HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 09/11/1990 # PUBLIC REVIEW COPY #
PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE
A G E N D A FROM COUNTER
ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
ATASCADERO ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
6500 PALMA
FOURTH FLOOR, ROTUNDA -ROOM
SEPTEMBER 11, 1990
7 .00 P.M.
This agenda is prepared and posted pursuant to the require-
ments of Government Code Section 54954 . 2. By listing a topic on
this agenda, the City Council has expressed its intent to discuss
and act on each item. In addition to any action identified in the
brief general description of each item, the action that may be tak-
en shall include: A referral to staff with specific requests for
information; continuance; specific direction to staff concerning
the policy or mission of the item; discontinuance of consideration;
authorization to enter into negotiations and execute agreements
pertaining to the item; adoption or approval; and, disapproval
Copies of the staff reports or other documentation relating
to each item of business referred to on the agenda are on file in
the office of the City Clerk, available for public inspection
during City Hall business hours . The City Clerk will answer any
questions regarding the agenda.
RULES OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
* Members of the audience may speak on any item on the agenda.
* A person may speak for five (5) minutes .
* No one may speak for a second time until everyone wishing to
speak has had an opportunity to do so.
* No one may speak more than twice on any item
* CouncilMembers may question any speaker; the speaker may
respond but, after the allotted time has expired,, may not
initiate further discussion.
* The floor will then be closed to public participation and
open for Council discussion.
Call to Order
Pledge of Allegiance
Roll Call
City Council Comment:
- Presentations to outgoing Planning Commissioners, Geri Brasher
and Jaime Lopez-Balbontin
- Presentations to outgoing Parks & °Recreation Commissioners,
Judith McKrell and John Harris
- Proclamations: "Emergency Medical Services Week" , September
16-22, 1990 (Emergency Medical Services Agency)
"Good Neighbor Months" , September - December,
1990 (United Way/Neighbors Helping Neighbors)
COMMUNITY FORUM:
The City Council values and encourages exchange of ideas and
comments from you, the cit-i --en. 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
personalremarks against any Council Member, commissions &
staff.
* REQUEST TO TAKE ITEM C-1 OUT OF ORDER (Verbal)
A CONSENT' CALENDAR:
All matters listed under Item A, Consent Calendar, are con-
sidered to be routine, and will be enacted by one motion in the
form listed below. There will be no separate discussion on these
items. A member of the 'Council or public may, by request, have any
item removed from the Consent Calendar,` which shall then be re-
viewed and acted upon separately after the adoption of the Consent
Calendar. Where ordinance adoption is involved, action by Council
on the Consent Calendar will presuppose waiving of the reading in
full of the ordinance in question.
1. AUGUST 14, '1990 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES (Cont'd from 8/28/90)
2 AUGUST 23 1990 SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES ',(Interviews -
Planning Commission)
3 . AUGUST 30,- 1990 SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES (interviews -
Parks, Recreation & Zoo Commission)
4 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT 12-90, 7600 EL RETIRO/7555' MIRA FLORES -
Lot line adjustment between two existing lots of record
resulting in the reduction in size of an existing non-con-
forming lot (Ferguson/Johnson/Central Coast Engineering)
5 . AUTHORIZE RECRUITMENT FOR TWO TRAFFIC COMMITTEE MEMBERS
6 . AWARD BID FOR NEW ACCOUNTING SYSTEM HARDWARE
B. HEARINGS/APPEARANCES
1 . THE COUNCIL WILL ADJOURN TO A CLOSED SESSION FOR PURPOSES OF
DISCUSSION REGARDING PENDING LITIGATION (GORDON DAVIS ROADS)
2
GORDON T. DAVIS ROAD AGREEMENTS:
A. RESOLUTION NO. 111-90 ACKNOWLEDGING CONDITIONAL ACCEP-
TANCE OF THE "GORDON DAVIS ROADS" INTO THE CITY-MAIN-
TAINED ROAD SYSTEM
2
B. CONDITIONING OF PRECISE PLANS AFFECTED BY THE GORDON T.
DAVIS ROAD AGREEMENTS
3 . PRECISE PLAN 28-90 - APPEAL BY JOHN` FALKENSTIEN OF ROAD .I'M-
PROVEMENT CONDITION OF PRECISE PLAN, 8705 SANTA CRUZ ROAD
(Cont' d from 8/28/90)
4 . PRECISE PLAN 70-90 APPEAL BY ROBERT GARDNER-OF ROAD IMPROVE-
MENT CONDITION OF PRECISE PLAN, 14405 SANTA ANA ROAD (Cont' d
from 8/28/90)
5 . TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 2-90 APPEAL BY MICHAEL S KROUT ON
BEHALF OF RICHARD MONTANARO OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF
PROPOSED TRACT MAP (CONDOMINIUMCONVERSION) , 11145 EL CAMINO
REAL (Cont' d from _8/28/90 at applicant ' s request)
6 . HERITAGE TREE REMOVAL REQUEST, 9215 LAKEVIEW, FOR PURPOSES OF
SINGLE-FAMILY HOME CONSTRUCTION (Clark)
7 . HERITAGE TREE REMOVAL REQUEST, 14400 EL MONTE', AS PART OF AN
APPLICATION FOR PRECISE PLAN 69-89 FOR THE PURPOSES OF HOME
CONSTRUCTION (Ranallette Resubmittal)
C. REGULAR BUSINESS :
1 . REQUEST AUTHORIZATION TO SOLICIT BIDS FOR THE LAKE PAVILION
FINAL PHASE (Construction)
2 . AFFIRMING RESCHEDULING OF RECYCLING COMMITTEE INTERVIEWS FOR
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 13TH, 5 :00 P.M.
A. CONSIDERATION OF EXEMPTING THE RECYCLING'COMMITTEE' SELEC-
TION FROM RESOLUTION NO. 35-81-
B. CONSIDERATION OF INCREASING THE NUMBER OF RECYCLING COM-
MITTEE MEMBERS
3 . SET STUDY SESSION FOR ROAD POLICIES & STANDARDS-
4 . SET JOINT STUDY `SESSION(S) WITH PLANNING COMMISSION
D. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION:
1 . City Council:
A. Committee Reports (The following_represents ad hoc or
standing committees . Informative status reports will be
given, as felt necessary. )
1 . City/School Committee
2 . North Coastal Transit
3 . S .L.O. Area Coordinating Council
4 . Traffic Committee
5 . Solid/Hazardous Waste Mgmt. Committee
6 . Recycling Committee
3
A. Committee Reports (cont'd)
7 . Economic Opportunity Commission
8 . B`. I .A.
2. City 'Attorney
3 City Clerk •
4 . City Treasurer
5 . "City Manager
* NOTICE. THE COUNCIL WILL ADJOURN TO 5 :00 P.M. , THURSDAY,
SEPTEMBER 13, 1994, 4TH FLOOR CLUB ROOM, FOR THE
PURPOSE OF CONDUCTING INTERVIEWS OF APPLICANTS TO
THE CITY' S;RECYCLING COMMITTEE. SAID INTERVIEWSARE
OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.
4
PROCLAMATION
• To designate the week of September 16-22 , 1990
as "Emergency Medical Services Week"
Whereas, the members of emergency medical services
teams devote their lives to saving the lives of others;
Whereas, emergency medical services teams consist of
emergency physicians, nurses, emergency medical technicians ,
paramedics , educators, and administrators;
Whereas, the people of Atascadero, California benefit
daily from the knowledge and skill of these trained individuals ;
Whereas, advances in emergency medical care increase
the number of lives saved every year;
Whereas, the professional organizations of providers of
emergency medical services promote research to improve and adapt
their skills as new methods of emergency treatment are developed;
Whereas, the designation of Emergency Medical Services
Week will serve to educate the people of Atascadero, California
about accident prevention and what to do when confronted with a
medical emergency; and
• Whereas, it is appropriate to recognize the value and
the accomplishments of emergency medical services- teams by
designating Emergency Medical Services Week.
Now, therefore, I , Mayor Robert Lilley, in recognition
of this event do hereby proclaim the week of September 16-22 ,
1990 , as
"Emergency Medical Services Week"
and encourage the community to observe this week th appropriate
programs, ceremonies, and activities.
Bate : �7 S Signed by:
Attested by:
•
RECEINE0
AUG 1 �5
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY CITY MGR.
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES AGENCY, INC.
August 10, 1990
Mr . Ray Windsor, Manager
City of Atascadero
6500 Palma Avenue
Atascadero, CA 93422
Dear Mr . Windsor,
Emergency Medical Services Week is an annual event designed to
increase awareness of Emergency Medical Services in communities
throughout the County.
it is an opportunity for members of the EMS community to work
together to promote safety and prevention, and to educate the
public on the roles of each member of the EMS "team" .
In 1990, Emergency Medical Services Week is scheduled for •
September 16-23 .
Enclosed is a Proclamation honoring those individuals and
organizations who participate in making Sar_ Luis Obispo County' s
Emergency Medical Services one of the best in the State.
I: hope the City of Atascadero will be able to adopt the
Proclamation and designate September 16-22 , 1990 as Emergency
Medical Services Week.
Sincerely,
6>p2-j-
Steven
R. Darga
Administrator
SRD/as
enclosure
•
P.O. Box 14060 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 8051546-8728
•
P R O C L A M A T I O N
"Good Neighbor Months"
September — December, 1990
WHEREAS, United Way of San Luis Obispo County/Neighbors
Helping Neighbors is a voluntary grouping together of donors to
provide financial support to local and national charitable health,
welfare, research and youth organizations; and
WHEREAS, this organization was formed by the efforts of
representatives of labor, management and the general public; and
WHEREAS, these representatives, acting as a volunteer Board
of Directors, are responsible for directing United Way of San Luis
Obispo County/Neighbors Helping Neighbors and are to ensure that
the wishes of the givers will receive first priority in fund dis-
tributions; and
WHEREAS, United Way of San Luis Obispo County/Neighbors Help-
ing Neighbors, with its low operating cost, provides everyone with
an orderly system of contributing to charitable causes of his own
selection through a single contribution; and
WHEREAS, United Way of San Luis Obispo County/Neighbors Help-
ing Neighbors provides the donor with the knowledge that his gift
is collected, processed and distributed in the most efficient way
possible; and
WHEREAS, this City Council, encourages all citizens who so
desire and who find it within their means to contribute to the
charities -of their choice through United Way of San Luis Obispo
County/Neighbors Helping Neighbors .
NCW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council that the
months of September, October, November and December, 1990 , be
proclaimed as "Good Neighbor" months in the City of Atascadero,
County of San Luis Obispo.
e �
CBER LILL , Mayor
f City of Atasc ero, CA
• Dated: September 11, 1990
_ lots
II
United Way
August 7, 1990 of San Luis Obispo
County/
Mayor Robert Lilley Neighbors Helping Neighbor
6500 Palma Ave Post office Box 523
Atascadero Ca 93422 San Luis Obispo,California 93406
Phone:805-541-1234
Dear Honorable Mayor Lilley:
As you know, United Way of San Luis Obispo County/
Neighbors-Helping-Neighbors is an independent, non-profit
organization made up of local volunteers working to meet
the unique and ever-changing needs of San Luis Obispo
County. Through our donor network we seek to help local
and national charitable health, welfare, research, and
youth organizations; supporting a variety of services that
directly benefit our community.
During our 1989 Campaign we raised in excess of $740,000
which is being used to support over 34 different and
worthwhile programs throughout San Luis Obispo County.
This year, we will be setting our goal even higher in an
attempt to meet the needs throughout our area.
In order to accomplish this task we need your assistance
in facilitating public awareness and participation to
guarantee the success of our 1990 Campaign. •
Traditionally, the months of September through December
have been proclaimed as "Good Neighbor" months by cities,
chambers of commerce, and the County Board of Supervisors.
We urge you to continue this tradition so that we may
better help solve the health and human-care needs of our
community.
A community volunteer will be contacting you soon to find
out if you can help us, and if so, when the resolution
will be issued. A copy of last year's is enclosed for
your review.
Thank you for your support.
'ncerely,
r
Dan McCartlUnite
Dixie Budke
1990-91 Cahair Executive Director
ay/Neighbors-Helping-Neighbors
chmbrltr
MCE i11, AGENDA
DATE // ITEM N ,
IP
ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES
AUGUST 149 1990
Following a closed session for the purpose of discussions
regarding pending litigation, property acquisition, potential
litigation and employee negotiations, Mayor Lilley called the
regular meeting to order at 7:22 p .m.
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilman Dexter .
ROLL CALL:
Present : Councilmembers Shiers, Borgeson, Nimmo ,
Dexter and Mayor Lilley
Also Present : City Treasurer , Muriel Korba and City Clerk ,
Lee Dayka
Staff Present : Ray Windsor , City Manager ; Arther Montandon,
City Attorney; Henry Engen, Community
Development Director ; Mark Joseph ,
Administrative Services Director ; Andy
Takata, Director of Parks, Recreation and
Zoo ; Bud McHale, Police Chief; Mike Hicks,
Fire Chief; Greg Luke, Public Works Director ;
Lisa Schicker , City Arborist, Gary Sims,
Senior Civil Engineer
Mayor Lilley asked, that in light of discussions held in closed
session, for a motion to continue items B-1-A.
MOTION: By Councilman Nimmo and seconded by Councilwoman
Borgeson to continue item B-1-A until the next regular
meeting ; motion unanimously carried .
Mayor Lilley reported that the Council would be meeting in closed
session on August 29, 1990 at 5:00 p .m. to address certain
matters that pertain to roads in the City and stated that all
issues would be best served by continuing the hearing .
The City Manager requested that Council treat item B-3 in the
same way. He noted that this matter was an appeal by staff
related to potential action by Council on the road standards
policy.
CCB/ 14/90
Page 1
MOTION: By Councilman Dexter and seconded by Councilman Dexter
to continue item B-3 until the next regular meeting;
motion carried 5:0 by voice vote.
COMMUNITY FORUM:
Eric Greening , 7365 Valle, noted that the State Legislature
suspended portions of the Brown Act governing the posting of
agendas 72 hours before a public meeting and asked the Council to
affirm their attention to abide by those practices as a valued
tradition, even if they are no longer required by law.
The City Manager indicated that he was in receipt of a circulator
from the League of California Cities urging all communities in
the state to abide by the spirit of the Brown Act . Mayor Lilley
assured the public that the Council would continue to live up to
the standards of open government .
Kelly Gearhart , applicant for lot split on 7675 Bella Vista ( item
B-3) , demanded an explanation for continuance of the matter . He
expressed opposition to putting the matter over , relaying
background and asked why his project was the only one being held
up .
Mayor Lilley explained that the Council had unanimously voted to
continue the matter because it relates to current road issues and
reminded Mr . Gearhart that time limitations to address the appeal
had not been exceeded . The City Manager gave support to the
mayor ' s comments, stating that fundamental policies must be
resolved before specific cases can be addressed .
Mr . Engen confirmed that the appeal had been heard within the 30
days required and reported that there would not be a problem with
delaying the matter for two weeks.
The City Attorney concurred and reassured Mr . Gearhart that he is
not the only one being delayed and that his project is not an
integral part of the policy. He stated that resolution of
matters pertaining to potential litigation may impact the road
standards and policies that will eventually be adopted by the
City Council . Mr . Montandon added that complexity could be
avoided and consistent policy provided by continuing the matter.
A. CONSENT CALENDAR:
1 . MINUTES OF BUDGET HEARINGS HELD JUNE 259 27, 29 & JULY 5,
1990
CCS/14/90
Page 2
2. JULY 11v 1990 SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES (Study
Session) (Cont ' d from 7/10/90)
3. JULY 24, 1990 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
4. RESOLUTION NO. 101-90 - ADOPTING THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE
POSITION ALLOCATION SCHEDULE FOR THE CITY OF ATASCADERO
5. CREATION OF A DOWNTOWN TASK FORCE
6. RESOLUTION NO. 102-90 - AUTHORIZING AT&T EASEMENT FOR BURIED
CABLE
7. AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE THREE PATROL VEHICLES THROUGH
STATE COOPERATIVE PURCHASE PLAN
6. AUTHORIZATION TO CLOSE EL CAMINO REAL BETWEEN ROSARIO &
TRAFFIC WAY, NOON TO 3:00 P.M. , AUGUST 25, 1990
Mayor Lilley read the Consent Calendar . The City Clerk pulled
item A-1 for continuance. Councilman Dexter pulled item A-5 for
further discussion.
MOTION: By Councilman Nimmo and seconded by Councilman Dexter
to approve the Consent Calendar absent items A-1 and A-
5; motion carried 5:0 by roll call vote.
MOTION: By Councilman Nimmo and seconded by Councilman Shiers
to continue item A-1 , Minutes of Budget hearings held
June 25, 27, 28 and July 5, 1990; motion unanimously
passed .
5. CREATION OF A DOWNTOWN TASK FORCE
The City Manager reported that staff ' s recommendation was to hold
in abeyance the creation of a Downtown Task Force and Coordinator
pending final action on the Downtown Master Plan by the City
Council after public hearings before the Planning Commission and
Council . He stated that while he agreed with the request from
the B. I .A. to move forward , the implementation of the task force
was out of sequence.
Mayor Lilley concurred .
MOTION: By Councilwoman Borgeson and seconded by Councilman
Nimmo to follow staff recommendations relating to the
creation of the Downtown Task Force; motion
unanimously carried .
CC8/14/90
Page 3
B. HEARINGS/APPEARANCES:
1 . CONSIDERATION RE: ADOPTION OF POLICIES RELATED TO:
A. ADOPTING ROAD STANDARDS AND POLICIES — RESOLUTION NO.
103-90
Item Continued to August 28, 1990.
B. SIDEWALK/WALKWAY IMPROVEMENT POLICIES
Greg Luke, Public Works Director , gave an overview of his staff
report and highlighted departmental recommendations.
Lengthy Council discussion and questions followed relating to Mr .
Luke' s staff report .
Councilman Dexter commented upon materials used for construction
of sidewalks and the incorporation of a sidewalk master plan.
Mayor Lilley suggested that the "Walk to School " program be
incorporated into the Circulation Element .
Councilwoman Borgeson stated that she was opposed to assessing an
" in-lieu fee" because it might create bookkeeping problems as it
relates to inflation. Mr . Luke responded that adjustments will
have to be made periodically and commented that monies would be
spent within the fiscal year .
Mayor Lilley commended Mr . Luke for the detailed , thoughtful
approach .
Public Comments:
Mike Arrambide, 7243 Del Rio Road , expressed concern that
developers still be given present alternatives relating to road
and right-of-way improvements. In addition, he stated that he
hoped that if a developer paid into a sidewalk fund , that
sidewalks would be constructed somewhere else in the City.
The City Attorney advised that the City can charge a property a
fee only if it creates an impact that can be addressed and that
the use of the fee can be city-wide. Mr . Montandon also stated
that the update of the Circulation Element would provide the
basis by which to assess the fee. In addition, he reported that
recent legislation requires that the fee be used within five
years for the purpose it was received .
CC8/14/90
Page 4
• Greening , 7365 Valle stated that he was encouraged to see
Eric Gree i g , ,
the Council take a flexible approach on the sidewalk issue. He
suggested that if streets are to have a sidewalk on only one
side, that those walkways be consistent to avoid the need for
pedestrians to change sides of the street in order to use the
sidewalk . Additionally, he asked if any consideration was being
given to the needs of those in wheelchairs.
Nathan Koren, 7365 Valle, referred to a book "Landscaping for the
Disabled" and stressed the need for access in other areas besides
schools.
Sarah Gronstrand , 7620 Del Rio Road, referred to Palma Avenue and
asked how sidewalks could be created on streets as narrow as it
is.
Paul Washburn, 8250 San Rafael , spoke in support of a master
plan to allow property owners to know what is required of them.
He suggested that the City hire a consultant to help with this
process and urged that each street be defined and looked at as it
relates to trees, widths, etc .
Kris Hazard , 10060 Atascadero Avenue, agreed that a master plan
is needed to outline individual streets and make recommendations
for multi-family zoning .
Discussion came back to Council .
Councilwoman Borgeson referred to items #4 and #5 of Mr . Luke ' s
Summary and Conclusions and noted she was uncomfortable with
staff ' s projection and with giving authority to make
determinations to the Public Works Department .
Mr . Nimmo stated that he believed it would be more reasonable to
make determinations based on zoning rather than on the stage of
development .
The Public Works Director explained that although a master plan
is optimum, it is yet unavailable, and stated that he was
attempting to provide an alternative approach .
The City Manager noted that language in the staff report could be
amended in item #5 of the "Summary and Conclusions" as follows:
"Staff ' s determination will be based on topography, public safety
considerations and the current , as well as potential level of
development in the area. " He added that staff will be coming
back with a formal resolution for Council adoption.
CC8/ 14/90
Page 5
Each Councilmember reiterated their ownP ersonal desires to see
safe pathways completed while maintaining the rural character
within the City.
Councilman Shiers commented that his overall impression was that
the recommendations were good and allowed for flexibility.
Councilman Dexter suggested that primary applications for
walkways be allowed to construct berms with decomposed granite
and than later , when the block became more developed , full
concrete sidewalks with curbs and gutters be installed .
MOTION: By Councilman Nimmo and seconded by Councilman Dexter
to direct staff to come back to Council with a
resolution in accord with the recommendations of the
staff report as amended by the insertion of the words
"as well as potential " ; motion carried 5:0 by roll call
vote.
2. APPEAL PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF PRECISE PLAN 74-89
CONDITION REQUIRING CURB, GUTTER AND SIDEWALK AT 5160 PALMA
AVE. - JIM & KRIS HAZARD (Fisher/Washburn) (Cont ' d from 7/24)
The City Manager noted that because of the previous action on
item B-1-B, this matter would conform to the policy approved by
Council and asked for affirmation.
Councilman Nimmo asked the applicants if they were agreeable to
payment of an in-lieu fee of X25/linear foot .
Paul Washburn, 8250 San Rafael and agent for the applicant ,
asked for clarification.
The Public Works Director defined the requirements for the
applicant explaining that he would be asked to control the
drainage and that he could opt to pay an in-lieu fee instead of
installing the curb , gutter and sidewalk.
Mr . Washburn said that he was in agreement .
Councilwoman Borgeson noted for the record that she was not in
support of the in-lieu payment process. She stated that the
City should make a decision whether they want sidewalks or not .
Mr . Windsor clarified that the policy is predicated on the
assumption that curb , gutter and sidewalks will be required in
multi-family zones and stated that the intention of the in-lieu
payment is to establish a future fund sufficient to put in enough
CC9/14/90
Page 6
curb , gutter and sidewalks that make sense. He added that the
fund can be used for other types of walkways and the money must
be used for that purpose.
Councilwoman Borgeson reiterated her concerns for the funds
actually being used to construct walkways. The City Manager
noted that there was really no difference between this kind of
fee and other development fees already established .
MOTION: By Councilman Nimmo and seconded by Councilman Dexter
to grant the appeal .
Discussion on the motion ensued . Councilman Shiers asked
for clarification of the motion and stated that he could not
vote for it because it does not deal with the staff
recommendations to revise the conditions and policies
adopted .
Councilman Dexter concurred and withdrew his second .
Councilman Nimmo stated that he made the motion to grant the
appeal waiving in-lieu fees and requirements to provide
curb , gutter and sidewalk because he did not feel that the
City had it ' s act together yet .
Motion failed for lack of second.
MOTION: By Councilman Shiers and seconded by Councilman Dexter
to follow the recommendations of staff and revise
conditions 4-A, 4-B and 4-C to reflect the policy to be
adopted as discussed; motion passed 4: 1 with Councilman
Nimmo voting in opposition.
3. APPEAL BY CITY STAFF OF THE ROAD IMPROVEMENT CONDITIONS
RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION, 7675 BELLA VISTA
(Gearhart/Sierra Vista)
This item was continued to August 28, 1990.
Mayor Lilley called for a short recess at 8:39 p.m. The meeting
was reconvened at 9:05 p.m.
4. APPEAL BY ED BIAGGINI III OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RELATIVE TO REDUCING DENSITY,
PROVIDING OUTDOOR RECREATION SPACE, NOT ACCEPTING THE ACCESS
ROAD AND REQUIRING RESIDENTIAL FIRE SPRINKLERS -- C.U.P. 5-
99, 10700 EL CAMINO REAL
CCS/14/90
Page 7
Henry Engen gave staff report indicating that the applicants were
appealing the Conditions of Approval relative to reducing
density, providing outdoor recreation space, not accepting the
access road and requiring residential fire sprinklers at 10700 E1
Camino Peal . Staff ' s recommendation was to deny the appeal and
uphold the Planning Commission ' s approval of the Conditional Use
Permit application based on the Conditions of Approval .
There were no questions from Council .
Ed Biaggini , 5240 Chauplin and applicant, spoke on behalf of his
appeal giving background on his project . He stated that the
target market for his homes was to individuals with moderate
income, expressing the desire to provide affordable housing . He
explained that the proposed project is single-family residential
stressing that the development is not a mobile home park . Mr .
Biaggini emphasized that the homes have been designed to provide
a large yard space. Additionally, the appellant stated that if
he reduced the project by four homes, the individual price for
each home would increase.
Mr . Biaggini continued that he could see no reason for staff to
reverse its ' recommendation regarding accepting the access road
into the city-maintained system because it is a cul-de-sac .
Additionally, he claimed that he saw no reason to form a
homeowner ' s association. The applicant also remarked that the
fire station is in visible view from the project noting that
response time would be short and opposed installing fire
sprinklers in each home. Mr . Biaggini asked the Council if it
wanted to set a precedence for requiring all single-family homes
to be constructed with fire sprinklers.
Don West , architect for the project , also spoke in favor of the
appeal debating the need for sprinklers and described potential
construction materials. Mr . West supported the comments of the
applicant and maintained that the project is proposed to be
single-family dwellings.
The architect and applicant responded to questions from the mayor
relating to maintenance of the entrance, mutual open space and
center divider . Mr . Biaggini noted that each homeowner would be
required to maintain the portion of the center strip located in
front of his home and reported that he would use low
maintenance, drought-resistant landscape materials.
There were no public comments. Discussion came back to Council .
Gary Sims, Senior Civil Engineer , responded to questions from
CCB/14/90
Page 8
Councilman Nimmo relating to the access road and its ' acceptance
as a city street . Mr . Sims noted that the issue was not the cost
of maintenance, but rather that the road requires more intense
oversight than the City normally provides.
Mr . Luke stated that the original applicant reported that he had
been told by staff that the street would be a city street and
added that he regrettably did not have specific documentation to
support why he was told that . He related that first the road was
recommended to be a public street and that later staff
recommended that it be a private street . He noted that the road
is very characteristic of a private street .
Councilman Nimmo voiced his concern that instances may exist
where staff makes recommendations to the Planning Commission and
is then asked to change their professional judgement . Mr . Nimmo
pondered if this was the case with this particular project .
Mr . Sims responded that he believed the circumstances were part
of the evolution of attempting to set a road policy for the City.
He stated that there has been a dramatic change in the way staff
has dealt with road issues and an effort is being made to come
up with a logical classification and way to approach roads in a
standardized manner .
The Community Development Director responded to questions from
the mayor relating to density and affordable housing . Mr . Engen
reported that the zoning does call for a planned development ,
elaborated on allowable units per acre and related open space
requirements. Additionally, Mr . Engen answered questions from
Council regarding lot size and commended the architect for the
kind of private open space he had designed .
Councilman Dexter spoke in support of staff ' s recommendations for
a homeowner ' s association and common open space.
Councilwoman Borgeson voiced concern that homeowners may use the
street for additional parking .
Chief Hicks gave support for staff ' s recommendations for
providing fire sprinklers noting the possible fire hazard
associated with one home located directly next to another . He
added that it was important to build in fire protection and
offered to meet with the architect to discuss design
modifications.
MOTION: By Councilwoman Borgeson and seconded by Councilman
Dexter to uphold the Planning Commission ' s approval of
CC8/ 14/90
Page 9
Conditional Use Permit 5-89 based on the revised
conditions of approval adopted July 3, 1990 and deny
the appeal ; motion unanimously passed .
C. REGULAR BUSINESS:
1 . WATER PLANNING REPORT
The City Manager gave his report and recommended that in the near
future the City sponsor a symposium on water as a means of better
informing officials and residents on the various issues.
Councilwoman Borgeson asked Mr . Windsor if the problem was an
operational problem or a problem of not having enough water .
The City Manager responded that it could have been a little of
both . Ms. Borgeson continued that she would have preferred to
have the water company address the Council as a courtesy to the
City. She reiterated that she would like to see more
communication between the City Council and Atascadero Mutual
Water Company and noted that there was not a representative from
the water company present . She asked whether or not an
invitation had been extended ; Mr . Windsor confirmed that they
had indeed been invited .
2. SOUTHERN PACIFIC R.R. TREE REMOVALS ON RIGHT-OF-WAY
The City Attorney gave background and report . Mr . Montandon
noted that the matter had been researched by associates in Los
Angeles from the firm that represents the City and that he agreed
with their conclusion. He reported that the City is preempted by
State Law in regulating tree cutting in the railroad right-of-
way and added that the issue is essentially a private matter
between the lessee and the railroad company.
Councilwoman Borgeson noted that she had requested this matter be
placed on the agenda to generate Council comments, although she
did not feel there was any thing the City could do . She
reiterated her displeasure for the act .
Mayor Lilley and Councilman Shiers both expressed distress for
the way in which the incident was handled ; noting that it had not
been done in a sensitive manner .
The City Manager suggested that he draft a letter to the
railroad. Council consensus was in support of his
recommendation.
There were no public comments.
CCB/14/90
Page 10
3. SET DATE TO HEAR CONSULTANT PRESENTATION OF DRAFT FIRE
MASTER PLAN
Chief Hicks gave his report noting that he wished to formally
present the Draft Fire Master Plan to the City Council . He
stated that it was a good plan and that he had conferred with the
consultant who was agreeable to the proposed dates.
Council consensus was to select September 25th at 6:00 p .m. for
the presentation.
Chief Hicks noted that copies are available for Council review,
but that there would be a cost of duplication for copies
requested by members of the public .
The City Manager indicated that there would be copies available
for public review in the City Clerk 's Office, at the library and
fire house.
4. SET CANDIDATE INTERVIEW DATE(S) : PLANNING COMMISSION, PARKS
& RECREATION COMMISSION, RECYCLING COMMITTEE
Mr . Engen gave recommended dates for special meetings to
interview candidates for three advisory bodies. The Community
Development Director indicated that Council was also being asked
to make their appointments to each commission/committee following
the interviews. Brief discussion followed .
Council concurred with recommended dates as follows:
Planning Commission interviews - Thursday, August 23, 1990;
Parks & Recreation Commission - Thursday, August 30, 1990
Recycling Committee - Thursday, September 6, 1990.
It was agreed that the meetings would begin at 5:00 p .m. rather
than at 3:00 as had been proposed .
D. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION:
1 . City Council :
A. Committee Reports The following represents ad hoc or
standing committees. Informative status reports were
given as follows:
1 . Recycling Committee - Councilman Shiers reported that
the committee had met and would be coming to Council on
the 28th of August with a special presentation
CC8/ 14/90
Page 11
regarding mandatory garbage collection and curbside
recycling . Consensus was to begin the meeting with the
Recycling Committee' s report at 6:00 p .m. before the
commencement of the regular meeting at 7:00 p.m. Mayor
Lilley urged staff to publicize the special
presentation.
It was confirmed that the public is encouraged to
attend the meetings and that minutes are on record in
the City Manager ' s office.
2. Economic Opportunity Commission - Councilman Dexter
announced the next meeting date as Thursday, August 23,
1990.
3. Downtown Steering Committee - Mayor Lilley reported
that the committee had received proposals for authentic
reproductions of period street lights to be erected in
front of City Hall and asked for approval to move
forward . Council consensus was for such approval .
The mayor related that the movie, "My Blue Heaven" would open on
Friday, August 17th .
Police Chief McHale announced that on Saturday, August 25, 1990,
there would be a "Block Party" and official opening ceremonies
for the new police facility.
Councilman Dexter further announced that Maggie Rice would be
retiring from the Chamber of Commerce effective September 1 , 1990
and noted that he was looking forward to meeting her replacement .
2. City Attorney - No report .
3. City Clerk - No report .
4. City Treasurer - No report .
5. City Manager - No report .
MOTION: By Mayor Lilley and seconded by Councilman Dexter to
adjourn to closed session for the purpose of discussing
potential litigation regarding road policies on August
15, 1990 at 5:00 p .m. in the Club Room. Motion
unanimously passed .
THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 10:37 P.M.
CCS/14/90
Page 12
MEETV-14 1/90 AGENDA A-2
DATA._,_ ITEM#
• ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL MEETING
MINUTES SUMMARY
AUGUST 23, 1994
A special meeting of the Atascadero City Council was called to
order at 5:04 p .m. by Mayor Lilley.
ROLL CALL:
Present : Councilmembers Dexter , Nimmo , Bergeson,
Shiers and Mayor Lilley
Also Present : City Clerk , Lee Dayka and City Treasurer ,
Muriel Korba
Staff Present : Henry Engen, Community Development Director
PURPOSE OF THE MEETING:
To interview nine candidates for the City of Atascadero ' s
• Planning Commission; select one commissioner for a three year
term and two commissioners for four year terms as specified by
Ordinance No . 200; and to appoint those members to the Planning
Commission by formal resolution.
MEETING HIGHLIGHTS:
Interviews:
Council interviewed the following candidates for Planning
Commissioner :
Mildred Copelan
Dennis Schmidt
J. Donald Hanauer
Marcus Dixon
Robert E. Johnson
Karen Brillouet
Martin Kudlac
Geraldine Brasher
Jaime Lopez-Balbontin
CC8/23/90
• Page 1
Each candidate was asked if they had a preference to serve for S
three or four years.
Council Vote and Appointment :
Each councilmember voted for three candidates. The results were
as follows:
Robert E. Johnson four ( 4)
Martin Kudlac three (3)
J. Donald Hanauer three (3)
Dennis Schmidt two (2)
Geraldine Brasher two (2)
Karen Brillouet one ( 1 )
Mildred Copelan none
Jaime Lopez-Balbontin none
Marcus Dixon none
MOTION: By Councilwoman Borgeson and seconded by Councilman
Shiers to appoint Martin Kudlac to a four year term on
the Planning Commission; motion unanimously carried .
MOTION: By Councilman Dexter and seconded by Councilwoman
Borgeson to appoint Robert E. Johnson to a four year
term on the Planning Commission; motion unanimously
passed . •
MOTION: By Councilman Shiers and seconded by Councilman Dexter
to appoint J. Donald Hanauer to a three year term on
the Planning Commission; motion unanimously carried .
Resolution No . 104-90:
MOTION: By Councilman Dexter and seconded by Councilwoman
Borgeson to adopt Resolution No . 104-90 formally
appointing three members to the City of Atascadero ' s
Planning Commission; motion carried 5:0 by roll call
vote.
Adjournment :
MOTION: By Councilman Nimmo and seconded by Councilman Shiers
to adjourn to a closed session on Saturday August 25,
1990 at 11 : 15 a.m. for the purpose of discussing
potential litigation regarding roads.
CC8/23/90
Page 2 •
MEETING AGENDA
DAT9 TE_ 1,11/,90 ITEM# A-3
•
ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL MEETING
MINUTES SUMMARY
AUGUST 300 1990
A special meeting of the Atascadero City Council was called to
order at 5:08 p .m. by Mayor Lilley.
ROLL CALL:
Present : Councilmembers Dexter , Nimmo , Sorgeson,
Shiers and Mayor Lilley
Also Present : City Clerk , Lee Dayka and City Treasurer ,
Muriel Korba
Staff Present : Andy Takata, Director of Parks, Recreation
and zoo
PURPOSE OF THE MEETING:
• To consider seven candidates for the City of Atascadero ' s Parks &
Recreation Commission; select two commissioners for four year
terms; and appoint those members to the Parks & Recreation
Commission by formal resolution.
MEETING HIGHLIGHTS:
Interviews:
Council interviewed the following candidates for Parks &
Recreation Commissioner :
John Martino
Andrea Schulte
John Harris
Marcus Dixon
Karen Brillouet
Diana Cooper
Mayor Lilley noted that Council had received a letter from
candidate Sharon Morin, who could not attend the interview. Ms.
Morin ' s letter outlined some of her thoughts and concerns
relating to the Parks & Recreation Commission.
•
COB 30190
Page 1
Council Vote and Appointment : •
During the first of two rounds, each councilmember voted for two
candidates. The results were as follows:
Andrea Schulte five (5)
Diana Cooper two (2)
Karen Brillouet two (2)
John Harris none
Marcus Dixon none
Sharon Morin none
Due to a tie vote between candidates Cooper and Brillouet , run-
off ballots were cast . Diana Cooper received five (5) votes.
Resolution No . 110-90 :
MOTION: By Councilman Dexter and seconded by Councilman Nimmo
to adopt Resolution No . 110-90 formally appointing two
members to the City of Atascadero ' s Parks & Recreation
Commission for four year terms; motion carried 5:0 by
roll call vote.
Adjournment :
The meeting was adjourned at 6:55 p.m.
MINUT REPA B
LEE DAYKA, City C1 ek
CCS/30/90 •
Page 2
•
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: A-4
Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 9/11/90
File Number: LLA 12-90
From: Henry Engen, Community Development Director VW..,
SUBJECT:
Lot line adjustment between two existing lots of record resulting
in the reduction in size of an existing nonconforming lot at 7600
E1 Retiro/7555 Mira Flores (Ferguson/Johnson/Central Coast.
Engineering) .
RECOMMENDATION:
Per the Planning Commission' s recommendation, approval of Lot Line
Adjustment 12-90 based on the Findings and Conditions of Approval .
BACKGROUND :
On August 21 , 1990, the Planning Commission conducted a public
hearing on the above-referenced subject. On a 6 : 0 vote, the
Commission recommended approval of the request as reflected in the
attached staff report. There was brief discussion as referenced
in the attached minutes excerpts .
HE :ps
CC : David Ferguson
Charles Johnson
Central Coast Engineering
Enclosures : Staff Report - August 21, 1990
Minutes Excerpt - August 21 , 1990
CITY OF ATASCADERO Item: B_1
STAFF REPORT •
FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date : August 21, 1990
BY:Steven L. DeCamp, City Planner File No : LLA 12-90
SUBJECT:
A lot line adjustment between two existing lots of record
resulting in the reduction in size of an existing nonconforming
lot .
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of Lot Line Adjustment 12-90 based on
the Findings for approval in Exhibit E and the Conditions of
Approval in Exhibit F.
SITUATION AND FACTS:
1 . Applicant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .David Ferguson
Charles Johnson
2 . Representative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Central Coast Engineering
3 . Project Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7600 E1 Retiro/
7555 Mira Flores
4 . General Plan Designation. . . . .Moderate Density Single
Family
5 . Zoning District% . . . . . . . . . . . . .LSF-Y (1 .5 ac min lot size)
6 . Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Pcl . A = 13, 669 sq. ft .
(15, 941 sq. ft . )
Pcl . B = 14, 788 sq. ft .
(12, 516 sq. ft . )
7 . Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Parcel A = SFR
Parcel B = SFR
8 . Environmental Status . . . . . . . . .Categorically Exempt
BACKGROUND:
The City' s Zoning Ordinance provides a method for accomplishing
lot line adjustments that will result in the reduction in size of
existing nonconforming (substandard as to size) lots . This lot
• line adjustment procedure requires that a public hearing be held
and that the Planning Commission make the "Variance Findings" in
the affirmative.
ANALYSIS:
The subject parcels are located within the LSF-Y zoning district .
Minimum lot sizes in this zone are 1 . 0 acre where sanitary sewers
are available and 1 .5 acres where there are no sewers . Because
these parcels are on septic systems, the 1 .5 acre minimum lot
size is applicable. Both of the affected lots are considerably
smaller than the minimum lot size allowed by the Ordinance.
As can be seen on Exhibit C, these lots are original "Colony
Lots" that have been at their current size since their creation
in 1914 . They have not been modified through subsequent
subdivision activity. The lots are nonconforming (substandard)
as a result of the adoption of the City' s Zoning Ordinance.
Both lots were developed by the Johnsons prior to incorporation
of the City of Atascadero. Because the house on Lot 22 (Parcel
A) was incorrectly located at the time of construction, the other
improvements on both lots (landscaping, fences, etc . ) have been
installed as if the property line was in a different location.
• The current owners of both lots now desire to move the property
line to a new position which will correspond to the location of
the existing improvements . Moving the lot line as proposed,
however, will result in a lot that is already smaller than
allowed by the zoning district to be made even smaller.
The General Plan' s Land Use Policy #10 provides :
"Reduction in size of existing nonconforming lots shall,
however only be allowed with lot line adjustments to correct
historical and geographical use problems and to facilitate
the relocation of existing utilities, infrastructure or
easements where no increase in density will result .
As noted above, both of the lots in question are already
developed to the maximum extent possible under the General Plan
and Zoning Ordinance and have been since prior to incorporation
of the City. Because of the location of the existing fences and
landscaping on the parcels (historical use problems) , coupled
with the small size of the lots, there is no opportunity to
effect a lot line adjustment involving an equal exchange of
property between the two lots . The proposed lot line adjustment
is, therefore, in conformance with the intent of Land Use Policy
#10 .
The Zoning Ordinance requires that four findings be made in the
2
affirmative prior to the approval of the proposed Lot Line
Adjustment . These are the same findings that must be made prior •
to granting approval of a variance.
REQUIRED FINDINGS
1 . The variance authorized does not constitute a grant
of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations
upon other properties in the vicinity and zoning
district in which such property is situated.
This project would result in the further reduction in size of a
nonconforming lot . Although other lots in the vicinity and in
the same zoning district would not be allowed to subdivide to a
substandard size, They would be allowed lot line adjustments
under similar circumstances .
2 . There are special circumstances applicable to the
property, including size, shape, topography, location, or
surroundings, and because of these circumstances, the
application of [the Zoning Ordinance] would deprive the
property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the
vicinity and in the same zoning district .
Some of the improvements on these lots were placed across the
property line or well within required setback areas and have
existed that way for many years . Due to the size and •
configuration of the lots, there is no feasible lot line location
that will meet the applicants' intent . The only available
alternative would involve the removal of significant improvements
on Parcel A (landscaping, a shed, a deck, and a patio area) .
3 . The variance does not authorize a use which is not
otherwise authorized in the zoning district .
As previously discussed, both parcels are fully developed for
single family residential use. No change of use is proposed or
will be allowed as a result of the lot line adjustment .
4 . The granting of such variance does not, under the
circumstances and conditions applied in the particular case,
adversely affect the health or safety of persons, is not
materially detrimental to the public welfare, nor injurious
to nearby property of improvements .
The development on the parcels in question has existed in its
present state for many years with no adverse affect on the public
health, safety, or welfare. Moving the property line to coincide
with the location of the existing improvements will not adversely
affect adjacent properties or the existing improvements on those
properties . No discernable benefit would be derived by forcing
the removal of the existing improvements and retention of the lot
3
line ih its current location.
•
CONCLUSIONS:
Although the reduction in size of substandard parcels is a poor
practice and should be avoided under normal conditions, the
special circumstances in this case warrant such action. The
General Plan language and the Zoning Ordinance provisions cited
above were adopted to address just such situations as is
presented by this application. This proposal conforms to the
intent of the General Plan and meets the tests established by the
Zoning Ordinance for the reduction in size of a substandard
parcel .
ATTACHMENTS : Exhibit A - General Plan Map
Exhibit B - Zoning Map
Exhibit C - Colony Map
Exhibit D - Tentative LLA Map
Exhibit E - Findings for Approval
Exhibit F - Conditions of Approval
•
• 4
r
CITY OF ATASCADERO EXHIBIT A
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT LLA 12-90
General
DEPARTMENT
. s
aA C
PUBL
NO
Amu
•
j
CITY OF ATASCADERO EXHIBIT B
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Lr,� 12-90
Zoning Map
DEPARTMENT •
C "Ulu
'Q0 L(FH)
W
V O
S 7 `'� O
Z
P
\ �—A NDRES
g1N •
NA J
jA � 2 ur y
T�
r
o
IN
V
P AT/LA
� POP
CITY OF ATASCADERO EXHIBIT C
LLA 12-90
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT Colony Map
IN
•�•���w• o ��b d�
• " `
Z�tg j 1�Y �.•4
� „r
� �:i:� rr•rtr 1� `�,
Gi
` y „'.ra •
• �P �...�nrj' �+ W
a
� i
CITY OF ATASCADERO EXHIBIT D
LLA 12-90
s COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT Tentative LLA Map
•
a
• i }
Z
>1
i '
S 3 L d 1 j br 2i i W
lit
I8
s � s
r \
elk
� F
EXHIBIT E - Findings for Approval
• Lot Line Adjustment 12-90
7355 Mira Flores/7600 E1 Retiro
August 21, 1990
ENVIRONMENTAL FINDING:
The application as submitted has been determined to be
categorically exempt from the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act .
MAP FINDINGS:
1 . The application as submitted conforms with all applicable
zoning, general plan and subdivision regulations of the City
of Atascadero.
2 . The lot line adjustment authorized does not constitute a
grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations
upon other properties in the vicinity and zoning district in
which such property is situated.
3 . There are special circumstances applicable to the property,
• including size, shape, topography, location, or
surroundings, and because of these circumstances, the
provisions of Title 9 would deprive the property of
privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and in
the same zoning district .
4 . The lot line adjustment does not authorize a use which is
not otherwise authorized in the zoning district .
5 . The granting of such lot line adjustment, under the
circumstances and conditions applied in this particular
case, will not adversely affect the health or safety of
persons, is not materially detrimental to the public
welfare, nor injurious to nearby property or improvements .
•
EXHIBIT F - Conditions of Approval
Lot Line Adjustment 12-90 •
7555 Mira Flores/7600 El Retiro
August 21, 1990
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1 . The lot line adjustment as generally shown on the map
attachment provided herein shall be submitted in final map
format, reflected in a record of survey and Certificates of
Compliance (2) , or deeds to be approved by the Community
Development Department prior to recordation.
2 . The proposed adjusted lot lines shall be surveyed and
monuments set at the new property corners prior to
recordation of the final map, record of survey and
Certificates of Compliance, or deeds .
3 . If a final map is to be recorded, all existing easements
shall be delineated thereon.
4 . A mylar copy of the recorded final map or record of survey
shall be submitted to the Community Development Department .
5 . Approval of this lot line adjustment shall expire two years •
from the date of approval unless a time extension has been
granted pursuant to a written request prior to the
expiration date.
•
MINUTES EXCERPT - AUGUST 21 , 1990 - PLANNING COMMISSION
•
B. HEARINGS, APPEARANCES, AND REPORTS
1 . LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT 12-90 :
Application filed by David Ferguson and Charles Johnson
(Central Coast Engineering) to adjust the lot line
between two existing lots of record resulting in the
reduction in size of an existing nonconforming lot.
Subject site is located at 7600 E1 Retiro and 7555 Mira
Flores .
(Commissioner Lopez-Balbontin is now present - 7 :35 p.m. )
Steve DeCamp presented the staff report on this subject.
Staff is recommending approval of the request subject to
specific "Findings" and certain Conditions of Approval . He
noted letters from adjacent property owners supporting the lot
line adjustment.
Dennis Schmidt with Central Coast Engineering, representing
the applicant, spoke in support of the request indicating
concurrence with the recommendation. He commended staff on
a fine report.
• MOTION: By Commissioner Hanauer, seconded by Commissioner
Luna and carried 6 : 0 to approve Lot Line Adjustment
12-90 subject to the Findings and Conditions of
Approval .
2 . ROAD ABANDONMENT 02-90 :
Application filed by H.D. Pet son (Steve Devencenzi,
agent) to abandon the Gusta R d right-of-way (off of E1
Camino Real between La Lini and Principal) .
Doug Davidson presented the staff report noting that this
right-of-way is not necessa for future road or utility pur-
poses . Staff is reco►um ding approval as reflected in the
draft resolution. Mr Davidson referenced a letter from
Cuesta Engineering r resenting Don Messer' s property re-
questing modificat ' n of Condition #3-d contained in the
resolution. He i icated staff does not have a problem with
the modificatiol .
Commission estions and discussion followed.
Steve De encenzi, agent for the applicant, clarified that the
two s are parcels that were previously discussed are owned
• by D i Messer as well as the alley way in fee title, and it
is Mr. Messer' s intent to develop the entire property that
outs on Principal as one property. He added that he has
received Mr. Messer' s support for the road abandonment. Mr.
Devencenzi indicated agreement with the recommendation along
• REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL Meeting Date : 9/11/90
CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: A-5
----------------------------------------------------------------
Through : Ray Windsor , City Manager
From: Greg Luke , Director of Public Works
SUBJECT :
Traffic Committee filling of 2 vacancies
RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize the City Clerk to advertise to fill existing_
vacancies .
DISCUSSION:
The Traffic Committee is made up of 7 members :
1 . Council Representative (Councilman Dexter)
2 . Planning Director (Henry Engen)
• 3 . Public Works Director (Greg Luke)
4 . Police Representative (varies with shift assignment)
5 . Citizen' s Representative (Larry Fisher
6 . and Chuck Bishop)
7 . Youth Representative (unassigned)
The two Citizen' s Representative' s terms have expired and they
cannot be reappointed, which makes these seats vacant . However,
both men have attended meetings intermittently .
•
MEET1'. ,
AGENDA
DA7 F,..., . , I! 0 ITEM N
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Items
Through : Ray Windsor , City Manager Meeting Date: 9/11/ 0
From: Mark Joseph, Administrative Services Directo
SUBJECT: Awarding Bid for New Accounting System Hardware.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Council award Hornbuckle Engineering the
bid for a PC Network to be installed at City Hall . The system
will cost $18,546.75, plus installation. The absolute total cost
is unknown, but it will be kept within the budgeted amount, as
approved by Council .
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS:
Part of the FY 90-91 budget for the Finance Office included
• the purchase of a new accounting system, including software and
hardware. The approach taken by staff was to select the most
appropriate software, which would then determine the best
hardware. What follows is the analysis behind staff' s
recommendation for both .
Municipal Operations Manager (MOM) - The MOM ' s software was
selected for a variety of reasons, briefly discussed below.
MOM ' s report-generating time is much faster than the current
system. Presently, 5-10 minute waits are typical -- 15-20 minute
waits do occur . Under MOM ' s, the response time is in seconds.
In addition, its reporting format is more flexible than what we
have now, which will provide more useful information for Council
and staff.
MOMs has better cash handling/bank reconciliation features.
It also has several automatic features that improve operating
efficiency: automatic interest earnings allocation and automatic
entry of routine expenses or interfund transfers. Finally, MOMS
includes several Personnel modules, which would allow better
tracking of recruitments and positions.
•
There are three alternatives for Council ' s consideration,
discussed below:
1 . Select Coastal Computers. They are the lowest bidder ,
offering one of the fastest PC' s on the market . Coastal
also installed the PC Network for Police and Police staff
are generally impressed with their performance.
On the other hand , Coastal Computer is not as experienced
with the XENIX operating system. In addition, the product
being bid, DYNA, is not well known.
2. Select Hornbuckle Engineering . This option also offers the
fastest running PC. Their cost is slightly higher , but the
specific hardware bid is more acceptable to our recommended
Accounting Software vendor . In addition, Hornbuckle has
more experience with XENIX . Although located out of the
area, most of their support would be through modems.
3. Select the IBM RS/6000. The RS/6000 is a new product that
runs under the AIX operating system, similar to XENIX . We
• have confirmed that both MOMS and the Clerk ' s Index will run
on the RS/6000. This machine is considerably faster than
either Coastal or Hornbuckle, but at a much higher cost .
Future expansion would also cost more than either PC option
above. IBM has a good reputation for reliability and
service, but the RS/6000 is nonetheless a new product , and
how well it will be supported -- both by IBM and other
vendors -- remains to be seen.
Staff ' s recommendation is not easy. Having eliminated the
RS/6000 due to price and newness, the choice between Coastal and
Hornbuckle was made in Hornbuckle ' s favor . This recommendation
is based on Hornbuckle' s XENIX experience and the feeling that
their hardware would be more reliable. This feeling is also
shared by MGM ' s, who will be working closely with the hardware
vendor .
With this in mind , staff recommends Council award the bid to
Hornbuckle Engineering , and direct the City Manager to sign the
necessary paperwork . In addition, staff requests authorization
to procure related hardware and software as needed to assure a
successful installation, providing we do not exceed our budgeted
amount .
•
EXHIBIT I
i
M E M O R A N D U M
Date: May 10. 1990
To: Mark Joseph , Director of Administrative Services
tC�'t
From: Rudy Hernandez , Assistant Finance Director
Subject : Municipal Accounting Software System
As I indicated to you previously, Business Records
Corporation who presently supports our Municipal Accounting
System will no longer be supporting it in the near future. They
are instead going to focus on selling and supporting the upgraded
version of the DLH System (new version is GFS) .
In response to this and our previous discussions, I have
recently done some inouires regarding purchasing the upgraded DLH
System or buying another municipal accounting software system. •
For comparative purposes, I have prepared a cost pricing analysis
between what it would cost to upgrade the DLH System versus
buying another accounting software package. The other accounting
software package being compared is the Municipal Operations
Manager (MOMS) . Please refer to the attached cost comparison
worksheet .
In reviewing the cost comparison worksheet , you will note a
$20,286.75 cost savings involved in buying the MOMS Software.
The reason for this substantial savings is that the normal
complete selling price of $26,427.50 is being discounted at 50
which equals the $13,213.75. This offer is being made to current
DLH users only until September 1 , 1990.
In terms of training cost , the MOMS System is $4, 100 less
than the DLH (GFS) System. The reason for this is that I am
familiar with most of the MOMS Accounting Software Modules; which
should result in less training time.
One disadvantage of switching over to the MOMS System would
be hardware requirements. The MOMS System does not operate on
our IBM System 36. It would cost approximately $20,000 to meet
this hardware requirement . On the other hand , we have receive an
offer of $10,000 for our IBM System 36. This would result in a
net additional cost of $10,000 for our new hardware requirements.
Finally . the overall net savings from buying the MOMS System Is
over the DLH (GFS) System is $14,386.25. More importantly , I
called three cities comparable to our city population who
presently are using the MOMS System and all rated the software
and support services as excellent .
w _ !o i e is �o - _y - - 'o • w • • swag I �L -,
=o
^� �p tcn Ton �' L
w Y -1 of rbc A 3 l
M 30
3 O f ... i "►
A �Q fft � 9nnr 70111
r) H N " Z. 1p rt, n,
p nt
— nr t ccp
�. 3
np
Ln
,OL
Li
�e 3 �o-Nao
IL
pj Ise `� eo J
a
• i I I .. �l:J� "'�J Ti T.
�1--i
Ln
`I
t
f ►
I 12
LL pppp r~
ow0
a uT+
-- - -• I I ur►. �^ fin'' �'",' J44� -�v
N J T
EXHIBIT II
MEMORANDUM
Date: AuaG=_t 29. 1990
To : Ray 'Windscr . City Manager
Fro;n Mar;: Joseph , Administrative Services Di'recto�
Sur, Ject : Early Payoff' o` Se-urity-Pacific ' s Equipment Lea_e/
Pur_hase - #209-
This memo outline=_ the reasons for an early payoff of the
Equipment Lease & Option Agreement #2097. The agreement paid for
tVO fire trucks and a variety of computer equipment , including
:he 13M System 36.
'he -amourt needed to conclude the lease is $143,67(±.65
pain+ be=ore Seotember, 1990; or $144 1L+0 .22 ( $469.53 more) if
;ai, by October 2. 1990 . If earl'..• payoff is not dorso the Citv.
wot.sld pay $^�,990. in lease payments a a
: � during this fiscal year and
1i-.e amount next year .
I have attached Security Pacific ' s letter Confirming these •
amount_ .
Ther` are twc reasons for early pay-off. First , it
facilitates upgrading the City ' s accounting system. The new
so' aware recuires new hardware. By Oayir!? off t'•1P_ lease earl'..
the Cil' C3,. selS'.Stem ^ +tie oh.; rf 3t the new s
3b olid �, r_ 0 s c`t
-'y apprv'; imataI 'al'� • Q(JO % . Second , earl' 'oay-oT` is attracti`✓e
from :a ca=_,. flow p^ spec+:_ :'e. 9y paying _`f the i23se t.7is year ,
we a`. _ _d a 3ene-a l Fun= an=-=_ r+ex t Year . Thi=- i _
appealing because the '=eneral Fundcar—ic-ver fcr FY 80-90 will be
cmnsid=rabl'-y higher than originaily estimatEd `perhaps as high as
S1 ,75 or;C, mover sus $65 100 • .
The disadvantage liss in the interest c.:CB}'Se frivoled . The
I save $9 . 301= in interest `harmes ii' paid by Sectamber
2, e lease is paid tf` ear l' , an d aS irm1nq the
=urrent :nteres~ =ar,-Ii^gs Of 9 .5': . the Ci ..,r, would lose
scpr.ox mately $8, 66?, cr a net loss cf X358. This amount :•10t-Ild
=I:T11ni=h � 1 the a ent that interest rate. Crop 3a
_omF•
ncTric'm � s have soecu 1ated In any eve?it , the loss i= not
signi . i _:zr,t and an be ahs-c-bed by the FinanceDepartment- .
•
H
As a final ��ote, the early pay-off would be considered an
expense for the current fiscal year, offset of course by a
saving=_ next year . Because the payoff was not specifically
budgeted , and the nature Of the request itself, a consent item to
Council might be in order . Council authorization would
necessitate deferring payment until October at an additional
cost of $4"0.
•
q`
SECURITY PACIFIC NATIONAL BANK
GLOBAL TRADING OPERATIONS•300 SOUTH GRAND AVENUE,LOS ANGELES,CALIFORNIA
MAILING ADDRESS:POST OFFICE BOX 7061,PASADENA,CALIFORNIA 91109
August 13, 1990
Mr. Rudy Hernandez
City of Atascadero
6500 Palma Avenue
Atascadero, CA 93422
Re: Equipment Lease & Option Agreement #2097
Dear Mr. Hernar_dem:
This letter is to confirm pay-off terms for the City of
Atascadero equipment we have as collateral.
Lease #2097: Fire Trucks (2) & Computer System
Pay-off as of 9/02/90
Outstanding Balance . _. . . . . . . . . . . .$139,064.18
150 days interest @ 7.95%
(Interest from 4/2/90 - 9/2/90) _. 4,606.51
Amount Due for Pay-Off
(To be received no later than
9/2/90) . _. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$143,670.69
Pay-Off as of 10/02/90
Outstanding Balance _. . . . . . . . . . . . . __$106,144.73
Payment due 10/02/90 37,995_29
Amount due for Pay-Off
(To be received no later than
10/2/90) _. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$144,140_22
Upon receipt of the pay-off amount, Security Pacific hereby
agrees to issue a collateral release for the above listed
equipment.
Sincerely,
;,� _
MARISELA F_ GOXZALE�,
Asst. Vice Presidemt-
(213) 229-1589
W - MEETING AGENDA
DATE 9/11/90 ITEM B-2 A&B)
RESOLUTION NO. 111-90
A RESOLUTION OF THE ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL
ACKNOWLEDGING CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE OF
THE "GORDON DAVIS ROADS" INTO THE
CITY' S MAINTAINED ROAD SYSTEM
WHEREAS, the City of Atascadero Public Works Director entered
into an Agreement for road improvements with Gordon T. Davis in
1983 and again in 1986 ( see Exhibits A & E, attached) ; and
WHEREAS , Gordon T. Davis has petitioned the City to accept the
roads covered by the 1983 and 1986 Agreements into the City-Main-
tained System; and
WHEREAS , the City' S Public Works Department has recommended
against accepting certain reads , or portions thereof, into the City
Maintained System pending their meeting the Terms and Conditions
of the 1983 and 198E Agreements; and
WHEREAS, in order to resolve the issue, the City and Gordon
T. Davis have negotiated a settlement leading to an agreed-upon
list of additional improvements ( see Exhibit C, attached) , which,
upon completion and inspection by the City, will lead to a blanket
acceptance of all roads covered by the 1983 and 198E Agreements
into the City-Maintained System; and
WHEREAS, the adoption by Council of a resolution accepting all
roads covered by the 1983 and 1986 Agreements into the City-Main-
tained System will formalize, as policy, the exemption of all
subsequent single-family residential development applications for
ind_vidual lots from road improvement conditions , except as may be
required in conjunction with driveway encroachment permits .
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council does resolve as follows :
1 . Staff is directed to establish conditions for specific
plans within. the 193 and 1986 Agreements consistent with
Exhibit C;
2 . Staff is directed to formally- consummate this agreement,
including the acceptance of an improvement security for
these improvements allowing the immediate approval of
precise plans .
Cn motion by Councilmember seconded by Council-
rnemberthe foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in
its entirety on the following roll-call vote:
AYES .
NOES:
ABSENT:
ADOPTED:
RESOLUTION NO. 111-90 cont- C')
ATTEST:
LEE DAY{A, City Clerk ROBERT B. LILLEY, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ARTHER R. MONTANDON, City Attorney
M E M O R A N D U M
To: City Council Members
From: Ray Windsor, City Manager
Subject: Item 2-B, September 11th Meeting
Date: September 6, 1990
In the event Council adopts Resolution 111-90, there will obviously
be a period of time during which the additional improvements re-
lated to the 1983 and 1986 Agreements will be finalized. Once
we 've signed off on everything and are ready to have Council adopt
a resolution accepting the so-called Gordon T. Davis Roads into
the City-maintained system, this will formally trigger the exemp-
tion of all development applications from the conditioning process
beyond the standards of the 1983 & 1986 Agreements, unless of
course the City, as part of its own capital improvements, desires
to upgrade any particular portion.
Our concern relates to the interim period--the time between the
adoption of Resolution No. 111-90 tonight and the ultimate adoption
• of a resolution accepting all roads under the 1983 & 1986 Agree-
ments into the City-maintained system.
Staff would suggest a motion by Council as follows relating to
Precise Plans 28-90 ( 8705 Santa Cruz/Falkenstien) and 70-90 ( 14405
Santa Ana/Gardner) :
Grant the appeals, and instruct the Director of Public
Works to establish conditions in accordance with Exhibit
C of Resolution No. 111-90, subject to the completion by
Gordon T. Davis of the improvements in Exhibit C or, as
an alternative, the assurance through some form of secu-
rity by Gordon T. Davis that said work will be completed.
RW: cw
c : Greg Duke
Henry Engen
Art Montandon
•
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: B-3
Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date:
r/T-17 90
From: Gary R . Sims, Senior Engineer
SUBJECT: ,
8705 Santa Cruz Road: Appeal of precise plan 28-90•
__.._...._.___._......._.__............._._._
appeal filed by John Falkenstien of road improvement
condition of precise plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
Uphold the existing conditions requiring road frontage
improvements to be constructed and deny the appeal.
BACKGROUND:
Condition 2, Exhibit D, of the Conditions of Approval is as
follows.
Improve Santa Cruz Road along entire property frontage
to conform to City Standard A-2. Improvements shall
include, but not be limited to installing a.c. dike and
hydroseeding the cut bank. Rip rap shall be installed
as directed by the City Engineer to prevent downstream
erosion. All improvements shall be to the satisfaction
of the City Engineer and shall be completed prior to
the final building inspection.
All of the lot 's road frontage is included in the Las Encinas II ,
Limited Partnership, road system that is currently under review
by the City Council . . The intent of condition 2 is to generally
require compliance with the City 's minimum road standards .
Specifically , the improvements include the items from the final
punch list recommended by the Director of Public Works to address
these ' roads constructed under previous agreement . These
improvements include only the applicant 's side of the road
unless offsite drainage improvements are related to the
applicant 's site.
•
DISCUSSION:
Alternatives
Alternatives for consideration include, but are not necessarily
limited to, the following.
Alternative 1 - Approve the exist.in_g-condition
This alternative would maintain a consistent policy of requiring
that road frontage improvements be constructed with the
development of the individual lot . In the staff 's opinion this
section of road could be improved so that it would be suitable
for transfer to the City maintained system . The necessary
improvements would not require extraordinary effort or incur
excessive environmental degradation . The specific improvements
assigned to the applicant would include the following.
1 . Install approximately 550 feet of 2 foot wide paved
shoulder with asphalt concrete dike.
2 . Install a paved downdrain to an existing culvert.
3. Install rip rap where necessary . •
There are other improvements necessary before it would be
recommended that this section of road be included in the City
maintained system . These improvements are not part of the
applicant 's frontage.
Alternative 2a - Require_no imrrovements. Santa Cruz remains a
privately maintained road
This alternative would be unfair to the remaining frontage
property owners who may desire to have a City maintained road .
Santa Cruz road is important to general circulation and it would
not be desirable for it to be privately maintained.
Alternative 2b - Require no i_m_prov_ements fromthe applicant.
Allow_ the Las_ _Encinas II , Limited
Partnership, to construct the imcrovements.
The precise plan review process is conducted separately from the
City 's review of previous road agreements . In the precise plan
review process each project is reviewed for conditioning
utilizing the City 's adopted minimum road standards and City
ordinances, with the overlying consideration of practicality .
Currently , the City is negotiating with the Partnership to bring
the road into substantial compliance with the City 's previous •
agreements.
S
Alternative 3 - Require no improvements _ Transfer_Santa Cruz
into_the City.__maintained road sustem .
This alternative is not recommended because the City would then
have to pay the cost of improvements or carry the burden of
frequent maintenance costs .
FISCAL IMPACT:
The exact cost of improvements remains to be determined . A
rough estimate of the cost of improvements is $5, 300.
enclosures: letter of appeal - May 11 , 1990
City notice of approval - April 23, 1990
CC: Glen Lewis
Don Messer
John Falkenstien
•
CUESTA ENGINEERING
6717 Morro Road
Atascadero,CA 93422 •
(805)466-6827 �
�FIIIF
MAY 11 1990
COWAUNIP DEVELONAIENT
May 11 , 1990
Karl Schoettler
City of Atascadero
6500 Palma
Atascadero, CA 93422
Subject: Precise Plan 28-90
8705 Santa Cruz Road
Lewis
Karl ,
As representative of Mr. Glen Lewis, I hereby appeal this Precise Plan Approval . •
Attached is a check for $100.
We are filing this appeal due to Condition #2 which requires road improvements
on Santa Cruz Road. We prefer not to take this issue to Planning Commission.
We simply need more time to discuss the specifics of the requirements with the
Engineering Department.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
�n Falkenstien v I
JF:ch
89-182
cc: Don Messer
-f/00. o a S///?'V •
�z398�
ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
6500 PALMA AVENUE
Nvllla��
ascadeesATA3CAOERO, CALIFORNIA 93422PHONE: (803) 466.8000 NCORPORATED JULY 2. 1979 POLICE DEPARTMENT
6300 PALMA AVENUE
CITY COUNCILATASCADERO.CALIFORNIA 93422
CITY CLERK PHONE: (605) 466.8600
CITY TREASURER
CITY MANAGER "+•
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FIRE DEPARTMENT
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT - 6005 LEWIS AVENUE
PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT ATASCAOERO.CALIFORNIA 93422
PHONE: (603) 466-2141
April 23, 1990
Glen R. Lewis
PO Box 1980
Atascadero, CA 93422
RE: PRECISE PLAN 28-90
8705 Santa Cruz Road
Dear Applicants:
The City of Atascadero has received and reviewed your application
for a Precise Plan and Environmental Determination for grading on
slopes in excess of 10% for a single family residence.
The proposed site and surrounding properties are zoned RS
(Residential Suburban) and the proposed use is allowed as
defined as a single family dwelling (Section 9-3. 142 (d) .
A review by the Community Development Director of the
environmental description form and application, along with other
background information, shows that the project will have no
detrimental effect upon the environment;
Declaration has been prepared. The Director rhas ralso foundjve the
project, as conditioned, to be in compliance with the provisions
of the Zoning Ordinance.
The proposed Precise Plan is approved as shown on attached
Exhibit B (grading and drainage plan) and subject to the
conditions of approval in Exhibit D. Final approval becomes
effective on May 14, 1990 unless appealed,
CONSTITUTE A GRADING OR BUILDING PERMIT. ) (NOTE: THIS DOES NOT
In the event you intend to appeal any of the conditions, your
appeal should be in writing and should state the reasons for the
appeal. Any appeal would be scheduled for Planning Commission
consideration as a public hearing. You should, however, discuss
• any objections to the conditions with planning staff as it may be
Possible to alter conditions after such discussion.
If you should have any questions concerning this project, you are •
welcome to contact the Community Development Department for
assistance.
Sincerely,
Karl C. Schoettler
Assistant Planner
KCS/kcs
cc: Kim Blake,
Cuesta Engineering
Attachments: Exhibit A - Location Map
Exhibit B - Grading and Drainage
Exhibit C - Findings for Approval
Exhibit D - Conditions of Approval
•• •-3• ,r�y EXHIBIT A
CITY C( • ATASCADERO
_�=• .o i =�
COPRECISE PLAN 28-90
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
v.�.;. DEPARTMENT LOCATION MAP
V
17
Q
dr
O
t
O
i
O a
51TJ
°
R S
8
'o—
i
�1✓
0
i o
i
ti�
�. ... C11 L C �1�S�l�DO EXHIBIT' 'B
a-IN
y
� PRECISE PLAN 28-90
W �l COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT GRADING & DRAINAGE
lb
ilia
all
00
�fa •rte r � � +f• ��G �'- i- �2���•lf�.� moi'
JIM
� •moi
it
S � � � . .i•!a/ / / ar r t
•� �i i ice'/���% w•-�� /' � ' ', �\ :11111 , / � ��
fi 'i '''=i �l tl'1 tit ` �3
tai ii ../ 1
10
/A 40.41 1 �• 1 t
Exhibit C - Findings for Approval
Precise Plan 28-90
8705 Santa Cruz Rd.
(Glen R. Lewis/Cuesta Engineering)
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 grading is in compliance with the City' s
Appearance Review Guidelines.
EXHIBIT D
Conditions of Approval •
Precise Plan 28-90
8705 Santa Cruz Rd.
(Glen R. Lewis)
1. All construction shall be in conformance with Exhibit B
(grading/drainage plan) , Exhibit D (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. Improve Santa Cruz Road along entire property frontage to
- conform to City Standard A-2. Improvements shall include,
but not be limited to installing a.c. dike and hydroseeding
the cut bank. Rip rap shall be installed as directed by the
City Engineer to prevent downstream erosion. All
improvements shall be to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer and shall be completed prior to the final building
inspection.
3. Arborist shall submit a letter stating that tree protection
fencing is in place prior to issuance of building permit.
This letter should accompany materials submitted for
building permit.
4. This precise plan is approved for one year from the date of •
final approval (May 14, 1990) .
•
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF ATASCADER01 Agenda Item: B-4
Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date:
9/11/90
From: Gary R . Sims, Senior Engineer
.......... .................. ......................... ..........................................................
SUBJECT: 14q05 Santa Ana Road: Appeal of precise plan 70-90;
.......................................................................I----- —
appeal filed by Robert Gardner of road improvement
condition of precise plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
Uphold the existing conditions requiring road frontage
improvements to be constructed and deny the appeal .
BACKGROUND:
The existing condition 5, Exhibit 0, Public Works
Department Conditions, is as follows.
S . Complete Santa Ana Road to minimum City Road standards along
the entire property frontage, or as directed by the Director
of Public Works, prior to the final building inspection.
All of the lot 's road frontage is included in the Las Encinas II ,
Limited Partnership, road system that is currently under review
by the City Council . The intent of condition 5 is to generally
require compliance with the City 's minimum road standards .
Specifically , the improvements reflect those improvements
recommended by the Director of Public Works to be included in the
final punch list addressing these roads constructed under
previous agreements . These improvements would apply only to the
applicant 's side of the road unless offsite drainage improvements
are related to the applicant 's site.
DISCUSSION: •
Alternatives
Alternatives for consideration include, but are not necessarily
limited to, the following.
Alternative 1 - Approve the existing condition
This alternative would maintain a consistant policy of requiring
that road frontage improvements be constructed with the
development of the individual lot . In the staff 's opinion this
section of road could be improved so that it would be suitable
For transfer to the City maintained system . The necessary
improvements would not require extraordinary effort or incur
excessive environmental degradation . The specific improvements
assigned to the applicant would include the following:
1 . Install approximately 300 feet of two foot wide paved
shoulder with asphalt dike.
2 . Extend one 24 inch culvert and install riprap at the
outlet.
3. Install riprap at the end of a 36 inch culvert .
'f . Reconstruct approximately 140 feet of shoulder and
bank . The purpose of this is to widen the shoulder .
S. Install a 'fS degree downspout at the end of a 24 inch
culvert .
There are other improvements necessary before it would be
recommended that this section of road be included in the City
maintained system . These improvements are not located within the
applicant 's frontage.
Alternative 2a - Require _no_improvements, Santa Ana remains a
...._...._.........._........._..._.._..__.__.......__._..__._..._.__._
priva_telt�. maintained Load _
The applicant has suggested that the extension of Santa Ana
beyond Santa Cruz remain a private road in its existing
condition. This would be unfair to the remaining frontage
property owners who may desire to have a City maintained road .
The remainder of the Santa Ana frontage is important to general
circulation and it would not be desirable for it to be privately
maintained .
•
Alternative 2b - Require_ no.-.---:!nR;1oyjpments from the applicant .
Allow the Las Encinas II Limited
Fartnershi to construct
improvements.
The precise plan review process is conducted separately from the
City 's review of previous road agreements . In the precise plan
review process each project is reviewed for conditioning
utilizing the City 's adopted minimum road standards and City
ordinances, with the overlying consideration of practicality .
Currently , the City is negotiating with the Partnership to bring
the road into substantial compliance with previous agreements .
Alternative 3 - !Keqqire no impEovements Ana is
,____�janta
tran�iFW�ed to the City - maintained road
§.!Astem
This alternative is not recommended because the City would then
have to pay the cost of improvements . It should be noted that
the drainage improvements associated with the extension of
culverts and installation of riprap are to prevent excessive
erosion on the applicant 's land . The potential exists that if
these improvements are not completed then the applicant or a
future owner of the parcel will attempt to require the City to
install the improvements to prevent damage to the applicant 's
property .
FISCAL IMPACT:
The exact cost remains to be determined . A rouqh estimate
of the cost of improvements is $10, 000 to $11J,0-00.
enclosures: letter of appeal - August 9, 1990
City notice of approval - July 30, 1990
Improvement location map
CC: Robert 0 . Gardner
8/9/90
To Community Development Department ,
Att : Henry Engen
Regarding Precise Plan #70-90
14405 Santa Ana Road
I would like to appeal the provision of approvel from Public
Works to bring Santa Ana up to new City standards along the road-
way that fronts the property.
Being that my lot is fronted by the roadway on three sides
and that the road dosen ' t go anywhere except to a dead end, and
some unbuildable properties . Also that being the lot with roads
that where recently put in we have no allowance for.This kind of
additional expence, would put a extreem hardship on our project .
I would be happy to meet you at the project and go over your
and my thoughts . Our home sight is at the furthest left corner,
so none of the improvements would ever be used by our house.
A possibility discussed with staff members was that the City
not except that road.
Please fill free to call and get together on this .
Yours Truly,
Robert D. Gardner
G.W. Land Company
K L,7
AUG 5- 1990 •
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
•
424 . *
' V
COn15T. A•C, BERM
rn15TALL LONG 450 DOWN 5ROUT
10
IN5TA« EXTENSIVE ,SANK
RiPRAP SMOULDER ,RECONST. I _
SANT EXTEND CULVERT � IMSTALL
,9 RIP RAP
8 .95ac .
.. ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
POST OFFICE BOX 747
ATASCAOERO.CALIFORNIA 93423 ~
PHONE: (8051 466.0000
POLICE DEPARTMENT
POST OFFICE
tascadel co ATASPHONE.
O CALIFORNIA 93.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY CLERK PHONE: (805)) 464.6.8600
CITY TREASURER
• CITY MANAGER INCORPORATED JULY 2.
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FIRE DEPARTMENT
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 6005 LEWIS AVENUE
PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT ATASCAOERO.CALIFORNIA 934
PHONE: (603) 468.2141
July 30, 1990
G.W. Land Company
7635 El Camino Real
Atascadero, California 93422
RE: PRECISE PLAN 70-90
14405 Santa Baa Road
Dear sir/ma'am:
This is to inform you that the City of Atascadero has reviewed
Your Precise Plan application for the construction of a single-
family residence located at 14405 Santa Ana Road (Exhibit A) . As
you may recall, an approved Precise Plan is necessary for any
grading on slopes in excess of ten (10) percent.
The project site and surrounding properties are currently zoned
RS (Residential Suburban) , which allows for single-family
residential use, as defined by Section 9-3.142 (d) of the Zoning
Ordinance.
An Initial Study was conducted for this project, and a Negative
Declaration was prepared, in accordance with City of Atascadero
Resolution No. 1-86 and the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) . That is, upon review of the application and the
particular characteristics of the project site, a determination
was made by the Community Development Director that the project
as proposed would not have a significant adverse effect on the
environment.
The subject Precise Plad - as therefore been approved/' 3 shown by
the attached grading and tree protection plan (Exhibi, B) , based-
on the attached findings (Exhibit C) , and subject to the
conditions of approval included herein (Exhibit D) . Final
approval of the subject Precise Plan will become effective on
August 20, 1990, unless an appeal is filed during this appeal
period. (NOTE: THIS DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A GRADING OR BUILDING .
PERMIT.)
if you are dissatisfied with any of these conditions to approval,
you may appeal to the Planning Commission within the
aforementioned appeal period. Any such appeal must be made in
writing, along with the appropriate fees, and must clearly state
the reason(s) for the appeal. Appeals would then be scheduled
for Planning Commission consideration as a public heaarinngg. You
have
are encouraged, however, to discuss any objections y
ou may to these conditions with the planning staff prior to filing a
formal appeal, as it may be possible to resolve your concerns at
the staff level.
Please feel free to contact this office if you have any questions
regarding this matter.
Sincerely,
r
Gary/ v. Raiser,
Assistant Planner
PP-70-90.1et
Attachments: Exhibit A - Location Map
Exhibit B - Grading and Tree protection Plan
Exhibit C - Findings for Approval
Exhibit D - Conditions of Approval
•
EXHIBIT A
CITY (.3 ATASCADERO LOCATION ASAP
PRECISE PLAN #70-90
WH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
IR DEPARTMENT
.. o
i �• R 5
7 /
1 1
1
T"' 1
r41
SITE j
i =
' l
\:EtvcEpo�f�
` EXHIBIT g
�. ... CITY �- ATASCADERO •RADING/TREE--PROTECTION
PRECISE PLAN 70-90
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
;;' DEPARTMENT
•
... .
_ ___\\ .sus.• _ _ __
\
IN.
•.:1 \ \\" 1r3atxssesssrtzsss�aa i�
ash.—�--._
YM�
1
fit%
i .� �1 �^` � �• •tear---—
LOT to
rl
LOT is
M17
L=am:! � � ./ � .Oar•:;
AILAW LOW
Ile
I� / r
Y.�Y
Exhibit C - Findings for Approval
Precise Plan 70-90
14405 Santa Ana Road
(G.W. Land Co. /Gardner)
1. The proposed project, with the conditions contained herein,
is consistent with the General Plan.
2. The proposed project and 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 grading is in compliance with the City's
Appearance Review Guidelines.
PP-70-90. fin
•
EXHIBIT D -
Conditions of Approval
Precise Plan 70-90
14405 Santa Ana Road
(G.W. Land Company/Gardner)
1. All construction shall be in conformance with Exhibit B
(grading and tree protection plan) , and Exhibit D (conditions
of approval) , and all other codes and ordinances of the City
of Atascadero. Any modification of this project shall be
subject to the review and approval by the Community
Development Department prior to implementing any changes.
2. The septic/leachfield system shall be approved by the City
Building Division prior to the issuance of a building permit.
3. A letter shall be submitted by the certified arborist
indicating that tree protective measures are in place, prior
to the issuance of a building permit.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS:
4. A City road standard D-1 drive approach shall be constructed
prior to the final building inspection.
5. Complete Santa Ana Road to minimum City Road standards along
the entire property frontage, or as directed by the Director
of Public Works, prior to the final building inspection.
6. Offer to dedicate to the public, for public road purposes, the •
following right-of-way:
a. Twenty feet from the centerline of the existing
right-of-way along the entire property frontage;
b. Where road improvements fall outside of the
existing right-of-way, additional right-of-way
shall be offered. The additional right-of-way
shall include all shoulders and slopes.
5. This Precise Plan is approved for a period of one year from .
the date of final approval (August 13, 1990) . Upon expiration
of this period, this Precise Plan approval shall become null
and void, unless:
(a) Substantial site work toward establishing the
authorized use has been .performed, as defined by
Section 9-2.114 of the City, Zoning Ordinance; or
(b) The project is completed, as defined by Section 9-
2. 115 of the City Zoning Ordinance; or
•
•
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF ATASCADERO ITEM: B-5
Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 9/11/90
File No: TTM 2-90
By: Henry Engen, Community Development Director
SUBJECT:
Appeal by Michael S. Krout on behalf of Richard Montanaro of Plan-
ning Commission' s denial of proposed tract map (condominium
conversion) 11145 E1 Camino Real .
RECOMMENDATION:
Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission' s findings for
denial reached at their July 17 , 1990 meeting, except for deletion
of the last sentence in Finding ##1 . Evidence.
BACKGROUND:
On June 19, 1990, the Planning Commission considered the applica-
tion of Richard Montanaro to convert an existing 64-Unit multiple
family project at 11145 E1 Camino Real into airspace condominiums .
The recommendation of staff at that meeting was to establish
condominium conversion criteria prior to taking action on this
proposed map. As indicated in the minutes excerpt, the appellant
was not interested in a continuance and the action of the Planning
Commission, on a 3 : 2 vote with 2 absent, was to direct staff to
bring back findings for denial . On July 3 , 1990, the matter was
scheduled as part of the Consent Agenda, but was pulled at the
request of the City Attorney to enable further review of the
proposed findings for denial . Subsequently, modified findings for
denial were heard by the Planning Commission on July 17 , 1990 and
then, on a 3 : 1 vote with 2 abstentions and 1 absence, were
approved. Mr. Krout, thereafter, appealed the matter to the City
Council and requested that it be heard on September 11th (refer to
attached Letter of Appeal) .
ANALYSIS:
The Subdivision Map Act specifies some seven (7) findings, anyone
of which, if made, requires denial of a map. Exhibit "A" rec-
ommended by the Planning Commission at their meeting of July 17th,
contains two (2 ) findings for denial . The first is that "The pro-
posed map is not consistent with the General Plan. " The evidence
recited in that finding references Housing Element policies calling
for achieving a balance in the supply of rental housing favorable
to the tenant.
•
This policy is to be implemented by programs to "monitor and
consider regulation of condominium conversions to insure that the
supply of low and moderate rental housing is not significantly
decreased. "
Mr. Krout, in his arguments on behalf of Mr. Montanaro, references
sections of the Map Act relative to condominium conversions and
contends that the City is specifically prohibitive from relying on
said findings absent a condominium conversion ordinance. Finding
No. 1 of the attached Exhibit "A" references the goal of balancing
the supply of rental housing and the negative impact that the 64-
unit conversion would have on the rental market on the City. Were
this, conversion to be permitted, there would be an 11 increase
(from 566 units to 630 units) in the number of conversions that
have occurred in the City' s inventory of rental units . Were this
conversion approved, some 27 1/2; of the City' s multiple family
units (2, 289 units total) would have converted to condominiums.
The only change in this fact situation is that some ten ( 10) multi-
family apartment units were issued building permits in the month
of July. (The finding indicates that none had. )
The second map finding contained in the Exhibit "A" is :
"That the design and improvement of the proposed subdivision
is not consistent with the General Plan" .
Evidence noted that the density and development standards of this
project would not conform to current density standards nor to the
development standards regarding required amenities, including en-
closed storage and outdoor recreation areas . Further, the project
as it exists, would not be found to comply with the City' s Appear-
ance Review Guidelines for new development.
ALTERNATIVE:
Should the Council desire to approve the appeal, staff would
recommend referring the matter back to staff for appropriate con-
ditions of approval .
Encl : Letter of Appeal - Michael S. Krout - July 27 , 1990
Planning Commission Findings for Denial - Exhibit "A" -
July 17 , 1990
Planning Commission Staff Report - July 3, 1990
Planning Commission Staff Report - June 19 , 1990
Planning Commission Minutes Excerpts - June 19 , 1990
Planning Co11mission Minutes Excerpts - July 3 , 1990 •
Planning Commission Minutes Excerpts - July 17 , 1990
General Plan Excerpts
cc : Michael S. Krout
Richard Montanaro
(MEETING DATE: 9/11/90)
Ttern-1
M E M 0 R A N D U M
TO: CITY COUNCIL
VIA: Ray Windsor, City Manager
FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director
DATE: August 31, 1990
RE: CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION ORDINANCE
BACKGROUND :
The City' s General Plan speaks to the need to monitor the extent
of condominium conversion of rental units and to enact an ordinance
at such time as conditions warrant. The last time this matter was
formally reviewed by the City Council was as an agenda item on
April 26, 1988. At that time the. issue was referred to the Plan-
ning Commission for consideration as part of the General Plan/
Housing Element update.
Commission has been processing small
Subsequently, the Planning p g
scale conversions of rental units to condominiums. Council will
be evaluating the proposed denial of a condominium conversion of
a 64 unit project located at 11145 El Camino Real (Richard
Montanara) on September 11, 1990.
Although data is lacking on vacancy rates, it is our judgement that
the surplus of rental spaces that had been created with large scale
projects has been dramatically reduced. The first multi-family
permits issued in 1990 occurred in July (ten units) . At the direc-
tion of both Planning Commission and Council, staff has been
monitoring the extant of conversions and believes the point has
been reached when there is need for a condominium conversion
ordinance to protect an adequate supply of rental housing in the
community, together with assuring that projects that do convert
meet contemporary development standards including storage, parking,
soundproofing, open space, appearance, and individual water meters
to the extent that they can be legally required.
Another primary concern is that rental units that are not appro-
priate for permanent long-term occupancy due to their design,
should not be converted to condominium ownership.
REQUEST:
Direct staff to draft a proposed. condominium conversion ordinance
for Council consideration.
HE:ph
MICHAEL S. KROUT
A LAW CORPORATION
• ATTORNEY AT LAW CITY MGR.
1264 HIGUERA STREET
P.O.BOX 1028
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CALIFORNIA 93406
805/544-2137
TELECOPIER 805/544-2111
CERTIFIED MAIL #P 535 968 254 July 27, 1990
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Atascadero City Council
6500 Palma Avenue
Atascadero, CA 93422
Re: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 2-90 : 11145 EL CAMINO REAL
Honorable Members of the City Council of Atascadero:
Our office represents Richard Montanaro, the Applicant for the
tentative tract map in connection with the above-described property.
The purpose of this letter is to give notice of Mr. Montanaro ' s
appeal of the decision by the Atascadero Planning Commission
rendered on July 17 , 1990. Enclosed herewith you will find
my check in the amount of $100.00 for the appeal fee.
• We appeal the decision of the Atascadero Planning Commission
on the following grounds:
1. The "Findings For Denial" are not supported by the
facts and the law. The City of Atascadero has failed to
enact criteria for the conversion of existing multiple
rental housing to condominiums. Thus there are no standards
by which the Planning Commission may rationally judge an
application for conversion of rental housing to condominiums.
2. In the absence of definite objectives and policies
of the type which would be expected to be found in an ordinance
directed to condominium conversion, Government Code §66427 .2
specifies that Government Code §§66473 . 5, 66474, 66474. 61
and subdivision (c) of §66474. 60 shall not apply to condominium
projects where the conversion involves the subdivision
of airspace in the existing structure. This is precisely
the case in Mr. Montanaro 's application.
3 . In the FINDINGS, the Planning Commission has sought
to rely upon criteria and standards upon which it is specifically
prohibited from relying in accordance with the provisions
of Government Code §66427 . 2.
JUL 30 199-3
cow.!IUNITY O.cVELOFMENT
ADMITTED TO PRACCICE IN NEW YORK STATE 1970 -
ADMITTED TO PRACTICE IN NEVADA 1970 / v ✓�� """.`"""" "` 5�
ADMITTED TO PRACTICE IN CALIFORNIA 1972 -
,�.�,�G�4.
Atascadero City Council
July 27, 1990
Page Two .
4 . There has been no showing that the approval of the
application will result in a deficiency in the number of
rental housing units available to prospective tenants.
The only evidence offered was by Mr. Montanaro who has
himself explained and who has explained through counsel
that during the last six months he has averaged greater
than ten vacancies per month and that during the last four
months he has averaged fourteen vacancies.
5. Neither the City of Atascadero nor its Planning Commission
has established any statistical criteria for the rental
housing market nor has there been any study done of the
number of vacancies in the rental housing market. There
has been no study done to determine whether there are any
unmet rental housing needs presently extant in the Atascadero
rental housing market.
6. The Planning Commission has failed to consider that
the conversion of the subject property to condominiums
will fulfill a very clearly unmet need for ownerhship housing.
Evidence was offered to the Planning Commission which established
that as of the time of the hearing, there were 700 houses
for sale in Atascadero and fewer than fourteen of those
being sold were selling for less than $100, 000 . 00. Additional
evidence was offered to establish that the median price
for a home in Atascadero approximately five years ago was
$132, 000. 00. The median price for a home in Atascadero
presently is over $200, 000. 00. Based upon Mr. Montanaro' s
projections and assumptions with regard to the cost of
conversion, it is his intention to offer units for sale
in the range of $80, 000. 00 per unit. This will provide
an opportunity for home ownership that is currently not
present in the City of Atascadero.
7 . It was pointed out to the Planning Commission that
the vacancy rate being experienced by the Applicant is
not the result of excessive rents or an unreasonable increase
in rent by the Applicant. The vacancies are the result
of an excess of rental housing units available on the market.
As further proof of this fact, the rent being charged for
units when the project was first constructed five years
ago was $550. 00 per unit. The rent currently, five years
later for the same units is $560. 00 per month. During
that same period of time, the median price for a single
family residence in Atascadero increased 67%.
8 . The Planning Commission failed to consider that the •
Applicant ' s proposed tentative map meets all of the necessary
Atascadero City Council
• July 27, 1990
Page Three
requirements for conversion to condominiums and that there
is no legal basis for refusal to grant the application
in accordance with the provisions of Government Code §66427 .2
and Mr. Montanaro is entitled to have his application approved
within 120 days of the date of its submittal to the City
of Atascadero.
Should any member of the Council have any questions concerning
the foregoing matter, I would be quite willing to address any
specific questions.
If time permits, we will provide each member of the City Council
with additional materials and evidence which establishes further
the Applicant' s entitlement to approval of his request for conversion
of the rental units to condominiums.
Respectfully submitted,
MICHAEL S. KROUT
A Law Corporation
•
By MICA L KROUT
Attorney for plicant
Richard Montanaro
MSK:dh
cc: Richard Montanaro
Enclosure (Check for $100. 00 )
MICHAEL S. KROUT
A LAW CORPORATION
ATTORNEY AT LAW
1264 HIGUERA STREET
P.O.BOX 1028
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CALIFORNIA 93406 •
805/544-2137
TELECOPIER 805/544-2138
DATE: August 2, 1990
TO: Henry Engen, Director
Community Development Dept.
City of Atascadero
6500 Palm Avenue
Atascadero, CA. 93422
RE: Tentative Tract Map 2-90 ; 11145 El Camino Real
Continuance of hearing date on Appeal from Planning Commission
Ruling
❑ ENCLOSED PLEASE FIND:
® FOR YOUR INFORMATION ❑ PLEASE TELEPHONE
® IN ACCORDANCE WITH YOUR REQUEST ❑ PLEASE READ AND ADVISE HOW TO REPLY
❑ PLEASE SIGN AND RETURN ❑ PLEASE ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT
❑ PLEASE READ ❑ FOR YOUR FILES
❑ PLEASE COMMENT ❑ PLEASE RECORD
® SEE BELOW +
❑ PLEASE RETURN -- ,
❑ PLEASE FILE AND RETURN ENDORSED FILE— AU
MARKED COPY,IN SELF-ADDRESSED CC"11 '1UN'(T' �1L����i'l�i �l
STAMPED ENVELOPE PROVIDED
MESSAGE: This letter confirms our telephone conversation of
August 2, 1990 at which time it was agreed that the Appeal of the above
matter to be heard by the Atascadero City Council on August 28, 1990 was
instead continued at my request to September 11, 1990, based upon my vacation
plans. Please provide me with a copy of the agenda as soon as it has been
prepared. Additionally, please advise me of the time when the matter is
set to be heard. I have advised the City Attorney of the date as per your
request. 0
Michael S. Krout
MSK:sb ADMITTED TO PRACTICE IN NEW YORK STATE 1970
ADMITTED TO PRACTICE IN NEVADA 1970
cc: Richard Montanaro ADMITTED TO PRACTICE IN CALIFORNIA 1972
ITEM: A. 2 - ATTACHMENT
PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING - JULY 17, 1990
•
EXHIBIT A - Findings for Denial
Tentative Tract Map 02-90
11145 E1 Camino Real (Montanaro)
Recommended by Planning Commission: July 17, 1990
ENVIRONMENTAL FINDING:
The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions
of the California Environmental Quality Act.
MAP FINDINGS :
1 . The proposed map is not consistent with the General Plan.
Evidence: The Housing Element, under Policies and Programs,
taT tes in part under 6 . Problem: Rental Units : Costs and
Supply: "Policies : 1 . Achieve a balance in supply of and
demand for rental housing more favorable to the tenant.
Program(s) : 6 . 1 Monitor and consider regulation of
condominium conversions to ensure that the supply of low and
moderate rental housing is not significantly decreased. "
(p. 21) . Further, the following Residential Policy Proposal
• for condominium conversion is contained in the 1980 General
Plan: 1117f. Encourage a continuing supply of rental housing
Tor—low and moderate income persons and families . " (p. 59)
Conversion of this 64 unit project from rental housing to
condominium ownership would have a significant adverse affect
on the availability of affordable rental housing in
Atascadero. Evidence presented at the Planning Commission',s
July 3, 1990 hearing indicated that were this project allowed
to convert, then 27 . 5% of the City' s multiple family units
(2, 289 total) would have converted to condominiums . This
project would increase the existing number of conversions from
566 to 630 units, for an 11% increase overall . In 1989 , only
10 building permits for new apartment units were issued. None
have been applied for in 1990.
2 . That the design and improvement of the proposed subdivision
To-not consistent with the General Plan.
Evidence : The 64 unit project exceeds the density standards
owe General Plan' s implementing Zoning Ordinance by 17
units and does not, and cannot, comply with the City' s
development standards with regards to required amenities
including enclosed storage and outdoor recreation areas .
The 1980 General Plan Residential Policy 17d pertinent to
• condominium conversions seeks to: "Ensure that converted
housing achieves high quality appearance and safety and is
. consistent with the goals of the City' s General Plan. " (p.58)
The project does not comply with the City' s Appearance Review
Guidelines .
ITEM: A-2
MEMORANDUM
•
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Doug Davidson, Senior Planner
DATE: July 3, 1990
SUBJECT: Tentative Tract Map 02-90
(Montanaro/North Coast Engineering)
At the Planning Commission meeting of June 19, 1990, staff was
directed to bring back Findings for Denial of the above-
referenced project. These Findings relate to the General Plan
policies for condominium conversions as outlined in the staff
report.
ATTACHMENTS: Findings for Denial
Staff Report
•
•
E7�IBIT A - Findings for Denial
• Tentative Tract Map 02-90
11145 E1 Camino Real (Montanaro)
July 3, 1990 '
ENVIRONMENTAL FINDING:
The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions
of the California Environmental Quality Act.
MAP FINDINGS:
1. The proposed map is not consistent with the General Plan,
specifically Residential Policy No. 17f. which "encourages a
continuing supply of rental housing for low and moderate
income persons and families. "
2. The design and/or improvements of the proposed subdivision
is not consistent with the General Plan, specifically
Residential Policy No. 17d. which "ensures that converted
housing achieves high quality appearance and safety and is
consistent with the goals of the City' s General Plan. "
•
•
CITY OF ATASCADERO Item: B_2 •
STAFF REPORT
FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: June 19, 1990
BY: Doug Davidson, Senior Planner File No: TTM 02-90
SUBJECT:
To consider a request to convert an existing sixty-four (64) unit
multiple family project into airspace condominiums.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the condominium conversion criteria called
for by the General Plan be established prior to a decision on
this project. Furthermore, the Planning Commission and City
Council have also directed staff to prepare a condominium
conversion study as a guideline in future decisions.
SITUATION AND FACTS:
1. Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Richard Montanaro
•
2. Representative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .North Coast Engineering
3. Project Address. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11145 E1 Camino Real
4. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. 95 acres
5. Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .RMF-16
6. General Plan Designation. . . . .High Density Multiple Family
7. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Sixty-four unit multiple
family project.
8. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Categorically Exempt
(Class One)
BACKGROUND:
On July 20, 1984, Precise Plan 09-84 became effective. This
approval established conditions of development for the sixty-four
(64) unit multiple family project. The applicant is now
proposing the conversion of the complex to airspace condominiums.
1 •
r
ANALYSIS:
As stated above, the applicant is attempting to provide a home
ownership opportunity by converting existing apartment units into
airspace condominiums. In this arrangement, the unit spaces are
individually owned, while the open space and parking areas are
owned in common. Private agreements (CC&Rs) ensure continued
maintenance. This report will concentrate on the General Plan
policies for condominium conversions.
General Plan Language
Residential Policy No. 17 of the General Plan states that the
City may regulate condominium conversions to alleviate the
problems associated with the conversion of existing rental units.
It goes on to say that "the City shall revise its Zoning 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. Encourages a continuing supply of rental housing for low and
moderate income persons and families. "
Policy #16 reads that, "new condominium projects shall be
reviewed on an individual basis as community housing needs,
neighborhood character, and site improvements will dictate. With
• a set of guidelines in place, the City can be assured of
carrying out these policies in an accurate manner.
2
As the following section indicates, the City has not implemented
these policies of the General Plan. Staff believes that the
establishment of condominium conversion criteria cannot be
postponed any longer. Furthermore, at recent hearings on small
lot residential subdivisions, the Planning Commission and City
Council have requested a condominium conversion study as a tool
to provide assistance in future decisions.
Policy 17a. directs that "the City shall revise its Ordinances
and establish criteria for condominium conversions. " This has
not been done. The City has approved condominium conversions
without the benefit of a comprehensive set of guidelines.
Policy 17b. calls for reducing the impacts of relocation. While
the State law (Subdivision Map Act) requires a 60 day notice of
intent to convert, the City has no active assistance measures.
With building permits issued and inspections granted per the
Uniform Buiding Code, staff is confident that the physical
condition of the buildings is acceptable (Policy 17c. ) .
Policy 17d. strives to guarantee that "converted housing
"achieves high quality appearance" and conforms to the other
goals of the General Plan. This project was constructed prior to •
adoption of the Hillside Density standards and the Appearance
Review Guidelines. Under current standards the maximum allowed
density on this site is 47 units. Furthermore, the lack of
architectural treatment and the monotony in building design, are
evidence that the project does not meet these higher appearance
standards.
The project does comply with Policy 17e. by providing increased
opportunities for housing ownership. In fact, this may be the
overriding characteristic of this proposal. The condominium
study staff is now conducting will provide the information
necessary to make a responsible decision.
Whereas, the project may provide increased home ownership
opportunities, policy 17f. "encourages a continuing supply of
rental housing for low and moderate income families. " This
policy also creates the need for specific criteria for
conversions. Likewise, it is difficult without a set of
guidelines to ascertain when community needs dictate conversion
as called for in Policy #16. A brief look at recent condominium
activity, in light of the size of this project, will further
point out staff' s hesitancy and concerns.
•
3
• Other Condominium Projects
At the time of construction this 64 unit multiple family project
was by far the City' s largest. Since that time the 400 unit
Bordeaux project and the 140 unit Casa Camino project have been
constructed. While the Bordeaux House remains rental units, Casa
Camino was converted to condominiums in 1987. Other large
condominium projects include Vista del Norte (36 units) , The Oaks
(32 units) , and Vista del Monte (28 units) . Other projects, such
as two 18 unit developments (Nelson and Monmonier) , and the 13
unit Montanaro project on Las Lomas have been converted. Lastly
numerous smaller projects have been converted in the multiple
family areas, particulary along Amapoa Ave.
The initial analysis of the staff study reveals that of the
City' s 2, 289 multiple family units, 630 or 27. 5 percent have been
converted to condominiums (total includes this project) .
Approximately one percent of the acres designated for multiple
family uses have been rezoned to PD Overlays, or small lot
subdivisions. A mix of one-fourth condominiums within existing
multiple family developments may be a proper balance. The time
has come, however, to devise a strategy to deal with future
proposals for conversion. Recently, numerous property owners
have indicated to staff their desire to convert existing
apartments. Furthermore, the projects listed above indicate that
the remaining rental dwellings are concentrated in the Bordeaux
House or in duplex or four-unit complexes - many of the mid-size
to larger apartment buildings have been converted. These larger
converted projects have also been constructed since the City
incorporated, resulting in most of the available rental housing
being concentrated in the older neighborhoods. The conversion of
a 64 unit project will further this trend.
Condominium Conversions in Other Cities
Several other cities of the Central Coast are also in the
process of formulating regulations for condominium conversions.
Those that have regulations use a variety of approaches. The
City of Santa Barbara allows a maximum of 100 units to be
converted per year; or the number of new multiple family units
minus the number demolished within a year, whichever is greater.
The City of San Luis Obispo' s Conversion Limit Procedure states
that the City "shall not approve conversion projects in any one
calendar year resulting in more units being converted than one-
half the number multiple family rental dwellings added to the
City' s housing stock during the preceding year. " The City of
Pismo Beach does not regulate the number of conversions, but
collects a $500. 00 fee for each unit converted. This money is
kept under a separate Rental Housing Production Fund and is used
exclusively for the development or improvement of low and
moderate income housing in the City.
• 4
Condominiums v. Apartments
Staff has consistently supported condominium conversions,
particulary when the number of units is small and the project was
originally intended as condominiums. In addition to being the
City' s second largest rental housing development, this project
was constructed as apartments - the proposed conversion is an
afterthought. This is further demonstrated by the lack of
individual water meters. Dwellings intended for separate
ownership are constructed with separate water meters for
individual water service and billing. This is also required by
the Atascadero Mutual Water Company. If this conversion is
approved, the project must be retrofitted with separate water
meters.
CONCLUSIONS:
The General Plan directs the City to establish criteria for the
conversion of condominiums. The proposed project triggers the
need for such regulations in the Zoning and/or Subdivision
Ordinance for several reasons. First, the number of units
proposed for conversion (64) is large enough to impact the
availabilty of rental housing. In addition to total percentage,
this impact can be related to the location and type of available
rental housing. Second, the project does not meet the current
density standards or design guidelines, thus not providing the
higher quality of appearance demanded for conversions. This is
not only because the units were constructed prior to adoption of
the Multiple Family standards and Appearance Review Guidelines,
but also because the units were not intended to be for separate
ownership at time of construction.
This analysis does not pretend to have all the answers. In
fact, it is a plea to allow staff to continue its analysis and
propose conversion criteria before any more projects are approved
that could greatly influence the the housing balance. A
conversion of this size could impact the availability of an
adequate supply and variety of rental housing. The staff cannot
recommend favorably in light of such uncertainties.
ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -
Zoning Map
Exhibit B - General Plan Map
Exhibit C - Tentative Tract Map
•
5
,o CITY OF ATASCADERO EXHIBIT A
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ZONING MAP
DEPARTMENT TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 02-90
RSF• /(P07) \
i
i
Ty �
M
a
SITE
a
P CRT
CS 3 /
NSF;
F
N ( FH °
a Np
� C
i
i
/ W G
v
,°
r
i
• / /
�
ATA SC
i ap
IL I '
CITY OF ATASCADERO EXHIBIT B
93 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT GENERAL PLAN MAP
DEPARTMENT TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 02-90
DEI�� • ATASCAQ`c /O
R STATE
eye SINGL REC. j
i
'r FAMFL • HOSP17-Al \
404,4
S /m HIGH / •; /
'4`T 0ENsirY• • "e'�:, • // SITE
MULTI>I�• �•• •
•
ERCIA FA/ :! i • S • ��
o
a i H 0 /� • A RECREAO
/ y I CREEK s/
/ '�
o
� ,< 1#E Tr �.�
�� ` •a i C4M/4 COMMERCIAL '''��
��`.1 ' Q
F4
04 4
Cb
. C
AT,SCQoe
CITY OF ATASCADERO EXHIBIT C
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TRACT MAP
DEPARTMENT TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 02-90
•
nor 13
�iaz,NHRwe�urrA. ice" /i'�� \i v /� S y
i � •ice� � � -a a E a
�A1iF� /i.�• � faults t-�
•� ��\ � 1 \v/ l =f,s 4\7p�la6 DMOB,DDUG9C°!
OWNER'STA
S TEMENT
SO t 1 MEREOY APPLY FOR APPR N,OF M 01 "OF REAL PROPERR
` * 1 OGOf.Ai 2 - - _ ' Su0 MOM THISRTY PLAT
THE AMd C NAT,.M M LECAL OfNER OE
\ 1 , "� �:A.'�' ZN ACCNi Or IIIc IECAI 01MIER
•�••YlT - AMD IN
,11E WORMATION SHOO HEREON S,RUE AM CORRECT
10 RIE REST CF MY RNCALEOOE UN KUCr.
3.9 C • r scm. nGGvr
AwM _ ADDRESS Tae[Ms.0 AVENUE ATAMAOIT e CA SS421
R,OIMO�EITiMF MOMTN/
'.'�y '. •"4- _ L7; �" _� REOaro o»1DT: ARa Molt CARO
ENGINEER'S STATEMENT
•r.S / �C1O t s 111(11[01 STATE NAT INT;MY RAS"ERARED LWM MY
A I \` T`•' r T 0�1 sm 0`HE OWWAMCE orYNE�Or Arm_
sTEAETI A. sRCE 29743 EXP.Jn,if, DATE
411 If
TENTATIVE MAP
FOR
-- D 2s >a TRACT 1411
° �,�Ey,/,cam\ ' �`=� FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES
SCALE I-- y0• IN THE CITY OF ATASCADERO. COUNTY OF
SAN LUIS OBISPO. STATE OF CALIFORNIA
1f~rt R.Aru rlr rZef.+f BEING A SUeDIMS10N OF A PORTION OF LOT a OF THE RANCM
LA ASUNOON ANO ATASCAOERO ACCOROING TO THE MAR MAC
BY R.R. HARRIS N JUNE. ,°DO.RECOROED JULY 21. 1°DO,m
BOOL A OF MAPS AT PAGE 3.RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY
e�f.•a*•wa fw.w+.ww
VICINITY MAP "'` LAS. ', t.l °ff�.^•. M""M•f �..^....,.�^--
Fmcr-:
RTN COAST [1N:INE[NNC IN
N ffI•>'AA'If dfff.•tC Nf y I CGN'rfA1,v eI�k(yrfY.r /6y5[NE TO CNgM.Atti >•!f✓.W ffil.]:veNIA IT. RRR 4►ASO ATRILES lJ!_JI
fAAfRnr M lNfM nK)°K•KA.J.,ffl A..!M,Ca 1r K
♦ycZa°i ns A*evfrr
Nq fe-11!
i! ONE SHEET C
•
Fos
Page Two
n Peterson, 10487 Cuesta Court, stated that many of
nei ors she has spoken with are not specifically op p d t
the pro t but are very concerned with the traffic uation
She explai the traffic problems that are a ciated witt
State Hospita tivity and asked that perh s consideratio
be given to a four ay stop sign.
In response to inquiry, Mr. amp responded that the
intersection of EI Camino Rea nd the State Hospital has no
been analyzed for a traff ' sigThe City controls onl
three "legs" of the i rsection wthe State controlling
the fourth. Discus on followed.
MOTION: B ommissioner Highland, seconded Commissioner
aage and carried 5 :0 to continue the aring o
Conditional Use Permit 5-89 to the meeting Jul
3 , 1990 .
2 . TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 2-90 :
Application filed by Richard Montanaro (North Coast
Engineering) to convert an existing 64 unit multiple
family project into airspace condominiums . Subject site
is located at 11145 E1 Camino Real .
Mr. Davidson presented the staff report on this request which
focused on General Plan policies relative to the City
regulating condominium conversions . Staff is recommending
that the condominium conversion criteria called for by the
General Plan be established prior to a decision on this
project.
Commission questions and discussion followed concerning timing
factors for the condominium conversion study and how this
application would be affected. Mr. Decamp explained that with
the applicant' s consent, his application could be continued
until such time that a study and/or guidelines could be
completed, which could be three to four months .
Commissioner Lopez-Balbontin expressed concern that what is
available right now in rentals may not be there in the near
future. Mr. Decamp replied that before an additional 64 units
are taken out of the rental market, the City needs to address
these issues .
Commissioner Highland stated that about a year ago there was
concern with the housing balance being in the other direction
with a potential of 60% of the housing in the city being
apartments and 40% being single family residential , but the
City doesn' t have the figures to tell which is which and that
is why the conversion study is needed.
Page Three
Mr. DeCamp pointed out some projects have been built as
apartments because the process is more expedient to build an
apartment and then convert it to a condominium. He added
there are other projects in the city that could be converted
but have not done so. Some of the smaller projects (4 or less
units) are having a difficult time in obtaining financing for
conversion purposes.
There was continued discussion concerning how existing units
will be affected by a condominium conversion ordinance.
Richard Montanaro, applicant, stated the market for owner-
occupied housing is very strong and the rental market is weak.
He added that his rents have remained virtually unchanged in
five years yet owner-occupied housing has increased 65% in
value.
Mr. Montanaro further stated that there are plenty of .
apartments for people to rent. The problem is being able to
buy housing and that is where the shortage occurs . He added
he is currently in the process of arranging FHA financing
wherein a potential owner could make a down payment of $4, 000
with monthly payments of $640. 00 a month which he felt meets
the definition of affordable housing.
• He then responded to questions from the commission.
In response to question from Commissioner Brasher, Mr.
Montanaro explained the process of first obtaining VA
financing and then FHA financing for the project and the
timing factors involved. Discussion followed.
Commissioner Lopez-Balbontin asked how these units could be
listed for $80,000 when there are other condos in the City
priced at $100, 00 and above. Mr. Montanaro discussed that
differences in the* various condo complexes ( i.e. , square
footages, garage vs. no garage, etc. ) which would contribute
to the varying costs.
In response to question from Vice-Chairperson Luna, Mr.
Montanaro stated he is opposed to a continuance on this
project as he felt the condo study may take a long time and
he did not feel there is a problem with the rental market.
Commissioner Waage indicated he could not approve the project
without some facts to substantiate the availability of rental
housing.
Commissioner Brasher expressed concern that the project does
not comply with General Plan Policy #17d. pertaining to the
• achievement of high quality appearance.
Page Four -- M
MOTION: By Commissioner Waage, seconded by Commissioner
Brasher to direct staff to bring back Findings for
Denial for Tentative Tract Map 2-90.
Commissioner Waage commented that he would have rather had the
project continued until the condominium conversion study is
completed.
Commissioner Lopez-Balbontin questioned what type of
conditions of approval would apply to the map.
Vice Chairperson Luna stated he would have difficulty in
making the finding that the project is consistent with the
General Plan.
Commissioner Highland pointed out that the Housing Element
requires that housing be provided at all levels of income and
felt it could be argued that by denying the project, a certain
segment of the population is being denied affordable housing.
Discussion followed.
In response to inquiry by Mr. Montanaro, Mr. Decamp clarified
the intent of the study is not to come up with a design review
for his project, but the study is to come up with condo •
conversion criteria as called for in the General Plan which
would tell us if we are meeting the requirements of the rental
market and owner-occupied market. Discussion continued.
Mr. Montanaro stated he would like to see the map resolved in
a timely manner adding that this project isn' t being converted
overnight but the steps being taken now are for the future.
Commissioner Highland stated it may be more practical for Mr.
Montanaro to agree to withhold his application until the
ordinance is completed.
Mr. Montanaro argued that it did not seem fair that his
complex was being singled out. The Vista del Monte apartments
were converted into condos and are architecturally identical
to the Mira Vista complex and yet there was not a problem with
that conversion. He added he understood the need for the
study but did not feel his application should be singled out
to wait for the study.
Vice-Chairperson Luna stated the Commission needs to be .
responsible for the entire City adding that this project may
severely impact the rental market or it may open a flood gate
of further conversions .
Mr. Montanara stated that the Commission might as well deny
the application as he will appeal to the Council .
Page Five
The motion passed 3 : 2 with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Waage, Brasher, and Vice Chairperson
Luna
NOES: Commissioners Lopez-Balbontin and Highland
ABSENT: Commissioner Hanauer and Chairperson Lochridge
INDIVIDUAL COMMENT
1 . Planning Commission
ce Chairperson Luna expressed concern with the amount f RVs
paAking on E1 Camino Real in front of the post offi e. Mr.
DeC p stated he would look into the matter.
Commis oner Brasher commented that the propert next to the
library s looking better.
r
Commissione - Lopez-Balbontin stated he wo d like to see
efforts take to resolve the Housing Elem t.
•
Mr. Decamp repot ed on the General Plan update noting that a
joint Commission ouncil meeting will/ be scheduled soon in
¢ which the Housing Element will be'" a high priority for
discussion. He add it will be difficult to proceed with
work on a revised -using Ele int until census data is
available and that it m v be up/to two years before useable
amounts of data are avai le. Discussion followed.
i 2 . City Planner
Mr. Decamp polled th Comismion members as to their
attendance at the Jul 3rd meeting. A consensus reveale
there will be a quorum.
Mr. Decamp reporti�d that amendmentto Commission Bylaw
pertaining to E1 ction of Officers willhe brought before th-
Commission at one of the July meetings o assure that the
Election of Officers takes place after a pointment of ne
members.
Meeting adjourned at 8 :45 p.m.
• ;MINUTES RECORDED BY:
PATRICIA SHEPPHARD, AdMinistrWtive Se " tary
MINUSES APPROVED BY:
STEVEN DECAMP, City Planner ��
r �
ITEM: A. 1
•
MINUTES - ATASCADERO PLANNING COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, July 3, 1990 7:30 p.m.
A asca ero Administration Building
The regular meeting of the Atascadero Planning Commission was
called to order at 7 :30 p.m. by Chairperson Lochridge followed by
the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Luna, Hanauer, Brasher, Lopez-Balbontin
(7 :45 p.m. ) , Waage, and Chairperson Lochridge
Absent: Commissioner Highland (excused)
Staff Present: Steven Decamp, City Planner; Doug Davidson,
'Senior Planner; Gary Sims, Senior Civil Engineer;
Gary Kaiser, Assistant Planner; Pat Shepphard,
Administrative Secretary
At this time, Mr. Decamp introduced the new Assistant Planner, Gary
Kaiser, who began work on July 2, 1990 . Commissioner Hanauer •
stated that as a member of the interview panel, it was his opinion
that the number one candidate was hired.
PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no public comment.
A. CONSENT CALENDAR
1 . Approval of minutes of the regular Planning Commission
meeting of June 19, 1990
2 . Consideration of Findings for Denial for Tentative Tract
Map 2-90 at 11145 E1 Camino Real (Richard Montanaro/
North Coast Engineering)
Mr. DeCamp announced that the City Attorney has asked for
additional time to review the Findings for Denial and continue
the matter to the next meeting.
MOTION: By Commissioner Luna, seconded by Commissioner
Brasher and carried 5 :0 to remove Item A-2 from the
Consent Calendar and continue to the meeting of July •
17, 1990 .
MOTION: By Commissioner Brasher, seconded by Commissioner
Waage and carried 5 :0 to approve Item A-1 of the
Consent Calendar.
PAGE FIVE I L_y.._41._.TES 7__7,_17#_9__`_._ 0
AYES: Commissioners Hanauer, Highland, Lopez-Balbgat"in
and Chairperson Lochridge r"
NOES: `•Commissioners Waage and Luna
ABSENT: Commis" loner Brasher
wla �.F
Chairperson Lochridgedeclared .a• break at 8 :45
reconvened at 8 :55 p.m. p.m. ; meeting
Chairperson Lochridge-,"', th with the Commission'
concurrence, Item- A-2 which was pul from the Consent
Calendar would-be considered at this time.
Chairp-r-son Lochridge stated that since he was not -esent a
the ne 19, 1990 meeting when this matter was heard, h oul
tain from discussion and voting.
A-2 . Consideration of Findings for Denial for Tentative Tract
Map 2-90 at 11145 E1 Camino Real (Richard Montanaro/North
Coast Engineering) (Continued from meeting of 7/3/90
Mr. Decamp presented the staff report and proposed Findings
• for Denial which have been reviewed by the City Attorney.
Michael Krout, representing the applicant, commented that the
City is limited by the Government Code as to what requirements
it can impose and what criteria can be utilized in evaluating
a condominium conversion. He quoted excerpts from Miller and
Star which supports the approval of these conversions in the
absence of a specific ordinance. Mr. Krout further stated
that legally, the City is on thin ice in denying this applica-
tion without an ordinance.
Commissioner Waage asked if the applicant would be willing to
Postpone this matter for 90 days . Mr. Krout stated his client
would be opposed to a continuance if the purpose was to enact
a condominium conversion ordinance.
MOTION: By Commissioner Luna and seconded by Commissioner
Waage to approve the Findings for Denial for Tenta-
tive Tract Map 2-90. The motion carried with the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Luna, Waage, Lopez-Balbontin
NOES: Commissioner Highland
• ABSTAIN: Commissioner Hanauer and Chairperson
Lochridge
•
7i
a:
6. Problem: Rents in the City are
ppro` ately 19 percent of
total*
renters are paying 25 percent or greater of their house-
hold income for rent. Many factors such as high con-
struction costs, the idea that rental properties are a
poor investment, and the popularity of condominium units
�w�acsttr nn _ aster
. tal
Policies: 1. we
1WI Oht�. } .fit.
Programs: 6.1OF OPOIDrre *enwo •gilt �rpp„�
ata ea; ias iea�etbV=decsreased.
6.2 coordinate" with agencies which address rental hous-
ing, such as Housing and Urban Development and Farm-
ers Home Loan in order to be informed on housing
assistance available and appropriate to Atascadero.
6.,3 Encourage developers to pursue, with such agencies
as the California Housing Finance Agency and Housing
and Urban Development to obtain loans for the devel-
opment of new rental and multi-family housing for
low and moderate income households.
7. Problem: Competition for available land. Residential and non-
residential land uses compete for land with the nonresi-
dential uses having an economic advantage.
Policies: 1. Promote new residential development within areas
currently designated for development under policies
of the Land Use Element.
2. Encourage the use of existing vacant parcels zoned
for residential use for new housing.
Programs: 7.1 Zoning .applications shall be consistent with this
policy.
7.2 The impact of general plan amendments and zone
changes on the availability of housing will be eval-
uated by the Planning Commission and City Council.
8. Problem: Vacant Land. Throughout the City there are numerous
parcels currently being unused or underutilized. Ac-
cording to a 1984 Sanitation District audit (the Sani-
tation District generally corresponds to the Urban Ser-
vices Line) approximately 15 percent of the area is
non-improved property.
Policy: The City will encourage "infill" and intensification of
land which is suited to meet housing needs within the
Urban Services Line.
•
21
1�1 ".p-
12 . A program shall be developed to encourage the preser-
vation of trees , watersheds and natural slopes and
other natural amenities from abuse and destruction
resulting from poor design and development practices.
13• Non-conforming uses located in residential areas shall
be relocated.
14. Where all factors are favorable, exclusive mobile home
areas could satisfactorily be developed in designated
neighborhood areas.
15. Where all factors are favorable , board and care
facilities could satisfactorily be developed in
designated neighborhood areas. The use density shall
not be permitted to exceed that of High Density
Multiple Family use.
16. New condominium projects, planned mobile home develop-
ments and stock cooperatives shall be reviewed on an
individual basis as community housing needs, neighbor-
hood 'character, and site improvemnts will dictate.
problems arising from the conversion
of ezftr�g�. ea"tat uas , $ef' S" m8c regulate
cVm*ominium ,_conversions. - The City - shall revise its
•
zoning, .ordinance and subdivision ordinance regarding
condominium..conversions in order- to3
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
gnalitp appearance and safety and is consistent
wi£n Zne goals of t ei ,yrs end eral plan.
• 58
s•
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
Tor low and moderate income persons and families.
18. In conjunction with residential project , a density
bonus may be allowed , under certain circumstances ,
where adequate provisions are made to provide housing
units affordable to low and moderate income persons .
Other bonus incentives, at the discretion of the City,
may also be considered in lieu of the density bonus
for such projects.
Couercial Uses
It shall be recognized that commercial land use represents
an important segment of the economic base. If commercial
development is not in scale with the community population,
the public is inconvenienced, and the community lacks a key
ingredient of a balanced economy. Atascadero's commercial
problems are common to many cities and include the follow-
ing:
f - Commercial properties are strung out inordinately
along E1 Camino Real. •
Commercial properties are sporadically developed and
mixed in with incompatible uses and operating in
substandard buildings. These are conditions leading to
blight.
The Central Business District is "hemmed in" - and
requires specific planning for an orderly expansion.
Off-street parking in the Central Business District is
grossly inadequate.
The key to optimum commercial development in Atascadero is:
( 1 ) the development of a strong and adequate Central
Business District , ( 2 ) provision for areas for heavy
commerce and commercial services outside the CBD, but with
convenient access, (3) provision of areas for dail shopping
needs convenient to residential neighborhoods, (4� location
of highway businesses near key freeway accesses , ( 5 )
encouragement of the concentration of compatible businesses
to the exclusion of inharmonious uses and (6) the provision
of convenient and adequate off-street parking.
59
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: B-6
Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date : 9/11/90
Via: Henry Engen, Community Development Director
From: Lisa Schicker, City Arborist
SUBJECT:
Consideration of a request to remove one heritage tree ( 41" dbh Pinus
sabiniana) and one 12" dbh blue oak (Quercus douglasii) for the purposes of
single family home construction at 9215 Lakeview Drive by Mr. and Mrs . Barry
Clark. The trees are located within the proposed home.
RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the arborist ' s report, the condition of the trees and the existing
Tree Ordinance, approve the removals with a two for one replacements .
Please see additional comments in analysis section of this report .
O�ACKGROUND:
e Tree Ordinance specifies that live native trees 20" or greater dbh
measured four foot above grade) are deemed heritage trees and cannot be
removed unless approved by the City Council following a public hearing.
The site had been posted and the building corners had been staked and this
tree has been marked with flagging tape . The tree was inspected by ISA
certified arborist Art Tonneson and the City Arborist on separate occasions .
ANALYSIS:
After visiting the site, it was apparent that to avoid the healthiest and
largest trees on site, there were few alternatives available that would
allow the applicants to build a home.
The digger pine is in poor condition - it has a broken top and is leaning.
The blue oak is in good condition, but in order to avoid this tree, other
older, larger and healthier specimens would be affected by any construction.
Recommended Replacements : Both trees shall be replaced at a 2 : 1 ratio, 15
gallon size minimum. Normally, the recommendation is for same species
replacement; in this case another conifer or native oak is acceptable for
replacing the digger pine . As it is sometimes difficult to acquire blue
oaks , any native oak shall be acceptable . The applicant shall provide the
City with a signed statement that attests to the planting of these trees
which should be planted no later than one year after construction is
complete. Records will be kept in the office of the City Arborist .
�tachments : Vicinity and Location Map
Site Plan
Replanting Guidelines (To Mr. and Mrs . Clark)
cc Mr. and Mrs . Barry Clark
1
i
cr
ax
� 4
A
"YO
- r F� ,� r. ✓,,�; i
CT D
H,, _ C Rcs
4SC4DE ~1 '\ p�`\r>_ ?
p
/gyp w r
-R�fAPO
z (P
wIE1V\
9�0 6L
i
r
L(
y pis R Sv
AW
r
! I
i
QAF♦ELS�� � �L Ill
CCII �
OA r-
Ye�>r C
110 OAP
To
lob
•�� L t
Tt"
_HID
Int
l 1/0
70 I
OO I M
110
-10
R�nb.00� ti0l
AjA'%A Pow 01
! Y
foAo>c CIF- P-"'-' T
• L IT
_ �E �r
ay,
dT
Lal
c L�
�et I IG 9•
O11 L
\ *vovJOL •
u
\ �\
1.
y0 � \
(/fT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Isis r p
1;9-!.7:—9 t% PLANNING DIVISION
! - 6500 Pa I . FP.ve .
doS ERO r . . 0. � -1714 7
Atascadere , CA 83423
(805 ) 4,_6-8000
APPLICATION FORM
Please type or print in ink
Owner: µEs �%f L -EApplicant:
Address: 1-lcM.t,.—NII-IV/ 161) Address:
AT4* I �m L_ ci
Phone #: 4L kms,� Phone #:
Owner: Agent:
Address: Address:
Phone #: Phone #:
*oJect Address: 'I'Z t-0- Vt f'yt?. p(-,' d-h S
k �- --
Legal Description: ' r- r i - 4
Assessors Parcel Number(s): r-->(n -
E2dsting Use:
Project Type (Parcel Map, Precise Plan. etc.):
Project Description: 5t IJXA.0 -7+x.,1 -01, ;CoQ,
I/We consent to the Sling of this application and declare that this Application and related documents are true
and cwt
(Note: The s4pature of the property oaner(s)is required on this application before it will be accepted)
7
I 'L 1 _
✓4W
AU G 10 1',.,
C;_int 5; 9iN1TI/ E'F F {�Pyl lFNT Jf Date
STAWF USE ONLY Fee:
Receipt#:
Tree Removal Permit Application
Supplemental information
II
`�ti5�1DCR� • •
(Please type or print it ink )
Reason for Removal :
Number of Trees to be Removed :
Specify the si a (measured 4 ' above ground level ) , 5 exp C1Es (both
common and botanical name) and condition of each tr! to be
removed :
�)a�l t
2. �1 / 1( �il(�f't�— �l r t �C r�P.�l►•L• 1�'f1 A �
3 .
4 .
5 .
Specify the size and species of the trees proposed to :replace
those intended for removal :APO
A
.1 G
2. IAIV, (ol ! ,&,'V&- W P,
3. -
I`2C d�
I jfl/ ,�/J 4 .
Pip 5.
( ( Please prepare a "Plot Plan" showing all improvements on your
prooerty, trees to- be removed, trees to remain, and the proposed
location of replacement trees as ped- the attached example.
Owner Arborist
Ir J -
Certificate Number
•
Date
Da t.e
k
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL '
CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: B-7
Through: Ray Windsor, City Manage Meeting Date: 9/11/90
Via: Henry Engen, Community Development Director
From: Lisa Schicker, City Arborist
SUBJECT:
Reconsideration of a request to remove two heritage trees , a 36" and 38" dbh
Quercus lobata, as part of an application for Precise Plan 69-89 for the
purposes of home construction, by owners Hank and Ann Ranallette at 14400 E1
Monte Road. This request is a resubmittal of an application heard before
City Council on the April 10, 1990 and denied on May 8, 1990 .
RECOMMENDATIONS:
40ecause there have been no changes in this application and the City Council
as already denied this request, it is recommended to uphold the City
ouncills prior decision and deny this request for tree removal .
Please refer to past reports and additional comments found below.
BACKGROUND :
Please refer to City Council Reports of April 10 and May 8 , 1990 . After two
public hearings regarding this application, the application for tree removal
was denied.
The plan that has been resubmitted for consideration is identical to the
first plan and application that were received and heard by City Council on
April 10, 1990 . The site has been re-posted.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
It must be stressed that a denial for tree removal will not prevent the
allowable use of this property, the construction a single family residence .
This is a five acre parcel that is mainly forested in the riparian areas;
this acreage should allow adequate room for single family home construction
that avoids the removal of these two trees which provide screening from the
neighbor' s residence.
�xring the May 8, 1990 meeting, neighbors Donna and Steve Casler offered to
.5nate land to the Ranallettes for a septic field that would avoid the
removal of the two large oaks .
I have spoken with Mrs . Ranallette and she has stated that they are not
interested in taking up the Casler' s offer of land for their septic field.
She also stated that they would be willing to plant the replacement trees on
the Caller' s property.
I have also spoken to the Caslers , and they and the rest of the neighbors who ,
spoke at the last meeting are still very much opposed to the removal of these
trees . The Caslers are still willing to allow the Ranallettes to place their
septic field on their. property. According to the Community Development
Director, this action would requLre a lot line adjustment and transfer o
property.
The original tree replacement recommendation was for a 4 : 1 ratio , which was
agreed to by the arborist retained by the Ranallettes . However, in the
interim, Council has established a policy of 2 : 1 ratio, pending adoption o'f
the proposed Tree Ordinance . Staff is also asking for replacement of the
tree which was illegally removed by truck and chain during the summer of
1989 . (The photograph depicting this removal was presented at the May 8 ,
1990 City Council meeting and will be available at this meeting. ;
In accordance with our procedures , if tree removal is approved, the appli-
cants shall provide the City with a signed statement attesting to the
planting of the replacement oaks; if the trees do not survive for three
years , they shall be replaced. Information shall be kept on file in the City
Arborist ' s Office .
Attachments : Location Map
Site Plat.
Application and Arbcrist Report ;Art Tonnescn)
April 10 and May 8 , 1990 City Council Reports
Han.: & Ann Ranallette
Donna & Steve Casler
•
CITY OF ATASCADERO EXHIBIT A
-` COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
LOCATION AND ZONING MAP
DEPARTMENT PRECISE PLAN 15-90
Ir
IV
I
�►��� ,rT 11 � 11 I �'i 1
Bio %
qr
A '/ aIV((E51Nf�`=ia `'•� / , `\` it 1� i� 1.,. -1/
nsidwre� i 41<
SITE
14400 E1 Monte a" -
�-�"��� r
1 i
r
1
of N 2000'
u;a -M+:;�,/, F� word ruwv W� W+•E.�
7#A
L0-1 1S
:fol' (9�7A/� t). .`/ ', sue \
ptT,o Its !l /112° /
1f111,115 Ira
5� Pt,A�1 : Iltivrn�t� U `. sit,
X12111•!' �N( I�" R-ESIDE,JCE , - 1�
P r,
IRA
ell PArS
�I,, I� r� �11• s i �
1200 bAl 2-b•+MtTnINT �� `"V \U a � � -�y`- -T'�' qny C
do
w
a�\ q U n 11e0
too
6AX�
\ i1
a .
zo
110
\
` ,
1 \ � p •fns.«• e {�,:;. r
\ \ \ co \E
lk 180'
(a4kS f
\ \ ` \ \ \ 10010 \ 8 bw.l/w �•>.
rANSlonl \ �. �F .t'• // \ `�.-��,.� ,
IV,"I �t0 !f••- J4t�J \ARE ` � �~ I
f. Dt r ,wI LD t M• IppWN.7o AlM'+ �
\ \ \ ` �• � � Orw�c,.sem/!
\ 3^EEVx n, �,1 TwS ♦fes _- \ - e�� / =lt�etr '.J
\ + 1 \ #:1 /
t —
Sb
90 `'
I_QEE flzclzE �1ON �`�+ \ ot�oytyt ;Y.` i
- - ----- -----�-� ,'\ \ \ is � • � �
rq) - 1fFt Poef r..,��y ftrr.f� rr,,,. 9r ,•+�f•1�ln ,J / °
vt f�y J. C
f.:Ff
'^nf i.,y T•.,, -ttt[AL►,-eYKG. .�NJ ` \ \ t`(� ~ 2 w. �•..• i
0114,4 Zn /, Of (..'f wyl tl,n�M' 41 -l.Yw�E ♦M[i. � ` ,1 � �
'Fi - apt aar, y+•rr^ .J-1-L ME e4 OAA. . \ \ \ E}�>vi i_ ��*�''E �RIV.I'n♦
p
COMMI.NVITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARintow
FLAMING DIVISION
6300 Palma Ave.
P.O. Box 747
Atascadero, CA 93423
(803) 466-8000
APPLICATION J=, FORM
Please type or print in ink
Owner: AN : Ei�N �ent: Gt14�JG.
Address: PDQ, Address: g#1TA `ln� ST:
=-
Phone N: Phone #:
4-
Applicant: C�Wh1�.2
Address:
Phone #:
• Project Description: QV_$M0et,4r_C—
Existing Use: Vi44ANT, Lor
Project Address: 14-+cc FL MeNl"r-_ RD. ATj&46*
Legal Description: Lot(s) 32 ; Block RS = Tract
Assessors Parcel No(s) : OSS ~3o7_ -008
I/We consent to the filing of this application and declare that
this application and related documents are true and correct.
(NOTE: The signature of the property owner is required on the
application before it will be accepted for processing. )
;wner Agent
Date Date
UsFee: 435•00 Receipt #:
JUL 18" 2640 +
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT w
Tree Removal Permit Application
Supplemontal Information
j�
(Please type or print in ink)
Reason for Removal : A F'i Qj
1. 1 j 1p... P x. & Fjore cp-AQeuJy4--i IIXU4 ^J2ndli o .
Number of Trees to be Removed: 2.
Specify the size (measured 4 ' above ground level ) , species (both
common and botanical name) and condition of each tree to be
removed :
1 .
2.
3.
4.
5.
Specify the size and species of the trees proposed to replace
those intended for removals
2.
3.
4.
5.
Please prepare a "Plot Plan" showing all improvements on your
property, trees to be removed, trees to remain, and the proposed
location of replacement trees as per the attached example.
4;caner Arborist
/99 •Certificate Number
Date Date
• May 4, 1990
Dear Hank and Ann Ranallette:
These two white oaks will need to be removed to accommodate this building site. This will
be noted by the Engineer and Architect. The diameter of these trees are deceiving to the
actual size. Both trees are approximately only 25 feet in height. The 36" oak is in poor to
fair condition and the 38" oak is in fair to good condition. I recommend removing these
trees and replacing them with Quercus Lobata,in a 4:1 ratio.
Art Tonneson
Certified Arborist#199
•
•
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item:
Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 5/8//90
Via: Henry Engen, Community Development Director
Frani: Lisa Schicker, City Arborist
SUBJECT:
Reconsideration of a request to remove two heritage trees, a 36" and 38" dbh
Quercus lobata, as part of an application for a precise plan 69-89 for the
purposes of home construction, by owners Hank and Ann Ranallette at 14400 E1
Monte Road. This request was continued from the April 10, 1990 City Council
Meeting.
ALTERNATIVES:
Based on mandates found in the General Plan, the current Tree Ordinance, two
arborists ' reports, discussions with the plan check engineer and the results
of two additional meetings with the project designer, I can recommend either
of the following:
1 . Approve tree removal request subject to 4 : 1 replacement.
2 . Deny the request and ask for a complete redesign of the home and
and/or site plans .
Please see additional comments .
BACKGROUND :
The Tree Ordinance specifies that live native trees 20" or greater dbh
(measured at 4 ' above grade) are deemed heritage trees and cannot be removed
unless approved by the City Council following a public hearing.
Quercus lobata is one of the oak species that is having regeneration problems
statewide and should be protected whenever possible. If these two trees could
somehow be worked into the design of this residence, they would add additional
privacy as well as shade and cooling (and a reduction in expense and depletion
of natural resources for artificial cooling) for this new home.
These trees were inspected by arborists Art Tonneson ( for the applicant) , D.O.
Denney ( for the City) and the City Arborist on separate occasions .
At the April 10 meeting, Council directed the City Arborist to request an
�
receive design alternatives from applicant' s architect, Al Clark and to have
the site re-posted for field identification. City Arborist Lisa Schicker and
City Plan Check Engineer Calvin Fernandes met Mr. Clark at the site to discuss
alternatives to both the proposed siting and design of the house . Mr. Clark
went back to the drawing board and submitted a revised plan that still
necessitates tree removal . A poster for field identification was given to Mr.
•
Clark on April 30 .
ANALYSIS •
The revised plan that Mr. Clark submitted is basically a revised site plan;
that is to say that the house design is the same, but the location has been
shifted downhill . (Your copy of this plan shows the original and revised
locations of the home . ) The conditions of the soil and requirements for the
septic field and expansion area limit the options for shifting the home
farther downhill to avoid removal of the trees . The revised site plan also
increases the amount of retaining wall needed. Mr Clark is planning to attend
the Council meeting to answer questions and discuss his plans .
It appears to both the plan check engineer and myself that alternatives do
exist that would keep these trees on site, but not by using the proposed home
and driveway design. I must repeat my original question about the term
reasonableness; i.e . could this home have possibly been designed to avoid the
removal of these trees?
The .answer is a qualified yes, but at what cost at this stage and to whom?
Alternatives that include redesign of the floor plan, redesign of the
veway, turning the existing building footprint and removing the turnaround
ea, reducing the size of the home and complete redesign should have been
discussed earlier in the design process .
The General Plan (Page 157 ) states that "The contours of the hills shall be
preserved. Residences built on hillsides shall conform to the topography,
using the slope of the land as the basis for the design of the structure" .
It could be said that perhaps the Ranallettes have chosen the wrong kind of
site - natural resources - wise, to build the type of dream home they wish to
build. It could also be said that City should not attempt to regulate single
family home design (the City'-s appearance Review Guidelines exempt single
family residences) but should request replacement plantings to perpetuate the
urban forest, which is after all, the ultimate goal of the Tree Ordinance.
I have spoken to the Ranallettes before preparing this report and they plan
to be present to answer any questions . Over the phone, I did get the
impression that they would like to keep the trees and keep their original
design, but this does not appear to be an option at this time. For the
record, the house design is a two story, 3800 square foot Spanish villa that
is more or less on slab. This kind of design has a large building footprint,
requires a great deal of excavation and does not compliment the natural
vegetation and topography of this site as much as the use of a post and pier
design might have, but it is the kind of home that the Ranallettes wish to
own.
*ave also spoken to the neighbors, Donna and Steve Casler, and they are
-exiled about the loss of those trees and the view that will be altered if
they are removed. Apparently, they have taken extra care to build their home
around their trees and would like their neighbor to do the same. They also
plan to be present to discuss their views with Council .
Another important issue that should be mentioned is that a drainage swale has
•
been cut into the hillside at the edge of the Ranallette' s and the Casler' s
property - it is not clear which property it is actually on, and no one is _
volunteering information about how it got there. Unless this swale is
revegetated, it will have the tendency to become an eroded gully that will
increase in size with any additional construction in that area. If Council
does approve the tree removals, I suggest that the replantings are placed in
the vicinity of the swale.
If the trees are approved for removal, I am still recommending 4 : 1
replacement. The health of Atascadero' s urban forest depends on reforestation
and cooperation of the residents who choose to make their home here.
A copy of the tree planting guidelines have already been provided to the
applicants . If approved, the applicants shall also provide the City with a
signed statement attesting to the planting of the replacement oaks; this
information will be kept on file in the City Arborist' s office.
Attachments : Application
Site Plan and Location Map
April 10, 1990 City Council Report
Arborists' reports
Photograph of site .
cc Hank and Ann Ranallette
Alan Clark
Donna and Steve Casler
•
6 c6 Siff, Pb amiel., l4�o0to
�lor '
+a►" •
r<Q aur.
h ISA �
i
-11 1.01AVIG1.�I�iE�1Jf�� �� �_ �,�'J`" ! �—'1_\--� rt q° UI►�6 t��
OF
rill
I
do t
S'I'C.• \ t t. � � � � \
I
\ I
\ •� • \ `•L ` z}� `� � \\fes � - - - - rt
t 1 tit `�.\ \ �• t� \�.,r, � \ •,,` \ , �.._ _ _ - �
\
11/►WQ
tg
��G , �`Ct„M
I OD
1
\ \ ••
- i �cr5t�n��hve
ALFRED M. CLARK
ARCHITECT
7805 Santa Ynez Street
Atascadero, California 93422
(805) 466-7214
CITY COUNCIL May 7, 1990
CITY OF ATASCADERO
SUBJECT: PROPOSED RESIDENCE FOR HANK AND ANN RANALLETTE
AT 14400 EL MONTE ROAD, ATASCADERO
COUNCIL MEMBER:
As requested from the Council meeting on April 10, 1990, I met with Lisa Schicker and
Calvin Fernandes at the site to discuss alternates to relocating the residence to save the
trees. Lisa suggested moving the house down the slope as far as the leach field would
permit. Calvin agreed that the leach field should go no closer than the 100 foot creek
setback would allow.
The revised site plan, dated 4/29/90 is the result. The house was moved down the hill
approximately 26 feet. In moving the house down, it created a longer and taller retaining
wall (85 feet longer, 1 foot taller). This also created the need for more excavation, which
would have to be exported from the site. Even after shifting the house down 26 feet the
trees still remain in the building footprint. Of the two site plans the original "Grading,
Drainage, and Septic System" plan is the best location for the residence. Listed below are
my reasons:
1. The drainage and septic system would work the best. Refer to the Civil Engineer's
letter to the Ranallettes, dated May 7, 1990.
2. Grading and general site disturbance would be lessened. Not as much excavating
and less retaining walls. Refer to the Civil Engineer's letter to the Ranallettes, dated
May 7, 1990.
3. Driveway approach and parking area slope would have less impact on the site and
would be easier for their use. Refer to the Civil Engineer's letter to the Ranallettes,
dated May 7, 1990.
4. The creek bank and oak grove area would not be as disturbed, as it would be if the
house were located down the slope, or in another location.
5. The residence is approximately 4,500 sq. ft. This includes the garage and livable
area. We have minimized the impact to the site by putting approximately 1/3 of the
house on the second floor. Also, lessen the amount of excavation needed by putting
approximately 70% of the house on a raised foundation.
6. The house is sited as to take advantage of the micro climate the site offers. Living
spaces are located for views,privacy, and solar access.
7. The residence is oriented as to let the Ranallettes take full advantage of the views
they have, which is in the direction of the oak grove. This orientation also allows •
the Ranallettes and their neighbors privacy.
• CONCLUSION
The Ranallettes are extremely happy with their floor plan, and the original location of the
house. It is my professional opinion that the original site is the best location for their house.
The Civil Engineer also agrees (refer to letter dated May 7, 1990). Certified Arborist, Art
Tonneson, also recommends the removal of the trees, and replacing them with a 4:1 ratio.
Refer to his letter to the Ranallettes, dated May 4, 1990.
As a final note the Ranallettes have been in the precise plan, and tree removal process for 4
months. They still need to go through the Building Department which will take them
another couple of months. Let's not make their process any more difficult than it already
has been.
Respectf lly submitted-
Alfred M. Clark, H
Architect
C20172
r
•
ERIC J. GOHLER •
CIVIL ENGINEERING
9110 Atascadero Avenue
Atascadero, CA 93422
(805) 466-86x'2
Mr. Alfred M. Clark May 7, 1990
7805 Santa Ynez Avenue
Atascadero, CA 93422
Subject: Site Development - Hank and Ann Ranallette
14400 E1 Monte Road - Atascadero
Dear Mr. Clark:
As requested, I have met with you on and offsite to review
development alternatives for the single family residence planned
by the Ranallette's at 14400 E1 Monte Road. I recognize and
appreciate the City' s concern for tree protection; However,
considering the proposed residence, in my opinion, sufficient
usable area does not exist to preserve the two oaks in question
and enable installation of an adequate sewage disposal system,
driveway, and turnaround area.
In review of numerous alternatives, and tightening of all
setbacks and sewage system design parameters, I believe the
proposed residence could be moved about 25 feet down the
hillside. Unfortunately, the two oak trees remain within the
proposed residence footprint. Basically, the sewage disposal
system becomes the major limiting factor in determining where the
residence must be located. If tree removal is necessary anyway,
I believe the original "Grading, Drainage, and Septic System"
plan, revised March 12, 1990, identifies the best location for
the proposed residence, sewage system, and driveway. My opinion
is based on the following:
1. The leachfield areas (initial & expansion) are located
on slopes less than 20%. Leach system location on
slopes' of less than 20% is generally pref ered
engineering practice, particularly in areas where soils
exhibit relatively low infiltration characteristics.
Further, steeper slopes require deeper trenches to
maximize horizontal distance to "daylighting". Trench
depth required on 30% slopes will place the effective
infiltrative area into the less suitable, more clayey
soils. This will increase the possibility for system
failure. In my opinion, . based on existing soil
characteristics, the septic system should be maintained •
on slopes of 20% or less.
1
Page Two
Alfred Clark
I did consider the option of moving the residence way
L down the slope and placing the leachfield in the area of
the two oaks. This option has many disadvantages;
: -� setback problems from the drainageway; failure due to
mechanical (pump) problems; poorer percolation in rock
outcrop area; addition of weight and lubricant (water)
upslope of the residence (evidence of soil creep exists
in many nearby areas) ; and, trenching around the oaks.
2. Leachfield trench spacing is greater (10 ft vs. 8 ft) .
Anytime soils maintain low infiltration characteristics,
as do the soils on this lot, trench spacing must be
maximized to enhance effluent disposal . From a
construction standpoint, increased ground surface slope
requires greater trench spacing, regardless of soil
type. In my opinion, trench spacing should be no less
than 8 feet, but preferably 10 feet.
3. City and State regulations require a minimum 100 foot
setback from the leachfield and significant
drainageways. The original plan maximizes the
�t ✓�
drainageway separation. Moving the 1 eachf i el d down the
hillside, not only places the trenches closer to the
drainageway, but does so in the steeper topographic
areas. These steeper areas maintain the greatest
potential for sewage system failure.
4. Grading disturbance will be lessened and less difficult.
The original plan places the proposed residence on the
flattest portion of the lot. Although a retaining wall
is necessary considering either location, moving the
residence downslope will require additional retaining
wal 1 _1_ength (approx. 75 - 85 f t) and height (approx. b
ft . instead of 5 ft) . Moving the residence downslope,
also requires most of the driveway to be placed on
compacted fill to maintain a relatively constant slope
of 15%, unless the building pad is excavated to an even
lower elevation. Further-, moving the 1 eachf i el d
"expansion area" to the sloped area between 20% & 30%, ,
eliminates the only onsite area available to e�ctrrve
excess excavated soil . As a result, about 300-400 cubic
yards of excavated soil would have to be hauled offsite.
5. Driveway and parking area slope would be-slightly less.
The original plan designates a 25 foot long parking area
at an 8% slope and a driveway slope of 12-15%. Moving
the residence downslope would result in a 20 foot long
parking area at a 10% slope and a driveway slope of at
least 15%.
Page Three
Alfred Clark •
One .other general comment I have relates to the proposed "turn
around" area in front of the garage. The most recent "Report To
City Council " from the City Arborist (dated May 8, 1990) seems to
suggest "turn around" elimination isA'possibility. In my opinion,
a turn around is an absolute necessity given the length (about
200 ft) and slope (about 15%) of the proposed driveway. Safty
must be given high priority.
CONCLUSIONS
Development of this lot could be altered from the original plan
allowing the proposed residence to be moved about 25 feet
downslope. The two oak trees of concern would remain within the
proposed residence footprint, thus requiring removal .
Considering sewage disposal , grading, and driveway concerns,
mentioned above, I recommend development of this lot (with the
proposed residence) in accordance with the original "Grading,
Drainage, and Septic System" plan revised March 12, 1990.
Please call if you have any questions or if additional
information becomes necessary.
Respectfully submitted,
r `
+
Eri J. Gob2er
� ti08lfR %+
Civil Engineer C J.
3192. E
RCE 30430 No.
F N't `.
cc: Hank Ranallette
dd/ejg/hank
3
•
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: B-2
Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 4/10//90
Via: Henry Engen, Community Development Director -Apt/
From: Lisa Schicker, City Arborist
SUBJECT:
Consideration of a request to remove two heritage trees, a 36" and 38" dbh
Quercus lobata, as part of an application for a precise plan 69-89 for the
purposes of home construction, by owners Hank and Ann Ranallette at 14400 E1
Monte Road.
RECOMMENDATION:
Based on two arborist reports, the current Tree Ordinance and condition of
these trees, approve removal subject to 4 : 1 replacement. Please see
4WCKGROUND:
itional comments .
The Tree Ordinance specifies that live native trees 20" or greater dbh
(measured at 4 ' above grade) are deemed heritage trees and cannot be removed
unless approved by the City Council following a public hearing.
Quercus lobata is one of the oak species that is having regeneration
problems statewide and should be protected whenever possible. If these two
trees could somehow be worked into the design of this residence, they would
add additional privacy as well ' as shade and cooling (and a reduction in
expense and depletion of natural resources for artificial cooling) for this
new home .
These trees were inspected by arborists Art Tonneson ( for the applicant) ,
D.O. Denney ( for the City) and the City Arborist on separate occasions .
Photographs of the trees are available in the Precise Plan application
pending in the Planning Department.
ANALYSIS:
When I originally reviewed this application, I saw no reason why these trees
should be removed; they are located on the ' edge of center' of a large
grassy knoll . I felt that certainly a home of adequate square footage could
have been designed to accomodate even a large family and still keep the
es; in fact I wondered why anyone would want to remove these trees,
sidering their ecological and climate benefits and the increase to the
value of the property. The question that comes up with this application
then is that of reasonableness; i . e. could this home have possibly been
designed to avoid the removal of these trees? •
I could not reach the Ranallettes at the time of the preparation of this
report and hope that they will be present to describe their situation to the
City Council, but I did get a chance to speak with their architect, Alan
Clarke. From our conversation, it appears that the applicants do have
concern for trees, but also wanted a very large house on a restrictive
building site. The design of this 3800 square foot Spanish villa is more or
less on slab; this kind of design means having a large building footprint,
requires a great deal of excavation and does not compliment the natural
vegetation and topography of this site as much as the use of a post and pier
design or two story home might have.
However, according to the architect, the Ranallettes will be retiring in
this home and did not want to have to climb up and down stairs; a smaller
building footprint may have permitted these trees to remain. Mr. Clarke
also stated that because of septic field requirements, setbacks and other
site restrictions, along with the design requests of the applicants, he
found the siting of the home difficult and the removal of the trees
inevitable. This of course, is an arguable point with no "black and white"
answer; there are always many different solutions to every design problem.
In addition, the original arborist incorrectly stated that these trees were
dead' and diseased (he examined them in winter) , which is not the case, as
confirmed by two additional arborist opinions and photographs taken last •
summer. Therefore, the Ranallettes were improperly informed about the
health of these trees, and may have based their plans on this information.
Because of all the facts described above, I am reluctantly recommending
approval of these removals with a 4 : 1 replacement requirement. I believe
that ultimately, the health of Atascadero' s urban forest depends on
reforestation and cooperation of the residents who choose to make their home
here. I would much rather see the City allow the Ranallettes to build the
home they desire and have them replant trees than to resent the City and its
tree policies . Once again, I think that a pre - design consultation with
these applicants and their architect might have avoided this tree removal
application altogether and perhaps given the Ranallettes a home that would
have been just as pleasing.
Because a copy of this report will be given to the applicants, I am also
including the tree planting guidelines:
1 . Choose 8, 15 gallon - sized Quercus lobata.
2 . Inspect the trees for encircling roots (roots that wrap
around the pot have a poorer chance of straightening out and
growing right in the ground.
3. When planting, make sure that the roots have been untangled,
straightened and loosened as much as possible.
4 . Plant in a hole at least twice as big as the pot, and use •
native soils in the hole.
• 5 . Provide the tree with deep watering - meaning a slow,
gradual and long watering (which encourages downward root
growth to anchor the tree) . Provide one deep watering in
late spring and two in the summer. If drip irrigation is
used, do long, slow waterings applying 10-20 gallons over a
three-four hour period.
6 . Protect the young trees from wildlife with some kind of
fencing - welded wire fencing of at least 4 feet in height
(I can provide some specs if needed) .
The applicants shall also provide the City with a signed statement attesting
to the planting of the replacement oaks; this information will be kept on
file in the City Arborist' s office.
Attachments: Application
Site Plan and Location Map
Arborists' reports
cc Hank and Ann Ranallette
•
REPORT. TO CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM:
C-1
CITY OF ATASCADERO
THROUGH: Ray Windsor, City Manager MEETING DATE: 9/11/90
FROM: Andrew J. Takata, Director
Department of Parks Recrea and Zoo
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION TO SOLICIT BIDS FOR THE ATASCADERO
LAKE PAVILION - FINAL PHASE (Construction)
RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize staff to solicit bids for the construction of
Atascadero Lake Pavilion, after final plan checks are completed.
DISCUSSION:
Ron Page, Recreation Systems, Inc. , Architect on the Atascadero
Lake Pavilion, will provide a verbal presentation regarding the
• Pavilion construction status.
AJT;kv -
pav10
M E M O R A til D U M
Date: August 24, 1990.
To : Ray Windsor , City Manager
From: Mark Joseph , Administrative Services Director
qz
Subject : Revised Pavilion Costs
Having reviewed the attached August 10 letter from
Recreation Systems, Inc . , I thought you and Council would lige an
update on the project related to financing .
The new construction estimate is $975,520, up from the
estimate of $850,000 in January . The increase is due primarily
to required modifications to the building pad and structure:
specifically, the building must be elevated approximately 2 .5
feet to accommodate the 100 year flood plain. This necessitates
$20,000 in essential site improvements , such as walkways
connecting the higher elevated building to the surrounding area .
Secondly, soil testing revealed a "soft spot" where a portion of
the building would be. This required additional site
preparation, including a major retaining wall along the shoreline
in front of the building . This increase alone will add 158,000.
The third major increase is the addition of a fire sprinkler
system, estimated at $43,500. I do not know why this was not
identified originally .
In addition to th6se increased costs , there are additional
site improvements that are recommended , but are not appurtenant
to the building and may be phased as necessary . These
improvements are primarily associated with renovating the parking
lot adjacent to the Pavilion/Zoo area , security lighting ,
landscaping and additional walkways . The estimated cost for
these improvements is $200,000 .
With these increases in mind , total estimated costs are
projected as follows:
Construction costs , including site preparation 975 ,000,*
Fall , 1990 Optional site improvements 200 ,000
Architect Fees per agreement 8J,f>C,n
Contingency ( approximately 5 . of const-uction) 50.00C>
Total 1 , 31000
- Indications are that bidding at this time should result _ ,-; eery
competitive quotations due to the soft construction market .
i
At this time the City has identified approximately $1 . 1
million for the project : $700,000 from the General Fund and
$400,000 residual from the C.Q.P. bonds, issued last October .
Removing the $200,000 in additional site improvements puts us
just about right on target for the project : that is to say having
a brand new facility ready to occupy.
Obviously , there are additional and essential cost factors
that must be addressed immediately. Furnishings and additional
parking is one. Some landscaping and exterior lighting is
another . Hopefully some of these costs will be offset by the
Pavilion Committee fund raiser . Other revenue sources, including
developer fees and additional General Fund monies can be
considered . But in the latter case I would strongly urge that
this only occur in the form of a loan to be paid back from fees
generated by the new building .
The architect will be making his final presentation to
Council prior to going out to bid on September 11 , 1990.
•
OM Jw-
Ii
RECREATION SYSTEMS,INC.
Landscape Architecture,Recreation and Environmental Planning
August 10, 1990
Mr. Andy Takata, Director
Parks, Recreation & Zoo Department
6500 Palma Avenue
Atascadero, California 93422
STATUS REPORT - MASTER PLAN & CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENT
PREPARATION - ATASCADERO LAKE PARK
AND PAVILION PROJECT
Dear Andy,
In accordance with our past practice, I wish to apprise you of
the current status of the Atascadero Lake Pavilion Project and
associated planning efforts.
We have just completed the plans and specifications for Phase I
of this project and have mailed the package to you and Gary Sims
for review and comment. You will recall that we were authorized •
by phone to proceed with the preparation of a separate bid
package for demolition, site grading, building pad compaction
and the construction of the retaining wall along the shoreline.
This portion of the contract was separated on the advice of the
Soils Engineer, our Structural Engineer and the City' s Project
Engineer. The purpose was to avoid possible water and
compaction problems that could be encountered if it was delayed
to go with the main building contract in October or November.
In accordance with our previous telephone conversation, our
costs for compiling the separate bid package will be $2000.00.
As indicated, the final solution will require a major retaining
wall along the shoreline in front of the building. Our
engineers estimate that this structure will cost approximately
$58,000.00. Further we have just received the cost estimate for
the installation of the building sprinkler system as required by
your Fire Department. The probable cost is set at $43 ,500 .00.
Neither of these items were anticipated when we submitted our
estimate of costs ( $850,000.00) to the City Council on January
23 , 1990. Currently the base costs for the building appear to
be holding steady dispite an increase in plumbing fixtures as
required by the plumbing code. The current takeoff projects a
cost of $854,020.00.
1230 North Jefferson,Suite K Anaheim,California 92807 714/632-3650 L.A. #1649
•
You will recall our request for authority to include site work
as a part of the total contract. We were particularly concerned
about replacement and realignment of the parking, development of
a walkway access from the front parking lot, security lighting
and miscellaneous walks and service access to the building. Your
telephone authorization included the preparation of plans for
site improvements and the incorporation of these plans as an
alternative package with the final plans and specifications. A
close review of the scope reveals approximately $20,000.00 worth
of site improvements that are essential to the operation of the
building. This portion includes the main entrance walk, concrete
walk connections to fire exits, the service access to the
kitchen and temporary asphalt surfacing on the lower deck
between the building and the retaining wall. We would propose
that these essential site improvements be included as part of
the base bid package with the balance included in the
alternative package.
With the addition of the essential site improvements, the fire
sprinklers and the retaining wall, the probable construction
cost for both Phase I and Phase II would be $975,520.00 . The
alternative site improvement package including the parking lot,
security lighting and the walkway with landscaping , pedestrian
• bridge,and irrigation as needed is estimated at $200,000.00.
Although this alternative may not be constructed at this time,
the estimated cost will be added to the total for the purpose of
computing our fees through the completion of construction
plans. Construction observation charges will only be assessed
if the City chooses to include the alternative package in the
final construction contract.
If you have any questions or comments related to the above,
please contact me at your convenience.
Si�nc rel ,
Rona d F. Pai e
President
RFP/rp
AAA