Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda Packet 11/27/1990
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 NOVEMBER 27, 1990 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; ands. disapproval . Copies of the staff reports or other documentation relating to each item of business referred to on the agenda are on file in the office of the City Clerk, available for public inspection during City Hall business hours . The City Clerk will answer any questions regarding the agenda. RULES OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: Members of the audience may speak on any item on the agenda. ' * A person may speak for five (5)> minutes No one may speak for a: second time until everyone wishing to speak has had an opportunity to do so. * No one may speak more than twice on any item Council Members may question any speaker; the speaker may respond but, after the allotted time has expired, may not initiate further discussion. * The floor will then be closed to public participation and open for Council discussion. Call to Order Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call City Council Comment: Proclamations : - "Bill of Rights Day and Week" , December 15, 1990/ December 9-15, 1990 111991 - The Year of the Lifetime Reader" 1 , COMMUNITY FORUM: The City Council values and encourages exchange of ideas and comments fromou the citizen.n. The Community Forum. period is provided to receive comments from the public on matters other than scheduled agenda items . To increase theeffectiveness 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. APPROVAL OF CHANGE ORDERS FOR THE POLICE FACILITY (Cont Id from 11/13/90) 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 . NOVEMBER 13, 1990 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 2. RESOLUTION NO. 122-90 - AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 9-86 RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE AMAPOA-TECORIDA DEVELOPMENT IM- PACT FEE 3 . TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 23-87, 11605 SAN MARCOS - Request of a time extension in order to complete the required conditions of approval (Vaughan) 4 . TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 39-87, 9240 VISTA BONITA Request of a; time extension in order to complete the required conditions of approval (Frederick/Cuesta Engineering) 5 . TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 10-90, 10480 & 10660 SANTA ANA Request to subdivide two existing lots of 28.37 acres into four lots' containing approx. 7 .01 and 7 .16 acres (two lots of each size) (Catalina Oaks II/Vaughan Surveys) 6 TENTATIVETRACT MAP 21-90, 9375 MUSSELMAN Request to sub- divide one lots into six airspace condominiums and a common area (Backes/Cuesta Engineering) 2 B. HEARINGS/APPEARANCES: 1 . TREE REMOVAL REQUEST, ARDILLA ROAD (Staff Requests <Continu- ance) A. Consideration of appeal by Joan O'Keefe of Negative Dec- laration posted for proposed extension of Ardilla Road B. Consideration of tree removals to permit extension of: Ardilla Road to Graves Creek Road 2 . TREE REMOVAL REQUEST, 9600 SAUSALITO, <FOR PURPOSES OF HOME CONSTRUCTION (Lisa Jones-Osten) 3. TREE REMOVAL REQUEST, 8505 SANTA CRUZ, FOR PURPOSES OF HOME` CONSTRUCTION (Steil) 4 . CONSIDERATION OF REVOCATION OF CITY BUSINESS LICENSE #90216, R&S PLUMBING, 8052 CRISTOBAL (Continued from 9/25 & 10/30/90) 5. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 2-9,0, 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 RENTAL UNITS TO AIRSPACE CONDOMINIUMS C. REGULAR BUSINESS 1 . AUTHORIZE PURCHASE OF PHOTOCOPIER FOR POLICE DEPARTMENT 2 . UNDERGROUND CONVERSION OF UTILITIES 3 . REQUEST TO MEET AT 6:00 P.M. DECEMBER 11TH FOR CREEKWAY MAP- PING STUDY SESSION D. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION; 1 . City Council: A. Committee Reports (The following represents ad hoc or standing committees. Informative status reports will be given, as felt necessary. ) : 1 . City/School Committee 2 . North Coastal Transit/S .L.O. Area Coordinating Council 3. Traffic Committee 4 . Solid/Hazardous Waste Mgmt. Committee 5 . Recycling Committee 6 . Economic Opportunity Commission 7 . B.I.A. 2 . City Attorney , 3 . City Clerk 4 . City Treasures 5 . City Manager (* SEE OVER) 3 * NOTICE: THE CITY COUNCIL WILL ADJOURN TO A CLOSED SESSION FOR DISCUSSION CONCERNING PERSONNEL MATTERS; FROM SAID CLOSED SESSION, THE COUNCIL WILL ADJOURN TO 6:00 P.M. , THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 1990 FOR A JOINT STUDY SESSION WITH THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION TO RECEIVE THE CONSULTANT'S PRESENTATION OF THE FISCAL PLANNING MODEL. 4 • P R O C L A M A T I O N "Bill of Rights Day and Week, 1990 WHEREAS, The. President of the United States proclaims December 15 , 1990 as Bill of Rights Day; and WHEREAS, The first ten amendments , historically known as the Bill of Rights , provide the foundation of America' s freedoms guar- anteed in the United States Constitution; and WHEREAS, The 199th anniversary of the document defending human rights will be observed on Saturday, December 15 , 1990; and WHEREAS , The Bicentennial of the Constitution of the United • States of America Committee of the California State Society of the National Society Daughters of the American Revolution, joins with the Sons of the Revolution in the State of California, the American Legion, Masonic Lodges , Sons of the American Revolution, the Bill of Rights Commemoration Committee, and other official, religious and patriotic groups in the observance of Bill of Rights Day and Week, 1990, recognizing the importance of the Bill of Rights; and WHEREAS, It is valuable that all Americans renew their aware- ness of this vital document; NOW, THEREFORE , be it resolved that the Atascadero City Coun- cil does hereby designate December 9 - December 15, 1990 as "Bill of Rights Week", inviting all Americans to take a closer look at these amendments which guarantee our fundamental rights as citizens and to join in the public commemoration. ROBERT B . LILLEY, Mayor City of Atascadero, CA Dated: November 27 , 1990 • • P R O C L A M A T I O N 111991 - Year of the Lifetime Reader" WHEREAS, An informed and literate citizenry is vital to a strong democracy; and WHEREAS, At every stage of life, from early childhood through old age, reading helps individuals to meet their responsibilities to country, community, family and self by providing personal enjoy- ment, knowledge and information; and WHEREAS, A growing number of our citizens, from children to adults cannot read well or do not read, often with devastating effect on their health, happiness and ability to contribute to society; and • WHEREAS, The Atascadero Friends of the Library have resolved to observe 1991 as "The Year of the Lifetime Reader" , as desig- nated by The Librarian of Congress, James H. Billington; THEREFORE , I Robert B. Lilley, Mayor proclaim 1991 as , "The Year of the Lifetime Reader" and encourage parents , educators , librarians, government officials and members of the book community to observe such with appropriate programs, ceremonies and activities aimed at giving our citizens at every age and in every walk of life the gift, the joy and the promise of reading. ROBERT B . LILLEY, Mayor City of Atascadero, CA Dated: November 27 , 1990 MEET t1T/27/ 01 90 ffEM�C8;% DATE.Ross Levin MacIntyre & Varner Architects • RODNEY R. LEVIN AIA KENNETH H. MACINTYRE AIA JAMES R. VARNER AIA November 21, 1990 Chief Bud McHale Atascadero Police Department 5505 E1 Camino Real Atascadero, CA 93422 Re: Atascadero Police Services Facility 5505 E1 Camino Real Atascadero, CA 93422 Dear Chief McHale: In an effort to further explain the reasons for certain additional costs incurred by the City during the construction of the above, I reviewed the changes outlined in change orders #1 & #2 and established categories depicting the reasons which generated these changes, and computed the percentages of the • overall cost of changes related to each category. I. Change order costs generated by State/City: These changes to the original construction documents were created by late plan check responses by both the State Board of Corrections and the City of Atascadero Building Department. Cost of changes: $23,710.00 35% of total C.O. #1 & #2 II. Change order costs generated by unknown building/site conditions: These items were incurred throughout the construction as certain portions of the building and site revealed them. Cost of changes: $18,275.00 27% of total C.O. #1 & #2 III. Change order costs generated by building users: During the construction the police dept. observed certain details and equipment which they required changes in an effort to meet their operation needs better. Cost of changes: $ 9,157.00 14% of total C.O. #1 & #2 • 1129 Marsh Street, San Luis Obispo, California 93401 (805) 543-1291 Chief Bud McHale • November 21, 1990 Page 2 IV. Change order costs generated by architect/engineer to upgrade construction: Some of these changes provided better design solutions, other filled in areas not defined in the construction documents. Cost of changes: $26,793.00 39% of total C.O. #1 & #2 V. Change order costs generated by combined user-architect: These items were found to be important to further improve certain details/user needs. Cost of changes: $ 3,919.00 5% of total C.O., #1 & #2 Bud, it is most important to note that the total cost of change orders (C.O. #1 & #2 equal to $67,477.00) resulted in a 5. 2% increase in the original low bid of $1, 289,000.00. In keeping with good fiscal practices for combined remodel and new • construction of public works projects, the City should provide for a contingency of 8-12%. I hope the above information is helpful. I am looking forward to meeting with you and the City Council to answer any further questions which may arise. Yours,- uly, 1-5 �ODNEY R. LEVIN, AIA RRL:mkb [88021121.90] • • REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: A-10 Through : Ray Windsor , City Manager Meeting Date: 11/13/90 From : Mark Joseph , Administrative Services Director SUBJECT: Approving Change Orders for the Police Facility RECOMMENDATION; By motion, staff recommends Council approve the two change orders for the Police Facility, totaling $67,521. .95. BACKGROUND: The attached report reviews the overall Police Facility project cost , and provides detailed information regarding the two change orders. Sufficient funds exist within the construction fund . As the architect ' s memo notes, the two change orders represented slightly over 5 percent , which is not an unreasonable • amount for a project of this size. c` chnorder • • M E M O R A N D U M Date: October- 26 , 1990 To : Ray Windsor , City Ma-nager- From : Mark Joseph , Administrative Services Director Subject : Final Police Facility Costs The purpose of this memo is to briefly review the final police facility costs . Total estimated costs are listed below: Acquisition Costs $640 , 000 Construction Costs (Wysona only - includes Change Orders i ? 2 ) 1 , 356 , 500 Miscellaneous Costs Architect . - • Furnishings , Related Expenses .) 160 ,2x_% r TOTAL $2 , 156,700 The attached report from the Architect summarizes the construction costs and provides detail relating to the change orders . Overall , the change orders increased, the total construction costs five percent , an amount ir;cluded ithe Original C .O.P . budget . A variety of sources were used to pay fo � these cost's . These sources are included in the next table : C .O. P. Bond 1 ,356, 01) Revenue Sharing 39 1 ,50f-) Developer Agreement ( Bordeaux ) 235,0C' } Developer Impact Fees 136 ,'+00 General Fund 37,3�%C? TOTAL $2 , 156 ,`700 • • Some additional notes are useful regarding the Developer impact Fee portion. The rule for General Purpose Projects is to apply 35 percent of the cost to new development ( based on 65 percent build out of Atascadero when Developer Fees were adopted ) . Under this formula , approximately $750,000 should be supplied from Developer Fees ( $2 , 150,000 X . 35) . Of this amount . $136,400 was used directly , lea• ing some $615,000 for C.O.P . gond Debt Service, or $51 , 000 annually (over a 12 year period : 198e-- 2000) . A Council item should be prepared in order to formally authorize the two Change Orders. (Although no additional monies are required . ) This will help resolve any concerns the Treasurer might have as the Trustee for the Construction Fund. • • Ross Levin & Macintyre Architect 1129 Marsh Street, San Luis Obispo, California 93401 (805) 543-12 DATE: September 21, 1990 TO: Larry Wyso g Construction FROM: Rod Levin RE: Atascadero Police Facility Attached is Change Order No. 2 signed by this office and ready for your signature and the City's approval. It is most interesting to note after adding up the numbers that the total of reported change orders equaled 5.1% of the original construction cost and the final cost per square foot of building • area equaled approximately $112.00. These figures include all site work and the specialty electronics systems. Furnishings and the cost of the site are not included. We would appreciate your forwarding the Change Order No. 2 application to the City. Thank you. [iii MOS\813020921.90] • MEMORANDUM PAGE 1 of 2 CHANGE OWNER ORDER ARCHITECT CONTRACTOR ER AIA DOCUMENT G701 FIELD ❑ • OTHER ®State Board of Corrections PROJECT: Atascadero Police Services FacilitCHANGE ORDER NUMBER: Two (2) (name, address) 5505 El Camino Real DATE: 9-20-90 Atascadero, CA 93422 TO CONTRACTOR: Larry Wysong Construction ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO: 8802 (name, address) 8485 Los Osos Road CONTRACT DATE: 11/16/89 Atascadero, CA 93422 CONTRACT FOR: General Construction The Contract is changed as follows: BULLETIN # --------------------- ---DESCRIPTION _ __ADD DEDUCT ----------- ---- 8 1. A/B methods of attaching stone veneer. -0- Deleted -0 2. Add studs for attic draft stop . 2292.00 3. Change door #2 from H.M. to aluminum . 1183.00 4. Install outlet for irrigation controller 244.00 5. Omit factory keying for cylinders . 183.0 9 1. Re-pin stone veneer southwest elevation . 6128.00 2. (N) door/frame opening #3 on previous Bulletin -0- -0- 3. Substitute #06L levers for #17 Schlage 507.0 • 10 1. Install soffit over womens lockers. 325.00 2. Raise wall lights and registers in lobby. -0- -0- 11 1. Furnish/install conduit for underground service 3228.00 2. Install doors behind dispatch console. 767.00 Not valid until signed by the Owner, Architect and Contractor. CONTINUED ON PAGE 2 The original(Contract Sum)(Guaranteed Maximum Price)was . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 1,289,000.00 Net change by previously authorized Change Orders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 26,577.00 The(Contract Sum)(Guaranteed Maximum Price)prior to this Change Order was. . . . . . . . . .$ 1,315,577.00 The(Contract Sum)(Guaranteed Maximum Price)will be(increased)(decreased) (unchanged)by this Change Order in the amount of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 40,895.00 The new(Contract Sum)(Guaranteed Maximum Price)including this Change Order will be . .$ 1,356,472.00 The Contract Time will be(increased)(decreased)(unchanged)by ( 2 4 )days. The date of Substantial Completion as of the date of this Change Order therefore is July 20, 1990 NOTE: This summary does not reflect changes in the Contract Sum,Contract Time or Guaranteed Maximum Price which have been authorized by Construction Change Directive. Ross Levin MacIntyre & Varner Larry Wysong Construction City of Atascadero ARCHITECT CONTRACTOR OWNER 1129 Marsh Street 8485 Los Osos Road 6500 Palma Avenue Address Address Address San L is Obi C 934 1 At d o, CA 934,2 Atascadero, CA 93422 BY ,BY O � BY Kenneth H. M cIn re 21 1990 DATE September DATE DATE AIA DOCUMENT G701 • CHANGE ORDER • 1987 EDITION ,• AIA® • ©1987 • THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, 1735 NEW YORK AVE., N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 6701-1987 4- PAGE 2 of 2 BULLETIN # DESCRIPTION T ON ADD DEDUCT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12 1. Install 1/2" CW service to A.C. precoolers 1897.00 2. Install additional class II base at parking. . 2648.00 • 3. Furnish/install duplex outlets stor. #107 157.00 13 1. Additional water line/valve cells 4114/115 . -0- Deleted -0- 2. Construct full ht fire wall at el. panel. 468.00 14 1. Add data outlet in mug/print 4116 . 148.00 2 . Furnish/install additional room signage . 741.00 15 1. Re-locate chain link fence/patch curb. 342.00 2. Fur out wall behind handicap shower . 179.00 3. Furnish/install attic vents . . 6686.00 16 1. Furnish/install 3 computer hubs in ceiling . 139.00 2. Furnish/install remote meter base . 366.00 3. Relocate catch basins/additional storm drain 4557.00 piping northwest side of bldg. 17 1. Furnish/install P.R.V. at irrigation system 106.00 18 1. Change breakers/wires for auto gate and power to cook top / install plug strip . 891.00 2. Repair leak at P.I.V. on fire 1 ne. 884.00 3. Furnish/install sensor loop and laser light at auto gate 1691.00 19 1. Modify landscaping (relocate plants and add some 280.00 plantings • 2. Complete door control circuiting . . 2847.00 3. Change HVAC grilles. 115.00 20 1. Furnish/install stainless steel access cover over 164.00 exterior door lock in detention area. 2. Add tel. outlet in room #126. 148.00 3. Change paint in hold ng cell area to oil base enamel 947.00 2 1. Relocate chain link fence. . . 1017.00 -------------------- TOTALS 41.585.00 <690.00i GRAND TOTAL $40,895.00 RUMV _�R(_:HITECTS CHANGE Q WIN E R ORDER ARCHI'nCT C C)i' F-k c-r C)R FLD S t a OTHER 11 S:� BoRcc! 0� cor-rectiou C 7i-i Y v 1)A'I E4 r ch 2 7, -1990 IC roT<: -it..'1.1��r_.adei-c' C( -N'rRACT DATE LTo-vamLer 16, 1989 84�3 5 )-R: General Const-ftl,t-'On ADD DEDUCT - to tlo, #17t5�3 r 'Otate 86.00 -I- Wls- S 210.00 U i-f e el n ts; 2 4 4'.0 0 J t�I hr. T 4:.7- Q {loo rT-C' reo. iia".. $I' ll-/.Oo rzy a ' 28S,00 Not -walie, until signed by the Owtier, Architect and Oontractor. CONTINUED (j� PAGE 2 . .. . . . . . . . . 1'789'noo.co .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . co�)-21-, Y"��.Tj NJ;DCL-I:wn Eo 01_I,�'- 1 2 1-39 0 00 C 0 Mr scd) L7 the-'4f:f1%1L'rIt of 2,,,5 7 7.00 _N!axft-wan Will be S I tic, lbc-"1acfe-`W,; bv 30 as-af Lhtn(J�rc kftllis 19-90. LIc-Ciwlmla Sum,Crmtmc�.-nmc z wllich 1L41'tf t'tf-_'L ysonc- Ccrast:-,-uct:-'oa Ity ol 4N,-_asccLr_',&ro La- C GONTILACT OF 84,35 Los O_sc,:�' -Road 6" Palma Avenue • :cam.,. : 9 9 s A. 1)'34"22 At-,4 S Lade_7:0 CA 9"42-2 S 3' Lly "Al L 2 4k V Z. Y! L�7 D TE -2 P 1987 -TiE '3j -."-j G701-1987 T 5 1 -iRCHITEUP RU10 L P AGE 2 0 ADD —DEDTICT $3,826.ca N-c- 7-4 L �2,6 78.00 ri waij N.C. /4" Fj��� A, w.-,'re L74ss 0 cl n r i- 879.00 S CUP _-'a. LZ 61,478.00 Z wall 33/A-30 nor- r ,r y 7' q is X 6 0 1<-,-e 01 LOP 0 C CO qu- 437-00 o Ual to 529.00 $2,304.00 — • ice' LLI __v'tjo �y T_j cost not ava!Llable Ll,is Line. 3 0 v 8 185.00 an, ':ema co=' e(il rm 20-1 00 Q: e s barr�_O.r u_ader ?t:r L X304.00 l LL j s as IN put f 224-00 s L_ A-: v P -Eserva-, jVr! f wezt: elev. 5 201.00 1 L 2 6 170AO j dor ja L 1 8 337.CO au __uain= S'.c re r;- rcle-lk wall N.C. 3' ral'c-' POT L $2,600.00 71 0 1 u re ov o�'_ss S'='ad lby genarat�(')J' 750.00 L ' w _ in CQ=- E'?T,!iP- roma tc, `7A 230.00 J 27 _r! r -eci to C P- t;ubmi QM 3 • 9D DEDUCT [1'� . ;rl✓i°'rte( ,. �_=. [19r+r �l 1 J Tti t2 ?fir 7 derearion areaper $9,601.00 U r3cTyca {zi? joint pole �r T"w " -._ t; 4.8` r'Ywood ba-:: boards in elect, _ ,ip, - $ 113.00 O G%c - from Z P_ l--C_t., e -.): :- -Qf - to i'? i: room #136 $3,300.00 t _- Lr -'mac. in 11W of single in •.'l_ P: ilk. ITil 15.0 l•.) .... ..%. Plaol 0-2 ca WAl.i SuY'1'aca « . . N.C. p _1 u 1.r -.t--' aud dow #57 1R f_'!m=- - 6aq ?p. Z.W.. 0137 ' faG' .00 PS - alacmCTt2 f .. L'.J EVAL, i7i1?L S « N.C_ "an"11 Y.T,V- valve W tire spriAklei system per City - Ttspa -i, -r "51" systems 50.00 „ �LL oil `I. ._„'.I( i. ) Pa .y t�.i.on i2.LFA ',�..00 with 1/2 lice Se [a?uz &AD from jobby 1140 por direction if Met .i. 7. a. in jail _'i-a rl.:)V_'"_s Lr� 1i.:-L' of I r l=r =. r u” "ret e to a _ _ c. ca ern in SHIA of One aug ._._rig - . .. $ .�-- MEETIN AGENDA DAT rrEM I .�`L�... ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 13, 1990 Mayor Lilley called the meeting to order at 7: 04 p .m. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilman Shiers. ROLL CALL: Present : CouncilmemLer=_ Shiers , Nimmo , De>:ter , Borgeson and Mayor Lilley Also Present : Muriel Korba , City Treasurer and Lee Dayka , City Clerk Staff Present : Pay Windsor , City Manager ; Art Montandon ,. City Attorney; Mark Joseph , Administrative Services Director ; Henry Engem, Community • Development Director ; Mike Hicks, Fire Chief; and Bud McHale, Police Chief COUNCIL COMMENTS: Councilman Dexter announced that he had just become a ''great- grandfather" . Councilwoman Borgeson noted that: she had r=eceived it letter- from Golden State Developers regarding the possible acquisition of Stadium Park and asked whether the opportunity tc purchase had passed . Henry Engen responded that thcp developers were attempting to determine what types Of uses would be acceptable to t^r� City. Fie reported that he had advised them that they could apply for a Several Plan Amendment for- an alter-rate use or s.ait until adoption of the Parks & Recreation Element . The City Manager indicated that it is rro -- too late to s�-ei< acquisition and the mayor directed staff to schedule the matter as an agenda item to explore the options and determine further Council directicn. PROCLAMATION- Mayor- Lilley read the proclamation for MADW S "Project Red Ribbon" , November 20, 2990 - January 1 , 1991 and presented it to Marigrace Waage . On behalf of Mothers Against Drunk Driving , Ms . • CC11 / 13/90 Page 1 • Waage presented caps to the mayor and city manager . Additionally, she announced that the kick-off ceremony of Project Red Ribbon would be held November 20, 1990 at 8: 30 a .m. at the Police Facility and extended an invitation to all . COMMUNITY FORUM: Sarah Gronstrand , 7620 Del Rio Road , urged that serious consideration be given to the drought situation and suggested the forming of a Council subcommittee to develop an educational water conservation program. A. CONSENT CALENDAR: Mayor Lilley read the Consent Calendar , as follows: 1 . OCTOBER 9, 1990 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 2. OCTOBER 30, 1990 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 3. CITY TREASURER'S REPORT - SEPTEMBER 1990 4. FINANCE DIRECTOR'S REPORT - SEPTEMBER 1990 5. UPDATE ON EMPLOYEE HEALTH INSURANCE • 6. RESOLUTION NO. 121-90 - AUTHORIZING TEST USE AGREEMENT WITH COOPERATIVE PERSONNEL SERVICES 7. ADOPT WORKERS' COMPENSATION POLICY FOR VOLUNTEERS 8. AUTHORIZE DONATION TO THE CALIFORNIA CONSERVATION CORPS 9. AUTHORIZE FACSIMILE SIGNATURES FOR PAYROLL CHECKS 10. APPROVAL OF CHANGE ORDERS FOR THE POLICE FACILITY 11 . AWARD OF BID #90-16 FOR INTERDEPARTMENTAL PERMIT TRACKING SYSTEM 12. AWARD OF BID #90-14 FOR REPLACEMENT OF FIRE DEPARTMENT RESCUE-1 MINI-PUMPER 13. ACCEPTANCE OF FINAL TRACT MAP 1382, VISTA ROAD Finalization of Phase II , Tract Map 820802: 1 (Panorama Oaks II - Ibsen/ Gill /Stewart ) 14. AUTHORIZATION TO REFUND AMAPOA-TECORIDA FEES: CC11 / 13/90 • Page 2 • A. IN EXCHANGE FOR A 20' WIDE DRAINAGE EASEMENT ACROSS THE THREE PROPERTIES a 7220, 7300 & 7340 ATASCADERO AVENUE (Gardner/G. W. Land Co . ) B. IN EXCHANGE FOR THE INSTALLATION OF REGIONAL DRAINAGE FACILITIES BETTER HOMES & GARDENS BUILDING, MORRO RD. & ATASCADERO AVE. ( West/Sewsey-West Constru tion) Councilman Shiers asked that item A-12 be pulled fcr further discussion. Councilwoman Borgeaon requested that item A-10 also be remo,�ed from the Consent Calendar . MOTION: By Councilman Dexter- and seconded by Councilman Nimmo to approval items A-1 through A-9, A-11 , A-13 arid A- _9 ( b ) ; motion carried 5:0. 10. APPROVAL OF CHANGE ORDERS FOR THE POLICE FACILITY Mark. Joseph gave a b,- ief' staff report on the change orders clarifying that Council was being asked to approve two change c:rdE�r representing just over 5V of the contract and confirmed that these changes were deviations from the contract . • CouncllL,vcman Bcrge'=.on asked the Police Chief whether or iICJt thc?!-Fz? h_id L-een. a 5% contingency written into the contract . Chief McHale replied that , a1thOUgh he did not believe that the contract r-eflectec the contingency , he had anticipated that there would be Tome changes. He. reported that the architect had advised that contingencies may range from 3 - 10% of the contract price and indicated that he was pleased that it was held to 5 . 1% for a project of this magnitude. At the mayor ' rec,ue_at , Chief McHale summarized the changes that were in excess of $1 ,000. He explained that most of the changes were be-ause of State Board of Corrections requirements and fire reg+u .ations . Other major changes, he added , included ceiling vents and the necessity to re-pin the stone :veneer on the outside building front for seismic safety . Councilwoman, Borgeson expressed concern for a numl,er of specific charges and stated that she believed some ,of these items should have been planned for by the architect . ^layor Lilley inquired if there was a consensus to continue the Tatter °or a public hearing with the architect present to address the issues, or to approve the change orders . • CC11 / 13/90 Page 3 • Councilwoman Borgeson stated that she wanted to see the contract to determine if there had been a 5% contingency built iii . Mark Joseph reported that staff had added an additional 5': ro the overall budget for the project ; but stated it was not part of the contract . Councilman Dexter indicated that a contingency of this size was not uncommon and spoke in favor- of approving the change order Councilman Shiers remarked that he would like further information on a couple of items . i,ouncilman Nimmo commented that while he did have a couple of minor questions, they were not significant enough to delay approval cf the change orders . Councilworan Borgeson sugge=sted that , rather than hold a pubis hearing , staff be directed to prepare a report for the ne; t meeting that would address some of the Council ' s specific concerns. The mayor asked the i7ity Manager if , assuming it would fit into the schedules of the architect and contractor , the matter could be placed on the next agenda. Mr . Windsor- indicated that it could . MOTION: By Councilwoman Borgeson and seconded by C:]unc: iIman • Shiers to continue the matter until the next regi;-Ma- ly scheduled meeting coupled with an invitation to the a -chitec:t and general Contractor to attend and respond to concerns of the Council regarding the change orders ; motion unanimously passed by roll call vote. 12. AWARD OF BID #90-14 FOR REPLACEMENT OF FIRE DEPARTMENT RESCUE-1 MINI-PUMPER Councilman Shiers pointed out that staff had not recommended the lowest bidder and asked the Fire Chief if the /endor could , in fact , meet the specifications . Brief discussion followed . Chief Hicks e;plained that Central States Fire could not meet bid specifications of delivery within 120 days. MOTION: by Councilman Shie.-s and seconded L'V ounciiwoman Borge=_on to follow staff reco,r,mendation and 3macl. the bid to Fire—Bann Corporation for s1?0 , '9S_ 100 DIU5 tax ; motion carried 5: 0 by roll call vote . CC11 / 13/90 Page 4 • B. HEARINGS/APPEARANCES: 1 . CONSIDERATION OF ESTABLISHMENT OF MANDATORY SOLID WASTE PICK—UP AND CURBSIDE RECYCLING THROUGHOUT THE CITY Mayor Lilley introduced the item and explained that the State had imposed upon local governments Assembly Bill 939 !AB939) mandating local governments to establish a solid waste management plan subject to the approval of State legislature. He reported that the plan must include provisions for each city to reduce its ' solid waste by 25% by the end of 1994 and to further reduce its ' '.total solid waste stream by 50% prior to the year 2000. The mayor added that funding had not been provided . Mayor Lilley announced that the City ' s Recycling Committee has been active and have addressed the challenge imposed by the State, and along with Wil-Mar Disposal , have been exploring options . He explained that some of the issues include a decision relating to mandatory waste pick--up , curbside recycling , "green" ( yard ) waste and defining the City ' s solid waste stream. The mayor stated that there is no free way to meet the legislative mandate and emphasized that it was vital to determine which option was the best way for the City of Atascader-o to meet those requirements. • Councilwoman Borgeson reported that she had heard from many members of the pubiic over the past four days and stated that the Communit", is already recycling . Mari: Jcseph gave a brief overview of the related reports, which included recommendations from the Recycling Committee, staff reports on curbside recycling , mandatory solid waste collection and the extension of Wil-liar Disposal ' s contract ; as .Nell a5 an old appliance disposal service proposal and a rate analysis for Wil-Mar Disposal . Mr . Joseph indicated that staff has recommended that if the contract with Wil-Mar i.s extended , there be some significant contract language changes in order to accommodate both a rate review and clarification of responsibilities regarding mandatory pick-up . In addition, the Administrative Services Director , explained that staff had two primary recommendations: 1 ) adoption of a volume-based rats structure and 2 ) .a thorough review six to nine months after the new rates ai-e adopted . Renee Silber-man, Recycling Committee Chairperson, reported that the committee was recommending that the Council adopt mandatory collection and support a volume based rate structure. , as well as CC11 / 13/90 • Page 5 a curbside 9 program.regY clin rc ram. She described the recommended • curbside pick-up program as a three-bin system which would provide a convenient means for the community to recycle . In addition, Ms . Silberman stated that the committee was eager- to devise wars to recycle all materials , not just those "ith redemption value, and further reported that once a curbside program is initiated it could begin to develop a program for yard waste collection . Ms . Silberman emphasized that solid waste is a community problem and that mandatory pick-up would fairly distribute the cost of waste recycling and disposal , plus allow for monitoring of the waste stream as required by A3939 . She reiterated that the Recycling Committee was in favor of an adjustment to the garbage collection rate structure to provide an incentive to reduce waste and advocated pre-cycling . The committee chairperson also reported that the committee had conducted a small , informal survey to find out if residents of Atascadero are ready for curbside recycling and reported that this survey indicated that the community is willing to participate in curbside recycling for a small fee. Concluding her report , Ms . Silberman thanked the Council for their cooperation and recent appointments to the committee. William J . Douglas, senior citizen of Atascadero , rendered his • protest to mandatory pick-up and reported that because he was on a fixed income the added fee would be a burden to him . Betty Sanders , attorney representing Wil-Mar Disposal , spoke in support of mandatory pick-up and pointed out that one of the functions of a city is to provide for the collection of solid waste. The State, she said , has now given cities a mandate and if it is not met , a fine of $10,000/day will be assessed . Additionally , Ms . Sanders addressed the issue of extending Wil- Mar ' s contract . She reported that if mandatory pick-up and curbside recycling are adopted , Wil-Mar must make expenditures of over $300, 000 and would , therefore, like some kind of guarantee that they will still be in business two years from now. The attorney also reported that Wil-Mar Disposal had been providing garbage pick-up service since 1975 and has do-re a good job over the years with few complaiits about the service . Ms . Sanders , stated that the City is obligated , pursuant to State . law, to encourage solid waste enterprise= and quoted frcm A8939 as it relates to provisions for solid waste handling services. CC11 /13/90 Page 6 Concluding her statements , Ms. Sanders emphasized that mancatory collection is the rule, and Rtascadero is the exception. George 5idbeck , 1969 San Fernando Road , stated that while he was not against recycling or- solid waste reduction , he strongly opposed mandatory pick.--up . Gene Humphrey, San Marcos Road resident , urged the Council not to enforce mandatory pick-up because it represented the taking of one more right . He encouraged the provision of some kind of device for yard clippings . Steve Gordon , 4465 Viscano , expressed his concerns and suggested that the Council study the :natter thoroughly and possibly hold a workshop to look: at options . He stated that he opposed mar-;datory pick-up and the projected 70 increase in rates. Jerry Bond , 4840 Veranc , reported that he recycles and shares garbage pick-up service with his neighbors. He indicated that he, too , opposed mandatory pick-up . Tricia Stanley, 7775 rlorro Road #3 , announced that she was pro- recycling and that ,he strongly supported the recycling of glass , • metal cans , phone gooks , newtspapers, cardboard and aluminum cans . She suggested that the City implement spr- : ng and fall - lean,-up days when residents could have their green waste picked t_ip . Ms . Manley stated that she was in support of the recommendations made by Recycling Committee , but was concerned where she personally could Store a three--bin container in her apartment and asi<ed that the community be giren the option to take their own recyclables in for- redemption. Whitey Thorpe, 8015 Santa Yne4 , referred tc an attempt mane in 1980 by a citizen, Fleily Gearhardt , to provide an alternative garbage pick-up service. He stated the community was denied the choice and proclaimed that competition in business is the ke=y to the american way . Additionally, M- . Thorpe debated comments made by attorney Detty Sanders, strongly opposed mandatory and spoke in support of a proposal by Dennis Bryant to provide a white goods pick-up and disposal service. Vic Smart , 8930 Palomar , reported that he no !anger lses the service=_ of Wil --Mar- and has since elected to take his gvrbage to the dump himself . He acknowledged the difficulty of the present task and pointed out that the community will also have to face the issue of hazardous waste materials control . Mr . Smart stated that he did not bei eve that imposing mandatory pica:-up Nould result in the reduction of solid waste and stressed the need for • CC11/ 13/90 Page 7 • a viable means of control and reduction. In addition, Mr- . Smart asserted that there must also be a decision made as to where some items that are currently non-recyclable are going to be stored . Jerry Clay , 7285 Sycamore , stated that some responsibility snouid be put upon the landfill to recycle materials and spoke against imposing an additional cost to the consumer for picking up recyclables . He noted that he was recycling and that many ethers in the community were as well . Mr . Clay urged the Council to wait on the matter a while and watch what happens . Steve Williams , Ensenada Avenue resident , opposed mandatory pick- up and the removal of a right: to make a choice. He stated that his major concern was for who sets the rates and whether or not: all the programs were mandatory. The mayor called for a recess at 8:50 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 9: 10 p.m. Don Kline, 5300 San Anselmo , proclaimed that mandatory pick-up is another infringement on the god-given rights of freedom and urged Council not to impose it . He indicated that he and many others already recycle. Mr . Kline reported that he had read that Wil- Mar was operating in the "red" and opposed strongly to requiring • that the citizens of Atascadero bring them out it . Lartara Rider , 10150 Sar: Marcos Road , remarked that she had been recycling for over twenty years and spoke in support of mandatory pick:-up and curbside recycling . She suggested that the City communicate with other cities who provide curbside services and asked the community to begin putting pressure on the producers in an effort to cut down on non-recyclable packaging . Russ Wright , 7115 Gregorio Road , stated that he personally was against mandatory pick:-up , but if it were imposed , could support the implementation of a volume-based rate structure. Ron Villarino , 10605 Realito Avenue, stated that while some people do recycle, a large majority of people do not . He reported that Atascadero is the only city that does not have mandatory pick-up and advocated elective curbside recycling . Mr . Villarino stated that the only way to start reducing is to make it convenient for those who presently do not recycle and noted that his experiences have shown that there is not much money to be made in the recycling business. Pe voiced support for allowing the garbage company, because of its ' knowledge , to provide the curbside pick-up service, rather than contracting with a separate private company. CC11 / 13/90 • Page e • Larry Sherwin, 2755 Campo Road , spoke in opposition to mandatory pick-up and expressed concern for the upkeep of the private road that serves his residence and those of other neighbors who jointly paid to have the road put in . In addition, Mr . Sherwin explained that his children collected recyclable materials for- redemption as a way to earn spending money and objected to having that privilege taken away. Roger Cook , 10600 Colorado Road , disputed mandatory pick-up , but urged a volume based rate structure if it is imposed . Pat Kusack , Arroyo Grande resident , spoke on behalf of Atlas Performance Industries . He commented that his company provides roll-cuff refuse services in Santa Maria and the unincorporated areas of Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties and were interested in providing their services to Atascadero . He cautioned , whe=n, and if the contract comes up for renewal or goes out to bid , that there be no mandatory arrangement or exclusive franchise. James Patterson, member- of the Recycling Committee, addressed comments made by ot4ers relating to recommendations made by the committee. He clarified that the proposed curbside service is not mandatory and explained that the recommendation for the • optional service was to provide a convenient , easy to use system for recycling to be used by those who are not currently recycling . Mr . Patterson reported that the programs throughout the county that are the most successful are those that are convenient for people to use . He added that it has been, proven that when there is a curbside recycling program, there is a significant reduction of the solid waste stream. Mr . Patterson , in an effort to clear up any misconceptions about the proposed rate increases, reported that the staff ' s proposal of a one-can service , which would include the option to curbside recycle, would cost $?/month . The current rate , he explained , for one can garbage collection is $S/month , emphasizing that this recommendation did not constitute a 70% increase . He stated that a volume based rate structure is essential and clarified that it was the Recycling Committee who had recommended curbside recycling and mandatory pick-up , not Wil-Mar Disposal . In conclusion, Mr . Patterson stated that the community at large will benefit from a program that will provide a service uniformly to the entire community at a rate that is fairly distributed among the residents of Atascadero . Harry Russell , 3585 E1 Camino Real , stated that he was opposed to • CC11 / 13/90 Page 9 • mandatory pick-up but recognized that sometimes the public is not given a choice. He relayed empathy and support; to the Council for the difficult choices they were faced with . Mike Sanders , 9550 Curbaril , spoke in opposition to mandatory pick-up because it was .just another bill for his small family . Marj Mackey , Recycling Committee member- , spoke on behalf of Mr . John Nelson of Atascadero who opposed mandatory pick-up . She stated that she did not agree with Mr . Nelson but had been asked to relay his opinion. Ms. Mackey stated that she personally was in favor of mandatory pick--up and commented that perhaps the word "universal " could have been used instead of mandatory . She spoke in high regard of Wil -Mar Disposal and asserted that the company has done a (.good .job . She reported that she was supportive of curbside recycling and that Bill Gibbs , of Wil -Mar , has been receptive to the idea for a numbe=r- of years and had simply been waiting for the City to get around to it . David Smith , C.P. A . , addressed the Council. pointing out that Wil- Mar- is not operating in the "red" . He stated that he had provided a cost breakdown in response to the City ' s request and • noted the company ' s profit is lova-return for output . Wil-Mar , he continued is trying to provide a service at a fee and make a Profit . The accountant then shared that he personally does not recycle and asserted that most people in the community also do not . Council Comments : Councilwoman Borgeson clarified that under- A8939, the State may im'nose the $10, 000/day fine if the City does not present an adequate plan and , in addition , the element must have a waste diversion implementation schedule to achieve a 25% redur_tion of the solid waste sent to the landfill by January 1 , 1995 . She noted that there are a number of exceptions and provisions for jurisdictions which cannot meet such goals and a one year er:tension is possible if the city is acting in good faith . Councilwoman Borgeson also clarified that Atascadero is not the only city in the County that does not have mandatory, pick-up . The City of Paso Robles, she explained , has not yet made citywide garbage col .ection mandatory . In addition , Councilwoman Borgeson stated that she agreed that the City mist have a plan in place, but noted she differed with CC11 / 13/90 • Page 10 • staff ' s recommendation for implementation. She stated that there were still some unanswered questions relating to green waste, white ( appliance) waste and the storage of newspaper . Councilman Nimmo expressed his appreciation to the Recycling Committee and to all those members of the public who came to speak on the matter . He stated that , in his opinion, State Legislature has finally done something constructive by mandating each city to have a plan in place by 1991 and reduce the flow of all waste, including hazardous waste. Councilman Nimmo stated that he hoped the Council would exert some leadership and do some public relations work to educate the public about what has to be done and what the options are. He commented that the Council must rise above popular opinion and do what is required by AB939 and that it also must do what is best to protect the environment For future generations. Ccuncilman Dexter concurred with Councilman Nimmo and stated that it was unfortunate the word "mandatory" was attached . He spoke in support of recycling , whether it be done at the curb or otherwise , and stated that it along with a volume based rate structure would provide incentive. • Councilman Shiers also thanked those who had come to speak on the issue. He indicated that at some point the community must face the issue that landfills are filling up , that it will be extremely expensive to buy land for new Landfills and costly to meet all the EPA requirements . He agreed with Councilwoman 3orgeson that there are issues that need to be studied furthec . Councilman Shiers concurred with the Recycling Committee and the staff ' s recommendations for a volume based rate structure. in addition, he stated that if mandatory pick-up is imposed , the responsible position would be to put that service out to bid . Concluding , Councilman Shiers commented that this is an important problem and advocated more public information to clarify the issues . Mayor Lilley stated that the time has come for the society to bite the bullet and recognize that continued growth along with a vital economy must be balanced out so as not to accelerate the depletion of landfills and e> acerbate heedless pollution. He indicated that the society has to collectively solve the problem as voluntary efforts will not resolve it . One reason for the mandatory element , the mayor noted , is to establish an inventory of who is taking service so that an effective solid waste program can be implemented fairly . • CC11 / 13/90 Page 11 • Mayor Lilley thanked the committee for its ' studious, responsive efforts , and thanked Wil-Mar Disposal for their cooperation. The mayor expressed the desire to explore other options and commented that his only criticism with the Recycling Committee report was of their ;recommendation to work on the reduction of green waste after other plans have been implemented . He explained that green waste represents the largest section, in excess of 50%, of the solid waste stream and that if the issue of efficient reduction of green waste was solved 100%, State mandates would be met for the next ten years . Concurring with other members of Council , Mayor Lilley indicated that he wanted to conduct further inquiries before adopting mandatory pick-up and suggested that the matter be continued for more discussion with a decision made sometime by the first of the new year . Councilwoman Borgeson agreed with the mayor ' s comments relating to green waste . In addition, she concurred with Councilman Shiers ' s statements relating to putting the matter of refuse pick-up out to bid . Councilwoman Borgeson stated that she had no problem with Wil-Mar Disposal as the provider of service over the years and added that she hoped that they would bid for the contract . • The City Manager asked the Council to bear- in mind that Wil-Mar still has two years to run on their contract and in addition to that , have also asked for an interim rate increase . Mayor Lilley outlined the various options as follows: 1 ) to act .upon a requested increase of approximately 7-9%, 2 ) make policy decisions on mandatory pick-up and curbside recycling or 3 ) continue the matter for further hearing by the Council in response to those issues. Councilman Dexter suggested that Council , if it decides to support curbside recycling , may want to consider some type of anti-scavenger ordinance to protect the contractor responsible for pick-up . Councilwoman Borgeson suggested deferring the decision on the rate increase requested by Wil-Mar . Councilman Nimmo disagreed stating that the matter could not be continued any longer and indicated that he would be prepared to support the rate increase and defer the other- matters. Councilwoman Borgescn asked Mark Joseph to clarify whether or CC11/ 13/90 • Page 12 • not Wil-Mar � r + r t gas i � the red Mr . Joseph responded that at the current rates, Wil-Mar would most likely start losing money and indicated that some kind of ;rate increase needs to be addressed . He suggested that if Council defers for now the matter of mandatory pick--up and decides to pas=_ an interim general rate increase, that staff be directed to work with Wil-Mar to cone up with a volume based rate. Councilwoman Borgeson concurred with this concept . Brief discussion followed . Mayor Lille✓ proposed that Council submit in writing any additional specific concerns and asked the City Manager- if staff would be in a position to report back: prior- to January 15, 1991 . He also clarified that the request would include a proposal for- -a rate structure increase independent of either mandatory pick-up or curbside recycling . Mr . Windsor indicated a preference for- the second meeting in January to allow staff ample time to prepare and distribute the information . Councilwoman Bergeson proposed conducting a workshop sometime before the end of January . The City Manager noted that because of the holiday season there would probably not be adequate time to hold such a study -session. MOTION: By Councilwoman Borgeson and seconded by Councilman Nimmo to continue the matter- until the second meeting in January of 1991 ; motion unar:imously passed . C. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATI"ON AND/OR ACTION: 1 . City Council : A. Committee Reports (The following status reports were given, as follows ) : 1 . City/School Committee - The City Manager reported the committee would meet again during the month of December . 2. North Coastal Transit/S.L.O. Area Coordinating Council- Councilwoman Borgeson announced that the Coordinating Council would be meeting on the following day and that she would have a report at the ne; t meeting . 3. Traffic Committee - No report . 4. Solid/Hazardous Waste Mgmt. Committee - No report . 5. Recycling Committee - Councilman shiers reported that CC11 / 13190 Page 13 • this committee had met the previous week and had formed sub-committees one of which would be looking into the issue of green waste. b. Economic Opportunity Commission - No report . 7. B. I .A. - The City Manager announced that the downtown parking lot would be completed on November 15 , 1990 and suggested the planning of an opening ceremony . Mayor Lilley thanked the Streets Department and asked staff to schedule a date for a ribbon-cutting ceremony . 2. City Attorney The mayor asked Mr . Montandon to contact Jalynne Giles of Wells Fargo Bank regarding the closure of the Colony Roads issue. 3. City Clerk - No report 4. City Treasurer Muriel Korba announced that she would be out of the state during the next regula,- meeting and would , therefore, not have a report until the December meeting . 5. City Manager • Mr . Windsar annour;-ed neet. ing date= as follows : November 27 , 1990 at '7:00 p . m. for the regular meeting November- 39 , 9'90 at t:; C;O P . M. for- a joint study session with the Planning Commission to review the Draft Fiscal Plan Model December 11 , 19917) at: 7 : 00 p . m. to meet in regular- session to discuss the revised Tree Ordinance , the Downtown Master- Plan and some tree removals . The City Manager proposed that Council defer the second meeting in December because it would fall on Christmas Day. MOTION: By Councilman Dexter and seconded by Councilman iIimmo to defe-- the second meeting in December ; motion passed . MOTION: By Councilman Nimmo and seconded by Councilman Dexter to adjourn the meeting until November 27, 1990 ; -riction unanimously carried . CC 1 1 / 13/90 • Page 14 THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 10:45 P.M. MINUTES RECORDED AND PREPARED BY: - (P.Vt,� LEE DAYKA City Clerk • CC11 /13/90 Page 15 MEETIN AGENDA DATEz4& ITEM N • RESOLUTION NO. 122-90 A RESOLUTION OF THE ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 9-86 RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE AMAPOA-TECORIDA DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 9-86 which established the method for assessing properties within the Amapoa- Tecorida drainage basin; THE COUNCIL HEREBY RESOLVES to amend Resolution No . 9-86 , Section 1 (b) as follows : "b) . . .will be payable upon notice after passage. Appropri- ate credits may be applied as determined by the Director of Public works and approved by the City Council" . I 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: ATTEST: LEE DAYKA, City Clerk ROBERT B. LILLEY, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: ARTHER R. MONTANDON, City Attorney REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO ITEM: / - Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 11/27/90 File No: TPM 23-87 By: Henry Engen, Community Development Director 1j-kX' SUBJECT: Request of a time extension in order to complete the required conditions of approval for Tentative Parcel Map 23-87 at 11605 San Marcos Road (Tom Vaughan) . RECOMMENDATION: Approval of a time extension to September 22 , 1991 . • BACKGROUND: On November 6, 1990, the Planninq Commission considered the above request on its consent Calendar. The Commission approved a time extension to September 22 , 1991 in order for the applicant to complete the required conditions of approval . HE :ps Attachment: Staff Report Dated November 6 , 1990 cc : Tom Vaughan ITEM: A-3 • M E M O R A N D U M TO: Planning Commission FROM: Doug Davidson, Senior Planner RE: Tentative Parcel Map 23-87 - Vaughan DATE: November 6, 1990 The above referenced map was originally approved by the Planning Commission on September 1,1987 and subsequently approved by the City Council on September 22, 1987 . On October 30, 1989, the City Council granted a one year time extension until September 22, 1990. A letter requesting a second time extension was received on September 21, 1990. Staff' s initial response to this request was a refusal to process the second time extension, for the Subdivision Ordinance (Section 11-4.203 A) limits time extensions to a period not to exceed twelve months. Subsequently, the City Attorney reviewed the • matter and has advised that requests of this type be processed as permitted under the State Subdivision Map Act. The City Attorney is relying on the case of Griffis v. County of Mono, in which the County' s one year maximum on time extensions was ruled invalid and in conflict with the Subdivision Map Act. The staff will follow-up with a revision to the Subdivision Ordinance to ensure compliance with case law and the Map Act. The improvement plans for the required access road have been submitted and reviewed. This review resulted in the need for an extensive geology report, beyond the scope of the preliminary report included in the original application (condition #8) . The applicant has hired Tierra Tech Soils and is awaiting their recommendations for grading the access road. Although this matter has taken some time, the applicant has shown progress in meeting the required conditions. Thus, the map should be extended to allow the applicant to complete the Conditions of Approval as granted in September, 1987. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of a one year time extension for Tentative Parcel Map 23-87, extending the approval date to September 22, 1991. Attachments: 1 . Request for Extension 2. Staff Report VAUGHAN SURVEYS 630 14th Street • Paso Robles, CA 93446 • (805) 238-5725 • FAX (805) 238-5835 SEP 2 i39� September 21, 1990 Ty zJ' TIVL�I'WIEN, City of Atascadero Planning Department 6500 Palma Atascadero, CA 93422 Attn: Doug Davidson Subject: Vesting Tentative Parcel Map AT 87-134 Dear Doug, • We hereby request an extension of time for the above referenced Parcel Map. As you know, we have been attempting to construct the driveway as conditioned, and we are currently awaiting a report from Tierra Tech Soils addressing their intensive geological study of the site as required by the Building Department prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Enclosed please find the required $220. 00 Extension Fee. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely/, Tom Vaughan TV:am 89-044 s�1220. / Ju �62z1 CITY OF ATASCADERO Item: B-3 STAFF REPORT FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: 9/1/87 BY: 010steven L. DeCamp, Senior Planner File No: TPM 23-87 SUBJECT: Request to subdivide one (1) parcel containing 10. 55 acres into two (2) lots containing approximately 5.2 acres each. A. SITUATION AND FACTS: 1. Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Tom and Karen Vaughn 2. Representative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Same 3. Project Address. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11605 San Marcos Road 4. Legal Description. . . . . . . . . . . .Lot 2, Block 80, Atas Col. 5. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10. 55 acres • 6. Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .RS (2. 5 - 10. 0 ac. min. lot size) 7. General Plan Designation. . . . .Suburban Single Family 8. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Vacant 9. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Negative Declaration posted August 5, 1987 B. ANALYSIS: The property proposed for subdivision is located in the RS (Residential Suburban) zone. Minimum lot size in this zone ranges between 2. 5 and 10. 0 acres depending upon the "score" of various performance standards. For this site, the minimum lot size criteria are: Distance from center (16, 000 - 18, 000) 0. 60 Septic Suitability (severe) 1.50 Average Slope (31% - 35%) 1 . 75 Access Condition (paved) 0. 40 Neighborhood Character (4. 75 ac. ) 0. 95 • Minimum Lot Size 5. 20 ac. Tentative Parcel Map 23-87 September 1, 1987 Page 2 The lot size proposed (5. 2 acres) is equal to the minimum lot size that would be allowed. The property proposed for subdivision is very steep with slopes of between 25% and 48%. These slopes limit residential development opportunities on the proposed lots. Each lot does have, however, a site that appears suitable for the construction of a single family dwelling and septic system. Because of these steep slopes, the grading required for construction on the new lots will require Precise Plan review and approval. Precise Plan review is done at staff level and is dictated by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and this City' s guidelines for its implementation. The slopes on this property appear to be relatively unstable. For this reason, the applicant was required to submit a Preliminary Geologic Investigation. This report, which was prepared June 27, 1987 by Dr. David Chipping, indicates that considerable care needs to be exercised in the development of the proposed new lots. The existence of this report will be noted on • the final map to insure future purchasers of the findings of the report. In addition, it will be recommended that the applicant be required to construct the access road to the property to insure conformance with the recommendations of the geologic report. Development of this site in conformance with the recommendations of the geologic report and proper engineering standards will result in appropriate densities for the site and the surrounding area. Under no circumstances, however, can staff recommend that this site ever be further subdivided given the knowledge we now have of the site' s geology and septic suitability. C. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends conditional approval of TPM 23-87 based on the Findings in Exhibit C and the Conditions of Approval in Exhibit D. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Location and Zoning Exhibit B - Tentative Parcel Map • Exhibit C - Findings for Approval Exhibit D - Conditions of Approval N I I-' �,� X F3 i A It also Z .08 CITY OF A TASCADERO L -iron aNd ZaN,n MR COMMUNITY ' COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT IPM Z3- $-J A 07 y 1.01F` ~ 4 mod 5 t Tc � I I �o0`S Sa.1 /1✓t ArGo3 ��• Pa*o L4. Z, T31k. 8oA4-as. Co)o�y bio oa 0 i� .1�S4 _1 CITY OF A :,.. ;.. . . ,� TASCADERO Ta,K-64,jva, fircc t AA-Ae • — sCAn�:� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT IPM Z3 - 97 ' - f PIP t Ulll _1072 • ` 107-,; lsdmt , 1 Iii � }�` � �•\\ � � \`� .ted • EXHIBIT C - Findings for Approval . Tentative Parcel Map 23-87 September 1, 1987 FINDINGS: 1. The creation of these parcels conforms to the Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan. 2. The creation of these parcels, in conformance with the recommended Conditions of Approval, will not have a significant adverse effect upon the environment. The Negative Declaration prepared for the project is adequate. 3. The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed. 4. The site is physically suitable for the density of development proposed. 5. The design of the subdivision, and the proposed improvements, will not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish and wildlife or their habitat. • 6. The design of the subdivision, and the type of improvements, will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision; or substantially equivalent alternate easements are provided. 7. The proposed subdivision complies with Section 66474. 6 of the State Subdivision Map Act as to methods of handling and discharge of waste. • • EXHIBIT D - Conditions of Approval Tentative Parcel Map 23-87 September 1, 1987 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. Water shall be obtained from the Atascadero Mutual Water Company. Water lines shall exist at the frontage of each parcel or its public utilities easement prior to recordation of the final map. 2. All existing and proposed utility, pipeline, open space, or other easements are to be shown on the final map. If there are building or other restrictions related to the easements, they shall be noted on the final map. 3. Grading, drainage, and erosion control plans for private driveways and access easements, prepared by a registered civil engineer, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to recordation of the final map. 4. Improvement plans for the proposed private access, prepared • by a registered civil engineer, shall be submitted to and approved by the Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to recordation of the final map. 5. Construction of the private access and driveways shall be completed prior to recordation of the final map. 6. An encroachment permit shall be obtained for all work to be undertaken within the public right-of-way. 7. A road maintenance agreement, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, shall be recorded with the deed to each parcel at the time it is first conveyed. A note to this affect shall appear on the final map. 8. A note shall appear on the final map indicating the existence of the Preliminary Geologic Investigation, the author, the date of preparation, and the fact that the report is on file in the Community Development Department. 9. The fire hydrant located at the intersection of the proposed access easement and Los Altos Road shall be upgraded to City standards prior to recordation of the final map. 10. A final map drawn in substantial conformance with the • approved tentative map and compliance with all conditions set forth herein shall be submitted for review and approval in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and the City Lot Division Ordinance prior to recordation. • Conditions of Approval Tentative Parcel Map 23-87 September 1, 1987 Page 2 a. Monuments shall be set at all new property corners created and a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor shall indicate, by certificate on the final map, that corners have been set or shall be set by a date specific and that they will be sufficient to enable the survey to be retraced. b. A recently updated preliminary title report shall be submitted for review in conjunction with the processing of the final map. c. A preliminary subdivision guarantee shall be submitted for review in conjunction with the processing of the final map. 11. 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. • • REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO ITEM:— Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date : 11/27/90 File No : TTM 39-87 By: Henry Engen, Community Development Director Will SUBJECT: Request of a time extension in order to complete the required conditions of approval for Tentative Tract Map 39-87 at 9240 Vista Bonita (Michael Frederick/Cuesta Engineering) RECOMMENDATION: Approval of a time extension to July 26, 1991 . • BACKGROUND: On November 6, 19901 the Planning Commission considered the above request on its consent calendar. The Commission approved a time extension to July 26 , 1991 in order for the applicant to complete the required conditions of approval. HE :ps Attachment: Staff Report Dated November 6 , 1990 CC : Michael Frederick Cuesta Engineering • ITEM : A-4 • M E M O R A N D U M TO: Planning Commission FROM: Doug Davidson, Senior Planner RE: Tentative Tract Map 39-87 - Frederick/Cuesta Eng. DATE: November 6, 1990 The above referenced map was originally approved by the Planning Commission on June 7, 1988 and subsequently approved by the City Council on July 26, 1988. Several hearings were involved in the approval process, resulting in the final conditions as approved on July 26, 1988. • The applicant has requested an extension in order to complete the required conditions of approval. The applicant' s representative (Cuesta Engineering) is currently addressing these substantial improvement requirements in the final map check process. Coordinating these improvements with the neighboring Spanish Ridge development (Tract 1488) is also being undertaken. Since a continual effort is being made toward completion of the project, the map should be extended for one year. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of a one year time extension for Tentative Tract Map 39-87, extending the approval date to July 26, 1991. Attachments: 1 . Request for Extension 2. Staff Report is CUESTA ENGINEERING • 6717 Morro Road Atascadero,CA 93422 (805)466-6827 August 27, 1990 Doug Davidson Planning Department City of Atascadero 6500 Palma Atascadero, CA 93422 Subject: Time Extension Tentative Tract 39-87 9240 Vista Bonita • Doug, As representative of Michael Frederick, I hereby request consideration of a time extension of the subject Tentative Map approval . We have submitted Improve- ment Plans and a Final Tract Map for your review and we wish to continue to proceed towards construction. Attached is the required fee of $220. If you have any questions, please call me at 466-6827. Sincerely, John Falkenstien, P.E. JF;ch 89-079 • 12-7-D-00 es12 jr1q0 -W3os01 UAB,F • M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council July 26, 1988 VIA: William Hanley, Interim City Manager FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director ; SUBJECT: ZONE CHANGE 15-87/TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 39-87 LOCATION: 9240 Vista Bonita APPLICANT: Mike Fredericks (Mike Yeomans) REQUEST: To revise the existing RSF-Z and RSF-Y (Residential Single Family) Zoning to RSF-Z (PD-7 ) and RSF-Y (PD-7 ) (Residential Single Family Planned Develop- ment Overlay) and approve a reconfiguration of six (6) lots into six (6 ) residential and one open- space lot, and to abandon a portion of Vista Bonita • Road. (Continued from July 12, 1988 meeting. ) BACKGROUND: At the Council ' s July 12th meeting, this matter was considered in public hearing and continued to the meeting of July 26, 1988 to allow further time to study the planned development . Staff was also directed to tighten up the landscaping guarantee, which was done with a revision to Condition No. 25 relative to bonding to include the following language: "To include landscaping and erosion control . " RECOMMENDATION: 1 . Approval of Zone Change 15-87 by approval of attached ordi- nance No. 180 by reading by title only and approving attached ordinance No. 180 on first reading. 2 . Approval of Tentative Tract Map 39-87 subject to the find- ings of Exhibit I (May 17 , 1988) and conditions of approval of Exhibit J (Revised July 26, 1988 - City Council) . HE:ph • Attachments : Exhibit J - Revised 7/26/88 City Council Staff Report - July 12, 1988 Ordinance No. 180 cc : Mike Yeomans Mike Fredericks EXHIBIT J - Conditions of Approval • Tentative Tract Map 39-87 (1488) 9240 Vista Bonita Yeomans/Fredericks (Revised July 26, 1988 City Council) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Water shall be obtained from the Atascadero Mutual Water Company. 2. All existing and proposed utility, pipeline, open space, or other easements are to be shown on the final map. If there are building or other restrictions related to the easements, they shall be noted on the final map. 3. All relocation and/or alteration of existing utilities shall be responsibility of the developer at his sole expense. 4. All lots shall be connected to the Public Sewer. All annexation permit fees shall be paid prior to the recording of the final map. Any sewer extensions for annexation must be completed within one year after annexation. 5. Sewer improvement plans shall be submitted for review and approval by the Public Works Department prior to the • recording of the final map. 6. Grading, and Drainage plans, prepared by a registered Civil Engineer shall be submitted to and for review and approval by, the Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to the issuance of any building permits or the recording of the final map. 7. Obtain an encroachment permit from the City of Atascadero Public Works Department. Sign an Inspection Agreement guaranteeing that the work will be done and the inspections paid for, prior to the issuance of a building permit, or start of public works construction, and construct improvements as directed by the encroachment permit. 8. A road maintenance agreement, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, shall be recorded with the deed to each parcel at the time it is first conveyed. A note to this effect shall appear on the Final Map. 9. The subdivider shall install all street signs, traffic delineation devices, warning and regulatory signs, guardrails, barricades, and other similar devices where required by the Director of Public Works. Signs shall be in conformance with the Department of Public works standards and the current State of California uniform sign chart. • Installation of traffic devices shall be subject to review and minor modifications prior to approval of construction. r 10. Road improvement plans prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer shall be submitted to the Community Development and • Public Works Departments for review and approval, prior to the construction of the improvements, or prior to recording of the final map, or prior to the issuance of any building permit, which ever comes first. Plans shall include, but not limited to : a. Vista Bonita: Design shall conform to design of improvements being prepared for Tract 1562 (Spanish Ridge)e) being prepared in connection with proposed development. Plans shall include a minimum paved section of 20 '-0" and approved fire code turn around. Design shall include measures to save and preserve trees within the right-of-way, as approved by the Community Development and Public Works Departments. 11. Public Improvement plans prepared for the site shall be reviewed and approved by the Fire Department. The plans shall include needed fire suppression improvements as determined by the Fire Department. Water main design shall be reviewed and pressure booster pump may be required if water pressure is found to be inadequate for fire protection. Design and location of improvements shall be approved prior to the recording of the final map. 12. Prior to the approval of the improvement plans by the Director of Public Works, either the Subdivider shall • acquire sufficient title or interest in the off-site land to allow the improvements to be made as required by these conditions: or the City Council, upon request by and at the expense of the subdivider, shall have made all appropriate findings and adopted Resolution of Necessity as required by law so that the City may exercise its power of Eminent Domain. 13. Drainage Facilities shall be constructed to City of Atascadero Standards. 14. The Subdivider shall provide drainage easements and/or drainage releases from the points of concentration of stormwater leaving the project boundary through adjoining properties to the nearest natural watercourses as approved by the Public Works Department if applicable. 15. All lot grading and drainage improvements shall require written certification by a registered Civil Engineer that all work has been completed and is in full compliance with the approved plans. • 16. All grading and erosion control measures shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and constructed in accordance • with the City of Atascadero grading codes and standards. Prior to the final building inspection, said engineer shall submit to the City written certification that grading is in conformance with said codes and standards. 17. A Drainage Maintenance Agreement, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, shall be recorded with the deed to each parcel at the time it is first conveyed and a note to this effect shall be placed on the final map. 18. Offer of dedication to the City of Atascadero the following rights-of-way and / or easements: Street Name: Vista Bonita Minimum Width: 10 ' -0" from the center of Right-of-Way along property frontage. 19. Offer for dedication to the Public for Public Utility Easements all access easements. 20. Offers of dedication shall be completed and recorded prior to or simultaneous to the recordation of the final map. 21. Prior to the recording of the final map, a soils investigation ( as required by the Subdivision Map Act) shall be submitted, recommending corrective actions which • will prevent structural damage to each structure proposed to be constructed in the area where soil problems exist, as indicated in the Preliminary Soils Report. The date of such reports, The name of the Engineer making the report, and the location where the reports are on file shall be noted on the final map. 22. The applicant shall establish Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the regulation of land use,control of nuisances, architectural control of all buildings, on site & off site improvements driveway and landscape maintenance. These CC&Rs shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Attorney and the Community Development Department prior to the recording of the final map. The CC&Rs shall implement the development standards set forth in the approved Planned Development Overlay Zoning (Zone Change 15-87) . 23. Zone Change ZC: 15-87 shall be approved and in effect prior to the recording of the final, map. 24. Provide Sewer Main Extension Plan acceptable to the Director of Public Works. Main extension shall be thur Golf Course or Las Lomas to Pino Solo. Easement thur Golf Course, if this alternative is selected, shall be recorded prior to recording final map. • 25. The applicant shall enter into an agreement for on-site and off-site improvements prior to the recording of the final • map. Applicant shall submit separate bonds for the off- site and on-site improvements (to include landscaping erosion control) , terms and amounts to be acceptable to the Community Development Director and the Director of Public Works. 26. No building permits for residential construction shall be issued until the on-site and off-site improvements are completed to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director and the Director of Public Works. 27. A final map in substantial conformance with the approved tentative map and in compliance with all conditions set forth herein shall be submitted for review and approval in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and the City' s Subdivision Ordinance prior to the recording of the final map. a. Monuments shall be set at all new property corners created and a Registered Civil Engineer or Licensed Land Surveyor shall indicate, by certificate on the final map, that the corners have been set or will be set by a specific date and that they will be sufficient to enable the survey to be retraced. b. A recently updated preliminary title report shall be • submitted for review in conjunction with the processing of the final map. c. A preliminary subdivision guarantee shall be submitted for review in conjunction with the processing of the final map. 28. 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. JM/jm • iv Cir-y Tu_y i_ 'Q3 ..v i3:T: Hanley, Int-z y Man a' F"Ccx. ..ei:ry E .gen, mm1�init y Db . _ -0mal7t Dir_coo . ZONE CHANGE 15-87/TENTATIVE TPACT MAP 39-87 . '�.CA=I9240- Vi: a Eo_:ita ... �i�CIN A P:._�.1N2 . Mi:�e r r=dea 'Ieomans DL'DC Tc --e f- � : _ st� g ar_d eI_ ...i-__1_e _ alp a� _ 'l`_.t �Vdr_ i' aL_ 'p-r0'- e w _:__ --nf_—rat _ .:.-de BAC--'7GR:ND 3n ciay _ d Tune . ?8ta de �D PIn-.. : :mmiss__.. :C tab Cc m101LJJ_Jn r.C'J lil .'rd�t ,-_ihJ�_n oon"-J.g _ 1.11Dr0 _.n-1nrs T__.._ ' - X93 1 nid _::cLe appro iai 'J. zo e :..,._y'C 15-37 i e—,, ? iias s- =::sS- _ _ Q the .-ffarenca sed -( nditi `.ns DJOS?CC. _tea-- - _-`_d�1��r: Zl. '�_bs _ t ex:'dI"fit; . RECCMMENDATZCN: 7,:I:c 1-5-37 a '-ro'1a7 --f 'dG Ra`�a(�C ,rT DC7 -�}• - on! u.. _. .7 _ ._ _.. : ac h er �r..._�..�.I:.:e �l'. _ '1I_ • Zj Approval of _TM 39-37 subject to the findings of Exhi .i _ I May 17 . 138W and zcnditions of approval of Exhitit 1 fluw! 17 , `a 3 HE :pi-. Az.... dine..}: staff Report - may 17 , 1933 Staff Report - Wne 7 , 1338 Minutes Excerpt - May 17 , 1983 Minutes Excerpt - Jur._ 7 , 1933 Ordinance No . 180 CC : Mike Yeomans Mike Fredericks • • r i GEgpq • M E M O R A N D U M DATE : June 7, 1988 TO Planning Commission FROM : Joel Moses, Associate Planner SUBJECT Zone Change 15-87 & Tentative Map 39-87 On May 17th the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission received a set of proposed revised condition for the tentative map from the applicant. The conditions allowed for the bonding of improvements rather than requiring installation of the improvements before recording of the map. The Commission requested that staff review the proposed conditions and prepare revised conditions allowing for bonding for improvements. Attached please find the original staff report (Exhibit A) , the applicants proposed revised conditions (Exhibit B) , and staff prepared conditions (Exhibit C) . Staff still recommends approval subject to the original conditions. • JM/jm • EXHIBIT A City of Atascadero Item B - 1 • STAFF REPORT FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: May 17, 1988 BY: Joel Moses, Associate Planne File No: ZC 15-87 TM 39-87 SUBJECT: Zone Change 15-87 and Tentative Map 39-87 to revise the existing RSF-Z & RSF-Y (Residential Single Family) zoning to RSF-Z (PD-7) & RSF-Y (PD-7) (Residential Single Family Planned Development Overlay) and approve a reconfiguration of 6 lots into 6 residential and one openspace lot. A. SITUATION AND FACTS: 1. Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Mike Fredericks 2. Representative. . . . . . . . . . . .Mike Yeomans 3. Project Address. . . . . . . . . . . 9240 Vista Bonita 4. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. 32 acres • 5 . Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RSF-Y (Residential Single Family) and RSF-Z (Residential Single Family) 6. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . .Vacant 7. General Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . .Low Density Single Family and Moderate Density Single Family 8. Environmental Status. . . . . .Negative Declaration Posted April 21, 1988 B. ANALYSIS: The 6. 32 acre site is made up of 6 existing undeveloped parcels. The site is divided into two zoning designations: RSF-Y and RSF- Z. The lots were previously annexed to- the Sewer District and can be provided with sewer service. The four existing lots within the RSF-Z designated area are all below the minimum 2 1/2 acre minimum lot size. The two remaining lots in the RSF-Y, if provided with sewer, would now meet the minimum 1 acre lot size. All of the lots are considered legal lots and may be developed with single family residences even though they do not meet the • minimum lot size of the Zoning Ordinance or density standards of the General Plan. If the current development standards are followed, the existing 6 lots can be developed with single family • residences. Any development on the top of Chalk Mountain will have several effects on the community and the adjoining areas . Most noticeable will be the visual impact of development. The site is visible far up and down Highway 101. The mountain is also a landmark within and outside the City denoting the entrance to Atascadero. Other impacts will also occur from development not so directly noticeable. The establishment of residential units will also generate impacts attributed to the new residential units. Such items as traffic, runoff, and public service will be impacted. Any development will require the installation of new utility lines , access roads , and other public improvements. These impacts all can be addressed and reduced with proper planning and coordination. The development of the mountain top will have to take into consideration the inherent problems with a development that is on a mountain top. The area is physically higher than the existing water tank. To provide water for the area for residential and fire suppression, booster pump will be needed. Sewer service lines providing service to the site will be connected to a new service line being designed to expand service to the golf course. Soils will also have to be considered as a problem for any new development. The amount of grading and soil stabilization will • be determined by the individual site development plans. These problems can be overcome with a coordinated approach to the development of the area. This type of planning could reduce the potential for an uncoordinated approach to development that could be costly and detrimental to the community. Any development of the site, will create a visual impact far beyond the site. The sites location, on top of Chalk Mountain is central to the applicant' s proposal. The applicant proposes to reconfigure the existing lots into a more compact design. The concentration of the developed area is an effort to reduce the impacts that could occur with a development following the existing lot configuration. The Zoning Ordinance provides a process to modify the development standards of the Zoning Ordinance when deemed necessary to promote orderly and harmonious development and to enhance the opportunity to best utilize special characteristics of an area. The Planned Development Overlay can be used for four things ; to modify development and special use development standards , to modify the processing procedures, to establish additional development standards or processing requirements, or to modify the minimum lot size or density standards. The applicant proposes to modify the development standards and the minimum lot sizes established for the site. • The development statement notes that if the existing lots were developed, a significant amount of grading would be required for the existing road alignment development. Additional grading i would be needed for the individual lots. The proposal would • concentrate the development in one area reducing the potential for such extensive grading on the hillside. Other items such as utilities, road improvements and other public improvements could also be reduced. The impacts of the development on existing facilities would be the same under both types of development. No change in density will occur; only a change in the development standards for the site. The development proposes to address the problem of visual impacts by trying to reduce the intrusion of the project by concentrating the development and providing a large permanent openspace. The reconfigure six residential lots would range in size from 9, 132 to 7, 260 square feet. The remaining 5. 18 acres area below and to the west will be retained in a permanent openspace easement. The proposed grading has been contoured to minimize the effect on the natural topography of the site. The proposed residences have been recessed into the ridge line to render them less obtrusive. The site has been planned as one unit to be developed in a uniform, unobtrusive manor, with Architectural guidelines . The Architectural guidelines will cover building height, architecture and building envelope. Also proposed is a set of landscaping development standards that would require the use of native vegetation areas to be developed. Screened discretionary yard areas are provided but would not intrude on the natural appearance of the mountain. The development will not be served with the typical developed • street. The relocation of Vista Bonita will reduce some of the potential impacts. The relocation will bring the road to the south side of the development. A realignment across adjoining property will be needed. A letter has been received from the Atascadero Mutual Water Company agreeing with the use of their property for the realignment. The road is proposed to be constructed to Private road standards (20 ' -0" paved surface) . This will not provide for normal on-street parking. The development would meet the normal requirements of 2 parking stalls per unit, however. Additional parking has been provided with three perpendicular spaces and two stalls at the end of the access road. Additional tandem parking stalls (not counted as required parking) have been provided. This would bring the total parking provided to 29 stalls for six residences. Comments were received from several outside agencies. Our Fire Department has noted the need for appropriate fire suppression facilities. These facilities will include the development of a turn around that has been incorporated into the design. The sprinklering of the individual units has been required and the developer has agreed. The water lines will also need a pressure booster pump to assure proper water pressure to the residences. The Building Division noted concern about the soils on the site and has reviewed the soils report provided by the developer. • Some questions remain that will be worked out at the time of development. Existing codes and standards will need to be l � • followed during the development of the site . The Southern California Gas Company has noted that the site can be served by existing mains in Las Lomas and E1 Bordo Roads. If additional gas mains are installed, they will need to be within the Public Right-of-Way or within approved easements. The Atascadero Mutual Water Company has noted no problem with the road realignment subject two conditions; the first requiring a 30 ' -0" clearance from the water tank to the proposed road, and on site fencing of the tank after the completion of the road. The site will also require the water buster pumps to serve the site. The applicant and the Water Company are in contact working out the details of the work to be done . Pacific Gas and Electric noted that facilities will have to be extended to the site. The State of California Department of Transportation has responded noting potential impact on the congestion along South E1 Camino Real. The staff is recommending that the improvements, access road, utilities and grading be done prior to the recordation of the proposed map. In some situations the option of bonding is provided. Staff feels that the whole process is centered around the coordinated development of the site and all improvements should be done prior to the recordation of the final map. In summary the development proposes an option to the potential development of the top of the mountain under current development • standards that could be detrimental to the community. The proposed rezoning and development will reduced the impacts that would occur without a planned and coordinated approach to the development of the area. The coordinated development will also make the development of needed improvements more cost effective. Staff has considered the potential for maintaining the site as openspace, however the current General Plan does not address the issue. C. RECOMMEMATION: Staff recommends approval of Zone Change 15-87 based on the Findings in Exhibit H (Draft Ordinance) , establishing the Master Plan for Develpment as shown in Exhibit B to E, and the conditional approval of Tentative Map 9-87 base on the Findings and Conditions of Approval in Exhibity I and Exhibit J. JM/jm • • ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Location Map Exhibit B - Tentative Map Exhibit C - Earthwork Plan Exhibit D - Grading Plan Exhibit E - Landscape Plan Exhibit F - Sections Exhibit G - Developers Statement Exhibit H - Draft Ordinance Exhibit I - Findings for Approval (Tentative Map) Exhibit J - Conditions of Approval (Tentative Map) • • 1 CITY OF ATASCADERO EXHIBIT A - LOCATION MAP 9240 Vista Bonita ai^ �� � ''"'q Zone Change 15-87 C0MMUNIT�� 0E ���: r_ r>>EkIENT Yeomans/Fredericks DEPARTMENT R F-Z %' SITE: VISTA BONITA Tent Map 39-87 E<��oar MF-4 6) ' ,' ZC 15-87 = E Yeomans Fredericks ni- I a- W raj i Cent. Coast Eng. z r FC RSF• 7 04 1.p� tip a V 0 1 N ° R J / I CR RCs v 4C - R--S EXHIBIT B -TENTATIVE MAP CITY OF �� •'^ • • ATASCADERO 9240 Vista Bonita � 'i•S■ I 1 r — ' ���•� Zone Change 15-87 • `s ' sc�+nf COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Yeomans/Fredericks DEPARTMENT ..��_... fi�.�1i.•11 r TRACT 1562 TENTATIVE MAP CHALK MOUNTAIN.A rASCADERO paw•Aan�.rrar \ t� NORTH LOT 5 0T4 •� \\ S X11, `I`�`' • LOTS ! S .� � ) � t�" �•; ���'�I LOT t LOT 7 OPEN /ACE - - L \ Ik N. 6 JD sacs �• rRACT 1562 _ 27 _ i° - 4S-�g '.^'"'_�';'r'.• _ Lu. A; EXHIBIT C - EARTHWORKS PL ��,`:•�, :., . y CITY OF ATASCADERO 9240 Vista Bonita • s,• I :•t �I� je;7• Zone Change 15-87 �asc+ne COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Yeomans/Fredericks DEPARTMENT f, ARHITECTURAL TRACT 1562 EARTHWORK MASTER PLAN I „•, '•"'•""•,.,•. .+...�..� '��"'" ��'""»"•"� CHALK MOUNTAIN,ATASCADERO NORTH soda amlrronn�ar�yr » open space--I i 1 1 LOT 6aa..f'% % �.,, \\ ' .\ '�1• rw..r.ow ui...aa m. :( `f ! \ 177 / 'LOT opeLT 7 n space �`\.% `/'/ L873 T1 LOit v I 1 ���\v \ /�.� 1, � I��I�I kill __ /' .✓-� �^ � .S�!ice; ...�'r��/�/% 1 „ EXHIBIT D - GRADING PLAN �� _�,• :.. . �y, CITY OF ATASCADERO 9240 Vista Bonita $a— Zone Change 15-87 • �,�sc�►n COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Yeomans/Fredericks DEPARTMENT REVEGETATION 6 EROSION CONTROL NOTES TRACT 1 562 "' `"°""`"" •'•"• ROUGH GRADING CHALK MOUNTAIN,ATASCADERO .......w�..... i.. .. •«�.ewn - NORTH® A pn i I do.�o.w ..� ' 3 OFS ram 4�c!M"a�aa.. 0�\ T, firev saf � r l / I l - /' � � h.ra....•was c•.A•.c.Iss r. � � .\\ � .. �w \i\\\\ road lmprovemerns: • EXHIBIT E - LANDSCAPE PLA: ���J� `'•;_ CITY 9240 Vista OF ATASCADERO Bonita • r� lic. ,d,.-7 Zone Change 15-87 , .sCAD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Yeomans/Fredericks DEPARTMENT — APPROVED PLANT UST FOR LOT LANDSCAPE TRACT 1562 LANDSCAPE STANDARDS CHALK MOUNTAIN,ATASCAD,ERRO _ 1 NORTH Iy �• 4OF5 1 �— w'•@""""•^ iscretionary yard areas.� 1 �,� �� •. `. fire salaly zone,.,..,�........ rtYmsm«ee plantrgrequfed -- — At.",w. . ,. � perms a�liap sirr�ation za,a -� `'� � �, t 4� \:\ •�. lul block er �. CT EXHIBIT F - SECTIONS ,�; , • yA TY OF ATASCADERO 71—setay.1141° - 1.70-7 9240 Vista Bonita • NF1 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Zone Change 15-87 DEPARTMENT Yeomans/Fredericks TRACT 1562 --- �••� __ ,_ SITE CROSS SECTIONS .. rr J,'� ''" i� ���" - •"�+•ki'�;lyyr'1�.��.�_� — CHALK MOUNTAIN,ATASCAD`E.RO I`- i..._. f..l ✓��/I' ?}.1� 11 NORTHO) etedee xiw wW ury "Y.�.yv SECTION'U'AT 1".IU SOUTH ELEVATION 1':100' ...,...max_......_................... 5OF5 „ I ex'st"Ig grade Q - proposed grade _ SECTION A 1":20' - I exulxg grade existing grade ,.....,.... ,.. ,.. i.� .��, _.._-' ....cava... prupoaed grade proposed grade SECTION B 1":20' SECTION C 1":21Y • CI EXHIBIT G - DEVELOPMENT 1 TY OF ATASCADERO 9240 vista Boni • ,�; . ��_ r. to Zone Change 15-87 'scant COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Yeomans/Fredericks DEPARTMENT RECRUED SUPPLEMENTAL DEVELOPMENT STATEMENT MAR 4- ���5 FOR TRACT 1562 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT The application for Tentative Map 1562 is submitted as .an alternative to six residential lots as they now exist. The site of 6.3 acres, which makes up the summit of Chalk Mountain, is now divided into six legal lots of record. This application employs the use of a planned development to create six smaller residential sites and an open space lot which covers about 82 percent of the total site. The application does not seek to increase the allowed density or change the land use of the site. lie application seeks only to redesign the site so as to create a project which is more environmentally sensitive. Advantages of the Plan • The advantages of this plan are listed as follows. 1. The access road to the site has been shifted from the present right of way to prevent having to remove some oak trees which are located in the existing right of way. The new road is in an area which is not as visible to the community. 2. The proposal moves all development away from the West face of Chalk Mountain, the area which is most visible from the community. 3. The area for residential development is restricted to certain pad elevations and building envelopes. 4. To mitigate visibility concerns, a revegetation plan is submitted as part of this proposal. S. A permanent open space easement is being granted over 80-plus percent of the project area. 6. Architectural guidelines are being proposed to mitigate the visual impact of the buildings. The above items are more clearly illustrated on the project plans submitted with this application. Alternative Projects Discussed 1. Use the existing lots. Most of the disadvantages of developing the site as it now legally exists have been discussed already. Such a development would create a project which is significantly more visible and produce more significant environmental impact than the one proposed. • ?!. CITY OF ATASCADERO ,�rascwF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT �. DEPARTMENT Supplemental Development Statement for Tract 1562 Page 2 2. Use larger residential site and less open space than proposed. A project designed in this manner has been submitted to the Community Development Department. This alternative does share some of the beneficial aspects of the proposed project, but also includes some real disadvantages. They are: a. Less open space b. More grading (visibility) c. This design places some of the residential area on the West face of Chalk Mountain where it would be highly visible to the community 3. Design even smaller residential lots and a larger open space lot. • A project designed in this manner would have the following disad- vantages: a. By further limiting the residential area, the buildings would be so close together that they would have a massing effect. They would appear much like an apartment building as opposed to low 'height single family dwellings. b. By further reducing the area between units, the opportunity to introduce meaningful landscaping elements between units is lost. c. A denser project could mean more grading and retaining walls, as there will be less horizontal distance available to make up for changes in grade between units. d. A tighter project than proposed would diminish the detached single family nature of the project. The future residents would feel as if they lived in an apartment project on top of a hill. Tract 1562 is being submitted as the best reasonable design alternative to the existing lots. It is the applicant's hope that this design will be accepted by the community in a positive manner. Thank you, Mike Yeomans Applicant • i EXHIBIT I - Findings for Approval • Tentative Parcel Map 39-87 Vista Bonita May 17, 1988 FINDINGS 1. The creation of the proposed parcels will conform to the Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan land use designation, densities and other policies. 2. The creation of these parcels , in conformance with the recommended Conditions of Approval , will not have a significant adverse effect upon the environment. The Negative Declaration prepared for the project is adequate. 3 . The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed. 4. The site is physically suitable for the density of the development proposed. 5. The design of the subdivision , and the proposed improvements , will not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish and • wildlife or their habitat. 6. The design of the subdivision , and the type of 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 complies with Section 66474. 6 of the State Subdivision Map Act as to the methods of handling and discharge of waste. 8. The proposed project is in compliance with the City of Atascadero' s Appearance Review Manual Guidelines. JM/jm • EXHIBIT J - Conditions of Approval • Tentative Tract Map 39-87 (1488) 9240 Vista Bonita Yeomans/Fredericks May 17, 1988 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Water shall be obtained from the Atascadero Mutual Water Company. Water lines and water line improvements required to serve the subdivision shall be constructed prior to the recording of the map. The individual service laterals and water meters shall be extended to the property line frontage of each parcel prior to the recording of the final map. 2. All existing and proposed utility, pipeline, open space, or other easements are to be shown on the final map. If there are building or other restrictions related to the easements, they shall be noted on the final map. 3. All relocation and/or alteration of existing utilities shall be responsibility of the developer at his sole expense. 4. All lots shall be connected to the Public Sewer. All annexation permit fees shall be paid prior to the recording • of the final map. Any sewer extensions for annexation must be completed within one year after annexation. 5. Sewer improvement plans shall be submitted for review and approval by the Public Works Department prior to the recording of the final map. 6. Grading, and Drainage plans, prepared by a registered Civil Engineer shall be submitted to and for review and approval by, the Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to the issuance of any building permits or the recording of the final map. 7. Obtain an encroachment permit from the City of Atascadero Public Works Department. Sign an Inspection Agreement guaranteeing that the work will be done and the inspections paid for, prior to the issuance of a building permit, or start of public works construction , and construct improvements as directed by the encroachment permit prior to the final building inspection or the recording of the final map, whichever comes first. 8. A road maintenance agreement, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, shall be recorded with the deed to each parcel at the time it is first conveyed. A note to this • effect shall appear on the Final Map. • 9. The subdivider shall install all street signs , traffic delineation devices , warning and regulatory signs , guardrails, barricades , and other similar devices where required by the Director of Public Works. Signs shall be in conformance with the Department of Public works standards and the current State of California uniform sign chart. Installation of traffic devices shall be subject to review and minor modifications prior to approval of construction. 10 . Road improvement plans prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer shall be submitted to the Community Development and Public Works Departments for review and approval, prior to the construction of the improvements, or prior to recording of the final map, or prior to the issuance of any building permit, which ever comes first. Plans shall include, but not limited to : a. Vista Bonita: Design shall conform to design of improvements being prepared for Tract 1562 (Spanish Ridge) being prepared in connection with proposed development. Plans shall include a minimum paved section of 20' -0" and approved fire code turn around. Design shall include measures to save and preserve trees within the right-of-way, as approved by the Community Development and Public Works Departments. • 11 . Construction of the access road improvements shall be completed prior to the recording of the final map. 12 . Public Improvement plans prepared for the site shall be reviewed and approved by the Fire Department. The plans shall include needed fire suppression improvements as determined by the Fire Department. Water main design shall be reviewed and pressure booster pump may be required if water pressure is found to be inadequate for fire protection. Design and location of improvements shall be approved prior to the recording of the final map. 13 . Prior to the approval of the improvement plans by the Director of Public Works , either the Subdivider shall acquire sufficient title or interest in the off-site land to allow the improvements to be made as required by these conditions: or the City Council, upon request by and at the expense of the subdivider, shall have made all appropriate findings and adopted Resolution of Necessity as required by law so that the City may exercise its power of Eminent Domain. 14 . Drainage Facilities shall be constructed to City of Atascadero Standards. All work shall be completed prior the • recording of the final map. 15 . The Subdivider shall provide drainage easements and/or • drainage releases from the points of concentration of stormwater leaving the project boundary through adjoining properties to the nearest natural watercourses as approved by the Public Works Department if applicable. 16 . All lot grading and drainage improvements shall require written certification by a registered Civil Engineer that all work has been completed and is in full compliance with the approved plans. 17. All grading and erosion control measures shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and constructed in accordance with the City of Atascadero grading codes and standards. Prior to the final building inspection, said engineer shall submit to the City written certification that grading is in conformance with said codes and standards. 18. A Drainage Maintenance Agreement, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, shall be recorded with the deed to each parcel at the time it is first conveyed and a note to this effect shall be placed on the final map. 19. Offer of dedication to the City of Atascadero the following rights-of-way and / or easements: Street Name: Vista Bonita Minimum Width: 10'-0" from the center of Right-of-Way • along property frontage. 20 . Offer for dedication to the Public for Public Utility Easements all access easements. 21. Offers of dedication shall be completed and recorded prior to or simultaneous to the recordation of the final map. 22 . Prior to the recording of the final map , a soils investigation ( as required by the Subdivision Map Act) shall be submitted, recommending corrective actions which will prevent structural damage to each structure proposed to be constructed in the area where soil problems exist, as indicated in the Preliminary Soils Report. The date of such reports, The name of the Engineer making the report, and the location where the reports are on file shall be noted on the final map. 23 . The applicant shall establish Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the regulation of land use,control of nuisances , architectural control of all buildings , driveway and landscape maintenance. These CC&Rs shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Attorney and the Community Development Department prior to the recording of the final map. The CC&Rs shall implement the development standards set forth in the approved Planned Development Overlay Zoning (Zone Change 15-87) . • 24. Zone Change ZC: 15-87 shall be approved and in effect prior to the recording of the final map. 25. Provide Sewer Main Extension Plan acceptable to the Director of Public Works. Main extension shall be thur Golf Course or Las Lomas to Pino Solo. Easement thur Golf Course, if this alternative is selected, shall be recorded prior to recording final map. 26 . A final map in substantial conformance with the approved tentative map and in compliance with all conditions set forth herein shall be submitted for review and approval in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and the City' s Subdivision Ordinance prior to the recording of the final map. a. Monuments shall be set at all new property corners created and a Registered Civil Engineer or Licensed Land Surveyor shall indicate, by certificate on the final map, that the corners have been set or will be set by a specific date and that they will be sufficient to enable the survey to be retraced. b. A recently updated preliminary title report shall be submitted for review in conjunction with the processing of • the final map. c . A preliminary subdivision guarantee shall be submitted for review in conjunction with the processing of the final map. 27. 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. JM/jm • MINUTES EXCERPT MAY 17, 1988 MEETii�ty AGENDA DATEITEM • MINUTES - ATASCADERO PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting Tuesday, May 17 , 1988. 7 : 30 p.m. Rotunda Room, City Administration Building The regular meeting of the Atascadero Planning Commission was called to order at 7 : 30 p.m. by Chairperson Nolan followed by the Pledge of Allegiance led by Commissioner Kidwell . ROLL L: Present: C issioners Kidwell, Hatchell, Michi sen, Tobey, Bond, Lopez-Balbontin ( 7 :35 p.m. ) a Chairperson Nolan Absent: None Staff Present: Henry Engen, nity Development Director; Paul Sensibau ublic Works Director; Steven • Decamp, Se ' or Pla er; Joel Moses, Associate Planner- and Patrici Shepphard, Administrative Secr ry I A. CONSENT ALENDAR 1 Approval of minutes of the regular Planning ommission meeting of May 3 , 1988 MOTION: Made by Commissioner Bond, seconded by Commis- sioner Tobey and carried unanimously to approve the Consent Calendar as presented. B. HEARINGS , APPEARANCES, AND REPORTS 1 . ZONE CHANGE 15-87 AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 39-87 : Request initiated by Mike Yeomans and Mike Frederick to revise the existing RSF-Y and RSF-Z zoning to provide for a Planned Development Overlay and implementing tentative tract map to re-organize the existing six lots totaling 6 . 32 acres into six lots ranging from 10, 740 to 16 , 980 square feet and create a new open space parcel containing 4 .47 acres , and to abandon a portion of Vista Bonita Road. Subject site is located • at 9240 Vista Bonita Road. (CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF MAY 3 , 1988) . I • Mr. Moses presented the staff report on the two applications recommending approval of the zone change and tentative parcel map requests . Chairperson Nolan noted that the applicant has submitted a letter requesting that certain conditions be amended to allow for bonding of the site improvements rather than require actual construction to be complete before the final map can be recorded. -Mike Yeomans, applicant, stated he is in agreement with the staff analysis and conditions of approval; however, he ex- plained his reasons for requesting the bonding for Condi- tions #1 , 4 , 7 , 10, 14 , etc . Steve Decamp addressed Mr. Yeoman' s letter noting that some of the conditions referenced would not be applicable to the bonding request . If bonding is to be allowed for the off- site improvements, then bonding should also be included for any on-site improvements as well . He added that assurances need to be made to insure that this project is completed in one phase. It is important that all of the grading work be completed at one time. He advised that this matter should • be continued for Public works input if it is the Commis- sion' s desire to amend the conditions as requested by the applicant. Discussion followed. Commissioner Hatchell stated an excellent job was done on the staff report and commended the developer on their efforts to minimize impacts on the site. He stated he would be in favor of bonding because of the extent of the off-site improvement costs . Commissioner Bond concurred with Commis- sioner Hatchell ' s comments and added he would like to see staff work with the applicant to revise the conditions of approval . Staff noted reluctance in drafting conditions at this time due to the complexity of the site . Commissioner Hatchell added he would like to see wording incorporated which would require the improvements to be complete prior to issuance of the first building permit. Mr. Yeomans further stated that 99 1/2% of all grading will take place in one operation and he will be submitting a more detailed grading plan and improvement drawings . De Camp emphasized that staff ' s major concern is that all of the work be done at one time and not in a piecemeal fashion. Discussion followed concerning the CC&Rs and planned • development overlay which will help in insuring that all of the conditions are met. MOTION: Made by Commissioner Bond and seconded by Commis- sioner Kidwell to continue the public hearing to June 7 , 1988 in order for staff to work with the • applicant in revising the conditions to make pro- vision for bonding of off-site and on-site improvements , including grading. Commissioner Lopez-Balbontin expressed concern with the open space easements and wants to make sure that assurances are, made for dedication of open space easements to the City. Discussion followed concerning this issue, density increases, etc . After further discussion, the motion carrlpd 7 - 0 _ 2 . TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 7-88: Request initiated by John White (Twin Cities Engineer- ing) to subdivide 10 . 44 acres into two parce s containing 3 . 66 and 6 . 78 acres each. Subject site/is located at 9550 Laurel Road. i r Mr. Moses presented the staff report concerning this" two-way vision request; staff recommendation is for' approval su ect to 11 conditions of approval . John ite, applicant, spoke in support of the application and as d for clarification on condition #4 . Mr. Decamp • responded hat the intent of the condition is to insure that grading and rainage plans are in for the access to the back lot which is , or this case, driveway,=design. There was no pub l ' c testimony given' . MOTION: Made by Com issioner;-Hatchell, seconded by Commis- sioner Tobey and carried 7 : 0 to approve Tentative Parcel Map 7-8 subject to the findings and con- ditions contain in the staff report. 3 . TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 9-88. Request initia d by Willi and Ann Palmer (Cuesta Engineering) t/ subdivide an existing developed parcel totaling 2 4 acres into tw arcels containing 1 . 04 and 1 . 00 res each. Subject s e is located at 4800 San Jacidto Avenue. In presentf g the staff report, Mr. Mose referenced some revisedonditions of approval that the Publi works Depart- menthAd revised ( #11 concerning offer of dedi ation) . Mr. Mose responded to questions from the Commission.- -j hn Falkenstien, agent for the applicant, concurred with staff ' s recommendation but expressed concern wit the ur • wording on Condition #8 . He stated that given the natof the street, that the last sentence concerning the requir - ment for a 15 foot pave-out from the centerline be deleted MINUTES EXCERPT JUNE 7, 1988 �A�� �i ITEM!AGENDA — MINUTES - ATASCADERO PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting Tuesday, June 7 , 1988 7 : 30 p.m. Rotunda Room, City Administration Building \` The regular meeting of the Atascadero Planning Commission wa called to order at 7 : 31 p.m. by Chairman Nolan, followed by e Pledge of Allegiance led by Commissioner Michielssen. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Kidwell, Michielsse Tobey, Bond, Lopez-Balbontin, and Chairman Nolan Absent: Commissioner-,Hatchell (e sed) Staff Present: Henry Engen,_ Community Development Director; Joel Moses --Associate Planner, Doug Davidson, Assistat Planner;"Patricia Shepphard, Admin- istr ive Secretary'I_� A. CONSENT/CALENDAR Approval of minutes of the regular Plann ' g Commission meeting of May 17 , 1988 MOTION: Made by Commissioner Kidwell, seconde by Commissioner Tobey and carried 6 : 0 to approve t Consent Calendar as presented. B . HEARINGS, APPEARANCES, AND REPORTS 1 . ZONE CHANGE 15-87 AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 39-87 : Request initiated by Mike Yeomans and Mike Frederick to revise the existing RSF-Y and RSF-Z zoning to provide for a Planned Development Overlay and implementing tentative tract map to reorganize the existing six lots t totaling 6 . 32 acres into six lots ranging from 7 , 260 to 9, 132 square feet and create a new open space parcel containing 5 . 18 acres , and to abandon a portion of Vista Bonita road. Subject site is located at 9240 Vista Bonita Road. (CONTINUED FROM MEETINGS OF. MAY 3 AND MAY 17, 1988 ) • Mr. Moses summarized the background from the previous Commission meeting wherein revised conditions have been provided which allow provision for bonding of improvements . i • There was brief discussion relative to the difference between the revised conditions and original conditions proposed by staff . Mike Yeomans , applicant, indicated his concurrence with these revisions . In response to question from Commissioner Michielssen, Mr. Moses explained staff was recommending approval of the original conditions as they pertain to the "planned 'development" aspect of the project. Staff was concerned that this project and the necessary improvements be installed in one phase. Commissioner Michielssen felt that bonding is an appropriate measure of securing the necessary improvements and felt this would not be a problem given that no building permit could be issued before all improvements are completed. MOTION: Made by commissioner Michielssen and seconded by Commissioner Kidwell to approve Tentative parcel Map 39-87 subject to the revised conditions of approval (June 7, 1988 ) , and recommend approval of Zone Change 15-87 to the City Council . • Commissioner Bond stated he has followed the project very closely and concurred with Commissioner Michielssen' s statements and felt that the conditions would help mitigate impacts to the hillside without increasing the density. Commissioner Lopez-Balbontin expressed concern that assurance is made that the open space parcel is not developed at any future date. Mr. Moses stated this would be handled through the CC&Rs . The motion carried 6 : 0 . 2 . APPEAL OF PRECISE PLAN 10-88: Appeal initiated by Klaus Mathes (Asso ' ted Professions, Inc . ) appealing specifically t precise plan condition that the proposed gradin a reduced. ject site is located at 13305 Sant na Road. (CO UED FROM MEETING OF MAY 17 88) . Mr. Davidson lained th the applicant submitted alternate plans which w t the proposed grading is the most appropriate solutio access the site so the required findings can now be ade to p ess the precise plan, and noted the applic has withdrawn h " appeal . • There wa�ief discussion concerning refu of the appeal fee ./Staff pointed out that no refund is warra d as the fjae, has been absorbed in processing costs , publis the --._---- public hearing notice, staff report, etc. 1� • ORDINANCE NO. 180 AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO AMENDING SECTION MAP NUMBER 19 OF THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAPS OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO BY REZONING CERTAIN PROPERTY ON VISTA BONITA ROAD FROM RSF-Y & RSF-Z (RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY) TO RSF-Y (PD-7) & RSF-Z (PD-7) (RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY) (ZONE CHANGE 15-87 - YEOMANS/FREDERICKS) WHEREAS, The proposed zoning map amendment is consistent with the General: Plan as required by Section 65860 of the California Government Code; and WHEREAS, The proposed amendment is in conformance with Section 65800 et. seq. of the California Government Code concerning zoning regulations; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendment 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 public hearings on May 3, May 17 and June 7, 1988 and has recommended approval of Zone Change 15-87. • NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Atascadero does ordain as follows: Section 1. Council Findings. 1. The proposal is compatible with the surrounding land use and zoning. 2. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan land use element and other elements contained in the General Plan, and specifically, policies pertaining to Low Density Single Family Residential development as expressed in 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. 1 C 6. Benefits derived from the overlay zone cannot be • reasonably achieved through existing development standards or processing requirements. 7. Proposed plans offer certain redeeming features to compensate for requested modifications. Section 2. Zoning Map. Map number 19 of the Official Zoning Maps of the City of Atascadero on file in the Community Development Department is hereby amended to reclassify Lots 1,2, and 3 of PM 32-85 and Lots 16 & 17 of Tract 5 in Atascadero as show on the attached Exhibits "A" & "B" which are hereby made a part of this ordinance by reference. Section 3. Publication. The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published once within fifteen (15) days after its passage in the Atascadero News, a newspaper of general circulation, printed, published, and circulated in the City in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code; shall certify the adopting and posting of this ordinance and shall cause this ordinance and this certification together with proof of posting to be entered into the Book of Ordinances of the City. • 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 Councilman Lilley and seconded by Councilwoman Mackey the motion is approved by the following role call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS DEXTER, LILLEY AND MACKEY NOES: COUNCILMAN SHIERS AND MAYOR BORPESON ABSENT: NONE DATE ADOPTED: 8/23/88 By: BONITA BORGESON, MAYOR City of Atascadero, California • i 1 C C • ATTES}Tf:� BOYD C. fT ITZ, City Clerk By: CINDY,WIL , S' ., ,Deputy City Clerk 'APPROVED A� T CO TENT: A, Jd �C WILLIAM HANLEY I erim, City Manager APPROVED AS TO RM: EY J07&SElf, City Attorney P PARED B HE R ENG N, CommunityiDevelopr6t Director i EXHIBIT A — ORDINANCE 180 ZONE CHANGE 15-87 ,►. '.,�--m� CITY OF ATASCADERO zQ �_ RSF—Z & RSF--Y TO RSF—Z CPDi "IPI '��� 1 IN:p �`' — COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & RSF--Y (PD 7) YEOMANS/FREDERICKS �r DEPARTMENT 1. ZONE CHANGE 15-87 R F•Z YEOMANS/FREDERICKS MF-4 RSF-Z & RSF-Y f�l<<4r 6) ' TO .��,'��; RSF-Z(PD 7) 8 RSF-Y(PD 7) f , ,_, �; , ` OO11 .o F• � ������. RSF• P v D7 $ � , ate\ � a / J 1 \ 0 • R F' CT CR ,rq � 6� O Q i "R-S IVE-1 l CITY OF ATASCADERO EXHIBIT B ORDINANCE 180' • t—' t+� r,c = -7 ZONE CHANGE 15-87 ACAD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT RSF-Z & RSF�-Z TO RSF--Z CPD 7. DEPARTMENT & RSF-Y CPD 7) YEOMANS/FREDERICKS -CQhth'UN??v uE'�Ei.�PCa� .- •. `•� TRACT 1562 TENTATIVE MAP v �� CHALK MOUNTAIN,ATASCADERO _, •I r \� 'NORTH) '�•�®� a `J•(. LOT 6 �-Zc\ LOT 4 3 OF5 - �.. As- LOT \ \ . ,. OTS :. .... .. c...n..... \- •+ ,`LOT 7 OPENSPACE -\ - 'i,\`r kr• i t W. �. 6 30 ac,us I' dRACi 1562 _ - j IS 19 ';1 -2) _ X22 E7 C�-• �S t� '�'.-a G-. - •.-�-..,gym wurury r�nP � ---- - - — - --...--�'i=�; _ - - I' I i' .. _- ,- .. •� - - ._I" ._ moi. .(�" '•'fA V-`-• ^� Al,. i REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL / CITY OF ATASCADERO ITEM: ] Through : Ray Windsor. City Manager Meeting Date : 11 /27 /90 File No : TPM 10-90 By: Henry Engen, Community Development Director -�{- SUBJECT: Request to subdivide two existing lots of 28 . 37 acres into four lots containing approximately 7 . Oi and 7 . 16 acres ( two lots of each size) at 10480 , 10660 Santa Ana Road (Catalina Oaks II/Vauv_han Surveys ) . RECOMMENDATION : Per the Planning Commission' s recommendation, approve Tentative • Parcel Map 10-90 subject to the revised Conditions of Approval(specifically deletion of Conditions i4 , 5 , 6 , 71 & 8) . BACKGROUND: On November 6 , 1990 , the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on this subject. On a 5 : 0 vote (Commissioners Waage and Highland absent) , the commission voted to approve the parcel map subject to the Findings and revised Conditions of Appr --�val . There was public testimony and discussion as referenced in Gie attached minutes excerpts . HE :ps Attachments : Staff Report dated November 6 , 1990 Minutes Excerpt - November 6 , 1990 Revised Conditions of Approval - November 6 , 1990 CC : Catalina Oaks II Vaughan Surveys CITY OF ATASCADERO Item: g_3 STAFF REPORT FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: November 6 , 1990 i BY: Karl Schoettler, Assistant Planner File No: TPM 10-90 SUBJECT: Subdivision of two existing lots containing a total of 28. 37 acres into four (4) lots containing approximately 7. 01 and 7. 16 acres each (two lots of each size) . RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of TPM 10-90 based on the Findings for Approval in Exhibit H and subject to the Conditions of Approval in Exhibit I. SITUATION AND FACTS: 1. Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Catalina Oaks II • 2. Representative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Vaughan Surveys 3. Project Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10480, 10660 Santa Ana Rd. 4. General Plan Designation. . . . .Suburban Single Family 5. Zoning District. . . . . . . . . . . . . .RS (Residential Suburban) 6. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28. 37 acres 7. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Vacant 8. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Negative Declaration posted October 16 , 1990 ANALYSIS: The proposed parcel map is a division of two existing lots of 14. 03 and 14. 34 acres into four parcels; two of the parcels will be 7. 01 acres each and the other two will contain 7. 16 acres each. Important issues include lot configuration and the suitability of the lots for building sites. The General Plan designation for this site is Suburban Single Family and the Zone designation is RS (Residential Suburban) . The property is currently vacant. The topography is fairly hilly, including slopes of eleven to twenty percent. The slope drops from Santa Ana Road towards San Fernando Road. The site is covered extensively with native trees although a number of clearings are scattered about the site. Minimum lot size in the RS zone is 2 . 5 to 10 acres depending upon the minimum lot size determination using performance standards established by the Atascadero Zoning Ordinance. Staff has determined that the minimum lot size for this site is 3 . 43 acres. Lot size factor Distance from Center ( 10 , 000 ' - 12 , 0001 ) 0 . 30 Septic Suitability (57 . 4 min/inch avg. ) 1 . 00 Average Slope (11-20 %) 0. 75 Access Condition (Paved road, <15% slope) 0 . 40 General neighborhood character (4. 88 acres) 0. 98 Minimumlot size. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. 43 acres The proposed lot size of 3 . 43 acres meets the minimum lot size requirement under the Residential Suburban zone. The septic suitability of the site is approximately 57 min/inch and is classified as "slow" ; engineered septic systems would be required. • An important issue related to this case is that the depth to width ratio of the proposed lots exceeds 3 to 1 , as mandated by the Atascadero Subdivision Ordinance. That is , the lots are more than three times longer than they are wide. Section 11-8 . 206 of the Ordinance states : "Lots with a ratio of depth to width greater than three shall not be permitted unless there is adequate assurance that deep lot subdivision will not occur or that deep lot subdivision and subsequent development will be accomplished without detriment to adjacent properties. " To authorize an exemption from this standard the City Council must make the following findings based upon recommendation by the Planning Commission: 1. That the property to be divided is of such size or shape, or is affected by such topographic conditions, that it is impossible, impractical or undesirable, in the particular case, to conform to the strict application of the regulations codified in this title; and 2 That the cost to the subdivider of strict or literal compliance with the regulations is not the sole reason for granting the modification; and, 3. That the modification will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, or be injurious to other properties in the vicinity; and, 4. That granting the modification is in accord with the intent and purposes of these regulations, and is consistent with the General Plan and with all applicable specific plans or other plans of the City. Staff feels that these findings can be made; this project is being conditioned to establish an open space easement on approximately the lower one-half of the site (Exhibit F) . This will insure the preservation of this now "isolated" , tree covered area and helps in making the subdivision exemption findings. However, it should not be construed that staff is "kicking in" the requirement for the open space easement just to be able to make the subdivision exemption findings. Staff feels that the proposed design as a whole, is well adapted to the topography and vegetation of the site. Staff has, in the past, received inquiries regarding the possibility of extending a road from Santa Ana roughly through the center of the lots (and parallel to Santa Ana) to serve a larger number of parcels. In fact, staff considered whether this would be a more workable alternative in the analysis of this map. However, the proposed homesites, adjacent to Santa Ana Road, are • more in character with the existing neighborhood and by virtue of their close proximity to Santa Ana, will result in less disruption to the site as a whole compared to construction that might occur further downslope. The homesites that have been designated on the map are located in relatively open spaces and, importantly, would result in no tree loss. As a condition of approval, staff is recommending that the proposed house sites shown on the tentative map be shown on the final map with notations restricting future building to these locations. Although the preliminary grading plans presented show what appears to be a sizeable amount of grading, it is not inconsistent with other, previous homesites in the area and is preferable to the amount of grading and disruption that would occur were the homesites further downslope. Through the precise plan process, staff will be able to assess grading more in-depth and possibly negotiate grading reductions through the use of raised/stepped foundations, retaining walls, etc. This project has been referred to other agencies for their review and comment. The engineering department is requiring minor widening around several of the sharper curves on Santa Ana Road. This is expected to have negligible impacts. The Fire Department had no comments on the subdivision. CONCLUSIONS: Staff believes that this map represents a logical subdivision • that is sensitive to the site in its design. The proposed homesites are in relatively clear, accessible areas. Establishment of the open space easement will insure that the sensitive downslope areas will be preserved from development. KCS/kcs ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - General Plan Map Exhibit B - Zoning Map Exhibit C - Tentative Parcel Map Exhibit D - Preliminary Grading Plan (a,b) Exhibit E - Preliminary Septic Plan (a,b) Exhibit F —Open Space Easement Exhibit G - Negative Declaration Exhibit H - Findings for Approval Exhibit I - Conditions of Approval • CITY OF ATASCADERO EXHIBIT A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT GENERAL PLAN MAP Nit �l`I 1 DEPARTMENT TPM 10-90 1p L ,AERIC LTURE F 1 , / \ 1� * /'\rte � •�'� r 0 SITE i N 0A t le 11 W r O POAD CLA140 C Oyu T4 S O l J II �� �1 • I CITY OF ATASCADERO EXHIBIT B CONMIUNITY DEVELOPMENT ZONING MAP DEPARTMENT TPM 10-90 i 4b'° ` �B,LBo� •� / l do' 40 O R Tii L(FH) � SITF . Oil I r, OV QOAO cFs•b � � /..-GT � O � V I I L(FH) - \ �AOApLLANO I W 'A - CITY OF ATASCADERO EXHIBIT C \ ; COMMUNM DEVELOPMENT TENTATIVE PARCEL Mo DEPARTMENT TPM 10-90 i ILL ----------- d 0 i slt E R � 7 3 E ��� `��� `.\ t 1 •.tom\.��--�:t�'-` - \` ,\ � ,\ ` `\ ,` `,� w 3�,�L •;� • 'tel \ \ 1 1 :.l:G'.\.ice_ v�,r�1i�% `\ `\ • ,\�; '\ `\ n `\ v. t i ` 4!7- as u CITY OF ATASCADERO EXHIBIT D (a) COMMLNITY DEVELOPMENT PRELIMINARY GRADING DEPARTMENT PLAN TPM 10-90 16 .:e- WD j I 14! ; 1 rq I 1 I i j ZZ `` �,O CITY OF ATASCADERO EXHIBIT D(b) PRELIMINARY GRADIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN DEPARTMENT TPM 10-90 i \ \ \ \ �.c\j MAP 4 • Y,' I I , I � \ � I i '' CITY OF ATASCADERO EXHIBIT E (a) • COMMUNI M DEVELOPMENT PRELIMINARY SEPTIC PLAN DEPARTMENT TPM 10-90 Vi :3�:��N� �� � rQJ •9y�] an i � ) Ij9/Nr i Y - Zq ! i EXHIBIT E cb� CITY OF ATASCADERO ;, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PRELIMINARY SEPTIC PLP DEPARTMENT TPM io-90 ci Its a.ClOhp � �.�• V ` � as 10 •• ice. V � i2ias i� � k , I • � CITY OF ATASCADERO EXHIBIT F COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OPEN SPACE EASEMENT DEPARTMENT TPM 10-90 ------------- a 1 1 --------------- -goal i7 1 1 1111 .'.j::�r. - •\ \ �a � \ 1 1 i ie � 1 � ,:'�:'��•'�•'�\. \ \ •1..'Qcts-..f�. . 1 1 0` \ 1 11 1 1 I 1 •.(•'.'Ir:•::•'.'•.'.',• •, ,�- ON OR all `y`�r:�+�.� ♦ �.� \. `ham \ \ ♦ \ \ \\ �•:::•.• , • I .1 1 t � \ � R V r yrs 4 C • EXHIBIT I - Conditions of Approval Tentative Parcel Map 10-90 10480, 10660 Santa Ana Road (Catalina Oaks II) November 6, 1990 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. All existing and proposed utility, pipeline, open space, or other easements are to be shown on the final map. If there are building or other restrictions related to the easements, they shall be noted on the final map. 2. All relocation and/or alteration of existing utilities shall be the responsibility of the developer. 3. The developer shall install all available utilities to the property line frontage of each lot. Utility services shall be installed underground prior to the recording of the map. 4. Obtain an encroachment permit from the City of Atascadero Public Works Department prior to the start of public • improvements. Sign an Inspection Agreement guaranteeing that the work will be done and the inspections paid for. 5. The subdivider shall install all street signs, traffic delineation devices, warning and regulatory signs, guardrails, barricades, and other similar devices where required by the Director of Public Works. Signs shall be in conformance with the current State of California uniform sign chart. Installation of traffic devices shall be subject to review and modifications after construction. 6. Santa Ana Road shall be widened at the inside of the sharp radius curves along the property frontage as directed by the Director of Public Works. 7. Construction of the public road improvements shall be completed or bonded for prior to the recording of the map. 8. All public improvements shall be covered with a 100% Performance Guarantee and a 100% Labor Guarantee until construction is deemed substantially complete by a 10% Maintenance Guarantee until one year after substantial completion. 9. Offer to dedicate to the City of Atascadero the following right-of-way and/or easements. • Street Name: Santa Ana Road Limits: 20 feet from centerline of right of way to property line. properties in the vicinity. • 11. Granting the modification is in accord with the intent and purposes of these regulations, and is consistent with the General Plan and all applicable specific plans or other plans of the City. • • EXHIBIT G CITY OF ATASCADERO ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATON try left NEGATIVE DECLARATION COMIIRU=DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 6500 PALMA AVE. ATASCADERO. CA 93422 (805) 461-5035 APPLICANT: DATA L( ,kj Ar OA tc S FO �o x �OLUR.�I C'i �,4 R��t63 PROJECT TITLE: to —go PROJECT LOCATION: I v ct ,z SAti i <t i� PROJECT DESCRIPTION: S,L) CPi�,�-'�: ��c ��71�j F Z S 777 C IC? ff ZC-c L CSO i(.'i A-11V C 7 C A i,,)L7 7, ! � CIOG7 ` Twp �cT,s c� �4 sr7c� FINDINGS: 1. The project does not have the potential to degrade the environment. • 2. The project will not achieve short-term to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. 3. The project does not have impacts which are individually limited. but comulatively considerable. 4. The project will not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings either directly or indirectly. DETERDMATION: Based on the above findings, and the information contained in the initial study (made a part hereof by refer- ence and on file in the Community Development Department), it has been determined that the above project will not have an adverse impact on the environment. Henry Engen Community Devel pment Lector Date Posted: Date Adopted: • CDD I I-" • EXHIBIT H - Findings for Approval Tentative Parcel Map 10-90 10480, 10660 Santa Ana Road ENVIRONMENTAL FINDING: The proposed project will not have a significant impact on the environment. The Negative Declaration prepared for the project is adequate. MAP FINDINGS: 1. The proposed map is consistent with the applicable General or Specific Plan. 2 The design and/or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the applicable General or Specific Plan. 3. The site is physically suitable for the proposed type of development. 4. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of • development. 5. The design of the subdivision, and/or the proposed improvements, will not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish and wildlife or their habitat. 6. The design of the subdivision, and the type of improvements, will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision; or substantially equivalent alternate easements are provided. 7. The design of the subdivision and/or the type of proposed improvements will not cause serious public health problems. SUBDIVISION EXCEPTION FINDINGS: 8. The property to be divided is of such size or shape, or is affected by such topographic conditions, that it is impossible, impractical or undesirable, in the particular case, to conform to the strict application of the regulations codified in this title. • 9. The cost to the subdivider of strict or literal compliance with the regulations is not the sole reason for granting the modification. 10. The modification will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, or be injurious to other • 10. Offers of dedication shall be completed and recorded prior to or in conjunction with the recording of the map. 11. Proposed building locations as shown on the tentative map shall appear on the final map with notations limiting buildings to these locations. 12. An open space easement, as shown in Exhibit F, shall be drawn and labeled on the final map. 13. Existing graded dirt roads on site shall be restored and revegetated prior to filing of final map. The revegetation plan shall be reviewed by the Community Development Director for adequacy. 14. A final map drawn 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 recordation. a. Monuments shall be set at all new property corners created and 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- i . b. Pursuant to section 66497 of the Subdivision Map Act the engineer or surveyor shall notice the City Engineer in writing when the monuments have been set. C. A recently updated preliminary title report shall be submitted for review in conjunction with the processing of the final map. d. A preliminary subdivision guarantee shall be submitted for review in conjunction with the processing of the final map. 15. 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. • MINUTES EXCERPT - PLANNING COMMISSION - 1116/90 • 3 . TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 10-90 : Application filed by Cata ina Oaks II (Vaughan Surveys) for subdivision of two existing lots containing 28 .37 acres into two lots containing approximately 7 .01 acres each and two lots containing 7 . 16 acres each. Subject site is located at 10480, 10660 Santa Ana Road. Karl Schoettler presented the staff report noting staff' s recommendation for approval subject to certain conditions. Steve Decamp reported that on October 4, 1990, the City Council entered into an agreement with Gordon T. Davis regarding the acceptance of various roads into the City- maintained road system that have been constructed over the years. He explained that among the conditions for the acceptance of those roads was that the roads be brought up to a standard that had been established at the time the road was constructed. There is a provision in the agreement that limits any future imposition of new road improvement standards on lots that abut the Davis roads and will be accepted by the City. Mr. Decamp further stated that since Santa Ana Road is one of those roads, Conditions 41 5, 61. 7, and 8 need to be deleted. This list of conditions was in the pipeline at the time the agreement was adopted, and has been superseded by the agreement' s adoption. Commission questions and discussion followed. Commissioner Johnson asked how the general neighborhood character was determined noting that if two lots are split into four lots, narrow lots will result. He questioned the advisability of creating such narrow lots, and expressed concern that if extension of Cebada results past the rear of this property, there could be a further subdivision of these lots . Mr. DeCamp explained that the open space easement is required to assure the prevention of further subdivision. In response to inquiry concerning septic system suitability, Mr. DeCamp responded that the perc tests and septic system designs provide an assurance that these systems will be adequate. Discussion continued. Commissioner Johnson voiced concern that if adequate fire protection and emergency services cannot be provided due to inadequate access, this could be a basis for denial . Mr. DeCamp noted that the Fire Department has reviewed the application and did not note a need for road improvements before fire protection services could be provided. Discussion ensued relative to the Fire Master Plan identifying a site on Santa Ana and Santa Lucia Roads for a third fire station. MINUTES EXCERPT - PLANNING COMMISSION - 11/6/90 Chairperson Luna voiced concern over the roads in the area � that have already been established adding that Condition ##13 is an excellent condition for restoring those roads . Mr. Decamp clarified that in the original. plan, the road ran roughly perpendicular to the roads that are now on the site. Some of the roads are the old original ranch roads that have been maintained over the years for fire protection and access . Tom Vaughan, agent for the applicant, concurred with Mr. Decamp' s statements concerning the feasibility of extending Cebada Road and spoke on the proposed septic system designs . He noted that part of the design for the building sites took into consideration the proximity to the road as a possible fire protection benefit. Commissioner Kudlac asked what the approximate lot frontages are. Mr. Vaughan responded. Dennis Moresco, 3330 San Fernando road, stated he strongly . supports the application adding that a sensitive approach has been taken in working with this difficult piece of property; this lot split will benefit the entire neighborhood. Commissioner Lochridge noted that there did not appear to be a concern on staff' s part with the proposed septic systems and asked if this might be a trend in that engineering has progressed to the point where projects can be accepted with these types of systems, or will these projects still be reviewed on a case-by-case basis . Mr. Decamp responded that the engineered systems will be reviewed carefully on a case-by-case basis . If there is a _site constraint that requires an engineered system, a specific look will need to be taken. In this case, the concerns are not the same as in other neighboring parcels ( i.e. , percolation rates) Discusslon. continued. MOTION: By Commissioner Johnson, seconded by Commissioner Lochridge and carried 5 :0 to approve Tentative Parcel Map 10-90 subject °to the Findings and Conditions of Approval with deletion of Conditions 4, 5, 6, 7 , and 8. 4 . TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 21-90 - Application filed by Donald Backes (Cuesta Engineering) to subdivide one lot into six airspace condominiums and a common area. Subject site is located at 9375 Musselman Avenue. Mr. Davidson presented the staff report noting an amendment to Condition ##8 of the precise plan which requires the trash (� r • EMIB IT I - Conditions of Approval Tentative Parcel Map 10-90 10480, 10660 Santa Ana Road (Catalina Oaks II) November 6, 1990 (REVISED BY PLANNING COMMISSION - 11/6/90) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. All existing and proposed utility, pipeline, open space, or other easements are to be shown on the final map. If there are building or other restrictions related to the easements, they shall be noted on the final map. 2. All relocation and/or alteration of existing utilities shall be the responsibility of the developer. 3 . The developer shall install all available utilities to the property line frontage of each lot. Utility services shall be installed underground prior to the recording of the map. 4. Offer to dedicate to the City of Atascadero the following right-of-way and/or easements. • Street Name: Santa Ana Road Limits : 20 feet from centerline of right of way to property line. 5. Offers of dedication shall be completed and recorded prior to or in conjunction with the recording of the map. 6. Proposed building locations as shown on the tentative map shall appear on the final map with notations limiting buildings to these locations. 7 . An open space easement, as shown in Exhibit F, shall be drawn and labeled on the final map. 8 . Existing graded dirt roads on site shall be restored and revegetated prior to filing of final map. The revegetation plan shall be reviewed by the Community Development Director for adequacy. 9. A final map drawn 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 recordation. • a. Monuments shall be set at all new property corners created and a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor as required by the Lard 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 when the monuments have been set. C. A recently updated preliminary title report shall be submitted for review in conjunction with the processing of the final map. d. A preliminary subdivision guarantee shall be submitted for review in conjunction with the processing of the final map. 10. 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. • • REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO ITEM: Through : Ray Windsor, City Manager Meetiliq Date : 11'/27 /9G File No: TTM 21-90 By: Heliry Encleli, Coiianunity Developnielit Director } SUBJECT: Request to subdivide one lot it-Ito six airspace coliclonlitiiunts and a contuloll area at 9375 Musseirnan Avenue f Don Backer i Cuesta Engineering) . RECOMMENDATION: Per the Planninq coitlitiissiUii' s recoomteiidation, approve Tentative Tract Map 21-90 subject to the revised Coliditions of Approval (. specifically, #3 ) . BACKGROUND: • On November n ; 1990 ; the Pldlliiitig Coiillitission conducted a public hearing on this subject . 011 a 5 : 0 vote {C:oliimissiotiers Waage and Highlalid absent', , the Coliililissiuii voted to approve the tract Map subject to the Findings and revised Coiiditions of Approval . There was public testintony and discussion as referenced in the attached millutes excerpts . HE :ps Attachments : Staff Report dated November 6 , 1990 Minutes Excerpt - Noveliiber 6 .. 1990 Revised Conditions of Approval - November 6 , 1990 cc : Doli Backes Cuesta Engineering • CITY OF ATASCADERO Item: R_4 • STAFF REPORT FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: November 6, 1990 BY: ,d* Doug Davidson, Senior Planner File No: TTM 21-90 SUBJECT: To consider a request to subdivide one lot into six airspace condominiums and a common area. RECO14MENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Tentative Tract Map 21-90 based on the Findings for Approval in Exhibit C and the Conditions of Approval in Exhibit D. SITUATION AND FACTS: 1. Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Don Backes 2. Representative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Cuesta Engineering • 3. Project Address. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9375 Musselman Ave. 4. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0. 48 acres 5. Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .RMF-16 6. General Plan Designation. . . . .High Density Multiple Family 7. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Six unit project under construction. 8. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Negative Declaration Adopted May 23, 1990 BACKGROUND: On May 23, 1990, Precise Plan 88-89 became effective. This approval established conditions of development for a six unit multiple family project. Building permits have been issued and the project is under construction. • • ANALYSIS: In an airspace condominium project, the unit spaces are individually owned, while the open space and parking area is owned in common. Private agreements (CC&Rs) ensure continued maintenance and enforce private regulations. The project was originally designed for separate ownership. The provision of separate water meters, as well as the architectural design and layout of the project, confirms that creation of condominiums was the desired result. The project meets the density, development, and appearance standards of the Zoning Ordinance as confirmed through the Precise Plan. This application is not subject to the current moratorium, nor would it fall under the provisions of the draft Condominium Conversion Ordinance as written. The moratorium and impending regulations apply only to condominium conversions - projects receiving final inspection as apartments and availalble for rent. CONCLUSIONS: • The proposed project presented no concerns to any of the outside agencies. The required public improvements triggered by this development have been reviewed and approved through the Precise Plan approval and issuance of building permits. With a corresponding subdivision approval, the required improvements must be completed before the map records or prior to final building inspection, whichever comes first. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Tentative Tract Map Exhibit B - Development Statement Exhibit C - Findings for Approval Exhibit D - Conditions of Approval Exhibit E - Precise Plan 88-89 2 EXHIBIT A 4�ft",k CITY OF ATASCADERO TRACT MAP to t. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TM 21-90 DEPARTMENT TENTATIVE MAP � ••,••• s.: Or A CONDOMINILTINf TRACT 2031 TO CREATE A SIX UNIT CONDOMINIUM ..e... • an.r ; UPON PARCEL ♦ OF PARCEL MAP 66-326 IN THE CRY OF ATASCAVENO. SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY. CALIFORNIA •,�..r u. :i re.ur nee.? Aef,43 r un orf '1 ' I �' 661Ir�f• 1 I •u.(r1' 'A6M1 t •l/M7�• \I� w��.r.-.... 1. - `a~ ..........,.'•1 VICINITY MAI' ..... a I i A f N ... ,. R.. �.�. RVORO OMNF.R] -. I� ..:w•, a u.r,l: ..f.i fi 7f'••. . •1 �111'r. 1RF'A '••••.•'�• •`t' " silt untss. .315 w1..•uwl+.trna PREPARED UY ,(_rGf Y V1:JfEtfl.tl:r-•n:cR: t.. :I4EEt awl! T1. EgfST6fG At VnOI)SED -„Haft• -”-16 f10 P:.f.J:.is 93t.r (911) :J 6737 w1tE f'wCP•f;EJ qr (q.: :.—U 1010"A HELD SIMVt1 • EXHIBIT B DEVELOPMENT STATEMENT TM 21-90 • S U M M I T DESIGN AND ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES P. O . Box 1919 , Paso Robles , CA 93447 ( 805 ) 239-8737 City of Atascadero . September 12 , 1990 Community Development Department 6500 Palma Ave . Atascadero , Ca 93422 Re : Tentative Map Tract 2031 (Condominium) Dear Sirs , The purpose of this letter is to provide additional information regarding the development of Tract 2031 . This development was originally submitted to the City of Atascadero in early 1990 and was approved as Precise Plan #88-89 . Subsequently , building permits were issued ( I ' s 6963 , 6964 , & 6965 ) . The buildings were designed for condominium purposes and the developer , Don Backes , has reviewed his intention for this with the Planning Staff . • At the time of the preparation of this map the site was under preparation for construction . None of the units are complete ( and wont be so for some time ) , so , after review with Doug Davidson of your office , we are presenting this as a Proposed Condominium Tract and NOT a Condominium Conversion . Also , because the site has been cleared , there are no existing topographic features to show on this map other than. the existing contour s and two tr cco to remain . here was a single family home on the parcel . Further details regarding the old topography , or the proposed improvements and landscaping and such are contained in the approved Prwc _ z Plan and Building Permit applications listed above . The units are to be constructed more or less togethor ( no phasing) . They are proposed to be air-space units witll private patio areas . The developers do not intend to rent the units , although the timing of the approval of this application and the completion of construction might dictate otherwise . If there is a change to this , both the City and the potential renters shall receive proper notification . We appreciate your prompt consideration of this applisaticn . Please do not hesitate to call if you have further • questions . Si e 1 Eric Schmitz EXHIBIT C - Findings for Approval • Tentative Tract Map 21-90 9375 Musselman Ave. (Backes/Cuesta Engineering) November 6, 1990 ENVIRONMENTAL FINDING: A Negative Declaration has been previously prepared (May 2, 1990) and adopted (May 23, 1990) as a part of Precise Plan 88-89. MAP FINDINGS: 1. The proposed map is consistent with the applicable General or Specific Plan. 2. The design and/or improvements of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the applicable General or Specific Plan. 3. The site is physically suitable for the proposed type of development. 4. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. • 5. The design of the subdivision, as conditioned, and the proposed improvements, will not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish and wildlife or their habitat. 6. The design of the subdivision, and the type of the improvements, will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or the use of property within the proposed subdivision; or substantially equivalent alternate easements are provided. 7 . The design of the subdivision and/or the type of proposed improvements will not cause serious health problems. • • EXHIBIT D - Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract Map 21-90 9375 Musselman Ave. (Backes/Cuesta Engineering) November 6, 1990 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. All existing and proposed utility, pipeline, open space, or other easements are to be shown on the final map. If there are building or other restrictions related to the easements, they shall be noted on the final map. All relocation and/or alteration of existing utilities shall be the responsibility of the developer at his sole expense. 2. Construction of the public improvements as directed by Precise Plan 88-89 shall be completed prior to recordation of the final map. All public improvements shall be covered by a 100 percent Performance Bond and a 100% Labor and Material Bond until construction is deemed substantially complete and by a 10 percent Maintenance Bond until one year after substantial completion. 3. All conditions of Precise Plan 88-89 shall be completed prior to final building inspection of any unit. • 4. The applicant shall establish Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the regulation of land use, control of nuisances, and architectural control of the site and buildings. a. These CC&Rs shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Attorney and the Community Development Director prior to approval of the final map. b. These CC&Rs shall be administered by a Condominium Owners Association. 5. The open space/common lot shall be designated as a Public Utilities Easement. 6. The applicant shall make an offer of dedication to the City for the five feet along the complete property frontage. The offer of dedication shall also include public utility easements. The offer of dedication shall be recorded prior to or simultaneous with the recordation of the final map. 7. A final map drawn in substantial conformance with the approved tentative map and compliance with all conditions set forth herein shall be submitted for review and approval • in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and the City Lot Division Ordinance prior to recordation. a. Monuments shall be set at all new property corners • created by a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor as required by the Land Surveyors Act and Subdivision Map Act. Monuments set within the 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 notify the City Engineer in writing when the monuments have been set. C. A recently updated preliminary title report shall be submitted for review in conjunction with the processing of the final map. d. A preliminary subdivision guarantee shall be submitted for review in conjunction with the processing of the final map. 8. Approval of this tentative map shall expire two years from the date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted pursuant to a written request prior to the expiration date. • • EXHIBIT E ADMINISTRATION BUILDING TM 21-90 6500 PALMA AVENUE tscadeo� POLICE DEPARTMENT •ATASC 6500 P CALI �, FOR NIA 93422 PHONE. (805) 466.8000 INCORPORATED JULY 2. 1979 6500 PALMA AVENUE CITY COUNCIL ATASCAOERO. CALIFORNIA 91422 CITY CLERK PHONE: (805) 466.8600 CITY TREASURER _.�. CITY MANAGER ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT FIRE DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 6005 LEWIS AVENUE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ATASCAOERO• CALIFORNIA 93422 PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT PMONE. +805).466-2141 May 2, 1990 - Gary Harcourt 3344 Morro Rd. Atascadero, CA 93422 RE: PRECISE PLAN 88-89 9375 Musselman Dear Mr. Harcourt: Tie City of Atascadero has received and reviewed your application Z or a Precise Plan and Environmental Determination for the construction of six (6) multiple family dwelling units. The proposed site is zoned RMF/16 (Residential Multiple Family High Density) and the proposed use is allowed as defined as multiple family dwellings (Section 9-3. 172 (f) . The site is 0 . 48 acres in size and contains an existing single familv residence to be removed. The adjacent properties are zoned the same as the subject site and are currently developed with residential uses. Property to the south is vacant and owned by the State of California. A review by the Community Development Director of the environmental description fora and application, along with other background information, shows that the project will have no detrimental effect upon the environment; therefore, a Negative Declaration has been prepared. The Director has also found the project, as conditioned, to be in compliance with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed Precise Plan is approved as shown on attached Exhibit B (site plan) and subject to the conditions of approval 4-1 Exhibit E. Final approval becomes effective on May 23, 1990 , unless appealed. (NOTE: THIS DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A GR,U:NG OR •BUILDING PERMIT. ) • in the event you intend to appeal any of the conditions, your appeal should be in writing and should state the reasons for the appeal. Any appeal would be scheduled for Planning Commission consideration as a public hearing. You should, however, discuss any objections to the conditions with planning staff as it may be possible to alter conditions after such discussion. If you should have any questions concerning this project, you are welcome to contact the Community Development Department for assistance. Sincerely, Doug Davidson Senior Planner DD/dd cc: Don Backes • Attachments : Exhibit A - Zoning Map Exhibit B - Site Plan Exhibit C - Elevations Exhibit D - Findings for Approval Exhibit E - Conditions of approval • EXHIBIT A .,. CITY OF ATASCADERO LOCATION/ZONING MAP • ���iqa PRECISE PLAN 88-89 �. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 6) ' r / RSF•,Z(POT) / r • ,, s / 7 Q RMF-- CR / MF- , Y j � T T C v / r i • 16/ ►�' ,� �'" ,� ,per / � �, � / F- Y, C,T i EXHIBIT B CITY OF �SCA� SITE PLAN ERO PRECISE PLAN 88-89 r� �ala i s.— • COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SACKES NILUIRESOENTIAL ---Y\ 7 • -_ -�-_.-�� __ - �./.I.r/.�►L.':�y�lr=ate w��'�:� wl -� Ifs t7 _- � < RIN MI www •PTCI n an ria.F%"a w+Nie • ' EXHIBIT C ` ELEVATIONS / CITY OF ATASCADERO 17n M „-- PRECISE PLAN 88-89 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT :....mow co ?TSE�ic1 rw Ila 0 e+W WATM gg AWL off - « n soe BElu m _ n r►at aawmoM w. t:, �';"" • • Exhibit D - Findings for Approval Precise Plan 88-89 9375 Musselman (Backes/Harcourt) ENVIRONMENTAL FINDING: The proposed project will not have a significant impact on the environment. The Negative Declaration prepared for the project is adequate. 1 . The proposed project or use is consistent with the General Plan. 2. The proposed project or use satisfies all applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. 3. The establishment, and subsequent operation or conduct of the use will not, because of the circumstances and conditions applied in the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of the general public or persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the use, or be detrimental • or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity of the use. 4. The proposed projector use will not be inconsistent with the character of the immediate neighborhood or contrary to its orderly development. 5. The proposed use or project will not generate a volume of traffic beyond the safe capacity of all roads providing access to the project, either existing or to be improved in conjunction with the project, or beyond the normal traffic volume of the surrounding neighborhood that would result from full development in accordance with the Land Use Element. 6. The proposed project is in compliance with the City' s Appearance Review Guidelines. • • EXHIBIT E - Conditions of Approval Precise Plan 88-89 9375 Musselman Ave. (Backes/Harcourt) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. All construction shall be in conformance with Exhibit B (Site Plan) , Exhibit C (Elevations) , Exhibit E (Conditions of Approval) , and shall comply with all City Codes and Ordinances. Any modification to this approval requires approval by the Community Development Department prior to implementing any changes. 2. All relocation and/or alteration of existing utilities shall be the responsibility of the developer. 3. Grading and drainage plans, prepared by a registered Civil Engineer, shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval by the Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to the issuance of any building permits. All required drainage • work shall be constructed to City standards and completed Prior to final building inspection. 4. Developer shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Public Works Department and sign an inspection agreement guaranteeing that the work will be done in conformance with approved plans and that inspection fees shall be paid. 5. Public improvement plans 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 issuance of any building permit. Plans shall include, but not be limited to: a. Curb, gutter, five (5) foot sidewalk and paveout (30 feet from curb face to curb face) on Musselman Ave. along entire property frontage. b. Curb and gutter is required on both sides of Musselman Ave. C. Sewer main extension along the entire property frontage. • d. Construction of the public road improvements shall be completed prior to the final inspection. 1 • 6. All public improvements shall be covered with a 100% Performance Bond and a 100% Labor and Material Bond until construction is approved and by a 10% Maintenance Bond until one year after construction approval. 7 . All mechanical equipment (roof or ground mounted) shall be screened from public view. 8. A trash enclosure is required to serve the six dwelling units. The facility must be screened on all sides and cannot be located in the front 25 foot setback. 9. Landscape and irrigation plans shall be resubmitted to and approved by the Planning Division prior to issuance of building permits. These plans shall incorporate the recommendations of the certified arborist. 10. The two required guest parking spaces, one of which is to be handicapped, shall be redesigned (the proposed parallel parking stalls do not function adequately) . These stalls must be located outside the required turn-around for Fire Department vehicles. If the parking cannot be designed • outside the turn-around area, automatic fire extinguishing systems shall be required for units #5 and #6. 11 . This Precise Plan shall expire one year from the date of final approval (May 23 , 1990) . A one year time extension may be granted pursuant to a written request filed prior to the expiration date as per Section (9-2. 118) of the Zoning Ordinance. Any further one year time extensions may be approved by the Planning Commission. • 2 MINAITES EXCERPT - PLANNING COMMISSION - 1116/90 - 4 . TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 21-90 : Application filed by Donald Backes (Cuesta Engineering) to subdivide one lot into six airspace condominiums and a common area. Subject site is located at 9375 Musselman Avenue. Mr. Davidson presented the staff report noting an amendment to Condition #8 of the precise plan which requires the trash enclosure to serve the units. He stated that the applicant has requested elimination of this condition, and explained that staff could support this request. He then offered modified language to Condition #3 of the tract map which would require agreements with Wilmar Disposal for individual trash collection. In response to inquiry by Chairperson Luna, Mr. Davidson explained timing factors and steps involved in processing condominium maps . Eric Schmitz, agent for the applicant, indicated his concurrence with the recommendation and amended language for Condition #3 . He provided a background on minor changes to the precise plan which were subsequently worked out. Mr. Schmitz added that the map needs to reflect those revisions. He pointed out that it was the applicant' s intent from the beginning to develop the project as condominium units . MOTION: By Commissioner Lochridge, seconded by Commissioner Kudlac and carried 5 :0 to approve Tentative Tract Map 21-90 subject to the Findings and Conditions of Approval with modification to Condition #3 : "3 . All conditions of Precise Plan 88-89 shall be completed prior to final building inspection of any unit. Condition #8 of the Precise Plan may be eliminated if written con f i.rmation s received rom. Wilmar Disposal Company indicating that the proposed method o individual trash collection is acceptable. This agreement - shall be reflected in the CC&Rs. " s EXHIBIT A imCITY OF ATASCADERO TRACT MAP COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TM 21-90 D EPARTMENT TENTATIVE MAP � arul FI•.a+ or A CONDOMINILTAf TRACT 1,'2031 TO CREATE A SIX UNIT CONDOMINIUM �' ...«. aN.•1 .F:. � UPON PARCEL 4 OF PARCEL MAP 86-326 IN THE CITY OF ATASCAUERO, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY. CALIFORNIA 1-1, UAIIJ .. wF•rw lrl FlDIOAa ARFA! �-\ " r� E� I I �, ew,r!• 1 I •uM�'• 'Yl►I1S r-. '` ly �:.,.. 1 •>;y ....�.....` YIrINITY•MAI' ..... _� ear 1--GOMAEOa F A41fA�� -- !4•. 1'-. -- '—I ` , Z ! �,•— a -� I �� i A r a-.F.L..v • ... .. ��.. F.. .....,_.�.I I RECORD OWNERS ...Ei rill'.•.�:.•1 Ylt.- �111'F. IRFA. .. �. •.!.. •-. .. . •...rw••. t1 « PREPARED BY eltE YwE9S v37 WF111:1 EF44 hF51eFG !►NWOSEO ..,Fara. RW-1e lend MIE. 1'N(r.t:E.,Nr ERF.: :C1.1w1! IW VG1FA61K MEONWIv.. tlA:tu 144'1. 1.4; .1wtM1.>wl G. F IIMN A 141.0 a1w1VtY a I,-# act 195.9 I �-' - (Joe/ 7801 1) r.Rtru.E: A., 1•r.0 _r • EXHIBIT D - Conditions of Approval • Tentative Tract Map 21-90 9375 Musselman Ave. (Backes/Cuesta Engineering) Revised by the Planning Commission November 6, 1990 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. All existing and proposed utility, pipeline, open space, or other easements are to be shown on the final map. If there are building or other restrictions related to the easements, they shall be noted on the final map. All relocation and/or alteration of existing utilities shall be the responsibility of the developer at his sole expense. 2. Construction of the public improvements as directed by Precise Plan 88-89 shall be completed prior to recordation of the final map. All public improvements shall be covered by a 100 percent Performance Bond and a 100% Labor and Material Bond until construction is deemed substantially complete and by a 10 percent Maintenance Bond until one year after substantial completion. 3 . All conditions of Precise Pian 88-89 shall be completed • prior to final building inspection of any unit. Condition #8 of the Precise Plan may be eliminated if written confirmation is received from Wilmar Disposal Co. indicating that the proposed method of individual trash collection is acceptable. This agreement shall be reflected in the CC&Rs. 4. The applicant shall establish Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the regulation of land use, control of nuisances , and architectural control of the site and buildings . a. These CC&Rs shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Attorney and the Community Development Director prior to approval of the final map. b. These CC&Rs shall be administered by a Condominium Owners Association. 5. The open space/common lot shall be designated as a Public Utilities Easement. 6 . The applicant shall make an offer of dedication to the City for the five feet along the complete property frontage. The offer of dedication shall also include public utility • easements. The offer of dedication shall be recorded prior to or simultaneous with the recordation of the final map. • f{ • 7. A final map drawn in substantial conformance with the approved tentative map and compliance with all conditions set forth herein shall be submitted for review and approval in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and the City Lot Division Ordinance prior to recordation. a. Monuments shall be set at all new property corners created by a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor as required by the Land Surveyors Act and Subdivision Map Act. Monuments set within the 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 notify the City Engineer in writing when the monuments have been set. C. A recently updated preliminary title report shall be submitted for review in conjunction with the processing of the final map. d. A preliminary subdivision guarantee shall be submitted for review in conjunction with the processing of the • final map. S . 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. • • REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Item No . Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date : 11/27/90 File No: Ardilla Road Extension From: Henry Engen, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Appeal by Joan O' Keefe of Negative Declaration posted for proposed extension of Ardilla Road. RECOMMENDATION: Continuance to permit the Council to consider the appeal in conjunction with proposed heritage tree removal requests and road improvement plans ( refer to next Agenda Item) . • BACKGROUND: On October 10, 1990 , a Negative Declaration was posted ( see attached) for the proposed construction of the extension of Ardilla Road between Graves Creek Road and Balboa to enable development of intervening private lots . The posting of the Negative Declaration was done in anticipation of a hearing on November 27th to consider the attendent heritage tree removal request by Bill Barnes (Atascadero Highlands) . The City' s Arborist had been providing direction to Tom Vaughan Surveys for staking of the property and proper designation of trees proposed to be removed. However, the City' s Arborist then resigned her position and work on the staff report has not been completed. However, a consulting City Arborist has been retained and is scheduling work in time for the Council ' s next meeting, or December 11 , 1990 . APPEAL ISSUES: The attached appeal was received on October 30, 1990 and is required by ordinance to be scheduled for hearing within 30 days . Ms . O' Keefe contests the adequacy of the Negative Declaration and requests the preparation of an environmental impact report . It should be noted that an environmental impact report was prepared • for Long Valley Ranches in 1979 and was certified by the Division of Real Estate when the land was to be marketed, which includes the project under discussion. The current proposal is to develop a portion of that overall subdivision by paving the existing paper street Ardilla. The Atascadero Highlands ownership consists of 10 adjoining lots on the south side of Ardilla. Some 191 Live and • Valley Oaks are proposed to be removed, including 37 of heritage size. The applicant has submitted a tree protection plan and more detailed geologic information, and a Negative Declaration based upon project redesign and mitigation measures was posted. Staff has responded to Ms . O' Keefe ' s comments in the attached annotated memorandum opposing the need for an EIR. We have also enclosed the preliminary memorandum from Lisa Schicker, former City Arborist, dated September 26 , 1990 . ALTERNATIVE: Technically, the Council could act on the independent issue of the Negative Declaration, however, staff would recommend that in view of the lack of road improvement and tree protection report, that it be continued to your December 11 , 1990 meeting. HE:ph Encls : Project Area Map Letter of Appeal - October 29 , 1990 Draft Negative Declaration Responses to Comments • Environmental Coordinator' s Negative Declaration - Oct. 10, 1990 City Arborist ' s Memorandum - September 26 , 1990 cc : Joan O' Keefe Bill Barnes Tom Vaughan Lands of Atascadero Highlands etal. in the vicinity of the proposed Ardilla Road extension APN' s 050-141-19, 28, 29, 30, 31 , 32; and APN' s 050-151-02, 05 , 06, 07 ' cue J 9040 I ' R040 / i L o i �CEBb, I ,N, '1 I 1, ,C � ltip.00 �L,2,648 October 29, 1990 9985 Old Morro Rd. East Atascadero, Ca 93422 Re : Negative Declaration Ardilla Rd. Extension 10-10-90 Dear Mr. Engen; I am appealing the finding of a Negative Declaration for the Ardilla Road extension project . Enclosed is the $100 . 00 fee nor filing the appeal . I have reviewed the Initial Study and I do not agree with findings 1 , 2 and 3 . The Initial Study does not adequately address the cumulative impacts of this project on the environment and to the people living in Atascadero. This project . the extension of . 66 miles of Ardilla Rd, is really only one phase of a larger project which will be th= • l• construction of nine , twelve or twenty four single family parcels . All three figures are given in the report . The Geologic Hazard Report states , "The site consists of 9 lots or parcels which vary in size from 2 . 10 acres to 8 . 78 acres . " The Initial Assessment states "twelve ( 24 ) single family residents . " The report does not address the Possibility of future lot splits which could increase thiS Z , number. Subdivision is a common occurrence in Atascader.l . There are no maps in the packet to provide an overview ::- lot configuration or future site development . Pacific :seoscience describes the project as an extension of Arr'i �a Road between Balboa Avenue and San Benito Road. Their map and description does not seem to conform, to present day maps . It is impossible to know just what this project will look like when it is completed. This also adds to t.".s difficulty of discussing the project. Following is a list of the items which I believe were not covered in sufficient detail or were not considered in your report. 1 . Earth and 3 . water. Drainage, soil erosion and sediment" control have been a problem in this area, for example, the • Dovica project. The report says in ( 1) e and ( 1 ) f there may be a problem with wind or water erosion. In ( 3 ) b the report states there will be changes in drainage and surface runoff . The mitigation measure for addressing these impacts does not 3, state what control measures will be installed and how they will be monitored. Public Resources Code Sec . 21081 . 6 . • "Reporting and monitoring programs for project changes implementing mitigation findings or negative declarations, states that "the public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program . . . in order to mitigate or avoid 4' significant effects on the environment. This information does not appear in the report. 4 . Plant Life . The report indicates there will be significant impacts on plant life and the mitigation measure addressing this is that, where practical, the applicant shall preserve significant oak trees at the edges of construction through the measures recommended by the City S I Arborist. Was a redesign recommended to the developer to reduce the impact? Your report states that 191 live and valley oak will be removed. Your report does not state that an unknown number of additional trees will also be impacted. The arborist ' s report states , "I have in my possession two different tree removal reports . Because of the differences reported in these two reports, the amount of trees that will be removed is approximately between 190 - 22o trees , with approximately 37 of these being heritage size ( 20"dbh or greater. ) " Staff ' s report does not state that many, mart trees had already been removed when the city allowed a • rough cut extension on Ardilla to be constructed without Per^its or plans . The proposed road extension visually appears to be on the flattest part of the terrain. What remains for building sites appears to be moderate to steep slopes . The geological report describes the land as steeply sloping 0. terrain. How many more trees will have to come out when driveways , building pads and septic go in? In addition to the trees which will have to be removed the remaining plant and animal life will be im^acted as t::e assessment indicates . � 13 . Transportation/Circulation a. , -- ,d, f . The General Plan• is inadequate and outdated in regard to Circulation. The Primary mode of transportation is by motori_ed vehicles and the winding, narrow, poorly maintained roads cannot handle the increase in traffic . $ ( 14 . Public Services . a. -f . The General Plan is inadequate , inconsistent, ignored, outdated , inconsistent with the n^ ordinance and Poorly implemented. Atascadero cannot currently provide the residents in western Atascadero with adequate fire ;rotac`cn. Ali other sery i es have been impacted and development fees are not sufficient to cover the costs of providing for these services . 9 16 . Utilities . c . -e . Atascadero is experiencing a water shortage and continues to issue building permits . This area is not served by city sewer. Slope and percolation have not been assessed for each individual lot to determine if some adjustments in regard to lot lines need to be made or if a central sewage system should be considered for this project . The report does not indicate if the drainage plans for this area can accommodate the increased run off when homes are built. to. 18 . Aesthetics . How many trees will be removed for the road, for houses, for septic, for lot splits? What have been and will be the cumulative impacts of this kind of piecemealing of projects on Atascadero' s Urban Forest, 21 . Mandatory Findings of Significance. c . The assessment 11. does not indicate that reasonable-alternatives' easonable alternatives such as clustered housing have been addressed. The arborist' s report indicates confusion regarding how many trees are to be removed. Will the road policy for Ardilla be implemented as poorly as the Garcia Road project? Can we expect that this Negative Declaration will be used a boiler-plate for a Negative Declaration on San Marcos Road, just as the Garcia Road project is used for this one . What are the cumulative impacts of such a road policy? Based on the above information I believe that the Initial • Study is inadequate because it fails to assess the whole project. The building of a road in an area designed for residential development is only one phase of a project. It is not The Project and this assessment avoids the intent of the environmental review process by taking the approach it has taken. Since the Initial Assessment is inadequate I believe the finding of a Negative Declaration is deficient , and for this reason I am requesting that an EIR be for this Project. 3 • DRAFT NEGATIVE DECLARATION RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED ARDILLA ROAD EXTENSION The following responses to the comments contained within the letter from Joan O'Keefe dated October 29, 1990 are numbered to correspond with the attached annotated copy of her letter. 1 . There is an error in Section 13 .a. of the Supplemental Responses . The correct number of lots to be served by the extension of Ardilla Road is twelve (12) . The total number of vehicle trips per day should read 120 and not 240 . 2 . The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not require speculation. Therefore, there is no discussion within the Initial Study as to the potential for future subdivision activity. The General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Subdivision Ordinance regulate the division of land within Atascadero. Any subdivision proposed in the future would also be subject to CEQA. • 3 . The soil erosion and sedimentation control measures required to reduce potential damage will be "best engineering practices" and will be installed as required by the projects approved plans and verified by the City' s inspector as to installation and ongoing maintenance . 4 . Public Resources Code Section 21081 . 6 does not require that each environmental document contain a recital of mitigation monitoring systems . Mitigation monitoring for this project will be undertaken on an ongoing basis by the City' s inspector. 5 . Alternative road designs were proposed by the developer prior to submittal of the preferred design. The developer has moved the proposed extension of Ardilla Road within the Colony right-of-way, and where necessary and feasible, outside the R-O-W to preserve significant trees and reduce grading. The proposed alignment is the least environmentally disruptive alternative. 6 . The current project is limited to the construction of a road to provide access to existing legal lots of record • which are planned and zoned for single family residential development . Any required environmental review of the development of the individual sites will be conducted when such development is proposed. 7 . Comment noted. The draft Negative Declaration does not • purport to address the adequacy of the General Plan. S . Comment noted. See response- #7 above. 9 . Comments noted. See responses #2 and #6 above . 10 . Comment noted. See response #2 above. 11 . The lots to be accessed by the extension of Ardilla Road are existing, legal lots of record. The imposition of a "cluster housing" alternative on the owner/developer is not reasonable. As noted in #5 above, alternative alignments for the extension of Ardilla Road were considered but rejected because of the increased potential for environmental degradation. • • 2 r r CITY OF ATASCADERC ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATOF NEGATIVE DECLARATIOIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT, 6500 PALMA AVE. ATASCADERO, CA 93422 (805) 461-5035 APPLICANT: Atascadero Highlands 10385 Santa Ana Atascadero, CA 93423 (805) 466-2826 PROJECT TITLE: Ardilla Road Extension PROJECT LOCATION: Ardilla Road between Graves Creek Road and Balboa Road PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construction of an extension of Ardilla Road to serve existing parcels zoned for single-family residential development. FINDINGS: I. The project does not have the potential to degrade the environment. • 2• The project will not achieve short-term to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. 3• The project does not have impacts Which are individually limited, but comuladvely considerable. 4, The Project will not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings either directly or indirectly, DETERIMATION: Based on the above findings, and the information contained in the initial study ease aer- nd on file in the Community Development Department). it has been determined that theartarabove eof by rref oject will not have an adverse impact on the environment. Henry Eng COmmunity Development Director Date Posted: October 10, 1990 Date Adopted: • i NEGATIVE DECLARATION • RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES ARDILLA ROAD EXTENSION 1 . The on-site inspector shall insure that all soil erosion and sediment control measures are in place at all times . 2 . Where practical, the applicant shall preserve significant oak trees at the edges of construction through the measures recommended by the City Arborist . 3 . The recommendations contained in the Geteachnicalr 27, 1989 Engineering Field Exploration report da shall be implemented. 4 . If any cultural or arconstru�tion,ical resources work shallencountered and during the course of prior to the appropriate authorities shall be consulted p commencement of any further construction. • • 40 , . CITY OF ATASCADERO ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATOR ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM cow4uNPTy DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 6500 PALMA AVE. ATASCADERO. CA 93422 (805) 46I-5035 Ptease We or print clearly trn ln/c Incomplete forms will be retumed. Applicant: 5 Address: / f?D. Box 284.5 Phone Project Address: 50- 1.4l - I ,ts, Assessor's Parcel #: 4 7y 3+,35 3G(Pk� Legal Description: l �Gt �N7(0 b t(�U +PI�t /-r1�] /b t✓��gp�GZ!"� j List and describe any other permits or public agency(Federal. State or local) approvals required for this pr Proposed Proposed Use of Site: JtWd • PRQ�TECT DF CRUYnn*.. 1. Site area (in acres): t 2. Square footage of buildings: 3. Square footage of parking areas: / parking spaces: 4. Number of on-site 5• Describe proposed scheduling; :!5m 6. Describe associated projects: X11 7. If residential. include the number of units. schedule of unit sizes. and anticipated household size. NIA aattcfpated sale prices or rents. 8. If commercial. Wdicate the type (neighborhood. regional, etcJ. and square footage of sales areas. N111 9. If industrial. indicate type. estimated employment per shi9t and products/byproducts produced. NIA I0. If institutional. indicate major functions, estimated employment per shin. estimated occupancy. and community beneSts to be derived from the project. NIA • • 1. Describe the project site as it exists before the project. including information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, availability of utilities, and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Describe any exdsting structures on the site. and the use of the structures. 2. Describe the surrounding properties. including information on plants and animals. and any cultural, historical. or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land use (residential. commercial. etc.), intensity of development. and scale of development (building height. setback. etc.). EN ViROIVNIENTAL EFFECTS Are the following 2gten effects of your project? Provide a written response to each item checked "YES". YES rL4 1. Change in e;dsting features of any stream. swale, drainage pattern, or substantial alteration to wdsting topography? fee phi Cl 2. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas, public lanels. or roads? ❑ Q� 3. Change in pattern. scale, or character of the general area of the ,., • project? ❑ L�f 4. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter? ❑ S. Change in dust. ash. smoke, fumes. or oders in vicinity? ❑ L7 6. Change is stream or ground water quality or quantity? ❑ Q� 7. Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels? ❑ 8. Is the site on aar�eeaa land or on slo es of 1p96 or more? ❑ some 410pVp d"ee� i0 or Use or disposal of hazardous materials? ❑ 10. Substantial change in demand for municipal services? Q 11. Substantial increase in fossil fuel consumption? 12. Is the project related to a larger project or series of projects? Q Q� 13. Removal of. or grading within the dripline of mature trees? �7 ❑ • Discuss in detail the other development altemattves that were considered for this site'or project Explain wiry each of the alternatives was rejected. Provide any additional information that you believe will be beneficial in the analysis of the potential environ- mental affects of your project. Such additional supporting data may include: Maps Photographs Charts Drainage Studies Soils Reports Geologic Reports Archaeological Reports 'haft Studies CER=CA7TQN I hereby certify that the statements furnished above. and in the attached exhibits. Information required for this initial evaluation. to the best of Present the data and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. facts. statements. and Z7 Signature Date maw CITY OF ATASCADERO ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATOR INITIAL STUDY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 6500 PALMA AVE. ATASCADERO,CA 93422 (805)461-5035 I. BACKGROUND: 1. Proposal Title: Ardilla Road Extension 2. File Number(s): NA 3. Brief Description of Proposal: An extension of Ardilla Road within the original Colony Right-of-Way to serve existing parcels zoned for single-family residential development. 1 II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: (Explanations of all"yes" and "maybe"answers are provided on attached sheets.) YES MAYBE NO 1. fartil. Will the proposal result in a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? ❑ ❑ 0• b. Disruptions,displacements,compaction or overcovering of the soil? a ❑ ❑ c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? ❑ ❑ d. The destruction,covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical ❑ F7features? 77 e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils,either on or off the site? ❑ 0 ❑ f. Changes in siltation,deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a ❑ F7river or stream or the bed of any lake? g. Exposure of people or property to geological hazards such as earthquakes, ❑ ❑ Q landslides,mudslides,ground failure,or similar hazards? 2. ,�' . Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? ❑ ❑ �'=1 b. The creation of objectionable odors? ❑ ❑ Q c. Alteration of air movement,moisture,temperature,or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? ❑ ❑ '—� • 3• JyAta. Will the proposal result in YES M YBE N4 • a. Changes in currents,or the course or direction of water movements? ❑ 7` b. Changes in absorption rates,drainage patterns,or the rate and amount of surface runoff? ® ❑ F7 C. Alterations to the course or flow of flood water? ❑ ❑ 0 d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? ❑ ❑ Q e. Discharge into surface waters or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to,temperature,dissolved oxygen or turbidity? ❑ ❑ 0 f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? ❑ ❑ ❑ g. Change in the quantity of ground waters,either through direct additions or withdrawals,or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? ❑ ❑ X❑ h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? ❑ ❑ 0 i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? ❑ ❑ Q 4. Plant LUc. Will the proposal result in a. Change in the diversity of species,or number of any species of plants(in- cluding trees,shrubs,grass,mops,aquatic plants)? a ❑ ❑ b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare,or endangered species of plants? ❑ ❑ Q c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area,or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? ❑ ❑ d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? ❑ ❑ Q 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in a. Change in the diversity of species,or numbers of any species of animals(birds, land animals including reptiles,fish and shellfish,benthic organisms,or in- sects)? 0 ❑ ❑ b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique,rare,or endangered species of animals? ❑ ❑ lX l c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area,or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? ❑ FV7 ❑ 6. -Noss Will the proposal result in a. Increases in existing noise levels? ❑ ❑ ❑ • b. Exposure of people to severe noise? ❑ ❑ Q 7- bight ana raja**• Will the proposal produce new light or glare? ❑ ❑ ❑X YES MAYBE NQ 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or ❑ ❑ ❑ planned land use of an area? X • 9. Natural Resources, Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? ❑ ❑ b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? ❑ ❑ 0 10. Risk of Upset Will the proposal involve: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances(including,but not limited to,oil,pesticides,chemicals or radiation)in the event of an accident ❑ ❑ 0 or upset conditions? b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency ❑ ❑ ❑ evacuation plan? U. Population. Will the proposal alter the location,distribution,density,or growth © ❑ ❑ rate of the human population of an area? 12. Housin& Will the proposal affect existing housing,or create a demand for ❑ ❑ Q additional housing. 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movements? ❑ a ❑ b. Effects on existing parking facilities or demand for new parking? ❑ ❑ Q • c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? ❑ 0 ❑ d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or ❑ ❑ F7goodst e. Alterations to waterborne,rail or air traffic? ❑ ❑ f 77 f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? ❑ ® ❑ 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon,or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? 0 ❑ ❑ b. Police protection? ❑X ❑ ❑ c. Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑ d. Parks or other recreational facilities? 0 ❑ F7 e. Maintenance of public facilities,including roads? © ❑ ❑ f. Other governmental services? Q ❑ ❑ • YES MAYBE N4 • 15. Enersx Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? ❑ ❑ 0 b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy,or require the development of new sources of energy? F7 ❑ ❑ 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems,or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? ❑ ❑ b. Communications systems? ❑ ❑ a c. Water? ❑ ❑ ❑ d. Sewer or septic tanks? ❑ Q ❑ e. Storm water drainage? ❑ Q ❑ f. Solid waste and disposal? ❑ ❑ 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard(excluding mental health)? ❑ ❑ o • b. Exposure of people to potential health ❑ ❑ 18. Aesthetic. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public,or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? ❑ ® ❑ 19. Recreation- Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? ❑ ❑ 20. Cultural Resources. a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric archaeological site? ❑ ❑ b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building,structure,or object? ❑ ❑ 0 C. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ❑ ❑ 0 d. WM impact��proposal restrict existing religious or sawed uses within the potential ❑ ❑ r--� • YES MAYBE NO 21. Mandator Findings of Sign icance a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, • substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major F7 ❑ periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term,to the disadvantage of long-term,environmental goals? (A short-tem impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief,definitive period of time while long- term impacts will endure well into the future.) ❑ ❑ IR c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited,but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small,but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) F7a F7 d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or indirectly? ❑ ❑ III. DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial study: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the • environment,and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project,and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 0 I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ Date: t o//$190 Henry Engen Community Development ' r/ Environmental Coordinator ATTAC DdEN7S: Explanations Location Map Project Map Environmental Information Form • r�o rwo • INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES ARDILLA ROAD EXTENSION l .a. See attached Geologic Report dated October 16, 1989 and report dated October 27, 1989 (re : Geotechnical Engineering Field Exploration) regarding the extent of any geologic hazards or unstable earth conditions . b• The grading necessary for the construction of Ardilla Road will result in the displacement and compaction of the native soils . The extent of the grading for this road is no greater than would be anticipated for any road building project of this magnitude. The compaction of the soil is unavoidable, and in most cases, is required for the purposes of obtaining a stable road bed. C . The grading required for the construction of the road will change the topography and ground surface relief features in the immediate vicinity of the construction. Changes in drainage localized patterns will be • accommodated through dikes and ditches constructed as part of the road. e. Construction activity will remove native grasses and other vegetation exposing the surface soil to rain and wind which may cause soil erosion. Soil that is stockpiled may also be subject to wind or water erosion. Soil erosion and sedimentation controls should be imposed as part of any road improvement plans . f. If not properly controlled, soil which is eroded from the construction area may be transported to Graves Creek. Such siltation could adversely affect the channel of the Creek. Soil erosion and sedimentation control methods should be installed prior to the commencement of construction activities, and should be monitored through the life of the project . g. See attached Geologic Report dated October 16, 1989 and report dated October 27, 1989 (re : Geotechnical Engineering Field Exploration) . 3 .b. Compaction of the soil in the area affected by the construction of the road will alter and increase storm • water runoff. Grading that is done will alter local drainage patterns . Drainage facilities will be constructed in conjunction with the road which will redirect the drainage and avoid adverse impacts on • adjacent parcels . 4 .a. The construction of the road will necessitate the removal of 191 Live Oak and Valley Oak trees . Thirty seven of these trees have a dbh in excess of 20 inches which makes them "Heritage Trees" as defined by the City' s Tree Ordinance. Alternative means of reducing the number of trees to be removed are suggested in the Arborist' s report dated September 26, 1990 . C . Grading and the soil compaction necessary to construct the road may result in a barrier to the natural replenishment of the vegetation removed. Future residential development of the parcels accessed by the road may likewise inhibit natural replenishment of native plant species . 5 .a. The removal of the natural vegetation necessary to accommodate road construction will affect the native animals dependent upon that vegetation as a source of food and shelter. Eventual development of the adjacent parcels for residential uses will also impact the number and diversity of animals which utilize the area. The most severely impacted will be those species with the least tolerance for contact with humans . b. No rare or endangered species of wildlife have been • identified as resident within the affected area. C . To the extent that new residents of the area accessed by the extension of Ardilla Rd. have, or acquire, domestic animals, new species of animals will be introduced into the area. Free roaming dogs may discourage certain wildlife species from using the area and livestock (horses, etc . ) may compete for food sources with native wildlife. 6 .a. Noise levels will be elevated during construction of the road due to the operation of construction equipment . Hours of operation of the construction equipment will be limited by the Zoning Ordinance. There are a limited number of residences that will be directly affected by the increased noise levels . The duration of the increased noise levels will be limited to the construction period of the road. Use of the road by motorized vehicles after its construction will increase ambient noise levels in areas near the road. 8 . The area to be accessed by the new road has been 2 designated on the City' s General Plan and Zoning Maps • for single family residential use . No change in the planned land use of the area is proposed or anticipated as a result of providing access to the area. 11 . The population of the immediate area accessed by the road can be expected to increase as a result of the construction of single family homes . The population increase is anticipated by the General Plan, however. 13 .a. The extension of Ardilla Rd. will provide access to twelve 4441; single family parcels . If each parcel is developed, and if it is assumed that each dwelling will generate ten (10) vehicle trips per day, a total of --24e /20 additional vehicle trips may be generated from the subject area. This number of trips may be seen by existing residents of the area as a significant increase in traffic volumes on the streets leading to the area. C . See response to item 13 .a. above. d. The extension of Ardilla Rd. will provide for improved circulation through the affected residential area and will complete a portion of the originally proposed circulation plan. • f. See response to items 13 .a. above. 14 . a - f. Increased demands on all public services can be anticipated as a result of the residential development that is expected to follow the construction of the Ardilla Rd. extension. The density and number of dwelling units planned is within the limits established by the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The parcels to be accessed are existing legal lots that can be developed after access is secured and building permits are issued. The construction of the road extension will not increase the planned land use of the subject area. Development fees and property taxes will be utilized to offset the cost of providing the required governmental services . 16.c. The eventual development of the affected parcels for residential use will require the provision of a potable water supply. The Atascadero Mutual Water Company has, in the past, advised that adequate supplies of water are available to serve anticipated residential growth. • 3 Water lines to serve the residential parcels will be • extended within the Right-of-Way of Ardilla Rd. No distinguishable environmental effects should occur as a result of the installation of the water lines with road construction. d. Waste disposal from new single family dwellings will be handled on-site by septic tanks and leachfields . All public health and building code requirements will be met in the design of the individual waste disposal systems . e . An extension of Ardilla Road and the construction of additional single family dwellings will increase the amount, duration, and velocity of storm water runoff. The road improvement plans contain provisions for handling storm water runoff. The site design for future single family homes will need to address storm water runoff both on and off site. 18 . The grading necessary for road construction, and the removal of 191 trees may be aesthetically offensive to some observers, particularly those already residing in the immediate area. Any reduction in the number of trees to be removed will reduce the aesthetic impact of the project . 20 . No known archaeological resources exist in the area • that would be impacted by road construction activities . Standard conditions regarding archaeological resources will be attached to the project which will require all work to cease until an appropriate authority has reviewed the site if any cultural resources are encountered during the course of construction. 21 .c. The impacts of the proposed construction of the Garcia Road extension on native flora and fauna may be seen by some observers as significant . These impacts may be reduced through alternative construction techniques, or may be mitigated, in part, through planting of replacement trees. However, unless the City or some other organization is willing and able to acquire the property and preserve it in an undisturbed state, some impact to the environment as a result of the construction of a road and dwellings is inevitable. 4 • LQ R L� C d 4 �ti0 v CCL I AA RC, yoC A. f �o Q V SIJAIE Losos ti►PO RO_.\ q M! ! ;- EREY Z q N4 'O' P41 EL AC SITE•..' }4 R n `atiANCO X90 ' �aUOA CEI q� i :moo. ATASCADER VICINITY MAP N. T.S. �e i f I 1 n : GEOLOGIC HAZARD REPORT FOR PARCELS 1-49 LOTS 2-62 BLOCK 25 ARDILLA ROAD ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA • PG-6095-NO1 OCTOBER 161 1989 • Pacific Geoscience, Inc. • A Mwnbw of The earth Systeme Group 4378 Santa Fe Road San Luis Obispo, California 93401 - (805)544-3276 - FAX(805)544-1788 October 13, 1989 Job No. PG-6095-NOL 89-10-594 Atascadero Highlands P.O. Box 419 Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 Project: Parcels 1-4, Lots 2-6, Block 25 Ardilla Road Atascadero, California Subject: Geology Hazard Report • In accordance with your request, we have prepared a Geologic Hazard Report for Parcels 1-4, Lots 2-6, Block 25, Ardilla Road, Atascadero, California . The purpose of this report was to provide specific information regarding the presence of geologic hazards in the area of the subject site. The scope of our work consisted of a site reconnaissance, review of published and unpublished reports and the preparation of this report. The Seismic Safety Element to the General Plan for the City of Atascadero noted a potential landslide to occur on Lots 5 & 6. As a result, a limited subsurface exploration was conducted within the potential slide area. This portion of the exploration included the excavation of seven backhoe trenches to depths of 4.0' to 10.5' feet. The, holes were logged with respect to geologic structure and formation. The results are summarized in the attached trench logs. • October 13, 1989 Job No. PG-6095-N01 89-10-594 If there should be any questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact this office Respectfully submit PACIFIC GEO �5 D A.NM �o * CERMIED Richard A. •fo,t EHctmieRlh # Engineering ;Geologist RAP ` o c;,,.:: SER File 18 Copies: 2 - Atascadero Highlands 2 - Bill Barnes 1 - File • • (ONIN October 13, 1989 1 Job No. PG-6095-NOI 89- 10-594 SITE DESCRIPTION The site is located southwest of the intersection of Ardilla Road and Balboa Road in the City of Atascadero, California. The site consists of 9 lots or parcels which vary in size from 2.10 acres to 8.78 acres. It is situated on the north flank of a east-west trending ridge. The flanks of the ridge are sloping at approximately 30% and have a relief of approximately 250 feet. Vegetation on-site consists of native grasses, brush and scattered oaks. • GEOLOGIC SETTING The subject site is lies on the north flank of an east-west trending ridge within the Coast Ranges Geomorphic Province of California. The steeply sloping terrain is dissected by tributaries of the Salinas River which is located approximately two miles to the east. Locally, the site is generally underlain by the (oldest to youngest) Upper Cretaceous Aged Atascadero (Chico-U.S.G.S.-1938) Formation, Oligocene Aged Vaqueros Formation and the lower member of the Miocene Aged, Monterey Formation. STRATIGRAPHY Atascadero Formation consists of marine units that conformably underlie the Vaqueros Formation and Monterey Formation. Characteristically, the sandstone is fine-grained, well sorted and massive; where bedded, the beds generally are 6-24 inches thick and dip moderately to the southeast.. They range from friable to well • cemented and are noncalcareous. The mudstone unit is siliceous, porous, -easily broken and has a hackly or conoidal fracture characteristic. The Vaqueros Formation is a predominantly coarse- ®r-liftrAW October 13, 1989 2 Job No. PG-6095-NOI 89-10-594 grained marine sedimentary rocks. It is thickly bedded of massive, gritty, arkosic sandstone. The sandstone is coarse grained, pebbly, hard, medium gray and poorly to moderately sorted. It dips to the east at approximately 30 degrees. It was not observed northwest of lot 5. The lower member of the Monterey Formation is characterized as being a well-bedded, calcareous shale, mudstone and siltstone. Medium gray to grayish orange beds of sandstone were noted on- site. The formation was noted to weather to a clayey topsoil which supports grass and forest vegetation. Locally, the formation dips to the northeast between 25 and 30 degrees. STRUCTURE • The site is situated within the southern Salinas Valley which mainly lies on the Salinian structural block. The Salinian block is a structural element of the Coast Ranges that is characterized by a basement of granitic and high-grade metamorphic rocks (ref.no. 5) The San Andreas fault zone borders the Salinian block along the northeast side and the complex Joloa-Rinconada fault system along the southwest side. The San Andreas Fault is the closest known active fault to the subject site, located approximately 28 miles northeast. The San Andreas Fault undergoes a major change in character between Parkfield and Choiame. The fault northeast of Cholame moves more or less constantly in a process called creep. On the southeast side the fault is locked, moving only in very large earthquakes. The last major quake on this portion was the 1857 event (magnitude 8.0 or greater), centered at Fort Tejon in the Tehachapi Mountains. In the immediate vicinity of Parkfield is a twenty (20) mile segment that is locked, giving an earthquake every twenty (20) years or so. Dated quakes on this segment are 1881, 1901, 1922, 1934 and 1966, and are • usually in the magnitude 5.5-6.0 range (Chipping, 1987, Ref. No. 6). i I W4 0 W7 October 13, 1989 3 Job No. PG-6095-NO1 89-10-594 Mapping conducted by Hart (Hart, 1976, Ref. No. 8), indicated the presence of two minor inactive faults on-site. No direct evidence of their existence was observed, however, based on geomorphology and stratigraphic relationships of on-site units, the faults were inferred to exist. These faults should pose no greater or lesser threat to the proposed site development than similar faults related to past periods of structural activity. i GROUNDWATER No free water was encountered in any exploration trench nor was observed on the surface. Holes T-2 and T-7 were located within shallow swales. However, as we are late into the dry season, high moisture contents were not expected. Free water would be expected in the swale areas during periods of heavy rainfall. SEISMICITY The site is located in a region of generally high seismicity, as is all of Central and Southern California. However, it is not located within any state or county geologic hazard zone. During its design life, the site is expected to experience ground motions from earthquakes on regional and/or local causative faults. The following Table 1 lists known regionally active faults in the general area of the site, their maximum probable earthquake magnitude and seismic parameters for the identified causative faults. • October 13, 1989 4 Job No. PG-6095-NOI 89-10-594 TABLE 1 SEISMICITY FOR ACTIVE FAULTS San Andreas Fault Distance .from Site (Miles) 28 NE Maximum Probable Earthquakel 8.25 Maximum Probable • Peak Bedrock Acceleration2 .43 g Maximum Probable Repeatable High Ground Acceleration4 .43 g Estimated Modified Mercaili Intensity3 X 1. Numbers refer to Richter Magnitude. 2. Krinitzsky et al. (1987). *. 3. For maximum probable earthquake, from "Seismic Design_ for . Nuclear Power Plants% ,1970: 4. Ploessel & Slosson (1974).- . .SECONDARY EARTHQUAKE EFFECTS A. Earthquake Accelerations We have analyzed the San Andreas fault presented on Table 1 • for secondary earthquake effects at the site and determined that for the intended use, a maximum probable 8.25 magnitude �/ October 13, 1989 5 Job No. PG-6095-NO1 89-10-594 earthquake occurring on the San Andreas fault zone would be the most significant event. The accelerations produced at the site by such an event would exceed those events on any other known fault. A magnitude 8.25 earthquake occurring on the San Andreas fault zone could produce a peak bedrock acceleration on the order of .43g at the site. Peak acceleration is not, however, always representative of the accelerations for which structures are actually designed (Ploessel and Slosson, 1974). Repeatable high ground accelerations from a 8.25 magnitude earthquake on the San Andreas fault zone are estimated to be on the order of .43g. The design of structures should comply with the requirements of the governing • jurisdictions and Title 24 of the Administrative Code. B. Liquefaction Soil liquefaction is the loss of soil strength during a significant seismic event. It occurs primarily in loose, fine to medium grained, granular material occurring below the groundwater. Liquefaction occurs during rearrangement of the soil particles into a denser condition, resulting in localized areas of settlement. Due to firm bedrock underlying the site, the potential for liquefaction is considered low. C Shallow Ground Cracking Shallow cracking of the ground at the site, due to shaking from seismic events, is not considered a significant hazard and would have a minor impact on the proposed development. a Landslides Seismically induced landslides have a potential for localized occurrence on-site due to the weak nature of the underlying Monterey Formation and the relatively steep topography. This • will be assessed independently in the next section. October 13, 1989 6 Job No. PG-6095-N01 89-10-594 LANDSLIDES A number of slope failures or landslides were observed by this firm and mapped by others (Hart,1976, Ref. No. 8) on Parcel 4 and Lot 5 & 6. Please see the attached geology map. These slides were very subdued in their surface expression. This is a general indication of the relative age and current stable condition. The relatively small size of these slides indicates their shallow nature. They were generally limited to the steeper topography and controlled by the shallow weathering of the Monterey Formation to a clayey soil. Depth of weathering generally limits the depth of the unstable zone. The City of Atascadero Seismic Safety Element to the General Plan, • shows a large landslide as mapped by Hart,(Ref. 8). A series of backhoe trenches were excavated at locations within the suspected landslide to confirm it's existence and character. It was found to be a slide complex consisting of a number of episodes of movement. The slide as mapped by Hart was thought to have activated in smaller sections in lieu of as a single mass. Trenches were excavated near the center and toe of the complex which allowed us to approximate area boundaries. It was observed to be 7' feet deep, with the shear zone in the weathered bedrock. No evidence of recent shearing, existence of free water, 'nor water carried mineral deposits was observed. It is our opinion that the slides have become stabilized in their current surface configuration. No -slides were observed within the proposed roadway alignment CLOSURE It is our understanding that site development will initially consist of construction of Ardilla Road along the east side of the property. Subsequently, the lots or parcels served by the roadway will developed on an individual basis. At the present time it is not known where individual structures will be constructed on the 2.1 to ®rIEUR October 13, 1989 7 Job No. PG-6095-Nol 89-10-594 8.7 acre parcels. However, it is assumed that they will be single family residential structures similar the others in the western area- of Atascadero. It is anticipated that each residence will require minor grading to construct a building pad, driveway and sewage disposal area. Based on the geologic study performed, no significant hazards were observed nor noted which would prohibit site development. Utilizing proper grading and construction techniques as - per applicable building standards for this area, the site improvements and individual lots or parcels are feasible with respect to geologic hazards if the following recommendations are followed on the indicated lots. • Parcel 4 and Lots 5 & 6, were noted to contain stabilized landslide debris. As a result, it is recommended that development of these parcels should include an Engineering Geology and Soil Engineering Study as required in Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code as well as those requirements of the City of Atascadero. These studies are detailed with respect to individual site improvements and should be conducted at the time of proposed site development. Parcels 1 - 3, Lots 2, 3 & 4, and the roadway improvements should be developed as per the requirements of the City of Atascadero. • WN- October 13, 1989 8 Job No. PG-6095-NOI 89-10-594 REFERENCES 1 . Bolt, B.A., 1973, Duration of Strong Motion: Proc. Fifth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Paper No. 292, Rome. 2. Greensfelder, R.W., 1974, Maximum Credible Rock Acceleration from Earthquakes in California, Calif. Div. Mines & Geology, Map Sheet 23. 3. Ploessel, M.R., Slosson, J.E., September, 1974, Repeatable High Ground Accelerations from Earthquakes, California Geology. 4. Seed, H.B., Idriss, I.M., 1982, Ground Motion and Soil • Liquefaction During Earthquakes, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute Nomograph. 5. Duram, D.L., 1974,"Geology of the Southern Salinas Valley Area, California", U.S.G.S Professional Paper 819. 6. Chipping, D.W., 1987, "The Geology of San Luis Obispo County". 7. Jennings, C.W., 1975, 'Fault Map of California", California Division of Mines and Geology. 8. Hart, E. W.,1976, "Basic Geology of the Santa Margarita Area, San Luis Obispo County, California", C.D.M.G. Bulletin 199. 9. City of Atascadero Planning Department, 1975, Seismic Safety Element of the Atascadero General Pian. • , Nl --Ka4 o i n, 03 •`` l s. V 1254 ------------------- DATE EXCAVATED 10-10-89 LOG OF TRENCH JOB NO: PG-6095-NOI EOUIPMENT Backhoe FOR LOCATION: PER FLAN I) Atascadero Highlands, Block 25 Parcels 1-4,Lots 2-6 W Q BACKHOE TRENCH 1 DESCRIPTION AND REMARKSic �;� Stiff, Brown Sandy Clay,moist, rooted,voided, CL (Alluvium) I �� j� s i T.D. @5.0' t0 { I� • 1 . SCALE t•= TRENCH PROFILE TRENCH ORIENTATION: • t ® SPLIT WRREL PACIFIC GEOSCIENCE, INC. "Umme ppm GEO ECHNICAL EMf3I11EERINO N.8tU SWVLE EM IHWIM QEM.OW FIGURE 0 HD FZZUERY MATER I AIS TMUG tG DATE EXCAVATED 10-10-89.: LOG OF TRENCH JOB NO: PG-6095-NO1 EQU I Pt1ENT Backhoe FOR LOCATION: PER PLAN AraAradprq Fiqh1nnci,; _ Block 25 Parcels 1-4 Lots 2-6 WW Q BACKHOE TRENCH 2 W v : W U J j } DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS p Ni- m co co � Ca � � Q 0 -a! Stiff, Brown, Sandy Clay, moist,moderately voided, occasional roots I� (Slide Debris-Stabilized) -Te6--brown To Trown, Sandy Clay,very moist, slightly voided, common lithic fragment) (Slide Debris-Stabilized) Slightly Stiff, Red-Brown, Sandy Clay, slightly voided, common SANDSTONE clasts, Sheared Zone Dense, Light Olive Brown SILTSTONE, sheared, 1 (Bedrock) Monterey Formation. T.D. @8.5` 15 SCALE t•• TRENCH PROFILE TRENCH ORIENTATION: . ■ SPLIT WVVEL PACIFIC 6EOSCIENCE, INC. ® HUMXFA GEOTECHNICAL EMINMRItS FIGURE 0 BULK SAtPLE EM I MR I M OEMDW 0 NO FEMMY MITER Ias TEBTIM GATE EXCAVATED 10-10-89 LOG OF TRENCH .JOB NO: PG-6095-NO1 i( EQU I PMENT Backhoe FOR LOCATION: PER PLAN Atascadero Highlands, Block 25, Parcels 1-4, Lots 2-6 Q BACKHOE TRENCH 3 W J1 d DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS Z�o m�-. m mcn E tc o: U i jj4�I o Stiff, Orange Brown Sanndy Clay, rooted (top 1.5') , Common SANDSTONE Clasts, (Slide Debris- 1 Stabilized) CL I II Sheared Zone @6.0' to 7.0' Light Olive Brown SILTSTONE, weathered, (Bedrock) M3nterey Formation. _ Unweathered @8.0' — — — — 10 T.D. @10.5' i • I 15 j SCALE I'= TRENCH PROFILE TRENCH ORIENTATION: 40 •® ® PACIFIC SEOSCIENCE, INC. ®0 ro cEOTea•ntcs�c. E3161t�RIN6 SMnE p�giremi o GOOLOGY FIGURE MIRTEAtXs TEsrtM DATE EXCAVATED 10-10-89 LOG OF TRENCH jOB NO: Pg-6095-NOI • ( EQUIPMENT Backhoe FOR LOCATION: PER PLAN Atascadero Highlands, Block 25, Parcels 1-4, Lots 2-6 !! i BACKHOE TRENCH ' Q.m >. o d DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS I ' 'a��l p (A CO Mtn z 00C.- ce. i (n Stiff, Brown to Orange Brown, Sandy Clay, _ + CL i II moist, rooted, moderately voided (Alluvium) . no roots below 3.0' !� l 5 T.D. @ 4.0' i • t I 10 { j I t SCALE I TRENCH PROFILE TRENCH ORIENTATION: 4 -1 1 1 +-r4- • :. ■ SPLIT WEMEL PACIFIC GEOSCIENCE, INC. ® n XLM P13oeE GEOTECMICAL EMIMR11110 FIGURE ® MX.K SFINPLE EM I MM I I10 OEMMY 0 PIG AOCOIl�V MFM I ALS TEST 1lIf33 DATE EXCAVATED 10-10-89 LOG OF TRENCH JOS NO: PG-6095-NO1 • EQUIPMENT Backhoe F 0 R LOCATION: PER PLAN Atascadero Highlands, Block 25, Parcels 1-4, Lots 2-6 it Q BACKHOE TRENCH 5 W v � 2� A UJ } < V lami� DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS 'C o U Coil Stiff, Brown to Orange Brown, Sandy Clay, CL moist, rooted, moderately voided. (Alluvium) . j !� lh 5 is T.D. @ 5.0' 1 • 15 SCS 1'= TRENCH PROFILE . TRENCH ORIENTATION: ® SPPACIFIC 6EOSCIENCE, INC. NXXEM GEOTE"ICFV- ENGIHER IW FIGURE S eux SAtftE EM i MMI M GEOLOGY 0 PIO RECOVERY MRTER I ALS TEST I NO oRTE ExmvATED to-lo-89 LOG OF TRENCH ,JOB NO: PG-6095-NO1 EQUIPMENT Backhoe F 0 R LOCATION: PER PLAN Block 25 Parcels 1-4 Lots 2-6 !I Atascadero Highlands, , .I BACKHOE TRENCH 6 i W �•. U DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS �h datW � Ic. Foi o Stiff, Orange brown Sandy Clay, slighty moist, ! �I rooted slightly voided, abundant SANDSTONE CLI I� cobbles, (Alluvium) . Medium Dense, Light Gray, SILTSTONE, fracture , moist, slightly weathered, (Bedrock) 5 Monterey Formation. - !1 T.D. @ 4.0' 1 I I • iS SCS I-= TRENCH PROFILE TRENCH ORIENTATION: ■ SPLIT BARREL PACIFIC GEOSCIENCE, INC. ® NIUCLEM GIM I ECM I CRL EMI tiE M I MQ FIGURE 0 BULK SRtVLE EM 111 MR i MO GEOLM' 0 ND FIECOUBW MRTER I FTEs TESTI M GATE DCCnvjgTEp 10-10-89 LOG OF TRENCH _ • JOB h0; PG-6095-NO1 � EQUIPMENT Backhoe FOR Atascadero Highlands, Block 25, Parcels 1-4,LLoottsl -6 PER FLAN w z BACKHOE TRENCH 7 cDESCRIPTION AND �Z; iO F REMARKS V � t�Nif Soft, Black Brown, Sandy Clayey Silt, voided, rooted, dry, (Topsoil) MI. I I S Stiff, Olive Brown, Sandy Silt, no voids or I roots, slightly damp (Alluvium) . p ML ' I' 1 Ij 10 T.D: @ 8.0' i Ii • I �I 1 I j, ,f SCALE t-= TRENCH PROFILE TRENCH ORIENTATION: I 1 I ® MAX PACIFIC GEOSCIENCE, INC. 0 GEiJi'ECMi CIL EW I MM I W NO Fwnnumw ETi0I1yEFA I m GE0LOW FIGURE r�rrE>aIFLS TES IM Pacific Geoscience, Inc. A M wrew 01 The Earth SvVems Cw- 4378 Santa Fe Road San Luis Obispo.California 93401 (805) 544-3276 • FAX(805) 544-1786 October 27, 1989 Job No. PG-6095-NO1 89-10-700 Atascadero Highlands 10385 Santa Ana Road Atascadero, CA 93422 Project: Ardilla Road Extension Ardilla Road at Balboa Road Atascadero, California Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Field Exploration • Ref: 1) Tree Removal Plan by Volbrecht Surveys, dated September 18, 1989. 2) Photo-Contour Map, Sheet 21 from the City of Atascadero, dated June 23, 1986. 3) Geologic Hazard Report by Pacific Geoscience, Inc., dated October 18, 1989 INTRODUCTION On October 13, 1989, representatives of this firm conducted a limited field exploration along the proposed alignment for the proposed extension of Ardilla Road between Balboa Avenue and San Benito Road in the City of Atascadero, California. The roadway will extend from Balboa Avenue for approximately 3300 feet to San Benito Road 100 yards north of it's intersection with San Fernando Road. Field exploration consisted of excavation of four backhoe pits along the proposed roadway alignment utilizing a John Deere 410 backhoe Exposed soils were described and a visual description was logged. Field density tests were taken a selected depths within the exploration trenches. Representative samples were obtained and returned to the laboratory. Results of this investigation form the basis of this report. See attached exploration trench logs. October 27, 1989 Job No. PG-6095-NO1 89-10-700 The north end of the proposed alignment will begin at the existing paved driveway which currently exists at the end of Ardilla Road. The alignment was well marked as defined by the Tree Removal Plan obtained through Volbrecht Surveys. The proposed roadway trends along the base of a southeast-northwest trending ridge. A series of shallow swales or gullies are to be traversed. The site is essentially undisturbed, with a moderate growth of naturally occurring oak trees, brush and grasses. SOIL CONDITIONS • The soils exposed in the exploration trenches generally consisted of only minor amount of loose topsoil as derived from firm, underlying parent soil. Parent soils are weathered derivatives of the bedrock units. Alluvium were logged in those trenches sited in the large swale. A review of the referenced plans suggests that all three types of soil and/or bedrock will be encountered during grading operations. Along the proposed right-of-way, less one (1') foot of topsoil was observed. It generally consisted of a dark brown, sandy silt or clay. It was generally easy to dig, and observed to be in a loose state. This would reflect it's highly voided nature from rooting by the surface vegetation. This material would be suitable as fill, however, it is not thought to have sufficient character to support proposed improvements without added densification. During winter months, this material would contain excess moisture in its present loose state. Development within this material would require care to insure — groundwater nsure —groundwater seepage does not threaten improvements. All surface vegetation would require proper grubbing and removal out of proposed road right-of-way. Particularly note the expected rooting • from the oak trees located along the alignment. • October 27, 1989 Job No. PG-6095-NO1 89-10-700 Firm soils were observed beneath the topsoil in all observation trenches. The alluvium was observed to be a medium to orange brown, sandy clay. It was found to be generally firm to depth. It was observed to be moderately hard to excavate with the backhoe, especially when compared with the shallow surface soils. Bedrock was observed to vary along alignment. Weathered sandstones or siltstones could be anticipated. Either the alluvium or weathered bedrock would be suitable for use either as engineered fill and/or utilized in its present state without additional densification. No free water was observed within this material during the field study, however, moisture contents could be high in the swale areas during wet periods of the year. • CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the above described field observations and a review of the supplied improvement plans, the following conclusions and recommendations are offered: 1 ) The site appears suitable based on the field observations conducted and included within this report. All soils described above appear suitable for use in the proposed improvements, except that containing debris or vegetation. All organics or vegetation must be collected and deposited properly out of the proposed roadway alignment. 2) Previously described topsoil will require proper processing before being utilized to support proposed improvements. Processing will require scarification of the surface, adjustment of the soil to near optimum moisture, and recompaction to a minimum of 95% relative compaction. Fill may be placed in • thin lifts, moisture conditioned and compacted to a minimum 95% relative compaction. ---------------------------- ---------- - - - �W7 October 27, 1989 Job No. PG-6095-N0l 89-10-700 3 ) Areas of proposed cut which expose underlying firm native soils will be required to be scarified, adjusted to near optimum moisture and compacted to a minimum 95% relative compaction. 4) It is recommended that final street subgrade be compacted to a minimum of 95% relative compaction prior to the placement of the pavement sections (base and asphalt paving). Pavement section should be determined by the City of Atascadero. 5) It is recommended that prior to the placement of fill on slopes exceeding 20% fall, that proper keying and benching into firm • underlying materials be conducted. Observation of the keys and benches should be conducted by representatives of the soil engineer. 6) All surface and subsurface drainage must be carefully controlled. Proper erosion control structures such as the brow ditches must be installed. It is recommended that subdrains or properly engineered culverts should be installed beneath the engineered fills in the Swale areas. Subdrains should consist of gravel filled trenches wrapped by a geotextile filter fabric. Should free subsurface water be observed during construction within the roadway alignment, it is recommended that the soil engineer be notified immediately. 7) All slopes should be constructed according to the criteria as established in the Standard Specifications issued by the State of California, Department of Transportation. This allows for all cut and fill slopes to be at the discretion of the project engineer. Proper revegetation of the slope face to prevent erosion is recommended after construction. • 8) If, during construction,' site conditions are noted to vary from those discussed in this report, then the soil engineer should be October 27, 1989 Job No. PG-6095-NO1 89-10-700 8) If, during construction, site conditions are noted to vary from those discussed in this report, then the soil engineer should be notified. Grading observation and testing should be conducted during construction at the descretion of the project engineer. 9) All construction should be in compliance with the appropriate regulations of the the City of Atascadero and Standard Specifications issued by the State of California, Department of Transportation. • LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS The analysis and recommendations submitted in this report are based in part upon the data obtained from the four (4) test pits along the roadway alignment, as well as our experience and judgment. The nature and extent of variations between the test pits may not become evident until construction. If variations then appear evident, it will be necessary to re-evaluate the recommendations of this report. Findings of this report are valid as of this date; however, changes in conditions of a property can occur with passage of time whether they be due to natural processes or or works of man on this or adjacent properties. In, addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards occur whether they result from legislation or broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and should not be relied upon after a period of one year. • MISR October 27, 1989 Job No. PG-6095-N01 89-10-700 In the event that any changes in the nature, design or location of the proposed construction are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and conclusions of this report modified or verified in writing. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or of his representative to insure that the information and recommendations contained herein are called to the attention of the City of Atascadero and engineers for the project and incorporated into the plan and that the necessary steps are • taken to see that the contractor and subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the field. The soil engineer has prepared this report for the exclusive use of the client and authorized agents. This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted soil engineering practices for roadway extensions. No other warranties either expressed or implied are made as to the professional advice provided under the terms of this agreement, and included in the report. It is recommended that the soil engineer be provided the opportunity for a general review of final design and specifications in order that earthwork recommendations may be properly interpreted and implemented in the design and specifications. (If the soil engineer is not accorded the privilege of making this recommended review, he can assume no responsibility for misinterpretation of his recommendations.) October 27, 1989 Job No. PG-6095-NO1 89- 10-700 If there should be any questions concerning this report, please do not hesitate to contact this office at (805) 544-3276. -Respectfully s BUENA EN Reviewed and app �� g �oQROFESSJ � cEG228 .����' \G S. Fyk -0� CERTIFIED Richard osLEHGINURING CraigS. Hill Y GEOLOGIST CE 38234 Engineerin ologist �� Civil Engineer yt Exp.3/31/93 RAP/CSH 9TF OF CA��FC� • �, CML P RAP 3 OF CAL Copies: 4 - Atascadero Highlands 2 - SLO File • October 27, 1989 Job No. PG-6095-NO1 89-10-700 TEST RESULTS Descrption Maximum Density ORtimum Moisture Yellow brown, silty clay with gravel CLML 112.3 16.5 Brown, sandy, silty clay CL 118.6 13.2 • Field Density Tests Hole Depth Dry Moisture Maximum Relative Density Content Density Density (Ft.) (lb/cuFt.) (R'e)_(lb/cuFt.) (%) 1 1.0' 104.2 5.8 118.6 88 1 3.0' 115.8 13.6 118.6 98 2 1.0' 96.2 7.7 112.3 86 2 2.5' 107.8 14.2 112.3 96 3 0.5' 97.5 8.3 112.3 87 3 3.0' 109.5 15.3 112.3 98 4 1.0' 102.3 8.9 112.3 91 . DATE EXCAVATED 10-10-89 LOG OF TRENCH Joe No: PG-6095-NO1 FOR EQUIPMENT Backhoe LOCATION: PER PLAN �I Atascadero Highlands, Block 25 Parcels 1-4,Locs 2-6 !I Q 13ACKHOE TRENCH 1 t: WW U�1 v ♦ •.-p Z Iam1 DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS m ca(n F ac'-' a:U I I c in�i 0 Stiff, Brown Sandy Clay,moist, rooted,voided, CL it (Alluvium) i I II . 5 - T.D. T.D. @5.0' i t0 15 SCALE 1'= TRENCH PROFILE TRENCH ORIENTATION: • q f 1+1 1 t I f I A— ■ SPLIT PACIFIC GEOSCIENCE, INC. ® t4JCLE11R PRWE GEO'IEiCMiCFS.. El1101ETIING MOLMEJ FIGURE 0 WLK SIVVI E EMIHEF.RIW GEOLOGY 0 M PA OUEW f R 1 1 as TESTINQ • DATE EXCAVATED 10-10-89 LOG OF TRENCH JOB NO: Pg-609 5-NO 1 Backhoe EQUIPMENT F 0 R LOCATION: PER FLAN ; Atascadero Highlands, Block 25, Parcels 1-4, Lots 2-6 !� •• Q BACKHOE TRENCH 2 cc cn a co o 0:5m, d DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS-El m mN DD Q: Stiff, Brown to Orange Brown, Sandy Clay, CL moist, rooted, moderately voided (Alluvium) . no roots below 3.0' I I II 5 I T.D. @ 4.0' I f i 1C f • � I I SCALE I-= TRENCH PROFILE TRENCH ORIENTATION: I t 4- i I +t4 i I !--4 1 1 ■ SPLIT BARFEL PACIFIC GEOSCIENCE, INC. ® MICLEAR GEOTECMICAL. EMiMESAUlG FIGURE ® BULK SAtlPLE EMI iI GEOLM 0 NO PEroUERY 11RI IRIS TESTI S • ORTE EXCAVATED 10-10-89 LOG OF TRENCH ,soe No: PG-6095-NO1 • � EQUIPMENT Backhoe FOR LOCATION: PER PLAN �I Atascadero Highlands, Block 25, Parcels 1-4, Lots 2-6 II ti BACKHOE TRENCH 3 W U b} icing { 25 DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS �' 5 NF- m coo G0 % TUU �IAII 0 �I Stiff, Brown to Orange Brown, Sandy Clay, CLI `I moist, rooted, moderately voided. (Alluvium) . i 1 T.D. @ 5.0' 10 l • 15 SCALE l-- TRENCH PROFILE TRENCH ORIENTATION: • ■ SPLIT PACIFIC GEOSCIENCE, INC. ® mcuffiE GEOIECHNICFL EMINEERING FIGURE ® SULK SFr1PLE ENQINEERINQ GEOLOGY 0 NO PEMLERY NATERiA S TESTUG" J1 • DATE EXCAVATED 10-10-89 LOG OF TRENCH ..JOS n0: PG-6095-NO1 Backhoe EQU t�� F 0 R 1.ocAT t on: PER PLAN I) Atascadero Highlands, Block 25, Parcels 1-4, Lots 2-6 !! � ce W Q BACKHOE TRENCH 4 i W U N < � is m Cd 15 DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS ' cuOI- mmw E ca o: U 0 Stiff, Orange brown Sandy Clay, slighty moist, rooted slightly voided, abundant SANDSTONE CL 1 cobbles, (Alluvium) . Medium Dense, Light Gray, SILTSTONE, fracture + 5 moist, slightly weathered, (Bedrock) Monterey Formation. I t T.D. @ 4.0' ,0 I I • 1 15 SCALE I-_ TRENCH PROFILE TRENCH ORIENTATION: I 4-f i f I I f f I I I 0 SPLIT LPACIFIC GEOSCIENCE, INC. ® GEOIECHNICAL EMII�IHO FIGURE0 Sux SNVEING I t'MR i M GEOLM 0 rtn Famusw tlR1 IAS TESTINGW MEMORANDUM Date: September 26, 1990 • To: Steve Decamp, City Planner From: Lisa Schicker, Natural Resource Specialist Re: Proposed Removal of Native Trees for the Purposes of the Construction of Ardilla Road Applicant: Atascadero Highlands Contact Persons: Tom Vaughn 238 - 5725 (Vaughn Surveys) or Bill Barnes 466 - 2826 (applicant) I would like to provide you with some comments that address the- native tree removal associated with the construction of Ardilla Road, between Balboa and Graves Creek Road. I understand that these comments will be helpful to you as you prepare an environmental determination for this project. History I originally began the review of this project in the field with applicant Bill Barnes in October of 1989 . The project was subsequently mut on hold until soils information and revised road plans were submitted. Volbrecht, the original surveying firm is no longer working on this project; it is now being handled by Vaughn Surveys. • I met with Tom Vaughn on September 10, 1990 to complete another site survey of the proposed project. Although the staking for the road was incomplete (stakes have been removed and/or are missing and changed for proposed alternative alignments) , I was able to get the general idea of the road' s design from the plans and the impacts that it might have on the oak woodland forest. The Proposed Road My comments relate directly to the plans that were provided to you by the Engineering Division, which reflect the current proposed road layout and related tree removal. According to the plans, the road is approximately 3500 feet or .66 miles in length, is 20' wide with 4' shoulders. The road is proposed to be constructed as a "balanced" cut and fill road with side slopes at 1.5:1. Because of the slope of the land, the width of the area that will be affected by construction ranges from 25' to 60' . Building the road would necessitate the removal of approximately 160 native trees over 4" dbh. An erosion control plan accompanies this application; the installation of culverts, rip rap and retention basins will require the removal of approximately 31 additional trees. Although the trees have not been individually marked as to their species, I would estimate that they exist in a 60% Quercus agrifolia (live oak) to 40% Quercus lobata (valley oak) ratio and an exact tally has not been made. • removed from the site. 4. Build the road with the use of crib walls and/or retaining walls to reduce the level of disturbance and save more trees . Retaining walls can be made out of wood, gabions, tensar walls, heavy unfinished timbers, metal or concrete (the most expensive, but most long lasting) and they come in a variety of designs. The walls that require the least amount of backfill excavation are the preferred ones . Although, I am aware that construction of any retaining wall will require some excavation that may affect trees to be saved, construction can be successfully accomplished without destroying everything up or downhill. Roots of trees only go down V - 31 ; they can be avoided (with extra care and labor) while constructing such walls . There are many new innovative ways to build retaining walls that blend very well in the environment; some that can be planted. In such a setting as Ardilla Road, a timber crib wall on the fill slope, interplanted with natives would be a beautiful alternative to the standard Atascadero fill. slope which is left devoid of all natural vegetation for some time. I have provided some product literature describing different examples od such crib wall systems for use by the Engineering Department or the applicant. I would like briefly to comment on the proposed erosion control plan. It is very important to direct the drainage that will be concentrated at certain areas of the site away from the trees that are to remain. If excess water drains to the root crown of these trees, the roots could possibly rot, causing the trees to become hazardous or the excess water may cause disease and eventual death. This might be the case with the asphalt down drains that are specified on the plans in several locations . 1 would also like to express my concern for the eventual driveway access to each of the lots that will exist along this new road. Most of the comments found in this report also pertain to the development of these access drives. I hope this is enough information for you to complete your environmental review at this time. Closer to the actual time that I prepare a City Council Report for tree removal, I will be requesting more information from the applicants. There is information still missing from this application for tree removal, such as tree protection measures and a more precise tally of trees to be removed. I will be requiring the use of flagging tape to relabel the trees, restaking the center line of the proposed road, staking the slope stakes and area of disturbance and receiving an accurate tally of proposed trees for removal. cc Gary Sims TREE REMOVAL SUMMARY • TREES TO BE REMOVED WITH THIS SHEET: SHEET 1 3' — 1 14' — 13 5' - 3 16' - 2 ALL TREES ARE OAK AND 6' - 12 18' 7 ARE IDENTIFIED IN THE FIELD 7' - 8 24' — 11 WITH A YELLOW RIBBON 8' - 17 28' - 1 9' — 6 30' — 6 10' - 7 34' - 1 12' — 12 36' — 3 (1 damaged) 40' - 1 TREES TO BE REMOVED WITH THIS SHEET: SHEET 2 14' — 6 4' - 7 16' - 1 ALL TREES ARE OAK AND 5' — 5 18' — 5 6' - 6 20' - 1 ARE IDENTIFIED IN THE FIELD 7' - 5 ' - 2 30 8' - 4 30' - 6 WITH A YELLOW RIBBON 9' - 4 32' - 2 10' - 6 36' - 1 12' - 7 40' - 1 • 48' - 1 • REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL ,> CITY OF ATASCADERO Item No. Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date : 11/27/90 File No: Ardilla Road Extension From: Henry Engen, Acting Public Works Director SUBJECT: Consideration of Tree Removals to permit extension of Ardilla Road to Graves Creek Road. RECOMMENDATION: Continuance to City Council ' s December 11 , 1990 meeting, to permit receipt of Arborist' s report . BACKGROUND : As noted in the preceding Council Agenda item, the resignation of the City Arborist has resulted in a delay in completing the staff report for consideration of the heritage tree removals . The matter has been put in the hands of Wes Connors , ISA Certified consulting Arborist, who will be working with Engineering staff and the appli- cant' s Engineer and the former City Arborist to complete this staff work. HE :ph cc : Bill Barnes Tom Vaughan Joan O' Keefe REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item• Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 11/27/90 Via: Henry Engen, Community Development Director ?Af� From: Lisa Schicker, Natural Resource Specialist SUBJECT: Consideration of a request to remove one heritage tree (24" dbh Quercus lobata) for the purposes of home construction at 9600 Sausilito. The applicant is Lesa Jones and Mike Olsten and the tree is located in the middle of the proposed home. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the arborist' s report and proposed development, approve the removal with a two for one replacement. Please see additional comments in analysis section of this report. • BACKGROUND: The Tree Ordinance specifies that live native trees 20" or greater dbh (measured four foot above grade) are deemed heritage trees and cannot be removed unless approved by the City Council following a public hearing. The site has been posted and the tree has been posted and marked with flagging tape and is visible from the street. The tree was inspected by ISA certified arborist Jack Brazeal and the City Natural Resource Specialist on separate occasions. ANALYSIS: This is one of the more difficult building sites in Atascadero; the site is steep and is virtually covered with mature native trees. There are few alternatives for siting a house on this land, and the applicants have made an effort to avoid the healthiest trees on site. Recommended Replacements: In compliance with the Interim Tree Replacement Standards, the replacement recommendation for the removal of the tree is 2 , 15 gallon size minimum, same species trees. The applicant shall provide the City with a signed statement that attests to the planting of these trees which should be planted no later than one year after construction is complete. Records will be kept in the office of the City Arborist. CITY OF ATASCADERO EXHIBIT A • ` ` , �. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT LOCATION MAP DEPARTMENT PRECISE PLAN 95-90 s cr R S 17 Qn,° R S C SITE Q RS �\ ,pry ' �LL f 0 ---i � q040 °q 00,0 RS 004 I CITY OF ATASCADERO EXHIBIT B ,. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT GRADING PLAN DEPARTMENT PRECISE PLAN 95-90 o _ _ —r—moi � / � �, \` \ •; uj t TIM, r�}1!+ jl +:lt +i!'ei!`+. + r i J !'�; �;ij,@ it•� � — } i i ! � ,Il ii;� ii}F li}i i� iii i 1 ir�ll �•!}� aa:-=g,' as }t �1� - • I1;fe.: }__+±�it rr} r If = ! fyrlr i;f!' L .. J } =:ii tt+ iltl ili i}il flr i i + } ,1l� = iil= ! :Z�:� =rii =r{ I' ti ! �•.� !:•1 ;,; ,:1.� ,•!i li,l (,.f }=,f iI it iy it =Etfi, - 'tlIiti c! _ 1ti 7 }JL �Iir: �ktii klll klli ill 5J •.!k1t !!•• i a0 0 0 0 0 000 11,11 'Jl,ii i t 1 j �I GIRT i F��O 1 • .�-. JACK BRAZEAL TREE CONSULTANT WESTERN ; CHAPTER 4531 SKIPJACK LANE 19II4N;,;;; PASO ROBLES, CA 93446 WCISA # 163 (805) 227-6140 -9RBOR�S� September 20, 1990 Combrink Studios 1432 Toro Street San Luis Obispo, California 93401 RE: Certified Arborist Report for: Mike & Lisa Olsten Residence End of Sausilito Road Parcel 4 of 43, PM 71 ' Atascadero, California SITE DESCRIPTION: • Moderate to steep topography with seven large, mature oak trees that will be impacted by development. This house site is adjacent to a large swale to the South and is at the end of the existing Sausilito Road. TREE INVENTORY• 1 . 20" diameter Valley Oak. Good condition. To be retained. Impacted by the proposed driveway. Tree protection required. Install retainer wall at minimum of ten feet from the tree trunk and extend to the outside perimeters of the dripline. 2 . 40" diameter Valley Oak. Good condition. To be retained. Impacted by the proposed driveway. Tree protection required. Install retainer wall at minimum of ten feet from the tree trunk and extend to the outside perimeters of the dripline. 3 . 28" diameter Valley Oak. Good condition. To be retained. Impacted by the proposed driveway. Tree protection required. Install retainer wall at minimum of ten feet from the tree trunk and extend to the outside perimeters of the dripline. 4 . 24" diameter Valley Oak. Fair condition. To be retained. Impacted by grading for house pad. Install tree protection fence at the dripline. 5 . 12" diameter Valley Oak. Good condition. To be retained. Not impacted. (continued) Combrink Studios -2- September 20, 1990 Olsten Residence • TREE INVENTORY: (continued) 6 . 10" diameter Valley Oak. Poor condition. To be retained. Not impacted. 7 . 34" diameter Live Oak. Good condition. To be retained. Not impacted. COMMENTS AND REQUIREMENTS: This site is sensitive for development due to the steep incline and the existing trees. With adequate tree protection as required in this report and by the attached "Tree Protection Measures and Requirements" this project can be developed without significant damage or detriment to the existing trees. The septic system and leach field locations are not shown on this plan and will require an additional review for approval . SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: • I don' t see any significant reasons for not approving this plan for development. It is a sensitive site and the trees are to be given priority with adequate tree protection installed prior to any grading. This will include tree protection fences and retainer walls . With the conditions of this report and the attached "Tree Protection Measures", I recommend that this project be approved. i"aAwev-z ack Brazeal Certified Arborist JB:pb Attachment • RT I F1�O - +i JACK BRAZEAL S T E R N TREE CONSULTANT `* CHAPTER 4531 SKIPJACK LANE PASO ROBLES, CA 93446 WCISA #163 (805) 227-6140 ggeOa`5� - TREE PROTECTION MEASURES AND REQUIREMENTS: 1 . All existing trees on the site proposed for development are to be identified by diameter, species and location. All existing trees are to be retained unless otherwise noted. 2 . Trees proposed for removal shall be identified by diameter, species, location and reason for removal . A public notice sign, for trees removed, shall be posted and visible from the street and shall be consistent with City policy, regu- lations and ordinance. 3 . Existing trees on the site, that are to be retained and are twenty feet or closer to the development, are subject to tree protection as follows: a. No branches six inches or larger in diameter, one foot • from the tree trunk, shall be cut without prior approval . b. No cut or fill closer than twenty feet of the tree trunk shall commence prior to tree protection installation. C. When cut or fill is required for development closer than twenty feet of an existing tree, temporary tree protec- tion fences are to be installed at the line of encroachment. d. Tree protection fencing shall meet or exceed city require- ments. e. All tree protection fencing shall be installed before the commencement of any construction work, i.e. , grading, filling, cutting, trenching, storage of materials or any other type of work or activity that may have an adverse affect on existing trees that are to be retained. All tree protection fencing is to remain in place until the development has final approval. f. When cuts or trenches are located within twenty feet of existing trees to be retained, roots two inches in dia- meter or larger that are encountered are to be cut by hand, i .e. , axe, loppers, chain-saw, hand-saw, and then sealed with an approved tree seal . g. When the development requires cut or fill that may have • a significant impact on existing trees, more sensitive measures may be required for tree protection, i.e, retainer walls, aeration in fill areas, porus pavers, protective barriers, soil desiccation measures or other tree protection measures that may be needed to insure tree protection. (continued) -2- • TREE PROTECTION MEASURES AND REQUIREMENTS: (continued) h. When significant trees are severely impacted, a detail showing the tree protection measures may be required prior to approval. i. No fill or grading shall create a basin around exist- ing trees that would cause ponding of water (domestic or natural . ) j . When development by grading or tree protection create a basin that may cause ponding of water, drainage miti- gation will be required. k. No toxic chemical is to be dumped or spilled within the dripline of any existing trees or dumped or spilled in an area where it may leach into the root zone area of any existing tree. 4 . These "Tree Protection Measures" are to be applied where applicable or required and should be adequate for tree pre- servation, however, all tree protection measures are subject to City staff approval . • • • REPLANTING GUIDELINES 1. Choose 15 gallon - sized, same species trees for each tree 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) . Provide 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. 6. 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 (I can provide some specs if needed) . The applicant shall provide the City with a signed statement that attests to the planting of these trees which should be planted within the first year. Records will be kept in the office of the City Arborist. • .� .. .ion �l ;- - s { • COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 1918 .. 197A' \ _ ! PLANNING DIVISION 1979 PLANNING- 6500 Palma Ave. \ J __ P.O. Sax 747 Atascadera , CA 93423 (805) 466-8000 APPLICATION FORM Please type or print in ink Owner : i ����c� 2% Ag�e t Address: /0"a -7 Address: W7,C4 /.'r� ti 9��L''��G( �' '✓ L' �' �. `J 1 GGA- . Phone #: /(.7 Phone #: 5�41_1!i 11;�1_ Applicant : Address : Phone #: Project Description: L/l)6-zx r Existing Use: l _ Project Address : Legal Description: Lot (s) 4- ; Block Tract Assessors Parcel Na (s ) : DSO, 2-/ 4 42 1,2 I/We consent to the filing of this application and declare that this application and related documents are true and correct. (NOTE: The signature of the property owner is required an the application before it will be accepted for processing . ) Owner ent lI?- - /O -_ / - %O Date Date • For Staff Use Only Fee: Receipt #: Tree Removal Permit Application MO ;.��nr� Supplemental information r-(,nib ' e r�;e. c, ,9 t�tisc�w�Ro", (Please type or print in ink) Reason for Removal : t' Number of Trees to be Removed : -� Specify the size (measured 4 ' above ground level ) , species (both common and botanical name) and condition of each tree to be • removed : ( ' 1c7 1f, 3. 4. 5. Specify the size and species of the trees proposed to replace those intended for removal : 179 i llG�l « 4)��?f 3. 4. 5. Please prepare a "Plot Plan" showing all improvements on your property, trees to be removed, trees to remain, and the proposed location of replacement trees as per the attached example. �Wn r borist Certificate Number Date Date • REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item• - � Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 10/30/90 Via: Henry Engen, Community Development Director H From: Lisa Schicker, Natural Resource Specialist SUBJECT: Consideration of a request to remove one heritage tree (20" dbh Quercus agrifolia) and three others (ranging in size from 6-10" dbh) for the purposes of home construction at 8505 Santa Cruz by applicants Neil and Georgiana Steil. The trees conflict with the proposed home and driveway construction. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the arborist's report and proposed development, approve the removals with a two for one replacement. Please see additional comments in analysis section of this report. • BACKGROUND: The Tree Ordinance specifies that live native trees 20" or greater dbh (measured four foot above grade) are deemed heritage trees and cannot be removed unless approved by the City Council following a public hearing. The Tree Ordinance also specifies that tree removal for trees less than 20" in diameter shall be determined by the Community Development Director. The site has been posted, visible from the street, and the trees have been posted and marked with flagging tape. The trees were inspected by ISA certified arborist Art Tonneson and the City Natural Resource Specialist on separate occasions. ANALYSIS• This home site lies in the middle of a north facing heavily forested area of the Tract called Las Encinas II. Located on a moderately steep slope, the applicants, working with the Planning Department have worked together on revising their home plans to come up with a design that is both sensitive to the existing topography and native trees. They have worked to preserve as many trees as possible; plans indicate the installation of a retaining structure to preserve a mature blue oak (Q. douglasii) , one of the slower growing species of oaks. • The heritage tree to be removed was incorrectly identified in the plans as a blue oak (Q. douglasii) ; it is, in fact a coast live oak (Q. agrifolia) , this species is not having regeneration problems like the blue and valley oaks. The tree is in fair condition (with some snow • damage) and is leaning over the proposed driveway and house. A proposed retaining wall will cut almost 50% of the tree's roots, further adding to its instability. Recommended Replacements: In compliance with the Interim Tree Replacement Standards, the replacement ratio for the removal of the tree is 2 , 15 gallon size minimum, same species trees. Because of the heavily forested nature of this site, the applicants are seeking an exemption from Council for the requirement of providing replacement trees. If required to plant, the applicant shall provide the City with a signed statement that attests to the planting of these trees which should be planted no later than one year after construction is complete. Records will be kept in the office of the City Arborist. Attachments: vicinity Map Site Plan Arborist's Report Replanting Guidelines (to the Applicants only) cc Mr. and Mrs. Steil, P.O. Box 3011, Atascadero, CA 93423 • • CITY OF ATASCADERO EXHIBIT A LOCATION MAP • sit ten COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PRECISE PLAN #85-90 DEPARTMENT F CL _ IL ,amu °a a r- I RS a 1 �► 0 tt u i I \� = 1 YYY 11We � f P — ob 1 � CSr i ~ ♦ i r �-� I} I I ` 6 Oro O P II �/ / / � - \OPO � � /+� C���•�n� / CITY OF ATASCADERO EXHIBIT B • 17 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT GRADING/TREE PLAN D EPARTMENT 1 0.1 `f'• _ -' poems' I ' � App Zit- ob ry �o --� _,!—�f �'_ ___—L=�—�—i �1:' •�t gyp' joc 6. AaK.T ?tj-VA b r r•arwr w rw.t rn J�� .rw w.�i:�'.�,.�w.���:� • �' cr 4•K .w T 1 .5 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT is x ' �i 1979 - PLANNING DIVISION 6500 Palma Ave. ADO/ P.O. Box 747 Atascadero, CA 93423 (805) 466-8000 APPLICATION � - FORM Please type or print in ink Owner: n a� e�� Agent: �L- Address: 'P•C ?9b)( So ► 1 Address: �3 r Phone #: -t to Lc - e4Q?,? Phone #: 41�o-1L �?7� Applicant : bgw C-6 ap &- Address: Phone #: a Project Description: nA-r1ca1E-. -.r71A64 Existing Use: - Project Address: z- R8 QUQ`'CQ '� Legal Description: Lot(s) a ; Block 1 ; Tract �nU►-�as ► Assessors Parcel No (s) : '")C:7 C =9 R!0 032 psiA I/We consent to the filing of this application and declare that this application and related documents are true and correct. (NOTE: The signature of the property owner is required on the application before it will be accepted for processing. ) i Owner Agent • 2.3-90 �t5 511%9 Date Date For Staff Use Only Fee: Receipt #: I� ji Tree Removal Permit Application ,�I fo e 1 ,� innr��i', Supplemental Information 1979 (Please type or print in ink) Reason for Removal : L)64D4 oS��jle /yl,ly Zns�yCe, Number of Trees to be Removed : FWD Specify the size (measured 4 ' above ground level ) , species (both common and botanical name) and condition of each tree to be removed : I%ale 06.4� utoews <.t' r� 5" Gb lash „rto-4Z ev 4. Z? 5. Specify the size and species of the trees proposed to replace those intended for removal : 1 . 2. 3. 4. 5. Please prepare a "Plot Plan" showing all improvements on your property, trees to be removed , trees to remain, and the proposed location of replacement trees as per the attached example. Owner Arborist • C, C/ Certificate Number Date Date ' REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL L/ CITY OF ATASCADERO Item: Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: November 27, 1990 File No: 90-178.005 Via: Henry Enqen, Community Development Director By: Bill Wittmeyer, Compliance Official SUBJECT: BUSINESS LICENSE REVOCATION - Hearing to consider revocation of city business license #90216, Reggie 6 Shannon Brard, (R b S Plumbing), 8052 Cristobal. (Continued from October 30, 1990 City Council meeting.) RECOM'ENDATION: Remove the hearing from the City Council agenda. Direct the City Attorney and Community Development Department staff to pursue correction of past citation and any current violations through the prosecution process. BACKGROUND: This matter has been brought before the City Council twice before now. The original conditions--violation of City Ordinances at Christobal--have been mitigated. [See transmittal cover sheet for 9/25/90 meeting for detailed chronology.] [Also, see transmittal cover sheet for 10/30/90 meeting for update preceding that meetinq.3 ANALYSIS: Circumstances at this time are much the same as at the conclusion of the September 25th Council meeting: "The Brard's have moved from the Cristobal address, the conditions of violation no longer exist; the suspension of the license at this address is moot inasmuch as they must now apply for a transfer." "Revocation at this time would result in automatic denial of a new license at any location for six months (Municipal Code Section 3- 5.310(f)." "The Brard's must apply now for a transfer of their license; such license can be reviewed and conditioned to address the original concerns of this action as well as conditions pertinent to the new location." cc: . Reggie 6 Shannon Brard Encl: Transmittal cover sheet from 9/25/90 L 10/30/90 C.C. meetings. REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Item: Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Dater9/25/90- File No: 90-178.005 Via: Henry Engen, Community Development Director By: Bill Wittmeyer, Compliance Official SUBJECT: BUSINESS LICENSE REVOCATION - Hearing to consider revocation of city business license #90216, Reggie L Shannon Brard, (R L S Plumbing), 8052 Cristobal. RECOMMENDATION: Conduct the public hearing and then continue the hearing to the October 30, 1990 meeting. BACKGROUND- June 27, 1990, the Community Development Department received complaint [exhibit "A"] signed by eight citizens (neighbors to subject business address) stating: "Business in a residential zoned neighborhood." Subsequently attempts were made to advise the Brard's of the violations: by mail [exhibits "B" L "C"] (the Brard's indicate that they did not receive the first correspondence due to incorrect addressing 8052 vs. 8042 Cristobal, vs. P. 0. Box). and by phone (August 17, 1990: message on answering machine), and finally, by personal visit to the Brard's residence at 7:00am on August 21, 1990. Bill Wittmeyer went to site and discussed conditions of operation with Mr. Brard and pointed that as they stood there, the operation was in violation of the City of Atascadero Zoning Ordinance and conditions of his business license and home occupation permit application(s)/conditions: exhibits "D"and "E"]. August 29, 1990: Citation issued to Mr. Brard [copies: exhibit "F"]. September 14, 1990: Letter from David Peterson (attorney) [exhibit "G"], stating that the Brard's propose to "move from the Cristobal residence by September 19, 1990". September 18, 1990: Bill Wittmeyer verified that the Brard's (R 8 S Plumbing) have moved from the Cristobal address. REPORT TO CITY COUNL._ CITY OF ATASCADERO Item: Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: October 30, 1990 File No: 90-178.005 Via: Henry Engen, Community Development Director By: Bill Wittmeyer, Compliance Official SUBJECT: BUSINESS LICENSE REVOCATION - Hearing to consider revocation of city business license #90216, Reggie & Shannon Brard, (R & S Plumbing) , 8052 Cristobal. (Continued from September 25, 1990 City Council meeting].) RECOMMENDATION: Conduct the public hearing and then continue the hearing to the November 27th, 1990 meeting. BACKGROUND: June 27, 1990, the Community Development Department received a complaint signed by eight citizens (neighbors to subject business address) stating: "Business in a residential zoned neighborhood." There were numerous attempts to cause the Brard's operation to be brought into compliance with the City of Atascadero Zoning Ordinance. On September 18, 1990, Bill Wittmeyer verified that the Brard's (R 5 S Plumbing) had moved from the Cristobal address. ESee transmittal cover sheet for 9/25/90 meeting for detailed chronology.] The day following the 9/25/90 City Council meeting, Mrs. Brard contacted Bill Wittmeyer to inquire about the results and consequences of the Council 's action. The continuance was explained. Mrs. Brard indicated that they had re-established their business at their residence on San Marcos Road (no address given) and wished to continue as before. Mrs. Brard further indicated that the character of the San Marcos neighborhood differed considerably from that on Cristobal. Mrs. Brard was advised that it would be necessary to submit an application to transfer the business license, and, that at that time she could include requests for adjustments or allowances to the license. Mrs. Brard was invited to make an appointment with Bill Wittmeyer for the purpose of reviewing the ordinance requirements and for assistance in filling out the application; however, she was advised that the application would be reviewed by the Planning Division for approval within the guidelines and limitations set in the ordinance. October 17, 1990, Bill Wittmeyer contacted Reggie Brard who indicated that his wife would come in at once to submit application for transfer of the license. October 18, 1990: Mrs. Brard has contacted Bill Wittmeyer and will come in next week to submit the necessary application_ s REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL -� CITY OF ATASCADERO Item No. Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date : 11/27/90 File No: TTM 2-90 From: Henry Engen, Community Development Director Wc7 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 E1 Camino Real ) _ RECOMMENDATION: • Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commissions 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 Letter 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 casts of water use. The Water Company 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 , 1990 Planning Commission Minutes Excerpts - October 16 , 1990 cc : Michael S. Krout Richard Montanaro Bob Hamilton (Atascadero Mutual Water Company) • • MICHAEL S. KROUT • A LAW CORPORATION Z ATTORNEY AT LAW O C T 3o 1999 1264 HIGUERA STREET P.O.BOR 1028Lill 805/544-2137 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CALIFORNIA 93406 805/544-2137 TELECOPIER 805/544-2111 HAND-DELIVEREDOctober 29, 1990 Atascadero City Council 6500 Palma Avenue Atascadero, CA 93422 RE: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 2-90 : 1145 EL CAMINO REAL Iionorable 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 §66427 . 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 PRACTICE IN NEW YORK STATE 1970 ADMITTED TO PRACTICE IN NEVADA 1970 ADMITTED TO PRACTICE IN CALIFORNIA 1972 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 eater 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. 0 • Atascadero City Council October 29, 1990 Page -3- ( 6 ) The installation of separate water meters to the apartment project at 11145 El 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 Monica ( 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 Cal . 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: 4�41) � 1 11 1"p- 1�ffCffTTE 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 1264 HIGUERA STREET P.O.BOX 1028 NOV 9- 1999 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CALIFORNIA 93406 805/544-213 CCi�th'?Gird`' tV�J,ajYMtl' ' TELECOPIER 805/544-2111 HAND DELIVERED November 8 , 1990 Atascadero City Council 6500 Palma Avenue Atascadero, CA. 93422 Re: Tentative Tract Map 2-90 : 1145 E1 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 woul6i 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 NEW YORK STATE 1970 ADMITTED TO PRACTICE IN.NEVADA 1970 ADMITTED TO PRACTICE IN CALIFORNIA 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 §1370, 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 of 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 it Counc ' r 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 �J-Ujj 011� - By: MIC EL KROUT Attorney Tor Applicant RICHARD MONTANARO MSK: sb cc: Richard Montanaro • • ITEM: B-1 • MEMORANDUM 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 El 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 appeal at the City Council on September 11 , 1990, the request for a condominium 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. i • 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. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Conditions of Approval in Exhibit B. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Tentative Tract Map 02-90 Exhibit B - Conditions of Approval • • �sft" CITY OF ATASCADERO EXHIBIT F, TRACT MAP left COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 02-90 Lw - a b nor b b Ttw b i" OAzz' A t IK F uw r,, OWNER'S STATEMENT r ar /T! I OMM O y Vl TOR A"CER.Of TI[O AM M E KAl AWWR or eC _ SAJO P ON TV PKAT ANO C[RTrY MAT 1 O M lfCAl OOMW a< -Nr.- '.A Aro MRRar�T',�d1M�TId11401020 AMMI 990w PKKOW IS fl"ArND CO�CT TO M KST M Yr aNCaaNx AYO f1w. \� �., rAr•rAY At ,V • � �\�;' � 3.9 C •�ra sTa[Tr�a�.o.� .fsfwr \ �Oa �. .`_ -- - K• ACCORD Dwu: MCNARD.wrnc raTAMARa Mau CArro e' ENGINEER'S STATEMENT �1 O •,_• IA�i• s , D[1Y►. as••• i N $?ATt MREO AT TM rAR rA$pWA01"M. ` `' •, r _i 1RRM9af,AM To r4 Kai Or M.AIO.LEW COWUn WIN TI[LOT OTA"ORMAMa Or THE aft Or ATASCAOMI , + sorer L s s Ra:.1] es.3n7n1 DATI TENTATIVE MAP FOR IOC TRACT 1411 FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES SCALE �' N THE aT/ Of ATASCADERO. COUNTY OF Cq\ ., SAN LUIS OBISPO, O� NWM 09~Arr +.>rn i.. KMe A SUODWSwM Of A PORTTWON OF OT 4 OF TINI RANG C I \ N ` 9"A'w.r4 Ar MOM"" LA ASLWOOM AND ATASCAOERO ACCORONO TO THE MAP wA \ \ �� r n...r.r+tTrMrM•AAM r"W RT RR.NARRTS N A04. 1680,RECORDED AAY 21. IBBO, i •\ "� �� BOOK A Of MAPS AT FACE 1,RECOROS Or SAID COUNTY Aarr. AAAVAwrA rA1AMA Y A�w Aft ITRM.O raTr rrr.Alarnra f.w.....1. ���. VICINITY/ MAP "w� '�uAiAw rw 44C. rr AAm,oe—M.4 nrsewrnwM w+.+'r Pr.w.►wP ��� H C9ASf fACINfIR/M (' w rf.�rAaa frr,[rr An1r revs H A f1MAYAAYM r.Ar tyrAr.w...� AT:r +O uAll A fMMw+ w'Gaw>'1 r AM rrrrn I AIMIrAIrA'r ----- CrArAtrf,erre r 1W rfWwo rrfr-u�.r seri► !r7 I.." Tu[4 A.rOalfi rJl-. wALARM A[MM"'T T M AW Arlawr>7 AAw ws.a+ar'Y rsre-err P.nvs �waifsr fla s-ia FFERANO, i ONE SHEET 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 El 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 end 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 E1 Camino Real . Doug Davidson presented the staff report summarizing the background involved with this iteul. 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 #5 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. Commissioner 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 hearings that it would be sortie time before he was ready to actually file the final map. 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. DeCamp 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 : Commissioners Johnson, Lochiidge and Chair- person Luna NOES : 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 the Commission does . Discussion continued. MOTION: By Commissioner Highland and seconded by Commis- sioner Hanauer to approve the Conditions of Approval for Tentative Tract Map 2-90 with the following amendlllents : 115 . A complete site landscaping plan, prepared by a registered landscape architect, shall ba submitted for review and approval by the Community Development and Public works Departments prior to recording of the map. The landscape piaci shall address the street fron- tages of the property, both EI 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 shall be corrected, or the quivalent bond/guarantee posted, to the satis- faction of the Community Development Department and City Engineer prior to recording the map . 118 . All trash containers shall be enclosed per City Ordinance . " PAGE FOUR MINUTES EXCERPT - PLANNING COMMISSION - 10/16/90 The motion carried with the following roll call : AYES : Commissioners Highland, Hanauer, Johnson, Loehridge, 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 ' owntown Element" and zoning Ordinance amendments to im ement the plan. Commissioner Johnson stepped down from the C emission 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 Eiem- tt 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. DeCamp then summared the Downtown Master Plan which focuses oil seven lat use policies to guide the development and revitalizat ' on of the downtown area. He also discussed the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments to implement the Downtown sten Plan. Commission questions and discussion followed. Chairperson Luna complimented Mr. DeCamp and staff for an excellent repor . In response o question from Commissioner Hanauer, Mr. DeCamp reference the larger parcels in the downtown area which are in singl ownership. Comm ' sioner Waage questioned whether the bowling alley should be ade an allowable use rather than a conditional use. Mr. D _ ampresponded 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 administratively reviewed. Commissioner Highland stated that the one Constraint to the downtown' s revitalization is the current parking restrictions . He added that this area should be considered for some type of parking exemption with an ill-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 • REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: 0- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: From: Richar McHale, Chief of Police -------------- - ------------------------------------------------- SUBJECT: Purchase of Photo Copy Machine RECOMMENDATION: By motion, authorize the bid award to More Office Systems, SLO, for the purchase and maintenance of one Canon copy machine (model #NP-6650) for the police department at a combined cost of $10, 168 . 13 . BACKGROUND: During the month of September, our City solicited bid proposals for a new photocopy machine for the police department in keeping with the current budget. • The machine we now use as our primary copier is a table-top small capacity Minolta, and we simply have over-taxed it with our average monthly use of 20, 000 copies. As a result of this heavy usage, the maintenance contractor (Chaparral Business Machines, Paso Robles) has found it necessary to repair and service our machine three to four times per week on the average. The request for bid proposals netted seven submissions from various companies in San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties. One proposal, which was the second highest, came from an Atascadero firm (see memo from City Clerk) . In reviewing the proposals and upon interviewing the three lowest bidders, I learned that the copy machine industry is fiercely competitive! So as to be as fair and thorough as possible, we tested the two lowest bidders. In addition to this, we conducted reference checks of the two vendors with consideration toward five important factors: 1. Contract maintenance quality and length of response time. 2 . Copy quality. 3 . Ease of operation and quietness of machine. 4. Price per copy. 5. Machine features. • With a bid of $9, 039. 69 (includes 1 year maintenance) , Mission Office Systems of Santa Maria offered a Toshiba #BD-8510 at the lowest price. Keeping the evaluation factors listed in mind, we • are not recommending this machine and company. Additional problems relating to this bid are: a. During the reference check, a major user (30 machines) of this product and service complained bitterly about both the quality of the machine and the service. b. The noise level of the Toshiba was significantly greater than the competitor's proposed model. (This is a critical issue as our dispatchers must have the ability to monitor radio traffic without interference) . C. Our testing operators found greater ease of operation in the Canon test machine. More Office Systems of San Luis Obispo proposed a Canon #NP-6650 copier at the second lowest combined purchase and maintenance cost ($10, 160. 13) . We are proposing acquisition of this machine and service contract based upon the following: 1. This particular machine came highly recommended from several public agencies including Atascadero High School, Paso Robles Police Department, and Templeton • High School. 2. The recommended Canon copier was rated as "Copier of the Year for 1989" by the Buyers Laboratory, Inc. It is recommended by them as the console duplexer of choice in the mid-volume range. 3 . In our on-site tests, we found this machine to be quiet, quick, easy to operate, and free of "jams" . 4 . The machine proposed has a rated capability of 70, 000 copies per month (and includes a large capacity paper bin) , while the Toshiba advertises a maximum of 50, 000 copies which would indicate that the Canon is heavier-duty. 5. Service response time is guaranteed to be 2-4 hours. (This is critical to us in the preparation of paperwork for the Court, Probation, and District Attorney's Office each morning. ) It should be noted that the third lowest bidder was Copytron, Inc. of San Luis Obispo. This company proposed a Minolta #EP5400 copier which was only $85. 00 more than the recommended bidder! This company also received positive reports from various sources. • FISCAL IMPACT: The second lowest bid is $1, 100. 00 higher than the lowest bidder, however, this amount will be absorbed within Page - 2 • BID SUMMARY TO: Sandy Bartelt , Support Services Manager Police Department FROM: Lee Dayka City Cler BID NO. 90-10 OPENED 9/28/90 10:00 A.M. PROJECT: Heavy Duty Mid-Size Copier The following bids were received and opened as follows : Name of Company Copier Make Price Discc Mission Office Systems Toshiba BD-85106,639 . 69 None 3130 Skyway Drive #405 p !�� Santa Maria , CA 93455 - ti Golden State Systems Savin 7430 8, 573 .31 None 4420 Edna Road , Bldg . E /, San Luis Obispo , CA 93401 Copytron Calif. , Inc . Minolta EP5400 8,574 . 38 N cW 179 Granada #3 San Luis Obispo , CA 93401 _ J More Office Systems Canon NP-6650 10, 168. 13 Ncr7e 243 Granada Drive #D San Luis Obispo , CA 93401 000 41 17 Eastman Kodak E.<e5 FS 109253 . 13 None 232 B Stimson � � Pismo Beach , CA 93449 ����;;_� � Suntec Business Systems Gestetner 2355ZDF 12 , 734 .38 I% 7383 El Camino Real �, r `.4 Atascadero , CA 93422 r Copy Data Konica 5590 13 ,812.50 2;: 543 W. Betteravia Rd , #E Santa Maria , CA 93455 Note: Some of these bids reflect models with 20-bin sorters while s reflect 10-bin ; Maitenance Costs vary; and most companies provided additio sales information. All of this material is attached for your review. I might additionally note that I received correspondence from FKM Co Products , who declined to bid on this contract , but wishes to be retai� the mailing list . Attachments: Seven Bids c : Finance MEETING, AGENDA DATE 110 ITEM/ M E M O R A N D U M To: City Council From: Ray Windsor, City Manager Subject: Underground Conversion of Utilities Date: October 16 , 1990 As you know, earlier this year we completed the undergrounding of utilities in the downtown area. This was the initial project for the City and was designated as a result of deliberations by an Undergrounding Committee established by the City Council back in 1986 . • It is perhaps timely to begin gearing up for the next project, and even though we have an existing priority list ( see attached) , it might be well to have it reviewed again, since almost five years have passed. If Council agrees with this , it would probably be timely to also reconstitute the Undergrounding Committee . In this regard, I would ask that Council review the members listed on the attached memo and, at some point, indicate who they would like to replace and/or continue on the committee . Since there is no great rush in this matter, I would plan to ask your formal input the lat- ter part of November. RW: cw Attachments : Memo of V. Humphrey, dated 10/11/90 Correspondence of D . Vega, PG&E , dated 6/11/90 LCC correspondence, dated 5/31/90 c : Greg Luke Henry Engen MEMORANDUM TO: Ray Windsor, City Manager FROM: Valerie Humphrey, Adm. Secy. Dept. of Public Works SUBJ: Synopsis of Underground Utility Committee Actions DATE: October 11, 1990 The Undergrounding Committee was established in November of 1986. The Committee consisted of the following individuals: Wayne Cooper Pacific Gas & Electric Jess Lee/Pete Caldwell Pacific Bell Tom Hatchell Falcon Cable Kurt Pearson Central Business District Rex Hendrix El Camino Real - South Jack Stinchfield E1 Camino Real - North Grigger Jones Morro Road George Molina Council Representative • Paul Sensibaugh City of Atascadero Henry Engen City of Atascadero The Committee selected four areas for consideration of undergrounding in the following priority ranking: Downtown (BIA) , Highway 41 South ( Morro Road. ) , South E1 Camino (south of Curbaril) , and North E1 Camino Real (north of Rosario) . The Committee requested PG & E study the Downtown BIA area to determine if all or part of this area could be undergrounded with the funds available. It was determined by PG & E that construction in this area would cost approximately $700, 000 of the $730, 000 available up to that date. At the City Council meeting held May 26, 1987 (second reading 6-9-87) , Council approved Ordinance No. 153 establishing the procedures for underground utilities. This Ordinance was required to allow Council to consider a resolution to establish permanent boundaries. A Public Hearing was held on October 27, 1987 and all property owners within the proposed boundaries were notified. Resolution No. 118-87 was adopted on November 24, 1987 formally establishing the boundaries for Utility Undergrounding District No. 2 . At this stage P G & E prepared plans and specifications for • the construction andro ut the project out P P 7 to bid. In May of 1988 a scheduled was provided to us by PG & E indicating a bid award date of July 9, 1988, a contractor completion date of 10-31-88 and a project completion date of March 1, 1989. At that time all properties within the boundaries were to be reconnected to the new underground service. All property owners were notified of the schedule and of a planned "walk through" with PG & E representatives during which they could meet on their property to have questions answered. Property owners were advised at this time of the permit requirements and inspections. In general, the property owners were very cooperative and the conversion was accomplished with a minimum of conflict. • Pacific Gas and Electric Company ;;� A June 11, 1990 1� l �� ;Y Mt:R 10 Mr. Ray Windsor City Manager P. 0. Box 747 Atascadero, CA 93423 Dear Mr. Windsor: On May 4, 1990, the California Public Utilities Commission issued Decision 90-05-032 authorizing a state-wide change in the annual funding allocation formula for the Rule 20A electric underground conversion program. Your 1990 allocation, transmitted herein, was calculated by applying the new formula which became effective on June 4. Essentially, Decision 90-05-032 abolished the existing formula which • determined a community's annual allocation based on the number of overhead-served electric meters within the community. Beginning in 1990, the new formula: 1. Establishes a "base year" allocation for each community deter- mined from the highest of three separate meter count calcula- tions, and 2. allocates incremental increases in future years' allocation budgets based 50 percent on total meters and 50 percent on overhead-served meters. The League of California Cities sponsored the petition for modifica- tion of Rule 20 after a number of cities experienced severe funding level decreases following the CPUC' s 1982 change from total meter count to overhead-served meter count as the basis of allocation. The County Supervisors Association of California, PG&E, Southern California Edison, San Diego Gas and Electric, and Pacific Bell each supported the League's petition. The total dollars allocated for 1990 under the new "Three Year Plan" is $48,246,833. This represents a 10.9 percent increase over 1989. In 1991, the total funds allocated are estimated to increase by 6.2 percent. Mr. Ray Windsor June 11, 1990 Page 2 Atascadero's allocation for 1990 is $127,788. The following is a summary of your current Rule 20A accounting: Balance of available funds, year-end 1989 $195,850 Less funds to be reallocated ($ -0- Plus 1990 allocation $127,788 Less committed project funds ($ -0- New balance of available funds $323,638 For a conversion project under construction, our estimated cost was utilized in calculating "committed project funds. " Projects started on or after Januar 1 January 1982, are adjusted for actual cost upon completion in accordance with CPUC Decision 83-02-065. If you have questions regarding this notification, please call Wayne Cooper a y p t 434-4429. • Sincerely, D W. VEGA DWV:lf $NNW WINK ;�; League of California Cities F N NIft 1400 K STREET • SACRAMENTO,CA 95814 • (916)444-5790 ■•` CITY ��; Cafi!ornua Cities R Work Togetner May 31, 1990 TO: City Managers and City Clerks in Non-Manager Cities SUBJECT: Utility Funding of Underground Conversions Continues Under New Distribution Formula (Please route to Public Works Director, Community Development Director or other official responsible for utility undergrounding) The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) this month reaffirmed its commitment to the Rule 20-A utility undergrounding program and approved the League's petition to modify the formula for distributing allocations from the utilities to cities and counties within their territories. Rule 20-A is the rule that directs the privately-owned electric utilities to provide funding each year to all cities and counties served by the utility for the purpose of converting overhead facilities to underground. The total amount allocated annually by the three major utilities, PG&E, Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric, exceeds $100 million per year. The rule change requested by the League and approved by the CPUC achieves three major objectives: • (a) It provides for an allocation formula that is equitable for all affected cities and counties. (b) It enhances long-term public support for Rule 20-A undergrounding by establishing a system that will allow every jurisdiction to pursue an active undergrounding program. (c) It guarantees that no jurisdiction will receive less after conversion to the new formula than it received in 1989. The new formula is effective beginning in 1990. Cities served by PG&E or Southern California Edison can expect to receive information from the utility in the near future announcing the amount that will be allocated to the city for 1990. The 1990 allocation establishes a "base year" allocation for each community determined from the highest of three separate meter count calculations. future increases in annual allocations will be added to the base year allocation by a formula based 50% on total meters and 50% on overhead-served electric meters. The new formula does not apply within the San Diego Gas & Electric Company's service area due to the unique franchise agreements and the more favorable treatment received by cities and counties in that area. Adoption of the new allocation formula is the culmination of seven years of activity led by the League's Utilities Subcommittee. Success could not have been achieved without the active support of the utilities. In addition to helping work through the complex issues involved and participating with city officials to develop the new formula, the utilities agreed to accept the cost required to hold all cities and counties harmless while changing to the new formula. Resolution of this issue provides an excellent example of the League's slogan at work: California Cities Working Together. What appeared at first to be a problem that would divide cities led to a solution that will benefit all cities in the years to come. Questions concerning this formula change or other Rule 20-A issues may be directed to Dan Harrison in the League's Sacramento office.