The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Packet 02/12/1991 # PUBLIC REVIEW COPY # PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE - A G E N D A FROM COUNTER ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING ATASCADERO ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 6500 PALMA FOURTH FLOOR, ROTUNDA ROOM FEBRUARY 12, 1991 7 :00 P.M. This agenda is prepared and posted pursuant to the require- ments of Government Code Section 54954 . 2 . By listing a topic on this agenda, the City Council has expressed its intent to discuss and act on each item. In addition to any action identified in the brief general description of each item, the action that may be tak- en shall include: A' referral to staff with specific requests for information; continuance; specific direction to staff concerning the policy or mission of the item; discontinuance of consideration authorization to enter into negotiations and execute agreements pertaining to the item; adoption or approval; and, disapproval . Copies of the staff reports or other documentation relating to each item of business referred to on the agenda are on file in the office of the City Clerk, available for public inspection during City Hall business hours . The City Clerk will answer any questions regarding the agenda. RULES OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: Members of the audience may speak on any item on the ;agenda. * A person may speak for five (5) minutes . * No one may speak for a second time until everyone wishing to speak has had an opportunity to do so. ' * No one may speak more than twice on any item. * Council Members may question any speaker; the speaker may respond but, after the allotted time has expired, may not initiate further discussion. * The floor will then be closed to public participation and open for Council discussion. Call to Order Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call City Council Comment: Presentation by Frank McKee, President, Nacimiento Regional Water Management Advisory Committee: A. Resolution No. 6-91 Urging the S.L.O.; Co. Board . of Supervisors to initiate discussion with Monterey Co. and Nacimiento water officials regarding Nacimiento Reservoir as a supplemental water source 1 COMMUNITY FORUM: The City Council values and encourages exchange of ideas and comments from you, the citizen. The Community Forum period is provided to receive comments from the public on matters other than scheduled agenda items. To increase the effectiveness of Community Forum, the following rules will be enforced: * A maximum of 30 minutes will be allowed for Community Forum, unless Council authorizes an extension. * All remarks shall be addressed to Council, as a whole, and not to any individual member thereof. * No person shall be permitted to make slanderous, profane or personal remarks against any Council Member, commissions & staff. A. CONSENT CALENDAR All matters listed under Item A, Consent Calendar, are con- sidered to be routine, and will be enacted by one motion in the form listed below. There will be no separate discussion on these items . A member of the Council or public may, by request, have any item removed from the Consent Calendar, which shall then be 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 22, 1991 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 2 . ORDINANCE NO. 217 ZONE CHANGE 3-90, 7970 SINALOA - Estab- lishing a Planned Development Overlay Zone (PD7 ) (Second reading & Adoption) (Best/Cuesta Engineering) 3 . RESOLUTION NO. 7-91 - ADOPTING NEW SOLID WASTE RATES 4 . RESOLUTION NO. 10-91 - AUTHORIZING CONTRACT FOR FIXED ASSET APPRAISAL SERVICES 5 . ACCEPTANCE OF PHASE I OF TRACT MAP 25-89 (TRACT 1858) HOTEL PARK, 5805 CAPISTRANO AVENUE 6. RESOLUTION NO. 8-91 - AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF NOTICE OF COM- PLETION FOR RECORDATION - LAKE PARK PAVILION, PHASE I 7 . RESOLUTION NO. 9-91 - AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE NOTICE OF COMPLE- TION FOR RECORDATION - SYCAMORE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT 8. RESOLUTION NO. 11-91 - AWARD OF BID #91-1 , FIRE STATION #1 PARKING LOT 9 . FALCON CABLE TV RATE INCREASE (Information only) 2 B. HEARINGS/APPEARANCES: 1. TREE ORDINANCE (Cont' d from 12/11/90) A. Ordinance No. 214 - Repealing Chapter 19 ,of Title 2 and Section 9-4 . 155, and adding Chapters 11 12 and 13 to Title 9 of the Atascadero Municipal Code regarding tree protection (Recommend motion to waive reading in full and approve on first reading by title only) B. Resolution No. 125-90 Adopting Tree Standards & Guide- in—es 2. ZONE CHANGE 5-90/TPM 27-90 - Consideration of a proposed zone change to amend the existing LS (Special Recreation) zoning to include a PD7 (Planned Development No. 7 ) Overlay Zone, with an associated tentative parcel map which proposes to divide a 21 . 66 ac. parcel into four parcels for single-family residential use, and a "remainder" parcel of approx. 17 .3 ac. to be offered for dedication to the City for parkland/open space use at the Cortez Ave. extension (Lot 3 , Pine Mtn. Park) (Noakes/RRM Design) A. ORDINANCE NO. 218 - Amending Map 7 of the official zoning maps by rezoning that certain real property described as Lot 3 , Pine Mtn. Park of Atascadero, recorded in Book 4 at Page 76, S .L.O. County official records, from LS to LS(PD7 ) (Recommend motion to waive reading in full and approve on first reading by title only) B. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 27-90 Approve, subject to the Planning Commission' s Findings and Revised Conditions of Approval 3. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 2-90, 11145 EL CAMINO REAL - Consideration of appeal by Michael S. Krout on behalf of Richard Montanaro of condition of approval (separate water meters ) proposed by the Planning Commission in order to convert 64 multi-family residential rental units to air-space condominiums (Cont' d from 11/27/90) C. REGULAR BUSINESS : 1 . PETITION RE: EL CENTRO STREET 2. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - ROUNDTABLE 3 . REQUESTED FREEDOM RALLY—FEBRUARY 17 , 1991 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. ) 3 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 * NOTICE: THE COUNCIL WILL MEET IN OPEN SESSION ON FEBRUARY 25TH AT 6:00 P.M. , PRIOR TO ITS NEXT REGULAR MEET- ING, FOR THE PURPOSE OF MID-YEAR BUDGET REVIEW. SAID MEETING WILL BE HELD IN THE CITY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, 4TH FLOOR. 4 }•} �. s. 4 ill -1Ss�loci; { ( jly A ?f 5 r 4 3 all NM nit Sh vivo i fir' } tSM S % ¢. � ' hang, Oil Aid Oil V ka Ma last WYK fz , �e 4 {L� � �•�� i Y � t•�+ �&�� 1, ��a5w a " : j � ; I air t � i for 411 c Eli nq m � r 1 jj { u watts } a l a s a04 „ t� ;� r � r IWA lwnu � � E ' w Mh lot lot Arm a pit' fly Y E^ r MIAMI * Mao", €s MOM f{T 1.01 uPIS An M4 ; b p � 3 i �,+ffi.` !fi 'Gf 1 t . c�,, F r s� „ebx :i� �..f.r, ,� .i rfE•; � R }q QQ 215 2 } [ e? 3 t MIT c: h� t r S � �� ,�'✓z � ,� �'�.r �`-s ¢,�. a x�;�r�`,ddb a R .'r A x a € r i i y p x. r � r x k RESOLUTION NO. -91 A RESOLUTION OF THE ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL URGING THE SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO INITIATE DISCUSSION WITH MONTEREY COUNTY AND NACIMIENTO WATER OFFICIALS REGARDING NACIMIENTO RESERVOIR AS A SUPPLEMENTAL WATER SOURCE WHEREAS, The City' s existing and proposed General Plan Update strongly advocate Nacimiento Reservoir as a local supplemental water source; and WHEREAS, The Atascadero Mutual Water Company' s long-range master plan has identified the Nacimiento Reservoir as a high priority for supplemental water supply; and WHEREAS, Monterey County Flood Control has ongoing activities which could affect future water supplies from Nacimiento Reservoir; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council requests the Board of Supervisors of San Luis Obispo County, also known as the San Luis Obispo Flood Control District, to immediately initiate discussions with Monterey County as to the future of Nacimiento Reservoir and provide a dialogue identifying the importance of the Nacimiento Reservoir to San Luis Obispo County as a future supple- mental source of water. On motion by Councilmember seconded by Council- member the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety on the following roll-call vote: AYES : NOES: ABSENT: ADOPTED: APPROVED AS TO FORM: ARTHER R. MONTANDON, City Attorney ROBERT B. LILLEY, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: LEE DAYKA, City Clerk RAY WINDSOR, City Manager II r I ' i r f P D r AT i jVvy, t 1 � 1 � � Iv t t 3a � � F { I �. r I ' J I " I x a k ,#S .r q _EN . -, tr rt ''ra. '". '` ,�. t J '4 1 ss(' S"i'a �4t" f a.. j #,_ a' `�Lr:s'j it :a•. `{ * "'"r� �g 'y OPE Awl��9.;, � �`a x44�� u` � �1 110 �A 400 14N UPVow r MKIN n mrd,'+ �` :✓ � :_n 3 t` <t�x+ L +. '"'� " ii< i r Y 4WQ5yz tt 6, par, wasavo .� i a k x ",n�W�.' �`'�.' '� �'�`'��7-,�t,€� 4�Ctt `' �! rY s°t: e �. � yeHI ay 7 d r ips"h e { t # s gnf qwT- _nz g x h }. 1 t- �1 Xb G S 4 f i i r 'Ry#.413m, "x r # t0;s# w ,} # 'r Aar tz k {6 r W ,xs�t [ s ? a '' .C.�#t#, rz ; 4,# ,, .>+s €t,p '� s � � r•# Y 3 f {OW 0,x r k i,Or c yT 5§0 "sit u c c x ! afar`�s'rCOT 3 ' #� # t f t «i .r k # Its 12TYPS, Klotz; >-Y tool" ! k !. } ", 1 x g�� i P �� 4 � Y � v*Y � �zet � � 3i e+ }� 5 �. -zw �� n �'z �•� e R�� k� � 'In Amoco W n foil 9 OWN W� k s F i3TM AS .: #€`".t'.� Y7„a46qz•`�9a'blm' a r "i�'r "s a i' b.A 3 r` c r- Nc ✓ : 1 � .° YnT Wax lower—awls,a II # a f t i- 1 ,k %t' � i # i # >3 c rs yd m z # F� � 5,„ ZIA zsx ri �,r sfR. ,a s Y-� ° }int`t i ' 3 _ z x Wy r � r # f LY O Act oil .YE 7 tri E. z'St Nis ASM "'fie 7 � M S 1 r i t �, t i&,i { r1 # to s �f S' Ff t r ik Nth '' a Y { ' �� ";a", s,� sap; k { { ( IPP '` t. J Gm r M-01 kZoo, Ago SQ SAW 2 g s rp i r 1 b3 t Ty ' 1 r r t t ox e`'jut.111 Win rr 3 } t 1 I z two z i r ct x i 6. RESOLUTION NO. 3-91 - AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL TO COUNTY RECORDER OF NOTICE OF COMPLETION OF PUMP STATION #2 FORCE MAIN REPLACEMENT 7. AWARD BID X90-19 FOR MODULAR PLAY STRUCTURE ADDITIONS (LAKE PARR) 8. RENEWAL OF HEALTH INSURANCE POLICIES MOTION: By Councilman Dexter and seconded by Councilwoman Borgeson to approve the Consent Calendar; motion unanimously carried by roll call vote. B. HEARINGS/APPEARANCES: 1. SOLID WASTE PROGRAM: RATE INCREASE/MANDATORY PICK-UP/CURBSIDE RECYCLING/GREEN WASTE RECYCLING (Cont'd from 11/13/90) The City Manager introduced the matter by explaining that, in an effort to begin meeting the deadlines set forth in AB939, staff had been asked to make recommendations regarding a rate increase related to the existing service, but based upon a volume rate program and implementation of an integrated waste management • program. Public Works Director Greg Luke, he reported, was the staff representative to both the Recycling Committee and the Solid Waste Management Committee. Mr. Luke presented the staff report with overhead transparencies highlighting the proposed seven-point integrated waste management plan. Some of the recommendations, he pointed out, would require immediate action while others would involve conceptual Council approval. Mr. Windsor noted that in June of 1990 Wil-Mar Disposal had asked for a rate increase based upon the existing service, a two-year renewal of their contract and, in addition, that mandatory pick-up be implemented immediately. He reported that the rate increase has been addressed by staff, but in terms of a volume-based rate structure so that it may become a component of an integrated waste management program. He suggested that Council move immediately on the rate increase and the two-year extension of Wil-Mar's contact, emphasizing the need to give the trash hauler some assurance that they will be able to amortize equipment purchases necessary to handle added services. In looking at mandatory pick-up, the City Manager explained, staff felt that in order to meet the requirements of, AB939, mandatory • CC01/22/91 Page 3 pick-up should be implemented along with programs for curbside and green-waste recycling. He indicated that January 1, 1992 had been proposed as the date to begin the comprehensive program; which would also include an educational/informational program for citizens of the community. Mr. Windsor noted that the issue of "white waste" has not yet been addressed. Council questions followed relating to the proposed rate increases. Betty Sanders, representing Wil-Mar Disposal, responded and clarified timelines for review of rates. The City Manager emphasized that Council will have ultimate authority relating to increased rates and the contract with Wil-Mar, adding that Council could go out to bid for the added services. The City Attorney concurred that the City will have the option to negotiate with other providers for other waste disposal services suggested by the integrated waste management plan. He indicated that if Council does not accept the rate structure as presented to them in September of 1991, there would appear to be no obligation to continue with Wil-Mar to give them a contract to provide all the services. Mr. Montandon added that the existing contract with Wil- Mar is not assignable and cannot be sublet with Council approval. • The City Manager reiterated that Wil-Mar has been consistent with their -request for an extension of their contract for existing -services and recognized that the contract - may need some modifications. Public Comments: Steve Gordon, 4650 Viscano, asked whether the contract with Wil-Mar was exclusive. The mayor clarified that the contract is a franchise agreement. Mr. Gordon then commented that he would like to see Wil-Mar give consideration to those customers who go on vacation. In addition, he voiced opposition to not being allowed to recycle his own materials. Roger Cook, 10600 _ Colorado Avenue, opposed mandatory pick-up claiming it to be an unfair and unnecessary tax on senior citizens. Jerry Bond, E1 Verano Avenue resident, commented that he was against mandatory pick-up and suggested that the County should control what goes into the landfill. CC01/22/91 Page 4 i • Whitey Thorpe, 8025 Santa Ynez, also objected to mandatory pick-up and stated that although he was putting no blame on Wil-Mar Disposal, the community was not being given an alternative to using them as the waste hauler. Harold Peterson, a thirty-year resident of Atascadero, asserted that Wil-Mar has done a good job. David Duncan, 8885 Marchant Avenue, remarked that he was opposed to mandatory collection. Deuranda Smith, 5455 Bajada, asked how the waste management program would affect renters. Ted Monnonier, 9301 Barranco Road, spoke in support of Wil-Mar Disposal and in giving them the opportunity to continue providing the service as long as they are doing a good job. Ron Vilarino, 10605 Realito Road, clarified some concerns regarding curbside recycling, the requirements of AB939 and mandatory pick- up. He remarked that if residents oppose these measures, they should take their concerns to the state level. In addition, Mr. Vilarino reported that the Christmas Tree Recycling program had • been very successful and added that to meet the requirements of AB939, the entire community must participate. Yvonne Carlson, 7075 Atascadero Avenue, explained that she was in support of the staff recommendations and that she would be happy to pay a small fee for curbside recycling. Nancy Wood, San Luis Obispo County Recycling Coordinator, complimented the City Council and staff for the fair program it proposed and described the volume-based rate structure as outstanding. She remarked that Atascadero was the first community in the County who was making recommendations regarding green waste and citizen educational programs. Ms. Wood attempted to clear some confusion about AB939 and emphasized the need to act quickly to meet the mandates. James Patterson, member of the Recycling Committee, asserted that he would stand firmly behind the recommendations and urged the Council to move forward with the integrated waste management plan as proposed. Mike McNamara, 8711 Old Santa Rosa Road, indicated that mandatory pick-up makes sense in order to monitor what goes into the landfill and to keep the City clean. • CCO1/22/91 Page 5 Marj Mackey, 5504-A Tunitas Avenue, urged the Council to put mandatory collection into effect as soon as possible. Mayor Lilley called a recess at 8:32 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:50 p.m. Public testimony on the proposed solid waste program continued. Ursula Luna, 10060 San Marcos Road commended the staff on the program and expressed disappointment that curbside recycling would not be coming sooner. Larry Easterday, 8700 Arcade, spoke in support of the local trash hauler and urged Council to consider Wil-Mar to provide the recycling services. There were no further public comments. Mayor Lilley brought the discussion back to the Council. Councilwoman Borgeson reported that she had received a phone call just prior to the meeting from a resident, Mrs. Stevenson, who wanted it put on record that she had received good service from Wil-Mar Disposal. In addition, Councilwoman Borgeson stated that she had received letters from Pat Molloy and from Linda and Jeff Schaff, all Atascadero residents, who wrote that the solution to • the landfill problem is not mandatory collection, but the reduction of the amount of garbage generated by each household. These residents, she commented, indicated that they recycle all that they can and objected to being penalized for doing so. Councilman Dexter suggested that mitigation measures should be considered for the elderly, handicapped, and others on minimum incomes. Councilman Nimmo commended the staff and the Recycling Committee and spoke in support of Wil-Mar Disposal. He assured the public that the Council does not wish to impose unnecessary restrictions on the citizens, but explained that state legislature has taken away options and that there is no other choice. Councilman Shiers acknowledged that some will find mandatory pick- up burdensome. He stated that he had received many comments from the public and that it was evident that the community was split on the issue. Councilman Shiers also expressed concern that mandatory service be implemented efficiently and at the least possible cost, adding that it is up to the Council to ensure that this be done. Councilwoman Borgeson stated that she wanted staff to receive CCOi/22/91 • Page 6 i Council input and outlined a six-point plan, which included support for each citizen's choice, modifications for senior citizens and those on low incomes, the purchase of a shredder, a public educational program, mandates for the provision of space in all new buildings to accommodate bins for sorting recyclables and periodic audit of the waste management program. Councilwoman Borgeson also indicated that she had received excellent service from Wil-Mar and was supportive of an extension of their contract, as well as the rate increase. The City Manager pointed out that the staff report reflected the recommendation of an educational program. The mayor concluded the Council's comments by expressing support for addressing the problem and accepting the staffs' recommendations. He emphasized that the program could be monitored and evaluated on an on-going basis. Councilwoman Borgeson reiterated the desire to see the City provide a chipper/shredder service and suggested that the sale of mulch would bring revenue back to the City. The City Manager pointed out that the matter had been addressed during the fiscal budget review and that Chief Hicks had reported that the initial cost of a shredder would be expensive. MOTION: By Councilman Nimmo and seconded by Councilman Dexter to adopt Recommendations #One through Seven-, Agenda Item #B- Discussion of the motion: Councilwoman Borgeson asked that a roll call vote be taken on each, separate recommendation. Councilman Nimmo indicated that he was not willing to amend his motion. Councilman Shiers referred to Recommendation #5 calling for staff to work on the details of the proposed rates and asked that, as they do this, consideration be given to those of low- income, senior citizens and disabled residents. The mayor remarked that he did not presume that Council will not be given the opportunity for further input. He stated that he would assume staff would consider the comments made to define the components of the integrated waste management plan. Councilman Dexter concurred. CC01/22/91 . Page 7 The Public Works Director assured the Council that their concerns, especially those related to green waste, educational programs and alternative programs for those in need, had been noted and would be taken into consideration. Councilwoman Borgeson emphasized that she also wanted to see a modification for citizens who generate less than one can per month. A roll call vote on the motion to adopt the seven recommendations of staff was taken; motion carried 5:0. 2. TREE REMOVAL REQUEST, ARDILLA ROAD EXTENSION (Continued from 11/27/90 & 1/8/91) A. Appeal of Negative Declaration (Joan O'Keefe) B. Tres removals for road extension Henry Engen, Community Development Director, requested a continuance on this matter and reported that the applicants had requested that the matter be scheduled for March 12, 1991. He noted that since the agenda had been posted, Council had received more information on the matter. This correspondence, he explained, was a packet (dated January 18, 1991) amending the appeal from Joan O'Keefe and a letter from Elizabeth Scott-Graham (January 16, 1991) • refining the appeal. In addition, Mr. Engen explained that there had been some work done by Vaughn Engineers on behalf of Mr. Barnes which would, therefore, require preparing a final map. He added that ample time would also be required to re-post-the map and give proper notice pursuant to the City Attorney's written opinion. Councilman Dexter stated that he did not object to continuing the matter again, but shared concern relating to paper waste and suggested that the agenda information be saved for the next meeting. The City Manager noted that if Council and staff would keep their copies, he would be sure that everyone received any new materials. Mr. Windsor also assured the Council that a full copy of all the information would be available' in both the library and in the City Clerk's Office. Councilwoman Borgeson reported that she had received a call from a property owner in the vicinity of the Ardilla Road extension who was experiencing delays because of the continuance. She acknowledged the necessity of the continuance, but expressed hope that the matter could be resolved without further postponements. Councilman Nimmo concurred asserting desire to see the matter resolved on March 12. CC01/22/91 Page 8 . • MOTION: By Councilman Dexter and seconded by Councilman Nimmo to continue Items B-2 (a) and (b) to March 12, 1991; motion unanimously carried. Joan O'Keefe, appellant, stated that if anew Negative Declaration is posted she may not find it necessary to appeal it and requested that the $100.00 appeal filing fee be returned to her. 3. ZONE CHANGE 3-90, 7970 SINALOA AVENUE . - CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION FOR DENIAL OF REQUEST TO ESTABLISH A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ZONE (PD7) (Best/Cuesta Engineering) Henry Engen presented the staff report and indicated that the Planning Commission had recommended denial of the rezoning predicated on not making necessary findings in support of a planned development. He pointed out that the staff recommendation was to approve. In addition, Mr. Engen asked that, following judgment on the rezoning, Council give direction regarding criteria for approval of future small lot subdivision planned developments. Council questions followed relating to zoning, appropriate uses and conditions of approval. Mr. Engen explained that current zoning • would allow three two-bedroom units and clarified that the issue was the request to split the parcel into three separate lots. He also confirmed that staff's recommendation to the Planning Commission had not changed and was consistent with adopted ordinances. Prior to considering the specific request, Council exchanged views regarding policy making, the Planning Commission's role as an advisory body to the Council and the topic of minimum lot sizes for PD's. Public Comments: The applicant, Russ Best, spoke in support of the request and highlighted the benefits the proposed development would have to offer. Deborah Hollowell, questa Engineering, emphasized that the proposed project meets the density requirements and presented an overhead projection comparing lot areas of similar neighboring projects. Ms. Hollowell asked the Council to recognize the benefits offered by the proposed rezoning and urged Council to approve the request. Council comments followed. Councilwoman Borgeson'voiced opposition CCO1/22/91 • Page 9 to the rezoning on the basis that affordable rental housing would be lost. Councilman Shiers agreed that he could not support the request noting that the Planning Commission had gone over the findings in great detail and had determined that they could not make the findings to approve. Councilman Nimmo debated that staff had made findings for approval consistent with the General Plan. Councilman Dexter concurred that the request was in keeping with other projects previously approved. Mayor Lilley reported that he had no difficulty in making the findings of approval and could support the project. MOTION: By Councilman Nimmo and seconded by Councilman Dexter to adopt the Findings for Approval of the zoning change contained in Exhibit J, Draft PD Overlay Ordinance. Henry Engen reminded Council of the normal, two step process of adopting an ordinance on first reading. Councilman Nimmo amended the motion, as follows: To waive the reading in full and adopt Ordinance No. 2.0 amending Map 17 of the Official Zoning Maps by rezoning certain real property at 7970 Sinaloa Avenue from RMF/16 to RMF/16 by title only; motion carried 3 :2, with • _Councilmembers Shiers and Borgeson opposing. MOTION: By Councilman Nimmo and seconded by Councilman Dexter to adopt Ordinance No. 2177 on first reading; motion carried 3 : 2 with Councilmembers Shiers and Borgeson in opposition. There was consensus to direct staff to schedule before the Planning Commission a review of planned development standards and determine where policy direction is needed. It was also agreed that following such a discussion, the matter would then come back to the City Council for further deliberation within a month or two. C. REGULAR BUSINESS: 1. ACCEPTANCE OF CERTAIN ROADS IN LAS ENCINAS II AND ATASCADERO HIGHLANDS Greg Luke, Public Works Director, gave the staff report and recommendation to accept, by formal resolution, certain roads and portions of roads included in agreements between the City of Atascadero and Gordon T. Davis. He noted that physical construction and repair of the specified roads as designated in CC01/22/91 Page 10 • • Resolution No. 111-90 had been completed and the work inspected and monitored by both staff and North Coast Engineering. In addition, Mr. Luke pointed out that Jaquima Road and Sausalito Road would remain private. Mayor Lilley commented that he believed the recommended action was a result of a productive resolution of a problem relating to roads and indicated support for accepting the roads. Councilman Shiers, read a portion of the staff report: "Fiscal Impact. . .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. " He emphasized that he hoped this expectation would be borne out. The mayor thanked Steve Sylvester of North Coast Engineering for his assistance in resolving the matter. Public Comments: Bill Barnes, representing Atascadero Highlands, thanked the Council, staff, the City Manager and North County Engineering. • Gordon Davis, also extended his appreciation to Mr. Windsor and the Council. He added that although times had been trying, he was glad to see the work completed. MOTION: By Councilwoman Borgeson and seconded by Councilman Dexter to approve Resolution No. 4--91 accepting certain roads and portions of certain roads into the City maintained road system; motion unanimously passed by roll call vote. 2. NATER STUDY COST SHARE - RESPONSE FROM ATASCADERO MUTUAL WATER COMPANY (Verbal) Mayor Lilley reported that the Council was in receipt of a letter written by Gordon Davis, President, Board of Directors for the Atascadero Mutual Water Company (see Exhibit A) in response to a request to share the cost of a water study. Because the Water Company had declined to participate, Mayor Lilley asked the Council what action they wished to take. Councilman Shiers stated he was supportive of moving forward with the independent study because it would provide information pertinent to the City's water supply. Councilman Dexter agreed, adding that the information would provide tools for planning. • CC01/22/91 Page 11 • Councilman Nimmo reiterated that the water subject and its' future availability will be addressed during the environmental impact study prepared for the General Plan Update. He indicated that he could not support paying for this information twice. Councilwoman Borgeson extended appreciation to the Board of Directors of the Atascadero Mutual Water Company for considering the City's request and reaffirmed her support for proceeding with the study. Mayor Lilley concurred that he, too, was prepared to move forward with the study. He recognized the Water Company's position and indicated that he would look forward to working with them on water conservation efforts. MOTION: By Councilman Shiers and seconded by Councilman Dexter to proceed with funding a study to be completed by The Morro Group in an amount not to exceed $10,000; motion carried 4 : 1 with Councilman Nimmo voting in opposition. 3. CONSIDERATION OF SELECTION OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE (ROUNDTABLE) The City Manager suggested that the Council give direction to the staff on the composition by affiliation. He indicated that the • matter would come back to them at a future meeting for further input regarding policy. At that time, he stated, Council would consider specific individuals to fill the positions. Mayor Lilley explained the purpose of the "roundtable" and Council exchanged ideas about the specific make-up. Councilman Shiers indicated that he believed that the roundtable should consist of only one councilmember. There was consensus among the Council that the mayor should be the council representative. Councilwoman Borgeson suggested that three or four financial institutions be represented, as well as four Chamber of Commerce members, to sit on the roundtable. She did not support the appointment of a planning commissioner. Mayor Lilley pointed out that there are only. three banks in Atascadero who loan locally. Additional discussion followed relating to members-at-large and Chamber of Commerce representation. The Mayor suggested that a representative from a utility company might also be appointed. Prior to taking action on the matter, the following motion to continue the meeting past 11:00 p.m. was made: CCO1/22/91 • Page 12 • MOTION: By Councilman Nimmo and seconded by Councilman Dexter to extend the meeting beyond 11:00 p.m. ; motion carried. There was consensus to set up an Economic Roundtable consisting of the following: Mayor 3 Representatives from Local Financial institutions 4 Chamber of Commerce Members 2 B.I.A. Members 2 Members-at-Large The City Manager indicated that he would be coming back with a list of potential appointees at a future meeting. 4. SET DATE FOR MID-YEAR BUDGET REVIEW By common consensus, the Mid-Year Budget Review was scheduled for 6:00 p.m. Tuesday, February 26, 1991. D. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION: • 1. City council: A. Committee Reports (The following informative status reports were given. ) : 1. City/School Committee - Councilman Dexter announced that the next meeting would be Thursday, January 24, 1991. 2. North Coastal Transit/S.L.O. Area Coordinating Council Councilwoman Borgeson briefly reported and indicated that additional meetings may be scheduled because of the many items of business now being addressed by the Coordinating Council. 3. Traffic Committee - Councilman Dexter reported that the next meeting would be Wednesday, January 23, 1991. 4. Solid/Hazardous Waste Mgmt. Committee - Councilman Nimmo reported that Greg Luke had attended the last meeting and had distributed his comments. 5. Recycling Committee - Councilman Shiers reported that the results of this committee's efforts had been addressed earlier in the meeting. Additionally, he announced the CC01/22/91 • Page 13 I` • next meeting date to be Thursday, January 24, 1991. 6. Economic Opportunity Commission - Councilman Dexter indicated that he had recently attended the Board meeting. 2. City Attorney - No report. 3. City Clark - No report. 4. City Treasurer Muriel Korba reported that she was striving for more complete and meaningful reports. S. City Manager - No additional report. Councilman Shiers announced that he would not be present during the second meeting of March. MOTION: By Councilman Dexter and seconded by Councilwoman Borgeson to adjourn the meeting; motion unanimously passed. THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 11:10 P.M. THE NEXT MEETING OF THE • CITY COUNCIL WILL BE FEBRUARY 12, 1991 AT 6:00 p.m. MINUTES RECORDED AND PREPARED BY: LEE DAYRA City Clerk Attachment: Exhibit A - Atascadero Mutual Water Company CCO1/22/91 Page 14 • CC1/22/91 EXHIBIT "A" 5005 EL CAMINO REAL P.0. BOX 6075 ATASCADERO,CA 93423 • e (805)466-2428 ATASCADERO MUTUAL WATER COMPANY ESTABLISHED 1913 January 17 , 1991 JA 2 21%u Honorable Robert Lilley CITY MGR. Mayor of Atascadero 6500 Palma Avenue Atascadero, CA 93422 Dear Mayor Lilley: Thank you for your letter of January 10 , 1991 , which proposes that Atascadero Mutual Water Company join with the City of Atascadero in funding a study of the current underground water situation in Atas- cadero. As we understand it, the proposed study would essentially be a compilation of data currently available in various studies and reports of record. • As you know, the Atascadero Mutual Water Company has as its charter the furnishing of water on demand to all shareholders ; shareholders being, of course, all persons owning property within the boundary of Atascadero Colony whether or not the property is improved. As you also know, almost the entire state of California is under- going a water shortage of unprecedented proportions due to diminished seasonal rains over the past five years . Further, it does not now appear that any significant relief or replenishment of underground aquifers can be expected during the current season. Accordingly, we can expect that relatively severe water conservation measures will have to be taken at least until winter of 1991-92. That does not mean, however, that Atascadero will be without water. It does mean that Colony residents will have to change from a level of consumption that has been the highest in the County to one more consistent with that of hundreds of other communities up and down the State. In order to insure that the Water Company can continue to meet the essential water needs of present and future Colony residents , we are investing very large sums of money in improvements and expansion of our water supply system; we are drilling new wells ; and we are adding, at a cost of nearly one-million dollars , a new reservoir which will vastly increase our storage capacity and provide further insurance against potentially devastating fires . In sum, while we appreciate the concerns expressed in your letter • and the concerns of many of our citizens , we believe the best way to allay those concerns is to insure that our financial resources are used to effectively improve and guarantee water availability rather than to dissipate those funds on an additional study; a Mayor Robert Lilley Page 2 study not calculated to either add to existing knowledge or • increase water availability. Again, I appreciate your letter and want to assure you and the City Council of our sincere interest in mutual cooperation as all of us work our way through this funfoate state-wid rought. Syours ,GDavis ,. President BOARD OF DIRECTORS • • REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: A-2 Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Mtg. Date: 2/12/91 From: Henry Engen, Community Dev. Dir. 14 File No: ZC 3-90 SUBJECT: Zone Change 3-90 - to establish a Planned Development Overlay Zone (PD7) at 7970 Sinaloa Avenue - Russel Best/Cuesta Engineering BACKGROUND: On January 22, 1991, the Atascadero City Council conducted a public hearing on the above-referenced subject and approved Ordinance No. 217 on first reading. RECOMMENDATION: Adoption of Ordinance No. 217 on second reading. HE:ps Attachment: Ordinance No. 217 cc: Russel Best Cuesta Engineering • • ORDINANCE NO. 217 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. 217 • 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 ORDINANCE N0. 217 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT EXHIBIT A DEPARTMENT ui \ 1 _ M -d R F•Z ��J \ MF-4 ' r W �4VE o z F� R L 044c R ; " .. 'CT -- ' \ CITY OF ATASCADERO ORDINANCE N0. 217 EXHIBIT g ,. CONMUNM DEVELOPMENT REVISED MASTER PLAN D EPARTMENT u Q y, Z� CL! �a WIO W N W WI C¢ Q ye71 WI V)p I C r T N� M - Si mai Ni z a Zi s O c a Lo z? W ^ O Wg'7� co10 a �¢ LLJ UI c zaull 0 vi at S U OAvEC' UE — >' WI a iia •e GUQa aR �L l/ �� S ee I VOL" � I .rvr a \4,jr J 1 o I ' I 1 g I ` �' G • I a � O J • REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: A-3 Through : Ray Windsor , City Manage Meeting Date: 2/12/91 From: Mark Joseph . Administrative Services Directo LA/l/L SUBJECT: Adopting New Solid Waste Rates . RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Council adopt Resolution 7-91 , increasing solid waste rates effective March 1 , 1991 . BACKGROUND• At Council ' s January 22 meeting, a solid waste rate increase was approved in concept . The rates were increased approximately 12 percent for commercial customers. For can customers, a volume-based rate structure was approved . The increase was 12 percent overall . • The accompanying resolution formally establishes the new rates. • i RESOLUTION NO. 7-91 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO ADOPTING NEW SOLID WASTE RATES WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS OF ATASCADERO BE IT RESOLVED BY COUNCIL: Section 1 . That new solid waste rates shall be as set forth in Exhibit 1 , which is made a part of this Resolution, and Section 2. That these rates shall be effective March 1 , 1991 . On motion by Councilperson , and seconded by Councilperson , the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety, by the following Roll Call Vote. AYES: NOES: • ABSENT : ADOPTED: ATTEST : By: LEE DAYKA , City Clerk , ROBERT B. LILLEY , Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT : ARTHER MONTANDON MARK JOSEPH City Attorney Administrative Services Director • 9 • EXHIBIT I NEW MONTHLY SOLID WASTE RATES FOR THE CITY OF ATASCADERO, EFFECTIVE MARCH 11 1991 OLD NEW SERVICE RATE RATE RATE 1 can service/weekly 6. 00 6. 50 1-4 can service/weekly 11. 15 NA 5 can service/weekly 13.90 NA 6 can service/weekly 17. 40 NA 7 can service/weekly 20.90 NA 8 can service/weekly 24.40 NA 90 gallon cart service/weekly 13. 65 14. 25 30 gallon "bag " service/each NA 2. 50 1 cubic yard/1 x week 33. 20 37.25 1 cubic yard/2 x week 61. 10 68. 55 1 cubic yard/3 x week 88.95 99. 80 1 cubic yard/4 x week 116. 80 131.05 1 cubic yard/5 x week 144.65 162. 30 1 cubic yard/6 x week 172.55 193.60 1 1/2 cubic yards/1 x week 38. 75 43. 50 1 1/2 cubic yards/2 x week 72. 15 80.95 • 1 1/2 cubic yards/3 x week 105. 55 118. 40 1 1/2 cubic yards/4 x week 138. 90 155. 85 1 1/2 cubic yards/5 x week 172. 30 193. 30 1 1/2 cubic yards/6 x week 205.70 230.80 2 cubic yards/1 x week 44.25 49.65 2 cubic yards/2 x week 83. 15 93. 30 2 cubic yards/3 x week 122. 10 137.00 2 cubic yards/4 x week 161.00 180. 65 2 cubic yards/5 x week 199.90 224.30 2 cubic yards/6 x week - - 238.80 267.95 3 cubic yards/1 x week 55.20 61.95 3 cubic yards/2 x week 105.05 117.85 - 3 cubic yards/3 x week - - 154.90 173.80 3 cubic yards/4 x week 204.75 229.70 3 cubic yards/5 x week 254.60 285.65 3 cubic yards/6 x week - - 304.50 341.65 4 cubic yards/1 x week 66.25 74.35 4 cubic yards/Z x week, 127.95 143.55 - 4 cubic yards/3 x- week _. _._ _ 188.05 211.00 -- . 4 cubic yards/4 x week 248.95 279.30 4 cubic yards/5 x week 309.85 347.65 4 cubic yards/6 x week 370.75 416.00 NA - No longer applicable • REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: A-4 Through : Ray Windsor , City Manager Meeting Date: 2/ 12/91 From: Mark Joseph , Administrative Services Director'r, Q %'s' SUBJECT: Approval of Citywide Fixed Asset Appraisal Services RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Council approve Resolution 10-91 authorizing agreement with American Appraisal Associates to provide Citywide fixed asset appraisal services. BACKGROUND: As mentioned in prior year audits, the City has not maintained a record of its General Fixed Assets as required by Generally Accepted Accounting Principles . As a result of this, during the FY 1990-91 budget hearings, staff requested and Council approved an appropriation of $7,500 to cover the cost of Fixed Asset Appraisal Services . Per Council approval , staff solicited three bids for fixed asset appraisal services . All three firms were given the opportunity to inspect City facilities and equipment prior to submitting their bid proposals. Only two of the three firms who inspected our facilities and equipment chose to submit bid proposals. The names -of the two firms and their proposals are listed below. Complete copies of the two bids are on file with the City Clerk . AMOUNT OF NAME TYPE OF SERVICE PROPOSED Bi±: 1 ) Consilium Fixed Asset Appraisal Service 7,200 Tagging 1 ,650 TOTAL $8,850 2 ) American Fixed Asset Appraisal Service $5,475 Appraisal Serv. ' Tagging 250 TOTAL $5,725 3) Marshall & Stevens No bid submitted In comparing the two bids received , the lowest is from American Appraisal Associates for the amount of $51725 . In addition, our recommendation is based on two other reasons: 1 ) Although Marshall and Stevens did not bid on the project ; they praised the quality of services rendered by their competitor American Appraisal Associates. 2 ) Our independent auditing firm was pleased with the fixed asset appraisal services proposed by American Appraisal Associates. RESOLUTION NO. 10-91 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT WITH AMERICAN APPRAISAL ASSOCIATES TO PERFORM CITYWIDE FIXED ASSET APPRAISAL SERVICES The City Council of the City of Atascadero , California hereby resolve as follows: 1 . The Mayor or in the Mayor ' s absence, the City Manager , is hereby authorized to execute an agreement with : American Appraisal Associates to perform Citywide fixed asset appraisal services and all other agreements or documents required to effectuate the terms of agreement . 2. The City Manager is hereby authorized to make minor corrections or modifications of a mathematical or clerical nature . 3. The City Finance Director is hereby authorized to : appropriate funds, if necessary; release and expend funds; and issue warrants to comply with the terms of this agreement . PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Atascadero held on the day of 1991 . CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA By Robert B. Lilley, Mayor ATTEST : LEE DAYKA, City Clerk REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: A-5 Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 2/12/91 File No: TTM 25-89 (Tr. 1858) From: Henry Engen, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Acceptance of Phase I of Tract Map 25-89 (Tract 1858) Hotel Park at 5805 Capistrano Avenue. RECONNENDATION: Acceptance of Phase I of Tract Map 25-89 (Tract 1858) since all conditions of this phase have been met by the applicant. • BACKGROUND: On March 13, 1990, the City Council approved Tentative Tract Map 25-89. This approval involves Phase I only of the tract map. HE:ps cc: Don Messer Glen Lewis 7 ##•"$ iii ��"� � a � � �9 �? �� g �"s all 125P B ,S Fye' QOp© 41 D 0 s � z0 oz •�� d °°•/•" M'Moe WNW R1 so I � CAL GAS PER)Tn O.R.M 1 00 V 4 0 ,vs p ~�I°yY f qyL - ((q� �V ike I ¢ JD�r �� "' �o•dr' L'€ 4 d z N Bag.NO °4 \� > YyP��e�p a !,cf m [8!CS•1 '�.DP S /e'Yti N � .'4 u4 7?4 -Il4 Y.4 co >n�O i �,-3 Ts ;pg- �mg>1 N ` w; fig$ M.gv rl m o m M no W 'oc \\ :S o8k v94 Qo R t, g g n=>r000 " D Z z z 92 O �x � � �g z ^8s � a e g ' 4 N 31'11'07 E 61.1I ZZ "-!um• r F E p.2l1r3y. y ro CA R.W.M' o-3e7!'S6• . m Y N TSo•E Lire�r m Yp R� CAPISTRANO O cc ED (Z/_1 r Y 6 3 ALGLi� AVE N / o s oL0, D NUE D Z 4 0 E RAO.- W 3—'07'E Go.w R•1]S00' �r pzylr3, AeANoawuENr / ;Am R.r3•M' trlR7YlP L-ao,. / 4V� / d E 04 3 o�FLa •/ C 8 f/ aa/ / N yQp.7R E`Rb. ; i K om CAPISTRANO AVENUE C) 4I R.402-rT p.11!'00'L.M.N' N 3216'M'E 1R0.R3 S rz SC13•ST W rlE.RY Y R.323. 1.37.2!• G-,W?w �2 'sl Iw 4 OAD I�I y0[yr �pny, Nay y �]�13n Q " i�gm Q JY n A� Q �t �myO azgm z q m l m$as I 2 N D ppZ p m mo Z P1,l�•r �C1D Zp� N AQr CKr f7'� a1.Jg, 7B?B�•f �� Ivo C(� SOS ]BOQ a � gp�t� ' oaftiv �> a)0 z ' gp a2(n�1 0 9y z a/ >n o o D o p 4 G m D n �'' a n r D 8 y ANO 9' O� ti i c�ytiP _'4 �l NoppUl yd no=D r 0 CO 2 C m V Z R y $ b Hi 0 SQ'� Ap$Y ~ V Ot�DON r!•] 44 y O N m • REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: A-6 Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 2/12/91 From: Greg Luke, Director of Public Works Subject: NOTICE OF COMPLETION - Lake Park Phase I (project No. 90- 13) Recommendation: 1. Approve proposed Council Resolution 8-91 which will authorize the issuance of the Notice of Completion for recordation. Background: In September of 1990 this project was awarded to John Madonna Construction of San Luis Obispo. The work included primarily the demolition of the existing pavilion structure adjacent Atascadero Lake, the construction of a retaining wall along the lake shore and grading and earthwork for the proposed pavilion. Construction has proceeded from October 12, 1990 until January 30, 1991 and is now complete. Discussion: 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. Fiscal Impact: • The contract was awarded for $121,900. 00 and $109,710.00 of that amount has been paid to the contractor. The City currently retains 10%, or $12, 190.00, which will be reimbursed following receipt of the one-year maintenance bond. Enclosures: 1. Proposed Council Resolution 8-91 RESOLUTION NO. 8-91 • RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO APPROVING THE NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR LAKE PARK PHASE I, PROJECT NO. 90-13 WHEREAS, the construction is complete as specified in the contract documents; and WHEREAS, the City continues to hold a "Payment" bond 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 Lake Park Phase I (project No. 90-13) 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: February 12 , 1991 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 • REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: A_7 Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 2/12/91 From: Greg Luke, Director of Public Works Subject: NOTICE OF COMPLETION - Sycamore Bridge Replacement Project Recommendation: 1. Approve proposed Council Resolution 9-91 which will authorize the issuance of the Notice of Completion for recordation. Background: In 1985 the City of Atascadero 'initiated the Sycamore Bridge replacement project by placing the bridge on the State priority list for bridge replacement. A Federal Highway Administration bridge replacement grant was approved in 1987 (supplement No. 3 to local agency-state agreement for federal-aid projects No. 05-5423) • and the actual bridge construction was conducted by R. Burke Corporation from July 25, 1990 until January 14, 1991, the final day of construction. The State construction representative (Caltrans) has approved both the progress and quality of construction and the bridge is now in operation. Although the construction phase of the project is complete, administrative tasks remain. These tasks include: 1. Releasing the performance and payment bonds; 2 . Acquiring a maintenance bond; 3 . Applying for reimbursement for construction engineering and consultant fees; and, 4 . Applying for reimbursement of the excess balance of the City's construction deposit to the State. Note that the Federal share of the construction cost was already paid during the progress of construction. Discussion: 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. RESOLUTION NO. 9-91 RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO APPROVING THE NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE SYCAMORE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT 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 hold a "Payment" bond 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 Sycamore Bridge Replacement Project 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: February 12, 1991 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 • REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: A_8 Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 2/12/91 From: Greg Luke, Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Approval to Award the Fire Station No. 1 Parking Lot Reconstruction Project RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt resolution 11-91 authorizing the following: The execution of an agreement with Michael Frederick Paving Corporation of Atascadero for the reconstruction of the Fire Station No. 1 parking lot and driveway. It is recommended that the Base Bid project be awarded. 2 . Authorize a budget of $40, 694.45 for this project. BACKGROUND: On February 6, 1991, the bids for the parking lot reconstruction project were opened with the following results. Base Bid Deductive Alternate Michael Frederick Paving . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 34,267.45 $ 24,757.45 A-J Excavating Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 37,063 .25 $ 26,773.25 Whitaker Contractors Inc. $ 39,599. 67 $ 30,823.17 Southern Pacific Milling . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 39.907.85 $ 27,877. 10 A.J. Diani Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 52,958. 00 $. 41, 133 .00 Union Asphalt Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 67,504. 00 $ 44,418.00 Engineer's Estimate $ 43, 677.00 $ 31,922. 00 The work in the base bid generally includes clearing and grubbing, excavation and the construction of the asphalt parking lot, asphalt driveway, driveway approach and curbs. The deductive alternate generally requires that the City street crew complete the clearing and grubbing and excavation. In both alternatives the City staff will reseed the lawn where disturbed, install some minor pvc piping, install concrete wheelstops and complete the pavement striping if necessary. Detailed construction plans and the specifications are available for review at the Department of Public Works office. The complete bid documents are available for review at the City Clerk's office. DISCUSSION: The four lowest bids are within a reasonable range for this project for both alternatives. All four bids are below the Engineer's estimate. All of these firms are qualified and capable of completing the work according to the plans and specifications. The construction administration for this project will be provided by the City staff although compaction and materials compliance testing will be necessary. In addition, surveying is necessary to establish the eastern property line adjacent to the school. FISCAL IMPACT: Construction Cost Low Bid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 34,267.45 Compaction and Materials Testing (estimated) . . . . . . . $ 2,000.00 Surveying (estimated) $ 1,000.00 Contingency (10%) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 3,427.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 40.694.45 $47, 000 was budgeted for Fire Station No. 1 renovation in the 1990- 1991 budget. Enclosures: 1. Proposed Resolution of the City Council of Atascadero authorizing the execution of an agreement with Michael Frederick Paving. 2. Bid Summary 3 . Michael Frederick Paving Corporation Bid RESOLUTION NO. 11-91 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT WITH Michael Frederick Paving Corporation TO CONSTRUCT THE FIRE STATION NO. 1 PARKING LOT RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT The City Council of the City of Atascadero, California, hereby resolves as follows: 1. The Mayor, or in the Mayor's absence, the City Manager, is hereby authorized to execute an agreement with: Michael Frederick Paving Corporation, P.O. Box 573, Atascadero, CA 93423 to construct the Fire Station No. 1 Parking Lot reconstruction project, and all other agreements or documents required to effectuate the terms of agreement. 2. The City Manager is hereby authorized to make minor corrections or modifications of a mathematical or clerical nature. 3. The Finance Director is hereby authorized to: appropriate funds, if necessary; release and expend funds; and issue warrants to comply with the terms of this agreement. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a special meeting of the City Council of the City of Atascadero held on the 12th day of February, 1991. CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA By Robert B. Lilley, Mayor ATTEST: Lee Dayka, City Clerk BID SUMMARY TO: Greg Luke, Public Works Director Public Works Department FROM: Lee Dayka City Clerk BID NO. 91-1 OPENED February 6. 1991 2:00 P.M. PROJECT: Fire Station #1 Parking Lot The following bids were received and opened as follows: Name of Contractor Base Bid Deductive Alternate Michael Frederick Paving $34,267.45 $24,757.45 Atascadere , CA A-Jay Excavating Company 37,063.25 26,773.25 Atascadero , CA Whitaker Contractors Inc . 39,599.67 30,823. 17 Santa Margarita, CA Southern Pacific Milling 397907.85 27,877. 10 San Luis Obispo , CA A.J. Diani Construction 52,958.00 41 , 133.00 Santa Maria, CA Union Asphalt Inc . 67,504.00 44,418.00 Santa Maria, CA c : Finance Nf.L FRED,% A-492189 GRADING-EARTHMOVING \. p , ,Q � g1/1NG COR February 6, 1991 City of Atascadero 6500 Palma Ave. Atascadero, Ca. 93422 Attn: Greg Luke Re: Atascadero City Fire Station 01 Parking Lot Reconstruction. Dear Greg; The enclosed bid is complete to the best of our ability and to the enclosed specifications. We hope that we will have the opportunity to finally work with the City on a project. Thank you for the opportunity to bid this project. Respectfully Submitted; Robert W. Carnes • POST OFFICE BOX 573 • ATASCADERO, CA 93423 • PHONE:(805)466-5060 FAX:805-466-0594 1 BID SHEET (1 of 2) Schedule of Prices for the Construction of Fire Station No. 1 Parking Lot '- BASE BID ` ----------------------------------------------------------------- Item Description Quantity Unit Amount No. and Unit Price 1. 8" PVC Pipe 175 LF $ 8.60 $ 1,505.00 2. Clearing, Grubbing and Excavation For the lump sum of $ 6,780.00 3 . Drop Inlet (Type Gl) For the lump sum of $ 1,000.00 4 . Type C Concrete Curb 445 LF $ 8.00 $' r 3,560.00- 5. 1560.00 _5. 4" Perforated PVC Pipe 50 LF $ 4.50 $ 225.00 6. Under-Sidewalk Drain For the lump sum of $ 600.00 7 . Concrete Driveway Approach 35 LF $ 48.60 $ 1,701.00 8 . Sidewalk, Curb & Gutter 10 LF $ 30.00 $ 300.00 9. Class 2 Aggregate Subbase263 CY $ 19.30 $ 5,075.90 10. Class 2 Aggregate Base 237 CY $ 24.20 $ 5,735.40 11. Asphalt Concrete (Type B) 213 TN $ 36.55 $ 7,785.15 TOTAL BASE BID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 34,267.45 i Proposal Forms - 4 BID SHEET (2 of 2) Schedule of Prices for the Construction of _ .jre Station No. 1 Parking -Lot DEDUCTIVE ALTERNATE I ----------------------------------------------------------------- Stem Description Quantity Unit Amount No. and Unit Price ---------------------------------------------------------------- 4. Type C Concrete • Curb 445 LF $ 8.00 $ 3,560.00 6. Under-Sidewalk Drain For the lump sum of $ 600.00 7. Concrete Driveway Approach 35 LF $ 48.60 $_ 1,701.00 8. Sidewalk, Curb & Gutter 10 LF $ 30.00 $ 300.00 9. Class 2 Aggregate Subbase 263 CY $ 19.30 $ 5,075.90 10. Class 2 Aggregate Base 237 Cy $ 24.20 $ 5,735.40 11. Asphalt Concrete (Type B) 213 TN $ 36.55 $ 7,735.15 DEDUCTIVE ALTERNATE I, TOTAL BID LESS ITEMS 1,2,3 & 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 24,757.4E The undersigned bidder certifies that he has confirmed that the proposed form of contract and the plans and specifications are complete and that he has received addenda numbered 0 through February 06, 1991 f'/G'l/,4,EL A A&&Z Date Bidder's Name Address Authorize ignature Type of Organization (Individual, Partnership, Corporation) Proposal Forms - 5 t CONTRACTORS LICENSING STATEMENT FORM The undersigned is licensed in accordance with the laws of the State of California providing for the registration of Contractors. Contractor's license classification and number A-492159 Name of individual contractor (print or type) MICHAEL FREDERICK PAVING CORPORATION Business Address P.O. Box 573 Atascadero, California 93423-0573 Business Telephone 805-466-5060 or Name of Firms Business Address Business Telephone Signature, title, and address of members signing on behalf of partnership: Name Title Address Name Title Address Name Title Address or Name of Corporation MICiAEL FREDERICK PAVING CORPORATION Business Address P.O. Bost 573 Atascadero, California 93423-0573 Corporation organized under the laws of the a of California iyna,. of President of Corporation Vice Signature of Secretary of Corporation Proposal Forms - 6 LIST OF SUBCONTRACTORS In accordance with the provisions of Section 4100 et. seq. of the government Code of the State of California, the -bidder shall, in its bid, list the name and place of business of each subcontractor who will perform work or labor or render service to the prime contractor in an amount in excess of one-half of one percent or $10, ODO, whichever is greater, of the prime contractor's total bid. Name under which License No. Address Specific Subcontractor is and of Office Description Licensed Classification Mill or Shop of Subcontract B.B.BAILEY CONSTR. GC 517212 416 6th Street Concrete Paso Robles, Ca. 93446 Do not list alternative subcontractors for the same work. Proposal Forms - 7 LIST OF EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS SUPPLIERS • The bidder is required to fill out the following blanks, listing manufacturers f=oal whom it intends to purchase the indicated itemc and which selections will be considered as binding upon the Bidder, provided that all such selections shall comply with the provisions of the Contract Documents, and may not be changed by the Bidder without written approval of the Engineer. Item Manufacturer • None 1) Southern Pacific Milling Santa Margarita, California For Sub-base, Base and Asphalt 2) River Road Concrete For Concrete 3) Salinas Sand For Fill Sand Proposal Forms - 8 BIDDER'S BOND KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That we, Michael Frederick Paving Corp. . P.O. Box 573, Atascadero. California 93423 as principal. and CBIC Bonding and Insurance Company. as Surety, are held and firmly bound unto the City of Atascadero. State of California (hereinafter called "City") in the penal sun of Ten Percent (10%) of the total aggregate amount of the bid of the Principal above named, submitted by said principal to "City" for the work described below, for the payment of which sum is lawful money of the United States, well and truly to be made, we bind ourselves, our heirs, executors, administrators, and successors, Jointly and severally, firmly by these present. In no case shall the liability of the Surety hereunder exceed the sum of Five Thousand Five Hundred and 0/100 (85.500.00) . The condition of this obligation is such that a bid to City for certain construction specially described as follows, for which bids are to be opened on February 6. 1991, has been submitted by Principal to City: Whereas, Principal is hereby submitting a proposal for Construction of Fire Station No. 1 Parking Lot per plans and specifications for Bid Bond 13 NOW,THEREFORE, if the aforesaid Principal shall not vithdrav said bid if no period be specified, within sixty (60) days after said opening, and shall within the period specified therefore, or if no period be specified, within ten (10) days after the prescribed forms are presented to him for signature, enter into a written contract with City, in the prescribed form, in accordance with the bid as accepted, and file with City the certificates of insurance as stipulated in Section 7 of the Special Provisions and the two bonds, one to guarantee faithful performance and the other to guarantee faithful performance and the other to guarantee payment for labor and materials, as required by lav, then this obligation shall be null and void; otherwise, it shall be and remain in full force, virtue and effect. And the said Surety, for value received, hereby stipulates and agrees that no change, extension of time, alteration or addition to the terms of said contract or to the work to be performed thereunder or the specifications accompanying the same shall in any manner affect its obligations on this bond, and it does hereby naive notice of any such change, extension, alteration, or addition. In the event suit is brought upon said bond by the City and Judgement is recovered, the Surety shall pay all costs incurred by City in such suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee to be fixed by the court. Death of the Principal shall not relieve Surety of its obligation hereunder. Hid Bond 14 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereto set our hands and seals on this day of February. 1991. Payina Corp. (Seal) (Seal) (Seal) Principal CBIC Bonding and Insurance Company (Seal) t (Seal) C'Uiur 1/ �.0 —(Seal) Surety Ann S. Ferrante, Attorney in Fact 23172 Plaza Pointe Drive. Ste. 185 Lacuna Hills. California 92653 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ss COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ On this 4 day of Febraurv, in the year 1291p before me, the undersigned Notary Public, in and for the State of California, personally appeared Ann S. Ferrante , personally known to me (or proven to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person who executed the written instrument as Attorney-In-Fact on behalf of the Corporation therein named and acknowledged to me that the corporation executed it. Given under my hand and the Notary Seal this 4 day of Febraury A.D. 1991. My Commission Expires August 21, 1992. oc�u sFx !� JOE A.KRUMM t TMV RK1c-cALF0=A Notary Public $MITA an CMWY My p0'AUB.4i._ LIMITED POWER OF ATTORNEY ,. READ CAREFULLY CONTRACTORS BONDING AND INSURANCE COMPANY IS RESPONSIBLE ONLY FOR THE BOND DESCRIBED AND UP TO THE AMOUNT SET FORTH IN T103 LIMITED POWER OF ATTORNEY.ANY ERASURE WILL VOID THIS POWER OF ATTORNEY.IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT OR WANT TO VERIFY THIS POWER OF ATTORNEY CALL CONTRACTORS BONDING AND INSURANCE COMPANY IN LAGUNA HILLS,CALIFORNIA AT(71AMO-9733 Penal Sum S $5,5-00 00 AttomeyNo. CA047 PowerNo. C01403 Bone No. BID Limited Power of Attomey Expires-' �0 4/91 Date Approved: 2/04/91 • Approved by. �t��,7_,,. R.L.Thiel tvhanael erre sere" Name of Principal: MICHAEL FREDERICK PAVING CORP. Name ofOVigee: CITY OF ATASCADERO Descripdon(s): CONSTRUCTION OF FIRE STATION NO. 1 PARKING LOT Loudon(itAppliicable): P1NY�tm�p pod �ra�dana 5tt of MW ALL MENBYTHESEPFEWNTstlatCOWRACTORSVIONGAND*RSt:RItwCEHNN J. rtKKHN I t �redasrtarra�tro(.Hi'��'^^G�� CA in Seattle.Kip Cw^WWwgoq does by these runts snake Eoratkrt•and a0000a is sue erdatrtu amhwy+rhhti-rift>W peer sd aufxtdsyttereby errlertdh as hteee,ptemsrd Asea to ahhah>rY,adno.wap.sd ylwr A.tb►d{q wclbea atter.:see a tend ru t�Ortpn�t..by a:t;Ay as e a sea+. cave es t aeon sunt brrhd ores sfiprd by lr Reeider4 sealed Hn»tstporr seal orlw Cohspuny and duly Slaorad ley at Sae.try:thenar ratltep and m Weetq d TO rte esia asrrryrt;aha eery do oft pwmw$ale eopo:+tnhr�la erb ur dw hhrclby aloe q date lof ' resouerhe ahI I thyro Boadd 011emre at CONTIuerORS BONMG Atm iNSURANM CCtrRr,Ny an 6/06/90 RESOLYWItd:roar•siderssat.•ctiamdv%paildaabomayie-bedffieCarpall 1NN S . FERRANTE with pow � behalf d toe Campsry e surely bads hte!>iGn may from ow to tirtw a approved b7�L hs or 8aroara?Innes,n such penal stress and a^^oreing to snxrh eardiicra as may be apptowd by R.L. Thiel or iiaroaa',W RESOLVED FURTHER Mat each Power d Aftorney oust set forth the sp•ci ico•sMicn d the=4 to Wv;h k appihe,.to name at the prndpal,ire name d the abigee,the penal sum.the bond mortar(ate ter add oono whore twra s m cumber),t»iderg"Aw"d Ile auarrsy-imfac.:a iawjykq nu:roer d the Powe!of A=ntes,and the raime and signature d ILS.. Thiel or Bamara This:rd may 0 forth the,descom and amoum d additional ronstnana«lulu u any. RESOLVED FURTHER that R.L.Thal«B Mara TbW is authorized b astabiish a soalift to#rjon zte'or the Power d Attorrey and tc modly that caro Iron brw to time as R.L.The or Baroam Thiol deems,neo nary in he Ana sole dscneeotr the applicable exprauon rate b be duly W.lath in any writer Power of Acwmy. RESOLVED FURTHER that,woo asodarwim povidad in fit•innedietfly st cm&q roeollibm under no d=ffmances shat:(a1 the eomiW.amount for any bid.Payment,pedcmancs. «oombirrafion payttlent and pert«tntance band qs..a pertaraarww and payrrrm attiigation in ane bard batt)•hx•ed it 2SC.tKtD t tle band is guararr•ed by tle Smai Business Adrttittisrsiorh; (b)to pail Lod arty band not quelanaaad by tfhe Bud OusinessAd miliabstion(otltw than a bio bond which ist irther rtsssrGed by ciam(c))exceed ft=,0W and ic)a bid bond which s not guaramaod by iM Siad Business Administration be wacutad for a job where,h to s=acs is awarded.the bond pee ty on arty pedommme Gond paymem band,or combination pubmhanoe and psyrtrom bond(Le,a parbana hw and payment atil gabon imam bond brm)to be emuled pursuam[o to bid bond Is b exceed 3ZOODAM RESOLVED FURTHER the ttw above namedAObrtt•yndact is granted power and al tfhoray to wend the appicaola Penal6trtls sat toilb In tle ituhedatehh pecednp nssokticn br any bond in an amici o egad to tit•amoum of any additional niteuraeu«d any tamsk leaar of vedit or odne ssxaty receind as anasteral sawdy by Ire Connciany as indueemem to issue the bond . w:wq as the de+aiotiah and eroum of aodtlw4l reinstranw or cdha aW ars sat fair.:n the Paver ct At omey. RESOLVED FURTHER that ire authority a!the Seaatanr d to Coop"to unity the auuherl"and eibaivnrxas of:`a foregoing resotutans in any Lusted:suer d Attorney is hereby delegated so the toiowehg persons,iM sigrxurs d any of tiro tobwhrng to bind t"e Company with respect:o this autthenticky and afminness d tiro b n*q fackittorle as A signed by Me Secretary of the Conpary I.L.Tmts4 Bartaa Thiel or Ann Croul. gMVED PURTHER that the s+ptaueaa$rniudsp certification that the Paver d Atmmay s 90 in tarda and effect)of R.L.Thiel«Btroam T`.isf,and Notary Pubis and the cchpcnt•and Notary seals appear"an W Uffstap Power of Ammey containing this and ria toragon;resdutions may u by taesnmilo. RESOLVED FURTHER las ad resdulons Wooled prig to alloy appointing ire above named as norneffkaC for me Ccxrpalw aro nereby superseded. N WITNESS WHEREOF.CONTRACTORS B01DWfa AND NSLPANC'E COMPANY has mored these oresents to be signed by R.L.Thiel arc 1hrbam Thiel.aid is corponim seal 10 CO how a1�d 6/06/90 CONTRACTq%QWft'Q�%'NSUPANCE COMPMY i 04S• RPORtrj i R.L.Trig :$�aroan 1 cry hit` �sll i N GAS STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE k'`�•...�.�.�r Onmaty appeared R.L.Thiel and Barden Thal tortes known x be taaeseraanes d the eorporaoon that executed else tompoirp Umied Powers:Aaaney and admowNdped said'.I*W Poaet d�b y tie&carc wkmsry ad and dwdof said eorpmeort br the toes and ptepoaes twlenaromiara and on can staled the awy we Who OW b exeeu®the said Umad Power of AMorney. IN WITNESS WHEREOF.I have hereunto set my hand and aRbrod my dual seal ate say and year list athotn wrftten. OFFICIAL BF.Ai. YpM lft No7ECOMPANX in and for tea ing at ire >M Oren Fleece AhM SO.14l3 The m0 srgn ec.acWq underautnortty,of of rectors of CONTAAC"ORS 80NDWG AND iNSU 1ereCy dentes,as a,•t lieu of Cerotkate of the Secretary of CONTRACTORS 20NutNG AND INSURANCE COMPANY,yuan uta above and foregoing is a tsol,atm and=na copy of its,Orgnat Power of Atmmey issued oy said Comm.and ewes herety further ca"that the sand Power Cf Anomy Is still to tone and hrfhC GIVEN unbgr rata ,LAhls 04 dayot HR A110217g0) REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: A-9 From: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date : 2/12/91 SUBJECT: Cable Television Rates BACKGROUND: We were recently notified by Falcon Cable of an increase in subscriber rates , effective March 1991 . In light of the fact that cable T� is such a high-profile service industry and receives an inordinate amount of public attention, I thought it would be well to place this on the council agenda in order to clarify the city' s role with respect to rate increases . • As Council may recall , local communities exercised some con- trol over cable Tv rates , as well as :,t;1er issues related to service, until 1985 when the Federal Government saw fit to dereg- ulate the industry, thus removing local control . Legislation was introduced last year to allow re-regulation by local communities but failed to pass . Wit!, respect to the City' s existing franchise with the cable company, I should point out that its date of termi- nation is the year 2001 . RW: cw CEIVED ? 91991 ,. ,AGR. Ray Windsor January 23, 1991 Atascadero City Manager 6500 Palma Atascadero, Ca. 93422 Dear Ray: Falcon Cable TV will be increasing its rates as of March 1, 1991. I have enclosed a copy of the letter we are mailing to our subscribers which outlines the reasons for the increase. We are not happy to have to raise rates; however, because of increasing costs find that we have no choice. Eben with the increase in rates Cable TV is still a good value. The diversity of cable allows for personal choices in viewing of educational, entertainment and informational programming. If you have any questions you would like to ask me please call. Sincerely, i Hyl is Vickers General Manager Falcon Cable Systems FALCON CABLE SYSTEMS COMPANY • 7555 San Luis Avenue •Atascadero, California 93422 . 805-466-3040 RATE CHANGE NOTIFICATION Effedtive March 1, 1991 the basic cable rate will be $18.75 per month. The charge for other services such as HBO, Showtime, Disney, or the remote control, VCC, and channel tier options will be increased by five percent. The monthly alacarte rates for your cable television services are as follows: Basic cable $18.75 Added value services $ 6.30 Premium services $10.75 Programming guide $ 1.00 Additional outlets $ 3.50 These prices will effect your package pricing as indicated below: BASIC BETTER BEST TOTAL VALIIPAC VALIIPAC VALIIPAC VALIIPAC Total Package Price: $ 26. 00 $ 35.50 $ 46.00 $ 54 .50 Price per day .86 1. 17 1.51 1.79 Per channel per day . 035 .047 .058 . 067 ** Savings per month: $ 6. 30! $ 7.30! $ 13 .54! $ 15.60! • *Plus franchise, copyright and possessory fees. **A third added value service, such as the remote control or video control center is also included. AMERICAN MOVIE CLASSICS COMING SOON TO A CABLE COMPANY NEAR YOUI As soon as we obtain FCC approval we will be adding a very popular and often requested service, American Movie Classics to our Lifestyles & Family Entertainment Package! CABLE -THE BEST VALUE IN ENTERTAINMENT AND INFORMATION No other entertainment medium gives consumers the quality and diversity that cable television provides. Cable television is one of the world's greatest consumer bargains. The rate change taking effect on the basic service equals less than ten cents per day. Even at the new rate, cable television is still your best entertainment buy. With cable t.v. , subscribers get a wide diversity of channels with programming ranging from live coverage of the House and Senate, to uncut movies and concerts, to the best in music, news, sports and entertainment. Today, most Americans watch t.v. on cable. The average - American consumer watches cable television seven hours per day. That same average consumer uses their telephone only six minutes per day! .Compare how much you get for how much you pay. When realistically evaluated, it's easy to see the value of cable t.v. THE VALUE OF CABLE TELEVISION IS DIVERSITY AND CHOICE Cable television provides a great deal of new, informative programming. Nickelodeon, The Family Channel, The Disney Channel, TBS, C-SPAN, CNN, A&E and other cable services have become household words. Most cable customers take their cable television services for granted, but think what you'd have without cable. Flip through any program guide and look at the endless science, nature and exploration documentaries to be found on the Discovery Channel. And the original made-for-cable motion pictures on TNT. And the drama, comedy and stage productions found on A&E. And the fast-paced action of regional and national sporting events found on Prime Ticket and ESPN. Not to mention the terrific family programming and original series on The Family Channel, and the 24-hour around-the-world news coverage on CNN. There are good shows on TV these days, and most of them are on cable. The diversity of cable provides value of choice. • The value of choice in cable is that you, the cable customer can select the best programming for your family's education or enjoyment. FALCON CABLE TV HELPS MARE EDUCATION FUNI TV is an incredibly powerful learning tool. Cable has responded to the needs of teachers and parents for stimulating, educational programming that's totally current. Invaluable work is being done by Cable In The Classroom, a consortium of cable networks and operators of which Falcon Cable is proud to be a founding member. In, a unique, cooperative effort, 19 cable programming services, Falcon and other cable t.v. companies have joined forces, dedicated to efficient classroom use of the wide range of educational materials available on cable t.v. PUT YOUR PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENTS ON CABLE Does your service club or non-profit organization have a message you need to get out to as many people as possible? Call us and we'll get your word out on our information channel 6. Call before 3:00 pm, and we'll have your message on the screen by the next day! REPORTTOCITYCOUNCIL CITYOFATASCADERO Agenda Item B-1 Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager MeetingDat&2/12/91 Via: Henry Engen, Community Development Director Idle No: Tree Ordinance From: Usa Schicker, ISA Certified Arborist/Envfnanmental Consukant sUBJEcr: Adoption of revised Tree Ordinance Number 214 and Resolution Number 25 - 90 - Tree Standards and Guidelines. BACKGROUNI} On December 11,19%The City Council held a public hearing and based on that hearing and their own consensus, made final changes to Tree Ordinance Number 214 and Resolution Number 25 - 90 - Tree Standards and Guidelines. This meeting had been preceded by numerous meetings, hearings and writings, including one City Council meeting (July IR . 1990) and tour Planning Commission meetings (September 4, 27, October 16, November 6, 1990), all with public hearings where community members voiced their opinions about tree protection in their City. The version that is included in this evenings padwt encompass the decisions made at these meetings and include the City Council recommendations of December 11,199Q PURPOSE AND INTENT The m& pup=of the Tree Ordinance is to establish the procedures tar tree protection,care and removal of native trees in as few words as possible. The main ourpe of the Tree Standa& and C,Wdeftm is to eq3latn' the details of tree protection and removal -it is organized so the reader is able to pick and choose the necessary information without having to read all fourteen sections The overall intent of the documents is to update tree protection requirements that correlate with current knowledge and to alleviate the problems that have been encountered with the current ordinance, and at the same time reflect the City's attitude about the value of one of its greatest natural resources. There really is no other place like Atascadero on the Central Coast -and it is largely because of its native forest. • SUMMARY OF CHANGES AT THE DECEMBER 11 1990 CITY COUNCIL MEETING, Highlights of past changes that were made to the documents can be found in planning Commission meeting minutes and staff reports of September 4,27, October 16 and November 16, 1990, The majority of comments and changes made to the documents at the last City Council Meeting were editorial in nature, however a few major changes were made. 1. The following native trees will no longer be protected by the new ordinance- Big Leaf Maple, Digger Pln% Cottonwoods and Willows. It was determined that most of these trees would receive protection under future creek protection specifications. 2 Single family residences will be exempt from obtaining tree removal permits with the fogowtng conditions: a. A permanent dwelling exists on the lit. b. Building or grading permits are not being sought. I The appeal period was changed from fourteen(14)days to five(5)business days. These changes have been incorporated into the final version of Tree Ordinance Number 214 and Resolution Number 25 -90 -Tree Standards and Guidelines. IS, Attachments. Ordinance Number 214 - Native Tree Ordinance Resolution Number 125 -90 - Tree Standards and Guidelines City Council Staff Report December 11,19%(-AT COUNC I L READ I NG TABLE) Minutes from City Council Meeting-excerpts- December 11,1990 • ORDINANCE NO. 214 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA, REPEALING CHAPTER 19 OF TITLE 2 AND SECTION 9 - 4. 155 AND ADDING CHAPTERS 11, 12 AND 13 TO TITLE 9 OF THE ATASCADERO MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING TREE PROTECTION The City Council of the city of Atascadero, California, does ordain as follows: Section 1. Chapter 19 of Title 2 and Section 9 - 4. 155 of the Atascadero Municipal Code are hereby repealed. Section 2. Chapter 11 is added to Title 9 of the Atascadero Municipal Code to read as follows : Chapter 11. Native Tree Ordinance. Sec. 9-11.01. Purpose and Intent: Preservation of natural flora and fauna is a basic community goal of the Atascadero General Plan. The trees of Atascadero are valued community assets. The purpose of this ordinance is to establish regulations for the installation, • maintenance, preservation, protection and selected removal of trees within the City limits. In establishing these procedures, it is the City' s intent to encourage the preservation, maintenance and regeneration of a healthy urban forest. This enhances other values that Atascadero holds for its community; among these are: clean air and water, soil conservation, aesthetics, property values and an ecological diversity that will ensure that Atascadero will continue to be a desirable place to live. Sec. 9-11. 02. Applicability. (a) The provisions of this chapter, with a set of accompanying "Tree Standards and Guidelines" adopted by resolution, shall apply to all native trees two inches (2") dbh or greater for deciduous oaks and madrones (Arbutus menziesii) and four inches (4") dbh or greater for all other native trees. It shall be illegal to intentionally harm, damage and/or cause the death or decline of a native tree (as defined by City Council) or remove a native tree without a City-issued Tree Removal Permit. (b) The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all public and private property and trees within the City of Atascadero, and to any person, firm, corporation and public or private utility company doing work within the City limits. (c) Fees for Services. Fees may be charged for services and shall • be set forth and amended by resolution. 2 ORDINANCE NO. 214 • Sec. 9-11. 03. Definitions. (a) "Damage" means any intentional action or gross negligence which causes injury, death or disfigurement of a tree. Actions include, but are not limited to cutting, girdling, poisoning, overwatering, unauthorized relocation or transportation of a tree or trenching, excavating, altering the grade or paving within the dripline of a tree. (b) "Dbh" means "diameter at breast height" , specifically four feet six inches (416") above natural grade. (c) "Dripline" means the outermost line of the tree' s canopy projected straight down to the ground surface. As depicted in plan view, the dripline appears as a irregularly-shaped circle. �(d) "Hazardous" means presenting an immediate danger to people or existing structures. (e) "Removal" means the physical destruction, displacement or removal of a tree, or portions of a tree caused by poisoning, cutting, burning, relocation for transplanting, bulldozing or other mechanical, chemical or physical means. (f) "Native Tree" , means a naturally-occurring species having a dbh • of two inches (2") or greater for deciduous oaks and madrones (Arbutus menziesii) and four inches (4") dbh' or greater for all other native trees. Refer to "Native Trees" section of the City' s "Tree Standards and Guidelines" . (g) "Tree Protection Plan" means a plan that shows how specific trees shall be protected . during development and land use related work. (h) "Tree Pruning" means the cutting, detachment or separation of any limb, branch or roots from a native tree. Sec. 9-11. 04. Adoption of Standards: The "Tree Standards and Guidelines" set forth the procedures, guidelines and standards that shall be used to implement the Native Tree Ordinance. They shall be used to provide details about preservation, maintenance, installation, protection, regeneration and select removal of trees. They shall be adopted and amended by resolution of the City Council and have the force of law. Sec. 9-11. 05 Roles and Responsibilities: (a) City Arborist ("Natural Resource Specialist") : The City Natural Resource Specialist, herein referenced as the City Arborist, • along with staff persons in the Community Development and Public Works Departments, shall provide information, review building, development and Tree Protection Plans and visit sites. The City Arborist (or designee) shall make recommendations and determinations 3 ORDINANCE NO. 214 on native tree removals for trees less than twenty-four (2411) dbh in size. (b) Planning Commission: Decisions on native tree removals of 24" dbh - size or larger shall be made by the Planning Commission. Decisions regarding native tree removal, tree protection and tree replacement made by the City Arborist may be appealed to the Planning Commission. (c) City Council: Decisions related to native trees made by the Planning Commission are appealable to the City Council. (d) Site Planner: These persons are qualified professionals who are hired by applicants to prepare Tree Protection Plans. Refer to "Tree Standards and Guidelines" . (e) Private Arborist: These persons are licensed professionals who are hired to do physical work on trees in Atascadero. Refer to "Tree Standards and Guidelines" . Sec. 9-11. 06 Tree Removal: • (a) Permit Required: Except as set forth in (b) below, Tree Removal Permits shall be required for the removal of any native tree two inches (2") dbh or greater for deciduous oaks and madrones .(Arbutus menziesii) , and four inches (4") dbh or greater for all other native trees, and for pruning of more than twenty five percent (25%) of the live canopy in native trees. (b) Exemptions: A Native Tree Removal Application or Permit is not required for: (1) Emergency situations which cause hazardous or dangerous conditions that have serious potential to cause immediate damage to persons or improvements on real property. Such situations must be reported to the City within 48 hours. (2) Trees planted, grown and maintained as part of a licensed nursery or tree farm business. (3) Tree pruning that effects less than twenty-five percent (25%) of a tree' s live canopy within one year' s time. The Pruning shall be done according to the adopted "ISA Tree Pruning Standards" . Any private or public entity doing regular maintenance in the City of Atascadero may seek a "blanket pruning permit" that may be renewed on a yearly basis. (4) Trees removed as part of an approved "Tree Management Plan" - Refer to Section 9-11. 13. • 4 ORDINANCE NO. 214 (5) Single family residences with the following conditions: a. A permanent dwelling exists. b. Building or grading permits are not being sought. (c) Dead and diseased tree removals are subject to the procedures outlined in Sections 9-11 . 07 through 9-11. 09 below, but all related fees shall be waived. Sec.. 9-11. 07. Applications and Permits for Tree Removal (a) Early Consultation: All applicants are encouraged to use the services of the City Arborist, Community Development and Public Works Department before site development that may involve any tree removal. Early consultation shall be a factor used in determining whether proposed improvements can be reasonably designed to avoid the need for tree removal. (b) Content. The content of the Tree Removal Application and Permit shall be set forth in the "Tree Standards and Guidelines" . (c) Posting. All native trees proposed for .removal shall be identified by the applicant for field inspection as set forth in the "Tree Standards and Guidelines" . When a Tree Removal Permit is • issued, the City shall post a copy of the permit in City Hall and the applicant will post a copy on-site for a public appeal period of five (5) business days. Refer to "Tree Standards and Guidelines" . (d) The application is reviewed and the permit is either denied or approved with tree replacement conditions by the City Arborist (or designee) . Sec. 9-11. 08 Required Findings for Tree Removal. The applicant must provide the factual data to make the required finding (s) . At least one of these findings must be made in order to approve a Tree Removal Application. (a) The tree is dead, diseased or injured beyond reclamation. (b) The tree is crowded by other healthier native trees; thinning (removal) would promote healthier growth in the trees to remain. (c) The tree is interfering with existing utilities and/or structures. (d) The tree is inhibiting sunlight needed for existing and/or proposed active or passive solar heating or cooling. (e) The tree is obstructing proposed improvements that cannot be reasonably designed to avoid the need for tree removal. Factors to be considered in determining "reasonableness" include: • 5 ORDINANCE NO. 214 (1) Early consultation with City Arborist; (2) Consideration of practical design alternatives; (3) Provision of cost comparisons (from applicant) for practical design alternatives; (4) If saving the tree eliminates all reasonable use of property; or (5) If saving the tree requires the removal of more desirable trees. Sec. 9-11. 09. Evaluative Criteria for Tree Removal. The following criteria will be considered when evaluating each Tree Removal Application: (a) The potential effect that tree removal could have on topography, knowing that hilltops, ravines, streambeds and other natural watercourses are more environmentally sensitive than flat or gentle sloping lands. (b) The potential effect that tree removal could have on soil retention and erosion from increased flow of surface waters. (c) The potential effect that tree removal could have on significantly increasing the noise level. (d) The potential effect that tree removal could have on the ability of existing vegetation to reduce air movement and wind velocity. (e) The potential effect that tree removal could have on significantly reducing available wildlife habitat or result in the displacement of desirable species. (f) Aesthetics (g) The number, size, species, condition and location of trees to be removed. (h) The special need to protect existing blue and valley oaks because of regeneration problems. (i) The cumulative environmental effects of tree removal. Sec. 9-11. 10. Tree Protection Plans. (a) Tree Protection Plans shall be required if any listed activity occurs within twenty feet (20 ' ) of the dripline of any native tree. Activities include but are not limited to the following: remodeling or new construction, grading, road building, utility trenching, etc. A Tree Protection Plan shall be included as part of the submittal for a road plan, plot plan, precise plan, building permit and/or conditional use permit. Refer to "Tree Standards and Guidelines" . 6 ORDINANCE NO. 214 (b) Early Consultation with the City Arborist, Community Development and Public Works Staff is available and strongly encouraged. (c) Implementation. The Native Tree Protection Plan shall be in place (and verified in writing by the applicant) before applicants shall receive any City permits to begin work. (d) Tree Protection During Grading and Construction. Refer to "Tree Standards and Guidelines" . (e) Surety Requirements. In large projects involving valuable trees, the City may require a surety prior to issuance of entitlement. Determination for use of the surety will be based on the complexity of the project and number of trees being impacted. The type of surety must be approved in writing by the City Attorney. (f) Tree Protection Plans for Private/Public Utilities. Utility companies doing regular maintenance and construction are not required to submit Tree Protection Plans for each individual project, but shall meet the tree protection requirements set forth in this Ordinance and the "Tree Standards and Guidelines" through conditions placed in a revocable pruning, trenching and encroachment permit that may be issued on a yearly basis. Sec. 9-11 . 11 Tree Replacement and Regeneration. Tree Removal Conditions. Tree Removal Permits shall be conditioned by one or more of the following methods: (a) Planting Trees: Replacement plantings shall be required to help sustain and regenerate Atascadero' s urban forest. The number of replacements shall be determined by the conditions (size, species, age and location) of the trees removed; a minimum of one for one, same species, five (5) gallon (locally grown native stock) sized trees shall be required. Refer to "Tree Standards and Guidelines" . (b) Tree Replacement Fund: This fund has been established to receive cash in lieu of planting replacements; the City will use these monies to plant, protect and maintain trees in locations designated as receiver sites. Refer to "Tree Standards and Guidelines" . c) Conservation Easements: Conservation easements can be used in lieu of tree replacements. Such easements protect the land upon which trees are located. Conservation easements are not specifically for public access. f • 7 ORDINANCE NO. 214 (d) Building Permits: For each residential building permit issued, the planting of one, five gallon native tree shall be required, based on the rate of one native tree per, residential dwelling unit. Sec. 9-11. 12. Tree Abatement: Nuisances, Pests and Disease: (RESERVED) Sec. 9-11. 13 Forestry and Woodlot Management (RESERVED) Sec. 9-11. 14 Procedures for Public Projects (a) Definition. Public projects are tree-related actions initiated by any department of the City of Atascadero. (b) Binding City to Tree Ordinance. Public initiated projects will comply with the Tree Ordinance unless explicitly exempted by City Council. - (c) Procedure to Seek Exemption. Applicant from the City shall submit a written statement to City Council describing project and • reason that an exemption should be granted. Sec. 9=11. 15 Appeals. Appeals shall be filed in accordance with Sec. 9-1. 111 of this Title. For purposes of an appeal, the decisions of the City Arborist shall be considered as a decision of the Community Development Department and/or Public Works Department. Sec.. 9-11. 16 Repeat Applications. When any application made pursuant to Title 9 or Title 11 has been denied, no new application which is substantially the same shall be filed within one year of the date of the previous denial unless the physical facts upon which the decision-making body based the denial have changed. The Community Development or Public Works Director shall determine whether physical facts have changed or when an application is substantially the same as the previous application. Sec. 9-11. 17 Enforcement (a) Penalties. Violations of this Chapter are specifically declared misdemeanors, and upon conviction may be punished as set forth in Chapter 3 of Title 1 of the Atascadero Municipal Code. (b) Restitution. Trees within the City of Atascadero are valuable assets to its citizens, and as a result of loss or damage to these trees, the public should be recompensed. In addition to any • penalties provided by (a) above, any person who damages a tree in violation of the terms of this Chapter is responsible for proper restitution and/or conditions as described in Sec. 9-11. 11. The City may bring a civil action for restitution to enforce this section. • 8 ORDINANCE NO. 214 (c) Stop Work. In cases of nonconformance with Native Tree Protection Requirements, the City Arborist or inspecting official shall immediately issue a Stop Work Order until all requirements have been met. Should unauthorized work or noncomformance lead to tree removal or damage (as defined) , the City Arborist or inspecting official shall also issue a Stop Work Order. (d) Conditions and Signed Agreements: Should unauthorized work or noncomformance lead to tree removal or damage (as defined) , the City Arborist may also require additional conditions as penalty and as described in Sec. 9-11. 11. and in the Tree Standards and Guidelines. Section 3. Chapter 12 and 13 are added to Title 9 of the Atascadero Municipal Code to read as follows: Chapter 12. Landmark Trees Sec. 9-12. 01. Landmark Tree, Defined. "Landmark Tree" means any native or non-native tree recognized by City Council resolution for its age, size, location, historical and /or cultural significance. Sec. 9-12. 02. Landmark Tree Protection. Any tree (native or non- • native) may receive protection by City Council resolution for its age, size, location, historical and/or cultural significance. Landmark trees receive the same protection and are subject to all conditions set forth in Chapter 11 of Title 9 regarding native trees. They may not be removed without City Council approval. Chapter 13. Street Trees - RESERVED Section 4. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is held to be unconstitutional or invalid in whole or in part by any court, such decision shall not affect the validity of effectiveness of the remaining portions of this ordinance, or any part thereof. If the application of any provision of this ordinance or any person, property or circumstance is found to be unconstitutional or invalid in whole or in part by any Court, such decision shall be limited to the person, property or circumstance immediately involved in the controversy, and the application of such provision to other persons, property and circumstances shall not be affected. Section 5. 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. 9 ORDINANCE NO. 214 Section 6. 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 B. LILLEY, Mayor City of Atascadero, California APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: • RAY WINDSOR, City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: ARTHER MONTANDON, City Attorney ATTEST: LEE DAYKA, City Clerk • CITY OF ATASCADERO TREE STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES A Document to Implement the Tree Protection Ordinance # 214 which includes the Native Tree, Landmark Tree and Street Tree Chapters RESOLUTION NO. 125-90 (Including revisions made at Sept . 4, 27, Oct . 16, Nov. 6th, and Dec. 11, 1990 meetings) 02-12-91 TREE STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES PURPOSE: The purpose of the Tree Standards and Guidelines is to clarify the adopted Native Tree/Landmark Tree Ordinance procedures with regards to tree protection and tree removal . It is also designed to serve as an information source about the care and propagation of trees for the community. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1 . LIST OF PROTECTED NATIVE TREES 1 2 . EXEMPTIONS AND FINDINGS FOR TREE REMOVAL 2 A. NO PERMIT REQUIRED B. REASONS FOR REMOVAL 3 . WHO DO YOU CALL? USE OF PRIVATE PROFESSIONALS 4 A. PRIVATE ARBORIST OR NATURAL RESOURCE PROFESSIONAL B. ISA CERTIFIED TREE TRIMMER AND/OR ARBORIST C. CITY ARBORIST 4 . FOR TREE REMOVAL, WHAT DO YOU NEED? 6 APPLICATIONS, POSTERS AND PERMITS A. APPLICATION FORM (S) B. DEAD TREES C . FIELD IDENTIFICATION POSTER D. APPROVALS, DENIALS and APPEALS E. TREE REMOVAL PERMIT F. SUMMARY OF REVIEW PROCESS 5 . FOR TREE PROTECTION DURING DEVELOPMENT, WHAT 9 DO YOU NEED? A. CITY STANDARDS B. SURETY C. CONTENTS OF TREE PROTECTION PLAN D. TREE PROTECTION IN PLACE BEFORE DEVELOPMENT BEGINS E. SUMMARY OF REVIEW PROCESS 6 . TREE REMOVAL AND PROTECTION FOR ROAD CONSTRUCTION 12 AND IMPROVEMENTS A. GUIDELINES B. PROCEDURES 7 . POSTING: HOW TO IDENTIFY TREES FOR REMOVAL OR 16 PROTECTION A. POSTING FOR FIELD ID AND FOR APPEAL PERIOD B. FLAGGING 8 . TREE REPLACEMENT AND MITIGATION GUIDELINES 17 A. REPLACEMENT B. MITIGATION 9 . APPEALS 20 10 . FEES 21 11 . ADOPTION OF LANDMARK TREES 22 12 . TREE PRUNING GUIDELINES 23 • 13 . TREE PLANTING AND TRANSPLANTING GUIDELINES 24 14 . GUIDELINES FOR FORESTRY AND WOODLOT MANAGEMENT 26 APPENDICES - (Existing & Proposed) A. Tree Removal Application/Field Identification Poster B. Tree Removal Permit C. Examples of Tree Protection D. Landmark Tree Nomination Form E. ISA Pruning Guidelines F. Tree Planting and Transplanting Guidelines - Additional Information G. Local Nursery Sources for Native Trees H. Forestry/Woodlot Management Plan Application Form • • • 1. LIST OF PROTECTED NATIVE TREES Arbutus menziesii Pursh. Madrone Heteromeles arbutifolia Lindl. Toyon, California Holly • Juglans hindsii Jeps. California Black Walnut Plantanus racemosa Nutt. California sycamore Quercus agri—f—o'lia Eastw. Coast Live Oak Quercus alvordiana Nee Blue Oak x Desert Oak Quercus chrysolepis Liebm. Canyon Live Oak Quercus dumosa Jeps. Scrub Oak Quercus durata Jeps. Leather Oak Quercus douglasii H&A Blue Oak Quercus lobata Nee Valley Oak Quercus turbinella Desert Oak Umbellularia californica Nutt. California Bay Laurel • 2. EXEMPTIONS AND FINDINGS FOR TREE REMOVAL A. NO TREE REMOVAL PERMIT REQUIRED FOR THE FOLLOWING: • (1) Non - Native trees . (2) Emergency situations which cause hazardous or dangerous conditions that have serious potential to cause immediate damage to persons or improvements on real property. Such situations must be reported to the City (CALL 461- 5090 within 48 hours) . (3) Trees planted, grown and maintained as part of a licensed nursery or tree farm business . (4) Removal of native trees two inches (2") dbh or less for deciduous oaks and madrones (Arbutus menziesii) , and four inches (4") dbh or less for all other native trees, and for pruning of less than twenty five percent (25%) of the live canopy within one year' s time. Any pruning of native trees shall be done according to the adopted "ISA Tree Pruning Standards" - See Appendix E. (5) Trees removed as part of an approved "Tree Management Plan" . (6) Single family residences with the following conditions : a. A permanent dwelling exists on the lot . b. Building or grading permits are not being sought . (7) Native trees that were voluntarily planted and are not part • of any required replacement plans . The burden of proof shall be the responsibility of the applicant . B. REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR TREE REMOVAL. The applicant must provide the facts to make the required finding (s) . At least ONE of these findings must be made in order to approve a Tree Removal .Application. (1) The tree has been dead for at least one growing season. (2) The tree is diseased or injured beyond reclamation. (3) The tree is crowded by other healthier native trees; thinning (removal) would promote healthier growth in the trees to remain. (4) The tree is interfering with existing utilities and/or structures . (5) The tree is inhibiting sunlight needed for existing and/or proposed active or passive solar heating or cooling. (6) The tree is obstructing proposed improvements that cannot be reasonably designed to avoid the need for tree removal . - Factors to be considered in determining "reasonableness" include : • (1) Early consultation with City Arborist; (2) Consideration of practical design alternatives; 2 (3) Provision of cost comparisons (from applicant) for practical design alternatives; (4) If saving the tree eliminates all reasonable use of the property; or (5) If saving the tree requires the removal of more • desirable trees . The burden of proof shall be the responsibility of the appli- cant . 3 3. WHO DO YOU CALL? USE OF PRIVATR ARBORIST AND OTBER PROFESSIONALS Depending on the size of the tree and the situation, you may need the services of the following professionals to application. complete your tree removal • Situation Person to do Work Tree Removal Applications, No Development Applicant or Private Tree Removal Applications With Development Professional No trees > 24" dbh? Trees > 24" dbh Applicant Private Professional Tree Protection Plans required With or Without Tree Removal, < 3 trees All other situations Applicant Private Professional required Tree Pruning: Information will be available through the office of the Natural Resource Specialist to provide citizens up - to - date information on the proper care and pruning has adopted the ISA Standards for Tree Pruningas the proper method fort'tree care in Atascadero. Definitions : A. PRIVATE ARBORIST OR NATURAL RESOURCE PROFESSIONAL are persons who are qualified to prepare tree reports such as Tree Removal • Applications and Tree Protection Plans for the City. They are professionals who have qualifications which include, but are not limited to, degrees and experience in arboriculture, biology, environmental planning, forestry and landscape architecture. B. ISA/ASCA CERTIFIED ARBORISTS AND TREE TRIMMERS are persons who perform physical tree work (pruning, cablin "ISA/ASCA-Certified Arborist" g, removal, etc. ) . and "Tree Trimmer" means an experienced arborist who has gone through training, testing and licensing for work in trees from a professional, licensing organiza- tion; either the International Society for Arboriculture or the American Society of Consulting Arborists . Depending on the condition and location of valuable native trees, the City Arborist (or designee) has the discretion to require that physical work done to live, native trees (removal and/or pruning of major limbs > 4" dbh) may require the services of an ISA or ASCA Certified Arborist . All major pruning work shall be done according to the ISA Pruning Standards, adopted as part of in the "Tree Standards and Guidelines - Appendix E, which use the most recent professional standards and knowledge of proper tree care. C• CITY ARBORIST/NATURAL RESOURCE SPECIALIST is the Cit ' s representative in tree-related matters . This y ble for consultation, advice and assistance on a limited m ted basis . The City -Arborist makes recommendations on Tree Removal Applications and Tree Protection Plans and is available for early consultation appointments . Depending on the trees and the situation, the City 4 Arborist (or designee) has the authority to require or waive the requirement of the use of a private natural resource professional or licensed arborist in the preparation of Tree Removal Applications and/or Tree Protection Plans . It is the goal of the City to provide consultation with applicants within ten (10) working days . • • 5 4. FOR TREE REMOVAL, WHAT DO YOU NEED? APPLICATIONS, POSTERS AND PERMITS • NOTE: All proposed tree removals require the following: (1) Completed Tree Removal Application; (2) Field identification or photo/posting of property; (3) Approved Tree Removal Permit and (4) Appeal period of five (5) business days . If your tree removal plans involve road construction and improvements, please refer to Chapter 6 :TREE REMOVAL AND PROTECTION FOR ROAD CONSTRUCTION. A. TREE REMOVAL APPLICATION FORM (See Appendix A for example) 1 . Contents of a Tree Removal Application: Applicant shall supply the following: a. Location or vicinity map, 8 1/2" X 11" size . b. Site plan, indicating location of trees to be removed. Include north arrow, scale and preparer' s name and phone number. (include original and reduced 8 1/2" X 11" copy) C . All native trees that are to be removed shall be numbered or identified on the site plan. d. A native tree inventory stating: 1 . Species • 2 . Size, measured in dbh (diameter at breast height) . 3 . Approximate canopy area (3 . 14 X radius of canopy squared) . 4 . General condition and health of the tree. e . Reasons for removal (must meet findings listed in Sec. 9 . 11 . 08 . f. Tree replacement plans (planting, donation, etc . see Chpt . 8) g. Photos (optional, but sometimes helpful) h. If additional trees are to be protected, a Tree Protection Plan shall accompany the Tree Removal Application;trees to be removed and protected can be shown on the same site plan. 2 . Who completes the form: Either applicant or private professional (as defined) - refer to Chapter 2 for details . 3 . Where to submit : Room 311, Public Counter, Community Develop- ment Department . 4 . When to submit : If your request involves a development application, submit application at the same time you submit other materials . Depending. on the complexity of the project, City Staff may require • additional information. 6 B. DEAD AND DISEASED TREES : Tree Removal Applications are required. 1 . All other procedures, fees and appeals required for tree removal shall be waived. • 2 . If trees to be removed have been dead (no buds or green leaves) for at least one growing season, or diseased (may require private arborist report if not obvious) they may be removed immediately after verification. 3 . Verification shall be determined by photographs or field visits . Photos often assist City Staff in quickly issuing permit to remove an obviously dead or diseased tree. Field verification may also be required. C. FIELD IDENTIFICATION POSTER (See Appendix A for example) All trees proposed for removal must be identified in the field and the site must be posted. A copy of the first page (completed) of the Tree Removal Application is used to post the site for Field Identification and the Appeal period. See Chapter #7 on POSTING for details . D. APPROVALS, DENIALS and APPEALS 1 . If your Tree Removal Application is approved, you will be issued a Tree Removal Permit that allows you to remove the tree (s) after a five (5) business day public appeal period, unless also contingent upon approval of additional development applications . • 2 . If your Application is denied, you may appeal the decision either to the Planning Commission and/or City Council, depending on tree size . See Chapter #8, APPEALS for details . E. TREE. REMOVAL PERMIT (See Appendix B for example) 1 . Posting for Appeal Period. Copies of all Tree Removal Permits shall be posted in City Hall by City Staff for a five (5) bus- iness day public appeal period. 2 . When Can the Tree be Removed? Tree Removals with Permits a. Dead/Diseased Trees — Immediately after verification by City Staff b. Live Trees - No Development : Removal may occur at the end of the five day appeal period if no appeals have been filed. C . Live Trees - With Development : (i) Building permits : the posting requirements and 5 day appeal period for approved removals can begin as soon as building plans have been approved. If no appeals are filed, applicants will receive their Tree Removal Permit when they are issued their Building Permit . (ii) All other Development Permits (including precise • plans, conditional use permits, road construction, etc. ) : 7 the posting requirements and 5 day appeal period will be tied to approval of such plans . Applicants will receive their Tree Removal Permit when they are issued their Grading, Road Construction and/or Building Permits . • 3 . Expiration. Tree removal permits that do not involve development expire after one year. Tree removal permits that involve development are approved contingent on the. issuance of all other required permits (such as building, grading, road, etc . ) and expire the same date as the other permits that are issued. F. SUMMARY OF REVIEW PROCESS : The review process for a Tree Removal Application is: 1 . Consult with City Arborist or Staff (optional) . 2 . Submit application and necessary fee (no fees for removal of dead/diseased trees) 3 . Post site for field identification. 4 . City Arborist/Staff (for trees 2" - 23"dbh) and Planning Commission (for trees 24" dbh or greater) reviews application and visits site . 5 . Application for removal approved (with replacement conditions) or denied by City Arborist (or designee) . • 6 . If approved, removal permit is granted with or without replacement conditions (no replacements required for dead/diseased trees) . 7 . Five (5) business day public appeal period. 8 . Appeals? a. Tree decisions 2" - 23"dbh are appealed to Planning Commission. b. Tree decisions 24"dbh or greater are appealed to City Council . 9 . No appeals - Trees may be removed: a. No development? Immediately b. With development? After receipt of all necessary permits. Please refer to Chapters #6 - #8 for more details or call the City Arborist at 461-5090 if you have any questions or concerns . • 8 5. FOR TREE PROTECTION PLANS DURING DEVELOPMZNT, WHAT DO YOU NEED? A. CITY STANDARDS have been established to protect native trees from • damage before, during and after all types of development . As a general rule, the existing ground surface beneath the dripline of any native tree shall not be cut, filled, compacted or. disturbed in any way. It is understood that in Atascadero, like many forested cities, there must be allowances for exceptions to this rule. Exceptions must be based on a qualified consultation (from a professional arborist or natural resource professional) , at the cost to the applicant, resulting in a Tree Protection Plan, that gives reasonable assurances that the tree will survive any proposed activities . When proposed development does encroach into the dripline of any tree, special techniques that preserve as many roots as possible and allow the roots of the tree to breathe oxygen and obtain water shall be required. These methods include, but are not limited to: 1 . Fencing: Must be a minimum of 4' high, chain link, snow or safety fence, staked at the dripline or line of encroachment for each tree or group of trees . Fence must be up before any construction or earth moving begins . For areas where this is not possible, aeration of the soil (after development is complete) shall be required. 2 . Soil Aeration Methods : Soils under the driplines that have been compacted by heavy equipment and/or construction activities must be returned to their original state before all work is completed. • Methods include water jetting, adding organic matter, boring small holes with an auger (18" deep, 2-3' apart with a 2-4" auger) and the application of moderate amounts of nitrogen fertilizer. Applicant' s arborist shall advise. 3 . Chip Mulch: All areas (under the driplines of the trees) to be cut and all areas that cannot be fenced shall receive a 4-6" deep layer of chip mulch to retain moisture, soil structure and reduce the affects of compaction. 4 . Trenching within the Dripline : Depending on the soil type, all trenching done under the driplines of trees shall be hand-dug, augured or bored, and major roots shall be avoided whenever possible and if not, all roots larger than 3" diameter shall be "cut clean" and not ragged. 5 . Grading within the Dripline: Grading in excess of 1' in depth shall not encroach within the following setback areas of the trees : Trunk Diameter Set-Back for Grading 411 - 1211 1 13" - 24" 10' 25" - 36" 15' 37" and larger 20' If these grading setbacks are not possible, and depending on the soil type, construction of a retaining wall or tree well may insure 9 the survivability of the tree (see appendix for diagrams) . Chip mulch, 4-6" in depth shall also be required in these areas. In certain instances (such as public right-of ways, sidewalks and • driveways) exemptions may be granted to this requirement . Grading shall not disrupt the normal drainage pattern around the trees . Fills shall not create a ponding condition and excavations shall not leave the tree on a rapidly draining mound. 6 . Pruning Within the Dripline : All pruning shall be done according to adopted ISA standards; see Appendix E. It is now the accepted practice NOT to attempt to balance foliage loss with root loss by pruning - this is considered unnecessary and potentially damaging to the tree . 7 . Paving Within the Dripline : Porous pavers ("turfblock", brick, etc . may be required under the driplines unless paving area affects less than 25% of the area. 8 . Landscaping Within the Dripline: Landscape plans for any proposed plantings under the dripline are required - it is the intent to discourage any plantings that require irrigation, as this practice has been known to quickly kill mature native trees . The planting of drought tolerant native species is encouraged. B. SURETY: In large projects or projects involving valuable trees, the City may require a surety to guarantee the survival of the trees . The need for a surety shall be based on the complexity of the project and number of trees involved. • C. CONTENTS OF A TREE PROTECTION PLAN: (NOTE: If your tree protection plans involve road construction and improvements, please refer to Chapter 6 :TREE PROTECTION AND REMOVAL FOR ROAD CONSTRUCTION for instructions . ) 1 . Cover Sheet (See Appendix C for example) . 2 . Vicinity or location map on 8 1/2" x 11" . 3 . Site plan (s) indicating all proposed structures, grading and trenching activities, roads, etc . Include north arrow, scale and preparer' s name and phone number (Include original size up to 24" x 36" and a reduced 8 1/2" by 11" copy) . 4 . All native trees with driplines within 20' of proposed development should be numbered and identified on the plan. 5 . A native tree inventory stating: a. Species b. -Size, measured in dbh (diameter at breast height) . C. Approximate mapping of actual canopy area. d. General condition of tree. e. If tree may be impacted by proposed development . 6 . Proposed tree protection measures, including fencing, mulching, aeration, and installation of retaining walls and tree wells . 7 . If any trees are to be removed, a Tree Removal Application Form shall accompany the Tree Protection Plan; all trees to be removed and protected can be shown on the same site plan. • 10 D . TREE PROTECTION IN PLACE BEFORE DEVELOPMENT BEGINS 1 . Why? The most crucial stage for tree protection is before the major earthwork (trenching, grading, foundation excavation etc . ) has begun; therefore, development permits ready for • issuance will not be released until Tree Protection measures specified on plans are in place . 2 . Verification. It will be the applicant' s responsibility to secure an inspection and signed statement from their Arborist or Natural Resource Consultant that verifies that Tree Protection Plan is properly installed. Verification shall be in writing and be sent to the Building or Public Works Department (depending on type of development) ; it will be filed with other materials required before issuing any type of development permit . E. SUMMARY OF REVIEW PROCESS : The review process for a Tree Protection Plan is : 1 . Consult with City Arborist/Staff (optional) . 2 . Submit application and necessary fees with other development application materials . If trees are to be removed, submit Tree Removal application at the same time. 3 . Post site for field identification. 4 . City Arborist, Planning and Building Staff (for construction) , • and Public Works Staff (for roads and public projects) review Tree Protection Plan and visits site. 5 . Tree Protection Plan approved (with. or without conditions) or denied by City Arborist (or designee) . 6 . If denied, resubmittal of a revised Tree Protection Plan is required. 7 . Five (5) business day public appeal period - staff advises applicant of date of appeal period. 8 . Appeals? All decisions on Tree Protection Plans may be appealed to the Planning Commission. 9 . Applicant and/or Private Professional representative must submit letter stating that Tree Protection is in place before any development permits shall be issued. Please call the City Arborist at 461-5090 if you have any questions or concerns . 11 6. TREE PROTECTION AND REMOVAL FOR ROAD CONSTRUCTION AND IMPROVEMENTS The following policies set forth the • Protection Applications that specifically procedures for Tree Removal and Tree and improvements . pertain to road construction A. GUIDELINES : Whenever roadways are constructed within Atascadero (including Colony road alignments) , consideration shall be given to preserving and protecting the trees . Such considerations include, but are not limited to the following: (1) The roadway alignment should vary within the right-of way to accommodate trees; i .e . the centerline of the different than the centerline of the right-of wayement may be (2) Roadway alignments which vary from the original Colon centerline shall provide safe curves and smooth transitions as approved by the City Engineer; necessary utilities shall be accommodated. (3) The roadway alignment should be adjusted to vary outside of the right-of-way to accommodate trees significant in quality and number whenever adjacent property can be easily obtained for encroachment, or where large tracts of land are under common ownership. (4) Movement of the roadway outside of the right-of-way shall be limited to easements and lot line adjustments, but in general • shall not constitute a subdivision of land or taking of property. (5) Movement of the roadway outside of the right-of-way shall take into account other trees outside the right-of-way as well as excessive profile grades . (6) All else being equal, the cost of roadway construction may be reasonably impacted by the cost of saving trees; if the construction cost for the revised alignment does not exceed 125% of the normal roadway cost estimate, the trees shall be saved. B. PROCEDURES . The following procedures pertain to - Tree Removal Applications and Tree Protection Plans specifically for proposed road improvements and construction projects : CONTENTS OF A TREE PROTECTION AND REMOVAL PLAN FOR ROAD CONSTRUCTION AND IMPROVEMENTS 1 . Tree Removal/Protection Cover Sheets (See Appendix A and C) indicating approximate number of trees to be removed and trees to be impacted. 2 . Vicinity or location map on 8 1/2" x 11" . 3 . Site plan indicating existincrconditions, including topography, • existing right-of-way, structures and general forest canopy. 12 4 . Site plan indicating proposed road alignment within the right- of-way, including grading and trenching activities, roads, shoulders, drainage structures, etc. Delineate the proposed area of disturbance by showing top of cut and toe of fill • edges . In addition, identify approximate locations of "key cuts" for any benched fills . On same map, indicate all native trees (located by field survey) with driplines within 20' of the edges of disturbance (top of cut and toe of fill) . On both site plans (3 and 4) , include north arrow, scale and preparer' s name and phone number (Include original size up to 24" x 36" . 5 . All native trees within the proposed area of disturbance shall be field tagged and numbered (recording species and approximate dbh) but may not appear on the site plan described above (depending upon the width of the area of disturbance) . The number of trees to be removed shall also be recorded. 6 . For each tree that is identified on the site plan (those along the edges) , complete a native tree inventory stating: a. Species b. Size, measured in dbh (diameter at breast height) . C. Approximate canopy area (3 . 14 X radius of canopy squared) . d. General condition and health of the tree. e. How tree will be impacted by proposed development (require removal, or affected by cut, fill, roots, branches, etc .) (All trees to be removed and protected can be shown on the same site plan) . 7 . Proposed tree protection measures for any of the inventoried • trees, including fencing, mulching, aeration, and installation of retaining walls and tree wells for trees along the edge of disturbance - refer to Chapter 5. 8 . Tree replacement plans - refer to Chapter 8 . 9 . Photos (optional, but sometimes helpful) C. FIELD WORK In addition to the requirements listed above, the following field work shall be required: 1 . The proposed center line of the road and area of disturbance (limits of cut and fill) shall be field staked with markers designed to withstand a period of two years . 2 . Field identify every native tree within the area of disturbance with a non-damaging numbered tag designed to withstand a period of two years . Every tree shall be numbered and recorded as to species and approximate dbh. 3 . Field survey and map all native trees that have driplines within 20' of the edges of disturbance . (Complete tree inventory on these trees is required) . In addition to numbering, wrap trees to be removed with red or pink flagging tape and trees to be protected with yellow or green flagging • tape . 13 4 . The applicants' arborist shall identify quality trees along the edges of the road that should be saved through extra tree protection measures . Each or these trees shall be identified as such on the site plan. The applicant shall propose methods of tree protection for City review. 5 . Applicants should anticipate the need for at least one field visit with City Arborist/Staff and field trips for elected officials for any major road building projects involving tree removals . Who completes the form• Private professional (as defined) - refer to Chapter 2 . Where to submit : Public Works Department. When to submit : Submit application as early as possible - do not have the road completely engineered before consulting with City Staff. Because of environmental laws, information regarding natural resources should be collected at the earliest possible stage of any proposed development . Depending on the complexity of the project, City Staff may require additional information. D. SUMMARY OF REVIEW PROCESS : The review process for a Tree Protection Plan is : 1 . Consult with City Arborist/Public Works (optional) . • 2 . Attempt to adjust road within right-of-way to avoid the removal of valuable trees - see Guidelines (A. ) above) . 3 . Submit application and necessary fees with other development application materials . 4 . Post and stake site for field identification - see details above) . 5 . City Arborist and Public Works Staff review Tree Protection and Removal Plan and visits site. 6 . Tree Protection and Removal Plan approved (with or without additional conditions) or denied by City Arborist (or designee) or Planning Commission, depending on size of trees involved. 7 . If denied, resubmittal of a revised Tree Protection and Removal Plan is required. 8 . Five (5) business day public appeal period - staff advises applicant of date of appeal period. 9 . Appeals? All decisions on Tree Protection Plans may be appealed to the Planning Commission or City Council . • 10 . Applicant' s Private Professional representative must submit letter stating that Tree Protection is in place before any development permits shall be issued. 14 7 . POSTING: HOW DO YOU IDENTIFY TREES TO BE REMOVED OR PROTECTED? Identification of trees and posting of all property with trees to be removed (with or without any development) and posting of property with • trees to be protected (with development) is required. This includes any and all applicants who submit plot plans, precise plans, building permits, conditional use permits and just plain removals . Signs and protective plastic bags are available to each applicant at the public counter, depending on the situation: A. POSTING FOR FIELD IDENTIFICATION AND FOR APPEAL PERIOD All sites that have trees to be protected or removed shall be posted for field inspection and during the appeal period. 1 . The poster shall be a copy of the completed front side of. the Tree Removal Application and/or Tree Protection Plan. 2 . Place the poster in a plastic bag in a location that is "visible from the street" . 3 . Posting for Appeal Period (i) For Approved Tree Removals/No Development : The poster must remain on site through the duration of the 5 business day appeal period (except for dead trees) . (ii) For Approved Tree Removals with Development and Tree Protection Plans : Applicants shall be advised of the date of the 5 business day appeal period - it may be tied to additional permit requirements . 4 . Dead/Diseased trees may require posting for field ID, but may • be removed immediately after verification by City Staff. B. FLAGGING TREES TO BE REMOVED OR PROTECTED All trees to be removed shall be numbered (to coincide with the site plans) and flagged with pink or red tape in the field; all trees or groups of trees to be protected shall be flagged with yellow or green tape; tree protection flagging shall be necessary only if it is not evident from the submitted plans . For projects involving road construction, refer to Chapter 6 for details . The City Arborist and/or Planning and Engineering Staff will post a copy of all Tree Removal Permits in City Hall for the duration of the appeal period. • 15 8. TRE$ REPLACFMZNT AND MITIGATION OPTIONS FOR REPLACING TREES . The Applicant shall initially select one of the following methods (A - D) for providing tree replacements for any • trees that are going to be removed. The City Arborist (or designee) has the authority to require different replacement alternatives (such as donation to the Tree Replacement Fund) if it is apparent that the applicant selecting the planting option (Option A) will be unable to maintain replacement trees for three to five years . If trees are dead, diseased, or damaged beyond repair, replacements will not be required, but the City will donate trees from the nursery to replace if requested. If replacement plantings or donations to the Tree Fund are selected (Option A or B) , trees shall be replaced using the following ratio : A. REPLACING THE TREE BY PLANTING ON OR OFF-SITE 1 . Size : Trees that are removed shall be replaced with 5 (five) gallon, locally grown native stock, same species trees . The number of replacement trees required depends on the size, species and location of each tree removal . If native stock is unavailable, 15 (fifteen) gallon replacements shall be required. 2 . Replacement ratio: The concept is to provide replacement plantings and/or cash based on a ratio; for every 6" dbh of tree removed, one, two or four replacement plantings (depending on tree species and location) will be required. • Single Family Residential : Deciduous Oaks/Madrones: Plant two trees for every 6" dbh, (or fraction thereof) of tree removed. Other Native Trees: Plant one tree for every 6" dbh of tree removed. Multi-Family/Commercial/Roads : Deciduous Oaks/Madrones: Plant four trees for every 6" dbh of tree removed. Other Native Trees: Plant two trees for every 6" dbh of tree removed. B_ REPLACING THE TREE THROUGH DONATIONS TO THE TREE REPLACEMENT FUND: Base Fee: $50 . 00 per tree. This is the minimum amount of money it would cost for the City to purchase (or eventually grow) , plant and fence a five gallon native tree. This base fee does not attempt to recover any city labor, maintenance and/or watering costs. As an example, if a 6" dbh California Bay (Classified as Other Native Tree) were removed for road construction, the applicant would be required to either plant and fence two five gallon replacement trees or contribute $100 to the Tree Replacement Fund. Use the same ratio of tree replacement plantings listed above in combination with the base fee for determining replacement costs : 16 The following chart summarizes the replacements required - through replacement planting or donation: Type of Tree/Development # of Replacement Trees $ Tree Fund (5 Callon minimum) • Deciduous Oaks/Madrones Single Family 2 per 6"dbh $100 per 6" dbh Multi-Family/Commercial/Roads 4 per 6"dbh $200 per 6" dbh Other Native Trees Single Family 1 per 6"dbh $50 per 6" dbh Multifamily/Commercial/Roads 2 per 6"dbh $100 per 6" dbh The next chart demonstrates how this system of replacements (through planting trees or donation to the Tree Fund) might work: To illustrate, the hypothetical removal of a 12" dbh Quercus agrifolia (coast live oak, classified as Other Native Tree) and a 12" dbh Quercus lobata (valley oak, classified as a Deciduous Oak) will be used: REPLACEMENT EXAMPLE Type of Tree/Development # of Replacement Trees $ Tree Fund (5 gallon minimum) 12" O. lobata - a deciduous oak Single Family 12/6"dbh x 2 trees= 4 4 x $100= $400 Multi-Family/Commercial/Roads 12/6"dbh x 4 trees= 8 9 x $200= $800 12" dbh O. acirifolia - other native trees • Single Family 12/6"dbh x 1 tree= 2 2 x $50= $100 Multifamily/Commercial/Roads 12/6"dbh x 2 trees= 4 4 x $100= $400 If it does not appear an applicant wishing to remove trees will be able to maintain replacement trees for three to five years, the City Arborist (or designee) has the ability to require a different replacement alternative, such as donation to the Tree Replacement Fund. Multi-family and Commercial/Roads applicants may plant larger size specimens to reduce the quantity of replacements required using the following ratio : 24" box = 2, 5 gallon locally grown or 15 gallon other trees 36" box = 4, It 48" box = 6, 60" box = 8, The City Arborist (or designee) has the authority to approve or reject this option. C. TRANSPLANTING THE TREE In certain situations, and usually as a last resort, native trees of certain size may be transplanted. The following criteria shall be used: 1 . Native trees over 2 - 6" dbh may be moved without special equipment . 17 2 . Native trees 6" dbh to be transplanted require the use of a tree spade and must follow the guidelines set forth in Appendix F. 3 Transplanted trees that die during the first year shall be • replaced at the determined replacement ratio (from Section A. above) . D. TREE MITIGATION If trees that are protected do not survive development activities or if the Tree Ordinance is violated, the City has the authority to require mitigation for damage, requiring higher replacement ratios or fees than are described above . Other methods of mitigation for native tree removal include: 1 . Dedication of a conservation easement designed to protect oak seedlings . 2 . Contract growing of native trees . E. PENALTY CONDITIONS For ' Tree Ordinance Violations and unauthorized tree removals and/or damage, the City Arborist (or designee) has the authority to request compensation based on the court tested and upheld ISA (International Society of Aboriculture) method for evaluating the monetary value of trees (Valuation of Landscape Trees, Shrubs and Plants, ISA - 7th Edition, 1988 . ) • • 18 9. APPEALS The procedures for appeals that are outlined in the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 9-1 . 111 shall apply to decisions about trees, but with the following clarification: • 1 . Decisions of the City Arborist, Public Works Department, Community Development Department or any member of the staff may be appealed to the Planning Commission. Planning Commission decisions, in turn, are appealable to the City Council, whose decision is final . 2 . Once denied, a period of one year must lapse before any applicant reapplies for consideration, unless physical facts upon which the decision - making body based their denial has changed. 3 . All appeals must be made in writing and filed (with appropriate fees) with the Secretary of the Planning Commission for matters to be heard by the Commission, and with the City Clerk for matters to be heard by City Council . 4 . See Proposed Fees Schedule for Appeals in Chapter 9 . 5 . The public appeal period shall be five (5) business days from the date of the action being appealed. • • 19 10. SEE SCHEDULE The intent of the proposed fee schedule is to generally correspond to the amount of time it takes toProcess and review different • tree removal requests . Fees for- Processing Applications : A. Dead and Diseased Trees No .fees B. Tree Removal Application 2 24"dbh in size $ 35 C. Tree Removal Application 24" dbh or greater $ 50 D. Tree Protection Plans Single Family Residential (includes any Tree Removal Application if necessary) 50 E. Tree Protection Plans Multifamily, Commercial and Road Improvement Plans $ 200 (includes any Tree Removal Application if necessary) F. Appeals Applicant (first appeal) Applicant (second appeal) $ 0 $ 50 Any Interested Person $ 50 • • 20 11 . ADOPTION OF LANDMARK TREES A "Landmark Tree" means any tree that is recognized by City Council Resolution for its age, size, location and/or cultural significance. • A "Landmark Tree" can be native or non-native and receives the same protection and is subject to the same conditions regarding native trees . They may not be removed without City Council approval . Procedure for nomination: On Private Land: A Landmark Tree may be nominated only with Landowner' s permission. Public Land: A Landmark Tree may be nominated by any member of the community. Please see Appendix D for a Landmark Tree Nomination Form • 21 12. TREE PRUNING GUIDELINES In the care and maintenance of native trees, Atascadero would like to • promote proper pruning practices which help insure the health and integrity of all of our beautiful trees . Native trees, whenever possible should not be pruned except when dead wood is present . Because we live in an area where power lines and homes exist, there may be an occasional need to prune in these instances, too. It is important to remember that a tree survives on food that it manufactures from its leaves; a tree should never lose more than 20% of its total canopy of leaves at any time. There may be situations where dead or diseased wood exists which will perhaps require the removal of additional wood; this should be done by a licensed tree trimmer who is experienced in making these decisions . The City has adopted the International Society of Aboriculture' s standards for tree pruning dated May 9, 1988, as revised and amended by the Organization from time to time; these standards shall be used when doing work on all trees in Atascadero. The ISA standards describe techniques in the pruning of all species of trees . Native oaks have some special requirements; it should be stressed that a "heading or stub . cut" described in Section I-B should never be used on an oak; the preferred types of pruning are described in Sections II - A, Crown Cleaning and Section II - B, Crown Thinning. If there are any questions, please call the office of the City Natural • Resource Manager, Refer to Appendix E for ISA Pruning Guidelines - 7 pages • 22 13. TREE PLANTING AND TRANSPLANTING GUIDELINES A. TREE PLANTING: A set of replanting guidelines shall be included withevery tree permit- requiring replacement plantings: • 1 . Generally, choose same species replacements for the native trees to be removed. 2 . Inspect the trees for encircling roots (roots that wrap around the pot have a poorer chance of straightening out and growing right in the ground. 3 . When planting, make sure that the roots have been untangled, straightened and loosened as much as possible. 4 . Plant in a hole at least twice as big as the pot, and use native soils in the hole . 5 . Provide the tree with deep watering - meaning a slow, gradual and long watering (which encourages downward root growth to anchor the tree) at the time of planting. 6 . Native oaks require less watering than other species; provide them with one deep watering in late spring and two in the summer. If drip irrigation is used, do long, slow watering applying 10-20 gallons over a three-four hour period. 7 . Protect the young trees from wildlife or vandalism with some kind of fencing - both above and below ground if possible; welded wire fencing of at least 4 feet in height above ground and one - two feet below ground. All applicants that remove trees and provide replacement plantings shall provide the City with proof of tree planting, through copies of the tree purchase receipts, photographs and signed under "penalty of perjury" • statement attesting to the date of planting. . These records can be kept in the office of the City Natural Resource specialist . All trees shall be planted preferably in the fall or winter but within one year after receiving a tree removal permit . B. TRANSPLANTING GUIDELINES FOR "BIG TREES" Transplanting large trees shall only be used as method of last resort, as rates of survival are not documented at this time. Please use these guidelines to assist you with the transplant and transport of big trees : 1 . Coast live oak trees seem to survive transplanting better than valley or blue oaks (the other common species in the area) . 2 . For trees that are larger than 14" dbh, constructing a "box" around the base of the tree and an adequate "root mass" and moving it with a crane and flatbed truck are necessary. Approximate box size should be around 7x the diameter of the tree trunk. 3 . It is advisable to cut the roots (where you are planning to build the tree moving box) at least a year ahead of time to promote more root growth within the soil that is going to move with the tree. • 23 4 . When boxing a tree, the bottom should be cut last and can be anywhere between six and eight feet deep, depending on the size of the tree and conditions of the soil . To cut the bottom, you will need to take a backhoe to remove one of the sides of the box to get • at it . 5 . When calculating what types of equipment will be necessary in order to move a tree, you must attempt to estimate the weight of the tree, its roots and the soil . Figure out the cubic area of the soil (height x depth x width of box) and multiply it by the weight per pound of soil . You must also estimate the weight of the wood - one way to do it is to estimate the amount of cordage (4'x 41x 81area) in the tree and calculate its weight (oak weighs approximately 45 pounds per cubic foot) . As an example a 48"dbh tree was recently moved in Thousand Oaks - together the tree and the root mass weighed over 400, 000 pounds ! 6. Have the planting hole prepared before attempting the transport . A backhoe will probably be necessary and the hole should be at least as big as the box (and tree that you are moving) . Scarify the sides of the hole (scratch them up, make them uneven. ) 7 . Place the tree in the soil at the same depth. Make sure all the roots are untangled (not encircling the box) and backfill with native soils . 8 . Provide the tree with deep watering - meaning a slow, gradual and long watering (which encourages downward root growth to anchor the tree) . If planting in the summer, provide at least one deep • watering in every week for the first few months after transplant . If planting in the fall, winter or spring, adjust watering around rains . If drip irrigation is used, do long, slow watering, applying 10-20 gallons over a three-four hour period. Depending on soil type, more or less water may be required. Big tree moving should probably be used only as a last resort, because it is very difficult to get it right, but if it is done carefully, the results are definitely worthwhile. See Appendix E for more information on planting and transplanting of native trees . • 24 Appendix F : Additional Information on Big Tree Transplanting: Some people you can contact for more information: • John Mote, Valley Crest Tree Company, 818 - 367 - 5803 . (This company is a large commercial tree nursery and this man is apparently quite knowledgeable about transplanting and moving big trees . ) Bill Ellmendorf, Urban Forester for Thousand Oaks, 805 - 497 -8403 . (These people just moved some very large oaks for a golf course project and he is familiar with the process - he gave me the Valley Crest Tree person as a reference. ) Leonard Arnold, Arnold Tree Service, 209 - 584 - 3900 . This is the person who moved trees for the City of San Luis Obispo and .for Gordon Davis (who transplanted some smaller oaks in Atascadero) . It appears that tree spades generally work with trees that are no larger than 10-14" dbh (diameter at breast height) . As an example of cost, Arnold charged the City of SLO $500 per tree to dig them out and move them all over town - he moved about a dozen 14"dbh trees when he came . (Paso Robles Winery also has a tree spade - staff person Calvin Fernandes has the details) • MINUTES EXCERPT - CITY COUNCIL - 12/ 11/90 meeting . There was consensus among the Council to address the atter during the mid-year budget session and establ'i whether there is further public interest. It was agr- ed that if then--= is the interest , a local hearing would e scheduled for the ,,,ear of 1991 . MOTION: By Councilman Nimmo and seconded Councilman Shiers to adopt Resolution No . 131- . 0; motion carried unanimously. 12. RESOLUTION NO. 132-90 - SALARY R GE ADJUSTMENTS FOR RECREA- TION SUPERVISOR, SUPPORT S ICES MANAGER AND PERSONNEL COORDINATOR (Second Amendme to the FY 90-91 Annual Salary Resolution) Sergeant Jeff Fredericks, the Atascadero Police Department , noted that , while he and embers of the Police Department did not have any opposition t the adjustments made as a result of Resolution No . 132- 10, the changes were being made outside of negotiated M.O.U.s He reported that item C-2 was a request for a Cite: Council aring to address similar issues currently being faced by the rgeants Service Organization and reminded -the Council tha other salary adjustments have been made for • equitable easons . Sgt . Fredericks concluded that the sergeants ' reasons or bringing up the matter of salary compaction was also an eq table reason. M ION: 2y Councilman Nimmo and seconded by Councilman Shiers to adopt Resolution No . 132-90; motion unanimously carried by roll call vote. B. HEARINGS/APPEARANCES: 1 . TREE ORDINANCE: CONSIDER ADOPTION OF A REVISED NATIVE TREE ORDINANCE AND TREE STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES TO IMPLEMENT THE NATIVE TREE ORDINANCE A. Ordinance No. 214 - Native Tree Ordinance (First Reading )' B. Resolution No. 125-90 - Tree Standards and Guidelines Henry Engen introduced the matter and introduced Lisa Schicker , former City Arborist . Ms. Schicker explained that the intent was to simplify the present tree ordinance and briefly summarized the revisions. In addition, she outlined the Tree Standards and CC12/ 11/90 • Page 7 i Guidelines, which set forth the procedures fcr implementation of the Native Tree Ordinance . Brief Council comments followed . Public Commerts: Gerry Gast , of Atascaderc , asked if there were any restrictions as to the size of trees a homeowner would be permitted to take down. Ms . Schicker indisated that as the ordinance was written, there were none. Mr . Gast commended staff for their work and commented that he supported the ordinance as it is written. Larry Sherwin asked if a homeowner needed to get a permit to do major pruning on private property. Lisa Schicker indicated that it was not necessary for a single-family homeowner to obtain a permit and reported that the Tree Standards and Guidelines provides recommendations for pruning . In addition, she clarified that the ordinance did not specify that the City require property owners to prune their trees according to set standards. Eric Greening spoke in support of the ordinance, noting that the ordinance could be amended as needed . He urged the Counci-1 to retain the threshold of two inches dbh for medrones and deciduous oaks because the trees were slaw-growing . Lora Diggins, 6525 Palma, asked whether or not a homeowner would be expected to plant a five gallon tree if he/she applied for a building permit to allow an addition to an existing home. Ms. Schicker clarified that unless a tree was being removed , she would not be required to plant a tree as a condition of approval for the building permit . She added that this requirement would be placed on new residential construction. Ursula Luna, 10060 San Marcos Road , commended the Planning Commission and Lisa Schicker , and urged Council to adopt the ordinance. Whitey Thorpe, 8025 Santa Ynez , proclaimed that the ordinance was an infringement an the individual rights of a property owner and proclaimed that he resented the fact that he could not cut down a tree he had planted on his own property. Lisa Schicker pointed out that trees planted by a property owner are exempt from the removal requirements of the ordinance. Joan O ' Keefe, 9985 Old Morro Road , expressed appreciation to the staff and the Planning Commission for the time and effort put CC12/11/90 Page 8 • into the revisions to the tree ordinance. She remarked that trees have the right to be protected and urged the use of locally grown native stock ro replacement to ensure maintenance of the gene pool . In addition, Mrs . O ' Keefe commented on attitudes regarding individual property rights and ethics, as It relates to the environment , and remarked that good lard stewardship will benefi - the society . James Patterson, 9312 N. Santa Margarita Road , commented that the single-family exemption was a major contradiction to the intent of the oroinar,ce. He indicated that he was opposed to the exemption and did not believe it to be enforceable. Livia Kellerman, Honda Avenue resident , stated that she agreed with the previous speaker ar.d asked the Council to reconsider the single-family exemption. Robert Johnson, Planning Commissioner , clarified comments made at Commission meetings relating to public trust and pointed out that every single-family homeowner will not take cut three trees per yea:- . Jerry Clay , 7295 Sycamore, replied that the average homeowner will take care of his trees because they add to the property' s value. He asserted that the ordinance is a good compromise and suggested incorporating a program, perhaps during Colony Days, which would promote community planting of oak tree seedlings . Additional Council comment followed . Councilwoman Sorgeson asked how far along staff was an the wood lot management program. Mr . Engen reported that Ms. Schicker had left the final draft with staff and that it would be going before the Planning Commission soon. Councilman Dexter indicated that he was in support of adopting the ordinance in principle, but wanted the opportunity to clean up some �of the language. Art Montandon, City Attorney , indicated that additions would require a motion to amend and the ordinance introduced with the comments added . If substantive changes were required, he advised , the ordinance would need to be re-introduced and noticed again. Councilman Nimmo stated that he agreed that there was some unnecessary verbiage and noted that he would like to see some changes in the content He remarked that recommendations should not be a part of the ordinance, but rather contained in the Tree CC12/ 11/90 • Page 9 r. l -�ardards 3rd GL' -12 ^eSr-:d . - icnal. ' v , Cot_:rc . .mar ..nr^_I • a.ser ted :^at the c.-c .;roe• E'rsd cc nary nc=_ C" rree= 3-e t-ee re,. o./a. rep .ac=_me t= we`re tori comp is X . r SCUs- .3-7 fC 0-.,e r-gard _nc pt:s s i t 1 _' el i.'ni.at . c SC?_ :rr Let ' os of tr-se s '1 the .-ee C_:a.'ida`'--_{s ^C iaP? 1 e C F Al arca lrec Tr',aes i t Wa5r0 tod that sC ne teeslnc '_ ed Ll c the 1 -st mere �n t`^e r ioar ian ar 2a o' the =reek and Shot_.: be ad�lressed as part of the :::re?kwa-/ .-..lana:;e:nent MOTION: By Cou"c I ' :?lar N! rrmc and s a c o n d 9 d b' i'^.aver !_ . _ epi to remove from t'-,=- List of atascadero Na- ive Trees the B_g Leaf Maple, rigger Pine, cottonwoods oT al : ,arieti=s , California Puss,,,t illcw and Red Willow; motion carried 4: 1 w th 7ounc i 1'Ncmar Borgeson in oppcsi t ion tc t;ne motion. Councilman Shiars reiterated that all trees it the creeks should be protecteC as _art of the future creekwa , p:-o tec t i ordinance • Ccunc i 1 Zor-icur-ed . Henry Encen indicated that the City Attorney and staff had concerns relating to enforcement of penalties . Ma,.,or Liley react the applicable portion of the ordinance ( Sec . 9-ll . l?) and stated that it was needlessly punitive and unenforceable. MOTION: By Mayer Lilley and seconded C'y Courciiman Nimme to delete from the ordinance the following sentence: "Furthermore. persons convicted of violating the Tree Ordinance may have any further buildinc and development permits den' 'ed fc a c,eriod of twc :Ad" S . " j rrction passed unanimousiy. Brief discussion followed regarding replacement requirements . By common consensus, Council tabled the discussion until resolving the issue of the single-family exemption. Mayor Lilley stated that he strongly supported the single-family residential exemption. In addition, he remarked that he would like to see some kind of compromise relating to un-built sites. Councilman Nimmo referred to a letter dated December B, 1990 ( see Exhibit A) , in which Commissioner George Highland recommends a modification of the exemption. Councilwoman Borgeson indicated that she thought it was inappropriate for the planning commissioner to approach the Council in this fashion. Mr . Nimmo disagreed . CC12/ 11/90 Page 10 • • Councilman Shiers pointed out that the issue had received a lot of attention at the Planning Commission meeting=_ and `hat the result was a compromise. He stated that he was in support of the Planning Commission ' s decision to exempt the single-famil , property owner and that the exemption indi--ates that the C , Council is putting a 1 o t o-1 trust in the peon s cf Atascadera . Discussion "ensued and there was a concern among the Council to protect trees on vacant , privately owned lots . Councilman Dextar suggested adding some of the Language proposed by Mr . Highlanq and made the following motion : MOTION: Sy Councilman Dexter and seconded by Councilman Nimmo to amend Ordinance No . 214 Sec . 9-11 .06 (b - 5 ) as follows: (5) Single family residences with the following conditions : a . A cenanent dwelling exists on the lot b . Buildinc or gradir•c oermits are not being sou^ht c_ Single family residential lots , on which no dwelling unit exists and which cannot be further subdivided . A consultation with a city arborist before an application would be required . Brief discussion of the motion followed . Mayor Lilley called for a recess at 9: 18 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 9:40 p .m. Discussion of the motion relating to the single-family residential exemption continued . Councilman Dexter indicated that he was not completely happy with the wording of the proposed 5 (c ) and stated that the intent was to keep undeveloped lots from being stripped of trees. After questioning the Community Development Director , Councilman Dexter amended the motion to read as follows: CC12/ 11 /90 Page 11 (5) Sinale family residences with the followina • conditions: a. A permanent dwelling exists on the lot_ b_ Building or grading permits are not being sought. Councilman Nimmo indicated that he was agreeable to the amended motion. A vote was called for on the motion to amend Sec . 9-11 .06(b-5) ; motion unanimously carried . Deliberation continued focusing on the replacement criteria. Councilman Nimmo stated that he would like to see the reolacement criteria for single-family residential be simply 2: 1 , and at the discretion of the property-owner , replacements to be planted either on the site or a site selected by the City; or by making a payment into the Tree Preservation Fund in an amount equal to $100/tree. Councilman Shiers asserted that the larger oaks were more valuable than other , smaller ores and made the following motion : MOTION: By Councilman Shiers and seconded by Councilwoman Borgeson to keep the existing language relating to replacement criteria as it is written; motion, passed 4: 1 with Councilman Nimmo voting in opposition. Ms. Schicker clarified that the ordinance does not require replacement if the tree is dead , diseased or damaged beyond repair . She pointed out that the Tree Standards and Guidelines does state that the City will donate trees from the nursery to replace if requested . Councilman Nimmo referred to Sec . 9-11 .08 Required Findings for Tree Removal and offered a revision. Ms. Schicker concurred with his suggestion and noted that the intent had been to ensure that trees were not simply deciduous and without leaves because of the season. MOTION: By Councilman Nimmo and seconded by Councilman Dexter to amend Sec . 9-11 .08 ( a) and (b ) as follows: Strike " (a) The tree has been dead for at least one growing season. " and add the words, "dead , is" to (b ) , allowing it to read " ( a) The tree is dead , diseased or injured beyond reclamation. " Motion carried . CC12/11/90 Page 12 • The City Attorney reported that during the break , several me!rbers or Counc11 had asked if the matter would have to go back to the Planning Commission in light of the changes proposed . He indicated that he had confirmed with staff that the tree ordinance is not part of 'the voning Crdinance and that the only aspect of it which touches on the Zoning ordinance is the deletion of the current tree ordinance. Mr . Montandon cont ,.nued that the matter had gone before the Planning Commission because it involved a repeal . For this reason, he stated , the revised tree ordinance would not require going back to the Planning Commission for consideration sue to the changes Council_ was proposing . The Community Development Director noted that the Planning Commission had expressed concern about the appeal period and suggested shortening the time frame to five days. The City Attorney advised that five days be specified as "five business days" . MOTION: By Councilman Dexter and seconded by Councilman Nimmc to amend the appeal period from fourteen ( 14 ) days to five ( 5 ) business dans; motion unanimously passed . There was a consensus among the Council to direct staff to revise the draft ordinance by incorporating the substantive changes made and to eliminate advisory or cautionary language from the ordinance itself. . The City Attorney recommended that , because the matter had been a noticed public hearing , it be continued . MOTION: By Mayor Lilley and seconded by Councilman Dexter to direct staff to make appropriate changes based on the consensus reached by the Council and to bring back the ordinance for adoption at the first scheduled meeting in February 1991 ; motion unanimously carried . 2. DOWNTOWN MASTER PLAN: GENERAL PLAN �theT)c ENT 1E-90/ZONE CHANGE 4-90 — Consider the adoptio f wntown Master Plan as an element of the City ' General Plan, and Zoning Ordinance Map and Text mendments to implement the provisions of the Plan. ,r A. Resolution . 127-90 — Adopting the Downtown Master Plan, amended by the Planning Commission, as an El e of the City's General Plan CC12/11/90 Page 13 CITY OF ATASCADERO Item: B_2 STAFF REPORT FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: January 15, 1991 BY: Gary V. Kaiser, Assistant Planner File No: TPM 27-90 SUBJECT: Consideration of a proposed zone change to amend the existing LS (Special Recreation) zoning to include a PD7 (Planned Development No. 7) Overlay zone. An associated tentative parcel map application proposes to divide a 21. 66 acre parcel into four (4) parcels for single-family residential use, and a "remainder" parcel of approximately 17 . 3 acres to be offered for dedication to the City of Atascadero for parkland/open space use. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Zone Change #05-90 based on the Findings contained in the Draft Ordinance (Exhibit I) . Likewise, staff recommends approval of Tentative Parcel Map #27-90 based on the Findings for Approval contained in Exhibit G and the • Conditions of Approval contained in Exhibit H. A. SITUATION AND FACTS: 1. Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .David and Brenda Noakes 2. Representative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .RRM Design Group 3. Project Address. . . . . . . . . . . . . .Cortez Avenue extension 4. Legal Description. . . . . . . . . . . .Lot 3, Pine Mtn. Park Book 4 O.R. Page 76 5. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21. 66 acres 6. Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .LS (Special Recreation) 7. General Plan Designation. . . . .Special Recreation 8. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Vacant 9. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Negative Declaration posted December 21, 1990 • • REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda. Item: B-2 Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Mtg. Date: 2/12/91 From: Henry Engen, Community Dev. Dir. ,} , File No: TPM 27-90/ ZC 5-90 SUBJECT: Consideration of a proposed zone change to amend the existing LS (Special Recreation) zoning to include a PD7 (Planned Development No. 7) Overlay zone, with an associated tentative parcel map which proposes to divide a 21 . 66 acre parcel into 4 parcels for single family residential use, and a "remainder" parcel of approximately 17. 3 acres to be offered for dedication to the City for parkland/open space use at the Cortez Avenue extension (Lot 3 , Pine Mtn. ) David and Brenda Noakes (RRM Design, agent) . RECOMMENDATION: 1) Waive reading of Ordinance No. 218 in full and approve by title only; and 2) Approve Ordinance No. 218 on first reading 3) Approve TPM 27-90 subject to the Planning Commission' s Findings and Revised Conditions of Approval. BACKGROUND: On January 15, 1991 , the Atascadero Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on this matter. On a 6 : 1 vote (Commissioner Johnson dissenting) , the Commission recommended approval of Tentative Parcel Map 27-90 subject to revised Conditions of Approval and Zone Change 5-90 as reflected in Ordinance No. 218. There was discussion and public testimony as referenced in the attached minutes excerpt. HE:ps Attachments: Staff Report - January 15, 1991 Revised Conditions of Approval - January 15, 1991 Minutes Excerpt - January 15, 1991 Ordinance 218 cc: David & Brenda Noakes • RRM Design Group B. ANALYSIS: The applicant requests approval of a tentative parcel map application to divide a 21. 66 acre parcel into: "parcel 1" of 0. 5 acres; "parcel 2" of 1. 74 acres; "parcel 3" of 1. 6 acres; "parcel 4" of 0. 5 acres; and a "remainder" parcel of 17. 32 acres (Exhibit B) . Parcels 1 through 4 would be for single-family residential use, while the "remainder" parcel would be offered for dedication to the City of Atascadero for parkland/open space use. The project site is located on the southeast side of Pine Mountain, and would be served by a northerly extension of Cortez Avenue (see Exhibit A) . A preliminary grading and drainage plan has been received, which was prepared by a registered civil engineer (Exhibit C) . The plan shows that access to each building site can be established without extensive amounts of grading and site disturbance. Proposed parcels 2 and 3 would share a common driveway to further minimize grading. According to the plan, one (1) small native tree would have to be removed to allow for the construction of this common driveway (a 4" Oak) . This is not considered a significant adverse impact, as the current Tree Ordinance will require the applicant to replace this tree at a two-to-one ratio (see condition of approval #15) . A certified arborist has prepared a tree protection plan, as reflected on the grading and drainage plan, and has verified that all remaining trees on the • site can be retained. Minimum Lot Size/Density The City General Plan (page 53) establishes a minimum lot size of one-half acre for the creation of new single-family- residential parcels. The City Zoning Ordinance (Section 9-3. 414) , however, sets a minimum lot size of 1. 5 acres in the Special Recreation Zone, where single-family residential use is proposed without benefit of sewer services. The intent of this 1. 5 acre minimum is to preclude the possible adverse effects associated with too many individual septic/leachfield systems on a region. That is, the 1. 5 acre minimum acts to regulate the overall density of residential uses over a given area, rather than to determine what the size of each individual lot should be. The overall residential density of the project area would be approximately 5. 5 acres per single-family unit, if the current proposal for four (4) single-family residential lots is approved. The Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (CCRWQCB) has reviewed this project and has determined that the project as proposed would have no significant adverse effects related to the individual septic/leachfield systems. Moreover, percolation tests performed by Tierra Tech. Testing Labs, Inc. indicate that soils are not only capable of supporting, but well-suited for, • individual septic/leachfield systems. 2 Planned Development Overlay Zone Since two of the proposed parcel sizes are smaller than that • allowed under the existing zoning (at least for single-family residential use) , approval of this project hinges on the establishment of the PD Overlay Zone. The City has created a generic overlay zone (PD7) conceived precisely for residential subdivisions such as the one currently proposed. The purpose of the Planned Development Overlay Zones, and the findings that must be made to approve the establishment of a Planned Development Overlay Zone, are contained within the Zoning Ordinance. The purpose of the PD Zones, as found in Section 9- 3. 641 of the City Zoning Ordinance, is as follows: "The Planned Development Overlay Zone identifies areas where development standards or processing requirements different from those established by the underlying zoning district are deemed necessary to promote orderly and harmonious 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. It is clear that the development standards that can be modified during the planned development process include minimum lot sizes. In fact, a zone change would not be necessary were it not for the two proposed lots containing less than 1. 5 acres. Staff feels that all of the above mandatory findings for the establishment of a Planned Development Overlay zone can be made, and that this project achieves the purpose and intent of the planned development philosophy. Staff agrees with the applicant that the preservation of the "remainder" parcel, which comprises 88% of the project site, as open space would be a great benefit to the 3 • entire City, both from an aesthetic as well as recreational • perspective. The developer' s statement is contained in Exhibit D. Furthermore, staff feels that nothing would be gained by requiring the redesign of this project so that each of the proposed lots contains at least 1. 5 acres. Such a requirement would (1) have no effect on the overall residential density of the site, (2) would not increase the "usable" area assigned to the two smaller lots due to steepness of slope, and (3) would result in less acreage available for the City and the community in general to use and enjoy as open space. Recently Approved Projects in the Area Two other tentative parcel maps have recently been approved in the immediate vicinity of this project that may be of interest to the Commission. First, on July 11, 1989, the City Council concurred with the recommendation of the Planning Commission to approve Tentative Parcel Map #04-89 (Larson) . Also, on October 30, 1989 the Council concurred with the Commission to approve Tentative Parcel Map #17-89 (Barrett) . The Larson project is located directly across the (future) street from the project currently being considered, and the Barrett project is located immediately south of the Larson project. Reduced copies of each of these approved tentative maps are attached as Exhibits E & F. • The construction of that portion of Cortez Avenue that would serve the project currently being considered was required per conditions of approval of both of the aforementioned other tentative maps. Having no guarantee that the proponents of these other projects will actually proceed to construct the road, meet any other applicable conditions, and record a final Parcel Map, the City must condition the current tentative map on the construction of the same road. The proponents of this project have included the construction of Cortez Avenue into the current project proposal. Potential environmental impacts associated with the construction of that road, however, have been addressed during review of these other projects. The recent review of the current application by the City Public Works Department is reflected in the attached Conditions of Approval (Exhibit H) . CONCLUSIONS: Staff believes that the necessary findings can be made for the establishment of a Planned Development Overlay Zone. In fact, staff feels that this project symbolizes the intent of the planned development philosophy by offering benefits to the City, and to the community in general, that would not likely be realized under the current zoning. Likewise, staff believes that the necessary Map findings can be made for approval of the tentative parcel map, as conditioned herein. • 4 ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Location/Zoning Map Exhibit B - General Plan Map • Exhibit C - Tentative Parcel Map Exhibit D - Grading and Drainage Plan Exhibit E - Developer' s Statement Exhibit F - Larson Map Exhibit G - Barrett Map Exhibit H - Findings for Approval Exhibit I - Conditions of Approval Exhibit J — Draft Ordinance • TPM-27-90.sr 5 • CITY OF ATASCADERO EXHIBIT A ,. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT LOCATION MAP TPM #27-90 DEPARTMENT (F� • AL /NAS PF H � �/ 4 � _ ( ) SITE LS( FH) rF ApPRox -R N) �•� -Com \\ ooe us p,NS1, 4 ! � CON RMF-16 ;A\ (FH) - 1_� / L✓/ C '© ►LL E� �I\ \ \` ;N►l-� I �_ _may ! P - � �wj- _ _1 ; � � • I � r E- FH FtQ- .� I T;7 1, `� -,► /�� .� �l! / 111 _ • - __ - .\�T - 3 ', /`x`,.16 . .y;; f X11►�, � �! �� r ► � fogG CITY OF ATASCADERO EXHIBIT C • , ; �, 10 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TENT. PARCEL MAP D EPARTMENT TPM 117-90 SITE t i —' VICINITY VJ(• 3 i llll J\ I ,u<t: . '• o'y. Icrauolma. • co ell 0►tN]►ACt/RINAINe1(\�L \ V W 1/moi CI!r«; .ARCIu) 1,71 A.�..� ' \ TENTATIVE z -- 41. PARCEL MAP AT 90 285 F a E . ATASCADERO.CALIFORNIA OCTOBER 10.1990 _ 0•r � tJ.•1. A 1 t CITY OF ATASCADERO EXHIBIT p ,. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT GRADING/DRAINAGE DEPARTMENT TPM #27-90 ' jell 40 � ^ r l 1 l / A�/ ^/�• - STRAIT acenor \� a I �„�,, / � • ��` �' `�n..a~i.arva.�iis ro~i�'my • I lir DIG j r �• r BENCH MARK w I '` .w•.J\� rwAtr IR_, -sm. �Sft CITY OF ATASCADERO EXHIBIT E • ,� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPER'S STATEMENT D EPARTMENT TPM #27-90 1101r il l��a PINE MOUNTAIN PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY STATEI1WW1l t ULVLLQPVEN' A PD Overlay Zone is requested for this property to adjust lot size standards resulting in single family lots which will minimize development efforts on this steep vacant site. The existing zoning, Special Recreation (LS) requires a 1.5 acre minimum parcel size for single family residential parcels utilizing i"dividual septic systems. The proposed tentative map shows lots which range from 0.5 acre to 1.7 acres in size. Due to the sloping terrain of this property, creating four home sites with access and area for septic systems would be difficult to achieve within the minimum lot requirements. However, as the project is outside the sewer services district, septic systems will be required. The proposed clustering of lots on the less steep slopes of the 21+ acres will be consistent in size and layout with the adjoining single family residential neighborhood. A reduced lot size on the subject property will be in keeping with the smaller lot sizes existing in this area and preserve a large area (17+ acres) as open space. Adequate leachfield disposal area can be provided based on percolation tests completed. A common driveway will serve two lots (Parcels 2 and 3), minimizing grading for driveways to these lots. The remainder lot, comprised of slopes 30% and over, will be protected as open space conserving the existing viewshed thereby being a benefit to the neighborhood and the entire City. • p/hp-pine.pdo e� CITY OF ATASCADERO EXHIBIT F n 1. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT LARSON r'IAP DEPARTMENT TPM #27-90 • R fir /'.,✓' 7/ a V/c/N/rYHA/ /� R fit. ''R/ �1 }�L�•�G �+ y S't IIRCLL / ''�. t J� •�4'w r.r wwrs ere 00 rewmrne -A ce Am, ,� •{ � ..r" "', '1 '.l_' � ;it '� • 3 •ti/ecsc � � � ' �y i I.1K MIM/IKA' Ilt,f I••Iw' ' .rr.waver+.r.Iw.v r.r.,n...w• OWNGIC3 LLIC7[//C/PZ .....r.w• Irul I..% "" YM/r Yr rwlr 1 re./e�r rnr�sura r Iw ww'w w rra I,./It.n. n.w t .. rw.r♦ ..'. r_..t w .Ir•.w.ue.v�trrt.'.rn.e r....rover w /M M/r4+.Ilr.M.'.r/n.f�µw/Ialw IMtr t•'rP A TI.r.I r MI wa4'rt Ml. ��M AIN��.Z j.I/IIr � � ✓ � .IMw /.,to I' •L.� n1 • ' Irr1.1a.MI/ • CITY OF ATASCADERO EXHIBIT EXHIBIT G COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BARRETT MAP DEPARTMENT TPM #27-90 I'trEr ♦ Y r + \f tK /— .j ♦r • UVT 2, Ir ♦ if CITY OFATASCADERO•Gv•99 .•..•. w vTa.snN •rT•�f♦L w M♦TrY♦An WTrr►rr♦.t•NTT rM Lr T•MA♦q♦ TSMfTft.t• N••♦ tea',•�. n:y: NR a�- • EXHIBIT H - Findings for Approval Tentative Parcel Map 27-90 Lot 3, Pine Mountain Park (Noakes/RRM Design Group) January 15, 1991 ENVIRONMENTAL FINDING: The proposed project will not have a significant impact on the environment. The Negative Declaration prepared for the project is adequate. MAP FINDINGS: 1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable General and Specific Plans. 2. The design and/or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable General and Specific Plans. 3. The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed. 4. The site is physically suitable for the density of the development proposed. • 5. The design of the subdivision, and/or the proposed improvements, will not cause substantial .environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish and wildlife or their habitat. 6. The design of the subdivision, and the type of the improvements, will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or the use of property within the proposed subdivision; or substantially equivalent alternate easements are provided. 7. The proposed subdivision design, and/or the type of improvements proposed, will not cause serious public health problems. TPM-27-90. fin EXHIBIT I -- Conditions of Approval • Tentative Parcel Map #27-90 Lot 3, Pine Mountain Park of Atascadero (Noakes/RRM Design Group) January 15, 1991 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. Water shall be obtained from the Atascadero Mutual Water Company. Water lines, electric power, gas, telephone, and cable television services shall be stubbed to the right-of- way line of each lot, and all facilities to distribute such services shall be provided according to the requirements of the responsible utility companies. All of the aforementioned utilities shall be installed underground, and shall be installed prior to the paving of the Cortez Avenue extension (to each lot) . 2. All existing utility, pipeline, open space, or other easements are to be shown on the final Parcel Map. If there are building or other restrictions related to the easements, they shall be noted on the final Parcel Map. 3. All relocation and/or alteration of existing utility lines shall be the responsibility of the developer. • 4. The subdivider shall offer for dedication to the Public Public Utility Easements at the following locations: a. Six (6) feet along the street frontage of each lot (parcels 1 through 4) . b. Five (5) feet on both sides of any existing PG&E facilities to remain in place. 5. A grading and drainage plan prepared by a registered civil engineer shall be submitted to the. Community Development Department for review and approval by the Community Development and Public Works Departments, prior to the issuance of building permits. 6. An encroachment permit shall be obtained from the City of Atascadero Public Works Department prior to the commencement of public improvement construction, and an inspection agreement shall be signed guaranteeing that the work will be done and the inspections will be paid for 7. 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 modifications after constructions. 8. The subdivider shall extend Cortez Avenue from Maleza Avenue to the northeasterly property line of Parcel 4, as designed • by Cuesta Engineering (1989) . A City Standard cul-de-sac shall be installed at the terminus of the road improvement. 9. Construction of the public road improvements shall be completed prior to the recordation of the final Parcel Map. 10. All public improvements shall be covered with a 100% Performance Guarantee and a 100% Labor and Material Guarantee until construction is deemed substantially complete, and by a 10% Maintenance Guarantee to remain in effect until one (1) year after substantial completion. 11. Offer to dedicate to the City of Atascadero the following right-of-way: Street Name: Cortez Avenue Limits: Any right-of-way necessary for the construction of Cortez Avenue inclusive of all slopes, shoulders, and public utilities. 12. Offer to dedicate to the City of Atascadero the entire "remainder" parcel, as proposed. 13. The subdivider shall be responsible for the installation of a new fire hydrant, and associated water limes, where the proposed common access meets the proposed Cortez Avenue • extension, or as approved by the City Fire Marshall. All fire hydrant improvements shall be installed, to the approval of the City Fire Marshall, prior to the recordation of the final Parcel Map. 14. Building permits shall be applied for, approved, and a final inspection shall be received for each lot. At that time, each of the septic/leachfield systems shall be individually approved. Any changes deemed necessary, including but not limited to the re-orientation of the leachfields and expansion areas to follow the contours of the natural topography, shall be implemented. 15. Two (2). Oak trees, in at least 15-gallon containers, shall be planted on the project site to serve as replacements for the one (1) 4-inch Oak proposed to be removed (these replacement trees are shown on the tentative parcel map) . The tree to be removed shall remain until the building permit necessitating its removal is issued. The replacement trees, then, shall be planted prior to the final inspection pursuant to that permit. 16. A final Parcel Map, in substantial conformance with the approved tentative map and in compliance with all conditions set forth herein, shall be submitted for review and approval • in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and the City' s Subdivision Ordinance prior to the recording of the final Parcel map. • a. Monuments shall be set at all new property corners by a Registered Civil Engineer or Licensed Land Surveyor, as required by the Land Surveyors Act and Subdivision Map Act. Monuments set within any road right-of-way shall conform to City Standard Drawing M-1. b. Pursuant to Section 66497 of the Subdivision Map Act, the engineer or surveyor shall notice the City Engineer in writing that the monuments have been set. C. A recently updated preliminary title report shall be submitted for review in conjunction with the processing of the final Parcel map. d. A preliminary subdivision guarantee shall be submitted for review in conjunction with the processing of the final Parcel map. e. Offers of dedication shall be completed and recorded prior to, or simultaneously with, the recordation of the final Parcel Map. 17. 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-27-90.con • EXHIBIT J DRAFT ORDINANCE ORDINANCE NO. TPM #27-90 AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF • ATASCADERO AMENDING MAP 7 OF THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAPS BY REZONING THAT CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS LOT 3, PINE MOUNTAIN PARK OF ATASCADERO, RECORDED IN BOOK 4 AT PAGE 76, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS, FROM LS TO LS (PD7) (ZC 05-90: NOAKES/RRM DESIGN GROUP) 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 January 15, 1991 and has recommended approval of Zone Change 05-90. 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 7 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 as and shown on the attached Exhibit A which are hereby made a part of this ordinance by reference. Lot 3, Pine Mountain Park of Atascadero, recorded in Official Records in Book 4 at Page 76, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California. Section 3. Publication. The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published once within fifteen (15) days after its passage in the Atascadero News, a newspaper of general circulation, printed, published, and circulated in the City in accordance with Section 36933 of the • Government Code; shall certify the adopting and posting of this ordinance and shall cause this ordinance and this certification together with proof of posting to be entered into the Book of Ordinances of the City. Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and effect at 12: 01 a.m. on the 31st day after its passage. On motion by and seconded by , the foregoing Ordinance is approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: DATE ADOPTED: By: ROBERT LILLEY, Mayor City of Atascadero, California • • ATTEST: LEE DAYKA, City Clerk RAY WINDSOR, City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: ARTHER R. MONTANDON, City Attorney PREPARED BY: HENRY ENGEN, Community Development Director • • CITY OF ATASCADERO EXHIBIT A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ZONING MAP • DEPARTMENT ZONE CHANGE 10105-90 34 L INA 1 % 7 ITCH � S ( FH ) ApPRoX.) R . F f 1 �. O Y ` ,, .. W SON Q _ �` 11, _W- T•• .�.^v /• \ a R, F Ycr 1 c t T r_ r � 1 ® — (FH� AV L� �r�srtitl � J�/ � w7 (P 3 RM �' r/� l ``�r EXHIBIT I -- Conditions of Approval Tentative Parcel Map #27-90 Lot 3, Pine Mountain Park of Atascadero .(Noakes/RRM Design Group) January 15, 1991 REVISED BY PLANNING COMMISSION 1/ 15/91 • CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. Water shall be obtained from the Atascadero Mutual Water Company. Water lines, electric power, gas, telephone, and cable television services shall be stubbed to the right-of- way line of each lot, and all facilities to distribute such services shall be provided according to the requirements of the responsible utility companies. All of the aforementioned utilities shall be installed underground, and shall be installed prior to the paving of- the Cortez Avenue extension (to each lot) . 2. All existing utility, pipeline, open space, or other easements are to be shown on the final Parcel Map. If there are building or other restrictions related to the easements, they shall be noted on the final Parcel Map. 3. All relocation and/or alteration of existing utility lines shall be the responsibility of the developer. 4. The subdivider shall offer for dedication to the Public Public Utility Easements at the following locations: a. Six (6) feet along the street frontage of each lot • (parcels 1 through 4) . b. Five (5) feet on both sides of any existing PG&E facilities to remain in place. 5. A grading and drainage plan prepared by a registered civil engineer shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval by the Community Development and Public Works Departments , prior to the issuance each building permit. Said grading and drainage plans shall include substantial evidence to verify that no additional surface water will flow onto properties to the south. 6. An encroachment permit shall be obtained from the City of Atascadero Public Works Department prior to the commencement of public improvement construction, and an inspection agreement shall be signed guaranteeing that the work will be done and the inspections will be paid for. 7. 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 modifications after constructions. • 8. The subdivider shall extend Cortez Avenue from Maleza Avenue to the northeasterly property line of Parcel 4, as designed by Cuesta Engineering (1989) . A City Standard cul-de-sac shall be installed at the terminus of the road improvement. 9. Construction of the public road improvements shall be completed prior to the recordation of the final Parcel Map. 10. All public improvements shall be covered with a 100% Performance Guarantee and a 100% Labor and Material Guarantee until construction is deemed substantially complete, and by a 10% Maintenance Guarantee to remain in effect until one (1) year after substantial completion. 11. Offer to dedicate to the City of Atascadero the following right-of-way: Street Name: Cortez Avenue Limits: Any right-of-way necessary for the construction of Cortez Avenue inclusive of all slopes, shoulders, and public utilities. 12. Offer to dedicate to the City of Atascadero the entire "remainder" parcel, as proposed. 13. The subdivider shall be responsible for the installation of • a new fire hydrant, and associated water lines, where the proposed common access meets the proposed Cortez Avenue extension, or as approved by the City Fire Marshall. All fire hydrant improvements shall be installed, to the approval of the City Fire Marshall, prior to the recordation of the final Parcel Map. 14. Building permits shall be applied for, approved, and a final inspection shall be received for each lot. At that time, each of the septic/leachfield systems shall be individually approved. Any changes deemed necessary, including but not limited to the re-orientation of the leachfields and expansion areas to follow the contours of the natural topography, shall be implemented. This condition need not be met prior to the recordation of the final Parcel Map. 15. Two (2) Oak trees, in at least 15-gallon containers, shall be planted on the project site to serve as replacements for the one (1) 4-inch Oak proposed to be removed (these replacement trees are shown on the tentative parcel map) . The tree to be removed shall remain until the building permit necessitating its removal is issued. The replacement trees, then, shall be planted prior to the final inspection pursuant to that permit. • 16. A final Parcel Map, in substantial conformance with the approved tentative map and in compliance with all conditions set forth herein, shall be submitted for review and approval in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and the City' s • Subdivision Ordinance prior to the recording of the final Parcel map. a. Monuments shall be set at all new property corners by a Registered Civil Engineer or Licensed Land Surveyor, as required by the Land Surveyors Act and Subdivision Map Act. Monuments set within any road right-of-way shall conform to City Standard Drawing M-1. b. Pursuant to Section 66497 of the Subdivision Map Act, the engineer or surveyor shall notice the City Engineer in writing that the monuments have been seta C. A recently updated preliminary title report shall be submitted for review in conjunction with the processing of the final Parcel map. d. A preliminary subdivision guarantee shall be submitted for review in conjunction with the processing of the final Parcel map. e. Offers of dedication shall be completed and recorded prior to, or simultaneously with, the recordation of the final Parcel Map. 17. 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-27-90.con • -10- MINUTES EXCERPT - PLANNING COMMISSION — 1/15/91 • 7b. —change "sidewalk" to "walkway" "14. Three (3) additional parking spaces are required to serve the residents, sta , and visitors. " "16. In phased projects, construction rmits must be obtained and substantial work erformed for at least one approved building, or substantial progress made toward constru ion of all pub - on( improvements. A one y r time extension may be granted. . . . . " "17. The four (4) existing s' gle family residences currently for rent not part of the Atasca- dero Christian Ho development, shall be removed prior to issuance of any building permit. ' Commissioner John n asked for an amendment to the motion to add 8 to reflect that occupants be limited in age o age 60 or older. • The amendme t to the motion died due to lack of a second by ommissioner Kudlac. , The mo on carried 4: 3 with the following roll call vote* A S: Commissioners Kudlac, Hanauer, Johnson, and Highland NOES: Commissioners Lochridge, Waage, and Chair- person Luna C issioner Johnson stated he is voting for this project but oted his opposition to the reduction by 12 units. Mr. DeCamp advised that no appeals should be filed until there is a final site plan that has been acted on by the Planning Commission. 2. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 27-90/ZONE CHANGE 5-90: Application filed by David and Brenda Noakes (RRM Design Group, agent) to amend the existing LS (Special Recreation) zoning to include a PD7 (Planned Development • No. 7) Overlay Zone along with associated tentative parcel map to divide 21. 66 acres into four parcels for single family residential use with a remainder parcel of approximately 17. 3 acres to be offered for dedication to the City for parkland/open space use. Subject site is located at the Cortez Avenue extension (Lot 3, Pine Mtn. Park) . -11- • Mr. Kaiser presented the staff report which focused on issues including minimum lot size, density, planned development overlay, etc. Staff is recommending approval of the zone change and parcel map requests subject to certain conditions. Mr. Kaiser offered modifications to Conditions #5 and #14. Commissioner Waage inquired what the proposed recreational parcel can be used for. Parks, Recreation, and Zoo Director, Andy Takata, provided a background on this matter. The use of this area initially would be proposed to be undeveloped open space and natural habitat, basically as a buffer between any existing residential and future development. At the present time the Department is reviewing a trails plan in which different trails are being looked at throughout the City. He added that it is important that the City acquire any appropriate open space that the community can to prevent any further development of these properties. Commissioner Hanauer asked how far away from Pine Mountain Stadium this parcel of land is. Mr. Takata replied that it is at least two acres away from the Stadium. Commissioner Johnson offered that there is over a 200 foot rise in ground elevation in between with the peak being approximately 1290 • feet. Public Testimony - Jeff White with RRM Design Group, agent for the applicant, stated that a sensitive approach was taken for the map design. due to the site ' s unique physical character, and explained why the planned development was applied for. Chairperson Luna recalled that one of the problems he had when considering the Barrett and Larson subdivisions was the Standard Oil pipeline and asked how close the pipeline is in relation to one of the proposed parcels. Mr. White responded that the proposed residence as shown is outside of the pipeline' s 20 foot easement. The proposed driveway has been designed such that there is no excavation over the top of that pipeline. Eric 'Greening, 7365 Valle, stated that the project is basically a likeable one and likes the open space that the City would be getting. He added there are some beautiful trees and likes the way the map has been designed to avoid removal. Mr. Greening indicated there could be a problem with drainage as it might rapidly come off the steep part of the mountain. He pointed -out that with the site' s orientation and location, • the use of passive solar heating systems (facing southeast, protected from the north and west) might be an excellent place to encourage that type of energy efficiency. -12- Mr. Greening asked that if the open space land is acquired by the City, would the City have any more power to control the offroad vehicle activity in these areas. Dave Johnson, 5420 Maleza, stated he likes the project but expressed concern with water runoff from the higher areas. He voiced his feeling that two home sites would be better than four and felt that the one half acre lot splits were an after- thought to make a little more money off the project. Mary McTaggart, 5200 Maleza, expressed her objection to the proposed one half acre parcel sizes, and felt that the benefit to the City (acquiring the open space) would be brought about somewhat at the neighbors' expense since these proposed lots are in their backyard. She expressed concern with the drainage as her lot is in a low spot. Mrs. McTaggart also commented that since the lots along Pinal are being developed and since the northwest side of this parcel does not abut any existing City property, the only access left to the open space would be from the end of Cortez or from the railroad. She asked what provisions the City would make for people using • this land (hiking, etc. ) as this particular project cuts off access now. Virginia Gregory, 5220 Maleza, spoke on the steepness of the hill and expressed opposition to the one half acre lot size. She voiced her feeling that two homes would be compatible with the area, but not four. Ms. Gregory also pointed out that if two story homes are built, they will block her view of the mountain. Irene Bishop, 7151 Serena, stated that although she under- stands Mr. Takata' s viewpoint conceptually, she felt this proposal is similar to "let' s make a deal" , and it sets a dangerous precedent of chopping up and subdividing Pine Mountain. She suggested that the existing zoning remain as is and find an appropriate use for it that way. Eric Greening, clarified what routes the offroad vehicles take to get up to the top of Pine Mountain. He added it is a problem and would affect the proposed recreational parcel. Dave Johnson said the reason recreational vehicles do not use the major portion of the area is because there is no way that you can even get a dirt bike in through that area as it is too steep. He further stated that any trail system through that area would have to be a series of switchbacks cut into the sides of the hill. Mr. Johnson further stated there is considerable wildlife that live on the hill; and that some indepth planning will need to be made in order to accommodate this area -as a parkland. -13- • MOTION: By Commissioner Lochridge, seconded by Chairperson Luna and carried 7:0 to extend the meeting past 11: 00 P.M. Mr. White stated that the culvert proposed for the parcel map east of the project is designed to take all of the water coming down away from the units to the south and take it towards the railroad. He added that the soil was tested and calculated to insure adequate percolation. Chairperson Luna referenced Mr. Greening' s comments about passive solar and asked Mr. White if RRM Design Group will be following through and construction of the homes. Mr. White responded that at this time, there are no house plans. He agreed that the orientation of the mountain is very good for passive solar and has excellent access to the sun for most of the day, although no specific building design was reviewed to take advantage of this aspect. - End of Public Testimony - In response to query by Commissioner Kudlac pertaining to • useable area for public land, Mr. Takata stated that realistically, the use will be basically open space and. natural habitat, with the possibility of switchbacks for the trail system would be another use. The City would receive approximately 17 acres for the open space. Mr. Takata explained the importance of dedication of this land which almost guarantees that the open space will remain for many years to come. Discussion followed concerning the difference between open space easements versus open space dedication. Mr. DeCamp pointed out that in the last five years, he has reviewed three, perhaps four other alternative -development scenarios for this property. This is the first of those scenarios that did not attempt to take advantage of the top of that hill for two to three building sites. Mr. DeCamp further stated that there' is no guarantee, if this proposal is denied, that a proposal for homes on top of the hill would not be approved. Commissioner Waage indicated that by the City acquiring the open space, this relates to the trade-offs related to planned developments. Commissioner Highland said staff states it well in the report • that this is exactly what is envisioned in the PD overlay category. In this case, the City does get a substantial gain in return for permitting a couple of parcels that are less than what the underlying zoning would call for. He commented that he hoped that this might be the first step for the City in acquiring the bulk of Pine Mountain. - 14- • In response to inquiry by Chairperson Luna, Mr. Decamp responded that the minimum lot, size per leach field stand- ards, is established by the Water Quality Control Board which is typically nothing less than one half acre. Commissioner Johnson stated he has a problem with reconciling what has already been set down in the Zoning Ordinance as minimum 1 1/2 acres with septic systems. He added that he doesn' t feel that the planned development overlay is a proper method to use to get around subdivision and zoning laws; the City is not benefitting by approval of the project. Commissioner Waage disagreed noting that this is what a planned development is designed for, and realizes that the tradeoff is a fairly good deal for the City. Commissioner Kudlac inquired if taxes would be assessed if the property is unbuildable. Mr. DeCamp remarked that if the assessor can determine that the property is unuseable, it will not be taxed at a high rate. He cautioned whether the rest of the 17 acres is unuseable as he has seen some viable proposals for the top of the hill. Commissioner Kudlac noted his concurrence with Commissioner Waage as he does not like the one half acre lot size either, but this is a compromise that the City can make and he could support. MOTION: By Commissioner Highland and seconded by Commis- sioner Hanauer to recommend approval of Zone Change 5-90 and Tentative Parcel Map 27-90 with the Findings of Approval in Exhibit H and Conditions of Approval in Exhibit I as amended: 5. A grading and drainage plan prepared by a registered civil engineer shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval by the Community Development and Public Works Departments, prior to the issuance of each building permit. Said grading and drainage plans shall include substantial evidence to verify that no additional surface water will flow onto properties to the south.' "14. Building permits shall be applied for, approved, and a final inspection shall be received for each lot. At that time, each of • the septic/leachfield systems shall be individually approved. Any changes deemed necessary, including but not limited to the re-orientation of the leachfields and expansion areas to follow the contours of the natural topography, shall be implemented. -15- This condition need not be met prior to the recordation of the final Parcel Map. • The motion carried 6: 1 with Commissioner Johnson dissenting. A-2: Approval of Minutes of Regular Planning Co 'ssion December 18, 1990. Commissioner Johnson apologized in that the inutes he was referring to were from December 4th, 1990. MOTION: By Commissioner Highland, seco ded by Commissioner Johnson and carried 7: 0 to a rove item A-2. C. INDIVIDUAL COMMENT 1. Planning Commission There was nothing to report 2. City Planner i Mr. DeCamp advised ,,the Commission that the League of California Cities wh l be conducting their annual Planning Commissioners Inst' tute in Monterey on March 20, 21, and 22. Meeting adjourned a 11: 20 p.m. MINUTES RECORD BY: PATRICIA SHEPPHARD, Admin. Secretary MINUTES AP OVED BY: STEVEN L. DECAMP, City Planner • ORDINANCE NO. 218 AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO AMENDING MAP 7 OF THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAPS BY REZONING THAT CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS LOT 3, PINE MOUNTAIN PARK OF ATASCADERO, RECORDED IN BOOK 4 AT PAGE 76, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS, FROM LS TO LS(PD7) (ZC 05-90: NOAKES/RRM DESIGN GROUP) 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 January 15, 1991 and has recommended approval of Zone Change 05-90. 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. 218 7. - The proposed plans offer certain redeeming features to compensate for requested modifications. Section 2. Zoning Map. Map number 7 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 as and shown on the attached Exhibit A which are hereby made a part of this ordinance by reference. Lot 3, Pine Mountain Park of Atascadero, recorded in Official Records in Book 4 at Page 76, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California. Development of said parcel shall be in conformance with the provisions of Planned Development Overlay Zone No. 7, and consistent with the approved Master Plan of Development as shown on 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 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 ORDINANCE NO. 218 EXHIBIT A M COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ZONING MAP DEPARTMENT • SALINAS — •. l� L F H') E CA — o / ffl s .ate ` �u cq i� 01Mi1 SON A (F H R 4 y o \ .F. p �F ,,( FH o v CITY OF ATASCADERO ORDINANCE NO. 218 • \ „ ,:...- COIbLMUNM D EVELO PMEN 1 0EPA RTN, EV iT EXHIBIT - MASTER PLAN, pg. 1 \\,�� ', \ cam- - � r � •+"�`� 77-7 IN 1/1 j..1\� - /\��%��i��sl� TEVTAT IVE ��/Gi^ /ij �� - < ii ili I 1 `r%.:�•:-',.�� ...... . PARCEL MAP AT 90 - 235 ATASCADERO.CAUTORMA 10 CITY O F RTAS CAD ERO ORDINANCE NO. 218 �-. COttiML LAITY D EVELO PMEN7 0EPARTI►1ENT EXHIBIT B • MASTER PLAN, pg. 2 � tel• 1 ' ~ / � 711-r ... MEETN2/91 AGENDN DATE //I ITEM# •�� CITY OF ATASCADERO cyte it L�Sf COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT November 29, 1990 Michael S. Krout Attorney At Law 1264 Higuera P .O. Box 1028 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 Subject: Appeal of Condition of Approval : TTM 2-90 ( 1145 E1 Camino Real) • Dear Mr. Krout: This is to formally advise of the Council ' s action of November 27 , 1990, to continue consideration of your appeal of the separate water meters requirement on this condominium conversion to the Council' s meeting of February 12, 1991 . In agreeing to continue the matter:, t1le Coullc it Accepted your offer to waive any statutory response time on making their decision . Should you have± any further communications that you wish to ] ticor- porate into the agenda packet for the next meeting, please ser►d them to me by February 4 , 1990 . Sincerely,. 1�*— S -- Henry Eng Ir Community Devel ment Director City of Atascadero HE :ph CC: Richard Montanaro • 6500 PALMA AVENUE ATASCADERO, CA 93422 Stiddin;f`K tm-IMI)41-1.14W ManninW.IMS)161-5015' Fn(m"rnrnh(NIQ 461•SO.M N—tor IMq 41-1."1 C tv Fw On%)41-14)NM REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Item No. 4: - Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date : 11/27/90 & 2 /112/91 File No: TTM 2-90 From: Henry Engen, Community Development Director 44, SUBJECT: Appeal by Michael S . Krout on behalf of Richard Montanaro of Condi- tion of Approval ( separate water meters) proposed by the Planning Commission in order to convert 64 multi-family residential rental units to air-space condominiums ( 11145 El Camino Real ) . RECOMMENDATION: Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission' s recommended • Conditions of Approval . BACKGROUND : On October 16 , 1990 , the Planning Commission approved this request for condominium conversion subject to seven (7 ) Conditions of Approval, including Condition No. 1 , which required the installa- tion of individual water meters for each unit. As indicated in the attached Letter of Appeal, dated October 29 , 1990 from Michael S . Krout on behalf of Mr. Montanaro and supplemented by his letter of November 8 , 1990, the applicant is appealing the individual water meter condition. Notwithstanding the contention in the Latter of Appeal, the impo- sition of individual water meters as a condition of condominium conversion has been City policy since March 1985 . (Approval of the referenced Las Lomas conversion without same was in error) . This policy is cooperatively administered by the Mutual water Company and the City in the interest of providing self-sufficiency for each unit and to encourage conservation by making individual owners responsible for the costs of water use. The Water Compar►y has indicated that they would mandate individual meters as a condition of this proposed conversion. ALTERNATIVE : The City Council has the discretion to uphold the appeal . HE :ph Encls : Letter of Appeal - October 29 , 1990 Supplementary Letter of Appeal - November 8, 1990 Planning Commission Staff Report - October 16 , 1994 Planning Commission Minutes Excerpts - October 16 , 1990 cc : Michael S. Krout Richard Montanaro Bob Hamilton (Atascadero Mutual water Company) MICHAEL S. KROUT P.E A LAW CORPORATION Z ATTORNEY AT LAW O C T 30 1 9 9 3 • 1264 HIGUERA STREET PO.BOX 1018 CCVM'U'h;TY - SAN LUIS OBISPO.CALIFORNIA 93406 805/544.1137 TELECOPIER WS/544-2111 HAND-DELIVERED October 29, 1990 Atascadero City Council 6500 Palma Avenue Atascadero, CA 93422 RE: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 2-90 : 1145 EL CAMINO REAL Honorable Members of the City Council of Atascadero: Our office represents Richard Montanaro, the Applicant for the tentative tract map in connection with the above-described property. The purpose of this letter is to give notice of Mr. Montanaro ' s appeal of condition number 1 of the Conditions of Approval imposed by the Atascadero Planning Commission in its Decision rendered at a public hearing held on October 16 , 1990 . Enclosed herewith • You will find my check in the amount of $100 . 00 for the appeal fee . We appeal the decision of the Atascadero Planning Commission, which imposed as a Condition of Approval the requirement that separate water meters be established for each unit prior to the recording of the final map, on the following grounds : ( 1 ) The imposition of a specific Condition of Approval which requires separate water meters to be established for each of the units is not permitted pursuant to the provisions of Government Code 566427 . 2 and Civil Code §1372. Government Code §66427 . 2 provides in relevant part that unless the applicable general or specific plan of the city or county considering a conversion of existing buildings into condominiums contains definite objectives and policies in the form of an ordinance directed to the conversion of existing buildings into condominium projects, the city or county is prohibited from imposing special requirements as a condition to such approval . Civil Code §1372 provides that unless a contrary intent is clearly expressed in the local zoning ordinance, such ordinances shall be construed to treat like structures, lots, parcels areas and/or space in a like manner. ( 2) By imposing a requirement that separate water meters • ADMITTED TO PIUCTICE IN NEW YORK STATE 19'0 ADMITTED TO PIACTICE IN NEVADA 1970 ADMITTED TO PRACTICI IN CALMOANIA 072 Atascadero City Council October 29, 1990 • Page -2- be established for each unit prior to recording the final map, the Planning Commission of the City of Atascadero is treating the Applicant ' s project in a manner which is different than the treatment accorded to a similar set of structures that is an apartment project as contrasted with a condominium project. There is presently no ordinance which has been adopted by the City of Atascadero relating to the conversion of apartment projects to condominium projects. It is therefore outside the power of the Atascadero Planning Commission to require that the Applicant install separate water meters to each unit as a condition for recording of the final map. ( 3 ) In the absence of the enactment by the City of Atascadero of a general or specific plan which is directed to the conversion of existing buildings into condominium projects, the City is without the power to impose requirements and conditions upon such conversion which are greater than the requirements or conditions that are imposed upon the construction of a similar apartment project not being constructed • as condominiums . The City of Atascadero has never required separate water meters as a condition to construction of an apartment project and thus, pursuant to the provisions of Government Code §66427. 2 and Civil Code §1372, is without the power to require the installation of separate water meters prior to recordation of the final map for the Applicant' s conversion of the apartment project at 11145 E1 Camino Real to condominiums. ( 4 ) The water to the apartment project is provided by the Atascadero Mutual Plater Company, a non-governmental entity. The City of Atascadero does not have the power to control the conditions upon which water service by this private company is provided to the project. ( 5 ) The City of Atascadero has never required in previous projects, as a condition to conversion from apartment project to condominium, the installation of separate water meters to each unit. As an example, the City of Atascadero previously approved the conversion of the Las Lomas Apartment Project, which itself is serviced by one water meter to the entire project. Atascadero City Council October 29, 1990 • Page -3- ( 6 ) The installation of separate water meters to the apartment project at 11145 E1 Camino Real would require that the plumbing system in the buildings comprising the units be completely torn apart and reinstalled. This would involve the removal of the walls and ceilings of individual units and require that the present occupants of the project live elsewhere while the work is being performed. The units will become essentially uninhabitable during the completion of the work. ( 7 ) The cost of installing separate water meters will result in a significant increase in the cost to the Applicant and thus result in an increase in the selling price of the units with the result that the objective of providing a lower cost form of owner-occupied housing will be frustrated . ( 8 ) The physical site upon which the apartment project is presently located will be completely torn up while the work would be underway. ( 9 ) Government Code §66427 prohibits the City of Atascadero from imposing as a condition of approval, a requirement • which it does not impose upon apartment projects . In this regard, the only cases which have upheld the right of a government agency to impose specific conditions applicable to condominium conversion that are not otherwise applicable to a similar apartment project are those which involved a specific zoning ordinance which is directed to conversion of condominiums and setting forth the criteria upon which the city or county has established for such conversion. Thus , for example, where the local government has enacted a conversion ordinance imposing specific criteria on condominiums, it may apply those criteria to condominium conversions . Thus , in the case of Soderling v. City of Santa %Ionica ( 1983 ) 142 Cal.App3d 501 ; 191 Cal.Rptr 140 , the Second District Court of Appeal upheld the right of the City of Santa Monica to enact as a part of its condominium conversion ordinance, a requirement that a building be brought up to Code and smoke detectors installed upon its conversion from an apartment project to condominiums . In Griffin Development Co. v. City of Oxnard ( 1985 ) 39 Ca1. 3d 256 ; 217 Cal.Rptr 1, the California Supreme Court upheld a locally enacted condominium conversion ordinance that required a special use permit for conversions of condominiums and • Atascadero City Council . October 29, 1990 Page -4- imposed size requirements for the individual units, and requirements concerning numbers of parking spaces and the location of parking spaces in connection with the unit and a requirement for guest parking spaces as well as the location of such parking spaces for each unit. In each of these cases, the Court was presented with a fact situation where the local governmental entity had, prior to tentative map application, enacted a specific condominium conversion ordinance which addressed the particular requirements which were sought to be imposed by the local agency as a condition to condominium conversion. Such a situation is precisely not the case with regard to the Applicant ' s project. Although the City of Atascadero has expressed the need for a condominium conversion ordinance, there is not one which is presently enacted. Absent the enactment of a condominium conversion ordinance which would give the City of Atascadero the right to impose specific criteria for the conversion of existing apartment projects to condominiums, the City has no right to treat a condominium conversion in a manner which is different from an apartment • project. ( 10 ) The Applicant ' s tenative map, as already approved by the City Council for Atascadero in its reversal of the denial by the previous Planning Commission decision, presently meets all of the necessary legal requirements to permit it to be recorded subject only to the conditions of approval numbered 2 through 8 , all of which are conceded by the Applicant to be appropriate either under the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act or existing local ordinances of the City of Atascadero. Once the Applicant has established compliance with these conditions, the Applicant is entitled to have the final map recorded. ( 11) The refusal of the City of Atascadero to remove condition number 1 requiring separate water meters for each unit as a condition of approval would subject it to liability to the Applicant for all damages which he would suffer because of its imposition of a condition that the City is not permitted to impose by reason of the authority which is relied upon hereinabove. In this regard, the Applicant relies upon the California Supreme Court case of Shelter Creek Dev. Corp. v. City of Oxnard ( 1983 ) 34 Cal3d 733 , • Atascadero City Council • October 29 , 1990 Page -5- 195 Cal .Rptr 361. In that case, the California Supreme Court ruled that the City of Oxnard derived its sole power to regulate conversions of condominiums from the Subdivision Map Act rather than its local general zoning power, in the absence of a specific ordinance in effect at the time of its consideration of the application for conversion of the project to condominiums . Should any member of the Council have any questions concerning the foregoing matters, our office is available to assist or address any specific questions . Based upon all of the foregoing, we would respectfully request that the City Council remove condition number 1 from the Conditions of Approval which have been sought to be imposed by the Atascadero Planning Commission contrary to the authority relied upon hereinabove. MICHAEL S. KROUT A Law Corporation BY: A�&M r CHAEI ROUT • Attorney fo _� Ap icant RICHARD MONTANARO MSK/sh cc : Richard Montanaro enclosure ( check for $100. 00 ) 99 : 3 • MICHAEL S. KROUT A LAW CORPORATION / ATTORNEY AT LAW F *+N !S' y ` 1264 HIGUERA STREET P.O.BOX 1028 -N 0 V 9- SAN LUIS OBISPO,CALIFORNIA 93406 WS/5"2137 CC r"iiiviurMt; .. TELECOPIER WS/544-2111 HAND DELIVERED November S , 1990 Atascadero City Council 6500 Palma Avenue Atascadero, CA. 93422 Re : Tentative Tract Map 2-90 : 1145 El Camino Real Honorable Members of the City Council of Atascadero: This letter is intented. to supplement our letter of October 29 , 1990 which sets forth the grounds for appeal of Condition No. 1 of the Conditions of Approval imposed by the Atascadero Planning Commission in its decision rendered at the public hear- ing held on October 16 , 1990 . • Our letter of October 29 , 1990 which included the appeal fee set forth eleven separate grounds for appeal . we now supplement those grounds with the additional points set forth hereinbelow: ( 12 ) In the absence of a Condominium Conversion Ordinance, the City of Atascadero is prohibited from applying more recent land use controls to structures that woulc: otherwise be protected by non-conforming use provisions. (Municipal Regulation of Condominium Conversions in California, 53 Southern California Law Review 225 at 260 ) . Simply put, the foregoing statement prohibits a city or other governmental entity which does not have a Condominium Conversion Ordin- ance enacted, from imposing as a condition of conversion, a more recently enacted land use control or requirement that was not in place when the project which is ' sought to be converted was built. In this case, there was no require- ment at the time of construction of the apartment project at 1145 E1 Camino Real, that there be separate water meters to each of the units . The attempt to impose that condition at the present time represents an illegal act on the part of the City of Atascadero. In the absence of a Condominium Conversion Ordinance the City is prohibited from imposing this control. As noted in the arguments set forth in our letter of October 29 , 1990, such stricter controls would run afoul of Civil Code §1372 . ADMITTED TO PRACTICE IN NA YORK STATE 1970 ADMITTED TO PRACTICE IN NEVADA 1470 ADMITTED TO PRACTICE IN CAYPORNIA 1972 Atascadero City Council November 8 , 1990 Page -2- • In conclusion, it is submitted that any attempt by the City of Atascadero to regulate this condominium conversion in a manner which is different than it would be regulated, were it an apart- ment project, will be held illegal and invalid. In an analysis of the provisions of Civil Code §1372, (which, at the time of the writing of the article was numbered§13'70 , please refer to explanation following the excerpt from the article) set forth in the article "Municipal Regulation of Condominium Conversions" in California ( supra ) the author states the following: Civil Code §1370 was apparently designed to ensure that laws regulating multi-unit structures are applied in the same manner regardless of the form of ownership. Arguably, the criteria for "like" structures under §1370 are only the physical characteristics of the buildings ; under this interpretation, permanency alone would not be a sufficient dissimilarity to avoid the like treatment requirement. Furthermore, a common sense reading of the like treatment requirement suggests that laws be applied in like manner to apartments and condominiums regardless of whether this treatment may eventually result in condo- miniums becoming more permanent than apartments. [Footnote 231 at 2631 . It should be noted, parenthetically, that the reference to Civil Code §1370 hereinabove as discussed in the article appearing in Southern California Law Review has made use of the renumbered Code Section which is now §1372. That particular section of the Civil Code was renumbered from its former number §1370 . Refer- ence in the aforementioned article utilized the older Code Section number. The language in the Code Section however is identical. The original §1370 was enacted in 1963 and the renumbering cf the statute was done in 1985 . The language however was not changed when the statute was renumbered. Mr. Montanaro has no dispute with the proposition that if a Condominium Conversion Ordinance was in effect, the City of Atascadero would have the power to impose specific conditions upon his condominium conversion which accord it different treat- ment than were it an apartment project. The City of Atascadero however does not have in place a Condominium Conversion Ordin- ance which it can rely upon for the purpose of imposing specific conversion conditions which treat Mr. Montanaro ' s conversion differently than an apartment project. • • Atascadero City Council November 8 1990 Page -3- Accordingly, it is respectfully requested that the City Council remove Condition No. 1 from the Conditions of Approval which have been sought to be imposed by the `Atascadero Planning Commi- sion in violation of the provisions of Civil Code §1372 and Government Code §66427 . 2 . MICHAEL S . KROUT A Law Corporation �Jwj 011�an'�� ' BY;s MIC EL KROUT Attorney or Applicant RICHARD MONTANARO MSK:sb cc: Richard Montanaro ITEM : 3-1 N E M 0 R A M D U M TO: Planning Commission FROM: Doug Davidson, Senior Planner DATE: October 16 , 1990 SUBJECT: Tentative Tract Map 02-90 (Montanaro/North Coast Engineering) BACKGROUND: On June 19 , 1990, the Planning Commission considered the application of Richard Montanaro to convert an existing 64-unit multiple family project at 11145 E1 Camino Real into airspace condominiums . The staff recommendation at that time was to establish criteria for condominium conversions prior to taking action on this proposed map. After two subsequent meetings , the action of the Planning Commission was to deny the Tract Map as inconsistent with the goals of the General Plan. However, on • a;;eal at the City Council on September 11 , 1990 , the request for a condc.,r, inium conversion was granted. It was the advice of the City Attorney, that lacking a condominium conversion ordinance, the City could not legally deny the proposal. Hence, the item was referred back to the Planning Commission to consider appropriate Conditions of Approval. Finally, on September 25 , 1990, the City Council adopted an urgency ordinance, placing a moratorium on condominium conversions until such an ordinance is adopted. ANALYSIS: In these proposed airspace condominiums, the units become available for individual ownership, while the open space and parking areas are owned in common. The application included a draft copy of proposed CC&Rs (Conditions, Covenants , and Restrictions) to provide for continued maintenance of common areas and enforcement of private agreements . None of the other responding agencies had concerns about this proposed conversion, with exception of the Public Works Department. Condition # 5 requires erosion control to prevent a longstanding problem of water and soil runoff into the street. This will be part of a comprehensive landscape plan in order to obtain compliance with Zoning Ordinance landscape standards , as • well as provide increased amenities for future homeowners. • It has been noted that the building design does not conform with the Appearance Review Guidelines . However, staff does not believe that architectural "add-ons" are desireable. Such a requirement would refute one of the major purposes of the City' s appearance standards - that of creating architectural features as an integral part of the overall building design and not as an afterthought. Thus , these structures are better left as is , with new landscaping to improve the appearance of the site. RECOMML?NDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Conditions of Approval in Exhibit B. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Tentative Tract Map 02-90 Exhibit B - Conditions of Approval • EXHIBIT ACITY OF ATASCADERO r „ ,• COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TRACT MAP • DEPARTMENT TENTATIVE TRACT mAp 02-90 s .•.w a rrr.r.w .'oma» '• i . ..,;• ; I .� e� OWNER'S STATEMENT R\i•. .'!SC OI+t T� +- .� I � I srar a V[Tra,r..e�ft V yr iorrq a 4.l'.at•• fi' ��uo.rti ' � __ `� � � W.bfln ]II �1CY�rr[•^ w r.r +�.unraflm.abr a+�1c.M own ! � +t•rrarr•for sow�fta�+r..e=afau •� y .. .• e+t em n orrttrat w wtp "MUM na/Ya6 WQAX,JrTO ENGINEER'S STATEMENT 4. • •lrl, r �. • qn n•R %Mt%"f j 41t MST ar r•r+t for Rtie oa..Q ar ft an or y � •.\ ... w ryq. ! i r+e.ar.rt�La .a»r.l is TENTATIVE MAP FOR _4. TRACT 1411 •�� _ Z \\ Q q\ sU�" �' FOR CONOOMINIUM PURPOSES M 144 Cin OF ATASCADERO. COUm r OF M SAN LUIS OOSPO• STATE OF CAUf01M1A (. ' \ \ ",NO ' ++r Ifti.T rrL .►T/f + e[MC. A/ApMLOM Ot •rOR1rd.Oi LOT `\ \\ \ t•• �+r 4new...r �� a �sj oo, •r0 414tGOtRO .000.0..0 t0 '+t rrtR \• \. ,ti,K ,.0 RT R.A. ••Awa wM.L. -41110.4CCOA0L0 ALL' i+. ,\ ROOT a OI MAPS AT r• - �.�'• u >,.(caro:x s.ro SZk VI\iiNlMAP +r►Y RNAA�1 •MI.K�n1�r.IGri�t wO+r� w .�.wiw r w� ir•r•r .rrn.re�•,w .w.• w•,��.r+ v NWNORrM COASr fWlJvffXfAV .o ft••l crR/ M raf rrf.1`1 T«w Mf.. -- - •.r�•r.r.wn •nI yr ,rf r•1•M f•R M ••0•rfrff rf' 74 �•LL • • EXHIBIT B - Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract Map 02-90 11145 E1 Camino Real (Montanaro/North Coast Engineering) October 16, 1990 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Separate water meters for each unit shall be established prior to the recording of the final map. 2 . All existing and proposed utility easements, pipelines , and 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. The open space lots shall be designated as Public Utility Easements. 3:' The applicant shall establish Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the regulation of land use, control of nuisances, and architectural control of the site and the building (s) . a. These CC&Rs shall be submitted for review and approval - by the City Attorney and the Community Development • Director prior to the approval of the final map. b. These CC&Rs shall be administered by a Condominium Owners Association. 4. A soils report or an Engineer' s certification stating that existing soils on the site are adequate to support the proposed structure as per Chapter 70 , subsection (e) of the Uniform Building Code shall be provided prior to the recording of the final map. 5 . A complete site landscaping plan, prepared by a registered landscape architect, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to recording of the map. The landscape plan shall address the street frontages of the property, both E1 Camino Real and Viejo Camino, particulary the drainage and erosion problems at those locations . The landscaping shall be corrected to the satisfaction of the Community Development Deaprtment and City Engineer prior to recording the map. 6. A final map, in compliance with all conditions set forth herein, shall be submitted for review and approval in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and the City Lot Division Ordinance prior to recordation. • a. Monuments shall be set at all new property corners by a Registered Civil Engineer or Licensed Land Surveyor as required the Land Surveyors Act and the Subdivision Map AcCt. Monuments set within any road right-of-way shall conform to City standard M-1 . b. Pursuant to Section 66497 of the Subdivision Map Act, the enginner 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 submitter for review in conjunction with the processing of the final map. 7 . Approval of this tentative map shall expire two years from the date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted pursuant to a written request prior to the expiration date. • PAGE TWO MINUTES EXCERPT - PLANNING COMMISSION - 10/16/90 • B. HEARINGS, APPEARANCES, AND REPORTS Chairperson Luna announced that if the Commission has no objections, he would like to and consideration of Item B-2 at 10 : 00 p.m. so there will be time to consider the revisions to the Tree Ordinance and Tree Standards . If there is further comment on B-2, another public hearing will be held. 1 . TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 2-90 : Request filed by Richard Montanaro to convert an existing sixty-four ( 64 ) unit multiple family project into airspace condominiums . Subject site is located at 11145 EI Camino Real . Doug Davidson presented the staff report summarizing the background involved with this item. He noted that the City Council upheld the applicant's appeal approving the tract map for lack of a condominium conversion ordinance. Mr. Davidson suggested an amendment to condition 05 to be more specific regarding staff' s intent on the onsite landscaping (before last sentence) : "Landscape plan shall also address any unlandscaped areas and focus on providing foundation planting along the base of all buildings . " • Commission questions and discussion followed. Colilmissioner Waage noted several additional trash bins in the area which are not enclosed. Mr. Davidson responded that a condition could be added to provide additional trash enclosures . Commissioner Highland offered that a statement could be added to require all trash containers to be enclosed. Mr . Davidson noted the Zoning Ordinance contains this requirement but would be helpful to add this as a specific: condition since it has been noted as a problem. Commissioner Hanauer commented there should be some time considerations in light of the present no-watering ban which was recently imposed. Mr. DeCamp stated the applicant had indicated during the initial public llearings t11at it would be some time before Ile was really to actually file the filial luau. He suggested a bonding option. It was noted that neither the applicant nor representative was present to testify. • PAGE THREE MINUTES EXCERPT - PLANNING COMMISSION - 10/ 16/90 In response to question, Mr. Davidson stated the bonding option has not been discussed with the applicant. Mr. DeCamu added that the bonding alternative would provide more flexibility and could be incorporated into the conditions in case the watering restriction remains . Discussion ensued relative to whether this item should be continued in light of the applicant ' s absence. The Commission expressed dismay that neither the applicant nor representative was present to discuss the conditions of approval . MOTION: By Commissioner Johnson and seconded by Commission- er Lochridge to continue the hearing on Tentative Tract Map 2-90 to November 6 , 1990 . The motion was defeated with the following roll call : AYES : C01110lissiOners Johnson, Lochridge and Chair- person Luna TiGES : Commissioners KudlaC, Hanauer, Highland-, and .Waage • Commissioner Highland commented that there was no doubt that the applicant knew this hearing was tonight and he had every . opportunity to be here . He added the applicant has a respon- sibility just as tine Commission does . Discussion continued. MOTION: By Commissioner Highland and seconded by Commis- sioner Hanauer to approve the Conditions of Approval for Tentative Tract Man 2-90 with the following amendlllents : "5 . A complete site landscaping plan; prepared by a registered landscape architect, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Community Development and Public: works Departments prior to recording of the map. The landscape pian shall address the street fron- tages of the property, both El Camino Real and Viejo Camino, particularly the drainage and erosion problems at those locations . Landscape plan shall also address any landscaped areas and focus on providing foundation planting along the base of all buildings . The landscaping sha be corrected, or the quivalent bond/guarantee posted, to the satis- faction of the Community Development Deuartment • and City Engineer prior to recording the map. 118 . All trash containers shall be enclosed per Citv Or nance. ' PAGE FOUR MINUTES EXCERPT - PLANNING COMMISSION - 10/ 16/90 The motion carried with , the following roll call : AYES : Commissioners Highland, Hanauer, Johnson, Lochridge, Kudlac and Chairperson Luna NOES : None ABSTAIN: Commissioner Waage 2 . GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 1E-90/ZONE CHANGE 4-90 : Consideration and adoption of the General Plan ' owtltown Element" and Zoning Ordinance amendments to in, elllellt the plan . Commissioner Johnson stepped down from the C )mission due to a possible conflict of interest. In presenting the staff report, Mr. De mp stated this is a unique opportunity to adopt a new E'lelll it to the General Plan. Because of the positive nature o this Element and the positive changes that can be mad' , the downtown area could become a more attractive and mor desireable place to shop, etc. Mr . OeCanlp then summar ' ed the Downtown Master Plan • which focuses oil seven lat use policies to guide the development and revitalizat on of the downtown arca. He also discussed the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments to implement the Downtown' d//ter Plan. Commission questions/and discussion followed. Chairperson Luna complimented Mr. DeCanlp and Staff for an excellent repor . In response o question from Commissioner Hanauer , Mr . DeCam p reference the larger parcels in the downtown area which are in singl ownership. Comm ' isioner Waage questioned whether the bowling alley should be ade an allowable use rather than a conditional use . Mr. 0 *** autoresponded that the principal reason for the use being a conditional one is that the size of structures normally associated with uses like the bowling center require Planning Commission review rather than ad111i11istrativrly reviewed. Commissioner Highland stated that the one constraint to the downtowns revitalization is the current parking restrictiulis . He added that this area should be considered for some type of parking exemption with an in-lieu ordinance that would require participation in the parking district as parking can be developed. Discussion ensued relative to requirements for offsite parking for retail uses . Mr. DeCamp commented changing parking requirements would be 5005 EL CAMINO REAL - P.0. BOX 6075 - ATASCADERO, CA 93423 - (805)466.2428 • ATASCADERO MUTUAL WATER COMPANY November 26 , 1990 ESTABLISHED 1913 RLC;71 I cD'4-07 2 7 'Qon City of Atascadero Community Development Department 6500 Palma Avenue Atascadero, CA 93422 Attention: Mr. Henry Engen Community Development Director Re : 11145 E1 Camino Real Condominium Conversion Dear Mr. Engen: I have contacted our legal advisors , Sinsheimer, Schiebelhut and Baggett, Inc. for comments regarding the above condominium con- version appeal. • The firm would not comment on the City' s specific authority to require individual metering, however, Atascadero Mutual Water Co. can make this requirement. Excerpts from the attorneys ' response are as follows : "An apartment house need not have separate meters since it is the owner of the apartment house, not the tenants , who owns the AMWC located capital stock. However, there is no "overall" owner of a condominium complex. Each unit is separately owned. To obtain service from AhiWC , AMWC can require that each unit owner be an AMWC shareholder and that each be separately metered. We have reviewed Mr. Krout ' s letter of October 29 , 1990 addressing this subject . It is Mr. Krout ' s position that the City of Atascadero cannot specifically require separate water meters as a condition of approval. We offer no opinion on whether the City has this authority. However, as Mr. Krout concedes in his letter, AMWC is a private water company which is entitled, under its bylaws , to impose its own rules and requirements as to the use and distribution of its water. Accordingly, AMWC could require, that separate meters be in- stalled for each unit as a condition of providing water service • even if the City lacks such authority. Mr. Krout' s chief concern appears to be that the City must treat apartments and condominiums the same. We assume that Mr. Henry Engen, City of Atascadero page 2 the City conditions approval of new construction on the builder meeting AMWC' s service requirements . The City would be acting in a consistent manner if it imposed the same requirement on the proposed conversion. We would therefore request that the Council deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission' s recommended conditions of approval . Sincerely yours , Robert E. Hamilton SUPERINTENDENT REH/pm • MEETING AGENDA DATE-211 9/91 ITEM# December 27, 1990 • TO: RAY WINDSOR,CITY MANAGER CITY OF ATASCADERO The residents that have signed this petition would like the City of Atascadero to leave EI Centro Street, Atascadero a closed end street as it is now. They do not want through traffic on this narrow street,and it does not provide good access to El Camino because of high traffic draw of the Lucky Plaza. The undersigned also do not want trees cut down and removed on EI Centro as well as their quiet rural environment, PLEASE LEAVE OUR STREET CLOSED1111 NAME ADDRESS 3. S-' 4. itazKz s 6. _a C 7. 1% ?v fi- CgJ—tz AJAs g. < < C�7 9. nJJ > > ►� cS , 10. g 117 SS- =�- l gra 12 £�30 13. _ 15. 16.' 17. 8. /rG D?rA17c� 7a/• J. 19. 20. 21. c 22. 23. 24.,(ff n of�G 5,10 /4/) d. 26. ' 9 S y o .f /J i v i �iv ell. MEMORAMDUM TO: Ray Windsor, City Manager February 4, 1991 FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director }. , SUBJECT: Offsite Road Improvement Requirement: Tentative Tract Map 21-89/Conditional Use Permit 09-89 (Bunnell) BACKGROUND: On October 9, 1990, the City Council approved a revised use permit and tract map to permit a 72-unit residential project at 8555 E1 Corte Road. One of the conditions of approval was to provide for off-site road improvements to extend E1 Centro through to LaLinia to mitigate environmental effects of the traffic generated by the 72 units (see attached map) . The neighbors have subsequently sub- mitted a petition indicating that they're opposed to the extension of El Centro Street. PROCESS: In order to accommodate the objection of the neighbors, it would be necessary for the conditional use permit and tentative tract map to • go back through the development review process, i.e. , a Planning Commission hearing and a City Council hearing to modify the condi- tions of the map. The finding that led to the approval of the condition linking adequacy of circulation to off-site road improve- ments would also have to be modified. Initiation of such a process would have to be by the applicant. It should be noted that the El Centro, LaLinia, E1 Dorado intersec- tion is platted but incomplete, and the prospects of the City undertaking this work at some future date to make the road system more adequate is unlikely. Further, the Fire Chief has indicated that he' s in full support of providing that connection to enhance emergency responses in the area. DISCUSSIONS WITH MR. BUNNELL: Mr. Bunnell recently' contacted me at home and apologized for not getting back to you in the timely way, and expressed his wariness about re-opening project review. I acknowledged that the project as it stood now represented a simple ministerial act to implement, i.e. , compliance with the Conditions of Approval. He indicated he would be in touch but his feeling at the time was to proceed with the project as. conditioned. HE:ph Encl: Location Map T , aaRr1 C', .o i E H) ; a ;L$ &4 ON v, rr�►uapa• J � • \Co •9Oa� // �� r �C,, �, P zo /.rte I •` t RSF • ' �. RSF,Z jr . ER MF. (��p f �RSF'Z(PD7) R S F�C z'EEF• it F� � i�J,rf� I C�IHT p �°� / �•, � /. _JET • r,_ � �� r qs • � `°P�`'•9 `S��`�� RMF F. 6-� t P �-�; MEMORANDUM TO: Ray Windsor, City Manager FROM: Greg Luke, Director of Public Works C3L SUBJ: Analysis of Traffic Flow Pattern from Bunnell Property DATE: February 6, 1991 Background: The subject property was analyzed by Mr. W.P. Heath, in a Traffic Report dated April 1990. Any traffic study is an inexact science; this situation is particularly subjective. The primary concern identified by the report is the traffic loads at the intersections of local roads (Arcade, Cascada, Solano, and La Linia) and El Camino Real. The traffic volume that will be generated by Chalk Mountain Village and the surrounding area is far less than the carrying capacity of the local roads themselves. When I refer to the roads carrying capacity I am speaking in a physical, engineering sense. A small increase of traffic on local roads will impact a neighborhood eventhough the road is carrying traffic well below its maximum capacity. Analysis: iThe proposed concept for handling traffic is to redistribute the 500 trips per day from the project to Cascada, Solano and La Linia, with the purpose of reducing the traffic load of any one street intersection with El Camino Real. ' To accomplish this diffusion of traffic requires that E1 Centro be opened to Cascada. This route will accommodate the traffic with northbound destinations (approximately 200 trips per day) . If this travel path is not provided, that is E1 Centro not opened to traffic, it is anticipated that most of the traffic will be directed to La Linia and Solano. Some traffic may use the poorer quality route: Santa Fe to E1 Dorado to Arcade to travel north. It is impossible to predict the popularity of this route. If the E1 Centro connection is eliminated it may be wise to consider a single access to the project, including a traffic signal at E1 Camino Real. Instead of diffusing traffic, traffic would be focused onto one point on E1 Camino Real and a traffic signal would control access. Further study would be required to determine if the signal should be placed at Solano or La Linia. Let me repeat. The critical traffic control problem is at the intersections of local roads with E1 Camino Real. The problem can be solved either by diffusing traffic from the project or directing travel patterns onto one street and controlling all turning movements from that street. Staff has supported the proposal to diffuse the traffic by constructing an E1 Centro to Cascada route for northbound traffic. If this route is not constructed, virtually all of the. traffic from the project will ingress or egress E1 Camino Real from either Solano or La Linia. Left unimproved, these intersections will be overloaded during peak traffic conditions. The E1 Centro area is experiencing severe drainage problems that should be corrected by either constructing a street or installing drainage pipes. If Council should decide not to open E1 Centro, it would be advisable to construct drainage facilities through the undeveloped portion of the road right-of-way. For comparative purposes, I roughly estimate the cost to construct E1 Centro would be approximately $75,000. Drainage pipes would cost about $35, 000. It would seem appropriate for the developer to apply the $40, 000 net cost difference to improve either La Linia or Solano since these streets would be carrying additional traffic. Staff would need to work with the traffic engineer to determine the type of improvements that would be made to La Linia or Solano to accommodate the additional traffic. It is reasonable to conclude however that a $40, 000 contribution from the developer would not be sufficient to make the additional road improvements necessary to mitigate the traffic flow on La Linia or Solano. Therefore, the Council may be faced with the problem of funding additional road improvements. Conclusions• • 1. The proposed method of diffusing traffic from the project by opening E1 Centro is expected to minimize the impact of any one intersection at E1 Camino Real. 2 . Not opening El Centro will cause periodic overloading of the Solano and La Linia intersections at El Camino Real. 3 . Directing traffic along one path (either Solano or La Linia) combined with a traffic signal at El Camino Real is an alternate solution. 4. Local roads between the project and E1 Camino are simply conduits for traffic. The Chalk Mountain Village project will not overload any of these roads, regardless of the alternative route chosen. How much traffic each local road will receive is governed by the method chosen for traffic to access E1 Camino Real, ie. diffused or direct. • • REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: C-2 From: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date : 2/12/91 SUBJECT: Economic Development Committee - Roundtable BACKGROUND: At its last meeting, Council indicated the areas from which the formation of the committee would be involved in economic development . The ccmmittee ' s composition will be as follows : Mayor Financial institutions : Santa Lucia National Bank Mid State Bank Bank of America tour members of the Chamber of Commerce Two members of the Bi'siness Improvement Association Two members-at-large We would expect the financial institutions to be represented by Stan Cherry, Mike Kirkwood and John Cotsenmoyer; the Chamber by Bill Mazzacane, Executive Manager, Ray Johnson, President , Dave Vega, Economic Development Committee Chairman and a fourth individual , whose name was not available at the time of agenda preparation; the two B . I .A. members of John Himes and Jack Porter . At this point , we need Council to indicate who tze two mem- bers-at-large will be in order that we can begin convening the committee. Under separate cover, staff will be forwarding to Coun- cil some suggested policy statements related to the committee ' s involvement . RW: cw