HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 10/09/1990 PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE
-
A G E N D A FROM COUNTER
ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
ATASCADERO ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
6500 PALMA
FOURTH FLOOR, ROTUNDA ROOM
OCTOBER 9, 1990
7:00 P.M.
This agenda is prepared and posted pursuant to the require-
ments of Government Code Section 54954 .2. By listing a topic on
-this agenda, the City Council has expressed its intent to discuss
and act on each item. In addition to any action identified in the .
brief general description of each item, the action that may be tak-
en shall include: A referral to staff with specific requests for
information; continuance; specific direction to staff concerning
the policy or mission of the item; discontinuance of consideration;
authorization to enter into negotiations and execute agreements
pertaining to the item; adoption or approval; and, disapproval .
Copies of the staff reports or other documentation relating
to each item of business referred to on the agenda are on file in
the office of the City Clerk, available for public inspection
during City Hall business hours. The City Clerk will answer any
questions regarding the agenda.
RULES OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:
* Members of the audience may speak on any item on the agenda.
* A person may speak for five (5) minutes.
* No one may speak for a second time until everyone wishing to
speak has had an opportunity to do so.
No one may speak more than twice on any item.
* 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: "Fire Prevention Week" , October 7-13, 1990
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
1
scheduled agenda items. To increase the effectiveness of Community
Forum, the following rules will be enforced:
* A -maximum of 30 minutes will be allowed for Community Forum,
unless Council authorizes an extension.
All remarks shall be addressed to Council, as a whole, and
not to any individual member thereof.
* No person shall be permitted to make slanderous, profane or
personal remarks against any Council Member, commissions
staff.
A. CONSENT CALENDAR:
All matters listed under Item A, Consent Calendar, are con-
sidered to be routine, and will be enacted by one motion in the
form listed below. There will be no separate discussion on these
items. A member of the Council or public may, by request, have any
item removed from the Consent Calendar, which shall then be -re-
viewed and acted upon separately after the adoption of the Consent
Calendar. Where ordinance adoption is involved, action by Council
on the Consent Calendar will presuppose waiving of the reading in
full of the ordinance in question.
1 . SEPTEMBER 11, 1990 CITY 'COUNCIL MINUTES
2. SEPTEMBER 20, 1990 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES (Study Session)
3. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 11-90, 8065 AMAPOA - Request to subdivide
one lot into four four airspace condominiums and a common
space (Academe Enterprises, Inc./Summit Engineering)
4. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 12-90, ` 8045 AMAPOA = Request to convert
an existing four-unit project into airspace condominiums
(Shutt/Summitt `Engineering)
5. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 13-90, 6655 TECORIDA - Request to subdiv-
ide one lot into four airspace condominiums and a common space
(Borba/Cuesta Engineering)
6. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 13-88, 6375 TECORIDA - Time extension
(Grinnell)
7 . FINAL TRACT MAP 3-90, 7715/7745 SINALOA ROAD Creation of six
parcels ranging in size from 3,206 sq. ft. to 4,775 sq. ft.
(in conformance with Ordinance No. 198, Zone Change 8-89,
Planned Development Overlay No. 7) (Jones/Cuesta Engineering)
S. FINAL TRACT MAP 15-89, 5900 BAJADA AVENUE Amendment to a
previously approved condominium tract map to allow an addition
to unit #1 (Low/Cuesta Engineering)
9 FINAL PARCEL MAP '20-891 14205 SANTA ANA ROAD, 9800 & 9850
GARCERO ROAD - Subdivision of 17 ..19 acres into three lots con-
taining approximately 5 ..7 acres each (Atascadero Highlands/
Volbrecht' Surveys)
2
10. RESOLUTION NO. 116-90 - ESTABLISHMENT OF A NO PARKING AREA
ALONG A PORTION OF EL CAMINO REAL IN FRONT OF THE K-MART PLAZA
11. RESOLUTION NO. 115-90 - ESTABLISHMENT OF A STOP INTERSECTION
ON ARDILLA ROAD AT THE INTERSECTION OF BALBOA ROAD
12. RESOLUTION NO. 117-90 - ESTABLISHMENT OF A NO", PARKING AREA
ALONG A PORTION OF SAN LUIS AND PUEBLO AVENUES
13. AUTHORIZATION FOR PAVILION-RELATED EXPENSES (PHASE I)
14. AWARD OF BID #90-12 FOR BUILDING DIVISION UTILITY VEHICLE
15. AWARD OF BID #90-5 FOR POLICE DEPARTMENT COMPUTER EQUIPMENT
B. HEARINGS/APPEARANCES:
1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 09-89, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 21-89, AND
ZONE CHANGE 15-89, 8555 EL CORTE Appeal by lay Bunnell 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 (Continued from September
25, 1990)
2. CONSIDERATION OF HERITAGE TREE REMOVAL REQUEST, 12550 :SANTA
ANA ROAD, FOR PURPOSE OF PROPOSED DRIVEWAY CONSTRUCTION
(Sandel)
3 . CONSIDERATION OF HERITAGE TREE REMOVALREQUEST, 9405 JAQUIMA
FOR PURPOSES OF HOME CONSTRUCTION (Lund)
C. REGULAR BUSINESS:
1. GARCIA ROAD TREE REMOVAL ISSUE (Cont'd from 9/25/90)
A. Adjourn to closed session for discussion of personnel
matters
2. CARLTON SQUARE PROPOSAL
3 . PRIDE DAYS
4. SET HEARING DATE FOR MANDATORY SOLID WASTE PICK-UP & CURBSIDE
RECYCLING
D. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION:
1. City Council:
A. Committee Reports (The following represents ad hoc or
standing committees. Informative status reports will be
given, as felt necessary. ) :
3
A. Committee Reports (cont'd) :
1 . City/School Committee
2 . North Coastal Transit
3 . S.L.O. Area Coordinating Council
4 . Traffic Committee
5 . Solid/Hazardous"Waste Mgmt. Committee
6 . Recycling Committee
7 . Economic opportunity Commission
8. B.I.A.
2. City Attorney
3 City Clerk
4 City Treasurer
5. City Manager
i
II
4
r
PROCLAMATION
FIRE PREVENTION WEEK
WHEREAS, the week of October 7-13, 1990, has been designated as
Fire Prevention Week nationwide; and
WHEREAS, Fire Prevention Week is held in commemoration of the
anniversary of the "Great Chicago Fire"; and
WHEREAS, the Atascadero City Fire Department and firefighters
nationwide symbolize Fire Prevention Week as a time to stress the
importance of fire prevention and education to the public.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Robert Lilley, Mayor of the City of Atascadero,
do hereby proclaim the week of October 7-13 1990, as Fire Prevention
Week and urge all citizens to make a commitment to fire prevention and
home fire safety and to visit the fire station and become familiar with
the many aspects of the fire service.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 9th
day of October, 1990.
-----------------------------
ROBERT LILLEY, Mayor
City of Atascadero, California
•
MEETIgq/9/90 AGENDA A-1
DAT E ITEMi
ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 11, 1990
The meeting was called to order at 7 :09 p.m. by Mayor Lilley.
Councilman Dexter led the Pledge of Allegiance.
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.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS:
Mayor Lilley presented plaques of appreciation to outgoing
Planning Commissioners, Geri Brasher and Jaime Lopez-Balbontin.
Ms . Brasher was present to accept and thanked the Council for
allowing her to serve. The City Clerk accepted the plaque for
Mr. Lopez-Balbontin, who had another commitment.
The mayor also made special presentations to outgoing Parks &
Recreation Commissioners, Judith McKrell and John Harris; who
were both present to accept.
PROCLAMATIONS :
Mayor Lilley read the following proclamations :
"Good Neighbor Months", September - December, 1990 (United
Way/Neighbors Helping Neighbors)
"Emergency Medical Services Week", September 16-22, 1990
(Emergency Medical Services Agency)
CC9/11/90
Page 1
COMMUNITY FORUM:
Robert D. Hoggatt, 8931 Palomar, expressed concern over recent
traffic incidences involving children in his neighborhood. He
stated that, on many residential streets, there are no signs
posted indicating "children present" or speed limits and that
many motorists speed. Mr. Hoggatt reported that he, had made a
previous complaint earlier in the year and that the matter had
not been put before the Traffic Committee. He recognized that
the committee would be looking at the issue at their September
19, 1990 meeting, but added that he wanted Council to be aware of -
the situation.
Mayor Lilley referred to a letter and petition received from Mr.
Hoggatt and confirmed that the item would be discussed at the
next Traffic Committee.
Mayor Lilley then stated that he had been requested to take item
C-1 out of order and asked for motion:
MOTION: By Councilwoman Borgeson and seconded by Councilman
Dexter to move to item C-1; motion unanimously passed.
C. REGULAR BUSINESS:
1. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION TO SOLICIT BIDS FOR THE LAKE PAVILION-
FINAL PHASE (Construction)
A presentation, with architectural drawings, was given by Ron
Page. Mr. Page reported that the Pavilion construction was
being broken down into two phases with two separate bids . He
requested that Council authorize staff to solicit bids for Phase
I (Grading and Retaining Wall) and that the bids be formally
opened on September 14, 1990. The architect noted that the
advantage would be that contractors bidding on Phase II (Pavilion
Building Construction) would be able to see the graded building
site.
Mr. Takata announced that the architectural renderings would be
on display for the public to view during the break.
Mr. Page explained that there had been an increase in costs due
to the addition of fire sprinklers, engineering costs attributed
to results of a soils test, site improvements for the revised
parking lot and walkway landscaping.
Councilwoman Borgeson stated concern for going over-budget on the
project. Mr. Page stated that the community had established the
CC9/11/90
Page 2
scope and that Council could still decide not to go with the
project.
Public Comments :
Eric Greening, 7365 Valle, asked if any thought had been given to
using passive solar heat to reduce energy requirements. Mayor
Lilley responded that he could pose that question to Mr. Page
during the break. ,
Sarah Gronstrand, 7620 Del Rio Road gave an update on the
fundraising efforts of the Friends of the Lake Park Pavilion
Committee. She also announced a benefit barbeque planned for
Saturday, September 29, 1990.
MOTION: By Councilwoman Borgeson and seconded by Councilman
Dexter to authorize staff to solicit bids for the
construction of Phase I of the Atascadero Lake
Pavilion; motion passed 5 :0 by roll call vote.
A. CONSENT CALENDAR:
1. AUGUST 14, 1990 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES (Cont'd from 8/28/90)
2. AUGUST 23, 1990 SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES (Interviews
Planning Commission)
3. AUGUST 30, 1990 SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES (Interviews
Parks, Recreation & Zoo Commission)
4. LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT 12-90, 7600 EL RETIRO/7555 MIRA FLORES-
Lot line adjustment between two existing lots of record
resulting in the reduction in size of an existing noncon-
forming lot (Ferguson/Johnson/Central Coast Engineering)
5. AUTHORIZE RECRUITMENT FOR TWO TRAFFIC COMMITTEE MEMBERS
6. AWARD BID FOR NEW ACCOUNTING SYSTEM HARDWARE
Mayor Lilley read the Consent Calendar. Councilwoman Borgeson
pulled Item A-6. The City Manager noted a correction to A-3,
Minutes of the August 30, 1990 Special Meeting.
MOTION: By Councilman Dexter and seconded by Councilman Shiers
to approve the Consent Calendar as amended and with the
exception of A-6; motion carried.
CC9/11/90
Page 3
6. AWARD BID FOR NEW ACCOUNTING SYSTEM HARDWARE
Mark Joseph gave the staff report recommending that Council award
Hornbuckle Engineering the bid for a PC Network to be installed
at City Hall. He then responded to questions from Council.
Councilwoman Borgeson noted that the lowest bidder (Coastal
Computers) was a local firm and opposed to staff's request to
award the bid to someone ,else. Councilman Shiers stated that
although he had originally had the same concerns, now recognized
that the added factor of the maintenance agreement was what
ultimately swung the low bid in favor of Hornbuckle rather than
to Coastal Computers.
Mr. Joseph answered additional questions relating to deficiencies
of the current system and its' resale. Councilman Dexter and
Mayor Lilley both spoke in support of the Finance Director' s
recommendation.
Councilwoman Borgeson indicated that her vote on the matter would
put on record her opinion that the award should be given to the
local firm.
MOTION: By Councilman Nimmo and seconded by Councilman Dexter
to authorize staff to award the bid for new accounting
software to Hornbuckle Engineering; motion carried 4:1,
with Councilwoman Borgeson voting in opposition.
B. HEARINGS/APPEARANCES:
1. THE COUNCIL WILL ADJOURN TO A CLOSED SESSION FOR PURPOSES OF
DISCUSSION REGARDING PENDING LITIGATION (GORDON DAVIS ROADS)
MOTION: By Councilman Dexter and seconded by Councilwoman
Borgeson to adjourn to a closed session for the
purposes of discussion relating to pending litigation
regarding the so-called "Gordon Davis Roads"; motion
unanimously passed.
THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED TO CLOSED SESSION AT 8:10 P.M. The
meeting was reconvened the open session at 8:32 p.m.
2. GORDON T. DAVIS ROAD AGREEMENTS:
A. RESOLUTION NO. 111-90 - ACKNOWLEDGING CONDITIONAL
ACCEPTANCE OF THE- "GORDON DAVIS ROADS" INTO THE CITY-
MAINTAINED ROAD SYSTEM
CC9/11/90
Page 4
•
Mayor Lilley read the full text of proposed Resolution 111-90 and
explained that "Exhibit C" was a set of maps which set--f-o—HR the
details.
Public Comments:
Joan Okeefe, 9985 old Morro Road East, asked for a definition of
an "improvement security" .
Mayor Lilley responded that the improvement security, 1) provides
Mr. Davis with some options to allow the precise plan exemption
to come presently into affect and 2) gives the City some
assurance that should Mr. Davis not complete the roads in accord
with the agreement, that the City will have the resources (by
either a bond or a cash deposit) to do so itself. The mayor
added that if Mr. Davis chose not to put forward any kind of
security to ensure the performance of the work, the precise plan
requirements would remain in affect until the roads are completed
and accepted by the City.
Mrs. Okeefe asked if the figure had been arrived at or whether
the amount was yet to be negotiated. The City Manager explained
that the City had only just received the maps (Exhibit "C" ) and
that staff had to generalize the costs . He added that Mr. Davis
was in the hospital recovering from surgery and, although he had
agreed in concept, the amount had not been finalized.
Mrs. Okeefe asked if the details of the agreement and the list of
improvements would be available to the public. Mr. Windsor
assured that it was all public record and that staff would be
available to interpret it.
George Wolfrank, 5561 Tunitas, urged Council to give serious
consideration to the Atascadero Colony roads and ensure that
right-of-ways are maintained for the public.
Mayor Lilley remarked that Council has begun a very aggressive
approach to resolving the issue of title and the status of those
roadways involving Wells Fargo Bank. He stated that the matter
is currently under negotiations between the City Attorney and
Wells Fargo.
MOTION: By Councilman Nimmo and seconded by Councilwoman
Borgeson to adopt Resolution 111-90 with staff directed
to establish conditions for specific plans within the
1983 and 1986 Agreements consistent with Exhibit "C";
motion carried 5:0 by roll call vote.
CC9/11/90
Page 5
Mayor Lilley recognized John McCarthy, North Coast Engineering,
and publicly thanked him for his efforts.
B. CONDITIONING OF PRECISE PLANS AFFECTED BY THE GORDON T.
DAVIS ROAD AGREEMENTS
The City Manager acknowledged that the staff report had not been
distributed and read the staff recommendation. He then clarified
that the City needs to be assured that the work will be done;
that the applicants for the appeals (Items B-3 and B-4) can
either wait until the work is done (with the conditions remaining
on their applications) ; and/or Mr. Davis can give the security
and the conditions will be removed.
MOTION: By Councilman Nimmo and seconded by Councilman Dexter
to grant the appeals on Precise Plan 28-90 and 70-90;
and return to staff to set appropriate conditions in
accord with Resolution No. 111-90; motion unanimously
passed by roll call vote.
3. PRECISE PLAN 28-90 - APPEAL BY JOHN FALKENSTIEN OF ROAD IM-
PROVEMENT CONDITION OF PRECISE PLAN, 8705 SANTA CRUZ ROAD
(Cont'd from 8/28/90) i
Granted, see above motion.
4. PRECISE PLAN 70-90 - APPEAL BY ROBERT GARDNER OF ROAD
IMPROVEMENT CONDITION OF PRECISE PLAN, 14405 SANTA ANA ROAD
(Cont'd from 8/28/90)
Granted, see above motion.
5. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 2-90 - APPEAL BY MICHAEL S. KROUT ON
BEHALF OF RICHARD MONTANARO OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF
PROPOSED TRACT MAP (CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION) , 11145 EL CAMINO
REAL (Cont'd from 8/28/90 at applicant' s request)
Henry Engen gave background on the application and reported that
both the Planning Commission and the City Council have requested
an inventory of the . extent to which rental housing had been
converted to condominiums and that this has been done. Mr. Engen
noted that the applicant had not wanted the matter continued
pending receipt of such data and that staff had been directed by
the Planning Commission to come back with findings for denial,
which had been appealed.
Mr. Engen highlighted the findings for denial and gave
statistical data relating to the amount of rental units
CC9/11/90
Page 6
available. The Community Development Director then responded to
questions from Council regarding density and design guidelines.
Mayor Lilley asked the City Attorney for a determination
regarding regulation of conversions absent an ordinance. Mr.
Montandon stated that condominium conversion subdivision maps
have special statutes which regulate their processing and that
when there is an existing structure, the normal findings whereby
the City can deny a map are not applicable. He advised that the
application could not be denied for General Plan inconsistencies
because there currently are no applicable general or exact plans
which contain objectives and policies specifically directed to
the conversion of existing buildings into condominium projects .
In addition, Mr. Montandon stated that the City could not impose
conditions relating to density and design review criteria without
a condominium conversion ordinance.
Councilman Dexter asked the City Attorney if there were any
conditions of approval that could be added to this specific
application for conversion to address concerns relating to fire
sprinklers, soundproofing, etc. Mr. Montandon advised that staff
was currently researching what conditions could be imposed, but
added that there was little that could be added in the way of
reconstruction.
Lengthy discussion followed. There was a consensus of the
Council to proceed with a condominium conversion ordinance in
order to preserve housing stock and give staff direction to come
back with an urgency ordinance for the interim. The City
Attorney advised that Council should request a moratorium
ordinance to allow staff time to prepare the conversion
ordinance.
MOTION: By Councilwoman Borgeson and seconded by Councilman
Shiers to refer the matter to staff for the development
of a condominium conversion ordinance; and pending the
presentation and possible adoption of that ordinance,
staff also be directed to come back at the next regular
meeting with an ordinance creating a moratorium on
future conversions until adoption of the conversion
ordinance.
Discussion of the motion followed. The City Attorney
reported that the Planning Commission would be looking at
three four-unit projects with applications for conversion at
their next meeting. Mr. Engen expanded by giving background
and noted that each had been designed to be condominiums.
He further explained that there were no cases that would
CC9/11/90
Page 7
displace residents. Councilwoman Borgeson stated that she
did not have a problem with this kind of application as -they
were already in the pipeline and originally designed as
condominiums; Councilman Shiers concurred.
Mr. Montandon asked for an exemption of these applications
from the moratorium ordinance. Council agreed.
Councilman Dexter asked if the moratorium ordinance could be
immediately brought into affect. Mr. Windsor explained that
it could not, that there must be a noticed public hearing
and that the ordinance would require a 4/5 vote for passage.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion; carried 5:0.
At this time, discussion was directed back to the matter of the
appeal by Michael Krout on behalf of Richard Montanaro.
Public Comments:
Michael Krout, attorney, sited legal case studies and noted that
the law was clearly on the appellant's side. Speaking in support
of the conversion, he stated that the benefit of occupant
ownership is being overlooked and that this project would meet
the needs of the market and the community.
Linda Anderson, 11165 El Camino Real #G, also spoke in support of
the conversion reporting that she would like to own her place of
residence.
Mr. Krout pointed out that if an attempt is made to impose
criteria other than what would normally be applicable to similar
housing, than the ability to offer the units at the current
asking price would be impinged upon.
Henry Engen responded to questions from Council relating to water
meters, landscaping, drainage, covered parking and a homeowner' s
association.
MOTION: By Councilman Shiers and seconded by Councilman Nimmo
to approve the appeal and refer the matter back to
staff for appropriate conditions; motion unanimously
passed.
6. HERITAGE TREE REMOVAL REQUEST, 9215 LAKEVIEW, FOR PURPOSES
CC9/11/90
Page 8
OF SINGLE-FAMILY HOME CONSTRUCTION (Clark)
Henry Engen gave staff report with the recommendation to approve
the removals of one pine and one oak with a two for one
replacement of each tree. Lisa Schicker, Natural Resource
Specialist, noted that the oak to be taken was a Blue oak and
that a same species could not be located. She explained that any
native oak would be acceptable.
Public Comments:
Barry Clark, applicant, spoke in favor of the removal stating he
was in agreement with the recommendations .
Eric Greening, 7365 Valle, objected to the use of red tape on
trees to be saved. Ms. Schicker explained that the revised Tree
Ordinance would specify red for removal and yellow or orange for
protection.
MOTION: By Councilwoman Borgeson and seconded by Councilman
Shiers to approve the request to remove two trees at
9215 Lakeview subject to replacement requirements
recommended; motion passed.
7. HERITAGE TREE REMOVAL REQUEST, 14400 EL MONTE, AS PART OF AN
APPLICATION FOR PRECISE PLAN 69-89 FOR THE PURPOSES OF HOME
CONSTRUCTION (Ranallette - Resubmittal)
Mayor Lilley introduced the matter explaining that this was a
resubmittal of a previously denied application. Brief discussion
followed regarding policy relating to resubmits. The City
Attorney noted that time frames would be addressed in the revised
Tree Ordinance.
Henry Engen gave background and staff recommendation to adhere to
the denial.
Councilman Nimmo announced that he was in support of reversing
the decision.
Councilwoman Borgeson noted that the applicants had not taken up
the offer of the neighbors to donate land for the septic system.
Councilman Nimmo stated that it was unreasonable to put a leach
field on someone else' s property.
Councilman Dexter reiterated previous concerns for vehicular
access to the rear of the lot but added that he was not prepared
to reverse his original decision to grant the request.
. CC9/11/90
Page 9
Public Comments :
Ann Ranallette, applicant, stated that she believed her request
was reasonable and necessary. She added that the neighbors
should not have more say in the matter than she.
Alfred Clarke, architect, spoke in favor of the request and added
that the engineer was also present to respond to questions.
Whitey Thorpe, 8802 Santa Ynez, urged Council to allow property
owner' s the use of their own land.
Joan Okeefe spoke in opposition to the request, stating that the
home design should blend in with the contours of the land.
Steve Casler, 11400 E1 Monte, strongly opposed the tree removals
noting that accommodations could be made without sacrificing the
trees . He reiterated previous statements that he had complied
during the construction of his home and sought only that his
neighbors do the same.
Eric Gobler, 9110 Atascadero Avenue, reported that he was the
engineer and clarified requirements of the septic system.
Councilwoman Borgeson asked Mr. Gobler if he had ever consulted
with the City Arborist. He stated that although he personally
had not, the architect had.
Rick Sekerman, 11245 E1 Monte, proclaimed that this issue would
be a test for the City Council and stressed that the public needs
to know what the Tree Ordinance requires .
Councilman Shiers stated that the Zoning Ordinance dictates what
one can do with their property, not the neighbors, and that
everyone is subject to the ordinance• that it is there to protect
Y 7
property rights. He asserted that he was convinced that it is
possible to design and put a house on that property without
having to remove the trees and added that he saw no reason to
change his vote to deny the request. Councilwoman Borgeson
concurred and stated that the City has a law and announced that
she was going to support enforcing it.
Mayor Lilley indicated that, under the current ordinance, the
issue was what was reasonable under the circumstances. He added
that he did not believe it was a violation of the law to approve
the tree removal request.
MOTION: By Councilman Nimmo and seconded by Councilman Dexter
CC9/11/90 •
Page 10
to reconsider the request to remove two heritage trees
in connection with Precise Plan 69-89; motion carried
3 :2 with Councilman Shiers and Councilwoman Borgeson
voting in opposition.
MOTION: By Councilman Nimmo and seconded by Councilman Dexter
to approve the removal of two heritage trees in
connection with Precise Plan 69-89 with a two to one
ratio plus two additional trees for the one tree
illegally removed; motion passed 3:2 with Councilman
Shiers and Councilwoman Borgeson voting against.
C. REGULAR BUSINESS:
1. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION TO SOLICIT BIDS FOR THE LAKE PAVILION-
FINAL PHASE (Construction)
See previous action taken (Pages 2-3) .
2. AFFIRMING RESCHEDULING OF RECYCLING COMMITTEE INTERVIEWS FOR
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 13TH, 5:00 P.M.
A. CONSIDERATION OF EXEMPTING THE RECYCLING COMMITTEE
SELECTION FROM RESOLUTION NO. 35-81
B. CONSIDERATION OF INCREASING THE NUMBER OF RECYCLING
COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Ray Windsor, City Manager, gave the staff report. Brief
discussion followed.
There was a consensus of the Council to direct staff to amend
Resolution 5-90 (Recycling Committee By-Laws) and expand the body
by appointing all applicants to the committee. Interviews
previously set for September 13, 1990 were cancelled.
3. SET STUDY SESSION FOR ROAD POLICIES & STANDARDS
The Community Development Director requested that Council set
their study session for Thursday, September 20, 1990 at 4:00 p.m. ,
Councilman Shiers asked that the meeting begin at 4:30. By
common consent, the study session was set for that date and time.
Councilman Nimmo asked if staff was ready to classify the roads.
The City Manager indicated that it was .
4. SET JOINT STUDY SESSIONS) WITH PLANNING COMMISSION
CC9/11/90
Page 11
Mr. Engen suggested the date. It was agreed that the joint
.session would be for Thursday, October 4, 1990 at 4 :30.
Mayor Lilley asked the Community Development Director to share
with the Planning Commission the reason that Council had reversed
the decision on the Montanaro appeal. Mr. Engen indicated that
he would.
At this time, the City Manager asked if Council would agree to
meet for a brief special meeting on Monday, September 17, 1990 at
5:00 p.m. to award the bid of the Lake Pavilion Project - Phase I
and requested that Council adjourn to that session.
D. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION:
1. City Council:
A. Committee Reports (The following represents ad hoc or
standing committees. Informative status reports were
given, as follows) :
1. City/School Committee - Mayor Lilley announced the next
meeting date as September 27, 1990.
2. B.I.A. - The City Manager asked that the mayor review
the draft agreement with David Smith for the downtown
parking lot.
Councilwoman Borgeson reported that she had read about a portable
plastic shredder used for recycling and noted that she wanted to
pass the information on to the Public Works Director.
Mayor Lilley announced that he had received an invitation from
Maggie Rice, Colony Days Chairperson, to submit an entry in the
parade and turned the matter over to Mr. Windsor.
Additionally, the mayor reported that he would be attending the
Mayor' s Meeting on September 27, 1990 and asked that if any of
the councilmembers had items for discussion at that meeting to
let him know. The City Manager noted that he, too, would be
attending.
Councilman Dexter related that he had represented the City, at
the mayor's request, at Atascadero State Hospital and offered to
share with other members information he brought back with him.
2. City Attorney - No report
CC9 11 90
Page 12
3. City Clerk - No report
4. City Treasurer
Muriel Korba referred to a memo directed to Council
regarding interest earnings with Mid-State Bank. She
reported that she was seeking retroactive interest because
the bank had not informed the City about checking account
options .
The City Treasurer also explained that investment funds had
been transferred to a State account where they will earn
8.5% interest. She expressed concern about the investment
policy as it relates to authority of who is responsible for
City funds going in or out of any account and suggested
that there be some restraints.
Additionally, Ms . Korba urged Council to be aware of the
investments, current worth, construction funds, etc. and
asked if there was a consensus from the Council as to their
interest. Council concurred that the information was of
concern to them.
5. City Manager
Mr. Windsor gave the dates for the Annual League of
California Cities Conference and reminded Council to let his
office know if they were to be attending in order to meet
registration deadlines. Additionally, he noted that the
conference would conflict with a regular meeting and asked
that Council consider holding that meeting on October 30,
1990 instead. He added that he would come back with this
matter formally on the next agenda.
MOTION: By Councilman Dexter and seconded by Councilman Nimmo
to adjourn to September 17 , 1990 at 5 :00 p.m. for the
purpose of awarding the contract for Phase I of the
Lake Park Pavilion; motion unanimously passed.
THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 10:23 P.M.
MI RECO ED AND PREPARED BY:
Clerk
CC9/11/90
Page 13
MEETING AGENDA
DAA 1J9/90 rMMJ A-2
ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES
STUDY SESSION: ROAD STANDARDS & POLICIES
September 20, 1990
The Special Meeting was called to order by Mayor Lilley at 4 :38
p.m.
Roll Call:
Present: Councilmembers Borgeson, Dexter, Nimmo, Shiers and Mayor
Lilley
Staff: Henry Engen, Community Development Director; Greg Luke,
Public Works Director; Art Montandon, City Attorney; Gary
Sims, Sr. Civil Engineer; Muriel Korba, City Treasurer;
Cindy Wilkins, Admin. Secy./ Dep. City Clerk. ( * It was
noted that City Manager, Ray Windsor, was absent due to
illness. )
Council Comments :
Mayor Lilley noted that this is a continuation of a previously
adjourned meeting [7/11/90] . Mr. Engen added that today' s dis-
cussion is for continued consideration by Council of a draft policy
resolution to set road standards and to establish (7 ) different
classes of roads in the City.
Mr. Luke announced that there has been, what staff believes to be,
a fairly substantial violation of the conditions on the extension
of Garcia Road, and a stop work order has been placed on the proj-
ect. Mayor Lilley requested that this item be placed on the
Council' s 9/25 agenda for a staff report.
1 . Study Session for the Purpose of Discussion Road Standards and
Policies
Mr. Luke made opening comments underscoring the importance and ben-
efits of establishing a roads policy which could enable property
owners to be aware of the classes of roads and any conditions for
improvement which may be imposed on developments, as well as to
enable staff to achieve some long-range planning for future road
improvements . He showed a video he prepared which reviewed present
examples of the road classifications (I-VII) as they've been pre-
sented in staff' s report. He then responded to various questions
from Councilmembers .
The concept of assessment districts was discussed, with Mr. Luke
noting the advantage of the City' s ability to obtain low-interest
loans which property owners pay off over long periods of time
(e. g. , 15-20 years) . Mayor Lilley added that an additional bene-
1
fit, hopefully, of future assessment districts will be ultimate
public maintenance as well as public ownership of the roads, with
the latter not always having been the case with assessment dis-
tricts . Mr. Luke was asked how many miles of road he would
recommend against acceptance into the City-maintained system; he
responded this would pertain to Class III &Class V roads and that
there are approx. 3-4 miles of roads in that category.
Mayor Lilley expressed that a fundamental area of the proposed
policy should be the Council ' s stated commitment to study roads,
using a traffic engineer, and attempt to adequately warn and alert
the public to hazardous road conditions by appropriate signage and
other devices. Related discussion ensued, which included the
mention of speed control. Mr. Luke responded that he and Mr.
Montandon have discussed the retention of a traffic engineer, sub-
sequent to input from the Council at the July 11th study session.
The subject of liability was discussed. Mr. Montandon concurred
with Mayor Lilley' s suggested policy statement, responding to
Council' s expressed liability concerns that it is the drivers' res-
ponsibility to exercise due care, which they can only do if they
know there is a danger, and the presence appropriate warning signs
& devices provides for a better defense in liability cases . it
was the Council ' s consensus to have Mr. Montandon work with Mr.
Luke to amend the proposed policy as discussed above.
Councilman Shiers asked if the City is legally bound to accept a
road into its maintained system because it has been City-main-
tained. Mr. Montandon responded that it' s his understanding that
the road classifications are based on a road' s existing physical
conditions, adding that if the City has maintained a road for a
period of five years at reasonable intervals, the court can deem
that the City does, in fact, own the road and has assumed liabi-
lity.
Councilman Nimmo expressed the opinion that, before adopting the
proposed resolution and policy ( including the map) , they should be
put into a form which can be reviewed by the public, so that all
will be made aware of the types of streets that exist and what it
takes to get them into the City-maintained system. He would like
to see the goals clarified, feeling that the draft goals appear
more like methods. He feels the principle policy goal should be
that all Colony roads, other than those abandoned by Council ac-
tion, eventually be accepted into the City system. He expressed
disagreement with some of the road classifications feeling they,
as well as the map, need refinement, and that Atascadero' s rural
atmosphere should be retained in the policy' s goals. He personally
feels that we should not impose CEQA on the Lewis Plan of 1914 and
encouraged the Council to ask for a formal legal opinion as to
whether or not CEQA in fact applies to the Colony roads .
Mayor Lilley noted that there will undoubtedly be situations where,
because of the nature of certain roads or the development history
around them, the City will be in a position to "bite the bullet"
and, at its own expense, improve the road as a condition of accep-
tance. There is a need for a platform to stand on when citizens
ask why one road was City-improved and not another. is
2
Public Works and Engineering Division staff were commended by Coun-
cil for the work which went into the proposed draft documents . It
. was noted that this subject is a monumental task and will require
a lot of additional work before everyone feels clear and comfor-
table with the policy.
Mayor Lilley asked the members of Council to draft their individual
thoughts about what goal statements should be included in the pol-
icy in order to assist Mr. Luke with refinement of the document.
Related discussion ensued, and it was noted that consideration
should be given to providing for safe pedestrian and bicycle cir-
culation in addition to vehicular traffic concerns .
The repeated mention of CEQA in the policy statement was noted, and
Council consensus was to seek a formal legal opinion from Burke,
Williams & Sorensen as to whether the original roads in the Atasca-
dero Colony are subject to or exempt from CEQA.
Councilwoman Borgeson asked if the roads policy could be designated
for local rural roads . Mr. Luke responded that it could be titled
"Local Rural Road Policy" , noting that the Circulation Element Up-
date will also address many of the road concerns .
Councilman Shiers would like to see the policies specific enough
to outline strong grounds for not granting waivers from the adopted
standards . Mr. Luke indicated he would like further Council input
on that topic.
Public Comment
Gary Sims, Sr. Civil Engineer, commented that there is no ordinance
to address the administrative process involved in issuing encroach-
ment permits, and he asked if staff could initiate the process of
drafting such an ordinance; Council agreed to give staff the go-
ahead. Mr. Luke noted that such an ordinance cannot be imposed
where the City does not hold title.
Andy Takata indicated that the Parks & Recreation Commission cur-
rently has a committee working on the subject of bike path and
pedestrian circulation recommendations for the Circulation Element.
Mr. Luke indicated that he will prepare a staff report which will
summarize the concerns and desired goals expressed tonight.
Motion: By Councilman Nimmo to adjourn to the Council meeting of
Sept. 25th, seconded by Councilman Dexter; passed unani-
mously.
Minutes Prepared by:
CINDY WILKINS
Admin. Secy./Dep. City Clerk
3
•
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: A-3
Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 10/9/90
File Number: TPM 11-90
From: Henry Engen, Community Development Director VVC
SUBJECT:
Request to subdivide one lot into four airspace condominiums and
a common space at 8065 Amapoa Avenue (Academe Enterprises,
Inc . /Summit Engineering) .
RECOMMENDATION:
Per the Planning Commission' s recommendation, approval of TPM
11-90 leased on the Findings and Revi-sed Conditions of Approval
contained in the attached staff report.
BACKGROUND:
On September 18, 1990 , the Planning Commission conducted a public
Bearing on the above subject. on a 5 :0 vote (Commissioners Waage
and Highland absent) , the Commission recommended approval of the
snap with modification to Condition #2d. There was discussion and
public testimony given as referenced in the attached minutes
excerpt.
HE :ps
Attachment: Staff Report - September 18, 1990
Revised Conditions of Approval - September 181 1990
Minutes Excerpt - September 18, 1990
cc : Academe Enterprises , Inc .
Summit Engineering
•
CITY OF ATASCADNRO Item: B-1 •
STAFF REPORT
FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date : September 18, 1990
BY: Doug Davidson, Senior Planner File No: TPM 11-90
SUBJECT:
To consider a request to subdivide one lot into four airspace
n
co min 'do sums and a common area.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of Tentative Parcel Map 11-90 based on
the Findings for Approval in Exhibit D and the Conditions of
Approval in Exhibit E.
-. SITUATION AND FACTS:
1 . Applicant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Academe Enterprises, Inc.
2 . Representative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Summit Engineering
3 . Project Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8065 Amapoa Ave . •
4 . Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 .30 acres
5 . Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .RMF-16 (FH)
6 . General Plan Designation. . . . .High Density Multiple Family
7 . Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Vacant
8 . Environmental Status . . . . . . . . .Categorically Exempt
Class 3
ANALYSIS•
Building permits are currently being reviewed for the
construction of this fourplex. The applicant is attempting to
provide an opportunity for home ownership in the form of airspace
condominiums . In this arrangement, the unit spaces are
individually owned, while the open space and parking area is
owned in common. Private agreements (CC&Rs) are created to
ensure continued maintenance .
•
• Staff supports the creation of condominiums in this case, because
the number of units involved is small and the project is being
designed as a condominium project . The provision of separate
water meters is an key indication that the units are designed for
separate ownership and utility billing. This is particulary
important in light of the questions raised by the recent
application by Richard Montanaro for conversion of an existing 64
unit apartment project (11145 El Camino Real) .
Staff was hoping that a decision would have been reached on the
Montanaro appeal, including City Council direction regarding a
condominium conversion study, before considering further similar
requests . Action must be taken on map applications within
certain time periods, however, and Planning Commission
consideration could not be postponed. (Staff reports and public
hearing notices for the September 18, 1990 meeting were published
on September 6th, prior to the City Council meeting of September
11, 1990 . ) Staff believes, however, that the subdivision is
consistent with the policies of the General Plan and should not
be subjected to the proposed Findings for Denial of the Montanaro
project .
Whereas conversion of a 64 unit apartment project significantly
reduces the available rental housing in Atascadero, the creation
of four airspace condominiums does not affect the existing
• supply. The request is not a conversion and thus was not
included in the figures cited in Finding #1 of the Montanaro
project (27 .5% of the City' s multiple family units converted to
condominiums) .
The second recommended Finding for Denial of the Montanaro
project is, "that the design and improvement of the proposed
subdivision is not consistent with the General Plan. " The 64
unit project exceeds the current allowed density, fails to comply
with development standards, and does not meet the City' s
appearance standards . The project on Amapoa Ave . , however,
meets the density standards of the Zoning Ordinance and the
design policies of the Appearance Review Guidelines .
CONCLUSIONS:
The proposed project received favorable responses from all the
outside agencies . Drainage requirements of the FH (Flood Hazard)
section of the Zoning Ordinance have been incorporated into the
project design and are being subsequently reviewed through the
building permit process . The required frontage improvements must
be completed before the map records or prior to final building
inspection, whichever comes first . Most importantly, the project
does not reduce the number of available rental housing units in
the City.
2
CITY OF ATASCADERO EXHIBIT A
ZONING MAP
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TPM 11-90
• DEPARTMENT
1 Avf -sem—_ ar �LL
—. _�
1 1 -'RS F �AX �
r
9.,As
l..,
7/ F 41, �CT
Q K �
45c"DEFO
\ �'Qs�.a`` ;
- � Y
RSF•Z-'
vim l ✓� � ��/ '`1�' �>� o ��9tvE"1
L(FW
R-3FXT
.�
���� 1
f
�� ♦fie=�� � /
•_ �fir® � �l l �
EXHIBIT C
CITY OF ATASCADERO TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TPM 11-90
DEPARTMENT
_ TENTATIVE MAP
�-
CONDOMINIUM ' •
-•,.. AT 90 -- 160
t *��e A mo Aw ooe+w"Juu um
sa r ee
l y wr uae&e v a2MANN Pae • v ) n. M. '
I w "t cm a ,Mac" aw Np1 come muern. e+t"m
..» 3f7$w
rJ
T
w4wr �
� r ra.r• 1
T f �
• 1•dMWWAREA AP.N7
Rarm os vrjt$
fssa .ir
.�.���irw nr•w—.' �i� - i4�Iw �7fI �14C
w •w.n+.+rn�r�� • •MAW LL C•13423
_. ._ •.. 1M[490= dN&iter-a4 4K.
AANIg1 oWfAI/f ST9 a 330 a:•[f
te.
•r� Clem"IrttOif\3:r�p M-N .h
to PWARW BY'
$n•fpuws r'WWhiN A Ms[a :4w.i uS+1 •Itt6:•lIM.a:utwp
YCY�NII $er14t. •U t3Tw St$lli IWIM.
N:O•Jtl$.CA$3444
w w 4r.r•�.•r r Mww4 4r.
At�S$ttffr AM q KMAW IVA)3.2-$137
~"Ko bpt fe3MG
i•:�:it'•..ri w•�a"'•i �wl.y:air: .wT.4�uww•bv
UAL r .Ww" w S/ifYA'Ap to
C UK•AS.Y CC 16$41,
40/not 140 tKr.•ta wa 13$p
•
•
EXHIBIT D - Findings for Approval
Tentative Parcel Map 11-90
8065 Amapoa Ave. (Academe Enterprises, Inc. )
September 18, 1990
ENVIRONMENTAL FINDING:
The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions
of the California Environmental Quality Act.
MAP FINDINGS:
1. The proposed map is consistent with the applicable
General or Specific Plan.
2. The design and/or improvements of the proposed subdivision
is consistent with the applicable General or Specific Plan.
3. The site is physically suitable for the proposed type of
development.
4. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of •
development.
5. The design of the subdivision, as conditioned, and the
proposed improvements, will not cause substantial
environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure
fish and wildlife or their habitat.
6. The design of the subdivision, and the type of the
improvements , will not conflict with easements acquired by
the public at large for access through or the use of
property within the proposed subdivision; or substantially
equivalent alternate easements are provided.
7. The design of the subdivision and/or the type of proposed
improvements will not cause serious health problems.
•
EXHIBIT E - Conditions of Approval
• Tentative Parcel Map 11-90
8065 Amapoa Ave. (Academe Enterprises, Inc . )
September 18, 1990
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1 . All existing and proposed utility, pipeline, open space, or
other easements are to be shown on the final map. If there
are building or other restrictions related to the easements,
they shall be noted on the final map. All relocation and/or
alteration of existing utilities shall be the responsibility
of the developer at his sole expense.
2 . Road improvement plans, prepared by a registered civil
engineer, shall be submitted to and approved by the
Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to
the construction of public improvements . Plans (which may
be included on the site development plan) shall include, but
not be limited to the following:
a. Amapoa Ave . shall be reconstructed along the entire
property frontage, or as directed by the Public Works
Director. New pavement width shall be 24 feet to curb
face . Portions of the existing curb and gutter may
• require removal or replacement, as directed by the
Director of Public Works .
b. A five (5) foot wide sidewalk is required to match the
existing adjacent sidewalk.
C. R-value testing shall be done and the pavement section
designed by a registered civil engineer to the
satisfaction of the Director of Public Works prior to
the start of construction.
d. Construction of the public improvements shall be
completed prior to recordation of the final map.
e. All public improvements shall be covered by a 100
percent Performance Guarantee and a 100% Labor
Guarantee until construction is deemed substantially
complete and by a 10 percent Maintenance Guarantee
until one year after substantial completion.
3 . A six foot solid fence is required along the rear property
line and along the north property line where parking faces
adjacent residential uses .
4 . Each unit must contain 100 square feet of storage area,
• exclusive of closets .
5. An encroachment permit shall be obtained from the Public
Works Department for all work to be done within the public
right-of-way prior to recording the final map. Applicant •
shall sign an inspection agreement, guaranteeing that the
work shall be done and inspections paid for, prior to the
start of public works construction. The construction of
these improvements, as directed by the encroachment permit,
shall be completed prior to recording the final map.
6. A grading/drainage plan shall be submitted to the City
Engineering Division for review and approval prior to
issuance of building permits. A rectangular concrete
channel shall be installed in the drainage ditch along the
rear of the property. A drainage profile shall be submitted
to the Engineering Division detailing the drainage of the
property to the culvert invert beneath Curbaril Ave. at
Morro Rd. Drainage improvements shall require a written
statement by a registered civil engineer that all work has
been completed and is in compliance with approved plans.
Drainage facilities shall be constructed to City
specifications and all work shall be completed prior to
final inspection or recording of the map.
7. A drainage maintenance agreement, in a form acceptable to
the City Attorney, shall be incorporated within the CC&Rs.
8. The applicant shall make an offer of dedication to the City
for the three feet adjacent to the right-of-way line along •
the property frontage (23 feet from centerline of the right-
of-way) . An additional offer of dedication shall be made to
the City for the ten feet adjacent to the rear property line
for drainage purposes. The offers of dedication shall also
include public utility easements. All offers of dedication
shall be recorded prior to or simultaneous with the
recordation of the final map.
9. The applicant shall establish Covenants, Conditions, and
Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the regulation of land use, control
of nuisances, and architectural control of the site and
buildings.
a. These CC&Rs shall be submitted for review and approval
by the City Attorney and the Community Development
Director prior to approval of the final map.
b. These CC&Rs shall be administered by a Condominium
Owners Association.
10. The open space/common lot shall be designated as a Public
Utilities Easement.
•
• 11 . A final map drawn in substantial conformance with the
approved tentative map and compliance with all conditions
set forth herein shall be submitted for review and approval
in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and the City Lot
Division Ordinance prior to recordation.
a. Monuments shall be set at all new property corners
created by a registered civil engineer or licensed
land surveyor as required by the Land Surveyors Act and
Subdivision Map Act . Monuments set within the road
right-of-way shall conform to City standard drawing M-1 .
b. Pursuant to Section 66497 of the Subdivision Map Act the
engineer or surveyor shall notify the City Engineer in
writing when the monuments have been set .
c. A recently updated preliminary title report shall be
submitted for review in conjunction with the processing
of the final map.
d. A preliminary subdivision guarantee shall be submitted
for review in conjunction with the processing of the
final map.
12 . Approval of this tentative map shall expire two years from
the date of final approval unless an extension of time is
• granted pursuant to a written request prior to the
expiration date.
•
EXHIBIT E - Conditions of Approval •
Tentative Parcel Map 11-90
8065 Amapoa Ave. (Academe Enterprises, Inc. )
__ Revised by the Planning Commission September 18, 1990
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. All existing and proposed utility, pipeline, open space, or
other easements are to be shown on the final map. If there
are building or other restrictions related to the easements,
they shall be noted on the final map. All relocation and/or
alteration of existing utilities shall be the responsibility
of the developer at his sole expense.
2. Road improvement plans, prepared by a registered civil
engineer, shall be submitted to and approved by the
Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to
the construction of public improvements. Plans (which may
be included on the site development plan) shall include, but
not be limited to the following:
a. Amapoa Ave. shall be reconstructed along the entire
property frontage, or as directed by the Public Works
Director. New pavement width shall be 24 feet to curb
face. Portions of the existing curb and gutter may •
require removal or replacement, as directed by the
Director of Public Works.
b. A five (5) foot wide sidewalk is required to match the
existing adjacent sidewalk.
C. R-value testing shall be done and the pavement section'
designed by a registered civil engineer to the
satisfaction of the Director of Public Works prior to
the start of construction.
d. Construction of the public improvements shall be
completed prior to recordation of the final map, or the
applicant shall enter into an agreement acceptable to
the Public Works and Community Development Departments,
as well 'as the City Attorney. The required
improvements shall be completed prior to occupancy of
the site.
e. All public improvements shall be covered by a 100
percent Performance Guarantee and a 100% Labor
Guarantee until construction is deemed substantially
complete and by a 10 percent Maintenance Guarantee
until one year after substantial completion.
3. A six foot solid fence is required along the rear property
line and along the north property line where parkin:} faces
adjacent residential uses.
• 4. Each unit must contain 100 square feet of storage area,
exclusive of closets.
5. An encroachment permit shall be obtained from the Public
Works Department for all work to be done within the public
right-of-way prior to recording the final map. Applicant
shall sign an inspection agreement, guaranteeing that the
work shall be done and inspections paid for, prior to the
start of public works construction. The construction of
these improvements, as directed by the encroachment permit,
shall be completed prior to recording the final map.
6. A grading/drainage plan shall be submitted to the City
Engineering Division for review and approval prior to
issuance of building permits. A rectangular concrete
channel shall be installed in the drainage ditch along the
rear of the property. A drainage profile shall be submitted
to the Engineering Division detailing the drainage of the
property to the culvert invert beneath Curbaril Ave. at
Morro Rd. Drainage improvements shall require a written
statement by a registered civil engineer that all work has
been completed and is in compliance with approved plans.
Drainage facilities shall be constructed to City
specifications and all work shall be completed prior to
final inspection or recording of the map.
• 7. A drainage maintenance agreement, in a form acceptable to
the City Attorney, shall be incorporated within the CC&Rs.
8. The applicant shall make an offer of dedication to the City
for the three feet adjacent to the right-of-way line along
the property frontage (23 feet from centerline of the right-
of-way) . An additional offer of dedication shall be made to
the City for the ten feet adjacent to the rear property line
for drainage purposes. The offers of dedication shall also
include public utility easements. All offers of dedication
shall be recorded prior to or simultaneous with the
recordation of the final map.
9. The applicant shall establish Covenants, Conditions, and
Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the regulation of land use, control
of nuisances, and architectural control of the site and
buildings.
a. These CC&Rs shall be submitted for review and approval
by the City Attorney and the Community Development
Director prior to approval of the final map.
b. These CC&Rs shall be administered by a Condominium
Owners Association.
• 10. The open space/common lot shall be designated as a Public
Utilities Easement.
•
11. A final map drawn in substantial conformance with the
approved tentative map and compliance with all conditions
set forth herein shall be submitted for review and approval
in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and the City Lot
Division Ordinance prior to recordation.
a. Monuments shall be set at all new property corners
created by a registered civil engineer or licensed
land surveyor as required by the Land Surveyors Act and
Subdivision Map Act. Monuments set within the road
right-of-way shall conform to City standard drawing M-1.
b. Pursuant to Section 66497 of the Subdivision Map Act the
engineer or surveyor shall notify the City Engineer in
writing when the monuments have been set.
C. A recently updated preliminary title report shall be
submitted for review in conjunction with the processing
of the final map.
d. A preliminary subdivision guarantee shall be submitted •
for review in conjunction with the processing of the
final map.
12 . Approval of this tentative map shall expire two years from
the date of final approval unless an extension of time is
granted pursuant to a written request prior to the
expiration date.
•
MINUTES EXCERPT - PLANNING COMMISSION - SEPTEMBER 18, 1990
•
1 . TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 11-90 :
Application filed by A=eme Enterprises, Inc . (Summit
Engineering) to subdivide one lot into four airspace con-
dominiums and a common area. Subject site is located at
8065 Amapoa Avenue.
Mr. Davidson presented the staff report on this request.
Staff is recommending approval subject to 12 conditions .
Commission discussion and questions followed.
Eric Schmitz with Summit Engineering, representing the
applicant, spoke in support of the map but asked for modified
language to Condition 42d (public improvements) to enter into
an agreement acceptable to Community Development, Public
Works, and City Attorney.
Mr. Decamp stated that typically, maps of this nature where
the site will be occupied prior to completion of the map, it
is desired to have the frontage improvements in place prior
to recordation.
• Gary Sims said this situation is unique in that the structures
alreadv exist. Bonding is not desireable as it is difficult
for the City to collect bonds as guarantees, etc. He added
that Public Works could concur with the applicant' s request
contingent upon the City' s Attorney' s concurrence with a
reasonable time limit.
Mr. Schmitz requested a six month time limit.
In response to inquiry by Commissioner Lochridge, Noel Shutt,
applicant, explained reasons for requesting an additional
amount of time in order to get the financing needed to
complete the improvements .
Commissioner Lochridge stated he did not believe that the
conditions of approval were unreasonable.
After further discussion, it was apparent that Mr. Shutt' s
comments applied to the next item (TPM 12-90) wherein the
units already exist. Mr. Sims apologized for the mix-up as
he had been referring to the next item and added that his
department would have no problem with amending #2d for TPM
11-90 .
Mr. Shutt explained that if he can get the map finaled, he
• will be able to obtain more financing from the bank with a
condominium project than with an apartment project.
Discussion ensued.
Commissioner Johnson commented that the City does need some
way to insure that the improvements are going to be done.
MINUTES EXCERPT - PLANNING COMMISSION - SEPTEMBER 18 1990
Mr. DeCamp stated that any kind of agreement reached will be
backed up by some type of certifiable funds . He emphasized
that this is vacant land right now and that the four units
could conceivably be constructed and occupied prior to the map
being recorded; therf ore, assurances need to be made to insure
that the public improvements are in place prior to occupancy.
In response to question by Commissioner Hanauer, Mr. Sims
clarified that the two issues involved are the guarantee and
timing of improvements . He added that Public works would like
a clause stating that the City Attorney would review and
approve the agreement.
Mr. Schmitz explained that with the plan review and
construction process in order for the map to record, delays
would occur for financing of the project.
Commissioner Lochridge stated he would feel comfortable with
language in the conditions reflecting that the improvements
would be in place prior to occupancy. Mr. Decamp remarked
that language to this effect would be appropriate .
MOTION: By Commissioner Lochridge, seconded by Commissioner •
Hanauer and carried 5 : 0 to approve Tentative Parcel
Map 11-90 subject to the Findings and Conditions of
Approval With modification to Condition #2d:
112d. Construction of the public improvements shall
be completed prior to the recordation of the
final map, or the applicant shall enter into
an agreement acceptable to the Public 'Works
and Community Development Departments, as well
as the CityAttorney. The required
improvements shall be compelted prior to
occupancy of the site. "
2 . TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 12-90 :
Application filed by Noel and Linda SI t (Summit Engin-
eering) to convert an existing r unit project into
airspace condominiums . Subje site is located at 8045
Amapoa Avenue.
Mr. Davidson presented e staff report adding that when these
units were origina constructed, they were intended to be
converted to co ominiums (separate water meters, etc . ) He
stated that aff would request that the warding for Condition
42-c (p is improvements) not be changed. .
lc Schmitz with Summit Engineering, representing the
applicant, emphasized that this project was intended from the
beginning to convert to condominiums which is reflected on the
construction plans ( i . e. separate utility services, separate
water meters , etc . ) . and requested that the language for 2-c
•
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: A-4
Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 10/9/90
File Number: TPM 12-90
From: Henry Engen, Community Development Director
SUBJECT:
Request to convert an existing four-unit project into airspace
condominiums at 8045 Amapoa Avenue (Noel and Linda Shutt/Summit
Engineering) .
RECOMMENDATION:
• Per the Planning Commission' s recommendation, approval of TPM
12-90 based on the Findings and Conditions of Approval contained
in the attached staff report.
BACKGROUND:
On September 18, 1990, the Planning Commission conducted a public
hearing on the above subject. On a 5 : 1 : 1 vote (Commissioner Waage
absent and Commissioner Highland abstaining) , the Commission
recommended approval of the map. There was discussion and public
testimony as referenced in the attached minutes excerpt.
HE :ps
Attachment: Staff Report dated September 18, 1990
Minutes Excerpt -September 181 1990
cc : Noel and Linda Shutt
Summit Engineering
•
CITY OF ATASCADERO Item: B-2 •
STAFF REPORT
FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date : September 18, 1990
BY: Doug Davidson, Senior Planner File No : TPM 12-90
SUBJECT:
To consider a request to convert an existing four-unit project
into airspace condominiums .
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of Tentative Parcel Map 12-90 based on
the Findings for Approval in Exhibit D and the Conditions of
Approval in Exhibit E .
SITUATION AND FACTS:
1 . Applicant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Noel and Linda Shutt
2 . Representative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Summit Engineering
3 . Project Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8045 Amapoa Ave. •
4 . Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 .29 acres
5 . Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .RMF-16 (FH)
6 . General Plan Designation. . . . .High Density Multiple Family
7 . Existing Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Four unit project
8 . Environmental Status . . . . . . . . .Categorically Exempt
(Class One)
ANALYSIS:
Permits were issued for the four unit project on November 19,
1984, with occupancy granted on October 15, 1985 . The applicant
intended to convert these units to condominiums, in fact the
project was constructed with individual ownership in mind. The
installation of separate water meters is evidence that the
project was envisioned as separate units . Indeed, the Atascadero
Mutual Water Company requires that each condominium contain its
own water meter.
•
• Airspace condominiums allow individual ownership of a unit, with
the parking and landscape areas owned in common. Private
agreements among the property owners ensure maintenance. Since
this is a proposed conversion of existing units, it will remove
available rental housing from the market. This fact, in light of
the recent Montanaro proposal, causes the staff to hesitate and
carefully consider its recommendation. The Montanaro project is
a proposed conversion of an existing 64 unit apartment project
located at 11145 El Camino Real . The Planning Commission action
to deny the Montanaro project, with a concurrent recommendation
to allow staff to prepare a condominium conversion ordinance,
will be heard on appeal at the City Council meeting of September
11, 1990 .
Comparison with Montanaro Project
Two characteristics distinguish the subject project from the
Montanaro request . First, the fact that was mentioned above,
the project was constructed for ultimate conversion to
condominiums . Secondly, this is a four unit conversion versus a
64 unit project . Whereas, the Montanaro project would result in
an 11 percent increase in the total number of converted units, -a
four unit conversion would add less than one percent to the
total . Although the City lacks a condominium ordinance with
guidelines for conversion, it is safe to conclude that this is an
• insignificant number. The staff' s goal is still to implement the
policies of the General Plan through adoption of a condominium
conversion ordinance - in the meantime such requests will be
reviewed on an individual basis . The original intent and size of
this project supports its conversion to condominiums .
CONCLUSIONS:
No structural or site modifications are necessary for these
existing units to comply with the Uniform Building and Fire
Codes . The Public Works Department has required the installation
of public improvements along the property frontage and drainage
facilities across the rear of the site, to maintain consistency
with other recent approvals on Amapoa Ave . In conjunction with
the recommended Conditions of Approval, the project can provide
an attractive opportunity for home ownership. Moreover, the
conversion will not remove a substantial amount of rental housing
from the market .
ATTACHMENTS : Exhibit A - Zoning Map
Exhibit B - General Plan Map
Exhibit C - Tentative Parcel Map
Exhibit D - Findings for Approval
Exhibit E - Conditions of Approval
• 2
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF ATASCADERO ZONING MAP
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TPM 12-90
DEPARTMENT
i
�k
V�
t-
�r�yc
�J
Y�
(FH)1
� a
- � co4
4
r SITE
40
yrEw
R S F
IV
.1/ � � �i'fl � f � � 5'NT►��
�•� ����i�� , � SII �,�� � "�.�
�` �� �i�Y►� �� IIII IA/��
Tow-
wl-
�lI ♦ ♦ i
JA
NOW
- r
I� so
;a
Waal
EXHIBIT C
CITY OF ATASCADERO TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TPM 12-90
DEPARTMENT
TENTATIVE MAP
-� CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION
AT - 90
• • r r
RRf11O A 0DITYCRsm 110 COYROI gow OP
PO(R [EIRTDIO "ARnOW YIRTR IIPOM
LOT 23 w M= DC Of ATADCMW I= 4 V W
RI "It CITY DP ATNC01M. SAN 1,I111 ORISPO CMWM. CALO'ORMIA
' ' Yr Y'rr/ ttfll � ♦r'r� ....
•J, ..ter��rr Mr �_ r1 Y•
trrw.3 �O�
� ( r.`. �� ~%WOW � 1y
eaw
'sm..
33 •t` 3� [ar i'� to Raaf
ev.Aru Irl. wry a eama-"J rr•My _"'W"wNAM rwl
.w•...• t N u = a.r,raA7.rar
�,� \ r ;LOT � ,..�r!�,1.•
Win
Y:.,.
1
y 1 ( ����. - i ��•�rA 9r soup"*as Pit
toTfW-awwavA�rA
••n- 1 _.... .�.. i�j RECORD MIMSS.
ROM A W"SM"
w nrw•.r.sn� • r.w+.•s+.`w. ••� • 1325 SAMIA CLAM ROAo
r.r MASCADEM.CA 13423
---—�-AMAM4 AVEA/UE
tl•.gp - SITE AREA:
' 0.21 ACRES
custm r•.OPo1co 2t3NW. Mo-16
.OR PREPARED BY.
10P06R~11700"t"IS 4SC0 SUu•1 OES"0 U•:11EER04 ASSOCIATES
LM'ON A rw SURVEY. 111 1311"STREET SLATE 212
w •°i* �, A•", "�•—•^'�• PASO t100LES.CL$3246
ii•iv i+i%rt��+•�z i www w ri.•.1�ylrnyr (105)231-1737
w~ ••IA ALL TRRS SHOW AIC TO MUM
MEPAOED 07:pUC SCI•RR
UNM THE SUKINSIOII Or:
SCALL; 1' . W l C LuPgdt.R.C.C. 11345
(AS i 2501.1/1) POEPAREO MASL 1110
•
•
EXHIBIT D - Findings for Approval
Tentative Parcel Map 12-90
.8045 Amapoa Ave. (Academe Enterprises, Inc. )
September 18, 1990
ENVIRONMENTAL FINDING:
The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions
of the California Environmental Quality Act.
MAP FINDINGS:
1. The proposed map is consistent with the applicable
General or Specific Plan.
2. The design and/or improvements of the proposed subdivision
is consistent with the applicable General or Specific Plan.
3. The site is physically suitable for the proposed type of
• development.
4. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of
development.
5. The design of the subdivision, as conditioned, and the
proposed improvements, will not cause substantial
environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure
fish and wildlife or their habitat.
6. The design of the subdivision, and the type of the
improvements, will not conflict with easements acquired by
the public at large for access through or the use of
property within the proposed subdivision; or substantially
equivalent alternate easements are provided.
7. The design of the subdivision and/or the type of proposed
improvements will not cause serious health problems.
•
EXHIBIT E - Conditions of Approval
Tentative Parcel Map 12-90 •
8045 Amapoa Ave . (Academe Enterprises, Inc . )
September 18, 1990
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1 . All existing and proposed utility, pipeline, open space, or
other easements are to be shown on the final map. If there
are building or other restrictions related to the easements,
they shall be noted on the final map All relocation and/or
alteration of existing utilities shall be the responsibility
of the developer at his sole expense.
2 . Road improvement plans, prepared by a registered civil
engineer, shall be submitted to and approved by the
Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to
the construction of public improvements . Plans shall
include, but not be limited to the following:
a. Amapoa Ave. shall be reconstructed along the entire
property frontage, or as directed by the Public Works
Director. New pavement width shall be 24 feet to curb
face . The existing drive approach shall be removed and
replaced. Portions of the existing curb, gutter, and
sidewalk shall be removed and replaced as directed by
the Director of Public Works.
b. R-value testing shall be done and the pavement section
designed by a registered civil engineer to the
satisfaction of the Director of Public Works prior to
the start of construction.
C . Construction of the public improvements shall be
completed prior to recordation of the final map.
d. All public improvements shall be covered by a 100
percent Performance Guarantee and a 100% Labor and
Material Guarantee until construction is deemed
substantially complete and by a 10 percent Maintenance
Guarantee until one year after substantial completion.
3 . An encroachment permit shall be obtained from the Public
Works Department for all work to be done within the public
right-of-way prior to recording the final map: Applicant
shall sign an inspection agreement, guaranteeing that the
work shall be done and inspections paid for, prior to the
start of public works construction. The construction of
these improvements, as directed by the encroachment permit,
shall be completed prior to recording the final map .
•
• 4 . A rectangular concrete channel shall be installed in the
drainage ditch along the rear of the property. A drainage
profile shall be submitted to the Engineering Division
detailing the drainage from the property to the culvert
invert beneath Curbaril Ave . and Morro Rd. Drainage
facilities shall be constructed to City specifications and
all work shall be completed prior to final inspection or
recording of the map.
5 . A drainage maintenance agreement, in a form acceptable to
the City Attorney, shall be incorporated within the CC&Rs .
6 . The applicant shall make an offer of dedication to the City
for the three feet adjacent to the right-of-way line along
the property frontage (23 feet from centerline of the right-
of-way) . An additional offer of dedication shall be made to
the City for the ten feet adjacent to the rear property line
for drainage purposes . The offers of dedication shall also
include public utility easements. All offers of dedication
shall be recorded prior to or simultaneous with the
recordation of the final map.
7 . The applicant shall establish Covenants, Conditions, and
Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the regulation of land use, control
of nuisances, and architectural control of the site and
buildings .
• a. These CC&Rs shall be submitted for review and approval
by the City Attorney and the Community Development
Director prior to approval of the final map.
b. These CC&Rs shall be administered by a Condominium
Owners Association.
8 . The open space/common lot shall be designated as a Public
Utilities Easement .
9 . A final map drawn in substantial conformance with the
approved tentative map and compliance with all conditions
set forth herein shall be submitted for review and approval
in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and the City Lot
Division Ordinance prior to recordation.
a. Monuments shall be set at all new property corners
created by a registered civil engineer or licensed
land surveyor as required by the Land Surveyors Act and
Subdivision Map Act . Monuments set within the road
right-of-way shall conform to City standard drawing M-1 .
b. Pursuant to Section 66497 of the Subdivision Map Act the
engineer or surveyor shall notify the City Engineer in
• writing when the monuments have been set .
c . A recently updated preliminary title report shall be •
submitted for review in conjunction with the processing
of the final map.
d. A preliminary subdivision guarantee shall be submitted
for review in conjunction with the processing of the
final map.
10 . Approval of this tentative map shall expire two years from
the date of final approval unless an extension of time is
granted pursuant to a written request prior to the
expiration date .
•
MINUTES EXCERPT - PLANNING COMMISSION - SEPTEMBER 18 1990
•
Mr. Decamp stated that any kind of agreement r/emphasized
l be
backed up by some type of certifiable funds .
that this is vacant land right now and that nits
could conceivably be constructed and occupied p map
being recorded; therfore, assurances need to made to insure
that the public improvements are in place p or to occupancy.
In response to question by Commission ' Hanauer, Mr. Sims
clarified that the two issues involve are the guarantee and
timing of improvements . He added tha Public works would like
a clause stating that the City torney would review and
approve the agreement.
Mr. Schmitz explained tha with the plan review and
construction process in or r for the map to record, delays
would occur for financing f the project.
Commissioner Lochridge stated he would feel comfortable with
language in the Gond ions reflecting that the improvements
would be in place -ior to occupancy. Mr. DeCamp remarked
that language to lis effect would be appropriate.
• MOTION: By C nmissioner Lochridge, seconded by Commissioner
Ha suer and carried 5 :0 to approve Tentative Parcel
p 11-90 subject to the Findings and Conditions of
Approval with modification to Condition #2d:
112d. Construction of the public improvements shall
be completed prior to the recordation of the
final map, or the applicant shall enter into
an agreement acceptable to the Public 'Works
and Community Development Departments, as well
as the City Attorney. The required
improvements shall be compelted prior to
occupancy of the site. "
2 . TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 12-90 :
Application filed by Noel and Linda Shutt (Summit Engin-
eering) to convert an existing four unit project into
airspace condominiums . Subjext site is located at 8045
Amapoa Avenue.
Mr. Davidson presented the staff report adding that when these
units were originally constructed, they were intended to be
converted to condominiums (separate water meters , etc: . ) He
stated that staff would request that the wording for Condition
• #2-c (public improvements) not be changed.
Eric Schmitz with Summit Engineering, representing the
applicant, emphasized that this project 'was intended from the
beginning to convert to condominiums which is reflected on the
construction plans ( i . e. separate utility services, separate
water meters , etc; . ) . and requested that the language for 2-c
PLANNING COMMISSION - MINUTES EXCERPT - SEPTEMBER 18 1990
•
be modified for the applicant to enter into an agreement
(similar to Condition #2-d of TPM 11-90 (pr(i!vious hearing) .
He added that a 3 month time limit would be appropriate in
view Of the limited improvements for this site.
Noel Shutt, applicant, commented that the units were designed
and built as condominium units .
In response to question from Commissioner Kudlac, Mr. Shutt
stated that the tenants have the first right option to
purchase the units .
8 : 15 p.m. - Commissioner Highland is now present,
Commissioner Lochridge stated lie did not see this project as
a "financing nightmare" and would like a firm cOmmittment that
as developments occur within the City, public improvements
will be installed as the developments occur.
Chairperson Luna echoed Commissioner Lochridge° s comments
adding that this site is located in a flood plain and part of
the improvements would be drainage related. The City would
be well-served to make sure that the project does go forth
with those improvements in place_ •
MOTION: By Commissioner Johnson seconded by commissioner
Lochridge, and carried 5 : 1 to approve Tentative
Parcel Map 12-90 subject to the Findings and Condi-
tions of Approval contained in the staff report.
The motion carried with Commissioner Highland
abstaining.
3 . TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 13-90 :
Application filed by Bob Borba (Cue- a Engineering) to
subdivide one lot into four airsp- e condominiums and a
common area. Subject site is 1 cated at 6655 Tecarida
Avenue.
Mr. Davidson presented the sta report on this matter adding
that building permits are cur ently being processed. He noted
that the project symbolize the style of design that the City
policies now encourag- and complies with the Citv' s
architectural guideli s . Staff is recommending approval
subject to 8 condi t ' is .
Commission quos Ons followed.
Eric Schmit , representing the applicant, expressed agreemetlt •
with the ' commendation.
•
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: A-5
Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 101/9/90
File Number: TPM 13-90
From: Henry Engen, Community Development Director kke-
SUBJECT:
Request to subdivide one lot into four airspace condominiums and
a common space at 6655 Tecorida Avenue (Bob Borba/Cuesta
Engineering) .
RECOMMENDATION:
• Per the Planning Commission' s recommendation, approval of TPM
13-90 based on the Findings and Conditions of Approval contained
in the attached staff report.
BACKGROUND:
On September 18, 1990 , the Planning Commission conducted a public
hearing on the above subject . On a 6 :0 vote (Commissioner Waage
absent) , the Commission recommended approval of the map with
modification to Condition #2d. There was discussion and public
testimony given as referenced in the attached minutes excerpt.
HE :ps
Attachment: Staff Report - September 18 , 1990
Minutes Excerpt - September 18 , 1990
CC : Bob Borba
Cuesta Engineering
•
CITY OF ATASCADERO -
Item: B-3 •
STAFF REPORT
FOR: Planning Commission Meeting :DateSeptember 18, 1990
P
BY: Doug Davidson, Senior Planner File No : TPM 13-90
SUBJECT:
To consider a request to subdivide one lot into four airspace
condominiums and a common area.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of Tentative Parcel Map 13-90 based on
the for Findings Approval g o pp oval in Exhibit D and the Conditions of
Approval in Exhibit E.
SITUATION AND FACTS:
1 . 'Applicant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Bob Borba
2 . Representative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Cuesta Engineering
3 . Project Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6655 Tecorida Ave. •
4 . Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . 68 acres
5 . Zoning. . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .RMF-16 (FH)
6 . General Plan Designation. . . . .High Density Multiple Family
7 . Existing Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Vacant
8 . Environmental Status . . . . . . . . .Negative Declaration
adopted June 15, 1990
BACKGROUND:
Precise Plan 21=90 became effective on June 15, 1990,
establishing the development standards for construction of a four
unit multiple project (see Exhibit F) . Building permits are
currently being reviewed for compliance with the Precise Plan
conditions, as well as for conformance with structural and
engineering standards .
•
• ANALYSIS:
This four unit project was intended as condominiums from its
inception. The applicants have secured Precise Plan approval and
are processing the Tentative Map during plan check and
construction. In an airspace condominium, the unit spaces are
individually owned, while the open space and parking area is
owned in common. Private agreements (CC&Rs) will ensure
continued maintenance .
Staff supports the creation of condominiums in this case, because
the e number of units involved o ved is small and theJ
ro 'ect was
P
originally designed as a condominium project . The provision of
separate water meters, as well as the building design and layout
of the project, confirms that conversion to condominiums was not
an afterthought . This is especially important in light of the
concerns raised by the recent application by Richard Montanaro
for conversion of an existing 64 unit apartment project (11145 E1
Camino Real) .
Staff was anticipating that a decision would have been reached on
the Montanaro appeal, including City Council direction regarding
a condominium conversion study, before considering further
similar requests . Nonetheless, staff is confident that this
request is in conformance with the General Plan, specifically the
• Housing Element and Appearance Review Guidelines . These are the
two documents specifically referenced -in the recommended Findings
for Denial of the Montanaro project .
While conversion of a 64 unit apartment project significantly
reduces the available rental housing in Atascadero, the creation
of four airspace condominiums does not affect the existing
supply. The project on Tecorida Ave. is not a conversion, but
has been envisioned as condominiums from the outset . Thus, this
project is not included in the percentages cited in Finding #1 of
the Montanaro project (27 .5% of the City' s multiple family units
converted to condominiums) .
The second recommended Finding for Denial of the Montanaro
project is, "that the design and improvement of the proposed
subdivision is not consistent with the General Plan. " The 64
unit project exceeds the current allowed density, fails to comply
with development standards, and is not in conformance with the
Appearance Review Guidelines . The project on Tecorida Ave. ,
however, symbolizes a style of design that City policies now
encourage . The project recognizes the natural features of the
site, while providing a desirable architectural appearance.
• 2
•
CONCLUSIONS:
The proposed project presented no concerns to any of the outside
agencies . All standards of the FH (Flood Hazard) section of the
Zoning Ordinance were incorporated into the project design and
subsequent review. The required public improvements triggered by
this development have been reviewed and approved through the
Precise Plan approval and are now being verified before issuance
of building permits . With a corresponding subdivision approval,
the required improvements must be completed before the map
records or prior to final building inspection, whichever comes
first . Most importantly, the project scale and design does not
present the housing balance question of the Montanaro project .
ATTACHMENTS : Exhibit A - Zoning Map
Exhibit B - General Plan Map
Exhibit C - Tentative Parcel Map
Exhibit D - Findings for Approval
Exhibit E - Conditions of Approval
Exhibit F - Precise Plan 21-90
•
3 •
CITY OF ATASCADERO EXHIBIT A
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT LOCATIONZONING MAP
TPM 13-900
• DEPARTMENT
b \
v ALLE
1 I �
i I LA
R,M F ' r
(FH)
0 AV J a
711
_ z
SCa >
L(FH)
W � 1 rFi
-71—♦rrDaES -
08,
�( ���� � � �= CS - �•'F�
N
til 6 �r ♦\ ��_
- c , _---
\r
6
870 G i % f �Y ,r R F
IQ
p040 `✓ ,moo`
\VIEW
1 - ,L
A A . • -
'r[,�r�rnarw,,n
r.'i�A ij, ®R
► �
Ila
Woo
� r
V �
EXHIBIT C
CITY OF ATASCADERO TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TPM 13-90
• DEPARTMENT
OWNER'S STATEMENT
LEGEND f MO"r ArKr RO
r*%UrVAL 7►x W43 M or WA&•AOrfl1TY saw.OM n4S
RNTARW wV AW STAR'MAr i AM"A O"IM OR AUT WIZO AE*RESENTA"W a
;-1 omm WAK no MRt 1 c") SAO 01"O1 A/d THAT W WOftAib1 Oo M.=M S TRUE ANO CenKeT M TK
T-1 DOOM O PMU"u=MR TARO MR MWT 1 (TY► ow Or Mr A204O7Q,
E-1 omm Comm u2[rm 01mv no 1wf 1 (rTp)
L—t4.10
Am FAAAOg14/ ALL u7w OAR
r1OA1�IER
3NITY MA# on T.muppm
LOT 27 2cm. 1'.W Lae L nista.
*08W J.NOMA YOIOSCA L l A
MAA[l IEOI RAY E IED/
"war 2K
.1217.W
.12SLW Y-1
2
W UNR 1
UNIT 2 Y-2
E-1 0-1 G-2 1 LOT 43
LOT I E-2
E-3 UNIT
C ' aw ACM Y
0 G-3 p•1wllwe..w�►
w1r swrt►.rw..
v COMMON AREA Ano P. U. E.
A D G-4 UNIT
E—♦
Y—* TMAr4f PARCEL MAP AT 90-192
�
RIA A WAWWW Cr LOT X N.=V-A ASID TO.TR
wmO wr Or ATASOADEAO.020M R SAM LMS OOlO.
RATt IF"nPlaA.A oRM A&T L M&w W=A AT
rAlt w a.ArL
LOT 29
QUESTA ENGINEERING
.TT won SOAR
AMSOADOIO.C4k/ wu
•
EXHIBIT D - Findings for Approval
Tentative Parcel Map 13-90
6655 Tecorida Ave. (Bob Borba/Cuesta Engineering) •
September 18, 1990
ENVIRONMENTAL FINDING:
A Negative Declaration has been previously prepared (May 25,
1990) and adopted (June 15, 1990) as a part of Precise Plan 21-
90.
MAP FINDINGS:
1. The proposed map is consistent with the applicable
General or Specific Plan.
2. The design and/or improvements of the proposed subdivision
is consistent with the applicable General or Specific Plan.
3. The site is physically suitable for the proposed type of
development.
4. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of
development.
5. The design of the subdivision, as conditioned, and the •
proposed improvements, will not cause substantial
environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure
fish and wildlife or their habitat.
6. The design of the subdivision, and the type of the
improvements, will not conflict with easements acquired by
the public at large for access through or the use of
property within the proposed subdivision; or substantially
equivalent alternate easements are provided.
7. The design of the subdivision and/or the type of proposed
improvements will not cause serious health problems.
•
f
EXHIBIT E - Conditions of Approval
Tentative Parcel Map 13-90
6655 Tecorida Ave (Borba/Cuesta Engineering)
September 18, 1990
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1 . All existing and proposed utility, pipeline, open space, or
other easements are to be shown on the final map. If there
are building or other restrictions related to the easements,
they shall be noted on the final map. All relocation and/or
alteration of existing utilities shall be the responsibility
of the developer at his sole expense.
2 . Construction of the public improvements as directed by
Precise Plan 21-90 shall be completed prior to recordation
of the final map. All public improvements shall be covered
by a 100 percent Performance Bond and a 100% Labor and
Material Bond until construction is deemed substantially
complete and by a 10 percent Maintenance Bond until one year
after substantial completion.
3 . All conditions of Precise Plan 21-90 shall be completed
prior to final building inspection of any unit .
• 4 . A road maintenance agreement and a drainage maintenance
agreement, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, shall
be incorporated within the CC&Rs . These agreements are for
the maintenance of the interior road and onsite drainage
facilities .
5 . The applicant shall make an offer of dedication to the City
on Tecorida Avenue of 20 feet from centerline of the right-
of-way to property line . Offer of dedication shall be
recorded prior to or simultaneous with the recordation of
the final map.
6 . The applicant shall establish Covenants, Conditions, and
Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the regulation of land use, control
of nuisances, and architectural control of the site and
buildings .
a. These CC&Rs shall be submitted for review and approval
by the City Attorney and the Community Development
Director prior to approval of the final map.
b. These CC&Rs shall be administered by a Condominium
Owners Association.
7 . The open space/common lot shall be designated as a Public
• Utilities Easement .
8 . A final map drawn in substantial conformance with the
approved tentative map and compliance with all conditions
set forth herein shall be submitted for review and approval
in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and the City Lot
Division Ordinance prior to recordation.
a. Monuments shall be set at all new property corners
created by a registered civil engineer or licensed
land surveyor as required by the Land Surveyors Act and
Subdivision Map Act . Monuments set within the road
right-of-way shall conform to City standard drawing M-1 .
b. Pursuant to Section 66497 of the Subdivision Map Act the
engineer or surveyor shall notify the City Engineer in
writing when the monuments have been set .
c . A recently updated preliminary title report shall be
submitted for review in conjunction with the processing
of the final map.
d. A preliminary subdivision guarantee shall be submitted
for review in conjunction with the processing of the
final map.
9 . Approval of this tentative map shall expire two years from
the date of final approval unless an extension of time is
granted pursuant to a written request prior to the •
expiration date.
•
EXHIBIT F
ADMINISTRATION BUILDING +�
6500 PALMA AVENUE
iNt*1111
as vade�® POLICE DEPARTMENT
ATA9':A0ER0. CALIFORNIA 93422
PHONE: (6051 466000.6NCORPORATED JULY 2. 1979
6300 PALMA AVENUE
ATASCAOERO. CALIFORNIA 934.
CITY COUNCIL PHONE: (603) 466.6600
CITY CLERK
CITY TREASURER
CITY MANAGER
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT
FIRE DEPARTMENT
_OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 6005 LEWIS AVENUE
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
ATASCAOERO. CALIFORNIA 93422 PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT PHONE: 18051 466.2141
May 25 , 1990
Robert Borba
9436 Carmel Rd.
Atascadero, CA 93422
RE: PRECISE PLAN 21-90
66655 Tecorida Ave.
Dear Mr. Borba:
The City of Atascadero has received and reviewed your application
for a Precise Plan and Environmental Determination for grading on
• slopes in excess of 10 percent for a four-unit multiple family
project.
The proposed site is zoned R.MF/165 (FH) (Residential Multiple
Family High Density with a Flood hazard Overlay) and the proposed
use is allowed as defined as a multiple family dwellings (Section
9-3 . 172 (46) . The adjacent properties are zoned the same as the
subject site and are currently a mix of vacant property and
residential uses . Procerty to the west is zoned Commercial
Retail.
A review by the Community Development Director of the
environmental description form and application, along with other
background information, shows that the project will have no
detrimental effect upon the environment; therefore, a Negative
Declaration has been prepared. The Director has also :found the
project, as conditioned, to be in compliance with the provisions
of the Zoning Ordinance.
The proposed Precise Plan is approved as shown on attached
Exhibits B and C (site/grading plan) and subject to the
conditions of approval in Exhibit E. Final approval becomes
effective on June 15 , 1990 , unless appealed. (NOTE: TH-TS DOES
NOT CONSTITUTE A GRADING OR BUILDING PERMIT. )
In the eventpea ou intend to a •
Y appeal any of the conditions , your
appeal should be in writing and should state the reasons for the
appeal. Any appeal would be scheduled for Planning Commission
consideration as a public hearing. You should, however, discuss
any objections to the conditions with planning staff as it may be
Possible to alter conditions after such discussion.
If you should have any questions concerning this project, you are
welcome to contact the Community Development Department for
assistance.
Sincerely,
Doug Davidson
Senior Planner
DD/dd
cc: Cuesta Engineering
Attachments : Exhibit A - Zoning Map
Exhibit B - Site Plan •
Exhibit C - Grading/Drainage -Pian
Exhibit D - Findings for approval
Exhibit E - Conditions of Approval
•
r
r
• •
PIN
MIPS
�. law 'mom
l/ateEEE
,
zz
°wo
1�
JIM
io
WE I Zak
7 COIN
All
aal ab
J=�,-..�`1' ° MOW
I off,
�•
Tb
sow
��
eHIBIT B
CITY OF ATASCADERO
SITE PLAN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
•
DEPARTMENT PRECISE PLAN 21-90
.
•Vicinity Map. Prefect fuwwuy;
iD—Im.
•-
•��rrr.rrnrrrr•
-.. .T=9
�.r !e rrw.�r.r
1� V
RE
.�. -
'
IQ
M -
1 I
814 Plan '
..f n
•
t
1 w� SYcsmare Grvve
•
CHIBIT C
CITY OF ATASCADERO GRADING/DRAINAGE PLAN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PRECISE PLAN 21-90
DEPARTMENT
'_ ww�.w_ff_•__•a•_w e�fw�.
WCQ+7Ml:S.R•.'!7 �Y . fw ww_�ws•rw_fw_..w.
`+ s.a`� sris« r :.i�Mi►r_�.�.ew_r•.w_sw�
'�<sar r c•'R•^s"�..'w �� ( � aw..��w���swi.w_i�.iw fw__rsw�
74
i df 1 00
y'•M:. •• • wfwwM'•wNe_wwf_e•_•rwf�N_•1__
J / _ • °fnrw�w_�O�_f•�__fY ff�
N,�•:•._.w.u•.�w ,r� l �� - -�_a+f rr.�.._wf•fe_.+.f_
�s styes.r •e ww / fr , � .w_.w.•w_�...rw•w r_... �
�w.rsrn r.frr � / '' `/ � •Ilt(MTI.7VI- ��=r_r•s riwriviiwi �
ews�sf r_w•ewe_r�w•�_fff f_,f,_
�•mss*•w_r.fww►
I � t �_fe_ww•fr°w.f•�_�e�_�f
�' j •. V _� j• fw wwrw�w_f ry�w__r_w
1 i • ` �a+►'� 1 °'1~ '..Y\^'.. •�/r....Ir�J re_w_w__�w Nwfw��..__
!: � �f__.fw•rw e__fwerw.w.w
.fog r ;�=t .. '' 1'*��• t�- t � 1' ..r`S� ,�•y
1 G .� ffw• w.
CWS:xp i • _ ° , �s �w�• i_�:+�•w..:rr.
.—..• rf w••�r� wr LL•71Mw•� ��' t.y•• tom_ I ''`\-. I•bfrY�tiN
Nit
7/ `� A•N.Y M.I
.`r•:.�...w`w i` I . ii
Ole
s se w. r w
- w C.W A V6L'WE-%4
•
Exhibit D - Findings for Approval
Precise Plan 21-90 •
6655 Tecorida Ave.
(Borba/Cuesta Engineering)
1. The proposed project or use is consistent with the General
Plan.
2. The proposed project or use satisfies all applicable
provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.
3. The establishment, and subsequent operation or conduct of the
use will not, because of the circumstances and conditions
applied in the particular case, be detrimental to the health,
safety, or welfare of the general public or persons residing
or working in the neighborhood of the use, or be detrimental
or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity of
the use.
4. The proposed project or use will not be inconsistent with the
character of the immediate neighborhood or contrary to its
orderly development.
5. The proposed use or project will not generate a volume of
traffic beyond the safe capacity of all roads providing •
access to the project, either existing -or to be improved
in conjunction with the project, or beyond the normal traffic
volume of the surrounding neighborhood that would result from
full development in accordance with the Land Use Element.
6. The proposed project is in compliance with the City' s
Appearance Review Guidelines.
•
EXHIBIT E - Conditions of Approval
• Precise Plan 21-90
6655 Tecorida Ave
(Borba/Cuesta Engineering)
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. All construction shall be in conformance with Exhibit C
(Grading Plan, including tree protection) , Exhibit E
(Conditions of Approval) , and shall comply with all City
Codes and Ordinances. Any modification to this approval
requires approval by the Community Development Department
prior to implementing any changes.
2. All relocation and/or alteration of existing utilities shall
be the responsibility of the developer.
3. Grading and drainage plans, prepared by a registered Civil
Engineer, shall be resubmitted to the Community Development
_ Department for review and approval by the Community
Development and Public Works Departments prior to the
issuance of any building permits. All required drainage
work shall be constructed to City standards and completed
prior to final building inspection. The grading and
• drainage improvements shall require a written statement from
the registered civil engineer that all- work has been
completed in full compliance with the approved plans.
4 . Applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the City
of Atascadero Public Works Department, including signing an
agreement that the work will be done and inspections paid
for. The construction of these improvements , as directed by
the encroachment permit shall be completed prior to final
building inspection.
S. Road improvement plans prepared by a Registered Civil
Engineer shall be submitted to the Community Development
Department for review and approval by the Community
Development and Public Works Departments, prior to issuance
of any building permit. Plans shall include, but not be
limited to:
a. Construction of Tecorida Ave. shall conform to the
design of the road improvements being prepared in
connection with the Payton project (6725 Tecorida Ave) .
b. Curb, gutter, five foot sidewalk, and a minimum paved
section of 20 feet for approximately 60 linear feet
north from the southerly property line.
• 1
J
C. The end of the 20 feet wide road section shall be •
barricaded with 4 inch diameter galvanized posts,
removable with locking base and reflectors. At this
point a standard handicapped ramp shall be installed.
d. The paved road section shall become 16 feet wide with
standard curb and gutter on the westerly side from the
handicapped ramp north to match the existing
improvements. This section shall be posted with a
"Non-motorized Traffic Only" sign.
e. Design shall include measures to save and preserve
trees within the right-of-way as approved by the
Community Development and Public Works Department.
f. Construction of the public road improvements shall be
completed prior to the final inspection.
6. All public improvements shall be covered with a 100%
Performane Bond until substantial completion and by a 10%
Maintenance Bond until one year after substantial
completion.
7. A City standard fire hydrant shall be installed at the
driveway entrance prior to the start of any combustible
construction.
8 . This Precise Plan shall expire one year from the date of •
final approval (June 15, 1990) . A one year time extension
may be granted pursuant to a written request filed prior to
the expiration date as per Section (9-2 . 118) of the Zoning
Ordinance. Any further one year time extensions may be
approved by the Planning Commission.
2 •
� f
r
MINUTES EXCERPT - PLANNING COMMISSION - SEPTEMBER 18 1990
•
be modified for the applicant to enter into an a eement
(similar to Condition #2-d of TPM 11-90 (previous iearing) ,
He added that a 3 month time limit would be ap Opriate in
view of the limited improvements for this site
Noel Shutt, applicant, commented that the ui is were designed
and built as condominium units .
In response to question from Commiss ' her hudlac, Mr. Shutt
stated that the tenants have the first right option to
Purchase the units .
8 : 15 p.m. - Commissioner Highl - id is now present.
Commissioner Lochridge sta d he did not see this project as
a "financing nightmare" a would like a firm committlllent that
as developments occur ithin the City, public improvements
will be installed as ie developments occur.
Chairperson Luna echoed Commissioner Lochridge' s comments
adding that till - site is located in a flood plain and part of
the imprOvellle s would be drainage related. The City would
be well-ser d to make sure that the project does go forth
• with thos improvements in place._
MOTION• By Commissioner Johnson seconded by Commissioner
Lochridge, and carried 5 : 1 to approve Tentative
Parcel Map 12-90 subject to the Findings and Condi-
tions of Approval contained in the staff report.
The motion carried with Commissioner Highland
abstaining.
3 . TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 13-90 :
Application filed by Bob Eorba (Cuesta Engineering) to
subdivide one lot into four airspace condominiums and a
common area. Subject site is located at 6655 Tecorida
Avenue.
Mr. Davidson presented the staff report on this matter adding
that building permits are currently being processed. He noted
that the project symbolizes the style of design that the City
Policies now encourage and complies with the City' s
architectural guidelines . Staff is recommending approval
subject to 8 conditions .
Commission questions followed.
Eric Schmitz , representing the applicant, expressed agreement
with the recommendation.
MINUTES EXCERPT - PLANNING COMMISSION - SEPTEMBER 18, 1990
In response to question by Commissioner Johnson, Mr. Schmitz
remarked that Tecorida will be improved and access will be provided
between the Woodglen project and adjoining vacant lot prior to the
completion of this project . Discussion followed.
MOTION: By Commissioner Lochridge, seconded by Commissioner
Kudlac and carried 6 : 0 to approve Tentative- Parcel
Map 13-90 subject to the Findings and Conditions
contained in the staff report.
Chairperson Luna declared a recess at 8 : 30 p.m. . meeting
reconvened at 8 : 40 p.m.
4 . CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 4-90 :
Application filed by Golden West Del Rio Center, Ltd. /
Richard Shannon (s. Richard Mitsuoka) to establish a
master plan for construction of a 5 , 780 square foot
comillercial/industrial park. Subject site is lcoated at
2100 E1 Camino Real .
Karl Schoettler presented the staff r port which focused on
issues such as zoning standards, si s, trees, and location
adjacent to the freeway. He referee d a letter received from
the Air Pollution Control District rioting some conditions or
requirements they would like t see incorporated in the
project. He noted that staf will not incorporate the
recommendations but would enco age the applicant to consider
these points in their project. design. Mr. Schoettler then
read the letter for the reco d.
COitllllissioner Hanauer questioned why the APCD responded to this
project noting this the first time in a year' s
participation that he Ias seen a response from the agency.
Mr . DeCamp noted the APCD has been notified of certain
projects staff felt u y have an impact of the air quality.
Discussion continu d. In response to inquiry, Mr. DeCamp
responded that th APCD is not looking so much at the impact
of the potentia individual tenants, but are looking at the
impact of the i creased vehicle trips that would be generated
by a project is size.
Chairperson Luna referenced the "clean air plan" which is
under pre ration for presentation in 1991 and asked if it
could be oreseen that Conditions similar to those noted in
the let r might become part of conditional use permits . Mr.
Decamp remarked that as plans are developed for transit •
syste' s for bikeways and for increased industrial and
comm rcial development, that we would see an opportun ity for
col itions of that type that might help with whatever
m ' igation on the air quality problems . As the air pollution
ans and the development increases in this area, it will be
necessary to be a little more responsive in the future .
•
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: A-6
Through: Ray. Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date : 10/9/90
File Number: TPM 13-88
From: Henry Engen, Community Development Director
SUBJECT:
Time extension for Tentative Parcel Map 13-88 .
RECOMMENDATION:
Per the Planning Commission' s recommendation, approval of a time
extension for TPM 13-88 to August 91 1991 .
• BACKGROUND : -
On August 9 , 1988, the City Council approved Tentative Parcel Map
13-88 based on the findings and conditions of approval contained
in the staff report dated July 19, 1988 . On September 18 , 1990,
the Planning Commission considered this matter on the consent
calendar and on a 6 : 0 vote, recommended approval of a time
extension to August 9 , 1991 .
HE :ps
Attachment: Staff Report dated September 18, 1990
cc : Jim Grinnell
Cuesta Engineering
Central Coast Engineering
Enclosures : Staff Report - August 21 , 1990
Minutes Excerpt - August 21 , 1990
•
Item. A-1
MEMORANDUM •
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Doug Davidson, Senior Planner
RE: Tentative Parcel Map 13-88 - 6375 Tecorida Ave.
DATE: September 18, 1990
The above referenced Tentative Parcel Map was approved by the
Planning Commission on July 19, 1988 and subsequently approved by
the City Council on August 9, 1988 based on the Findings and
Conditions of Approval in the attached staff report.
The applicant has requested a continuance in order to gain
additional time to meet all the conditions of approval. This is
a relatively complex map, involving multiple frontages,
maintenance agreements, and an approved Precise Plan. Precise_
Plan 20-88 is currently being reconsidered, as the access to the
site from Alcantara Ave has been eliminated. This revision
appears to maintain adequate site access, while substantially
reducing the disturbance to the drainage channel along Alcantara •
Ave.
Substantial progress has been made toward satisfying the
Conditions of Approval. The map should be extended to allow it
to be completed in a timely manner. Under the City' s Subdivision
Ordinance, a map may be extended for a maximum of one year.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of a one year time extension for
Tentative Parcel Map 13-88, extending the approval date to August
9, 1991.
Attachments: Staff Report
•
EXH I B i T A -- STAFF REPORT
JULY 19, 1988
CITY OF ATASCADERO
• STAFF REPORT
FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: July 19, 1988
BY: Joel Moses, Associate Planner File No: TPM 13-88
PP 20-88
SUBJECT:
To subdivide three (3) existing parcels totaling 1. 42 acres into
four (4) parcels containing 0. 32, 0. 34, 0. 52 and 0. 23 acres for
commercial use. The construction of four commercial buildings of
3, 840, 4, 320, 3, 520, and 1, 800, square feet and totaling 13, 480
square feet is also proposed.
A. SITUATION AND FACTS:
1. Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Jim Grinnell/Hempenius
Family Trust
2. Representative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Cuesta Engineering
3. Project Address. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6325 Tecorida Road
4. Legal Description. . . . . . . . . . . .Lots 21, 22, & 23, Blk. UA
• (Atas. Col. )
5. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. 42 acres
6. Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .CR(FH) (Commercial Retail
with a Flood Hazard Overlay)
7. General Plan Designation. . . . .Retail Commercial
8. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Vacant
9. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Negative Declaration posted
July 7, 1988
B. ANALYSIS:
The applicant proposes to subdivide three (3) existing
undeveloped parcel containing 1. 42 acres into four (4) parcels
containing 0. 32, 0. 34, 0. 52 and 0. 23 acres. Parcel 1 will have
direct access to Tecorida Road and may have access to Marchant by
easement. Parcel 2 may have direct access to Alcantera and
Marchant by easement. Parcels 3 & 4 will have access to Marchant
by easement and direct individual frontage access to Tecorida and
• 1
�{ V EXHIBIT B - TENTATIVE MAF
CITY OF ATASCADERO 6325 Tecorida
Tentative Map 13-88 •
as�+nl COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Grinnell/questa
DEPARTMENT
a
JfU.faf!^r.V/e � �� r...e. s. �✓^ra...w nr awwral�; 1 l`\ � .
r
1
MWAT/V6 rARCGL Mb A7'0-0-7 I _ -•. _nie w�� -r r I \
.U(2 -. Ulf M r.CIw.4 U+vMY M LM � '`�T� �.�r..�1 ��.`�_- .. �• _ )
j
f HS[M IIRI 111./!i!Fn•MY.�R.4 MMIRI'/M../ ��.�_����
M rNf lW/.n.i(wM Lie!Lt)��.rwI f.r rw� �"�•�� ����� �t+—}����1
��� �I •..�
w.n..r.0 n.....roanmw s.ww..wr w.rrr � AMTAPA - -amu:y..<—���-rr•�
.r c.r..0 n r+K ae•r i nr rnnwrwce. - -
/ �-
• Alcantera respectively.
The site is located on what appears to be a corner lot, but the
lot does not have direct access to Marchant. The applicant does
not own a 20 '-0" strip of land along Marchant, the land is owned
by 'Chevron USA. The pipeline company also has easement crossing
the site, and the land is meant as a staging area for work on the
pipeline.
The subject property is located in the CR(FH) (Commercial Retail
with a Flood Hazard Overlay) zone. The CR zone has no minimum
lot size. In considering possible subdivision of commercial
property provision needs to be made for access, adequate site
and area for parking along with buildings. As shown on the
proposed site plan, adequate provision is proposed for access and
site development.
The applicant then proposes to develop the individual parcels
with commercial buildings. Buildings will range from 4,320 to
3, 840 square feet. The buildings proposed on Marchant are two
stories. The complex will be an interrelated commercial
complex, with common parking and driveways, along with a single
architectural style. As proposed the lots can not be developed
individually. Easements and parking agreements and
architectural controls are needed as part of the approvals.
• The applicant is proposing to phase the development. Parcels 1 &
2 are planned for development first. The two lots will contain
two buildings totaling 8160 square feet with 33 parking stalls.
Parcels 3 & 4 are planned for future development with two
building containing 5, 320 square feet with 35 parking stalls.
Specific uses are not known at present. With the
interrelationship of the parcels frontage and internal
circulation, phasing is going to require partial development of
parcels 3 & 4 as a part of the first phase. With the
development of drainage improvements along Alcantara Road street
and access improvements for parcel 2 & 4 should be developed at
the same time. With the development of Parcel 1 the improvement
of Tecorida Road should be done all the way to Marchant. The
central driveway provides access to the entire site and is needed
with any development of the site.
In looking at the site, the overriding concern in subdividing or
development is the Flood Hazard Overlay zone development
standards. The site is located at the lower end of the
Amapoa/Tecorida drainage area. All waters from the area drain to
this site and then under the freeway through Century Plaza to
Atascadero Creek. The site, and possible improvements, have been
reviewed with the applicant' s engineer by the City Engineer and
found adequate. As shown on the site plan, the applicant
proposes to culvert or gunite the open ditch to help the flow of
• water through the site.
2
In designing the complex the applicant has proposed parking at a •
ratio 298 square feet of building area per parking stall. In
reviewing the specific parking demands, the following matrix
shows the parking required.
Building Parcel Building Size Need Shown
Building A Parcel 1 3840 sq. ft. 13 14
Building B Parcel 2 4320 sq. ft. 14 16
Building C Parcel 3 3520 sq. ft. 12 22
Building D Parcel 4 1800 sq. ft. 6 12
13480 sq. ft. 45 64
The parking provided will meet the minimums of the Zoning
Ordinance using general merchandizing as a standard (1 stall per
300 square feet) . This will allow the developer to provide off
site parking for an adjoining use and allow more intense parking
uses (restaurants) on the adjoining site. If such proposals
occur, overall parking will need to be reviewed and agreements
with all property owners if they are different.
Signing has not been detailed at this time. Each parcel will be
allowed up to 100 square feet of signing, broken down as provided
by the zoning ordinance. Since the site is located adjoining the
freeway some freeway signing may be allowed and additional
signing requested at a later date.
The buildings design has been reviewed for conformance with the •
Design Review Guidelines. The buildings-will make use of an off
white stucco. Wood trim will be brown and green, and the roof
will be red tile. Other detailing of the site will include
pedestrian amenities and details on the landscaping.
Comments were received from several outside agencies. Our Fire
Department indicates the need for two (2) fire hydrant to serve
the site. Other fire code requirements will be reviewed at the
time of building permit. The Building Division noted some
concern about the drainage through the site, but Public Works
has taken responsibility for reviewing the drainage problems.
Specific Building Code requirements will be addressed at the time
of building permits review. No problems are expected as long as
the existing codes and standards are followed in the development
of the parcels. The Southern California Gas Company has noted
that the site can be served by an existing two (2) inch mains in
Alcantera and Marchant Roads. If additional gas mains are
installed, they will need to be within the Public Right-of-Way or
within approved easements. The State Department of
Transportation (CalTrans) has responded indicating no opposition
to the project. However, it is anticipated that additional
congestion will occur at the intersection of Marchant and Morro
Road. The Atascadero Mutual Water Company has responded finding
that a new eight (8) inch water main will be needed in Tecorida
Road to serve Parcels 1 & 3.
3
C. RECOMMENDATION:
• Staff recommends conditional approval of Precise Plan 20-88 and
Tentative Parcel Map 13-88 based on the Findings in Exhibit E
and Conditions of Approval in Exhibit F.
ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Location Map
Exhibit B - Tentative Map
Exhibit C - Site Plan
Exhibit D - Elevations
Exhibit E - Findings for Approval
Exhibit F - Conditions of Approval
JM/jm
• 4
� • i i
AID
,.-"Islas
its I
PIP
MAAll
� ►
EXHIBIT C - SITE PLAN
CITY OF ATASCADERO 6325 Tecorida Road,
Precise Plan 20-88
1070-7
• COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Grinnell/Cuesta
DEPARTMENT
..a
��\��1 __ � - n<r [✓tee. 'sae Y�:.N/'+
Er
- � �. ��{,•� Fes'+=� � Fr - !I �
Pda!K/N6 -L�NN�•_L'J'L 1.CC - -
•t fr•.r�sJ •rC04,'A!4 iV!. _ . _ �.. �liC ALAN
•.' I Aa!JT<.l+11V L1N+-•C.A LSC
•f urea rrr - ' ..n.. <a....<
�"'<�_.' _ •••, / � CIIESTA ENGINEERIYG
CITY OF ATASCADERO EXHIBIT D - ELEVATIONS
6325 Tecorida Road
Prcise Plan
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Grinnell/Cuesta-88
,�. DEPARTMENT
4 rt +
I If
+
�h � -- � R •Ai t•':
Rt
1 ,�� �r �•.,. a �' ti � �(` �.iL�'-3. C�9 1' 111 t i
�
` •v fiF ,�l ami 1S-,.,yam UJlid
vi�
JI
$ Y - moi-.+> M1• ]} 1 l:e l^ �... ..
, y _} t
- �H;:•,� .�..• —•gym.- - --. - :��
• EXHIBIT B - Findings for Approval
Tentative Parcel Map 13-88
6325 Tecorida Road
Grinnell/Hempenius Family Trust/Cuesta Eng.
July 19, 1988
FINDINGS FOR TENTATIVE MAP 13-88
1. The creation of the proposed parcels conform to the Zoning
Ordinance and the General Plan land use designation, densities
and other policies.
2. The creation of these parcels, in conformance with the
recommended Conditions of Approval, will not have a significant
adverse effect upon the environment. The Negative Declaration
prepared for the project is adequate.
3. The site is physically suitable for the type of development
proposed.
4. The site is physically suitable for the density of the
development proposed.
5. The design of the subdivision, and the proposed improvements,
will not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially
and avoidably injure fish and wildlife or their habitat
6. The design of the subdivision, and the type of the
improvements, will not conflict with easements acquired by the
public at large for access through or the use of property within
the proposed subdivision; or substantially equivalent alternate
easements are provided.
7. The proposed subdivision complies with Section 66474. 6 of the
State Subdivision Map Act as to the methods of handling and
discharge of waste.
•
FINDINGS FOR PRECISE PLAN 20-88 •
1.The proposed project or use is consistent with the General
Plan ; and
2.The proposed project or use satisfies all applicable
provisions of the Zoning Ordinance ; and
3.The establishment,and subsequent operation or conduct of
the use will not,because of the circumstances and
conditions applied in the particular case, be detrimental
to the health, safety or welfare of the general public
or persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the
use, or be detrimental or injurious to property or
improvements in the vicinity of the use; and
4.That the proposed project or use will not be inconsistent
with the character of the immediate neighborhood or
contrary to its orderly development; and
5.That the proposed use or project will not generate a_
volume of traffic beyond the safe capacity of all roads
providing access to the project, either existing or to be
improved in conjunction with the project, or beyond the
normal traffic volumes of the surrounding neighborhood
that would result from the full development in accordance
with the Land Use Element; and
6.That the proposed project is in compliance with any
pertinent City policy or criteria adopted by ordinance
or resolution of the City Council ; and
7.The proposed project is in compliance with the City of
Atascadero' s Appearance Review Manual Guidelines.
JM/jm
•
EXHIBIT F - Conditions of Approval
Tentative Parcel Map 13-88 (AT 88-099)
• Precise Plan 20-88
6325 Tecorida Road
Grinnell/Hampenius Family Trust/Cuesta Eng.
July 19, 1988
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 13-88
1. Water shall be obtained from the Atascadero Mutual Water
Company. Water lines shall be extended to the property line
frontage of each parcel or its public utilities easement.
Additional an eight (8) inch water main shall be installed in
the Tecorida public right-of-way prior to the recording of the
final map.
2. All existing and proposed utility, pipeline, open space, or
other easements are to be shown on the final map. If there are
building or other restrictions related to the easements, they
shall be noted on the final map.
3. All relocation and/or alteration of existing utilities shall
be responsibility of the developer at his sole expense.
4. The newly formed lots shall be connected to the Public
Sewer. All annexation permit fees shall be paid for the newly
formed lots prior to the recording of the final map. Any sewer
extensions for annexation must be completed within one year after
• annexation. All current connection charges shall be due and
payable prior to final building inspection.
5. Sewer improvement plans shall be submitted for review and
approval by the Public Works Department prior to the recording of
the final map.
6. Grading, and Drainage plans , prepared by a registered Civil
Engineer shall be submitted for review and approval by, the
Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to the
issuance of any building permits.
7. All public Improvements on Alcantara and Tecorida shall be
completed prior to the occupancy of any structure on any
adjoining parcel.
8. Road improvement plans prepared by a Registered Civil
Engineer shall be submitted to and approved by the Public Works,
Community Development and Fire Departments prior to the issuance
of building permit for construction of Tecorida, Alcantera, and
Marchant Roads. These plans shall be designed to conform to
plans approved by the Director of Public Works on file in the
City Engineering Department for construction of Tecorida Road
from the intersection with Marchant to the southern property line
of Del Taco. The design shall include a minimum paved section of
0
16 '-0" plus from the southern boundary of Lot 6 Block VA to
connection with improvements ending at the southern boundary of
Del Taco property, or as modified by the City Engineer. City
Standard P.C.C. , curb, gutter, five (5) foot sidewalk and drive •
approach shall be constructed along the project frontages, or as
modified by the City Engineer. The existing Sycamore Trees in
the right-of-way shall remain and the design shall include
measures necessary to save the trees. The construction of the
road beyond the centerline may be necessary to save trees. The
construction of road improvements shall be completed (or bonded
for) prior to the final inspection. Upon approval of the
Director of Public Works, the property owner may enter into a
deferral agreement for the construction of these improvements
9. Tecorida Road shall be design and designated as a one way
street, or a two way street, as determined by the City Engineer.
10. Obtain an encroachment permit from the City of Atascadero
Public Works Department. Sign an Inspection Agreement and a Curb
& Gutter Agreement, guaranteeing that the work will be done and
the inspections paid for, prior to the issuance of a building
permit, or start of public works construction, and construct
improvements as directed by the encroachment permit prior to the
final building inspection, or be constructed or bonded for prior
to the recording of the final map.
11. The subdivider shall install all street signs, traffic
delineation devices, warning and regulatory signs, guardrails,
barricades, and other similar devices where required by the
Director of Public Works. Signs shall be in conformance with the •
Department of Public works standards and -the current State of
California uniform sign chart. Installation of traffic devices
shall be subject to review and modifications after construction.
12. Public Improvement plans prepared for the site shall be
reviewed and approved by the Fire Department. The plans shall
include two (2) standard fire hydrants, one on the Marchant
frontage at the driveway access, and the other on the Alcantera
frontage at the access driveway. The design and location shall
be approved prior to the recording of the final map.
13. Drainage Facilities shall be constructed to City of
Atascadero Standards, prior to the final building inspection, or
be constructed or bonded for prior to the recording of the final
map.
14. The Subdivider shall provide drainage easements and/or
drainage releases from the points of concentration of stormwater
leaving the project boundary through adjoining properties to the
nearest natural watercourses as approved by the Public Works
Department if applicable.
•
15. All grading and erosion control measures shall be designed
by a registered Civil Engineer and constructed in accordance with
• the City of Atascadero grading codes and standards. Prior to the
final building inspection, said engineer shall submit to the City
written certification that grading is in conformance with said
codes and standards, including all Flood Hazard Overlay Zone
requirements and Amapoa/Tecorida Drainage Impact Area.
16. A Drainage Maintenance Agreement, in a form acceptable to
the City Attorney, shall be recorded with the deed to each parcel
at the time it is first conveyed and a note to this effect shall
be placed on the final map.
17. Offer of dedication to the City of Atascadero the following
rights-of-way and / or easements:
Street Name: Tecorida
Limits: 20 ' -0" from centerline of right-of-way along entire
frontage.
Minimum Width: 40 ' -0" Right-of-Way
Street Name: Alcantara Road
Limits: 20 '-0" from centerline of right-of-way along entire
frontage.
Minimum Width: 40 '-0" Right-of-Way
18. Offer for dedication to the Public for Public Utility
Easements 6 ' -0" in width adjacent to all Public Right-of-Ways.
• 19. Offers of dedication shall be completed and recorded prior
to or simultaneous to the recordation of the final map.
20. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a soils
investigation shall be submitted for each site, 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.
21. The applicant shall establish Covenants, Conditions and
Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the regulation of land use, control of
nuisances, architectural control of all buildings, drainage
facility maintenance, driveway and landscape maintenance. These
CC&Rs shall be submitted for review and approval by the City
Attorney and the Community Development Department prior to the
recording of the final map.
22. Precise Plan : 20-88 shall be approved and in effect prior to
the recording of the final map and all public improvement
conditions shall be satisfied prior to the final building
inspection for any building on any lot of the map.
1
23. A final map in substantial conformance with the approved
tentative map and in compliance with all conditions set forth
herein shall be submitted for review and approval in accordance •
with the Subdivision Map Act and the City' s Subdivision Ordinance
prior to the recording of the final map.
a. Monuments shall be set at all new property corners
created and a Registered Civil Engineer or Licensed Land
Surveyor shall indicate, by certificate on the final map,
that the corners have been set or will be set by a specific
date and that they will be sufficient to enable the survey
to be retraced.
b. A recently updated preliminary title report shall be
submitted for review in conjunction with the processing of
the final map.
c. A preliminary subdivision guarantee shall be submitted
for review in conjunction with the processing of the final
map.
24. Approval of this tentative map shall expire two years from
the date of final approvalg unless an extension of time is granted
d
pursuant to a written request prior to the expiration date.
JM/jm
•
EXHIBIT F - Conditions of Approval (Cont. )
Tentative Parcel Map 13-88
Precise Plan 20-88
6325 Tecorida Road
(Grinnell/Hampenius Family Trust/Cuesta Engineering)
July 19, 1988
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR PRECISE PLAN 20-88
1. All construction shall be in conformance with Exhibit C
(site plan) , Exhibit D (Elevations) and Exhibit F
(Conditions of Approval) , and shall comply to all City codes
and ordinances. Any modification to this approval requires
approval by the Community Development Department prior to
implementing any changes.
2. Complete landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted
to, and subsequently approved by, the Community Development
Department prior to issuance of building permits (Section 9-
4. 124) . The submitted plans are generally complete.
Please note the following items the plans:
a. All areas including setbacks, parking lots, and unused
areas shall be landscaped appropriately (Section 9-
4. 125 (a) .
-
4. 125 (a) .
b. Concrete curbing, or a functional equivalent, shall be
• provided to enclose all required landscaping.
C. Proposed landscaping shall be accompanied with a
planting schedule which includes species, container
sizes, number of plants or flats, and the space
distribution of ground cover.
d. Five (5) foot of landscaped area with six (6) foot
fencing is required where parking areas abut adjacent
property.
3. A trash enclosure shall be provided with appropriate details
as per Section 9-4. 129. Trash facility shall be entirely
screened from public view and be constructed with materials
to match the building.
4. Plot plan for each building permit shall show all proposed
utilities, including gas, electric, water, and sewer. All
relocation and/or alteration of existing utilities shall be
the responsibility of the developer at his sole expense.
5. Grading and drainage plans, prepared by a registered civil
engineer, shall be submitted for review and approval to the
Community Development and Public Works Department, prior to
the issuance of any permits. All grading and drainage work
is to be constructed to City standards and shall be
• completed prior to final building inspection. Prior to the
C
final building inspection, the project engineer shall
provide written certification that the drainage and grading
is in compliance with these standards.
6. Tentative Parcel Map 13-88 shall be recorded, and all
conditions complied with prior to the issuance of any
building permit for a building on the site.
7. All roof-mounted or ground-mounted mechanical equipment
shall be screened from public view.
8. If project is phased each phase shall be self supporting for
parking and circulation. The central driveway shall be
constructed with the first building on the site.
9. This precise plan is approved for a period of one year from
the date of final approval (August 2, 1988) .
JM/jm
•
• REPORT TO CITYCO UNCIL
CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: A-7
Through: Ray Windsor; City Manager Meeting Date: 10%9/90
File No: TTM 3-90
From: Henry Enuen' Community Development Director
SUBJECT:
Acceptance of final Tract Map 3-90 at 7715!7745 Sinaloa Road (Bruce
Jones/Cuesta Engineering) to create six parcels ranging in size
from 3 , 206 square feet to 4 ;775 square feet fin conformance with
Ordinance No. 198 - Zone Change 8-89 - Planned Development Overlay
No. 7 ) .
RECOMMENDATION:
Acceptance of final Tract Map 3-90 as all conditions of approval
I
ave been met by the applicant.
BACKGROUND :
On May 22 , 1990, the City Council concurred with the Planning
Commission' s recommendation to approve Tentative Tract Map 3-90
based on the findings and revised conditions of approval .
HE :ps
CC : Bruce Jones
Cuesta Engineering
•
EXHIBIT A
;-.Oft . .
. ` CITY C _ ATASCADER
0 ZONING MAP� , COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ZONE CHANGE 08-89
DEPARTMENT
�- a \,
-
41
i� R, r is
R
i-• +;?ti� i\ � ' i moi'" `, - /1 - - _-'+, ;I�- • - I
i
RM i'a �IR.S F .,
rO�egj«.
tt trff� (FHI1 Po n,�
SITE
L(FH)� :iY �e °°�•-iJ
p oa
---AMORE
" vrp r
Y�
JASCAO
EAp �
•
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: A_8
Through: Ray Windsor; City Manager Meeting Date: 10/9/90
File No: TTM 15-89
From: Henry Engen, Community Development Director
SUBJECT:
Acceptance of final Tract Map 15-89 at 5900 Baiada Avenue (David
& Valerie Low/Cuesta Engineering) for an amendment to a previously
approved condominium tract map to allow an addition to unit #1 .
RECOMMENDATION:
Acceptance of final Tract Map 15-89 as all conditions of approval
have been met by the applicant.
BACKGROUND :
On September 12 , 1989 ; the City Council concurred with the Planning
Commission' s recommendation to approve Tentative Tract Map 15-89
based on the findings and conditions of approval .
HE :ps
cc: David and Valerie Low
Cuesta Engineering
•
EXHIBIT A - LOCATIO`d MAP
,,�.... . . ;;..y CITY OF ATASCADERO 5900 Bajada Ave.
r '"�•r,! = �w �M—** Tentative Tract Man 19-88
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT -ow/Cuesta Engineering
DEPARTMENT
ti X /' FTR
�!
SITE: 5900 Bajada Ave . ``,% -rD
19-88 �
i
I a
E �
P
-16
a
I
ra1
� IQ
J
�j L�T\�'��� Bhp � �l� ►J� b/ I, `u
I��,/L'`r-CarvC05 -rte-^
I p 1
44
I J I ! i i I j • l�
' I f ^� • o
/ a�uwa i � ! I � i I a •
It
=-aoAD
•�___, a n "� I'VE
; I
i
wE I �
� 1
1
vEN�p �
,,p L(FH) ,
J Y 1
W
O
a09
a
k
�(
qp Ny
_ O
• REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda - Item: A-9
Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date : 10/9/90
File No: TPM 20-89
From: Henry Engen, Community Development Director p&
SUBJECT:
Acceptance of final Parcel Map 20-89 at 14205 Santa Ana Road, 9800,
9850 Garcero Road (Atascadero Highlands/Volbrecht Surveys) to sub-
divide 17 . 19 acres into three lots containing approximately 5 . 7
acres each.
RECOMMENDATION:
Acceptance of final Parcel Map 20-89 as all conditions of approval
Have been met by the applicant.
• BACKGROUND : _
On June 12 , 1990 , the City Council concurred with the Planning
Commissions recommendation to approve Tentative Parcel Map 20-89
based on the findings and conditions of approval .
HE:ps
cc : Atascadero Highlands
Volbrecht Surveys
•
EXHIBIT A
CITY Lr ATASCADERO
��=��.�� = � ' �.�.- • TPM 20-89
r� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT General Plan Map
o �
\\ I
SITE
j`� `°pOH► i� ��
S !NG F MLy
Vew \
1ti
\CyO4
90 O
1 \
n`
CE CEAO
1
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL Meeting Date: 10-9-90
CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: A-10
Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager
From: Greg Luke, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT•
Establishment of a No Parking area along a portion of E1
Camino Real in front of the K-Mart plaza.
RECOMMENDATION•
Traffic Committee recommends that Council adopt Resolution No.
116-90 establishing a No Parking zone as stated above.
BACKGROUND•
The request is the result of citizen complaints, staff
requests and the observations of the Traffic Committee.
• DISCUSSION•
There is a severe sight distance hazard for vehicles
attempting to exit the K-Mart plaza onto E1 Camino Real. The
curvature of the street combined with the on-street parking of
vehicles prevents motorists from clearly seeing oncoming traffic.
The hazard is increased with the frequent parking of vehicles for
sale along this section of roadway.
OPTIONS:
1) Approve Resolution No. 116-90
2) Deny Resolution No. 116-90
3) Return to Committee for review
FISCAL IMPACT
The cost of this modification is approximately $200 to be paid
out of currently budgeted funds.
•
RESOLUTION NO. 116-90 •
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO
DESIGNATING A NO PARKING ZONE ON EL CAMINO REAL
ALONG THE ENTIRE FRONTAGE OF THE K-MART PROPERTY
WHEREAS, Section 4-2 . 1101 et sequence of the Atascadero
Municipal Code allows the City Traffic Engineer to designate No
Parking areas, and to place and maintain appropriate signs or
markings indicating the same; and
WHEREAS, the Traffic Committee has studied the traffic
problems at this location and has determined that establishing a No
Parking zone along the E1 Camino Real frontage of the K-Mart Plaza
would alleviate a hazardous traffic condition.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Atascadero
directs the City Traffic Engineer to place and maintain appropriate
signs or markings as indicated above.
On motion by ,and seconded by
the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted
in its entirety on the following roll call vote:
AYES: •
NOES:
ABSENT:
ADOPTED:
ATTEST: CITY OF ATASCADERO
LEE DAYKA, City Clerk ROBERT B. LILLEY, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
ARTHER MONTANDON GREG LUKE
City Attorney Director of Public Works
City Engineer
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL Meeting Date: 10-9-90
CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: A-11
Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager
From: Greg Luke, Director of Public Works (4-
SUBJECT
Establishment of Stop intersection.
RECOMMENDATION
The Traffic Committee recommends that Council adopt Resolution
No. 115-90 establishing a stop intersection on Ardilla at the
intersection of Balboa.
BACKGROUND•
This stop sign was requested by the Street Department
Supervisor, Brian Sword.
• DISCUSSION
The stop sign requested will provide traffic control at a
currently uncontrolled intersection.
OPTIONS
1) Approve Resolution No. 115-90
2) Deny Resolution No. 115-90
3) Return to Traffic Committee for further consideration.
FISCAL IMPACT
The cost of this installation is estimated to be approximately
$100.00 to be paid out of current fiscal year budgeted funds.
•
RESOLUTION NO. 115-90
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO
DESIGNATING A STOP INTERSECTION ON ARDILLA ROAD
AT BALBOA ROAD
WHEREAS, Section 4-2 .801 et seq. of the Atascadero Municipal
Code allows the City Traffic Engineer to determine the location of
STOP intersections, , and to place and maintain appropriate signs or
markings indicating the same; and
WHEREAS, the Atascadero Traffic committee has recommended that
establishing a STOP intersection on Ardilla Avenue at the
intersection with Balboa will improve a potentially hazardous
traffic situation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Atascadero
directs the City Traffic Engineer to place and maintain appropriate
signs or markings indicating STOP intersections at the locations
listed above.
On motion by and seconded by
the foregoing Resolution is_ hereby
adopted in its entirety on the following roll all vote:
AYES:
NOES: •
ABSENT:
ADOPTED:
ATTEST:
LEE DAYKA, City Clerk ROBERT B. LILLEY, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
ARTHER MONTANDON GREG LUKE
City Attorney Director of Public Works
City Engineer
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL Meeting Date: 10-9-90
CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: A-12
THROUGH: Ray Windsor, City Manager
FROM: Greg Luke, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT•
Establishment of a No Parking area along a portion of San Luis
Avenue and Pueblo Avenue
RECOMMENDATION•
Traffic Committee recommends that Council adopt Resolution No.
117-90 establishing a No Parking area as stated above.
BACKGROUND•
The- request for this modification was made by Brian Sword,
Street Department Supervisor.
• DISCUSSION•
Parked cars and delivery vehicles limit the sight distance
when exiting a commercial driveway.
OPTIONS•
1) Approve Resolution No. 117-90
2) Deny Resolution No. 117-90
3) Return to Committee for review.
FISCAL IMPACT•
The cost of this modification is approximately $300. 00 to be
paid out of currently budgeted funds.
RESOLUTION NO. 117-90
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO
DESIGNATING NO PARKING ZONES ON SAN LUIS AVENUE
AND PUEBLO AVENUE
WHEREAS, Section 4-2. 1101 et sequence of the Atascadero
Municipal Code allows the City Traffic Engineer to designate No
Parking areas, and to place and maintain appropriate signs or
markings indicating the same; and
WHEREAS, The Traffic Committee has studied the traffic
problems at this location and has determined that establishing a No
Parking zone along a portion of San Luis Avenue and Pueblo Avenue
would alleviate a hazardous traffic condition.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Atascadero
directs the City Traffic Engineer to place and maintain appropriate
signs or markings as indicated above.
On motion by and seconded by
Councilman ,the foregoing resolution is hereby
adopted in its entirety on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ADOPTED:
ATTEST:
LEE DAYKA,City Clerk ROBERT B. LILLEY, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
ARTHER MONTANDON GREG LUKE
City Attorney Director of Public Works
City Engineer
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: A-13
Through : Ray Windsor , City Manager Meeting Date: 10,,19/90
From: Mark Joseph , Administrative Services Director/
SUBJECT: Authorization for Pavilion-Related Expenses
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Council authorize $12,000 in potential
expenses related to the bid award for Phase I of the Pavilion.
BACKGROUND:
At a special Council meeting on September 1? , 1990, Council
awarded a bid for Phase I of the new Pavilion, in the amount of
$121 ,900. The staff report noted three additional expenditure=_ ,
but no formal action was taken. The City ' s elected Treasurer has
expressed concern 0,. er- the lack of specific Council
authorization, insofar as she acts as Trustee over the
Construction Fund .
The specific expenses are listed below:
$4,000 - Soil testing and inspection
2,000 - Surveying
*6,000 - Contingency (based on approximately 5 percent
of construction )
12 ,000 - Total
*Contingency is for unknown expenses due to 'possible change
orders during construction which must be authorized by the City
Manager .
It should be noted that even includinq these related
expenses, the total is stall over $18.0007 less than the
Architect ' s Estimate .
•
•
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF ATASCADERO AGENDA ITEM: A-14
Through: Ray Windsor; City Manager Meeting Date: 10%9/90
From: Henry Engen, Community Development Director
SUBJECT:
Award of bid for Building Division utility vehicle.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that Council award the bid to the lowest bidder,
Rancho Grande Motors .
BACKGROUND :
The 1990/91 fiscal year budget authorized expenditures for a new
vehicle for the Building Division. Bids were requested from
automobile dealers throughout the County and five (5 ) dealers
responded with proposals ranging from $16, 859 (Rancho Grande
Motors) to $231684 . 50 ( Steward Oldsmobile) , as indicated in the
attached Bid Summary.
FISCAL IMPACT :
The budget provides for up to $21 , 500 for a four-wheel drive
vehicle.
HE ps
Attachment: Bid Summary
BID SUMMARY
TO: Steve Hicks, Building Official
Community 'Development Department
1
FROM: Lee Dayka
City Cler
BID NO. 90-12
OPENED 9/25/90 10:00 A.M.
PROJECT: Building Division Vehicle
The following bids were received and opened as follows:
Name of Contractor Vehicle Price Special Notes:
Rancho Grand Motors Isuzu Trooper $16,859.00 Seats five
1404 Auto Park Way � No discounts
San Luis Obispo , CA 93401
Ted Miles Jeep/Eagle Cherokee 90 18,099.50 Reflects $1 ,000 rebate
7380 El Camino Real Price good until
Atascadero , CA 93422 9/30/90 - In stock
Kimball Motor Co . Blazer 18, 196.26 Seats five
P.O. Box 4010 No discounts
San Luis Obispo , CA 93403 Net 10 days
Pete Johnson Chevrolet Blazers 18,546.82 Seats five
P.O. Box 607 No discounts
Paso Robles, CA 93447
Steward Oldsmobile Bravada 23,684 .50 Seats five
901 W. Main Street No delivery charge
Santa Maria, CA 93456
Attachments: Five Bids
c : Finance
•
City of Atascadero
Purchasing Agent
6504 Palma Avenue
Atascadero , CA 93422
NOTICE OF BID AWARD
Issue Date
Bid No .
Resolution No .
You are hereby notified that the commodities_ and%or services
listed have been awarded to you subject to the terms and
conditions of the bid number shown and to the General Conditions
of this Notice of Bid Award :
V
E
N
D
0
• R
TEM QUANTITY UNIT DESCRIPTION PRICE
Purchasing Department
Sv:
Vendor ' s Recresentative
•
Prone
•
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda items A-15
-----------
Through: Ray Windsor, City Managert e 10/9/901
Via: R. H. McHale, Chief of Pollfc Meeti rg D:.A
Fromm William Watton, Police Lt.
.........................
Bid Award 90-5, Police Computers
By motion, authorize the purchase of computer
equipment as listed in bid number 90-5, to Witco Computers of San
Luis Obispo.
The purchase of this equipment is in keening withi
the previously adopted 1990-91 F. Y. budget which authorizes the
acquisition of new computer hardware.
The formal bidding process was conducted by the Finance Depart--
ment , with bids opened on B-25-90 at 1 : 00 PM. There were elevet i
bids returned, ranging from a high of $19809. 00 to a low of
$7006. 13.
I have founo that of the eleven bids returned, Witco Computer is
the lowest responsible bidder.
1 . Their bid exceeds the speccations set forth in the
bid contract.
2. The technical support is superior to the low bidder.,
3. Witco is one of the two largest computer companies in
San Luis Obispo County.
4. Witco has worked with other police agencies in the past.
Our police budget lists an item allocation of
L-H217.. .1*-�1.!.E1-�"-1 '1:
$10, 000. 00 for this computer equipment . As we are well within
this allocation, no additional City funding will be required.
For your consideration. . .
WEW/mc-,.)
BID SUMMARY
TO: Blair Sims
Police Department
FROM: Lee Dayka
City Clerk
BID NO. 90-5
OPENED 8/29/90 1 :00 P.M.
PROJECT: Computer System
The following bids were received and opened as follows:
Bidder 's Name & Address Price Quoted Discount if paid
within 30 days
Witco Computers $ 7,552. 25 0%
3563 "B" Sueldo
San Luis Obispo , CA 93401
Honeysuckle Engineering 10,061 . 19 none indicated
170 Central Avenue •
Pacific Grove, CA 93950
Coastal Computers 8, 144 .06 2'/.
3195 McMillan
San Luis Obispo , CA 93401
IBM 15 ,783.44 O%
3820 State Street
Santa Barbara, CA 95305
Comco Computers 11 , 303 .94 0.5%
7325-A E1 Camino Real
Atascadero , CA 93422
Jablon Computers 19 ,809.00 2%
3500 E1 Camino Real
Atascadero , CA 93422
Micro Business Systems ( 3 quotes ) 7,554.05 0'%
1275 W. Shaw Avenue 11029.00
Fresno , CA 93711 15,336 .00
Suntec Computers, Inc . 7,634 .06 2%
7383 E1 Camino Real
Atascadero , CA 93422
LeBard ' s MicroAge 10,046 .24
419 S. Broadway
Santa Maria , CA 93454
continued
Bid No . 90-5, cont .
Page 2
Bidder 's Name & Address Price Quoted Discount if paid
within 30 days
RadCom 7, 006. 13 0%
253 C Granada
San Luis Obispo , CA 93401
Computerland of SLO Incomplete quote 1%
1422 Monterey Street
San Luis Obispo , CA 93401
NOTE: I have attached each company ' s sales package for your careful reviev
Of specific equipment and services included in their bids.
In addition to the above, the following firms formally declined to bid :
Impro Corporation Hartford Computer Incorp .
Creative Computers Xerxes Comupters
• Bell Atlantic
These are all on file with the Clerk ' s Office, should you need to review them.
Attachments: Eleven Proposals
c : Cathy Sargent , Finance
City of atascadero
Purchasing Agent
6500 Palma Avenue
Atascadero , CA 93422
NOTICE OF BID AWARD
Issue Date
Hid No .
Resolution No .
You are hereby notified that the commodities and%cr services
listed have been awarded to you subject to the terms and
conditions of the bid number shown and to zhe General Conditions
of this Notice of Bid Award :
V
E
N
D
0
R •
TEEM LUANTTTY UNIT DESC=iFTICN PRICE
P+urchasing Department
By _
Vendor ' s Representative
hone
i
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: B-1
Through: Ray Windsor; City Manager Meeting Date : 101/09/90
File No: CUP 09-89
TTM 21-89
ZC 15-89
From: Henry Engen, Community Development Director
SUBJECT:
Appeal by Ray Bunnell of Planning Commission denial of proposed
conditional use permit, tentative tract map, and zone change at
8555 El Corte. Approval of these three (3 ) applications, as
requested, would enable the creation of a seventy-seven (771 unit
development on 21 acres on the site of the former Santa Lucia mush-
room farm, together with off-site road and drainage improvements
(continued from 9j25j90 City Council meeting) .
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission, on August 7 , 1990, recommended denial on
the zoning request relative to allowing development above the 960
foot contour plane on a 4 : 2 vote . At that sante hearing, the Corti-
mission directed staff to brine back Findings for Denial for the
conditional use permit and tentative tract limp, and these were
approved on August 21 , 1990, on a 4 : 1 vote. Hence, should the
Council choose to uphold the Planning Commission' s decision on this
project, this could be done by: ( 1 ) denying the zoning change and
( 2 ) accepting the Findings for Denial in Exhibit "A" that were
transmitted to the Planning Commission on August 21 , 1990 relative
to the conditional use permit and the map findings .
STAFF RECOMMENDATION :
The staff recommendation is contained in the staff report to the
Commission, dated August 7 , 1990 . Approval of the project as re-
quested by the applicant would entail first reading of the draft
ordinance contained in Exhibit "K" of that staff report, together
with approval of Findings for Approval in Exhibit "L" relative to
the conditional Use permit and the tentative tract map, together
with Exhibit "M" containing the Conditions of Approval .
ALTERNATIVE:
The original concept sketch presented in support of the original
rezoning of this property in 1986 called for severity-two ( 72 )
duplex units . For reasons outlined in the staff report, the
applicant has come forward with severity-seven (771 individual
single family units , which fall within the density allowed by the
RMF-4 zoning (4 units per acre overall) but are still 5 units more
than presented in support of the original rezoning. Should the
Council be sympathetic to some form of project approval, but with
modifications, Council could consider reducing the project size to
72 . As rioted in Mr. Bunnell ' s 'Letter of September 14 , 1990, he' s
not adverse to this alternative, but would seek relief from some
of the off-site road improvement requirements, i . e . , El Dorado and
E1 Centro improvements North of La Linia (or reimburse Bunnell
Development for the cost of those improvements at the time that
Bunnell were to construct La Linia at their cost) . Should the City
Council opt for this alternative, the draft zoning amendment
(Exhibit "K" ) could be approved on first reading and staff could
be directed to bring back atodified conditions of approval as deter-
mined by City Council (Exhibits "L" and "M" ) .
BACKGROUND:
Enclosed herewith are the staff reports considered by the Planning
Commission, together with the Minutes excerpts of their- delibera-
tions on August 7th and 21st, 1990 . In addition, the original
staff report leading to the general plan amendment and zone change
in 1986 is enclosed which established the RMF-4 (PD) zoning over-
lay. It may also be recalled, that the City Council considered
strictly the rezoning request relative •to the 960 foot contour
standard on February 13 , 1990 , (which had been recommended at that
time on a 3 : 2 votel and the action of the Council at that time was
to refer the matter back to the Planning Commission to be heard in
the context of the conditional use permit and the tentative tract
map, and with direction to consider a lesser density as a possibil-
ity.
Irl terms of procedures , the PD rezoning approved in 1986 estab-
lished that a conditional use permit reflecting a master plan of
development would be required prior to approving any other type of
permits, including grading, building, or map. The applicant is
seeking the creation of individual lots , and as a result he is
asking for: ( 1 ) a change in the Zoning ordinance to allow struc-
tures to exceed the 960 foot elevation plane, ( 21 a conditional use
permit to provide for the master plan for development of the
project, and (3 ) a tentative tract map to create severity-eight ( 78 )
lots, one of which would be an open-space lot .
As indicated in the attached Minutes excerpts , the issues discussed
by the Planning Commission included density, impact of off-site
improvements , drainage.. the negative environmental declaration.. and
whether to change the 960 foot contour elevation control language
in the PD zoning. With regard to density, it was noted that the
RMF-4 zoning established a maximum of 4-units to the acre. This
number was selected to accommodate the concept proposed at the time
of 72-units . A traffic study was undertaken as a condition of the
i
PD rezoning and highlighted the need for off-site improvements to
E1 Corte, and thence to La Linia to Solano. City staff felt that
completing E1 Centro would further enhance the number of choices
for access routes to E1 Camino Real and balance traffic flow.
Drainage plans will be required and will be responsive to both
neighborhood and Chalk Mountain Golf Course concerns . Environmen-
tal impact reports are required where the impacts of a proposed
project are problematical and answers are needed to evaluate same .
In this instance, the additional studies on traffic and drainage
were felt to be adequate to provide the information heeded to
mitigate environmental impacts . Further, the site had been scarred
by prior development and the proposed residential project would
serve to enhance the appearance of the property with respect to
prior grading work. The proposed project is more sensitive to
grading and tree removal concerns than the original concept plan.
With respect to the 960 foot contour line, the majority of the
Commission felt that the rooflines should not extend above the 960
foot contour level . The primary motivation for establishing the
- 960 foot elevation was to define the proposed open-space easement.
However, the way subsection ( f) of Ordinance #133 was worded would
require an amendment to allow rooflines to extend beyond the plane
established by the 960 contour. Staff would agree with the appli-
cant' s Contention that the better esthetic result would be achieved 4
• by varying rooflines provided that they don' t obscure the hilltop.
As a final note, concern was expressed by the Planning Commission
on lack of public notice to individuals living off-site who would
be affected by proposed road improvements on E1 Dorado and E1
Centro. These properties were given notice as part of the notifi-
cation for public hearings before the City Council .
HE :ph
cc : Ray Bunnell
Rob Strong
Encls : September 14 , 1990 - Communication from Ray Bunnell
regarding project redesign
August 10, 1990 - Appeal Letter from Ray Bunnell
August 21 , 1990 - Staff Report with Findings for Denial
of Conditional Use Permit and Tentative Tract Map
August 7 , 1990 - Staff Report to Planning Commission
August 21, 1990 - Planning Commission Minutes Excerpts
August 7 , 1990 - Planning Commission Minutes Excerpts
May 27 , 1986 Staff Report to City Council
May 27 , 1986 - City Council Minutes Excerpts
•
BunnELL
September 14 , 1990
Henry Engen RECEIVED SEP 1 4 13SO
City of Atascadero
6500 Palma Avenue
Atascadero, CA 93422
Re: Chalk Mountain Village
Dear Henry:
As we discussed last week, we would be willing to reduce the
number of units in Chalk Mountain Village from 77 to 72 units ,
if the City would be willing to either:
1 - Omit all offsite street improvements north of La Linia
Street . El Dorado and E1 Centro improvements .
or
2 - Reimburse Bunnell Development Corp . for the cost of those
improvements to be constructed at the same time as La Linia
at Bunnell ' s cost . •
The E1 Centro extension was not originally anticipated to be
a part of this project ' s offsite improvements . We have agreed
to comply with these added requirements , but had hoped that
the City would be willing to approve 77 units in order to help
pay the added cost.
Regardless of the number of units , we believe the zone text
change which we have proposed is extremely important to produce
a well designed, appealing finished project. The 960 ' elevation
restriction, when interpreted vertically, automatically requires
moving buildings closer together, more extensive grading with
large slope cuts or high retaining walls , and dictates lining up
roof tops at a fixed elevation. It is my belief that this was
a hastily applied restriction that was not intended to limit
vertical heights of homes but , rather, to define a boundry between
the developed area and the open space area. When you take the
original plan proposed by Poe and apply this restriction verti-
cally then it becomes a more compact plan with even more exten-
sive grading than we have previously demonstrated.
•
Bunnell Construction,Inc.
141 Suburban Road,A-5 �
San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 - —
805/544-4300 FAX 805/541-3985 '��
September 14 , 1990
Page 2
If we were approaching the skyline , then a vertical restriction
would be important . However, we are far below the skyline and
have demonstrated that a variety of one and two story homes
with varying height elevations can greatly improve the street-
scapes as well as fit into the natural hillside landscape to
create a more attractive finished product.
Henry, we have put in temporary survey stakes at face of curb
showing the alignment of the new street improvements so that
the neighborhood can understand what is happening.
Please call if you have any questions .
Sincerely,
RAY BUNNELL
President
BUNNELL DEVELOPMENT CORP.
RB/gls
•
BunnELL
August 10 , 1990 CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN
RECEIPT REQUESTED
Henry Engen
City of Atascadero RECEIVE® 1990
6500 Palma Avenue
Atascadero , CA 93422
Dear Mr. Engen:
At the Tuesday, August 7 , 1990 , meeting of the City of
Atascadero Planning Commission Bunnell Land Company requested
a zone change . The Planning Commission voted not to approve
Zone Change 15-89 . The Planning Commission requested Staff to
return at the next meeting with findings for denial for Condi-
tional Use Permit 09-89 and Tentative Tract Map 21-89 .
Bunnell Land Company requests an appeal of the Zone Change be
heard by the City Council . Since the Commission indicated the
Conditional Use Permit and Tentative Tract Map are going to be
denied, we would like to have the appeal held from the agenda
until the appeal of all three items can be heard together .
Sincerely,
RAY BUNNELL
President
Bunnell Land Company
RB/gls
Check Enclosed
Bunnell Construction,Inc. 4
141 Suburban Road,A-5 r'
San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 ► !�(1 AUG �f i��JJ�
805/544-4300 FAX 805/541-3985 RECE;� - ���
ITEM : A-2
• MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Karl Schoettler, Assistant Planner
DATE: August 21, 1990
SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit 09-89, Tentative Tract Map 21-89
(Bunnell/Rob Strong)
At the Planning Commission meeting of August 7, 1990, staff was
directed to bring back Findings for Denial of the above-
referenced project. These findings relate to the project' s
inability to meet Zoning Ordinance regulations concerning
proposed structures extending vertically above the 960 foot
elevation level at the project site.
ATTACHMENTS: Findings for Denial
Staff Report
i
EIMIBIT A - Findings for Denial
Conditional Use Permit 09-89 •
Tentative Tract Map 21-89
8555 E1 Corte Ave.
Recommended by Planning Commission: August 21, 1990
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS:
1. The proposed project does not satisfy all applicable
provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.
Evidence: The PD-6 overlay zone Section 9-3.650 (f) states:
No portion of any structure, excepted as provided in
Section 9-4. 113 of the Zoning Ordinance, shall be
extended above the 960 foot contour line as shown on
the 1965 Atascadero, California USGS Quadrangle (15
minute series) .
The project proposes buildings that will extend vertically
above the 960 foot contour elevation.
MAP FINDINGS:
1. The proposed map is not consistent with the applicable
General or Specific Plan. •
Evidence: The specific design plan for the project site
consists of the PD-6 overlay zone. As mentioned previously,
the overlay zone prohibits parts of structures from
extending above the 960 foot elevation level. The project
proposes buildings extending above the 960 foot elevation
level.
2. The design and improvement of the proposed subdivision is
not consistent with the applicable General or Specific Plan.
Evidence: The tentative map designates building locations
on the site. Some of the buildings are in violation of the
specific plan standards for the site contained in the PD-6
overlay zone.
•
CITY OF ATASCADERO Item: B.�L
STAFF REPORT
•
FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date : August 7, 1990
BY: Karl Schoettler, Assistant Planner File No : CUP 09-89
SUBJECT:
Three permits are being considered in this application. They
include a request to subdivide six existing lots of approximately
21 acres into seventy-eight lots of various sizes, including one
common lot, for establishment of a single family planned
development . Also requested is an amendment to the text of the
Zoning Ordinance to change two development standards of the PD-6
overlay zone. The request is to modify conditions pertaining to
control of building height to maintain visibility of an open
space easement .
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit 09-89,
Tentative Tract Map 21-89 and Zone Change 15-89, based on the
• findings for approval in Exhibit L and the Conditions for
approval in Exhibit M.
BACKGROUND:
A significant amount of background information and history must
be covered to establish a foundation for consideration of this
request . The property that is the subject of this application
was rezoned in 1985 to the existing RMF-4 PD6 zone (Residential
Multiple Family - 4 units per a-re/ Planned Development #6
Overlay Zone) . At the time of the application for zone and
General Plan changes, the applicant (Bill Poe of the ACOMA
Corporation) also presented a preliminary site plan for a 72 unit
adult community planned development . The plan was similar in
layout to the project currently proposed. Because of financial
difficulties however, the original proposal was dropped and Ray
Bunnell purchased the property.
Bunnell has submitted his own design for a Conditional Use Permit
and Tentative Tract Map which, in combination with the proposed
zone text change, are being considered in this report . The zone
text change is being requested to modify two conditions of the
PD-6 overlay zone. In the preliminary check of the project it
was determined that a significant (approximately 24) number of
proposed units were in violation of Section 9-3 . 650 (f) of the
PD-6 overlay zone, (prohibiting parts of structures extending
• above the 960 foot contour level) . This condition was proposed
-1-
i
by the original applicant . However, the preliminary submittal
was conceptual but did show that a number of units would •
penetrate the airspace above the 960 foot contour level . Bunnell
Development is proposing that this condition be revised.
The Planning Commission first heard the request to change the
height limit stipulation on January 16, 1990 and approved the
request . The application was then heard by the City Council on
February 13, 1990 . After testimony and discussion, the Council
directed the zone text change be reheard by the Planning
Commission in the context of the entire project . Thus, all three
planning permits (conditional use, tentative tract map, and zone
text change) are covered in this report . General project
information is first addressed, followed by information regarding
the zone text change . However, the Commission must first vote on
the zone text change.
SITUATION AND FACTS:
1 . Applicant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Ray Bunnell, Bunnell
Development Corp.
2 . Representative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Rob Strong
3 . Project Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8555 E1 Corte Road
4 . General Plan Designation. . . . .Low Density Multiple
Family •
5 . Zoning District . . . . . . . . . . . . . .RMF-4 (PD6) Residential
Multiple Family-4 Units
Per Acre/Planned
Development #6 Overlay
6 . Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21 acres
7 . Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Abandoned mushroom farm
8 . Environmental Status . . . . . . . . .Negative Declaration
posted July 17 1989
ANALYSIS:
This application proposes a 77 unit single family residential
development, to be known as "Chalk Mountain Village", on
approximately twenty one acres, along the east side of E1 Corte
Road. The site has historically been used as a mushroom growing
operation with several slab-on-grade buildings, all but one of
which, have been removed. Extensive grading has taken place on
the lower areas of the site to accommodate the mushroom farm
operation. Three homes existed on the site until their recent
removal . Thus, the lower half of the site has been significantly •
modified by human activity. In addition to modification of the
-2-
property through grading, large amounts of junk remaining from
the mushroom farm and years of neglect following its closure are
• strewn about .
Seven floor plans are proposed in Chalk Mountain Village,
including two, three, and four bedroom models . The homes are of
a Mediterranean architectural style, including earthtone stucco
facades and the roofs (see Exhibit E) . The various floor plans
reflect the various topographical conditions on the site, with
some homes designed for sloping areas while others are to be
placed on flatter sites . Thus, the homes have been designed to
fit onto their individual locations; wholesale terracing of the
site is not proposed.
Other features of the project include a centrally located
recreation building, pool/spa, and a tennis court . Also planned
is a hiking trail along the rear half of the site that will lead
to an overlook at the top of the hill . Private covenants,
conditions and restrictions (CC&R' s) have been drafted and
presented as part of the application. The CC&R' s will regulate,
among other things, architectural control, land use, and property
rights and also contain provisions for site maintenance,
including streets, drainage facilities, etc.
An internal private road system, with a single entrance from E1
Corte Avenue (including a secondary emergency access toward the
north frontage of the site) will provide access to the project .
• The roads will be of varying widths ranging from 38 feet, thirty
feet and twenty five feet . Additionally, the entry road will
include a landscaped divider with two eighteen foot lanes .
Road names have been proposed for the streets and are as follows :
Map Reference Proposed Name Spanish Meaning
"A Circle" Vaquero Circle Cowherd Circle
"A" & "D" Streets Paseo De Caballo Horse Drive
"B" Street Paseo De Vaca Cow Drive
"C" Street La Espuella Court Spur Court
"E" Street Reata Way Rope Way
The project' s wide streets will provide for on-street parking,
allowing the development to meet the multiple family zone parking
requirements . Staff has determined that approximately 80 on-
street parking spaces are provided, in addition to 21 parking lot
spaces located near the recreation area. The applicant will be
required to provide appropriate curb painting or signing to
demarcate "No Parking" areas . In addition to the above-mentioned
parking, each house is provided with two on-site parking spaces,
• including garages . Therefore, a total of 255 spaces have been
-3-
provided. Staff, using multiple family parking standards, has
calculated that a total of 227 spaces are required. Thus,
provided parking exceeds City required standards . •
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
The project is located within the RMF-4 (PD-6) zone . This zone
allows for four units per acre . Unlike other multiple family
zoning in Atascadero (RMF-10, RMF-16) , slopes and number of
bedrooms per unit are not counted in the calculation of allowed
site density. Thus, a straight 84 units are permitted on this
site.
As mentioned above, the site has also been designated with the
PD-6 overlay zone (Exhibit G) . This zone establishes additional
standards, and also allows for the modification of other,
ordinary zoning standards . The General Plan provides for the
establishment of the Planned Development zone in Land Use Policy
#6 :
Multi-family residential use areas shall have a minimum
building site of one-half acre . Smaller lot sizes may be
allowed in conjunction with planned residential
developments, including planned mobile home developments and
subdivisions, provided that the overall density within the
project is consistent with other density standards contained
herein.
Proposing 77 units, this project meets the allowed density •
standard (84 units allowed) in this zone .
The Planned Development zone allows for the modification of
certain development standards . Section 9-3 . 643 of the Atascadero
Zoning Ordinance outlines the following uses of the PD zone :
a. To modify setbacks; heights; parking and loading;
landscaping, screening and fencing; signs; streets and
frontage improvements; and, other development and special
use standards set forth in Chapters 9-4 and 9-6; and
b. to modify processing procedures set forth by the underlying
zoning district (Chapter 9-3) ; and
C . to establish other development standards or processing
requirements; and
d. to modify minimum lot sizes .
This project proposes several modifications of development
standards, primarily in lot sizes and setbacks . As mentioned
above, the PD overlay zone allows an applicant to propose a
modification of minimum lot size . The minimum lot size in the
City' s multiple family zones are one half acre . Lot sizes in •
Chalk Mountain Village range from 3, 283 to 9, 791 square feet,
-4-
f
1
with an average lot size of 5, 129 square feet . The applicant has
also proposed use easements (see Exhibit H) to increase the
useable lot area for each homeowner. As shown on the diagram,
relatively unuseable areas on individual lots would be fenced to
allow their use by the adjoining lot owner.
This arrangement can create future administrative problems
(enforcement, etc . ) . An alternative would be to move the
proposed lot lines to run along the proposed easement lines .
However, this incurs significant building code restrictions,
including requirements for fire walls, parapets, etc.
Front and rear setbacks are also proposed to be reduced.
Standard residential setbacks in Atascadero call for a 25 foot
front yard setback and a 10 foot rear yard setback. Two front
yard setbacks are proposed: 17 feet and 13 feet . These setbacks
reflect various garage alignments .
The majority of rear yards meet the required ten foot setback,
however, some homes along the two open space "greenbelts" have a
five foot rear yard setback.
Lots along E1 Corte Avenue are double frontage lots, that is,
their front yard and rear yard both front along streets . The
zoning ordinance requires that the rear yard of such lots be
increased to 12 1/2 feet (one half the front yard setback) .
Several of the lots have an 11 foot rear setback along El Corte .
• Other development standards contained in the RMF zone also apply
to this project . They include lot coverage, enclosed storage,
outdoor recreation areas, screening walls and covered parking.
The project meets these requirements as outlined below:
Percent coverage: No more than 40% of the lot may be covered by
structures . 130 of the combined parent
parcels will be covered by buildings .
Enclosed storage: 100 square feet per dwelling required.
Required space is provided in garages .
Outdoor recreation
areas : 300 square feet per unit or common open space
of a minimum of 1, 000 square feet required.
Both of these requirements are met .
Screening wall : Solid six foot wall required along property
lines abutting land zoned for single family
use . This is not required since the project
abuts no single family zones .
Covered parking: One covered parking space required per unit .
Each unit is provided with a 2-car garage .
• OFFSITE IMPROVEMENTS
-5-
The City of Atascadero is requiring extensive offsite road
improvements to help mitigate increased traffic expected to be
generated by the project . Exhibit I shows a diagram of the
required improvements and specific requirements are listed in the
Conditions of Approval (Exhibit M) . The City, as a condition of
the PD-6 overlay zone, required the preparation of an engineered
traffic study of the project and its potential traffic impacts .
The study detailed expected impacts and proposed mitigation
measures .
The project site is somewhat hampered with respect to access
since there is no access from the project site to destinations to
the east . Therefore, traffic will primarily move west towards El
Camino Real . The study states that the project has the potential
to generate a total of 600-770 vehicle trips per weekday. As a
comparison, the existing 400-unit Bordeaux House Apartments were
projected to generate approximately 2, 800 vehicle trips per day.
40% of the trips generated will have north E1 Camino Real
destinations, 20% will head west (primarily towards the Lucky' s
Shopping Center) , and 40% will move through the street network
towards south E1 Camino Real . Four streets provide primary
access to E1 Camino Real, including Arcade Road, Cascada Road,
Solano Road, and La Linia Avenue. Secondary access is provided
by Pino Solo Avenue which leads to Principal, Montecito, and El
Bordo Avenues, which in turn join E1 Camino Real, to the south.
To help mitigate traffic impacts, a number of improvements are •
being required by the city. The primary improvements consist of
the following:
1 . Improvement of La Linia Avenue to 30 foot pavement width,
including curb and gutter along the south side of the road
from E1 Corte to E1 Dorado Road. The section of La Linia
from El Dorado to Solano Avenue will also be widened to
thirty feet of pavement with curb, gutter and sidewalk along
the north side of the road. The sidewalk will tie into the
existing sidewalk leading to the Lucky' s Shopping Center.
2 . E1 Corte Road will be widened to thirty feet of pavement
along the project frontage with curb, gutter and sidewalk
along the east side of the street (the sidewalk will be
installed only on the south side of the project entrance) .
3 . El Centro Road will be extended through its present terminus
to join the intersection of La Linia and E1 Dorado Roads .
This intersection will be reconfigured to provide through
access on E1 Centro Road, with La Linia and El Dorado Roads
having stop sign intersections . This configuration is
intended to more evenly distribute traffic in the local road
network.
4 . Dedicated left turns will be installed (painted) on El •
Camino Real to facilitate left turns from southbound El
-6-
Camino Real onto Arcade, Cascada, and La Linia Roads . This
will restrict these portions of the center lane on E1 Camino
Real to being used exclusively for southbound left turns .
These improvements should work to lessen traffic impacts and
improve safety in the vicinity. The bottom line concerning the
traffic impacts related to this project, is that traffic will
increase noticeably in the neighborhood, but it will not exceed
the design capacit of the streets, provided the street
improvements required by the city are completed.
In addition to the previously mentioned street improvements, the
existing open drainage ditches running primarily along La Linia
Road will be undergrounded with piping. This will help to solve
a long-standing problem concerning the open, stagnant water
conditions that have existed here, not to mention the hazard to
traffic the ditches present .
The street/drainage improvements will require the developer to
reconstruct driveway entrances for existing homes along the
streets affected. Additionally, some mailboxes, utility poles,
landscaping, water meters and ornamental driveway markers will
have to be removed/relocated out of the street right of way.
This includes eleven non-native trees (ten poplars/one pine)
growing within the right of way.
Another area of concern involves tree removal on the project
• site . A number of trees are located on the site and the project
will necessitate tree removal . A total of 48 trees are proposed
to be removed. Seventeen of the trees are classified as native
trees while 31 trees are non-native species . Some of the trees
are counted as trunk clusters . Five heritage trees are proposed
to be removed as part of the application. Removal of these trees
must be approved by the City Council . Despite the number of
trees proposed to be removed, the applicant has made a serious
effort to design the site around the larger, healthier native
trees of the site. Additionally, the tree cover on the hill,
above the 960 foot elevation, will remain untouched.
The applicant has also requested the abandonment of a portion of
the La Linia Avenue right of way. Staff has conditioned that the
road abandonment be completed prior to construction of units on
the lots adjoining (and encompassing) the right of way and prior
to occupancy of any units in the project . Staff has received
preliminary approval from affected agencies, however, the road
abandonment is a three step process and requires additional
notification.
Another important issue concerns impacts on City services . Staff
has referred this application to affected City agencies and other
entities and utilities for their review and comment, including
Atascadero Mutual Water Company, Fire and Public Works
Departments and others . The construction of 77 single family
• homes can be anticipated to have cumulative impacts on city
-7-
services . However, impacts on these services can be absorbed
adequately within existing capacities of the services and all •
affected agencies have given approval of the project . All
utilities, including sewer and water lines, exist at the site
frontage. With respect to conditions required by other
departments, the Fire Department is requiring installation of
nine fire hydrants . Additionally, the dead-end access roads and
turn-arounds have met the Fire Department' s requirements .
ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT
As mentioned previously, this application also proposes a
modification to the text of the development standards of the PD-6
overlay zone. The Planning Commission previously approved this
request, sending it to the City Council, who directed it back to
the Planning Commission to be reheard along with the proposal for
the entire project . Staff' s position regarding the proposed zone
text change remains the same . The development standards of
concern of the PD6 overlay zone are the following:
Section 9-3 . 650 :
(d) Building height shall be limited to thirty (30) feet
(not to exceed two stories) .
(e) An open space easement shall be provided for those
areas above the 960 foot contour line as shown on the
1965 Atascadero, California USGS Quadrangle (15 minute •
series) .
(f) No portion of any structure, excepted as provided in
Section 9-4 . 113 of the Zoning Ordinance, shall be
extended above the 960 foot contour line as shown on
the 1965 Atascadero, California USGS Quadrangle (15
minute series)
The applicant has proposed that sections d and f be modified.
Section e is included above because of its relevance to this
request .
The applicant has requested that these conditions be modified as
follows :
Section 9-3 . 650 (d) Building height shall be limited to
thirty (30) feet (not to exceed two
stories) , excepted as provided in
Section 9-4 . 113 of the Zoning Ordinance .
Section 9-3 . 650 (f) No portion of any structure' s foundation
shall be above the 960 foot contour line
as shown on the 1965 Atascadero,
California USGS Quadrangle (15 minute
series) .
-8-
GENERAL PLAN:
• The Open Space and Conservation element states on Page 75 in its
listing of open space principles :
Scenic and open space easements, parklands and open space
dedications shall be obtained through the subdivision and
development process including, but not limited to: creek
reservation, wooded areas, floodplains, scenic and historic
sites and other suitable sites .
The Zoning Ordinance addresses building height more directly.
Section 9-4 . 111 discusses the purposes of building height
control :
The purpose of the following Sections is to limit the height
of structures as needed to : support public safety; protect
access to natural light, ventilation, and direct sunlight;
support the preservation of neighborhood character; and to
preserve viewsheds and scenic vistas .
The intent of the condition pertaining to buildings extending
above the 960 foot level was to preserve views of the hill on the
rear half of the project (see Exhibit J) . This hill will remain
in open space with the imposition of Section 9-3 . 650 (e)
(establishment of an open space easement above the 960 foot
contour level) .
• Another important point relating to this site concerns grading
done for construction of the original mushroom farm. Several
"benches" were formed on the lower portion of the site for the
placement of large buildings . The resulting cuts, made into the
chalky material, remain today much as they did when they were
first cut . The applicant' s plan proposes to "hide" these
unsightly cuts from view through the placement of units on the
site .
It is also important to consider that the applicant has
demonstrated key differences between the current proposal and the
original project with regard to grading and existing cuts on the
hillside. Through a series of cross-section comparisons, the
applicant has shown that the original project, as proposed, would
have required significantly more grading and tree removal than
the currently proposed project . Thus, the current project
proposes to use, as much as possible, the existing topography and
grading already done for the mushroom farm. Where units are
proposed on slopes, split level construction will be used to
minimize required grading. In sum, this project is more
sensitive to the site than was the previous Poe plan.
Staff feels that the text modifications requested by the
applicant can be accommodated by simply eliminating Section 9-
3 . 650 (f) . This would still leave the sections that ensure
retention of the 960 foot open space easement and restrict
-9-
building heights to thirty (30) feet and two stories .
Staff believes that the requested change will not be detrimental •
to the appearance of the site and in fact, can enhance its
appearance by repairing and screening damage and scarring imposed
by the original use . The current proposal has units positioned
so as to hide the existing unsightly scars made by development of
the abandoned mushroom farm operation. Importantly, the open
space easement above the 960 foot level will remain, helping to
preserve approximately 58% of the site in open space.
CONCLUSIONS:
Chalk Mountain Village represents, to a degree, a new form of
development for Atascadero . The project proposes individual
homes on "small" lots served by a private road system. This type
of development is provided for by the General Plan and Zoning
Ordinance . Staff believes that the modification to development
standards requested by the applicant are justified and consistent
with the "spirit" of the PD overlay zone and should be granted.
Staff also believes that the request to modify the text of the
PD-6 overlay zone concerning height limits will not result in
adverse impacts . In conclusion, staff believes that the Chalk
Mountain Village is in conformance with the General Plan and
Zoning Ordinance.
KCS/kcs
ATTACHMENTS : Exhibit A - General Plan Map •
Exhibit B - Zoning Map
Exhibit C - Tentative Tract Map 21-89
Exhibit D - Grading Plan
Exhibit E - Building Elevations
Exhibit F - Applicant' s Statement
Exhibit G - PD-6 Text
Exhibit H - Use Easements
Exhibit I - Off-Site Road Improvements
Exhibit J - 960 Contour Map (3 Exhibits)
Exhibit K - Draft Ordinance
Exhibit L - Findings for Approval (CUP 09-89,
TTM 21-89)
Exhibit M - Conditions of Approval (CUP 09-89,
TTM 21-89)
•
-10-
�
CITY OF ATASCADERO EXHIBIT A
• COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ZCP 15 9-89
9 9/TTM 21-89
DEPARTMENT
• GENERAL PLAN MAP
N 1j
, �, ��,��� 1 � l ; � � , • ���� ` tel.
49 400= snow foomm/
PUBLIC
'14
R' )- .tNtIT
SITE
8555 E1 Corte ,
MULTIFAMILY
f � • RE-CREATION
'C o W, • ••
r.%� •
"CAM
LTI• AMILfiY
�`CO,� ``\`•,, � 0
`D 1of �. �� _ w�\'•�\ \
E�fSIT '
SI Ga
rr Doq,o J
.1ILYo MddLPTE •s •-
COMf1�E�. di J -- E,a ° D �NS�TY`/ .�• •� �• W DENS' -
• -
��is RET. s, SINGLE REC.
C am °' Z Mil;
J
�':" • \' - J
SIN FAMILY
P,
�wEAv COM.
I rib.\ - ' - m• �I HIGH I
D •RATE�.0EN! TY INDUS - 'S' �� DENSITY
�•
r PA-RK ._MULTI-7 j
�N G L '�EA4, LY; FAMILY///
�i EJ- ( ' C MERCIA. it 1
F TAI ` �
COM. •`'~
�• ..t ,ccs 9
.... n ) O
CITY OF ATASCADERO EXHIBIT B
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ZC 09-89/TTM 21-89
15-89
DEPARTMENT
ZONING MAP •
w00NA \� f
90.
44
40i
•
SITE
:,?,� 8555 E1 Corte
7V
J 1 •a� ,/:
� I + p' 4v y I _ � El*a
RSF• (POT)
�RSF x- EL N �• ,.I
R' b7
F,,Y1
Com` •J.� 4t
r s /
f to- W CR
orf , _ ��N�;, ;�E CT G T T '
/ `''')T /� R c s
C t
yCAoEga 1 `J
EXHIBIT C
CITY OF ATASCADERO CUP 09-89/TTM 21-89
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT zC 15-89
DEPARTMENT TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
Lu
�f ♦� ul f•
vA
{
f �
w •�/
#
It
CITY OF ATASCADERO EXHIBIT D
CUP 09-89/TTM 21-s 9
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT ZC 15-89
GRADING PLAN
.�' ;� ;rte ,-�` �.> '.,�: � . •, .,v,_ � ` `
Wa i/jj —9`Q •
`%i�� � '� �,•'�' �`. .J�, 1, `, ,� '_�� �'f' l 1
It
LL
,'• ,� 1
- � / �\`'\\` � �. _ I� :� Ips �.���:►f:�� i i~ ;�.
J I.
Ld
V /I I I j o •I "C• �W I '''=t` 11 j t
O ~ ' •
_ 1
� i i °e I a\•,� 1.,; �.r •',b .�',1-., ar{.�i1--+.�� j I .r-jel; 1
•� n ,,.:. y` I� .t •itil
\'• ;; /. �:/ . t _ /`u'� � ," � !l��i�l=i+ill!{�!
CITY OF ATASCADERO EXHIBIT E (a)
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CUP o9-89/TTM 21-89
ZC 15-89
DEPARTMENT
ELEVATIONS
° i
1S3iwwuuaw
[� /
�^g' :Sir.
c
$' ei;;f� Jia >g s a` a
4. so
n }
i
I
Coqj
ES
Q ❑
"µ
ti
O
°
GI
�I i
W
Y>
i
WI I
t
WII
7=7 y
F On
l r
� 0 C
�I
Q
Elair
V
� rl
u
-`� ; V •Wo
wo
ou
< a F
�f
u
LIE]
w;.
dl W
El
`\ El
El
C II
_I
clll
l ,
4
wvo
t2al
o.
�3aitE � - ;, �►
I
r ; J
L L+ W
t _
IL
s
fu
77
FF
Eff
- i
® Q
�I
SMWU
Ilii a�
n
® e0
qq �i
o 11 "I C 0
® Q'
I
e
e
L. C II el
o II
I
vl
$EB3
O r-
D
i
C�
®
Eld EEC
4-4
IL f
f:1
y
Yli
J l;
EmJ 5i
�i
� F
1 � U
��N Z
o -
II
�I
�I
u
i
r -
v -� Y
y
la
t� dl J I � <
;� AL
Em
3
I
I'
i- fl
I
Q =-
hl
LU
ti
ui
-t� I
_ t
slumLj
1
OL
O
LIJ
_� 0 01
I
6 } _ co 1 J
� " C
LLI
CL
11
liei "e
1
r
...�
tx
G O m
` N V
:s tG c0Gouj
X C
x x x x c ��— $ W
F G.1 N N co V
W W
tL
O
W
a
t- r EXHIBIT F
CUP09-89/TTM 21-89
ZC 15-89
Applicant' s Stateme
July 12 , 1989
Planning
Commission
CITY OF ATASCADERO JUL I
6500 Palma Avenue
Atascadero, California 93422
Re: Chalk Mountain Village
Conditional Use Permit
Precise Plan Approval
Ladies and Gentlemen:
The original preliminary plan submitted by the previous
owner, Bill Poe, and approved by the City Council
presented duplex units and appears to have alot of open
space and trees between units .
• In preparing the more precise plan we -have determined
that the original preliminary plan would not work well
for the following reasons :
1. It was a quick architectural depiction that
was not drawn to accurate scale. When drawn to
accurate scale the homes must be moved closer
together in order to fit within the constraints
of the 960 foot elevation E1 Corte Road and golf
course property lines thus reducing the amount
of open space between units as depicted by the
original plan.
2. The owner at that time did not have an
accurate topo and therefore the conceptual plan
did not consider the true reality of the sloping
topography of the site. Even though we could
build the project as originally shown our analysis
shows that the resulting cuts and fills and
required retaining walls would be disasterous
and a multilation of the site, creating huge
white cut slopes and large fill slopes.
•
eunnE« consTRucTion,inc.
a s
141 Suburban Road, San Luis Obispo, California 93401 8051544-4300
EXHIBIT F (cont. )
JULY 12, 1989
CITY OF ATASCADERO
PLANNING COMMISSION
Page Two
3. The grading and layout of streets and buildings
destroys almost every significant tree on the site
below 960 elevations as well as a number above
that elevation.
4. The layout of the project does nothing to
screen the existing huge cuts and in fact places
the streets and traffic adjacent to those existing
scars.
5. A portion of this original plan places homes
past the 960 foot elevation.
In proceeding with the precise plan we have made some changes
in order to mitigate the negative impacts of the inherited
original preliminary plan. While staying with the same
basic configuration of the project we have changed the
location of some streets and buildings in order to take
better advantage of the existing topography with special •
consideration given to saving the existing specimen Oak
trees.
The buildings have been designed as separate units with
smaller footprints and multiple levels in order to fit the
existing topography with minimal grading requirements. We
have developed six different models and sizes to fit the
varing terrain requirements. The buildings have also been
designed at various angles to the streets in order to create
better views , more interesting street scapes , and private
areas. Each unit has an area of windowless wall which
creates a privacy screen for the adjoining unit. At the
same time each unit is opened up to take advantage of golf
course, hillside, and open space views.
The recreation area has been relocated to take advantage of
one of the existing cut sites which also effectively acts
as a screen for the existing hillside scar. We have also
added a small recreation building and tennis court to this
facility. The other existing hillside scar is being screened
by a group of four homes. In addition to screening these
existing scars we have created better views for these homes
and the recreation area.
•
EXHIBIT F (cont. )
JULY 12, 1989
CITY OF ATASCADERO
PLANNING COMMISSION
Page Three
In making these revisions we have added five additional
homes but are still seven units below the density allowed
by the zoning, and, our footprint site coverage is
approximately 10,000 square feet less than the original
preliminary plan as seen in the following comparison:
PRELIMINARY PRECISE
PLAN PLAN
Number of units 72 77
Home footprint 129,102 SF 118,095 SF
Street area 110,010 SF 110,275 SF
Recreation area 18, 000 SF (approx) 18,000 SF (approx)
The net result is an added 10,000 square feet of landscaped
area within the developed zone. We have also added an
exercise, nature, hiking trail through-out the complex and
hillside open space.
We believe the precise plan changes discussed herein greatly
improve and enhance the quality of this development while
staying within the guidelines and intent of the original
preliminary plan approval. Therefore we respectfully request
your approval so that we can proceed with construction
drawings and final approval.
Si&rn� r y,
RAELL
BDEVELOPMENT CORP.
RB: cls
Enclosure: Summary
•
EXHIBIT F (cont. )
SUMMARY •
PRELIMINARY PRECISE
PLAN PLAN
10, 000 SF. More
Open Space Inaccurate open space
All healthy specimen
Tree Preservation None Oaks saved
Minimal grading and
retaining walls -
Disasterous cuts , designed to fit
fills , and retaining natural terrain and
Grading walls existing conditions
Good Mediterranean
for hillside and flat
sites. 1350-2000 SF
Good Mediterranean detached units. Designed
for flat sites. for angle placement
1200-1750 SF duplex privacy, views and
Home Design units . decks .
Pool, tennis court ,
rec building, BBQ area,
hiking and exercise
Recreation Pool and pond trail system.
•
EXHIBIT G <
CUP 09-89/TTM 21-89/ZC 15-89-
PD-6
89PD-6 Text (includes proposed
modification)
9-3. 650. Establishment of Planned Development Overlay Zone No 6
• (PD6) . The Planned Development Overlay Zone No. 6 is established
as shown on the official zoning maps (Section 9-1.102) . The
following development standards are established:
(a) Approval of a conditional use permit reflecting a
master plan of development for a residential
development and related uses shall be required prior to
approving a grading permit, or tentative parcel or
tract map. The master plan of development shall be
applied for and processed as a conditional use permit
(Section 9-2.109) .
(b) In approving a master plan of development, the level of
processing for subsequent projects or phases may be
reduced to a plot plan provided that the master plan
contains sufficient detail to support such a
determination.
(c) No subsequent plot plan, precise plan, conditional use
permit, or tentative parcel or tract map shall be
approved unless found to be consistent with the
approved master plan of development. Any amendment to
a master plan of development, including conditions
thereof, shall be accomplished as set forth in
Subsection (a) of this Section.
(d) Building height shall be limited to thirty (30) feet
(not to exceed two stories) .
(e) An open space easement shall be provided for those
areas above the 960 foot contour line as shown on the
1965 Atascadero, California USGS Quadrangle (15 minute
series) .
(f) No Portion of any atrnctsre7 eMeepted as preVided in
Section 9-4:449 e£ the aefting 9•rdiaaaee; -shall be
oxtaeded above the 969 foot contour i}ee as seewn em
tke 1445 "aseaderev Ealiieraia 8666 e'dadraftgie Jis
minute series}-
(g) A master plan of development prepared pursuant to this
Section shall include a traffic analysis and
circulation study, including analysis of ingress and
egress to the area originating/terminating at El Camino
Real.
(h) No development shall occur prior to the extension of
sewer service to each lot, parcel, or building site
proposed for development.
(i) The developer or applicant for development entitlement
• shall contribute a fair share of the cost of required
off-site drainage, sewage, and circulation improvements
NOTE: Dashed text to be deleted
CITY OF ATASCADERO EXHIBIT H
CUP 09-89/TTM 21-89
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT z C 15-89
DEPARTMENT
• Z497 USE EASEMENTS
or
i
LAWV 41W eSMr
fac Loge 1
fc�L.or*2 4Aw
s
7 CAL LOT EASEMEIV T5
No 6"Lo
A.''
•
L,
CITY OF ATASCADERO EXHIBIT I
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CUP 09-89/TTM 21-89
ZC 15-89
DEPARTMENT
OFF—SITE IMPROVEMF�
�• I
�� �. . _._,\ N�q Q)P• �� sem_� ',;��`+. v� ��;, r � F��'�,
44 oh
44
h t
L7 ' � J
F)
r
Q
N
CITY OF ATASCADERO EXHIBIT J
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CUP 09-89/TTM 21-89
zc 15-89
DEPARTMENT
960 ' CONTOUR MAP
Ljj
.r ,tom` -
(+ a j
z
CL
<Z 0
LIJ
CL
14
\ I `� 4 / ,;I•i 1 , `LS r j^�,��\•�-i�
��i�l
EXHIBIT K
ZC 15-89
DRAFT ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ATASCADERO AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT OF THE PD6
OVERLAY ZONE RELATIVE TO PROPOSED BUILDINGS EXTENDING ABOVE A
SPECIFIC ELEVATION
(ZC 15-89: City of Atascadero)
WHEREAS, the proposed zoning map amendments are consistent
with the General Plan as required by Section 65860 of the
California Government Code; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments are in conformance with
Section 65800 et seq. of the California Government Code
concerning zoning regulations; and
WHEREAS, thero osed amendments will not h
P p have a significant
adverse impact upon the environment. The Negative Declaration
prepared for the project is adequate; and
WHEREAS, the Atascadero Planning Commission held a public
hearing on August 7, 1990 and has recommended approval of Zone
Change 15-89. -
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Atascadero does
ordain as follows:
Section 1. Council Findings.
1. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan Land
Use element and other elements contained in the General
Plan.
2. The proposal will not result in any significant adverse
environmental impacts. The Negative Declaration
prepared for the project is adequate.
Section 2. Zoning Text Change.
Subsection (f) of Section 9-6. 650 of the Zoning Ordinance
text for the Establishment of Planned Development Overlay Zone
No. 6 (PD6) shall be deleted from the Zoning Ordinance.
Section 3. Publication.
The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published
once within fifteen (15) days after its passage in the Atascadero •
News, a newspaper of general circulation, printed, published, and,
circulated in the City in accordance with Section 36933 of the
Government Code; shall certify the adopting and posting of this
ordinance and shall cause this ordinance and this certification
together with proof of posting to be entered into the Book of
Ordinances of the City.
Section 4. Effective Date.
This ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and
effect at 12:01 a.m. on the 31st day after its passage.
On motion by and seconded by
' the foregoing Ordinance is approved
by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
DATE ADOPTED:
By:
ROBERT LILLEY, Mayor
City of Atascadero, California
• ATTEST:
LEE DAYKA, City Clerk
RAY WINDSOR, City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ARTHER MONTANDON, City Attorney
PREPARED BY:
HENRY ENGEN, Community Development Director
EXHIBIT L - Findings for Approval
Conditional Use Permit 09-89
Tentative Tract Map 27-89
8555 E1 Corte Road
ENVIRONMENTAL FINDING:
The proposed project will not have a significant impact on the
environment . The Negative Declaration prepared for the project is
adequate .
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS:
1 . The proposed project or use is consistent with the General
Plan.
2 . The proposed project or use satisfies all applicable
provisions of this Title.
3 . The establishment, and subsequent operation or conduct of the
use will not, because of the circumstances and conditions
applied in the particular case, be detrimental to the health,
safety, or welfare of the general public or persons residing
or working in the neighborhood of the use, or be detrimental
or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity of
the use.
4 . The proposed project or use will riot be inconsistent with the •
character of the immediate neighborhood or contrary to its
orderly development .
5 . The proposed use or project will not generate a volume of
traffic beyond the safe capacity of all roads providing access
to the project, either existing or to be improved in
conjunction with the project, or beyond the normal traffic
volume of the surrounding neighborhood that would result from
full development in accordance with the Land Use Element .
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 .
•
EXHIBIT M - Conditions of Approval •
Conditional Use Permit 09-89
Tentative Tract Map 21-89
8555 E1 Corte Road (Bunnell)
August 7, 1990
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
UTILITIES
1 . Water shall be obtained from the Atascadero Mutual Water
Company. Water service laterals shall be installed to the
property line frontage of each parcel prior to final
inspection of any unit in this development .
2 . All existing and proposed utility, pipeline, open space, or
other easements are to be shown on the final map. If there
are building or other restrictions related to the easements,
they shall be noted on the final map.
3 . All relocation and/or alteration of existing utilities shall
be the responsibility of the developer.
4 . The newly formed lots shall be connected to the Public
Sewer. All annexation permit fees in effect at the time of
recordation shall be paid prior to the recording of the
final map. Any sewer extensions for annexation must be
completed within one year after annexation.
5 . Sewer main extension plans shall be submitted for review
and approval by the Public Works Department prior to the
start of construction.
6 . All utility services to each lot shall be installed in
conjunction with onsite road improvements . This shall
include, but not be limited to, cable television, power,
telephone, gas, water and sewer.
GRADING
7 . Grading, and Drainage plans , prepared by a registered Civil
Engineer shall be submitted to The Community Development
Department for review and approval by the Community
Development and Public Works Departments prior to the
issuance of any building permits .
•
ROAD I-WROVEMENTS
8 . Obtain an encroachment permit from the City of Atascadero
Public Works Department . Sign an Inspection Agreement
guaranteeing that the work will be done and the inspections
paid for prior to the start of public works construction.
Construct improvements as directed by the encroachment
permit prior to the occupancy of any building.
9 . A road maintenance agreement for the interior streets, in a
form acceptable to the City Attorney, shall be included in
the C.C. & R. ' s .
10 . The subdivider shall install all street signs, traffic
delineation devices, warning and regulatory signs,
guardrails, barricades, and other similar devices where
required by the Director of Public Works . Signs shall be in
conformance with the Department of Public Works standards
and the current State of California uniform sign chart .
Installation of traffic devices shall be subject to review
and modifications after construction.
11 . Road improvement plans prepared by a Registered Civil
Engineer shall be submitted to the Community Development
Department for review and approval by the Public Works
Department . Plans shall include, but are not limited
to :
• E1 Corte Road
a. Reconstruct E1 Corte Road along entire project
frontage.
b. Provide traveled way width of 30 feet from face of curb
to face of curb or to edge of pavement .
C . Install a concrete curb and gutter from the northern
end of the project frontage to the northern side of the
proposed entrance driveway. Extend the concrete curb
and gutter across the driveway entrance . Install
concrete curb and gutter with a five foot wide sidewalk
from the entrance driveway to La Linia.
d. Acquire additional right of way and dedicate to the
City of Atascadero to the inside of the curve at the
intersection of El Corte Road and La Linia Road to
provide a minimum 30 foot radius at the face of curb
and a 25 foot radius at the future back of sidewalk in
addition to room for drainage facilities that may be
required.
e . Install drainage culverts to convey runoff from the
• northwest side of the El Corte-La Linia intersection to
the creek at the southeast side . Provide a permanent
outfall structure or headwall for the storm drain
system that will be extended west on La Linia.
La Linia Road
f. Reconstruct La Linia Road from E1 Corte through the
intersection with El Centro and E1 Dorado . Overlay La
Linia from the intersection with E1 Centro and E1
Dorado to Solano Road.
g. Provide a traveled way width of 30 feet from face of
curb to face of curb or to edge of pavement .
h. Install a concrete curb and gutter and a five foot wide
sidewalk from E1 Corte to join the sidewalk at Solano
Road. Abandon and remove the concrete cross drain
structure across La Linia at Solano Road.
i . Construct storm drain improvements and appurtenances
from the intersection of La Linia and E1 Centro to a
discharge point at La Linia and El Corte . Fill and
abandon the existing roadside ditches along La Linia.
El Centro
j . Extend E1 Centro to the intersection of El Dorado and
La Linia. - S
k. Extend a concrete curb and gutter and a five foot wide
sidewalk along the southern side of this newly
constructed road.
1 . Improve the intersection of E1 Dorado, La Linia, and E1
Centro to make the through road from E1 Centro to the
eastern end of La Linia. Install stop bars and signs
at El Dorado and the western approach of La Linia.
M. Construct storm drain improvements and appurtenances
along E1 Centro west to the end of the new
construction.
El Camino Real
n. Install dedicated left turn lanes along El Camino Real
at La Linia, Cascada and Arcade .
12 . Construction of all offsite road improvements shall be
completed or bonded for prior to the recording of the final
map. The property shall not be occupied prior to the
completion of the onsite and offsite road improvements . •
13 . All public improvements shall be covered with a 150%
• Performance Bond until construction is substantially
complete and by a 10% Maintenance Bond until 1 year after
substantial completion.
14 . All interior streets shall remain private and shall not
become a part of the city maintained street system.
Maintenance shall be the responsibility of the Homeowner' s
Association and shall be addressed in the C.C. & R. ' s .
ACCESS
15 . There shall be no direct vehicle access to E1 Corte Road
except at the approved entrance location and the emergency
access as shown on the preliminary plans . Relinquishment of
access rights shall be delineated on the final map and shall
be acknowledged by certificate.
DRAINAGE
16 . Drainage Facilities shall be constructed prior to
occupancy.
17 . All lot grading, drainage and public improvements shall
require written statement by a registered Civil Engineer
• that all work has been completed and is in full compliance
with the approved plans .
18 . A Drainage Maintenance Agreement, in a form acceptable to
the City Attorney, shall be included in the C.C. & R. ' s .
DEDICATIONS
19 . Offers of dedication to the City of Atascadero for the
following rights-of-way and/or easements are required:
Street Name : Intersection of E1 Corte and La Linea
Limits : As outlined in Condition No . 11-d
20 . Offer for dedication to the Public for Public Utility
Easements the following:
a. A 6' -0" PUE along the perimeter of all streets .
21 . Offers of dedication shall be completed and recorded prior
to or simultaneous with the recordation of the final map.
SOILS REPORT
• 22 . Prior to the recording of the final map, a soils
be submitted, recommending corrective actions which will
prevent structural damage to each structure proposed to be
constructed in the area where so'il 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.
MISCELLANEOUS
23. Nine fire hydrants shall be installed at locations shown on
the tentative tract map, prior to recordation of the final
map.
24. Floor Plan "C" shall be modified to conform to Section 9-
3. 650 (d) of the Atascadero Zoning Ordinance.
25. Complete landscaping plans shall be submitted and approved
by the Community Development Department prior to issuance of
building permits. Landscaping shall incorporate native and
drought resistant species.
26. The proposed land use easements shall be included in the
private Covenants, Conditions and restrictions.
27. The driveway serving lots 59 and 60 shall be listed as an
access easement on the final map.
28. Abandonment of La Linia Road shall be completed prior to •
construction on lots 17-32 and before occupancy of any units
on the project site.
29. Areas above the 960 ' contour elevation as shown on the
tentative map shall be designated as an open space and
scenic easement. A note to this effect shall appear on the
final map. A pedestrian foot path as shown on the Master
Development Plan may be constructed within the open space
and scenic easement.
30. Recreation facilities as shown on the tentative map shall be
completed no later than at that time that fifty percent of
the dwelling units are complete.
STANDARD CONDITION FOR RECORDING
31. 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 Surveyors Act and Subdivision
• Map Act. Monuments set within any road right-
of-way shall conform to city standard drawing M-1.
b. Pursuant to section 66497 of the Subdivision Map Act
the engineer or surveyor shall notice the City Engineer
in writing that the monuments have been set.
C. A recently updated preliminary title report shall be
submitted for review in conjunction with the processing
of the final map.
d. A preliminary subdivision guarantee shall be submitted
for review in conjunction with the processing of the
final map.
32. 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.
•
•
2 . CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 09-89 , TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 21-89 ,
AND ZONE CHANGE 15-89:
Application filed by Ray Bunnell 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 project site. Site
is located at 8555 El Corte.
Karl Schoettler presented the staff report for the proposed
"Chalk Mountain Village" project and provided background
concerning the history of the property' s rezoning to
RMF-4 (PD6) . Mr. Schoettler referenced a letter received late
in the afternoon from the County' s General Services Department
expressing concern on some issues concerning the Chalk
Mountain Golf Course which is adjacent to this site.
Commission questions and discussion followed concerning the
difference between this proposal and the previous conceptual
plan which proposed a 72 unit adult community planned
development.
Commissioner Luna discussed his recollections from the Council
meeting concerning the Zone Change noting it was his •
understanding that Council had directed an overall change in
the project with regard to density. Mr. Decamp said that the
way it was received from the Council was that the Council
wanted the Planning Commission to look at the entire project
before making a decision on one element (change in 960 ft .
contour) but it was not staff' s understanding that this was
a complete new zone change and planned development overlay
zone. Mr. Decamp added that he believes the applicant is
still working within the confines of the PD6 zone that was
adopted for the project. He also pointed out that the Bill
Poe plan was conceptual and was never adopted as a site or
master plan for the project as is done with planned
developments today (adopting a specific site plan) .
Commissioner Brasher asked why the project has a Negative
Declration. instead of an EIR for a project of this size.
Mr. Decamp explained that environmental review was done on the
earlier project and the primary determination at that time was
that there was such significant disturbance on the site
already that what was being proposed was not going to have an
additional significant adverse impact on the environment.
With the new concept, the project was again looked at to
determine if there would be a significant impact as defined
by CEQA. Staff could not identify any area that would require •
generation of an EIR.
Mr. Decamp further stated that through the drainage studies ,
road improvement plans, and traffic studies , that the major
environmental concerns had been addressed.
ti
-16-
In response to question from Commission Brasher concerning the
County' s concerns Mr. Sims explained that the golf course is
irrigated with reclaimed waste water from the Atascadero
treatment plant and that the county is responsible for
confining their discharge to their property. A drainage plan
will be required and the County' s concerns will then be better
addressed.
In response to question, Mr. Sims explained that the proposed
private roads would be classified as internal roads through
the new road review policy. Such roads are governed by CC&Rs
or a homeowners association or private management.
Chairperson Lochridge stated it is difficult for him to
understand the negative declaration when there will be
extensive off-site improvements, private road system, existing
Heavy drainage problems , road improvements, increased traffic,
extra small lot sizes, etc .
Mr. Decamp explained that the significant portion of the on-
site concern was the ground disturbance. The other concern
generated by this project was the traffic impact that is going
to be generated between this site and ECR. Staff feels those
• questions and concerns have been-adequately answered by the
traffic study and the proposed road improvements to
accommodate the anticipated traffic. He further stated that
EIRs are prepared when there are questions that there are no
ready answers to. In this case, there is existing information
that is adequate to answer the questions .
MOTION: By Commissioner Highland, seconded by Commissioner
Luna and carried 6 : 0 to extend the meeting past
11 :00 p.m.
In response to inquiry by Commissioner Waage, Mr. Decamp
pointed out that when the PD6 zoning was approved in 1985 , a
specific site plan was not adopted. Discussion followed
relative to the proposed site plan being one of the options
that could be approved for the lot layout.
- Public comment
Ray Bunnell, applicant, introduced the design team for the
project which '
Rob Strong, Steve Pults, Fred Schott,
and Jerry Rek He added he selected these individuals
because of the outstanding performance and abilities they have
previously shown.
• Rob Strong, project planning consultant, complimented staff
on a concise staff report which accurately addressed the
issues and the complex nature of this project. He showed a
slide presentation which addressed the differences between
-11-
this proposal and the prior conceptual site plan relative to:
zero lot line concept, minimized grading, variation of height,
etc.
Steve Pults, project architect, spoke on the exterior
character for the units adding the goal has been to create
something far more suitable for the site than the project that
was developed before.
Mr. Strong then responded to questions from the Commission
concerning use easements, setback requirements, etc .
Chairperson Lochridge inquired whether there was a
significance of the increase from 72 units to 77 . Mr. Strong
replied that the applicant is striving to establish a design
and density, below the maximum, that is consistent with the
development standards and with the constraints and
opportunities of the site. By changing from the duplexes and
stepping the units to fit the terrain, it is more desireable
Mr. Bunnell added that the addition of the five units helps
defray the costs for the extensive off-site improvements. As
well , a considerable amount of recreation area within the site
has been added which is also an economic factor.
Commissioner Luna asked Mr. Bunnell what his perception was
Of the Council' s direction in sending this matter back to
staff and the Planning Commission. Mr. Bunnell explained that
when the Council heard the zone change involving the 960 foot
contour line only, much discussion and questions were
generated concerning the whole project .
Rudy Duran, concessionaire of the Chalk Mountain Golf Course,
expressed concern with possible impacts of drainage from the
project to the golf course. He explained that Title 22
mandates a 200 foot setback from residential property when
using reclaimed water for irrigation adding that some expense
would be incurred to monitor or discontinue irrigation if the
property is developed with homes .
Sharon Clark, 5440 Santa Fe Road, stated there would be over
200 vehicles generated from the project adding that the plans
look a lot like Los Angeles . She indicated her feeling that
the site should be developed with one unit per each half acre,
and disagreed with the environmental determination.
Lynn Bebeau, area resident, spoke in support of the project
adding that there is a need in the community for this type of
housing for people who do not need larger parcels .
-12-
t
Janet Fillmore, 8830 E1 Centro Road, expressed concern that
her property may be impacted with the off-site road improve-
ments adding that her front yard and trees have been marked
with paint, but she has not been informed as to what will be
taking place.
Commissioner Highland commented that perhaps a portion of Mrs .
Fillmore' s property is in the road right-of-way.
Jay Peterson, 8519 E1 Dorado, stated he was speaking on behalf
of his family and some neighbors who reside on E1 Dorado. He
voiced concern that although he and the others in the
neighborhood live outside of the 300 foot radius for noticing
purposes, and did not receive any notice, they will also be
impacted by this project with regard to increased traffic
safety for children who play in the neighborhood, etc .
Wildlife will also be affected. Mr. Peterson further stated
that the site's 21 acres should be developed with 42 homes ( 1
per 1/2 acre) which would be consistent with the rest of the
area.
Tim McCutcheon, Templeton resident, commended Mr. Bunnell on
his "Cherry Meadows" development adjacent to Mr. McCutcheon ' s
• property and supported his work. He added that this type of
housing is needed for older residents and people who cannot
afford large lots .
Janet Fillmore indicated that she was under the impression
that E1 Centro Road is not City-maintained. Mr. Sims stated
that the small portion at the and of E1 Centro is a paper
street but is a public access .
Mr. Decamp pointed out that the proposed improvements would
all occur within the public right-of-way and no additional
right-of-way would be taken away from any of the adjoining
property owners . Discussion followed.
Sharon Clark said she also did not receive a notice and was
only informed about the meeting at 5 :00 p.m. if more people
in the neighborhood were aware of this hearing, there would
undoubtedly have been a larger turnout.
Fred Fillmore expressed concern that if drainage improvements
are not extended to La Linia, there will be a lot of problems
with the water run-off.
Fred Schott, project engineer, talked about the off-site
improvements which include road widening, installation of
sidewalks as well as an extensive drainage system which
• includes pipes up to four feet in diameter which will
adequately handle all of the drainage deficiencies .
- End of public testimony
-13- ,
Chairperson Lochridge noted that the neighbors have valid
concerns and will be impacted by this project. He added it is
absurd that most of the neighborhood that will directly
impacted did not receive any type of notice.
Commissioner Waage said he was disturbed that the people who
will be affected by the off-site improvements did not get any
notice.
Chairperson Lochridge stated that in light of the various
impacts to the neighborhood, he could not understand why a
negative declaration was prepared.
Commissioner Brasher added she was not satisfied with the
Negative Declaration call and felt that an EIR should be
prepared.
Commissioner Waage stated that the City bought into a bad
project in 1985 and he did not feel the situation was any
better by constructing 77 single family homes . He added that
high density housing behind lower density housing is absurd.
Commissioner Highland remarked that if the Commission' s
consensus is for lower density on this site, then a rezoning S
needs to be initiated. if an appl_ieant is developing per the
planned overlay, it is not fair to tell that person that they
cannot do the types of things that planned overlays are
designed for.
Commissioner Luna took issue with Commissioner Highland' s
remarks stating that he recalled that when the zone change
was considered by the Commission in January of this year, it
passed 3 : 2 and at the Council hearing, the majority was ready
to deny the project when the applicant asked for a
continuance. He recalled that 3 of the Council members asked
that the density be reduced; that lower density was the main
issue. He asked that the hearing be continued so he can check
the facts to see who' s right and in addition, will give
neighbors opportunity to decide how to deal with this .
MOTION: By Commissioner Luna to continue the hearing on this
project.
Discussion followed concerning the Permit streamlining Act
time Constraints and flow the tentative tract map would be
affected by it.
Chairperson Lochridge reiterated his concern that a Negative
Declaration may be inadequate for this project. Discussion
continued. •
Chairperson Lochridge voiced his feelings that new information
has come forth through public testimony which has raised new
concerns that need to be addressed.
-14-
Mr. DeCamp stated that if the Commission feels comfortable
with modifying the design and eliminating units, that is
within their perogative since a master plan of development is
being reviewed.
There was continued discussion pertaining to the density
issues . Mr. DeCamp emphasized that the density has already
been established by zoning and that no site plan was adopted
with the original planned development. A graphic was
presented and every one seemed to buy into it.
Commissioner Lopez-Balbontin said he does not feel comfortable
with redesigning the project. His concern is that if the
density is reduced, and looking at all the demands for public
improvements, will this be a viable project.
Mr. DeCamp explained that at the time the zoning took place
for this site, it was anticipated that the entire neighborhood
would be rezoned to 1/4 acre minimum lot size. He went on to
say that there are two other developments (Lindsey and
Peterson) who have proceeded to subdivide at the 1/2 acre
minimum lot size. At the time, it was intended that the three
• developers ( including Poe) would pay the majority of the road
and drainage improvements for the-entire area. However, Mr.
Lindsey' s and Mr. Peterson' s contribution to the other
improvements in the area has been reduced to the point that
they are providing frontage improvements only. 100% of the
improvement costs must be borne by the developer of the RMF/4
property.
In response to question by Commissioner Luna, Mr. DeCamp
replied that this is the first master plan submittal for
development of the site in conformance with the PD6 overlay.
He explained the intent of the conditions contained in this
overlay. Discussion continued.
Commissioner Waage stated he would like to see the 960 foot
contour line remain the control for building height.
Chairperson Lochridge explained that the areas he is concerned
with deal with the testimony from people relative to the El
Dorado, E1 Centro and La Linia area and the information he has
does not address these people' s concerns .
Mr. DeCamp reiterated that these concerns may be resolved by
reviewing the road improvement plans and emphasized that the
road improvements will be made within the existing right-of-
way.
Commissioner Highland stated that 2 of the commissioners have
voiced opinion that they would not be able to accept the
change in the 960 foot contour line. He thought it might be
useful if a consensus or indication could be received from the
-15-
•
Commission which might be the key to the whole project. if
that text amendment change cannot be made, then you have
automatically got a project that down to 48 units .
Commissioner Luna rescinded the motion for lack of a
second.
Mr. Bunnell stated that if the 960 elevation is applied, that
does not mean that the density will be reduced by 24 units .
He added that this particular plan will need to be redesigned
to squeeze the units together and probably make them smaller
since there would be a smaller developable space. Mr. Bunnell
further commented that this site is entitled to a certain
number of units, and he clarified that the drainage
improvements will be resolved and there will be no impacts on
surrounding property owners. with regard to the 72 units
versus 77 units, he remarked that the 5 units will not make
any difference in impacting the neighborhood; however, it does
make a significant impact on the economic factors of the
project because of the cost of the improvements and the
additional recreational facilities .
in response to a comment by Commissioner Brasher concerning
a higher density for this project as opposed to the previous
duplex proposal, Mr. Bunnell pointed out that the proposed
dwellings are also two to three bedroom units and that the
duplexes were not restricted to two people only.
Wayne Bing, real estate broker, said he is relatively familiar
with duplex type housing and adult communities . The state has
passed 'Legislation that does not permit restrictions for adult
communities. He added that adult communities are sort of a
thing of the past because they decided it was discrimination
against the younger people.
Mr. Strong assured the Commission that some of the specific
answers are available to the city: drainage studies, traffic
studies, etc. and pointed out that a variation in roof height
rather than an absolute uniform 960 roof line will be more
aesthetically more pleasing; this proposal is much more
sensitive and mitigates all of the identified possible adverse
effects by proposing off-site improvements .
Mr. Peterson stated that the Commission does not have to
approve this pian just because there is a maximum allowable
density. if the plan is not in conformance with the existing
neighborhood, the project can be denied as it is contained
in the Zoning Ordinance ( as it pertains to Conditional Use
Permits) . S
MOTION: By Commissioner Waage and seconded by Commissioner
Brasher to deny Zone Change 15-89 and keep
Subsection ( f) of Section 906 . 650 of the Zoning
Ordinance as it now is . The motion carried 4 : 2 : 1
-16-
with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Waage, Brasher, Luna, and
Chairperson Lochridge
NOES : Commissioners Highland and Lopez-Balbontin
ABSENT: Commissioner Hanauer
MOTION: By Commissioner Waage and seconded by Commissioner
Brasher to direct staff to bring back Findings for
Denial for Conditional Use Permit 9-89 and Tentative
Tract Map 21-89 at the August 21 , 1990 meeting. The
motion carried 4 :2 : 1 with the following roll call
vote:
AYES : Commissioners Waage, Brasher, Luna, and
Chairperson Lochridge
NOES: Commissioners Lopez-Balbontin and Highland
ABSENT: Commissioner Hanauer
r
C. INDIVIDUAL COMMENT
1 . Planning Commission
Commissioner Brasher stated that although the State does not
require notification of a public hearing outside of the 300
foot radius, it would make for good community relations to
modify this and notify people who will be affected by a
particular project.
Commissioner Lopez-Balbontin commended the business people on
E1 Camino Real for their landscaping efforts but expressed
concern with the City-owned lot across from Williams Bros.
needs to be cleaned up.
1 . City Planner
Mr. Decamp had nothing to report.
Meeting adjourned at 12 : 55 a.m.
MINUTES RECORDED BY:
PATRICIA SHEPPHARD, Administrative Secretary
MINUTES APPROVED BY:
STEVEN L. DECAMP, City Planner
------ - - -------------- - -. = -_-
MINUTES- ATASCADERO PLANNING COMMISSION
. Regular ee ng
Tuesday, August 21 , 1990 7 :30 p.m.
Atascadero Administration Building
The regular meeting of the Atascadero Planning Commission was
called to order at 7 :30 p.m. by Chairperson Lochridge, followed by
the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Hanauer, Luna, Highland, Brasher, Lopez-
Balbontin, and Chairperson Lochridge
Absent: Commissioner Waage
Staff Present: Steven Decamp, City Planner; Doug Davidson, senior
Planner; Gary Sims; Senior Civil Engineer; Karl
Schoettler, Assistant Planner; Gary Kaiser,
Assistant Planner; Pat Shepphard, Administrative
Secretary •
PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no public comment.
A. CONSENT CALENDAR
1 . Approval of minutes of the regular Planning Commission
meeting of August 7, 1990
2 . Consideration of Findings for Denial for Tentative Tract
Map 21-89 and Conditional Use Permit 09-89 at 8555 E1
CorGe, Road (Bunnell/strong/sehott)
3 . Consideration of Findings for Denial for Tentative Tract
Map 27-89 at 8700/ 8850, 8900, & 9000 Santa Cruz Road
(Ryan-white/Volbrecht Surveys)
Chairperson Lochridge reported that Item A-1 has not been
completed and will be considered at the September 4, 1990
meeting.
Commissioner Luna requested that Item A-3 be pulled from the
Consent Calendar for further discussion. •
MOTION: BY Commissioner Brasher, seconded by Commissioner
Luna to approve Item A-2 of the Consent Calendar.
The motion was approved 4 . 1 with Commissioner
Highland dissenting.
_ C-/ 4AWU1 fA4r'
------------------
= ..
'o
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: City Council , `, May 27, 1986
VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager4, ,--�'
FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director .W
SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment 1C-85 and Zone Change 3-85
LOCATION: 8555 E1 Corte
APPLICANT: ACOMA Corporation (Bill Poe)
REQUEST: To revise the existing General Plan land use map from Low
Density Single Family to Low Density Multiple Family and
the zoning map from RSF-Z (Residential Single Family) to
RMF-4 (PD) (Residential Multiple Family, 4 units per acre,
with a planned development overlay) .
BACKGROUND:
This matter was heard by the Planning Commission at their meeting of
• March 31, 1986 . There was public testimony and discussion by the Com-
mission concerning this matter as referenced in the attached minutes
excerpt.
RECOMMENDATION - Planning Commission and Staff:
On a 6 :0 vote, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the
amendments to the general plan text and zoning ordinance text, as out-
lined in attached Resolution No. 47-86 and Ordinance No. 138, respec-
tively. The planned development zoning requires that a master plan of
development be approved by the Planning Commission through a condi-
tional use permit process. A traffic study would be required together
with contributions to mitigate off-site drainage, sewage, and circula-
tion impacts.
/ps
ATTACHMENTS: Planning Commission Staff Report - March- 31, 1986
Planning Commission Minutes Excerpt - March 31, 1986
Resolution No. 47-86
Ordinance No. 133
•
a�
City of Atascadero Item: B-4
STAFF REPORT •
FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: 3/31/86
BY: Steven L. Decamp, Senior Planner File No: GP 1C-85 and
ZC 3-85
Project Address : 8555 E1 Corte
SUBJECT:
Request to revise the existing General Plan land use map and zoning
map from Low Density Single Family (RSF-Z) to Low Density Multiple
Family (RMF-4) with a Planned Development (PD) overlay.
BACKGROUND:
The applicants are requesting an amendment to both the general plan
land use map and the zoning ordinance text and map from low density
single family to low density multiple family with a planned develop-
ment overlay. This proposal was continued from the last general plan
amendment cycle at the applicant' s request.
Notice of public hearing was published in the Atascadero News on Fri-
day, March 21, 1986 and all property owners of record located within •
300 feet of the subject property were notified on that March 20, 1986.
A. LOCATION: 8555 El Corte (Lots 1-10 , Block 1, Eaglet No. 2)
B. SITUATION AND FACTS :
1. Request. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .General plan and zoning ordi-
nance from Low Density Single
Family to Low Density Multiple
Family designation.
2. Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ACOMA Corporation
3. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 acres
4. Streets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .El Corte is a paved (18-20 feet)
City-maintained street
5. Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .RSF-Z (Residential Single Family
1. 5 - 2. 5 acre minimum lot size)
6. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . o . . . . . .Partially vacant/warehouse
(former Mushroom Farm)
•
General Plan Amendment 1C-85/Zone Change 3-85 (ACOMA/Poe)
Access to the site from E1 Camino Real via La Linia Avenue, Cas-
cada Road and/or Arcade Road is of concern to staff. Each of
these roads is paved but narrow. Traffic flows are currently
light and adequate capacity exits for some additional development.
The cumulative impact of this project and others approved in sur-
rounding areas must be considered, however . The recommended re-
designation of adjacent areas for 10, 000 square foot lots could
result in an excess of eighty-five (85) new lots. Not all of
these potential new lots would impact the roads mentioned here,
but when added to the seventy-two (72) dwelling units proposed by
the applicant in the RMF-4 zone, impacts could be of concern.
This issue could be addressed by requiring a master plan of devel-
opment with appropriate offsite improvement requirements identi-
fied and imposed. These may include, but not be limited to,
street, drainage, and sewer system improvements.
A related issue to that discussed above is the question of access
from this site and surrounding areas onto El Camino Real. Traffic
generated by build-out of the area between E1 Camino Real and the
golf course could trigger the need for a traffic signal at one of
the side streets and E1 Camino Real. This site ' s contribution to
future traffic loads will be identified in a circulation proposed
to be completed as part of the master plan of development prior to
building permit applications. Appropriate fees will be levied
prior to the eventual issuance of building permits.
A redesignation of the affected property to low density multiple
• family would allow for development that appears to be appropriate
for the site. The preparation of a master plan of development
will provide an opportunity to assure design which is suitable for
the neighborhood and which assures that the development contrib-
utes its fair share to necessary neighborhood improvements.
D. RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of General Plan Amendment 1C-85 and Zone
Change 3-85 based on the findings contained in Exhibits E and F.
SLD:ps
ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Location Map
Exhibit B - Existing General Plan Map
Exhibit C - Existing Zoning Map
Exhibit D - Site Plan
Exhibit E - Draft Resolution
Exhibit F - Draft Ordinance
Exhibit G - Supplemental Statement
3
General Plan Amendment 1C-85/Zone Change 3-85 (ACOMA/Poe) v
7. Adjacent Zoning and Use to. . .North: RSF-Y
Entire Study Area South: Golf course (San Luis
County)
East: Golf course (SLO County)
West: RSF-Y
8. General Plan Designation. . . . .Low Density Single Family
9. Terrain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Flat at the lower elevations to
steep at higher elevations
10. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Negative Declaration
C. ANALYSIS:
The minimum lot size in the RSF-Z zoning district is 1. 5 to 2. 5
acres depending upon the site' s "score" based on various perfor-
mance standards. This zone does not envision the availability of
sanitary sewer service. The proposal for low density multiple
family zoning would more than quadruple allowed densities in the
area. There are, however, factors that tend to mitigate the ef-
fects of this increased level of density.
Surrounding Uses:
The property to the south and to the east of the subject parcels
is the Chalk Mountain Golf Course. This large expanse of open
space will lessen the impact of higher densities on the adjacent 0
parcels by maintaining low overall area densities.
The parcels to the west of the subject site have been recommended
by the Planning Commission for redesignation to RSF-W (10,000
square foot lots) . Although the RSF-W zone is for single family
lots, the applicant' s proposed RMF-4 zoning designation would
result in similar overall densities (4 units/acre) . The property
would not, therefore, be an island of higher density surrounded
by low density uses.
Site Design:
The applicant is proposing a planned residential development em-
bodying significant areas of open space. The applicant has pro-
posed, and an open space easement will assure, that the upper por-
tion of the slopes on the site will remain open. Building heights
and location on the site will be controlled to the same end. Each
of these considerations will lessen the visual impacts.
Public Services:
Sanitary sewer service is currently available to only one of the
parcels proposed for redesignation. the entire site .is, however,
within the Urban Service Line and could be annexed to the sewer
district. Because of the terrain on and surrounding the site, and
the number of dwelling units possible, the developer will be re-
quired to provide off-site sewer system improvements. These im-
provements will be designed as part of the master plan of develop-
ment for the site.
2
t
�•,� �• • EXHIBIT C
•+ ,. �,�. EXISTING ZONING MAP
r '
• • s�
Nwi
A �
'.•.wtl t .t
s• ..��, /i •/te
' t. �• SITE
00,
�a;\` A1C •'%
Z C 3-85
�� s�,`•� 't 1• /w. ",� .,ti' bo 1
8555 E L C 0 R T E
so
fes. •�•t` '"t �` � 4
r. (n` ,..�•.
fir .• L�.>D B M s '' jt ��• � L"- �5 .
•.t a,, G .• P Gy.,d .. , molt �••�r
,p ,• .,,., •PAY • '.a uar
e ,� y •MJF•;.� SJ tt.• St H_. •
to !'`• MO Cate} me f 1� ..
•C �� �,a +tt i w
y'k�2�,,. 'c .ry; ,„o . o'`s ♦ ' 4 it
VtoJolC
co
•
is� w tea-► 'lo .I� qq •'�.ti :� i;
- \ r:\ a ♦• f L'�' •..�. \'
' _ 1, 1 i ` +0 7a ��' ,,�.,',�•+`':; �,`'�iL � �,
•y,i rK^ j ''ns. • �� ,r \ ♦ oro �
g wj�d
em IIIIII
. �'» �_�iii.: •y- � 1
::: 'nuc• :�///+��a
n wool C MA
Bast
Ar
i Ri—/!nom a•N r„��..�„d ��•"_ 1 r.\��
is
21,
no
pw
sows
-•..or�1111 �,/ .-.� ��
,� I_
ON{^ -
Ll
'I I
a
H
"fir `��«� f-ir •�� F• _ ,� c
�r.1. �� ".tF♦t � _ � rte{ I...
V
y ar j
IINN
of
Exhibit G
General Plan Amendment and Zone Change RSY-Z to RSY-POD 4
8555 E1 Corte Road
Adult Plan Unit Development: The idea of this project is to provide
an alternative environment for active adults.
Designed by Barry Berkus AIA, founder and president of Berkus Group
Architects, a national firm of architects and planners with headquarters
in Santa Barbara, Newport Beach, and Washington D.C.
Lifestyle is the key word for this planned unit development,-a_
retiree who doesn't feel like retiring. The idea for this project was
taken from his Leisure Village Ocean Hills, the 1985 Gold Nugget Award
of Merit for the best low density development. The site plan was
cautiously laid out to take advantage of the views of Chalk Mountain
Golf Course and the distant Santa Lucia Range, yet it doesn't impose
on the hillside. Using open space and a height limitation (approximately
960') means almost 65% of this development will be landscaped, common
area or open space.
With the abandonment of La Linia and a stucco wall along E1 Corte,
the development creates its own environment within. One entrance and
cart access to the golf course helps to accentuate this. This is the
same effect Berkus created with Leisure Village. The Spanish style
stucco and tile roofs make one think of a small Mediterranean hillside
village.
This project will be a compliment to the neighborhood and a welcome
addition to one of Atascadero's most beautiful assets, Chalk Mountain
Golf Course.
THIS PROJECT IS PRESENTED BY
ACOMA CORPORATION
Bill Poe
President •
s
• RESOLUTION NO. 47-86
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ATASCADERO APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL
PLAN LAND USE MAP CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION
OF LOTS 1-10, BLOCK 1, EAGLET 2 FROM LOW DENSITY
SINGLE FAMILY TO LOW DENSITY MULTIPLE FAMILY
(GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 1C-85: ACOMA CORPORATION)
WHEREAS, a request to amend the City of Atascadero General Plan
has been received as follows:
General Plan Amendment 1C-85:
Request submitted by ACOMA Corporation to change the General Plan
Land Use map designation from Low Density Single Family Residen-
tial to Low Density Multiple Family. Subject property is Lots
1-10, Block 1, Eaglet 2. Negative Declaration to the provisions
of CEQA is to be certified.
WHEREAS, this request was considered by the Planning Commission at
a hearing held on March 31, 1986 and was recommended for approval; and
• WHEREAS, such amendment to the General Plan was considered by the
City Council during a public hearing; and-
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65323 provides that a General
. Plan be amended by the adoption of a resolution; and
WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Atascadero finds as follows:
1. A general plan land use designation of Law Density Multiple
Family is consistent with the policies of the General Plan.
2. The proposed general plan amendment will not have a signifi-
cant adverse impact upon the environment. The Negative Dec-
laration prepared for the project is adequate.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Atascadero does resolve
to approve General Plan Amendment 1C-85 (Acoma Corporation) to change
the 1980 Atscadero General Plan Land Use Map as shown on the attached
Exhibit A entitled GP 1C-85, Lots 1-10, Block 1, Eaglet 2.
On motion by COUNCILMAN MOLINA and seconded by COUNCILMAN
HANDSITY , the resolution was approved by the following roll
call vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS HANDSITY, MACKEY, MOLINA, NORRIS & MAYOR NELSON
•
!i
` r -
(RES. NO. 47-86 , Pk
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
DATE ADOPTED: 5/27/86
CITY OF SCADERO, LIFORNIA
By
ROLFE . PELS N, Mayor
'ATTEST: '>
'
2x
ROBERT M. JONES, City Clerk
/.) ;S
APPRO AS TO CONTENT:
M C L H L ON, ty Manager
APPRO S TO FORM:
/- s-✓
ROBERT M. J S, City Attorney
PREPARED BY:
HENRY ENGE Comw6i
ty Development Director
• ORDINANCE NO. 133
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ATASCADERO AMENDING SECTION MAP NUMBER 19 OF
OFFICIAL ZONING MAPS OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO
AND AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT BY
REZONING CERTAIN PROPERTY KNOWN AS LOTS 1-10; BLOCK
1, EAGLET 2, FROM RSF-Y (RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY
MEDIUM DENSITY) TO RMF-4 (PD6) (RESIDENTIAL MULTIPLE
FAMILY - FOUR UNITS PER ACRE - PLANNED .DEVELOPMENT NO.
6) (ZC 3-85: ACOMA CORPORATION)
WHEREAS, the proposed zoning map amendment is consistent with the
General Plan as required by Section 65860 of the California Government
Code; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment is in conformance with Section
65800 et seq. of the California Government Code concerning zoning reg-
-ulations; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment will not have a significant ad-
verse effect upon the environment. A Negative Declaration has been
• prepared on the project.
WHEREAS, the Atascadero Planning Commission held a public hearing
on March 31, 1986 and has recommended approval of Zoning Ordinance
Change 3-85.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Atascadero does ordain
as follows:
Section 1. Council Findings.
1. The proposal is compatible with the surrounding land use and
zoning.
2• The proposal is consistent with the General Plan.
3. The proposal will noresult in any significant adverse en-
vironmental impacts. The Negative Declaration prepared for
the project is adequate.
Section 2. Zoning Map.
Map Number 19 of the Official Zoning Maps of the City of Atasca-
dero on file in the City Community Development Department is hereby
amended to reclassify Lots 1-10, Block 1; Eaglet 2 as shown on at-
• tached Exhibit "A" which is hereby made a part of this ordinance by
reference.
�. �. 00,
, • � � r
Section 3. Zoning Text Change. •
Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment 3-85 is approved to change the
text of the Zoning Ordinance to read as follows:
1. Section 9-3.650 is added to the Planned Development Overlay
- Zones to read as follows:
9-3.650. Establishment of Planned Development Overlay
Zone No. 6 (PD6) . The Planned Development Overlay Zone No.
is established as shown on the official zoning maps (Sec-
tion 9-1.102) . The following development standards are
established:
a) Approval of a conditional use permit reflecting a master
plan of development for a residential development and
related uses shall be required prior to approving a
grading permit, or tentative parcel or tract map. The
master plan of development shall be applied for and pro-
cessed as a conditional use permit (Section 9-2.109) .
b) In approving a master plan of development, the level of
processing for subsequent projects or phases may be re-
duced to a plot plan provided that the master plan con-
tains sufficient detail to support such a determination.
c) No subsequent plot plan, precise plan, conditional use •
permit, or tentative parcel or tract map shall be ap-
proved unless found to be consistent with the approved
master plan of development. Any amendment to a master
plan of development, including conditions thereof, shall
be accomplished as set forth in Subsection (a) of this
Section.
d) Building height shall be limited to thirty (30) feet
(not to exceed two stories) .
e) An open space easement shall be provided for those areas
above the 960 foot contour line as shown on the 1965
Atascadero, California USGS Quadrangle (15 minute
series) .
f) No portion of arW,,structure, excepted as provided in
Section 9-4. 113 .6f the Zoning Ordinance, shall be exten-
ded above the 960 foot contour line as shown on the 1965
Atascadero, California USGS Quadrangle (15 minutes
series)
g) A master plan of development prepared pursuant to this
Section shall include a traffic analysis and circulation
study, including analysis of ingress and egress to the
area originating/terminating at El Camino Real. •
h) No development shall occur prior to the extension of
• sewer service to each lot, parcel, or building site pro-
posed for development.
i) The developer or applicant for development entitlement
shall contribute a fair share of the cost of required
- off-site drainage, sewage, and circulation improvements
as identified in the master plan of development and as
required by the City Engineer.
Section 4. Publication.
The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published once
within fifteen (15) days after its passage in the Atascadero News, a
newspaper of general circulation, printed, published and circulated in
this City in accordance with Government Code Section 36933; shall cer-
tify the adoption of this ordinance; and shall cause this ordinance
and certification to be entered in the Book of Ordinances of this
City.
Section 5. Effective Date.
This ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and ef-
fect at 12: 01 a.m. on the thirty-first (31st) day after its passage.
On motion by COUNCILMAN MOLINA and seconded by COUNCIL-
WOMAN NORRIS the foregoing ordinance is hereby adopted in its
entirety by the following roll call votef
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS MACKEY, MOLINA, NORRIS AND MAYOR NELSON
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: COUNCIL.KAN HANDSITY
DATE ADOPTED: 6/9/86
CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA
B Y: yti/
ROLFE D. NELSON, Mayor
.ATTEST: �� 10*''''
ROBERT -M. - JONES, -ti ( Clerk
APPRO A� TO CONTENT:
`k I
MICH L SHELTON, City Manager —
•
APPRQWED TO ONTENT:
• � S
ROBERT%M. JON , City Attorney
PREPARED BY:
HENRY ENGV, Co ty Development Director
:•.
Minutes - Planning Comm ission--7�-14tarsh 3-1, 1986
n d for nursing homes and explained the procedures in app ing
• to he State Office of Health, Planning, and Developmen which
contr the amount of certificates which will be issu She
explain an application she has submitted to the Cit and would
hope that each nursing home could be judged on its ow merits and
compatibili with the neighborhood. She furthe explained the
difficulties he would encounter with the update language pro-
posed. Mr . En n elaborated on this.
There was discuss' concerning institution ized uses and the
appropriate locatio s for these. It was oted that this section
should be looked at f future long-rang nursing requests.
Mrs. Young felt that if t ' smore re ricted wording is adopted
and another project is su Tort: re
or senior citizen housing, how
can one refer back to the nu i home section and justify a
different recommendation sin this specifically says "nursing
homes. "
Mr . Engen felt that a "pe sons-per-a e" language is a good way of
establishing impact on a land for sp ial kinds of uses which
would include nursing omes. Further d' cussion ensued.
Mr. Engen suggested hat in the last se ce of the "Nursing
Homes" -section, t t reference to "single fa ily" be deleted from
the proposed la uage in the last sentence.
• MOTION: Ma by Chairman LaPrade, seconded by Co issioner Bond
d carried unanimously with a roll 11 vote to
recommend approval of General Plan Amendme t 1M-86 with
the suggested amendment to the section on nu ing homes
and institutional uses.
airman Laprade called a recess at 9 :01 p.m. Meeting reco vened
at 9 : 11 p.m.
4. General Plan Amendment 1C-85 and Zone Change 3-85 :
Request initiated by ACOMA Corporation (Bill Poe, represen-
tative) to revise the existing General Plan land use map and
zoning map from Low Density Single Family (RSF-Z) to Low Den-
sity Multiple Family (RMF-4) with a Planned Development (PD)
overlay. Subject property is located at 8555 E1 Corte, also
known as Lots 1-10 , Block 1, Eaglet No. 2.
Mr. DeCamp presented the staff report and noted a copy of the pro-
ject' s site plan and elevations which was distributed to the Com-
mission, and proceeded to summarize the background involved with
this application, which had been continued from the previous gen-
eral plan cycle at the applicant' s request. Items addressed in-
cluded surrounding uses, site design, and public services. It was
also pointed out that a significant portion of the site would
remain in open space, and the proposed master plan of development
was explained.
•
5
Minutes - Planning Commissiotm',Aarih 31, 1986
Commissioner Bond asked for clarification on how access would b
provided for the project.
Bill Poe, applicant, thanked staff for the recommendation on this
project, and spoke in support of approval. He stated he was aware
of the restrictions that will be imposed during the development
process. With regard to Solano Road, Mr . Poe stated it was his
understanding that the abandonment of Solano would hinge on the
improvement of La Linia between the Peterson property (on El Dor-
ado) and DeCou Lumber and noted that it was not really a closing
of an access for his project to E1 Camino Real.
Bill Remple, 8475 El Dorado, expressed his opposition to the pro-
posed project because of the large scale and the poor roadways
leading to the site. Mr. Remple cited the previous Commission
recommendations for approval of the Peterson and Lindsey general
plan and zone change amendments which would result in large pro-
jects as well, and felt that all three of these are to be devel-
oped, a very large impact will result on the neighborhood. He
felt that if the density is going to be changed, then the neigh-
borhood aspects should be upgraded along with the increased
density.
William Anderson, Palomar resident, stated his residence adjoins
the back of the subject site, and felt that this proposal along
with the Lindsey and Peterson proposals are in opposition to the
rural nature as set forth in the general plan.
Mr . Poe pointed out that this particular application was submitted
well over a year ago, and before the other two proposals were
applied for .
Barbara Reiter noted she likes the idea of planned unit develop-
ments but does not agree with the proposed density. She felt that
the City does not need to rezone any more property from single
family to multiple family.
Chairman LaPrade clarified the reasoning for the proposed RMF-4
zoning.
Commissioner Bond stated he had viewed the site and had discovered
that no oak trees were proposed for removal during the development
of the site.
Mr. Poe showed an overhead exhibit of the proposed development and
proceeded to explain the phasing of the project, and explained the
purpose that the planned unit development would serve.
Commissioner Hatchell noted staff has done a good job in analyzing
the needs of the neighborhood and addressed some general comments
about the project.
6
Minutes - Planning Commissioh�-z-14arah 31, 1986
• Chairman LaPrade commented on the planned unit development concept
and felt the project has merit and will be an asset to the
community.
Commissioner Michielssen talked about the improvements that will
be required in order to mitigate traffic problems in the area.
In response to question from Commissioner Michielssen, Mr . DeCamp
responded to questions concerning the types of conditions which
will be placed on the development of the project.
There was some discussion concerning the site' s existing use.
Commissioner Michielssen inquired about Lots 1 and 2 which adjoin
the subject property and asked if these lots would be added to the
project. Mr. DeCamp noted that eventual development of the lots
should occur, following public hearing, under the same master plan
of development for the entire site and stated the applicant has
been in contact with the owners of those properties with the po-
tential of purchasing them to add to the rest of the project.
MOTION: Made by Commissioner Bond seconded by Commissioner
Nolan and carried unanimously with a roll call vote to
recommend approval of General Plan Amendment 1C-85 and
Zone Change 3-85 as recommended in the staff report.
C. PUBLI COMMENT
There was public comment at this time.
D. INDIVIDUAL ACTIO_ D OR DETERMINATION
1. Planning Commissi n
Commissioner Bond pointed t that Ata adero Ford is again park-
ing their display cars alo the s pe . to the rear of their site
which was supposed to be for la s ping only. Mr . Moses respon-
ded that several inquiries hav een received to this regard and
that staff is working with the gen to correct this problem.
Commissioner Bond alsocom nted on a noise generated from the
loud speakers and asked if nything has een done to alleviate
this. Mr . Moses expl ned that the zon ordinance contains a
standard with regard t noise set per decibe er a time period
during the day. Ho ver , the City does not ha at this time, a
decibel meter .
a. Considera ion of City-wide study of multi-family oning and
• possib redesignation to single family residential ith den-
sity anges from 4-8 parcels per acre (Michielssen)
Mr . E en addressed the joint City Council/Planning Commiss ' n
7
i
RESOLUTION NO. 47-86
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ATASCADERO APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL
PLAN LAND USE MAP CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION
OF LOTS 1-10, BLOCK 1, EAGLET 2 FROM LOW DENSITY
SINGLE FAMILY TO LOW DENSITY MULTIPLE FAMILY
(GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 1C-85 : ACOMA CORPORATION)
WHEREAS, a request to amend the City of Atascadero General Plan
has been received as follows:
General Plan Amendment 1C-85:
Request submitted by ACOMA Corporation to change the General Plan
Land Use map designation from Low Density Single Family Residen-
tial to Low Density Multiple Family. Subject property is Lots
1-10, Block 1, Eaglet 2. Negative Declaration to the provisions
of CEQA is to be certified.
WHEREAS, this request was considered by the Planning Commission at
a hearing held on March 31, 1986 and was recommended for approval; and
WHEREAS, such amendment to the General Plan was considered by the •
City Council during a public hearing; and--
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65323 provides that a General
Plan be amended by the adoption of a resolution; and
WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Atascadero finds as follows:
1. A general plan land use designation of Low Density Multiple
Family inconsistent with the policies of the General Plan.
2. The proposed general plan amendment will not have a signifi-
cant adverse impact upon the environment. The Negative Dec-
laration prepared for the project is adequate.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Atascadero does resolve
to approve General Plan Amendment 1C-85 (Acoma Corporation) to change
the 1980 Atscadero General Plan Land Use Map as shown on the attached
Exhibit A entitled GP 1C-85, Lots 1-10 , Block 1, Eaglet 2.
On motion by COUNCIL24AN MOLINA and seconded by COUNCILMAN
HANDSITY , the resolution was approved by the following roll
call vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS HANDSITY, MACKEY, MOLINA, NORRIS & :MAYOR NELSON
•
C .
(RES . NO. 47-86 , Pg� ')
NOES: NONE
• ABSENT: NONE
DATE ADOPTED: 5/27/86
CITY OF KASCADERO, 'LIFORNIA
By
f cF `�
.�
!, ROLFE" . MELS N, Mayor
ATTEST:
ROBERT M. JONES, City Clerk
APPROVE AS TO CONTENT:
M C L H L ON, ty Manager
APPRO S TO FORM:
ROBERT M. JONES, City Attorney
PREPARED BY:
HENRY ENGE , Comne
ity Development Director
•
"Iv
- j RESOLUTION N0. 47-86
`i (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
GP 1C-85) 1
8555 EL CORTE
�.j .,• .i�7'` SITE
fi: Sr•.,',: r,.�: - ' ` '�; GP 1C-85 (ACOMA COR
P . )
8555 EL CORTE
�• `iii '��;''� �::•:. ': `;;-� ;°: ,j-`
.�� FROM LOW DENSITY SINGLE
FAMILY TO
LOW DENSITY MULTIPLE
FAMILY
l
... .
... v ...
... :..:.':.
... Q040 ® 0046 444
....
..
4 4 4 0 ? 4 0 4 4
�• �� �. :. "' 40040 X004004 :::: 400
0400000
:::': :.::::: 0 4
'. ' ..:':: :. :::'.: ':: �• 0 4 4 4 3 0 0 4 4 Q 4 � 0 ® 0 0 0
.:.:: :.. ... :.... ..' '. ..
A n n n ,, n n AA n n n n
o ATASCADERO
0o
GENERAL PLAN MAP
......:::::::: LAND USE AND CIRCULATION
_''''''..•"•'" HIGH DENS. MULT. FAM. HEAVY COMMERCIAL AGRICULTURE
rrr.'. LOW DENS. MULT. FAM. RETAIL COMMERCIAL RECREATION
:::::" HIGH DENS. SNGL. FAM. COMMERCIAL PARK SPECIAL RECREATION
MOO.DENS. SNGL. FAM. SPECIAL COMMERCIAL ARTERIAL orvlo
•...... LOW DENS. SNGL.FAM. PROFESSIONAL OFFICE ARrERIA� UNCIV10E0
COLLECTORS
SUBURBAN SNGL. FAM. INDUSTRIAL PARK — — URBAN SERVICES LINE
PUBLIC INDUSTRIAL
URBAN RESERVE uNe.
_ CITY 80UNOARY ��
• ORDINANCE NO. 133
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ATASCADERO AMENDING SECTION MAP NUMBER 19 OF
OFFICIAL ZONING MAPS OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO
AND AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT BY
REZONING CERTAIN PROPERTY KNOWN AS LOTS 1-10; BLOCK
1, EAGLET 2, FROM RSF-Y (RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY
MEDIUM DENSITY) TO RMF-4 (PD6) (RESIDENTIAL MULTIPLE
FAMILY - FOUR UNITS PER ACRE - PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO.
6) (ZC 3-85: ACOMA CORPORATION)
WHEREAS, the proposed zoning map amendment is consistent with the
General Plan as required by Section 65860 of the California Government
Code; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment is in conformance with Section
65800 et seq. of the California Government Code concerning zoning reg-
ulations; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment will not have a significant ad-
verse effect upon the environment. A Negative Declaration has been
• prepared on the project.
WHEREAS, the Atascadero Planning Commission held a public hearing
on March 31, 1986 and has recommended approval of Zoning Ordinance
Change 3-85.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Atascadero does ordain
as follows:
Section 1. Council Findings.
1. The proposal is compatible with the surrounding land use and
zoning.
2. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan.
3. The proposal will not result in any significant adverse en-
vironmental impacts. The Negative Declaration prepared for
the project is adequate.
Section 2. Zoning Mao.
Map Number 19 of the Official Zoning Maps of the City of Atasca-
dero on file in the City Community Development Department is hereby
amended to reclassify Lots 1-10, Block 1; Eaglet 2 as shown on at-
tached Exhibit "A" which is hereby made a part of this ordinance by
reference.
Section 3. Zoning Text Change.
Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment 3-85 is approved to change the •
text of the Zoning Ordinance to read as follows:
1. Section 9-3.630 is added to the Planned Development Overlay
- Zones to read as follows:
9-3. 650. Establishment of Planned Development Overlay
Zone No. 6 (PD6) . The Planned Development Overlay Zone No.
is established as shown on the official zoning maps (Sec-
tion 9-1.102) . The following development standards are
established:
a) Approval of a conditional use permit reflecting a master
plan of development for a residential development and
related uses shall be required prior to approving a
grading permit, or tentative parcel or tract map. The
master plan of development shall be applied for and pro-
cessed as a conditional use permit (Section 9-2.109) .
b) In approving a master plan of development, the level of
processing for subsequent projects or phases may be re-
duced to a plot plan provided that the master plan con-
tains sufficient detail to support such a determination.
c) No subsequent plot plan, precise plan, conditional use
permit, or tentative parcel or tract map shall be ap-
proved unless found to be consistent with the approved
master plan of development. Any amendment to a master
plan of development, including conditions thereof, shall
be accomplished as set forth in Subsection (a) of this
Section.
d) Building height shall be limited to thirty (30) feet
(not to exceed two stories) .
e) An open space easement shall be provided for those areas
above the 960 foot contour line as shown on the 1965
Atascadero, California USGS Quadrangle (15 minute
series) .
f) No portion of any structure, excepted as provided in
Section 9-4.113 of the Zoning Ordinance, shall be exten-
ded above the 960 foot contour line as shown on the 1965
Atascadero, California USGS Quadrangle (15 minutes
series) .
g) A master plan of development prepared pursuant to this
Section shall include a traffic analysis and circulation
study, including analysis of ingress and egress to the
area originating/terminating at E1 Camino Real.
•
h) No development shall occur prior to the extension of
• sewer service to each lot, parcel, or building site pro-
posed for development.
i) The developer or applicant for development entitlement
shall contribute a fair share of the cost of required
off-site drainage, sewage, and circulation improvements
as identified in the master plan of development and as
required by the City Engineer.
Section 4. Publication.
The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published once
within fifteen (15) days after its passage in the Atascadero News, a
newspaper of general circulation, printed, published and circulated in
this City in accordance with Government Code Section 36933; shall cer-
tify the adoption of this ordinance; and shall cause this ordinance
and certification to be entered in the Book of Ordinances of this
City.
Section 5. Effective Date.
This ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and ef-
fect at 12:01 a.m. on the thirty-first (31st) day after its_ passage.
On motion by COUNCILMAN MOLINA and seconded by COUNCIL-
WOMAN NORRIS the foregoing ordinance is hereby adopted in its
entirety by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL.MEMBERS I•IACREY, MOLINA, NORRIS AND MAYOR NELSON
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: COUNCILMAN HANDSITY
DATE ADOPTED: 6/9/86
CITY OF ATA/JS�C'ADERO, CALIFORNIA
BY: n_ �=
, !
ROLFE D. NELSON, Mayor
ATTEST: �
ROBERT 'M. JONES, City Clerk
APPRO p A$ TO CONTENT:
MICHAEL SHELTON, City Manager
•
APPR Di, TO ONTENT:
ROBERT M. JON ity Attorney
C ' A •
PREPARED BY:
4" FW��
HENRY ENGIIN, ComqUty Development Director
•
- - - - - EX 416) A
ORDINANCE N0. 133 —
ZONE CHANGE 3-85 Zona,
A CO M A GorPa r a�t o/1
• SSSS t! Go✓-�'a
C,0-'3
•remit y•f. + � ' 3 a' � � �.
`,♦ tit ... �j ! I
If
'r ,` -:I'',r�" "'�`- •��' ��-�te�-•;' :, t=a w.t �y — M l�Gk c u vr� !�2n�J r T�/
MA
'r` 's • ,� KM F:' — 4 (PD G� �(Lrc.St�dN�cx
,.�' H � • •�"p. ',` 44 ••, •.`3�1� fv''►`'� '•�`;, •:�R• .,�;_ �-�t �¢ Fa,•ff t It/ — Four
Iro
Fho
�'�� .!t' .P i. •�Y. . T e t1 N I'"r3 Pdrr �vr¢I
ft -
%210
ow •>�� ,
pr
• �/• ',1•�e' �t:ms's �t�•` `. i.w . w -J .'7
,. ILI ,.fir << F��• =s,._ ��-
if
all
IIM
. • �•,.► r� .' ;� .:.' '1 C.�� '. �:•"i• y,,� i- 111 ., .. .
14
� r, �,L f1 GO 7LSJ7;y •.y . �2• ` i!: • U �i �O
1' ♦ w• :! y,,s of
� / A
C LY Council ncil 5/27/86
enry Engen, Commun. Devel. Director , gave staff report and respon
t questions from Council.
Publi Comment
Guy Green Planning Consultant representing the applicant, spoke i
support o this request, noting that they are willing t commit to
plan that wi respond to the existing character of the neighborhood,
without change it, through any device the Council ems appropriat
(i.e. , P.D. , con ' tioned on a corresponding tentativ map, or other) .
Mike Hawkins, applic t, spoke in support of th ' request and would
agree to assurances o do away with the p sibility of future flag
lots.
Dennis Lockwood, 8935 Atasca ro Ave. , els this proposal would cre-
ate at island. He asked for defin ' ion of P.D. , to which Mr . Engen
responded, explaining Planned De 1 ent. Mr. Lockwood questions the
way this item has progressed and o feels the Lopus request encour-
aged similar requests in the rea. He spoke in favor of protecting
people' s investments in the G eral P1
Terril Graham, 6205 Conej d. , supported omments of the previous
speaker and questions t City' s public nota 'ng practices. Mr. Engen
reviewed the public no ice process.
Dorothy Smith, 879 Morro Rd. , also complained ab t noticing proc
dures.
MOTION: By ouncilman Molina to continue this item unt after review
o an expanded study area to be considered as rt of the
urrent General Plan Cycle, seconded by Councilm Handshy;
passed unanimously.
Ma r Nelson and Mr. Engen clarified how public noticing will be ac-
mplished before additional public hearings on this item.
2. Proposed General Plan Amendment 1C-85 & Zone Change 3-85 - 8555 E1
Corte (Lots 1-10 , Block 1, Eaglet 2) - ACOMA Corp./Poe
A. Proposed Resolution 47-86 - Amendment to the General Plan
from Low Density Single Family to Low Density Multiple Family
B. Proposed Ordinance 133 - Amending the Zoning Map from
Residential Single Family Medium Density to Residential
Multiple Family, Four (4) Units per Acre (FIRST READING)
Henry Engen, Commun. Devel. Director, gave staff report, noting that
this is a combined proposal for both a GPA and PD rezone for Council
consideration.
Public Comment •
3
Bill Poe, project developer , thanked Commun. Devel. staff for the_
work over the past year and recommended approval of this project. He
spoke in support of the project, noting that although the use of PD
overlay dictates the multi-family zoning designation, this is a sin-
gle-family project; Mr . Poe responded to questions from Council, not-
ing this would be an adult community.
Roger Bailey, resident on Sierra Vista, said he has studied the design
and concept and highly supports this project.
Steve Devencenzi, representing Harold & Marvel Peterson (who own prop-
erty adjacent to the proposed project site) , spoke in support of the
planned development proposal but expressed concern as to how this
project will relate to them; he reviewed the history of attempts by
the Petersons to develop their property and hopes that Council will
consider including them in the current General Plan cycle, similar to
other recent decisions concerning properties in the area, to review
site density issues.
MOTION: By Councilman Molina to adopt Res. No. 47-86, seconded by
Councilman Handshy; passed unanimously by roll-call vote.
MOTION: By Councilman Molina to read Ord. 133 by title only, second-
ed by Councilman Handshy; passed unanimously. Mayor Nelson
read Ord. 133 by title.
• MOTION: By Councilman Molina that this constitutes the first reading
or Ord. 133, seconded by Councilman Handshy; passed unani-
mously. Second reading will be at the first Council meeting
in June.
Proposed General Plan Amendment 1K-86 and Zone Change 1
nitiated by the City of Atascadero
A. osed Resolution 48-86 - Amending the Genera Plan to
Prov for Lot Line Adjustment resulting in a Reduction i
Size o isting Non-Conforming Lots
B. Proposed or
ce 134 - Amending Zoni Text to Establish
Procedures for L Line Adjustments rich Result in a Reductio
of Lot Size for Exi n Non-Co rminq Lots FIRST READING
Henry Engen, Commun. Devel. Dire r, gave staff report.
Public Comment
Edward Jewell, reside who has a non-confor ' g lot and who'd like t
make a lot line a ' stment, spoke in support of is proposal.
MOTION: By uncilwoman Mackey to approve Res. No. 4 6, seconded b-
• C uncilwoman Norris; passed unanimously by roll- 11 vote.
MO By Councilwoman Norris to read Ord. 134 by titleonly,
seconded by Councilwoman Mackey; passed unanimously. or
4
•
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item• B-2
Through : Ray Windsor , City Manager, Meeting Date : 10/9/90
Via : Henry Engen , Community Development Director V*1
From: Lisa Sehicker, , Natural Resource Specialist
SUBJECT:
Consideration of a request to remove one heritage tree ( 30" dbh Quercus
agr•ifolia at the recently constructed home of Mr . and Mrs . Sandel ,
located at 12550 Santa Ana Road . The tree is located in the middle of
the proposed driveway .
RECOMMENDATION :
Based on the arborist ' s report and the condition of the tree , approve
the removal with a two for• one replacement . Please see additional
0omments in analysis section of this report .
BACKGROUND:
The Tree Ordinance specifies that live native trees 20" or• greater dbh
(measured four, foot above grade) ar,e deemed heritage trees and cannot
be removed unless approved by the City Council following a public
hear,i ng .
The tree has been posted and marked with flagging tape and is visible
from the street . The tree was inspected by ISA certified ar•bor,ist D .
O. Denney and the City Natural Resource Specialist on separate
occasions .
ANALYSIS:
After, visiting the site , it was apparent that the tree in question was
i n very poor• health ; it had very little foliage and extensive i nter•nal
decay . Many of the crown roots had been nicked and severed during
constr•ucti on , f ur•ther• adding to its likely demise .
It should also be mentioned that the overall design and construction of
the Sandel ' s home exemplifies what can be done to achieve harmonious
design with existing conditions and natural environment . Working under,
the current tree ordinance , the Sandels took the extra care needed to
esign and build their, home around the majority of oaks on site (they
emoved three fire damaged trees last year• in order• to build the
house) . They have done a wonderful job , and the results of their, labors
will pay off in reduced heating/cooling bills in years to come .
Recommended Replacements : In compliance with the Interim Tree
Replacement Standards , the Sandels ar•e willing to replace the tree at a
•
2 : 1 ratio, 15 gallon size minimum. As a possible alternative to this ,
they have requested that they have the option of planting one large
specimen oak instead , a 36 " box size or larger .
The applicant shall provide the City with a signed statement that
attests to the planting of these trees which should be planted no later
than one year, after construction is complete . Records will be kept in
the office of the City Arborist .
Attachments : Vicinity Map
Site Flan
Arborist ' s Report
Replanting Guidelines (to the Applicants only )
cc Mr . and Mrs . Andrew Sandel Bax 2486 , Atascadero, CA 93423 93422
•
•
1
fl
'
T
tljt�wjlli�
i 1
114 /
41-11
�` //I O \ r0 \ •� 1 i I
I� II
♦Q
I \
�I< s qo \ _
r
-1040
i i I .,/
z 4
J
V a
�J Zk
\0 v V)
Q h O '�2 jN
Iz
Q
� V
1 N
1
ti fl r
� I
d + j
l9 � j
i`
I
I
v �
Q i
i
i
ti-
h
i z
cc
fRECEIVED
SEP COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Is I NX 19791 C WAUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DIVISION
CMAD 6500 Palma Ave.
P.O. Bo x 747
Atascadero , CA 93423
(805) 466-8000
APPLICATION - FORM
Please tvoe or print in ink
G�•E.�{T/FiG� ARBD�'.tSJ 41391
Owner : 1g1y ?rii Agent : AC,0 oe/V/YEy
Address: .COX?4&4 Address: 600 3090
,4732509-01-1,22 C/9 9-3423 P�Sa .FCB�f_S CA 93de7
Phone #: 8(2-5- ¢Gea, -ev7,54 Phone
/ZOO cSANTFI Q ev.q
Applicant: SAME
Address :
Phone #:
Project Description:
•
Existing Use :
Project Address :
Legal Description: Lot ( s) & ; Block 4.5' ; Tract
Assessors Parcel No ( s) :
I/We consent to the filing of this application and declare that
this application and related documents are true and correct .
(NOTE: The signature of the property owner is required on the
application before it will be accepted for processing . )
1
Owner Agent
Date Date
• For Staff
Use Only Fee : Receipt #:
Tree Removal Permit Application
I l R 10 iti., in rny F ; I/ Supplemental Information
��►„i ' er.�' c197
(Please type or print in ink)
Reason for Removal :
r r, [':I' ri
�
! cam --A vac_ (.
"�_c� �C.r r�.--� d'n•a �Z n� c �C c i S G� � ,� �- h
�' ���l.i L'- �c.c_-✓ "' �t'rvr cC:� �. I Yjl-•<S e3n C��,� �� 3-� � � � L7 1�. �-r-
Sc ver c(4C•i bctt,c c�Cc 4
Number of Trees to be Removed: C-1 N_ Cl j
Specify the size (measured 4 ' above ground level ) , species (both
common and botanical name) and condition of each tree to be
removed :
�. 4-ICr
0C"
2. t
3..
4.
5.
Specify the size and species of the trees proposed to replace
those intended for removal :
t%,w z_i C_
2.
3.
4 .
5.
Please prepare a "Plot Plan" showing all improvements on your
prooerty, trees to be removed , trees to remain, and the proposed
location of replacement trees as per the attached example.
J � '
Owner Arborist
Certificate Number
9- is -9c2 `1 7- gf,
Date Date
t -
s
. i r .ICU w..- - ••
_ #, .:',•'w�. _.. � , -� ,.� •..4w,�� _ .;{.,yrs► K r.. lv"..
� �- 'Ly. r ♦ra-' s
t
rt t t `d
s
..-+^Ot •1ti..'-) ''"' a -� � �L i�l � ��mow.
'�L ♦ �� {.. .\ 'i.0.+! � �i-1 �� � � 7
ti
's
�J �x
yp a
,ir 'TS S �,,.5 .. � :: '� +.i�X� .fir. �� �'_•'> :•q ... _
�v
y.
r
j.
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: B-3
Through : Ray Windsor , City Manager, Meeting Date : 10/9/90
Via : Henry Engen , Community Development Director,
From: Lisa Schicker• , Natural Resource Specialist
SUBJECT:
Consideration of a request to remove one heritage tree (48" dbh Quercus
lobata) for, the purposes of home construction at 9405 Jaquima by
applicants Mike and Valerie Lund . The tree is leaning over, the proposed
residence .
RECOMMENDATION :
Based on the ar•borist ' s r•epor,t and the condition of the tree , approve
the removal with a two for, one replacement . Please see additional
•omments in analysis section of this report .
BACKGROUND:
The Tree Ordinance specifies that live native trees 20" or, greater dbh
(measured four, foot above grade) ar•e deemed heritage trees and cannot
be removed unless approved by the City Council following a public
hearing .
The site has been posted and the tree has been posted and marked with
flagging tape and is visible from the street . The tree was inspected
by ISA certified ar,bor•ist Randy Hopp and the City Natural Resource
Specialist on separate occasions .
ANALYSIS:
The tree that is proposed for, removal appears to be in declining
health ; the outer, edges of all the foliage on the major, branch that is
leaning over the house-to-be is dead and dying ; without having the
ability to get high enough to see what is going on , it is difficult to
speculate the cause (old snow damage , disease , insects , etc . ) . Leaf
diseases ar•e normally not fatal , and it is possible that this foliage
pr-obl em could clear, up by next year, . However, , it should also be
mentioned that the trunk of the tree has evidence of fire damage and
some level of r•ot and internal decay ; even with this knowledge , there
,Os no prediction as to how and when this tree could fall .
The Lunds have also attempted to design their, house in harmony with
existing conditions and natural environment , and they have some
topographical constraints which will make it difficult to ensure the
survival of this tree . In light of other design concessions they have
made to adapt their, home to the existing topography and other, trees on
i
site , a.nd considering that the branch that appears to be suffering the
most from the leaf problems would be leaning over• their• brand new home ,
I can understand their concern .
Recommended Replacements : In compliance with the Interim Tree
Replacement Standards , the replacement recommendation for the removal
of the tree is 2 , 15 gallon size minimum, same species trees .
The applicant shall provide the City with a signed statement that
attests to the planting of these trees which should be planted no later
than one year, after, construction is complete . Records will be kept in
the office of the City Arborist .
Attachments : Vicinity Map
Site Plan
Arborist ' s Report
Replanting Guidelines (to the Applicants only)
cc Mr . and Mrs . Lund , 1009 Jane Drive , San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
•
I� •� CITY OF ATAS( ADERO EXHIBIT A
LOCATION MAP
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PRECISE PLAN #76-90
.�..;� DEPARTMENT
0
o
1
R S
1; + G0410 ,• '�� �,
Y ST
i
G4 0
cc
• a � I
c o
i
i
I I goon
•
i ; 'i�{ � 1 •.�'{ „..••,•• � � : : 1 h� ; P :� �,I;� it � � •
lb
� ` it!��� ! � i i � ;I:�! f'►! , - .� �
7 771;! .• ..fid�• �� ' � :,,il ,. � , , i .,tj - t
1.8
31
NP�•'i1� 7: • ,• ... ` - �� • , (117 ' ,i ) It I) (l= , .il !_�
•,4• "' Ott '' � h ,� B � ' j
7 5
-\ �� r'irlP•• � "7 ��' � ; �� � 717 1
Nk
,P
1
Poet
i
[,z r r ♦ 3 � 1
Is: join,
AUG 2 - I' COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
sr -- so:w
PLANNING DIVISION
OS
CAD � i CONIMUNIT� DI VFLOPMEN) 6500 Palma Ave.
P.O. Box 747
Atascadero , CA 93423
(805) 466-8000
APPLICATION FORM
Please type or print in ink
Owner : 1111Ci- LU:14 p Agent : lW14 nc— IrE-1C�¢
Address : loc>9 F_Nt,4c aLiv5 Address : Ft;' ►30K -77-7
6At1Ul31SPO�c1% !4r,In. G Tl✓1� ��A y Zz
Phone # : 64-1 Phone # : 43�- Ig34
Applicant : KIAg�7yC
Address : '
Phone #:
• Project Description: Lc-,I- Z9 , Pkoc)L f;;*5, - V.p
Existing Use : Vfr(-A►,11'
Project Address : _
Legal Description: Lot(s) f Z�l ; Block �' ` ; Tract
Assessors Parcel No (s) s
I/We consent to the filing of this application and declare that
this application and related documents are true and correct.
(NOTE: The signature of the property owner is required on the
Application before it will be accepted for processing . )
Owner Agent
Date Date
• For Staff
Use Only Fee: 2-CO , Receipt #: c26 9 �?2
re 76- ��
r
Tree Removal Permit Application
iiic-1 .,nnri;:,'I Supplemental Information
r' •
`r \ —
(Please type or print in ink )
Reason for Remo val : 1 ISE l5
Number of Trees to be Removed:
Specify the size (measured 41 above ground level ) , species (both
common and botanical name) and condition of each tree to be
removed :
2. •3.
4,
5.
Specify the size and species of the trees proposed to replace
those intended for removals
2.
3.
4.
Please prepare a "Plot Plan" showing all improvements on your
property, trees to* be removed,' trees to remain, and the proposed
location of replacement trees as per the attached example.
Owner 0 Abo'r ' t
Certificate Number S
,L 2 % D
Date Da tie
i
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: C-1
From: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 10/9/90
SUBJECT: Garcia Road Issue
BACKGROUND:
As requested by Council at your meeting of July 10th, we are
forwarding reports from the City Arborist and the Applicants/Devel-
opers of the Garcia Road extension. Reports from staff, including
my own review of the matter, are being withheld from public distri-
bution pending further review related to any possible personnel
action.
RW: cw
Attachments : Report of Lisa Schicker, dated 9/25/90
Correspondence of Donald Vaughn, dated 9/30/90
•
SPECIAL REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
From Lisa Schicker , Natural Resource Specialist
Date : September 25 , 1990
SUBJECT: VIOLATION OF TREE ORDINANCE REGARDING HERITAGE TREE
REMOVAL AND TREE PROTECTION DURING CONSTRUCTION OF GARCIA ROAD
EXTENSION
The proposed construction of the Garcia Road extension has been a
project on my desk as long as I have worked for the City , and probably
some time before that . Because of the complicated nature of this
project , I would like to provide Council with a brief history of the
events that have led us to the situation that we face today .
In September of 1989 , I participated in a field visit ( including Public
Works , Community Development and the applicants) that was to determine
alternative alignments for a proposed Garcia Road that would reduce the
amount of native trees that would need to be removed .
On January 23 , 1990 , Council denied an application for tree remov
based on the original alignment of Garcia Road extension , which woul
have required the removal of 160 trees ( 13 of them heritage size) and
the impact caused by cut and fill on an additional 159 trees . The
denial occurred because it was already known ( from that meeting in
August) that a more suitable alignment that would require less tree
removal existed .
On July 10 , 1990 City Council approved an application for tree removal
that would require the removal of 69 trees ( 12 of them heritage size)
and impact (caused by cut and fill ) an additional 75 trees . It was
also said that if small shifts in the road were to occur , an additional
13 trees ( 3 of them heritage) could possibly be saved . This revised
road plan was the result of numerous on and off site meetings , tree
labeling and hours of field work by both the applicants and City
staff . City Council members were escorted to the site to inspect the
proposal ; Couneil . used a map that was prepared by the applicant as a
guide . This is the map that was used to prepare all of my reports to
City staff and Council . On the map , for the record , trees to be
removed were marked in r•ed , trees to be protected (and impacted by cut
and fill activities) were marked in green . Several trees contained
notes to offer extra protection ; such as "place retaining wall here" .
All trees with a red mark on the map should have had a red ribbon in
the field and were to be removed , and all green marks on the map should
have corresponded to green ribbons on trees in the field , which were to
be protected by permanent retaining walls and/or fencing durino
construction .
On July 16 , 1990 a letter from the Community Development Director was
sent to the .applicants confirming the City Council ' s approval to remove
69 trees (or less if possible) for the purposes of Garcia Road
•
construction . The applicants had agreed to pay $200 for each tree
removed less any re-surveying costs ( that would be done to save the
additional 13 trees) and the final tally ( 69 trees or less) was to be
determined in the field .
On August 16 , 1990 , the applicant and the Public Works signed the
papers for the encroachment permit for doing the work for Garcia Road
Extension . At this time a set of supplemental encroachment permit
conditions were received and signed by the applicants . The conditions
for tree removal were outlined in these permit conditions , stating that
all tree protection activities be conducted according to the approved
plans and the results of City Council action . In the conditions , it
also stated that City staff may or may not review the work that was to
be done . The conditions additionally state that the Public Works
Director be contacted by the project engineer for any requested field
changes .
On August 22 , 1990 , a preconstruction meeting was held for all of those
involved with the work about to take place . A representative from
Public Works attended the meeting . It was stated at the meeting that
Doug Brown from Twin Cities Engineering was designated as the project
engineer ; he was unable to attend the meeting , but another member of
their staff attended in his place .
iOn August 29 , Jack Brazeal , certified arborist for the job certified byl
letter that all tree protection measures that had been required were
installed on site .
Records are kept in Public Works to reflect the progress of work for
all road construction projects , including this one . According to these
records , an approximate tally of trees removed was made on August 30 ,
September 4 , 17 , 19 and 20 . These tallys were made in order to get an
accurate count of trees removed in order to process replacement
conditions , which were based on a fee for actual tree removal ( it was
supposed to range anywhere between 56 and 69) . According to these
field counts and the records , the number of trees removed that were 4"
dbh and greater had increased to 105 ( 36 more than the permitted
amount) by September 20 . The records also show that Mr . Roberson , the
grading contractor contacted the office on September 17 to alert the
City to the fact that additional "trees - of 4" dbh or greater would
need to be removed to complete the work . At the time this contact was
made , the approximate tree removal count was already 85 ( 16 more than
were allowed under the permit) . Unfortunately , the sizes of trees
removed as they were removed were not recorded , and it is difficult to
know if heritage trees were affected at this time . On September 20 ,
the discrepancy in the count was brought to the attention of the Public
Works Director , the Natural Resource Specialist and the Community
Development Director . It was at this time that a Stop Work Notice was
issued because of ( 1 ) nonconformance to the Tree Ordinance , ( 2) removal
of heritage trees without City Council action/public hearing and ( 3 ;
nonconformance with the road building supplemental conditions that were
signed and agreed upon .
Under the existing Tree Ordinance , the City had the authority to Stop
•
Work for nonconformance to tree protection and unauthorized tree
removal . In the case of the removal of heritage trees , authorization
for removal must come from City Council .
On site on September 20 , (the day the Stop Work Order was issued) it
was communicated to me by the grading contractor Gary Roberson that he
assumed that everything within the slope stakes was slated for removal
and that he was depending on the engineer ' s staking to do his work . It
was explained to me that the grub stakes ( yellow, in this case) are set
first to assist the contractor in defining the edges of the area to be
cleared of vegetation . The slope stakes are set next (pink , in this
case) which delineate the limits of the cut and fill for the roadway .
He did not look at the tree removal map that was used by City Council ,
he looked at the pink slope stakes (which showed the limits of cut and
fill ) and the yellow grub stakes (which showed areas to clear) to
complete his work . Trees on the map which ap-peared to be OUT of this
cut and fill area were actually WITHIN the area in the field. It was
also stated by the contractor that several trees existed in the field
that never even appeared on the map and they were also removed .
Locating trees from a centerline stake and placing them on a map is not
an exact science , and its effects are shown by the differe-nce in field
and map conditions that have been shown here . In an attachment , I have
provided some alternatives for revising administrative procedures
surrounding tree removal for roads in forested areas , in light of o0
experiences here .
On the afternoon of September 20 , I accompanied Jack Brazeal , the
applicant ' s certified arborist to the site to complete a field survey
of trees that were removed that were supposed to be protected , as shown
on the plans that were used to process the original tree removal permit
before City Council . Jack Brazeal was also the person who cut the
trees for the grading contractor , Gary Roberson . It was determined
that 18 trees ranging in size from 6.-32" dbh ( 8 of these heritage size)
had been removed . It was also determined that one of the trees slated
for removal had been retained .
I can only speculate as to the differences in my tree count and that of
Public works staff , that which differs by 18 trees . Multi -trunk trees
may have been counted as separate trees and it has already been stated
that some trees that existed in the field were never even shown on the
original map . The eighteen trees that I have marked on a clean copy of
the map do correspond to trees that were to be protected and have
subsequently been removed and are listed below:
16" dbh Q. lobata 32" dbh Q.. lobata
14" dbh Q. lobata 20" dbh Q. agrifolia
22" dbh Q. lobata 24" dbh q. agrifolia
8" dbh Q, lobata 1711 dbhQ. lobata
20" dbh Q. lobata 9" dbh Q . lobata
24" dbh Q. lobata 12" dbh Q . lobata
15" Q. lobata 28" dbh Q. lobata
36" dbh Q . agrifolia 13 " dbh Q , agrifolia
6" dbh Quercus sp . ( species unknown)
1 multi -trunk Q. agrifolia (actual dbh unknown)
r
•
According to Don Vaughn and Gary Roberson , tree removal is complete for
this project .
In my report , I have deliberately attempted to stick to the "facts"
instead of trying to point fingers at anyone . I would be happy to
answer any additional questions if I can , and am sure that the
applicants would like a chance to tell their story . The staff is now
seeking a recommendation from the City Council as to the direction they
would like us to take . Thank you .
Attachments : A Alternatives for Revising Procedures for Tree
Removal
B Alternatives for Mitigating Unauthorized Tree
Removals
C June 3 , 1990 Arborist Report (Jack Brazeal )
D July 16 , 1990 Letter Authorizing Tree Removal
•
•
Attachment A
Alternatives for Revising Administrative Procedures for Tree Removal '
Permits During Road Construction
Many of the original colony roads that were surveyed , but not built
currently lie in the middle of well developed oak woodlands . There is
a reason for this ; land that was designated for future road building
was not cleared for agricultural uses in the early 1900 ' s and the
forest grew up around the surveyed road areas . Part of the difficulty
with applying the requirements of the Tree Ordinance to such a
situation is the fact that many of these roads are located on steep
slopes and in dense woodlands .
Therefore , if it is the will of the Council to require accurate tree
removal tallys before a tree removal permit is issued for road
construction projects , two possible alternatives exist :
1 . Require that all trees to be removed are located on a map through
survey and compass techniques . (We currently do not request this ,
causing some inaccuracy in the plotting of tree locations on the road
plans . The City of Thousand Oaks requires such a survey for tree
removal permits , but they do not have the extensive oak woodlan
forests that we have here . ) 41
2 . Require that all proposed roads be staked at the center line and
at the limits of cut and fill along the complete length of the road
before a tree removal permit application is completed and an accurate
count should result . At this time , specimen trees could be identified
and alternatives to the proposed alignment or possible tree saving
construction ( retaining walls , tree wells , etc . ) methods could be
proposed .
•
Attachment B
Alternatives for Mitigating Unauthorized Tree Removals
Several alternatives could be considered to address and mitigate
unauthorized tree removals .
1 . Enforce Title 1 , Chapter 3 of the Municipal Code relative to
Section (c) on misdemeanors ( "Any person convicted of a misdemeanor
shall be punished by a fine or not more than One Thousand Dollars , or
by imprisonment in the County Jail for a period not exceeding six ( 6)
months , or by both such fine and imprisonment . " )
2 . Additional Fees . As a penalty , applicants to contribute double
the fees into the tree replacement fund to cover the additional trees
removed .
3 . Planting Trees . Applicants to plant specimen trees ( 36" box
size or greater) along the length of the completed road , based on
double the number normally required . If this option is selected ,
maintenance must be assumed for a period of 2-3 years , depending on the
trees .
• 4 . Conservation/Scenic Easements . Applicants to agree tc
designate strips or portions of land as conservation easement lands-
to protect existing oak woodlands .
•
9,T IF/ ATTACHMENT C
G y O
JACK BRAZEAL
TREE CONSULTANT
VAA •
STERN ;-" CHAPTER 4531 SRIPJACR LANE
PASO ROBLES, CA 93446
WCZSA #163
/ , (805) 227-6140
0
June 3 , 1990
Don Vaughn
7695 Unit B
E1 Camino Real
Atascadero, California 93422
RE: Certified Arborist Report for:
Garcia Road Extension, Alternate Alignment
Atascadero Colony
Block 50 Improvements
This report is a revision of all previous reports on all trees •
affected by the development of the realignment of Garcia Road
Extension. The total number of trees affected is 144 trees with
69 trees reauiring removal to accomodate the road imarovemen s
and 75 trees will be impacted from slight to significantly.
Standard tree protection measures are to be used on all trees that
are endangered by this development. All tree protection fences,
retainers, etc. are to be installed and inspected prior to any'
construction or demolition of this project. The trees impacted
and the trees to be removed range in size from 6" to 24" dia-
meter. Most of the trees are in good health and are about evenly
divided between Valley Oaks and Live Oaks. The proposed realign-
ment will greatly reduce the amount of trees to be removed and
reduce significantly the number of trees impacted. The original
_Colony Road would require the removal of approximately 200 trees-
and impact or endanger approximately another 200 trees. A11 the
trees proposed for removal and all the trees that will be impacted
are plotted and identified on the attached set of plans. A color
coded set of plans will be with the City Arborist and available
or review when Council and Administration personally review the
site. All trees affected by this proposed road are marked in the
field, i.e. , red for removal and green for impacted. The center-
line of the a road is marked with lath stakes oar The
.drainage swales are color coded blue on the viewing plans but not
marked or outlined in the Meld.
(continued)
' l
ATTACW4FNT r
Arborist Report: - 2 - June 3 , 1990
Don Vaughn
Garcia Road Extension
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
The developer has shown good faith in trying to preserve and pro-
tect as many trees as possible and stay within the guidelines of
City Ordinances and requirements. The route chosen for realignment
has greatly reduced the impact of the wooded area by reducing the
amount of tree removals. Compensation for the tree removals should
be the required one hundred dollars for each tree removed, donated
to the Atascadero City Reforestation Program.
I recommend that this project be approved, as submitted.
J
Jack Brazeal
Certified Arborist
JB:pb
• Attach.
•
AOM1N1lTRATION su1LDING _.
9300 CAPALL AV(Ntascade�® _
ATASOtLIFORNIAIA
GRQ f]M22'
PMOMIL (US) 491.9000 INCORIORAT[O JULY Z 1979
flat OtPAR`rMCMT
a99 PALMA AVtMUI
Ilk
arY CUN K ATASCACCRO,CALIFORNIA
aTY CASW MgNt: (9o3i u9.99o0
CITY rleeAwR>af
CITY MAMAG M �•�
AOMINISTRATIVC SlMvK =WARTM[NT
COMMUNITY CCVCLOFMtMT 09TARTMgMT FIRe DCt�RTMtMT
PUGLIC WORKS O[FARTMCW SODS LMS AVC14UC
PARKS AMC RFCRtATION OVARTMQIT ATASCAOCRC•CALIFORNIA 93M=2
PNONt: (903) 4{{.2141
r
July 16, 1990
North Coast Realty
C/o Bill Pippin
625 Spring Street
Paso Robles, CA 93446
SUB.,ECT: Heritage Tree Removal Request - Garcia Road Extension
Dear Mr. Pippin:
At their regular meeting held July 10, 1990, the Ataseadero City
Council conducted a public hearing concerning your request to
remove 69 trees for the purposes of road construction. Union
review, the Council approved the request subject to an in Lieu
donation to the Tree Replacement Fund of up to $15,000 . The e fina i •
amount will be determined based on the final tree removal tally tas
detarm ne by the sst 7. you for
additions survey work in re ing the alignment. we appreciate
your patience and efforts to redesign this project. The trees may
be removed on approval of the road improvement plan.
if you should have any questions, please contact the Cit., arborist
at 461-3090 .
Sincerely,
ri �
Henry E gen, Director
Community Develooment
cc: Donald Vaughn
Conrad Langille
Greg Luke, Public works Director
—Yddzru�—g77� �eer1.�G�
- -76fs1
• DONALD K. VAUGHN I , E
7695-B E1 Camino Real $2 SC
Atascadero, CA 93422 �r T
466-4140
CITY MGR.
September 30, 1990
Mr. Ray Windsor
City of Atascadero
6500 Palma Avenue
Atascadero, CA 93423
Re: Garcia Road Extension
Dear Mr. Windsor:
Greg Luke asked me to prepare a "Statement of Facts"
regarding the Garcia Road Extension. He also requested that I
include recommendations to resolve this matter. In
consideration of time, I am submitting for your review a
chronological outline of the overall project so you may compare
our data with other information. I am presently gathering more
• specific information regarding possible solutions and would
appreciate a meeting with you, Lisa Schicker, Greg Luke and the
developers to discuss a successful resolution to this matter.
July 27 , 1989
Tree removal application submitted. Request was for 319
oak trees affected, 160 trees removed, 159 impacted.
August 26 , 1989
On-site meeting with Henry Engen, Randy Rossi , Paul
Sensibaugh, Lisa Schicker, Jack Brazeal (developers ' arborist )
and the developers. Discussion revolved around re-alignment of
Garcia Road to mitigate tree removal .
November 7, 1989
Received letter from Doug Davidson regarding list of five
items to be completed so Community Development Department could
prepare a recommendation to the City Council .
November 10, 1989
Letter from Don Vaughn to Doug Davidson requesting
• original application (removal of 160 trees) be submitted to the
City Council .
r
Mr. Ray Windsor
September 30 , 1990
Page 2
December 7 , 1989
Letter to Doug Davidson regarding Community Development
needing more information on " initial " application before
recommendation to City Council could be completed by staff.
January 23 , 1990
City Council hearing on " initial " application. This 160
tree removal application was denied 5-0 .
July 10 , 1990
Tree removal request (second application) heard by City
Council . _City Arborist ' s recommendation indicated 69 trees to
be removed plus 30 trees "significantly endangered" . A tree
replacement fee of $15 , 000 was recommended using the following
formula: 69 trees x $200 ( #13,800 ) , plus a 1 for 5 replacement
ratio ( 30 trees/5 = 6 replacement trees ) x $200 (x 1 , 200 ) _ 0
$15 , 000 . The City Council discussed the - possibility of Public
Works staff making "slight adjustments" in the field to save
trees . City Council approved ( 5-0 ) tree removal application.
July 16, 1990
Received letter from Henry Engen announcing approval of
tree removal .
August 16 , 1990
Pre-construction meeting in Gary Sims ' s office with Gary
Roberson (project contractor) and Don Vaughn.
August 22 , 1990
On site pre-construction meeting with all utility company
representatives, three representatives from Twin Cities
Engineering ( the developers ' engineering consultant ) , Danny
Hillstock, Jack Brazeal , Gary Roberson and the developers.
Received encroachment permit from Public Works Department .
August 29 & 30 , 1990
Construction grub staking had been completed. "First •
cutting" of trees was begun. Gary Roberson was instructed to
leave the stumps so a count by City staff could be completed.
Danny Hillstock counted 44 fallen trees.
• Mr. Ray Windsor
September 30 , 1990
Page 3
September 4 , 1990
"First cutting" completed. Public Works counted an
additional 41 fallen trees bringing the total to 85. Slope
stakes were in the process of being set by Twin Cities
Engineering. The slope stakes clearly defined the cut banks
for grading purposes . It became evident that "questionable"
trees left from the first cutting needed to be removed. Gary
Roberson requested from Gary Sims the removal of these trees.
September 17 1990
Gary Roberson and Gary Sims did on site inspection of
"questionable" trees to be removed. Gary Roberson was told to
handle this "second cutting" as before. (Leave the stumps for
counting. )
September 18 , 1990
• Second cutting began. Gary Sims counted 14 fallen trees .
September 19, 1990
Second cutting completed. Danny Hillstock counted 6
additional trees for a total second cutting of 20 . Grand total
( first and second cutting) of fallen trees counted by Public
Works Department was 105.
September 20 1990
Job was "red tagged" by City to stop construction.
September 24, 1990
Don Vaughn spoke with Lisa Schicker regarding Public Works
Department ' s count . Lisa indicated multi-trunk trees and some
large brush were A ncluded in the 105 count . She indicated a
preliminary revised count of 87 fallen trees. Lisa was going
to compile more information for the September 25, 1990 City
Council meeting. The City allowed construction to continue.
September 25 , 1990
City Council meeting on tree removal , but continued to
October 9, 1990 .
•
Mr. Ray Windsor
September 30 , 1990
Page 4
September 26 , 1990
Spoke with Lisa. At this time her count is 87 fallen
trees, 18 over the 69 trees originally planned for removal . of
these 18 trees , 10 were under 20" diameter and eight trees were
over 20" diameter. These eight trees are considered heritage
oaks which needed City Council approval .
September 27, 1990
Conference call with Greg Luke, Don Vaughn, Bill Pippin
and Conrad Langille. General discussion regarding situation.
In summary, I believe the tree ordinance has worked. This
has been a successful ending to a complicated land issue from
an original request of over 300 trees to be removed and/or
impacted, reduced to the reality of 87 trees removed. Those
people critical of the end result should consider the expense
and complexity of installing a road through a forest . •
It is my understanding that this tree removal request was
possibly the first large development matter to be tested under
the current tree ordinance. Unquestionably there is a problem
and mistakes have been made, but I should hope that all parties
might learn from this situation so future development will
minimize controversy.
City staff and the developers have worked diligently and
admirably with this development . All parties have treated this
sensitive issue with respect for the system.
I believe the end result of trees removed would have been
approved by the City Council at the July 10, 1990 meeting if
everyone had known the exact number of trees that would be
affected by the road construction. As all the engineers seem
to agree, this is a virtual impossibility until construction
staking is completed.
•
•
Mr. Ray Windsor
September 30 , 1990
Page 5
The tree ordinance may work neatly when it involves 1
building site - 1 tree. Unless changes are made, the City and
developers will continuously be subjected to public controversy
and misunderstanding over larger tree removal requests .
espectfully sub tted,
(Id'�' �- , �4
DONALD K. VAUGHN
DKV/sam
•
RECEIVED
e: JUL 27 1989
tfl7COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
o
^''' T PLANNING DIVISION
�.�� ��,r DEVf�.._. ► ,�►i�
0
�DE� 6500 Palma Ave.
P.O. Box 747
Atascadero , CA 93423
(805) 466-8000
APPLI CATI ON FORM
Please-type-or print in ink
Owner - 'A �1 1 r�Ir� pond�cQu fir.
Address: S/J ,.7-74
Address:
Phone #: acs,) -a?F,- „C? Phone #:
Applicant :
Address:
Phone #:
Project Description: E -e„LS
•
Existing Use:
Project Address:
Legal Description: Lot(s) ; 8 16 c SZ) ; Tract d2,p6746
Assessors Parcel No (s) : 44�- /-3 /a a//
I/We consent to the filing of this application and declare that
this application and related documents are true and correct.
(NOTE: The signature of the property owner is required on the
application before it will be accepted for processing . )
O'w'ner -o Agent
7 K.
Date Date
For Staff
Use Only Fee: '�� _ Receipt
�j"Do - AFI
�� 6
y
ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
114
6300 PALMA AVENUE
ATASCADERO,CALIFORNIA 97422
aseade�®
PHONE: (803) 466.8000 NCORPORATED JULY 2. 1979 POLICE DEPARTMENT
6300 PALMA AVENUE
CITY COUNCIL ATASCAOERO, CALIFORNIA 97422
CITY CLERK PHONE: (803) 466.8600
CITY TREASURER
y.
CITY MANAGER
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
FIRE DEPARTMENT
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 6005 LEWIS AVENUE
ATASCADERO,CALIFORNIA 93422
PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT PHONE: (805) 466.21,41
3epbmber 12, 1989
BM Ptpk,3 oee Lar wffffw—end Donald Yar�lm
625 ft4mg Paso Robles,CA 93446
238-6992 and 461-1292
Re: Garcia Road Rnmsjon-Tree Removal pezmtt Applications
Dear Mr. Pippfa:
Tbaak You affi your arborist Jack H rezenl far taking Henry Emmen, Rudy Rossi,Pani sans---0h dad myself b th
ant e
proposed Garcia Road ezbnaion site on Friday,Ant 26. On Frfdgy, ve vent ant b look et the origianl road layout
and tree removal pleas,as veg as a pmp and ahaia&v mad O%Mnent vbich vould avoid *a removal of as may lame
•
and healffiy oak trees.
I haus sand the oxfaal plan for the=soraction of Gahan Road vbich would We in the removal of 166 and impact to
159 othan and have also seen the proposed MApment of the mad in atv mpb b save more tams. I also tmdus%md tont
the Sat aliPmmm smwyed vas from the odanl colony system, and t Att the pmpased al matftre Wald very only
s%hdy fmm this or kond layout,and would 3%b*affect to public 41ht-oi vay and lot]boas tont are amendy marded.
Needless b say, the 4,i r m a bg nmera, vbiah appem b remove • appromaly 27 trees ad only Impact 5 or 6',
*Cordbg to arborist Jack Braze, is cba*the prefeaad alignment. Fmftr, I mteatead yon are viltig end bg&Uy
able b affect a rashest d=qh we of a re-subdtvbi m
Alt mo!Isis btbr cbnoaas a fev veeps afbr our vbit,I do Mat that you voik on a resubmission of the albm &e mad
*=w and relabd true removal panmntt and tme protist rL Alen tffit vs diacasmed in the &H. From our pbone
conveaad=,I rmdeabnd that you have begmn that vmk.
Because the loss of some tmes v2 oc c ul, dad accord ft a the vornX and spect8catbrn in the aadiaanx, tt vin be
required that aIl trees that are z be removed be repleted vith Me species. I vin be able to bele you bcab same somas
for the proper replacement trees,end give you some tafoameton about pthat could help in theme survival.
t
•
Owe agnia,hank you for your assistance on Fldday. Pmcedm%4,rise nW stip is to present yomr road kaprovement ad
UN pmtictba pmn,acc=pmkd vfth an environmentil desc**m foam b city steuff. Idaudytog bcatiom for pkmbg
vould also be part of the MAI uee pmtictbn plan and removal applf:dM, ad I would tike b assfst YOU vith this. I
would also tie b assist you in locating sources for move repbcemem trees vbm tm time comae. Once the soeff has
stladbd YOm fit,toy vM bibg the tree mmoval app&xWn b cjy comcil. Upon tbebr approval, cft9 stiff vin
be able b give you the nxewuy pew so YtM Can trot b work.
The city vaats b be&some bug-time studies on the ft"of Ateacadero (b inspect rise bm tth and no bov old some of
Un trees redy ate)aad I van bopiag riser you vould be vgmg b ate. Wben you get the approval b go ahead
vft the pmJect, vould you be vMft b bele us vith ooDeatiag this bhnooasW For every as that Is tigged and
numbered for removal,could ve w=a bodmutel slice of die trunk at dbh(di MO%r at breast height vhich his 4' 10' -
b be used for dX counting. It vould be easiest b record this infon zdm in the field iu the barba of the tree removals.
Thank you for your time and patience in this appbcatbn process. I appreciate your concern for ny tg as mach of the
native babw as possible vb'le stM trying b compbti your vmk. •
Lia LC. Schic]uxr
City Arboido6 restir
cc: ft"Decamp
lW f
PIPPIN- POWELL - A r"r7"'I x:I
The Real Estate Company
�S
T0: Community Development Department
RE: Road Alignment of Garcia Road
An alternative road alignment has. been discussed with staff which
would alleviate the need for removal of a majority of the oaks
required by the existing road improvement plan.
A meeting was held at the site on August 26, 1989. Present at the
meeting were the community development director, the public works
director, the senior planner, the city tree arborist and a city
environmental consultant as well as the tree arborist for the owner.
At that meeting it was proposed that a realignment of the physical
road (accomplished by a widening of the dedicated easement) would
probably reduce the amount of trees to be removed to approximately
27 and reduce the amount of impacted trees to 5 or 6.
This proposed realignment was agreed upon by all parties to be a
substantial improvement and the owner would be willing to consider
same.
C 7695 EL CAMINO REAL- P.O. BOX 1750 - ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA 93423 - PHONE 805 466-3366
❑ 626 SPRING STREET- P.O. BOX 186, PASO ROBLES, CALIFORNIA 93447 - PHONE 805 238-7373
A Division of Ra pty Corp.
ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
taseadei a
6300 PALMA AVENUE
ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA 9322
PHONE: (805) 466.8000 POLICE DEPARTMENT
AINCORPORATED JULY 2. tY79
8300 PALMA AVENUE
CITY COUNCIL ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA 0. 2
CITY CLERK PHONE: )803) 166.8600
CITY TREASURER
CITY MANAGER
-�.
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FIRE DEPARTMENT
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 6003 LEWIS AVENUE
PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT ATASCADERO,CALIFORNIA 93422
PHONE: (803) 466.2141
November 7, 1989
Pippin-Powell
Attn: Don Vaughn
P.O. Box 1750
Atascadero, CA 93423
SUBJECT: Road Alignment of Garcia Rd.
Dear Mr. Vaughn:
Your letter (received on November 3, 1989) is an adequate
summary of the previous actions on the alignment of Garcia Rd. •
The staff agrees that the proposed realignment is a favorable
alternative due to its lesser impact on the native trees . The
next step is the submittal of complete road improvement plans .
The staff will then conduct its environmental review (using the
environmental description form that was submitted) and prepare a
recommendation for City Council action. The road improvement
plans should contain the following:
1 . Tree protection plans approved by a certified arborist.
2 . The combination of the 190 foot radius curve with the
adjacent 560 foot radius curve to provide a single radius
curve.
3 . Since much of the road is near the center of a drainage
swale, the plans will have to demonstrate adequate methods
for drainage and erosion control.
4 . Provide sheet 1 on all sets of plans .
5 . Comply with the attached road standard cross section.
•
• If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please
call this office or the Engineering Division for assistance.
Please submit the road improvement plans to the Engineering
Division of the Public Works Department .
Sincerely,
Doug Davidson
Associate Planner
DD:dd
Encl . Road Standard Section
•
November 10,. 1989
Community'Development Dept. •
6500 Palma Avenue
Atascadero, CA 93422
attn: Doug Davidson
RE: Road Alignment of Garcia Road
Dear Mr. Davidson:
I received your correspondence dated November 7, 1989. After a couple of
calls I felt writing you would be appropriate.
Your letter is well received by the property owners. Everything discussed
and considered is a common sense approach to all concerned.
It is my understanding that your office or the Public Works Department
has complete road improvement plans for the construction of Garcia
Road in the existing right of way. Also it is my understanding that your
office has a tree preservation plan and all the necessary reports to
place this project on the City Council agenda for their consideration.
As per your November 7th letter, City Planning staff conceptually agrees
with the new Garcia Road alignment. You indicated in order for staff
to prepare a recommendation for City Council action regarding this
realignment, complete road improvement plans including the 5 items listed •
in your letter need to be prepared by the property owners.
It is my understanding that when the City Council considers this new
information they have the opportunity to review and give input to the
proposed realignment as well as the proposed tree protection plan.
It is the property owners position that this project should be placed
on the City Council agenda so they would be given the opportunity to
.review the existing road improvement and tree protection plans since all
this work has been completed and submitted to the City. I would hope
that in conjunction with this review, your staff and the property owners
would be given the opportunity to report to the Council on the meetings
and efforts put forth to realign Garcia Road to lessen the impact of the
native trees.
LTheultimategoal would be to obtain a conceptual agreement of the
realignment from the Council subject to final approval of road
ovement plans, tree protection plans, etc.
As indicated in your letter, staff looks on the realignment as "a
favorable alternative" to thq road being built in the existing right-
of-way. The property owners also agree with this concept. Unfortunately,
in the property owner's opinion, the City Council has not in the
past made it a practice to necessarily follow staff recommendations
regarding land issues. In the property owner's viewpoint it would not
be acceptable spending thousands of dollars completing new road improvement •
c
• y L ,
• Plans, tree. protection plans, etc. without having City Council in
and tentative approval of the realignment of Garcia Road. Put
Therefore, with your assistance, the property owners wish to submit
the existing tree protection plan with reference to a proposed
alternative to mitigate the impact to the native trees.
Please let me know of any questions you may have or what you will
need to accomplish getting this project on the CitT Council agenda.
ery truly yours,
Donald K. Vaughn
i
J
Donald K. Vaughn t
7695 "B" E1 Camino Real
Atascadero, CA 93422
466-4140
December 7, 1989
Community Development Dept.
6500 Palma Ave.
Atascadero, CA 93422
Att: Doug Davidson
RE: Garcia Road Improvements
Dear Mr. Davidson:
It is my understanding that Conrad Langille and Bill Pippin were
in your office during the week of November 27. Their discussion
with you was regarding my November 10, 1989 letter about placing
this project on the City Council agenda. I believe they brought
to your attention that an application for this project was delivered
to your office on July 27, 1989. Obviously, they were displeased
with the time involved in moving this project forward.
I spoke with Gary Sims from the Engineering Department yesterday,
He indicated to me that he has the engineering plans
for improving Garcia Road in the existing right of way. He also
indicated that he does need some further corrections on these
plans. Our discussion centered on that it would be futile to
make these corrections since the property owners do not intend
to build this road in the current right of way. He suggested
that he would speak with you to get a determination on having the
City Council consider this project, within the scope of my November
10 letter, without having an approved set of road plans for a
road that will not be built.
After your discussion with Mr. Sims, please let me know of the
results so the corrections can be completed and/or of anything
else you may need to procure a presentation to the City Council.
Very truly yours,
Donald K. Vaughn
cc: Gary Sims
•
f
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item:
Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 1/23/90
Via: Henry Engen, Community Development Director
yo/.
From: Lisa Schicker, City Arborist ,S- v3 S
SUBJECT:
Consideration of a request to remove 160 native oak trees, 13 of
them with heritage status , and to impact an additional 159 native
oaks for road improvements for Garcia Road extension in the
existing right of way, by Conrad Langille, Bill Pippin and Donald
Vaughn of 625 Spring Street, Paso Robles .
RECOMMENDATION:
. Based on the knowledge of existing alternatives that would imurove
the proposal and reduce the number of trees to be removed, I
recommend denial of this application. Please see additional
comments in analysis section of this reuort.
STATUS OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The attached document, labeled initial Study, has been prepared by
the planning department to accompany this heritage removal
application.
BACKGROUND :
The tree ordinance specifies that live native trees 20" or
greater dbh (measured 41 above grade) are deemed heritage trees
and cannot be removed' unless approved by the City Council
following a public hearing.
The proposed road construction for Garcia Road involves a
significant level of tree removal, including native species of
oaks (Quercus lobata, douglasii and agrifolia) , some that are
having problems regenerating in California. The purpose of this
road extension is to provide access to 10 lots of approximate size
of 5 acres each. The road is approximately one mile in length .
• According to CEQA, the California Environmental Quality Act,
Governments are required to do all that is possible to reduce
impact upon tha natural environment.
This proposed project site was inspected jointly by co-applicant
Bill Pippin, arborist Jack Brazeal, Community Development Director
Henry Engen, Public Works Director Paul Sensibaugh, Oak Consultant
t
Randy Rossi and myself in mid-August, 1989 .
ANALYSIS:
During the visit to the proposed roadway, several ways to slightly
alter the alignment of the road were discussed that would avoid
the removal of so many trees . Because staff is being asked to
comment on the original application, a strong recommendation for
denial is given, as all parties involved are aware that other
alternatives are feasible.
When a revised resubmittal of this proposal occurs, the following
items need to be addressed:
The arborist needs to clearly delineate what is meant by
"impacted" as the word is used in the report; i . e. does impacted
mean affected by pruning, grading, cuts and fills
nd if s , how
much? ) or by the possibility of additional shoulder arequirements ,
etc . This term is not specific enough to determine whether these
trees would actually survive Construction of the roadway.
Tree protection measures must be specified ( i . e . fence type, size
and location) and drawn oil the plans to allow for compliance.
Currently, trees are identified on the
plan by size, but should
also be identified by number and tree protection measures should
be evident on the plans .
Discussion of replacement trees is absent from this application
and should be included with a re-submitted plan.
Attachments : Application '
Site Plan
Arborist report
Letter sent to applicants September 12, 1989
Initial Study - Environmental Review
CC Conrad Langille
•
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item:
Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 7/10/90
Via: Henry Engen, Community Development Director
From: Lisa Schicker, City Arborist
SUBJECT: HERITAGE TREE REMOVAL REQUEST - GARCIA ROAD EXTENSION
Consideration of a request to remove sixty nine trees (ranging in size
from 411- 24" dbh Quercus lobata and Quercus agrifolia) and impact
seventy five others (ranging in size from 4" - 24" dbh same species as
those removed) for the purposes of road construction for the extension
of Garcia Road by applicants Bill Pippin, Don Vaughn and Conrad
Langille. The oaks are located in the proposed roadbed ( and in the
swales and cut and fill areas) designed to access ten buildable lots .
• RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the arborist' s report and the existing Tree ordinance,
recommend approval of the removals and accept Applicants ' proposal to
donate to the Tree Replacement Fund based on a one for one replacement
ratio. Please see additional comments and details in analysis section
of this report. The recommended replacement fee is a maximum of
$15 , 000 .
BACKGROUND :
The Tree Ordinance specifies that live native trees 20" or greater dbh
(measured four foot above grade) are deemed heritage trees and cannot
be removed unless approved by the City Council following a public
hearing.
An ' ginal removal request came before City Council on January 23
1990 . The original request was for the removal of 160 t es . he
kation was denied because all parties were aware that
alternatives that caused the removal of fewer trees existed. This
report describes one of those alternatives .
The site has been posted and the center line of the proposed roadway
has recently been staked with lath stakes painted orange. Trees to be
removed have been marked with red flagging tape and trees that will be
impacted are marked with green flagging tape . The trees were inspected
by ISA certified arborist Jack Brazeal and the City Arborist on several
occasions . Mr. Brazeal has created a color-coded map describing the
situation that can be used for field inspection.
Applicant Don Vaughn is available to guide council members through the
project and can be contacted at 466 - 4140 . The color-coded map shall
be made available for field visits and can be found in the City
•
count when determining replacement costs .
Trees that may be saved with minor adjustments to the shoulder:
Depending on engineering and environmental review, an additional 3
heritage and ten trees of lesser size could also be saved. If this
were possible, the final tally of trees would be calculated in the
field after construction was complete. These trees would then be
classified as endangered and treated as such.
Recommended Replacements : All trees to be removed and all trees that
are listed as endangered shall be replaced through Tree Fund Fees .
Approve the request for removal of these trees and accept replacement
fees based on the following formula:
One for One replacement ratio for those trees that are to be
removed. ( 69 trees) (This would be reduced if minor changes were
permitted in road building standards (to reduce shoulder width in
areas of healthy trees . )
One for .Five replacement ratio for those trees that are significantly
endangered by cut and fill activities - it is quite likely that these
trees will not survive the next five years . ( 30 trees/5 = 116
replacement trees" .
,1
J
' The current rate we have been asking for replacement costs is lowe
than the actual cost for replanting a tree by today' s figures and do
not include expenses involved with fencing, soil amendments , fertilizer
and/or maintenance and watering. Furthermore, the cost of the trees
being removed are significantly higher, recent studies have shown that
the cost of a city tree with a fifty year lifespan ranges from $57 , 000
to $162,000 ! we have been asking that $100 per tree be charged, while
the going replacement rate is somewhere in the range of $150 -, $600 per
tree, depending on conditions (according to City of Thousand Oaks ,
Visalia and San Luis Obispo) . Therefore, I am recommending that
Council accepts a bottom line replacement amount of $200 per tree. (The
total replacement costs = 69 trees removed + 6 endangered trees for a
5 : 1 replacement ratio = 75 trees * $200 = $15 , 000 . Again this amount
could be less, dependent on the final tally of trees removed. ) For a
complete discussion of replacement costs for tree removal, please see
the memo entitled "A Proposal for Interim Tree Replacement Standards"
that has been prepared for tonight' s City Council Meeting.
Attachments : Vicinity Map
Garcia Road Extension Location Map
Environmental Review
Tree Removal Application and Report by
Arborist Jack Brazeal
CC North County Realty - Pippin and Langille
Don Vaughn
Jack Brazeal •
C -
• Virginia Powers, 7505 Carmelita , read are ar -
p p ed statement ( see
C::hiSiL A) stressing that the $200 cost per tree is too lcw.
=red Frank , 3615 Ardilla, asked what the objective was of the
p!-epozed interim policy. He stated that if it is to. promote the
objectives of the Tree Ordinance, flexibility is needed .
Discussion came back to Council . Councilman Nimmo reiterated
that his initial intent of asking for an interim policy was to
bring fairness and consistency; and made the following motion:
MOTION: By Councilman Nimmo and seconded by Councilman Dexter
to accept the staff recommendation of a 2: 1 replacement
or $200 per tree; motion unanimously carried .
H. HERITAGE TREE REMOVAL REQUEST - GARCIA ROAD EXTENSION
( Cont ' d from 6/26/90)
Henry t=rngen summarized this request and gave staff recommendation
to approve the removals and accept the applicants ' proposal to
donate to the Tree Replacement Fund in an amount of up to
$ 15, 000.
44 A� Lisa Schicker answered Council questions regarding possible road
location adjustments which may save additional trees . Ms.
• Schicker indicated that these modifications would be made on-site
as in-field work changes with the Public Works Director-
over aaing these adjustments .
Mr . Lube reported that his department could accommodate minor
adjustments , asserting that preservation of the minimum road
standards would be maintained . He added that it could be very
costly to require the developer to build retaining walls.
Councilwoman Horgeson commended the applicant , Dori Vauqhn, for
his cooperation during the field visit . r
The Public Works Director respanded. to questions from Councilman
Nimmo regarding road construction.
Additional discussion ensued regarding the emergency exit road
located at the end of the proposed extension and possible Future
extension through to the freeway. The Community Development
Director indicated that the basic concept was good , but that an
existing property owner has objections.
CC7/ 10/90
• Page 5 --
C C
Nimmo expressed concern that a safety hazard may be
crested by allowing construction of the emergency exit at an 19 '
width . Chief Hicks spoke in support of the road , clarifying that
it would be for emergency access only and that it would have
gates �-jith break-away posts on both ,?nds. He reported that the
care Department has a particular interest ill the area as it
re '-az2s to circulation. He stated that the road could serve as a
great :aid for evacuation purposes or as a backup to the Garcia
Road Bridge.
Further discussion regarding the additional surveying costs the
developer may incur resulting from any modifications made during
the construction of the road . Mr . Luke recapped estimated costs
and indicated that there seems to be no other way than to re-
Sul-Vey . Councilwoman Borgeson stated that the added costs could
be off-set by he monies the developer would be save in tree
r-�moval costs .
Councilman Nimmo stated that while he had no objections , if
CCur,cil was authorizing the construction of sub-standard roads ,
aither oy not extending it cut to the end of tha property or
narrowing the shoulders to save trees, the ;natter should be made
ci_ar to all .
The Public Works, Director clarified that he has been given no
authorization to lessen the width of the shoulders and reiterated •
that discretion will be used to sage trees if the road can be
slizhtiv adjusted .
Councilman Dexter remarked that staff, during the development ,
should lcok into the possibilities of opening up the road all the
way through . Mr. Luke stated that if the Council was leaning in
that direction, a condition could be added which would require
design .-;ar!< for the extensiuni to be prepared and nubmi: ted at the
Salim? time.
[laycr Lilley asked the City Attorney if right-of-ways could be
designed for future expansion of roads across properties not yet
acquired . Mr . Montandon reminded Ccuncil that the issue before
them was the tree removal application, but responded to Mayor
Lilley ' s question as it related to condemnation. The City
Attorney stated that condemnation would be the only route to
acquire such access for a roadway and an improvement on the
contiguous property, and further suggested re-focusing on the
tree removal request .
CC7/ 10/90
Page 6 --
r
•
Public Comments:
The applicant , Can Vaughn 76950 Ei Camino Real , was present and
availea 'iiinself for questions. Council thanked him for his
cooperation and for showing them the ciite. The mayor asked the
applicant if he :lculd have an objection to the City crediting him
for any additional survey costs as a result of as-builts against
the in-lieu tree fee. The applicant responded that he did not .
Jack B;-azeal of Paso Robles , spoke in support of the request and
stated that the applicant has made every effort to save as many
trees as possible on this project .
Marjorie Kidwell , 9980 Old Morro Road East , urged Council to put
safety ,as the number one priority when constructing new roads and
.asked L•,h:, roads have to be constructed only to minimum standards.
;•Jhitey Thorpe, 8025 Santa Ynez , expressed concern for moving a
read to save a tree and asked that Council look first to the
safety of the people .
Dennis Bryant , 7410 Sombriila , questioned the accounting for the
ma;: imurn replacement fee of 515,000.
• A young resident of Atascadero spoke up asking if it is legal and
co-t-effective to construct pavement around the trees as he has
seen in same parking lots . The Public Works Director noted that
thssP " turf blocks" are for the purpose of watering the trees .
=arch Gronstrand , 7620 Del Rio Road , stated that minimum
standards are acceptable.
Additional staff and Ccunc ; l discussion followed . , The City
Arborist advised that the topography is flat and proposed road is
relatively straight . Mayor Lilley asked the Public Works
Director to clarify as-built changes and whether any such
deviations would jeopardize safety. . Mr . Luke responded that the
roads will be designed and built according to the minimum road
standards and if the road alignment can be slightly adjusted , yet
still maintain the level of safety those standards reflect , such
a shift will be' made . He stressed that there will no lessening
of the criteria and that there is no authority to do so . He
stated that the authority given _ would be to make minor
modifications to the alignment of the road in order to preserve a
tree in the field .
Councilman Nimmo clarified that Council was then objecting to
CC7/ 10/90
Page 7 .
verbiage in the staff report relating to minor adjust .ents in the
r-4idths of road shoulders . Mr . Luke confirmed this .
MOTION: By Councilman Nimmo and seconded by Councilman Dexter
that the tree remcval request be approved for the
Garcia Road Extension subject to a maximum contribution
of $15,000 to the Tree Replacement Fund kith the right
to credit costs for- additional surveys as a result of
as-builts in the field .. and with further understanding
that this motion does not indicate any departure from
the standard width requirements for the construction of
the roadway ; motion carried 5:0 on a roll call vote.
2. RESOLUTION 68-90 —CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST TO ABANDON A
PORTION OF THE COROMAR AVENUE RIGHT-OF-WAY AT 7350 COROMAR
(Road Abandonment 1-90) (Charlesworth )
Henry _rtgen gave staff report with the recommendation to approve
the r-esoiution, noting specific requirements of the applicant .
There was no public testimony .
MOTION: By Councilman Dexter and seconded by Ccuncilman Nimmo
to approve Resolution No . 68-90; motion unanimously
carried .
C. REGULAR BUSINESS: •
1 . CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL FOR PROPOSED
DIVISION OF PARCEL CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 3.4 AC. INTO TWO
LOTS CONTAINING 1 . 1 AND 2.3 ACRES AT 7503 CARMELITA ( Bench )
(Cont ' d from 4/24 and 6/26/90)
i-!er.r-y Engen presented the Findings for Denial and recommended
adopt , Cn.
There was no public testimony.
Councilwoman Borgeson referred to. her previous vote on the appeal
and asked the City Attorney whether or not she needed to specify
which finding (s) for denial she was in opposition to when she
cast her vote. He indicated that she did not .
MOTION: By Councilman Nimmo and seconded by Councilman Dexter
to adopt the Findings for Denial for TPM 2-89 (Bench ) ;
motion carried 4 : 1 with Councilwoman Borgeson voting
against adoption.
CC7/10/90
Page 8 - •
J
ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
9500 PALMA AVENUE
At�lmw
ascade�®ATASCAO[RO,CALIFORNIA 931229iPHONt: (9054"-9= CORPORATED JULY 2. 1971 ATASCPOLICE OEPARTMENI
9500 PALMA AVENUE
CITY COUNCILAOERO.CALIFORNIA 93122
CITY CLERK PHONE: (903) 199.9900
CITY TREASURER
CITY MANAGER +•
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FIRE DEPARTMENT
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 9005 LEWIS AVENUE
PARKS AND RECREATION OEPART14ENT ATASCADERO,CALIFORNIA 93122
PHONE: (905) 199.2111
July 16, 1990
North Coast Realty
c/o Bill Pippin
625 Spring Street
Paso Robles, CA 93446
SUBJECT: Heritage Tree Removal Request - Garcia Road Extension
Dear Mr. Pippin:
At their- regular meeting held July 10, 1990, the Atascadero City
Council conducted a public hearing concerning your request to
ramove 69 trees for the purposes of road construction. Upon
• review, the Council approved the request subject to an in lieu
donation to the Tree Replacement Fund of to $15,000 . The final
amount will be determined based on the final tree removal tally {as
determined by the City Arborist} less the cost incurred by you for
additional survey work in relocating the alignment. we appreciate
your patience and efforts to redesign this project. The trees may
be removed on approval of the road improvement plan.
If you should have any questions, please contact the City Arborist
at 461-5090 .
Sincerely,
Henry E yen, Director
Commurnity Development-
JCC: Donald Vaughn
Conrad Langille
Greg Luke, Public works Director
copy
MEMORANDUM •
TO: File
FROM: Danny Hillstock September 17, 1990
Engineering Technician II
SUBJECT: Garcia Road - Tree removal count
During the protect grubbing stage, an actual count of trees
removed over Four (4) inches in diameter was made on Garcia Road .
On August 30 1990, Forty-Fcur C44 fallen trees were counted . On
September 4 1990, an additional Forty-one C41) tree stumps were
counted bringing the total to eighty-Five CSS) . The guidelines
For those trees removed were the grub stakes set by Twin Cities
Engineering .
Slope stakes are now being set, clearly deFining the cut-banks
and more trees will need to be removed. Gary Roberson has
requested to remove these additional trees so that he may
continue work . The tree removal is expected to exceed the
estimate given to City Council .
Danny Hill cc
Engineering Technician II
I ccncu with this inspection report .
Gary Roberson - General Contr
actor, License Number, 50837'
•
_ D
(?
IP
� O
MEMORANDUM
• I
TO: File
FROM: Danny Hillstcck September 19, 1990
Engineering Technician II
SUBJECT: Garcia Road - Tree removal count
On September 17, 1990, City staff was requested by Gary Rcberson
to aporove the removal of additional trees an Garcia Road . These
trees were identified after the project 's slope stakes were set
and were determined to be in the area of construction.
On September 18, 1990, an actual count of the additional trees
removed over four (it) inches in diameter was made by Gary Sims .
Fourteen C14) Fallen trees were counted by Mr . Sims that day . On
this day I have counted an additional six C6) trees . This
brings the total additional trees removed to twenty C20) . There
are three C3) more trees that are clearly inside the construction
affected area . Gary Roberson has requested that these trees be
allowed tc remain until the roadbed is cut in . This is to help
determine if the trees can be saved .
• Danny Hi s ck
Engineering Technician II
r Sims
Sen' r Civil Engineer
I concur with the tree taunt as represented in this inspection
report.
Gary Roberson — General Contractor, License Number SO8374
•
I
MEETING AGENDA
DAT l0 ,20 ITEM#
•
CARLT0N SQUARE
A T A S C A D E R 0
September 20, 1990
Honorable Mayor and Council Members,
The Carlton Hotel has long been a landmark in downtown Atascadero. Its location
at the intersection of Highway 101 and Traffic Way dictates that it should be an
important contributor to the daily lives of the citizens of Atascadero, as well
as visitors throughout the area.
In order to accomplish this, we propose a revitalization of the existing building
which will restore the essential character of the facility, including its utility
as a commercial/retail mini-mall. The ground floor, which has always been retail,
will remain so but in a different, more exciting way. Instead of typical store-
front spaces--street to alley--we propose an intimate retail village with an
interior pedestrian circulation. Access to the mini-mall will be from both major
streets, El Camino Real and Traffic Way, as well as a refurbished pedestrian alley-
way to connect to other streets and parking.
Open to the sky and covered by a glass roof, the central atrium will become the
village square--Carlton Square--and will act as the crossroads of the pedestrian
access. A variety of commercial and retail outlets are intended to offer a unique
blend of goods and services. The goal is to create a harmony of interests to hold
and entertain visitors in an intimate, enclosed, pleasant-year-round environment.
The old hotel will be renovated into 48 efficiency singles apartments. The apart-
ments are intended to be completely self-contained, featuring a kitchenette, bath
and living space. This kind of housing is intended to provide a style of living
not now available to local residents and could well appeal to a mix of seniors,
students, singles, the handicapped, and even professional persons whose interests
and desires related to housing do not necessarily conform to the conventional.
Available to such residents will be a sun deck, as well as laundry facilities, all
accessed from a public lobby on the ground floor. One of the goals of the Down-
town Master Plan which we heartily endorse is to inject more vitality in the down-
town by encouraging pedestrian circulation. In our opionion, the combination of
residential over retail is a way to enhance this.
Given the condition of the current building and its non-conformance with. many of
• today's codes, particularly its structural soundness regarding earthquakes, a
great deal of reconstruction will have to be undertaken. All interior walls will
be stripped and repaired as required. All electrical wiring will need to be re-
placed. There will be a new fire sprinkler system, new fire escapes, water lines,
and other plumbing for the facility, as well as a brand new water heating and
cooling pump system. The basic building structure will be redesigned to provide
for the necessary lateral load force resisting system required by today's codes.
All exposed exterior surfaces will be redone, intended to bring the old Carlton
design back to its original look. Finally, we will be constructing a steel-
framed skylight to cover the first floor courtyard in order to illuminate the
various commercial/retail areas.
We believe the project we propose is in keeping with both the original intent of
the building as well as the goals of the Downtown Master Plan revitalization. We
sincerely believe we can provide a project that the community will be proud of,
and we are willing to make the kind of investment necessary to accomplish this.
However, we must be totally up front with the City in saying that this project
cannot be undertaken without the City's cooperation. Specifically, we refer to
the issue of parking. The current parking belonging to the Carlton Hotel is zero
spaces. With the completion of the project we have outlined, we will probably
need somewhere around 48 spaces. (This presupposes that the current requirement
of 1-2 spaces for a one-bedroom apartment witll be reduced either by the Master
Plan or through negotiation and that the current zero allotment required for the
original building related to commercial activity will be grandfathered in as a
legal non-conforming use.)
We must be totally candid with the City in saying that if we have to construct
additional parking area, even to the extent of 48 spaces, the project will become
financially infeasible. We are, therefore, seeking the City's assistance through
its commitment to assure that, at such time as our facility is available for
public use, the downtown area will have sufficient parking spaces necessary to
accommodate any shortfall resulting from the completion of our building. To
this end, we would reference Chapter 4 of the proposed Downtown Master Plan re-
lating to various means to accomplish additional parking, including the extension
of on-street parking on Entrada Avenue, the Traffic Way parking lot now funded
and soon-to-be constructed, the potential for some additional midblock parking
area, etc. With the potential for the adoption of new parking standards for
downtown, which would, hopefully, reduce the ratio of parking throughout the
areal together with the implementation of the various alternatives suggested in
the Master Plan, we would like to believe that this would more than fulfill the
parking requirements for a project like the Carlton Village restoration.
In the event the City believes that our proposal has merit and can see its way
clear to participate in the manner that we have outlined, we would like to ask
that a letter be prepared in behalf of the City Council indicating that the City
will, in fact, ensure that adequate parking will be available for our project
after its completion, scheduled for 1992. With such a commitment, we are con-
fident that the necessary financing for this project can be assured and work
can begin in early 1991.
On behalf of Project owners J sef and Jan nito
1�• W•t t tOAVN S __.
M. William Schott AIA, Architect Prop et, oject Manager
orman J, on Jr. , esi ent
Norman ,_INdrton Construction, Contractor
MEETING O AGENDA -
DATE_.______/9/90 C3 REMJ
M E M O R A N D U M
• To: City Council
From: Ray Windsor, City Manager /'f"
Subject: Pride Days
Date: September 28, 1990
Commencing October 5th and continuing every other Friday thereafter
from 7 a.m. to 9 a.m. , Department Heads will undertake a weed &
debris removal program on and around our major commercial thorough-
fares . This program is a response to the recent editorial by Lon
Allan relating to the condition of some areas of the community and
the negative image it portrays .
Precise details of the program are yet to be finalized, but essen-
tially it will work like this : Anyone wishing to join with the
managerial staff will report to the Headquarters Fire Station at
7 a.m. on each alternate Friday ( in appropriate attire) . Trash
bags and other tools and equipment (gloves , etc . ) , as necessary,
will be dispensed. Then, individuals will report to the assigned
area • for that day which will be identified at the station .
Experience has shown that best results ( at least as far as keeping
• enthusiasm going for the program) occur when people work in pairs;
however, this is strictly a question of -preference .
While two hours may seem a very short time span for any given day,
it must be born in mind that individuals expect to return to work
within a reasonable time frame. More important, though, is the
fact that, psychologically, a too heavy commitment of hours at any
one time can and does lead to an erosion of interest rather quick-
ly.
Our hope is that, through our example, other people will want to
participate in this program, particularly local business people,
service clubs and, of course, other public officials . And I be-
lieve they will if they know that we are serious and willing to
put in time and effort on a consistent basis .
Ultimately, our desire is to generate enough interest and pride
throughout the community that we can establish a more comprehen-
sive, ongoing clean-up program along the lines of the Caltrans
Adopt-a-Freeway Project, except ours would, hopefully, encompass
a block or a neighborhood. In this regard, we would seek the
backing and participation of the local media in order to generate
interest and involvement by the community.
While I am hesitant to make too much out of something like this ,
• at least until we have a pattern established and some tangible
results , I do think it is important for Council to acknowledge the
initiation of the program and give its blessing to our efforts to
show we really do care about our town.
RW:cw
c: Department Heads
Media
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: C-4
Through : Ray Windsor , City Manager Meeting Date: 10/9/90
From: Mark Joseph , Administrative Services Director
SUBJECT: Hearing Date for Mandatory Solid Waste Pick-up .
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Council set a date and time for
a Public Hearing for Mandatory Garbage pickup and related solid
waste issues.
BACKGROUND•
A Public Hearing is needed to allow public comment on the
issues noted above. Given the sensitivity of the issue, a
separate Council Hearing in November is suggested ; alternatively,
the issue could be agendized for the first regular Council
session in November (November 13, 1990 ) .
MEETING AGEN5A -
DAT 10 9 o ITEM N D-1(A)
(Committee
Reports)
ACTION SUMMARY - CITY/SCHOOL COMMITTEE
Thursday, September 27 , 1990 - 1 : 30 p.m.
City Manager' s Office, Room 207
ROLL CALL:
Present were A.U. S .D. Boardmembers Orville Horst & Sue Molle; ,Ernie
Taylor, Business Manager; Dr. Anthony Avina, Superintendent; Coun-
cilmen Bob Nimmo & Rollin Dexter; Henry Engen, Dir. of Community
Development; Greg Luke, Dir. of Public Works; Andy Takata, Dir. of
Parks, Recreation & Zoo; Ray Windsor, City Manager; Supervisor
David Blakely
1 . DARE Program Funding Status : Dr. Avina indicated that all was
well for the current fiscal year. However, he felt that it
would be in everyone' s best interests to review the situation
next March or April, well in advance of the 1990-91 fiscal
year.
2 . Traffic Way/Olmeda Safety Factors : Andy Takata reported that
the improvements seem to be working and his staff will contin-
ue to monitor for the immediate future. The discussion then
turned to the new three-way stop at San Anselmo & Monterey.
It was decided that City staff would also add a row of "Bott' s
dots" as an added warning factor because of the sight dis-
tance . Greg Luke will follow through.
3 . Joint Powers Annual Board Meeting: Andy Takata reported on
the JPA as it relates to the swimming pool, indicating that
overall the program for this summer. was successful and that
he would be getting a wrap-up analysis for the City Council
and School Board. There was some discussion about the need
to begin thinking about either improving the existing pool or
replacing it. Andy will work with Ernie Taylor to develop
some cost estimates to accomplish this .
Dr. Avina raised the issue of additional tennis courts as a
possible joint project. The letter from the Atascadero Tennis
Club was referenced, but it was pointed out by Mr. Taylor
that, even with their contribution, this would nowhere meet
the cost to renovate the four existing courts . Further review
of this issue will also continue.
4 . Community Center Planning: Andy Takata indicated that several
months of attempting to locate a possible site and facility
which could be utilized for this purpose has resulted in a
conclusion that it would not be cost-effective to involve a
site off the school campus . Dr. Avina indicated he agreed
with this, and it was the consensus of the committee that we
should begin the next phase of the project feasibility based
on the assumption that the facility will be on school grounds .
Andy will meet with Ernie Taylor and others, as necessary, to
begin to develop the scope of the facility based upon the
minimum needs of the School District and the community. Once
this is done, we will then be able to project a range of min-
imum/maximum costs .
5 . School District Tax Increase Ballot Measure : Dr. Avina and
Ernie Taylor presented some information related to this
proposed ballot measure in November and underscored the
importance of this item as it could relate to the future
development of a new gymnasium/community center. Later on in
the meeting, the question of fiscal problems came up again,
related primarily to the most recent State budget and the leg-
islation allowing counties to charge an administrative fee for
processing property tax payments . As a result of this , there
was consensus that Councilman Bob Nimmo would contact Senator
Ken Maddy' s office to attempt to arrange a meeting between
representatives of the County, the School District and the six
cities . Ray Windsor indicated that he would work with Mr.
Nimmo and notify everyone involved if and when such a meeting
can be put together.
6 . Letter From Shari Lees Regarding Bussing: Ray Windsor indica-
ted that the City had been copied with this complaint/request
for additional student transportation and asked that Dr. Avina
provide a copy of his response so that it could be distributed
to the City Council .
7 . Creekway Pedestrian Crossing Status : Greg Luke presented
three designs, all based upon a minimum low-profile crossing
which, over a 10-year storm condition, would probably have to
be repaired and/or replaced. Concern was expressed by the
School District about the "attractive nuisance" nature of the
proposed project and whether or not it might create more prob-
lems relating to children than it would solve. Greg was asked
to provide copies of the designs for the School District so
that this could be discussed at the Board level and a recom-
mendation brought back through this committee to the City
Council .
As a companion item, Henry Engen asked if it would be possible
for the School District to consider providing an encroachment
to the bowling alley for the construction of an outside patio
deck. Dr. Avina indicated that this would be reviewed and
that he would get together with Mr. Engen and Gaylen Little
to review the area in question.
8 . Addition of Supervisor Blakely to the City/School Committee :
David Blakely indicated that he was interested in creating an
ongoing dialogue with the School District and the community
and felt that the existing committee would be the vehicle to
accomplish this . It was the consensus of the committee that
Supvr. Blakely would be invited to future meetings and, there-
fore, added to the mailing list.
9 . Adjournment : The next regular meeting of the committee should
be 1 :30 p.m. , Thursday, October 25th. However, it was pointed
out that this week conflicts with the League of California
Cities Annual Conference and the absence of the City Manager.
It was , therefore, suggested that the next regular meeting be
held at 1 : 30 on Thursday, October 18th, in the Superinten-
dent' s Conference Room.
RW:cw
2