Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 09/25/1990 NOTICE: THE COUNCIL WILL MEET IN OPEN SESSION.AT 6 : 00 P.M. IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS (ROTUNDA ROOM) TO RECEIVE THE CONSUL- TANT' S PRESENTATION OF THE FIRE MASTER PLAN. A' G E N D A PUBLIC REVIEW COPY # ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE REGULAR MEETING FROM COUNTER ATASCADERO ADMINISTRATION BUILDIN' 6500 PALMA FOURTH FLOOR, ROTUNDA ROOM SEPTEMBER 25, 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, theactionthat 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 Ball 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 seconc time until everyone wishing to sPeak has had an opportunity to do so . No one may speak more than twice on any 'item. Council Members may question any speaker; the speaker may respond but, after the allotted time has expired, may not initiate further discussion. * The floor will then be closed to public participation and open for Council discussion. Call to Order Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call City-Council Comment Proclamation: "PTA/PISA Membership Month" , October 1990 (Atascadero Unified School District) 1 COMMUNITY FORUM: The City Council values and encourages exchange of ideas and comments from you, the citizen. The Community Forum period is provided to receive comments from the public on matters other than scheduled agenda items . To increase the effectiveness of Community Forum, the following rules will be enforced: A maximum of 30 minutes will be allowed for Community Forum, unless Council authorizes an extension. All remarks shall be addressed to Council, as a whole, and not to any individual member thereof. * No person shall be permitted to make slanderous, profane or personal remarks against any Council Member, commissions & staff . A. CONSENT CALENDAR: All matters listed under Item A, ConsentCalendar, 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 teen be re- viewed and acted upon separately after the adoption of the Consent Calendar. inhere 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 28, 1990 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 2. SEPTEMBER 17 , 1990 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES (Special Meeting) 3 . CITY TREASURER' S REPORT AUGUST 1990 4 . FINANCE DIRECTOR' S REPORT AUGUST 1990 5 . RESOLUTION NO. 112-90 - AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 5-90, WHICH ADOPTED BY-LAWS FOR THE CITY' S RECYCLING COMMITTEE 6 . UPDATE ON SOLID WASTE ITEMS B. HEARINGS/APPEARANCES : 1 . CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 09-89, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 21-89, AND ZONE CHANGE 15-89, 8555 EL CORTE - Appeal by Ray Bunnel of Planning Commission denial of proposal to subdivide six '(6 ) existing lots of 21 acres into 78 lots for single-family homes, including one common lot, .and to revise standards of the PD-6 Overlay Zone relating to the elevation at which structures can be -built on the site - Applicant requests continuance to October 9, 1990 2 . TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 27-89 - Appeal by Alan Volbrecht of Plan- ing Commission's denial of proposed tract map to resubdivide 2 fOUr lots Of 30 . 9 6 acres :nto eight lots of 3 . 77 acres each at 8700, 8850, 8906 and 9000 Santa Cruz Road Ryan/White) 3 . RESOLUTION NO. 114-90 - CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST TO ABANDON GUSTA ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, ROAD ABANDONMENT 2-§0 (Off :of El Camino Real between La Linia and Principal) (Peterson/Deven- cenzi 4 . HEARING TO CONSIDER REVOCATION OF CITY BUSINESS LICENSE #90216, R&S PLUMBING, 8052 CRISTOBAL 5 . ORDINANCE NO. 210 CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION MORATORIUM ORDI- NANCE -- Consideration of an Urgency Interim Ordinance to place a moratorium on new condominium conversions pending completion of a study to develop a condominium conversion ordinance '(Requires, 4/5 vote for passage) C. REGULAR BUSINESS: 1 . COUNCIL WILL ADJOURN TO A CLOSED SESSION FOR DISCUSSION OF - PROPERTY PURCHASE SETTLEMENT (M/M Thomas Bench Property located near Curbaril & Carmelita Ave. ) . Council will then reconvene in Open Session: A. City/Bench' Land Purchase Agreement - Direct staff to set hearing date 2. MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT AMONG THE COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AND THE CITIES OF ARROYO GRANDE, ATASCADERO, GROVER CITY,, PASO ROBLES, MORRO BAY, PISMO BEACH AND SAN LUIS OBISPO' FOR PREP- ARATION OF COUNTY AND CITY SOURCE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING ELEMENTS, AND THE COUNTY-WIDE-INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN 3 . APPOINT COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE TO SERVE ON THE CITY/COUNTY PARTICIPATION GROUP TO ADVISE THE COUNTY IN THE PREPARATION OF A COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUD'' 4 . REQUEST TO PURCHASE HIGH-RANGE LIFT TRUCK FOR ,TREE TRIMMING d 5 . LIBRARY FACILITIES - BOARD OF SUPERVISORS BUDGET" POLICY #13 STATUS 6. REQUEST TO RESCHEDULE THE REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 23RD TO THE 30TH DUE TO CONFLICT WITH ANNUAL LEAGUE CONFERENCE 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 3 1 . 5 . solid/Hazardous Waste Mgmt. Committee 6 . Recvclina Committee 7 Economic^Opportunity Commission - S . E .I .A. 2 . City Attorney 3 City Clerk 4 . City Treasurer 5. City Manager 4 PUBLIC REVIEW COPY # PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE FROM COUNTER w PUBLIC NOOTICE ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL ADDENDUM TO CITY COUNCIL AGENDA THE FOLLOWING ' ITEM IS HEREBY ADDED TO THE ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL REGULAR AGENDA OF SEPTEMBER 25 , 1990, AS DETERMINED BY CONSENSUS OF THE CITY COUNCIL AT A NOTICED SPECIAL MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 20, 1990: C. REGULAR BUSINESS : 7`. REPORT ON .GARCIA ROAD EXTENSION: TR REMOVAL r G� Posted: 9/21/90 LEE DAYKA,rCity eik V i PROCLAMATION OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO AND ATASCADERO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT WHEREAS, the Parent Teachers and the Parent Teachers Students Associations (PTA/PTSA) of the Atascadero Unified School District (which encompasses the communities of Carrisa Plains, Creston, Santa Margarita, Pozo, and the City of Atascadero) provide a service for the students of the entire District, including those of the City of Atascadero; and WHEREAS, the PTA/PTSA can be credited with the support of the public schools, not only at the school site level, but also at the state and federal levels; and WHEREAS, the PTA/PTSA advocate for quality education for the students of the entire District; and WHEREAS, PTA/PTSA serves as a catalyst for the support of the community, not only for its public schools, but for the community itself as well; and WHEREAS, the membership of the PTA/PTSA is made up of volunteers who give of themselves, not only in terms of fiscal support, but also volunteer labor and moral support; and WHEREAS, the City of Atascadero and the Atascadero Unified School District prides themselves in having PTA/PTSA Chapters which have won awards for the increase in membership in competition with other districts in the region; and WHEREAS, the PTA/PTSA has provided the support to make possible the passage of Senate Bill 813, which improved the quality of the schools in the State of California, and Propositions 98 and 111, which benefitted both cities and schools, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Atascadero and the Atascadero Unified School District join in proclaiming October as PTA Membership Month and urge all citizens to join the membership of the PTA/PTSA in our communities. Proclaimed this day of ' 1990. Mayor, City of Atascadero President, Board of Education Atascadero Unified School District "Where students and their education are paramount" SL` i 1U��'' 5601 WEST MALL ANTHONY AVINA, Ed.D. L ATASCADERO, CA 93422-4234 District Superintendent CITY MGR. PHONE: (805)466-0393 September 18, 1990 Bob Lilley,Mayor City of Atascadero 6500 Palma Avenue Atascadero,CA 93422 Dear Mayor Lilley: The success of the public schools depends greatly on the support provided by the community through its many avenues. An avenue critical to the success of the public schools is the Parent Teachers Association(PTA). The public schools of the Atascadero Unified School District are extremely proud of the communities of Carrisa Plains,Creston,Santa Margarita,and the City of Atascadero. These communities actively participate in the Parent Teachers Association(PTA)and the Parent Teachers Students Association (PTSA). Nearly all of our schools have PTA chapters and Atascadero High School is one of two high schools in the County with an active PTSA. Weare proud of our association with each of these chapters. October marks the beginning of the PTA/PTSA campaign for membership. The presidents of the PTAs/PTSAs in the school district have suggested that request a proclamation the City proclaiming the month of October as PTA/PTSA membership month. The Board of Trustees of the Atascadero Unified School District would like to join with the City in this action. I hope you will give consideration to the PTA request and join with the school district in support of such a proclomation,a draft of which is attached. Thank you for your support. Si rely yours, nthony Avin strict Su ' tendent AA:ejs Attachment cc: Ray Windsor PTA Presidents AUSD City Carrisa Plains Elementary • Creston Elementary • Lewis Avenue Elementary Monterey Road Elementary San Gabriel Road Elementary • Santa Margarita Elementary Santa Rosa Road Elementary • Atascadero Junior High School Atascadero Senior High School 0 Atascadero Adult School 0 Oak Hills Continuation High School ME1=TiN TEM M A 1-- DATE ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 280 1990 Mayor Lilley called the meeting to order at 6: 12 p .m. for the special purpose of: 1 ) receiving a presentation from the Recycling Committee, 2) hearing a request from Wil-Mar Disposal to extend their contract and 3) obtain an update on a proposal from Dennis Bryant of Atascadero to provide a pick-up service for discarded appliances. ROLL CALL: Present: Councilmembers Shiers, Dexter , Borgeson, Nimmo and Mayor Lilley Also Present : Muriel Korba, City Treasurer and Lee Dayka, City Clerk Staff Present : Ray Windsor , City Manager ; Art Montandon, City Attorney; Henry Engen, Community Development Director ; Andy Takata, Director of Parks, Recreation & Zoo ; Greg Luke, Public Works Director ; Gary Sims, Senior Civil Engineer ; Lisa Schicker , Natural Resource Specialist ; and Bud McHale, Police Chief. The Pledge of Allegiance and Community Forum were deferred until the commencement of the regularmeetingat 7:00 p.m. COUNCIL COMMENTS: Councilman Dexter noted that the August edition of Western City magazine was devoted to the topic of Recycling . Mayor Lilley reported that he and councilmembers Nimmo and Shiers had attended a League of California Cities ' conference the prior month and explained that the major . source of discussions were related to solid waste management and the legal issues related to it . The mayor commended the Recycling Committee , for their serious efforts. CCB/28/90 Page 1 ITEM #1 RECYCLING COMMITTEE PRESENTATION At this time, Mayor Lilley introduced James Patterson, Recycling Committee member , who gave his report . Mr . Patterson introduced the other members of the Recycling Committee: Renee Silberman, Chairperson, Michele Velasco , Bill Gibbs and Councilman Shiers. He also announced that Ellen Hay from the consulting firm of Recycling by Nature was present in the audience and would be available for questions from Council . After giving background and history of the committee, Mr . Patterson gave an in-depth report on the issues of mandatory garbage pick-up and curbside recycling . Additionally, he outlined a proposed recycling program targeted to the residential sector of Atascadero and concluded his report stating that he and the committee members would be available for questions. Mr . Windsor noted that the City had just received data relating to costs and advised that in order for Council to make any meaningful assessment of the presentation (as it relates to mandatory pick-up and curbside recycling ) , that it allow the data to be analyzed by staff and be brought back to them for future action. MOTION: By Councilman Dexter and seconded by Councilman Shiers to receive the Recycling Committee report ; refer it to staff for preparation of specific options relating to available rate structures and the scope of the proposed alternatives recommended by the Recycling Committee; and direct staff to come back to the Council for further action and public hearing ; motion carried unanimously. ITEM #2 REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF CONTRACT - WIL MAR DISPOSAL The City Manager reported that staff had received a request from Wil-Mar Disposal to extend its ' contract an additional two years based on the capital planning needs for a move towards mandatory collection and recycling. He noted that if Council moves forward with public hearing on those issues, it must also decide whether or not to go out to bid forthecontractor who will implement the programa Councilman Shiers indicated that the Recycling Committee' s report noted that there are special types of waste and that the recycling of those kinds of waste might require the use of independent , specialized contractors. He stated that this could CCB/28/90 Page 2 affect the extension of the Wil-Mar contract . Betty Sanders, attorney for Wil-Mar Disposal , pointed out that the City is bound by a contract with Wil-Mar for the next two and one-half years. She stated that if mandatory garbage collection is adopted , Wil-Mar will be required to provide that service for the remainder of their contract time. She added that if programs recommended by the Recycling Committee are implemented, Wil-Mar will then need to make substantial asset acquisition and urged Council to extend the contract. Mr . Windsor responded to Council questions relating to an estimated date to receive staff analysis by recognizing the sense of urgency and proposed the first meeting in September . He added that if staff could not be prepared by that date, it would come back to Council during the second meeting in September. Helen Hay, consultant , explained that she works for the Local Government Commission and in addition, had been hired by Wil-Mar to develop a program for them to present to the Recycling Committee. She further reported that her work is funded by a grant designated for the City of Atascadero and offered her services. ITEM #3 UPDATE ON DISCARDED APPLIANCES PICK-UP SERVICE PROPOSED BY DENNIS BRYANT Mark Joseph gave staff report indicating that the matter had been referred to the Recycling Committee and reported that the committee was not supportive of the proposal . Brief Council comments followed . Consensus was that the Council was not prepared. to accept Mr . Bryant ' s proposal at this time because it was premature. Councilwoman Borgeson noted that new members would be on board soon with the Recycling Committee and that they should be given a chance to look at the proposal . Public Comment : Dennis Bryant , SOS Appliance, announced that he had not been notified of the Recycling Committee meeting and was not afforded the opportunity to address the committee regarding his proposal . He stated that he wouldlike the opportunity to defend his proposition. Mayor Lilley requested that , for future meetings of the Recycling Committee, Mr. _ Bryant be given an invitation to 'address the committee and provide his input . Councilman Shiers added that during the last meeting of the Committee, it had been decided CCB/28/90 Page 3 that the meetings will be announced publicly. MOTION: By Councilman Nimmo and seconded by Councilwoman Borgeson to defer Items #2 (Wil-Mar Disposal contract extension) and #3 (Bryant proposal ) for further discussion until after staff has returned their evaluations on Item #1 (Recycling Committee Report ) and public hearing is scheduled ; motion unanimously carried . At 7:08 p.m. , Mayor Lilley called the regular session to order. Councilman Dexter led the Pledge of Allegiance. Mayor Lilley called for a short break and the meeting was reconvened at 7: 15 p .m. Proclamation Mayor Lilley read the proclamation for "National Check-up Week" and noted the dates to be September 9-15, 1990. Celia Garrett , representing the local Diet Center , was present and accepted the proclamation. COMMUNITY FORUM: There were no public comments. COUNCIL COMMENTS: Councilwoman Borgeson thanked Mayor Lilley, newly-appointed Planning Commissioner Marty Kudlac and the Department of Parks & Recreation for their fund-raising efforts on August 25, 2990 to benefit the Lake Park Pavilion. In addition, she commended Chief Bud McHale for the Police Department ' s Grand Opening Ceremonies and Block Party held that same date. Mayor Lilley added his thanks to the Friends of the Pavilion Committee. CONSENT CALENDAR: Mayor Lilley read the Consent Calendar , as follows: 1 . AUGUST 14, 1990 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 2. MINUTES OF BUDGET HEARINGS HELD JUNE 25, 27, 28 &JULY 5, 1990 3. CITY TREASURER'S REPORT = JULY 1990 CC8/28/90 Page 4 4 • 4. FINANCE DIRECTOR'S REPORT - JULY 1990 5. ACCEPTANCE OF FINAL PARCEL MAP 9-87, 9000 ATASCADERO AVENUE TO DIVIDE ONE PARCEL OF 1 .0 AC. INTO TWO LOTS (Kuhlman/Baumberger ) 6. ACCEPTANCE OF FINAL PARCEL MAP 26-871 11300 VIEJO CAMINO TO DIVIDE ONE PARCEL OF 27.01 AC. INTO FOUR LOTS CONTAINING 8.52, 4.23, 6.59 AND 7.67 ACRES (Bordeaux House/ VandenBerghe) 7. AUTHORIZE POLICE DEPARTMENT AUCTION OF UNCLAIMED PROPERTY AND SURPLUS CITY PROPERTY 8. RESOLUTION NO. 109-90 - CREATING EX-OFFICIO YOUTH REPRESENTATION ON CERTAIN CITY COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES 9. ANNUAL RATIFICATION OF AREA COUNCIL JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT 10. EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION: A. RESOLUTION NO. 106-90 - ADOPTING A SALARY/ CLASSIFICATION SCHEDULE & BENEFITS FOR CONFIDENTIAL EMPLOYEES B. RESOLUTION NO. 105-90 - ADOPTING A SALARY/ CLASSIFICATION SCHEDULE & BENEFITS FOR MID- MANAGEMENT/PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES C. RESOLUTION NO. 107-90 - ADOPTING A SALARY/ CLASSIFICATION SCHEDULE & BENEFITS FOR MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES D. RESOLUTION NO. 108-90 - AMENDING EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT FOR RAY WINDSOR, CITY MANAGER Eric Greening , from the public , asked to pull item #A-8 for further discussion. The City Clerk asked to continue item #A-i . MOTION: By Councilman - Dexter and seconded by Councilman Nimmo to continue - the Minutes from City Council meeting of August 14, 1990 until the, next regular meeting; motion carried . MOTION: By Cou'ncilman 'Nimmo and seconded by Councilman Shiers to approve the Consent Calendar with the exceptions of items A-1 and A-B; motion carried. CC8/28/90 Page 5 S. RESOLUTION NO. 109-90 - CREATING EX-OFFICIO YOUTH REPRESENTATION ON CERTAIN CITY COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES Eric Greening , 7365 Valle, congratulated the Council on the inclusion of students on advisory bodies; but stated opposition to the restrictiveness of the requirement that youths must be "high school " students. He stated that "home schoolers" should also be allowed to apply. Nathan Coren, 7365 Valle, echoed the comments made by Mr . Greening . Councilman Dexter offered that the words, "high school student" could be substituted with the words, "between sixteen and eighteen years" . MOTION: By Councilman Dexter and seconded by Mayor Lilley to adopt Resolution No . 109-90 as amended ; motion unanimously passed . B. HEARINGS/APPEARANCES: 1 . RESOLUTION NO. 103-90 - ADOPTING ROAD STANDARDS AND POLICIES lb (Cont ' d from 8/14/90 Henry Engen noted that hearing items 2, 3 and 4 all have to do with road requirements and gave brief history. The Community Development Director reported that even though item #2 ( the Gearhart parcel map ) is on a Class III road , Council has discretion to make a determination based on the characteristics of the lot , whether or not .they act upon Resolution No. 103-90. 4 Mr . Engen commented that -items 3 and 4 deal with so-called "Gordon Davis roads" which are subject to a 19$6 agreement between the Public Works Department and Mr . Davis to install roads in a stage sequence to later be reviewed by the City for acceptance into the City-maintained system. The Community Development Director recognized the unique circumstances involved with the two parcel maps and ' offered an option for solving the disputes. He suggested that areas subject to an agreement be exempt from the existing minimum - road standards and in those situations rely on the terms and conditions of the agreement itself. Councilman Nimmo referred to Mr . Engen 's classification of Bella Vista Road and stated- that it was his understanding that the Council had not yet adopted an approved list of classifications. CC8/28/90 __ • Page 6 The Community Development Director noted that Mr . Nimmo was correct and stated that the Class III status of Bella Vista was indeed proposed . Mr . Nimmo opposed the resolution and voiced strong support for an additional study session relating to the road classifications. Other members of council concurred . Public Comment: Joan Okeefe, 9995 Old Morro Road , stated that the Council has had the material for quite some time; and asked what the Council would be looking at during a study session and at what point would it begin to address the issue of roads. Councilman Dexter stated that he stood by his request for a study session and asked the City Attorney for an opinion with regard to the other items on the agenda as they relate to roads. Art Montandon stated that Council could act on the Bella Vista Road appeal . He noted that it may be confusing to act on the second two appeals if the road policy is undecided , unless Council chose to "grandfather" those roads. The City Manager reiterated that the issue was extremely complex and urged the Council to act on the Bella Vista matter . He stated that the other items could also be resolved if the Council stands by their resolution (Resolution No . 61-90) , which states that it will accept the standards of the 1986 road agreement . He added that the only thing that has not been resolved is exactly what those standards are. Mr . Windsor advised that the appeals be compared to the minimum road standards. Mayor Lilley asked for a motion to continue the road policy resolution and proceed to address the appeal items. MOTION: By Councilman Nimmo and seconded by Councilman Dexter to continue Resolution No . 103-90 and schedule a study session at the earliest date possible; motion unanimously carried. 2. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 19-89 — APPEAL BY CITY STAFF OF THE ROAD IMPROVEMENT CONDITIONS RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION, 7675 BELLA VISTA (Gearhart/Sierra Vista) (Continued from 8/14/90) _ The City Manager clarified that this appeal does not fall under the proposed road policy standards, because they have not yet been adopted . He stated that staff was requesting approval of Alternative II , a modification of the conditions related to the CC8/28/90 Page 7 • improvement of Bella Vista Road . Mr . Windsor noted that the applicant and his attorney had indicated that this was acceptable. Councilman Nimmo made a request to defer the status of Bella Vista until Council has had a study session and decided what to do with the various streets in Atascadero . Mr . Engen noted that should the Council uphold the appeal , then consideration might be given to reducing the twenty foot road way requirement for the back lot , which he described as a flag lot . He suggested that a sixteen foot road with two foot shoulders could allowed under the subdivision ordinance. The mayor asked if the proposal would violate Fire Department standards. The Community Development Director explained that it would not and added that there were a number of trees that would be better served by making a narrower road to the back lot . Councilman Shiers clarified that the subdivision could be denied if Council could not meet any of the findings of the Subdivision Map Act . Councilwoman Borgeson noted that the matter had been before Council earlier in the year and that the application had been sent back to the Planning Commission to determine other reasons for denial , aside from the road , based on the site planning. Public Comment : Kelly Gearhart , 8851 Palomar , stated that Alternative II was acceptable and remained available for questions. Councilwoman Borgeson asked the City Attorney, acknowledging the receipt of a letter from Mr . Gearhart ' s attorney, if there was a threat of litigation. Mr . Montandon stated that he had discussed the matter with the attorney and indicated that he did not feel there was. Joan Okeefe, spoke in opposition to ,the lot split and stated that there would be considerable impact to the terrain, if approved . Jim Hahn, a Bella Vista resident , explained that the property has been used by transients, for parking and target shooting, and as a dumping ground. He stated that he was in support of the split as it would be an improvement over its' current usage. - Mayor Lilley commented that he was concerned about the manner in which -the matter hadcomebefore the Council . He stated the CCB/28/90 • Page 8 4 ZL s Planning Commission serves the City well and was disturbed by the staff ' s appeal of their decision. The City Manager responded that Council could amend the ordinance by deleting the applicable provision if it was not comfortable with it . Councilman Nimmo stated that he shared the views of the mayor and that he was prepared to revise the Code. Councilman Shiers noted , for public record , that Council had received a letter from a resident living at 7455 Bella Vista who was opposed to the project . He pointed out that the parcel does not have to be split in order to be developed . He stated that it is currently a buildable lot and reported that he could not make the findings for approval . He specifically noted that he did not believe the site to be physically suitable for the proposed density, that the design of the subdivision was likely to cause environmental damage and that the design of the improvements were likely to cause serious public health problems. Councilwoman Borgeson concurred with Councilman Shiers. Mayor Lilley stated that he was very comfortable with making the findings necessary to approve the subdivision, adding that he did not feel there would be any environmental damage. Councilman Dexter stated that he would give reluctant approval to the application acknowledging that the applicant had competed all the requirements. MOTION: By Councilman Nimmo and seconded by Councilman Dexter to uphold the appeal of adoption of Alternative II . The Community Development Director asked if the motion was to include a sixteen foot treatment and exempti;pn findings for the driveway. Mr. Nimmo indicated that it did . Councilman Dexter affirmed his second . 4 Motion passed 3:2, with Councilwoman Borgeson and Councilman Shiers voting in opposition. 3. PRECISE PLAN 28-90 — APPEAL BY JOHN FALKENSTIEN OF ROAD IMPROVEMENT CONDITION OF PRECISE PLAN, 8705 SANTA CRUZ ROAD The City Attorney referred to earlier discussion relating to "grandfathering" the, Davis roads and exempting them from any consideration on road policies. He stated that if the Council agrees to do that, that action would resolve this issue as well as the next appeal . CCB/28/90 Page 9 Mr . Windsor explained that matters could be simplified if Council would indicate, without vote, whether or not it supports such a position. The City Manager stressed that there was not an indication of who might be responsible for those improvements, as that was another issue altogether . Councilman Nimmo stated that , assuming an agreement is reached with Gordon Davis, a required punch list of improvements would be made by Mr . Davis or by the City based upon reimbursement . He added that he hoped the applicant for the precise plan would not be held responsible for additional improvements that were not part of the original agreement . Mr . Montandon advised that the applicants could protect their appeal rights by continuing the matter until after the Gordon Davis Roads matter is resolved . Public Comments : John Falkenstien, representing the property owner , stated that it was not clear to him what the City was asking of him. He asserted that if the City and Mr . Davis cannot come to an agreement , that it was not his problem and asked that a decision be made on the matter now rather than be continued . Glen Lewis, 1065 Vista Road , reported that he had purchased the lot with the understanding that it was a legal , buildable lot and that the road would be accepted by the City of Atascadero pursuant to the agreement . He stated that he found it hard to see why he would be required to make improvements to a brand new road that has not yet been accepted and urged Council to make a decision. William Barnes, 8785 San Gregorio , declared that standards should not be retroactive and that it was not right to ►old private citizens ransom. Joan Okeefe, proclaimed that the roads are not in a condition to be accepted and asked who was going to pay for the improvements. Robert "Dan" Gardner , applicant for Precise Plan 70-90 ( item B- 4 ) , protested against additional costs being placed upon property owners without _'warning . He stated_ that the situation is very unreasonable and the added expenses would create a burden on the average builder. George Luna, 10600 San Marcos Road, noted that his road was put in by a Davis and asserted that if he was being asked to pay for CCB/2B/90 Page 10 the road improvements on Santa Cruz Road , that he would ask that the residents of Santa Cruz Road also pay for the improvements on San Marcos. Bill Barnes clarified that it was Bud Davis, not Gordon Davis, who constructed San Marcos Road . Mayor Lilley called for a short recess at 8:44 p.m. The meeting was called reconvened at 8:59 p.m. Mayor Lilley acknowledged Glen Lewis, who stated that after consulting with his representative had elected to request a continuance of the matter ( item B-3) . In addition, as the authorized representative for Dan Gardner , he requested a continuance of item B-4 as well . MOTION: By Councilman Dexter and seconded by Councilman Nimmo to continue items B-3 and B-4; motion carried unanimously. 4. PRECISE PLAN 70-90 - APPEAL BY ROBERT GARDNER OF ROAD IMPROVEMENT CONDITION OF PRECISE PLAN, 14405 SANTA CRUZ ROAD Continued (see above motion) . 5. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 2-90 - APPEAL BY RICHARD MONTANARO OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF PROPOSED TRACT MAP (Continue to September 11 , 1990, at the request of the applicant ) . The City Manager reported that the applicant had asked that the matter be heard on September 11 , 1990 and that staff had inadvertently published the item for public hearing . Mayor Lilley asked if there were any public comments. There were none. MOTION: By Councilman Shiers and seconded by Councilman Nimmo to continue the item to the September 11 , 1990 meeting ; motion carried. C. REGULAR BUSINESS 1 . REQUEST FOR WAIVEROFHOOK-UP. FEES ALONG A SEWER EXTENSION ON MOUNTAIN VIEW ROAD (Jacobs) Recommend Denial The Public Works Director gave staff report and recommendation. Mr . Luke responded to questions from Council relating to feesand noted .that to- his knowledge fees had never been waived before. • CC8/28/90 Page 11 i Public Comments : Harold Jacobs, Grover City resident , stated that he was representing four property owners and gave history behind the request . John Falkenstien, Cuesta Engineering , stated that he was the Civil Engineer employed by Mr . Jacobs and gave support for the request by stating that the project was a benefit to the community. Gerry Taylor , 9375 Mountain View, reported what his additional expenses were and why he chose to hook up rather than use a septic system. Martin Weiss, 9300 Mountain View, also spoke in support of the waiver noting that the benefits were to the property owners as well as the community. Councilman Dexter sympathized with the applicants and applauded them; but expressed concern that the City had not been notified ahead of time. Councilman Shiers stated that he was hesitant to approve the . waiver , fearful that it would set precedence for future requests and voiced concern for future revenues. Comments from Councilwoman Borgeson and Mayor Lilley echoed those of Mr . Shiers ' . MOTION: By Councilman Shiers and seconded by Councilwoman Borgeson to deny the request and require the fees to be paid according to Ordinance No . 181 ; motion unanimously passed . 2. CITY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING OFFICE REORGANIZATION AND IMPROVEMENTS= REQUEST AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED The City Manager - introduced the matter indicating that it had previously been reviewed with Council and that the staff was now looking for firm direction to begin the necessary improvements. Andy Takata, Director of Parks, Recreation & Zoo gave staff report and overview of proposed reorganization options. He also reported that the elevator upgrade costs would range from X70- 85,000 and that staffhad determined that this may not be feasible option. Mr . Takata added that, if Council desired , staff could look further into the matter . CCe/28/90 • Page 12 �v�a • Council questions followed . Mr . Windsor clarified that the City Clerk ' s Office was proposed to be relocated to Room 208, not in 208-A as the staff report indicated . He added that the triangular room (208-A) would be a vault for storage. Mr . Nimmo also inquired as to the need of a conference room on the first floor . Mr . Takata reported that the room currently being used for a conference room (Room 304) would be taken over by Public Works and highlighted some of the many uses of such a room. Councilman Dexter gave support to the concept of using the first floor to serve the public. Mayor Lilley referenced requests from the Atascadero Historical and Genealogical Societies for space on the first floor. Public Comments : Mari Mackey, 5504-A Tunitas Avenue, spoke in support of the use of Room 104, first floor City Hall , by the Historical Society and urged Council consideration. • Alice Large, 10025 E1 Camino Real , spoke as the Librarian of the Atascadero Library of the San Luis Obispo County Genealogical Society and listed the services provided . She stated that if allowed the expansion, the library could be open more often and asked Council to consider their needs. Additional Council comments followed . Councilwoman Borgeson recommended that the Council office be located on the first floor to allow easier access for the public and added that she believed all City officials should have offices on the first floor to enable the public in identifying them. The City Manager noted that if the City is successful in getting the RSVP program going , the Clerk ' s Office would be manned with representatives from that organization and that they would assist the public in locating the essential public services. Councilman Nimmo remarked that the Historical Society and the Genealogical Society are not essential City government services and opposed their location on the first floor . He stated that an attempt should be made to recognize that there are many people who make daily visits to City offices and asserted that City services, such as the Community Development Department , should be on the first floor . Mr . Nimmo added that he was not in support of the upgrade to the elevator . CC8/28/90 Page 13 • Councilman Dexter suggested that the RSVP Office could be located in Room 103. The City Manager agreed that it could be and reported that the RSVP Coordinator might also need separate office space. Lengthy discussion followed relating to serving the public . Councilwoman Borgeson insisted that the Genealogical Society Library and the Historical Society do indeed serve the public and stated that it was time the City lives up to its ' obligations to the Museum. Councilman Shiers agreed . He also stated that the Parks, Recreation & Zoo Department needs room to expand and concurred that the Public Works and Community Development Departments should be located on the same floor. Councilman Nimmo urged that long range planning for a proper City Hall must begin in order to provide a seat for City government . He further stated that someday the administration building could be turned over to non-public services, such as the Chamber of Commerce, etc . Council was equally concerned about the elevator . The City Manager indicated that staff would obtain updated information on the elevator to present to the Council . • MOTION: By Councilwoman Borgeson and seconded by Councilman Shiers to follow the recommendations of staff for allocation of space; motion passed 4: 1 with Councilman Nimmo voting in opposition. Russell Goodrich , representing the Historical Society, reiterated that their request was for a general purpose room to be used for meetings; but added that the society allows others to use their space as well . He thanked the Council for supporting the Historical Society ' s endeavors to serve the public . D. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION A. Committee Reports - Informative status reports were given on the following ad hoc or standing committees: 1 . City/School Committee Mayor Lilley announced the meeting date for September. 2. North Coastal Transit/S.L.O Area Coordinating Council- Councilwoman Borgeson announced the September meeting date. CCB/28/90 Page 14 i 3. Solid/Hazardous Waste Management Committee - Councilman Dexter reported that this committee would meet the first week in September . 4. Recycling Committee - Councilman Shiers reported that the meeting results were of public record (special presentation at the earlier session of the meeting ) . 5. Economic Opportunity Commission - Councilman Dexter reported that the committee had completed a full year of reorganization and that there had recently been completed a successful financial audit by the Internal Revenue Service. B. Council Comments Councilwoman Borgeson asked if Council could have their agenda packets sooner . Staff reported on the turn-around time for receiving the final copies back from the printer . Discussion following relating to whether this item had gone out for bidding . The City Attorney stated that staff had • complied with requirements and Requests for Informal Bids had been obtained . 2. City Attorney - No report . 3. City Clerk - The Clerk responded to questions from the Mayor regarding preparation of minutes and indicated that she would be working full-time for the City beginning the first week of September . 4. City Treasurer - Ms. Korba reported that Council would receive a good Treasurer ' s Report at the next meeting . 5. City Manager - Mr . Windsor had no further announcements. MOTION: By Councilman Dexter and seconded by Councilwoman Borgeson to adjourn until 5:00 p .m. Thursday, August 30, 1990 in the Club Room- for the purpose of interviewing candidates for the Parks and Recreation Commission; motion unanimously passed . CCB/28/90 Page 15 e r THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 10: 10 P.M. MINUTES RECORDED AND PREPARED BY: I A",--rA lAk LEE A,, ,i y Cler • 4 t ccs/28/90 Page 16 MEETING AGENDA DATE a Z ITEMS A2 ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES SUMMARY SEPTEMBER 17, 1990 A special meeting of the Atascadero City Council was called to order at 5:05 p .m. by Mayor Lilley. ROLL CALL: Present : Councilmembers Dexter, Nimmo, Borgeson, Shiers and Mayor Lilley Also Present : City Clerk , Lee Dayka and City Treasurer , Muriel Korba Staff Present : Ray Windsor , City Manager ; Greg Luke, Public Works Director ; Andy Takata, Director or Parks, Recreation & Zoo • PURPOSE OF THE MEETING: To award the contract for Bid No . 90-13 - Atascadero Lake Park Pavilion - Phase I and authorize the execution of an agreement with John Madonna Construction of San Luis Obispo for the construction. MEETING HIGHLIGHTS: The City Manager asked that the Council award the contract to the low bidder and indicated that there was a need to begin as soon as possible in an effort to complete the work before the rainy season. Brief Council questions followed relating to the 10% contingency factor , architect ' s estimated cost and length of time to complete the construction. MOTION: By Councilwoman Borgeson and seconded by Councilman Nimmo to adopt Resolution No . 113-90 authorizing the execution of an agreement with John Madonna Construction to construct the Atascadero Lake Park Phase I Project in the amount of $121 ,00.00; motion unanimously passed by roll call vote. CC9/17/90 Page 1 r MOTION: By Councilman Dexter and seconded by Councilman Nimmo to adjourn to a study session on Thursday, September 20, 1990 at 4:30 p.m. for the purpose of discussing road standards and policies; motion unanimously carried. The meeting was adjourned at 5: 11 p.m. i MINUT SUMMARY PREPARED BY: LEE DAYKA,` City erk CC9/17/90 Page 2 MEETiNG AGENDA DAT 9 25 90 ITEM# A-3 • CITY OF ATASCADERO SCH]M= OF CASH RB=PTS AND TRANSFEFLS TREASURER'S REPORT FOR THE MONTH OF AUGUST, 1990 CASH RECF•IPTS: Property Taxes 57,713.55 Sales Tax 150,800.00 Motor Vehicle In-Lieu 142,353.30 Cigarette Tax 8,014.37 Sanitatim Fees 3,467.60 License/Permit/Fees 35,426.50 Franchise Fees 5,308.49 Fines/Penalties/Overages 552.00 Investment Earnings 125,989.73 Rents/Ccncessicns 7,264.02 Sales-Maps/Publications/Reports . 167.00 Police Services 7,104.43 Parks arra Recreation Fees 16,157.13 • P.O.S.T. Reimbursement 216.10 Miscellaneous 339.60 Developer Fees 16,718.08 Zoo Rept 7,217.05 Dial.A Ride 2,343.84 B.I.A. Dues 110.00 A.D.#3 Marchant/Atas. Lake 214.50 A.D.#4 Separado/Cayucos 2,649.89 Street Maintenance Districts 10.50 Gas Tax Receipts 60,442.68 Stab-Total 650,579.91 Other Cash Receipts Proceeds From Sale of Fixed Assets 4,287.00 Reimbursement to se 1,351.50 Total Other Receipts 5,638.50 Total Cash Receipts $656,218.41 • CITY OF ATASCADERO CASH ACTIVITY SUMMARY TREASURER ' S REPORT FOR THE MONTH OF AUGUST, 1990 BEGINNING CASH RESOURCES $7,724,355.95 ADD: RECEIPTS 656,218.41 LESS: DISBURSEMENTS ( 1 ,412,861 .97) OTHER TRANSFERS/MISC. ADJUSTMENTS 112,657,38 ENDING CASH RESOURCES $7,080,369.77 SCHEDULE OF CASH RESOURCES As of August 31 , 1990 Checking Account: int . Due Mid-State Bank $100,519.77 Rate Date Other Investments: • ,Local Agency Inv. Fund 6,880,000.00 8.382% N/A Butterfield Savings C.D. 99,000.00 8.250% 10/16/90 (transfer to Downey Savings) Other Cash Resources: (?larch 1990) Petty Cash 850.00 TOTAL CASH RESOURCES 7,080,369.77 ?N,� . MURIEL C. KORBA, City Treasurer .1� M E M O R A N D U M DATE: September 19, 1990 TO: Councilmembers THROUGH: Ray Windsor , City Manager FROM: Mark Joseph, Administrative Services Director SUBJECT: Notes to Treasurer ' s Report Prior to February 1990, Butterfield Savings C.D. was shown on the monthly City treasurer ' s report . However , on January 26, 1990 the City of Atascadero was informed that Butterfield Savings was purchased by Downey Savings. As a result of this name change, the City inadvertently ommitted the C.D. from the treasurer ' s report . It has now been restored to the monthly treasurer ' s report . In October 990 the City purchased an investment from Fed Home Loan Bank ( ? for $1 ,827,445.00. On August 29, 1990 the investment as redeemed by the City in the amount of $1 ,952,497. 5. Net interest earnings calculated at 8.2706% was $125,052.65. MEETfNG AGENDA DATE q S/Aa ITEM IA-4 • CITY OF ATASCADERO SCHEDULE OF DISBURSEMENTS FINANCE DIRECT'OR'S -REPOT FOR THE MONTH OF A=ST, 1990 DISBURSEMENTS: Hand Warrant Register far August, 1990 5,886.48 8/3/90 Accounts Payable Warrants 399,122.00 8/10/90 Accounts Payable Warrants 195,477.65 8/17/90 Accounts Payable Warrants 230,530.79 8/24/90 Accounts Payable Warrants 107,472.28 8/31/90 Acoaunts payable Warrants_ 76,157.59 Service Charge-MastercaraAIISA 5.00 8/1/90 Payroll Checks 101278-101452 130,134.54 8/15,190 payroll Checks 101453-101623 130,072.65 8/29/90 Payroll Checks 101624-101797 139,137.07 TOTAL $1,413,996.05 LESS: Voided Check #51387 15.00 Voided Check #52405 47.81 Voided Check #52654 186.47 • Voided Check #52691 20.00 Voided Check #53056 50.00 Voided Check #53098 210.00 Voided-Check #53148 574.00 Voided Check #101424 30.80 SUB-TOTAL VOIDED CHECES $1,134.08 TOTAL DISBURSIIETTS $1,412,861.97 I, MARK A. JOSEPH, do hereby certify and declare that demands enumerated and referred to in the foregoing register are accurate and just claims against the City and that there are funds available for payment thereof in the City Treasury. The breakdown detail on all accounts is available for your viewing in the Finance Office. MARK A. EPH, Aduinistrative Services Director • • REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: A-5 From: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 9/25/90 SUBJECT: Recycling Committee RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Council adopt the attached Resolution No. 112-90 , amending Resolution No . 5-90 which adorted by-laws for the City s Recycling Committee. BACKGROUND : in ac_-Crdance with C'Guncil .»... zussion and t:irection at your September 11t ; meeting, staff has amended the existing Resolution w.'--;ich -reatsd the Recy !_ng committee to co nform with the amend- ments agreed upon. Specifically, these re-: ate to the number of citi-zens appointed and the manner of selection. FW: C:v a}tac.me.7t . =esolutfon Pio. 11'-90 • RESOLUTION NO. 112-90 A RESOLUTION OF THE ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL TO AMEND RESOLUTION NO. 5-90, WHICH ADOPTED BY-LAWS FOR THE CITY' S RECYCLING COMMITTEE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby amends Resolution No. 5-90 to read as follows : WHEREAS, the City Council has established a Recycling Commit- tee to advise and make recommendations on matters pertinent to the issue of waste reduction and management, the Council hereby estab- lishes the following by-laws for said Recycling : Resolution No. 112-90 (cont' d) The committee shall study related matters and make recommendations to the Council . (b) The committee shall meet as necessary at a convenient time and place designated by the committee . (c ) Officers shall consist of a chairperson and secretary elected to a six-month term by a majority vote of the committee . The chairperson shall preside over all committee meetings . The secretary shall record all committee meeting minutes , officia� actions and recommendations . (d) Matters shall be decided by a majority vote of those members preset. On motion by Councilmember seconded by -Council- member the foregoing resolution. is hereby adopted in its entirety, effective immediately, on the following roll-call v3te . AzES: N DES ABSENT: ADOPTED: ATTEST: LEE DAYKA, City Clerk ROBERT B . LILLEY, Mayer APPROVED AS TO FORM: ARTHER R. MONTANDON, City Attorney • REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: A-6 Through : Ray Windsor , City Manager Meeting Date: 9/25/90 From: Mark Joseph , Administrative Services Director SUBJECT: Update on Solid Waste Items RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends a special Council session be set aside to act as the Public Hearing on whether mandatory service and/or curbside recycling should be adopted. BACKGROUND- The Recycling Committee submitted a report to Council August 28, 1990 recommending mandatory solid waste service, combined with curbside recycling and a volume-based rate structure. Simultaneously, Wil-Mar Disposal presented staff with their rate analysis regarding the increased costs associated with the above • services. They also requested a general rate increase and a desire to extend their contract with the City in order to finance the new equipment needed , if the new services were approved by Council . In addition to these items, Dennis Bryant has also proposed a "White Goods" pick-up and recycling service. At this point in time staff is analyzing the material and preparing a number of reports on these issues. It is staff ' s intent to submit this material to Council for their review and to call for a special Council meeting , dedicated to these items. Given the sensitivity of the matter , it is appropriate to provide ample time and notice for such a hearing . By the same token, it will also take Wil-Mar Disposal for any other service provider ) a considerable amount of time to acquire the additional equipment and get organized to implement the service changes being proposed. Thus, a hearing date needs to be set as soon as practical . • • REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: B-1 Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 9/25/90 File No: CUP 09-89 TTM 21-89 ZC 15-89 From: Henry Engen, Community Development Director .U.; SUBJECT: Appeal by Ray Bunnell of Planning Commission denial of proposed Conditional Use Permit, Tentative Tract Map, and Zone Change, at 8555 E1 Corte. BACKGROUND: • At the August 21 , 1990 meeting of the Planning Commission, the Commission denied the proposal for a seventy-seven (77 ) unit residential development on the site of the old mushroom farm on E1 . Corte. The proposal requests the division of six existing lots of 21 acres into a total of 78 lots for individual single family homes including one common lot. It also proposes revising the PD Overlay Zone relating to the 960 foot elevation above which structures cannot be built. Mr. Bunnell has appealed the denial but subsequent to advertising for the Council 's meeting of September 25th, has requested that the matter be continued to October 9th. RECOMMENDATION: Open the matter to the public in the event that anyone in attendance cannot make the meeting of October 9th, and then continue the item to the October 9th meeting. HE:ps cc: Ray Bunnell Enclosure: Continuance Request - 9-17-90 Location Map Site Plan BunnELL RECEIVED SEP 7 1990 September 17 , 1990 Henry Engen City of Atascadero 6500 Palma Avenue Atascadero, CA 93422 Re: Chalk Mountain Village Dear Henry: Bunnell Development Corp . would like a continuance of it ' s appeal from September 25 , 1990 , to October 9 , 1990 . Zone Change 15-89 , Conditional Use Permit 09-89 , and Tentative Tract Map 21-89 are the items . Sincerely, RAY B. BUNNELL President BUNNELL DEVELOPMENT CORP. RBB/gls CC : Rob Strong Steve Pults Fred Schott Jerry Reiss Larry Seaton Wayne King Bunnell Construction,Inc. 141 Suburban Road,A-5 AAt _ San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 805/544-4300 FAX 805/541-3985 CITY OF ATASCADERO EXHIBIT B CUP 09-89/TTM 21-89 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ZC 15-89 DEPARTMENT ZONING MAP i a ; I ' ILF • fy• � Oft\� \ ' � " /' ' _ _ -� •<*40 N, .►� ''� _ ` �� ;,•.�\ SITE r �,.- . .�` '�♦��,�. 8555 El Corte F / R F ZRm ' AV RSF•Z(PD7) •Z .i•---� �_ , � �!�_ 'RS F;X- ���fl � �.�^,��• �`.�♦ SOC ',♦ W ° 1 / ♦ ♦.� � l =,Yi CO =r CR .-.� � T 0111 1 CT C T c19s z Ic x X-*1 CITY OF ATASCADERO EXHIBIT J �r COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CUP 09-89/TTM 21-89zC 15-89 DEPARTMENT 960' CONTOUR MAP % �./ � •sem _ � �. - r• � ,�_ � '-.� .` rill. • : ` �• I\ V f.� ••� 'fit _ .�� - i .w \ \a' v= ' z Z.13 LL it v .y O c' ` �• .� �,�...\ �• :L {llll.Cy� I�'• t ~• If' 15 1 t 1 f , t ,• r t �`_'�\• \ `�. � '!. �:�.! Tr ,y xl_.,�.`\•�\ iy�i� � I ����i��j7llt�ii�} • � '���� 'iiia. `�• ."{u •I •�� •. •�`� • 1� 'i' -o • REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item.. B-2 Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 9/25/90 File No: TTM 27-89 From: Henry Engen, Community Development Director .K SUBJECT: Appeal by Allen Volbrecht of Planning Commission' s denial of pro- posed tract map to re-subdivide four (4) lots of 30. 16 acres into eight (8) lots of 3 .77 acres each at 8700, 8850, 8900 amd 9000 Santa Cruz Road (Ryan/White) . • PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission, on August 21, 1990, formally adopted Revised Findings for Denial contained in Exhibit "A" (reference August 24, 1990 letter to Paul and Susan White) . STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff' s recommendation to the Planning Commission on July 17 , 1990, recommended Findings for Approval and Conditions of Approval speci- fied in Exhibits "I" and "J" of the staff report. Should the Council uphold the appeal, it would be appropriate to delete the Road Conditions Nos . 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7 , consistent with Resolution No. 111-90, accepting the so called "Gorden Davis roads" , and substi- tute the following: 3 . Improve Santa Cruz Road to conform with the specifica- tions of City Council Resolution No. 111-90, Exhibit C, prior to the final building inspection or as directed by the Director of Public Works . This requirement will be considered fulfilled if any of the following is completed prior to the final inspection of this project. a. An acceptable security is posted with the City to insure construction of the required improvements by the developer of Santa Cruz Road. b. The required improvements are constructed by the developer. • BACKGROUND: As indicated in the attached Planning Commission minutes excerpts, the Planning Commission considered this proposed re-subdivision of four lots into eight lots at their meeting of July 17th and August 21st. There were concerns on the part of the Commission, on the configuration of the lots, flaglot findings, tree removal and number of lots being requested. Action of the Commission at that meeting was to "direct the applicant to submit new information and a redesign to staff within thirty (30) days of this hearing" . Sub- sequently, the applicant prepared an arborist' s report for the project, but declined to redesign the project from S lots to 7 . The Commission, in considering the matter on August 21 , 1990, expanded on the list of Findings for Denial, as indicated in the Exhibit "A" transmitted to Mr. and Mrs . White. They also felt that, notwithstanding the improvement of roads to public road standards and an offer to dedicate, that it also constituted a flag lot. The final action of the Commission was to, on a motion of 4 :2 and one absent, deny the subdivision. Subsequently, Volbrecht Surveys has appealed the denial and their arguments are contained in the attached letter of September 4 , 1990 . Staff remains of the opinion that there are eightht reasonable build- ing • sites on the property and that the Findings originally recommended for approval are reasonable, subject to the proposed conditions. HE :ph CC: Volbrecht Surveys Paul and Susan White Peter and Jean Ryan Encls : September 4, 1990 - Letter of Appeal August 24 , 1990 - Transmittal of Planning Commissions' Final Findings of Denial August 21, 1990 - Draft Conditions of Denial to the Plan- ning Commission August 13, 1990 - Letter from Volbrecht Surveys Including Certified Arborist' s Field Report July 17, 1990 - Staff Report to Planning Commission Existing Lot" Sizes Map Planning Commission Minutes Excerpts - August 21 , 1990 Planning Commission Minutes Excerpts - July 17 , 1990 • brecht SUR V E Y S 7508 Morro Rd. Atascadero, CA 93422 c 805/466-9296 September 4, 1990 Mr. Karl Schoettler1-090 '6500 Palma Avenue 'Atascadero, California 93422 (SUBJECT: Tract 1893, Lots 4,5,6, & 7, Block 5.4 i !Dear Mr. Schoettler, At this time we wish to appeal the Planning (Commission's decision to deny this subdivision. Enclosed Iis a check for the required $100 fee. I As discussed at the Public Hearing, our final ;submittal was the result of several pre-application !meetings to consider different subdivision schematics over the last fourteen (14) months. These meetings, along with earlier submittals, have resulted in the major redesign of the subdivision over that same period. We ! feel that our final layout as submitted is a best fit ! solution that addresses minimum parcel size as specified din the City of Atascadero Subdivision Ordinance, access Irequirements related to minimum site disturbance and !privacy for each of the eight designated building sites. !The Commissioners concerns over the division line ! separating lots 7 & 8 are well addressed in the project ' staff report comment that "The lots that are in excess of ! the depth to width ratio standard are the result of the ` overall suvdivision design which reflects the intent to adapt to the site characteristics (slope, swales, iexisting grading, etc. ) . " The requirement that "Lot lines should be at the ! top of slope banks" was initiated in the City and County jof San Luis Obispo in relation to small lot subdivisions ' where each lot is a separate graded pad thus preventing fencing at the bottom of property line slopes rather than Iat the top. It makes no sense on lots where the grading is not along the property line and therefore not affecting the adjacent property. The requirement that "Side lot lines should be perpendicular to the street on straight streets or radial to the street on curved streets, unless another angle would provide better building orientation for solar exposure or more lot area to the south of the likely building site" was also originally in reference to small Surveying - Land Planning lot subdivision where several lots are placed in a row and therefore creating a possibility of blocking solar panel access. To our knowledge it was never intended for large parcels where the house orientation on .any one lot has no affect on the surrounding houses or the roadway. In conclusion we feel that this project should be approved subject to the conditions of approval in the staff report dated July 17, 1990. sincerely, da M. Richardson ADMINISTRATION BUILDING - .-►-. POST OFFICE BOX 747 ATASCADERO,CALIFORNIA 93423 POLICE DEPARTMENT PHONE: (805) 466.8000 POST OFFICE BOX 747 ATASCADERO,CALIFORNIA 93423 CITY CITYCOUNCIL PHONE: (805) 466-8600 #�a ea e�� CITY TREASURER INCORPORATED JULY 2, 1979 � CITY MANAGER ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT FIRE DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 6005 LEWIS AVENUE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ATASCADERO,CALIFORNIA 93422 PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT PHONE: (805) 466.2141 August 24, 1990 Paul and Susan white P.O. Box 41 San Luis Obispo, CA 93403 SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 27-89 8700/8850/8900/9000 Santa Cruz Road Dear Mr. and Mrs. White: On August 21, 1990, the Ataseadero Planning Commission considered Findings for Denial for the above-referenced map. Upon review, the Commission approved revised Findings for Denial (attached) . This matter will be scheduled as a consent calendar item before the City Council on September 11, 1990, unless appealed. If you desire to appeal the Planning Commission' s decision to the City Council, it will be necessary . to submit a letter stating reasons for the appeal accompanied by a $100 fee, no later than 5 : 00 p.m. September 4, 1990. Please contact the Planning Division if you should have any question concerning this matter. Sincerely, _ . Henry Eigen, Director Community Development HE:ps cc: Peter and Jean Ryan Volbrecht Survevs Enclosure: Revised Findings for Denial- 8/21/90 EXHIBIT A - Findings for Denial Tentative Tract Map 27-89 8700, 8850, 8900, 9000 Santa Cruz Rd. Recommended by Planning Commission: August 21, 1990 MAP FINDINGS: 1. The proposed map is not consistent with the applicable General or Specific Plan. Evidence: Proposed lot sizes do not meet the minimum lot size requirement. The accessway serving flag lots shall not be included in the determination of required lot area for any lot. The Planning Commission interprets this subdivision to include several flag lots, and the accessway has been included in calculating lot sizes. Evidence: Appendix E (Fire Fighting and Planning - page 205) of the General Plan advises that Fire Department response times of over five minutes are unacceptable. The Fire Department has calculated a nine minute response time to this site. 2. The design and/or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with the applicable General or Specific Plan. Evidence: Appendix E (page 205) of the General Plan advises against the creation of dead-end streets due to potential fire fighting problems resulting from such streets. This subdivision proposes a private road terminating in a cul-de- sac, serving six of the eight proposed lots. Such street configurations can create problems for fire suppression operations, specifically due to water flow problems in "dead end" water mains, and the creation of access difficulties (access from only one direction, road blockage etc. ) . 3. The site is not physically suitable for the proposed type of development. Evidence: The Commission has concerns regarding the physical character of the site and that the subdivision design and resulting density is not suited for those conditions (e.g; tree removal, lot configuration, proximity to unincorporated agricultural land) . 4. The site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development. Evidence: See #3 above. SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE FINDINGS: 2. A deviation from the Subdivision Ordinance is not justified bytopographic and other site conditions Evidence: Local topography does not justify the layout of the proposed subdivision boundaries. Subdivision Ordinance Section 11-8. 207 (A) states "Lot lines should be at the top of slope banks" . Section 11-8.207 (B) states "Side lot lines should be perpendicular to the street on straight streets, or radial to the street on curved streets, unless another angle would provide better building orientation for solar exposure or more lot area to the south of the likely building site". 5. Granting the modification is not in accord with the intent and purposes of these regulations, and is not consistent with the General Plan and with all applicable specific plans or other plans of the City. Evidence: The proposed modification of the Subdivision Ordinance standards is not consistent with General Plan policy regarding subdivisions and resulting effects. ITEM: A. 3 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Karl Schoettler, Assistant Planner DATE: August 21, 1990 SUBJECT: Tentative Tract Map 27-89 (Ryan-White/Volbrecht Surveys) Y At the Planning Commission meeting of July 17, 1990, staff was directed to bring back Findings for Denial of the above- referenced subdivision if the applicant had not submitted a redesign within thirty days. These findings relate to the sudivision' s design and density. ATTACHMENTS: Findings for Denial Staff Report S EXHIBIT A - Findings for Denial Tentative Tract Map 27-89 8700, 8850, 8900, 9000 Santa Cruz Rd. Recommended by Planning Commission: August 21, 1990 MAP FINDINGS: 3. The site is not physically suitable for the proposed type of development. Evidence: The Commission has concerns regarding the physical character of the site and that the subdivision design and resulting density is not suited for those conditions (e.g; tree removal, lot configuration, proximity to unincorporated agricultural land) . 4. The site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development. Evidence: See #3 above. SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE FINDINGS: W2. A deviation from the Subdivision Ordinance is not justified by topographic and other site conditions Evidence: Local topography does not justify the layout of the proposed subdivision boundaries. Subdivision Ordinance Section 11-8. 207 (A) states "Lot lines should be at the top of slope banks" . 5. Granting the modification is not in accord with the intent and purposes of these regulations, and is not consistent with the General Plan and with all applicable specific plans or other plans of the City. Evidence: The proposed modification of the Subdivision Ordinance standards is not consistent with General Plan policy regarding subdivisions and resulting effects. Ibrecht SUR V E Y S 7508 Morro Rd. s Atascadero, CA 93422 s 805/466-9296 August 13, 1990 RECEN-37D AUG 15 1330 Mr. Karl Schoettler 6500 Palma Avenue COIP,�IUrgl'ry nMI P—MENT Atascadero, California 93422 Subject: Tract 1893, Lots 4, 5,6, & 7, Block 54 Dear Mr. Schoettler, As you know, our Tentative Tract Application for the subject above was considered at the July 17, 1990 regular meeting of the Planning Commission. There were two main areas of concern expressed by the Commission and the project was sent back to staff with a request for further study. The first area of concern was tree protection and/or removal. Several of the Commissioners expressed a wish for supplemental information in addition to the tree protection plan that we furnished with our Subdivision Application package. We have contacted Mr. Don Denny, A Certified Arborist with respect to this supplemental information request. He has provided us with a Certified Arborist Field Report, and a copy of this report is enclosed. Additionally we had hoped to be able to have Mr. Denny and our own representative meet with Ms. Lisa Schicker on the site to discuss this same matter, unfortunately, Ms. Schicker is on vacation and will not be available until late August. We are looking forward to working with her on this project upon her return. The Commissions second area of concern was our design of the Tentative Map as submitted. As discussed at the Public Hearing, our final submittal was the result of several preapplication meetings to consider different subdivision schematics over the last thirteen (13) months. These meetings and earlier submittals have resulted in the major redesign of the subdivision over that same period. We feel that our final layout as submitted is a best fit solution that addresses minimum parcel size as specified in the City of Atascadero Subdivision Ordinance, access requirements related to minimum site disturbance and privacy for each of the eight designated building sites. The Commissioners concerns over the Surveying - Land Planning division line separating lots 7 & 8 are well addressed in the project staff report comment that "The lots that are in excess of the depth to width ratio standard are the result of the overall subdivision design which reflects the intent to adapt to the site characteristics (slope, swales, existing grading, etc. ) . " As a result of the Commission meeting, we were directed by Mr. Henry Engen to redesign and submit our tract map no later than August 17, 1990 for reconsideration by the Commission at their August 21, 1990 meeting. Our project meeting with yourself and Mr. Steve DeCamp on July 23, 1990 at our office has reinforced our feelings that our map and lot layout should remain as originally accepted for processing. I appreciate your help and consideration and look forward to your staff report recommendation for approval at the Commission meeting August 21, 1990. Sincerely, �LV UJ Alan L. Volbrecht ALV/vlv enc: Certified Arborist Field Report cc: Mr. Paul White xc: 310-01 I CERTIFIED ARBORIST FIELD REPORT Notification Date 7/17/90 Inspection Date 7/18, 20/90 Tree xx Damage Tree protection on new RE EIVE"' construction ; need p 1 ofA U G 15 1 � plan/grading/sewage/ Tree Diagnosis underground utilities ca .MLI NIT:Y: F_ 4EtOPEV Tree Removal xx Verification that tree protection is in place Other consultant needed Agreement to the fee xx- Report/ 'Measurements Copies Report, Tree involvement accident damage Principles xx Owner Plaintiff xx Agent Defendant Attorney Agency Case Location Preliminary road plan-tentative tract map #1893 Owner Name White-Ryan Phone Address 7508 Morro Road City Atasnader-n Certified Arborist o Z i AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CONSULTING ARBORISTS 51�� FIELD REPORT CASE LOCATION Tentative Trace - Map #1893 , CITY Atascadero OWNER NAME White - Ryan ADDRESS CITY RES. PHONE ( ) BUS. PHONE ( ) AGENT NAME Allen Volbrecht Survey ADDRESS 7508 Morro Road CITY Atascadero RES. PHONE ( ) BUS. PHONE ( ) DAMAGE or ACCIDENT DATE TYPE OF DAMAGE INSPECTION DATE 7/17/90 WEATHER TEMP. The purpose of this consultation is to make application to remove twenty-eight (28) trees, set up a tree protection plan and to send a letter of verification that the tree protection is in place . Distance of excavation from Tree No. Size Species Condition Drip line Base bf; tree Recommendat 1 11" Live oak good in center of road remove 2 9" hive oak good in D/L remove 3 5"-6" Live oakg ood in D/L remove 17" Live oak good in D L remove 4 g / 5. 6"-7" Live oak good in center of road remove 6. 7" Live oak good in D/L remove 7. 18" Live oak good in D/L remove 8. .14" Live oak good in D/L remove 9. 10-11" Live oak good in D/L remove 10. 14" White oak good in center of road remove 11 . 19" Live oak good in D/L remove 12. 25" Live oak fair in center of road remove 13. 8" Live oak good in D/L remove 14. 9" Calif. bay good in D/L remove 15. 25" Live oak good in D/L remove 16. 22" Live oak good in D/L remove 17. 24" Live oak good in center of road remove 18. 23" Live oak good in center of road remove 19: 19" Live oak good in D/L remove 20. 42" White oak poor in D/L remove 21 . 13" Live oak fair in D/L remove 22 . 6/10/12" Calif . bay good in D/L remove 23. 13" White oak good in D/L remove 24. 26" White oak good in D/L remove 25. 42" Live oak good in D/L remove 26. 24" Live oak good in D/L remove 27. 32" Live oak good in D/L remove 28. 9" Live oak good in D/L remove Tree Identification: W.O. -White oak (Quercus lobata) B.O. -Blue oak (Quercus douglasii ) L.O. -Live oak (Quercus agrifolia) C.B. -California Bay (Umbellulama californica) Location identification: Center of roadway - C. dr/w Inside drip line where excavation is necessary - in D/L Note: With this compiled information, I recommend architectural design and arboricultural practices that will minimize any adverse impact on this tree, which means that grade changes will need to be made. We in Arboriculture can recommend some tree care that can prepare the tree for the shock of construction and minor grade changes, such as root and canopy pruning, underground aeriation systems and fertilization. Some of these are drastic measures with low success rates. Remember, you are changing the natural condition that the tree is accustomed to living in. Your first line of defense is a sound, creative arbhitectural design that minimizes grade changes of the natural ground water around the tree. I quote from Dr. Harris' book on Arboriculture, Department of Environmental Horticulture, University of California, Davis: Grading and Construction Considerations- "Almost every building and landscape development will involve some grading and excavating. The consequences of these activities and of wind patterns, exposure to sunand reflected heat, space limitations, and changes in the soil must be considered. Underground construction may block water flow in a soil stratum so that water accumulates on the upper side and is reduced to the lower; such changes may affect trees adversely. Unless construction or later maintenance is designed to modify these effects, serious injury could result before the cause is determined." Raising soil levels around trees can create problems involving gaseous exchange in the soil root zone. Root must receive adequate oxygen and not be subjected to buildups of carbon dioxide or toxic gases. II . TYPES OF PRUNING - MATURE TREES A. Crown Cleaninq Crown cleaning or cleaning out is the removal of dead, dying, diseased, crowded, weakly attached, and low-vigor branches and watersprouts from a tree crown. B. Crown Thinninq Crown thinning includes crown cleaning and the selective removal of branches to increase light penetration and air movement into the crown. Increased light and air stimulates and maintains interior foliage, which in turn improves branch taper and strength. Thinning reduces the wind-sail effect of the crown and the weight of heavy limbs. Thinning the crown can emphasize the structural beauty of trunk and branches as well as improve the growth of plants beneath the tree by increasing light penetration. When thinning the crown of mature trees, seldom should more than one-third of the live foliage be removed. At least one-half of the foliage should be on branches that arise in the lower two-thirds of the trees. Likewise, when thinning laterals from a limb, v the same ranches and leave inner latera1 b 1 an effort should be made to retain distribution of foliage along the branch. Trees and branches so pruned will have stress more evenly distributed throughout the tree or along a branch. An effect known as "lion's-tailing" results from pruning out the inside lateral branches. Lion's-tailing, by removing all the inner foliage, dis- places the weight to the ends of the branches and may result in sunburned branches, watersprouts, weakened branch structure and limb breakage. C. Crown Reduction Crown reduction is used to reduce the height and/or spread of a tree. Thinning cuts are most effective in maintaining the structural integrity and natural form of a tree and in delaying the time when it will need to be pruned again. The lateral to which a branch or trunk is cut should be at least one-half the diameter of the cut being made. 0. Crown Restoration Crown restoration can improve the structure and appearance of trees that have been topped or severely pruned using heading cuts. One to three sprouts on main branch stubs should be selected to reform a more natural appearing crown. A vigorous selected sprout may need to be thinned to a lateral , or even headed, to control length growth in order to ensure adequate attachment forthesize of the sprout. Restoration may require several prunings over a number of years. © 1988 DATE: TREE PROTECTION PLAN In most cases when building, we change the complete environment around a tree. It has survived quite well for many years in it's natural state. However, when building, we sever its roots that are needed for anchorage and absorption of water and nutrients. We pave and compact the soil around them, hindering the oxygen and water supply to the roots. You purchase the property because of the beautiful trees, only to witness many of your trees declining soon after or even some years after you have built your home. Who is to blame? Did the Architect, City Planner, the Arborist, and/or Contractor add to the demise of the tree? Is your building plan detrimental to the trees on your property? Your City or County Planner have codes and regulations to follow to preserve and protect your trees. Even trees that are in excellent health sometimes cannot tolerate the transition from natural (growing in a desirable natural condition ) to semi-natural (severing the roots, compacting the soil , and building within the drip line) to the unnatural (paving all the way around the trees causing disturbances in air and water exchanges in soil as well as many other major changes. ) Many changes can take place in the soil during construction. Changes in grade, new paving, trenching, soil compaction, can all affect the soil 's ability to support life. Almost all building and landscape development will involve some grading and excavation. The consequences of these changes can be immediately detrimental to trees or they can effect the trees in years to come. Soil aeration is a critical factor because roots must receive adequate oxygen. Trees can also suffer from moisture related problems, either not enough or too much moisture. Now that you are aware that trees are sensitive living things, we all must put measures into effect that will protect them. Certified Arborist #391 � 1 CASE LOCATION j��h}- -�-�Ve Mop I Q,q A CITY OWNER NAME ADDRESS CITY RES. PHONE ( ) BUS. PHONE ( ) Protective measure needs to be applied : Yes No During construction, trees on the property outside the immediate construction zone will be barricaded off with bright color flagging. No parking, storage of materials and dumping of excavated or building material will be permitted. Trees within -go feet of the construct- ion zone will—be protected by installing a light colored protective fence (temporary) around the drip line area of the trees.' Trees within i o feet of construction zone will have weir trunks barricaded to minimize damage caused by construction equipment. No parking of equipment, storing of equipment, disposing of gasoline, paint, thinner or any other foreign material will be permitted in and around this property unless so noted in report. Trenching for utilities is required. Line j will run dr, tintfeet from base of tree. Hand dig un r or above major anchorage roots. If a major root is encountered in direct line of utility, a Certified Arborist will be consulted before severing it. No grade changes will be made around the tree unless (1 ) a protective measure is applied, (2) and it is so noted in the Certified Arborist's report. Factors have been used to determine the tree condition before construction begins. This report has been reviewed by all people involved in this project. Diligent care will be applied to protect the trees. TREE PROTECTION To Whom It May Concern: On I inspected the tree protective measure • at and they are in place. Verified by: Certified Arborist # Name: Date: CITY OF ATASCADERO Item: B. 3 is STAFF REPORT FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: July 17, 1990 BY: Karl Schoettler, Assistant Planner File No: TTM 27-89 SUBJECT: Subdivision of four existing lots containing a total of 30.16 acres into eight (8) lots containing approximately 3.77 acres each. RECOMKENDATION: Staff recommends approval of TTM 27-89 based on the Findings for Approval in Exhibit I and subject to the Conditions of Approval in Exhibit J. SITUATION AND FACTS: 1. Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Peter & Jean Ryan Paul & Susan White 2. Representative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Volbrecht Surveys 3. Project Address. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8700, 8850, 8900, 9000 Santa Cruz Road 4. General Plan Designation. . . . .Suburban Single Family 5. Zoning District. . . . . . . . . . . . . .RS (Residential Suburban) 6. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30. 16 acres 7. Existing Use. . . . o . . . . . . o . . . . .Vacant 8. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Negative Declaration posted June 26, 1990 ANALYSIS: This application proposes to subdivide four existing lots containing a total of 30. 16 acres into eight lots containing 3.77 acres each. The four existing lots are currently owned by the two separate parties listed above who have joined together in submitting this application. Some amount of dialogue has taken place between staff and the applicant' s representative before the current design was reached. The applicant' s original submittal was rejected b staff for Y several reasons including failure to meet minimum lot size, configuration of the proposed lots and proposed grading (see Exhibit D) . Therimar problem occurred in the configuration of P Y P g the lots adjoining and encompassing the proposed "private road" serving six of the eight lots. The road would have truncated several of the proposed lots, in effect, splitting them with a twenty foot road. Other difficulties lay in the calculation of minimum allowed lot size due to the Subdivision Ordinance requirement that flag lot access strips cannot be included in the lot size calculation. Finally, staff had concerns about the proposed private road, especially with respect to grading along Santa Cruz Road. A previously approved driveway exists at the site (on existing Lot 4) and the road design in this area disregarded the existing driveway and called for new grading to occur. Given these difficulties, the applicant has redesigned the subdivision to meet applicable standards and reflect staff' s concerns on the above-mentioned problems. The General Plan designation for this site is Suburban Single Family and the Zone designation is RS (Residential Suburban) . The property is currently vacant, although as mentioned above, the grading for two driveways has been completed and there are several other graded roads and pathways traversing the site. Minimum lot size in the RS zone is 2. 5 to 10 acres depending upon the minimum lot size determination using performance standards established by the Atascadero Zoning Ordinance. Staff has determined that the minimum lot size for this site is 3. 77 acres. Lot size factor Distance from Center (20, 000'+) 0. 90 Septic Suitability (35.0 min/inch avg. ) 0. 75 Average Slope (21-25 %) 1. 00 Access Condition (Paved road, <15% slope) 0. 40 General neighborhood character (3. 61 acres) 0. 72 Minimum lot size. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. 77 acres The proposed lot size of 3.77 acres meets the minimum lot size requirement under the Residential Suburban zone. Important factors in the lot size calculation include septic suitability and neighborhood character. The septic suitability of the site is approximately 35 min/inch and is classified as "moderate" ; engineered septic systems would be required. There are several other issues of concern including lot arrangement and configuration, location of proposed homesites, grading and tree removal and construction of the private road. The Atascadero General Plan and Subdivision Ordinance both contain policies that require subdivision design recognize, among other issues, site factors such as topography, soil types and tree cover. Other requirements are that lot lines should be placed at perpendicular angles to streets and radial to curves, and multiple frontages should be discouraged. This application exhibits some deviation from these standards but staff feels that as a whole, they are not significant, and in fact, represent a more sensitive treatment of the site, while attempting to adhere to the applicable standards. Much of the design of the proposed subdivision hinges on the layout of the planned private road that will provide access to sere' driveways y serving six of the eight lots. This road also forms a boundary for six of the eight proposed lots. The road takes off from Santa Cruz Road at the intersection of an existing graded driveway and generally follows an existing graded road through much of the site towards the west where it terminates at a proposed cul-de-sac. Thus, as indicated, much of the grading required to accommodate the road has already been done. An exception occurs along Santa Cruz Road where the road is proposed to double back, paralleling Santa Cruz, then turning west to eventually join the existing graded road. This alignment was chosen as an alternative to the original design. It better utilizes the existing driveway while largely eliminating the problem of splitting the proposed lots as the original submittal had proposed. Although the road is proposed to remain private, staff has requested that a street name be chosen to apply to the new street. The applicant is proposing the new road be named "Tiro Lane" . This word means "to throw" , or "fling" . The applicant is requesting an exception from the 3: 1 lot depth- to-width ratio standard of the Atascadero Subdivision Ordinance. Two of the proposed lots (7 and 8) exceed the depth to width standard: they are more than three times longer than they are wide. Section 11-8.206 of the Atascadero Subdivision Ordinance states: Lots with a ratio of depth to width greater than three shall not be permitted unless there is adequate assurance that deep lot subdivision will not occur or that deep lot subdivision and subsequent development will be accomplished without detriment to adjacent properties. The Subdivision Ordinance allows exceptions to this standard if the Planning Commission and City Council can make several findings with respect to the exception. Staff believes these findings can be made: 1. That the property to be divided is of such size or shape, or is affected by such topographic conditions, that it is impossible, impractical or undesirable, in the particular case, to conform to the strict application of the regulations codified in this title; and 2. That the cost to the subdivider of strict or literal compliance with the regulations is not the sole reason for granting the modification; and 3. That the modification will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, or be injurious to other properties in the vicinity; and 4. That granting the modification is in accord with the intent and purposes of these regulations, and is consistent with the General Plan and with all applicable specific plans or other plans of the City. Again, staff believes that these findings can be made. The lots that .are in excess of the depth to width ratio standard are the result of the overall subdivision design which reflects the intent to adapt to the site characteristics (slope, swales, existing grading, etc) . Furthermore, the minimum allowed lot size at the site dictates that further lot splits are not possible (without General Plan and zone designation changes. Another issue related to the subdivision concerns design proposed P P Lot 1. Exhibit C shows that Lot 1 is divided by the proposed road. A small section of the lot (approximately 0. 15 acre) lies between the new road and Santa Cruz Road. Although staff had originally frowned on the applicant's first proposal which had three lots divided by the new road, staff feels that this small area, located in the steep slope of the Santa Cruz Road fill bank, does not constitute practicably useable land and separation from the remainder of the lot will not hinder any future owner' s enjoyment of the lot. In addition to the private road, individual driveways are proposed to serve each lot. Three driveways lead off of the private road, and a fourth leads off of Santa Cruz Road to the west. The driveway that services lots 1 and 2 travels through a wooded section of the site, however, it follows a previously graded road. The remaining two driveways off of the private road lead from the planned cul-de-sac across open grassland, providing access to four homesites. The remaining driveway joins Santa Cruz Road near the western edge of the subject site and will access lots 3 and 4. This . driveway also utilizes much of an existing graded driveway, approved under the previous Master Driveway Plan (Precise Plan 19-88) . The road does traverse some "new" land to access the proposed building site on lot 3. In sum, the implications in terms of grading, for construction of the private road and driveways, is not as serious as one might expect, primarily because much of the grading to install the roads has already been completed. The State Department of Fish and Game has reviewed this proposed subdivision and given preliminary approval to the plan and commended the design in its sensitivity to the site (see Exhibit F) . However, in recognition of the sensitive riparian nature of the two creek corridors running through this site, staff is requiring establishment of a one hundred (100) foot open space easement centered along each creek. Thus, fifty foot easements would be established along each side of the creek flowline. Proposed tree removal does present a concern with this development. Twenty six trees are proposed to be removed, including eleven heritage oaks. However, staff is requiring that methods be explored for the retention of some of the trees proposed for removal, on the margin of areas proposed for grading. However, because heritage trees are proposed for removal, this application must also be heard by the City Council. Eight proposed homesites are shown on the tract map. The site characteristics differ with some being located in areas of tree cover and others located on open, grassy spots. It is possible that further tree removal could be requested when building permits for individual homes are submitted, however, as a whole, even the sites in wooded areas are located largely in clearings. Slopes in the area of the homesites range from 5% to 23%. Precise plan review could be required at those locations where grading is to occur on slopes in excess of 10%, thus affording staff the chance for detailed review of grading. At staff' s request, an archeological survey was prepared for the subject site. No archeologic artifacts were discovered by the study. The site is located along a seasonal stream. Such areas are known to have been favored habitation sites for native peoples. ThisY Y 7 ro 'ect has been reviewed b the City' s Fire Department and P P the Engineering Division of the Public Works Department. Both Departments have provided recommended conditions of approval which are included in Exhibit J. The Public Works Department is requiring the applicant to complete Santa Cruz Road to the city' s minimum standard. Additionally, the sharp curves along the frontage of lots 1 and 3 are to be reconfigured to achieve a 200 foot centerline radius (or an alternative acceptable to the Director of Public Works) . The Fire Department is requiring the installation of three fire hydrants as well as residential fire sprinklers in all future structures. With these conditions, neither Department has any objection to the approval of the proposed subdivision. CONCLUSIONS: Staff believes that although this proposal does deviate from lot configuration standards, including the presence of two deep lots, the overall design results in a sensible treatment of the site, based on the fact that much of the proposed road/driveway network has been previously graded and the proposed building sites are in mostly cleared, low to moderately sloped spaces. Tree removal constitutes the major drawback to this proposal, however, staff' s condition that some of the trees on the margins of the proposed cuts and fills be preserved should work to present a more pallatable project. Because of the proposed removal of heritage trees, this application must next proceed to the City Council for its review. This will allow for further, in-depth study of the possibilities for tree retention. In conclusion, staff believes that the design of the proposed subdivision is in general conformance with the City' s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. KCS/kcs ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - General Plan Map Exhibit B - Zoning Map Exhibit C - Tentative Tract Map . Exhibit D - First Submittal Exhibit E - Road/Driveway Plans Exhibit F - DFG Letter Exhibit G - Agent' s Statement (excerpt) Exhibit H - Negative Declaration Exhibit I - Findings for Approval Exhibit J - Conditions of Approval I CITY OF ATASCADERO EXHIBIT A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT GENERAL PLAN MAP DEPARTMENT TTM 27-89 / I I I I � � � N 11 1 1 1l 1� 1 1 � o 1 t 1 1 1' ! GL 1 ILl SITE 1 ao= 19 `' coni i tt \\ 0� (*'� papd► it l ►1 00 \ N � q � CITY OF ATASCADERO EXHIBIT B COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ZONING MAP DEPARTMENT TTM 27-89 r N� f� O O t f t O G a �f . SITE RS U � a°f� PO / 1� yr `oao 1 t 41 �1 11 t� 0 �G� o ►N� �E'40 ?�� 2 O a k NT. �00\ m7m . , \ ,1�:,%; ;� _ IRS..• J:�''� ot was Al Mm fpx AIS I ' s # ..�.��� l I)� . Berl rl :. ,:�►_. yy r OF % lit if s - ��'" 'syll� /..�r�•/:art+.. 4'h •�:.. .. - Y. � , • • • • tiitiii■i�i■i ! tBiiNit ■tH■ti.11t■Mt�t1■ _ �-` �4, _/ i�tti��Nt�iN� � titi■�t�t■tttt. �8�� -...��� .r �e t1 tl�itt■Nt� tMNiiiii • �,.�,�`�.,,, d-'+�• -'-••• -'"•w.:�"` ., t) t�NiNN� ■itiNtNNi � �! was' _-•. Ow NNi■MtiNiN\ \ttiNtiNi �1!�� �'y;EIla r r.�"��\r°��ra�� t1 hitt■tNtN���'Ntttit■i �` r� 'oft=Ste► r �■.rt■ut■��NiilVilOii ♦ t Ate. ��N■�iiittii■tilt�tii#Mitttt �,�\�Q 's�� E p iarsotiN�ti biNNiwuii��itiii.sii `��:` •.::i � _ AV r � .�wNN.N■iniviaiiN■tt _k ti s�iiittNttiii itia■NNi J� �� �� �� NttitNiN iUmMmW '/tiiN■t!N • ti b; , •t`� �� IN W�MANNEWOMME i ��iiNNNi■iiiu�■Nt�isa io�i . ;. ,..��► ;'�.G+r ;S ► ■1 ■WSIMMt■i■!i■t■al�it .� s...ti�tti■t...i...■■.s.l.t.....■...oi M��it�iN■■■N■IU�M�iitft3 NV' •i • �� •i `' • 1 ■■aN■N■�■■t■utNtti tirisi� i �`i��''3������'' `.` a tt tsiii® •� �` ;\�� ����� tl tiNNlNitiiiYVil ■NNiii �1,:: • e ti■1.■NN.�i■■■it■■.wa ■■■■■n■� ��A �, j� , tlllt�WiONiitNiiiN►YI��i iNRii■ti `• ���" Y, ��'Pi' ��� tiNNi■■ttiNNii\\iNNtiN■ 2 •�a • it iYiNNi■NiNNi•t► MOORS& Nit / .� i;�•z tl iN�iNittiN■N■tw;W■ii■!t � �.1 it iliNiittiMMOMME twittt r c e tl �NttttNtitttiiq Vtttti 1�i,11 �/` ��N�OiNiNt�NNNNiNN\ � '7��� , ��► it t�ti■uNNa■i■siN��ttw�, t / ,� t1��itiii■NiNNNt■11tNit i�NNtINw N seamino �ra■uiNi■i�wtoiu� — ��tu�itsw�.NN7s=wia e t11iNN.Ni�®t■■■NtOtiiti■■ IIV% ■a■n.ttm—ui■awN■■■■urirws■i kit ►t ■i tN ■N■WIMEiNiWMARm ` g� ■iiNO�NNt■t■■ ta�`�wo � 1 lit tl■l�iN■�■NtNu■t■i■'�Rw■iNNNu �� •8 t1��ittNiittitit A Nii�iOttNNNty/INttN�iN �E it1 us�oiieNiiPw/ittNNii �'�� 1 i, ■>s■iiuiaov.�rw■t■NNw �t A Atm litrii� • IN IS IN JC' n� ite■a®itt�tt� �►,�,r. ��r►�a. IMMEME to■tttu■�o■'i,Nt mi■MiN Nwtii■■tt Hr..�■.Nlyttts■iNw..tttsiNIMMmt \�t��`►`' :pa�1, �� Y t11■s� �M■e�as ■ � a 1 `� rum ■�■■.■N.....ul M �uuott■N�w■ ���'�,��,a� ; �n■a.N■s/w•tttw��■w■wtt■o■oiit _ .o guff �"'s.""iti.mommm ..t i0....�.., . .N.N,rN ti...� ■■■t.t N■■■■i■�M�.■■�■Mtn f MIiCM�CCMCi y ■ C■rCCRCCCC� ��I pw,loom ��■C■ ■ ■srRi■Rsq■ �,y1y,�•�y' ��r, ■ ■R■■■■■■w■ . ter.. �, imam WE 0 MICUMOU ■■■■■■wr■■■ �.-11 •• C C C■�wrR!■■R■■!w �t ■sC ■ ■■!R■RR■■■ries■ �a�is■ ■ ■ RgRr■Riii■ ...R w�iC■R■i ■iw■qwon III ■■ swrsrrw� ■s ��r t`��( � C ■■■r!■sl. as ME Cq■■.q■■ ■■ t ,� w■ �e■gglq■■■!w mei o��) ' . ■ ■wi■!r!■!■■■s �AFI��l`���r�� ■sC�i ■ ■R■■■!■■i■■ �r � ■ MOM 000000 �ns!■■rRRi■■ ■Rw ■q■■■■ ■■■■■■!R■■■■ �L'Ci3G�i.�i-i■sif CsC■monswommon ■■!■w■wsw■monummummosom �. r ?, �, •r is ■■■■w■■■w �� ✓[, ■w■■■■■www■■■ �' � f i, C. . oon CC■N■■C■ ■ %rrIC . o. . .■■ r - . III wolf, picuunc: ■■ CCC ::CC:Ginffin •��� 1 , - 'C CSalomon C■ CCURCCUBCCC ' 6'x'�"CE C 6CMosul : :E:::: ■■q■■■■■q■ ■■■!fr■r---1 ■!r!■ ■■ ON ■ w■r■a .■r'■ii■■■ ■C .■■C■�� wi��lilrir!■! 7 -, ■■■■w■■on ■ G Cr■ir``lrr■!r!!r! r, mloo C�riC=�■ C r�rirrlrsrrq 'rs,;c�-`� '. OV 10 MOMMUN: q�M%�• �.CC�CCCCCCICIC w. � ■ r■!!■wir■■r■ +■�a �' s■ ■s■■■!■wi■■RSR ��•�"• �•- �r � C��/�■C/ �R � ■■■■slrs■iiirR �r"•.�+-'a�� a q/qw ■�■■■� I C■■■s■■w■iisii ■.i.�i,;a�i��. s ■■■ ■�■ RCC■silC C■■r■rrrs■■ �� `�'.:'=..�,� ■■■C=CC■■■CC r�■■i■■■orrr■ ..•. L'•-;...�r:_.%+ �■CCEiq!■=I ClriRR■rR■r■ii ....�.-► ■ • ■!w■ ■■rr■RiiMRRiri■ ■■C■■r■R■■ ■ ■rrRRslRRR: q C!■r■RriN■ri■■■ !t +�► r @�''' C■■q■■■■■■■ � ■C■rir■iRRrRRRRRR■ ■wwr IAesr■w■► ■ ■ ■r■■■RirR■iRRi �'•"• ^. -L.�ja��i C C■i.f:w.■.. �C CCRrrrRiri■UN: �w■i■r w...�, t��. ■■ r C I�r CCrCrriirwrRRRR■ �.'�T�� - t■ ■■iq i■ ■ IN r*■wsRRiRiR ■r +ate,�, •• moi.-. ■R■■■■Rr ■ ■ENR■N, L;■R■ siwlw■■i"illi■ ■■ ■■RlRRRlrrrR■r ��wy� �i► ECMUMAINOM ■■!■■� ■• C■%sC!!■iRriwErron■ \`a�.*.� ■■■!!■ *w i ■i■■■i■!■■r■■Rri �� Eo C C■ �CaCRMUCHis r ClUC ■ ■■CC■l��:�ECC CCCCCCCCCeii:iiisi .\�v�.� r%C1%ACCC■ ■w CCONswoonO C ` .EC�'.w C,f= C! Ilunnanown wisCMCCCIiWCiC Cr■rwii��wwC ■■ ■!r ■wr■RRwoRRli■■ �� I ■liiirHOME : ■■ CRrirRR■■UCH . ;; D)AltoIts ■:Maas■;;CmMtM■st:nam' ■:■ansae: : ss:::::ia■::::::::■::: ■ttea■ae■■ si ■■nttisasstw■■n*s:wrL/i:i:: ::aa:::::: *mms*sM■asawmoons�a' a:sssmensanoweems ttn■waaesiMss*waari� wrMeawias■ B :::::::�: ::::::: / CE::MMS ::::: "I t it■mints*n■■■■E*■ �■ ■ DowtiimE■ �i �t m::wa■:isi■:mm■■s■ dpi■ ;sss:M:s:unman ��! s :: ■ ilii' � monsoons EEi::::::: 1+ I rt w■aamwsmowswae: rig ti awwosmwwsa:sm ins:*■■ •�. -— .� :iw■*■a..w..onso f mss: INUM : % 1� i stm ■:awa ■ ■■ Ei Cosmic:: :EE ::: � EEIn .EsitE: f t :■stilwMs// son won ■ ■t*■ R ■flit j��•. mast*isaw*r•:_snamons ■EsmsssnsM ssa■■oswssflosslws*■ ■t�otwsts■M ::EE::E :w � *smmmeso1 Bssrias:*��S 1 !� • ■IIIICti *sE*Mts m lsanaaasw mongsama ■ snti*Mwis ■ttss■*s w■i::: :::: s■■*tM■n sastnommus *s ■■ t*s l sM -- mw*:*irrt/�a:Emosss :snow■■ .• , w1 ME ■wws �i1��tr1�tlW.rr.tr:e: a ::Emmons i sws:osm■ wa Cr��swmstsi�B� E asst■* iiMmwmiM■*w■ m■srse lin*M■srr mi■wmso■ ■sn■ ■sssw:iEs■ an ■m:tiii ■raews�iiisl■t� mum a E::C:::: ama" ■ons■on:::■mI onta ms wmw*ssoss■ma to atssr: ■emmnmsmw■smlt ;:■Mr■siss �� •. � I sss Msam:e■wawtw■ ■ESE:nea■ r' y iI .. ;. � .0......:.. ;........ �� C; --�■ ssr■i■E■r■ ■swnsit■ � •�I�� s**i-s -n■amswnmomm�m *monsoons `` �� Ci t:st:sgalwM:::remanmmn wonmwa■ �� • ®� ■I ■tRt!■■ mg■■*ns*RoOEMm ""Ons ■ , 1 ♦i REa *� ■■:**win■■mama a:at ■ �� \�fy0 EN on si B�■��R�■■�■■■■i ■ / I`irl�j �� ■:::::1�r■INIMt:::titEiIll( �!on %�!/ sine Ipm m:*mms■■st ossm■sin C II alone-.��Mt■■m■isw*s■ E�nmisses■ ��/ a� � i tl■■ ■ R:rsstt■w■■ to ■sat sws/��r.At*miEm■amm: mtE amts (/ �'r �r�+� •• Eitt�i�i*siswsso**somtt* *owss**MM ► r li pils Mangan■ R! manomps t.a . ■.moan■. .ttsrtssrt*1� a ■ I Y f��i• ■tam ■� wos■w:ns■ ■ ■ ■ t*■ t,b., tatim swn■iso r ums 5 wE monM, wm:C::nna:m r*nw10 M a/.*m wa■ommoemmaa on Ra mass■ wosssmommn:: ME l an■wsomma■ **omit: :mars;■m■ SUCH ' �: C BEC:::::m on a■*■ ■■Main:*.==s* now ism RA s�*i��mins;a.......w.�;■...;at.. ■■matt R■Ms■t:nomawlmnssms ■Mns■M it ' �trj�► i■ to waamww:*a:sMrom■w■::ra■**:M■ ►,�� isms■ ae*issswe■■taM■oi*n■MiiMa mann amt ■ wMswssms:sEMMatsss:gas : * � ■ :t� C■ iEg * wmmsEm * a■ctmss■ ,l j :1 ■ ■town _ ■ ■ ■ ■m:s■ss■asssatwn :sass!■ ■ 1� ■ a■:a ■MMus■ ■waaaaiss: ■as■ : �/.• �il■ ■wins MmwmaMon :msassnsta::■mas�is�i � �i��L�`,._w.. s ■ CIU its:a■ms:wwNUU ■ ■EmMsty■st►m■sarMMwia:ammaw:aaammmm:■ W. ■�■t;i esaansa■smEn:ea:eew:asmMm■sMmt I►��jf� ��,��� �l �■ s�Is!■ani=ewssensgaMm■;sMnm■srrsM■ � ��®-,��_�� � .,manowaso NO,�- ■ts ummmt:m■e■ ■■■M: ng: �, . .,rte' ■ ■■■sal ■:■■■■■■■■■■sin■■■■■■*■■■■ �►� ���ef`='�ji�1 .�� tt st■ pan■■r■mrra*s■aaMwaa:i■ ■smi ♦ v` �r;t ■tCim■CG ...■tsmtnm:nawamwsasmsr:mMMs ' ■' :M■nam■■■MwmmNrwigsee**■:■■■g■taaam■:■ �_ ,��1� State of califoraia f EXHIBIT F The :esoaree■ Ageac7 � Memorandum 0T 0: Karl Schoettler Date: 25 June 1990 City of Atascadero Planning Division Community Development Department 6500 Palma Ave. Atascadero, CA 93422 From: Department of Fish and Game Subject: Ran/White/Volbrecht surveys, subdivision J Y Y � File -#: TTM 27-89 Department of Fish and Game personnel have reviewed the material supplied with the request for comments for Ryan/White/Volbrecht surveys, lots 4,5,6, and 7, block 54 on Santa Cruz Road, in Atascadero, San Luis Obispo County. A limited field survey was conducted at the site of the proposed development, and we have the following comments: The project site is an area of sloping hillsides that drop down to a dry creekbed. Most of the site is covered with mature Coast Live oak woodland with an understory of poison oak and other shrubby and herbaceous vegetation. Oak trees and the oak wood- land plant community provide important habitat for a wide variety of wildlife, and should be preserved whenever possible. We appreciate the efforts made to arrange the development so as to minimize disturbance to the existing trees, and we request that the remaining vegetation be left in its natural condition. The Department has direct jurisdiction under Fish and Game Code Sec- tion 1601-03 in regard to any proposed activities that would divert or ob- struct the natural flow or change the bed, channel, or bank of any stream. We recommend early consultation since modification of the proposed project may be required to avoid impacts to fish and wildlife resources. Formal noti- fication under Fish and Game Code Section 1603 should be made after all other permits and certifications have been obtained. Work cannot be initiated until a streambed alteration agreement is executed. If you have any further questions, please contact me at P. O. Box 6360, Los Osos, CA 93412, or by phone at (805) 528-0782. Sincerely, James L. Lidberg Wildlife Biologist San Luis Obispo Wildlife Unit cc: K. Worcester ����1�LD DFG files AN 27 1990 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT EXHIBIT G Excerpt from Agent' s statement 3 be made for the road and compaction tests conducted. GENERAL SUBDIVISION DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS This subdivision was designed by recognizing the unique physical constraints imposed by the terrain on which it is located. As opposed to typical design procedures whereby a subdivision is platted and the site graded to make the lots and building sites work, the first step in this subdivision was to locate, in the field, viable building sites. The sites were picked keeping in mind separation, view, septic capability and with an approach to minimize tree removal and grading. The next step was to provide workable access to the sites again attempting to minimize grading and tree removal. The main access road has been designed to public standards as nearly as possible but where trees or terrain dictate exceptions to those standards have been used. We hereby request that due to the unique terrain and situation we find ourselves in in Atascadero that latitude with respect to design standards be granted. This is consistent with the existing roads in the area. The final consideration in the subdivision design process was the layout of the lots themselves. Once the building sites had been identified and the accessways located the lot lines were laid out such that each building site and leach field was on it's own parcel and the minimum lot size was met. Two alternate lot layouts are being submitted. Each is similar except for Lots 1,5,& 6. The two alternates differ primarily in the manner in the way access is gained to the site. Alternate I utilizes an access road from the southeastern most corner of the subdivision and the lot lines were made to follow the centerline of the road. Alternate II utilizes an access road which leaves Santa Cruz Road in an area more suited for construction than Alternate 1 but will have to cross Lot 1 in an easement. From our clients standpoint this is of no major concern. 11-8.101 We believe this subdivision to be consistent with the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance and is the best utilization of the land in meeting the needs of future owners and the community. We have attempted to design a subdivision which works with the land and is in keeping with the surrounding land uses. 310-01G\31001A.WPD 0 EXHIBIT H CITY OF ATASCADERO -- ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATOR ,a. NEGATIVE DECLARATION COB04UN=DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 6500 PALMA AVE. ATASCADERO, CA 93422 (805) 461-5035 APPLICANT: FtTC-� 4 U-CAtj IF--yA IJ 'FAU L * 1-5c>S'AIJ 'W hF I TE G'ec�b SaQve-L AUE. FO Fox (4( SAti)TA CKU Z, CA 9L 5;-067Z- SA 1U L U t S o 9:(:'P'O/ GA cl 3qo 3 PROJECT TITLE: -rEk)TA"Tr U E -rP-A CT M.4p Z7-`aq PROJECTLOCATION: 3760/ O-SSO/- ggCO gOOv !9AAJTA 0902: 9;P, PROJECT DESCRIPTION: op 1=-0uK (-p T s C-oniTA t u tm(:;r .90, (6 Itiio tGHT BOTS CONiAtultJG, `x.77 ACiae S 4FAC-4, FINDINGS: 1. The project does not have the potential to degrade the environment. 2. The project will not achieve short-term to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. 3. The project does not have impacts which are individually limited. but comulatively considerable. 4. The project will not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings either directly or indirectly. DETERNMATION: Based on the above findings, and the information contained in the initial study(made a part hereof by refer- ence and on file in the Community Development Department), it has been determined that the above project will not have an adverse impact on the environment Henry Engen Community-Development Director Date Posted: Date Adopted: EXHIBIT I - Findings for Approval Tentative Tract Map 27-89 8700, 8850, 8900, 9000, Santa Ana Road ENVIRONMENTAL FINDING: The proposed project will not have a significant impact on the environment. The Negative Declaration prepared for the project is adequate. MAP FINDINGS: 1. The proposed map is consistent with the applicable General or Specific Plan. 2 The design and/or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the applicable General or Specific Plan. 3. The site is physically suitable for the proposed type of development. 4. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. 5. The design of the subdivision, and/or the proposed improvements, will not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish and wildlife or their habitat. 6. The design of the subdivision, and the type of improvements, will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision; or substantially equivalent alternate easements are provided. 7. The design of the subdivision and/or the type of proposed improvements will not cause serious public health problems. SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE FINDINGS: 1. Creation of lots with a ratio of depth to width greater than three is acceptable in this case because minimum lot size requirements preclude deep lot subdivisions. 2. The property to be divided is of such size or shape, or is affected by such topographic conditions, that it is impossible, impractical or undesirable, in the particular case, to conform to the strict application of the regulations codified in this title. 3. The cost to the subdivider of strict or literal compliance with the regulations is not the sole reason for granting the modification. 4. The modification will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, or be injurious to other properties in the vicinity. 5. Granting the modification is in accord with the intent and purposes of these regulations, and is consistent with the General Flan and with all applicable specific plans or other plans of the City. EXHIBIT J - Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract Map 27-89 8700, 8850, 8900, 9000 Santa Cruz Rd. (Ryan/White) July 17, 1990 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. All existing and proposed utility, pipeline, open space, or other easements are to be shown on the final map. If there are building or other restrictions related to the easements, they shall be noted on the final map. 2. All relocation and/or alteration of existing utilities shall be the responsibility of the developer. 3. The subdivider shall complete Santa Cruz Road to City Minimum Road Standard A-1 and A-2, as directed by the Director of Public Works, along the entire project frontage. Rip rap shall be installed at the outlet of all culverts along this property frontage. 4. The subdivider shall reconfigure the two sharp radius curves along the frontage of lot 1 and the intersection of Santa Cruz Road at San Gregorio to have a minimum centerline radius of 200 feet or as directed by the Director of Public Works. Road improvement plans for reconfiguration shall be designed by a registered civil engineer and approved by the Director of Public Works prior to the start of construction. 5. The subdivider shall install all street signs, traffic delineation devices, warning and regulatory signs, guardrails, barricades, and other similar devices where required by the Director of Public Works. Signs shall be as approved by the Department of Public Works in accordance with the current State of California uniform sign chart. Installation of traffic devices shall be subject to review and modifications after construction. 6. Construction of the public road improvements shall be completed or suitable guarantees shall be provided prior to the recording of the map. The deferral option is subject to approval by the Director of Public Works. 7. All public improvements shall be covered by a 150% Performance Bond until construction is deemed substantially complete and a 10% Maintenance Bond until one year after substantial completion. 8. Offer to dedicate to the City of Atascadero the following right-of-way. Street name: Santa Cruz Road. Limits: 20 feet from centerline of right-of-way shall be required if Santa Cruz Road improvements, including all cut and fill slopes, fall outside of the existing right-of-way and onto this property at any point. 9. Offer to dedicate to the public for public utility purposes the following easement. a. The private access easement. 10. Driveways accessing lots 2, 3, 5 and 7 shall be designated as access and utility easements on the final map. 11. Offers of dedication shall be completed and recorded prior to or in conjunction with the recording of the map. 12. Prior to the recording of the final map, a soils investigation as required by the Subdivision Map Act shall be submitted, recommending corrective actions which will prevent structural damage to each structure proposed to be constructed in the area where soil problems exist, as indicated in the Preliminary Soils Report. The date of such reports, the name of the Engineer making the report, and the location where the reports are on file shall be noted on the final map. 13. Final map shall be labeled "Full coverage residential sprinkler systems shall be required for each residence. " 14. Three fire hydrants shall be installed prior to final approval of the map, at the locations shown in Exhibit C. 15. Proposed building locations as shown on the tentative map shall appear on the final map with notations limiting buildings to these locations. 16. A one hundred foot wide open space easement, centered on the two seasonal creeks shall be drawn and labeled on the final map. 17. All lots shall have access only to the driveways as shown on the tentative parcel map. Relinquishment of access rights to the private road and Santa Cruz Road at points other than approved driveways shall be noted on the final map. 18. Driveway serving lots 7 and 8 shall be reduced to twelve (12) feet in width on driveway plans. 19. Trees proposed for removal along the margins of proposed grading shall be considered for retention. The consulting arborist shall submit a report exploring possibilities for retention of more trees, or stating reasons why this is not possible. 20. A final map in substantial conformance with the approved tentative map and in compliance with all conditions set forth herein shall be submitted for review and approval in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and the City's Subdivision Ordinance prior to the recording of the final map. a. Monuments shall be set at all new property corners by a Registered Civil Engineer or Licensed Land Surveyor as required by the Land Surveyor's Act and Subdivision Map Act. Monuments set within any road right-of-way shall conform to city standard drawing M-1. b. Pursuant to section 66497 of the Subdivision Map Act the engineer or surveyor shall notice the City Engineer in writing that the monuments have been set. C. A recently updated preliminary title report shall be submitted for review in conjunction with the processing of the final map. d. A preliminary subdivision guarantee shall be submitted for review in conjunction with the processing of the final map. 21. Approval of this tentative map shall expire two years from the date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted pursuant to a written request prior to the expiration date. EX f STI G LOT- SIZES { 9 � s SI,*rE �` kr AF � � �r B �;/ -.� C ;O`",' .tel ;oei tI��4► �/ � af• / ;� � T n/ 1 �� ♦� A' _ c��.l . W I! !!�- e• �D ( w w N`•� r1 '!t i cA� �� I/ / � � � •j w\. v 9 ttioiko- y•�.'J�l �, ' \ / .� ,,i' ,� 0 „f f l W d I /OEl=Illp .gip-•W C�_�t f _ 'S `( 0 /�/L.l,�, aQ 1`' /� \ W v l t''J JR.� 'r it ul qw Las yr ' l ` , • v 10 ol 94 it 194/ 14• ✓ - \' .. s elf.• ,b/ t �? d9 , ,V -y�; it, � : Ca'�� z� .`� .���.�•� `'I � C ...lt', r ��1 e� •.:r �1MlM��.J �. ,�i.� .� .� A-3. Consideration of Findings for genial for Tentative Tract Map 27-89 at 8700 8850 8900, 9000 Santa Cruz Road (Ryan- to Vo rec t Surveys Commissioner Luna stated he had hop*od that the applicant would have worked with staff to reduce tho density and redesign the tentative map. He added that the Findings for Denial do not reflect all of his objections to the map, and suggested some additional Findings to cover areas such as : private road standards, side lot lines, limitations of dead end streets, flag lot standards, emergency response time, etc. Commissioner Hanauer expressed concern with instances where the Planning Commission overturns n staff recommendation for approval and directs the applicant to again redesign the map. He reiterated that this is a good project -which meets the applicable General Plan and Zoning Ordinance requirements, and should be approved. Alan Volbrecht, representing the applicant, referenced some additional material he submitted to the Commission in support the map request. He stated that the applicants still feel very strongly that the original request strictly conforms to the Subdivision Ordinance. Mr. Volbrecht also pointed out a letter from Robin Fairbairn, attornrY for Mr. and Mrs . Martin, adjacent property owners pertaining to requested fencing conditions . He indicated an agreen►ant had not, in fact, been reached. MOTION: By Commissioner Luna and seconded by Commissioner Brasher to recommend to the City Council denial of Tentative Tract Map 27-89 as reflected in the Findings for Denial contained in the staff report (Exhibit "A" ) as further amended by Commissioner Luna. The motion carried 4 :2 : 1 with the following roll call: AYES: Commissioners Lund , Brasher, Lopez-Ba lbontin, and Chairperson Luchridge NOES: Commissioners Higl+land and Hanauer ABSENT: Commissioner Waage C. AL COMMENT 1. Planning Commiss Comm iss una commented on the cl-► f Forestry' s ations in State responsibilit-y areas and as the PAGE SEVEN • ommissioner Hanauer voiced concern that signs that the bui i was built for should be allowed. Mr. D amp explained the process whereby a project is sually constru ed before the sign package is submitted. He added that if a ox type sign is to be approved, there eeds to be language control the appearance of the plas is that goes into the box e Discussion continued. Mr. Ranelletti re arked that he intends to ay away from fla plastic signs . Ch 'rperson Lochridge st ed he would 'Like to see what the design the sign will 1 ok like. Mr. Davidson offered ame gent to ndition 42b. Mr. Hadlev asked that the n ent sign not be required to have the raised letters . MOTION: By Commissioner aage, s onded by Commissioner Luna and carried 6• to appro - Conditional Use Permit 8-90 subjec to the Find gs and Conditions of Approval th modification t Condition 42b: 112b. E h tenant is allowed one 11 sign, limited o one square foot of sign pe lineal foot o street frontage, not to exceed 5 square feetNtwo These signs shall consist of c raised letters and shall not exctin height. The location of inditsigns is limited to building faceentrances. Individual tenant sisubject to design review, as detee Planning Division. " 3 . TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 27-89 : Application filed by Peter and Jean Ryan and Paul and Susan White to subdivide four existing lots of 30 . 16 acres into eight lots of approximately 3 .77 acres each. Subject site is located at 8700/ 8850, 8900, and 9000 Santa Ana. Karl Schoettler presented the staff report which focused on issues including tree removal and lot configuration. He read modifications to Conditions 44, 47 , 48 as requested by the Public works Department. Commission questions and discussion followed. Commission Hanauer inquired why the City Arborist does not review or make recommendations concerning trees proposed for removal on these types of applications, and felt that an early identification on tree concerns would be helpful in developing a file. PAGE EIGHT Commissioner Luna added that it would be helpful if the Com- mission could have -a bottom line figure on how many trees are expected to be removed after the lots have been created and residences constructed. Mr. DeCamp responded that tree removal is anticipated to be minimal on the housing sites . The sites have been reviewed in the past as part of the master driveway plan which was implemented for the driveways on Santa Cruz. Commissioner Luna referenced response times from the recent Fire Department report and expressed concern that if densities are increased in the outer portions of the City, it will be difficult to meet response timess without having to put in another fire station. He asked if any thought was given to saving trees and grading by reducing density or by considering clustering of the homes. Mr. DeCamp responded that considera- tion was given by staff to a reduction in the number of lots to be created. That option was not desired by the applicant. With regard to clustering, Mr. DeCamp added serious considera- tion was not given due to the topography and the applicant' s desire to provide private, large lot rural development. Dis- cussion continued. in response to question from Commissioner Highland, Mr. Sims explained that the design criteria he utilizes for roads is based on vertical curves, vertical curve sight distance and horizontal curve sight distance tied to a design speed. Commissioner Highland remarked that road conditions and road improvements to Santa Cruz Road should be the responsibility of the individual developer who developed Santa Cruz Road, and not those who desire to split their lots . He suggested that inclusion of conditions that require improvements to Santa Cruz Road are not appropriate. Mr. Sims stated that the City is attempting to develop minimum road standards that will be applied uniformly throughout the City and they will be. (with council ' s consent) applied to building permit applications, precise plans, and subdivisions . There are two parallel operations going on in the Atascadero Highlands area; one is related to the Gordon Davis agreement which pertained to the original construction of those roads; the other parallel activity is the conditioning of single family permits and precise plans. The two are not legally related and are separate activities. Discussion continued. commissioner Lopez-Ba lbontin asked if the private road is included in the 3 .77 acre lot size calculation. Mr. Schoettler affirmed this is the case adding that the private road will remain in the ownership of the lots that adjoin it. He advised that if the road was accepted into the City system, the lots would then be under the 3 . 77 acre lot size. PAGE NINE Paul White, applicant, stated he 'Lias been working with this project for over a year and felt this is a good project that will benefit the area. Every effort will be made to save as many trees as possible. He indicated concurrence with the Conditions of Approval. Alan volbrecht, agent for the applicant, explained that the project has taken 14 months to get to public hearing. He stated that Mr. Schoettler was fine to work with. He com- mented that this map is unusual in that the minimum parcel size works out to a hundredth of an acre. He requested specific findings if the Commission determines that fewer 'Lots are appropriate. Commissioner Waage expressed concern with Finding #2 (Subdivi- sion Ordinance) as it pertained to the diagonal line between proposed lots 7 and S. John Falkenstien with Cuesta Engineering, made a lengthy pre- sentation (using transparencies) to show the effects of road improvements at the intersection of San Gregorio and Santa Cruz Roads as it relates to Condition ##4 . He also explained the intent of Condition #3 adding that it could cost between $15,000 and $20, 000 for the entire road improvements . He then responded to questions from the Commission. MOTION: By Commissioner Luna, seconded by Commissioner Highland and carried 6 :0 to extend the meeting past 11 :00 P.M. Commissioner Hanauer commented that traffic counts should be done before making costly road improvements. Discussion ensued concerning ultimate traffic volumes in the years to come and what effects future lot splits could have on the roads. Commissioner Highland commented that he saw nothing wrong with using winding roads to control speed. In 25 years when there are more homes in this area, people are still not going to be able to drive any faster whether we make the curves wider or if they are left as they now exist. Robin Fairbairn, attorney representing John Martin who owns 700 acres adjacent to the project (which is a cow-calf oper- ation) , proposed an additional condition to address Finding :k5 of the map findings. He requested that the applicants place a 6 foot high fence with two feet of barbed wire on the rear property line in an effort to prevent any one from going onto the Martin' s property. Mr. Fairbairn explained that people crossing onto the Martin' s property could pose fire or agricultural dangers. PAGE TEN Mr. Volbrecht addressed Mr. Fairbairn' s concerns. He sug- gested that the applicants may entertain fencing around the vicinity of the cul-de-sac where the public access may occur along with a fire gate. Commissioner Highland expressed concern with not knowing what type of tree removal will be involved to build the road and noted disagreement with Finding -1 of the Negative Declaration. Commissioner Luna concurred, adding that it may be appropriate to have a report from the City Arborist explaining what the impacts of tree removal will be. Commissioner Waage indicated that the original lot configura- tion presented a buffer; by dividing it into 8 lots the buffer would be lost. He objected to Findings #2 and 45 from the Subdivision Ordinance. In response to question from Chairperson Lochridge, Mr. Sims explained the intent of Condition 44 and explained the reasons why the 200 foot radius was changed to 110 feet. Discussion followed. MOTION: By Commissioner Waage and seconded by Commissioner Lopez-Baibontin to deny Tentative Tract Map 27-89 . Commissioner Waage stated he could not make Findings t1 , #2, and 15 from the Subdivision Ordinance. Commissioner Lopez- Balbontin indicated he was not comfortable with Findings 's,'3 and *4 from the Map findings . The motion carried 4 : 2 with the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Waage, Lopez-Baibontin, Luna, and Chairperson Lochridge NOES: Commissioners Highland and Hanauer ABSENT: Commissioner Brasher Further discussion took place between the Commission and Mr. Volbrecht relative to the Commission' s concerns regarding the private road and lack of information for tree removals and a possible redesign of the map. MOTION: By Commissioner Waage, seconded by Commissioner Lopez-Balbontin and carried 6 :0 to rescind the previous motion. PAGE ELEVEN MOTION: By Commissioner Waage and seconded by Commissioner Lopez-Balbontin to direct the applicant to submit new information and a redesign to staff within 30 days of this hearing. The motion carried 5 : 0 . INDIVIDUAL COMMENT Planning Commission Thee was nothing to report. 2. C Planner a. anning Commission Rules of Proc ure Mr. DeCamp pre nted the staff report on he amendments to th Procedures. MOTION: By Commiss ner Highlan , seconded by Commissions Luna and ca i ied 6 :0 o approve Resolution No. I- 90. b. Special meeting o July 31, 1990 to discuss th "Tree Ordinan '? Mr. DeCamp reported hat in the bsence of completed trs ordinance guidelin-s, there will no be a July 31st meeting The tree ordinan will most likely b heard on September 4 1990. Meeting adjourn at 11:55 p.m. MINUTES RE RDED BY: PAT SHEPPHARD, Administrative Secre -ry MI S APPROVED BY: STEVEN DECAMP, City Planner REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: B-3 Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 9/25/90 From: Henry Engen, Comm. Dev. Director AE File No: RA 2-90 SUBJECT: Consideration of a request to abandon the Gusta Road right-of-way (H.D. Peterson/Steve Devencenzi, agent) . RECOMMENDATION: Per the Planning Commission' s recommendation, approval of Road Abandonment 2-90 per Resolution No. 114-90 . • BACKGROUND : On August 21, 1990, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on this matter and on a 6 :0 vote, recommended approval of the road abandonment request as reflected in modified Resolution No. 114-90 which incorporates a modification request by Cuesta Engineering. One abutting owner, Opal and Hurst Allen (owners of the Santa Maria Tire Lot) , testified against the abandonment of this Non-City maintained street. HE:ps CC : H. D. Peterson Steve Devencenzi Attachments: Staff Report dated August 21, 1990 Cuesta Engineering letter dated August 21, 1990 Minutes Excerpt - August 21 , 1990 Resolution No. 114-90 CITY OF ATASCADERO Item: R� , STAFF REPORT FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: August 21, 1990 BY: Doug Davidson, Senior Planner File No: RA 02-90 SUBJECT: Consideration of a request to abandon the Gusta Rd. right-of-way. RECONNENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission make the Findings in Exhibit H and recommend to the City Council that the right-of- way be abandoned per the Draft Ordinance in Exhibit I. SITUATION AND FACTS: 1. Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .H. D. Peterson 2. Representative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Steve Devencenzi 3. Project Address. . . . . . . . . . . . . .Gusta Rd. (see Exhibit A) 4. Legal Description. . . . . . . . . . . .Eaglet Tract No. 1 5. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0. 73 acres 6. Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .CR (Commercial Retail) 7. General Plan Designation. . . . .Retail Commercial 8. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Commercial 9. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Negative Declaration ANALYSIS: The applicant is proposing the abandonment of the Gusta Rd. right-of-way as shown in the attachments. Gusta Rd. is located in the Eaglet Tract off of E1 Camino Real between La Linia Ave. and Principal Ave. The right-of-way runs directly south of Santa Maria Tire and Peterson's U-Cart. • 'The application has received favorable responses from the other City agencies, as well as the public utility companies. The Public Works Department and Fire Department have determined that the right-of-way is not needed for future circulation or emergency access, respectively. Likewise, the abandonment will not be a barrier to the existing or future provision of utilities. Any specific request for a public utility reservation will be incorporated into the Resolution prior to its recording. A 30 foot easement for drainage, access, and utility purposes will be retained to serve the adjacent commercial property upon development. Road abandonments are accomplished by resolution of the City Council. Staff confirmed with the City Attorney that although the right-of-way is in the Eaglet Tract, the procedure is the same as for Colony roads. The procedure is governed by the Street and Highways Code, under which the Planning Commission must make the following two findings: 1. That the abandonment is in conformance with the City' s General Plan. 2. That the right-of-way is unsuited as a non-motorized transportation facility, i.e. primarily for the use of pedestrians, bicyclists, or equestrians. Staff believes that these findings can be made. The abandonment will not diminish any Circulation goal of the City, particulary since adequate private access will be reserved. Gusta Rd. has not been envisioned as a City street, since the right-of-way dead ends in the residential properties on Pino Solo Rd. The right- of-way does not provide any possible connections. In addition, this short stretch of right-of-way isnot a necessary link in any future walkway or bike path. Under the Street and Highways Code this application qualifies as a Summary Vacation (short form) , as opposed to the General (long form) procedure. If the road has not been constructed and provision of utilities is not impacted, a Summary procedure is the proper course. This does not require the preparation of a separate notice of intent to abandon. When a right-of-way is abandoned, one-half of the right-of-way reverts to each of the adjacent property owners. Each half section of right-of-way is then merged with its adjacent lot. CONCLUSIONS: The Gusta Rd. right-of-way is not necessary for future road or utility purposes. Adequate provision for drainage facilities, public utilities, and ingress/egress will be retained to serve future commercial development. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Location and Zoning Map Exhibit B - General Plan Land Use Map Exhibit C - Gusta Rd. Abandonment Exhibit D - Development Statement Exhibit E - Assessor' s Parcel Map Exhibit F - Assessor's Parcel Map Exhibit G - Negative Declaration Exhibit H - Findings for Approval Exhibit I - Draft Resolution EXHIBIT A CITY OF ATASCADERO LOCATION/ZONING MAP s , COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ROAD ABANDONMENT 02-90 DEPARTMENT • SR. i r RSF•Z aa , { RMF•4(,p{Z6) i � r •� � c�;�RrE ' � �E\ f T E ' RSF•Z( RSF jC �'t ���� ;� swr INN rp 0- ca�ST08,c\ �� I'p CR �� \ � �. •!!E r ` M X21 C T FJH CR o 'r _Q ; �K f l AV i A I fide �N�/l E sw "p IVE RS EXHIBIT B 4 lift CITY OF ATASCADERO GENERAL PLAN MAP " ROAD ABANDONMENT 02-90 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Low �•�� RECREA 'ION �A •, , ` DENSITY '��•• ,� 7J + MULTI•FAA tLy q Yi `I SITE -+S IAA E ,• ;l / ++ ��� ,. fes,^,� � -�� `• '`�,�*1��;��%, • c•�',a RET. ° carmu, REC. • FA -; HIGH S E `'"`�s J DEN ITY Z,MUL FA IL =/ �. H SINGL `. v E PUB-LI~' P ♦VE_ I �E \� s o Y �r `tkf a N ' '� •• • • '�cE� \ �, RW E 6110 +vE • `�' ' N 1?'TTT� 00500- % \ l T EXHIBIT C CITYOF A1'ASCADERO PROPOSED ABANDONMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ROAD ABANDONMENT 02-90 • DEPARTMENT li AREA A ,B,C & D ro Aa>xAe- ar wcvLh. J AlcEA of IZIOW Cr- why �� -p�b�Eo •m � /kEh�►m�ltEy PWCE fJNE 1 • 1 N, V14GJ►.)�T u-cW- 3o-Sot-�16 Z~a- IA/�rsI�IT- •L' r ro feuR- . a• L-rtwioN of facra4sp ���� �� " "• IJ�yv �PRoveF-r'Y Ysa�ItwtY ns ' vicu11rY i l.w+a.t) yip' � ♦ �_ � 4rss."s _ D . GUSTA ROAD * ?" Proposed Abandonment scale: 1"= 40' `r--- EXHIBIT D CITY OF ATASCADERO DEVELOPMENT STATEMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ROAD ABANDONMENT 02-90 DEPARTMENT i `Pv-zf�Gcv Kfvp _ Kv 1 vJ C-30 1XI) -ct��t-t5F4 c� i l/J Eli vj�:) pru5D At �'1 1 -c7;� 'C-LlC�tt� ►,A 6-I ° o,5 oC), J t,J b b t,T-,> -01� j f�`: T;TAU(.e-D WN -A EXHIBIT E CITY OF ATASCADERO ASSESSOR'S PARCEL MAP COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ROAD ABANDONMENT 02-90 ..ois DEPARTMENT r Prrv: CITY or,'AtkscADEAd' a u _ 30 Qg SOS • V s A. AVF r ® t c; S1 A ► �� fir, G) '� � � � � � �,, 492 s aa. I - (D �. 0r,• tsp 50 COURTN T OF 1101009TH"Tn7A ooat al Tm O ►o q TAW snap Is for InformMoml purposes - aoA Is TWO r"onn 6 8oiaasMSA y P%) reeponatDltl y at nabmw he les Aer` p VD10 � ..ot swum ww 56 aso�aawrw 9� w�,•+► NO Pln.A.O.S. No.1,R.M. 8k.5,Pg.l E� / CITY OF ATASCADERO Pin.Eaglet No.2.ft.M.8k.2.Pg.39 • / Assessor's Mop Bk.30—Po.49 R«. s-..•�� ..►.,.....ter County of Son Luis Obispo,Calif. EXHIBIT F CITY OF ATASCADERO ASSESSOR' S PARCEL MAP i vT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ROAD ABANDONMENT 02-90 DEPARTMENT PTN. CITY OF ATASCADERO30-50.1 ;4 Is 8r. ` •• ♦ x.10 u•.e tie 41 T'=1.r • •f 1 = 9 49 ell . _ ._� �: •� •� ,.a r ® '�.•'.,. - 502 • ' 1. a r� • A6•' •.. '4 MMM' : e• '/ •••AC + O PTN. 2 O �Q 501QD) `di Q •''� 51 w 1►� �I.a• .NAC. !. sAAo• • O _ '® 3 � �.r`i it nuN.rN' SAC Is 9` - 1 1MC sr •.i rArs•NN AA/// ,x itE AL •VI•«'II qY►1I EL +CAMINO t (OLD Y. wi I CITY OF ATASCADERO T `w opfet No.Is Mitchells R•sub. No.I of Lt.3 ofSto�ry 1 Sub. Assessor's Mop 8h.3O—Pp 30 R.M. 6lc.2,Pq.11rS County of Son Luis Obispo.Cany. P►n.A.O.S. No.1, R.M.BR3,Pp./ Eaglet No.2.R.M. 8R.2,Pp's.388S6 EXHIBIT G CITY OF ATASCADERO it ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION COWUN=DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 6500 PALMA AVE. ATASCADERO, CA 93422 (805)461-5035 APPLICANT: 14. P. P E 7-E K 5 o N 5 r E v E D E LIESV c F-"z l 9515 EL 00k1400 29(,o 9A6v1<14ryL Liv. i47't45G�9J�trt��jGiA SA /v Z-iliS OB/SPo PROJECT TITLE: R0144) 1484 N Uo N /moi N T 02- -9O • u5 oFF o1= rL C�4M/ivo REi9L ci'E7'4 EF�tJ PROJECT LOCATION: G 7'A rZ.D. C ILA LI'A"A d P911VC i P64L . PROJECT DESCRIPTION: T O F 7-Se: 6-v S 7`14 R . R 64_r- OF -CIL/im v . FINDINGS: 1. The project does not have the potential to degrade the environment. 2. The project will not achieve short-term to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. 3. The project does not have impacts which are individually limited, but comulatively considerable. 4. The project will not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings either directly or indirectly. DETERNIINATION: Based on the above findings, and the information contained in the initial study(made a part hereof by refer- ence and on file in the Community Development Department), it has been determined that the above project will not have an adverse impact on the environment. enry Engen Communitybevelopment Director Date Posted: zrv q 3)j 11 ­1 o Date Adopted: A v 6-v s 7- z. w i o • cnn„-ea • Exhibit H - Findings for Approval Road Abandonment 02-90 Gusta Rd. (Peterson/Devencenzi) ENVIRONMENTAL FINDING: The proposed project will not have a significant impact on the environment. The Negative Declaration prepared for the project is adequate. PROJECT FINDINGS: 1. The proposed abandonment is consistent with the General Plan. 2. The right-of-way is not suited for development as a non- motorized transportation facility, i.e. primarily for the use of pedestrians, bicyclists, or equestrians. • 3. The right-of-way is not necessary for future road purposes of public access or safety. 4. The proposed abandonment will not adversely affect the provision of any existing or future utilities. EXHIBIT I DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. -90 A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO SUMMARILY VACATING A PORTION OF A ROAD PURSUANT TO STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE; PART 3, PUBLIC STREETS, HIGHWAYS AND SERVICE EASEMENTS VACATION LAW; CHAPTER 4 , SUMMARY VACATION; 8333 (BEING THE GUSTA ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY) WHEREAS, Streets and Highways Code 8330 permits summary vacation of a street or highway by adoption of a resolution of summary vacation; and WHEREAS, Gusta Road, as shown on the attached Exhibit, has been determined to be actually superseded by relocation and has been impassable for vehicular travel for at least five consecutive years and no public money was expended for its ' maintenance during that time; and WHEREAS, the vacation of Gusta Road will not work to cut off access to any person' s property which, prior to relocation or va- cation adjoined the street or highway to be vacated; and WHEREAS, the vacation of Gusta Road will not affect any in- place, in-use public utility facility or will not terminate a public service easement; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code 65402, the City Planning Commission has recommended to the Council its ' finding that vaca- tion of Gusta Road is in conformance with the City' s General Plan; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Streets and Highways Code 2381, the City Planning Commission has recommended to the Council its' finding that Gusta Road is not suitable or useful as a non-motorized trans- portation facility, or that adequate easements have been retained for such purposes . NOW THEREFORE, it is hereby resolved as follows: 1 . Based upon the above findings, the Council now finds and declares the above-described road right-of-way to be unuseable as a non-motorized transportation facility, or that adequate easements have been retained for such purposes. 2 . Based upon the above findings, the Council now finds and declares the proposed vacation of this road right-of-way to be in conformance with the City' s General Plan. Resolution No. -90 Page Two 3 . The Council now summarily vacates, pursuant to Streets and Highways Code, Part 3 , Chapter 4 , 8330 Gusta Road as shown on attached Exhibits subject to the following conditions of approval: (a) The property owner shall indemnify and "hold harmless" the City from claims that may arise from the abandonment procedure. This agreement shall be reviewed and found acceptable by the City Attorney. (b) Lot mergers shall be completed prior to or simultaneously to the recording of the abandonment resolution. (c) Property owners shall obtain fee title to Gusta Road. (d) A 30 foot easement shall be reserved for drainage, access, and utility purposes. (e) A City-standard drive approach onto E1 Camino Real shall be constructed prior to recording the abandonment. (f) All conditions of approval must be completed prior to or simultaneously to the recording of the abandonment reso- lution. The required legal descriptions and documents are hereby made a part of this resolution. 4 . That from and after the date this resolution is recorded with the County Recorder, the road right-of-way shown on the attached Exhibit shall no longer be or constitute a street or highway. 5 . The City Clerk shall cause a certified copy of this Resolution of Summary Vacation, attested by him/her under seal, to be recorded without acknowledgment, certificate of acknowledg- ment, or further proof in the office of the County Recorder. On motion by and seconded by the motion was approved by the following roll vote: AYES: NOTES: ABSENT: DATE ADOPTED: By: Robert B. Lilley, Mayor City of Atascadero, California Resolution No. -90 Page Three ATTEST: LEE DAYKA, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: RAY WINDSOR, City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: ARTHER MONTANDON, City Attorney PREPARED BY: HENRY ENGEN Community Development Director • CUESTA ENGMERING 6717 Mono Road Ahm=dero,CA 93422 (805)466-827 August 21 , 1990 Mr. Doug Davidson Planning Department City of Atascadero �. 6500 Palma Ave. Atascadero, Ca. 93422 Subject: GGustt2-9Rooad Abandonment Dear Doug, I have reviewed the Staff Report and draft resolution for this project on behalf of Don Messer and the owners of APN 30-502-02, the undeveloped I property across from Santa Maria Tire. The proposed abandonment does not l pose any problems in concept. However,, we. would like clarification on several conditions in the draft resolution. We would like to see the following rewording of 3(d) into two separate items as follows; 3(d) A 30 foot easement shall be reserved on behalf of i of the public for drainage and utility purposes. 3(g) Reciprocal easements for a 30 foot access easement shall be granted by adjacent property owners. Easement documents shall be prepared for simultaneous recording with the abandonment resolution. Please advise me regarding the best way to incorporate these changes in the resolution. Sincerely, eborah Hollowell I 87-035 i � ' ''.. cc: Don Messer �,:,: ��' � •. + AUG 211990 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, - -- -r — —_ o HEARINGS, APPEARANCES, AND REPORTS LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT 12-90 : Application filed by David Ferguson and Charl Johnson entral Coast Engineering) to adjust t lot line be een two existing lots of record re ting in the redu 'on in size of an existing n conforming lot. Subject ite is located at 7600 E1 iro and 7555 Mira Flores. (Commissioner Lopez albontin is present - 7 :35 p.m. ) Steve Decamp presented ie aff report on this subject. Staff is recommending ap val of the request subject to specific "Findings" and ert ' Conditions of Approval . He noted letters from ad j en t prop -ty owners supporting the lot line adjustment. Dennis Schmid ith Central Coast Engi ering, representing the applica , spoke in support of the equest indicating concurren with the recommendation. He co ended staff on a fine eport. MO ON: By Commissioner Hanauer, seconded by Con 'ssioner Luna and carried 6:0 to approve Lot Line Add tment 12-90 subject to the Findings and Condition of Approval. 2 . ROAD ABANDONMENT 02-90 : Application filed by H.D. Peterson (Steve Devencenzi, agent) to abandon the Gusta Road right-of-way (off of El Camino Real between La Linia and Principal) . Doug Davidson presented the staff report noting that this right-of-way is not necessary for future road or utility pur- poses. Staff is recomiuending approval as reflected in the draft resolution. Mr. Davidson referenced a letter from Cuesta Engineering representing Don Messer' s property re- questing modification of Condition #3-d contained in the resolution. He indicated staff does not have a problem with .the modification. Commission questions and discussion followed. Steve Devencenzi, agent for the applicant, clarified that the two square parcels that were previously discussed are owned by Don Messer as well as the alley way in fee title, and it is Mr. Messer' s intent to develop the entire property that fronts 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 with Cuesta Engineering' s modifications, and noted that concerns have been expressed by Mr. Allen, owner of the adjacent property. Hurst Allen, Santa Maria resident and owner of property adjoining Gusta Road, read a statement opposing the road abandonment pointing out that he wants his property to have frontage on two public streets for insurance purposes. He added that he is currenting leasing this site to Santa Maria Tire. Ray Bunnell stated that during hearings for his property (Chalk Mountain village) , comments were expressed about how bad the intersection at La Linia and El Camino Real is as well as the difficulty in possibly obtaining more right-of-way from Mr. Peterson or DeCou Lumber. Since this abandonment appears to be to 'Mr. Peterson' s benefit, maybe there is an opportunity for the City to negotiate for some added right-of-way to possibly improve the intersection and relieve some traffic concerns involving his project. Opal Allen expressed concern with the drainage problems in the area which creates a health situation during rainy seasons and asked that a drainage study be made before making a decision on this road abandonment. She also stated that if the road is abandoned, it will devalue properties surrounding Gusta Road. Chairperson Lochridge clarified that this application involves only the issue of abandoning the Gusta Road right-of-way. Mrs. Allen further discussed future advantages of keeping Gusta Road. Harold Peterson, applicant, indicated he sent a letter to the Allens noting that he would maintain the street and mitigate drainage concerns. He added that Mr. Messer has communicated that he will be developing the adjoining property and will construct a cul-de-sac and approach to the rear. Mr. Peterson further stated that he constructed the road 30 years ago. Mr. Devencenzi clarified that a maintenance agreement has been required as a condition of approval and discussed drainage mitigation issues. In responding to Mr. Bunnell' s comments, he voiced his feeling that Mr. Bunnell' s proposed off-site improvements should be considered on its own merits and not tied to this request. in response to question from Commissioner Lopez-Balbontin, Mr. Devencenzi replied that Gusta Road would still be used as access to Mr. Peterson's property, Santa Maria Tire (Allen property) , and possibly in the future, Mr. Messer' s property. Dave Mosher, E1 Centro resident, made some comments concerning the drainage on El Centro. Mr. Allen discussed Mr. Peterson's letter concerning provis- ions of maintenance for Gusta Road. He objected to the maintenance agreement. Mr. Bunnell stated that perhaps the road abandonment should have a drainage condition tied into La Linia so all the drainage improvements would not be borne solely by him. Discussion followed concerning assurance of maintenance agreements, development standards for improving the road, etc. Commissioner Lopez-Balbontin expressed concern that there are not any development plans; therefore, it would be difficult to determine what type of road improvements would be required. Mr. Decamp explained that Gusta Road is a road that goes no where. The City would not have an interest in maintaining it. He also indicated that previous discussions had been held with Don Messer regarding the benefits of abandoning the road. Chairperson Lochridge referenced Mr. Messer' s prior bowling alley project on the adjacent property wherein the road would be developed to the driveway standard. MOTION: By Commissioner Highland and seconded by commission- er Hanauer to recommend approval of Road Abandonment 2-90 subject to the findings and conditions con- tained in the draft resolution but as modified by staff at Cuesta Engineering' s request. The motion carried with the following roll call : There was further discussion concerning whose responsibility would it be for drainage improvements as other properties develop. In response to question by Chairperson Lochridge, Mr. Decamp explained that any road or driveway maintenance agreement would probably occur at the time of development and added that at the present time, all that will exist is an approach so there is nothing to maintain; therefore, it is a matter for the private property owners to agree upon. AYES: Commissioners Highland, Hanauer, Brasher, Luna, and Chairperson Lochridge ABSTAIN: Commissioner Lopez-Balbontin (counted as "AYE" vote per the Commission Rules of Pro- cedure) ABSENT: Commissioner Waage Chairperson Lochridge declared a break at 8:38 p.m. ; meeting reconvened at 8 :47 p.m. RESOLUTION NO. 114-90 A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO SUMMARILY VACATING A PORTION OF A ROAD PURSUANT TO STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE; PART 3, PUBLIC STREETS, HIGHWAYS AND SERVICE EASEMENTS VACATION LAW; CHAPTER 4, SUMMARY VACATION; 8333 (BEING THE GUSTA ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY) (PETERSON) WHEREAS, Streets and Highways Code 8330 permits summary vacation of a street or highway by adoption of a resolution of summary vacation; and WHEREAS, Gusta Road, as shown on the attached Exhibit, has been determined to be actually superceded by relocation and has been impassable for vehicular travel for at least five consecutive years and no public money was expended for its maintenance during that time; and WHEREAS, the vacation of Gusta Road will not work to cut off access to any person' s property which, prior to relocation or vacation, adjoined the street or highway to be vacated; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code 65402, the City Planning Commission has recommended to the Council its finding that vacation of Gusta Road is in conformance with the City' s General Plan; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Streets and Highways Code 2381 , the City Planning Commission has recommended to the Council its finding that Gusta Road is not suitable or useful as a non-motorized transporta- tion facility, or that adequate easements have been retained for such purposes . NOW! THEREFORE, it is hereby resolved as follows: 1 . Based upon the above findings, the Council now finds and declares the above-desribed road right-of-way to be unuseable as a non-motorized transportation facility, or that adequate easements have been retained for such purposes. 2 . Based upon the above findings, the Council now finds and declares the proposed vacation of this road right-of-way to be in conformance with the City' s General Plan. 3. The Council now summarily vacates, pursuant to streets and Highways Code, Part 3, Chapter 4, 8330 Gusta Road as shown on attached Exhibits subject to the following conditions of i approval: Resolution No. 114-90 Page Two (a) The property owner shall indemnify and "hold harmless" the City from claims that may arise from the abandonment procedure. This agreement shall be reviewed and found acceptable by the City Attorney. (b) Lot mergers shall be completed prior to or simultaneously to the recording of the abandonment resolution. (c) Property owners shall obtain fee title to Gusta Road. (d) A 30 foot easement shall be reserved on behalf of the public for drainage and utility purposes . (e) A City-standard drive approach onto El Camino Real shall be constructed prior to recording the abandonment. (f) All conditions of approval must be completed prior to or simultaneously to the recording of the abandonment reso- lution. The required legal descriptions and documents are hereby made a part of this resolution. (g) Reciprocal easements for a 30 foot access easement shall be granted by adjacent property owners. 4 . That from and after the date this resolution is recorded with the County Recorder, the road right-of-way shown on the attached Exhibit shall no longer be or constitute a street or highway. 5 . The City Clerk shall cause a certified copy of this Resolution of Summary Vacation, attested by him/her under seal, to be recorded without acknowledgement, certificate of acknowledge- ment, or further proof in the office of the County Recorder. On motion by Councilperson and seconded by Councilperson , the motion was approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: • DATE ADOPTED: Resolution No. 114-90 Page Three By: Robert B. Lilley, Mayor City of Atascadero, California ATTEST: LEE DAYKA, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: RAY WINDSOR, City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: ARTHER MONTANDON, City Attorney PREPARED BY: HEN ENGE Community revelopn4a Director • REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Item: B-4 Through: Ray Windsor, City Manaqer Meetinq Date: 9/25/90 File No: 90-178.005 Via: Henry Engen, Community Development Director By: Bill Wittmeyer, Compliance Official SUBJECT: BUSINESS LICENSE REVOCATION - Hearing to consider revocation of city business license #90216, Reggie b Shannon Brard, (R 6 S Plumbing), 8052 Cristobal. RECOMMENDATION: Conduct the public hearing and then continue the hearing to the October 30, 1990 meeting. BACKGROUND: June 27, 1990, the Community Development Department received complaint [exhibit "A"] signed by eight citizens (neighbors to subject business address) stating: "Business in a residential zoned neighborhood." Subsequently attempts were made to advise the Brard's of the violations: by mail [exhibits "B" L "C"] (the Brard's indicate that they did not receive the first correspondence due to incorrect addressing 8052 vs. 8042 Cristobal, vs. P. 0. Box). and by phone (August 17, 1990: message on answering machine), and finally, by personal visit to the Brard's residence at 7:00am on August 21, 1990. Bill Wittmeyer went to site and discussed conditions of operation with Mr. Brard and pointed that as they stood there, the operation was in violation of the City of Atascadero Zoning Ordinance and conditions of his business license and home occupation permit applications)/conditions: exhibits "D"and "E"]. August 29, 1990: Citation issued to Mr. Brard [copies: exhibit "F"1. September 14, 1990: Letter from David Peterson (attorney) [exhibit "G"], stating that the Brard's propose to "move from the Cristobal residence by September 19, 1990". September 18, 1990: Bill Wittmeyer verified that the Brard's (R L S Plumbing) have moved from the Cristobal address. ANALYSIS: Since the Brard's have moved from the Cristobal address, the conditions of violation no longer exist; the suspension of the license at this address is moot inasmuch as they moist now apply for a transfer. Revocation at this time would result in automatic denial of a new license at any location for six months (Municipal Code Section 3-5.310(f). The Brard's must apply now for a transfer of their license; such license can be reviewed and conditioned to address the original concerns of this action as well as conditions pertinent to the new location. Although the actual revocation process may appear to have been reduced to a "paper chase", the initiation, notification and pending consequences served well as a means to obtain abatement of the conditions of violation addressed in the citizen's compliant. cc: Reggie & Shannon Brard Encl: A - Complaint form B - First notification letter (June 27, 1990) (2 pages) C - Second notification letter (August 8, 1990) D - Business License Application (2 pages) E - Home Occupation Application (2 pages) F - Citation (August 28, 1990) • G - Attorney (Brard's) letter H - Excerpts/summary of Atascadero Municipal Code Section 3-5.310 I - Copies of Atascadero Municipal Code Section 3-5.310 (3 pages) Q z� CITY OF ATASCADERO' Community Development Department t Complaint Investigation Request ` WHERE : Address: 8052 Cristobal Avenue Legal: WHO : Owner: Reggie 6 Shannon Brard (R 6 S Plumbing) Y_. Occupant: ibid Y WHAT : I believe that the following violation(s) of the BUILDING and/or ZONING Code(s) of the City of Atascadero exist at the above address: "Business in a residential zoned neighborhood." BY WHOM CUMFINTR «, Origin of complaint: neighbors (8) rf (phone) 466-6142 Questions contact: Sill Wittmeyer, Compliance Official 461-5034 x; . 90- 178 . 005 June 27, 1990 Reggie & Shannon Brard 8042 Cristobal Avenue Atascadero, CA 93422 SUBJECT: 8042 Cristobal Avenue page one of two Dear Mr. and Mrs. Brard: Please be advised that the city has received a formal complaint regarding the operation of your plumbing business from the subject address. The style and mode of operation described in the complaint submittal is in violation of Section 9-6.105 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Municipal Code of the City of Atascadero: "(c) Employees. No person other than members of the household residing on the premises may be employed and working on the site, except that employees, including independent ` . contractors, partners, and similar employee-type relationships, may be permitted by adjustment (Section 9-1.112) as follows: (1) The number of employees shall be unlimited, if the following criteria can be complied with: (i) The employees do not work at or report to the site of the home occupation during, or immediately before or after, the normal operation hours of the business. (ii) No additional vehicles, equipment, or outside storage shall occur at the residence as a result of the increased number of employees. "(h) Parking and Traffic: Traffic generated by a home occupation is not to exceed the volume normally expected for a residence in a residential neighborhood. All parking needs of the home occupation are to be met off the street. For purposes of this Section, normal residential traffic volume means up to 10 trips per day. This Subsection does not apply to garage or handcraft sales pursuant to Subsection (f)(1). ti- J' [continued] r i 13 CP Page tWD of tro • "(e) Limits on the Kinds of Home Occupations Allowable: Subject to all of the standards of this Section, allowable home occupations consist of: "(1) Office-type personal or business services (including personal instruction such as music lessons or contracting services not involving on-site storage of materials or equipment) that do not involve the presence of more than one client vehicle at any time;" You are directed to correct the referenced condition no later than July 31, 1990. Failure to do so may result in referral to the City Attorney for legal remedy (which may be in the form of either civil or criminal complaint, or both) . Please contact me if there are any questions; I am generally available throughout the day at: 461-5034. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, Wm B Wittmeyer Compliance Official cc: File 90-178.005 12121 Steve DeCamp, City Planner i C August 8, 1990 Peggie & Shannon Brard 8042 Cristobal Avenue Atascadero, CA 93422 SUBJECT: 8042 Cristobal Avenue Dear Mr, and Mrs. Brard: This office has received renewed complaints regarding the continued operation of your business in a matter contrary to the provisions of your business license/home occupation permit, and in violation of the City of Atascadero Zoning Ordinance. Community Development Department staff has verified that there are as many as three commercial use vehicles maintained at the subject address, and further appearances which substantiate' the continued complaints. You are directed to immediately re-locate the commercial vehicles to an appropriate site and dis-continue the practice of having employees and/or supply deliveries at the subject address. Failure to do so may result in citation with no further notification and/or referral to the City Attorney for legal remedy (which may be in the form of either civil or criminal complaint, or both) . A copy of this correspondence will be forwarded to Steve DeCamp, City Planner, , for review and consideration of revocation of your business license and./or home occupation permit. Sincerely, Wm B Wittmeyer Compliance Official [461-50343 cc: File 90-178.005 [2271 Steve DeCamp, City Planner Art Montandon, City Attorney seadef® .-, QUESTIONS??? CALL VIVIAN AT 461-5017 'u`°"°` '"°'°""•1f7� BUS ,jESS LICENSE APPLICATIC 6500 PALMA AVENUE ATASCADERO CA 93422 ID R� APPLICANT:' e �-P � y ) C M24ERCIAL SITE ( ) HOME OCCUPATION ( ) OUT OF TOWN HOME ADDIRESS; CONTRACT TRATO Cdual 0 ( ) Partnership MAILING ADDRESS: (? - x_ ( ) Corporation ( ) Exempt �-{OTIA) Change of Add ' PHONE: Z Z FEDERAL I.D. NO: '( '� }� —Z7—ff�3 (Partnership Tax No. ) Social Security Number CORPORATION NO: Jb33.b Ca • STATE LICENSE NO: 3 Drivers License No. State � . RESALE PERMIT NO: BUSINESS NAME (dba) : �s BUSINESS ADDRESS: BUSINESS PHONE Respon able 0 ficer BUS IQb5.,. LING ADDRESS: jj� O'�� V C Title _ ATURE OF BUSINESS: 12 422 PERSONS HAVING INTEREST AND/OR GENERAL PARTNERS: *No. EMPLOYEES* FULL TIME Z/ PART TIME OWNER OF PREMISES: ADDRESS:_ a d�Z .S" � w *APARTMENTS/MOBILE PARKS STORAGE. U'idITS, VEiv7DING MAC, MOTEL ROOMS, ETC No. of UNITS : �P I hereby declare that the fo994 mati.on , to the best of my knowledge, true asignaturDATP / **Accuracy and completeness your application. will expedite the processing of t,"� �� • I j USE ONLY) ;, CMCJ LICENSE FEE: ZONE: 25 DATE PAID: 6�" C) RCPT. NO:Y LAND USE: mg o LICENSE NO: SPL. APPROVALS: TERM: I Li R_ ?It�i`90 EXPIRATION DATE: _ _i � *** CONDITIONS OR RESTRICTIONS*** DATE OF ISSUE: 1 N� c M►�[-CYE�s To (I,E�po2T F- - VJo2K- Z•' G.IGiSToBAir ,eflD . **RENEWALS** Z N� 9t v e1ZcE5 TQ �5e MA9e year c.R-�ST'or4h4. ,c�OrL�SS gcT-ort $ AMT. PD .... - . 7•o o Adv, 09- A•F'Teie. 7 :x 100' .. . .DATE 'P1T:" 3 ljo ou?s►�8 S-roR.A•cxE �,c.arvsD RCPT.NO: "'1 • -�v ' M.o¢:z Yrf?�rrN onk;.��)..4�+�rrnG?utau . EXPIRATION: V 10 f9E P 'D LST year $ AMT. PD: -- - DATE PD': RCPT.NO: EXPIRATION: PLANNING: POLICE: year FIRE: ` $ BUILLING AMT. PDc DATE PD: OTHER RCPT.NO: EXPIRATION: _ year year $ AMT. PD: $ AMT. PD: DATE PD: '• _ DATE PD: . RCPT. #: RCPT. - #: , .. .EXPIRATION: EXPIRATION: . year year $ ART.PD: $ AMT. PD: DATE PD: DATE PD: RCPT. #: RCPT. #: EXPIRATION: EXPIRATION: tas�adpL® ' r�rocwrco ww c. .. i HOME OCC UPgnpN ' (U A!-PUCA71 Name: _ x Home Address: Mailing Address; �S Please describe dettype business in ail the tofPhone: you would like to do: / Please state the name (if any) of Do You have Your business: any employees or Partners? Z' (� If SO, describe where the ark and work Describe by t asyp@� size and sociated with number, the you�'v l7 businessz a inven rY, iPment and/Or °thor materials How much Square foots Where will ge is needed YOU store to Store inventory,rY• materials, etc. No. of vehicles Y' equipment, etc.? used to conduct bus" .��. Garage House Do You have: mess: Other Garage_ Carport To what extent will -----A- Single Double ,] garage/carport None. of these 51 d e / (if any) be used 'v T in conjunction Do you pick up produ/matwith Your business? ct are products or materials for erials deli Product fromred.to Your P.2p1 rs? f not, how Do you deliver prod Your customers? to your customer? ,� If not, how will deliveries If Your business be made to or customerrs, cons' is of a Service, where will the work If your premises, explain; be done, on your premises Describe in detail how solicitation, word You Propose to of mouth referrals Obtain business; * * * * * * , etc.) Cam (Adverti.s * * * * * * * * * IQY U� elloq+ Pages, imposed:stand that if my home Occupation* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * is approved, the following 1) The home occu g conditions will be 2) pation shall be incidental and No changes will subordinate 3) No display occur in the residential character to the residential + uS@. J propertyaY of products for sale shall be visible the residence. isible from a Public street or � adjoining � 1 V Page Two Re: Home Occupation Application 4) No outdoor activities or storage on less than-one acre, exception instructional activities. Outdoor storage on one acre or more, only' if properly-screened. 5) Use of garage or accessory structure permitted as long as garage is not precluded from vehicle storage. 6) No employees permitted that do not reside at the resi&mce` (except by approval of an adjustment only) . 7) Hours of operation are unrestricted unless the use generates noise - then hours shall be restricted to between 7:00 a.m. arid -7:00- P.M. provided Section 9-4.163 (Exterior Noise Standards) are -comp]. ed with. - 8) Traffic generated by a home occupation shall not exceed the volume normally ex- pected for a residence except for garage or handcraft sales. 9) Home occupations are limited to: a) Office-type personal or business services.. b) Personal instruction, one client vehicle at a time. ' c) Handcraft or artwork production, including but not limited to, pottery and ceramics, artistic glass or metal work, electronic components, woodcarving and woodworking (except for mAss-production operations such as cabinet shops) , antique furniture restoration, p"Ali ing and-photography,. except when such use involves onsite use of equipment requiring more than standard household elec- trical current at 110 or 220 volts or fhat prod.uces noise, dust, odor or vibra- tib*n"deirimental to occupants of adjoining dwellings. d) The personal sale of co'tmetics, personal or household products (except appli- ances) , or other goods or products; when such sales occur on the premises of the purchaser, provided that wholesale sales may occur pursuant to Condition #10 below or occur off-the premises in some other approved location. 10) All onsite retail sales are prohibited except: a) Garage sales or the sale of handcrafted items and artwork produced onsite are allowed not more than twice per year, for a maximum of two days per sale; and b) ' Home distributors-of-cosmetics-and personal or household products may supply other approved home occupation proprietors. 11) One identification sign with a maximum area of two square feet. A commercial vehi- cle carrying any sign identifying the` home occupation and parked on or adjacent to the residential site visible from the public street is included in determining the maximum allowable area of onsite fixed signs. 12) Full compliance with all conditions of Section 9-6.105 of the Atascadero Municipal Code as summarized above. I AM AWARE OF AND ACCEPT ALL OF THE ABOVE CONDITIONS AND AGREE TO COMPLY WITH ALL REQUIREMENTS AND CONDITIONS STATED IN THE ATASCADERO MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 9-6.105 AS WELL AS ALL OTHER APPLICABLE CITY, COUNTY IT AND LL BSTATE REGULATIONS AND ANDO"IAY�CEESSV. I UNDERSTAND THAT IF APPROVED, THE PE T ED F VIOLATION OF ANY CONDITIONS. Sign a of Applicant Date�— Z'7 I AUGF7 30 1990 T POLICE DEPARTMENT•ATASCADERO NOTICE TO APPEAR COURT COPY T TI E °A�. NoA 28641 KAME(FIRST MIDDLE A M.11 ADDR S N i�A 2T) 0SZ rlTr • ST (� STA - ORI1(ERLICENSE 3 3� RT�6��. N TATE BIgTHOATE EX HAIR EYES Hl!EIGHT W GMT OTHER DESCRIPTIONS M F V• ) I ,o VEHICLE LICENSE NUMBER STATE EXPIRATIO TE PASSENGERS YEAR OF VEH. MAKEMODEL M F BODY STYL COLOR REGISTERED OWNER OR LESSEE SAME AS ABOVE I ADDRESS OF OWNER OR LE SAME AS ABOVE Rema checked are cited' CCtMdant:e with 40610(b)CVC—See arse ❑BOokin0 Re0uired V10 7�p Ng 13q \/ CO E SECTION DESCRIPTION ►tet U2tiC:t'I�AIJ I !`n ,� c l A ❑ v- C Lt ❑ 9-(o.Ib oar-cporz 5-cG ❑ ` EE tO�Cc - ►pc�y ,5 i 1��/ t AWROX.SFED /MAX S. ESPE -^L7 �G1 �YSe1C RADAR REFER CASENUMBER IOCATI N OF VIOLATIO Z r ON O 1i CS t� �. wMMENTS(WEATHER rlUA0 TRAFFICCONOITION' ❑OFFFNSEIS)NOT COMMITTED IN MY PRESENCE.CERTIFIED ON INFORMATION AND BELIEF. I CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUE AND CORRECT EXECUTED ON THE DATE SHOWN AT AT ISSUING OFFICER ATASCADERO. CALIF, , NAME ARRE I OFFICER IF ` DIFFERENT FROM ABOVE IAL N / y N Y1 C VACATION pATEB (��\ P TCE EECKED B LOW. U ADMITTIN GUIL IPROMISE TO PEA AT THE TIME AN TO v X$I AT r AJU A PASO COURT, ,54910th STREET,PASO ROBLES,CA ❑ JUYENnE COURT, MUST BRING PARENT JUVENILE SERVICES CENTER,HIGHWAY ONE AT KANSAS AVE.,SAN LUIS OBISPO Q POLICE DEPARTMENT,CITY OF ATASCADERO 4668600,WITHIN 30 DAYS i ❑ OA TE FORM AP►ItOYEO aT�un nl . �M��L\ BEY.7.1.44 V.C.40500,40513101.401 CALIF.C.553.9 " SEE REVERSE SIDE ��� 3 {�N NOUNCp •-- I i Law Firm i Of DAVID C. PETERSON SON CENTURY FEDERAL SAVINGS BUILDING , SECOND FLOOR Cynthia A.Peterson 6955 EL CAMINO REAL Phone Number(805)466-0686. Certified Legal Assistant ATASCADERO,CALIFORNIA 93422 Facsimile Number(805)466-3947 September 14, 1990 (HAND-DELIVERED) CITY OF ATASCADERO Attn. William B. Wittmeyer, Compliance Official and Art Montandon, City Attorney Administration Building 6500 Palma Avenue Atascadero, California 93422 RE: REGGIE BRARD/R & S PLUMBING Gentlemen: This letter will serve to follow our conversation and to outline what has been proposed to resolve this matter. Complaints were apparently made by neighbors of Mr. Brard concerning the operation of his business from his home. In response to these complaints you initiated an action against Mr. Brard including the issuance of a citation. In order to resolve this matter amicably with the city and to alleviate the concerns of Mr. Brard's neighbors, he proposes .that he move from the Cristobal residence by September 19, 1990. I trust that this proposal will be acceptable and will obviate the necessity for further action. _ Than v' for yotr courtesy and consideration. ours, David Peters i Pertinent excerpts from Section 3-5.310 of the City of Atascadero Municipal Code: (1) The City Council shall hear sworn testimony and shall consider other evidence concerning the conditions constituting cause to revoke the business license. (2) Respondents to revocation actions may be present at such hearinq, may be represented by Counsel, may present testimony, and may cross-examine witnesses. (3) The hearing need not be conducted according to technical rules relating to evidence and witnesses and may be continued from time to time. (4) The City Council shall deliberate upon evidence and make findings upon such evidence to support any action of the Council to revoke the business license or conditioned approval on such conditions as the City Council shall decide. Thereafter the City Council shall issue its order to the Respondent. (5) A copy of the order shall be served personally or by mail, postage pre-paid, certified, return receipt requested, to the licensee as set forth in the application for business license. (d) Upon the revocation of a license as provided in this section, no part of the license fee paid therefor shall be returned; but such license fee shall be forfeited to the City. (e) Whenever a license is revoked, the licensee shall return to the issuing agency any license, license stickers, or similar evidence of a license which has been revoked. (f) No other or further license shall be issued to the person(s) or party(ies) whose license has been so revoked within six (b) months from the date of such revocation. j i • 3-5.310 (T � _ 01) of the denial of renewal of such license. If a Health Department permit is required. for the enterprise, said permit must be com- pleted and submitted prior to or at the time of license renewal. Renewal of a license for a solicitor shall not be issued until the Police Department approves said renewal. (Ord. 174 § 4, 1988: Ord. 138 § 3-5.03.09, 1986) i Sec. 3-51 -3 10. Revocation of license (a) All,licenses issued under this title shall be issued issue to and accepted by all parties receiving the same with the expressed understanding that the City Council of the City of Atascadero may revoke the same at any time if satisfied that any of the restrictions of said license or the terms and condi- tions thereof have been violated, or that such license was ob- tained by intentional misrepresentations, or that the holder of I such license has used the license in the commission of a criminal act or a violation of this title; provided, however, that no license shall be revoked without first having given the licensee an opportunity to appear before and be heard by the.City Council on his own behalf. Pending such hearing and decision, the Council or the Business License Administrator may suspend such license for not more than sixty (60) days based upon written complaint submitted to the Business License Adminis- trator by the Council or any member thereof. i (b) Written notice of such hearing shall be given by theIN; Council to such party at least fifteen (15) days prior to the dateAx of such hearing. The time and place of such hearing shall be fixed by Council order and specified in such citation. v (c) The Council shall hold a hearing as provided as follows: (1) The City Council shall hear sworn testimony and shall consider other evidence concerning the conditions con- stituting cause to revoke the business license. �J 139 (Atascaaero io-sa) > .`r i i 3-5.311 C2) (2) Respondents to revocation actions may be present at such hearing, may be represented by Counsel, may C present testimony, and may cross-examine witnesses. ` (3) The hearing need not be conducted according to j technical rules relating to evidence and witnesses and may be continued from time to time. (4) The City Council shall deliberate upon the evidence and make findings upon such evidence to support any action of the. Council to revoke the business license or con- ditioned approval on such conditions as the City Council shall decide. Thereafter, the City Council shall issue its order to the Respondent. ! (5) A copy of the order shall be served personally or by mail, postage pre-paid, certified, return receipt requested, to the licensee as set forth in the application for business license. (d) Upon the revocation of a license as provided in this section, no part of the license fee paid therefor shall be returned; but such license fee shall be forfeited to the City. (e)• Whenever a license is revoked, the.licensee shall , ! return to the issuing agency any license, license stickers, or— similar evidence of a license which has been revoked. . (f) No other or further license shall be issued to the 1 person(s) or party(ies)whose license has been so revoked within six (6) months from the date of such revocation. (Ord. 138 § 3-5.03.10, 1986) Sec. 3-5.311. Appeal ' Any person aggrieved by the action of the Business License Administrator in the denial of a permit or license, either new or renewal, shall have the right of appeal to the City Council. Such ! appeal shall be taken by filing with the Clerk of the City,within fifteen (15) days after notice of denial of a permit or license, a _ written statement setting forth fully the grounds foz the appeal The Clerk of the City shall set a time and place for a hearing on tAtas"duo io-ash J 140 � 1 ! f A 3-5.312-3-5.314 C3) T_ k ' such appeal and notice of such hearing shall be given to the appellant in the same manner as provided in this title for notice I17 of hearing on revocation. The decision and order of the City Council on such appeal shall be final and conclusive. The hearing shall be held pursuant to Section 3-5.310. (Ord. 138 § 3.5.03.11, 1986) Sec. 3-5.312. Keeping insurance, undertaking,etc.,in force and effect. Whenever this title requires the applicant for any license to procure, post, or maintain in effect any bond, undertaking, j deposit, surety, or policy of insurance, any license so issued is valid only when such bond, undertaking, deposit, surety, or policy of insurance is in full force and effect. Such license . t shall be automatically suspended without notice if at any time such bond, undertaking, deposit, surety, or policy of insurance is not in full force and effect. If a new bond, undertaking, deposit, surety, or policy of insurance acceptable to the Council is filed before cancellation or expiration of the old policy, etc., becomes effective, then the license will continue in force. (Ord. 138 § 3-5.03.12, 1986) I Sec. 3-5.313. Duplicate licenses. A duplicate license may be issued by the issuing agency to replace any license previously issued under this title which has been lost or destroyed, upon the licensee filing an affidavit with the issuing agency attesting to such fact and paying the sum requested for the cost thereof. (Ord. 138 § 3-5.03.13, 1986) >. Sec. 3-5.314. Transfer of license.. (a) The licensee, upon payment of a fee, may transfer TT his license to do business to another site upon application to the j 141 (Atascadero 11-86) • REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: B-5 Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 9/25/90 From: Henry Engen, Community Development Director JAL SUBJECT: Ordinance No. 210, a Condominium Conversion Moratorium Ordinance. Consideration of an urgency interim ordinance to place a moritorium on condominium conversions of existing rental apartments. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the attached draft ordinance (4/5ths vote required for passage) . BACKGROUND: On July 11 , 1990, the City Council considered a proposed condomin- ium conversion of the 64-unit apartment complex at 11145 E1 Camino Real' (TTM 2-90) . Review of the record of the Planning Commission' s recommendation for denial of this proposal considered the results of an analysis by City staff of the increased incidence of condo- minium conversion activity. The goals and policies of both the Housing Element and the Land Use Element call for monitoring such activity and for adopting a condominium conversion ordinance, if necessary, to insure a continuing supply of low and moderate rental housing. Action of the Council was to reluctantly uphold the appeal owing to the lack of a condominium conversion ordinance and to direct staff to: ( 1) Draft an interim urgency ordinance while this matter is being studied, and (2) Draft a condominium conver- sion ordinance for future consideration. ANALYSIS : The attached draft ordinance applies to the conversion of existing rental housing to either condominiums or stock cooperative owner- ship. It would "grandfather" applications for condominium conversion which were formally accepted by the City as complete as of September 251 1990. Any other applications would be returned, unprocessed, to applicants who would be advised that they could re-apply after this ordinance expires and/or is replaced by a con- dominium conversion ordinance with appropriate standards . HE:ph Encl : Draft Ordinance No. 210 ORDINANCE NO. 210 AN INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO AMENDING THE ATASCADERO MUNICIPAL CODE CREATING A MORATORIUM ON THE APPROVAL OF PERMITS FOR THE CONVERSION OF EXISTING MULTI-FAMILY RENTAL UNITS TO CONDOMINIUMS OR A STOCK COOPERATIVE (CITY COUNCIL INITIATED) WHEREAS, Section 65858 of the Government Code authorizes the adoption by local legislative bodies of interim ordinances as urgency measures to protect the public safety, health and welfare; and WHEREAS, said ordinances may be adopted as urgency measures prohibiting actions which may be in conflict with a contemplated zoning proposal which the legislative body, Planning Commission or Community Development Department is considering, or studying, or intends to study within a reasonable time; and WHEREAS, the City' s Housing Element to the General Plan calls for the City to "monitor and consider regulation of condominium conversions to insure that the supply of low and moderate rental housing is not significantly decreased"; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Department has been moni- toring requests for conversion of rental housing to condominium ownership and has reported to the Planning Commission and Council that approximately 27 1/2 percent of the City' s multi-family units will have converted to condominiums with the approval of Tentative Tract Map 02-90, which would increase from 566 units to 630 units the number of converted rental units in the City; and WHEREAS, this increase of 64 represents an 11; increase over- all in the extent of condominium conversions; and WHEREAS, there has been a dramatic decline in the construction of offsetting new rental housing, with only ten (10) new apartment units being requested for construction in Calendar Year 1990; and WHEREAS, the City' s General Plan addresses this issue by reciting in Residential Policy No. 17 a variety of issues that should be addressed in any condominium conversion ordinance adopted by the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council has directed staff to prepare a com- prehensive condominium conversion ordinance to address these concerns; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on September 25, 1990; and Ordinance No. 21D Page Two WHEREAS, such urgency measures shall require a four-fifths vote of the legislative body for adoption. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Atascadero does ordain as follows : Section 1. Council Findings. 1. The proposed code amendment is in conformance with Section 65800 et seq of the California Government Code concerning zon- ing regulations. 2 . The proposed interim ordinance is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. 3. That further study is necessary to determine what legislation is proper for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare. 4. The moratorium on further conversion of existing multi-family rental units may avoid approving conversion that would con- flict with the standards of the pending condominium conversion ordinance. 5 . That there is a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, or welfare, and that the approval of additional subdivision maps for the conversion of existing multi-family rental units to condominium or stock cooperative ownership would result in a threat to public health, safety, or welfare. Section 2 . Municipal Code Text Addition. The following is hereby added to the City' s Municipal Code (Non-Codified Addition) , to read as follows: Condominium Conversions. All applications for conversion of existing multi-family rental units to condominium or stock cooperative ownership are hereby prohibited except for the processing of subdivision maps formally accepted as complete as of September 25, 1990. Existing multi-family rental units are units which have been constructed and have had approval of a final building inspection authorizing occu- pancy. Section 3. This ordinance is adopted under Government Code Section 65858 Ordinance No. 210 Page Three and is in full force and effect for forty-five (45) days and may be extended as provided in Government Code Section 65858. Section 4. The City Council hereby declares that this is an urgency ordinance necessary to preserve the public peace, health and safety due to the facts set forth above. Section 5 . This ordinance being an urgency ordinance for the immediate protection of the public safety, health and general welfare, con- taining a declaration of the facts constituting the urgency and passed by a four-fifths (4/5) vote of the Council shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. Section 6 . The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published once within fifteen (15) days after its passage in the Atascadero News, a newspaper of general circulation, printed, published and circulated in the City in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code; shall certify the adopting and posting of this ordinance, and shall cause this ordinance and this certification together with proof of posting to be entered into the Book of Ordi- nances of this City. On motion by and seconded by , the foregoing ordinance is hereby adopted in its entirety by the ollowing roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: DATE ADOPTED: CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA ATTEST: ROBERT B. LILLEY, Mayor LEE DAYKA, City Clerk Ordinance No. 210 Page Four APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: RAY WINDSOR, City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: ARTHER MONTANDON, City Attorney PREPARED BY: HE Y ENGEN Community Development irector M MEETIt DAT 1190 ffEM��..,�.. M E M O R A N D U M TO: Ray Windsor, City Manager FROM: Greg Luke , Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Memorandum of Agreement for Waste Management Plan DATE: September 7, 1990 The attached Memorandum of Agreement regarding the waste management planning associated with AB939- is moving through the various committees and commissions at the County level . Basically, the Agreement moves the authority for waste planning from the County to the Area Council . It assigns staff, revenue and administrative authority to the Area Council . Responsibilities and duties of the member Cities and County are also delineated. I am bringing this matter to your attention because the waste management staff wants to have all parties act on the agreement by October 1 , 1990 . To do so, this matter will have to be on the September 25 City Council agenda . The Solid Waste Task Force (Councilmember Nimmo, Member) will review the Agreement on September 13 and the Area Council (Councilmember Borgeson , Member) will consider the matter on September 19 . I am not aware of any major issues or disagreements among the Cities concerning the Agreement . However, considering the "fast track" that it is on, Councilmembers may find it prudent to review the document and make their comments known now rather than wait until the September 25 Council Meeting when the Agreement will be procedurally difficult to modify . Y San Luis Obispo Area Coordinating Council Arroyo Grradnero e Atasca Grover City Morro Bay and Regional I'muisportation Planning Agency Paso Robles Pismo Beach San Luis Obispo - San Luis Obispo County SEPTEMBER 7, 1990 TO: COUNTY ADVEMSMATTVE OFFICER AND ALL CITY MANAGERS/ADKMISTRATCPS P-1-1b FROM: RONALD L. DE CARLI, PROGRAM MANAGER SUBJECT: M E[RANDUM OF AG dMMU CK THE COUNTY INTBGRA ED SOLID WASTE MA!QZRDI= PROGRAM Attached for your information is a draft staff report and Memorandum of Agreement (K)A) delineating the roles and responsibilities for preparing the County Integrated Waste Management Program. This staff report will be reviewed by the County Solid Waste Task Force on Septembex 13th; and forwarded to the Area Cauicil on September 19th for approval and distribution to all jurisdictions for execution. The staff report simunarizes the backgrourr3 and present status of the Program, as well as key issues of potential concern. The draft MOA has undergone significant review and revision. with a subommittee of the Solid Waste Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to assure all jurisdiction's concerns are addressed. The full TRIC subsequently, reviewed and unanimously approved the MOA for submittal to the Solid Waste Task Force on August 30th. Additionally, I have requested that legal Counsel concurrently forward the document to each of your legal counsels for their input. I hope this process will expedite approval of the MDA while assuring your Concerns are addressed. I believe this MOA reflects one of the best agreements possible given th divergent views of the TAC members. Please give me a call at 549-5714, if you have any concerns on this draft, so that I can express your thoughts at the Task Force meeting. Thank you. cc. legal Counsel C County Government Center, San Luis Obispo, CA 93408 (805) 549-5710 -----� SAN LUIS OBISPO AREA COORDINATING COUNCIL STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: - SEPIEMBER 19, 1990 SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM OF AG JMNa4TL)ELTNF.AT M ROIES AND RESPONSIBILT= FOR PREPARTW, UM COUNTYWIDE INTEGRATED SOLID kAS'I'E NANAG M04T PIAN SUMKARY On July lith your Council approved a reooamendation of the countywide Solid Waste Incal Task Force (LTF) to assume the lead agency role for Preparing the . City and County Source Reduction arra Recycling Elements (SRRE) and the County Integrated Waste Management Plan (C OIWMP) pursuant to the California Integrated Solid Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) . The County Board of Supervisors on July 24th considered your action and approved the following concept to implement the planning and coordinative activities associated with AB 939, for your . 1. Allocate the Senior Planner position approved in the County Eng. Department's 1990/91 budget to the Planning Department budget. 2. Approve a transfer of the 1990/91 appropriation of $300,366 for the AB 939 Program frcm the Engineering Dgmrtment to the Planning Dept. 3. Request the Area Council enter into an agreement with the County to provide services through the Planning Department to fulfill the Planning functions required by AB 939. 4. Program financing would be derived frau the equivalent of a $1.00/ton tipping fee collected at all public landfills in the County. A consolidated Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) has been prepared identifying roles, responsibilities and funding arrangements for the program. M-ds MOA replaces the need for a new joint powers agreement (JPA) by placing the program under the auspices of your Council through the enc;st-;r,g JPA. Additionally, by delineating the staffing, roles, responsibilities and funding arrangements in the MOA it eliminates the need for a second MOA requested in the above Board action. By prior agreement, member jurisdictions agreed to hire a consultant to prepare the plan, hire a senior planner as local staff support, and fund the program through the above mentioned tipping fee. A consultant contract for services is attached as a separate agenda item. Recruitment is also proceeding for the above referenced staff position which will, under the supervision of your Program Manager, serve as a Project Coordinator to manage the consultant contract and serve as a liaison between the Consultant, the County, the seven cities, waste haulers, E-1-1 recyclers, and the general public. Technical advice for plan preparation is being provided by a previously established Solid Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) consisting of technical staff from from each jurisdiction, sanitary districts, County Service Areas, Special Districts, Cal Poly, a recycling representative, and a waste hauler representative. TAC provides technical advice to a Solid Waste Task Force consisting of elected officials from the County and each city, and one representative from each of the following: the environmental community, waste haulers, recycling companies, and the general public. All items that will be submitted for your Council consideration will be reviewed by these two committees. F�COMMEniOATI0NS Staff: Cancer with the above management concept; and approve NIDA and authorize its distribution for member ratification. Solid Waste Technical Advisory Committee: Support. Solid Waste Task Force: BACKGROUND The California Integrated Solid Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) requires each city and county to prepare and submit to the California Integrated Waste Management Board for review and approval by July 1, 1991 a Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) . Each SIM must include a program for the management of solid waste generated within each city and county encompassing at a Minimum the following components: waste characterization, source reduction, recycling, composting, solid waste facility capacity, education and public information, funding, special waste, and household hazardous waste. All SRRE's must comply with complex state regulations including mandated waste diversion goals of 25% by 1/1/95 and 50% by 1/1/2000. Administrative civil penalties of up to $10,000 per day can be imposed by the state if SIM's are not developed or are determined to be inadequate. AB 939 also requires each county to prepare, adopt and submit to the state a county Integrated Waste Management Plan (COI6dp) , that incorporates all city and county SRR Elements and a includes a facility siting element. This Plan must be adopted by the Board of Supervisors and a majority of the cities representing a majority of the population in the county. The Act also requires each county to convene a local task force to assist in developing a coordinated and cost-effective Plan and iMplaw tatlon program- The County and the cities previously agreed that the prior County Solid Waste Management Commission should assume these mandated responsibilities and be renamed the Solid Waste Task Force. This Task Force has established the aforementioned technical committee (TAC) to provide technical recommendations to the Task Force. This approach is similar to your Council's CTAC and TTAC advisory committees. During the Spring, 1990, all member jurisdictions adopted a MOA agreeing to: 1) a collective regional approach to meet the requirements of AB 939; 2) hire a consultant and a project coordinator (staff) to work directly with the TAC and Task Force to prepare an SRRE for each jurisdiction as E-1-2 well as the CDIWMP; and 3) recommend that the County and the City of Paso Robles levy the equivalent of a $1.00/ton tipping fee at the public landfills in the County to pay for the preparation of these plans. At your Council's July meeting you approved a recommendation of the Task Force to staff and become the lead agency for the preparation of the SRREs and the CDIWMP. The County of San Luis Obispo has been previously staffing this effort through the County Engineering Department by advancing funds that would eventually by reimbursed by the tipping fee. It was agreed that County Engineering staff would continue to staff this function with the input of your Council's Program Manager until such time that a Project coordinator was hired arra for a snort transitional time period thereafter. Your council further directed the preparation of a MQA delineating roles, responsibilities, and funding arrangements and the development of a budget for adoption as required in your Council's Joint Powers Agreement. This MOA is attached for your approval. The budget is provided in a subsequent staff report. DISCUSSION Following your Council's action, the County Board of Supervisors on July 24th approved four proposed actions previously identified in the Summary for your conceptual approval. It differs frcxn your Council's action in that the county agrees to' appropriate from the County General Fund an amount equivalent to the budget approved by your Council, upon approval by the County Board of Supervisors, to the County Planning Department, rather than directly to the Area Council. Concurrently, it asks your Council to enter into an agreement with the County for the County to provide services through the County Planning Department. Funding cannot be allocated directly to the Area council as the Council is outside the County budget process- The rocess.The issue is largely technical and administrative in nature resulting from the unique arrangements of the Area council and the County. Through the existing Joint Powers Agreement the County provides the Area council office space, furniture, supplies and general office support. All specific expenses relating to its transportation planning functions are rem by the Area Council as specified in its annual budget and work program. These support .functions, as well as staffing, have historically been provided in the county department of the appointed Executive Director, the County Planning Director. The County Planning Director has delegated all responsibilities for directing the Area Council to your Program Manager since 1984. The Area Council has, since 1984, act-:ed as an independent agency under the direction of your Program Manager. Staff believes the proposed arrangement is acceptable, providing the prior level of autonmy is retained; and recommends your Council support the arrangement due to the stringent State deadlines for this plan and the willingness of the County to provide the necessary "up-front" funding on a raiment basis. The attached MOA clarifies the history of the program, and delineates the previously discussed roles, responsibilities, staffing and funding arrangements in some sixteen points of agreement. Of particular note are the following provisions: E-1-3 Provision 6. Clarifies the transfer of funding frown the County General Fund to County Planning. It further specifies that Your • Program Manager has the sole authority for release of funds from the trust account and clarifies continuation of the tipping fee until such time that the costs of plan preparation are fully reimbursed which may take several years for the tipping fee revenues to reimburse for the projected expenditures for plan preparation of the SRREs and the O�I4d�. Provision 7. Specifies that the County will provide the aforementioned "up-front" funds in an amount specified in an approved budget which acknowledges the unknown costs associated with phase two of the project, the developmmt of the ODIWKP which integrates the SRREs and includes a Countywide Siting Elment. Mus provision further clarifies the transitional responsibilities between the county Engineering and Area Council staff. Provision 8 Specifies the work tasks that will be reimbursed through the tipping fee. Of particular note is the provision that all consultant tasks requested by any jurisdiction above and beyond those included in the contract will not be reimbursed, and would therefore be the responsibility of the requesting jurisdiction. Mie consultant contract presently provides a maximum of two (2) meetings per jurisdiction for considering and adopting the SIM. Staff Report prepared by Ronald De Carli, amgram Manager. Attachment: Mem orandum of Agreement MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT AMONG THE COUNTY OF SAN LUIS -OBISPO AND THE CITIES OF ARROYO GRANDE, ATASCADERO, GROVER CITY, EL PASO DE ROBLES, MORRO BAY, PISMO BEACH, AND SAN LUIS OBISPO FOR PREPARATION OF COUNTY AND CITY SOURCE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING ELEMENTS, AND THE COUNTYWIDE INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN This Memorandum of Agreement (hereinafter referred to as the "MOA" or the "Agreement") is made and entered into by and between the COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO (hereinafter referred to as the "COUNTY") and the cities of ARROYO GRANDE, ATASCADERO, GROVER CITY, EL PASO DE ROBLES, MORRO BAY, PISMO BEACH, and SAN LUIS OBISPO (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "CITIES") . This Agreement seeks to define and delineate solid waste management planning responsibilities during a limited time frame for the subject COUNTY and CITIES under the San Luis Obispo Area Coordinating Council ' s (hereinafter referred to as AREA COUNCIL) Joint Powers Agreement which was entered into the 17th day of January, 1976, and amended on November 4, 1982, September 19, 1984, and August 28, 1990, and thereafter ratified annually. RECITALS: WHEREAS, the California Legislature has enacted the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, commonly referred to as Assembly Bill 939 ; and WHEREAS, Assembly Bill 939 mandates that a new integrated waste management planning process, including compliance with specified recycling and source reductionoals be undertaken b g y 0 h COUNTY and the CITIES located within that County, and that these actions must be taken in a timely manner; and WHEREAS, each CITY in the COUNTY and the COUNTY for the unincorporated area, shall prepare, adopt, and implement a Source Reduction and Recycling Element (hereinafter referred to as "SRRE") ; and WHEREAS, the AREA COUNCIL shall prepare and the COUNTY shall adopt and submit to the California Integrated Solid Waste Management Board, for approval, a Countywide Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan (hereinafter referred to as "PLAN") which shall consist of the aforesaid SRREs, a Countywide Siting Element and a statement of countywide goals and objectives ; and WHEREAS, the Countywide PLAN and any amendments thereto must approved by the COUNTY and by a majority of the CITIES within the COUNTY which contain a majority of the population of the incorporated area of the COUNTY; and WHEREAS, the COUNTY and the CITIES have convened a mandated Countywide Solid Waste Task Force to assist in the preparation of the Countywide PLAN, and individual city and county SRREs in a manner consistent with• the guidelines and regulations adopted by the California Integrated Waste Management Board; and WHEREAS, the Solid Waste Task Force is comprised of representatives from the COUNTY and each of the CITIES, solid waste industry, recyclers, environmental organizations, and the general public and others ; and 0 -2- WHEREAS, the Solid Waste Task Force has convened a Solid Waste Technical Advisory Committee to advise the Solid Waste Task Force on matters pertaining to the development of the SRREs and the PLAN, and the funding of the costs of preparing these plans; and WHEREAS, the Solid Waste Technical Advisory Committee has considered various ways in which to meet the requirements set forth under Assembly Bill 939; and WHEREAS, the COUNTY and the CITIES have considered and acted upon a recommendation of the Solid Waste Task Force to execute a Memorandum of Understanding in which all signatories agreed as follows: 1. That the County of San Luis Obispo, the cities located within the County of San Luis Obispo, and those special districts located within the County having jurisdiction over the removal of solid waste, will collectively pursue a countywide approach to the problems of solid waste management, and that these entities shall collectively engage a consultant and a project coordinator to prepare the individual SRREs and the PLAN, as required under Assembly Bill 939. 2. That the necessary ordinances and resolutions be adopted, levying a tipping fee surcharge equivalent to $1.00 per ton at all public landfills in the County of San Luis Obispo, to fund the preparation of the SRREs and the PLAN. -3- . 3. That the tipping fee surcharge be apportioned among all of the residents of the County of San Luis Obispo in an equitable manner. WHEREAS, it is the intent of the COUNTY and the CITIES that the consultant hired to prepare the PLAN shall coordinate with County Planning Department staff and their consultant who are preparing a Countywide siting study; and WHEREAS, the County Board of Supervisors passed Resolution No. — 38 3 mandating a $1.00 per ton tipping fee surcharge at two public landfills to be remitted to the County Auditor to be credited to the AB 939 Trust Fund, to be expended for and in conjunction with the preparation and adoption of the SRREs and the PLAN pursuant to Assembly Bill 939. 0 WHEREAS , the COUNTY has entered into agreements with the operators of the Cold Canyon and Chicago Grade Landfills, in the unincorporated area of the County, for the collection of the surcharge commencing on August 1, 1990, and payment starting October 15, 1990, and monthly thereafter, for the month beginning 45 days before; and WHEREAS, the City •of Paso Robles, a signatory to the Memorandum of Understanding agreeing to a $1.00 per ton surcharge and the owner of the Paso Robles Landfi_11 , has also agreed to collect the surcharge commencing on September 1, 1990 and payment starting October 15, 1990, and monthly thereafter for the month beginning 45 days before; and -4- WHEREAS, it may become necessary to increase the tipping fee surcharge to pay for unknown costs to prepare the Countywide siting element and the PLAN as regulations have not yet been adopted by the State which define the required scope of work; and WHEREAS, the COUNTY and CITIES wish to develop SRREs and a PLAN which conform to the statutory requirements set forth in Assembly Bill 939 subsequent legislation and select regulations thereunder; and WHEREAS , the ACT provides that a city or county may enter into a memorandum of agreement with a regional planning agency for the purpose of preparing or implementing SRREs or the PLAN; and; WHEREAS, the AREA COUNCIL was established by the COUNTY and the CITIES, through an executed and annually ratified Joint Powers Agreement, as a forum for planning, discussion and study of areawi_de problems of mutual interest, and for the development of studies and the adoption of regional plans which could include Solid Waste Management Planning; and WHEREAS, the AREA COUNCIL' s staffing and support services are provided, as specified- in said Joint Powers Agreement, through the County Department of Planning and Building, in accordance with an annual budget and work program adopted by the AREA COUNCIL; and WHEREAS, the AREA COUNCIL at its meeting of July 11, 1990 considered and approved a recommendation by the Solid Waste Task -5- orce that it act as the lead agency to provide staff, execute and administer a single contract for consultant services to prepare the SRREs and the PLAN pursuant to AB 939. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS UNDERSTOOD AND MUTUALLY AGREED: 1. The sole purpose of this Agreement is to facilitate the preparation of the SRREs and the PLAN utilizing the existing AREA COUNCIL as coordinating body and lead agency in the contract with a consulting firm, and that no party to this Agreement intends or does hereby assume any of the debts, liabilities or obligations of any party hereto. 2. The COUNTY and the CITIES located within the COUNTY, through the AREA COUNCIL, will collectively pursue a countywide approach to the problems of solid waste management, and in the 0 reparation of SRREs and the PLAN as required under Assembly Bill 939. 3. The AREA COUNCIL, upon execution by all parties of this Memorandum of Agreement, is hereby designated and empowered as the party to select, negotiate and execute a contract with a Consultant for the preparation of said SRREs and PLAN. 4. Personnel- in the County Planning and Building Department, in a specified classification, serve as staff to the AREA COUNCIL. The Director of the County Planning and Building Department, based upon the recommendation of the AREA COUNCIL Program Manager, shall hire a Senior Planner, under the supervision of the Program Manager, to staff said planning effort as Project Coordinator to manage the consultant contract and -6- serve as a liaison between the Consultant and the COUNTY and the CITIES, the AREA COUNCIL, and provide related support services as required. S. The funding of the costs for staffing and support, including the consultant contracts, and the Project Coordinator to prepare the SRREs and the PLAN, shall be generated by the COUNTY and CITIES adopting the necessary ordinances, regulations, laws and resolutions to impose a tipping fee surcharge equivalent to a minimum $1.00 per ton at the three above cited landfills located within the COUNTY. 6. Commencing on October 15, 1990, the Auditor of the COUNTY shall receive and receipt all money generated by the tipping fee surcharge pursuant to this Agreement. These monies will be maintained in a trust fund (hereafter referred to as the "AB 939 Trust Fund") by the County Auditor and transferred to the County Planning and Building Department's budget upon direction of the Program Manager, until such time as all aforementioned costs are fully reimbursed by said tipping fee surcharge. Amounts due on the Contract referred to herein shall be drawn upon warrants of the-Auditor of the COUNTY. After termination of this Agreement as provided for in Paragraph 12, any remaining funds in the AB 939 Trust Fund shall be utilized as mutually agreed upon by the parties. 7 . The COUNTY agrees to provide services related to the preparation of SRREs and the PLAN through the County Planning and -7- ui_ldi_ng Department to the AREA COUNCIL for the accomplishment of said work. The consultant' s fees, staff salaries, and support shall be reimbursed from the AB 939 Trust Fund as provided herein. The up front monies shall be obtained from a COUNTY FY 1990-91 budget adjustment to the Planning and Building Department in the amount of $ as recommend and approved in an AREA COUNCIL budget for Integrated Waste Management Planning. Subsequent budget appropriations shall be provided as necessary to complete said planning effort as recommended by the AREA COUNCIL and the County Administrator and approved by the County Board of Supervisors. Until a Project Coordinator is hired and assumes the position, the County Engineering Department staff, in coordination with the AREA COUNCIL Program Manager, hall act as Project Coordinator and be reimbursed for said costs. 8. Additional costs for work tasks beyond those specifically set forth in a budget and work program to be approved by AREA COUNCIL and in the Contract between the AREA COUNCIL and Consultant are the responsibility of the CITY or COUNTY requesting such additional services and shall be borne by the COUNTY or CITY electing to have such work tasks performed. Such additional work tasks shall be performed by the COUNTY or CITY desiring them through separate contract(s) between COUNTY or CITY and the Consultant. The costs of such additional work tasks shall not be reimbursed from the AB 939 Trust Fund. 9. COUNTY and CITIES shall each be responsible for staff support to the planning effort at their own expense. -8- Responsibilities for plan preparation and associated funding requirements shall be included in the scope of work for preparing the PLAN. 10. COUNTY and CITIES shall each be responsible for furnishing -information with regard to areas under their jurisdiction for use by the Consultant including, but not limited Avaa%-P,&L. to, the following:Ainformation regarding the constituent materials which compose solid waste generated within each jurisdiction, information regarding any recycling and composing programs or policies, information regarding existing waste handling and disposal practices for solid waste, any preferred policies and implementation measures, existing solid waste ordinances and regulations, and existing and proposed land use, population, and/or zoning information. 11 . COUNTY and CITIES and each of them shall indemnify and save harmless the COUNTY and each other and the officers , agents and employees of each, from any and all claims, demands , damages, costs, expenses or liability arising out of or occasioned by any act or omission to act by such COUNTY or CITIES pursuant to this Agreement , including, but not limited to, any act or omission to act on the part of COUNTY'S or CITIES' agents or employees or independent contractors directly responsible to COUNTY or CITIES. 12. This Agreement shall take effect upon its execution by the COUNTY and the seven incorporated cities and shall continue until the AREA COUNCIL'S contract with the Consultant -9- hall have been fully performed by the parties thereto, until the SRREs and the PLAN have been completed in accordance with the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, and received by the parties hereto and submitted and approved by the California. Integrated Waste Management Board and all the obligations of the parties hereto have been performed, whereupon it shall automatically terminate, unless otherwise mutually agreed upon by the parties to this agreement. 13. This agreement supersedes all previous contracts and constitutes the entire understanding of the parties hereto. Provided however, that nothing contained in this Agreement supersedes the Memorandum of Understanding approved by the Board of Supervisors on May 15, 1990, nor the Joint Powers Agreement tered into January 17, 1976, and amended on November 4, 1985 and September 19, 1984 and August 28, 1990, and ratified annually. No changes, amendments or alterations shall be effective unless made in writing by all parties to this Agreement. 14. No party to this Agreement may assign, transfer, delegate or sublet any interest therein. 15. If any term, covenants, condition or provision of this Agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid,, void or unenforceable, the remainder of the provisions hereof shall remain in full force and effect and shall in no way be affected, impaired or invalidated thereby. 16. This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original. -10- IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the day and year indicated below and the Agreement will be effective as to said parties on the date approved and signed by the San Luis Obispo County Board of . Supervisors. CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE By: Date: Mayor By: Resolution No. Clerk CITY OF ATASCADERO By: Date: Mayor By: Resolution No. Clerk CITY OF GROVER CITY By: Date: Mayor By: Resolution No. Clerk -11 - CITY OF MORRO BAY • By: Date Mayor By: Resolution No. Clerk CITY OF EL PASO DE ROBLES By: Date : Mayor By: Resolution No. Clerk 40 ZTY OF PISMO BEACH By: Date: Mayor By: Resolution No. Clerk CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO By: Date: Mayor By: Resolution No. Clerk -12 - COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO By: Date Chairperson Board of Supervisors By: Resolution No. Clerk, Board of Supervisors JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT PROVISIONS APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM JAMES B. LINDHOLM, JR. County Counsel By: Depu y Count �l . Dated: 9 ' ce 9 b 7023e -13- MEETING- AGENDA DATE 9 25/90 ITEM 11 C-3 County of San Luis Obispo COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER SAN LUIS OBISPO,CALIFORNIA 93408 ■ (805)549-5011 September 11, 1990x ' Ray Windsor, City Manager OFFICE OF THE City of Atascadero G� 1 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR 6500 Palma Avenue Atascadero, CA 93422 0! E 9cf '%?--17`Y rc Dear Mr. Windsor: The County of San Luis Obispo has retained the firm of Recht Hausrath Associates to prepare a Comprehensive Development Impact Fee Study. The fee is proposed to be collected both in the unincorporated and incorporated portions of the county. A critical element of the program is to inform city officials, members of the general public, and representatives of the business and construction industry early in the process. In this regard, the Board of Supervisors has approved the formation of a City/County Participation Group that will review population and employment projections, review draft chapters of the report, and discuss cities' concerns regarding county policy decisions, particularly in areas of shared responsibilities such as municipal services in adopted spheres of influence. On September 4, 1990, the Board appointed Supervisors Ovitt and Blakely y as county representatives to the City/County Participation Group. The group will also consist of one council person and one administrative staff person to be appointed from each of the county's seven cities. In addition, The County Director of Planning and Building, a representative of the County Administrative Office, and the consultants will be members. The initial meeting of the City/County Participation Group is planned for late September or early October. The group would then meet as needed approximately once every month. Based on the above, I request that each city appoint a city council person and an administrative staff person to serve on the City/County Participation Group to advise the county in the preparation of a Comprehensive Development Impact Fee Study. If you have any questions concerning the study or the fee program in general , please contact me or Paul Hood of my staff. I would appreciate receiving the names of each city's designees as soon as possible. Thank you. Sincerely, ROBERT E. HENDRIX County Administrator c - Recht Hausrath Associates Board of Supervisors mm/paul/recht2 REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM: C-4 CITY OF ATASCADERO THROUGH: Ray Windsor, City Manager MEETING DATE: 9/25/90 FROM: Andrew Takata, Director Ll� Department of Parks, Recreation and Zoo SUBJECT: REQUEST TO PURCHASE USED FORD HIGH-LIFT TRUCK RECOMMENDATION: Authorize staff to purchase a used 1974 Ford High-Lift Truck for $6,000 from Denny Tree Service for tree trimming purposes. BACKGROUND: The City has been approached by Denny Tree Service regarding their surplus of the above tree trimming vehicle. Staff has evaluated • the truck, and feel that to bring it up to good working condition would require approximately $4, 000. It is noted that staff requested $85,000 in the 1990/91 budget for a new Ford High-Lift Truck. DISCUSSION: The purchase of this piece of equipment will allow staff to perform some tree trimming projects and help reduce the amount of contracted tree trimming services. In anticipation to the growing number of street trees, the City may wish to consider establishing a tree trimming crew to perform these duties. The $10,000 needed to purchase and repair the vehicle are not budgeted, but are requested to be absorbed through the Department's present budget. FISCAL IMPACT: . Approximately $10, 000 that is not presently budgeted, but can be absorbed through the present Department's budget. i MEE7ttC� AGENDA _ DATE_ 2 rT M I _� l IN ;9119 • M CITY OF ATASCADERO September 18, 1990 VIA TELECOPY: Supervisor David Blakely S .L.O. Co. Board of Supervisors County Government Center San Luis Obispo, CA 93408 Dear David, On behalf of the City Council , I am respectfully requesting a two-wee}: continuance of adoption by the Board of an amendment to Budget Policy ; 13 . This item was only made available to the City on Friday, September 14th, and the Council would like an opportunity to review it and clarify its possible implications, with an oppor- tunity to provide input to the Board prior to its decision in the matter. As I indicated to you by phone, it might also be appropriate for this issue to be aired and clarified at the next Mayots/Mana- gers meeting in Grover City on Thursday, September 27th. Thanking you in advance for your consideration. Sincerely, ' OR City Manager RW:cw c: City Council _ ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES • 6500 PALMA AVENUE • ATASCADERO, CA 93422 City Council: 8051461-5086 • City Manager: 461-5010 • City Clerk: 461-5074 0 City Attorney:461-5010 City FAX: 461-0606 AL tfi_%0 Mf.� •\` County of. Sart Luis Obispo i Covn-n,GoN,FPNr%iE�'7-CEti'TER SAN LUIS OISISPO.C ALIFORNIA 93408 (805)549-501.1 • TO: EACH BOARD MEMBER OFFICEOFTHF. ;Q91 -D'MIN STRAI.OR FROM: ROBERT E. HENDRIX COUNTY ADMINISTRAT4t'` DATE: AUGUST 10, 1990 IG SUBJECT: LIBRARY FACILITIES � .�i;111fi In a recent memo regarding the progress for conducting public hearings on the draft master plan for the County Library (August 1, 1990), Board members were asked for comments on the final shape of the master plan. Supervisor Blakely was interested in getting the Library Director's feedback on the plan submitted by HBW Associates. Attached is Dale Perkins' response to that request. Dale's comments reinforce our general belief that 'capital projects - and their funding - are the most crucial aspect of this report. Dale has raised the issue of a lack of policy regarding the funding of capital projects, and I would like to make a few comments on that issue in hopes of developing a more defined plan for the County's financing of future capital projects for the library. As you know, Board budget policy ';13 specifies that the County will /. only consider the funding of major library projects if at least 50% of the funding for the project is provided by the community in which the facility is located. Thus, our pursuit of clarification regarding the County's financing of these protects involves the other 50% of the funding. As you know, the County Library is budgetarily separated from the general fund dating back to when Paso Robles "opted out" of the County system. The Library's budget receives approximately 1.73% of property taxes plus various other revenues, which totaled to about $3.43 million in .1989-90 and is expected ` to grow to about $4 million in 1990-91. This type of funding base has given the Library a substantial advantage over most general fund departments. Whereas general fund requirements and budgets are obviously forced to compete against a wide variety of departmental needs (and, increasingly, against a decrease in state funding), the Library is typically only lLnited to "living within anticipated revenues". This explains Dale's frustration with the Auditor's rather conservative revenue estimates. However, since surplus revenues revert to Library reserves and even the conservative estimates yield a substantial operating base, I would hardly. discourage conservatism in this case. As an example, our "goal" for most general fund budgets during the last budget review process was 3 - 4% growth at the maximum. The ,90-91 operating ! budget for the Library represents more than a 9% increase over 89-90. t Dale's closing paragraph in the attached letter is a testimony to how well the Library is really doing. we are far and away ahead of most county libraries in terms of automation, circulation and even facilities. With this in mind, the Administrative Office would like to pursue an amendment to budget policy #13 which clarifies our expectations for the financing of the county's obligation for future library projects. We recommend that all future capital projects for the Library be financed out of the Library budget (reserves plus future revenues). The general fund, as we all know, has more than enough burdens to bear with current and pending capital projects. Such a policy is not as stringent as it may sound given the Library's annual revenue base as well as its current reserve level. In fact, the library projects would still have an edge over most other capital projects in that the only "competition" would be other library projects. With a little "belt tightening" in their operating budget, the Library could begin a rather substantial capital projects "saving program". This effort towards saving for the future was begun on an informal process during the 90-91 budget process, when over $200,000 was put into a "facilities planning" reserve. . Of course, the Library would prefer to spend this money in the annual operating budget, but I do believe that it is time to put this issue into perspective. We simply cannot afford to allow one department to live with a relatively unrestricted annual budget and then contribute general fund monies towards that department's capital projects. It is time that the Library started to face the financial restrictions that the rest of the County has faced for a while now. I would suggest that the following language be added to current Board budget policy #13 to clarify the financial responsibility for the County's "half" of future library projects: The County's obligation for the funding of new library facilities and,/or major library improvements will be financed out of the Library fund, with the option of incorporating grant funding or other outside financing into this funding formula. I would appreciate your feedback on the above recommendation. Please contact me or Gail Roemer if you should have any further questions. REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: C-6 From: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 9/25 /90 SUBJECT: Request to reschedule 2nd meeting in October RECOMMENDATION: In light of the fact that there is a fifth Tuesday* in October, I would like to recommend that you designate that date, October 30th, for your second meeting in October. BACKGROUND: As indicated previously, there will be a conflict with your regular meeting of October 23rd, due to the fact that the League ' s Annual Conference runs from October 21-24 . RW:--w •