately voided (Alluvium) . 1 no roots below 3.0' 5 T.D. A 4.0' I 1 i SCAM t-. TRENCH PROFILE ntagw ORWI(TATION: ■ SPLIT BARREL PACIFIC GEOSCIENCE, INC. ® tUCLEAR Ptd GEOTECMICRL eGUttEERIM FIGURE 0 BULK SAMPLE t-3WttiMIHO GI70LOGY 0 M Remm r M!"'ERIALS TESTttIG- DATE EXCAVATED 10-10-89 LOG OF TRENCH .ms no: PG-6095-NO1 EQU!i PriENT Backhoe FOR LOCAT I ore: PER PLAN( Atascadero Highlands, Block 25, Parcels 1-4, Lois 2-6 .I y,^ Q BACKHOE TRENCH 3 cc ul lag DESCRIPTION DESCRtPT1ON AND REMARKS { Stiff, Brown to Orange Brown, Sandy Clay, CL moist, rooted, moderately voided. (Alluvium). + • g ' T.D. @ 5.0' S 1 SCALE 1 TRENCH PROFILE TRENCH ORIENTATION: r. r FI PLIT PACIFIC GEOSCIENCE, INC. CLEM GMECMICAL EMU�IHS FIGURE ® BULK SRMKE EMIc�Im GEOLWY 0 rm R MI IRU TEST I HO DATE EXCRomm 10-10-89 .LOG OF TRENCH jW NO: PG-6095—NO1 Backhoe FOR ' EO1J IPhtEN7 LOCAT 1 Oh: PER PLAN Atascadero Righlands, Block 25, Parcels 1-4, Lots 2-6 �1 W 12 BACKHOE TRENCH 4 .. W W �VJ DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS '4 �1 o � DESCR[ t � cn m W(A oo Q. �U Stiff, Orange brown Sandy Clay, slighty moist, ' ff O � F rooted slightly voided, abundant SANDSTONE cobbles, (Alluvium). CL Medium Dense, Light Gray, SILTSTONE, fracture 5 moist', slightly weathered, (Bedrock) Monterey Formation. T.D. @ 4.0' 1D 15 SCALE 1•= TRENCH PROFILE TIMIC t ORIENTATICK: .•®. •• �• �. •�'D•. • roop"a IT PACIFIC GEOSCIENCE, INC.t osE GeOTECMICFL ELVR EMIMS FIGURE K SAME ENOMMIM GEOt oG�ter HAI IALS TMttS • i `' ,` �� ON T7 1$�-TR€NCH LOCATt ON_ fiu ARDILLA ROAD �--fCa4\� � EXTENSION uviulm �. �...?..—. INFERRED FAULT its y 0 aao y •um ru i N = rmstion •. member � •.D member • �... unit a •r .• -1n{t `•!... :fit' y, .116 • •� � SITE ' PLAN - 1254 .• :: `:����:. = ?°Y�•- •ATASCADER0.HIGHLANDS 00 BLOCK 25 PARCELS 1—.4,40TS 2-6 ATASCADERO CA I PACIFIC GEO$CIENCE, INC. pAx 10-13-89 FLENO.PG6095N01 •aplem useq you seg ATTva q.Olexa ve pule OTzles (XV0 AaTTleA) pgegoT snosan2S �CO� cq (Xeo OAT,) BTTO-T�le su=enD X09 le uT 49T" AO%M gleRg egemTgsa PTnoM Z 'set*ads XTOgq oq sle psXslem ATTenPTATPQT useq :IOU SAeg sessq Oqq gbnoligTV •sessq TeuoT4-Fppe T£ ATe4vzTxosddle ;o TVAOmas aqq asTnbsa TTTM suTseq uoTgueges pug des dTs 'sgsaATnv ;o u0T4vTTe4suT aqq :4OT4vDTTdde - STgg saTuedm000e ueTd Tos4a00 UOT9039 uK •gqp rt Sano saasq aATgeu 091 ATeggmtxosdde ;o TVAoses agg aglegTSSeOau pTnOM peoZ egq bvMTTns • 1'09 Og ,SZ mos; sobules noT40=46u00 Aq p0406;;e eq TTT* glegg Beale Ogq ;o tigPTM attg 'PuvT Ogg 3o sdoTs eqq ;0 OSUVOOS •I:S•1 gle sodoTs OPTS '[PTA 'Pe= ITT; Pty g= PaoueTvqu B se pegonsgsuoo eq oq posodoad ST peOZ OU •ssOpTnogs t tigTM OPTM OZ IT `tq':2,bQeT uT 6e1TE 99• so qea; OOS£ AT94vxTxosddle 'sueTd eq oq buso00� P94TTea 'PIM o ATT IT Ppos aqg � -4 peon pasodosd qusssno Ogg 40O13es RDTqnoTTtt 09 Aq nod oq pePTAosd asaM Begg suleld aqq og ATgOasTP egeTas 2qu0mm00 AN peo-d pasodosd agl •49930; PUVTPOOM Xe0 agq uo eneq Zgbtm gT glegq s4ovdmT egq pule sueTd sqq mos; ubTsep S,peoZ eqq ;o leapt Tesaueb egg qab oq aTge SW4 I ' (sguemubTTV aATgeusegTe pasodosd so; pebueg0 pule buTssTZ szv so/Pule panomsZ useq aAeq seXegs) ageldmo0uz P svm leos eqg so; buTXegs agq gbnoggTV '4oeCosd pasodosd Ogg ;o Asnsna egts seggoue sgaTdmoo oq 0661 '01 aogmegdes uo ugbneA mol ggTM qam Z •sAansnS ugbnleA Aq poTpuvti buTeq Mou IT gT i1209�osd sTgq uo buTXsOM sabuOT ou IT =T; buTASAZnS TeuTbtso sqg 'ggOasg'oA •paggtmgns sasM sueTd peon pasTAes pule uoTgemso;uT sTTOS TTgun Plots uo qnd kpusnbssgns sleM gosrosd eql '6861 3o s9goga0 UT sausleS ITTS quv*TTdde 94TM PTOT3 egq IIT 400�osd sTgq 3o AOTA02 aqg ulebeq ATTeuTbTso I ogsTH - •q0a�osd sTgq so; uOT3vutms949P TequamuosTAue uv esedesd noA se noA oq Tn;dTeq aq TTTM 84usmmo0 ssagq Begg pulegssapun Z •peon Xesao senes0 pule sogTeg usem4eq 'peog leTTTps�d 30 U0T40ns4su00 Ogg g4TM psgeTOOSse Tlenomss aasq antgeu -sgq ssasppe Begg sguammoo euros ggTM noA apTAosd og OXTT PTn04 I (gueaTTdde) 9Z8Z - 99t seusles TTTS so (sAsAsns ugbneA) SZLS - 8£Z ugbnvA mol :suosssd 40e4u00 spuleTgbTH osepe0sle4y :gueOtTddK peos eTTTprd 3o u0t40nsg9u00 aqq ;o sasOclsnd agq so,; seed sATITK ;o Tenomag pasodosd gsTTeToeds aosnosas TesngleK 'JeX0Tg0S esTZ :mos3 sauueTd AgTO 'dm osa anagS :0� 0661 `9Z sagmagdas :ageQ smTS X3e� ao •TgAomas so3 saas4 posodosd 30 fTTvZ 24esnoov uv buTATOoas pue G*uvgsngsTp 3o veav pug soXv4s sdOTs at4 buTXe:Zs 'pvos pasodosd atM 3o auTT sa:Zuez at4 buTXeZsas 'saas:Z SRI TaggTas o4 adez buTbbgT3 '30 asn 61:14 buTsTnbas sq TTTM I •panomas aq 04 s9924 30 ATTg4 asToasd asom V puv seanseam uOT4004osd esa4 se Mons 'TeAomas ee= so3 uoT4vDTTdde sTtP mcs3 buTsstm TTTgs uoT2gms03uT ST asaRI •s4ueoTTdde OR-4 mos; uOT:Zemsc3uT asom buTgsanbas sq TTTM I 'TeAOmas 0as4 so3 Zsodag TT'Otmo, f3TO a savdead I uet;4 amT4 Ten4oe Oq4 04 sasoT' •amTP 6TtM 4e AsTAas TvIuamuosTAua snOA elsTdmoo oa not so3 uOT!Zemso3uT tibnoue ST sTq:t adoq I saATsp ssaooe ssatr, 3o 4uemdOTaAap sq4 04 uTe4sad osTe Isodas sTR4 uT Pun03 54uammoa SRI 30 ZsOW •peon Mau sTRI buOTe IsTxa TTTM 4et2 940T 994 30 Rzvs oq .sssz*v feMaATsp Ten4uaAa SRI so3 tuaouoo fm sseadxe 04 OXTT osTe pTnoM T •suOT4eooT TVZSA39 uT sueT$ oq4 uo POWToads asp IetM suTesp UmOp 4Tvgdsv SRI RITA ase* SRI sq lgbTm BTU •heap Tenuuana pine aseasTp esngo fez zeZvm ssaoxa eq4 so snopsezvq amooeq o4 sas= 994 buTsneo '40s fTQTssod pTnoo s400s at;4 'saasq .asOR4 3o uMoso 4001 ORI 04 suTVsp saa.eM ssaoxa 3I •uTemas og ase IvgI 899s4 994 moa; feMe 94TS Oq4 30 wase uTV4ZOO 4g p942sZuaouoa sq TTTM 4et;I abeuTesp 944 409JTp 04 4tte4sodmT AaOA ST 41 •trvTd TOsIuoo UOT90JO pasodosd eql uo 4uammoo 04 4T3aTsq OXTT pTnoM I •4uvOTTdde agq so quemIsEd9a buTsaauTbus atm fq asn so3 smsIsfs TTvm gTso trans PO saTdmsxe Iuas933TP buTgTsOsap asn4e204TT gpnposd amos papTAosd aAQg I -0=4 amos so3 uoTle49bsA Tesn4gu TTe 30 PTOAOP 439T sT gOTRM adOTs -TTT3 0sapeose4Y psepue4s OqZ 04 OATIeusaITe Tn3Tzneaq a sq pTnoM SeATueu RITM p94ueTdze4uT 'adOTs TTT3 vq4 uO TTvm gTso sagmT:z g 'peog ETTTPJY se buTIIas a tons uI •paIueTd aq ueo 4eq4 amos :4usmuOsTAua aul uT TT914 AzOA puaTq 4vtP sTTeM buTuTelas PTTnq' oa SAVM aATIeAODUT Mau fuem ase asaq,y •sTTeM gOns buT4oraIsuoo eTTA'M (sOgeT pue aseo es4xs RITM) papTOAe sq uv* dagl : ,£ -,T uMop Ob 4TuO saasz 30 s�ooU •TTTgtcmOP so do BuTq:asana buTAO.z4s6p 4nOg4TM PegsTTdmcooe ATTn3ssaoans aq uvz uOT4DrLl4suoO `panes eq 04 saasu 40833e dvm 4vg4 uOTaeAeoxa amos asTnbea TTTM TTvA buTuTeIas fine 3o uoT4onsjsuoo IvgI, sJumv we I 'ubnOgI TY •seuo psaas;a.zd arM ase uOTIeAeOXa TTT3XPeq 30 Iun0me ZseaT 9q4 asTnbas 4eg4 sTTeM 941 •subTsap 30 T48T.zeA 'e uT smoo fagl pug (buTgseT buOT 4som Inq 'aATsuedxe gsom 9RI) ala.zouoo .z0 Telam 'ssagmTu pegsTuT3un AAeeq 'sTTeM sesu94 'suOTgEb 'pooh 3o Ino opem aq uvo sTTeM bu. TeIBU •saa.z4 a.zom arses pue aoueq.zn4sTp 3o TanaT ORI aOnpas 04 sTTeM buTuTr4sa sO/pue sTTeM gT.zo 30 asn au4 RITA 'PROs SRI PTTnB •, •a:�zs SRI MO.z3 panomai L — .Zl 9 — 'OL Z — .Zc — ,6 N08816 MOTa V H1IM 9 - .0c - ,9 313 3H1 NI O31JLN3O1 36V l - :oz 9- 9 0 ONd YVO 38V S33�1 TV 9 - .9l 9 - S l .91 Z 133HS :133HS SIHI H1IM 03AOIN36 38 01 53361 I - .0t (pa6D=p l) £ — „gc 9 — „0c 9 — ,6 NO8816 M073J d Hi(Ml - .9z Ll - .9 313 3H1 NI O31JLN3O1 3�V lc - ;8i zl - s 0 ONd AVO 36V S3381 7V z - ,9l s zl - ,t - S t 133HS :133HS SIHl H11M O3AOIN36 38 Ol S3381 k�vmns �VAOIN3� 33 1 _ ' REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda ,Item Through: Ray Windsor , City Manager Meeting Date: 1/22/91 From: Henry Engen, Comm. Dev. Director File No,: ZC 3-90 SUBJECT: Consideration of Planning Commission' s recommendation for denial of request to establish a Planned Development Overlay zone (PD7) at 7970 Sinaloa Avenue (Russel L. Best/Cuesta Engineering) . PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning commission, on a 4 : 3 vote, recommended denial of the rezoning pursuant to the Findings in attached Exhibit J-1 . STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff had presented proposed Findings for Approval of the toning change Contained in Exhibit J, Draft PD Overlay Zoning Ordinance. BACKGROUND : On November 20th and December 18th, 1990, the Planning Commission conducted public: hearings on the above subject along with consideration of a tentative parcel map application (TPM 18-90) to divide the approximately one-quarter acre into three parcels of 3 , 426 , 3 , 435 , and 4 , 066 square feet. After much discussion and testimony (as reflected in the attached minutes excerpt) , the Planning Commission recommended denial of the rezotling request. At the Commission= s November 20th hearing, the item was continued on a 4 :3 vote to consider the addition of proposed condition #17 on the tentative map to establish CC&Rs to ensure adequate fencing, landscaping, and storage of trash containers . When the matter was heard on December 18th, however, the Commission continued discussion on concerns relative to the minimum lot sizes being established under the PD for individual ownership of lots and debated the adequacy of amenities attendant to this proposed planned development . This leis to the 4 :3 vote for denial based on the Findings cited in Exhibit J 1 . Having so • acted, the follow-up action on the tentative mai was to deny, based on the fact that the map could not be found to be consistent with the General Plan absent the rezoning to a planned development status . This motion carried on a 5 : 2 Vote. • In view of the recommendation to deny, only the zoning amendment is being brought to Bearing for consideration by the Council . Should the Council approve the rezoning, staff would resurrect the tentative parcel map for consideration of recommended conditions by the Planning Commission and bring that forward at a future date. If the Council action is to uphold the Planning Commission' s recommendation and deny the rezoning, we would bring the proposed map on the next consent agenda for denial ,based on lack of consistency with the General Plan. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA DIRECTION: This project is one of many that has generated discussion pro and con relative to the minimum standards that should be employed in allowing for small lot subdivisions as part of the planned development rezoning process . If this rezoning request is denied, it would be useful to give direction to staff to bring back a draft resolution outlining the criteria the Council wishes followed in processing future small lot subdivision requests . HE ps Attachment : Staff Report dated December 18 , 1990 and November 20 , 1990 • Planning Commission Findings for Denial ZC 03-90 Minutes Excerpt dated November 20; 1990 Minutes Excerpt dated December 18, 1990 Zoning ordinance Excerpt - Planned Development Overlay Zone CC : Russel Best Cuesta Engineering Item: B-1 MEMORANDUM • DATE: December 18, 1990 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Gary V. Kaiser, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: TPM #18-90/Zone Change #03-90 7970 Sinaloa Avenue (Russel Best/Cuesta Engineering) The above-referenced project was considered by this Commission at its November 20, 1990 meeting. After considering public testimony, it was determined by the Commission that the item should be continued until their December 18, 1990 meeting. It should be noted that considerable time was allocated to the topic of minimum lot sizes. A motion was even made to deny the map on the premise that, because of prior Council actions, the original 0. 25-acre site was not suitable for the type of development proposed. Finally, it was established by the Commission that the Commission' s primary purpose was to make recommendations to the Council, based on the General Plan and implementing standards in effect at that time, rather than • attempting to guess what the Council ' s action on the project might be. At present, there is no established minimum lot size for Planned Residential Developments. The majority of the Commission concurred that the subject of minimum lot sizes, lacking any guidance from the General Plan, Subdivision Ordinance, or Zoning Ordinance, should not dictate their action on the project. The purpose of continuing the item was to allow the applicant ample time to provide more details related to the proposed landscaping, fencing, and trash enclosure areas. At the same time, staff was directed to draft an additional condition of approval requiring that Codes, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&R' s) be recorded. The CC&R' s, which were originally proposed but were not addressed in the conditions of approval, are to address the maintenance of building design, fencing, landscaping, and the storage of solid waste. This condition will be somewhat redundant, since all future development of the site must be in conformance to the approved Master Plan of Development. The CC&R' s, however, will provide the future owners of the proposed parcels with additional leverage in the case that compliance with the Master Plan provisions is not maintained over time. i Attached is the revised Master Plan of Development (Exhibit A) , the revised conditions of approval (Exhibit B) , and the November 20, 1990 staff report (Exhibit C) . Note that condition #17 has been added to the original list of conditions, and that a minor . amendment to condition #16 has been made so that the topic of fencing is included. Staff' s recommendation has not changed since the drafting of this original staff report. • -CITY OF ATASCADERO �•� EXHIBIT A C0WNIUNTTY DEVELOP:ti1ENT REVISED MASTER PLAN • DEPARTMENT Z w Q. Z _` p < 1 0 Nz�$ ^WI WI o: w._N_o'lia Lnl Q g J QOJS Qu.a S5 Q Q Q z U Ln N LLji _ a r o �I r 8-7,^—a _ r 2 � I I z _ • •.oc. u s 1 at br EXHIBIT B - Amended Conditions of Approval EXHIBIT B Tentative Parcel Map #18-90 REVISED CONDITIONS 7970 Sinaloa Avenue (Best/Cuesta) • (Revised 12-18-90) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. Water shall be obtained from the Atascadero Mutual Water Company. Water lines shall be extended to the frontage of each parcel, prior to the paving of the road and the recordation of the Final Map. 2. 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. 3. All relocation and/or alteration of existing utilities shall be the responsibility of the developer, and shall be placed underground. 4. The newly formed lots shall be connected to the public sewer. All annexation permit fees in effect at the time of recordation shall be paid for the newly created lots prior to the recordation of the Final Map. Sewer laterals shall be installed to each lot prior to paving the road. 5. In addition to the installation of water and sewer services, the developer shall install gas, electricity, telephone, and cable television services to each lot prior to paving the road and the recordation of the Final Map. 6. A grading and drainage plan, prepared by a registered civil engineer, shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval by both the Community Development and Public Works departments, prior to the issuance of any building permits. 7. An encroachment permit shall be obtained from the City Public Works Department prior to the commencement of construction activities. In addition, an Inspection Agreement shall be signed guaranteeing that the work will be done and the inspections will be paid for. 8. The subdivider shall install all street signs, traffic delineation devices, warning and regulatory signs, gaurdrails, 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 modification after construction. 9. 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 shall not be limited to: Sinaloa Avenue: Pavement shall be widened to a width of twenty (20) feet from the centerline of the right- of-way to the curb face. A curb, gutter, and five (5) foot sidewalk shall be installed. A concrete cross gutter shall be installed to match the cross gutter to be built by the project across the street on Sinaloa. The recommended minimum slope of the concrete gutter is 0. 005. The minimum curb return radius at the property line shall be twenty-five (25) feet. Curbaril Avenue: Pavement shall be widened to a width of twenty (20) feet from centerline of right-of-way to curb face. Curb, gutter, and a five (5) foot sidewalk shall be installed, designed to match the existing improvements to the south. An asphalt berm shall be installed from the end of the concrete curb to the existing curb to the south. An asphalt drive approach shall be installed to serve the property between the existing improvements and the new improvements. 10. Construction of all public improvements shall be completed prior to the recordation of the Final Map. • 11 . All public improvements shall be covered by a 100% Performance Guarantee and a 100% Labor and Material Guarantee until construction is deemed substantially complete, and by a 10% Maintenance Guarantee until one year after substantial completion. 12. Public improvement plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City Fire Department, prior to the recordation of the Final Map. Plans shall include the necessary fire hydrant upgrade of the existing fire hydrant at the corner of Sinaloa Avenue and Curbaril Avenue. 13. All lot grading and drainage improvements shall require a written statement from a registered civil engineer that all work has been completed and is in full compliance with the approved plans. 14. The following right-of-way shall be offered for dedication to the City of Atascadero: Street Name: Sinaloa Avenue Limits: 25 feet from the centerline of the right-of- way to the property line. • Street Name: Curbaril Avenue Limits: 25 feet from the centerline of the right-of- way to the property line. Corner Rounding: A minimum radius of 25 feet at • property line at the intersection of Curbaril and Sinaloa. All offers of dedication shall be completed and recorded prior to, or in conjunction with, the recordation of the Final Map. 15. Landscape plans, including means of irrigation, shall be submitted along with other materials required for the filing of a building permit application. This information may be shown on the grading plan. Said landscape plans shall substantially conform to the landscaping shown on the site plan, and shall include a minimum of two (2) 15 gallon native trees to serve as replacements for the 12" Elm tree proposed to be removed. All landscaping shall be completed, or agreements shall be made for its completion, prior to the final building inspections. 16. All development shall be in conformance with information contained in the application, including but not limited to grading, driveway and utility locations, house plans, building setbacks, fencing, and landscaping. 17. Codes, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&R' s) shall be recorded, prior to the recordation of the Parcel Map, and shall address the fencing, landscaping, and storage of solid • waste containers (trash cans) . Said CC&R' s, prior to being recorded, shall be reviewed and approved by the City Community Development Department for conformance to the approved Master Plan of Development. 18. 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 recordation 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 Surveyor' s 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. 19. Approval of this tentative map shall expire two (2) years from the date of final approval, unless an extension of time is granted pursuant to a written request received prior to the expiration date. TPM-18-90.co2 • • EXHIBIT C ORIGINAL STAFF REPORT • CITY OF ATASCADERO Item:—B-2 STAFF REPORT FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: November 20, 1990 BY: Gary V. Kaiser, Assistant Planner File: TPM 18-90/ZC 03-90 SUBJECT: Consideration of a request to establish a Planned Development Overlay zone (PD7) in conjunction with a tentative parcel map application to divide one existing parcel of approximately one- quarter acre into three (3) parcels of 3 , 426, 3, 435, and 4, 066 square feet for single-family residential use. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Tentative Parcel Map #18-90 based on the Findings contained in Exhibit H and subject to the Conditions of Approval contained in Exhibit I. Likewise, staff recommends • approval of Zone Change #03-90, based on the Findings for Approval contained in the Draft Ordinance (Exhibit J) . SITUATION AND FACTS: 1. Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Russel L. Best 2. Representative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Cuesta Engineering 3. Project Address. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7970 Sinaloa Avenue 4. Legal Description. . . . . . . . . . .Lot 31 , Blk HA, AC 5. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10, 927 ft (0. 25 acres +/-) 6. Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .RMF-16 7. General Plan Designation. . . . .High Density Multiple Family 8. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .vacant lot 9. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Negative Declaration posted October 30, 1990 ANALYSIS: • The project is essentially a proposal to establish three (3) single-family dwellings, each on separate parcels, on what is currently one original Colony lot. Although the gross area of the site is 10, 927 square feet, the net area of the site is approximately 10, 427 square feet. This net site area has been arrived at by subtracting from the gross site area a five (5) foot strip running the entire length of the Sinaloa Avenue frontage that will be offered for dedication to .the City for public road purposes. This net area figure, however, allows for three (3) two-bedroom units on this site, pursuant to the density standards established in the RMF-16 zone (Section 9-3. 175) . A project of this size would normally be processed as a Precise Plan application; however, this project proposes the creation of individual small lots. Smaller lots such as these, besides being subject to the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act, can only be approved through establishment of a Planned Development Overlay Zone (PD) . The City has created a generic overlay zone (PD7) for small lot residential subdivisions such as the one currently proposed. Approval of this project hinges on the establishment of the PD Overlay Zone. Minimum Lot Size Standards • The City General Plan (page 55) and Zoning Ordinance (Section 9- 3. 174) set a minimum lot size of one-half acre in the multiple family zones. Residential Policy #6 of the General Plan (page 57) provides for the creation of smaller lots in the multiple family zones "in conjunction with planned residential developments, provided that the overall density within the project is consistent with other density standards contained herein. " There is similar language in the Zoning Ordinance, regarding the allowance of smaller lots through the planned development process, provided the overall density within the project conforms with the density standards normally applied under the underlying zoning of the site. As stated above, the proposed density conforms to the density standards established for the RMF-16 zone. 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 2 • deemed necessary to promote orderly and harmonious 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: 1. 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. • The developer' s statement (Exhibit F) presents a valid argument for allowing the proposed smaller lot sizes. Although the lots are small (ranging from 3, 426 to 4, 066 square feet) , the identical project could be approved by Precise Plan, minus the creation of separate lots. Staff agrees with the applicant that the ability to provide small lots for single family home ownership, and the resulting increase in housing alternatives available in the City, would be a benefit to the community. Site Development Standards As quoted in its entirety above, the purpose of the Planned Development Overlay zones is to "identify ares where development standards. . . different from those established by the underlying zoning district. . .are deemed necessary to promote orderly and harmonious development. . . (City Zoning Ordinance Section 9- 3. 641) . " In the case of the application in question, the use of the subject site, if the application is approved, would change from multiple family to single family residential use, because of the creation of individual lots for each proposed dwelling unit. Hence, some development standards set forth in the RMF zone, intended primarily for multiple family uses, may not be considered appropriate for the proposed single family uses. The PD7 Overlay Zone, therefore, sets forth its own development standards. A Master Plan of Development is required for all • properties in the PD7 zone; this Master Plan, then, serves as the development standard for subsequent development of the property. 3 The Master Plan of Development for the project in question • includes all information contained in the application, including but not limited to: a tentative parcel map (Exhibit B) ; a grading and drainage plan (Exhibit C) ; a site plan (Exhibit D) ; and building elevations/floor plans (Exhibit E) . Upon review of these items, staff has found all applicable standards for building setbacks and height limits would be complied with. Development standards for the multiple family zones, as set forth within City Zoning Ordinance, which staff feels are intended for multiple family uses and would be inappropriate for the project in question, are as follows: 1. ENCLOSED STORAGE -- The RMF zone requires that each dwelling unit be provided with a minimum of 100 square feet of enclosed storage space, exclusive of closets, which may be included in either a principal or accessory building (Section (9-3. 176 (b) ) . Staff feels that excess areas shown on the proposed floor plans, which include a two-car garage and library for each -unit, would suffice. Moreover, to require separate accessory structures for storage, whether attached or detached, would compromise the otherwise appropriate architectural appearance of the buildings. 2. PARKING -- One (1) handicapped parking space, and one (1) guest parking space would be required for the proposed use, • if separate lots were not proposed (City Zoning Ordinance Sections 9-4. 115 (c) and 9-4. 118 (c) (5) , respectively) . Separate lots are proposed, however, and the applicant does propose to meet the required parking for singly family residential use. Furthermore, the interior floor plans for the proposed two-story units are not accessible for handicapped persons. 3. SOLID WASTE -- Solid waste collection areas that use dumpsters or other containers with a total capacity greater than two (2) 33 gallon containers must be enclosed within a solid wall or fence (City Zoning Ordinance Section 9- 4. 129 (b) ) . If this was a three-unit multiple family development, this standard would clearly apply. Given this particular project, however, with three single family units each generating their own waste and individually responsible for the disposal of their own waste, this standard is not considered appropriate. 4. SCREENING WALL -- A solid wall or fence not less than six (6) feet in height shall be placed and maintained on interior lot lines abutting property zoned for single family residential use (City Zoning Ordinance Section 9-3. 176) . The project site does not abut any properties zoned for single family residential use. 4 Other development standards required for multiple family q p uses and/or multiple family zones, which staff feels are , appropriate for the project in question, are as follows : 1. COVERED PARKING -- The RMF zone requires that one (1) covered parking space (carport or garage) be required for each dwelling unit (City Zoning Ordinance Section 9- 3. 176 (e) ) . The applicant proposes a two-car garage for each unit, thus exceeding the requirement for covered parking spaces. 2. LANDSCAPING -- A landscaping plan is required for essentially all uses other than single family residential uses (City Zoning Ordinance Section 9-4. 125) . Although the uses proposed are single family residential, staff feels that a suitable landscaping plan should be required and implemented as part of this project (see attached Conditions of Approval) . Review by Other Agencies Since the City Public Works Department had expressed concerns related to drainage in the project area, an engineered drainage plan, and supplemental drainage calculations, have been submitted • as part of this application. The comments received from the Public Works Department are included in the attached Conditions of Approval. No other public agencies reviewing the project have expressed serious concerns regarding the project. Any comments received from other agencies, including a requirement of the City Fire Department for a new fire hydrant at the corner of Sinaloa and Curbaril, have been incorporated into the attached Conditions of Approval. CONCLUSIONS: Staff believes that the necessary findings can be made for the establishment of a Planned Development Overlay Zone, and that the proposed project, including the creation of three individual small lots, would be a benefit to the community. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Location Map Exhibit B - Tentative Parcel Map Exhibit C - Grading and Drainage Plan Exhibit D - Site Plan Exhibit E - Proposed House Plans Exhibit F - Supplemental Development Statement Exhibit G - Negative Declaration Exhibit H - Findings for Approval Exhibit I - Conditions of Approval Exhibit J - Draft Ordinance • TPM-18-90. sr 5 CITY OF ATASCADERO LOCCAA ATTIIOONNT MAP -,►� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT D EPARTMENT • l 10,v E ------ 4 ;pl-wT" SON ,, 1 j d •'aV �hP - w 1 R LLA ' Y q 6 � 4v 7f= -�R F ix: . L. J CITY OF ATASCADERO EXHIBIT B TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP CONLMUNM DEVELOPMENT • DEPARTMENT wI:50N LANG SURVEYS TDPGGRAPNIC SURVEY ._ :.."`-." •xr LOT 31 BLOCK N-A _ O'MIER•S STATEMENT . I ___ ----------- -of-----___- �---- 933_ -� - .vsx•. - - \ / 1 -+�--------- ----� o . ______ L----- ���_ - - -- - - - --- - -- t � �� / 13 \ •� 1 PARCELVMAP AT 90-243. \ i _ _ _a 30 CUESTA ENONEMING GR!-]GlL ``,J••w'J'~J ' '.�\\\\ v' CITY OF ATASCADEROEXHIBIT C GRADING AND DRAINAGE PL ��.►� COMII�IUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • W'SON LANG SURVEYS TOPO;RAPWC SURVEY `•-•••_•••: LOT 31 BLOCK H—A IqIR — �_ �: is 'I___ � 111 ls. `� v • .1\ fwi a. .0 ori �• b. � as•.r r..vuc o...�a � .�.:y' _ _ eacacr vN/r1 �gAnr L ao— \`UA//r 3 t \\ 1 I sJ r.[s-� — 92; r- a — rte.... I, -4�i I 1 G1UPXi:KALE tisk../ ..J`� 1 \\ // .• �R:IN::J ,A ��` rar'><—]mac_-- >_� i; __ � __ ••a..r..•.var ova.• 1 • • CITY OF ATASCADERO EXHIBIT D SITE PLAN 1 ; ` left CONLMUNITY DEVELOPMENT • DEPARTMENT 1 A VIEW FROM SINALOA AVE - --� - SINAL9A AVE _ _ " I � ��•� � ii • q r- -- - - - - -- - �- '+dao�esef•e. I � �+vv..u.. t =L m � I ''.' .coag iso sae. � m i '• •'. SItE PLAN NORna • CITY OF ATASCADERO EXHIBIT E PROPOSED HOUSE PLANS M>,1.7 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • <�_ - r- ELFVATION _ t � FlRST FLOOF PLAN SECOND FLOOR PLAN MM7M !I SOUTH ELEVATION M I L IL WEST ELEVATION EAST,�EVATION CITY OF ATASCADERO EXHIBIT F DEVELOPER' S STATEMENT COMIMUNITY DEVELOPMENT • D EPARTIM NT Russel Best 8-21-90 1350 Balton Morro Bay, CA 93442 City of Atascadero RFUIVED Planning Department SEP o,- 1999 Supplemental Developer's StatementCQ1MMUNiTY DUELOPMEN1 Project: Application for planned development overlay and tentative map for 7970 Sinaloa . (APN #30-132-39) We propose to develop the above property under the provisions of the "Planned Development Overlay" provision of the Atascadero City Zoning • Ordinance (Sections 9-3.641 - 9-3.644): We will create 3 parcels from an existing .25 acre RMF-16 lot. New lots vary in size from 3,426 to 4,016 square feet. The proposed project of 3 units is allowable under current density standards for RMF 16 zoning. Newly created parcels will require switching front yard setbacks from Curbaril to Sinaloa. This is permitted since all access is from Sinaloa. New parcels meet or exceed existing setback requirements. We propose the following minimum setbacks: Front/East Side/North Rear/West Side/South Lot 1 25 feet 10 feet 10 feet 5 feet Lot 2 25 " 5 " 10 " 5 " Lot 3 25 " 5 " 10 " 15 " In many cases actual Building setbacks will exceed minimums: on Curbaril (10 feet required, 15 feet minimum furnished), and on the North boundary of Lott (5 feet required, 10 feet furnished). Gravity sewer is available. Sewer easement will be recorded on Final map to provide for access to Lots 1 and 2. Sewer easement is angled to preserve the Oak tree on the Southwest corner. Covenants, Codes and Restrictions shall be recorded to preserve building colors, landscaped area at Curbaril, and fence configuration. The two car garage provided for each house meets the requirements of 2 • parking spaces per unit. Distance between garages and sidewalk is 25 feet, therefore cars parked in the driveway will be clear of the sidewalk. CITY OF ATASCADERO EXHIBIT F DEVELOPER' S STATEMENT �--7 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (pg•2) DEPARTMENT PROJECT DESCRIPT 2 Architecture can be described as contemporary country. Stucco and hardboard siding are combined in pleasant earth tones. Rooflines are pitched to minimize height on Curbaril. Units are stepped down in the rear to accomodate split level dining rooms. The homes will offer a large living - dining area downstairs, with adjoining kitchen and powder room. Upstairs, the two bedrooms have common access to the main bathroom. The development will fit within the current context of the neighborhood, giving a pleasant upbeat flair to the corner on which it is situated. The landscaped area along Curbaril, with fencing restricted to the rear of Lot 3, will preserve a parklike atmosphere. The removal of the single elm tree which is situated in the sidewalk on Sinaloa will be mitigated by the planting of numerous trees in the landscaped area. Construction of roadway, curb, and sidewalk improvements will substantially improve the appearance of the corner, while achieving control of local flooding hazards. Construction of similar improvements • on the opposite side of Sinaloa by the recently approved Voorhis PO project will combine to give the corner a refurrbished appearance. The creation of 3 separate parcels will allow for sale of individual units with land as opposed to condominium units. Many local residents and other potential buyers prefer to "own the land", and financial institutions are better able to lend money on separately held lots rather than airspace condominiums in this area. The pride generated by individual ownership will result in better upkeep of the properties as opposed to condominium and apartment projects. Our project will offer moderately priced housing, with attractive landscaping. Target market is first time or small family buyers who desire the amenities of basic, well constructed housing. These units will also offer the opportunity for senior citizens to purchase new housing which is close enough to walk to the downtown area. In conclusion, we believe that this development will serve the community on several accounts: It will provide an attractive, finished project which will complete the public improvements on the corner of Sinaloa and Curbaril. It will also provide moderately priced housing, for buyers who desire new housing which is close to the downtown area. To the best of our knowledge, the project design will not have any unmitigated impacts. Respectfull submitted . L:J�fsl 3-e, ' Russel Best Owner- Developer CITY OF ATASCADERO EXHIBIT G NEGATIVE DECLARATION COML;NITY DEVELOPMENT (Copy) I'�I DEPARTMENT • CITY OF ATASCADERO ani + ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION COMMUN=DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 6500 PALMA AVE. ATASCADERO, CA 93422 (805)461-5035 APPLICANT: R.,ssE�. t3E�T PROJECT TITLE: l8_g o �r►E c3.tp.�6E �03-g� PROJECT LOCATION: -9-7o Suva+-oto AvE . PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Dim%Svor4 C.ZS P-e-2s ?,,k"ac_EL. trite of3,`tZ6 �rz, 3,435 �rz, �►� 4,066 �-rZ F"oct Sir�6lF • � u.`{ R2�„ T� t� �15�, ��E�T uvCLuDES ADD\-rat-4 CF ?D Ct "CZ:) FINDINGS: ��,E , o�cE��.oy 'To Ex�STir�� RMF-(6 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-tern environmental goals. 3. The project does not have impacts which are individually limited.but comulattvely considerable. 4. The project will not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings either directly or indirectly. DETERAUNATION: Based on the above findings,and the information contained in the initial study(made a part hereof by refer- ence and on file in the Community Development Department). it has been determined that the above project will not have an adverse impact on the environment. H nge Community evelopme irector Date Posted: OCTOBER 30, 1990 Date Adopted: • civ 11.8D EXHIBIT H - Findings for Approval • Tentative Parcel Map 18-90 7970 Sinaloa Avenue (Best/Cuesta) November 20, 1990 ENVIRONMENTAL FINDING: The proposed project will not have a significant impact on the environment. The Negative Declaration prepared for the project is adequate. MAP FINDINGS: 1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable General and Specific - Plans. 2. The design and/or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable General and Specific Plans. 3. The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed. • 4. The site is physically suitable for the density of the development proposed. 5. The design of the subdivision, and/or the proposed improvements, will not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish and wildlife or their habitat. 6. The design of the subdivision, and the type of the improvements, will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or the use of property within the proposed subdivision; or substantially equivalent alternate easements are provided. 7. The proposed subdivision design, and/or the type of improvements proposed, will not cause serious public health problems. TPM-18-90. fin • • EXHIBIT I - Conditions of Approval Tentative Parcel Map #18-90 7970 Sinaloa Avenue (Best/Cuesta) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. Water shall be obtained from the Atascadero Mutual Water Company. Water lines shall be extended to the frontage of each parcel, prior to the paving of the road and the recordation of the Final Map. 2. 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. 3. All relocation and/or alteration of existing utilities shall be the responsibility of the developer, and shall be placed underground. 4. The newly formed lots shall be connected to the public sewer. All annexation permit fees in effect at the time of- recordation shall be paid for the newly created lots prior • to the recordation of the Final Map. Sewer laterals shall be installed to each lot prior to paving the road. 5. In addition to the installation of water and sewer services, the developer shall install gas, electricity, telephone, and cable television services to each lot prior to paving the road and the recordation of the Final Map. 6. A grading and drainage plan, prepared by a registered civil engineer, shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval by both the Community Development and Public Works departments, prior to the issuance of any building permits. 7. An encroachment permit shall be obtained from the City Public Works Department prior to the commencement of construction activities. In addition, an Inspection Agreement shall be signed guaranteeing that the work will be done and the inspections will be paid for. 8. The subdivider shall install all street signs, traffic delineation devices, warning and regulatory signs, gaurdrails, 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 modification after construction. 9. Road improvement • p ent 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 shall not be limited to: Sinaloa Avenue: Pavement shall be widened to a width of twenty (20) feet from the centerline of the right- of-way to the curb face. A curb, gutter, and five (5) foot sidewalk shall be installed. A concrete cross gutter shall be installed to match the cross gutter to be built by the project across the street on Sinaloa. The recommended minimum slope of the concrete gutter is 0. 005. The minimum curb return radius at the property line shall be twenty-five (25) feet. Curbaril Avenue: Pavement shall be widened to a width of twenty (20) feet from centerline of right-of-way to curb face. Curb, gutter, and a five (5) foot sidewalk shall be installed, designed to match the existing improvements to the south. An asphalt berm shall be installed from the end of the concrete curb to the existing curb to the south. An asphalt drive approach - shall be installed to serve the property between the existing improvements and the new improvements. • 10. Construction of all public improvements shall be completed prior to the recordation of the Final Map. 11. All public improvements shall be covered by a 100% Performance Guarantee and a 100% Labor and Material Guarantee until construction is deemed substantially complete, and by a 10% Maintenance Guarantee until one year after substantial completion. 12. Public improvement, plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City Fire Department, prior to the recordation of the Final Map. Plans shall include the necessary fire hydrant upgrade of the existing fire hydrant at the corner of Sinaloa Avenue and Curbaril Avenue. 13. All lot grading and drainage improvements shall require a written statement from a registered civil engineer that all work has been completed and is in full compliance with the approved plans. 14. The following right-of-way shall be offered for dedication to the City of Atascadero: Street Name: Sinaloa Avenue • Limits: 25 feet from the centerline of the right-of- way to the property line. • Street Name: Curbaril Avenue Limits: 25 feet from the centerline of the right-of- way to the property line. Corner Rounding: A minimum radius of 25 feet at property line at the intersection of Curbaril and Sinaloa. All offers of dedication shall be completed and recorded prior to, or in conjunction with, the recordation of the Final Map. 15. Landscape plans, including means of irrigation, shall be submitted along with other materials required for the filing of a building permit application. This information may be shown on the grading plan. Said landscape plans shall substantially conform to the landscaping shown on the site plan, and shall include a minimum of two (2) 15 gallon native trees to serve as replacements for the 12" Elm tree proposed to be removed. All landscaping shall be completed, or agreements shall be made for its completion, prior to the final building inspections. 16. All development shall be in conformance with information contained in the application, including but not limited to • grading, driveway and utility locations, house plans, building setbacks, and landscaping. 17. 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 recordation 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 Surveyor' s 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. 18. Approval of this tentative ive ma p shall expire two (2) years from the date of final approval, unless an extension of time is granted pursuant to a written request received prior to the expiration date. TPM-18-90.con • • EXHIBIT J DRAFT ORDINANCE • ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO AMENDING MAP 17 OF THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAPS BY REZONING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY AT 7970 SINALOA AVENUE FROM RMF/16 TO RMF/16 (PD7) (ZC 03-90: BEST/CUESTA) 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 November 20, 1990 and has recommended approval of Zone Change 03-90. • 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 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. Ordinance No. • 7. The proposed plans offer certain redeeming features to compensate for requested modifications. Section 2. Zoning Map. Map number 17 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 listed below, and shown on the attached Exhibit A, which is hereby made a part of this ordinance by reference. Lot 31; Block HA; Atascadero Colony Development of said parcel shall be in accordance with the standards of the Planned Development Overlay Zone No. 7, and consistent with the 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 REVISED • 1/22/91 • 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 OF ATASCADERO DRAFT ORDINANCE (EXHIBIT A) COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT i Li I I i t rev � BA�LL4 MF-4 O 4V `� \ E� _ 1 Lu T4VF —r a � I i Z j RS Pok Q • 4apQ ��RQ t � 4 _N L i F� ir �. Q l r C T o04 R GT t 4�k CITY OF ATASCADERO EXHIBIT �3 CONLMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REV I SED MASTER PLAN • D EPARTMENT Z: W Qi W z J >j uj S W j O e a Z� 7 _ WI NO ICm,s- tzn:gY Y1` F ; O J ui s 0 Si m<_, �` ma Z W ^- _'�� < a � U n ��• �I�l �n H Wiwwi��i J�iYi W��4Y�Y V/ V a SOL Qu.. xYis � v v N LJ z pvEN � E > W CL is •r CUA $ PR / �� 8 i r `` Z `- � I T V LM Owl a • r-20.00• O i • EXHIBIT J-1 Findings for Denial ZC 03-90: Best/Cuesta Engineering 7970 Sinaloa Avenue (Planning Commission Recommendation 12/18/90) FINDINGS FOR DENIAL: 1 . Benefits derived from the overlay zone can be reasonably achieved through existing development standards or process- inq requirements . 2 . The proposed plans offer no redeeming features to compensate for requested modifications . • • -_ I MINUTES EXCERPT - PLANNING COMMISSION - 11/20/90 -4- "2b. Ten ( 10) square feet identification sign- for each tenant, excluding Homestead Tit on the front elevations facing the central parking area (Exhibits E and G. " "2c . one 20 square foot wall sign f the major tenant of Building 4 (currel ly Homestead Title) on the west elevati facing Lewis Avenue (Exhibits H and I) . " In response to inquiry by Commissioner dlac concerning 2c, Mr. DeCamp pointed out that the sign rdinance was designed specifically to limit the size of igns for multiple unit developments of this type to el ourage e peo le t� obtain conditional use permit approval that the sign package can be individually designed for at center. The signs were designed purposely small t encourage just this type of discussion. He added he - 'd not think it was the intent of the ordinance to limit 11 signs and all centers to 10 square feet. Commissioner Hanauer 'tated that surely the intention was to make the center wo better instead of putting a "strangle- hold" and impede Ye center' s working. • Commissioner age requested an amendment to the motion to keep Condit ' n #2c (wall sign) at 30 square feet. Commissioner Lochridge amended the motion to leave Condition i#2c unchanged ( to reflect the wall sign at 30 square feet) . Commissioner Johnson seconded the amendment. The motion carried 5 : 2 with the following roll call vote: AYES : Commissioners Lochridy_e, Johnson, Kudlac , Waage, and Chairperson Luna NOES: Commissioners Highland and Hanauer 2 . TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 18-90/ZONE CHANGE 3-90 : Application filed by Russel L. Best (Cuesta Engineering - anent) to establish a Planned Development Overlay zone (PD7 ) in conjunction with a tentative parcel map to divide one existing parcel of approximately 1/4 acre into three parcels of 3 . 426 , 3 , 435 , and 4 , 066 square feet each. Subject site is located at 7970 Sinaloa Avenue. Gary Kaiser presented the staff report which focused on issues which included minimum lot size standards , planned development overlay zone, site development standards , etc . Staff is recommending approval of the project 'subject to certain conditions . MINUTES EXCERPT - PLANNING COMMISSION - 11/20/90 -S- • Commission questions and discussion followed. Commissioner Waage referenced a recently approved, similar planned development on Sinaloa (Jones - 6 units) , and pointed out that this approval required 100 square feet of enclosed storage space which was incorporated into the garage. Commissioner Highland recalled that the Jones project had one car garages while this project is a two car garage which provides the extra storage needed. In response to inquiry by Commissioner Johnson, Mr. DeCamp replied that in multi-family zones, there is a 50 building coverage standard. Commissioner Johnson expressed concern with the lot sizes with regard to the amount of building coverage as Ile did not think there would be much room left for any kind of yard, etc . Commissioner Hanauer stated that these types of planned developments are improving each time they are considered, • and voiced his feeling that they are one of the only alternatives offered to young families just starting out. Russel Best, applicant, spoke in support of the project and summarized the purpose of the project which is to provide moderately priced, modern housing with private ownership of individual lots . He discussed efforts that were taken in developing the present proposal, and pointed out various project amenities . In addressing comments by the Commission, Mr. Best indi- cated that the smallest lot is 3416 square feet and the building footprint is a total of 1090 square feet with ground space being 3400 square feet - He further Stated that the actual percentage of the footprint to lot ratio is 1:3 .4 which averages to be 30% lot coverage. Deborah Hollowell with Cuesta Engineering, helped to clarify the lot dimensions on the architectural drawings . In addressing the storage space issue, Mr. Best pointed out that one of the factors utilized in the design was incorporating various storage areas within the units . In response to question by Commissioner Lochridge, Mr . Best stated that given the size of the project and aesthetics • with regard to landscaping, the final design was more open (without fencing) with vegetation being a. primary component of the landscape rather than fences . -6- MINUTES EXCERPT - PLANNING COMMISSION - 11/20/90 • Commissioner Lochridge stated he would like to see screening for trash containers. Mr. Best offered that the garages are large enough to accommodate this storage. In response to inquiry by Commissioner Johnson, Mr. Best indicated that the housing prices would range between $140,000 and $150, 000 . In addressing inquiries by the Commission, Ms. Hollowell clarified that based on the smallest lot (Lot 2) , there is approximately 650 square feet of useable yard. She added that one of the nice architectural features is that the residences are split level which go with the natural grade of the property (down to rear) . Ms . Hollowell explained that this works well with the grading plan in that there is enough of a step down to virtually watch grade at the rear of the property so that useable area behind the units is essentially level . Commissioner Kudlac inquired about side setbacks between the units . Ms . Hollowell further stated that it is the applicant ' s intention to record CC&Rs for the property, not as a • maintenance document but to maintain the intent of the design. Commissioner Waage stated that these planned developments on Sinaloa will improve the quality of the neighborhood. Commissioner Highland stated that the major problem he has concerns minimum lot sizes adding that the Council has wade it clear that they will not approve anything less than 45000 square feet. He indicated that for this reason. he would have difficulty in approving 3600 square foot lots . Commissioner Kudlac indicated his feeling that the property is better suited for two units rather than three. Commissioner Hanauer asserted that these planned developments are the direction the City should be looking toward to provide housing for young families who need a place to start. Commissioner Johnson pointed out that this request involves splitting an existing 1/4 acre parcel into three separate lots and while there is provision for smaller lots in multi- family areas, splitting a lot that is half of the size of that zone should not be allowed. He added this is not • something. Atascadero should be looking forward to with the Planning Commission setting a precedent in allowing this type of development to go forward. -7- MINUTES EXCERPT - PLANNING COMMISSION - 11/20/90 • Discussion continued concerning the feasibility of modifying the project to airspace condominiums with three units and one lot for open space. Commissioner Waage stated it would be easier if the commission had some definite direction by the Council concerning the lot size issue. Commissioner Highland asserted that recent actions by the Council have been to deny projects containing lot sizes anywhere from 1 , 800 square feet to 4000 square feet. Commissioner Kudlac voiced his feeling that the Planning Commission has a responsibility to define minimum size, not just to go along and okay every project that comes along. MOTION: By Commissioner Johnson and seconded by Commissioner Kudlac to deny Tentative Parcel Map 18-90/Zone Change 3-90. Chairperson Luna declared a point of order and asked if this should be sent Lack for staff to prepare findings for denial . • Mr. Decamp pointed out that the Commission needs to be very specific with their findings and give staff clear direction. He noted that the findings contained in the staff report were based on a reasoned evaluation of the General Plan, Zoning ordinance. Discussion continued. Commissioner Johnson restated his motion. MOTION: Commissioner Johnson moved to deny Tentative Parcel Map 18-90 and Zone Change 3-90 based on Findings 44 and 45 ( in the negative) from the draft ordinance ( PD Overlay findings) Chairperson Luna voiced his feeling that 4200 to 4500 square feet is the minimum for a planned development overlay; some range such as that should be put in the findings . He added that the Commission needs direction from the Council as to what figure is appropriate. Commissioner Hanauer took issue with Chairperson Luna' s statements concerning lot size stating there are other projects on this same street which have been approved, and now findings are being proposed to deny the same type of project. MINUTES EXCERPT - PLANNING COMMISSION - 11/20/90 Commissioner Lochridge stated he cannot support the motion, adding that the applicant is entitled to a recommendation for the planned development, and further stated that more can be added to this project to enhance its viability in the future years and the mechanism in the planned development is there to obtain additional landscaping, screening, fencing, etc. The motion was defeated 4 : 3 with the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Johnson, Kudlac, and Chair- person Luna NOES: Commissioners Waage, Lochridge, Hanauer, and Hiqhland Further discussion ensued. Commissioner Lochridge stated he would like to see the project incorporate additional screening, fencing, landscaping, and provision for screening trash containers . As an alternative, he suggested that this application be sent back in order to let staff and applicant work out some of the concerns that have been expressed. Commissioner Waage affirmed that the likes the idea of the • planned development overlay which is better than apartments or condominiums . He indicated he would rather see two lots than three, but that this proposal can work. Commissioner Highland suggested that this item be approved and sent to the Council with a specific statement that if this project is denied, to provide the Commission with a figure guideline for minimum lot sizes . Discussion continued. Commissioner Hanauer noted that he favors the buildings being oriented toward Sinaloa rather than Curbaril and commented that the proposed curb and gutter improvements will benefit both streets . He concurred that the would like to see the Council provide specific direction for minimum lot Sizes . Commissioner Johnson concurred with Commissioner Hanauer' s comments concerning offsite improvements but noted concern with the side yard setbacks . He further stated that if the project is reduced to two units , it would be a viable project which he could support. Mr. DeCamp . clarified that the Zoning Ordinance provides for a five foot side setback on residential lots and added that • the Fire Department has reviewed and approved the plan as P. proposed. He pointed out that the Fire Department' s concern is being able to reach all portions of the building within 150 feet of their vehicle. -9- MINUTES EXCERPT - PLANNING COMMISSION - 11/20/90 • Commissioner Highland reiterated that the Planning Commission needs to receive direction on what is an acceptable minimum lot size. MOTION: By Commissioner Lochridge to approve Tentative Parcel Map 18-90 and Zone Change 3-90 based on the Findings for Approval (Exhibit H) and the Conditions of Approval (Exhibit I) but recommends that staff develop further conditions which will address conditions normally required in this zone: landscape, screening, solid waste Container screening, fencing, , open space and CC&Rs if applicable. There were further questions and discussion on the motion with regard to modifying the site plait to accommodate for additional landscaping, fencing and screening for trash containers . Commissioner Lochridge restated his motion. MOTION: By Commissioner Lochridge to continue the hearing on Tentative Parcel Map 18-90 and Zone Change 3-90 • to the December 18, 1990 meeting in order for the staff to develop Conditions of approval which will address additional landscaping, additional fencing, and screening for trash containers . Commissioner Highland seconded the motion. The motion carried 4 :3 with the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Lochridge, Highland, Hanauer, and Waage NOES: Commissioners Kudlac, Johnson, and chair- person Luna 01 Chairperson Luna declared a break at 9 : 50 p.m. ; eting reconvened at 10: 05 p.m. Commissioner Highland was excused from th eeting at 10 : 00 p.m. 3 . TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 25- Application filed b 'ank Henderson (Vaughan Surveys, agent) to divide - . 15 acre parcel into two parcels of 4 .99 acres a 4 . 16 acres each. Subject site is located at 5 Enchanto Road. SMr. Kais presented the staff report and summarized the differ a between vesting tentative maps and tentative ma Staff is recommending approval subject to seven Yditions . Mr. Kaiser stated that in response to -2- MINUTES EXCERPT - PLANNING COMMISSION - 12/18/90 A. CONSENT CALENDAR • 1 . Approval of minutes of the regular Planni Commission meeting of November 20, 1990 2 . Approval of minutes of the r ar Planning Commission meeting of December 4 , 19 Chairperson Luna repo - that Item A-2 was not really for consideration. MOTION: Commissioner Johnson, seconded by Commissioner Lochridge and carried 6 : 1 (Commissioner Highland abstaining) to approve Item A-1 of the Consent Calendar. B. HEARINGS, APPEARANCES, AND REPORTS 1 . TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP IS-90/ZONE CHANGE 3-90: Continued public Iledring of request to establish a Planned Development Overlay Zone ( PD7 ) in conjunction with a tentative parcel map application to divide one existing parcel of approximately one-quarter acre into three parcels of 3 ,426 , 3,435 , and 4 , 066 square feet • for single family residential use . Subject site is located at 7970 Sinaloa Avenue (Continued from 11/20/90 meeting) . Gary Kaiser presented the staff report and summarized the discussion and action from the prior hearing. He pointed out the addition of Condition 417 which requires CC&Rs to be recorded that will address the fencing, landscaping, and storage of trash containers . Commission questions and discussion followed. Deborah Hollowell with Cuesta Engineering, discussed the changes that were incorporated in the revised master- plan of development which addresses areas of concern that were expressed at the prior meeting. Ms . Hollowell remarked that the revised plan reflects an overall clean and simple pian, and asked for approval of the request. There was no other public testimony. In response to question by Commissioner Johnson, Mr. DeCamp explained the history involving the inception of the P07 overlay zone. A planned development is basically a small lot subdivision which provides a break ry in density and • provides an alternative housing type. He added that these applications are reviewed on a ease-by-ease basis . It is not an area-wide overlay zone, such as the PD1 zone on north E1 Camino Real . -3- MINUTES EXCERPT - PLANNING COMMISSION - 12/18/90 • Commissioner Johnson asked haw this can promote orderly development and he felt there is no continuity on an area- wide basis . Discussion followed. Mr. Decamp pointed out that this particular project along with the one across the street (Voorhis) are a benefit in that they provide a buffer zone from multi-family to single family. Commissioner Hanauer stated that these planned developments on Sinaloa provide Atascadero with model developments for single family ownership. In response to question by Chairperson Lucia, Mr. DeCamp stated that staff would be hesitant to set a specific minimum lot size . This is one of the tools that is utilized in the design of a planned development; it provides flexibility for varying lot sizes . Discussion continued. Commissioner Johnson disagreed that this project provides affordable housing with a sale price of around $150,000 . If the site were developed as multi-family, it would be more affordable. He voiced his opinion that the planned development is being used to justify a lot split, and added that this project is not in the City' s best interest; the project degrades the area and there are no benefits derived. • Commissioner Waage g commented that, in his opinion, the Jones Project came out very well . He would like to review projects on a case-by-case basis adding he could not support this project. Commissioner Hanauer observed the condition of Sinaloa over the years noting that the planned developments will be visually pleasing. He cautioned that employers will not have employees because there won' t be enough affordable housing. He called for the preservation of the planned development concept. Discussion proceeded. Commissioner Kudlac agreed that the planned developments will improve the corner of Sinaloa and Curbaril . He added that this type of housing will become more prevalent as this type of property is selling wore than single family housing. He emphasized that now is the time to let people know the City won' t accept cramming a lot of house into a small lot. Commissioner Loehridge observed that the applicant has addressed the concerns from the prior meeting He added that all single family residences do not need to be oil one- half acre to be compatible, and voiced his feeling that this is an ideal buffer between multi-family and single family • uses . - -4- MINUTES EXCERPT - PLANNING COMMISSION - 12/18/90 • Commissioner Lochridge further stated that steps need to be taken to provide affordable housing which will result in a reduction in lot size, and noted concurrence with not setting a specific lot size minimum. Commissioner Kudlac cautioned the Commission to think about aesthetics ( re: fencing) which lie felt will make the project look worse. He indicated he could support two units on the site. MOTION: By Commissioner Lochridge and seconded by Commissioner Hanauer to approve Tentative Parcel Map 18-90 and recommend approval of Zone Change 3- 90 based on the Findings and subject to the revised Conditions of Approval (map) contained in the staff report. Commissioner Johnson stressed that just because these types of projects have been approved in the past does not mean the planned development needs to be applied to this site. He added lie would not have a problem with two units but three units is a mistake. Chairperson Luna noted his concurrence with Commissioner Johnson' s statements . • Commissioner Waage stated that this project just meets the minimums noting lie did not favor this application as presented. Commissioner Lochridge argued that the applicant has done more than what the minimum standards require. Commissioner Hanauer added that the applicant was responsive in modifying the project per the Planning Commission? s desires . Commissioner Johnson remarked that Commissioner. Hanauer is presenting the image that this item was approved at the last hearing, and this was not the case. Discussion followed. Commissioner Highland remarked that there are members of this Commission who are being dishonest with the public . He reiterated the previous motion for a continuance for the applicant to modify the existing design which added additional time and expense. The motion was defeated 4 : 3 with the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Lochridge, Hanauer, and • Highland -5- MINUTES EXCERPT - PLANNING COMMISSION - 12/18/90 • NOES: Commissioners Kudlac, Waage, Johnson, and Chairperson Luna MOTION: By Commissioner Johnson and seconded by Chairperson Luna to deny Zone Change 3-90 based on Findings #6 #7 ( from ordinance) that benefits derived from the overlay zone can be reasonably achieved through existing development standards or processing requirements; and the proposed plans offer no redeeming features to compensate for requested modifications . The motion carried 4 :3 with the following roll call vote: AYES : Commissioners Johnson, Kudlac-, Waage, and Chairperson Luna NOES : Commissioners Hanauer, Highland, and Lochridge MOTION: By Commissioner Johnson and seconded by Chair-Der- sonLuna to deny Tentative Parcel Map 18-90 based oil Map Finding 41 ( in the negative) - The proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable General and Specific Plans . The motion carried • 5 : 2 with the following roll call vote: AYES : C011"Rissloners Johnson, Waage, Kudlac, Lochridge, and Chairperson Luna NOES : Commissioners Highland and Hanauer chairperson Luna declared a recess at 8 : 50 p.m. ; 1 eting reconvened at 9 : 00 p.m. 2 . Oral report and discussion of Pla io--d Develovment Overlay zones (PD) - standards, mini m lot sizes,� etc. Mr. Decamp summarized the backgro d involved with the inception of planned unit develo ents which have been used more and more over the last - "eral years . There is a demand for housing types that mirror other cities . Atascadero is known forge lots, yet this concept is not advocating a change to aller lots . There is a place and time when planned ul i develouments are desireable. He added there has no been a market for apartments; lioWeVer, there is stili eveloped multi-family land. Mr. Decamp further state - -ie would be hesitant to seek a minimum lot size numb"er,- rom the Council; if this were to happen, all projects ill be subject to the minimum. It is more • desire- e to review planned developments with respect to inco - orating amenities , standards, etc . , within the design an Bing afforded the flexibility in the design process. ADOPTED JUNE' 27, 1983 PD (Planned Development) Overlay Zone 9-3. 641. Purpose: The Planned Development Overlay Zone identi- fies areas where development standards or processing procedures dif- ferent from those established by the underlying zoning district, Chapter 9-4 or Chapter 9-6, are deemed necessary to promote orderly and harmonious development and to enhance the opportunity to best utilize special characteristics of an area. 9-3 . 642. Applicability of Planned Development Standards: The standards of Section 9-3.645 et seq apply to all uses for which a zoning approval is required that are located in a Planned Development Overlay Zone. 9-3. 643. Minimum Development Standards and Processing Require- ments: The development standards, special use standards and pro- cessing requirements of the underlying zoning district shall apply in a Planned Development Overlay Zone unless specifically modified, to a greater or lesser extent, by a Planned Development Overlay Zone. The Planned Development Overlay Zone may be used as follows: (a) to modify setbacks; heights; parking and loading; landscap- ing, screening and fencing; signs; streets and frontage im- provements; and, other development and special use standards set forth in Chapters 9-4 and 9-6 ; and (b) to modify processing procedures set forth by the underlying zoning district (Chapter 9-3) ; and (c) to establish other development standards or processing re- quirements; and (d) to modify minimum lot sizes or permitted density. 9-3 . 644. Required Findings: In approving the establishment of a Planning Development Overlay Zone, the following findings shall be made: (a) Modification of development standards or processing require- ments is warranted to promote orderly and harmonious development. (b) Modification of development standards or processing require- ments will enhance the opportunity to best utilize special characteristics of an area and will have a beneficial effect on the area. 3-58 ADOPTED JUNE 27, 1983 (c) Benefits derived from the overlay zone cannot be reasonably achieved through existing development standards or processing requirements. (d) Proposed plans, if any, offer certain redeeming features to compensate for requested modifications. -3. 645. Establishment of Planned Development Overlay Zone No. 1 P - Planned Development Overlay Zone No. 1 is establishe as s wn on he Official Zoning Maps (Section 9-1.102) . _The following m difi- cati s to development standards and processing requirements e estab ' shed: (a) Master Plan of Development shall be approved p or to ap- p oving a Plot Plan, Precise Plan, Conditional se Permit, or entative Parcel or Tract Map. The master lan of Devel- opme t shall be applied for and processed in the manner pre- scrib for a Conditional Use Permit (Sect' n 9-2. 109) . (b) In appro 'ng a Master Plan of Developme , the level of pro- cessing fo subsequent projects or pha es may be reduced to Plot Plan p vided that the Master Pen contains sufficient detail to sup ort such a determination. (c) No subsequent Pi t Plan, Precise,,�lan, Conditional Use Per- mit, or Tentative arcel or Tract Map shall be approved unless found to be onsistent .with the approved Master Plan of Development. Any mendmerit to a Master Plan of Develop- .ment, including condi 'ons thereof, shall be accomplished as set forth in Subsection a) of this Section. (d) A minimum front setback of wenty (20) feet shall be provided along the El Camino Real fro tage of all parcels. Rear set- backs shall be a minimum of t feet. (e) Plans shall make provision to de lop an attractive appear- ance along Highway 101 through the use of landscaping, building and parking orientation an other means. (f) The number -of driveways along E1 CaminReal shall be mini- mized to ,prevent potential traffic conflXZone (g) All utilities shall be installed undergr (h) Exterior building materials shall be revpta- biiity and shall exhibit compatible relaeen buildings on a particular site or parcel Establishment of Planned Development Overlay 2 • P 2� Planned Development Overlay Zone No.. 2 is established as own op' the Official Zoning Maps (Section 9-1.102) . The following mo ' fi- ` cations to development standards are established: 3-59 • REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Ztem -/ I,I Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 1/22/91 From: Greg L. Luke, Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Consideration of acceptance into the City maintainedroadsystem those roads or portions of those roads included in the agreement between the City and the Gordon T. Davis Cattle Company dated June 13, 1986 and executed on August 22, 1986. RECOMMENDATION: Pursuant to the provisions of Section: 1806 of the California Streets and Highways Code resolve to include those roads or portions of roads listed herein into the City maintained road system as indicated on the attached Resolution No. 4-91. BACKGROUND: • On August 22, 1986, an agreement was completed between the Cit y and the Gordon T. Davis Cattle Company which established road improvement standards necessary to be achieved prior to the acceptance of road maintenance responsibility by the City. City Council Resolution No. 11-90 directed staff to establish conditions for specific plans within the 1983 and 1986 agreements and to establish improvement securities to defer certain road improvements. Roads addressed in the 1983 agreement have already been accepted into the City maintained road system. Deferred Improvement Agreements were subsequently completed, during September and October of 1990, concerning the roads between the City and; Atascadero Highlands; Gordon T. Davis, et al representing Las Encinas II; and Gordon T. Davis. DISCUSSION: The remaining construction requirements outlined in Resolution No. 111-90, exhibit C, have been completed. An unconstructed portion of Ardilla, Road, located between Balboa and Graves Creek road, and unconstructed Serrijon Road and Chorro Road are not under consideration at this time. Jaquima Road and Sausalito Road are to remain under private ownership. The roads included are listed in the proposed resolution. A 30 day waiting period following adoption of this resolution is unnecessary in this case because the City is not filing a Notice of Completion and public funds were not expended on this project. FISCAL IMPACT: By accepting these roads the City will be accepting additional maintenance responsibility. The maintenance cost per mile of road is not expected to exceed that typically required by the rest of the City's maintained road system. 1. Resolution No. 4-91 enclosures: 2. Map of roads recommended for acceptance into the City maintained road system. 3 . Resolution No. 111-90 4. Engineer's Certification of Compliance • Ai'' 1.., NORTN COAST ENINEER/NG,�IN . Civil Engineering • Land Surveying • Project Development • January 16, '1991 City Council City of Atascadero 6500 Palma Avenue Atascadero, CA 93422 A'tn: Greg Luke, Public Works Director Subject: Acceptance of Davis and Barnes Roadways Dear Mr. Luke: I have inspected the roads identified in Resolution 111-90 and hereby state that the work called for by that resolution has been completed in substantial conformance with the provisions thereof. In my judgment, all parties to the `agreement have complied with their obligations set forth in that resolution. The City Council may now proceed to consummate the remaining provisions of that resolution. Respectfully, oIgOF ESS/0N9 Steven S I ester, P.E. �c��� 3. SYNC !try Preside SJ S j j r ,v H 29743 >� rM ac EXP.3-91 rM 9lF of caO 9014904 .1tr . 715 241h Street,Suite o Paso Robles CA 9;446 (805)239.3127 FAX(805)239-07SP RESOLUTION NO. 4-91 • RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO ACCEPTING CERTAIN ROADS AND PORTIONS OF CERTAIN ROADS INTO THE CITY MAINTAINED ROAD SYSTEM WHEREAS, the City has entered into various agreements with Gordon T. Davis representing Las Encinas II; Gordon T. Davis representing the Gordon T. Davis Cattle Company; Gordon T. Davis; and Mr. Bill Barnes representing Atascadero Highlands, establishing road improvements prerequisite to acceptance of the roads by the City for maintenance; and WHEREAS, these improvements have been completed; and WHEREAS, City Council action is required by the Streets and Highways Code Section 1806 in order to include a new street into the City maintained road system; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT: Pursuant to the provisions of Section 1806 of the California Streets and Highways Code, the following streets are hereby accepted for maintenance in the City maintained road system. Santa Cruz Road From the southeasterly corner of lot 32 of block 50 to the intersection at Santa Ana Road. San Gregorio Road From the intersection Santa Cruz Road to the intersection at Del Rio Road. Santa Ana Road From the cul-de-sac at the northwesterly corner of lot 11 of block 55 to the intersection at Corriente Road. Garcero Road From the intersection at Santa Ana to the cul- de-sac located at the northeasterly corner of lot 35 of block 55. Corona Road From the intersection at Santa Ana Road to the cul-de-sac located at the northwesterly corner of lot 40 of block 55. Balboa Road From the southeasterly corner of lot 20 of block 47 to the intersection at Enchanto Road. Enchanto Road From the intersection at Balboa to the cul-de- sac located adjacent to lot 20 of block 44. • Llano Road From the southeasterly corner of lot 31 of block 27 to, but not including, the intersection at Balboa. Corriente Road From the intersection at Santa Ana Road to the cul-de-sac at the northeasterly corner of lot 19 of block 44, and from the intersection at Llano Road to the cul-de-sac at the southwesterly corner of lot 29 of block 30. Tecolote Road From the intersection at Llano Road to the cul-de-sac located 1365 feet from the intersection. Alturas Road From Balboa to the northeasterly corner of Lot 5 Block 53. • • On motion by Councilperson seconded by Councilperson , the foregoing resolution is passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ADOPTED: ATTEST: LEE DAYKA, City Clerk ROBERT B. LILLEY, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: ARTHER R. MONTANDON GREG LUKE City Attorney Director of Public Works • ��.�► �r�,��!�•,•`der •• ••. • �► 1�,��i��`��;;� 11 ♦ • � ,•. ;�;• 111 �a rte, �.... � .. .•. , op w � ift - .-,WWI III f � s RESOLUTION NO. 111-90 • A RESOLUTION OF THE ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL ACKNOWLEDGING CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE "GORDON DAVIS ROADS" INTO THE CITY' S MAINTAINED ROAD SYSTEM WHEREAS , the City of At-as_aderc Public Works Director entered _n=c an Agreement fir road i:r roveme.l:s with C - ' .p � G :con La _s jr_ 1983 and agar_ in 1956 see I..ri�__ts A & E attached ` -� B, .-, , a..._ WHEREr'.S , Gordon T. Davis :'las pe=it=one: tale tV I­ accept the ads covered the ,3 - . _o o� r ? a 9� ar.� 19°� r.cream�-zs into 'he „y-,�;a=n_ tained System; and WHEREAS , the City' s Public Wcrks Department has _eccmmended a a a.Jn,3t aCcepting certain rcads , or portions tlereof , into the City Maintainer' Sy-stem pend-frig =heir :teat=ngam the :'erns and ..v:idC __J --1 _Cc . f t1983 193 o the and-n 'a .. Agreeme.,t c; and WarREAS , in order to rascive the issuer -the C�`-.r aandGordon T. Davis have negotiated a settlement leading tc an a_rsec-upon moist of adcitional improvements ( see ..__hibit C, attac'red? , which, upon cos,pletlon and inspection by the City, wi_1 lead to a blanket C_ceptance of ail roads ccvered by 1983 and _986 n.greements the City-Maintained System; and :JHEP.EAS the adopt_o: by =cunc=_ of _ resolution accepting all roads covered Lythe 198-- and _98_ Agreements ,n to the Ci -Main- tBine'd S st_.11 w'_l formal__- as _ =y the a:_ampc_on of 11 _ubs__uent -t _ l t .gle _ani- e-identia cevelcpmen applicatio.s for _: _v__ :al lets from -ca: improv�m� cordit_ons , except as :ray be req­ red in _o unction w:th driveway encroachment perr.,its . ;.0:,1, ':HERETORE, :he C-ty Councdoes __solve as c__icws . I . std-c _s directed to establish ccndJ.tions for specific plans with. n the 19°3 and 1936 Agreeme_^.cs consistent with Exhibit C; 2 . Staff is directed to formally _onsummat_ this agre_ment, including the acceptance of an improvement security for these improvements allowing the immediate approval of precise plans . Cn motion by Councilmember Nittmo seconded by Council- member Borgeson the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in its e:zt_rety sn the fcll:)wing roll-call vote: AYES : Councilmembers Dexter, Shiers, Borgeson, Nimmo and Mayor Lilley NOES : None • ABSENT: None ADOPTED : September 11, 1990 RESOLUTION NO. 111-90 ;Cont ' d) • ATTEST: : f � A:?ROVED AS TO FDRM.: F:_..ER P.. ONmz C_ty Atto_r.ey • • RESOLUTION NO. 111-90 • 8051/434.1834 Exhibit A • T WIN CI TIES ENGINEERINGL INC, CIVIL ENGINEERING S SURVEYING ALLEN W. CAMPBELL RCE 20244 January 25, 1983 Mr. Larry McPherson City Engineer City of Atascadero P. 0. Box 747 Atascadero, CA 93423 Re : Road Construction Agreement Portions of Graves Creek Road Dear Mr. McPherson: and Santa Ana Road In accordance with discussions between Gordon T. Davis Cattle Co. and the City, the following is a summary of our under- standing of the procedures to be followed for the improvement • of the roads shown on the attached plot plan. 1. Developer to enter into an inspection agreement with the City to reimburse City for actual ,inspection costs . 2 . Every attempt will be made to maintain the constructed road at its mapped location. Centerline monuments will be referenced prior to rough grading. 3. Developer will rough grade the roadway using information supplied by developer's engineer and a qualified soil testing service, approved by City, to establish cut and fill slopes . A qualified soils lab, approved by City, will take representative compaction tests at developer's cost and furnish the results to the City. 4. City Engineer's office will make an on-site inspection of the completed rough grading with developer's engineer. Adjustments will be made on recommendation concerning roadway grades and site distances . Cut and fill slopes will be examined at that time along with proposed location and size of drainage structures . Judgements will be based on well-recognized standards and P.O. BOX 777 • 200 MAIN STREET . TEMPLETON, CALIFORNIA 93465 Page #2 r' Road Construction Agreement January 25, 1983 practices . Drainage calculations are to be • submitted to City prior to the field inspection. S. All underground utilities shall be placed prior to paving. Trenches are to be adequately com- pacted with appropriate backfill material. 6. Developer shall place aggregate base. This cork will be inspected by the City and will require compaction tests to be furnished by developer verifying the satisfactory placement of these materials . 7. After basing, City will review erosion control work and roadside drainage facilities . The City and developing engineer will determine the location of any roadside ditches or downdrains . 8. Developer shall re-establish and monument centerline controls for the roadway as approved by City. 9 . Developer shall provide accurate as-built plans for the roadway including plan and profile, culvert - locations and invert elevations , berm locations , utility locations , and any other improvement features . • 10 . Drive approach cuts and fills will be accomplished along with the subgrade preparation in order to eliminate the necessity of disturbing the completed roadway section when the balance of the driveways are constructed to serve individual lots . A no hcarge grading permit will be obtained and plans showing the location of the access points will be presented to the Planning Department prior to approval to proceed with this work. 11. Final improved section shall be a minimum of 2" A. C. over 4" of Class 3 aggregate base assuming a traffic index of 4 and a minimum "R" value of 50. 12 . The upper 18" of subgrade shall be compacted to 951 relative density as measured by California Test Method No. 216 or by calibrated nuclear density instrument. lsA. Developer shall maintain the newly constructed portions of Graves Creek and Santa Ana roads for one year after the date of acceptance. • Page #3 Road Construction Agreement January 25 , 1983 • 13. Final pavement width is to be 20 ' with an additional 2 ' required where A.C. berms are placed for drainage control . Aggre ate base width would then be a minimum of 2N to accomodate the final pavement section. 14 . Cut ditches shall be paved with 2" of A.C. where the road grade exceeds 10$ . 15. It is understood that Gordon T. Davis Cattle Co. also agrees to pay actual costs for City inspec- tion and engineering performed on this project. 16. The roads in question will be accepted for City maintenance when all the steps have been completed. Sincerely, G%f Allen W. Campbell R.C.E. 20244 AWC/ss • enc. cc: It. Warden L. Stevens I agree with all conditions outlined in this agreement from Mr. Campbell. Signed Signed. :LCA. Lam+ McPherson or on avis att e Co . � r Dated Dated • .�i ;� '-� - fid. 'r� � �r�� �' v .. �•1 i '•`, �'�J � ��.! / �� � \'/fie Ir- �1 �•�•l� %/i��\^' ;• /.. •cam-- �l � nte.ey t{',�.. irli ,. '\'\\ � .� � .�-� t �• '1� � -'950, _ � 44 44 oeo voo _. \'�—'� !� ���•,! v ..._- _ .�`�- � ,YDS �. :�� 1 - \� \�\ \ -•' \ '�, VVV t .. - - Iii- . ...............\r \•'.. \\ \• \�•!\��- 1• �\ _ ... -_ _`� .� �` .ter 13 �//�+'�\ ,+�.\` +\ l.•�++\� � \Q��,�. � �.:�!'����� SCI t� ♦ � 1~ � 'C,•' •i��• \ 1\ •\.+\ � � \.�1 �� 1 " Tv � .:SCG '• • s �. COLObooe NY�� (RESOLUTION NO. 111-90 Exhibit B ® r•� 805/434.1834 TWIN CITIES ENGINEERING �-' INC. CIVIL ENGINEERING S SURVEYING ALLEN W. CAMPBELL RCE 20244 June 13, 1986 Mr. Paul Sensibaugh Public Works Director City of Atascadero PO Boc 747 Atascadero, CA 93423 RE : Road Construction Agreement Portions of Atascadero Colony (See attached map) Dear Mr. Sensibaugh: In accordance with discussions between Gordon T. Davis Cattle Company and the City, the following is a summary of our under- standing of the procedures to be followed for the improvement of the roads shown on the attached plot plan. • 1. Developer to enter into an inspection agreement with the City to reimburse City for actual inspection costs . 2. Every attempt will be made to maintain the constructed road at its mapped location. Centerline monuments will be referenced prior to rough grading. 3 . Developer will rough grade the roadway using information supplied by developer's engineer and a qualified soils lab , approved by City, will take representative compaction tests at developer' s cost and furnish the results to the City. 4. City Engineer' s office will make an on-site inspection of the completeed rough grading with developer' s engineer. Adjustments will be made on recommendation concerning roadway grades and site distances . Cut and fill slopes will be examined at the time along with proposed location and size of drainage structures . Judgements will be based on well-recogniTed standards and practices . Drainage calculations are to be submitted to City prior to the field inspection. FILE COPY P.O. BOX 777 . 200 MAIN STREET 9 TEMPLETON, CALIFORNIA 93465 I Page 2 Road Consturction Agreement Davis 6-13-86 S. All underground utilities shall be placed prior to paving. Trenches are to be adequately com- pacted with appropriate backfill material . 6. Developer shall place aggregate base. This work will be inspected by the City and will require compaction tests to be furnished by developer verifying the satisfactory placement of these materials . 7. After basing, City will review erosion control work and roadside drainage facilities . The City and developer's engineer will determine the location of any roadside ditches or downdrains . 8. Developer shall re-establish and monument centerline controls for the roadway as approved by City. County standard monument well at road intersections and on long tangents, 5/8" rebar with metal caps at all other locations . The monument wells are also to serve as bench marks with elevations shown on the As-Built Plans . • 9 . Developer shall provide accurate As-Built plans for the roadway including plan and profile , culvert locations and invert elevations , berm locations , utility locations , and any other improvement features . 10. Drive approach cuts and fills will be accomplished along with the subgrade preparation in order to eliminate the necessity of disturbing the completed roadway section when the balance of the driveways are constructed to serve individual lots . A no charge grading permit will be obtained and plans to showing the location of the access points will _be ' presented to the Planning Department and a field review of the driveway location made prior to approval to proceed with this work . The driveway grading should be kept to no more that 50 c.v, . 11. Final improved section shall be a minimum of 2 inches A.C. over at least 4" of Class 3 aggregate base. The structural section is to be based on a traffic index of 4 and the R-value of the sub-base soils . 12 . The upper 18" of subgrade shall be compacted to 9S$ relative density as measured by California Test Method No. 216 or by calibrated nuclear density instrument. Page 3 Road Construction Agreement Davis 6- 13-86 • 13 . Final pavement width is to be 20 feet with an additional two foot required where A. C. berms are placed for drainage control . Aggregate base width would then be a minimum one foot outside the edge of pavement. Also an additional two foot of A. C. widening with adequate tapers will be required where sharp horizontal curves are encountered. 14. Cut ditches shall be paved with 2 inches of A. C. where the road grade exceeds 10% . 15. It is understood that Gordon T. Davis Cattle Co. also agrees to pay actual costs for City inspec- tion and engineering performed on this project. 16. Developer will maintain roads for one year after date of acceptance. 17. The roads in question will be accepted for City maintenance when all steps have been completed. 18 . Generally the roads are to be• developed in accordance with the attached phasing plan. The stages of the work is to take place , such as tree removal , grubbing, rough grading, etc. prior to start of construction. Sincerely, JI&4— Allen IV. CamDb 11 R. C.E. 20244' AWC/pas enclosure cc : Henry Engen I agree with all conditions outlined in this agreement from Mr. Campbell. - a � Si ned Signed Paul Senssibaugh Gordon T. Davis Cattle Co . Dated 8�Z2-96 Dated j � � r � ' ` . r l", � ', • 11 r /- t1 .� A- 1 s Aly � • � � �• '1 � - �'�_ •: , � •�. - � - • r t cam' � .cr' - \,� r •'/ �'•r i • S�� � �L :1 _ � X t�• - 'Itl .w� ° _ � � r � • \\ yam' � I h.• :.. Cal zt IM 4 It • , . • / as? ? of >v IN it 0 (D rO r7 REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: �- 3 From: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 1/22/91 SUBJECT: Economic Development Committee - Roundtable BACKGROUND: Mayor Lilley has asked that I add this item to your agenda of January 22nd in order to determine if there is consensus among Council for the make-up of this committee, as suggested in the Mayor' s memo of December 27 , 1990 ( copy attached) . Beyond that, of course, it will be necessary for Council to specify the indi- viduals , except for the banks , who will actually serve in this capacity. RW: cw I I 1 i MEMORANDUM DATE: December 27 , 1990 TO: Council FROM: Bob Lilley SUBJECT: Outstanding and/or New Project Priorities As we approach the new year and the final six months of the fiscal year, I thought I would share some thoughts I have on project priorities, either needing to be resolved or deserving attention. My purpose is merely to aid in focusing on certain key areas, which in turn will hopefully elicit comments, sugges- tions, additions or deletions from each councilmember. I think it would be particularly helpful to staff to know that there is some consensus among the Council on major project areas . The list is in my order of priority so that you will know how I feel about the relative importance of the issues, but I truly welcome your own viewpoint. I . Lake Pavilion Construction A. Resolve financing if this becomes an issue. • 2. Fiscal Policy Direction A. Future department expenditure guidelines, including employee compensation, both keyed to City' s revenue growth. 3 . Fiscal Planning Model Phase II 4 . Business Revitalization A. signing (both downtown and City-wide) B. Downtown parking through initiation of steps to form a parking district. t� C. Creekway planning tied to commercial compatibility. V D. Formation of an Economic Development Committee (or round table) . Membership to include: i. Two Councilmembers ii. one Planning Commissioner iii. Three financial representatives (Mid-State Bank, Santa Lucia and Bank of America) iv. Two Chamber of Commerce members V. Two B.I.A. members vi. Three Members-at-Large REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: - From: Ray Windsor, City Manager �Vi Meeting Date: 1/22/91 SUBJECT: Mid-Year Budget Review BACKGROUND: As in past years, we would like to have a brief budget update/ overview at the end of February, including a review of the capital improvement portion of the budget. We do not expect to be asking for any major changes from the adopted budget and, therefore, would not expect a lengthy meeting. Given this fact, Mark Joseph and I would like to suggest that Council meet at 6 : 00 palm. at its second regular meeting of February 1990 (February 26th) . j', I would intend • to make an item for the budget update as part of your regular agenda in case your discussion and/or review should go beyond 7 : 00 p.m. RW: cw • 1 I