HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 12/11/1990 f
t
t
* NOTICE: THE COUNCIL WILL MEET AT 6:00 P.M. IN OPEN SESSION
FOR PURPOSES OF A CREEKWAY MAPPING STUDY -SESSION.
• ` PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
A G E N D A
PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE
ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL FROM COUNTER
REGULARMEETING
ATASCADERO ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
6500 PALMA
FOURTH FLOOR, ROTUNDA ROOM
DECEMBER 11, 1990
7 :00 P.M.
'his agenda is prepared and posted pursuant to the require-
ments of Government Code Section 54954 . 2 . By listing a °topic on
this agenda, the City Council has expressed its intent to discuss
and act on each item. In addition to any action identified in the
brief general description of each item,; the action that may be tak-
en shall include: A referral to -staff with specific requests for
information; continuance; specific direction to staff concerning _
the policy or mission of the item; discontinuance of consideration;
authorization to enter into negotiations and execute agreements'
pertaining to the item; adoption or approval, and, disapproval .
Copies of the staff reports or other documentation relating
to each item of businessreferredto 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 Comments
Proclamations :
"EOC Silver Anniversary Month"" December, 1990
1
COMMUNITY FORUM:
The City Council values and encourages exchange of ideas and
comments from you, the citizen. The Community Forum period is
provided to receive comments from the public on matters other than
scheduled agenda items. To increase the effectiveness of Community
Forum, the following rules will be enforced:
* A maximum of 30 minutes will be allowed for Community Forum,
unless council authorizes an extension.
All remarks shall be addressed to Council, as a ,whole, and
not to .any individual member thereof.
* No person shall be permitted to make slanderous, profane or
personal remarks against ,any Council Member, commissions &
staff.
A. CONSENT CALENDAR:
All matters listed under Item A, Consent Calendar, are con-
sidered to be routine, and will be enacted by one motion in the
form listed below. There will benoseparate 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 presupposewaiving of the reading in
full of the ordinance in question.
1 . NOVEMBER 27, 1990 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
2 . NOVEMBER 29, 1990 CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
3 . CITY TREASURER' S REPORT OCTOBER 1990
4 . FINANCE DIRECTOR' S REPORT - OCTOBER 1990
5 . RESOLUTION NO. 126-90 ADOPTION OF ANNUAL CITY INVESTMENT
POLICY
6 . RESOLUTION NO. 131-90 - AUTHORIZING FILING OF CLAIM FOR LOCAL
TRANSPORTATION FUND MONIES ,FOR- FISCAL YEAR 1990-91
7 . TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 25-90 9755 ENCHANTO ROAD - Considera-
tion of a vesting TPM to divide 9 .15 acres into two parcels
of 4.99 and 4 . 16 acres (Henderson/Vaughan Surveys-)
8. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 17-90, 5392 BARRENDA AVE. - Request to
subdivide one lot into eight airspace condominiums and a
common area (Lopez/Cuesta Engineering)
9 . RESOLUTION NO. 124-90 EXPANDING THE LIST OF CERTIFIED ARBOR-
ISTS AUTHORIZED TO PREPARE TREE PROTECTION PLANS IN THE CITY
OF ATASCADERO -
10. RESOLUTION NO.. 123-90 ELIMINATING A STREET NAME (NUDOSO RD. )
FROM THE CITY' S OFFICIAL 'MAPS
2
11 . RESOLUTION NO. 130-90 SALARY ADJUSTMENTS FOR MID-MANAGEMENT
EMPLOYEES (First Amendment to the FY 90-91 Annual Salary Reso-
lution)
12 . RESOLUTION NO. 132-90 - SALARY RANGE ADJUSTMENTS FOR RECREA-
TION SUPERVISOR,; SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER AND PERSONNEL
COORDINATOR (Second Amendment to the FY 90-91 Annual Salary
Resolution)
13. RESOLUTION NO. 129-90 - APPROVING INDUSTRIAL DISABILITY RE-
TIREMENT FOR CHET MYERS
14. RESOLUTION NO. 128--90 - AUTHORIZING APPLICATION FOR URBAN
STREAM RESTORATION PROGRAM GRANT
B. HEARINGS/APPEARANCES:
I . TREE ORDINANCE: CONSIDER ADOPTION OF A REVISED NATIVE TREE
ORDINANCE AND TREE STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES TO IMPLEMENT THE
NATIVE TREE ORDINANCE
A. Ordinance No 214 - Native Tree Ordinance (First Reading)
B. Resolution No. 125-90 - Tree Standards and Guidelines
2. DOWNTOWN MASTER PLAN,: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 1E-90/ZONE
CHANGE -90 - Consi er the adoption of the Downtown Master
Plan as an element of the City' s General Plan, and Zoning
Ordinance Map and Text: amendments to implement the provisions
of the Plan,
A. Resolution No. 127-90 - Adoptingthe Downtown Master'
Man, as amended y the Planning Commission, as an
Element of the City' s General Plan
B. Ordinance No. 215 Adopting various amendments to the
City's Zoning Orafinance to implement the Downtown Master'
Plan (First Reading)
3. ORDINANCE NO. 216 - CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE TO REGULATE THE
CONVERSION OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL UNITS TO CONDOMINIUMS'
(First Reading)
4 . ORDINANCE NO. 213 ESTABLISHING BACKYARD BURNING RESTRICTIONS
(First Reading
5 . CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL BY GLEN R. LEWIS OF PLANNING COMMIS-
SION' S ACTION RELATIVE TO SIGNAGE FOR HOTEL PARK
6. TREE REMOVAL REQUEST, 9800 CORRIENTE, FOR PURPOSES OF DRIVE-
WAY/HOME CONSTRUCTION (Barnes/Phillips)
C. REGULAR BUSINESS
1 . APPLICATIONS FOR TRAFFIC COMMITTEE AND EX-OFFICIO STUDENT REP-
RESENTATIVES
3
2. REQUEST FOR HEARING BEFORE COUNCIL ACTING AS PERSONNEL BOARD
SERGEANTS SERVICE ORGANIZATION
D. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION
1. City Council;
A. Committee Reports (The following represents ad hoc or
stare ing 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
T. B.I.A.
2. City Attorney
3 City Clerk
4. City Treasurer
5. City Manager:
A. Stadium Park Appraisal (Verbal)
a
r
aeasalf.l 0'rectings
S
4
REPORT TO COUNCIL Meeting Date: 12/11/90
CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: 6:00 STUDY SESSIC
THROUGH: Ray Windsor, City Manager
FROM: Greg Luke, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT:
Creekway Mapping Committee
RECOMMENDATION•
Review the creekway maps presented at the meeting and provide
the Committee with instructions on how to proceed.
BACKGROUND:
On March 13, 1990 the City Council appointed a technical
committee consisting of three Atascadero School District
representatives and three City staf;, members. The specific charge
of the Creekway Committee was to produce maps of appropriate
drainage courses which would serve as support data for creekway
policy. The Committee was instructed not to become involved 1 in the
• development of any creekway Policies.
DISCUSSION•
The Committee has prepared creekway maps for Atascadero Creek
from the Junior High School to San Gabriel Road. Information
provided on the maps consist of: topographic contours, creek
reservation boundaries, roads and bridges, property lines for
adjacent lots, 100-year flood plain limits and the riparian habitat
zone.
The riparian habitat zone was mapped by members of the
committee. Included in the agenda package is additional
information which discusses the implications of the riparian zone.
Full size prints of the creekway map will be presented at the
Council meeting. Staff and the Committee are seeking direction
from the Council on how to proceed.
OPTIONS•
1. Direct the Committee to map the remaining drainage
courses in the same fashion Atascadero Creek was mapped.
2 . Use the areas mapped to date to focus on policy issues.
• 3 . Direct the Committee to make changes to the mapping
techniques.
Coniferous
trees
1 ,
Deciduous
1 trees
of
I
i r
I i>
Shrubs
Sedges ; r
and
r---
rushes
--
Emergents
I 1
Water z `
a�
a s •
Aquatic Riparian i Upland
Zone ,;.;-;, :•' Zone Zone
AgAu�atic `
Figure 3.1.--A generalized stream- or pondside riparian zone with adjacent
aquatic and upland zones. Deciduous mesic riparian vegetation (e.g.,
willows, cottonwoods, alders) grows immediately adjacent to hydric
plants in the aquatic zone, and to conifers in the more xeric upland
zone. It is this terrestrial , moist-soil riparian zone, whose water is
imported from a watercourse or aquifer rather than being provided only
by local precipitation, that creates the conditions necessary for
development of a riparian system (from Thomas, Maser, and Rodiek 1979a).
=r
3.2
• Airflow upstream
/ and downstream
Distinct vegetative structure �� 1 affects
microclimate
Mr
I
--:'-:Water quality, quantity
Narrow
zone of influence
•
Figure 4.3.--Zone of distinct riparian microclimate within a riparian system.
Notice that the microclimatic effects can extend beyond the outer
limits of deciduous mesic vegetation.
birds, bats and other mammals, and even for some reptiles, amphibians, and
insects (Stevens et al. 1977; Wauer 1977; Thomas, Maser, and Rodiek
1979a). This phenomenon may have special significance in the Central Valley
of California where linear riparian systems traverse the north-south length
of the valley, a distance of 450 miles. Many species of land birds use ripar-
ian corridors as .they are sometimes the only available woodland environment
through which the birds may traverse a geographic region while on migrating
flights. In the riparian zone they find food and cover which may be unavail-
able in adjacent uplands buta few feet away.
4.6
�1
i
U.
'o .G
M
r .e ice,..' //i'�•.
r`
t� t� CD
W W W
W W �
W
Figure 4.2.--Edge elements in riparian systems . In addition to the edge
elements created by vegetation changes in the cross-sectional struc-
ture, internal edge elements are created by discontinuities (e.g., open
glades , sandbars , oxbows) within the riparian vegetation itself.
(Modified from Thomas , Maser, and Rodiek 1979a. )
Corridor Effect
It is easy to see how linear riparian systems, with their shade, food,
supplies , cover, and water, can become important corridors for the migratory
and dispersal movements of wildlife. In some parts of the country, elk and
deer consistently use riparian zones as migration corridors between summer
and winter ranges, as illustrated in figure 4.4. Riparian corridors provide
important migratory and dispersal routes for highly mobile species such as
4.5
RIPARIAN VEGETATION
t
PROVIDES SUPPLIES DETRITUS SHADES ALTERS WATER
TERRESTRIAL (ENERGY) TO STREAM QUALITY AND
HABITAT STREAM QUANTITY
CONTROLS CONTROLS
PRIMARY STREAM
PRODUCTION TEMPERATURE
F000.REST.ANO SOME EGGS FOOD FOR GROWTH RATES HABITAT SPACE
HIDING FOR LAID ON AQUATIC S LIFE CYCLES S QUALITY FOR
EMERGENT ADULTS FOILAGE INVERTEBRATES OF AQUATIC AQUATIC
INVERTEBRATES INVERTEBRATES
Figure 4.10.--Some of the more important relationships between riparian
vegetation and stream components, including aquatic insects. (From
Knight and Bottorff 1984).
species such as willows and cottonwoods could not reproduce. It also pro-
vides important substrates for aquatic insects, and escape and resting cover
for many fish species:
Organic Input
The dead organic matter or detritus (leaves, twigs, branches), and to a
lesser extent live invertebrates, from riparian vegetation are important
sources of nutrients, especially to headwater streams. Up to 99 percent of
the annual energy input, the food base for entire aquatic communities, comes
from streamside vegetation in these situations, especially where there is a
dense forest canopy (Fisher 1972; Fisher and Likens 1973; Hubbard 1977;
Cummins and Spengler 1978; Merritt and Lawson 1979). Annual values range
from about 100 gm. per m2 to more than 1000 gm. per m2 (Bray and Gorham
1964; Anderson and Sedell 1979; Knight and Bottorff 1984).
4.25
1
APPENDIX A •
Plants
Alkalai mariposa Calochortus striatus
Amargosa nitrophila Nitrophila mohavensis
Ash Meadows gum plant Grindelia fraxino-pratensis
Bigleaf maple Acer macrophyllum
Black-banded rabbitbrush Chrysothamnus paniculatus
Blackberry Rubus ursinus
Black cottonwood Populus trichocarpa
Black oak Quercus kelloggii
Black walnut Juglans hindsii
Blue elderberry Sambucus sp.
Blue oak Quercus douglasii
Box elder Acer negundo
Buckwheat Eriogonum spp.
Buttonwillow (buttonbush) Cephalanthus occidentalis
California bay Umbellularia californica
California buckeye Aesculus californica
California ditaxis Ditaxis californica
California fan palm Washingtonia filifera
California scalebroom Liepidospartum squamatus
California sycamore Platanus racemosa
California wild grape Vitis californica
Catclaw Acaciar� egii •
Cheeseweed Hymenoclea salsola
Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia
Coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens
Coyote brush Baccharis pilularis consanguinea
Creek dogwood Cornus californica
Desert almond Prunus fasciculata
Desert-lavender Hyptis emor i
Desert willow Chilopsis linearis
Elderberry Sambucus caerulea
S. mexicana
Fig Ficus carica
.�. Fish Slough milk-vetch Astragalus lentiginosus var.
piscinensis
Fremont cottonwood Populus fremontii
Hot Springs fimbristylis Fimbristylis spadicea
Interior live oak Quercus wislizenii
Ironwood Olneya tesota
Knapp's brickellia Arickellia knappiana
Los Animas colubrina Colubrina californica
Mountain Springs bush lupine Lupinus excubitus var. medius
Mugwort Artemisia douglasiana
A. suksdorfii
Mule fat Baccharis viminea
Oregon ash Fraxinus latifolia
Oregon oak Quercus garryana
Owens Valley checker mallow Sidalcea covillei •
A. 1
Palo Verde Cercidium f
• loridum
Parish' s alkali grass Puccinellia parishii
Poison oak Rhus diversiloba
Ponderosa pine Pinus ponderosa
Rabbitbrush Chrysothamnus sp.
Red alder Alnus rubra
Red Rock tarweed Hemizonia arida
Rose-mallow Hibiscus californicus
Sagebrush Artemisia tridentata
Salt cedar Tamarix spp.
San Bernardino bird's beak Cordylanthus eremicus bernardinus
Scrub oak Quercus dumosa
Sitka spruce Picea sitchensis
Smoketree Dalea spinosa
Sodaville milk-vetch Astragalus lentiginosus var.
sesquimetralis
Spring-loving centaury Centaurium namophilum var.
namophilum
Squaw baccharis (squaw waterweed) Baccharis sergiloides
Tecopa bird' s beak Cordylanthus tecopensis
Toyon Heteromeles arbutifolia
Tree tobacco Nicotiana lauca
Valley oak ercus lobata
White alder Alnus rhombifolia
Wild rose Rosa californica
•
•
A.2
•
P R O C L A M A T I O N
"Honoring the Economic Opportunity Commission' s 25th Year"
December 1990
WHEREAS, The Economic Opportunity Commission, a non-profit
corporation, was officially designed and legally certified as the
Community Action Agency for San Luis Obispo County in December
1965; and
WHEREAS, The Economic Opportunity Commission develops and
implements comprehensive, community-based programs to alleviate
poverty and to promote self-sufficiency among the economically
disadvantaged population of San Luis Obispo County; and
WHEREAS, The Economic Opportunity Commission' s development
concept has Countywide been directly responsible for planning,
creation and funding of Head Start and Migrant Head Start, Migrant
• Child Care, Child Care Resource Connection, Energy Conservation
Services , Family Planning and Education Program, Teen Parenting
Program, Homeless Shelter & Support Services, Senior Health
Screening; and
WHEREAS, The Economic Opportunity Commission is an independent
organization providing services to 30,000 County residents annual-
ly; and
WHEREAS, EOC works in partnership with volunteers, County
government, city governments, the private sector within San Luis
Obispo County;
NOW, THEREFORE, The Atascadero City Council officially acknow-
ledges and congratulates the Economic Opportunity Commission on its
25th Anniversary and hereby proclaims the month of December, 1990
as EOC Silver Anniversary Month.
ROBERT B. LILLEY, Mayor
City of Atascadero, CA
Dated: December 11, 1990
•
EOi
C !
ECONOI N-n COMMISSION •
1
November 14, 1990
Mayor Robert Lilley
City of Atasmdero
P. 0, Bax 747
Atascadero, CA 93422
Dear Mayor Liller
Cin behalf o1 the ROC BMd of Directors, I would iilt¢ to request that the City
of Atascadero proclaim recember as ROC Siivef Anniversary Month at Your
first meeting in Member. ECC has operated as the legally certliied
Community Action Agency for Sats Luis Obispo County for 2- years. •
ROC's Executive Secretary wili be in touch with you to find out the exact date
of Lie pt asentation to enable a EOC representative to be present.
-"bank you in advance for your continued support of the Silver A miversar7
Of ECC. A sample Resolution is attached for g8ur convenience.
Since
Elizabeth 'B tvinberg
Executive Director
ES:mp
Encl
i
i
Un *4md VVImy
MEETING AGENDA
DAT ftEM
ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES
NOVEMBER 279 1990
Mayor Lilley called the meeting to order at 7:00 p .m. The Pledge
of Allegiance was led by Councilman Shiers.
ROLL ALL:
Present : Councilmembers Shiers, Nimmo, Dexter and
Mayor Lilley
Absent : Councilwoman Borgeson
Also Present : Lee Dayka, City Clerk
Staff Present : Ray Windsor , City Manager ; Art Montandon,
City Attorney; Mark Joseph, Administrative
Services Director ; Henry Engen, Community
Development Director ; and Bud McHale, Police
• Chief
PROCLAMATIONS:
Mayor Lilley read the following proclamations:
"Bill of Rights Day and Week" , December 15, 1990/
December 9-15, 1990
"1991 - The Year of the Lifetime Reader"
There were no individual Council or public comments.
APPROVAL OF CHANGE ORDERS FOR THE POLICE FACILITY (Cont 'd from
11/13/90)
The City Manager introduced the matter and explained that he had
met with Councilwoman Borgeson before she left town in an effort
to address her concerns.
Rod Levin, architect, summarized the change orders and responded
to questions from Council .
CC11 /27/90
. Page 1
•
Public Comment :
Sarah Gronstrand, 7620 Del Rio Road, indicated that she was
puzzled why the additional expenditures were not approved by the
Council before hand. She stated that the architect should be
entirely conversant with State requirements.
MOTION: By Councilman Nimmo and seconded by Councilman Dexter
to approve the change orders for the Police Facility
in the amount of $67,477.00; motion carried 4:0.
A. CONSENT CALENDAR:
1 . NOVEMBER 139 1990 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
2. RESOjUTION NO. 122-90 - AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 9-86
RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE AMAPOA-TECORIDA
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT 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. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP `21-90, 9375 MUSSELMAN - Request to sub-
divide one lots into six airspace condominiums and a common
area (Backes/Cuesta Engineering)
Mayor Lilley read the Consent Calendar. Councilman Nimmo pulled
item A-4.
MOTION: By Councilman Dexter and seconded by Councilman Nimmo
to approve items A-1 , 2, 3, 5 and 6; motion carried
4:0.
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 )
Councilman Nimmo indicated that he had a residual financial
CC11/27/90
Page 2
•
interest in property adjacent to the above and, after receiving
counsel from the City Attorney, would be stepping down.
MOTION: By Councilman Dexter and seconded by Councilman Shiers
to approve the time extension as recommended by the
staff report; motion carried 3:0.
B. HEARINGS/APPEARANCES:
1. TREE REMOVAL REQUEST, ARDILLA ROAD (Staff Requests Continu-
ance)
A. Consideration of appeal by Joan Okeefe of Negative
Declaration posted for proposed extension of Ardilla
Road
B. Consideration of tree removals to permit extension of
Ardilla Road to Graves Creek Road
Mayor Lilley indicated that because of personnel changes, staff
had requested a continuance. Mr . Windsor recognized the presence
of Joan Okeefe and Bill Barnes and the fact that the matter was
noticed as a public hearing . He added that it would be
appropriate for Councilwoman Borgeson to be present for
deliberation.
Mayor Lilley opened the floor for public comment . There were
none. Ms. Okeefe indicated that she had no objection to a
continuance.
MOTION: By Councilman Dexter and seconded by Councilman Shiers
to continue the matter until the first regular meeting
in January, 1991 ; motion unanimously passed.
It was noted that the meeting date would be January e, 1991 .
2. TREE REMOVAL REQUEST, 9600 SAUSALITO, FOR PURPOSES OF HOME
CONSTRUCTION (Lisa Jones-Osten)
Henry Engen gave staff report with the recommendation to approve
with a 2: 1 replacement .
A brief discussion followed . Councilman Nimmo asserted that the
lot was already covered with trees and it was absurd to ask the
applicants to plant two more. Councilman Dexter suggested that
the trees be placed on public property.
CC11/27/90
Page 3
Public Comment :
•
James Patterson, arborist , spoke on behalf of the applicants and
in support of the tree removal request . He stated that the staff
report was misleading in that the property did have open space
for planting and that the applicants were willing to replace on-
site.
MOTION: By Councilman Shiers and seconded by Councilman Dexter
to approve the tree removal request as recommended by
staff; motion unanimously passed.
3. TREE REMOVAL REQUEST, 8505 SANTA CRUZ, FOR PURPOSES OF HOME
CONSTRUCTION (Steil )
Henry Engen reported that the request was for removal of one
heritage tree and three others to allow construction of a single-
family home. He noted that the applicants were seeking relief
from the 2: 1 replacement condition because compliance would pose
a financial hardship on them.
Public Comment:
Neil Steil , applicant , spoke in support of the request . He
indicated that there were already many trees on the site and •
would be willing to donate trees to another location in the
City.
MOTION: By Councilman Nimmo and seconded by Councilman Shiers
to approve the request to remove one heritage tree and
three others for the applicants Neil and Georgianna
Steil ; motion unanimously carried .
4. CONSIDERATION OF REVOCATION OF CITY BUSINESS LICENSE #90216,
R&S PLUMBING, 8052 CRISTOBAL (Continued from 9/25 &
10/30/90)
Mr . Engen reported that the Brards had moved from the Cristobal
site and had submitted a new business license application for
operations from their new place of residence. He asked that the
matter be referred back to staff for processing .
MOTION: By Councilman Dexter and seconded by Councilman Nimmo
to refer the matter back to staff; motion carried .
5. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 2-90, 11145 EL CAMINO REAL-
CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL BY MICHAEL S. KRDUT ON BEHALF OF
RICHARD MONTANARO OF CONDITION OF APPROVAL (SEPARATE WATER
CC11/27/90
Page 4 •
• METERS) PROPOSED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN ORDER TO
CONVERT 64 MULTI-FAMILY RENTAL UNITS TO AIRSPACE
CONDOMINIUMS
Henry Engen noted that staff had received a letter from the
Atascadero Mutual Water Company late in the day regarding this
appeal (see Exhibit A) . Mr . Krout, he explained, was requesting
a break so that he could consult letter with the applicants.
The mayor called for a recess at 7:50 p.m. The meeting was
reconvened at 8: 10 p.m.
Michael Krout , attorney for the applicants, requested a
continuance until the meeting of February 12, 1991 and noted that
he was willing to waive any time requirements that would be
imposed upon the City in processing the map application. Mr .
Engen confirmed that there would not be a problem with the
proposed time frame.
MOTION: By Councilman Dexter and seconded by Councilman Nimmo
to adhere to the request and continue the matter until
February 12, 1991 ; motion carried 4:0.
C. REGULAR BUSINESS:
• 1 . AUTHORIZE PURCHASE OF PHOTOCOPIER FOR POLICE DEPARTMENT
Chief McHale gave the staff report and recommendations. He noted
that the copier would be an outright purchase and that
maintenance was included in the bid price.
Councilman Shiers commended the police chief for his research and
written support for the recommendation.
There were no public comments.
MOTION: By Councilman Shiers and seconded by Councilman Nimmo
to authorize the bid award to More Office Systems of
San Luis Obispo for the purchase and maintenance of one
Canon copy machine for the police department at a
combined cost of $10, 166. 13; motion unanimously passed
by roll call vote.
2. UNDERGROUND CONVERSION OF UTILITIES
The City Manager reported that the original Undergrounding
Committee met in 1986 and came up with a priority list . He
stated that the initial project targeting the downtown had been
CC11/27/90
Page 5
completed and stated that it was timely to reactivate the •
committee and reaffirm support for the next project . In
addition, he reviewed the committee membership and pointed out
appropriate changes.
Councilman Nimmo and Councilman Shiers both expressed that they
were comfortable with the priorities established. Brief
discussion followed. Henry Engen suggested that a Caltrans
representative be appointed to the committee.
MOTION: By Councilman Nimmo and seconded by Councilman Dexter
to reaffirm the undergrounding priority ranking and re-
establish the Undergrounding Committee to be composed
of representatives from PG&E, Pacific Bell , Falcon
Cable and Caltrans; motion unanimously carried.
3. REQUEST TO MEET AT 6:00 P.M. DECEMBER 11TH FOR CREEKWAY MAP—
PING STUDY SESSION
The following motion was made:
MOTION: By Councilman Dexter and seconded by Councilman Nimmo
to convene at 6:00 p.m. on December 11 , 1990; motion
carried.
D. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION:
1 . City Council :
Mayor Lilley announced that the Tree Lighting Ceremony would be
held on the steps at City Hall on December 3, 1990 at 7:00 p .m.
A. Committee Reports - The following informative status
reports were given:
1 . City/School Committee - The City Manager reported that
this committee would meet in December .
i
2. North Coastal Transit/S.L.O. Area Coordinating Council
The City Manager indicated that Councilwoman Borgeson
would have a report at the next meeting .
3. Recycling Committee - Councilman Shiers announced that
the subcommittee on green waste would meet Thursday,
November 29, 1990.
CC11/27/90
Page 6 •
• 4. Economic Opportunity Commission - Councilman Dexter
reported that the 75th anniversary celebration would be
held on December 14 , 1990 at the San Luis Obispo
offices.
5. B. I .A. - The City Manager reported that the downtown
parking lot had become a reality and that the next step
would be landscaping. Brian Sword, Streets Department,
was commended for his leadership . In addition, Mr .
Windsor thanked Dave Vega, PG&E, for his cooperation in
moving a street lamp.
The City Manager also reported that the necessary
wiring for accommodating street lamp decorations had
been completed and again recognized Brian Sword and
Dave Vega for their efforts.
2. City Attorney
Mr . Montandon gave a status report on annexation fees relating to
the Cayucos-Seperado Assessment District . The City Attorney
explained that annexations fees totalling over $100,000 were now
due, but indicated that he was not recommending any penalties
for late payments or any liens imposed . He indicated that the
• matter would be coming back to Council .
3. City Clerk - No report .
4. City Treasurer - No report .
5. City Manager
Mr . Windsor reported that the "Gordon Davis Roads" project had
been completed and proposed that the Council take another field
trip to look at the improvements. He proposed that such a trip
might also include a site visit to the San Marcos Road extension
(Dick Davis roads) and asked Council for direction. Mayor Lilley
asked the City Manager to meet with staff to determine what kind
of transportation would be needed and report back .
Mayor Lilley reported that he had received a number of calls from
merchants requesting relief during the holidays from requirements
of the sign ordinance and suggested that the matter be addressed
on a future agenda.
The Public Works Director , upon request of Councilman Shiers,
gave a brief status report on the repair work in the downtown as
a result of the construction of a stop intersection at West Mall
CC11/27/90
• Page 7
1
and E1 Camino Real and reported that the project was being
managed by Caltrans.
The City Manager recognized the presence of two sales
representatives from Copytron who had come to address the bid
award for the police department copier. He explained that he had
recommended that they arrive at a specific time but due to the
fact that the meeting had moved along rather quickly, the matter
had already been acted upon. Mayor Lilley stated that the staff
report had been reviewed, the recommendation had been made and
the award approved . He explained that the vote could not be
reconsidered and suggested that the representatives give an
informal presentation to any interested members of Council . The
mayor stated that the Council will reserve the right to
reconsider the matter .
MOTION: By Councilman Shiers and seconded by Councilman Nimmo
to adjourn to a closed session for the purpose of
discussions relating to personnel ; motion unanimously
carried .
The meeting was adjourned to closed session at 8:45 p.m. The
closed session was adjourned at 9:10 p.m. The next meeting will
be a joint session of the City Council and the Planning
Commission to receive the Draft Fiscal Analysis and to discuss
possible acquisition of Stadium Park. Said meeting to be held on
November 29, 1990 at 6:00 p.m. in the Rotunda Room, City Hall
Administration Building.
t fi
MINUTES' RF_CORDED AND PREPARED BY:
, r
,LEE 'DAY;C ,:.'City Clerk
Attachment: Exhibit A (Atascadero Mutual Water Company)
CC11/27/90 •
Page 8
/ 1 ; •.
CC11/27/90 (EXHIBIT A)
5005 EL CAMINO REAL • P.0.90X 6075 0 ATASCADERO, CA 93423 (805)466-2428
ATASCADEROMUTUAL WATER COMPANY
ESTABLISHED 1913
November 26, 1990
RECEIVED NOY 2 7 1990
City of Atascadero
Community Development Department
6500 Palma Avenue
Atascadero, CA 93422
Attention: Mr. Henry Engen
Community Development Director
Re: 11145 E1 Camino Real Condominium Conversion
Dear Mr. Engen:
I have contacted our legal advisors , Sinsheimer, Schiebelhut and
Baggett, Inc. for comments regarding the above condominium con-
version appeal.
The firm would not comment on the City' s specific authority to
require individual metering, however, Atascadero Mutual Water Co.
can make this requirement.
Excerpts from the attorneys ' response are as follows:
"An apartment house need not have separate meters since it
is the owner of the apartment house, not the tenants, who
owns the AMWC located capital stock. However, there is no
"overall" owner of a condominium complex. Each unit is
separately owned. To obtain service from AMWC, AMWC can
require that each unit owner be an AMWC shareholder and that
.each be separately metered.
We have reviewed Mr. Krout's letter of October 29, 1990
addressing this subject. It is Mr. Krout' s position that
the City of Atascadero cannot specifically require separate
water meters as a condition of approval. We offer no opinion
on whether the City has this authority. However, as Mr. Krout
concedes in his letter, AMWC is a private water company which
is entitled, under its bylaws , to impose its own rules and
requirements as to the use and distribution of its water.
Accordingly, AMWC could require, that separate meters be in-
stalled for each unit as a condition of providing water service
even if the City lacks such authority
Mr. Krout ' s chief concern appears to be that ' the City must
treat apartments and condominiums the same. We assume that
Hr 7Henry Engen, City of Atascadero page 2
the City conditions approval of new construction on the
builder meeting AMWC's service requirements. The City
would be acting in a consistent manner if it imposed the
same requirement on the proposed conversion."
We would therefore request that the Council deny the appeal and
uphold the Planning Commission's recommended conditions of
approval.
Sincerely yours,
Robert E. Hamilton
SUPERINTENDENT
REH/pm
4-Z
JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION
STUDY SESSION
MINUTES SUMMARY
November 29, 1990
Mayor Lilley called the session to order at 6:04 p .m. The Pledge
of Allegiance was led by Councilwoman Horgeson.
ROLL CALL:
City Council :
Present : Councilmembers, Horgeson, Shiers, Lilley,
Nimmo and Mayor Dexter
Also Present : City Clerk: , Lee Dayka
Planning Commission:
Present : Commissioners Luna , Johnson, Hanauer , Waage
and K udlac
Absent : Commissioners Lochridge and Highland
Staff:
Present : Ray Windsor , City Manager ; Art Montandon,
City Attorney ; Henry t.I-1gen, Community
Development Director ; Greg Luke, Public
Wo -ks Director ; Mark Joseph , Administrative
Services Director ; Mike Hicks, Fire Chief;
Andy Takata , Director of Parks, Recreation &
?oc ; Steve DeCamp , CityPlanner , Doug
Davidson, Senior Planner ; Karl Schoettler ,
Assistant Planner ; and Gary Kaiser , Assistant
P I anner
PURPOSE OF MEETING:
A. LONG RANGE FISCAL ANALYSIS - Consideration of October
; �90 Reviews Draft of report prepared by Crawford ,
:�ulta`i and Starr
JOINT CC/PC
Page i
MEETING AGENDA
DATE 12/11/90ITEM j _A-3
•
CITY OF ATASCADERO
SCHEDULE OF CASH RECEIPTS AND TRANSFERS
TREASURER ' S REPORT
FOR THE MONTH OF OCTOBER, 1990
CASH RECEIPTS:
Property Taxes $ 53,087 .63
Sales Tax 133.400.00
Motor Vehicle In-Lieu 51 ,878 .36
Cigarette Tax 3.069.77
Transient Occupancy Fee 30 ,272. 75
Sanitation Fees 59,921 .87
License/Permit/Fees 3B,443.00
Franchise Fees 4 ,997. 48
Fines/Penalties/Overages 7,880. 71
Investment Earnings 129,789 .00
Rents/Concessions 1 ,651 .67
Sales-Maps `Publicat-ons/Reports 89. 2:0
Police Services 11 ,716.30
Parks and Recreation Fees 19,658.20
• Miscellaneous 3,531 .44
Developer Fees 69,041 . 76
`oo Receipts 17, 351 .84
Dial --A-Rid e 65,709. 45
B. I .A . Dues 225.00
A. D. #4 - Separado/Cayuces 727. 72
A.D. #5 - Chandler Ranch 552.02
TDA Transit Receipts 100 ,595.75
Gas Tax Receipts 17,258.74
Park Pavilion Donation 30, 00
Sub-Total e2), 479.66
Other Cash Receipts
Reimbursement to E-,.pence
Proceeds from Sale of Land 114 , 587. 40
Total Other Receipts 120 ,859 . 78
Total Cash Receipts $91-1 , 339. 44
•
•
1
CITY OF ATASCADERO
CASH ACTIVITY SUMMARY
TREASURER ' S REPORT
FOR 1HE MONTH OF OCTOBER, 1990
BEGINNING CASH RESOURCES $6 ,768 ,990. 79
ADD: PECEIPTS 941 ,339 .44
LESS: DISBURSEMENTS ( 764 ,957 .81 )
OTHER TRANSFERS/MISC. ADJUSTMENTS 108, 025. 37
ENDING CASH RESOURCES $7 ,053. 398.29
SCHEDULE OF CASH RESOURCES
As of October 31 , 1990
Checking Account : Int Dtae
Mid-State Bank: X280, 398 .29 Rate Date
Other Investments : •
Local Agency Inv . Fund 6,575,000 8 .321% N/A
Bank: of New England 99 ,000 9 . 625% 02121 /91
Century Federal Savings 99 ,000 8.450% 10/ 11 /91
Other Cash Resources:
Petty Cash 850.00
TOTAL CASH RESOURCES 7 ,053 , 398.29
*Interest earned October
on Mid State Checking 100.75
MUR I EL C. KORBA .
City Treasurer
•
MEETING AGENDA
DATE 12/11/90 ITEM# A-4
•
CITY OF ATASCADERO
SCHEDULE OF DISBURSEMENTS
FINANCE DIRECTOR ' S REPORT
FOR THE MONTH OF OCTOBER, 1990
.DISBURSEMENTS
Hand Warrant Register for October , 1990 $ 6 ,683 .50
10/4/90 Accounts Payable Warrants 95, 492. 77
10/ 12/97 Accounts Payable Warrants 116 ,888.77
10/ 19/90 Accounts Payable Warrants 1+8, 372.(_,7
10/26/90 Accounts Payable Warrants 141 .720. 97
Wires for October 1990, 99,C>18 .e1
10/ 10/90 Payroll Checks 102116--102291 130 ,091 . 62
10/24/90 Payroll. Checks 102292-102452 12e, :390. Ou
Total 766,658.51
LESS :
Voided Check #53866 323 .48
4"jo i sled Check #54063 :322 .70
• Yo i ded Check #54143 105_('),'>
Voided Check #`,54166 7. 9,4-,
Voided Check. #54174 --, . 38
Voided Check #54205 611 . 3'7
`:'oided Check #54236 233 . 01
Sub-Total Voided Checks 1 ,'7C?0. '7
Total Disbursements 764 , 957 .31
I , MARK A. JOSEPH, do hereby certify and declare that
demands enumerated and referred to in the foregoing register
are accurate and just claims against the City and that there
are funds available for payment thereof in the City Treasury .
The breakdown detail. on all accounts is available for your
,viewing in the Finance Office.
y
MARK A. OS PH
• Administ a ive Services: Director
MEETING AGENDA
DAT I2 11/90 ITEM# AA-5__
RESOLUTION NO. 126-90
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO
TO ADOPT ITS ANNUAL INVESTMENT POLICY
WHEREAS , the City of Atascadero is required by state law to
adopt a City Investment Policy, on an annual basis , for idle
funds ; and
WHEREAS , ft is the responsibility of the City Treasurer to
propose such a policy.
NOW, THEREFOR , BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does
adopt the attached Investment Policy to be followed by the City
Treasurer in the investment of the City ' s idle funds.
On motion by CouncilpersonG<< , and seconded by
Councilperson , the foregoing resolution is
hereby adopted in its entirety, including the actual Investment
Policy attached , by the following Roll Call vote.
• AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ADOPTED:
ATTEST:
By :
LEE DAYKA, City Clerk ROBERT B. LILLEY , Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
ARTHER MONTANDON MURIEL KORBA
City Attorney City Treasurer
•
wJ
CITY OF ATASCADERO
STATEMENT OF INVESTMENT POLICY
1 .0 POLICY
It is the policy of the City of Atascadero to investi
ubl
p s
funds ' n
i a manner which willrov'
p ide the highest investment
return with the maximum security tY while meeting the daily cash
flow demands of the City of Atascadero and conforming to all
state, county and local statutes governing the investment of
public funds -- safety, liquidity, and yield (SLY) .
2.0 SCOPE
This investment policy applies to all financial assets of
the City of Atascadero . These funds are accounted for in the
City of Atascadero ' s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report and
4�
include:
2. 1 Funds
2. 1 . 1 General Fund •
2. 1 .2 Special Revenue Funds
2.1 .3 Capital Project Funds
2. 1 .4 Enterprise Funds
2. 1 .5 Trust and Agency Funds
2. 1 .6 Retirement/Pension Funds
2. 1 .7 Any new fund unless specifically exempted .
3.0 PRUDENCE - Civil Code #2261
Investments shall be made with judgment and care -- under
circumstances then prevailing -- which persons of prudence,
discretion and intelligence exercise in the management of their
own affairs, not for speculation, but for investment , considering
the probable safety of their capital as well as the probable
income to be derived.
3. 1 The standard of prudence to be used by investment officials
shall be the "prudent person" standard and shall be applied in
the context of managing an overall portfolio . Investment
officers acting in accordance with written procedures and the
investment policy and exercising due diligence shall be relieved
of personal responsibility for an individual security ' s credit
risk or market price changes, provided deviations from
expectations are reported in a timely fashion and appropriate
action is taken to control adverse developments.
4.0 DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY - Per Government Code #53607 •
4. 1 All solicitations for investments shall be made to and
through the City Treasurer .
• Y
4 .2 All brokers/ dealers must have an application on file that
has been previously approved before any investment `tan be made
through them.
4.3 Two signatures shall be required for any purchase of C.D. ' s
or other type of investment , except LAIF. The two signatures
shall be that of City Treasurer and Finance Director . If the
latter is unavailable, the Assistant Finance Director may
substitute.
4.4 Any out-of-state investment shall require consultation with
and approval of the City Attorney. State laws differ and
additional requirements may be appropriate for the safety of any
investment .
5.0 REPORTING
5. 1 The Treasurer shall submit a monthly investment report to
the City Council . This report will' include all required elements
of the monthly report as prescribed by Government Code Section
53646.
• Required elements of the monthly report :
5. 1 . 1 Type of I.rvestment
5. 1 .2 Institution
5. 1 .3 Date of Maturity
5. 1 .4 Amount .of Deposit or Cost of the Security
5. 1 .5 Current market value of securities with maturity in
excess of 12 months.
5. 1 .6 Rate of Interest
5. 1 .7 Statement relating the report to the Statement of
Investment Policy .
5. 1 .G Statement that there are sufficient funds to meet the
next 30 days ' obligations.
5. 1 .9 Effective January 1 , 1991, accrued Interest as
prescribed by the California Code Section 53646.
6.0 SAFEKEEPING AND CUSTODY
All security transactions, including collateral for
repurchase agreements, entered into by the City of Atascadero
shall be conducted on a delivery - versus - payment (DVP) basis.
Securities will be held by a third party custodian designated by
the Treasurer and evidenced by safekeeping receipts.
•
7.0 DIVERSIFICATION:
The City of Atascadero will diversify its investments by
security type and institution. With the exceptions of U.S.
Treasury securities and authorized pools -- such as the State
LAIF and County Agency Investment Fund , no more than 10% of the
City of Atascadero ' s total investment portfolio will be invested
in a single security type or with a single financial institution.
7. 1 Permitted investments/Deposits
Securities of the U.S. Government
Certificates of Deposits
Negotiable Certificates of Deposit
Bankers Acceptances
Commercial Paper -
Local Agency Investment Fund (State Pool )
County Agency Investment Fund,,
Passbook Deposits
Repurchase Agreement
Reverse Repurchase Agreements
7.2 Competitive Bids-Purchase and sale of securities should be •
made on the basis of competitive offers and bids when practical .
7.3 Purchases shall be made only with corporations in a rating
category of "A" or its equivalent or better by a nationally
recognized rating service.
8.0 MAXIMUM MATURITIES
To the extent. possible, the City of Atascadero will attempt
to match its investments with anticipated cash flow requirements.
Unless matched to a specific cash flow, the City of Atascadero
will not directly invest in securities maturing more than 2 years
from the date of purchase.
9.0 INTERNAL CONTROL
9. 1 A system of internal control shall be established and
documented in writing . The controls shall be designed to prevent
losses of public funds arising from fraud , employee error ,
misrepresentation of third parties, unanticipated changes in
financial markets, or imprudent actions by employees and officers
of the City of Atascadero . Controls deemed most important
include: control of collusion, separation of duties, separating
transaction authority from accounting and recordkeeping , •
custodial safekeeping , clear delegation of authority, specific
limitations regarding securities ' losses and remedial action,
written confirmation of telephone transactions, minimizing the
number of authorized Investment Officials, documentation of
transactions and strategies, and code of ethics standards.
10.0 STATEMENT OF INVESTMENT POLICY
The Statement of Investment Policy shall be reviewed and
submitted annually to the City Council of the City of Atascadero ,
State of California Government (Code 53646) .
MURIEL C. KORBA, City Treasurer
City of Atascadero
c/resolution
•
•
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: A-6
Through: Ray Windsor , City ManagerMeeting Date: 12-11-90
From: Mark Joseph, Administrative Services Director//'
SUBJECT:_ Claiming 'Local Transportation Fund Monies for f=Y 90-91 .
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Council adopt Resoluticn 131 -
90, authorizing the filing of a claim for Local Transporta* ion
Fund (LTF ) and State Transit Assistance ( STA ) monies .
BACKGROUND:
One-quarter of one percent of the State Sales Tax is
allocated to Cities for transportation purposes. These monies
'SLC-are processed th Hugh the SLG' Area Coordinatinq Council
Ac-- O . Annual s , the Cit ; must Pass a formal resr7iJ ' IZn
requesting the movies allocated .
For FY 90-91 . the amount available for Atascadero is
$457 , 479 . Of that amount . $9 . 148 is earmarked for
Bicycle/Pedestrian paths . The balance, will go into cur LTFiNon--
Transit Fund . tlicrma11y , a portion would go toward=_ the Dial -a-
Ride program , but , because of tt- E? high cash balance in tht= Dial
-
A-Ride Furd , nc additional si..:pport is requii-ed .
•
RESOLUTION NO. 131-90
•
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO
AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A CLAIM FOR LOCAL
TRANSPORTATION FUNDS AND STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE
FUNDS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE TRANSPORTATION
DEVELOPMENT
ACT
WHEREAS, Articles 4 and 8 of Chapter 4 of the Public Utilities
Code requires claims for operating funds to be filed with the
transportation planning agency by local transportation operators;
and
WHEREAS, the City of Atascadero is eligible for transportation
funds as provided in Chapter 4 of the Public Utilities Code; and
WHEREAS, the San Luis Obispo Area Coordinating Council is the
designated transportation planning agency for San Luis Obispo
County.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of
Atascadero does hereby authorize the filing of a claim for Local
Transportation Funds in the amount of $457,479. If additional LTF
funds become available said funds shall be used for the purpose of
street maintenance. The claim form is attached hereto marked
Exhibit A and by reference thereof made a part hereof. •
On motion by Councilman and seconded by
Councilman the foregoing resolution is hereby
adopted in its entirety on the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
DATE:
ATTEST:
LEE DAYKA, City Clerk ROBERT B. LILLEY, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
ARTHER MONTANDON MARK JOSEPH
City Attorney Director of Administrative •
Services
• ANNUAL CLAIM
FOR LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUNDS AND
STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE FUNDIS
CLAIM NO. TOA-AT-90f 91
FISCAL YEAR 1990/91
TO: San Luis Obispo Area Coordinating Council
County Government Center
San Luis Obispo, CA 93408
FROM: CLAIMANT: CITY OF ATASCADERO
ADDRESS: 6500 Palma
CITY: Atascadero CA ZIP CODE: 93422
CONTACT PERSON: Mark Joseph Finance Mgr. PHONE: 461-5017
This claimant, qualified pursuant to Section 99203 of the Public Utilities
Code, hereby requests, in accordance with Chapter 1400, Statutes of 1971,
as amended and applicable rules and regulations, that an allocation be
made for the purposes and in the respective amounts as described in the
attached Project and Financial Plan claim form.
a) Annual (LaTF) Transit Apportionment $ 448,253
• b) Annual Bicycle/Ped. Apportionment $ 9,148
c) STA Fund--Operator Revenues $ 78
TOTAL FUNDS BEING CLAIMED ARE $ 457,479
Claimant Signature:
Title:
Date:
This claim was approved by San Luis Obispo Area Coordinating Council at
their July 11, 1990 meeting, by Resolution No. 90-06.
fav+A �o �a
Ronald L. De Carli, Program Manager 6ate
. dh:claimat
i •
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF ATASCADERO ITEM: A-7
Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date : 12 /11/90
File No: TPM 25-90
By: Henry Engen, Community Development Director
SUBJECT:
Consideration of a vesting tentative parcel map to divide 9 . 14
acres into two parcels of 4 . 99 and 4 . 16 acres each at 9755
Enchanto Road (Frank Henderson/Vaughan Surveys ) .
RECOMMENDATION:
Per the Planning Commissionis recommendation, approve Tentative
Parcel Map 25-90 subject to the revised Conditions of Approval .
BACKGROUND :
On November 20, 1990, the Planning Commission conducted a public •
bearing on this subject. On a 5 : 1 : 1 vote (Commissioner Highland
absent and Chairperson Luna dissenting) , the Commission voted to
approve the parcel map subject to the Findings and revised
Conditions of Approval . There was public testimony and
discussion as referenced in the attached minutes excerpts .
HE ps
Attachments : Staff Report dated November 20 , 1990
Minutes Excerpt - November 20, 1990
Revised Conditions of Approval - November 20 , 1990
cc: Frank Henderson
Vaughan Surveys
CITY OF ATASCADERO Item: B-3
STAFF REPORT
FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: November 20, 1990
BY: Gary V. Kaiser, Assistant Planner File No: TPM 25-90
SUBJECT:
Consideration of a vesting tentative parcel map application to
divide a 9. 15 acre parcel into "Parcel 1" of 4. 99 acres and
"Parcel 2" of 4. 16 acres.
RECON24ENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of Vesting Tentative Parcel Map #25-90
based on the Findings contained in Exhibit G and the Conditions
of Approval contained in Exhibit H.
A. SITUATION AND FACTS:
• 1. Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Frank Henderson
2. Representative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Vaughan Surveys
3. Project Address. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9755 Enchanto Road
4. Legal Description. . . . . . . . . . . .Lot 13, Blk 44, AC
5. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9. 15 acres
6. Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .RS (Residential Suburban)
7. General Plan Designation. . . . .Suburban Single Family
8. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 SFR under construction
9. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Negative Declaration posted
October 30, 1990
B. ANALYSIS:
The applicant requests approval of a vesting tentative parcel map
application to divide an original Colony Lot of 9. 15 acres into
"Parcel 1" of 4. 99 acres and "Parcel 2" of 4. 16 acres (Exhibits A
• & B) . The 9. 15-acre project site fronts on both Enchanto and
Corriente roads. Proposed "Parcel 2" contains a single-family
residence, which is currently under construction. Proposed
"Parcel 1" is currently vacant.
• The minimum lot size in the RS zone ranges from 2 1/2 to 10
acres, depending on the evaluation of several performance
standards, as described in Section 9-3. 144 of the City Zoning
Ordinance. Staff has performed this analysis on the project
site, and determined that the minimum lot size for the site is
4. 16 acres.
Lot Size Factor
Distance from Center (14, 000 ' - 16, 0001 ) 0. 50
Septic Suitability (45 min. /inch = slow) 1. 00
Average Slope (26 - 30 %) 1. 25
Access Condition (Paved Road <15% slope) 0. 40
General Neighborhood Character (5. 06 ac) 1. 01
Minimum Lot Size. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. 16 acres
The average slope of the entire project site has been determined
by staff to be approximately 26 percent. This was the figure
used for the performance standard related to slope in the
determination of the minimum lot size for the project site. The
average slope of proposed "Parcel 1, " however, is slightly over
35 percent. Site improvement plans for proposed "Parcel 1"
include a grading plan (Exhibit C) . Due to a combined use of
grading and retaining wall, and due to an appropriate house
design (Exhibit D) , it is estimated that the extent of grading
• would be limited to approximately 425 cubic yards of fill and
approximately 30 cubic yards of cut. This is substantially less
grading than that often proposed for the development of much
flatter lots. Furthermore, the applicants have proposed to
locate the leachfield for "Parcel 1" in an area of less than 30
percent slope (an acceptable location per the review of the
project by the City Building Division) .
Section 11-4. 303 of the City Subdivision Ordinance sets forth
provisions for processing vesting tentative maps in the City of
Atascadero. The difference between an approved tentative map and
an approved vesting tentative map is subtle, but significant.
The recordation of the final subdivision document (whether Parcel
Map or Tract Map) , which is in substantial compliance with the
approved tentative map, is considered a ministerial act.
Applicants with approved tentative maps, therefore, have a vested
right to meet any applicable conditions of approval and create
new parcels. When a "vesting" tentative map is approved, or
conditionally approved, however, the applicant not only has a
vested right to create new parcels, but also has a vested right
to proceed with development of the newly created parcels in
substantial compliance with the ordinances, policies, and
standards in effect at the time the vesting tentative map is
approved or conditionally approved.
2
Section - •
11 5. 003 of the City Subdivision Ordinance lists the
additional information that must be included in vesting tentative
map applications. Other than requiring that the words "Vesting
Tentative Map" be conspicuously printed on the face of the
tentative map, this Section requires that complete site
improvement plans (essentially all information required for the
filing of a precise plan) be submitted in conjunction with the
standard tentative map application materials. This additional
information is important for adequate environmental review of the
project; that is, because a precise plan cannot be required for
the subsequent development of the proposed parcels, the
functional equivalent of a precise plan must be performed in
association with the vesting map application. Any vested right
to develop the proposed parcels can then be limited to being in
substantial compliance with the site improvement plans contained
within the application.
As noted above, proposed "Parcel 2" contains a single-family
residence that is currently under construction. Because the
construction of this residence involved grading on slopes in
excess of ten (10) percent, an approved precise plan was required
prior to the issuance of a building permit (PP #60-90) .
Conditions placed on the approval of said precise plan were
limited to: (1) the improvement of the access road (Corriente
Road) to City Minimum Road Standard A-2; (2) obtaining an •
encroachment permit; (3) constructing a City Standard D-1 Drive
Approach; and (4) offering to dedicate any portions of the road
(Corriente) , including shoulders, falling outside the existing
right-of-way for that road. Additional review of the current
application, therefore, is limited to the development of proposed
"Parcel 1" .
Finally, the proposed new lot line has been designed to generally
follow the natural topography of the site, while still remaining
straight. This is encouraged by Chapter 8 of the City' s
Subdivision Ordinance, which requires that the physical
conditions of the site be recognized and be reflected in the
design of subdivisions in the City of Atascadero.
CONCLUSIONS:
Staff believes that this application demonstrates that, with site
sensitive grading and house plans, the extent of site disturbance
is not necessarily related to the steepness of the site.
Furthermore, staff believes that this project, with the attached
conditions of approval, complies with all applicable provisions
contained within the General Plan and Atascadero Municipal Code.
•
3
•
ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Location Map
Exhibit B - Tentative Parcel Map
Exhibit C - Proposed Grading Plan (Parcel 1)
Exhibit D - Proposed House Plans (Elevations)
Exhibit E - Supplemental Development Statement
Exhibit F - Negative Declaration
Exhibit G - Findings for Approval
Exhibit H - Conditions of Approval
TPM-25-90. sr
•
•
4
CITY OF ATASCADERO EXHIBIT A
1 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT LOCATION HAP
DEPARTMENT •
ERA
40
I I T ti I
o � �
I ,
�s o
IH r
.rte J f
ll ANO
R S
LL �Y
I SANT'
CITY OF ATASCADERO EXHIBIT B
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
Nit ;, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
• DEPARTMENT
�Zi
\
z
E QX �Lv31HIfpD
t
SIL
� f
� 5,• I
'JI-4 `` job
y J
=�� I I .• ''f p o� i
`'5�wk
CITY OF
ATASCADERO EXHIBIT C
GRADING PLAN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
D EPARTMENT •
I ,
` e 4xs all, Im
Milli
� �.���� � � �� � � gpag erIIrIIIIIIIIQIIIIQIIQ
■ ■ � g g i iia rrr 1 53
1w ill'' 4 3
C2d$
� 3IIp
I :
�'; tali; � '��.�\\ �\\�\\\ I •
i J
I s�
i
i
I
` t', ]� j ' } • lit
l�� jg jj 1 t ig = 1�' ,.•,a . ;j ,ti f l t}ig, , . t
��;a;=,���l�' j�f � � ��.j�-,ih•(,tf 1� jtl i�,',} .,,}l4
i � ��!f �#t,"�i+�._}► !}�!,� t`'ai�1g, ��_pj:1� a �f l ��-i�; l� �' ��l!t' ,t"''
Vii'i}i +jtf ji• 1, a11,t IEi �1,; .j _i.; ` �i,grI if7=t
ip.
Ij= iglftl! t!i ''� Rf 1 IllI w `f !A!ftlttl111, ,,• . :,.:,1 tc 1 i!t , ,._ =i , , �,
mzft CITY OF ATASCADERO EXHIBIT o
HOUSE PLANS
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
• _ DEPARTMENT
NaRTN ELEVArioy 5WUT--H R-LEYATIOd �G�i ►�G�
FeK
HOpwWri,
WEST ELEVAT!WN EAST' ELEVATION
•
Zft CITY OF ATASCADERO EXHIBIT E
DEVELOPER'S STATEMENT
CONLNIUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT •
Kuentzel, Henderson & Associates
i� ARCH ITECTU RE ❑ PLANNING
' Douglas A. Kuentzel.Architect
Frank L.Henderson.Associate
September 25> 1990
To: Doug Davidson SEP 2 ti 1919"9
City of atascadero
Planning Dept. ��'�"' ,,!! _i_'•(�LUPP1�'l
6500 Palma J
Atascadero, Ca. 93422
From: Frank Henderson
RE: Subject vested interest Lot division APN# 50-212-13
Due to the increasing concerns over lot splits on sloping acreage, we
have decided to dedicate considerable time, effort S money into preparing a
vested interest map as opposed to a standard application.
We feel this will best serve the interest of the city, residents of the
area, as well as ourselves. Many issues need to be addressed during •
preparation of this type of application: specific house design, driveway
access, trees, septic system design, and visual impact.
There has been much time spent to assure each of these items has been
dealt with in a sensitive manner to this site and adjacent properties.
Parcel #2 is currently under construction and will be complete by mid
November of this year. The design and construction of parcel #2 was approved
through precise plan.
Parcel #1 is proposed for construction as shown.
We feel that all issues involving this property of over nine acres has
not only been resolved satisfactorily for both sites, but the two new parcels
would be more in scale with the character of the area.
Thank you,
Frank Herfderson
•
(805) 238-7447 ❑ P.O. Box 305.935 Riverside.Alliance Square.Suite 21 ❑ Paso Robles.California 93447
CITY OF ATASCADERO EXHIBIT F
NEGATIVE DECLARATIOI\
MR COMII�IUNITY DEVELOPMENT
• _ DEPARTMENT
CITY OF ATASCADERO
„-T ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATOR
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
COWAUN=DEVELOPMEYr DEPT. 6500 PALMA AVE. ATASCADERO, CA 93422 (805) 461-5035
APPLICANT: FRArIK +IENCEi25eN
92.05 Ba-1acq
AT�sca eo C,4. 934z-z
PROJECT TITLE: VE'STir�6 T�T�Ti,�IE PARGtL l''�a� � Z 5-q o
PROJECT LOCATION:
9755 E-�cNr�NT-c� lid.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: pivis�or+ o� aa-1 o�t6�t�l�4L C=-ot-." L67" oi= 4-IS
a c2ES �NTp Tw O �..5 0 4.�9 psvD �f•I(o k c-i2.Es , 'kmi:>
• V6^ST� 2� T 'TD ��oC -9 w T}i D9JEL_C?w�E�T
FINDINGS: tZES�1..TP.NZ �,-�Ds-�t�t-o p '�'QtEL.
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 comulatively considerable.
4. The project will not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings either directly or indirectly.
DETERM1iIINATION:
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.
HenryEngen
Community D velopmen irector
Date Posted: OCTOBER 30, 1990
Date Adopted:
•
C.DD 11-tlY
•
EXHIBIT G - Findings for Approval
Tentative Parcel Map 25-90
9755 Enchanto Road
(Henderson/Vaughan Surveys)
November 20, 1990
ENVIRONMENTAL FINDING:
The proposed project will not have a significant impact on the
environment. The Negative Declaration prepared for the project
is adequate.
MAP FINDINGS:
1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable
General and Specific Plans.
2. The design and/or improvement of the proposed subdivision is
consistent with applicable General and Specific Plans.
3. The site is physically suitable for the type of development
proposed. •
4. The site is physically suitable for the density of the
development proposed.
5. The design of the subdivision, and/or the proposed
improvements, will not cause substantial environmental
damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish and
wildlife or their habitat.
6. The design of the subdivision, and the type of the
improvements, will not conflict with easements acquired by
the public at large for access through or the use of
property within the proposed subdivision; or substantially
equivalent alternate easements are provided.
7. The proposed subdivision design, and/or the type of
improvements proposed, will not cause serious public health
problems.
TPM-25-90. fin
•
•
EXHIBIT H - Conditions of Approval
Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 25-90
9755 Enchanto Road (Henderson/Vaughan Surveys)
November 20, 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. Offer to dedicate to the City of Atascadero the following
right-of-way and/or easements.
Street Name: Enchanto Road
Limits : 20 feet from centerline of right of way to
property line.
4. Offers of dedication shall be completed and recorded prior
• to or in conjunction with the recording of the map.
5. Proposed building locations as shown on the tentative map
shall appear on the final map with notations limiting
buildings to these locations.
6. 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-
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.
• II
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.
•
•
NOTE: THE MINUTES EXCERPT FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
OF NOVEMBER 20TH WAS NOT AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF AGENDA
DISTRIBUTION AND WILL BE DISTRIBUTED AT A LATER TIME.
•
•
EXHIBIT H - Conditions of Approval
Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 25-90
9755 Enchanto Road (Henderson/Vaughan Surveys)
(revised by Planning Commission 11-20-90)
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 applicant shall offer to dedicate to the City of
Atascadero, for public road purposes, any portion of
Enchanto Road and/or its shoulder that falls outside the
existing right-of-way. Offer shall be approved by the City
Engineering Division, and recorded by the applicant, prior
to the recordation of the Parcel Map.
4. Offers of dedication shall be completed and recorded prior
to or in conjunction with the recording of the map.
5. Proposed building locations as shown on the tentative map •
shall appear on the final map with notations limiting
buildings to these locations.
6. 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-
1.
b. Pursuant to section 66497 of the Subdivision Map Act
the engineer or surveyor shall notice the City Engineer
irr 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.
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.
•
•
•
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF ATASCADERO ITEM: A_g
Through : Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 12/11/90
File No: TTM 17-90
By: Henry Engen, Community Development Director
SUBJECT:
Request to subdivide one lot into eight airspace condominiums and
a common area at 5392 Barrenda Avenue (Dari Lopez/Cuesta
Engineering) .
RECOMMENDATION:
Per the Planning Commission' s recommendation, approve Tentative
Tract Map 17-90 subject to the Conditions of Approval .
BACKGROUND :
• On November 20, 1990 , the Planning Commission conducted a public
}fearing on this subject. On a 6 : 0 vote {Commissioner Highland
absent) , the Commission voted to approve the tract map subject
to the Findings and Conditions of Approval . There was public
testimony and discussion as referenced in the attached minutes
excerpts .
HE ps
Attachments : Staff Report dated November 20, 1990
Minutes Excerpt - November 20 , 1990
cc : Dan Lopez
Cuesta Engineering
•
CITY OF ATASCADERO Item: B_4
STAFF REPORT
FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: November 20, 1990
BY: Doug Davidson, Senior Planner File No: TTM 17-90
SUBJECT:
To consider a request to subdivide one lot into eight (8)
airspace condominiums and a common area.
RECOM ENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of Tentative Tract Map 17-90 based on
the Findings for Approval in Exhibit B and the Conditions of
Approval in Exhibit C.
SITUATION AND FACTS:
1. Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Dan Lopez •
2. Representative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Cuesta Engineering
3. Project Address. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5392 Barrenda Ave.
4. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0. 68 acres
5. Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .RMF-16
6. General Plan Designation. . . . .High Density Multiple Family
7. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Vacant
8. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Negative Declaration
Adopted May 29, 1990
BACKGROUND:
On May 29, 1990, Precise Plan 27-90 became effective. This
approval established conditions of development for an (8) eight
unit multiple family project. The building permit application is
currently being reviewed.
•
•
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 provides separate utility meters, as well as an
architectural and site design, that symbolizes a condominium
development. 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 - Findings for Approval
Exhibit C - Conditions of Approval
Exhibit D - Precise Plan 27-90
2
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF ATASCADERO TENTATIVE MAP
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TTM 17-90
DEPARTMENT •
FOWER'S VAMUINT
�_ �— —' -� ` rr.zrm• .calx '
r.• inoa \ �\ '\
u►a.�t�av mwvi z iso-/( �� ..1:
•it � a
XCIA/irr/VA/
TENTATIVE TRACT 2043
w _ -
-^i•;••.s_ _� ria 1 � S� �( „�� N.c a sao.w.u.re moarwr nrc�s n ,r�r+.o r w aaa o.
-'•.r..�M•/•ry 0�.Ywa.p..w.(4.1i V tM tut r...r � d(K.Uw.
i d r...' ♦r.ifl'f U`r y'LO�R•O W Mt(O.MG..�. R.w..1.4 ii.
r
CUESTA ENGINI:I:ItING
Y•! 6.f.••(Alf lI.//. •
a• T.tA..fY.KT✓a9...a.r���A►aMf
rb4• a- .rL'•' S 'r.ic..w'a'['iw c�iaioa.. ti.ar
1••tl .N-Nil
•
• EXHIBIT B - Findings for Approval
Tentative Tract Map 17-90
5392 Barrenda Ave. (Lopez/Cuesta Engineering)
November 20, 1990
ENVIRONMENTAL FINDING:
A Negative Declaration has been previously prepared (May 8, 1990)
and adopted (May 29, 1990) as a part of Precise Plan 27-90.
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 C - Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract Map 17-90 •
5392 Barrenda Ave. (Lopez/Cuesta Engineering)
November 20, 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 27-90 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 27-90 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. 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.
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.
•
•
AOMI00 PALMA) BUILDING �aseadeil A
6300 PALMA AOENIA •
ATASCAO[RO. CALIFORNIA 93A22 POLICE DEPARTMENT
PMON[: 1803) 488.8000 INCOR"RAT90 JULY 2. 1979 $300 PALMA AVENUE
ATASCAOERO. CALIFORNIA 93AZZ
CITY COUNCIL PHONE. (8031 488•d800
CITY CLERK -
CITY TREASURER � -
CITY MANAGER
AOMINISTRATIVE SERVICES OEPARTMENT FIRE DEPARTMENT
COMMUNITY OEVELOPMENT DEPORTMENT 5005 4EINIS AVENUE
PUBLIC'NORKS DEPARTMENT
ATASCAOERO. _ALIFORNIA )3422
PARKS ANO RECREATION DEPARTMENT PHONE. :805) 466-2141
r� +
EXHIBIT D
TTM 17-90
May 8 , 1990
Dan Lopez
741 Orchard
Nipomo, CA 93444
RE: PRECISE PLAN 27-90
5392 Barrenda Ave. •
Dear M. Lopez :
The City o-46 Atascadero has received and reviewed your application
nor a Precise Plan and Environmental Determination for the
construction of eighr (8) two-bedroom multiple family units.
The proposed site is zoned (Residential Multiple Family
.fig:. Density ) and the proposed use is allowed as defined as
multiple family dwellings (Section 9-3 .172 (:) . The surrounding
Properties are zoned the same as the subjec-:: site, with the
exception of grocerty to the west, which is zoned RSr-Y
(Residential Single family) . These surrounding properties are
currently developed with residential uses .
X review by the Community Development Director of the
environmental description Lo= 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 Zhe Zoning Ordinance.
The proposed Precise Plan is approved as shown on attached
EXhibit B (site plan) , Exhibit D (grading plan) and subject to •
tee conditions of approval in Exhibit G. Final approval becomes
e5`ective on Mav 29, 1990 , unless accealed. (NOTE: THIS DOES
NOT CONSTITUTE A GRADING OR BQII.DING 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.
I= 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: Richard Heim
Tom Allen
• Attachments : Exhibit A - Location/Zoning Map
Exhibit B - Site Plan
Exhibit C - Landscape Plan
Exhibit D - Grading Plan
Exhibit E - Tree Removal/Replacement
Exhibit F - Findings for Approval
Exhibit G - Conditions of Approval
•
■
��♦ - moi♦ �• �� i"�� ■
Pei r _
s■ OMP, MWA
, It
; ...
10
NEI
� i� 0
EXHIBIT B
lose a . CITY OF AlASCADER0
SITE PLAN
��cli�•a ! „,0-- PRECISE PLAN 27-90
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
• �-,�, DEPARTMENT
GENERAL NOTES
.. _ - f �•'/%; � .fit �f. /�.- , . I`t ��./ � ..J
- � ��, s. • '�? ,�ice:/ ' .,,f/ i.
tel.• I 1
* ,lf
• r i s
vw
SME PUN
..... sir
R r NSIM A Assoolates
..ew...e�•.. - n..•••s - f••I•...•.• `Q �q twinw !—
. .�...........�..�.r.w...•..t....ew.rw .....w �'^ '2 Cts.(ia\ :7L11G'^
•
�\ EXHIBIT C'
/
CITY OF �`511-15CA LANDSCAPE PLAN
�_ .
• ,� DERO PRECISE PLAN 27-90
7
Awa ���^ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT •
• _ _� �- - ? •�Y or
11 •1 r _ �--ems...•
'•\�: - �� � is ..y � `.J .�r� •�—.�.
LANDSCAPE PLAN iQ
tern r W-e IJ)
R
...P.............
;--
MKIM. Q�' Assocmiss
i .*CMITtCtVllt .'►l•1!1•y . 1w01Mf•.N �.• �...• 'S y�.y•W!G uMlty 47R:
•.••w•••••t.-.o.w•.w-n�w•w.,u.nr• n.... '�i.�e�vim. �r1iC�
••rd 'l..Raro.i «u� •o+•u�.cn o►.tt.�u.^a'f�
•
' EXHIBIT D
`\ GRADING PLAN
ties .6 . ' CITY OF ATASCADERO
c—t�•+•'dna / r�»�� PRECISE PLAN 27-90
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
• ;�, DEPARTMENT
js*•
t 11.t
ml
it
sr
Nil
'j�� a � ate. �� �� � ••w�� {� I -f ��� �
• � .. ,� ' \ ` _\ �(� , / lad.
mor iN
• Viz,
fill
a
ti'llfail!
ilij;l'lHii iii-
+�1' i,i alitt7Itt1'1=1I���.�ia,.t r! j
�! i'.� 11 � .!1 il�il,i!,!I�'1 31:I j! I• 1 �:; ;3;;� a
f• •a� 1i11:J is j• 1 •11,;e ,I 1 I j�;�t- i -
i iiI{#,'��il-i
i�
pi
N—li - •�11#Il�ijll!� 1 � �li i� ;: a .i;� =• jj -:s
• �? s P ai 1 s ,
�: '1 1 II�1 ' :�;�� 1 9 1�•� ' i :�. ; fir:
• i� t l s las�a t � 1 f 1 � if j,
. �= � ��l� � i { aIt•� I
s t ,11 I i a I 1 ! ri• t
EXHIBIT E
. ree Removal Perms Application
tr a. ���
;-U1 F I i Supplemental Information
fulfill
t �CM)C�U. (Please type or print In - ink) I
Reason for Removal t Construction of housing units. Driveways and oarking,
and adjacent street widening -
Number of Trees to be Removed : 4
Specify the size (measured 4 ' above ground level ) , species (both
common and botanical name ) and condition of each tree to be
removed;
SIZE WAIWO.t/ NSE BOTAN/GAG NAME CON4/T/D�tJ.
1. 5" White Oak Quercus Lobata Fair
Z. 6" Live Oak OuercU s Aari fn 1 i a Fi i r
3. 6" Live Oak Quercus Aarifolia Fair
4. 14" Live Oak Ouercus AcriFnlia Fair
S.
6.
7.
6.
•
Specify the size and species of the trees proposed to replace
those intended for removals
1 . 15 Gallon Quercus Aarifolia
2. 15 Gallon Quercus Aerifnlii
3. 15 Gallon Quercus Agrifnlia
11 . 15 Gallon Quercus Aarifolia
s.
• I
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* t
r
Owner V �'"' a"<c Arborist
Certificate Number45/
R
L
Date Date
f
Exhibit F - Findings for Approval
Precise Plan 27-90
5392 Barrenda Ave.
(Lopez/Allen/Heim)
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 project or 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 G - Conditions of Approval
Precise Plan 27-90
5392 Barrenda Ave.
(Lopez/Allen/Heim)
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. All construction shall be in conformance with Exhibit B
(Site Plan) , Exhibit D (Grading Plan) , Exhibit G (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. Plot plan shall show all proposed utility locations. 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 resubmitted 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. Drainage plans shall •
address off-site drainage impacts. The proposed drainage
easement from the site to Traffic Way shall be recorded
prior to issuance of building permits.
4. Developer shall obtain an encroachment from the City of
Atascadero prior to construction of improvements in the
public right-of-way. Developer shall also sign an
inspection agreement guaranteeing that the work will be done
in conformance with approved plans and that inspection fees
shall be paid. All work required by the encroachment permit
shall be completed prior to final building inspection.
5. Road improvement plans prepared by a Registered Civil
Engineer for Barrenda Ave. 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:
Pavement width shall be 15 feet from centerline of right-of-
way to face of curb. Curb, gutter, and five (5) foot
sidewalk as approved by the Director of Public Works shall
be constructed along entire property frontage of Barrenda
Ave. Sidewalk may be offset in order to avoid the heritage
size oak trees in the right-of-way. Easements are required
1
• for an o
y portion of the sidewalk built outside the right of-
way. Construction of the public road improvements shall be
completed prior to the final inspection.
6. All public improvements shall be covered with a 100 percent
Performance Bond and a 100 percent Labor and Material Bond
until construction is approved. A 10 percent Maintenance
Bond or suitable guarantee approved by the Director of
Public Works is also required until one year after
construction approval.
7. Adequate turning radius and turn-around area for Fire
Department vehicles shall be provided on the plans as
determined by the Fire Chief.
8. All mechanical equipment (roof or ground mounted) shall be
screened from public view.
9. Landscape 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 (Exhibit E) regarding tree protection,
removal, and replacement. A letter is required from the
arborist stating that the tree protection is in place prior
• to issuance of building permits.
10. Six (6) foot fencing is required where the site abuts
property zoned for single family residential use (west) and
where parking is directed toward adjacent property (south) .
11. Exterior lighting shall be shown on building plans and must
be directed away from adjacent property.
12. A lot merger is required to be recorded prior to issuance of
building permits.
13. This Precise Plan shall expire one year from the date of
final approval (May 29, 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
•
NOTE: THE MINUTES EXCERPT FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF
NOVEMBER 20TH WAS NOT AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF AGENDA DIS
TRIBUTION AND WILL BE DISTRIBUTED AT A LATER TIME.
•
ACENDA
DAT E z, 90TEM
•
RESOLUTION NUMBER 124-90
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO
AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 33-88 TO EXPAND THE LIST OF CERTIFIED
ARBORISTS AUTHORIZED TO PREPARE TREE PROTECTION IN THE
CITY OF ATASCADERO
WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Atascadero has adopted
Resolution No . 33-88 designatina arborists certified to prepare
tree protection plans pursuant to Section 9-4 . 155 (b) .: and
WHEREAS , the International Society of Aboriculture ( ISA) has
certified additional individuals desirous of preparing tree
protection pians within the Citv of Atascadero; and
WHEREAS, amending such list is catevorically exempt from the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEuA) .
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Atascadero Hoes
resolve to add the following certified arborists to the list
approved by Resolution 33-88 :
• Jim Patterson #663
Lisa Schicker 1-668
On motion by and seconded
by , theforegoing
resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety on the following roll
call vote:
AYES :
NOES :
ABSENT:
ADOPTED:
B Y.
ROBERT B. LILLEY, Mayor
City of Atascadero, California
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
LEE DAYKA, City Clerk ARTHER MONTANDON, City Attorney
• APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: PREPARED BY:
RAY WINDSOR, City Manager HENRY ENG N
Community Develo lent Director
•
o�
v�
cs
o tf1 4—' �
� o
to
� o
w
.�
V �
i
_l
J; �i
MEQ• 1AGENDA
DATE 12/11/901TEM# -10
•
RESOLUTION NO. 123-90
RESOLUTION OF THE ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL ELIMINATING
A STREET NAME (NUDOSO ROAD} FROM THE CITY' S OFFICIAL MAPS
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 3409 . 1 establishes authority
for cities to designate or change the name of City streets ; and
WHEREAS , the City Council considered a request on December
11 , 19901 to eliminate Nudoso Road from the official City Maps ; and
WHEREAS , the existing toad constitutes a private driveway
under the City' s Zoning Ordinance, and thus does not warrant a
street name; and
WHEREAS , the existing home located on the private driveway is
adequately addressed off of Lomitas Road ( 6375 Lomitas Road) : and
WHEREAS, the other lots in the vicinity are adequately served
off of a City Standard Street (Rayar Road) .
• NOW THEREFORE, the Atascadero City Council does resolve;
declare : determine and order as follows :
Section 1 .
The City Council finds that the granting_ of the request will con-
tribute to an orderly system for street naming.
Section 2 .
The City Council of the City of Atascadero hereby approves the
request and eliminates the street dame of Nudoso Rodd from the
Official City Maps as indicated in attached Exhibit "A" .
Section 3.
The City Clerk is directed to transmit a certified copy of this
resolution to the Board of Supervisors of San Luis Obispo County.
On motion by and seconded
by the foregoing resolution
is hereby adopted in its entirety on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
• NOES :
ABSENT:
DATE ADOPTED:
Resolution No. 123-90
Page Two
BY:
ROBERT B. LILLEY, Mayor
City of Atascadero, California
ATTEST:
LEE DAYKA, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
RAY WINDSOR, City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
•
ARTHER MONTANDON, City Attorney
PREPARED BY:
HENRYENGE , Commu ty Development Director
•
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF ATASCADERO
NUDOSO RD.
CON MUNITY DEVELOPMENT
• D EPARTI(1ENT
_e
O O--
NA OA10-1'
a �g0401 \COq
99.
4 \\ II
NUDOSO RD.
�o
� 11
\
AO 1.0
• m X11 \ lC.NO
Lt H) ► R S \
QL
X40,
� t
1►
/LFq
ro\
II �o
SANT,
r_)ZS41y
l
11
-.Z'
n /� n [+ �I
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: A-11
Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 12/11/ O
From: Mark Joseph, Administrative Services Director
SUBJECT: Salary Adjustments for Mid-Management Employees
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Council approve Resolution. 130-
90 formalizing salary adjustments for Mid-Management employees
previously agreed to as part of the 1990-91 MOU.
BACKGROUND:
During the Meet and Confer sessions with Mid-Management
several salary adjustments were discussed . After deliberations
with Council , it was aqreed that effective January 1 , 1991 , the
salaries of the following classifications would be adjusted .
• PCT. INC. NEW TOP STEP
Police Lieutenant 4.0% $3,915.58
Battalion Chief 4.0% 3, 915.58
Assistant Finance Director 2.5% 3,626.00
•
RESOLUTION NO. 130-90
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO
MAKING THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO
THE FY 90-91 ANNUAL SALARY RESOLUTION
BE IT RESOLVED:
Section 1 . That the salary ranges for the following
positions shall be as in Exhibit I , which
is made a part of this resolution:
Police Lieutenant
Battalion Chief
Assistant Finance Director
Section 2. That these new ranges shall be effective
January 1 , 1991 .
On motion by Councilperson and seconded by •
Councilperson the foregoing resolution is
hereby adopted in its entirety on the following vote:
AYES-
NOES:
ABSENT :
DATE:
ATTEST :
LEE DAYKA, City Clerk ROBERT B. LILLEY , Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
ARTHER MONTANDON RAY WINDSOR
City Attorney City Manager
•
•EXHIBIT ONE: SALARY SCHEDULES FOR SELECTED CLASSIFICATIONS
PURSUANT TO RESOLUTION 130-90 1?i0 /90
CLASSIFICATION STEP A STEP B STEP C STEP D STEP E
----------------------------------------------------------------
Po2 ice Lieutenant 3, 221. 36 3, 382. 43 3, 551--55-3,729. 12 3, 915. 58
Battalion Chief 3, 221. 36 . <
.3, JJ1. JJ 3, 7"9. 12� 3, �1J. .:,8
Asst Fiji. Director 2, 983. 61 3, 132. 79 3, 289. 43 3, 453. 90 3, 626. 60
•
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF ATASCADERO
Agenda Item: 012
Through: Ray Windsor , City Manager Meeting Date: 12/11/90
From: Mark Joseph, Administrative Services Director
SUBJECT:. Salary Range Adjustment=
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommend=_ Council approve ResoluticKID2-
90 creating new salary range= for Recreation Supervisor , Support
Services Manager and Personnel Coordinator .
BACKGROUND
During the meet and confer process it was brought to
Council ' s attention that three ( 3 ) classifications , referred to
above, continued to be :significantly out of line with the
• ccmparative cities_ in SLO Count, . These large inenuities
resulted primaril ✓ from the foiiowinq :
1 . Recreation Supervisor : This position was omitted from
the original wage _rrd class study because at the time
there was consideraticr: of eliminating the position.
No appropriate adjustment in salary was therefore ever
made , even after Council agreed to retain the
classification .
2 . Support Services Manager . the recommended increase for
this classification resulting from the Wage and
Classification studv .gas nct implemented tc the extent
recommended due to the total percentage in ,ol4ed .
3. Personnel Coorwinator : Same as above
In order to address these inequities the Council agreed in
concept with staff ' s recommendation that none anoropriate nalar ,
ranges fDr- the three ' ) lass ,fications to established . which
staff has done based Upon the latest =omparative salary data in
the Coin, .
•
•
RELREAT I Ohl SUPPORT PEPSOh NEL
JUR i SC I C T I ON SUPERVISOR SERVICES rhGR. COORD I NA rCP
SLO Count' ^iiA $:3, u71 $2,62 '
SLO City 3, 490: 3 ,991 3 , ,60
Pismo Beach 3 , 103 2 ,552 2. b80
Paso Robles 2,597 2, 362 2,5,>9
Morro Bay 2 ,299 2 , 128 N
Grove)- City 2 , 723 N/A M A
Arroyo Grande 2 , 34 N/A 2 ,728
Average ' 2 ,856 $2 ,821 $2 ,861
Atascadero $2 ,;+46 $2, 625 $2, 369
As a result of the survey staff recommends that all three
13 ) classifications be placed in a salary range of $2 , 350 to
$2, 956. It is important to point out that the rationale for this
r=_ccmmendation is that the classifications more accurately
reflect the comparative salary data from the survey- group and
further . adjustments to reduce the past inequities , car be
handled as part -,f the Citr ' s step increase plan , based ci, nerit •
and o ✓er an extended period , -ether than attempt to mane uc
differences at or,e time .
• I
I
•
RESOLUTION NO. 132-90
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO
MAKING THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE
FY 90-91 ANNUAL SALARY RESOLUTION
BE IT RESOLVED,
Section 1 . That the salsr•/ -anges for the following
classifications shall be as in Exhibit I . whi`h
is made a part c_,f this resolution :
Recreation Supervisor
Support Services Manager
Personnel Coordinator
Section 2 . That these new ranges shall be effective
January 1 . 1947 .
• Or mot ?on by Cou7c iloersor and _econded by
Ccuncilpersor: the foreg.; ing resolution i ^ hereb.;
adopted in it: ent ! rety on tMe following vote:
AYE`._ ;
NOES :
ABSENT :
CATE :
ATTE'T :
LEE DAYKA, City Clerk ROBERT B . L LLEY . Mac-
ARTIER 111ONTANDON RAY WIINDSOR
City Attorney Citv Manage-
EXHIBIT ONE: SALARY SCHEDULES FOR SELECTED CLASSIFICATIONS
PURSUANT TO RESOLUTION 132-90 . ----__--- L
CLASS:[FICATION STEP A STEF' .B. STEP C STEP D STEP- E
- -- - ---
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Recreation Supervisor 2, 349. 64 2, 467. 12 2, 590. 48 2, 720. 00 2, 856. 00
Support Services Mgr. 2, 349. 64 2,467. 12 2, 590. 4$ 2, 720. 00 2, 856. 00
Personnel Coordinator 2, 349. 64 2, 467. 12 2, 590. 48 2, 720. 00 2, 856. 00
•
y�
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: A-13
c-
Through : Ray Windsor , City Manager Meeting Date: 12/ 11 /90
From: Mark Joseph , Administrative Services Directo
SUBJECT: Approving an Industrial Disability Retirement for Chet
Myers.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Council adopt Resolution No .
to apply for an industrial disability retirement for Police
Officer Chet Myers.
BACKGROUND:
In late 1994, Officer Myers experienced an on-the-job
injury . Through the normal worker ' s compensation process, it was
determined that he could no longer perform the duties of a Police
• Officer , and therefore, because the injury was job-related , an
industrial disability retirement from PERS is in order .
The attached resolution is required by PERS to initiate the
process to approve the retirement . A variety of other documents
are also required , but for personnel reasons, are not included in
this report ( they are available for Councilmembers review) :
•
•
RESOLUTION NO. 129-90
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ATASCADERO
' APPROVING INDUSTRIAL DISABILITY
RETIREMENT OF CHESTER MYERS
WHEREAS, the City of Atascadero , (hereinafter referred to as
Agency ) is a contracting agency of the Public Employees '
Retirement System;
WHEREAS, the Public Employees ' Retirement Law requires that
a contracting agency determine whether an employee of such agency
in employment in which he is - classified as a local safety member
is disabled for purposes of the Public Employees ' Retirement Law
and whether such disability is " industrial " within the meaning of
such law:
WHEREAS, an application for disability retirement of Chester
Myers employed by the Agency in the position of Police Officer •
has been filed with the Public Employees ' Retirement System; and
WHEREAS, the City of Atascadero has reviewed the medical and
other evidence relevant to such alleged disability;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That the City of Atascadero find and determine and it does
hereby find and determine that Chester Myers is incapacitated
within the meaning of the Public Employees ' Retirement Law for
performance of his duties in the position of Police Officer ; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Atascadero find and
determine and it does hereby find and determine that such
disability is a result of injury or disease arising out of and in
the course of employment ; and further determine that such
disability did result from an injury which is the direct
consequence of a violent act perpetrated upon the member and did
occur during the performance of those portions of the member ' s
duties which are particularly hazardous and dangerous, and
neither said Chester Myers nor the Agency has applied to the
Workers ' Compensation Appeals Board for a determination pursuant
to Section 21026 whether such disability is industrial .
i
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the member was or will be
separated from his employment in the position of Police Officer
after expiration of his leave rights under Section 21025.4,
Government Code, effective December 12, 1990 and that no dispute
as to the expiration of such leave rights is pending .
•
On motion by Councilperson and seconded by
Councilperson the foregoing resolution is
hereby adopted in its entirety on the following vote:
AYES:
NOES :
ABSENT:
DATE :
ATTEST:
LEE DAYKA, City Clerk ROBERT B. LILLEY, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
•
ARTHER MONTANDON RAY WINDSOR
City Attorney City Manager
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM: A-14
• CITY OF ATASCADERO
THROUGH: Ray Windsor MEETING DATE: 12/11/90
City Manager
FROM: Andrew J. Takata, Director
Department of Parks, Recreation and zoo
SUBJECT:
Proposed application - California Department of Water Resources -
Urban Stream Restoration Program Grant
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Resolution 128-90, authorizing an application for funding
under the Urban Stream Restoration Program Grant, to be utilized
towards local stream restoration projects.
BACKGROUND:
The City applied for Urban Stream Development Grants in the past,
but was never successful in securing funds.
• DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:
The Grant has funds available for small projects and larger
projects up to a maximum of $200, 000. The total grant funds
available is $1, 000, 000. Grant applications are due no later than
January 31, 1991, with funding appropriations to be made in April,
1991.
In order to receive funding, the City is required to contribute
towards the project, although the contribution does not have to be
a financial match. Contributions can include donated labor,
materials, use of heavy equipment, expertise, or funds. All co-
sponsor letters of support must be submitted with the grant
application.
If funds are authorized, they will be utilized towards Atascadero
Creek improvements, including the development of a creekside park,
passive recreation sports, trails, brush removal, and vegetation
enhancement, which will emphasize the rural character in the
downtown area and enhance the creekway.
•
OPTIONS: •
1. City Council can authorize the filing of an application for
funding from the Urban Streams Restoration Program.'
2 . City Council can determine not to apply for grant funding from
the Urban Streams Restoration Program.
AJT:kv
;grant
cc: Community Development Department
•
•
RESOLUTION NUMBER 128-90
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO
AUTHORIZING THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS UNDER THE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
URBAN STREAM RESTORATION PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the California Department of Water Resources,
Division of Local Assistance, Urban Stream Restoration Program has
announced the availability of funds for grands; and
WHEREAS, said grants are intended to help solve flooding and
erosion problems in a way that provides environmental enhancement;
and
WHEREAS, the Atascadero Historical Society has proposed to co-
sponsor a grant application with the City of Atascadero; and
WHEREAS, the City Environmental Coordinator have concluded the
project proposed for funding with the grant funds would be
environmentally beneficial and categorically exempt from
requirements for environmental document preparation under Class 1
exemption.
WHEREAS, we consider the prospects of receiving such a grant
to be reasonably likely.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Atascadero City Council
approve the joint application with the Atascadero Historical
Society, Atascadero Unified School District, and Kiwanis for an
Urban Streams Restoration Program Grant.
If offered such a grant, we authorize the City of Atascadero
to accept the grant and sign a contract for administration of grant
funds, the City Manager to develop a work plan for the project, and
the Administrative Services Director to submit invoices to the
Department of Water Resources for activities carried out under the
work plan for the grant contract.
•
•
On motion by and seconded by
the foregoing resolution is hereby
adopted on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ADOPTED:
ROBERT LILLEY, Mayor
ATTEST:
LEE DAYKA, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ART MONTANDON, City Attorney
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
RAY. WINDSOR, City Manager
•
•
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: B-1 (A&B)
Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 12/11/90
File No: Tree
Ordinance
Via: Henry Engen, Community Development Director
From: Lisa Schicker, ISA Certified Arborist
SUBJECT:
Public Hearing on the revised Tree Ordinance and Tree Standards
and Guidelines .
RECOMMENDATION:
Following public hearing - and with such revisions as the Council
• may direct - adopt:
A. Ordinance No. 214 - Native Tree Ordinance (on 1st reading) .
(With the deletion of Section 9-11 . 17 (a) second sentence
relative to precluding permit applications 2 years for
violators) .
B. Resolution No. 125-90 - Tree Standards and Guidelines .
BACKGROUND:
On July 7 , 1990, the City Council referred their Tree Subcom-
mittee' s draft re-write of the Tree Ordinance to the Planning
Commission for review and recommendation. Included with this
agenda packet is the original draft ordinance heard by the Planning
Commission on September 4, 1990 together with minutes of the four
meetings held on this subject, to wit: September 4, September 27 ,
October 16 , and November 6 , 1990 . In the interest of relative
brevity, intervening staff agenda reports are not included - just
the final recommended Ordinance No. 214 and Resolution No. 125-90 .
PURPOSE AND INTENT:
• It is important to understand the purpose and intent behind the
revised Tree ordinance and its accompanying document; Tree
Standards and Guidelines. Although the existing Tree Ordinance has
good intentions, the wording is confusing, the procedures are
unclear, and some of the policies do not actually reflect the
current knowledge about trees or urban forest management.
The resulting drafts are a result of numerous meetings , hearings,
writings , research and a few years of experience working the "buys"
out of the existing ordinance. The 4 public hearings held by the
Planning Commission meetings have worked out the final details of
the version before you today. The drafts have also addressed the
many complaints and concerns that the Community Development
Department has received over the last few years regarding the in-
terpretation and enforcement of the current Ordinance.
The main purpose of the Native Tree Ordinance is to establish the
procedures for the protection, care and removal of native trees in
as few words as possible .
The main purpose of the Tree Standards and Guidelines is tomake
the whole process "user friendly" for anyone who needs assistance
with trees - whether it be removal, protection, planting or care.
The Guidelines are designed as a step-by-step manual divided into
individual sections or chapters . By separating the information in
this mariner, it should be easier to pick and choose only the
information that is needed and avoid reading long, formal docu-
ments .
• The overall intent of these two documents is to simplify the
procedures and alleviate the problems encountered with the current
ordinance, and at the same time reflect the ,City' s attitude about
the value of one of its natural resources, the trees . The trees
which exist here are very special and valuable; there is no other
place like Ataseadero in San Luis Obispo County or the Central
Coast - and it is largely because of its native forest.
SUMMARY OF CONTENTS:
Native Tree Ordinance:
Highlights of the initial version can be found in the Planning
Commission' s September 4 , 1990 agenda which included the report to
the City Council, dated July 10, 1990 .
Major refinements made by the Planning Commission included:
1 . Single Family Exemptions - the Draft Ordinance exempts
removal of three (3 ) trees or less, with no development
permits pending.
2 . Utility Company Tree Protection Plans - yearly permits
fOr companies doing regular maintenance and construction
subject to City standards and guidelines are enabled.
• 3 . Replacement Tree Size - 5 gallon size trees are proposed
instead of 15 gallon.
4 . Road Construction Guidelines - Section 6 of the Tree
Standards and Guidelines provides direction for the
unique problems associated With new road construction.
5 . Tree Replacement Options - Section 8 of the Tree
Standards and Guidelines provides for tree replacement
options varying depending on species and land use
location. Replacement ratios are based on replacements
based on counting every 6" dbh of tree being removed as
1 tree.
Appeal Period Issue - The Planning Commission expressed some
concern over the 14 day appeal period for tree removals . .. The
Council may want to establish a shorter period, e. g. , 5 days .
Tree Standards and Guidelines:
The attached resolution describes the format and content of the
Tree Standards and Guidelines . It is organized so the reader is
able to pick and choose only niecessary information without having
to weed through the entire 14 Sections .
The Appendices to the Tree Standards and Guidelines are for
information only unless specifically referred to in the text.
Therefore, it is not necessary that they be adopted as part of the
Resolution.
LS :HE :ph
Attachments : Ordinance No. 214 - Native Tree Ordinance
Resolution No. 125-90 - Tree Standards and
Guidelines
Planning Commission Staff Report - 9/4/90
( includes existing Tree Ordinance No. 168 and
July 10, 1990 Tree Subcommittee report to the
City Council)
Planning Commission Minutes Excerpts : 9/4/90
9/27/90
10/6/90
11/6/90
ORDINANCE NO. 214
ON ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCAD' RO CALIFORNIA,
REPEALING CHAPTER 19 OF TITLE 2 AND SECTION 9 - 4 . 155 AND ADDING CHAPTERS
11 , 12 AND 13 TO TITLE 9 OF THE ATASCADERO `MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING. TRE.E
PROTECTION
The City Council of 'the 'city; of Atascadero, Californial, does ordain as ,
follows:
Section 1 . Chapter 19 of Title 2 and Section 9 - 4 . 155 of the
Atascadero Municipal Code are hereby repealed.
" s
Section 2 . Chapter 11 is added to Title 9 of: the Atascadero
Municipal Code to read as follows :
Chanter 11 . Native Tree Ordinance.
s
Sec . 9-11 .01 . Purpose and Intent : Preservation Of natural flora
and fauna is 'a basic community goal of the Atascadero General Plan.
The trees of Atascadero are valued community assets. The purpose of
this ordinance is to establish regulations for the installation,
maintenance, preservation, protection and selected removal of trees '
within the City limits . In establishing these procedures, it isthe
City' s intent to encourage the preservation, maintenance =and
regeneration of a healthy urban forest . This enhances other values :
• that Atascadero holds for its community; among theso are: clean air
and water, soil conservation, aesthetics, propert�j values and an
ecological diversity that will ensure that Atascadero will continue
to be a desirable place to live .
Sec . 9-11 .02 . Applicability.
( a ) The provisions of this chapter, with a set io€ accompanying
"Tree Standards and Guidelines" adopted by resolution, shall apply
to all ,native trees two inches ( 2" ) dbh or greater for deciduous
oaks and madrones ( Arbutus menziesii ) and four inches ( 4" ) dbh or-
greater
r greater for all other native trees. It shall , be illegal to
intentionally harm, damage and/or cause the death ;or decline of a
native tree ( as defined by City Council ) or remove a native tree
without a City-issued Tree Removal Permit
(b ) The provisions of this chapter shall apply to? all public and
private property and trees within the City of Atascadero, and to any
person, firm, corporation and public or private utility company
doing work within the City limits.
( c ) Fees for Services. Fees may be charged for setvices and shall
be set forth and amended by resolution.
2 ORDINANCE NO. 214
Sec . 9-11 .03 . Definitions . .
( a ) "Damage" means any intentional action or gross negligence whioh
causes injury, death or disfigurement of a tree. Actions include,
but are not limited to cutting, girdling, poisoning, overwatering,
unauthorized relocation or transportation of a, tree or trenching,
excavating, altering the grade or paving within the dripl`ine of a
tree .
( b ) "Dbh" means "diameter at breast height" , specifically four
feet six inches W6" ) above natural grade.
( c ) "Dripline" means, the outermost line of the tree' s canopy
projected straight down to the ground surface. As depicted on a
plan view, the drpline appears as a irregularly-shaped .circle,
which is a line drawn around the ends of the outermost branches- of
a tree projected straight dawn, to the soil surface.
( d ) "Hazardous" means presenting an immediate danger to people or
existing structures.
( e) "Removal" means the physical destruction, displacement or
removal of a tree, or portions of a tree caused by. poisoning,
cutting", burning, relocation for transplanting, bulldozing or other'
mechanical , chemical or physical means.
( f) "Native Tree" , means a naturally-occurring species having a 'dbh
of two. inches ( 2" ) or greater for .`deciduous , oaks and madrones
(Arbutus menziesii ), and ' four inches ( 4" ) dbh or greater for all
other native trees. ( diameter is measured 4 . 5' above ground- level . } ,
A list of these trees appears in the "Native Trees" section of the
City' s "Tree Standards and Guidelines" , adopted by resolution.
( g ) "Tree Protection Plan" means a plan that shows how ;specific
trees shall be protected during development and land use related
work.
( h ) "Tree Pruning" means the cutting, - detachment or separation of
any limb, branch or roots from a native tree.
Sec . 9-11 ,04. Adgpt.ian o(Standards: The "Tree Standards and
Guidelines" set forth the procedures, guidelines and standa-rds that
shall be used to implement the Native Tree Ordinance. They shall be
used to provide details , ,about preservation, maintenance,
installation, protection, regeneration and select removal of trees.
They shall be adopted and amended by resolution of ,the City Council
and have the force of law.
3 ORDINANCE NO. 214
• Sec . 9-11 . 05 Roles and Responsibilities :
( a ) City Arborist( "Natural Resource Specialist" ) : The City Natural
Resource Specialist , herein referenced as the City Arborist , along
with staff persons in the Community Development and Public Works
Departments , shall provide information, review building , development
and Tree Protection Plans and visit sites . The City Arborist ( or
designee ) shall make recommendations and determinations on native
tree removals for trees less than twenty-four ( 24" ) dbh in size .
( b ) Planning Commission: Decisions on native tree removals of 24"
dbh - size or larger shall be made by the Planning Commission.
Decisions regarding native tree removal , tree protection and tree
replacement made by the City Arborist may be appealed to the
Planning Commission.
( c ) City Council : Decisions related to native trees made by the
Planning Commission are appealable to the City Council .
( d ) Site Planner: These persons are qualified professionals who
are hired by applicants to prepare Tree Protection Plans. Refer to
"Tree Standards and Guidelines" for more information.
( e ) Private Arborist : These persons are licensed professionals
• who are hired to do physical work on trees in Atascadero. Refer to
"Tree Standards and Guidelines" for more information.
Sec . 9-11 . 06 Tree Removal :
( a ) Permit Required: Except as set forth in ( b ) below, Tree Removal
Permits shall be required for the removal of any native tree two
inches ( 2" 1 dbh or greater for deciduous oaks and madrones ( Arbutus
menziesii ) , and four inches ( 4" ) dbh or greater for all other native
trees , and for pruning of more than twenty five percent ( 25% ) of the
live canopy in native trees .
( b ) Exemptions : A Native Tree Removal Application or Permit is
not required for:
( 1 ) Emergency situations which cause hazardous or dangerous
conditions that have serious potential to cause immediate
damage to persons or improvements on real property. Such
situations must be reported to the City as soon as possible .
( 2 ) Trees planted, grown and maintained as part of a licensed
nursery or tree farm business .
( 3 ) Tree pruning that effects less than twenty-five percent
( 25% ) of a tree ' s live canopy within one year' s time . Pruning
• of native trees shall be done according to the adopted "ISA
Tree Pruning Standards" . Any private or public entity doing
4 ORDINANCE NO. 214
regular maintenance in the City of Atascadero may seek a •
"blanket pruning permit" that may be renewed on a yearly basis.
( 4 ) Trees removed as part of an approved "Tree Management
Plan" - Refer to Section 9-11 . 13 .
( 5 ) Single family residences with the following conditions :
a. A permanent dwelling exists on the lot .
b. Person wishes to remove 3 trees or less per year.
C . Building or grading permits are not being sought .
It is strongly suggested that the property owner consult with
City Arborist prior to removing a tree
( c ) Dead and diseased tree removals are subject to the procedures
outlined in Sections 9-11 . 07 through 9-11 . 09 below, but all related
fees shall be waived .
Sec . 9-11 . 07 . Applications and Permits for Tree Removal
( a ) Earl- Consultation: All applicants are encouraged to use
the services of the City Arborist , Community Development and
nd
Public Works Department before site development that may
involve any tree removal . Early consultation shall be a factor
used in determining whether proposed improvements can be
reasonably designed to avoid the need for tree removal . •
( b ) Content . The content of the Tree Removal Application and
Permit shall be set forth in the "Tree Standards and
Guidelines" .
( c ) Posting . All native trees proposed for removal shall be
identified by the applicant for field inspection as set forth
in the "Tree Standards and Guidelines" , utilizing a City-
provided identification sign visible from the street and
flagging tape . When a Tree Removal Permit is issued, the City
shall post a copy of the permit in City Hall and the applicant
will post a copy on-site for a fourteen ( 14 ) day public appeal
period . Refer to "Tree Standards and Guidelines" for details .
( d ) The application is reviewed and the permit is either
denied or approved with tree replacement conditions by the City
Arborist ( or designee ) .
Sec . 9-11 . 03 Required Findings for Tree Removal . The
applicant must provide the factual data to make the
required finding( s ) . At least one of these findings must
be made in order to approve a Tree Removal Application.
( a ) The tree has been dead for at least one growing season.
( b ) The tree is diseased or injured beyond reclamation. •
5 ORDINANCE NO. 214
• (c ) The tree is crowded by other healthier native trees •
thinning ( removal ) would promote healthier growth in the
trees to remain.
( d ) The tree is interfering with existing utilities and/or
structures .
( e ) The tree is inhibiting sunlight needed for existing and/or
proposed active or passive solar heating or cooling .
( f ) The tree is obstructing proposed improvements that
cannot be reasonably designed to avoid the need for tree
removal . Factors to be considered in determining
"reasonableness" include:
( 1 ) Early consultation with City Arborist ;
( 2 ) Consideration of practical design alternatives ;
( 3 ) Provision of cost comparisons ( from applicant ) for
practical design alternatives ;
( 4 ) If saving the tree eliminates all reasonable use of
the property; or
( 5 ) If saving the tree requires the removal of more
desirable trees .
• Sec . 9-11 . 09 . Evaluative Criteria for Tree Removal . The following
criteria will be considered when evaluating a Tree Removal
Application:
( a ) The potential effect that tree removal could have on
topography, knowing that hilltops , ravines , streambeds and
other natural watercourses are more environmentally sensitive
than flat or gentle sloping lands .
( b ) The potential effect that tree removal could have on soil
retention and erosion from increased flow of surface waters .
( c ) The potential effect that tree removal could have on
significantly increasing the noise level .
(d ) The potential effect that tree removal could have on
the ability of existing vegetation to reduce air movement and
wind velocity.
( e ) The potential effect that tree removal could have on
significantly reducing available wildlife habitat or result in
the displacement of desirable species .
( f ) Aesthetics
( g ) The number, size , species , condition and location of trees
• to be removed.
6 ORDINANCE NO. 214
( h ) The special need to protect existing blue and valley oaks
because of regeneration problems .
( i ) The cumulative environmental effects of tree removal .
Sec . 9-11 . 10 . Tree Protection Plans .
( a ) Tree Protection Plans shall be required if any listed activity
occurs within twenty feet ( 20 ' ) of the dripline of any native tree.
Activities include but are not limited to the following : remodeling
or new construction, grading , road building , utility trenching , etc .
A Tree Protection Plan shall be included as part of the submittal
for a road plan, plot plan, precise plan, building permit and/or
conditional use permit . The "Tree Standards and Guidelines" set
forth the information required in all Tree Protection Plans.
( b ) Early Consultation with the City Arborist , Community
Development and Public Works Staff is available and strongly
encouraged.
( c ) Implementation. The Native Tree Protection Plan shall be in
place ( and verified in writing by the applicant ) before applicants
shall receive any City permits to begin work. Refer to "Tree
Standards and Guidelines" for details .
( d ) Tree Protection During Grading and Construction. The "Tree •
Standards and Guidelines" set forth the details regarding these
methods .
( e ) Surety Requirements . In large projects involving valuable
trees , the City may require a surety prior to issuance of
entitlement . Determination for use of the surety will be based on
the complexity of the project and number of trees being impacted.
The type of surety must be approved in writing by the City Attorney.
( f ) Tree Protection Plans for Private/Public Utilities. Utility
companies doing regular maintenance and construction are not
required to submit Tree Protection Plans for each individual
project , but shall meet the tree protection requirements set forth
in this Ordinance and the "Tree Standards and Guidelines" through
conditions placed in a revocable pruning , trenching and encroachment
permit that may be issued on a yearly basis .
Sec . 9-11 . 11 Tree Replacement and Regeneration
Tree Removal Conditions . Tree Removal Permits shall be conditioned
by one or more of the following methods :
( a ) Planting Trees : Replacement plantings ( either on or off-site )
shall be required to help sustain and regenerate Atascadero ' s urban
forest . The number of replacements shall be determined by the
conditions ( size , species , age and location ) of the trees removed ;
7 ORDINANCE NO. 214
• a minimum of one for one, same species , five ( 5 ) gallon - sized
trees shall be required. The "Tree Standards and Guidelines" set
forth guidelines for tree replacement in detail and .also describe
methods to insure that replacement trees are planted with
horticulturally sound techniques .
( b ) Tree Replacement Fund: This fund has been established to
receive cash in lieu of planting replacements ; the City will use
these monies to plant , protect and maintain trees in locations
designated as receiver sites . Refer to "Tree Standards and
Guidelines" for details .
c ) Conservation Easements : Conservation easements can 'be used in
lieu of tree replacements . Such easements protect the land upon
which trees are located. Conservation easements are not
specifically for public access .
( d ) Building Permits : For each residential building permit
issued, the planting of one , five gallon native tree shall be
required, based on the rate of one native tree per residential
dwelling unit .
Sec . 9-11 . 12 . Tree Abatement : Nuisances Pests and Disease:
( RESERVED )
• Sec . 9-11 . 13 Forestry and Woodlot Management ( RESERVED )
Sec . 9-11 . 14 Procedures for Public Proiects
( a ) Definition. Public projects are tree-related actions initiated
by any department of the City of Atascadero.
( b ) Binding City to Tree Ordinance . Public initiated projects will
comply with the Tree Ordinance unless explicitly exempted by City
Council .
( c ) Procedure to Seek Exemption. Applicant from the City shall
submit a written statement to City Council describing project and
reason that an exemption should be granted.
Sec . 9-11 . 15 Appeals . Appeals shall be filed in accordance with
Sec . 9-1 . 111 of this Title . For purposes of an appeal , the
decisions of the City Arborist shall be considered as a decision of
the Community Development Department and/or Public Works Department .
Sec . 9-11 . 16 Repeat Applications. When any application made
pursuant to Title 9 or Title 11 has been denied , no new application
which is substantially the same shall be filed within one year of
the date of the previous denial unless the physical facts upon which
the decision-making body based the denial have changed. The
. Community Development or Public Works Director shall determine
whether physical facts have changed or when an application is
8 ORDINANCE NO. 214
substantially the same as the previous application. •
Sec . 9-11 . 17 Enforcement
( a ) Penalties . Violations of this Chapter are specifically
declared misdemeanors , and upon conviction may be punished as set
forth in Chapter 3 of Title 1 of the Atascadero Municipal Code .
Furthermore . Persons convicted of violating the Tree Ordinance may
have any further building and development Permits denied for a
Period of two years
( b ) Restitution. It has been determined that trees within the City
of Atascadero are valuable assets to the citizens of this community,
and as a result of loss or damage to these the trees , the public
should be recompensed . In addition to any penalties provided by ( a )
above , any person who damages a tree in violation of the terms of
this Chapter is responsible for proper restitution and/or conditions
as described in Sec . 9-11 . 11 . The City may bring a civil action for
restitution to enforce this section.
( c ) Stop work. In cases of nonconformance with Native Tree
Protection Requirements , the City Arborist or inspecting official
shall immediately issue a Stop Work Order until all requirements
have been met . Should unauthorized work or noncomformance lead to
tree removal or damage las defined ) , the City Arborist or inspecting
official shall also issue a Stop Work Order.
( d ) Conditions and Signed Agreements : Should unauthorized work or
noncomformance lead to tree removal or damage ( as defined ) , the City
,arborist may also require additional conditions as penalty and as
described in Sec . 9-11 . 1l . and in the Tree Standards and Guidelines.
Sec . 3 . Chapter 12 and 13 are added to Title 9 of the Atascadero
Municipal Code to read as follows :
Chapter 12 . Landmark Trees
Sec . 9-12 .01 . Landmark Tree . Defined "Landmark Tree" means any
native or non-native tree recognized by City Council resolution for
its age , size , location, historical and /or cultural significance.
Sec . 9-12 .02 . Landmark Tree Protection. Any tree ( native or non-
native ) may receive protection by City Council resolution for its
age , size , location, historical and/or cultural significance .
Landmark trees receive the . same protection and are subject to all
conditions set forth in Chapter 11 of Title 9 regarding native
trees. They may not be removed without City Council approval . •
9 ORDINANCE NO. 214
is
Chapter 13 . Street Trees - RESERVED
Section 4 . If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence,
clause or phrase of this ordinance is held to be unconstitutional or
invalid in whole or in part by any court , such decision shall not
affect the validity of effectiveness of the remaining portions of
this ordinance , or any part thereof. If the application of any
provision of this ordinance or any person, property or circumstance
is found to be unconstitutional or invalid in whole or in part by
any Court , such decision shall be limited to the person, property or
circumstance immediately involved in the controversy, and the
application of such provision to other persons , property and
circumstances shall not be affected.
Section 5 . The City Clerk shall cause this Ordinance to be published
once within fifteen ( 15 ) _days after its passage in the Atascadero
News , a newspaper of general circulation, printed , published and
circulated in the City in accordance with Section 36933 of the
Government Code ; shall certify the adopting and posting of this
ordinance ; and shall cause this ordinance and this certification
together with proof of posting to be entered into the Book of
Ordinances of the City.
•
•
10 ORDINANCE NO. 214
Section 6 . This ordinance shall go into effect and be in full •
force and effect at 12 : 01 a.m. on the 31st day after its passage .
On motion by and seconded
by
the foregoing ordinance is
approved by the following roll call vote :
Ayes :
Noes :
Absent :
Date Adopted:
By
ROBERT LILLEY, Mayor
City of Atascadero , California
Approved as to form:
•
ARTHER MONTANDON, City Attorney i
Approved as to content :
RAY WINDSOR, City Manager
ARM- Is
ORD: 005
10/2.9/90
CITY OF ATASCADERO
TREE STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES
A Document to Implement the Free
Protection Ordinance # 214 which
includes the Native Tree, Landmark
Tree and Street Tree Chapters
RESOLUTION N0. 125-90
•
( Including revisions made at Sept . 4
27 , Oct . 16 , and November 6th 1990, meetings )
12-11-90
TREE STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES
PURPOSE: The purpose of the Tree Standards and Guidelines is to clarify
the adopted Native Tree/Landmark Tree Ordinance procedures with regards_
to tree protection and tree removal. It is also designed to serve as an
information source about the care and propagation of trees for the
community.
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
1 . LIST OF ATASCADERO NATIVE TREES 1
2 . EXEMPTIONS AND FINDINGS FOR TREE REMOVAL 2
A. NO PERMIT REQUIRED
B. REASONS FOR REMOVAL
3 . WHO DO YOU CALL? USE OF PRIVATE PROFESSIONALS 4
A. PRIVATE ARBORIST OR NATURAL RESOURCE PROFESSIONAL
B ISA CERTIFIED TREE TRIMMER AND/OR ARBORIST
C. CITY ARBORIST
4 . FOR TREE REMOVAL, WHAT DO YOU NEED? 6
APPLICATIONS, POSTERS AND PERMITS
A. APPLICATION FORM(S)
B. DEAD, TREES
C. FIELD IDENTIFICATION POSTER
D. APPROVALS, DENIALS and APPEALS •
E. TREE REMOVAL PERMIT
F SUMMARY OF REVIEW PROCESS
5 . FOR TREE PROTECTION DURING DEVELOPMENT, WHAT DO YOU NEED? 9
A. CITY STANDARDS
B. SURETY
C. CONTENTS OF TREE PROTECTION PLAN
D. TREE PROTECTION IN PLACE BEFORE DEVELOPMENT BEGINS
E SUMMARY OF REVIEW PROCESS
6 . TREE REMOVAL AND PROTECTION FOR ROAD CONSTRUCTION 12
AND IMPROVEMENTS
A. GUIDELINES
B. PROCEDURES
7 . POSTING: HOW TO IDENTIFY TREES FOR REMOVAL OR PROTECTION 16
A. POSTING FOR FIELD ID AND FOR APPEAL PERIOD
B. FLAGGING
8 . TREE REPLACEMENT; AND MITIGATION GUIDELINES 17
A. REPLACEMENT
B. MITIGATION
9. APPEALS 20
10 . FEES 21
11 . ADOPTION OF LANDMARK TREES 22 '
12 . TREE PRUNING GUIDELINES 23
13 . TREE PLANTING AND TRANSPLANTING GUIDELINES 24
• 14 . GUIDELINES FOR FORESTRY AND WOODLOT MANAGEMENT 26
APPENDICES - (Existing & Proposed) „
A. Tree Removal Application/Field Identification Poster
B. Tree Removal Permit
C. Examples of Tree Protection
D . Landmark Tree Nomination Form
E. ISA Pruning Guidelines
F. Tree Planting and Transplanting Guidelines - Additional Information
G. Local Nursery Sources for Native Trees
H. Forestry/Woodlot Management Plan Application Form
•
1 . LIST OF ATASCADERO NATIVE TREES
Acer macrophvllum Pursh. Big Leaf Maple
Arbutus menziesii Pursh. Madrone
Heteromeles arbutifolia Lindl . Toyon, California Holly
Juglans hindsii Jeps . California Black Walnut
Plantanus racemosa Nutt . California sycamore
Pinus sabiniana Dougl . Digger Pine
Populus fremontii Wats . Fremont Cottonwood
Populus trichocarpa T&G Black Cottonwood
Quercus agrifolia Eastw. Coast Live Oak •
Quercus alvordiana Nee Blue Oak x Desert Oak
Quercus chrvsolepis Liebm. Canyon Live Oak
Quercus dumosa Jeps . Scrub Oak
Quercus durata Jeps . Leather Oak
Quercus doualasii H&A Blue Oak
Quercus lobata Nee Valley Oak
Quercus turbinella Desert Oak
Salix lasiolepsis Benth. California Pussywillow
Salix laevigata Nebb. Red Willow
Umbellularia californica Nutt. California Bay Laurel
2 . EXEMPTIONS AND FINDINGS
FOR TREE REMOVAL
• A. NO TREE REMOVAL PERMIT REQUIRED FOR THE FOLLOWING:
(1) Non - Native trees .
(2) Emergency situations which cause hazardous or dangerous
conditions that have serious potential to cause immediate damage to
persons or improvements on real property. Such situations must be
reported to the City (CALL 461 - 5090 as soon as possible. )
(3) Trees planted, grown and maintained as part of a licensed
nursery or tree farm business .
(4) Removal of native trees two inches (211) dbh or less for
deciduous oaks and madrones (Arbutus menziesii) , and four inches
(411) dbh or less for all other native trees, and for pruning of less
than twenty five percent (250) of the live canopy within one year' s
time. Any pruning of native trees shall be done according to the
adopted "ISA Tree Pruning Standards" .
(5) Trees removed as part of an approved "Tree Management Plan" .
(6) Single family residences with the following conditions : .
a. A permanent dwelling exists on the lot .
b. Person wishes to remove 3 trees or less per year.
C . Building or grading permits are not being sought .
• (7) Native trees that were voluntarily planted and are not part 6
any required replacement plans . The burden of proof shall be
the responsibility of the applicant .
B. REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR TREE REMOVAL. The applicant must provide
the facts to make the required finding (s) . At least ONE of
these findings must be made in order to approve a Tree Removal
Application.
(1) The tree has been dead for at least one growing season.
(2) The tree is diseased or injured beyond reclamation.
(3) The tree is crowded by other healthier native trees; thinning
(removal) would promote healthier growth in the trees to
remain.
(4) The tree is interfering with existing utilities and/or
structures .
(5) The tree is inhibiting sunlight needed for existing and/or
proposed active or passive solar heating or cooling.
(6) The tree is obstructing proposed improvements that
cannot be reasonably designed to avoid the need for tree
• removal . Factors to be considered in determining
"reasonableness" include :
2
(1) Early consultation with City Arborist;
(2) Consideration of practical design alternatives;
(3) Provision of cost comparisons (from applicant) for
practical design alternatives;
(4) If saving the tree eliminates all reasonable use of
the property; or
(5) If saving the tree requires the removal of more
desirable trees .
•
3
3 . WHO DO YOU CALL?
USE OF PRIVATE ARBORIST AND OTHER PROFESSIONALS
• Depending on the size of the tree and the situation, you may need the
services of the following professionals to complete your tree removal
application.
Situation Person to do Work"
Tree Removal Applications, No Development Applicant or Private
Professional
Tree Removal Applications With Development
No trees > 24" dbh? Applicant
Trees > 24" dbh Private Professional
Tree Protection Plans required
With or Without Tree Removal, < 3 trees Applicant
All other situations Private Professional
required
Tree Pruning: Information will be available through the office of the
Natural Resource Specialist to provide citizens up - to - date
information on the proper care and pruning of trees . The City has
adopted the ISA Standards for Tree Pruning as the proper method for tree
care in Atascadero .
Definitions :
• A. PRIVATE ARBORIST OR NATURAL RESOURCE PROFESSIONAL are persons who
are qualified to prepare tree reports such as Tree Removal
Applications and Tree Protection Plans for - the City. They are
professionals who have qualifications which include, but are not
limited to, degrees and experience in arboriculture, biology,
environmental planning, forestry and landscape architecture.
B. ISA/ASCA CERTIFIED ARBORISTS AND TREE TRIMMERS are persons who
perform physical tree work (pruning, cabling, removal, etc. ) .
"ISA/ASCA-Certified Arborist" and "Tree Trimmer" means an
experienced arborist who has gone through training, testing and
licensing for work in trees from a professional, licensing organiza-
tion; either the International Society for Arboriculture or the
American Society of Consulting Arborists .
Depending on the condition and location of valuable native trees,
the City Arborist (or designee) has the discretion to require that
physical work done to live, native trees (removal and/or pruning of
limbs > 4" dbh) may require the services of an ISA or ASCA
Certified Arborist . All pruning work shall be done according to the
ISA Pruning Standards, adopted as part of in the "Tree Standards and
Guidelines - Appendix E, which use the most recent professional
standards and knowledge of proper tree care.
• C. CITY ARBORIST/NATURAL RESOURCE SPECIALIST is the City' s
representative in tree-related matters . This person is available
for consultation, advice and assistance on a limited basis . The
4
City Arborist makes recommendations on Tree Removal Applications and
Tree Protection Plans and is available for early consultation
appointments . Depending on the trees and the situation, the City
Arborist (or designee) has the authority to require or waive the
requirement of the use of a private natural resource professional or •
licensed arborist in the preparation of Tree Removal Applications
and/or Tree Protection Plans . It is the goal of the City to provide
consultation with applicants within ten (10) working days .
•
•
5
4 . FOR TREE REMOVAL,
WHAT DO YOU NEED?
APPLICATIONS , POSTERS AND PERMITS
• NOTE: Allos
ro
p p ed tree removals require the following:
(1) Completed Tree Removal Application;
(2) Field identification or photo/posting of property;
(3) Approved Tree Removal Permit and
(4) Appeal period of fourteen (14) days .
If your tree removal plans involve road construction and improvements,
please refer to Chapter 6 :TREE REMOVAL AND PROTECTION FOR ROAD
CONSTRUCTION.
A. TREE REMOVAL APPLICATION FORM (See Appendix A for example)
1 . Contents of a Tree Removal Application: Applicant shall supply
the following:
a. Location or vicinity map, 8 1/2" X 11" size.
b. Site plan, indicating location of trees to be removed.
Include north arrow, scale and preparer' s name
and phone number. (include original and reduced
8 1/2" X 11" copy)
C. All native trees that are to be removed shall be numbered
or identified on the site plan.
d. A native tree inventory stating:
• 1 . Species
2 . Size, measured in dbh (diameter at breast height) .
3 . Approximate canopy area (3 . 14 X radius of canopy
squared) .
4 . General condition and health of the tree.
e. Reasons for removal (must meet findings listed in Sec .
9 . 11 . 08 .
f. Tree replacement plans (planting, donation, etc. -Chpt . 8)
g. Photos (optional, but sometimes helpful)
h. If additional trees are to be protected, a Tree Protection
Plan shall accompany the Tree Removal Application;trees to
be removed and protected can be shown on the same site
plan.
2 . Who completes the form: Either applicant or private
professional (as defined) - refer to Chapter 2 for details .
3 . Where to submit : Room 311, Public Counter, Community Develop-
ment Department.
4 . When to submit : If your request involves a development
application, submit application at the same time you submit
other materials .
Depending on the complexity of the project, City Staff may require
additional information.
• B. DEAD AND DISEASED TREES : Tree Removal Applications are required.
6
1 . All other procedures, fees and appeals required for tree
removal shall be waived.
2 . If trees to be removed have been dead (no buds or green leaves) •
for at least one growing season, or diseased (may require
private arborist report if not obvious) they may be removed
immediately after verification.
3 . Verification shall be determined by photographs or field
visits . Photos often assist City Staff in quickly issuing
permit to remove an obviously dead or diseased tree. Field
verification may also be required.
C. FIELD IDENTIFICATION POSTER (See Appendix A for example)
All trees proposed for removal must be identified in the field and
the site must be posted. A copy of the first page (completed) of
the Tree Removal Application is used to post the site for Field
Identification and the Appeal period. See Chapter #7 on POSTING for
details .
D. APPROVALS, DENIALS and APPEALS
1 . If your Tree Removal Application is approved, you will be
issued a Tree Removal Permit that allows you to remove the
tree (s) after a fourteen (14) day public appeal period, unless
also contingent upon approval of additional development
applications .
2 . If your Application is denied, you may appeal the decision
either to the Planning Commission and/or City Council, •
depending on tree size . See Chapter #8, APPEALS for details .
E . TREE REMOVAL PERMIT (See Appendix B for example)
1 . Posting for Appeal Period. Copies of all Tree Removal Permits
shall be posted in City Hall by City Staff for a fourteen (14)
day public appeal period.
2 . When Can the Tree be Removed? Tree Removals with Permits
a. Dead/Diseased Trees - Immediately after verification by
City Staff
b. Live Trees - No Development : Removal may occur at the
end of the fourteen day appeal period if no appeals have
been filed.
C. Live Trees - With Development
(i) Building permits : the posting requirements and 14
day appeal period for approved removals can begin as soon
as building plans have been approved. If no appeals are
filed, applicants will receive their Tree Removal Permit
when they are issued their Building Permit .
(ii) All other Development Permits (including precise
plans, conditional use permits, road construction, etc. ) :
the posting requirements and 14 day appeal period will be
tied to approval of such plans. Applicants will receive
their Tree Removal Permit when they are issued their •
Grading, Road Construction and/or Building Permits .
7
3 . Expiration. Tree removal permits that do not" involve
development expire after one year. Tree removal
permits that involve development are approved contingent on the
issuance of all other required permits (such as building,
40 grading, road, etc . ) and expire the same date as the other
permits that are issued.
F . SUMMARY OF REVIEW PROCESS : The review process for a Tree Removal
Application is :
1 . Consult with City Arborist or Staff (optional) .
2 . Submit application and necessary fee (no fees for single family-no
development and for dead/diseased trees - see Exemptions) .
3 . Post site for field identification.
4 . City Arborist/Staff (for trees 2" - 23"dbh) and Planning Commission
(for trees 24" dbh or greater) reviews application and visits site .
5 . Application for removal approved (with replacement conditions) or
denied by City Arborist (or designee) .
6 . If approved, removal permit is granted with or without replacement
conditions (no replacements required for dead/diseased trees) .
7 . Fourteen (14) day public appeal period.
8 . Appeals?
• a. Tree decisions 2" - 23"dbh are appealed to Planning Commission.
b. Tree decisions 24"dbh or greater are appealed to City Counci
1 .
9 . No appeals - Trees may be removed:
a. No development? Immediately
b. With development? After receipt of all necessary permits .
Please refer to Chapters #6 - #8 for more details or call the City
Arborist at 461 - 5090 if you have any questions or concerns .
8
5 . FOR TREE PROTECTION PLANS
DURING DEVELOPMENT,
WHAT DO YOU NEED?
A. CITY STANDARDS have been established torotect native e trees from
damage before, during and after all types of development . As a
general rule, the existing ground surface beneath 'the driplin6' of
any native tree shall not be cut, filled, compacted or disturbed in
any way.
It is understood that in Atascadero, like many forested cities,
there must be allowances for exceptions to this rule. Exceptions
must be based on a qualified consultation (from a professional
arborist or natural resource professional) , at the cost to the
applicant, resulting in a Tree Protection Plan that gives reasonable
assurances that the tree will survive any proposed activities . When
proposed development does encroach into the dripline of any tree,
special techniques that preserve as many roots as possible and allow
the roots of the tree to breathe oxygen and obtain water shall be
required. These methods include, but are not limited to:
1 . Fencing: Must be a minimum of 4' high, chain link, snow or safety
fence, staked at the dripline or line of encroachment for each tree
or group of trees . Fence must be up before any construction or
earth moving begins . For areas where this is not possible, aeration
of the soil (after development is complete) shall be required.
2 . Soil Aeration Methods : Soils under the driplines that have been
compacted by heavy equipment and/or construction activities must be •
returned to their original state before all work is completed.
Methods include water jetting, adding organic matter, boring small
holes with an auger (18" deep, 2-3' apart with a 2-4" auger) and the
application of moderate amounts of nitrogen fertilizer. Applicant' s
arborist shall advise .
3 . Chip Mulch: All areas (under the driplines of the trees) to be cut
and all areas that cannot be fenced shall receive a 4-6" deep
layer of chip mulch to retain moisture, soil structure and reduce
the affects of compaction.
4 . Trenching within the Dripline• Depending on the soil type, all
trenching done under the driplines of trees shall be hand-dug,
augured or bored, and major roots shall be avoided whenever possible
and if not, all roots larger than 3" diameter shall be "cut clean"
and not ragged.
5 . Grading within the Dripline: Grading in excess of 1' in depth shall
not encroach within the following setback areas of the trees :
Trunk Diameter Set- Back for Grading
4" - 12" 5'
13" - 24" 10,
25" - 36" 15'
37" and larger 20'
If these grading setbacks are not possible, and depending on the
soil type, construction of a retaining wall or tree well may insure
the survivability of the tree (see appendix for diagrams) . Chip
9
mulch, 4-6" in depth shall also be required in these areas .
In certain instances (such as public right-of ways, 'sidewalks and
driveways) exemptions may be granted to this requirement .
• Grading shall not disrupt the normal drainage pattern around the
trees . Fills shall not create a ponding condition and excavations
shall not leave the tree on a rapidly draining mound.
6 . Pruning Within the Dripline• All pruning shall be done according
to adopted ISA standards; see Section 11 of "Tree Standards and
Guidelines" . It is now an accepted practice NOT to attempt to
balance foliage loss with root loss by pruning - this is considered
unnecessary and potentially damaging to the tree.
7 . Paving Within the Dripline : Porous pavers ("turfblock", brick, etc .
may required under the driplines unless paving area affects less
than 25% of the area.
8 . Landscaping Within the Dripline• Landscape plans for any proposed
plantings under the dripline are required - it is the intent to
discourage any plantings that require irrigation, as this practice
has been known to quickly kill mature native trees . The planting of
drought tolerant native species is encouraged.
B. SURETY: In large projects or projects involving valuable trees, the
City may require a surety to guarantee the survival of the trees .
The need for a surety shall be based on the complexity of the
project and number of trees involved.
• C. CONTENTS OF A TREE PROTECTION PLAN NOTE: If your tree protection
plans involve road construction and improvements, please refer to
Chapter 6 :TREE PROTECTION AND REMOVAL FOR ROAD CONSTRUCTION for
instructions .
1 . Cover Sheet (See Appendix C for example) .
2 . Vicinity or location map on 8 1/2" x 11" .
3 . Site plan (s) indicating all proposed structures, grading and
trenching activities, roads, etc. Include north arrow, scale
and preparer' s name and phone number (Include original size up
to 24" x 36" and a reduced 8 1/2" by 11" copy) .
4 . All native trees with driplines within 20' of proposed
development should be numbered and identified on the plan.
5 . A native tree inventory stating:
a. Species
b. Size, measured in dbh (diameter at breast height) .
C . Approximate mapping of actual canopy area.
d. General condition of tree.
e . If tree may be impacted by proposed development .
6 . Proposed tree protection measures, including fencing, mulching,
aeration, and installation of retaining walls and tree wells .
7 . If any trees are to be removed, a Tree Removal Application Form
shall accompany the Tree Protection Plan; all trees to be
removed and protected can be shown on the same site plan.
D. TREE PROTECTION IN PLACE BEFORE DEVELOPMENT BEGINS
1 . Why? The most crucial stage for tree protection is before the
10
major earthwork (trenching, grading, foundation excavation
etc. ) has begun; therefore, development permits ready for
issuance will not be released until Tree Protection measures
specified on plans are in place .
2 . Verification. It will be the applicant' s responsibility to •
secure an inspection and signed statement from their Arborist
or Natural Resource Consultant that verifies that Tree
Protection Plan is properly installed.
Verification shall be in writing and be sent to the Building or
Public Works Department (depending on type of development) ; it
will' be filed with other materials required before issuing any
type of development permit .
E. SUMMARY OF REVIEW PROCESS : The review process for a Tree Protection
Plan is :
1 . Consult with City Arborist/Staff (optional) .
2 . Submit application and necessary fees with other development
application materials . If trees are to be removed, submit Tree
Removal application at the same time.
3 . Post site for field identification.
4 . City Arborist, Planning and Building Staff (for construction) ,
and Public Works Staff (for roads and public projects) review
Tree Protection Plan and visits site.
5 . Tree Protection Plan approved (with or without conditions) or •
denied by City Arborist (or designee) .
6 . If denied, resubmittal of a revised Tree Protection Plan is
required.
7 . Fourteen (14) day public appeal period - staff advises
applicant of date of appeal period.
8 . Appeals? All decisions on Tree Protection Plans may be
appealed to the Planning Commission.
9 . Applicant and/or Private Professional representative must
submit letter stating that Tree Protection is in place before
any development permits shall be issued.
Please call the City Arborist at 461 - 5090 if you have any questions or
concerns .
11
6 . TREE PROTECTION AND REMOVAL FOR ROAD
CONSTRUCTION AND IMPROVEMENTS
• The following policies set forth the procedures for Tree Removal and Tree
Protection Applications that specifically pertain to road construction
and improvements .
A. GUIDELINES : Whenever roadways are constructed within Atascadero
(including Colony road alignments) , consideration shall be given to
preserving and protecting the trees. Such considerations include,
but are not limited to the following:
(1) The roadway alignment should vary within the right-of way to
accommodate trees; i .e . the centerline of the pavement may be
different than the centerline of the right-of way.
(2) Roadway alignments which vary from the original Colony
centerline shall provide safe curves and smooth transitions as
approved by the City Engineer; necessary utilities shall be
accommodated.
(3) The roadway alignment should be adjusted to vary outside of
the right-of-way to accommodate trees significant in quality
and number whenever adjacent property can be easily obtained
for encroachment, or where large tracts of land are under
common ownership.
(4) Movement of the roadway outside of the right-of-way shall be
• limited to easements and lot line adjustments, but in general
shall not constitute a subdivision of land or taking of
property.
(5) Movement of the roadway outside of the right-of-way shall take
into account other trees outside the right-of-way as well as
excessive profile grades .
(6) All else being equal, the cost of roadway construction may be
reasonably impacted by the cost of saving trees; if the
construction cost for the revised alignment does not exceed
1250 of the normal roadway cost estimate, the trees shall be
saved.
B. Procedures . The following procedures pertain to Tree Removal
Applications and Tree Protection Plans specifically for proposed
road improvements and construction projects :
CONTENTS OF A TREE PROTECTION AND REMOVAL PLAN FOR ROAD CONSTRUCTION
AND IMPROVEMENTS
1 . Tree Removal/Protection Cover Sheets (See Appendix A and C)
indicating approximate number of trees to be removed and trees
to be impacted.
2 . Vicinity or location map on 8 1/2" x 11" .
3 . Site plan indicating existing conditions, including topography,
existing right-of-way, structures and general forest canopy.
12
4 . Site plan indicating proposed road alignment within the right-
of-way, including grading and trenching activities, roads,
shoulders, drainage structures, etc . Delineate the
proposed area of disturbance by showing top of cut and toe •
of fill edges . In addition, identify approximate locations
of "key cuts" for any benched fills . On same map, indicate
all native trees (located by field survey) • with driplines
within 20' of the edges of disturbance (top of cut and toe
of fill) . On both site plans (3 and 4) , include north
arrow, scale and preparer' s name and phone number (Include
original size up to 24" x 36" .
5 . All native trees within the proposed area of disturbance shall
be field tagged and numbered (recording species and
approximate dbh) but do may need to appear on the site
plan described above (depending upon the width of the area
of disturbance) . The number of trees to be removed shall
also be recorded.
6 . For each tree that is identified on the site plan (those along
the edges) , complete a native tree inventory stating:
a. Species
b. Size, measured in dbh (diameter at breast height) .
C . Approximate canopy area (3 . 14 X radius of canopy squared) .
d. General condition and health of the tree .
e. How tree will be impacted by proposed development (require
removal, or affected by cut, fill, roots, branches, etc . )
(All trees to be removed and protected can be shown on the
same site plan) . •
7 . Proposed tree protection measures for any of the inventoried
trees, including fencing, mulching, aeration, and
installation of retaining walls and tree wells for trees
along the edge of disturbance - refer to Chapter 5 .
8 . Tree replacement plans - refer to Chapter 8 .
9 . Photos (optional, but sometimes helpful)
C. FIELD WORK In addition to the requirements listed above, the
following field work shall be required:
1 . The proposed center line of the road and area of disturbance
(limits of cut and fill) shall be field staked with markers
designed to withstand a period of two years .
2 . Field identify every native tree within the area of disturbance
with a non-damaging numbered tag designed to withstand a period
of two years . Every tree shall be numbered and recorded as to
species and approximate dbh.
3 . Field survey and map all native trees that have driplines
within 20' of the edges of disturbance . (Complete tree
inventory on these trees) . In addition to numbering, wrap
trees to be removed with red or pink flagging tape and trees to
be protected with yellow or green flagging tape.
13
4 . The applicants' arborist shall identify quality trees along the
edges of the road that should be saved through extra tree
protection measures. Each or these trees shall be identified on
the site plan. The applicant shall propose methods of tree
• protection for City review.
5 . Applicants should anticipate the need for at least one field
visit with City Arborist/Staff and one field trip for elected
officials for major road building projects involving tree
removals .
Who completes the form: Private professional (as defined) - refer
to Chapter 2 for details .
Where to submit : Public Works Department .
When to submit : Submit application as early as possible - do not
have the road completely engineered before consulting with City
Staff. Because of environmental laws, information regarding natural
resources should be collected at the earliest possible stage of any
proposed development .
Depending on the complexity of the project, City Staff may require
additional information.
D. SUMMARY OF REVIEW PROCESS : The review process for a Tree Protection
Plan is :
1 . Consult with City Arborist/Public Works (optional) .
• 2 . Attempt to adjust road within right-of-way to avoid the removal
of valuable trees see Guidelines (A. ) above) .
3 . Submit application and necessary fees with other development
application materials .
4 . Post and stake site for field identification - see details
above) .
5 . City Arborist and Public Works Staff review Tree Protection and
Removal Plan and visits site.
6 . Tree Protection and Removal Plan approved (with or without
additional conditions) or denied by City Arborist (or designee)
or Planning Commission, depending on size of trees involved.
7 . If denied, resubmittal of a revised Tree Protection and Removal
Plan is required.
8 . Fourteen (14) day public appeal period - staff advises
applicant of date of appeal period.
9 . Appeals? All decisions on Tree Protection Plans may be
appealed to the Planning Commission or City Council .
• 10 . Applicant' s Private Professional representative must submit
letter stating that Tree Protection is in place before any
development permits shall be issued.
14
7 . POSTING : HOW DO YOU IDENTIFY
TREES TO BE REMOVED OR PROTECTED?
• Identification of trees and posting of all property with trees to be
removed (with or without any development) and posting of property with
trees to be protected (with development) is required. This includes any
and all applicants who submit plot plans, precise plans, building
permits, conditional use permits and just plain removals .
Signs and protective plastic bags are available to each applicant at the
public counter, depending on the situation:
A. POSTING FOR FIELD IDENTIFICATION AND FOR APPEAL PERIOD All sites
that have trees to be protected or removed shall be posted for
field inspection and during the appeal period.
1 . The poster shall be a copy of the completed front side of
the Tree Removal Application and/or Tree Protection Plan.
2 . Place the poster in a plastic bag in a location that is
"visible from the street" .
3 . Posting for Appeal Period
(i) For Approved Tree Removals/No Development : The
poster must remain on site through the duration of
the 14 day appeal period (except for dead trees) .
(ii) . For Approved Tree Removals with Development and
Tree Protection Plans : Applicants shall be advised
of the date of the 14 day appeal period - it may be
tied to additional permit requirements .
4 . Dead/Diseased trees may require posting for field ID, but
may be removed immediately after verification by City
• Staff.
B. FLAGGING TREES TO BE REMOVED OR PROTECTED All trees to be removed
shall be numbered (to coincide with the site plans) and flagged with
pink or red tape in the field; all trees or groups of trees to be
protected shall be flagged with yellow or green tape; tree
protection flagging shall be necessary only if it is not evident
from the submitted plans . For projects involving road construction,
refer to Chapter 6 for details .
The City Arborist and/or Planning and Engineering Staff will post a copy
of all Tree Removal Permits in City Hall for the duration of the appeal
period.
Please call the City Arborist at 461 - 5090 if you have any questions or
concerns .
•
16
8 . TREE REPLACEMENT AND MITIGATION
OPTIONS FOR REPLACING TREES . The Applicant shall initially select one of
the following methods (A - D) for providing tree replacements for any
trees that are going to be removed. The City Arborist (or designee) has
the authority to require different replacement alternatives (such as •
donation to the Tree Replacement Fund) if it is apparent that the
applicant selecting the planting option (Option A) will be unable to
maintain replacement trees for three to five years .
If trees are dead, diseased, or damaged beyond repair, replacements will
not be required, but the City will donate trees from the nursery to
replace if requested. If replacement plantings or donations to the Tree
Fund are selected (Option A or B) , trees shall be replaced using the
following ratio:
A. REPLACING THE TREE BY PLANTING ON OR OFF-SITE
1 . Size : Trees that are removed shall be replaced with 5 (five)
gallon, native stock, same species trees . The number of replacement
trees required depends on the size, species and location of each
tree removal . If native stock is unavailable, 15 (fifteen) gallon
replacements shall be required.
2 . Replacement ratio : The concept is to provide replacement
plantings and/or cash based on a ratio; for every 6" dbh of tree
removed, one, two or four replacement plantings (depending on
species and location) will be required.
Single Family Residential :
Deciduous Oaks/Madrones: Plant two trees for every 6" dbh, (or fraction
thereof) of tree removed.
Other Native Trees: Plant one tree for every 6" dbh of tree removed.
Multi-Family/Commercial/Roads :
Deciduous Oaks/Madrones: Plant four trees for every 6" dbh of tree
removed.
Other Native Trees: Plant two trees for every 6" dbh of tree removed.
B. REPLACING THE TREE THROUGH DONATIONS TO THE TREE REPLACEMENT FUND:
Base Fee : $50 . 00 per tree. This is the minimum amount of money it would
cost for the City to purchase (or eventually grow) , plant and fence a
five gallon native tree. This base fee does not attempt to recover any
city labor, maintenance and/or watering costs . As an example, if a 6"
dbh California Bay (Classified as Other Native Tree) were removed for
road construction, the applicant would be required to either plant and
fence two five gallon replacement trees or contribute $100 to the Tree
Replacement Fund.
Use the same ratio of tree replacement plantings listed above in
combination with the base fee for determining replacement costs :
The following chart summarizes the replacements required - through •
replacement planting or donation:
17
Type of Tree/Development # of Replacement Trees $ Tree Fund
(5 gallon minimum)
Deciduous Oaks/Madrones
Single Family 2 per 6"dbh $100 per 6"dbh
Multi-Family/Commercial/Roads 4 per 6"dbh $200 per 6" dbh
Other Native Trees
Single Family 1 per 6"dbh $50 per 6" dbh
Multifamily/Commercial/Roads 2 per 6"dbh $100 per 6" dbh
The next chart demonstrates how this system of replacements (through
planting trees or donation to the Tree Fund) might work:
To illustrate, the hypothetical removal of a 12" dbh Quercus agrifolia
(coast live oak, classified as Other Native Tree) and a 12" dbh Quercus
lobata (valley oak, classified as a Deciduous Oak) will be used:
REPLACEMENT EXAMPLE
Type of Tree/Development # of Replacement Trees $ Tree Fund
(5 gallon minimum)
12" O. lobata - a deciduous oak
Single Family 12/6"dbh x 2 trees= 4 4x$100= $400
Multi-Family/Commercial/Roads 12/6"dbh x 4 trees= 8 8x$200= $800
12" dbh O. ac
rrifolia - other native trees
Single Family 12/6"dbh x 1 tree= 2 2x$50= $100
Multifamily/Commercial/Roads 12/6"dbh x 2 trees= 4 4x$100= $400
If it does not appear an applicant wishing to remove trees will be able
to maintain replacement trees for three to five years, the City Arborist
(or designee) has the ability to require a different replacement
alternative, such as donation to the Tree Replacement Fund.
Multi-family and Commercial/Roads applicants may plant larger size
specimens to reduce the quantity of replacements required using the
following ratio:
24" box = 2, 5 gallon locally grown or 15 gallon other trees
36" box = 4, It
48" box = 6, "
60" box = 8, "
C. TRANSPLANTING THE TREE
In certain situations, and usually as a last resort, native trees of
certain size may be transplanted. The following criteria shall be used:
1 . Native trees over 2 - 6" dbh may be moved without special
equipment .
2 . Native trees 6" dbh to be transplanted require the use of a
tree spade and must follow the guidelines set forth in
Appendix F .
3 Transplanted trees that die during the first year shall be
replaced at the determined replacement ratio (from Section A.
above) .
D . TREE MITIGATION
18
If trees that are protected do not survive development activities or if
the Tree Ordinance is violated, the City has the authority to require
mitigation for damage, requiring higher replacement ratios or fees than
are described above.
Other methods of mitigation for native tree removal : •
1 . Dedication of a conservation easement designed •to protect •.oak
seedlings .
2 . Contract growing of native trees .
E. PENALTY CONDITIONS
For Tree Ordinance Violations and unauthorized tree removals and/or
damage, the City Arborist (or designee) has the authority to request
compensation based on the court tested and upheld ISA (International
Society of Aboriculture) method for evaluating the monetary value of
trees (Valuation of Landscape Trees, Shrubs and Plants, ISA - 7th
Edition, 1988 . )
i
19
9 . APPEALS
The procedures for appeals that are outlined in the Zoning Ordinance,
• Chapter 9-1 . 111 shall apply to decisions about trees, but with the
following clarification:
1 . Decisions of the City Arborist, Public Works Department, Community
Development Department or any member of the staff ma'y be appealed to
the Planning Commission. Planning Commission decisions, in turn,
are appealable to the City Council, whose decision is final .
2 . Once denied, a period of one year must lapse before any applicant
reapplies for consideration, unless physical facts upon which the
decision - making body based their denial has changed.
2 . All appeals must be made in writing and filed (with appropriate
fees) with the Secretary of the Planning Commission for matters to
be heard by the Commission, and with the City Clerk for matters to
be heard by City Council .
3 . See Proposed Fees Schedule for Appeals in Chapter 9 .
4 . The public appeal period shall be 14 (fourteen) days from the date
of the action being appealed.
•
•
20
10 . FEE SCHEDULE
The intent of the proposed fee schedule is to generally charge fees that
correspond to the amount of time it takes to process and review different i
tree removal requests .
Fees for Processing Applications :
A. Single Family Residences with No fees
a. existing dwelling
b. no development permits being sought
B. Dead and Diseased Trees No fees
B. Tree Removal Application 211-24"dbh in size $ 35
C. Tree Removal Application 24" dbh or greater $ 50
D. Tree Protection Plans
Single Family Residential and Renovation $ 50
(includes any Tree Removal Application if necessary)
E. Tree Protection Plans $ 200
Multifamily, Commercial and Road Improvement Plans
(includes any Tree Removal Application if necessary)
F. Appeals
Applicant (first appeal) $ 0 •
Applicant (second appeal) $ 50
Any Interested Person $ 50
NOTE :
Current Fees :
Tree Removal : Fees are $35 for simple tree removal requests, including
dead trees . Currently, there are no fees collected if tree removal is
attached to development applications of any kind and there are no fees
collected for tree protection plan review; these are usually the kinds of
projects which require the most extensive staff review.
Appeals : The current fee for appeals is $100 . 00 .
21
11 . ADOPTION OF LANDMARK TREES
A "Landmark Tree" means any tree that is recognized by City Council
Resolution for its age, size, location and/or cultural significance .
A "Landmark Tree" can be native or non-native and receives the same
protection and is subject to the same conditions regarding native trees .
They may not be removed without City Council approval .
Procedure for nomination:
On Private Land: A Landmark Tree may only be nominated with Landowner' s
permission .
Public Land: A Landmark Tree may be nominated by any member of the
community.
Please see Appendix D for a Landmark Tree Nomination Form
•
22
12 . TREE PRUNING GUIDELINES
In the care and maintenance of native trees, Atascadero would like to
promote proper pruning practices which help insure the health and .
integrity of all of our beautiful trees . Native trees, whenever possible
should not be pruned except when dead wood is present . Because we live
in an area where power lines and homes exist, there may be an occasional
need to prune in these instances, too.
It is important to remember that a tree survives on food that it
manufactures from its leaves; a tree should never lose more than 20% of
its total canopy of leaves at any time. There may be situations where
dead or diseased wood exists which will perhaps require the removal of
additional wood; this should be done by a licensed tree trimmer who is
experienced in making these decisions .
The City has adopted the International Society of Aboriculture' s
standards for tree pruning dated May 9, 1988, as revised and amended by
the Organization from time to time; these standards shall be used when
doing work on all trees in Atascadero.
The ISA standards describe techniques in the pruning of all species of
trees . Native oaks have some special requirements; it should be stressed
that a "heading or stub cut" described in Section I-B should never be
used on an oak; the preferred types of pruning are described in Sections
II - A, Crown Cleaning and Section II - B, Crown Thinning.
If there are any questions, please call the office of the City Natural
Resource Manager at 461 - 5090 .
Refer to Appendix for ISA Pruning Guidelines - 7 pages •
•
23
13 . TREE PLANTING AND TRANSPLANTING GUIDELINES
A. TREE PLANTING: A set of replanting guidelines shall be included
• with every tree permit requiring replacement plantings :
1 . Generally, choose same species replacements for the native trees to
be removed.
2 . Inspect the trees for encircling roots (roots that ' wrap around' the
pot have a poorer chance of straightening out and growing right in
the ground.
3 . When planting, make sure that the roots have been untangled,
straightened and loosened as much as possible .
4 . Plant in a hole at least twice as big as the pot, and use native
soils in the hole .
5 . Provide the tree with deep watering - meaning a slow, gradual and
long watering (which encourages downward root growth to anchor the
tree) at the time of planting.
6 . Native oaks require less watering than other species; provide them
with one deep watering in late spring and two in the summer. If
drip irrigation is used, do long, slow watering applying 10-20
gallons over a three-four hour period.
7 . Protect the young trees from wildlife or vandalism with some kind
of fencing - both above and below ground if possible; welded wire
fencing of at least 4 feet in. height above ground and one - two feet
below ground.
All applicants that remove trees and provide replacement plantings shall
provide the City with proof of tree planting, through copies of the tree
purchase receipts, photographs and signed under "penalty of perjury"
• statement attesting to the date of planting. . These records can be kept
in the office of the City Natural Resource specialist . All trees shall
be planted preferably in the fall or winter but within one year after
receiving a tree removal permit .
B. TRANSPLANTING GUIDELINES FOR "BIG TREES"
Transplanting large trees shall only be used as method of last resort, as
rates of survival are not documented at this time.
Please use these guidelines to assist you with the transplant and
transport of big trees :
1 . Coast live oak trees seem to survive transplanting better than
valley or blue oaks (the other common species in the area) .
2 . For trees that are larger than 14" dbh, constructing a "box" around
the base of the tree and an adequate "root mass" and moving it with
a crane and flatbed truck are necessary. Approximate box size
should be around 7x the diameter of the tree trunk .
3 . It is advisable to cut the roots (where you are planning to build
the tree moving box) at least a year ahead of time to promote more
root growth within the soil that is going to move with the tree.
4 . When boxing a tree, the bottom should be cut last and can be
• anywhere between six and eight feet deep, depending on the size of
the tree and conditions of the soil . To cut the bottom, you will
24
need to take a backhoe to remove one of the sides of the b-ox to get
at it .
5. When calculating what types of equipment will be necessary in order
to move a tree, you must attempt to estimate the weight of the tree,
its roots and the soil . Figure out the cubic area of the soil
(height x depth x width of box) and multiply it by the weight per
pound of soil . You must also estimate the weight of. the wood --one
way to do it is to estimate the amount of cordage (4'x 41x 81area)
in the tree and calculate its weight (oak weighs approximately 45
pounds per cubic foot) . As an example a 4811dbh tree was recently
moved in Thousand Oaks - together the tree and the root mass weighed
over 400, 000 pounds !
6 . Have the planting hole prepared before attempting the transport .
A backhoe will probably be necessary and the hole should be at least
as big as the box (and tree that you are moving) . Scarify the sides
of the hole (scratch them up, make them uneven. )
7 . Place the tree in the soil at the same depth. Make sure all the
roots are untangled (not encircling the box) and backfill with
native soils .
8 . Provide the tree with deep watering - meaning a slow, gradual and
long watering (which encourages downward root growth to anchor the
tree) . If planting in the summer, provide at least one deep
watering in every week for the first few months after transplant .
If planting in the fall, winter or spring, adjust watering around
rains . If drip irrigation is used, do long, slow watering, applying
10-20 gallons over a three-four hour period. Depending on soil
type, more or less water may be required. •
Big tree moving should probably be used only as a last resort, because it
is very difficult to get it right, but if it is done carefully, the
results are definitely worthwhile.
See Appendix E for more information on planting and transplanting of
native trees . Please call the City Arborist at 461 - 5090 if you have
any questions or concerns .
25
MINUTES EXCERPT - PLANNING COMMISSION - 9/4/90
•
A. HEARINGS, APPEARANCES, AND REPORTS
1 . CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 11-90 :
Application e y Dennis and Diane Schmidt to
construct a conforming use (house addition) on a lot
occupied by a nonconforming use. Subject site is located
at 8675 Santa Rosa Road.
Karl Schoettler presented the staff report on this request
noting staff' s recommendation for approval subject to certain
conditions .
Dennis Schmidt, applicant, spoke in support of the request and
indicated concurrence with the recommended conditions .
Commissioner Hanauer referenced a prior use permit for a
second residence on a lot and complimented staff on their
accommodation of the applicant' s request. The City has lost,
over the years, the ability on some of the larger lots to
house more than one family.
• MOTION: By Commissioner Hanauer, seconded by Commissioner
Lochridge and carried 7 : 0 to approve Conditional Use
Permit 11-90 based on the Findings and Conditions
of Approval Contained in the staff report.
2 . Public hearing to consider comprehensive revisions to the
City' s "Tree Ordinance" together with implementing "Tree
standards and Gui elines"
Henry Engen summarized the background on the actions taken by
the City Council and Planning Commission at their joint
meeting held in January, 1989' and the direction staff was
given in revising the tree ordinance . He explained the nature
of the various documents contained in the staff report and
then introduced Lisa Schicker, formerly City Arborist and now
the Natural Resource Specialist.
Ms . Schicker provided an overview of the revised tree
ordinance and tree standards and guidelines and explained that
the guidelines have been designed to make reading the Tree
Ordinance easier. She highlighted changes between the two
ordinances noting that the main difference is that the revised
ordinance only applies to native trees and therK are no fees
for dead tree removals . There is a new section proposed for
Landmark Trees noting its purpose is to protect large,
historically and aesthetically significant trees in the City.
Ms. Schicker further explained why it was proposed that in the
MINUTES EXCERPT - 9/4/90
new ordinance, any native tree beyond two inches dbh cannot
be removed without a permit. She then presented an exhibit
showing the age of trees (sections of wood showed that an 8«
dbh blue oak was 108 years old and the live oak was 65 years
old) .
Commissioner Johnson pointed out a discrepency with the
ordinance and guidelines pertaining to tree removal exemptions
for emergency situations (re: situations must be reported to
and approved by City) , and suggested amended language for the
ordinance section.
Chairperson Luna suggested that perhaps proposed modifications
could be considered collectively after public comment . and
discussion.
In response to question from Commissioner Highland, Mr. Engen
explained that any changes in the standards and guidelines
would be authorized by the Council.
Chairperson Luna suggested that under the section of the
definition of City Arborist, that this position would also
make determinations on pruning. He added that Section
9-11 .08 (c) needs to be reworded as well as 2 .b-3 in the •
guidelines ( for consistency) with regard to "tree is crowded,
dictating
thinning.
sinning.
Chairperson Luna referenced "pruning limbs 4" or greater" and
suggested l
gg that depending on the trees and the situation, the
Cit arborist has
Y the
ability
to waive aive the requirement of the
use of arivate natural tura
1 L'esourCe professional or licensed
arborist. This would make it clearer that the option exists
for somebody who wants to prune not to have to hire a
certified arborist.
Ms . Schicker explained that other cities that have oaks
require permits for pruning (211 to 4" in diameter) adding that
theose
ur
P P is to make sure that the trees are pruned properly
according to knowledge that is now known about the health of
trees . An alternative could be to make sure that any applicant
who wanted to prune a tree would be aware of the newest
standards in tree
pruning.
.g
Eric Greening, 7365 Valle, stated that this is basically an
excellent ordinance and congratulated all those involved to
have the courage to -advocate a 2"dbh as the threshhold for
bringing a tree to city attention. He strongly urged that in
the case of blue and valley oaks, that compromise be resisted
as these trees are not adequately replacing themselves with
young trees. He suggested that a proposal for a city nursery
could be adopted with emphasis on finding a way to raise
seedlings from local acorns in long containers.
MINUTES EXCERPT - 9/4/90
•
Fred Frank, 3615 Ardilla' agreed that 2" trees are quite
critical with the blue and valley oaks being the most
vulnerable. He added that if an individual would like to get
credit for trees off the property, let them do that
themselves. He spoke about measures for designating these
trees for protection and those trees would be determined by
the city for protection and isolated as such (a good two inch
valley oak is probably worth more to the City in the long
range than a 24 or 36" tree whose lifespan has between 2, 20
or 30 more years) .
Mr. Frank added he supports the tree ordinance with its
objectives, management and protection of native trees and
enhancement of the urban forest. He expressed concern that
there are still some defects in the ordinance that relays
primarily on punitive action as opposed to incentives . The
City could achieve many of its objectives through an agressive
incentive program and technical assistance to residential
landowners along with a vigorous program to educate the public
and provide technical assistance necessary to assure that
people are properly managing their trees . Mr. Frank offered
suggestions such as a tree replacement fund for the
• regeneration of native trees, development of a type of forest
woodland management plan for large lots so people could be
encouraged to regenerate more forest canopy in the community.
Jim Dulitz, 1300 Garcia, registered professional forester,
stated he is in accord with a reasonable tree ordinance. With
regard to Section 9-11 . 13 (Forestry and Woodlot Management)
he requested that this text be developed now rather than
having it reserved for some future date. He noted that he has
30 acres of land that is almost entirely covered with coastal
live oaks . He spoke of his desire to cut or prune for
personal use ( firewood for his residence) adding that with the
present ordinance provisions, it is not cost effective for him
to do this .
Commissioner Hanauer stated there are properties throughout
the community that could be liberated for the purpose of
growing trees so that tree replacement would be more
effective.
Commissioner Hanauer referenced an earlier memo from the City
Manager that Visalia is successfully producing in their own
nurseries trees for replacement in the city. Discussion
followed.
Ms. Schicker stated that she has been recommending the nursery
• concept for approximately a year.
Jim Patterson, 9312 Santa Margarita Road, stated he has been
following the evolution of the tree ordinance for 3 years and
has worked with various groups to come up with something
workable. He complimented all those involved with the
MINUTES EXCERPT - 9/4/90
•
preparation of this revised ordinance, noting it is f0kr
superior to what currently exists. He added that the previous
speakers brought up good issues, ones that have merit and
should be considered. One of the major deficiencies in the
current ordinance is determining replacement value or
determining how many trees to be replaced to a tree that is
being removed (he referenced page 2 of memo Replacement
Guidelines) stating his feeling that the existing ordinance
is not equitable (ex: taking down tree 200 years old, 24-30"
in diameter, and replacing with 1 or 2 4-5 year 15-gallon
trees. It will be 100 years before that tree size is replaced
in the environment. Mr. Patterson discussed the proposed
canopy replacement method to at least maintain a semblance of
the density of forest in the area.
Mr. Patterson further stated he would like to see the
Commission make a recommendation to the Council that we pursue
the local city nursery concept because it is working and is
something that can be done. He added that people should be
encouraged to transplant trees wherever possible and
economically feasible.
Commissioner Highland stated he agrees with Mr. Frank' s
statement concerning genetic identity. He asked that at this •
point, are there trees available in the community that
genetically come from this community to use and do we have the
quantity right now. Discussion followed.
Ginny Powers, 7503 Carmelita, complimented those involved with
the tree ordinance on a professional, well thought out report
and is fair to everyone. only 20 native species are being
asked to be spared. She expressed concern with atrocities
committed by developers noting that thousands of trees have
been removed for development without any strong ordinance to
stop destruction to native trees . She felt that developments
should be open and closely watched for tree removal and
destruction. Mrs. Powers expressed disagreement with the low
tree replacement value adding that if between $2,000 to $5 ,000
were charged per each large mature tree, a developer would
have second thoughts about removing them.
Bob McKell, 7655 San Marcos, stated he is speaking on behalf
of the Central Coast Utilities Association and the Association
would like to see some of the provisions eased up. The reasons
for trimming trees is for service continuity, fire prevention.
He added that the Southern California Gas Co. has concerns on
the trenching requirements noting that there are few places
where you can trench in Atascadero without getting a permit,
without being less than 20 fee within a dripline of a tree.
On a stormy night, it would be almost impossible under
emergency conditions to have the city to give permission to
MINUTES EXCERPT - 9/4/90
•
remove any trees and limbs that are hazardous to power lines
and communicational facilities . Mr. MCKell further stated
that the ordinance is a good one and the Association would
like the opportunity to participate in its process.
In response to concern expressed by Commissioner Hanauer, Mr.
McKell discussed more specifically instances wherein the
various utilities would request some type of a "blanket
permit"; for routine trenching, tree trimming, etc. ; otherwise
it would require 3-4 permits a day.
Chairperson Luna inquired if there is any provision in the
ordinance which would allow the utilities to obtain some sort
of blanket permit. Mr. Engen noted P.G.&E. sent a
communication to the Commission which proposed alternate
language. With respect to the issue, this is language that
is basically in both the existing and proposed ordinance, but
it has not really been -dealt with in detail . He added that
the Public Works Department communicated concerns about the
constraints both on their activities and also for the local
utility companies . Maybe the solution might lie in some form
of a generic permit which would give certain constraints and
allow a certain level of activity without individual permits .
• In response to question by Commissioner Johnson, Mr. McKell
stated that the companies generally know in advance where they
will be routinely doing trenching work.
Commissioner Johnson asked that if the city were able to give
a blanket permit and there was requirement for notification
of any worksites 48 hours prior to any trenching activities,
would this pose any problem to the utilities in complying with
the ordinance as written and notifying the City of the work
to be done.
Mr. McKell referenced a blanket permit with San Luis Obispo
County wherein a utility company notifies the County between
48-72 hours in advance of where they will be working; this has
not been a problem.
Commissioner Johnson inquired if this would pose a problem to
staff in notification (24-48 hours in advance of any trenching
work) so the city can insure that the provisions of the
ordinance are being enforced. Mr. Engen replied this is an
excellent suggestion and noted that the Public Works ran into
this type of situation while working on a storm drain. He
added that a good starting point would be to obtain a copy of
the information that the County has.
• There was continued discussion concerning problems that exist
with tree trimming due to power lines, etc.
MINUTES EXCERPT - 9/4/90
•
Commissioner Johnson commented that if the utility companies
were exempted from this provision, the tree trimming companies
would also be exempt and there would be no control in the
future.
Nathan Kerns, 7365 Valle, commented that under Section 9-
11 .1O(a) (Tree Protection Plans) , activity should occur within
20 feet of the dripline and not the trunk of the tree. He
indicated general concurrence with the revision adding that
the ordinance should be adopted soon.
Marj Mackey concurred with Mr. Kerns' statement concerning
activity taking place within the dripline. She commented that
most people value the trees and that the ordinance should
apply to the utility companies also.
Deborah Hollowell asked if there was an estimated recovery
time for canopy on a smaller tree (5 gallon) and how that
replacement method might be affected by using -a smaller,
possibly more available tree. Jim Patterson estimated it
would take 3-5 years from an acorn to a 15 gallon tree.
Ms . Hollowell questioned if the Natural Resource Specialist
position is full-time and (re: actual processing of •
applications and early consultation) and whether or not there
will be some direction for the natural resource specialist to
have a priority to be the city arborist so that person is
available for early consultation.
Mr. Engen stated the position is full-time, in the Public
Works Department and in addition to City Arborist duties, it
looks toward working on the solid waste management plan needs
of the community (which is a function of Public works) , so the
timeliness and availability for early consultation with
conflicts of those kinds of meetings, agenda schedule, etc .
makes it problematical.
Ms. Hollowell expressed concern that with the new Natural
Resource Specialist position, the City Arborist function has
become a "dilluted" position. She added that it would be nice
to see some availability so applicants can easily and
willingly comply with the ordinance.
Ms . Hollowell further stated that some sites are overgrown or
heavily forested and makes the business of surveying difficult
without some tree removal . She asked for assurances that a
permit can be obtained to do some removal to actually begin
project work as in the past, tree removals have been required
to be associated with a development.
Whitey Thorpe, 8025 Santa Ynez stated his feeling i
P g that the
ordinance bypasses personal property rights of the landowner
and urged that the private property owners' rights be
respected.
MINUTES EXCERPT - 9/4/90
•
Vince LaVorgna, 9170 Santa Barbara Road, commented that 'he
planted 80 trees. at his prior residence, four of which are
oaks, over the last 8-10 years . He added that most of them
have girths of 6-10 inches and are doing quite well . Mr.
LaVorgna referenced a document by Randy Rossi concerning oak
ordinances which he felt is an excellent publication, and
pointed out that not every developer or contractor is out to
destroy the trees and the environment.
Russ Cracknell with P.G. & E . commented on his letter
concerning potential impacts of the tree ordinance (especially
9-11 .06 - emergency situations that cause hazardous or
dangerous conditions) . He said that if P.G.&E . were to report
a hazard and then wait for city approval could make the
situation even worse, as well as who accepts liability from
the time that a hazard is found to the time that a tree is
removed or trimmed, Mr. Cracknell also expressed concern that
trimming at 25% at ISA standards can greatly increase the
costs and asked who is responsible for said costs .
- Close of public testimony
• Mr. Engen referenced a letter submitted by Mr. and Mrs .
O' Keefe to the Commission commenting on several parts of the
ordinance.
Chairperson Luna stated that Commissioner Highland must leave
the meeting at 10 :00; therefore, it is likely that the meeting
will need to be continued. Mr. Engen reported that a special
meeting has been scheduled for September 27th to consider this
item only.
Commissioner Highland stated that he did not see anything in
the ordinance that would give credit for native trees that
have been planted by the property owners . He added there
should be an option to provide for planting and protecting of
acorns on the property, and that planting a native tree
should be a routine requirement for a building permit. He
further stated that there should be text for the forestry and
woodland management section of the ordinance, and noted his
support for some type of City sponsored oak nursery similar
to what the City of Visalia has .
Commissioner Lochridge echoed Commissioner Highland' s
statements and added that Section 9-11 .08(c) (concerning the
crowding of trees ) should be better clarified.
Commissioner Kudlac agreed with a City nursery concept; he
® noted support for a type of blanket permit for utility
companies . He further commented that he did not agree with
tree replacement on heavily forested lots.
MINUTES EXCERPT - 9/4/90
i
Commissioner Hanauer stated he would like further discussion
concerning the possibility of exempting single family
residences from the removal and permit process.
Commissioner Johnson agreed but added he did not feel
comfortable with excluding this requirement altogether
or that single family residences could be exempted except for
heritage trees or trees greater than 24" in diameter.
Otherwise, it only promotes the destruction of the young
saplings, not the preservation of them. Discussion
continued.
Commissioner Hanauer referenced a series of pictures printed
in the Atascadero News a few years ago which showed that there
many more trees now than in the early 1900' s . He commented
that it is the people who have "forested" Atascadero.
10: 00 p.m. - Commissioner Highland leaves
Commissioner Waage stated he would like to see homeowners
taken out of the "loop" as well, but not when it comes to the
original construction of the house. He added that is the
stage where most of the trees are removed. He expressed
disagreement with obtaining a permit for tree trimming and •
concurred that credit should be given for protecting the young
saplings .
There was further discussion relative to the importance of
conservation easements for protecting younger or older trees
through this method; providing incentives for protection;
different replacement methods, etc.
MOTION: By Commissioner Lochridge, seconded by Commissioner
Waage and carried 6 : 0 to continue this item to the
special meeting of September 27, 1990 .
Chairperson Luna commented that he has been to six prior
hearings relating to the tree ordinances and it was his
feeling this meeting was the most constructive from the
standpoint of public participation.
C. INDIVIDUAL COMMENT
1 . Planning Commission
None
2 . City Planner/Community Development Director
Henry Engen reported that the City Council will be scheduling
a joing Council/Commission meeting with the top priority being
the General Plan Update Land Use Element redraft.
MINUTES EXCERPT - 9/27/90
•
MINUTES - ATASCADERO PLANNING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING
Thursday, September 27 , 1990 7 :30 p.m.
Atascadero Administration Building
The special meeting of the Atascadero Planning Commission was
called to order at 7 :30 p.m. by Chairperson Luna followed by the
Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL
Present : Commissioners Hanauer, Lochridge, Highland, Johnson
Kudlac, and Chairperson Luna
Absent: Commissioner Waage (excused)
Staff Present: Henry Engen, Community Development Director; Lisa
Schicker, Natural Resource Specialist; and Pat
Shepphard, Administrative Secretary
• PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no public comment .
A. CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Approval of minutes of the regular Planning Commission
meeting of September 4 , 1990
MOTION : By Commissioner Highland, seconded by Commissioner
Hanauer and carried, 6 : 0 to approve the Consent
Calendar as presented.
B. HEARINGS, APPEARANCES, AND REPORTS
1 . TREE ORDINANCE :
Public hearing to consider comprehensive revisions to the
City' s "Tree Ordinance" together with implementing "Tree
Standards and Guidelines" (CONTINUED FROM SEPTEMBER 4 ,
1990 MEETING)
It was the Commission' s general consensus to review the
ordinance point by point, invite public comment, and then have
• the Commission add their input. The tree standards and
guidelines will be conducted in the same manner.
Lisa Schicker then proceeded to summarize the changes incorpo-
rated from the last public hearing. Ms . Schicker spoke on a
PAGE TWO MINUTES EXCERPT - 9/27/90
•
new section concerning repeat applications.
Mr. Engen stated that the problem of repeat applications isnIt
limited to the tree ordinance but can occur on subdivisions,
use permits, etc. He added that, usually, city ordinances
will preclude applying for one year unless the physical facts
surrounding the situation have changed. The language proposed
has been suggested by the City Attorney toinclude Title 11 and
Title 9 (Zoning Ordinance) for more clarity.
Commissioner Hanauer stated he would like to see retention of
2" oaks eliminated and substitute the 4" size as he felt this
would make complying with the ordinance easier.
Commissioner Johnson asked for clarification on the wording
of Section 9-I1 . 10( f) (requirements for pruning and encroach-
ment permits) and asked if the wording gives the Planning
Department the ability to require whatever restrictions they
want into these permits .
Ms . Schicker clarified that in specific cases, conditions
would be included to cover that specific situation as it
pertains to new construction and maintenance. Discussion
continued.
Commissioner Highland referenced Sec . 9-11 . 08( f) (Required •
Findings for Tree Removal) stating the wording is confusing.
He suggested that #2 be taken out and then renumber Roman
Numerals with deletion to ( 2 ) ( ii) and ( 2) ( iv) .
With regard to Section 9-11 . 06 (b) (Tree Removal - Exemptions) ,
Commissioner Highland expressed concern that in emergency
situations a tree removal must still be approved by the City
prior to the removal . Ms . Schieker explained the intent of
the wording. Commissioner Johnson offered modified wording
to reflect " . . . . reported to the City as soon as passible and
if the situation allows, approved by the City. "
Commissioner Highland stated that the only ordinance that will
work is one that has very general public acceptance. He
presented a proposal to add to Section 9-11 . 06(b) subsections
(5) and (6) to read:
" (5) Single family residential lots on which a dwelling unit
exists .
(6) Single family residential lots on which no dwelling unit
exists only if a consultation is held with the City
Arborist before application is made for site development.
The express purpose of such consultation shall be to
preserve the maximum number of native trees on such lot. " 0
Commissioner Highland noted that people on residential lots
seldom randomly cut down trees . The problems have been with
PAGE THREE MINUTES EXCERPT - 9/27/90
road development, subdivisions, commercial development and
with multi-family development, with 'the exception of the very
artificial category created of "heritage trees. " He further
stated that the beginning of the whole tree ordinance concept
begun several years ago came about as a result of commercial
wholesale destruction of trees.
Commissioner Kudlac expressed concern that with Commissioner
Highland' s proposed exemptions, the potential would exist for
people to cut down trees on an undeveloped residential lot to
prepare for a building site. He suggested that (5) would
require consultation with the City Arborist prior to any tree
removal . Discussion followed concerning the intent of this
wording.
Chairperson Luna referenced the cover memo concerning
exemption of single family residences noting he could favor
an exemption from the Planning Commission hearing requirement
and that staff can process as well as make the permit free for
existing single family dwellings. He added he could not
support the exemption for undeveloped lots.
In response to request by Commissioner Lochridge, Ms. Schicker
• read the proposed language for the section on Wood Lot
Management.
Commissioner Hanauer asked if this section applied to lots
which have a residence on it because he does not think it
should.
Ms . Schicker stated that after consultation with Fred Frank
and Jim Dulitz, these individuals have several acres of
forested land but do not have a house on the lots . She added
this section is difficult in trying to accomplish the City' s
intent which is to not have trees be removed for potential
subdivision.
Commissioner Hanauer stated that the City could run into
trouble in operating the city nursery or language should be
written that will allow for that type of a wood lot.
Chairperson Luna referenced a letter received from Fred Frank
suggesting certain amendments to the Woodlot Management Plan.
At this point, Ms . Schicker provided a synopsis on amendments
and changes to the "Tree Standards and Guidelines" to coincide
with amendments to the ordinance.
Ms . Schicker referenced an exemption proposed for pruning
• limbs less than 4" in diameter and stated that administra-
tively, it may be difficult to require tree pruning permits
for every limb. The intent is to educate the public about how
to properly prune a tree as well as the ability to track if
any damage occurred from any improper pruning.
PAGE FOUR MINUTES EXCERPT - 9/27/90
•
Commissioner Johnson expressed skepticism as, to residents
actually filing an intent to prune tree notice adding he did
not think that people are going to notify the city of their
intent. He asked what are the consequences or enforcement
procedures available to the City. It may be unrealistic to
require this.
Commissioner Hanauer added that this could be perceived as
antagonistic on the City' s part.
Commissioner Kudlac stated that it would be feasible to
conduct an awareness program (media, leaflets, etc. ) and could
send to property owners ISA' s standards for pruning.
Ms. Schicker stated it is very important to expand tree
protection requirements within the City. Currently it amounts
to fencing and retaining wall . Many other things can be done
to promote the health of tree (list of 7 things) .
In reviewing other changes, Ms . Schicker referenced a major
change which establishes policy for road construction and tree
preservation/protection (Resolution 59-89) .
Upon Conclusion of summarization of the Tree Standards and •
Guidelines, questions and discussion followed.
There was discussion concerning the implementation of a City
nursery. Ms . Schicker discussed efforts in establishing a
nursery which, ideally, she would like to see established at
the wastewater plant and if possible, use recycled grey water.
- PUBLIC COMMENT -
Marge Kidwell, 9980 Old Morro Road East, stated that this
ordinance has been a long drawn. out process lasting over four
years. She stated that in order for this ordinance to work
it must be supported by the public and be less prohibitive
( i .e-. pruning restrictions) . She objected to cottonwoods and
digger pines being designated as native and protected trees.
Mrs . Kidwell further stated that if there is adequate tree
cover on a property, tree replacement should not be required.
Joan Okeefe, 9985 Old Morro Road East, stated that placing one
value on trees is unrealistic . She expressed concern with
pruning practices noting the most flagrant examples of poor
pruning lie with professional tree trimmers . She expressed
support in preserving 2 inch oaks which is regeneration stock.
Eric Greening, 7365 Valle, stated he also supports 211. oak tree
retention. With regard to single family dwellings in
subdivision or construction phase, he felt that arborist
consultation should be a requirement for obtaining a building
permit and that the arborist should have authority to
PAGE FIVE MINUTES EXCERPT - 9/27/90
• II
condition per Mr. Greening further stated that if
utility companies get blanket permits, they could be revocable
if conditions are not met. He noted support of education
efforts with regard to pruning.
Nathan Karn, 7365 Valle, stated that cottonwood and digger
pine trees should not be exempted from the native trees list,
and expressed his feeling that an ordinance is needed to
protect trees from blatant destruction. Mr. Karn also noted
support in retaining 2 inch oak trees and madrones .
Tim Okeefe, 9985 Old Morro Road East, expressed his feeling
that a woodlot management plan element is an important part
of a comprehensive tree ordinance and discussed areas of the
plan which need improvement ( 2 . 5 acre size is too small ) : He
requested that this item be held in abeyance to allow for
needed improvements .
Fred Frank, 3615 Ardilla, stated he was speaking on behalf of
Jim Dulitz and Dr. Pillsbury. He took exception with Mr.
Okeefe' s comments concerning minimum lot size adding that a
good job can be done with 2 1/2 acres. He added comments on
the proposed text for the woodlot management plan, and
• expressed support for an incentive approach to protecting the
2 inch blue oaks and madrones adding that he is not sure the
City will be able to provide the necessary protection of these
trees through regulation.
Jim Patterson, 9312 N. Santa Margarita Road, complimented Ms .
Schicker and staff for their work on the ordinance. He stated
that the 2" dbh limit is appropriate and should not be
compromised as the young oaks need protection. With regard
to pruning, Mr. Patterson stated that distribution of ISA
pruning standards is an excellent idea. He further stated
that it is important for people to be aware that a permit is
required for pruning more than 25% of the tree cover and urged
that this language remain in the ordinance. He referenced
landscaping under mature oaks which is in the existing
ordinance adding it is an important issue because the large
heritage trees have fallen into a pattern of watering that is
typical of our climate. They can be severely damaged by
excessive water and it useless to protect the tree and then
plant heavily irrigated turf or ground cover. The tree is
being subjected to a slow death ( 10-20 years from root rot) .
- End of Public Testimony -
Chairperson Luna declared a recess at 9 : 05 p.m. ; meeting
reconvened at 9 : 15 p.m.
Chairperson Luna announced that Commissioner Highland must
leave the meeting at 10:00.
Commissioner Highland referenced his earlier proposal
PAGE SIX MINUTES EXCERPT - 9/27/90
•
concerning Section 9-11 .06 (b) (Tree Removal) , and suggested
an addendum to proposed #5 and #6 to read:
5 . Single family residential lots on which a dwelling unit
exists, and which is not eligible to be split.
6 . Single family residential lots on which no dwelling unit
exists, and which is not eligible to be split, only if
a consultation is held with the City Arborist. . . . . . . .
Commissioner Highland felt that this addendum may address some
of the concerns that were
raised earlier.
Commissioner Lochridge questioned by what method would a lot
be determined to be ineligible for a split and whether the
expense would be borne by the developer or by the City.
Discussion followed.
Mr. Engen stated it would be necessary to set up a
conservative way of looking at the potential for lot splits .
Commissioner Johnson voiced concern with Commissioner
Highland' s proposed language stating the potential exists for
discrimination against a certain class of single family
residents (who may have a larger lot than others, in an area •
where small lot sizes are allowed) . He added he would be more
comfortable with this exemption as stated in 9-11 . 02(a)
(Applicability) with the addition of wording at the end of
(a) : " . . . . .or remove a native tree without a City-issued Tree
Removal Permit, except as noted below. " (and then list the
exemptions of single family residential lots : when a building
or grading permit is not otherwise required) . In addition,
he stated he would be in favor of putting a limitation of the
size of the tree that is being exempted from the tree removal
process . Discussion followed.
Chairperson Luna stated the discussion appears to involve the
issue of exempting existing single family residences or
proposed.
Chairperson Luna referenced alternatives in the staff report
pertaining to exemption of single family residences from the
removal and permit process. He noted he could not support #1 .
With regard to #3 , he could support exempting existing single
family residences from the Planning Commission hearing
requirement and would like to make a recommendation to the
City Council that these permits be free of charge.
Commissioner Highland took issue with the above comment
stating his intent is to try and eliminate as many permits as
possible for single family residences, adding he did not feel
it to be a productive process .
Commissioner Johnson disagreed with a total exemption because
PAGE SEVEN MINUTES EXCERPT - 9/27190
r
when a building permit is secured, even though it is an
established single family dwelling, if that person wants to
further develop on the property ( i.e. , garage, second unit,
etc. ) , he should not be exempted from the requirements of the
tree ordinance. He added that if the homeowner wants to
remove a 24" or larger tree even though he' s exempt from the
permit process,' a permit should be required as well as showing
that an actual definite need exists to remove the tree.
Commissioner Hanauer discussed pros and cons of Commissioners
Johnson' s, Highland' s and Chairperson Luna' s opinions on this
matter.
Chairperson Luna surmised that the discussion involves
exempting single family residences except in a case when there
would be a project triggered by a building permit . He
expressed concern about the possibility of a property owner
removing a tree(s) and then applying for the building permit
adding there would not be any possibility for tree protection.
Commissioner Kudlac agreed stating his concern was the fact
that some one could clear an area and then go ahead and apply
for a permit whether it be a lot split or building permit.
• Discussion proceeded with possible language that could
incorporate the suggestions proposed by the Commission.
Mr. Engen stated that part of the process "hang up" is the 24"
trees being heard by the Planning Commission. He added that
there should be application of the criteria for any tree
removal, and should be applied to any building or grading
permit in a single family area. He commented that there' s one
thing about exempting them completely and another of just
making it a delegated function subject to appeal to the
Planning Commission if someone doesn' t like the staff action
on it. He added that 9-11 . 05{b) (roles and responsibilities)
Planning Commission - somehow got carried into being a total
exemption. It wasn' t intended from that standpoint to exempt
the project from the tree ordinance, it was just to exempt
them from having to come to the Planning Commission on each
and every 24" tree.
Commissioners Johnson and Hanauer concurred that a tree
removal permit should be required for any grading or building
permit. Commissioner Johnson added that the City will not be
able to completely regulate violations of the ordinance, but
noted that it is important to encourage participation of the
community in the tree ordinance; one way is to exempt the
single family lot to a certain degree. History has shown that
most citizens do not inordinately remove trees .
Commissioner Hanauer stated that any time you start talking
about numbers of trees, a problem is created. He concurred
with the process noting it will work but it will take takem.
MINUTES EXCERPT - 9/27/90
PAGE EIGHT
Henry referenced suggestion from Art Montan'don (who was
sitting in audience) - maybe we could exempt lots with
existing single family dwellings for trees of under a certain
size (24" or whatever) .
Ms . Schicker noted that the two issues that the Commission
seems concerned about with single family lots are (1) the
potential for subdivision, and (2) the potential for future
building of any kind. She added that these two concerns
needed to be incorporated and exempt the rest.
Commissioner Johnson expressed concern with enforceability of
the regulations to take care of a future event that is going
to be contingent upon a future event happening. He added
there is not enough staff to track violators; he would feel
uncomfortable with anything other than exempting a single
family residential lot.
Commissioner Hanauer asked if the Commission could reassure
themselves that the overwhelming majority of the people living
in single family situations are not subject to development.
He added that Atascadero should be worried about the total
canopy of the town, not individual trees . He added that for •
75 years, people have been planting trees, not cutting them
down.
Commissioner Johnson concurred adding that most of the people
are not going to be cutting down tres .
Commissioner Kudlac suggested a compromise on allowing single
family residents remove 10; of the existing trees on their
property without a permit. Discussion followed.
commissioner Johnson stated he is supporting just an exemption
for the single family residence. except when a building permit
of any kind is required on the property.
Chairperson Luna expressed concern that this could encourage
tree removal adding that if somebody wanted to add on to their
house, rather than obtain a building permit, it would be
easier for them to remove the trees.
Commissioner Highland that two things need to be considered:
1 ) lots on which houses already exist and that cannot be split
further, and 2) lots on which no dwellings exist. He stated
that the first item should be exempt. However, if there is
a single family lot with no dwelling but has the potential for
a lot split, then the permit process would be triggered. •
Commissioner Hanauer concurred with commissioner Highland' s
statements.
Commissioner Lochridge stated he could support Commissioner
S
PAGE NINE MINUTES EXCERPT - 9/27/90
Johnson' s concept, but still has concerns with no way to
remedy those concerns other than trying to, educate the
community._
Commissioner Johnson asserted that his only problem with
Commissioner Highland' s proposal is putting in language of a
lot that is splittable not being exempted from the tree
removal permit process. He emphasized that he had
reservations about this being discriminatory toward a specific
class of individuals .
Commissioner Highland stated there are still enough potential
lot splits (10, 20 acre parcels on Santa Cruz, etc. ) in which
it is clear that no tree removal should be allowed. However,
if there is a parcel that cannot be split further, that parcel
should be exempt from the tree removal process .
There was continued discussion concerning enforcement
measures . Ms . Schicker suggested that tree removal could be
limited to no more than three trees per year.
10:00 p.m. - Commissioner Highland leaves the meeting.
g
• Commissioner Lochridge urged that responsibility should be
encouraged adding he could support a fixed number more than
no number at all.
Ms . Schicker explained that most permits received are for
development. Single family residences do not apply for tree
removal unless they are dead or diseased.
Commissioner Johnson stated that if there' s wording to limit
exemption to a specific number of trees, it would take of
Commissioner Highland' s concerns with a lot that is
splittable.
MOTION: By Commissioner Johnson that language be added to
Section 9-11 .06 (b) (5) which exempts single family
residential lots (with existing dwelling) except
when a building permit or grading permit is
required. Commissioner Hanauer seconded the motion.
Discussion continued. Ms . Shicker stated that with many of
Atascadero' s large lots, subdivision is a major concern for
tree removal. If all the lots were small, it would be
different but that is not the case.
Commissioner Lochridge suggested an amendment to the motion
to limit the annual number of tree removal without entering
• permit process .
Chairperson Luna noted his concurrence with Commissioner
Lochridge stating he will vote against the motion. - It appears
the Commission' s consensus is that single family residences
PAGE TEN
MINUTES EXCERPT - 9/27/90
should be somehow be exempt adding there should be a limit on
the number of trees removed in a given period. .
Commissioner Johnson amended the motion to include
that the removal of trees be limited to three trees
in one year. Commissioner Hanauer seconded the
motion.
Chairperson Luna asked for the Commission's consideration in
Commissioner Highland's proposal to exempt single family
residential lots in which no dwelling unit exists .
Commissioner Kudlac stated he would like to have the wording
"and not eligible to be split" and would also like to have
them have to go through the permit process rather than
eliminate these lots completely.
It was the Commission's consensus to not exempt these lots.
Commissioner Johnson stated the only way he could support
exempting a lot with no dwelling unit would be if there was
a woodland plan submitted and approved.
Commissioner Johnson asked for amendment to Section 9-11 .06 (b)
(Tree Removal) last sentence, add: " . . . . .as soon as
possible and if the situation allows , approved by the City. "
Chairperson Luna pointed out Commissioner Highland' s earlier
editorial revisions for Sec. 9-11 .08( f) (Required Findings for
Tree Removal) - that #2 be taken out and then renumber the
Roman Numerals with deletion to (2) ( ii) and ( 2) ( iv) .
With regard to Section 9-11 . 10 (Tree Protection Plans) , it was
Commission' s consensus to delete the word "trunk" in first
sentence.
Commissioner Johnson referenced Section 9-11 . 10 ( f) suggesting
language to assure that pruning and encroachment permits would
have conditions as specified in the ordinance to eliminate any
ambiguity. In response to question, Mr. Engen stated that
wording could be added to make sure that the conditions are
consistent with the Tree Standards and Guidelines .
Commissioner Kudlac referenced blanket permits for utility
companies and asked if there is any way to require
notification to the City between 48-72 hours, except for in
emergency situations .
Commissioner Hanauer suggested some enforcement language
concerning revocation of permit if not complied with. •
Commissioner Johnson requested that Section 9-11 . 13 (Forestry
and Woodlot Management) be pulled for further consideration
in light of public testimony given earlier. He felt that
PAGE ELEVEN
MINUTES EXCERPT - 9/27/90
i
staff needs additional time to resolve this issue. Discussion
followed.
Commissioner Hanauer expressed concern that this section be
forwarded to the City Council for consideration. Ms . Schicker
explained that the details have been spelled out in resolution
form which can be changed more easier than ordinances .
Chairperson Luna and Commissioner Lochridge concurred that
this section be reserved but with a specific time limit for
consideration.
With regard to Section 9-11 . 16 (Repeat Applications) , it was
the Commission' s consensus to amend section to reflect Title
9 and 11 concerning denied applications . As well , amendment
was suggested to last sentence to read: '} . . . .when an
application is substantially the same as the previous
application, or whether physical facts have been changed. "
There was discussion concerning the Planning Commission' s role
and responsibilities with regard to public hearings for
removal of 24" dbh or larger trees. Mr. Engen stated that for
projects of a larger magnitude (subdivisions , roads, etc. ) ,
it is important that a public hearing be held. It was the
• Commission' s general consensus to keep Section 9-11 . 05 (b) as
it now reads .
The Commission discussed Section 9-11 . O2 (a) (Applicability)
and it was the general consensus to protect blue and valley
oaks and madrones at 2" dbh.
Ms . Schicker stated that after consultation with a botanist,
she retracted her earlier statement relative to removing the
oak cross species . It is recommended to delete the footnote
at the bottom of the page (List of Atascadero Native Trees).
Commissioner Johnson expressed reservations with having the
California Pussywillow listed as a native tree as it is more
of a bush than tree.
Commissioner Kudlac questioned whether tree protection for
oaks only has been discussed in the past. Ms . Shieker stated
she has concerns about riparian vegetarian and most of the
other species are riparian. Discussion followed.
Ms . Schicker stated that any changes in the ordinance will be
incorporated within the guidelines as well .
Discussion ensued concerning appropriateness of regulating
• pruning activities with general acceptance being the
importance of educating the community as to proper pruning
practices . It was the Commission' s general consensus to
exempt pruning of limbs 4" in diameter or greater from the
permit process .
PAGE TWELVE MINUTES EXCERPT - 9/27/90
NOTION: By Commissioner Lochridge, seconded by Chairperson
Luna and carried 5 :0 to extend the meeting past
11 :00 p.m.
With regard to pg. 9 (5 . For Tree Protection Plans During
Development, What Do You Need?) , Commissioner Kudlac
referenced Jim Patterson' s comment relative to landscaping and
planting of lawns within the dripline (addition of #6) . Mr.
Engen stated the language is in the existing ordinance.
On page 10, C-4 (Contents of a Tree Protection Plan) , there
is deletion of the word "are" .
Chairperson Luna declared a break at 11 :05 p.m. ; meeting
reconvened at 11 : 15 p.m.
MOTION: By Chairperson Luna to reconsider previous action
to amend exemption of single family residences to
3 trees per year except in the case of a grading or
building permit. The motion carried 4 . 1 with
Commissioner
Johnson dissenting.
.
g
MOTION: By Chairperson Luna to amend Section 9-11 .06(b) to
delete the previous ##5 and to add: "Exemption of .
single family residential lots to 3 trees per year
and is not eligible to be split. "
Commissioner Lochridge noted a point of order in the Chair's
motion. Commissioner Johnson stated that the motion on
9-11 .06 (b) (5) and (6) had been discussed at length whether
or not to include the wording on the splittable lot. He added
he did not think it to be appropriate that after the motion
has been passed and having been discussed to reconsider that.
Discussion followed. Chairperson Luna explained he was
looking for a change that would assure that a lot that was
eligible to be split - when he voted for the motion, he
understood that basically the building or grading permit
portion of it would include those lots that were possibly
eligible to be split. He expressed concern that somebody
might have a 10 acre lot and remove trees to create a building
permit and then obtain a lot split. You' re allowing him 3
trees per year so the possibility exists that in the period
of 3-5 years, he may have created not only a building site but
site for septic, etc.
Commissioner Kudlac suggested that Chairperson Luna would like
to add on to Commissioner Johnson' s motion Item 5 : "Single
family residential lots on which a dwelling unit. already
exists and is not eligible to be split (which includes section
on 3 trees to be removed per year) .
Mr. Engen suggested that the previous motion could stand as
PAGE THIRTEEN
MINUTES EXCERPT - 9/27/90
is and have an action to add to the prior. p motion.
Commissioner Johnson noted his opposition to any additions'-'to
the prior action.
MOTION: By Chairperson Luna to add the language to 9-11 . 06
(b) to existing ##5 that: the lot is not eligible
to be split. " Commissioner Ku ac seconded the-
motion. emot on.
Commissioner Lochridge stated the problem he has with the
proposed amendment to Commissioner Johnson' s original motion
is that it is going to become difficult and cumbersome with
regard to whose responsibility it will become on determining
if a lot is splittable and is discriminatory. He expressed
concern that the Commission may be opening up a "can of
worms" .
Chairperson Luna responded that it doesn' t prevent an
individual from taking out the trees, all it does is not
exempt him from the permit process .
Commissioner Johnson stated that in the original motion, he
reluctantly amended that to include the three trees per vear.
• Specifically, to take care of Commissioner Highland' s concerns
on the "splittable" or "unsplittable" lot. With the previous
discussion and way the motion was passed with the discussion
on that, Commissioner Johnson expressed his feeling that it' s
inappropriate now to change that. Discussion followed.
Chairperson Luna withdrew his motion.
In referencing the Guidelines, ##7 . (Tree Replacement and
Mitigation Measures) , Chairperson Luna commented that all of
the methods are rather complicated and should be left up to
the professional . He stated he can not decide on any one
method adding his personal recommendation he would give to the
Council would be to allow staff the flexibility to use these
as a mix of alternatives rather than coming up with one
specific applying to all cases .
Commissioner Hanauer referenced the canopy method and stated
he would like the community to think in terms of "canopy"; he
would like to leave the options as they are but he would like
to find a way that a recommendation can be made to the Council
to use the canopy method as the preferred method.
Ms. Schicker pointed out "Tree Replacement and Mititation
Guidelines is probably the most complex of all the topics
• discussed this evening. She offered to conduct further
research into these methods .
Discussion continued. Chairperson Luna stated it is important
that the Commission make some recommendation on Tree
PAGE FOURTEEN MINUTES EXCERPT _ 9/27/90
Replacement and Mitigation Guidelines to the Council .
Discussion ensued. It was the Commission's general consensus
to recommend A-4 (Replacing trees at a Ratio that is Basedon
the Forested Area of Property) and B-2 (Replacing the Tree
Through an "In Lieu" Donation to the Tree Replacement Fund) .
After further discussion, the Commission generally agreed on
Sections A, B, and D, with C being an option that staff could
recommend.
C. INDIVIDUAL COMMENT
1 . Planning Commission
Commissioner Johnson expressed appreciation to the Commission
members for their cooperation and team effort in working out
these issues, .
2. Community Development Director
Mr. Engen stated the revisions and changes would be brought
back to the Commission on the consent calendar on October 16,
1990 . •
Mr. Engen reminded the Commission of the upcoming joint study
session with the City Council on October 4, 1990.
Mr. Engen reported on a Community Forum concerning Water and
the State Water Project which will be presented by Clint
Milne, the County' s Deputy County Engineer, to be held on
October 11, 1990 at 3 :00 p.m.
Meeting adjourned at 11 : 55 p.m.
MINUTES RECORDED BY:
PATRICIA SHEPPHARD, Administrative Secretary
MINUTES APPROVED BY:
HENRY ENGEN, Community Development Director
•
L
MINUTES EXCERPT -10/16/90
MINUTES - ATASCADERO PLANNING COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, October 16, 1990
The regular meeting of the Ataseadero Planning Commission was
called to order at 7 :30 p.m. by Chairperson Luna followed by the
Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Kudlac, Waage, Hanauer, Lochridge, Johnson,
Highland, and Chairperson Luna
Absent: None
Staff Present: Steven Decamp, City Planner; Doug Davidson; Senior
Planner; Lisa Schicker, Natural Resource special-
ist; Karl Schoettler, Assistant Planner; Gary
Kaiser, Assistant Planner; Pat Shepphard, Admin-
istrative Secretary
• PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no public comment.
A. CONSENT CALENDAR
1 . Approval of minutes of the regular Planning Commission
meeting of September 18, 1990
2 . Approval of minutes of the special Planning Commission
meeting of September 27 , 1990
3 . Approval of comprehensive revisions to the City' s "Tree
Ordinance" and "Tree Standards and Guidelines" (continued
from September 27 , 1990 special meeting)
Commissioner Highland requested that item A-3 be pulled for
further consideration.
Chairperson Luna stated no action would be taken on A-2 as the
minutes are not yet ready.
MOTION: By Commissioner Commissioner Highland, seconded by
• Commissioner Johnson and carried 7 :0 to approve Item
A-1 of the Consent Calendar.
PAGE NINE MINUTES EXCERPT - 10/16/}0
Mr. DeCam explained the intent P P t was to provide a sign for that
tourist overlay area that would be freeway oriented; however,
the intent was not to allow every business that backs up -to
the freeway to install a freeway oriented sign. He added
there is an existing sign pole (behind Ed' s Garage) which has
been looked at for years for a community identification sign.
Discussion continued.
Chairperson Luna asked about the feasibility of having a
"Downtown Atascadero" freeway sign. Mr. Decamp responded
CalTrans is not opposed but the sign would be at local
expense.
At this time, Chairperson Luna directed staff to come back at
the November 6, 1990 meeting to consider suggested amendments
and refinements to the Downtown Master Plan and implementing
Zone Change.
Commissioner Johnson resumed his seat back on the Commission.
A. 1 CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM
Approva o comprehensive revisions to the City' s "Tree
ordinance" an "Tree Standards and Guidelines" continue
from September 27, 1990 special meeting)
Commmissioner Highland presented a change in both the
ordinance and standards and guidelines stating he would like
to have Commission action on the ordinance this evening.
With regard to Section 9-11 . 06 (b) ( 5 ) - delete paragraph ( 5)
(exemptions for tree removal ) and substitute for (5 ) : "Single
family residential lots on which a dwelling unit exists, it
is strongly suggested that the property owner consult with the
City Arborist prior to removing a tree" .
Addition of (6 ) : "Single family residential lots on which no
dwelling unit exists and which are not eligible to be split
only if a consultation is held with the City Arborist before
any application for site development is applied for. The
express purpose for such consultation shall be to preserve the
maximum number of dative trees -on said site. "
Commissioner Highland explained that what the ordinance
Proposes (maximum of 3 trees per year) is not enforceable and
the City is put back in the position of being "tree cops" .
He continued by saying that this lanaguage sends a message to
the community that they are trusted.
Commissioner Waage stated that he was not in favor of the
exemption limited to 3 trees or less per year as he, too, felt •
it is unenforceable. He added he would rather have people
confer with the City Arborist.
A
PAGE TEN MINUTES EXCERPT - 10/16/90
Commissioner Johnson objected to #6 explaining that he could
not support an exemption of a ' lot that is vacant. $e
indicated his feeling that the language "which is not eligible
to be split" is ambiguous and asked if a lot split is turned
down, does this make the lot unsplittable. He emphasized that
the only real preservation of trees are on occupied lots
adding that most people have demonstrated that they value the
trees on the lots, but this may not be necessarily true on an
undeveloped lot.
Commissioner Hanauer remarked that most people who own
undeveloped lots know whether their lots can be split.
Commissioner Lochridge took issue with Commissioner Hanauer' s
statements and reiterated his concern that private landowners
that want to trim or remove a tree are being asked to enter
the development process which will put staff in the
predicament where they have to make a determination on
subdivision suitability.
Chairperson Luna reminded the Commission that what is being
discussed are exemptions from the permit process, not denying
somebody the right to take out their tree. He added it is
• important for the City to keep track of how many trees are
removed.
Commissioner Kudlac expressed his concern as to who will
define what is eligible for a split or not. He noted his
objection to #6 .
Chairperson Luna observed that the Commission' s general
consensus is disagreement with the proposed #6 language.
Commissioner Highland suggested deletion of the phrase "and
which are not eligible to be split. "
Commissioner Johnson felt it is not appropriate to exempt
vacant lots from the ordinance. Discussion followed.
Commissioner Highland stated he would stili like to pursue #5 .
He said it would be relatively easy for staff to look at the
map and see what lot sizes are in the area and what the size
lot is and determine whether it is potentially splittable .
With regard to the Standards and Guidelines, Section 7 . (Tree
Replacement and Mitigation Guidelines) A. , Commissioner High-
land stated that the language in this section is difficult to
understand. If one assumes that the diameter of the trunk of
the tree is related to the amount of canopy that tree
provides, then the diameter of the removed tree can be used
rather than determining canopy. He offered the following
replacement language: "Trees that are removed shall be
replaced on the basis of one tree for each six inches or
PAGE ELEVEN MINUTES EXCERPT- 10/ 16/90
fraction thereof of the diameter of the trunk of the removed
tree. Blue oaks and madrones shall be replaced on the basis
of two trees per each 6 inches. Commissioner Highland voiced
his feeling that this amendment accomplishes the same intent
and is easier to implement.
chairperson Luna recalled that the Commission' s feeling at the
last hearing was that the canopy method was the preferred
abstract method, but perhaps the implementation is not as easy
as was expected.
Ms . Schicker commented on Commissioner Highland' s proposal
stating that she did more research into the forest replacement
method and noted that it isn' t exactly a canopy method but
forest replacement, and explained how this method would work.
She expressed concurrence with Commissioner Highland' s
suggestion of basing replacement on the dbh. This is the
method that cities such as Monterey and Santa Rosa are using.
Mr. Schicker then presented a similar proposal and pointed out
that single family residence should be treated differently
from multi-family and commercial which is where the most
impact will occur. She then presented alternative language
for tree replacement noting that the size of the replacement
tree should be determined depending on what kind of tree is
going to be removed. If replacement cannot be made onsite, •
she suggested that the actual amount that it costs to replace
a tree should be charged (around $750) .
Ms . Schicker commented on penalties for violators adding that
the replacement policy should be stiffer. The replacement
should be based on ISA value - base the value of the tree and
location, conditions, size and age. She also pointed out that
other cities will deny a developer the right to have any
further permits for a period of time ( two years in Santa Rosa
and five years in Los Angeles) .
Ms . Schicker referenced other. amendments to the ordinance
and/or standards and guidelines .
With regard to Section 9-11 .02 (Applicability) , instead of
"blue oaks and madrones" , amendment should reflect deciduous
oaks and madrones.
Size of tree replacement - should be reduced to 5 gallon
instead of 15 gallon.
Ms . Schicker stated that the ordinance does not contain
language as to who approves tree removal - needs to reflect
that the arborist or designee will since other departments
will also be looking at tree removal .
With regard to Page 17 of Standards and Guidelines, Ms .
Shicker suggested that the fee schedule also reflect that
diseased trees will not be charged a fee.
s
PAGE TWELVE MINUTES EXCERPT - 10/ 16/90
•
Ms . Schicker stated that the fee schedule is structured so
tree protection is more expensive than tree removal - it might
be cheaper to remove trees in certain cases instead of
protecting them. She added that a simple way to do it would
be to give staff discretion for waiving the higher fee when
these cases appear although this will not happen often.
Ms . Shicker commented that with regard to Tree Protection in
Conjunction with Road Building (pg. 11 of Standards and
Guidelines) , more text should be added on road policy in light
of problems related to determining the exact amount of tree
removal (Garcia Road extension) . Discussion followed
concerning time frames for accomplishing this .
Mr. Decamp clarified that the Council 's direction was fairly
clear in that they wanted to review the Ordinance and
Standards and Guidelines at the same time adding that the road
issue is a major one. He advised that this item be continued
until Ms . Schicker can bring back the necessary language for
the Standards to be reviewed by the Commission so it gets
passed on as a single package to the Council .
In response to inquiry, Mr. Decamp stated that this item will
• be renoticed for a public hearing on November 6, 1990 .
- Public Comment -
Eric Greening, 7365 Valle, said language about deciduous oaks
replacing blue oaks will also have to be changed in Section
2 .A. (4 ) (Standards and Guidelines) . He concurred with
Commissioner Highland's #5 language but objected to #6 . He
added it makes more sense to use the diameter as a way of
looking at how much vegetation is being removed in the canopy.
MOTION: Commissioner Lochridge, seconded by Commissioner
Luna and carried unanimously to extend the meeting
past 11 : 00 p.m.
Joan O' Keefe, 9985 Old Morro Road East, commented on tree
valuation adding that one of the purposes of the tree
ordinance should be to maintain or restore native tree canopy,
and incentive should be given for people who make every
reasonable effort to protect the native trees . She further
stated that it is not reasonable to place a single monetary
value on every size of tree. Mrs . O' Keefe commented on
enforcement, restitution values and effective civil penalty,
methods . She pointed out that Atascadero does not have more
• native trees than were originally here, and probably have more
non-native trees than native trees .
Whitey Thorpe, 8025 Santa Ynez, stated that a fairly good job
has been done on the tree ordinance. He stated that there are
PAGE THIRTEEN MINUTES EXCERPT - 10/16/90
many trees on the Native Tree List which are not native to
Atascadero (pussywillows, red willows, cottonwoods, etc. ) .
He requested that the public be trusted in preservation of the
trees .
Fred Frank, 3615 Ardilla, expressed concern that the forest
and woodlot management plan has again been continued, stating
it is important to encourage professional management of larger
stands of oak trees in this community, which are vulnerable
to disease, fire, and other abuses . With regard to the
replacement tree schedule, he suggested that credit be given
to existing native trees already established onsite adding
this is an alternative which should be encouraged.
Discussion continued concerning time lines involved with
completing language for the Forest and Woodlot Management
Plan.
Mr. Frank commented that some of the issues previously
discussed could have been addressed by the woodlot management
plan if that option had been available to large land owners.
Commissioner Hanauer concurred stating this section should not
have been reserved.
Jim Dulitz, 1300 Garcia Road, noted agreement with Mr. Frank' s •
comments and urged the Commission to do everything possible
to have this considered with the rest of the ordinance.
Chairperson Luna asked how the conservation easements are
implemented in the Guidelines . Ms . Schicker stated this is
another option that can be used with regard to tree
replacement.
In response to question by Chairperson Luna, Mr. Decamp stated
that if Commissioner Waage listens to the tapes from the
9/27/90 meeting concerning the Tree Ordinance, there would be
no problem in him voting. Chairperson Luna stressed it is
important that all Commission members vote on the
recommendations to the City Council .
Commissioner Johnson stated he would feel comfortable with the
language limiting tree removal to three trees per year. He
added it gives an individual guidelines to go by. He further
stated he would have no objections with adding: "It is
strongly suggested that the property owner consult with the
City Arborist prior to removing any trees . "
Chairperson Luna indicated his support of this .
Ms . Shicker expressed concern with time constraints involved •
with her job duties and consultation.
PAGE FOURTEEN MINUTES EXCERPT - 10/ 16/90
Commissioner Johnson suggested that some literature concerning
tree removal, replacement, trimming, transplanting, etc . would
help the general public. He added this would be an excellent
opportunity for the citizens to avail themselves of a service
that they can instruct more about trees.
Commissioner Hanauer stated there is no reason why the
ordinance has to address single family residences at all. An
exemption should exist for that category. Commissioner Waage
concurred. Discussion continued.
Chairperson Luna stated that Commission direction is to leave
#5 as is but to add the sentence: "It is strongly suggested
that the property owner consult with the City Arborist prior
to removing any trees . "
C. INDIVIDUAL COMMENT
1 . Planning Commission
There was nothing to report.
2 . City Planner
Mr. Decamp reported that the condominium conversion ordinance
is undergoing final legal review and hoped that it will be
scheduled in November.
Meeting adjourned at 11 :30 p.m.
MINUTES RECORDED BY:
PATRICIA SHEPPHARD, Administrative Secretary
MINUTES APPROVED BY:
STEVEN DECAMP, City Planner
•
PAGE TWO
MINUTES EXCERPT - PLANNING COMMISSION - 11/6/90
•
A. CONSENT CALENDAR
1 . Approval of minutes of the special Plannin Commission
meeting of September 27 , 1990
2. Approval of minutes of the regular P nning Commission
meeting of October 2, 1990
3 . Consideration of time extension request for Tentative
Parcel Map 23-87 at 11605 San arcos Road - Tom Vaughan
4 . Consideration of time ext sion request for Tentative
Tract Map 39-87 at 9240 ista Bonita - Mike Frederick
(Cuesta Engineering)
Chairperson Luna reporte that no action would be taken on
A-1 since this item is of ready for consideration.
Chairperson Luna a ed for clarification with regard to A-3
concerning a secoi time extension. Mr. DeCamp explained that
in the court c - e (Griffis vs . Mono County) , Mono County' s
• subdivision V inance was similar to Atascadero' s as far as
granting ons one time extension for one year. The court
ruled that the State Subdivision Map Act holds precedence over
local redilation of time extensions . Mr. Decamp stated that
the Ctty Attorney has advised that Atascadero' s subdivision
ordi"nce needs to be modified to comply with the most recent
ca, law. Discussion continued.
OTION: By Commissioner Highland, seconded by Comissioner
Johnson and carried 5 : 0 to approve Items A-2 through
jA-4 on the Consent Calendar. -
B. HEARINGS, APPEARANCES AND REPORTS
1 . Continued public hearing to consider the adoption of a
revised Native Tree Ordinance and Tree Standards and
Guidelines to implement the Native Tree Ordinance
(continued from 10/16/90 meeting)
Ms . Schicker presented the staff report summarizing thr
changes which were made at the October 16, 1990 meeting
concerninu: tree replacement, replacement planting, donations
to the tree replacement fund, exemptions of single family
residences, tree protection, tree removal and road
construction, and violations .
• Commission questions and discussion followed.
7 : 50 p.m. - Commissioner Lochridge is now present.
PAGE THREE
MINUTES EXCERPT - PLANNING COMMISSION - 11/6/90
Commissioner Hanauer asked for a date certain for considering
language to the Woodlot Management section. Chairperson Luna
noted that this is Ms. Schicker' s last meeting. Mr. Engen
clarified that most of the section has been written and is a
matter of filling in a few more blanks and bringing it back
forward.
Commissioner Lochridge apologized for his lateness noting he
was involved in a small car accident on his way to the meeting
and asked for a meeting update.
With regard to Section 9-11 . 17 (a) (Enforcement - Penalties) ,
Mr. Engen stated the City Attorney has indicated that the last
sentence should be deleted.
Commissioner Highland stated he served 18 years (68-84 ) as a
"lobbyist" in Sacramento professional organizations in which
his sole job was to examine proposed bills ( 50 a year) and
specifically find how many ways he could stretch the meaning
of those bills as they were proposed. He paraphrased a well
respected legislator who had said neither a planning commis-
sion, nor city council, nor the board of supervisors , nor the
state legislature nor the federal congress can pass a law in •
which someone can' t find a loophole nor can they pass a law
which someone will not violate.
There was discussion relative to the rounding off of numbers
relative to the size of a tree proposed for removal . Ms .
Schicker noted that the ordinance does contain the phrase, "or
fraction thereof" .
Public Testimony -
Eric: Greening, 7365 Halle, thanked Ms . Schicker for her
efforts and responsiveness in working on the ordinance, and
added that the revised ordinance is a dynamic and responsive
document which pretty much represents a consensus as to what
will work and what won' t. With regard to Section 9-11 . 06 ( 5)
(b) , Mr. Greening stated that clarification needs to be
provided as to what happens on lots of less than one acre.
He added stated that the sooner the ordinance goes into
effect, the better it will be for Atascadero and its future.
Don Vert, 8520 Allegre, stated that single family residences
should have a total exemption and disagreed with putting a
limit on the dumber of trees that could be removed since this
would be unenforceable.
Whitey Thorpe, 8025 Santa Ynez, stated that unenforceable laws •
are cumbersome and should be deleted front the ordinance.
Deborah Hollowell with Cuesta Engineering, stated she is
responding as a person who has to work with the ordinance on
PAGE FOUR MINUTES EXCERPT - PLANNING COMMISSION - 11/6/90
a regular basis in designing projects . She commented on the
section pertaning to "reasonableness" regarding whether or not
a design can or cannot accommodate a tree removal . She
stressed the importance of putting a specific response time
with regard to arborist consultation.
Jim Patterson, 9312 N. Santa Margarita Road, stated the
document is approaching the point where it can be comfortably
lived with. He addressed single family exemptions and
stressed that removal up to three trees per year is excessive.
The revised language gives an opportunity for monitoring how
many trees are being removed.
- End of Public Testimony -
Commissioner Johnson stated that a reasonable but specific
response time for arborist consultation should be added,
perhaps a two week response time. Discussion ensued. Mr.
Engen pointed out that language in the ordinance provides
flexibility by appointing a "designee" . After further discus-
sion, the Commission' s general consensus was that the City' s
• goal would be to respond within ten working days ( to be
incorporated in the Standards and Guidelines) . In response
to inquiry, Ms . Schicker suggested areas in the Standards and
Guidelines where this language could be added.
MOTION: By Commissioner Johnson, seconded by Commissioner
Kudlac and carried 6 :0 to provide in the appropriate
sections ( in Tree Standards and Guidelines) , the
statement that it is the City' s goal to provide
consultation with applicants within ten working days
for tree removal and tree protection (Chapter 3 , C) .
The Commission generally agreed on the recommendations
concerning tree replacement .
With regard to exemptions for single family residences,
Chairperson Luna summarized comments made by the public and
Commission, especially with regard to (Section 9-11 . 06 (b) 5 (b) .
Commissioner Highland stressed he is adamantly opposed to
placing any limit on the number of trees that can be removed.
Commissioner Johnson explained that "three trees or less per
year" ( for single family residences) was a compromise and
added that to change this language at this point would be a
mistake; this is an adequate guideline for people to follow.
Commissioner Kudlac concurred. Chairperson Luna stated that
• this is basically a tracking method with regard to the number
of trees being removed by requiring a permit if it' s over one
tree per acre per year. Discussion continued.
Commissioner Highland suggested that there are four
Possibilities to this section and to take a vote on each of
them without any further discussion.
PAGE FIVE MINUTES EXCERPT - PLANNING COMMISSION - 11/6/90
MOTION: By Commissioner Hanauer and seconded by Commission-
er Highland to amend (5) to read: "Single family
residential lots on which a dwelling unit exists . ri
The motion was defeated (4 : 2) with the following
roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Hanauer and and Highland
NOES: Commissioners Lochridge, Kudlac, Johnson, and
Chairperson Luna
MOTION: By Commissioner Highland and seconded by Commis-sion-
er Hanauer to delete Section (5) entirely. The
motion was defeated (4 : 2) with the following roll
call vote:
AYES: Commissioner Hanauer and Chairperson Luna
NOES: Commissioners Highland, Kudlac, Lochridge,
and Johnson
MOTION: By Commissioner Highland and seconded by Commission-
er Hanauer to revise Section 9-11 . 06 (b) ( 5 ) (b) to
read: "Person wishes to remove one tree less than
24"dbh per acre per year.
Commissioner Johnson noted his objection to this stating that
this section is basically unenforceable. Commissioner
Lochridge concurred adding it is not fair and is too
restrictive.
The motion was defeated 5 : 1 with the following roll
call vote:
AYES: Chairperson Luna
NOES: Commissioners Highland, Hanauer, Johnson,
Kudlac, and Lochridge
MOTION: By Commissioner Highland and seconded by Commission-
er Hanauer to adopt Section 9-11 . 06 (b) ( 5 ) (b) as
presently written in the draft . The motion carried
5 : 1 with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Hanauer, Kudlac, Johnson, Loch-
ridge and Chairperson Luna
NOES: Commissioner Highland •
Commissioner Kudlac expressed concern with the 14 day appeal
period. Mr. Engen summarized the background involved and
added that the whole process has become more difficult in that
under CEQA, constructing a home is exempt but to remove a tree
PAGE SIX
MINUTES EXCERPT - PLANNING COMMISSION - 11/6/90
adds the 14 day appeal period. Discussion PP P continued.
Commissioner Highland referenced Section 9-11 .'17 (Enforcement
- Penalties) (last sentence) stating this sentence should be
taken out. Commissioner Kudlac stressed this section should
be kept as is . Chairperson Luna concurred with Commissioner
Kudlac to send it as presently written to send to the Council .
MOTION: By Commissioner Johnson to accept the ordinance and
standards and guidelines as written and as amended
to the City Council with a provision that prior to
City Council adoption, that Section 9-11 . 17 (a) be
ascertained whether or not it is enforceable.
Commissioner Highland seconded the motion and was
carried 6 :0 .
Chairperson Luna declared a recess at 9: 00 p.m. ; meeting
reconvened at 9 : 10 p.m.
2 . GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 1E-90/ZONE CHANGE 4-A0 :
Continued public hearing to consider the adoFtion of the
Downtown Master Plan as an element to tho' City' s General
Plan. Also to be considered are Zoning/Ordinance Map and
Text amendments to implement the provi/sions of the Plan.
Affected area is located generally, between the freeway
on the west, Lewis Avenue on the east, Rosario Avenue on
the north and proposed alignment of Highway 41 on the
south (continued from 10/16/90 meeting) .
Commissioner Johnson stepped down/4 rom the Commission due to
a possible conflict of interest
Mr. Decamp presented the staf report which summarized parking
and signage issues which ad been discussed at the prior
Bearing.
The Commission discuss parking requirements and deterLiirted
that a reduction of u to 50% would be appropriate and would
recommend to the C ' y Council that a parking district be
initiated.
Commission dis - scion followed concerning the difference
between a "pen ant" sign and a "banner" sign. Discussion also
involved the lassie Cars museum on E1 Camino Real as to what
type of sig this business would be allowed.
/MDeCamp
her Highland stated that if the downtown is to be
with an image and an identity that is unique to the
, there needs to be the possibility of a freeway-
sign to identify the downtown area as a unique area.
• noted that the City does not own property in the
that would be amenable to mounting a sign.
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
• CITY OF ATASCADERO Item No : B-2 (A&B)
Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date : 12/11/90
File No : GP 1E-90 &
ZC 04-90
via: Henry Engen, Community Development Directorl>V�l
From Steven L. DeCamp, City Planner
SUBJECT:
Adoption of a "Downtown Element" for the City' s General Plan -and
the Zoning Ordinance amendments necessary to implement that new
Element .
RECObMNDATION:
1 . Approve Resolution #127-90 adopting the Downtown Master
Plan, as amended by the Planning Commission, as an Element
of the City' s General Plan.
2 . Approve, on first reading, Ordinance #215 adopting various
amendments to the City' s Zoning Ordinance to implement the
Downtown Master Plan.
BACKGROUND:
On May 10, 1990, the City Council heard a presentation of the
"Atascadero Downtown Master Plan" by the plan' s authors, Wurster,
Bernardi and Emmons, Inc . The Plan was the culmination of many
months of work by the consultant, the "Downtown Steering
Committee" appointed by the Council and City staff. At the
conclusion of the May 10 meeting, the Council accepted the Plan
in concept, and referred the document to the Planning Commission
for public hearings on both the Plan and the Zoning Ordinance
revisions necessary to implement the Plan.
The Planning Commission held public hearings on October 16 and
November 6, 1990 . With minor revisions to the Plan, the
Commission has recommended that the Downtown Master Plan and
Zoning Ordinance revisions be adopted by the Council .
SUIbGARY:
The testimony presented at the Planning Commission' s hearings
centered largely on issues related to parking and signage
standards . The consultant recommended some conservative
reductions in the amount of parking required for downtown
businesses (see Table 1 in the Plan) . Based on further analysis
of existing conditions by staff, the Commission found (and staff
concurs) that additional reductions are warranted and practical .
The Commission has, therefore, recommend that Downtown parking
requirements be reduced to 1/2 that required in other commercial
zones . This recommendation is coupled with a strong
recommendation for the City to establish a Downtown Parking
District to collect in-lieu fees and develop additional off-
street parking facilities .
Concern was expressed by those testifying at the hearings that
the Downtown area not be put at a disadvantage relative to the
size and number of signs allowed. The Commission concurred with
the Consultant' s recommendations in the Master Plan noting that
the proposed sign standards would provide increased flexibility
and creativity for downtown merchants . The Commission did
suggest that a freeway oriented "Community Identification" or
similar sign be allowed to advertise the existence of the Tourist
Commercial Overlay Zone.
ATTACHMENTS : Exhibit A - October 16, 1990 Staff Report
Exhibit B - November 6, 1990 Staff Report
Exhibit C - 10/16,/90 and 11/6/90 Planning
Commission Meeting Minutes Excerpts
Exhibit D - Draft Resolution #127-90
Exhibit E - Draft Ordinance #215
Iqc
• CITY OF ATASCADERO Item:
STAFF REPORT
FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: October 16, 1990
BY: , IF Steven L. Decamp, City Planner File No: GP 1E-90
/ ZC 04-90
SUBJECT:
Consideration and adoption of the General Plan "Downtown Element"
and Zoning Ordinance amendments to implement the Plan.
RECObMNDATION:
Staff recommends adoption of the Downtown Master Plan as an
Element of the City' s General Plan with refinements as may be
recommended by the Planning Commission. Staff further recommends
that the Zoning Ordinance amendments necessary to partially
implement the Plan, as shown in the attached Exhibits, be further
refined as a result of public testimony and Commission direction.
SITUATION AND FACTS:
1 . Applicant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .City of Atascadero
2 . General Plan Designation. . . . .Retail Commercial & Public
3 . Zoning District . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Retail Commercial & Public
4 . Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Primarily Retail Commercial,
Residential, and Public uses
5 . Environmental Status . . . . . . . . .Negative Declaration posted
September 25, 1990
BACKGROUND:
On May 10, 1990, the consulting firm of Wurster, Bernardi and
Emmons, Inc. presented a draft of the "Atascadero Downtown Master
Plan" at a special City Council meeting. At the conclusion of
the presentation, the Council accepted the Plan in concept, and
referred the matter to the Planning Commission for hearings on
both the Plan and necessary Zoning Ordinance revisions . In
referring the Plan to the Commission, the Council requested that
particular attention be given to parking and signage standards .
ANALYSIS:
• Both the economic base analysis prepared by Economic Research
Downtown Master Plan 2
October 16, 1990
Associates in 1988, and the "Atascadero Downtown Master Plan"
(dated March 1990) , found that the City' s downtown area can not,
compete successfully or directly with the numerous shopping
centers located along the E1 Camino Real commercial strip. For
the downtown area to prosper, both studies suggest that :
" . . . it [downtown] must define its niche in the same market
by offering a quality shopping environment and a mix of
specialty goods and services that is considered unique. To
do this, downtown should emphasize it' s special advantages;
its pedestrian environment; it' s mixture of retail, office,
service and residential uses; and it' s unique history. "
(Atascadero Downtown Master Plan - pg. 6)
The Downtown Master Plan proposes special goals, guidelines and
incentives to help the downtown area define and develop its
"niche" in the commercial segment of Atascadero' s economy.
Issues of particular concern in the preparation of the Plan
include land use, parking, circulation, and urban design. Plan
elements relative to land use, parking, and design guidelines
(including the size, location, and design of signs) need to be
implemented through both the Plan and appropriate amendments to
the Zoning Ordinance and Appearance Review Guidelines . Those
elements of the Plan that address circulation issues will need to •
be pursued through the Plan, and in large part, through capital
improvement projects budgeting by both the City and the State .
The remainder of this report will discuss those areas of concern
noted above that can be implemented through Zoning Ordinance text
amendments .
Land Use
The Downtown Plan suggests seven land use policies to guide the
development and revitalization of the downtown area. As listed
on Page 8 of the Plan, these policies are as follows :
1 . To enhance the downtown's economic vitality by
encouraging a mix of uses which are mutually
supportive.
2. To enhance downtown as a major tax generator.
3. To encourage more full service restaurants and
nighttime entertainment uses downtown.
4. To broaden the mix of uses to include tourist serving
specialty retail .
5. To encourage greater intensity of development at
appropriate locations.
Downtown Master Plan 3
October 16, 1990
6. To insure that any future changes in uses on the school
district and state armory properties are -supportive of
downtown revitalization.
7. To encourage the relocation of uses which are not
supportive of downtown revitalization.
Perhaps paramount among these land use policies is the need to
provide a " . . .mix of uses that are mutually supportive"while
discouraging those uses which are not supportive of downtown
revitalization. To this end, the Plan proposes six (6) new
downtown zoning districts plus two (2) overlay zones to better
define appropriate uses .
Recommended uses (both allowed and conditionally allowed) are
provided in attached exhibits . The Public zone and the
Public/Future Development zone would both utilize the existing
Zoning Ordinance language for allowable uses in the P zone .
Of particular interest here is the emphasis on pedestrian
oriented uses in much of the historical downtown area. Uses here
are intended to be compatible with nearby uses . Likewise, uses
that would be disruptive to a pedestrian oriented environment
• (eg, auto repair, warehouses, etc . ) or that would be unoccupied
during normal business hours, are excluded. Within the
"Pedestrian Retail" Overlay Zone, the emphasis is on retail uses
that are mutually supportive (ie. , comparison- shopping) .
Parking
Four policies are proposed by the Downtown Plan as appropriate to
assist with the revitalization of the downtown area. These
goals, which appear on Page 7, are as follows :
1 . To provide adequate parking to support a vital retail
base.
2. To encourage more efficient usage of existing parking
resources.
3. To tailor parking standards to downtown needs and
conditions.
4. To provide flexibility in dealing with future downtown
parking needs.
Recognizing the importance of parking to the success of downtown
revitalization efforts, the Plan addresses issues relative to the
provision of additional on- and off-street parking facilities .
• In addition, the Plan suggests that reduced parking standards may
be appropriate in specific portions of the downtown. Such
Downtown Master Plan 4
October 16, 1990
reductions in the number of required on-site parking spaces is in
recognition of the number of on-street parking spaces currently
available, the opportunities available for "shared parking" in
the downtown, and the desirability of utilizing the limited
amount of potential retail space for retail purposes (and not for
parking) . The Plan further proposes the establishment of a
"parking district" to help fund the creation of additional off-
street parking places .
The commercial parking standards currently contained within the
Zoning Ordinance are tailored for shopping centers and larger,
single use structures on large parcels . Such uses are less
sensitive to the impacts of automobile parking than are downtown
areas constructed largely on small to very small lots . Attempts
to require downtown areas to provide a number of parking spaces
equal to suburban developments frustrates attempts to maximize
ground floor coverage and foster pedestrian utilization of the
area. Given the Plan' s findings regarding downtown parking
standards, inclusion of the parking standards shown in Table 1 of
the Plan are recommended for inclusion in the Zoning Ordinance.
Ordin ce.
In addition, it is recommended that a "Parking District" be
formed to coincide with the boundaries of the Pedestrian
Commercial, and the Restaurant and Entertainment zones . This •
district would be a means of collecting assessments or in-lieu
fees to provide additional off-street parking facilities . A
developer could, with such a district, pay an in-lieu fee for
each required parking space and thus achieve 100% lot coverage
with his building. This is the development pattern that is
desired in the two affected zones . The parking standards
suggested for each of the proposed new zones include other
alternatives for providing off-site parking that may be
attractive in some instances.
Urban Design
The Plan proposes four goals relative to the urban design of the
downtown to make the downtown a more distinctive and pleasant
area to visit . These goals appear on page 8 :
1 . To improve the visual quality of downtown Atascadero.
2. To improve the image of E1 Camino Real and reduce its
impact as a pedestrian barrier.
3. To retain the historic character of downtown while
allowing for reasonable design flexibility.
4. To establish a sense of continuity and visual image
which distinguishes the downtown from other commercial •
development along E1 Camino Real.
Downtown Master Plan 5
October 16, 1990
In addition to the design ideas presented in Chapter 6 of the
Plan, Appendix B contains Sign Guidelines . Those portions of the
Zoning Ordinance that contain sign guidelines will be updated
after the framework is established through adoption of the Plan
and the specific downtown zoning districts outlined above . In
the interim, the sign guidelines contained in Appendix B will
prevail and will be used as the basis for reviewing all sign
permit applications .
Other Plan proposals relative to improving the appearance of the
downtown area can be implemented through the City' s Capital
Improvements Program, private initiative, or public/private
partnerships .
CONCLUSIONS:
The adoption of a "Downtown Element" of the City' s General Plan
provides a unique opportunity for the City to provide guidelines
and incentives for the development and revitalization of the
downtown area. Included within the Plan are numerous proposals
for public and private projects to improve the vitality of the
downtown. Adoption of the plan will provide a clear vision of
the future of downtown.
The Zoning Ordinance text amendments that are provided here are
the tools necessary to implement the Plan.
cc : John Himes, President, Business Improvement Association
Bill Mazzacane, Executive Manager, Chamber of Commerce
ATTACHMENTS : A - Negative Declaration
B - Draft Resolution
C - Draft Ordinance
•
�XhFtt�i'r B
1201t90
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Steven L. DeCamp, City Planner
DATE: November 6, 1990
RE: Downtown Master Plan
(GP 1E-90 & ZC 04-90)
At the conclusion of your October 16, 1990 hearing on the draft
Downtown Master Plan and its implementing ordinance language, the
Commission directed staff to refine those portions of the plan
dealing with parking and signage. This memorandum will address
those subjects and present recommended modifications to the draft
Plans' s language for your consideration.
RECOMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following
actions :
1 . Find the Negative Declaration prepared for the project
to be adequate .
2 . Recommend that the City Council adopt the Downtown
Master Plan, as amended, as an element of the City' s
General Plan.
3 . Recommend that the City Council adopt the proposed
Zoning Ordinance amendments to implement the Downtown
Master Plan.
4 . Recommend that the City Council initiate the creation
of a Downtown Parking District as shown on Diagram 6 of
the Downtown Master Plan.
DISCUSSION:
Parking
There are approximately 527 off-street and 356 on-street parking
spaces (for a total of 883 spaces) currently existing within the
downtown area. Some of these spaces are formally delineated for
parking while others are in under-developed alley and "back lot"
areas . Within this same area, there currently exists
approximately 278, 830 square feet of commercial space, either
occupied or vacant . To determine the total number of parking
spaces theoretically required in the downtown, the recommended
parking requirements shown in Attachment B can applied to the •
existing commercial uses resulting in a total requirement of 953
spaces . If the usual maximum parking reduction of 20% for
multiple tenant areas is applied, the result is that a total of
763 spaces is required in the downtown area.
The simple analysis above indicates that there is not a "parking
problem" downtown relative to the number of spaces available. As
indicated in the October 16, 1990 staff report, the problem is
the imposition of unnecessarily high parking requirements on new
tenants and new construction within the downtown area. The
Downtown Master Plan recommends the establishment of additional
on-street parking spaces, the development of off-street parking
lots, and small reductions in the number of parking spaces
required within a "parking district" . Given the analysis above,
and what appears to be a slight surplus of parking spaces, staff
believes it is possible to recommend substantially larger
reductions in the current parking standards within a parking
district . The proposed modifications to the proposed parking
requirements in Table 1 of the Downtown Master Plan are shown in
Attachment C .
Signs
Appendix B of the Downtown Master Plan contains guidelines for
signage within the downtown area. Significant among the
recommendations is the prohibition on the installation of new
freeway signs . Current provisions within the Zoning Ordinance
• allow pole mounted freeway signs only with a CUP and only for
restaurants, service stations, and hotels/motels . In general,
building mounted freeway oriented signs are conditionally allowed
for buildings in excess of 10, 000 square feet . Staff believes
that allowing freeway signs (either pole or building mounted) for
restaurants, clearly a tourist oriented use, is appropriate in
the downtown area. In addition, the Tourist Commercial Overlay
Zone, which is specifically intended to attract freeway traffic,
would benefit from a freeway oriented center identification sign.
Attachment D contains recommended language that would allow
limited freeway signage to be installed within the downtown area.
A second, minor change is recommended relative to the use of
banner or pendant signs . The proposed sign guidelines encourage
the use of "banner" signs, however, the current Zoning Ordinance
prohibits typical "banner ' signs . To avoid confusion with those
prohibited signs, it is suggested that the word "banner" be
replaced with "pendant" in the appropriate section of the sign
guidelines as shown in Attachment D.
CONCLUSIONS:
The reduction in parking requirements recommended above and in
the attachments to this report should help to stimulate new
development and creative reuse of existing structures in the
• downtown area. The recommended parking standards recognize the
significant number of on-street parking spaces currently existing
and potential, as well as the shared nature of parking in a
downtown environment . These standards should help make the
downtown more competitive with the retail centers located along
the E1 Camino Real strip.
The sign package proposed for the downtown area should provide
adequate flexibility and creativity for downtown merchants to
attract attention to their business . Downtown merchants will not
be at a disadvantage in terms of sign size, and will have sign
types (ie . , pendants) not allowed in other zoning districts .
The parking and sign standards discussed above, coupled with the
other programs contained in the Downtown Master Plan, should
provide the incentives to downtown development currently lacking
in the City' s plan and ordinances .
Attachments :
A. Negative Declaration
B. Parking Requirements Comparison
C. Revised "Table l" - Downtown Parking Requirements
D. Revised "Sign Guidelines" (Appendix B)
E. October 16, 1990 Staff Report
F. Draft Resolution
G. Draft Ordinance •
•
ATTACHMENT A
CITY OF ATASCADERO
•
ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATOR�• � NEGATIVE G TIVE DECLARATION
COMMUNM DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 6500 PALMA AVE. ATASCADERO, CA' 93422 (805) 461-5035
APPLICANT: City of Atascadero
6500 Palma Ave
Atascadero, CA 93422
PROJECT TITLE: Downtown Master Plan
PROJECT LOCATION: "Downtown" area of Atascadero
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Adoption of a Downtown Master Plan to guide
the physical and economic development and redevelopment
of downtown Atascadero. The project includes the adoption
of Zoning Ordinance amendments to implement the Plan.
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.
DETERNIINATION:
Based on the above findings. and the information contained in the initial study (made a part hereof by refer-
ence and on file in the Community Development Department), it has been determined that the above project
will not have an adverse impact on the environment.
Henry Engen
Community Development Director
Date Posted: September 25, 1990
Date Adopted:
CDD 11.99
ATTACHMENT B
PARKING REQUIREMENTS COMPARISON
LII ATASCADERO SAN LOIS OBISPO ARROYO GRANDE MORRO BAY GROVER CITY PASO ROBLES RECOWZNDATION
1 1/300 (retail)+ 1/300 sq ft 1/250 sq ft 1/200 sq ft 1/330 sq ft 1/250 sq ft 1/300 eq ft
1/600 (storage)
2 1/200 sq ft 1/200 sq ft * 1/200 sq ft 1/330 sq ft 1/250 sq ft 1/200 aq ft
1/checkstand
3 1/table + 1/60 sq ft + 1/100 sq ft 1/4 seats or 1/3 seats 1/150 sq ft 1/100 sq ft
6/table + 1/100' kitchen 1/60 sq ft
1/100' kitchen
4 1/25' @ kitchen * * * 1/3 seats 1/100 sq ft 1/25 sq ft I kitchen
5 3/chair 1/200 sq ft 1/250 sq ft 1/200 sq ft 1/330 sq ft 1/125 sq ft 2/chair
6 1/500 sq ft 1/500 sq ft 1/250 sq ft 1/200 sq ft 1/330 sq ft 1/200 sq ft 1/500 sq ft
7 1/500 sq ft 1/300 sq ft 1/250 sq ft 1/200 sq ft 1/330 sq ft 1/250 sq ft 1/500 sq ft
8 1/400 sq ft 1/300 sq ft 1/250 sq ft 1/200 sq ft 1/330 sq ft 1/250 sq ft 1/400 sq ft
9 1/200 sq ft or 1/200 sq ft 1/250 sq ft 1/300 sq ft 1/330 sq ft 1/200 sq ft 1/200 sq ft
2/office +
2/exam room
10 1/400 sq ft 1/300 sq ft 1/250 sq ft 1/300 sq ft 1/330 sq ft 1/250 sq ft 1/300aq ft
11 1/500 sq ft 1/300 sq ft 1/250 sq ft 1/300 sq ft 1/330 sq ft 1/250 sq ft 1/400 aq ft•
12 5/teller + 1/300 sq ft 1/250 sq ft 1/300 sq ft 1/330 sq ft 1/250 sq ft 1/300 sq ft
3/desk
* No Standard
Land Uses
1. General Merchandise Stores
2. Grocery Stores
3. Restaurants
4. Fast Food/Delies
5. Personal Services
6. Dry Cleaning .
7. Shoe/Garment Repair
8. Copy Shops
9. Medical Offices
10. Professional Offices
11. Other Offices
12. Banks/Savings & Loans
Er Xit
PAGE FOUR MINUTES EXCERPT - PLANNING COMMISSION - 10/ 16/90
• The (notion carrie
d with the fo lg roll call :
AYES : CO111 ners Highland, Hanauer, Johnson,
ocllridge, Kudlac and Chairperson Luna
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Commissioner Waage
2 . GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 1E-90/ZONE CHANGE 4-90 :
CoilsiCleration and adoption Of the General Plan "Downtown
Element" and zoning Ordinance amendments to implement the
plan.
C011ltilissioner Johnson stepped down from the Commission due to
a possible conflict of interest .
In presenting the staff report, Mr. DeCamp stated this is a
unique opportunity to adopt a new Element to the General Plan.
Because Of the positive nature of this Element and the
Positive changes that can be made, the downtown area could
become a more attractive and more desireable place to shop,
etc . Mr. DeCamp then summarized the Downtown Master Plan
• which focuses On seven land use policies to guide the
developmelit and revitalization of the downtown area. He also
discussed the proposed Zoning OrdinaIlce amendments to
implement the Downtown Master Plan.
Commission questions and discussion followed.
Chairperson Luna complimented Mr. DeCamp and staff for all
excellent report .
In response to question from Commissioner Hanauer, Mr. DeCamp
referenced the larger parcels ill the downtown area which are
ill single ownership.
Commissioner Waage questioned whether the bowling alley should
be made all allowable use rather than a conditional Use. Mr.
DeCamp responded 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
Calulllission review rattier than administratively reviewed.
Commissioner Highland stated that the one constraint to the
dowlltowr►' s r9V] tdllZdt Utl is the current parking restrictions .
He added that this area should be considered for some type of
parking exemption with all ill-lieu Ordinance that would require
participation in the parking district as parking call be
® developed. Discussion ensued relative to requirements for
Offsite parking for retail uses .
Mr. DeCamp commented changing parking requirements would be
PAGE FIVE MINUTES EXCERPT - PLANNING COMMISSION - 10/16/90
aood opportunity o
9 pp y t encourage development of building
storefronts along the major streets and have the parking
located further in.
The Commission also discussed various alternatives to the
parking issue such as an offsite parking location with shuttle
service to the downtown; a parking structure; a walk area with
offsite parking, etc. Mr. DeCamp explained that the premise
of the downtown parking plan is that the parking will be
provided in areas that are slightly removed from the downtown
core and in existing and potential on-street parking spaces .
- Public Testimony -
David Smith, 5811 Traffic Way, stated that the plan ignores
the current uses of the whole downtown area adding the concept
appears similar to downtown San Luis Obispo. He added that
he has had his business in the downtown area for 17 years and
has not encountered a lot of trouble with parking. Mr. Smith
commented that the plan is not well thought out and questioned
whether it is needed. He said there seems to be a lack of
successful retail in this area but there is successful
professional (offices ) and is going in that direction so why
not encourage it.
Eric Greening, 7365 Valle, concurred with Commissioner •
Hanauer' s statements Concerning transit options and suggested
the possibility of having some type of shuttle which would run
the lei-19th of E1 Camino Real as far south as the Post Office
and as far north as Kmart. He voiced his opinion that the
street name for Traffic Way should be changed, and stated that
the areas by the creek need to be treated with a lot of
sensitivity.
John Webster, 5950 Traffic Way, stated he owns the old Bank
of America building and pointed out that downtown Atascadero
is distinguished from the rest of Atascadero by its old
buildings . He spoke on efforts and expenses associated with
upgrading his building, and discussed the difficulty of
operating a business due to the expense involved. Mr. Webster
remarked that the business owners are slowly making the
downtown area prettier, but it is hard and expensive, and he
voiced concern that with every restriction, increased fee,
etc . , these are what will destroy what the downtown is .
Bob Prophet, 5355 Palma, complimented Mr. Decamp and staff on
a super job in assembling information. He cautioned the
Commission to be critical of those that are not expansion
minded and to be cautious about listening to things that would
derail the enormous amount of work that has gone into the
plan.
PAGE SIX MINUTES EXCERPT - PLANNING COMMISSION - 10/ 16/90
• John Himes 8210 Carmelita President idem of the BIA, expressed
his appreciation to Mr. DeCamp and staff for their efforts
adding it is difficult. He stressed the 'importance bf
planning for the future ( 15-20 years ) as this implementation
is not going to happen overnight but needs to be done in an
orderly fashion. A downtown area is normally a shopping area
and not a service district. He stressed the importance of
developing pride in this area adding that the City needs to
be the catalyst in bringing these changes about. He
summarized points contained in correspondence dated October
4 , 1990 (Attachment A) .
Mr. Himes questioned the number of businesses that would be
nonconforming and expressed concern that these businesses not
be arbitrarily put out of businesses or make it impossible for
the business to be sold. Mr. Himes talked about the downtown
having a particular theme and concluded by stating that it
will take a major commitment on everyone' s part to iiiipieii►elit
these changes .
Whitey Thorpe, area resident, stated he is Concerned about
Atasdcadero although lie doesn' t have a downtown business . He
expressed concern that existing businesses be protected ( i . e.
nonconforming uses) , commented that lie is in'favor with the
• plan' s concept.
Bob Huot, 3850 Ardilla Road, remarked that lie has lived in
Atascadero 27 years and has seen a lot of changes occur. He
expressed his interest in keeping the downtown area alive
adding he would like to see something constructive happen to
the Carlton Hotel property.
Barbara Vera, 5102 Fresno, said she liked proposed zone 43
(Restaurant and Enter:tainitient) as Atascadero needs more in the
way of night time elltertaijillielit . She emuliasized that the
creek needs to be preserved and spoke in favor of more walking
trails in the City to get people out of their cars . Zile
referenced a June, 1990 National Geographic article wherein
various cities throughout the states have developed urban
trails which has reduced pollution and traffic .
John Himes, referenced a proposed development for the Carlton
Hotel property wherein the applicants have asked for relief
in parking for 48 proposed residential studio units .
Bob Prophet remarked that lie is involved with the Carlton
Hotel develoument alio can address any concerns with this
proposal . He summarized the project proposal and noted that
17 , 882 square feet of retail space on the first floor is also
. proposed.
Susan Harkness, 5405 Bajada, asked if there would be further
public input in the form of a citizens advisory group and
expressed interest in working toward that end.
PAGE SEVEN MINUTES EXCERPT - PLANNING COMMISSION - 10/16/90
Mr. Decamp explained that there- was an 11 member steering
committee that worked with the consultant - and staff ' An
preparation of the downtown plan. He added that the plan
recommends an ongoing advisory committee to work with staff,
BTA, Chamber of Commerce, etc. to work in implementing the
plan. Mr. Decamp suggested that Ms . Harkness make her
interest known to the City Council .
Kirk Pearson, 5405 Olmeda, commented that there are a number
of people who do not shop downtown because of their perception
of the inconvenience (parking, etc . ) . He stressed that when
planning for future parking requirements, it is imperative
that there be adequate parking. He spoke about offering
incentives and alternatives for easier ways to accommodate
parking and signage which would make it easier for a small
business owner. Mr. Pearson further commented that employee .
parking lots is a valid concept and should be pursued.
- END OF PUBLIC TESTIMONY -
Chairperson Luna declared a recess at 9 : 33 p.m. ; meeting
reconvened at 9 :43 p.m.
Commission questions and discussion followed.
Mr. Decamp explained that effort was made to minimize the
number of nonconforming uses that are created. These uses are
primarily automotive sale and repair. He discussed how
nonconforming uses are handled.
In response to question by Chairperson Luna, Mr. Decamp
indicated his understanding is that the Carlton Hotel project
will be asking for a total parking exemption.
Commissioner Waage referenced the URM program (Unreinforced
Masonry) which identified 40 buildings, most of which are
downtown, as not being seismically reinforced, and asked what
effect this would have on the downtown development.
Mr. Decamp replied that the seismic safety of these buildings
is a concern but it is unclear at this time as to what it will
specifically take to reinforce the buildings . He rioted that
the downtown area is unique in that there are many buildings
from early Atascadero development which are architecturally
and historically significant which the city would not like to
lose. He discussed possible funding mechanisms which have not
yet been explored in detail which might help business owners
repair the unreinforced buildings .
PAGE EIGHT MINUTES EXCERPT - PLANNING COMMISSION - 10/16/90
Commissioner Lochridge stated that if incentives are not given
and there isn' t a plan, nothing will get done. He remarked
that he visualizes the plan as a direction in which this area
can go adding that personal services could work together
cohesively with retail services .
Chairperson Luna stated that it appears the two issues the
Commission needs to focus on involve parking and signage.
Discussion ensued.
- Parking Issue -
Commissioner Highland referenced Table 1 of the Downtown
Master Plan commenting that the parking requirements are tom
restrictive. He noted lie could favor one half of what. the
Zoning Ordinance requires with an in lieu ordinance that would
essentially accept what parking now exists, along with a
commitment to a downtown parking district.
Commissioner Lochridge stated that existing parking needs to
be identified and to assure tliat the uses don' t conflict
( i . e. , night uses vs . day uses, retail hours being different
from service oriented hours .
Commissioner Waage asked if a 50 reduction in parking would
be appropriate. Mr. DeCamp commented that the consulta2it ' s
parking requirements are more stringent than what staff had
originally anticipated. He suggested simplifying the parking
requirements in general City-wide, as well as making some
reductions to the downtown drt+ei.
He pointed out that the
reductions would have to be Contingent upon the Creation of
a parking district as well as participation by the merchants
in the district in order to make it work.
Discussion continued Concerning recommendations which would
be less strict than what is recommended in Table 1 of the
Plan. Mr . DeCamp stated that there are approximately 776
parking spaces needed with 610 being available in7 the
downtown . Chairperson Luna stated the need for more firm
numbers so that a distinction can be made between 203, and 50
parking reduction.
- Signage Issue -
Chairperson Luna stated lie feel; comfortable with the signage
as recommended in the plan. Commissioner Hanauer noted his
concurrence .
Commissioner Highland expressed concern that with the proposed
tourist commercial zone theommend
IeC dtioil•
prohibits freeway
signs which he felt is somewhat contradictorY.
1
PAGE NINE MINUTES EXCERPT - PLANNING COMMISSION - 10/16/90
Mr. Decamp explained the intent was torovide a s
tourist overlay area that would be freeway oriented;n hweverfor ,
the intent was not to allow every business that backs up- to
the freeway to install a freeway oriented sign. He added
there is an existing sign pole (behind Ed' s Garage) which has
been looked at for years for a community identification sign.
Discussion continued.
Chairperson Luna asked about the feasibility of having a
"Downtown Atascadero" freeway sign. Mr. Decamp responded
CalTrans is not opposed but the sign would be at local
expense.
At this time, Chairperson Luna directed staff to come back at
the November 6, 1990 meeting to consider suggested amendments
and refinements to the Downtown Master Plan and implementing
Zone Change.
Commissioner Johnson resumed his seat back on the Commission.
A. 1 CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM -
Approval of compre ens ve revisions to thety' s "Tree
ordinance" an "Tree Standards and Guideline ' (continue
from September 27 , 1990 special meeting) •
Commmissioner Highland presented a chat a in both the
ordinance and standards and guidelines -st ing he would like
to have Commission action on the ordinal a this evening.
With regard to Section 9-11 . 06(b) (5 ) - delete paragraph ( 5)
(exemptions for tree removal) and su stitute for ( 5 ) : "Single
family residential lots on which dwelling unit exists, it
is strongly suggested that the pr perty owner consult with the
City Arborist prior to removin a tree" .
Addition of ( 6) : "Single f ily residential lots on which no
dwelling unit exists and rich are not eligible to be split
only if a consultation i held with the City Arborist before
any application for s ' a development is applied for. The
express purpose for s h consultation shall be to preserve the
maximum number of n ive trees on said site. ,,
Comimissioner Hi - iland explained that what the ordinance
proposes (maxim m of 3 trees per year) is not enforceable and
/continue
is t back in the position of being "tree cops" .
e by saving that this lanaguage sends a message to
ty that they are trusted.
er Waage stated that he was not in favor of the
limited to 3 trees or less per year as he, too, feltnforceable. He added he would rather have people
h the City Arborist.
- C-Z
PAGE SIX -
MINUTES EXCERPT - PLANNING COMMISSION - 11/6/90
• adds the 14 day appeal period. Discussion Contin
Commissioner Highland referenced Section 9-1 '.' 7 (Enforce"" nt
- Penalties) ( last sentence) stating this entence should be
taken out. Commissioner Kudlac stress this section should
be kept as is . Chairperson Luna co urred with Commissioner
Kudlac to send it as presently wr en to send to the Council .
MOTION: By Commissioner nson to accept the ordinance and
standards and uidelines as written and as amended
to the Cit ouncil with a provision that prior to
City Co cil adoption, that Section 9-11 . 17 (a) be
asce - ained whether or not it is enforceable.
C issioner Highland seconded the motion and was
carried 6 : 0 .
Ch- 'person Luna declared a recess at 9 :00 p.m. ; meeting
econvened at 9 : 10 p.m.
2 . GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 1T-90/ZONE CHANGE 4-90 :
Continued public hearing to consider the adoption of the
Downtown Master Plan as an element to the City' s General
Plan. Also to be considered are Zoning Ordinance Map and
Text amendments to implement the provisions of the Plan.
Affected area is located generally between the freeway
on the west, Lewis Avenue on the east, Rosario Avenue on
the north and proposed alignment of Highway 41 on the
south (continued from 10/16/90 meeting) .
Commissioner Johnson stepped down from the Commission due to
a possible conflict of interest.
Mr. Decamp presented the staff report which summarized parking
and signage issues which had been discussed at the prior
Bearing.
The Commission discussed parking requirements and determined
that a reduction of up to 50 would be appropriate and would
recommend to the City_ council that a parking district be
initiated.
Commission discussion followed concerning the difference
between a "pendant" sign and a "banner" sign. Discussion also
involved the Classic cars museum on E1 Camino Real as to what
type of sign this business would be allowed.
commissioner Highland stated that if the downtown is to be
developed with an image and an identity that is unique to the
community, there needs to be the possibility of a freeway-
oriented sign to identify the downtown area as a unique area.
• Mr. Decamp noted that the City does not own property in the
downtown that would be amenable to mounting a sign.
PAGE SEVEN
MINUTES EXCERPT - PLANNING COMMISSION - 11/6/90
i
Commissioner Highland stressed that the property owners , BIA,
Chamber of Commerce, etc. , need to establish some sort of a
theme for the downtown area along with establishing a general
signing concept that relates to that theme. He stated it is
important for the Commission to relay this to the Council that
this is a critical part of what is going to make the
redevelopment successful.
- Public Testimony -
Bob Huot indicated his agreement with Commissioner Highland' s
comments adding that the downtown area needs to have an
identity established, a sense of heritage. The local business
people need to be given support in accomplishing these goals .
John Himes, president of the BIA, asked if there are any
changes proposed for the size of signs for downtown. He
stated that any business that is freeway oriented should be
able to attract people from the freeway. Mr. Himes concurred
that a theme needs to be developed.
Dave Freeman, 8325 Atascadero Avenue, asked for clarification
as to what is defined as a pendant sign.
Mr. Decamp explained that a pendant sign is defined as
commercial identification, not city or event identification
adding it is a sign style and type and is meant strictly as
commercial advertising for the business owner. The pendant
sign is intended for permament store identification.
Discussion continued.
Commissioner Hanauer commented that unless the downtown area
really looks different, inviting, etc. , downtown won' t amount
to anything. Mr. Decamp responded that these items will be
critical to the downtown' s development. He stressed that
provisions are contained in the Downtown Master Plan and
Architectural Guidelines which is why staff is strongly
recommending adoption of the Downtown Plan as an Element to
the General Plan.
MOTION: By Commissioner Highland, seconded by Commissioner
Kudlac and carried 5 : 0 to recommend to the City
Council :
1 . To find the Negative Declaration prepared for
the project to be adequate.
2 . Adoption of the Downtown Master Plan, as
amended, as an element of the City' s General
Plan.
3 . Adoption of the proposed Zoning Ordinance
amendments to implement the Downtown Master
Plan
PAGE EIGHT
MINUTES EXCERPT - PLANNING COMMISSION - 11/6/90
•
4 . To initiate the creation of a Downtown Parking
district as shown on Diagram 6-of the Downtown
Master Plan.
Commissioner Johnson took his seat back on the Commission.
3 . TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 10-90 :
Application filed by Catalina Oaks II (Vaughan SXacres
for subdivision of two existing lots containin
acres into two lots containing approximately 7 .0each and two lots containing 7 . 16 acres each.
site is located at 10480, 10660 Santa Ana Road.
Karl Schoettler presented the staff report not ' ig staff' s
recommendation for approval subject to certain c nditions.
Steve Decamp reported that on October 41, 90, the City
Council entered into an agreement with rdon T. Davis
regarding the acceptance of various road into the City-
maintained road system that have been co strutted over the
years . He explained that among the conditions for the
acceptance of those roads was that the , ads be brought up to
• a standard that had been established a the time the road was
constructed. There is a provision in the agreement that
limits any future imposition of new - ad improvement standards
on lots that abut the Davis roads id will be accepted by the
City. Mr. Decamp further stated iat since Santa Ana Road is
one of those roads, Conditions , 5 , 60, 7 , and 8 need to be
deleted. This list of Condit ' ns was in the pipeline at the
time the agreement was adopte and has been superceded by the
agreement' s adoption.
Commission questions and iscussion followed.
Commissioner Johnson esker -how the general neighborhood
character was determ ed noting that if two lots are split
into four lots, nar ow lots will result. He questioned the
advisability of c eating such narrow lots, and expressed
concern that if a tension of Cebada results past the rear of
this property, t ere could be a further subdivision of these
lots .
Mr. DeCamp a lained that the open space easement is required
to assure e prevention of further subdivision.
In respo se to inquiry concerning septic system suitability,
Mr. De mp responded that the pert tests and septic system
desig provide an assurance that these systems will be
• adeq ate. Discussion continued.
Cc missioner Johnson voiced concern that if adequate fire
-otection and emergency services cannot be provided due to
1
n11�
RESOLUTION NO. 127-90
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ATASCADERO APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE
LAND USE MAP OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT AND
ADDING THE DOWNTOWN ELEMENT
TO THE CITY' S GENERAL PLAN
(GP 1E-90; City of Atascadero)
WHEREAS, the City of Atascadero has grown considerably since
incorporation; and
WHEREAS, the City' s General Plan, which was prepared in the
1970' s and adopted in 1980 to guide the City' s general growth is
in need of updating; and
WHEREAS; the Planning Commission of the City of Atascadero
conducted a public hearing on the subject amendments on October
16, 1990 and November 6, 1990; and
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65356 provides that a •
General Plan be amended by the adoption of a resolution; and
WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Atascadero finds as
follows :
1 . The proposed General Plan amendments recommended by the
Planning Commission are consistent with the goals and
policies of the General Plan.
2 . The proposed General Plan amendments will not have a
significant adverse affect on the environment . The
Negative Declaration prepared for the project is
adequate.
THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Atascadero does
resolve to approve General Plan Amendment GP 1E-90 as follows :
1 . Deletion of the "Central Business District Commercial"
(pg 61) and "Central Business District Policy
Proposals" (pg 62) sections of the General Plan.
2 . Amendment to the General Plan text by adoption of a
Downtown Element as shown in the attached Exhibit A.
3 . Amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element, Land
Use Map as shown on the attached Exhibit B.
Resolution #127-90
On motion by and seconded,
by the foregoing resolution is
hereby adopted in its entirety by the following roll call vote:
AYES :
NOES :
ABSENT:
DATE ADOPTED:
CITY OF ATASCADERO, CA
ROBERT B. LILLEY, Mayor
ATTEST:
• LEE DAYKA, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
RAY WINDSOR, City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ART MONTANDON, City Attorney
PREPARED BY:
HENRY ENGEN, Community Development Director
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A consists of the "Atascadero Downtown Master Plan"
as prepared by Wurster, Bernardi and Emmons, Inc. ,
dated March 1990
as amended by Attachments A-1 and A-2
ATTACHMENT A-1
TABLE 1
DOWNTOWN PARKING REQUIREMENTS
Current Parking Downtown Parking District
Use Requirement Requirement(a) Requirement(4
1/600
General Merchandising 1/300 sq.ft. retail area+ 1/300 sq.ft. W49 sq.ft.
1/600 sq.ft. storage
1/400
Grocery 1/200 sq.ft.+ 1/200 sq.ft. iQ@(�sq.ft.
1 per checkstand
1/100 1/200
Dinnerhouse 1 per table+ -}g5•sq.ft. 4#)Q-sq.ft.
Restaurant 1 per 6 tables+
1 per 100 sq.ft. kitchen
1/50 sq. ft kitchen
Fast Foo(Re* 1 per 25 sq.ft. kitchen per current code de
-
Personal Services 1
Hair/Nail Salons 3 per chair 2 per chair 4per chair
Service Commercial 1/500 1/1000
Dry Cleaners 1/500 sq.ft. 1MOG sq.ft. -1{490 sq.ft.
Shoe/Garment Repair 11500 sq.ft. 1/500 sq ft 1/1000 sq ft
• Copy Shop 1/400 sq.ft. 1/400 sq ft 1/800 sq ft
1/200 sq ft 1/400 sq ft
Medical Offices 1/200 sq.ft. or -ice;§@ q.ft. sq. ft.
2 per office and
2 per exam room
Professional 1/300 1/600
Offices 1/400 sq.ft. iR86 sq.ft. —liQ5 sq.ft.
1/400 1/800
Other Offices 1/500 sq.ft. H85 sq.ft. -1�495•sq.ft.
1/300 1/600
Bank/Savings& Loam 5 per teller window -}{225 sq.ft. 1{250 sq.ft.
3 per service desk
per current code 1/2 current code
Other Uses per current Code -�} }
40 (a) Reduced downtown requirement is applicable only for the area west of Atascadero Creek
ATTACHMENT
Recommended modifications to the Atascadero Downtown Master Plan,
Appendix B, Downtown Design Guidelines (Sian Guidelines) :
Benner"a Pendants
Banner.& Pendants may be used as an alternative type of projecting
sign, and may be used in multiples . Only fabric bier Pendants
may be used. The image may be painted, silk screened or
appliqued on to the fabric . Each insignia area must be
calculated into the total allowable sign area. All banners
Pendants must be well maintained and of professional quality_
Freeway Identification Signs
tie additienal freeway oriented stigns Will be appreved. Building
mounted freeway oriented signs may be allowed by conditional use
permit only for tourist oriented uses (eq. , restaurants) which
abut the freeway. In addition, a pole mounted freeway
identification sign may be allowed by conditional use permit for •
a tourist oriented commercial development located within the
"Tourist Commercial Overlay Zone. "
NOTES :
Language to be deleted shown strt2ek out .
Language to be added shown bold.
MD
��
�o
Ink
AW
.1s" w
" �' ,.iew Grp• .a
fit
0.00
Will
NPI
• • � � awa�9"4� :d � 1
2 �
_-�'
r-x Hlri�l
ORDINANCE NO. 215 •
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ATASCADERO AMENDING MAPS 6, 16, & 17 OF THE OFFICIAL ZONING
MAPS BY REZONING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY IN THE DOWNTOWN
AND AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT TO
IMPLEMENT THE DOWNTOWN ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN
(ZC 04-90; City of Atascadero)
WHEREAS, the proposed zoning map and text amendments are
consistent with the General Plan as required by Section 65860 of
the California Government Code; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments are in conformance with
Section 65800 et seq. of the California Government Code
concerning zoning regulations; and
WHEREAS, the Atascadero Planning Commission held a public
hearing on October 16, 1990 and November 6, 1990 and has
recommended approval of Zone Change 04-90 .
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments will not have a significant
adverse impact upon the environment . The Negative Declaration
prepared for the project is adequate; and
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Atascadero does •
ordain as follows:
Section 1 . Council Findings .
1 . The proposals are compatible with the surrounding land
uses and zoning.
2 . The proposals are consistent with the General Plan
Land Use element and other elements contained in the
General Plan, and specifically, policies pertaining to
downtown development and revitalization as expressed in
the General Plan Downtown element .
3 . The proposals will not result in any significant
adverse environmental impacts . The Negative
Declaration prepared for the project is adequate.
Section 2 . Zoning Map.
Maps number 6, 16, & 17 of the Official Zoning Maps of the
City of Atascadero on file in the City Community Development
Department are hereby amended as shown on the attached Exhibits A
through F .
Section 3 . Zoning Text ,
The Zoning Ordinance text is hereby amended by the addition
Ordinance #215
•
of the language shown on the attached Exhibits G through L, and
the deletion of Sections 9-3 .261 through 9-3 .265 (CR-D Commercial
Retail Downtown) .
Section 4 . Publication.
The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published
once within fifteen (15) days after its passage in the Atascadero
News, a newspaper of general circulation, printed, published, and
circulated in the City in accordance with Section 36933 of the
Government Code; shall certify the adopting and posting of this
ordinance and shall cause this ordinance and this certification
together with proof of posting to be entered into the Book of
Ordinances of the City.
Section 5 . Effective Date .
This ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and
effect at 12 : 01 a.m. on the 31st day after its passage.
On motion by and seconded by
the foregoing Ordinance is approved
by the following role call vote:
AYES :
NOES :
ABSENT :
DATE ADOPTED :
By:
ROBERT B. LILLEY, Mayor
City of Atascadero, California
ATTEST:
LEE DAYKA, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
RAY WINDSOR, City Manager
•
COMMUNITYCITY OF ATASCADERO EXHIBIT A
•PMENT DOWNTOWN ZONE
DEPARTMENT
PEDESTRIANCOMMERCIAL ZOJ
ZC 04-90
Lm
( FH
1l�
` 1
I
1 R
� 1EXHIBIT 13
t._:. CITY OF ATASCADERO
DOWNTOWN ZONE 2
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
7 DEPARTMENT DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL
ZC04-90
( FH
�, • a� Utit
• S tr111t _
� ����\�� ltll tiit11111�n� � •
-%ft CITY OF ATASCADERO EXHIBIT C
DOWNTOWN ZONE 3
1 ;tpj , 170 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT•
DEPARTMENT RESTAURANT & ENTERTAINME.
ZC 04-90
f
a
� I
r/
d
V
vY A !� tI
1 < FH
G
•
0 •
41G,:,: 1 � • 1
` � r
• ,�
ITS
Poll
1111[ _ j '°i'••
pill,/
gpn
All 1 10 00
mom 01
.00
j
tl X111
--
�i _�
CITY OF ATASCADERO
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DOWNTOWN OVERLAY ZONE
DEPARTMENT PEDESTRIAN RETAIL41C 04-90
LOW
FH
pas
�a i1111111
/ 111111111
Ij N
/ \ ` CITY . • •
/, COMMTJNITY ' �• • • ZONE*
Itself��'. �p�•• TOURIST COMMERCIAL
aDEPARTMENT
ZC
z�s�
.0.4-90
S , 1111111 11�Illt � `
( FH
■
EXHIEIT G
ZC 04-90
DOWNTOWN ZONE 1
PC (Pedestrian Commercial) Zone
9-3 .261 . Purpose: This zone is established to encourage
pedestrian oriented retail, office, restaurant, and personal
service activities .
9-3 .262 . Allowable Uses : The following uses shall be allowed
in the Pedestrian Commercial Zone. The establishment of allowed
uses shall be as provided by Section 9-2 . 107 (Plot Plans) and
Section 9-2 . 108 (Precise Plans) :
(a) Food and beverage retail sales
(b) Furniture, home furnishings and equipment
(c) General merchandise stores
(d) Temporary or seasonal sales
(e) Health care services
(f) Offices
(g) Personal services
• (h) Utility offices
(i) Eating and drinking places (exclusive of drive
through facilities)
(j) Temporary events
(k) Business services
(1) Residences (second floor only)
(m) Hardware
9-3 .263 . Conditional Uses : The following uses may be allowed
in the Pedestrian Commercial Zone. The establishment of
conditional uses shall be as provided by Section 9-2 . 109
(Conditional Use Permits) :
(a) Amusement services
(b) Public assembly and entertainment
(c) Libraries and museums
(d) Retirement hotel (second floor use only)
t (e) Schools - Business and vocational (second floor use only)
9-3 .264 . Lot Sizes : There shall be no minimum lot size in the
Pedestrian Commercial Zone.
9-3 .265 . Setbacks : Setbacks shall be as follows :
1 . Front Setback:
a. E1 Camino Real : No setback allowed
b. Traffic Way: No setback allowed
c . Palma Avenue: No setback allowed
d. Lewis Avenue: 20'
e. West Mall : 20'
f. Entrada Ave: Variable (to be established
during design review)
2 . Rear Setback: None required
3 . Side Setback: None required
9-3 .266 . Parking Requirements :
1 . The parking requirements for uses located in this zone
shall be as required in Table 1 of the Downtown Master Plan.
2 . For existing buildings, only the parking needed for
additions thereto, or for changes in occupancy which
increase parking relative to the prior use, shall be
required.
3 . The parking space requirements may be met by:
a. Providing the required spaces on the site occupied
by the use;
b. Providing the required spaces off-site, but within
five hundred feet of the proposed use, in a lot owned
or leased by the developer of the proposed use;
c. Participating in a commonly held and maintained
off-site parking lot where other businesses maintain
their required spaces;
d. Participating in a parking district which provides
parking spaces through a fee, assessment, or in-lieu
fee program as may be established by the City Council;
e . Any combination of subsections a. through d. above.
EXKIBIT H
ZC 04-90
DOWNTOWN ZONE 2
DC (Downtown Commercial) Zone
9-3 .271 . Purpose : This zone is established to encourage a wide
variety of retail, office, restaurant, personal service, and
other commercial activities .
9-3 .272 . Allowable Uses : The following uses shall be allowed
in the Downtown Commercial Zone. The establishment of allowed
uses shall be as provided by Section 9-2 . 107 (Plot Plans) and
Section 9-2 . 108 (Precise Plans) :
(a) Food and beverage retail sales
(b) Furniture, home furnishings and equipment
(c) General merchandise stores
(d) Temporary or seasonal sales
(e) Health care services
(f) Libraries and museums
(g) Offices
(h) Personal services
(i) Utility offices
(j) Eating and drinking places (exclusive of drive
through facilities)
(k) Temporary events
(1) Broadcasting studios
(m) Building materials and hardware (where all areas of use
are within a building)
(n) Financial services (exclusive of drive through
facilities)
(o) Residences (second floor use only)
(p) Schools - Business and vocational (second floor use
only)
9-3 .273 . Conditional Uses : The following uses may be allowed
• in the Downtown Commercial Zone. The establishment of
conditional uses shall be as provided by Section 9-2 . 109
(Conditional Use Permits) :
(a) Amusement services
(b) Public assembly and entertainment
(c) Hotels and motels
(d) Schools - Business and vocational (first floor use)
(e) Transit terminal (where no storage or repair of
vehicles occurs)
9-3 .274 . Lot Sizes : There shall be no minimum lot size in the
Downtown Commercial Zone .
9-3 .275 . Setbacks : Setbacks shall be as follows :
1 . Front Setback:
a. E1 Camino Real north of West Mall : No setback
allowed
b. El Camino Real south of West Mall : Variable (to be
established
during design
review)
C . Traffic Way: No setback allowed
2 . Rear Setback: None required
3 . Side Setback: None required
4 . Creek Setback: Variable (to be established during
design review)
9-3 . 276 . Parking Requirements :
1 . The parking requirements for uses located in this zone
shall be as required in Table 1 of the Downtown Master Plan.
2 . For existing buildings, only the parking needed for
additions thereto, or for changes in occupancy which
increase parking relative to the prior use, shall be
required.
3 . The parking space requirements may be met by:
a. Providing the required spaces on the site occupied
by the use;
b. Providing the required spaces off-site, but within
five hundred feet of the proposed use, in a lot owned
• or leased by the developer of the proposed use;
c. Participating in a commonly held and maintained
off-site parking lot where other businesses maintain
their required spaces;
d. Any combination of subsections a. through c . above .
•
EXHIBIT I
ZC 04-90
DOWNTOWN ZONE 3
RE (Restaurant & Entertainment) Zone
9-3 .281 . Purpose : This zone is established to encourage
restaurant and entertainment uses and activities in proximity to
Atascadero Creek.
9-3 .282 . Allowable Uses : The following uses shall be allowed
in the Restaurant and Entertainment Zone. The establishment of
allowed uses shall be as provided by Section 9-2 . 107 (Plot Plans)
and Section 9-2 . 108. (Precise Plans) :
(a) Eating and drinking places (exclusive of drive
through facilities)
(b) Temporary events
9-3 .283 . Conditional Uses : The following uses may be allowed
in the Restaurant and Entertainment Zone. The establishment of
conditional uses shall be as provided by Section 9-2 . 109
(Conditional Use Permits) :
(a) Amusement services .
(b) Indoor recreation services
(c) Public assembly and entertainment
(d) Libraries and museums
(e) Specialty Retail
9-3 . 284 . Lot Sizes : There shall be no minimum lot size in the
Restaurant and Entertainment Zone.
9-3 .285 . Setbacks : Setbacks shall be as follows :
1 . Front and/or Street Setbacks :
a. E1 Camino Real : 20'
b. East Mall : 20'
c . Lewis Avenue : 20'
2 . Side Setback: None Required
3 . Rear Setback: None required •
4 . Creek Setback: Variable (to be determined during design
• review)
9-3 .286 . Parking Requirements :
1 . The parking requirements for uses located in this zone
shall be as required in Table 1 of the Downtown Master Plan.
2 . For existing buildings, only the parking needed for
additions thereto, or for changes in occupancy which
increase parking relative to the prior use, shall be
required.
3 . The parking space requirements may be met by:
a. Providing the required spaces on the site occupied
by the use;
b. Providing the required spaces off-site, but within
five hundred feet of the proposed use, in a lot owned
or leased by the developer of the proposed use;
c . Participating in a commonly held and maintained
off-site parking lot where other businesses maintain
their required spaces;
d. Participating in a parking district which provides
parking spaces through a fee, assessment, or in-lieu
fee program as may be established by the City Council;
e . Any combination of subsections a. through d. above.
•
EXHIBIT J
iC 04-90
DOWNTOWN ZONE 4 •
C (Commercial) Zone
9-3 . 291 . Purpose : This zone is established to encourage a wide
variety of retail, office, restaurant, service, and other
commercial activities with special design review relative to
creekside development .
9-3 .292 . Allowable Uses : The following uses shall be allowed
in the Commercial Zone . The establishment of allowed uses shall
be as provided by Section 9-2 . 107 (Plot Plans) and Section 9-
2 . 108 (Precise Plans) :
(a) Food and beverage retail sales
(b) Furniture, home furnishings and equipment
(c) General merchandise stores
(d) Temporary or seasonal sales
(e) Health care services
(f) Libraries and museums
(g) Offices
(h) Personal services
(i) Utility offices
(j) Eating and drinking places (exclusive of drive
through facilities)
(k) Temporary events
(1) Broadcasting studios
(m) Building materials and hardware (where all areas of use
are within a building)
(n) Financial services (exclusive of drive through
facilities)
9-3 .293 . Conditional Uses : The following uses may be allowed
in the Commercial Zone . The establishment of conditional uses
shall be as provided by Section 9-2 . 109 (Conditional Use
Permits) :
(a) Amusement services •
(b) Indoor recreation services
• (c) Public assembly and entertainment
(d) Hotels and motels
(e) Retirement Hotel
(f) Schools - Business and vocational
(g) Transit terminal (where no storage or repair of
vehicles occurs)
9-3 .294 . Lot Sizes : There shall be no minimum lot size in the
Commercial Zone .
9-3 . 295 . Setbacks : Setbacks shall be as follows :
1 . Front Setback:
a. E1 Camino Real : Variable (to be determined during
design review)
b. Other streets : 20'
• 2 . Rear Setback: None required
3 . Side Setback: None Required
4 . Creek Setback : Variable (to be determined during design
review)
9-3 . 296 . Parking Requirements :
1 . The parking requirements for uses located in this zone
shall be as required in Table 1 of the Downtown Master Plan.
2 . For existing buildings, only the parking needed for
additions thereto, or for changes in occupancy which
increase parking relative to the prior use, shall be
required.
3 . The parking space requirements may be met by:
a . Providing the required spaces on the site occupied
by the use;
b. Providing the required spaces off-site, but within
five hundred feet of the proposed use, in a lot owned
or leased by the developer of the proposed use;
C . Participating in a commonly held and maintained
off-site parking lot where other businesses maintain
their required spaces;
d. Any combination of subsections a. through c . above.
�XH�- K
ZC 04-90
• PR (Pedestrian Retail) Overlay Zone
9-3 .501 . Purpose: The Pedestrian Retail Overlay_ Zone
identifies that area within the Downtown General Plan designation
that has the greatest potential for reinforcement as the City, s
primary retail shopping area. For this reasons, ground floor
uses within the PR Overlay Zone will be limited to encourage
supportive retail and pedestrian oriented service uses .
9-3 .502 . Allowable Uses : The following uses shall be allowed
in the Pedestrian Retail Overlay Zone . The establishment of
allowed uses shall be as provided by Section 9-2 . 107 (Plot Plans)
and Section 9-2 . 108 (Precise Plans) :
(a) Furniture, home furnishings and equipment
(b) General merchandise stores
(c) Personal services
(d) Utility offices
(e) Hardware
(f) Eating and drinking places (exclusive of drive
through facilities)
(g) Residences (second floor only)
9-3 . 503 . Conditional Uses : The following uses may be allowed
in the Pedestrian Commercial Zone . The establishment of
conditional uses shall be as provided by Section 9-2 . 109
(Conditional Use Permits) :
(a) Amusement services
(b) Public assembly and entertainment
(c) Libraries and museums
(d) Retirement hotel (second floor use only)
(e) Offices
(f) Temporary events
9-3.504 . Development Standards : Setbacks, minimum lot size,
parking requirements, and sign regulaions shall be the same as
for the Pedestrian Commercial zone .
EYN�I i L
ZC 04-90
TC (Tourist Commercial) Overlay Zone
9-3 .511 . Purpose: The Tourist Commercial Overlay Zone
identifies that area within the Downtown General Plan designation
that has the greatest potential for providing tourist oriented
facilities that also support other downtown business and local
residents .
9-3.512 . Conditional Uses : All uses allowed in the Commercial
Zone shall be established by conditional uses permit as provided
by Section 9-2 . 109 (Conditional Use Permits) :
9-3.513. Development Standards : Setbacks, minimum lot size,
parking requirements, and sign regulations shall be the same as
for the Commercial zone but may be modified through the design
review and conditionl use permit process .
i
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: B-3
Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 12/11/90
File: Condominium
Conversion Ord-
inance
Via: Henry Engen, Community Development Director } ,
SUBJECT:
Consideration of Ordinance to regulate the conversion of existing
residential units to condominiums .
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve attached Ordinance No. 216 on first reading.
BACKGROUND:
On October 30 , 1990, the City Council extended Ordinance No. 210,
which established a moratorium on the conversion of existing rental
apartments to condominiums for six (6) months . When the original
moratorium ordinance was adopted on September 25, 1990, Council
directed staff to prepare a comprehensive ordinance addressing the
issues raised by the conversion of existing rental apartments to
condominiums . The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the
Draft Ordinance on November 20, 1990 and their proposed ordinance
is attached herewith.
ANALYSIS:
As indicated in the attached staff report to the Planning Commis-
sion, the proposed condominium conversion ordinance would subject
any proposed conversion to condominiums to current development
standards , including that of density. Staff has also reviewed with
the City Attorney, the possibility of including a numerical formula
limitation on condominium conversions, but was advised against
pursuing this course. . Nonetheless, by requiring adherence to
current standards, the ordinance would strictly limit the number
of conversions which could occur. In effect, all apartments con-
structed prior to 1987 , when the multi-family standards were
comprehensively amended, would find it difficult, if not impos-
sible, to convert.
It should be noted that the ordinance requires specific findings
before conversions could be approved ( 11-14 .009 ) , including that
there would be no significant displacement of low/moderate house
holds or senior citizens when no equivalent housing is readily
available.
HE :ph
Encls : Planning Commission Staff Report - November 20, 1990
Planning Commission Minutes Excerpts Nov. 20, 1990
CITY OF ATASCADERO Item B-5
• STAFF REPORT
FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: November 20, 1990
B JASteven Decamp, City Planner RE: Condominium Conversion
Ordinance
SUBJECT:
Consideration of an ordinance to regulate the conversion of
residential rental units to condominiums . This ordinance is to
be included within the existing Subdivision Ordinance (Title 11) .
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following
actions :
1 . Find the Negative Declaration prepared for the project
to be adequate.
2 . Recommend that the City Council adopt the Condominium
Conversion Ordinance and make it part of the
Subdivision Ordinance .
3 . Recommend that the urgency ordinance (Ordinance #212)
placing a moratorium on acceptance of condominium
conversion applications be repealed upon the effective
date of the Condominium Conversion Ordinance.
SITUATION AND FACTS:
1 . Applicant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .City of Atascadero
2 . Environmental Status . . . . . . . . .Negative Declaration posted
October 30, 1990
BACKGROUND:
On September 25, 1990, the City Council adopted, and subsequently
extended, an Interim Urgency Ordinance (Ordinance #210) creating
a moratorium on the conversion of existing multiple family rental
units to condominiums . Concurrent with the adoption of the
moratorium, the Council directed staff to prepare a comprehensive
ordinance addressing the issues raised by the conversion of
• existing residential units to condominiums .
ANALYSIS:
The "Residential Policy Proposals" in the Land Use Element of the •
General Plan contain the following language:
"To alleviate the problems arising from the conversion of
existing rental units, the City may regulate condominium
conversions . The City shall revise its zoning ordinance and
subdivision ordinance regarding condominium conversions in
order to :
a. Establish criteria for the conversion of existing
multiple rental housing to condominiums, community
apartments, stock cooperatives, and new or limited
equity stock cooperatives .
b. Reduce the impact of such conversions on residents in
rental housing who may be required to relocate due .to
conversion of apartments to condominiums, community
apartments, stock cooperatives, and new or limited
equity stock cooperatives by providing procedures for
notification and adequate time and assistance for such
relocation.
C . Ensure that the purchasers of converted housing have
been properly informed as to the physical condition of
the structure which is offered for purchase.
d. Ensure that converted housing achieves high quality
appearance and safety and is consistent with the goals
of the City' s General Plan.
e. Encourage opportunities for housing ownership of all
types, for all levels of income and in a variety of
locations .
f. Encourage a continuing supply of rental housing for low
and moderate income persons and families . " (pg 58)
There are also policies in the Housing Element (1985) of the that
address the condominium conversion issue. The first of these
policies state that the City should " (p] romote the development
and construction of new housing units for low and moderate income
persons" and " [p] romote and encourage the development and
construction of new housing units for first time homebuyers"
(Housing Element - pg 19) . While the first of these policy
statements encourages the addition of new rental units, the
second policy clearly allows opportunities for the construction
.and conversion of condominiums . These opportunities are
tempered, however, by further policy direction which states the
City should strive to " [a] chieve a balance in supply and demand
for rental housing more favorable to the tenant" (Housing Element
pg 21) . 0
Analysis by staff has shown that of the 2289 multiple family
• units in the City, 630 or 27 .5 percent have been converted to
condominiums . Analysis also shows that the majority of the
remaining multiple family rental units are either in the Bordeaux
House complex (400 units) or in much smaller duplex and four-unit
complexes . A majority of the mid-size apartments such as the ''
recently approved Mira Vista project (64 units) have already been
converted. Most of the units that have been converted are newer
apartments which have been constructed within the past ten years .
With these conversions, the City has experienced the loss of a
significant number and variety of rental unit types .
Although the condominiums which have been converted do fill a
particular niche in the housing market, it is important that an
adequate inventory of rental units be maintained for the low- and
moderate-income segments of the population. It is also important
to insure that the units which are converted meet minimum
standards to be suitable for permanent or long-term occupancy.
CONCLUSIONS:
The proposed Condominium Conversion Ordinance will allow for the
conversion of existing rental units to condominiums if the
"quality" standards can be satisfied. Further, the Ordinance
will assure a continued supply of rental housing by allowing only
those units meeting current building and zoning regulations to be
converted. The Ordinance should, therefore, assist the City to
achieve its policy to " [e] ncourage a wide range of housing
opportunities . . . (Housing Element - pg 23) .
The draft ordinance has been reviewed by the City' s legal counsel
for conformance with current statutory and case law. The
modifications suggested by counsel have been incorporated into
the final draft attached to this report .
ATTACHMENTS : A - Negative Declaration
B - Draft Ordinance
ATTACHMENT A
CITY OF ATASCADERO
ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATO
NEGATIVE DECL��TI
COWAUNM DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 6500 PALMA AVE. ATASCADERO, CA 93422 (805),461-5035
APPLICANT: City of Atascadero
6500 Palma Ave.
Atascadero, CA 93422
(805) 461-5035
PROJECT TITLE: Condominium Conversion Ordinance
PROJECT LOCATION: City wide
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Adoption of an ordinance to regulate
the conversion of residential apartment units
to condominiums.
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.
DETERNIINATION:
Based on the above findings. and the information contained in the initial study (made a part hereof by refer-
ence and on file in the Community Development Department). it has been determined that the above project
will not have an adverse impact on the environment.
Henry Engen
Community Development Director
Date Posted: October 30, 1990
Date Adopted:
CDD t 1.80
ORDINANCE N0. 216 ATTACAMNT B
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ATASCADERO AMENDING THE ATASCADERO SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE
BY ADDING PROVISIONS REGULATING THE CONVERSION OF
MULTIPLE FAMILY RENTAL HOUSING UNITS TO CONDOMINIUMS
WHEREAS, the Land Use Element of the Atascadero General Plan
requires the adoption of regulations regarding the conversion of
multiple family rental housing units to condominiums; and
WHEREAS, the Housing Element of the ,Atascadero General Plan
contains policies encouraging the preservation of an adequate
supply of rental housing and the regulation of condominium
conversions; and
WHEREAS, the proposal has been evaluated in accordance with
the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and
this City' s Guidelines - for the Implementation of CEQA, and a
Negative Declaration has been prepared for the project; and
WHEREAS, the Atascadero Planning Commission held a public
hearing on November 20, 1990 and has recommended approval of the
proposed regulations .
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Atascadero does
ordain as follows :
Section 1 . Council Findings .
1 . The proposal is consistent with the General Plan Land
Use Element .
2 . The proposal is consistent with the General Plan
Housing Element .
3 . The proposal will not result in any significant adverse
environmental impacts . The Negative Declaration
prepared for the project is adequate .
Section 2 . Subdivision Ordinance Text .
The Subdivision Ordinance (Title 11) is hereby amended by
the addition of new Chapter 14 as shown on the attached Exhibit
which is hereby made a part of this ordinance by reference. The
existing Chapters 14, 15, and 16 are hereby renumbered to
accommodate the new Chapter.
Section 3 . Publication.
is The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published
once within fifteen (15) days after its passage in the Atascadero
News, a newspaper of general circulation, printed, published, and •
circulated in the City in accordance with Section 36933 of the
Government Code; shall certify the adopting and posting of this
ordinance and shall cause this ordinance and this certification
together with proof of posting to be entered into the Book of
Ordinances of the City.
Section 4 . Effective Date .
This ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and
effect at 12 : 01 a.m. on the 31st day after its passage .
On motion by and seconded by
, the foregoing Ordinance is approved
by the following role call vote :
AYES :
NOES :
ABSENT:
DATE ADOPTED :
By:
ROBERT B. LILLEY, Mayor
City of Atascadero, California
ATTEST:
LEE DAYKA, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT
RAY WINDSOR, City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ART MONTANDON, City Attorney
PREPARED BY:
HENRY ENGEN, Community Development Director •
EXHIBIT A
• Chapter 14
CONDOMINIUM CONVERSIONS
11-14 . 001 Purpose and intent .
11-14 . 002 Applicability of other laws .
11-14 . 003 Provisions to govern condominium conversion projects .
11-14 . 004 Application requirements .
11-14 . 005 Acceptance of reports .
11-14-006 Copy of report to buyers .
11-14-007 Tenant provisions .
11-14 . 008 Hearing - Notification.
11-14 . 009 Application - Required findings .
11-14 . 010 Property improvement standards for condominium
conversions .
11-14 . 011 Exceptions to property improvement standards .
11-14 . 001 Purpose and intent .
Condominiums, community apartments and stock cooperatives provide
for ownership of separate dwellings, or equity coupled with a
right of exclusive occupancy, as well as common areas within
multiple-family housing normally managed and maintained by an
owner' s association. This mix of individual and common ownership
and the potential problems of converting existing apartments make
Special regulations necessary.
The City has determined that condominiums differ from apartments
in some respects and, for the benefit of public health, safety
and welfare, the conversion of such projects should be treated
differently from apartments .
These regulations are intended to,:
A. Establish requirements and procedures for the conversion of
existing rental housing to residential condominiums and
other forms of occupant housing.
B. Provide for compliance with the Land Use Element and Housing
Element of the City' s General Plan.
C. Assure purchasers of converted apartments are aware of the
condition of the structure which is offered for purchase.
D . Provide design and property improvement standards for
condominium conversion projects .
E . Maintain a healthy inventory of rental housing suitable for
persons of low- and moderate-income.
11-14 . 002 Applicability of other laws .
All condominium projects shall be subject to all applicable
provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and Titles 8 and 9 of this
code, and all other applicable state and local laws and
ordinances . •
11-14 ._003_ Provisions to govern condominium conversion Proiects
The procedures and standards contained in this chapter shall
govern condominium conversion projects.
11-14 . 004 Application requirements .
The following shall be provided at the time of application for a
condominium conversion:
A. Property Condition Report . The application shall be
accompanied by a Property Condition Report . This report
shall be in addition to and shall not replace any public
report required by Government Code Section 66427 .1 (a) to be
submitted to the Department of Real Estate . The Property
Condition Report shall include at least the following:
1 . A report detailing the condition of all elements of the
property including foundations, ventilation, utilities,
walls, roofs,_ windows, mechanical equipment, appliances
which will be sold with the units, common facilities
and parking areas . The report shall state, to the best
knowledge of the applicant, and for each element : the
date of construction, the condition, the expected
useful life, the cost of replacement, and any variation
from the zoning regulations in effect when the last
building permit was issued for the subject structures .
The report shall include evidence that the internal
walls would meet current sound attenuation standards
and that all current energy conservation standards are
met . In the event the noise and energy standards are
not currently met, the report shall explain proposed
corrective measures to be used. The report shall
identify all defective or unsafe elements or those
which may impair use and enjoyment of the property, and
explain the proposed corrective measures to be used.
The report shall be prepared by or under the
supervision of a registered civil or structural
engineer, licensed general contractor, or architect;
2 A report from a licensed pest-control operator
describing in detail the presence and effects of any
wood destroying organisms;
3 . A report of any known soil or geological problems .
Reference shall be made to any previous soil reports
for the site .
B. Site Plan. The application shall be accompanied by a site
plan which shall include at least the following:
1 . The location, number of stories, number of dwellings,
and proposed use of each structure to remain and for
each proposed new structure;
• 2 . The location, use and type of surfacing for all open
storage areas;
3 . The location and type of surfacing for all driveways,
pedestrian ways, vehicle parking areas and curb cuts;
4 . The location and number of all covered and uncovered
parking spaces;
5 . The location of all existing and proposed utility lines
and meters;
6 . The location, height and type of materials for walls
and fences;
7 . The location of all landscaped areas, the type of
landscaping, method of irrigation, and a statement
specifying private or common maintenance;
8 . The location and description of all recreational
facilities;
9 . The location, size and number of parking spaces to be
used in conjunction with each unit;
10 . The location, type and size of all drainage pipes and
structures;
11 . Existing contours, building pad elevations and percent
slope for all driveways and parking areas .
C. Evidence of Delivery of Notice of Intent to Convert . The
application shall be accompanied by signed copies from each
tenant of the notice of intent to convert as specified in
Section 8 . The applicant shall submit evidence that a
certified letter of notification was sent to each tenant for
whom a signed copy of the notice is not submitted.
D . Maps . The application for conversion shall be accompanied
by the maps required by the California Subdivision Map Act .
Maps shall be processed in conformance with the applicable
portions of this Title . The tentative map application shall
be accompanied by the declaration of covenants, conditions
and restrictions, articles of incorporation, bylaws and
contracts for the maintenance, management or operation of
any part of the condominium conversion project, which would
be applied on behalf of any and all owners of the
condominium units within the project . In addition to the
requirements of Civil Code Section 1355 and any requirements
which might be imposed by the City consistent with these
regulations, the organizational documents shall include
provisions concerning the conveyance of units; the
assignment of parking; an agreement for common area
maintenance, including facilities and landscaping, an •
estimate of initial fees anticipated for such maintenance,
an indication of responsibilities for maintenance of all
utility lines and services for each unit . The covenants,: ,
conditions and restrictions document shall include a
reference to an attached, updated property conditions
report .
E. Other Information. The application shall be accompanied by
any other information which in the opinion of the Community
Development Director will assist in determining whether the
proposed project will be consistent with the purposes of
these regulations .
11-14 . 005 Acceptance of reports
The Community Development Director shall establish the final form
of the Property Condition Report required by this chapter. A
copy of any public report submitted to the Department of Real
Estate pursuant to Government Code Section 66427 . 1 (a) shall also
be submitted to the Community Development Department . Approved
reports shall remain on file with the Community Development
Department for review by interested persons .
11-14 . 006 Copy of report to buyers
Each prospective purchaser shall be provided with a copy of all
reports in their final form, except the signed notices of intent
to convert, prior to entering escrow. Copies of the Property •
Condition Report shall be available at the sales office and the
project site .
11-14 . 007 Tenant provisions
A. Notice of Intent to Convert . The applicant shall give each
tenant a written notice of intent to convert at least one
hundred eighty days before termination of tenancy due to
conversion. The notice shall contain at least the
following:
1 . Name and address of current owner;
2 . Name and address of proposed subdivider;
3 . Approximate date on which the unit is to be vacated by
nonpurchasing tenants;
4 . Tenant' s right to purchase;
5 . Statement of no rent increase .
B. Tenants Right to Purchase . Pursuant to Government Code
Section 66427 . 1 (d) , the applicant shall give any present
tenant a nontransferable right of first refusal to purchase
the unit occupied at a price no greater than the price
offered to the general public . This right of first refusal is
shall extend at least ninety days from the date of issuance
• of the subdivision public report or commencement of sales,
whichever date is later.
C. Vacation of Units . Each nonpurchasing tenant not in default
under the provisions of the rental agreement or lease under
which he occupies his unit, shall have the right to remain
not less than one hundred eighty days from the date of
receipt of notification of intent to convert .
D. No Increase in Rents . A tenant' s rent shall not be
increased during the one hundred eighty day period provided
in subsection C. of this section.
E. Notice to New Tenants . After submittal of the tentative
map, prospective tenants shall be given written notice of
intent to convert prior to leasing or renting any unit .
11-14 . 008 Hearing - Notification.
Prior to acting on applications, the Planning Commission and City
Council shall hold a public hearing, notice of which shall be
given tenants of the proposed conversion at least ten days
beforehand.
11-14 . 009 Application - Required findings .
An application for condominium conversion shall not be approved
unless the following findings are made :
• A. All provisions of these regulations have been met or will be
met;
B. The proposed conversion is consistent with the General Plan;
C. That there exists facts adequate to support the findings
required under Sections 66473 .5 and 66474 of the Government
Code;
D. The proposed conversion will not displace a significant
number of low-income or moderate-income households or senior
citizens at a time when no equivalent housing is readily
available in the City.
11-14 . 010 Property improvement standards for condominium
conversions .
A. Building and Zoning Regulations . Conversion projects shall
substantially comply with the City' s building and housing
codes and zoning regulations in effect on the date the
application for conversion is accepted as complete .
B. Fire Safety. Each living unit shall be provided with
approved smoke detectors mounted on the ceiling or wall at a
point centrally located in the area giving access to rooms
• used for sleeping purposes .
C. Fire Protection Systems . All fire hydrants, fire alarm
systems, portable fire extinguishers and other fire •
protection appliances shall be retained in operable
condition at all times and shall comply with the current
City standard.
D. Utility Metering. The consumption of gas, electricity, and
water within each unit shall be separately metered and there
shall be circuit breakers and shutoff valves for each unit .
E. Storage. Each unit shall have provision for at least 100
cubic feet of enclosed, weatherproof and lockable private
storage space, exclusive of cabinets and closets within the
unit, and the space normally required for parking a vehicle
in a garage . This space shall be for the sole use of the
unit owner. The minimum opening shall be two and one-half
feet by four feet and the minimum height shall be four feet .
F. Laundry Facilities . A laundry area shall be provided in
each unit, or in common laundry space. Common facilities
shall consist of at least one washer and dryer for each ten
units or fraction thereof.
G. Parking. The number of parking spaces, including the
provision of covered spaces, shall be as provided in the
zoning regulations . Spaces for the exclusive use of each
unit shall be so marked. Visitor parking and special
stopping zones, if any, shall also be marked.
H. Refurbishing and Restoration. All structures, common areas,
sidewalks, driveways, landscaped areas, and facilities, if
defective, shall be refurbished and restored to a safe and
usable condition. All deficiencies shall be corrected prior
to recordation of the final map.
I . Private Open Space. There shall be provided with each unit
a minimum of 100 square feet of qualifying private open
space . To qualify, open space must be private and directly
accessible from the unit it serves, and must have a minimum
dimension in every direction of ten feet for open space
provided at ground level or six feet for open space provided
on a balcony or elevated deck, and must be located outside
the required front yard setback.
11-14 . 011 Exceptions to property improvement standards
Upon request by a subdivider, and recommendation by the Planning
Commission, the Council may approve exceptions to property
improvement standards for conversion projects . The nature of the
exception shall be described in public notices for Commission
hearings on the condominium map. The Commission may make a
recommendation on the request only after a public hearing. In
order to approve an exception, the Council must make the
exception findings required by Section 11-11 . 002 . •
•
NOTE: THE MINUTES EXCERPT FROM THE NOVEMBER 20TH PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING WAS NOT AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF AGENDA DISTRIBUTION
AND WILL BE DISTRIBUTED AT A LATER TIME.
•
•
MEETING AGENDA
DAT7 ITEM#
F
ORDINANCE NO. 213
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO
ESTABLISHING BACKYARD BURNING RESTRICTIONS BY ADDING
CHAPTER 7 TO TITLE 5 OF THE ATASCADERO MUNICIPAL CODE
The City Council of the City of Atascadero, California, does
ordain as follows:
CHAPTER 7 . BACKYARD BURNING
Section 1 . Title 5 to read as follows :
Sec . 5-7 . 01 . Controlled open burning of natural
waste from shrubbery and trees grown on property
occupied by one or two family dwellings is necessary
within the City of Atascadero to reduce the amount of
available fuel which can burn during wildfires.
Burning in the city causes the emission of smoke, gas
and other components of combustion which under certain
atmospheric and meteorological conditions contaminate
and pollute the atmosphere to an extent that is
detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the
inhabitants of the city, and that unless regulated in
the manner in this chapter provided, such emission of
smoke, gas and other air contaminants and pollutants
will continue to interfere with and endanger the
comfort, health, welfare and safety of such inhabitants
of the city.
Sec. 5-7 . 02 . Burning limitations ,
To reduce health hazards from the resultant smoke from
controlled burning, the following restrictions shall
apply:
a . Burning shall be limited to natural wastes from
shrubbery and trees grown on property occupied by one or
two family dwelings . Commercial occupancies, vacant
lots and multi-family occupancies shall not be allowed
to conduct controlled burning operations at any time.
b. Material to be burned shall be free of household
rubbish, lumber, rubber, plastics, tar, paint, creosote,
hydrocarbons or any man-made waste. Shrubbery and tree
prunings shall be dry and reasonably free of dirt and
surface moisture . A minimum of three (3) weeks from the
time of cutting will be required for drying. Burning of
grass, weeds or piled leaves shall not be allowed at any
time .
C. No burning will be allowed if measurable rain has
fallen within the previous five (5) days .
ORDINANCE 213
PAGE 2
d. Burning may take place only on permissive burn days
as established by the California Air Resources Board and
the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control
District . The City of Atascadero Fire Department shall
maintain a telephone line to disseminate this
information on a daily basis . No person shall conduct a
controlled open burning operation on a non-permissive
burn day.
Sec. 5-7 . 03 . Allowable conditions .
To reduce the hazard of wildfires or structure fires due
to escaped controlled burns, the following restrictions
shall apply:
a. Piles of shrubbery and tree prunings shall be no
larger than four (4) feet high and six (6) feet in
diameter. A maximum of five (5) such piles may be
burned at one time..
b. Accelerants (e .g. , flammable liquids) shall not be
used to start fires in burn piles.
C. Burn piles shall be tended by a responsible adult at
all times and a functioning water hose capable of
extinguishing the fire (s) shall be available at all
times .
d. Burn piles shall be located a minimum of fifty (50)
feet from the property line of neighboring residences
and a minimum of thirty (30) feet from any structure,
including wooden fences, on the same property.
e . At least fifteen (15) feet of clearance to mineral
soil shall be provided between burn piles and any
vegetation or other combustible material, including but
not limited to grass, weeds, trees, shrubs, and wood
piles .
Sec. 5-7 . 04 . Orders of the Fire Chief .
Due to hazardous weather conditions or threat to public
safety, backyard controlled open burning may be
cancelled or regulations may be temporarily revised at
any time by the Fire Chief or his authorized
representative. Failure to follow the lawful orders of
the Fire Chief, or a delegate thereof, is a violation of
this section.
Sec . 5-7 . 05 . Violation - penalty.
Any person who violates any provision of this chapter or
fails to comply therewith, or violates or fails to
comply with any order or regulation made thereunder,
shall be guilty of a misdemeanor - and upon conviction
thereof shall be punished as set forth in Title I,
ORDINANCE 213
PAGE 3
Chapter 3 of this code . Each separate day, or any
portion thereof, during which any violation of this
chapter occurs or continues shall constitute a separate
offense and upon conviction thereof, shall be punishable
as herein provided.
Section 2 Effective date
This ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and
operation from and after thirty (30) days after its final passage
and adoption.
Sention 3 . Publication.
This ordinance shall be published in full one (1) time in the
Atascadero News at least three (3) days prior to its final
adoption.
On motion by and seconded by
the foregoing ordinance is approved by the
following roll call vote:
Ayes :
Noes :
Absent :
Date adopted
BY:
ROBERT B. LILLEY, Mayor
City of Atascadero, California
ATTEST:
LEE DAYKA, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
ARTHER R. MONTANDON, City Attorney
Prepared by:
MICHAEL HICKS, Fire Chief
•
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: B-S
Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 12/111/90
File No: CUP 12-90
Via: Henry Engen, Community Development Director ,
SUBJECT:
Consideration of appeal by Glen R. Lewis of Planning Commission' s
action relative to signage for Hotel Park.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends upholding the Conditions of Approval established
by the Planning Commission, with the exception of allowing a 10 sq.
• foot sign for Homestead Title facing the parking lot.
BACKGROUND:
On November 20, 1990, the Planning Commission held a public hearing
and approved Signage for Hotel Park. The Commission agreed with
the staff recommendation to not allow identification signs on the
back of the buildings facing Capistrano or the Bank of America,
with the exception of a 30 square foot sign for Homestead Title,
the corner building facing towards Lewis Avenue-Santa Ysabel . In
that regard, however, they denied the proposed individual tenant
sign for Homestead Title of 10 square feet facing into the parking
area.
At the time this staff report is being prepared, it was unclear
whether Mr. Lewis intended to appeal both the Capistrano facing
signs and that of the 10 square foot Homestead Title parking lot
facing sign. In any event, staff would continue recommending
denial of any signage on the perimeter of the property facing out,
but would support the appellents in the case of the 10 square foot
identification sigh facing the parking lot . This type signage
would be allowed by a right under Zoning.
HE-ph
Encls : Letter of Appeal - November 26 , 1990
Planning Commission Staff Report - November 20 , 1990
Planning Commission Minutes Excerpts - Nov. 20 ; 1990
CC : Glen Lewis
Don Messer
GLEN A. LEWIS
A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
5275 EL CAMINO REAL
POST OFFICE BOX 1980
ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA 93423
TELEPHONE (805) 466-6644 �
CITY OF ATASCADERO0� 28
City Administration Building e �` "6500 Palma
Atascadero, CA 93422
ATTENTION: Planning Commission
RE: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION
RE SIGNING FOR HOTEL PARK BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL CENTER
Gentlemen,
Please treat this as an appeal of that decision by the
Planning Commission regarding the above-entitled matter,
appealing said decision to the City Council of the City of
Atascadero.
DATED f 2 BY
LEN R. LEWIS
•
CITY OF ATASCADERO Item: f3-1
STAFF REPORT
FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: November 20, 1990
BY: Doug Davidson, Senior Planner File No: CUP 12-90
SUBJECT:
Consideration of a sign master plan for the Hotel Park
professional office center.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval -of Conditional Use Permit 12-90 based
on the Findings for Approval in Exhibit L and the Conditions of
Approval in Exhibit M.
SITUATION AND FACTS:
1. Owner. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Hotel Park Group
2. Representative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Don Messer .
3. Project Address. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5805 Capistano Ave.
4. General Plan Designation. . . . .Retail Commercial
5. Zoning District. . . . . . . . . . . . . .CR (Commercial Retail)
6. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. 0 acres
7. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Professional Office Center
Under Construction
8. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Categorically Exempt
(Class 11)
BACKGROUND:
Precise Plan 30-87 became effective on December 8, 1987,
establishing the development standards and improvement
requirements for a 69, 696 square feet commercial center.
Condition #7b. required a master sign plan approval before the
installation of site identification or tenant signs.
•
ANALYSIS:
The applicant is proposing the following signs for Hotel Park
(see attachments) :
1. One center identification monument sign, approximately 20
square feet and less than four (4) feet in height (Exhibit
D) .
2. Individual tenant signs (10 sq. ft. each) located on
building faces directed toward the central parking area
(Exhibits E, G, J, and K) .
3. Individual tenant signs (10 sq. ft. each) located on rear
building faces directed toward Bank of America (Buildings
1, 2, and 3) and facing Capistrano Ave (Buildings 4-8) , as
shown on Exhibits F and G.
4. One 30 square feet sign for the major tenant (Homestead
Title - Building 4) facing Lewis Ave. , as shown on Exhibits
H and I.
As the following analysis indicates, the monument sign, major
tenant signs, and the typical tenant signs are in conformance
with the Zoning Ordinance and Appearance Review Guidelines. The
exception to this is the proposal for tenant signs located on the
rear of the buildings, facing away from the central parking area.
Monument Sign
The Zoning Ordinance allows one monument sign for commercial
shopping centers, not to exceed ten (10) feet in height or sixty
(60) square feet in size. Center identification signs of 60
square feet are more appropriate for retail uses, as opposed to
professional offices. Hotel Park has recognized this by
proposing a 20 square feet sign of less than four (4) feet in
height (Exhibit D) . The sign is made of redwood, with an
ivory/brown background and brown/teal letters. The wood posts
will be screened by stone around the base. The sign size is
adequate to identify the center and does not compete for
attention with other signs in the vicinity. Likewise, the color
and materials of the sign relate to the site and the building
design, and are compatible with the overall sign package.
Tenant Signs
The Zoning Ordinance limits individual tenant signs to building
wall locations with public entrances. The building design and
orientation of Hotel Park must be acknowledged before the
proposed placement of tenant signs is addressed. As the •
elevations in Exhibits E and F show, the public entrances are
located to the side of the buildings. In this case, the front
• elevations (facing the central parking area) and the rear
elevations (facing Capistarno Ave. for Buildings 4-8 and the Bank
of America for Buildings 1-3) do not contain public entrances.
Thus, the standard of allowing signs only on public entrance
elevations does not apply to Hotel Park. For sign purposes it
seems logical to substitute the front elevations of the Hotel
Park project for public entrances. The entire project is clearly
oriented toward the central parking area.
The proposed tenant signs are 10 square feet (2 'X5 ' ) and composed
of the same materials and color scheme as the monument sign
( (Exhibit G) . Proposed signs on the front elevation (Exhibit E)
are in the appropriate location and do not detract from the
building architecture.
The proposed tenant signs on the rear elevation of the buildings
(Exhibit F) , on the other hand, are not desired locations. These
signs would face Capistrano Ave. for Buildings 4-8 and Bank of
America for Buildings 1-3. These signs do not relate to the
center and are not an integral part of the site design. The
signs would appear as an afterthought and a method to attract
customers from well beyond the site boundaries. Professional
offices, however, are not an "impulse buying" retail activity.
Furthermore, the following policies from the City' s Appearance
Review Guidelines discourage signs such as this:
"Every sign shall be designed as an integral architectural
element of the project and site to which it principally
relates. "
"Each sign should be compatible with signs on adjoining
permises and not compete for attention. "
Finally, the site ' s major tenant (Homestead Title) is located in
Building 4 and will occupy the entire first floor and one-half
the second floor (4, 500 square feet total) . They are requesting
two wall signs; one 10 square feet sign facing the parking lot
(Exhibits J and K) and one 30 square feet sign directed toward
Lewis Ave (Exhibits H and I) . While, 30 square feet is larger
than allowed by right, Exhibit H proves that the size is not
excessive. Also, as an example, single tenant buildings on a
separate lot are allowed up to 80 square feet, not to exceed 15%
of the building face. The proposed sign is located on the public
entrance face and is harmonius with the other signs.
CONCLUSIONS:
In general, the proposed sign package for Hotel Park recognizes
the office nature of the project, as well as the site and
building design. The signs are adequate in size to identify each
business and the complex, yet not large enough to detract from
the architectural design of the center. Furthermore, the colors
• and materials of the signs will enhance the appearance of the
center. The tenant signs on the rear building faces, however, do •
not relate to the center and compete for attention of the
traveling public.
ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Location Map
Exhibit B - Site Plan
Exhibit C - Development Statement
Exhibit D - Hotel Park Monument Sign
Exhibit E - Tenant Signs (Front Elevation)
Exhibit F - Tenant Signs (Rear Elevation)
Exhibit G - Typical Tenant Sign (Detail)
Exhibit H - Homestead Title Sign (West Elevation)
Exhibit I - Homestead Title Sign Detail (West)
Exhibit J - Homestead Title Sign (Front Elevation)
Exhibit K - Homestead Title Sign Detail (Front)
Exhibit L - Findings for Approval
Exhibit M - Conditions of Approval
• EXHIBI7 A
CITY OF ATASCADERO
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Loc,Tlci oI�c i .n
CDP 12-90
DEPARTMENT
H)
(FH)
P L LS
eti
or
4
• L(FH) F 16 L-
F
SITS
R M F, I'.6 I' - �� � (.�—� ',
RMF ,
'LSF-YlFr
R
Z.\
EXIIIBIT B
CITY OF ATASCADERO SITE PLAN
COMMUNITY DEVELOFNIENT CUP 12-90
DEF RT'MENT
t -
..u•�..nn u.. n.0 u.n. ..n e/
.uw.w..r u � J• .
..„..r....�.. .... i
M,• r� s �bq is 6�✓�' .� //�
;r / �
r , t
� '""•'•7171
171-,1171'1 ivf'�I� ""• �
•�(�o�:� 171 I d 97 I b,l9ivy
'1701'1 ' �a`
EXHIBIT C
l[11i MttEt C:U` a �tu :11UM
DEVELOPMENT STATEMED
• n nnnv + qr.-7 CUP 12-90
ATASCADFR0, CA_ 93423
QGDTGMBGD i AT, 1 gon
JL■ ■ L■ ■
t'ITY OF ATASCADERO
DOUG DAVIDSON
ASSOCIATE PLANNER
ATASCADERO, CA_ 93423
DOUG:
THE HOTEL PARK PROJECT IS READY FOR SIGNS_ WE ARE APPLYING FOR.THE
FOLLOWING SIGNS_
BUILDING 'P1 -3
THESE BUILDINGS ARE FUTURE PLANS, BUT WILL REQUIRE_'
1 — S X2 SIGN PER TENANT FACING THE INTERIOR PARKING LOT—
POSSIBLE 6— PER BUILDING
• 1 - ADDITIONAL S X ? fil(;N FAi=i3+ii; iANic f!F AMFgif'p FOR fA+`.sI-I i FNA11T
OCCUPY NG 1500 SQUARE FEET OR liGRE (2— SPACES) 'tar t T H EXPOSURE
TO BANK OF AMERICA_
1JF LD'I NG 04 HOMESTEAD TITLE
HOMESTEAD TITLE iS OCCUPPY ?j>s =300 SQUARE FEET BOTTOM AND i 100
SQUARE FEET TOP BACK= TOTAL OF -4500 SQUARE FEET.
T i1"t = E REQUESTING_
— tit n 36 SIGN FACING S!1# t -r = i 'ROP= : _ _FWIS AVE-) FROM
�; TURY PLAZA AND OUR NAiI 'INCE 'N. HEY OCCUPY THE
-DONT BUILDING
s SIGN 4E � :,
YT� F.FT�, 91,_ x:`:' ' `1i` : '!7 CENTRAL PARK'1016
EACH CORNER TOP FOR TH'_ '''9T RENTAL SAPCES NOT
0CUPI ED BY flOrl l l to
x J
EXHIBIT C (cont. )
t
1301 0INGS -5-6- 7-8
5 X 2 SIGNS
6- MAXIMUM OR 1 PER OCCUPANT
FACING EAST TOWARD CENTRAL PARKING AREA
- ADDITIONAL 5 X 2 SIGN FACING CAPISTRANO FOR EACH OCCUPANT
WITH 1 500 SQUARE FEET 12 SPACES OR MORE WITH FRONTAGE ON
CAPISTRANO_
BUI LDI NG 9- 10
6- MAXIMUM 5 X 2 SIGNS OF 1 PER OCCUPANT FACING SOUTH TOWARD
CENTRAL PARKING AREA_
BUILDING 'P11
THIfi 51TF Moil REQUIRE A SPECIFIC SIGN PACKAGE THAT WILL BE
PRESENTED AT THE TIME OF BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION_
•
• EXHI37 D
:I,&0CITY OF ATASCADERO �!or;u >:m
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT cep =-90
D EPARTMENT
cc�) J �
l � �
- r
tejl�tt h r
•
EXHIBIT E •
CITY OF ATASCADERO TENANT SIGNS
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (FRONT ELEVATION)
DEPARTMENT C'-'P L2-90
--` S EFAc-ivS P `
axkiue r..CT
:E71'.:-tTLll 4C Ouiacx- i.�6.7rJ. `.
_�1�(h mo.."� �bo�� 9_Sewre. :✓i cle.Gr ;ss s:r+PscN-z�r�„a .�.1.<.,.. ;.._'=.'
4,0_wa\\— nrrn:nw�wuar -c
moo, a..ci.lbit Pc
•
• EXHIBIT F
N CITY OF ATASCADERO TENANT SIGNS
. - C0NMUNIn DEVELOFMENI' (REAR ELEVATION)
DERARTN ENT CUP 12-90
3�
....... LL
^1 �� � I i Irl � I I q�l%�� ,I SII - -___ � •-.-^-
"41
4>
:UILDING S — REAR. RUILMNH < - REAR
NUT'e
AND SUMM Q =
uucln moo:�.=iz:r wren+,�'.•
MLi"OY10'Ied t"[ V,M
EXHIBIT G
CITY OF ATASCADERO TENANT SIGN (DETAIL)
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 12-90
D ERARtTMENT
2011
jI
I
�-10�w al,�8 g2tvr� w,� r��r Syly�p�CS1.Ve_
•
• EXHIBIT H
CITY OF ATASCADERO
HC:MESTEAD TITLE SIGN
COMIiL'NITY DEVELOPMENT (T,,;rST ELE',ATION)
DEPARTMENT c��� 12-90
See-
( rs:
cc lu.
HOW n .
•
Cm'�
8��6. w£s- — SIDE
Q EXTIIBIT i i
CITY OF ATASCADERO
HOMESTEAD TITLE slcN
COWNILiNM DEVELOPME.N7 SION DETAIL (WEST)
DEPARTMENT cup L2-90
1
I� - - _- :
71 -7
eclvrs'. Ivry hcl2cr*c(
- 2cJ l sk ri �1a w n zra�f r
o ior7T77a•�
�T zv 90
CR
� u?r2.._wl tl��licuai_��Si�2 is wail
•
• EXHIBIT J
CITY OF ATASCADERO HOMESTEAD TITLE SIGN
. CONLXL_rn DEVELOPMENT (FRONT ELEVATION)
DEPARTMENT can 12-90
A
AJfl
I�zLCOF
•
m •
EXHIBITK
CITY OF AMASCADERO
HOMESTEAD TITLE slo:J
\11 Am ,.. COWNILNITY DEVELOPNIEN7 SIGN DETAIL (FRONT
DEPARTMENT clip 12-90
�-_
on
J
•
Exhibit L - Findings for Approval
Conditional Use Permit 12-90
5805 Capistano Ave.
(Hotel Park/Messer)
ENVIRONMENTAL FINDING:
The proposed project is categorically exempt (Class 11) from the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act.
FINDINGS:
1. The proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with the
General Plan.
2. The proposed project, as conditioned, 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 project is consistent with the character of
the neighborhood and is not contrary to its orderly
development.
5. The proposed 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, as conditioned, is consistent with the
Appearance Review Guidelines.
EXHIBIT M - Conditions of Approval
Conditional Use Permit 12-90
5805 Capistano Ave.
(Hotel Park/Messer)
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. Sign installation shall be in conformance with the attached
Exhibits, Exhibit M (conditions of approval) , and all other
codes and ordinances of the City of Atascadero. Any
modification to this approval shall be approved by the
Community Development Department prior to implementing any
changes.
2. The sign criteria is approved as follows:
a. One center identification sign, approximately twenty
(20) square feet and four (4) in height, as shown on
Exhibit D.
b. Ten (10) square feet identification signs for each
tenant, including Homestead Title, on the front
elevations facing the central parking. .area (Exhibits E,
G, J, and K) .
C. One 30 square feet wall sign for the major tenant of
Building 4 (currently Homestead Title) on the west
elevation facing Lewis Ave (Exhibits H and I) .
This approval does not include the proposed tenant signs on
the rear of any building elevation (Exhibits F and G) .
3. Applicant shall obtain a building permit and inspection for
each sign to ensure compliance with this approval and the
Uniform Building Code.
4. This Conditional Use Permit shall expire one year from the
date of final approval unless all conditions are satisfied
and the project shows substantial progress, or unless a time
extension has been granted pursuant to a written request
prior to the expiration date.
EXHIBIT M - Conditions of Approval
Conditional Use Permit 12-90
5805 Capistano Ave.
(Hotel Park/Messer)
Revised by the Planning Commission November 20, 1990
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. Sign installation shall be in conformance with the attached
Exhibits, Exhibit M (conditions of approval) , and all other
codes and ordinances of the City of Atascadero. Any
modification to this approval shall be approved by the
Community Development Department prior to implementing any
changes.
2. The sign criteria is approved as follows:
a. One center identification sign, approximately twenty
(20) square feet and four (4) in height, as shown on
Exhibit D.
b. Ten (10) square feet identification signs for each
tenant, excluding Homestead Title, on the front
elevations facing the central parking area (Exhibits E
and G. )
C. One 30 square feet wall sign for the major tenant of
Building 4 (currently Homestead Title) on the west
elevation facing Lewis Ave (Exhibits H and I) .
This approval does not include the proposed tenant signs on
the rear of any building elevation (Exhibits F and G) .
3 . Applicant shall obtain a building permit and inspection for
each sign to ensure compliance with this approval and the
Uniform Building Code.
4. This Conditional Use Permit shall expire one year from the
date of final approval unless all conditions are satisfied
and the project shows substantial progress , or unless a time
extension has been granted pursuant to a written request
prior to the expiration date.
•
NOTE: THE MINUTES EXCERPT FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF
NOVEMBER 20TH WAS NOT AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF AGENDA
DISTRIBUTION AND WILL BE DISTRIBUTED AT A LATER TIME.
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
• CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: B-6
Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 12/11/90
Via: Henry Engen, Community Development Director 04
From: Karl Schoettler, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT
Consideration of a request to remove three heritage trees
(30"/,24" split live oak, 40" live oak, 12"/24" split live oak)
for the purposes of driveway/home construction at 9800 Corriente
by applicants Bill Barnes and Margaret Phillips. These trees in
addition to two other trees) are located in the path of the
proposed driveway and related grading. The site is posted and
the trees have been flagged.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the arborist' s report and the circumstances of this
difficult site, approve the removal with a two for one
replacement.
ANALYSIS
The applicants are proposing the construction of a driveway to
serve two lots along with the construction of a single family
residence on one of the lots. The driveway will climb a
relatively steep, heavily wooded hill at the terminus of
Corriente Road. The driveway is being constructed as an
alternative to linking the two existing sections of Corriente
Road. Corriente Road is designated as eventually linking Llanno
and Santa Ana Roads, however,' to date, only segments have been
constructed. The remaining link lies in an extremely steep creek
valley and construction would require significant grading and
tree removal.
Therefore, staff views construction of the proposed driveway as a
preferable alternative, involving reduced grading and tree
removal. It is important to recognize also that the driveway
design works to minimize site disturbance by employing 1 1/2: 1
cut slopes and retaining walls to preserve two of the larger
trees on the site.
TREE REPLACEMENT
In compliance with the Interim Tree Replacement Standards , the
replacement recommendation for the removal of the trees is ten
(10) 15 gallon size minimum, same species trees. This total
includes replacements for two other non-heritage size trees
CITY OF ATASCADERO EXHIBIT A
` COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT LOCATION MAP
• DEPARTMENT PRECISE PLAN 89-90
� �F !
RS
SOil,
t\ 1
00
fit R Sit
'Es
AC
N I
-1 /
tw�x+
S IT E
r°
� * 4pt0
-;CA.
/
LLA
R S
- RS
_, 7,
1,71
�I
A 7A
/ILIO�'11L.1/1 r
t�
r
i.1►'
1 TTT/I �
�j
�41
it
-
� O
+- JACK BRAZEAL
S T E R N TREE CONSULTANT
;.r. CHAPTER 4531 SKIPJACK LANE
lqq� PASO ROBLES, CA 93446
WCISA # 163
(805) 227-6140
December 4, 1990
Twin Cities Engineering, Inc.
200 Main Street
Templeton, California 93466
RE: Revision to Arborist Report dated September 3, 1990
Phillips Residence Driveway
A portion of lots ##19, 18, & 25
Block 44 of the Atascadero Colony ®
Corriente Road/APN 50-251 -19 RAEr"�I F 0
Atascadero, California
W, 4 - 1999
The driveway changes recommended in the previous
feasible due to engineering requirements. The result of this
will require additional tree removal .
Changes are as follows :
10 . 36" diameter Live Oak. Good condition. To be removed.
This tree exists in the 2:1 slope cut.
11 . 24" diameter Live Oak. Good condition. To be removed.
This tree exists in the 2:1 slope cut.
13 . 30" diameter Live Oak. Good condition. To be retained.
Install tree protection as required.
15. 20" diameter Valley Oak. Poor condition. To be retained.
Install tree protection as required.
16. 12" diameter Multi-stem Live Oak. Good condition. To be
removed. This tree exists in the 2 :1 slope cut.
17. 40" diameter Live Oak. Good condition. To be removed.
This tree exists in the 2:1 slope cut.
18. 24" diameter Live Oak. Good condition. To be removed.
This tree exists in the 2:1 slope cut.
(continued)
Revision -2- December 4, 1990 .
Phillips Residence
19 . 18" diameter Valley Oak. Good condition. To be retained.
Install tree protection as required.
20 . 16" diameter Valley Oak. Good condition. To be removed.
This tree is located in the 2: 1 slope cut.
COMMENTS•
All trees to be retained on this site are subject to the tree
protection requirements attached to this report.
av
ck Brazeal
Certified Arborist
JB:pb
Attachment
F1�
G O
-------------
+- JACK BRAZEAL
OESTERN TREE CONSULTANT
rf . CHAPTER A PT E R 4 531 SKIPJACK LANE
t944 „ _ PASO ROBLES, CA, 93446
WCISA 0163
; 11 (805) 227-6140
9,q 8 0 F1
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)
SRT t
�- JACK BRAZEAL
TREE CONSULTANT
WESTERN CHAPTER 4531 SKIPJACK LANE
ls�4 PASO ROBLES, CA 93446
WCISA #163
; � . (805) 227-6140
�ReOR�s�
September 3 , 1990
Twin Cities Engineering, Inc.
200 Main Street
Templeton, California 93466
RE: Arborist Report for:
Phillips Residence Driveway
A portion of lots #19, 18 & 25
Block 44 of the Atascadero Colony
Corriente Road/A.P.N. 50-251 -19
Atascadero, California
SITE DESCRIPTION:
Driveway access is from the end of the cul-de-sac of Corriente Drive.
The grade at the end of the cul-de-sac starts at a moderate incline
and increases in elevation to the proposed house site. Due to the
steep elevation of the proposed driveway, extensive cuts are re-
quired. Several large oak trees will be impacted by this proposed
driveway and some will require removing. All trees on this project
that are impacted will be numbered and referred to the attached
"Tree Protection Measures and Requirements. "
TREE INVENTORY AND DETERMINATION:
1 . 36"diameter Live Oak. Good condition. To be retained.
May be impacted by grading. Install tree protection fence
at line of encroachment.
2 . 8" diameter Valley Oak. Good condition. To be retained.
May be impacted by grading. Install tree protection fence
at line of encroachment.
3. 10" diameter Valley Oak. Good condition. To be retained.
May be impacted by grading. Install tree protection fence
at line of encroachment.
(continued)
Arborist Report -2- September 3, 1990
Phillips Residence +
Twin Cities Engineering
•
TREE INVENTORY AND DETERMINATION: (continued)
4 . 10" diameter Valley Oak. Good condition. To be retained.
May be impacted by grading. Install tree protection fence
at line of encroachment.
5. 8" diameter Valley Oak. Good condition. To be retained.
May be impacted by grading. Install tree protection fence
at line of encroachment.
6. 14" diameter Live Oak. Good condition. To be retained.
May be impacted by grading. Install tree protection fence
at line of encroachment.
7. 30" diameter Valley Oak. Good condition. To be retained.
May be impacted by grade for driveway. Install tree pro-
tection fence at line of encroachment.
8. 14" diameter Live Oak. Good condition. To be retained.
May be impacted by grade for driveway. Install tree pro-
tection fence at line of encroachment.
9 . 30" diameter Valley Oak. Good condition. To be retained.
• Impacted by driveway. Install tree protection fence at the
line of encroachment.
10 . 36 diameter Live Oak. Good condition. To be retained.
Shift the driveway to East, approximately 10 feet and
install retainer wall to preserve this tree if at all possible.
11 . 24" diameter Live Oak. Good condition. To be retained.
This tree will be protected by the recommendation for tree #10 .
If tree #10 is not retained for engineering reasons, tree
protection will be required for this tree. (Attached)
12 . 20" diameter Live Oak. Good condition. To be retained.
This tree will be protected by the recommendation for tree #10 .
If tree #10 is not retained for engineering reasons, tree
protection will be required for this tree. (Attached)
13 . 30" diameter Live Oak. Good condition. To be removed.
This tree will be in the driveway due to the ten foot shift
to the East to save tree #11 .
14 . 20" diameter Live Oak. Good condition. To be retained.
Impacted by driveway. Install tree protection fence at the
line of encroachment.
15. 20" diameter Valley Oak. Poor condition. To be removed.
• Impacted by proposed driveway.
(continued)
Arborist Report -3- September '3, 1990
Phillips Residence
Twin Cities Engineering
TREE INVENTORY AND DETERMINATION: (continued)
16. 12" diameter multi-stem Live Oak. Good condition. To be
retained. Impacted by cut for proposed driveway. Tree
protection required. Retainer wall is necessary to preserve
this tree.
17. 40" diameter Live Oak. Good condition. To be retained.
Impacted by cut for proposed driveway. Tree protection is
required. Retainer wall is necessary to preserve this tree.
18. 24" diameter Live Oak. Good condition. To be retained.
Impacted by cut for proposed driveway. Tree protection is
required. Retainer wall is necessary to preserve this tree.
19. 18" diameter Valley Oak. Good condition. To be removed.
Impacted by proposed driveway.
20. 16" diameter Valley Oak. Good condition. To be retained.
Impacted by driveway. Install tree protection as required,
i .e. , retainer wall, fencing, etc.
21 . 46" diameter Live Oak. Good condition. To be retained.
Impacted by driveway. Install tree protection as reauired, •
i .e. , retainer wall, fencing, etc.
22. 40" diameter Live Oak. Good condition. To be retained.
Not impacted.
23 . 48" diameter Live Oak. Good condition. To be retained.
Impacted by driveway. Install tree protection fence at the
line of encroachment.
24 . 14" diameter Valley Oak. Good condition. To be removed.
Impacted by the proposed driveway.
25. 12" diameter Valley Oak. Good condition. To be removed.
Impacted by the proposed driveway.
26. 16" diameter Valley Oak. Good condition. To be removed.
Impacted by proposed driveway.
27. 12" diameter Valley Oak. Good condition. To be retained.
Impacted by driveway. Install tree protection fence.
28. 12" diameter Valley Oak. Good condition. To be retained.
Impacted by driveway. Install tree protection fence.
29. 24" diameter Valley Oak. Good condition. To be retained.
Impacted by driveway. Install tree protection fence. •
(continued)
Arborist Report -4- September 3 , 1990
Phillips Residence
Twin Cities Engineering
TREE INVENTORY AND DETERMINATION: (continued)
30. 14" diameter Valley Oak. Good condition. To be retained.
Impacted by driveway. Install tree protection fence.
31 . 30" diameter Valley Oak. Fair condition. To be retained.
Impacted by driveway. Install tree protection fence at
the line of encroachment.
32. Five Valley Oaks . Good condition. To be retained. These
trees will be impacted by future driveway development.
33. 12" diameter Valley Oak. Good condition. To be retained.
This tree will be impacted by future driveway development.
34. 13" diameter Valley Oak. Good condition. To be retained.
This tree will be impacted by future driveway development.
35 . 12" diameter Valley Oak. Good condition. To be retained.
This tree will be impacted by future driveway development.
36. 8" diameter Valley Oak. Good condition. To be retained.
This tree will be impacted by future driveway development.
• 37. 36" diameter Valley Oak. Good condition. To be retained.
This tree will be impacted by future driveway development.
38. 24" diameter Valley Oak. See Denny report of septic system.
39. 24" diameter Valley Oak. See Denny report of septic system.
40. 18" diameter Valley Oak. See Denny report of septic system.
41 . 30" diameter Valley Oak. Good condition. To be retained.
Impacted by proposed driveway for lot #19 . Install tree
protection as needed.
COMMENTS AND REQUIREMENTS:
Adequate tree protection measures are to be taken to protect and
preserve as many trees as posGible on this project. Refer to the
"Tree Protection Measures and Requirements" *attached to this
report. Approximately thirty trees will be impacted by this proposed
driveway from slight to significant. Some trees will require
removing as listed in the tree inventory. Tree #10 will be im-
pacted severely and will need special consideration for preservation,
i .e. , shifting the driveway down hill approximately ten feet and
installing a retainer wall to lessen the required slope cut.
(continued)
Arborist Report -5- September 3 , 1990
Phillips Residence
Twin Cities Engineering
COMMENTS AND REQUIREMENTS: (continued)
Tree #21 will also require special consideration by the installa-
tion of retainer walls to protect the root zone area. All tree
protection is to meet or exceed City requirements and is to be
in place prior to any grubbing or grading on this project. All
tree protection is to be shown on the grading/topo plan as required,
i .e. , tree protection fences, retainerwalls, barriers and other
required protection.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
This proposed driveway will certainly be sensitive to the oak trees
that are impacted but can be accomplished with removing only a few
trees. It is extremely important that tree protection be exer-
cised continuously throughout the entire project and that the
impacted trees be given priority whenever it is possible. With
the conditions of the report, I recommend that this project be
approved.
an ac—C
facj�a.4' 8-
Jack Brazeal
Certified Arborist
; 163
JB:pb
Attachment
MEE4"'" AGENDA
DATE 12/11/9 ITEM# C-1
M E' M O R A N D U M
DATE: December 4, 1990
TO: City Council
FROM: Lee Dayka
City Clerk
SUBJECT: Applications for Traffic Committee and Ex-Officio
Student Representatives
At your request , I have completed the extended recruitment for
two seats on the Traffic Committee and for student representation
on the Parks & Recreation Commission, Recycling Committee and
Traffic Committee.
The following have submitted their applications for Traffic
Committee Member-at-Large:
Marjorie Mackey
Clyde Berry
Frederick Potthast
Jerry Ferguson
The applications for student reps are as follows:
Name Committee/Commission
Natalie Regoli Recycling and Parks & Rec .
Nathan Koren Parks & Rec .
Belinda Wiley Parks & Rec .
Lindsey Hays Traffic Committee
Attached you will find all the applications that were received
for your review. In addition, I have provided you with copies of
Resolution 109-90 creating ex-officio youth representation and
Ordinance No . 112 establishing the Traffic Committee.
Please let me know how you wish to handle the appointments.
c: City Manager
Greg Luke
•
w
•
MEETING AGENDA
ATA DAT 12 11/90 ITEM# —C-2
S� SQA
*0
44
Z
hI
AT F
Ip
P. O. BOX 939 • ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA 93423
November 24 , 1990
Atascadero City Council
c/o The City Clerk
6500 Palma
Atascadero, CA 93422
Dear Council Members,
In compliance with the Atascadero City Personnel Rules and
Regulations, section 6.4, Grievance Procedures, the Atascadero
Sergeants Service Organization , A.S.S.O. , is requesting a
hearing before the Council, regarding wage compaction. Having
exhausted our informal and formal review of this situation, we
request a hearing.
After presenting our concerns to Chief McHale, he referred us
to the Personnel Director, Mr. Joseph. A.S.S .O. submitted a
letter to Mr. Joseph voicing our concerns, regarding wage
compaction, see below. Mr. Joseph's response was that this is
a matter for contract negotiations. As this was not an
amenable resolution, we then wrote to the City Manager, Mr.
Windsor. He also felt that this was a matter for contract
negotiations. It is the position of the Atascadero Sergeant's
Service Organization that this matter is not one of
negotiations but rather one of a possible violation of the
Meyers-Milias-Brown Act. The current compaction represents a
change in working conditions and/or a change in the conditions
of employment.
We are concerned about the relative wages and the compaction
between the positions of 'Agent' and 'Sergeant' . We have in
our possession a letter stating the position of the City
Council relative to this matter. That letter, dated May 18,
1988 , was written prior to the conclusion of our last
negotiations. The Council 's position, at that time, was that
there should be a 12% differential between a working group and
their immediate supervisors. Following the conclusion of
negotiations in 1988 and based upon this position by the City
Council, the Sergeants wages were set approximately 15% above
those of the Officers. With the insertion of the "Agent"
position, which is an extension of the Officer position, we
find that we are now only 5% above the Officers.
Letter to The City Council
November 24 , 1990
Page 2
In addit,,ional support of our, position, I refer you to the
Combaction Study. - Final Report issued by Becker & Bell, Inc. ,
dated February, 1, 1988 . .This, study: was commissioned by the
City , Council, to address" the-i;ssue -of compaction within the
various pay groups _in the City. ,. On page 2 , seventh paragraph,
the report,-states:'
"The most critical relationship is between the
first 'line supervisor and the working level (s) .
D-ep`ending on the type.-,..,rof function and
'organ'itat'ion (lead level and/or assistant
supervisor) , an„ . appropriate,_,general rule of
thumb is a minimumdifferential of 12% - 15%
over the working 1,evel for - the first level
supervisor who has full supervisory
responsibilities. ”
Referring to the letter, previously mentioned, by the Interim
City Manager, Bill Hanley, to the Atascadero Sergeants Service
Organization, he writes:
"That the City Council',wi l establish a 12% pay
compaction spread guideline between supervisor
and subordinate classification."
A.S.S.0.', is of the ':Position,. thz&..this item, wage compaction,
was previously , addressed in � negotiations in the spring of
1988 . In addition to the,` retireme-.nt,y Awage compaction was a
major iss"ue in those discussions,b. At that time, both the City
and our association agreed that the re; _was a problem with wage
compaction. It was mutually, agreed -upon, that in order to
alleviate the compaction our.,,. association would receive an
additional 3% above that ,of the officers. During
negotiations, the aspect of compaction relative to the
position of 'Agent' , was not discussed. as no such position
existed. The 3% increase was in response to the position of
the City, as stated in the letter by Bill Hanley.
In March 1990, approximately one and one half years after the
close of negotiations, the City Council created the position
of 'Agent' . That designation was placed in a salary position
which is only 5. 41% lower than that of a Sergeant. This has
in effect, created a change in the working conditions and a
change in the conditions of employment of the Sergeants . This
change was not preceded by the "Meet and Confer" requirement
of the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act.
Letter to The City Council
November 24 , 1990
Page 3
In Mr. Windsor's response to' our letter he points out that the
City's consultant from Comp "' Plus .. ree-6mmendec � a nnIy a- 5%
differential between Officer and "Agent, He states that the
10% differential was established on the urging ',of Chief
McHale, "in keeping with the additional responsibi,lities. which
will be imposed upon the position" . In all fairness, we can
not see the rationalization in establishing a 10% .differential
between Officers and those Agent9,` who may on occasion, in the
absence of a Sergeant sup6tvise and only_ a 5. 41% 4i:fferential
between a Sergeant and those who supervise in, their absence.
The position of 'Agent' was created', not. at ``the request of the
Atascadero Sergeant's Service Organization, but, rather by the
City.
It is not our wish to create hard feelings, nor are we
requesting that the agreement between the City and the
A.S.S.O. be disregarded. Rather, we feel that we attempted to
address this issue in our last negotiation session with the
City, and that the establishment of the Agent position and its
corresponding wage, is a change in working-, .conditions and
therefore requires a Meet` and Confer` outside'"of "our.,, pending
negotiations next year'AT
Because the City Council did establish a cgmpacti,on spread
guideline, following the-' r'ecomM6ndations of the $ecker _& Bell
Compaction Study which=was� auth6rized by the City Council, and
because the City Counc.ill established the`" d
position 'of .Agent an
approved of its wage ' brackets „ it is the wish._ of our
association that the City, Council now _adjust the wag.e, ,.bracket
of the Police Sergeants ' to' "conform" with their established
compaction guidelines, which ''were used in good faith" during
our last negotiations. f
Thank you for your attention to this matter,
Sincerely,
Sergeant Jeff H Frederick`s
President, A.S.S.O.