HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 04/11/1989 GEORGIA RAMIREZ
DEPUTY CITY CLERK
A G E N D A
ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
ATASCADERO ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
6500 PALMA
FOURTH FLOOR, ROTUNDA ROOM
APRIL 11, 1989
7 :00 P.M.
RULES OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:
* Members of the audience may speak on any item on the agenda.
A person may speak for five ( 5) minutes .
No one may speak for a second time until everyone wishing to
speak has had an opportunity to do so.
No one may speak more than twice on any item.
* Council Members may question any speaker; the speaker may
respond, but, after the allotted time has expired, may not
initiate further discussion.
* The floor will then be closed to public participation and
open for Council discussion.
Call to Order
Pledge of Allegiance
Roll Call
City Council Comment:
* PROCLAMATIONS:
"California Earthquake Preparedness Month" , April 1989
"National Library Week" , April 9-15, 1989
"Tri Counties Small Business Opportunities Day" , April
30, 1989
COMMITTEE REPORTS:
(The following represents ad hoc or standing committees . Infor-
mative status reports will be given, as felt necessary. )
1 . City/School Committee 7 . Finance Committee
2 . North Coastal Transit (Police Fac. , Lake
3 . S .L.O. Area Coordinating Acquis . & Pavilion)
Council 8 . Business Improvement
4 . Traffic Committee Association
5 . Solid/Hazardous Waste Mgmt. 9 . Downtown Steering
Committee Committee
6 . Economic Opportunity Commission
COMMUNITY FORUM:
The City Council values and encourages exchange of ideas and
comments from you, the citizen. The Public Comment Period is
provided to receive comments from the public on matters other
than scheduled agenda items . To increase the effectiveness of
Community Forum, the following rules will be enforced:
* A maximum of 30 minutes will be allowed for Community Forum,
unless Council authorizes an extension.
* All remarks shall be addressed to Council, as a whole, and
not to any individual member thereof.
* No person shall be permitted to make slanderous, profane or
personal remarks against any Council Member or staff.
* Any person desiring to submit written statements to the
Council may do so by forwarding nine (9) copies to the City
Clerk by 5 : 00 p.m. on the Wednesday preceding the Council
Meeting.
A. CONSENT CALENDAR:
All matters listed under Item A, Consent Calendar, are considered
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
reviewed and acted upon separately after the adoption of the Con-
sent Calendar.
1. MARCH 28, 1989 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
2. RESOLUTION NO. 21-89 - ADOPTING THE S.L.O. COUNTY & INCOR-
PORATED CITIES HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
B. HEARINGS/APPEARANCES:
1. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 24-88 - 8005 San Gabriel Rd. (Kenney/
Stewart) : Request to subdivide two existing lots of 9 .35
ac. total into three parcels containing 2 . 50, 2 . 50 and 4 . 35
ac. each
2. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 1-89 - 8625 Atascadero Ave. (Iverson/
Central Coast Engineering) : Request to subdivide 13 . 9 ac.
into twenty-one ( 21) parcels of approximately 1/2 ac . each.
The request includes establishment of two new City standard
roads to serve the subdivision: Via Tortuga and Calle
Refugio.
BREAK
2
C. REGULAR BUSINESS:
1. TREE ORDINANCE REVISION: REFERRAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION
(Cont'd from 3/28/89)
2 . FUNDING COMMUNITY AGENCY REQUESTS
3. SENATOR ROBBINS REQUEST FOR COUNCIL LETTER OF ENDORSEMENT-
SB 103
D. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION/AND OR ACTION:
1 . City Council:
A. Summary of sub-committee meetings (Mayor Borgeson)
2 . City Attorney
3. City Clerk
4 . City Treasurer
5 . City Manager:
A. League of CA Cities Annual Workshop & Quarterly Meet-
ing, Friday, May 5, 1989, Solvang
COUNCIL WILL ADJOURN TO A JOINT MEETING WITH THE CITY' S PLANNING
AND PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSIONS ON THURSDAY, APRIL 13, 1989,
AT 7 :00 P.M. IN THE FOURTH FLOOR ROTUNDA ROOM FOR DISCUSSION
REGARDING THE GENERAL PLAN. SAID MEETING IS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.
3
P R O C L A M A T I O N
"CALIFORNIA EARTHQUAKE PREPAREDNESS MONTH"
April, 1989
WHEREAS, the State of California continues to experience
significant seismic activity, thus posing a threat of earthquakes
with damaging intensities; and
WHEREAS, Governor George Deukmejian has declared April as
California Earthquake Preparedness Month and urges all citizens,
businesses and industries, schools, civic and volunteer organi-
zations to "BEAT THE QUAKE" ; and
WHEREAS, the loss of life and property can be greatly
reduced if appropriate earthquake preparedness measures are taken
before, during and after a damaging quake; and
WHEREAS, these lifesaving procedures will be highlighted
during the month of April as the Governor' s Office of Emergency
Services, with the assistance of governmental agencies, service
organizations, educational institutions, major corporations and
Neighborhood watch groups, provide earthquake safety information
and education to citizens throughout the state; and
WHEREAS, the measures presented in the "BEAT THE QUAKE"
campaign should increase public awareness regarding proper pro-
edures to follow during a tremor; and
WHEREAS, this important earthquake safety information should
be studied and observed throughout the year in order to reduce
injuries, loss of life and property damage during an earthquake;
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Atascadero does
hereby proclaim April, 1989 as
CALIFORNIA EARTHQUAKE PREPAREDNESS MONTH
and encourages all citizens to increase their knowledge and
awareness of proper safety measures to follow before, during and
after an earthquake.
BONITA BORGESON, Mayor
City of Atascadero, CA
Dated: April 11 , 1989
P R O C L A M A T I O N
"NATIONAL LIBRARY WEEK"
April 9-15, 1989
WHEREAS, we are fortunate to have the excellent library
facilities that are available and convenient for our use in this
community; and
WHEREAS, in books are stored the accumulated wisdom of the
ages, and the individual who does not read has very little
advantage over the person who cannot read; and
WHEREAS, a special week of activities has been planned at
the County Branch Library in Atascadero which will be open to the
public;
NOW, THEREFORE, I hereby proclaim the week of April 9-15,
1989, "National Library Week" in Atascadero and urge all citizens
to visit the library during this special time to acquaint them-
selves with the many fine services offered.
BONITA BORGESON, Mayor
Dated: 4/11/89
•
P R O C L A M A T I O N
"TRI COUNTIES SMALL BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES DAY"
June 6 , 1989
WHEREAS, business enterprise has been a vital part of this
Nation' s way of life from its very beginning; and
WHEREAS, the Tri-Counties Purchasing Outreach Network, cov-
ering Santa Barbara, Ventura and San Luis Obispo Counties, a
non-profit organization structured to encourage the growth of
Small, Disadvantaged and Women-owned business in our communities,
is holding a Small Business Opportunity Day at the Ventura
County Fairgrounds on June 6, 1989; and
WHEREAS, business entrepreneurship in Atascadero, as
throughout California, is the gateway to opportunity for all in
the free enterprise system and the means by which many of us
continue to build a better life for ourselves and our families;
and
WHEREAS, small business is especially suited to our Atasca-
dero way of life by virtue of its vitality, scale and minimal
demand for public resources; and
WHEREAS, the Tri-Counties Small Business Opportunity Day
will provide a forum for these outstanding businesses to inter-
face with their counterparts in majority Corporate America in an
ongoing effort to develop purchases;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Bonita Borgeson, Mayor of the City of
Atascadero, California, do hereby proclaim June 6th, 1989, as
SMALL BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES DAY
in our City and urge all Atascaderans to thank the local busi-
nesses for their contributions to our community and for their
sponsorship of this worthy event.
BONITA BORGESON, Mayor
City of Atascadero, CA
. Dated: April 11 , 1989
Tri-Copies Purchasing Outreach etwork
P.O.Box 2207•Goleta,California 93118
i
MAKE IT HAPPEN
March 6, 1989
l
The Honorable Bonita Borgenson
Mayor of Atascadero
6500 Palma
Atascadero, CA 93422
Dear Mayor Borgenson:
The Tri-Counties Purchasing Outreach N , ering Santa Barbara, Ventura
and San Louis Obispo counties is ho ing a Small siness Opportunity Day
at the Ventura County Fairgrounds n June 6, 1989.
The outreach network is a non-profit organization structured to encourage
the growth of Small, Disadvantaged and Women-owned business in our
communities.
It would be appreciated if the mayor and city council would join our
endeavor and send a letter of proclamation to support the June 6
event. We would like to include your proclamation in our program to
be given to seventy (70) exhibitors and approximately one thousand
(1000) guests who will attend.
Attached is a brochure describing our organization and an example of a
proclamation from a past event.
Please submit your document to the following address by April 15th:
Mary Weaver, Small Business Administrator
Delco Systems Operations
6767 Hollister Avenue
Goleta, CA 93117
If there are any questions, please contact me at 805-961-5717.
Sincerely,
DELCO SYSTEMS OPERATIONS
Mary Weaver
Chairman, Public Relations
Tri-Counties Purchasing
Outreach Network
Attachments
Sponsored by the local business communities.
For information call(805)961-4073 or 961-5717
MEETly ' AGENOA f
DA�c E
ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES
MARCH 28, 1989
The regular meeting of the Atascadero City Council was called to
order by Mayor Borgeson at 7:05 p .m. , followed by the Pledge of
Allegiance.
ROLL CALL:
Full Council Present : Councilmembers Dexter , Lilley, Mackey,
Shiers and Mayor Borgeson
Staff Present : Paul Sensibaugh , Public Works Director ; Henry
Engen, Director of Community Development ; Mark Joseph , Director
of Administrative Services; Jeff Jorgensen, City Attorney; Bud
McHale, Police Chief, Andy Takata, Director of Parks, Recreation
and Zoo; and Boyd Sharitz , City Clerk .
COMMITTEE REPORTS:
City/School Committee: Councilman Dexter reported that there is a
meeting scheduled for this Friday, March 31 .
S.L.O. Area Coordinating Council : Mayor Borgeson stated that they
will be meeting the latter part of this month .
Traffic Committee: Councilwoman Mackey said that a man asked that
Halcon Road be moved but was rejected because it cost too much
money and really wouldn ' t serve the park .
Solid/Hazardous Waste Mgt. Committee: Councilwoman Mackey said
this will be discussed later on tonight .
Economic Opportunity Commission: Councilman Dexter said that he
was unable to attend the meeting last Thursday.
Finance Committee: City Manager Ray Windsor said that he was
hoping to have a meeting this week before Councilman Shiers has
to return back to school , possibly Thursday.
Downtown Steering Committee: Mayor Borgeson reported that they
are meeting on Wednesday, March 29 from 3-6 p .m.
COMMUNITY FORUM:
George Luna, Planning Commissioner , stated that since the joint
meeting on the Tree Ordinance he has been asked many times on the
status of the text amendments to the Tree Ordinance. His reply
has been always the same. He then quoted the zoning ordinance on
text amendments. "The Planning Commission shall hold a public
hearing on any proposed text amendment to this title of the
zoning ordinance. It has done that . The purpose of the hearing
shall be to receive testimony from parties interested in the
proposed text . To consider the recommendations of the Planning
Director , it has done that and to adopt a recommendation to the
City Council and it has not done that . The Planning Commission
shall submit a written recommendation to the City Council on the
proposed amendment setting forth findings in support of the
recommendation. It has not done that. Upon receipt under the
City Council notice and hearing, upon receipt of the
recommendation of the Planning Commission the City Council shall
hold a public hearing after giving the necessary public notice.
The City Council may approve, modify or disapprove the
recommendation of the Planning Commission, as yet there has been
none. Provided that any modification of a proposed text
amendment by the City Council not previously considered by the
Planning Commission shall first be referred to the Planning
Commission for a report and recommendation. As yet there is no
written recommendation to refer to. Thus it was a surprise to
him to see on the agenda tonight a report on the Tree Ordinance
with the expectation "to hopefully get final conceptual approval
to bring back an ordinance for first reading before the Council .
Say it isn' t so , show us that the City ' s Ordinance will always be
followed and send this matter back to the Planning Commission for
its written recommendation" .
A. CONSENT CALENDAR:
1 . March 14, 1989 City Council Minutes
2. RESOLUTION NO. 1-89 - ADOPTING BOARD OF APPEALS RULES OF
PROCEDURE
3. REQUEST FOR SEWER ANNEXATION (KESTERMAN - DULZURA AVENUE)
4. CLAIM OF VERNON GRAY (RECOMMEND DENIAL)
5. REQUEST FOR SPONSORSHIP - ATASCADERO COMMUNITY BAND
City Manager, Ray Windsor, asked that Item 5 be pulled and asked
that Council give consideration tonight to give support or
sponsorship to the band , and then referring the item back to
staff so that it can be brought back to the Council as part of
the budget review.
MOTION: By Councilman Lilley, seconded by Councilwoman Mackey
to approve Items A 1-5 with the recommendation from the
City Manager that the Council officially recognize the
Atascadero Community Band and refer to staff for the
financial consideration at budget time. Passed
unanimously by roll call vote.
2
B. HEARINGS/APPEARANCES:
1 . HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
Tim Mazzacano , Director of Environmental Health with the San
Luis Obispo County Division of Environmental Health, County
Health Department reported that the San Luis Obispo County
Hazardous Waste Management Plan was developed in response to
the Tanner Bill. The Hazardous Waste Commission with County
staff have been working on the plan since July 1987. Marge
Mackey is the City of Atascadero representative on the
Hazardous Waste Management Commission. Throughout the
process the public has been encouraged to participate. A
public hearing was held on the draft plan before the council
last spring . All of the comments received from the public ,
the city councils and the state on the draft plan were
considered in the development of the final plan. Seven
copies of the final plan were delivered to the City of
Atascadero in November . The draft environmental impact
report for the plan was available for comment from October
to December . A copy of the final impact report which
includes responses to all of the comments received on the
draft environmental impact report was delivered to the city
the end of February. The EIR identified an environmentally
superior alternative which modified the general areas
identified in the chapter 9 of the plan. There are no
general citing areas within the City of Atascadero . The
environmental alternative was approved by the Hazardous
Waste Management Commission and appears in the changes and
corrections. The changes and corrections also identify
changes for internal consistency, changes to update the
information, correction of spelling and grammar and omitted
information. Approval of the plan will provide the county
and the cities within the county with the greatest degree of
local control of citing of hazardous waste management
facilities and implementation of the plan will bring about
waste management programs and policies which will benefit
the environment including a household hazardous waste
program. They have received approval from the cities of
Morro Bay, Paso Robles, San Luis Obispo , Pismo Beach , Arroyo
Grande and Grover City. They anticipate the county board of
supervisors will hold their hearing on the final plan on
April 18th . Ms. Corliss of the Division of Environmental
Health staff is present to answer any questions council may
have.
Mayor Borgeson asked if the City does not approve the plan,
will the state mandate it? Mr . Mazzacano responded the plan
is submitted for approval to the State and the State can
either approve or disapprove the plan. If the State does
not choose to approve the plan, we can still have a locally
3
approved plan but they plan to work with the cities. The
plan is to the benefit of all .
Cathy Corliss said the State is going to develop a State
Hazardous Waste Management Plan. That will incorporate
conflicts from all the counties. If there isn' t a County
Waste Management Plan she isn ' t sure where that leaves us
with the State Hazardous Management Plan.
Council discussion followed.
Mayor Borgeson asked Paul Sensibaugh, Public Works Director
if he would prepare a condensed report from the two large
reports that the Council has received. Mr . Sensibaugh said
he would prepare this for the Council before the next
scheduled Council meeting .
2. CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL BY DON MESSER OF PLANNING COMMISSION
DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 12-88 (Kentucky Fried
Chicken, 6900 El Camino Real ) .
Henry Engen, Community Development Director , gave the staff
report recommending approval with the project re-designed to
eliminate the drive thru reversing the site plan to put the
restaurant on the creek and eliminating the tower roof
sign.
Council discussion followed.
Mayor Borgeson opened the subject for public comment .
Paul Geis, attorney for Mr . Messer and O.C. Crothers stated
they are seeking a conditional use permit from the City for
signage only which is in excess of the standards prescribed
by signing provisions of the city' s zoning ordinance for a
drive through restaurant . This is the only entitlement for
which they seek . The notice of public hearing is consistent
with that request . It says that they are appealing the
planning commission ' s denial of a conditional use permit
request to allow for signage in excess of 100 square feet
including a freeway sign for a restaurant . Also the staff
report is consistent with that request for entitlement in
that it notes that this is a public hearing on a conditional
use permit involving a request for signage in excess of
zoning ordinance standards for a drive through restaurant .
This becomes important because the staff reports in the past
have mislead the Planning Commission as to the issues before
them with regard to this application and he intends to show
Council the errors in that staff analysis. Initially the
applicants only seek the use permit for signage and not a
use permit for the overall projects, just the single feature
of a use permit for signage which is peculiar the signing
4
s �►
provisions in the city ' s ordinance. The signage they are
seeking a variance from is the freeway signage (freeway
identification sign) and signage that is in excess of 100
square feet . Those provisions are found in the signing
provisions of the zoning ordinance in section 9-4. 130. They
have thrown in zoning law consistency including the need for
a conditional use permit which is not necessary. They have
thrown in general plan consistency which is not appropriate
or necessary, creek plan consistency which is part of the
city ' s general plan which is not necessary for what
entitlement is being sought this evening. The overall
project as applied for is in fact consistent with the City ' s
zoning ordinance, the city 's general plan and the creekway
plan. There is no requirement that the council make
findings as to those consistencies for the conditional use
permit which they seek for signage only. Regarding the
zoning ordinance, staff indicated that this is CR commercial
retail zone. There is no provision in the city' s zoning
ordinance that has a sub-category for central business
district retail zone. It is just a CR commercial retail
zone that is prescribed in section 9-3.221 of the zoning
ordinance. It states that the purpose of this zone is to
-provide for a wide range of commercial uses to accommodate
most of the retail and service needs of the residents of the
city and surrounding areas. Allowable uses 9-3.222 reads:
in the commercial retail zone includes general merchandise
stores, offices, eating and drinking places. There is no
restriction whatsoever as to drive through restaurants, it
just states eating and drinking places. 9-3.223 are uses
that require a use permit , and they do not fall under any of
those uses. This project does not require an overall use
permit for restaurant and the offices and stores which they
are proposing . 9-3.224 says there shall be no minimum lot
size in the commercial retail zone.
Deborah Hallowell, from Cuesta Engineering spoke regarding
the history of the development of the site plan and
addressed the conditions and the signing issues that have
been brought up.
Council questions and discussion followed.
Jerry Bond said he believed that the plan is excellent and
the drive through is well hidden. He hoped the Council would
approve it tonight because it is an excellent project .
Dorothy McNeil asked if there are any windows or doors on
the retail stores on the creekside. Ms. Hallowell responded
that there are three windows, three doors and a patio . Mrs.
McNeil then asked about where the trash receptacles would
be. Ms. Hallowell pointed out where the trash dumpsters
would be placed . She believes the Council should say no to
5
this project .
Keith Higgens, Traffic Engineer, stated this is a good
project .
O.C. Crothers, one of the applicants, asked the Council for
their support . Without the drive thru it becomes an
economic non-feasibility. They did a traffic count last
month at the Paso Robles store and 49% of their customers
went through the drive-thru.
Terry Graham suggested that the Kentucky Fried Chicken
people look into the vacant building that was formerly Del
Taco because they had a drive-thru.
At this time Mayor Borgeson closed the discussion for public
comment.
Jeff Jorgensen referenced Section 9.2. 108 (b ) (2) ( iv) of
zoning ordinance wherein precise plans are subject to the
same findings as CUP ' s.
Council discussion and questions followed .
Mayor Borgeson noted that page 3 of the 11-15-88 staff
report pointed out the findings necessary for a precise
plan. Henry Engen indicated staff would not have made the
necessary findings.
Don Messer stated that he feels that he has a good project
and has tried to change it to get approval . If the Council
wants a walk-way around the creek that would be fine. He is
looking for some direction from the council . He wanted to
thank the Council for their time on this project.
Mayor Borgeson responded to Mr . Messer that at this point
Council couldn ' t give him specific suggestions on what to do
on this project , but staff has some conditions of approval
that they felt that. project could be approved with the
conditions before the council and with the architectural
changes and this going back to the Planning Commission,
perhaps and working with them, you may come up with what you
want and the city wants.
MOTION: Made by Mayor Borgeson, seconded by Councilman Shiers
to direct staff to send conditional use permit 12-88
back to the Planning Commission with the recommendation
for approval subject to conditions of approval as
outlined in the Council packet of March 28th with the
addition of condition 15 "developer shall provide an
access easement through the project to the creek
reservation. " Passed unanimously by roll call vote.
6
At 9: 15 p.m. Mayor Borgeson requested a 15 minute recess. The
meeting reconvened at 9:30 p .m.
3. HERITAGE TREE REMOVAL REQUEST (Lot 18, Block 43, Atascadero
Colony - Rayar , Millhollin/Tartaglia)
Staff report was given by Henry Engen, Community Development
Director .
Council questions and discussion followed.
Mayor Borgeson opened the discussion for public comment .
Glen Millhollin said this tree is 25 or 30 inches and is not
one of the most beautiful trees. This lot has quite a few
trees on it and in order to get sufficient grading to build
the house you need to level some spot and the only thing
that they can do is to take the top of the hill and level it
out . The slope is too steep to put in a septic system in
any other location.
Mayor Borgeson closed for public comment .
Council discussion followed.
MOTION: Made by Mayor Borgeson, seconded by Councilman
Shiers to deny the applicant ' s removal of this
Heritage tree. Passed 3:2 roll call vote with
Councilmen Lilley and Dexter voting no.
Mayor Borgeson told Mr . Millhollin it is suggested that he
consult with staff and find out what possible alternatives
he may face at this point .
Mr . Millhollin asked what suggestions staff might make at
this point . He had engineers do this work for him and he
doesn ' t know where to go next , he wished he had some advise
from the Council , this is devastating .
4. ORDINANCE NO. 192 - ADOPTING POLICY FOR THE FINANCIAL
RECOVERY OF COSTS OF EMERGENCY RESPONSES PURSUANT TO
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 53150, ET SEQ
Bud McHale, Police Chief, gave the staff report .'
Council discussion followed .
Mayor Borgeson asked for public comment at this time.
Whitey Thorpe said this piece of legislation that the police
department would like to have in their hands would be
7
placing in the hands of the law enforcement a hammer to
knock any citizen down that he so happens to choose. This
is going a little bit too far, and the police department
should be ashamed to ask for such a piece of legislation be
bought before the council .
MOTION: By Councilman Lilley, seconded by Councilwoman Mackey
to refer this back to the Police Department for
revisions in line with the Council comments that have
been given and bring back to the Council for further
consideration. Specially that there needs to be
modification as to when and what act , be it conviction
vs arrest triggers the recovery effort and also a
monitoring time to insure that this is cost effective
over a 6 or 8 month period. Passed unanimously.
C. REGULAR BUSINESS:
1 . DOWNTOWN STEERING COMMITTEE ' S RECOMMENDATION RE: CONSULTANT
FOR DOWNTOWN MASTER PLAN CONTRACT
Staff report was given by Henry Engen, Community Development
Director .
Council discussion followed .
There was no public comment .
MOTION: By Councilman Dexter , seconded by Councilwoman Mackey
authorize the City Manager and Mayor to execute the
attached contract not to exceed $28,800. Passed
unanimously by roll call vote.
2. CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST TO INITIATE ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT
RE: NON-CONFORMING LOT DEVELOPMENT (ZC 3-89, Williams)
Staff report was given by Henry Engen, Community Development
Director .
Council discussion followed .
There was no public comment .
MOTION: By Councilman Dexter , seconded by Councilman Lilley to
instruct staff to prepare a zoning text amendment to
to allow development for non-conforming uses or
structures subject to CUP approval and selective
findings. Passed unanimously.
3. APPEAL OF DISCIPLINARY ACTION (Officer Eric Schlerf)
Staff report was given by City Manager , Ray Windsor .
8
There will be a closed session on Friday, March 31 , 1989 at
4 p .m. to discuss this item with Council in a closed session
for personnel matters. Councilwoman Mackey will be out of
town so Mr . Windsor will meet with her on Thursday to go
over the issues and to set a date for the hearing .
Tonight ' s meeting will be adjourned to this closed session
on March 31 , at 4 p.m.
4 . ARBOR DAY TREE PLANTING
Staff report was given by Andy Takata, Parks, Recreation and
Zoo Director .
Following discussion by Council it was decided that the tree
should be planted in the City parking lot .
5. DISCUSSION RE: SKATEBOARDING
Staff report was given by Ray Windsor , City Manager . He
suggested that Council refer this to the Parks and
Recreation Commission to allow them to hold a form of
hearing . Also it will be discussed as part of the
subcommittee meeting with the School District on Friday.
There was no public comment .
MOTION: By Councilwoman Mackey, seconded by Mayor Borgeson to
refer this to the Parks and Recreation Commission with
a recommendation to the City Council . Passed
unanimously.
D. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION/AND OR ACTION:
1 . CITY COUNCIL
a. Tree Ordinance revisions - set public hearing date
City Manager Ray Windsor gave the staff report .
Mayor Borgeson stated that she would like this item
continued to the next regular council meeting and put
on as a regular agenda item.
MOTION: By Councilman Lilley, seconded by Councilwoman Mackey
to continue this item to the next regular council
meeting . Passed unanimously.
Mayor Borgeson asked when items go out to bid in the city,
such as the pavilion, is there any way that we can have our
local contractors have a better chance at getting a bid
awarded to them?
9
City Attorney Jeff Jorgensen said it isn' t easy to put
something in for local preference but will look into it .
Paul Sensibaugh , Public Works Director, reminded Council
that we adopted what we call a cost accounting bid
procedures through the State Controller ' s Office.
Meeting adjourned at 11 p.m. to a closed session on Friday, March
31 at 4:00 p .m. for discussion of personnel matters.
MINUTES RECORDED BY:
BOYD C. SHARITZ, CITY CLERK
PREPARED BY:
GEORGIA RAMIREZ, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
10
gar ITEM!
MEMORANDUM
TO: Citv Council
THROUGH: Rav Windsor . Citv Manaaer
FROM: Paul Sensibauah , Director of Public Works
Valerie Humphrey , Clerical Technician
SUBJECT : San Luis Obispo County Hazardous Waste
Management Plan (Resolution No. 21-89)
DATE: April 4 . 1989
This Plan was developed by San Luis Obispo Countv in
response to AB 2948 (Tanner . 1986) . AB '*948 was enacted to
address the hazardous waste problems at the local level . The
purpose of AB 2948 is to do the following:
* Reduce the generation of hazardous waste to the maximum
extent feasible;
* Provide the public , industrv , and local government with
the information needed to take rational steps to
minimize . recycle , treat . dispose , and otherwise manage
hazardous waste in California ;
* Provide the basis for vlannina adequate hazardous waste
management facility capacity ;
* Determine the current arid estimated future hazardous
waste c{eneration rate . P_ro,iect the need for facilities
to manage this waste . arid establish a workable system
to pro-,Tide the sites for needed facilities ;
* Insure that : counties and cities conduct local and
regional efforts to assess the needs for . and plan
for , the establishment of local and recional hazardous
waste treatment and disposal facilities needed to manage
hazardous waste aenerated in their. jurisdictions :
* Insure that all local governments consider the
feasibility and appropriateness of indentifvina
suitable general areas for treatment and disposal
facilities in their general Plans .
Due to chances in State and Federal regulation_ , a disposal
crisis is imminent . New regulations call for a prohibition on
the disposal of untreated hazardous waste to landfills by Mav 8 ,
1990 .
• •
San Luis Obispo Countv does not generate enough hazardous
waste to support any of the seven (7) generalized treatment
facilities . but the total waste produced within the Countv for
all treatment methods may be sufficient to support the operation
of a small scale transfer station . Such a transfer station
could collect and temporarily store hazardous waste , prior to
its shipment to other recvcling or treatment facilities .
The pian uses siting criteria to identify General areas
within Sari Luis Obispo Countv that may be suitable for hazardous
waste treatment storage and disposal facilities . This plan
emphasizes a hierarchv of hazardous waste management techniques
for existing and new industries . The hierarchv emphasizes
source reduction as the best possible solution to the hazardous
waste problem, with onsite recycling . offsite treatment as the
best possible solutions . respectively .
Since the adoption of a hazardous waste management plan is
an exercise of discretionary judgement by affected local
Jurisdictions , an EIR has been prepared as a part of the plan
review process .
Education will pian a major role in improving hazardous
waste manacrement . Education can foster the safe use and
disposal of hazardous waste in Sar, Luis Obispo when no
alternatives are available . Involvement and support from local
residents and business are crucial to the success of hazardous
waste manacrement in the future . The term "Fair Share" denotes
that each Countv is responsible for the disposition of its own
waste : that is . responsible for its fair share of waste
manacrement .
The term "Hazardous Waste Facilities" encompasses several
different tvpes of management options . The three (3) basic
types of facilities discussed include :
1 - Transfer and storage facilities ;
2 - Treatment facilities : and
- Residual retiositories for treated residues .
Transfer and storage facilities serve as a collection
station for small quantities of waste , combining like wastes
when the auantities become large enoucrh to be economically
snipped to a treatment or recyclinc_r facility . The size of the
individual transfer station would depend upon the estimated
vC). ume of hazardous waste that could be realistically
accommodated at that location .
Transfer stations typically consist of tanks and warehouse-
s ty .e transfer buildincrs . which could be designed to be
compatible in urban-industrial settings .
Treatment facilities and processes encompass mechanisms for
alterina the toxicity, chemical form, or volume of waste.
Treatment processes are generally designed to accomplish
one of three things :
1 - Transforming hazardous waste, by destruction or
detoxification , into a material safe for disposal ;
2 - Concentration or volume reduction facilitatincr the
safe handling_ and disposal of the hazardous
components :
3 - Immobilizing, which isolates the hazardous components
from the environment , with solidification and
stabilization processes being the two most common
forms of immobilization . r
Residuals Repositories are locations for long term storage
of the by-products of treated hazardous waste , for which there
is no further treatment . The residual repositories should be
visible to the public . The actual land area recruired depends
upon the volume of waste accepted annually .
A final Hazardous Waste Management Plan Environmental
Impact Report was prepared and submitted in February 1989. The
"Project" evaluated the entire San Luis Obispo County Hazardous
Waste Management Plan , as well as focusing on the eicrht (8)
general studv areas within San Luis Obispo County that could
potentialiv be used for the development of hazardous waste
treatment , storage , or disposal facilities .
The Countv Hazardous Waste Management Plan (CHWMP) text and
map (refer to map Exhibit A) were modified to conform with the
environmentally superior alternatives (refer to map_ Exhibit B)
identified in the final Environmental Impact Report :
Study Area . 1 oriainally consisted of approximately 12
square miles in . the northeastern corner of the County . the
area forms a triangle . bounded by Highwav 41 on the north ,
Highway 46 on the south and the Kern County -Line on the east .
(refer to Exhibit Al
This Studv Area has been reduced in size to include only
the central-western portion (approximately 450 acres) where the
topoa_ raphv is more level and where lands are located outside
the 10I:)-year flood plan , and restrictions to repositories or
treatment facilities (e . g. incinerators') only , due to its
distance from urbanized area, . The CHWIIIP could later be amended
to allow storage:+._ransfer facilities it future development in
the area results in the need for such a facility . (refer to
Exhibit B)
Study Areas 2 and 3 originally consisted of 40 square
miles , located in southern San Luis Obispo County , on the north
bank of the Cu_vama River and 21 square miles . located in the far
south end of San Luis Obispo County , south of Highway 166 and
approximately 5 miles east of Highway 1 . (refer to Exhibit A)
Both Areas 2 and 3 have been eliminated from the proposed
general areas due to geologic , hvdrologic , and topographic
constraints (Study Area 2) , access limitations due to existing
traffic and/or road conditions (Study Area 2) , distance from the
urbanized areas of the county where hazardous; astes are
generated (Study Areas 2 and 3) and proximity to 'ura .ized area
(Santa Maria) which could be affected by toxic i omissions
(Study Area 3) (refer to Exhibit B),
Study Area 4 is approximately 140 acres in size . It is
south of the San Luis Obispo City Limits in the immediate
vicinity of the San Luis Obispo Airport . (refer to Exhibit A)
Hiahwav 227 is the major entrance road to the City of San Luis
Obispo . Study Area 4 has been modified to restrict usage to
storaQeltransfer facilities only due to the proximity to
residential areas .
Study Area 5 originally consisted of approximately 2 . 330
acres . It is located south of the community of Oceano and west
of Nipomo. Highway 1 passes through this study area . (refer to
Exhibit A)
The size of Study Area 5 has been reduced to approximately
1 . 090 acres to include the eastern -portion and to restrict tree
use to storage facilities only . (refer to Exhibit B )
Study Area 6 is located approximately four miles northeast
of the City of Paso Robles and just north of Hicrhwav 46 (refer
to Exhibit A) The study area encompasses the Paso Robles
Municipal Airport and is approximately 2 ,770 acres in size .
Study Area 6 has been modified to restrict usacxe to
storacreltransfer facilities on1v due to the proximit•', to
residential areas .
Study Area• 7 consists of about 100 acres located
approximately nine miles east of Paso Robles , at the existing
City of Paso Robles landfill site immediately north of Hicrhway
46 . (refer to Exhibit Ai
Study Area 8 is the area of and around the Cold Canyon
Landfill which is currently being used for solid waste
disposal . (refer to Exhibit A) Access for this approximately
120 acre study area is provided by State Route 227 .
Study Areas 7 and 6 have been modified to restrict usasge
to storaae%transfer facilities only . cue to their current use as
landfills , isolation from other industrial areas , and easy
accessibility from urbanized portions of San Luis Obisvo County
(via Highways 101 . 46' and 227) .
• •
Fiscal Analvsis :
The followina_ are suaaested fundincr options for local
jurisdictions to pursue in an effort to implement household
hazardous waste management programs .
1 . County-Wide Tax Assessment District Establishing a county-
wide tax assessment district would provide a source of income
through assessment of property taxes on residential property . A
special tax assessment required approval by 2/3 majority of the
voters and the assessment is determined by the benefit received
by each parcel .
2 . Increased Refuse Collection Fees AB 1809 (Tanner . 1985)
authorizes local jurisdictions to increase solid waste
collection fees in order to fund the establishment , publicity ,
and maintenance of household hazardous waste collection events .
This may either be done by assessing each refuse collection
company based on the total number of accounts . residential and
commerical . or based onlv on the residential accounts .
Residential garbage accounts only include single dwelling: multi-
unit dwellings such as apartments and condominiums are
classified as commercial accounts .
If a county-wide system of household hazardous waste
collection programs is not established. cities within the county
may utilize this fundincr mechanism in order to establish their
own programs .
3 . Increased Solid Waste Landfill Fees This fundina option
would add a surcharge to landfill tipping fees for commerical
and private vehicles .
4 . Grants AE 2448 (Fastin . 1987) will provide State funding
for HHW proarams . Guidelines and applications will be available
for State grants around July of 1989 . The State grants will be
available in late 1989 to early 1990 . Additional a_rants ma_v
become available .
5 . Public/Private Donations and In-Kind Contributions (of
Labor . Materials and/or Equipment) . Costs associated with a
household collection program can be substantially reduced
through the cooperation and financial support of business and
civic groups .
6 . General Fund This can include funding from the general tax
revenue of an incorporated city or a county or a combination of
monies from cxeneral funds from both incorporated cities and
county .
• •
7 . Toxic Substances Fee or State Excise Tax Such a fee or tax
could be imposed on household products containing toxic
chemicals . The monies could be used to finance safe disposal of
HHW. The disposal costs would then be paid by those who profit
from the use of such Products .
Decisions on funding will not be made upon approval of the
Plan , but will be considered at a later time.
o M : F (n
el
z a
01,
_ �+ N W r•a p �-•-1•
Cf) -+ cn W z co
cn r` �• • '•
p W F" a z w I-, In �- N
Z Z a w to
w V. 3 V1 Q
cn
- .! 1. ,, I•y I+ � 'Z, r+ ! ,ts., J
j 1 �• � 'tom + � :����t J .•� •'{' h W
• ' ` a ` ' I II'�` / '�" 1. cn
fill
a.
Nr
it
it
it .1cn
fit. c
00
IF z
It
uj
' � I '� 1 '.• .y c ' 1 I �u I Q E"
1:• 1 -n'��. , rt� i,' i�'` _ �I � Ill = N
Zl.- I I• -� tf �1 +
•• �`. r . '� tiff 1 J Q
i f It 4-
,.. . i s 9- 19
� y � r
t
i 1 �
CD
Wm
w �•� W
Q� Qa LLJ_
Nk 1 JO to �� b ��- . �_ Z J
,Q p h¢ 'a Ow cc m _ J
Qz Ox
WQ Ww � n .i ./ w F-
ZN n ♦ 1 ' - 2 W
wQ J1 moo, .� • to
W
tat q v � u •-� � � Q
Zr
/ z
I W w
3 t r
"4•
Z
'r- o w
CO
-� ,.f at ► �r , W
Z Z to J
Q Q
IM z
d p I.L.
_ �• ��.. � , � ` fit til w
W
iW p .
` t f Z O
Sw
= i Q W
Z 5 O W U.
Q
aj
CC > W
L'.( -,_r' CL c = w
4L CO F-
Ito
_rte t Q N Q
O N
•' ' - ` Y ' a Q W
` �' J Q Q
W N Q Q
Cn Cr-
Q �- W w
WCr-
~ Z CL
/.A •J
4 "=
• F
Attachment A
9-]9
RESOLUTION NO. 21-89
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ATA SCADERO AUSPTING THE SAN LUIS OBI SPC COUNTY
AND INCORPORATED CITIES HAZARDOUS WASTE
MANAGEMENT PLAN
WHEREAS , the safe and responsible rrianaaement of
hazardous waste is one of the most important environmental
Problems facing the State and local jursidictions at the
present time ; and
WHEREAS , effective management of hazardous waste is
critical to the protection of public Health , the
environment, and economic growth ; and
WHEREAS , if environmentally sound hazardous waste
facilities are not available to effectively manage the
hazardous waste produced by industry , economic activity
will be hampered and cannot prosper , public health and the
environment will be threatened by increased illegal
disposal . and the use of outmoded disposal practices will
continue ; and
WHEREAS , effective management of hazardous waste
requires expanded and strengthened programs for source
reduction , recycling , and onsite treatment , as Preferable
to siting of new land disposal facilities ; and
WHEREAS , all local communities in the state must be
willing to share the burden of hazardous waste management
and that all local crovernments shall consider the
feasibility and appropriateness of identifying suitable
sites for treatment and disposal facilities within the
CHWMP;
WHEREAS , after providing public notice , a lecal public
hearincr on this matter was held by the Citv of Atascadero
at the hour avvointed for such hearings on March '2'4 , 198-19 :
and
Resolution No. 21*
Page two
WHEREAS , the Atascadero City Council has considered
all written and oral testimony . and has reviewed and
considered theinformation contained in the final
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) .
NOW. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Atascad.ero City
Council 'hereby approves the CHWI°iP. On the following roll
call vote :
AYES :
NOES :
ABSENT
ADOPTED:
ATTEST :
BOYD C . SHARITZ . City Clerk BONITA BORGESON. Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
JEFFREY G. JORGENSEN PAUL ISI. SENSIBAUGH
City Attorney Director of Public Works
City Encrineer
ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
POST OFFICE BOX 747
ATASCADERO.CALIFORNIA 93423 POLICE DEPARTMENT
PHONE: (805) 466-8000 POST OFFICE BOX 747
ATASCADERO. CALIFORNIA 93423
CITY COUNCILaseade ® PNONE: (803) 466-8600
CITY CLERK
CITY TREASURER INCORPORATED JULY 2. 1979
CITY MANAGER
00MINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT FIRE DEPARTMENT
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 6005 LEWIS AVENUE
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ATASCADERO.CALIFORNIA 93422
PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT
PHONE: (8051 466.2141
PUBLIC HEARING
THE CITY COUNCIL WILL HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING AT THE
REGULARLY SCHEDULED CITY COUNCIL MEETING ON MARCH 24TH
1989 AT 7:00 P.M. OR AFTER IN THE CITY COUNCIL CHA!fBERS,
ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, 6500 PALMA AVENUE TO RECEIVE
COMMENTS ON THE FOLLOWING:
ADOPTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY AND
INCORPORATED CITIES HAZARDOUS WASTE Y.ANAGEMENT
PLAN.
ALL PERSONS 14ISHING TO COMMENT ON THE ADOPTION OF
THIS PLAN MAY BE HEARD AT THAT TIME.
DATE: March 6, 1989
BOYD C. SHARITZ, CITY CLERK
*STE IiLiAGEMENT COI-dILISSIOil OPORT (2-9-89)
1. Hazardous household waste proposal:
a.It is hoped that four times a year a special collection
can be conducted for hhw.
b.The collection and disposal (probably hauling of this
material to Kettleman disposal site will cost an
estimated3260,000.
c.The question is row to fund such an operation( 35-5.90
per customer) .
2. Ma:idatory. Collection: xtascadero seems to be the only City
in the county who does not have mandatory collection. I
feel perhaps it should be mandatory in the Urban Services
area. . . .?
The county is forcing (?) mandatory collection on urban
unincorporated areas—they hope to, anyway, beginning
with the Los Osos area.
3. Recycling: The Waste Commission hopes to increase the
participation in recycling to 250 of the waste stream
within two years. It is now approximately 6%. There
are many ideas circulating and being discussed along
with seminars etc.
I asked for today's meeting to discuss recycling and the
increase in fees to pay for tze haz. household waste fee
increase. After the meeting was set the mandatory issue
arose. . . . .
Marj . Mackey 466-1811
MEMORANDUM
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Through: Michael Shelton, City Manager
From: Paul M. Sensibaugh, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Subject : Hazzardous Waste Site on Traffic Way—Status Report
Date : January 26, 1988
Recommendation:
Staff recommends no official action at this time but suggests
that the committeeperson and staff keep Council advised as to the
actions taken at the Hazzardous Waste Management Plan committee
meetings .
Backround:
This item was requested to be placed on the agenda by the Mayor
who represents Council on the above committee as a result of
information released by the news media recently.
Discussion:
At the suggestion of Mayor Norris staff has tried to reach Evelyn
Delaney, County Supervisor and committee chairperson, regarding the
site selection criteria and committee update . Since the hearings for
the off—shore oil leases are going on Ms . Delaney has been
unavailable . Today, however, a County staff member was able to
provide information on the Hazzardous Waste Management Plan.
The Draft copy of the HWMP must be completed by March 31 , 1988
and submitted to the State at that time . Also at that time the County
will begin the public hearing process that will involve all of the
cities in the county. The chairman of the Siting Subcommittee said
that the final copy must be given to the State by October, therefore,
we will have six (6) months to give input into the process .
The HWMP consists of 19 chapters and the information that was
released was only a portion of transportation element chapter that was
prematurely given to the public . The maps contained in the handouts
were for general site preferences and were not to be taken as site
specific . The site on Traffic Way for example was not intended to
mean that the old treatment plant or Street Corp . Yard was a viable
site; it was intended that somewhere in the city any land that is
zoned industrial is a potential consideration for a treatment site, a
dump site or a transfer station.
The State has mandated that each County designate a site or sites
for the above facilities . The Siting Committee must develop or look
at the criteria for the sites and must adpt guidelines unless they
can justify ammendments that would rule ,� a particular site . The
general concept is that if a city produces hazardous wastes it should
in turn play a role in dealing with the disposal of the same . Since
household hazardous wastes (spray cans, bleach bottles, etc . ) are
considered in the same category as toxic wastes, it follows that all
cities contribute to the problem and thus should be a part of the
solution. Bob Holden with the County Environmental Health Dept.
apparently can provide information on any facilities in our city that
generate hazzardous wastes .
Certain criteria rules out any potential for certain sites: High
Hazzard Areas : Flood plains, earthquake fault areas, wetlands, etc .
Public Safety: Distance from residences, schools and hospitals, and
Proximity to major transportation routes. Physical Limitations of the
Site : Soil conditions, non—atainment air where pollutants exceed
national standards, prime agricultural lands, depths to groundwater.
Locations that may be acceptable are industrial zones,
recreational areas if compatible and those in close proximity to the
sorce of the waste and to public facilities . A site could serve a
regional area as well as local . Once the HWMP is adopted and sites
are recognized specific locations are not pin pointed. If in the
future a site is being considered it must go through stringent and
extensive environmental reviews . Most likely private Enterprise will
be involved and thus the normal planning process will be followed as
well .
Conclusion:
The bottom line is that the Traffic Way site near the new
baseball fields is not under consideration any more than any other
industrial site in the city, that the information available was
released prematurely, that the HWMP is still in the Draft stage and
each statement made at this time brings up several questions that the
committee wants to head off, that the information will be released in
a proper fashion to avoid a panic, and that the proper time for
Council and Staff to address the plan as it relates to Atascadero is
during the public hearings after March 31 .
COUNTY OF SAN LUIS O 61SPO • /
✓ .
HEALTH AGENCY t
r
Department of Public Health _
2191 Johnson Avenue • P.O.Box 1489
San Luis Obispo,Califomia 93406 v .•
(805)549-5500
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
A public hearing will be held by the Atascadero City Council on May 10, 1988
at 7:30 P.M. to consider the preliminary draft of the San Luis Obispo County
Hazardous Waste Management Plan. The County Hazardous Waste Management Plan
(CHWMP) is being developed in response to AB 2948 (Tanner, 1986) . The CHWMP
addresses current and projected volumes of hazardous waste, treatment capacity,
waste reduction, siting, transportation, implementation, emergency response,
storage regulations, contaminated sites, and household hazardous waste.
The hearing place is the Atascadero City Council Chambers, Fourth Floor
Rotunda, Atascadero City Hall, Atascadero, California. At the hearing any
interested person may express their views for or against, or to change the
plan.
If you have any questions about the CHWMP please contact Bob Holden or
Cathy Corliss of the County Health Agency Division of Environmental Health,
P.O. Box 1489, San Luis Obispo, CA 93406, phone (805) 549-5544.
Public comments are invited and may be expressed at this or other CHWMP hearings
or submitted in writing to CHWMP, c/o Environmental Health, P.O. Box 1489,
San Luis Obispo, CA 93406. Copies of the CHWMP are available for loan from
the Environmental Health office at 2156 Sierra Way, San Luis Obispo, California
or any branch of the County Library.
DATED: April 28, 1988
TIM MAZZACANO, R.S. , Director
Division of Environmental Health
TABLE OF CONTENTS
UST OF TABLES,FIGURES AND MAPS v
CALIFORNIA ASSEMBLY AND SENATE BILLS i x
CHAPTER 1: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF TOPICS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1 - 1
CHAPTER 2: INTRODUCTION TO THE DRAFT PLAN
2.1 Introduction 2 - 1
2.2 Legal Context for Hazardous Waste Planning 2 -2
2.3 Relationship to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) 2 - 3
2.4 Relationship to Other Plans 2 - 4
2.5 Advisory Committee 2 - 5
CHAPTER 3: PURPOSE,GOALS,OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES
3.1 Purpose 3 . 1
3.2 Goals and Objectives 3 - 1
3.3 Policy Statements 3 - 4
CHAPTER 4: CURRENT WASTE GENERATION
4.1 Introduction 4 - 1
4.2 Definitions 4 - 2
4.3 Outline of the Methodology 4 - 3
4.4 Current Waste Generation 4 -4
CHAPTER 5: PROJECTED WASTE GENERATION
5.1 Introduction 5 - 1
5.2 Projected Waste Generation (Offsite) 5 - 1
5.3 Projected Waste Generation (Onsite) 5 - 2
5.4 Basic Assumptions 5 - 2
5.5 Shortcomings of the Projection Methodology 5 - 3
CHAPTER 6: TREATMENT,STORAGE AND DISPOSAL FACILITY
(TSDF) SHORTFALL
6.1 Introduction 6 - 1
6.2 Current TSDF Shortfall 6 - 2
6.3 Projected TSDF Shortfall 6 -3
6.4 Alternative Scenarios 6 -6
i
CHAPTER 7: FACILITIES
7.1 Introduction 7- 1
7.2 Existing Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facilities
in San Luis Obispo County 7 - 1
7.3 Current Capacity Shortfall 7 - 1
7.4 Projected Capacity Shortfall 7- 3
7.5 Comparison of Capacity Shortfall with Facility Capacities 7 - 5
7.6 Conclusion 7- 9
CHAPTER 8: WASTE REDUCTION
8.1 Introduction 8 - 1
8.2 Regulatory Requirements 8 - 3
8.3 Barriers to Waste Reduction 8 - 6
8.4 Existing Programs 8 - 6
8.5 Potential for Waste Reduction Efforts 8 - 8
8.6 Waste Reduction Goals 8- 10
8.7 Waste Reduction Objectives 8- 1 1
8.8 Waste Reduction Policies 8 -1 1
8.9 Local Waste Reduction Programs and their Implementation 8 - 12
8.10 Waste Reduction Potential 8- 16
CHAPTER 9: SITING
9.1 Introduction 9 - 1
9.2 Land Use Requirements of Hazardous Waste Facilities 9 - 2
9.3 Siting Criteria 9 -5
9.4 Designation of General Areas 9 - 12
9.5 Conclusions 9 - 13
9.6 Recommendations, Goals and Policies 9-13
CHAPTER 10: TRANSPORTATION
10.1 Introduction 10-1
10.2 Transportation Regulations 1 0- 1
10.3 Transportation Routes 1 0-4
10.4 Waste Oil Dropsites 1 0-4
10.5 Transportation Goals, Objectives and Policies 1 0-4
CHAPTER 11: PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
1 1 .1 Introduction 1 1 -1
1 1 .2 Public Education 1 1 -2
1 1 .3 Household Hazardous Waste 1 1 -3
1 1 .4 Waste Reduction in Existing Industry 1 1 -5
1 1 .5 Waste Reduction for New Industry 1 1 -6
1 1 .6 Other Implementation Measures 1 1 -1 0
1 1 .7 Existing Inspection, Technical Assistance and Enforcement
Activities 1 1 -1 1
1 1 .8 Recommendations for Inspection, Technical
Assistance and Enforcement Activities 1 1 -1 4
ii
1 1 .9 Plan Advisory Committee 1 1 -1 6
11 .10 Plan Approval Process 1 1 -17
11 .1 1 The Local Assessment Committee and the
Evaluation of TSDF Applications 1 1 -1 9
CHAPTER 12: EMERGENCY RESPONSE PROCEDURES
12.1 Introduction 1 2-1
12.2 Overview of County Emergency Response Plan (ERP) 12-1
12.3 The Relationship of the ER Plan to Other Plans/Jurisdictions 12- 1
12.4 Hazard Assessment 1 2-2
12.5 Concept of Operations for Hazardous Materials Emergencies 1 2-3
12.6 Recommendations 1 2-5
12.7 Policy Statements 1 2-5
CHAPTER 13: STORAGE REGULATIONS
13.1 Introduction 1 3-1
13.2 Responsible Agencies and Legislation 13-1
13.3 Description of Existing Programs for
Hazardous Waste and Materials Storage in
San Luis Obispo County 1 3-6
13.4 Recommendations 1 3-8
CHAPTER 14: CONTAMINATED SITES
14.1 Introduction 14- 1
14.2 Federal Regulations 1'4-1
14.3 State Regulations 1 4-2
14.4 Local Regulations 1 4-3
14.5 Contaminated Sites Analysis 1 4-3
14.6 Summary of Cleanup Wastes 1 4-8
CHAPTER 15: SMALL QUANTITY GENERATORS
15.1 Introduction 1 5-1
15.2 The Problems of the Small Quantity Generator (SQG) 15- 1
15.3 SQG Waste Estimation Methodology 1 5-3
15.4 Summary of Hazardous Wastes from SQG 1 5-3
15.5 Projections of Future SQG Waste Generation 15-11
15.6 Implications 15-11
15.7 Suggested Future Waste Reduction Programs for SQG 15-12
15.8 Goals, Objectives and Policies for SQG 15-12
CHAPTER 16: HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE
16.1 Introduction 1 6-1
16.2 Magnitude of the Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) Problem 1 6-1
16.3 HHW Experiences of Other Jurisdictions 1 6-2
16.4 Goals 1 6-4
16.5 Objectives 1 6-4
iii
16.6 Policy Statements 1 6-5
16.7 Legislative Background 1 6-6
16.8 Existing Household Hazardous Waste Efforts 1 6-8
16.9 HHW Program Proposals 16-10
16.10 Program Outlines 16-10
16.11 Funding Scenarios 16-14
16.12 Implementation Mechanism - Organizational Responsibility 16-16
16.13 Funding Options 16-17
GLOSSARY
APPENDICES
iv
SAN LUIS OBISPO EIR
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Paqe
LIST OF FIGURES ix
LIST OF TABLES x
PREFACE xii
I. INTRODUCTION I-1
A. Purpose and Legal Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I-1
B. Future Environmental Review Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I-2
C. Use of the EIR/Responsible and Trustee Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . .I-3
D. Permit Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I-6
E. Scope and Content . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . I-6
II. SUMMARY II-1
A. Project Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .II-1
B. Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation
Measures .. .... . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .II-2
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION III-1
A. Project Background. ... . . .. . . ... . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .III-1
B. Project Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .III-1
C. Sponsor Objectives . .III-6
D. Project Location • • •• . . • • . • •- ••• • • . • . • • • • • • . . • • . • • • • . • - .III-6
E. Potential Facility Types . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . ... . . . . . . .III-11
IV. STUDY AREA 1 IV-1
A. General Description ... .. ..... . . . . . . . .. . .IV-1
B. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation
Measures ... . . . . . .. . . . .. . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . .IV-1
1. Land Use, Location and Housing . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . ... . . . . . . .IV-1
2. Geology and Seismicity ... . .IV-6
.. .. . . .. .... . . .. .. . .. . . . .. .
3. Hydrology and Water Quality .IV-10
4. Natural Resources . . ... ... ... .... . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .IV-14
5. Plant and Animal Life .. . ... . .. . . .. . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . ... . ..IV-17
6. Emergency Response ......... . .. .. . . ... .. . . . . . .... . . . .IV-19
7. Transportation/Circulation ......... . ... . . .. . . . ... . . . . ..IV-24
8. Noise and Vibration ... •• • . .• .... . . .. . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . .. ..IV-31
9. Air Quality .. . . .IV-34
10. Public Health and Safety . ... .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .IV-43
11. Public Services and Utilities . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . .IV-49
12. Visual Quality/Light and Glare. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .IV-51
iii
I03-12.R9 2/2/89
TABLE. OF CONTENTS (continued)
Paae
13. Cultural Resources. . . ... .... . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .IV-53 UJ
14. Energy Usage . • . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .IV-54
C. Overall Analysis ofStudyArea . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .IV-55
V. STUDY AREA 2 V-1
A. General Description.. . .... ... . .V-1
B. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation
Measures.. . ... . ... . ... . . . . . . . . .V-1
I. Land Use, Location and Housing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .V-1
2. Geology and Seismicity. . .. . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . .. .. . . . . . . . .V-5
3. Hydrology and Water Quality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .V-9
4. Natural Resources . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .V-13
5. Plant and Animal Life . . . . . . . .. . . .. . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..V-15
6. Emergency Response . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .V-17
7. Transportation/Circulation .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .V-21
8. Noise and Vibration . . . . . . . .. . . . . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .V-24
9. Air Quality .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .V-26
10. Public Health and Safety . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .V-36
11. Public Services and Utilities . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . .V-42
12. Visual Quality/Light and Glare. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .V-44
13. Cultural Resources.. . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .V-46
14. Energy Usage . . . . . . . .. . .V-41
C. Overall Analysis of�Study�Area . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . .V-48
VI. STUDY AREA 3 VI-1
A. General Description. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .VI-1
B. Environmental Setting, Impacts and.
Measures. . . .. . ... . . ... . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .VI-1
1. Land Use, Location and Housing. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .VI-1
2. Geology and Seismicity. . . .. .. . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .VI-5
3. Hydrology and Water Quality. . .. . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .VI-10
4. Natural Resources ... . . . .... . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . .VI-14
5. Plant and Animal Life .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . ...VI-16
6. Emergency Response . .. . . . . .... .. . . . .. . . . .... . . . .VI-18
7. Transportation/Circulation . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . ... . . . . . .VI-21
8. Noise and Vibration . . . .... . . . . .. . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .VI-25
9. Air Quality . ... ..... . . .. . ... . . . . . . . . . .. . . .VI-27 •rli
10. Public Health and Safety .. . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . ... .. . . . .VI-38
11. Public Services and Utilities.. . .. . . .. .. . ... . .. . . . . ..VI-43
12. Visual Quality/Light and Glare. . . .. .. . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .VI-45
13. Cultural Resources. .... . .... ... . . . ... . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .VI-47
14. Energy Usage • • ... . .. .. .. . . ... . . . ..... .. . . . .. .VI-48
C. Overall Analysis ofStudyArea . ... . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . .VI-49 -
iv
103-12.R9 2!2189
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Pte_
VII. STUDY AREA 4 VII-1
A. General Description. .. . . . . . .. ... .. . . .. . . . . . . .. .VII-1
B. Environmental Setting, .
and Mitigation
Measures. . . . . .. .. .. . ... . .. . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . .. . ..VII-1
1. Land Use, Location and Housing.... . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. .. .. . . .VII-1
2. Geology and Seismicity. .. .. .VII-6
3. Hydrology and Water Quality. . .... . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .VII-9
4. Natural Resources ..... . . . .... ... ... . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . ..VII-13
5. Plant and Animal Life ... . . . ...... . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . .VII-14
6. Emergency Response ... . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .VII-17
7. Transportation/Circulation . . ... ... .. .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . .VII-20
8. Noise and Vibration . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .VII-25
9. Air Quality .VII-28
10. Public Health and Safety . .. .. . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .VII-39
11. Public Services and Utilities . . . . ... .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .VII-45
19 12. Visual Quality/Light and Glare.. . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .VII-46
13. Cultural Resources. .. .. . . .. .... . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . .VII-49
14. Energy Usage . . .. . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .VII-50
C. Overall Analysis ofStudyArea . . .. . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .VII-51
VIII. STUDY AREA 5 VIII-1
A. General Description. .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .VIII-1 0
B. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mit
Measures. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . .VIII-1
1. Land Use, Location and Housing. . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .VIII-1
2. Geology and Seismicity. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .VIII-5
3. Hydrology and Water Quality. . .. . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..VIII-8
4. Natural Resources . . . . .... . . .. .. .. . . .... .. .. . ... . . . .. . .VIII-11
5. Plant and Animal Life .VIII-12
6. Emergency Response .. . .. . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .VIII-15
7. Transportation/Circulation• • ... . . . . . . . . ... . .. .. . . . .. . . ..VIII-18
8. Noise and Vibration .VIII-24
9. Air Quality . . . .. ... . ....... . .... . . . ... ... . . . . . . ..VIII-26
10. Public Health and Safety . .. . ... . .. ... .. .. . .. .... ... .VIII-37
11. Public Services and Utilities . .... ..... . ..... .... . . . .. .VIII-43
12. Visual Quality/Light and Glare. . ... . . . . . .... . . . . .. .. . . ..VIII-44
13. Cultural Resources... ..... ...... .. . .. . ..... ... . . . .. .... .VIII-46
14. Energy Usage . . . .. . . . . . ... .VIII-47
C. Overall Analysis ofStudyArea ..... . . . . .... . . . . .. . . ... . .VIII-48
IX. STUDY AREA 6 IX-1
A. General tion....... . . ... ..... .. ..... .. ... . .. .. . .. . . . .IX-1
Description p
B. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation
Measures. . . . . .. .. . . . ... . .. .. ... . ... . .. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .IX-1
1. Land Use, Location and Housing. . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .IX-1
2. Geology and Seismicity. . .. . . ... . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .IX-7
3. Hydrology and Water Quality. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .IX-9
v
103-12.R9 2/2/89
0
Now
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Page
4. Natural Resources . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .IX-12
5. Plant and Animal Life . ... .. .. . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .IX-14
6. Emergency Response . . ... ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .IX-16
7. Transportation/Circulation . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .IX-19
8. Noise and Vibration . .... . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .IX-24
9. Air Quality . .... . ... . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .IX-26
10. Public Health and Safety .... . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .IX-36
11. Public Services and Utilities ... . .. . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .IX-42
12. Visual Quality/Light and Glare. . . .. . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . .IX-43
13. Cultural Resources.. .... . .. ... . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .IX-45
14. Energy Usage . . .. .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .IX-46
C. Overall Analysis ofStudyArea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .IX-47
X. STUDY AREA 7 X-1
A. General Description. . . . . .. �
. ... . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .X-1
B. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation
Measures. . . . . .. . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .X-1
I. Land Use, Location and Housing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .X-1
2. Geology and Seismicity. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .X-3
3. Hydrology and Water Quality. . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .X-6
4. Natural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .X-9
5. Plant and Animal Life . .. .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .X-10
6. Emergency Response . . . . . . . . . .. .X-11
7. Transportation/Circulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .X-14
8. Noise and Vibration . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .X-19
9. Air Quality .. . . . . . . . .X-22
10. Public Health and Safety . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .X-31
11. Public Services and Utilities . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .X-36
12. Visual Quality/Light and Glare. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .X-38
13. Cultural Resources. . . . .... . .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .X-39
14. Energy Usage . . . . . . . . . . . .X-40
C. Overall Analysis ofStudyArea .... . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .X-41
XT. STUDY AREA 8 XI-1
A. General Description... . . .. . . .. .. .... . .... . .. . .... .. . . . . . ..XI-1
B. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation
Measures.. . . . . . . . .. . . .. . .. . . . . . ... . . .. . . . . . . .. .XI-1
1. Land Use, Location and Housing. . . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .XI-1
2. Geology and Seismicity. . .... .. . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . ... . . . .XI-4
3. Hydrology and Water Quality. ... . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .XI-8
4. Natural Resources . . ... . . .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .XI-11
5. Plant and Animal Life ...... . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .XI-11
6. Emergency Response . .. . . . .. ... . . ... . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .XI-13
7. Transportation/Circulation . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .XI-16
8. Noise and Vibration ... . . . ... . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . . . . .XI-21
9. Air Quality . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .XI-23
10. Public Health and Safety . . . .XI-34
11. Public Services and Utilities .. .. ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .XI-39
vi
103-12.R9 2/2/89
TABLE Of CONTENTS (continued)
Page
12. Visual Quality/Light and Glare. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .XI-41
13. Cultural Resources. . ... . ....... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .XI-43
14. Energy Usage . �
. .. . . .. ... .XI-43
C. Overall Analysis ofStudyArea . . . ... . . ... . . . . ... . .. . . . . . . ..XI-44
XII. GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES XII-1
XIII. SITING CRITERIA XIII-1
XIV. LONG-TERM IMPLICATIONS OF PLAN XIV-1
A. Short-Term Uses of the Environment vs. Long-Term
Productivity. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .XIV-1
B. Growth-Inducing Impacts. . .XIV-1
C. Cumulative Impacts... . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .XIV-1
XV. SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS XV-1
XVI. ALTERNATIVES XVI-1
Introduction. . �
. . . . . ... . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .XVI-1
Alternative 1 -No . .
. . . . . .. . . . .
Project. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .XVI-1
Alternative 2 -Implementation of Waste Program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .XVI-4
Alternative 3- Development of a Storage and
Transfer Facility. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .XVI-8
Alternative 4 - Environmentally Superior Alternative . . . . . . . . . . .XVI-11
Alternative 5 - Adoption of CHWMP With
No Siting Aspect. . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .XVI-21
Alternative 6 - Provision forTransportable
TreatmentUnits. ... . ... ..... ... . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .XVI-23
XVII. REFERENCES AND PERSONS CONSULTED XVII-1
XVIII. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AUTHORS XVIII-1
XIX. GLOSSARY XIX-1
XX. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS.. . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . .XX-I
APPENDICES
A. Notices of Preparation and Responses. . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . .A-1
B. Siting Criteria. . . .. . .. ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .B-1
C. Archaeological Records Search. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. .0-1
D. Excerpts from Title 22 of the California ... . . ... . . . . . .. . . .
�
Administrative Code. . . . .. .. .. .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .D-1
E. Traffic Generation ofTSD Facilities... . .. ... . .. . . ... . . . . . . .E-1
F. Noise Information. . .F-1
G. Table 0 of Framework�for�Planning. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .G-1
H. Sketches of TSD Facilities. . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .H-1
vii
I03-I2.R9 2/2/89
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Pte_
I. Hazardous Materials/Waste Incidents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I-1
J. Hazardous Waste Facility Basic Energy Uses. . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . .J-1
K. Exposure Pathways for Chemical Releases
From Types of TSD Facilities/Processes. . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .K-1
L. Summary of Emissions Associated with Proposed
Facilities. . .. . . . . . . . . . ... . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .L-1
M. Capacity Levels for Major Access Roads. . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . .M-1
0I
viii
103-12.R9 2/2/89
r�
CHAPTER II
SUMMARY
A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The "project" evaluated in this EIR consists of the Draft Fina]
San Luis Obispo County Hazardous Waste Management Plan (CHWMP). While
this EIR evaluates the entire CHWMP, it focuses on siting criteria,
policies and eight general study areas within San Luis Obispo County
that could potentially be used for the development of hazardous waste
treatment, storage, or disposal (TSD) facilities. A full copy of the
CHWMP can be obtained from the San Luis Obispo County Health Agency.
The eight general siting areas are located throughout San Luis
9 9 9 9
Obispo County, as shown in Figure III.2. The general siting areas have
no defined boundaries. For the purposes of analysis for this EIR, study
area boundaries were selected by San Luis Obispo County staff for each
of the eight general siting areas. The purpose of defining study area
boundaries for each of the general siting areas was to provide guidance
to the EIR consultants for focusing their analysis and to provide
decision makers with information on specific areas analyzed in this EIR.
Study Areas 1, 2, and 3 were evaluated as potential areas for
storage/transfer facilities, treatment facilities, and residuals
repositories (see Chapter III for detailed descriptions of facilities) .
Study Areas 4 through 8 were evaluated as potential areas for only
storage/transfer or treatment facilities, as defined in the Hazardous
Waste Management Plan. The areas in closer proximity to urban centers
(4 through 8) are expected to be the most probable locations for
hazardous waste storage/transfer (collection) facilities.
II-1
103-01°R8 2/2/89
0 0
r}
B. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
1
1 Implementation of the San Luis Obispo CHWMP would have a number of
beneficial impacts to human health and the environment as hazardous
wastes are responsibly handled, treated, and disposed of. In
particular, a number of hazardous waste reduction measures are
recommended throughout the CHWMP which would result in numerous
beneficial environmental impacts. Potentially adverse impacts
associated with the plan are actually secondary and related to actual
construction and operation of siting facilities if and when proposed.
Potentially significant impacts and recommended mitigation
measures for the eight general study areas are summarized in Table II.1.
More detailed explanations of impacts and mitigation measures can be
found in Chapters IV through XI of this EIR. The California Department
of Health Services (DHS) siting criteria, which are included in Appendix
B, would mitigate a number of identified impacts. Some of these
criteria are summarized in Table II.1. In many instances, additional
mitigations have been identified to supplement the siting criteria in
order to minimize impacts. When specific TSD facilities are proposed,
detailed environmental review would have to occur for the individual
facility at that time. or
Jr-
The impacts listed in Table II.1 are those which were clearly
identified as potentially significant as a result of the general
analysis conducted to evaluate the environmental effects of adeptien
implementation of the CHWMP. The additional environmental review needed
to evaluate any specific facility that may be proposed in the potential
TSD areas may very well identify additional significant impacts.
low
0
II-2
103-0I.R8 2/2/89
TABLE II.1
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
AND RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES
Impacts Mitigation Measures
LAND USE, LOCATIONS, AND HOUSING
Potential land use conflicts would be The boundaries of Study Areas 4, 5,
most significant for Study Areas 4, 5, and 6 should be altered to provide
6 and 8 where residential buffer zones from residential areas.
neighborhoods are in proximity to the Risk assessments should be performed
study areas. before any TSD facility is
permitted. Buffering from
residences is also needed for Study
Area 8.
Hazardous waste treatment, storage, Before any facility is constructed,
and disposal (TSD) facilities would the General Plan and zoning
not be an allowable land use under the designations should be changed to
current General Plan and zoning allow development of TSD facilities
designations for all eight study in the recommended areas.
areas.
The development of a TSD facility in At the time a TSD facility is
any of the eight study areas could proposed, an analysis of property
affect property values of adjacent value impacts should be completed
land which would be potentially and appropriate mitigation measures
significant for Study Areas 4, 5, 6, should be recommended.
and 8, due to the proximity of
residential development.
Development of any TSD facility in The development of a TSD facility
Study Areas 1 or 3 could have within Study Areas I or 3 should
significant impacts related to the avoid areas under Williamson Act
removal of agricultural lands. Contract. An analysis should be
Development of Study Areas 4, 5, 6, 7 completed on other agricultural
and 8 could affect'-nearby agricultural lands when a facility is proposed.
lands. The size of Study Areas 1 and 3
could be reduced.
II-3
103-01.R3 2/2/89
TABLE II.1 (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures
The potential for loss or displacement The location of any TSD facility
should be limited t
o appropriate
of existing housing is a possibility
in all eight study areas, but most areas within each study area that
significant for Study Areas 4, 5, 6, are distant from residences. Risk
and 8 which include housing within assessments to determine potential
and/or very near the study area risks to human health and safety
boundaries. should be completed if a TSD
facility is proposed near a
residential neighborhood, as stated
in the adopted DHS siting criteria.
These should be completed as part of
the environmental review when an
individual facility is proposed.
GEOLOGY AND SEISMICITY
The potential for landslides exists in Potential landslide risk should be
portions of Study Areas 1, 2, 3, and addressed and mitigation measures
8, which could pose significant recommended in a site-specific
impacts toa TSD facility. Landslide geotechnical and soils engineering
potential in these areas corresponds investigation at the time a TSD
primarily to steepness of slopes. facility is proposed. Landslide
risk can be reduced by appropriate
site selection, feasibility planning
studies, good engineering design,
construction, and inspection.
Potentially significant seismic Potential seismic and soil hazards
hazards (ground shaking) could occur should be -addressed and mitigation Pk
in all portions of the study areas due measures recommended in site-
to faults in close proximity or specific geotechnical and soils
traversing the study areas. Study engineering investigations at the
Areas 1 and 2 would be most affected time a TSD facility is proposed.
by groundshaking. Portions of all
study areas could be significantly
affected by expansive soils, soil
creep, soil erosion, and instability
related to grading of a site. Areas
of steep slopes in Study Areas 1, 2, 3
and 8 present the greatest soil
instability problems.
II-4
103-01.R6 2/2/89
•
TABLE II.1 (Continued) 0
Impacts Mitigation Measures
HYDROLOGY AND WATERQ UALITY
Grading and paving of a proposed TSD Impacts to alteration of drainage
facility site may alter the site's can be minimized through appropriate
natural drainage and result in site selection, including necessary
increased runoff. The significance of feasibility planning and appropriate
this impact would depend on the size engineering. At the time a TSD
of the facility and the amount of facility is proposed, a site-
impervious surface area. specific hydrology and water quality
investigation, including runoff
calculations, should be completed
and mitigation measures recommended.
Potentially significant surface or The recommended hydrology study
groundwater contamination could result should include an investigation of
from accidental release or spillage of aquifer recharge potential .
hazardous wastes and contaminated Residuals repositories should be
runoff. prohibited within areas known or
suspected to be supplying recharge
to a regional aquifer. All other
facilities should be discouraged
from locating in these areas.
Portions of Study Areas 1, 2, 3, and 4 Residuals repositories should not be
are located in 100-year flood zones. located in 100-year flood zones,
even with protection. All other
facilities could be constructed in
100-year flood zones if protected by
engineered solutions such as berms
and if located above flood levels.
However, flood zones should be
avoided, if possible.
NATURAL RESOURCES
Development of a TSD facility, Prime farmland soils (especially
depending on its location in Study those under Williamson Act Contract)
Areas 1, 3, 4, and 6, and possibly should be avoided in siting any TSD
Study Areas 2, could extend into prime facility, as stated in the adopted
farmland soils. siting criteria.
PLANT AND ANIMAL LIFE
The western portion of Study Area 5 'The western undeveloped portions of
contains special habitat and a number Study Area 5 should not be
of rare and endangered plant species. considered for a TSD facility.
These species could be eliminated as a
result of construction of a TSD
facility.
II-5
103-01.R6 2/2/89
• TABLE II.1 (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures
EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Sufficient emergency resources and
Due to the isolated locations of Study funding sources should be in place
Areas I, 2, and 3, development of any prior to the siting of any TSD
TSD facility would exceed emergency facility in the County.
response capabilities of responding
authorities. There could also be Any TSD facility should be developed
emergency response limitations for in close proximity to major highways
Study Areas 4 through 8. and the nearest fire station to
reduce response times for emergency .''
services. "
Additional funding sources shouldbe
sought at the state and federal
levels to meet the costs of training
hazardous materials specialists for
response teams as mandated by
federal requirements.
All types of TSD facilities should
supply the nearest local response
agency with all equipment and
training necessary to respond to an
on-site emergency.
Any TSD facility should have the
necessary on-site emergency response
capabilities such as containment and
fire suppressant equipment and
trained staff necessary to respond
to any on-site emergency.
Any TSD facility proposed for Study
Areas I through 8 should require a
thorough evaluation of on-site and
local responding authority emergency
response capabilities.
TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Accessibility limitations, road Study Areas 1 and 2 should be
conditions and distance to Study Areas limited to a residuals repository.
1 and 2 could increase the potential Road and access improvements should
for hazardous waste spills. be completed before a TSD facility
is allowed to operate.
II-6
I03-01.R6 2/2/89
TABLE II.1 (Continued•
Impacts Mitigation Measures
Access to any TSD facility in Study Specific design features should be
Area 3 would have limitations which used for the access point to Study
would increase the potential for Area 3 to minimize the potential for
accidents. accidents.
Direct access to a major highway in Good signage should be required from
Study Area 4 and 8 does not exist. U.S. Hwy. 101 on the preferred route
Indirect routes are available in both between U.S. Hwy. 101 and Study
study areas but could require that Areas 4 and 8. A designated access
vehicles carrying hazardous wastes road to Study Areas 5 and 8 should
pass by residential neighborhoods. be considered to minimize the effect
All access roads into Study Area 5 on residential areas. The extension
pass through residential areas. of Willow Road should be completed
before a TSD facility is located
within Study Area 5.
'? The CHWMP states that facility access The facility should be located in
roads should not pass by schools or the southwestern portion of Study
other institutions. Roads that serve Area 6 so that trucks do not pass by
Study Area 6 pass by two schools, as the schools or residential areas.
well as a number of residences.
NOISE AND VIBRATION
Construction-related and operation- Prior to development of a TSD
related noise could affect sensitive facility in all study areas,
noise receptors in Study Areas 4, 5, 6 construction-related and operation-
and 8. related noise should be evaluated as
part of an environmental analysis.
The reduction of acreage for a
storage/transfer or treatment
facility in Study Areas 4, 5 and 6
could avoid proximity to residential
areas. Adequate buffer zones should
be provided for Study Area 8.
AIR QUALITY
Traffic-related emissions would occur Vehicle miles should be minimized by
as a result of the transportation of locating facilities near generators.
hazardous waste to and from TSD Recommended waste reduction measures
facilities. This is particularly true of the CHWMP should be implemented.
for Study Areas 1 and Z because of Background monitoring for benzene is
long travel distances between County recommended in Study Areas 4 and 6.
generators and these areas.
II-7
103-01.R6 2/2/89
TABLE II.1 (Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures
Toxic emissions could occur from An applicant for a TSD facility
storage/transfer, treatment, and should comply with all applicable
residuals repository facilities, rules and regulations of the U.S.
especially in the case of an Environmental Protection Agency, San
accidental release or spill . This Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control
potential impact would be significant District (SLOAPCD), the California
for all study areas, but especially Air Resources Board (CARB) and DHS.
for Study Areas 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 This would include obtaining an
due to the proximity of residences and Authority to Construct and a Permit
other urban development. to Operate for the SLOAPCD.
A health risk assessment to quantify
health risks to exposed populations
should be prepared.
Treatment processes should be
selected to ensure that air
emissions are minimized. Emissions
from hazardous waste incinerators
should be controlled using best
available control techno)ogy (BACT).
Materials handling practices should
be conducted to ensure that
emissions are minimized. This would
include enclosures for the handling
of uncontainerized dry waste and
vacuum piping systems with vapor
recovery for liquid wastes.
Fugitive air emissions should be
reduced using a dust suppression
programa
Any facility should have on-site
emergency response capability and
emergency responders should be
adequately equipped and trained.
Recommended waste reduction measures
of the CHWMP should be implemented.
Study area boundaries could be
altered to increase the distance
from residential neighborhoods.
II-8
103-01.R6 2/2/89
• TABLE II.l (Continued) 0
Impacts Mitigation Measures
PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY
Negative health and safety impacts for A number of safety design features
human population centers in San Luis and operating procedures are
Obispo and surrounding counties could recommended to minimize potential
occur in any of the study areas. public health and safety impacts.
These are addressed in Chapters IV
through XI.
PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
The existing public services of sewer, DHS siting criteria include
water, and drainage are inadequate for recommendations that sewer, water
all eight study areas. Extending and drainage be self-sufficient for
sewer or water lines into study areas residuals repositories and for some
could have significant growth-inducing rural storage/transfer facilities.
impacts. The costs for these services would
have to be determined by further
economic feasibility analysis at the
time a TSD facility is proposed.
VISUAL QUALITY/LIGHT AND GLARE
Development of a TSD facility in any Visual impacts should be evaluated
study area could result in an when a facility is proposed.
industrial facility which could be Topography and vegetation should be
visible from highways and/or nearby used as visual screening when
residences. possible.
Light and glare could be generated by The potential for light and glare
a TSD facility in any of the study should be evaluated when individuals
areas. This impact could be the most facilities are proposed.
significant in Study Areas 4 and 6 Appropriate mitigation measures
which are located near existing should be implemented at that time.
airports.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
.The potential exists for A professional archaeological survey
archaeological resources to be should be completed as part of the
impacted and disturbed by the required environmental analysis,
construction of a TSD facility in all especially for Study Areas 2 and 5.
eight study areas. However, Study The County should require that all
Areas 2 and 5 are considered the most construction work be stopped
sensitive in terms of archaeological immediately and an archaeologist
resources. consulted should any artifacts be
encountered during construction of
any TSD facility.
II-9
103-01.R6 2/2/89
MEET AGE1
DATE��, iTEMi _
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: City Council April 11 , 1989
VIA: Ray Windsor, City Manager
FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director Atti
SUBJECT: Tentative Parcel Map 24-88
LOCATION: 8005 San Gabriel Road
APPLICANT: A.D. Kenney (Dan Stewart)
REQUEST: To subdivide two existing lots of 9 .35 acres total
into three parcels containing 2 . 50, 2 . 50, and 4 . 35
acres each.
BACKGROUND:
on March 21 , 1989, the Atascadero Planning Commission conducted a
public hearing on the above-referenced subject. On a 3 : 2 : 2 vote
(Commissioners Waage and Lochridge absent) , the Commission
approved the land division request subject to the revised condi-
tions of approval . There was public testimony and discussion on
this matter as reflected in the attached minutes excerpt.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approval of Tentative Parcel Map 24-88 per the Planning Commis-
sion' s recommendation.
HE :ps
cc: A.D. Kenney
Dan Stewart
Attachments : Staff Report - March 21 , 1989
Revised Conditions of Approval - March 21 , 1989
Minutes Excerpt - March 21 , 1989
CITY OF ATASCADERO Item: B-1
STAFF REPORT
FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: March 21, 1989
BY:S)�)•Doug Davidson, Associate Planner File No: TPM 24-88
SUBJECT:
A continued hearing from March 7, 1989 to consider a request to
subdivide two existing lots of 9. 35 acres total into three
parcels containing 2. 50, 2. 50, and 4. 35 acres each.
A. SITUATION AND FACTS:
1. Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .A.D. Kenney
2. Representative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Daniel J. Stewart
3. Project Address. . . . . . . . . . . . 8005 San Gabriel Rd.
4. Legal Description. . . . . . . . . . . .Lots 22 and 23, Blk. 13
5. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9. 35 acres
6. Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .RS (Residential Suburban)
7. General Plan Designation. . . . .Suburban Single Family
8. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Single family residence with
accessory buildings
9. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Negative Declaration posted
February 23, 1989.
B. ANALYSIS:
The applicant proposes to subdivide two existing lots containing
a total of 9. 35 acres into three parcels of 2. 50, 2. 50, and 4. 35
acres each. Both existing lots have frontage on San Gabriel Rd.
Under this proposal, Parcel 2 will encompass the existing
residence and barns. The 4. 35 acre parcel to the rear (Parcel 1)
will own twenty-five (25) feet accessway in fee, as required by
the Subdivision Ordinance. To avoid additional encroachments on
San Gabriel Rd. , proposed Parcel 3 will be limited to using this
access as well.
1
The subject property is located in the RS (Residential Suburban)
zone. Minimum lot size in this zone ranges between 2. 5 and 10
acres depending on the "score" of the various performance
standards. For this site, the minimum lot size criteria are:
Distance from Center (10, 000 - 12, 000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0. 30
Septic Suitability (20 - 39 min/inch) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0. 75
Average Slope (0% - 10%) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0. 50
Access Condition (City accepted road) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0. 40
General Neighborhood Character (1. 31 acres) . . . . . . . . . . 0.26
Minimum Lot Size. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. 21 acres
The proposed lot sizes of 2.50, 2. 50, and 4. 35 acres are larger
than the minimum lot size required for this site. The minimum
lot size allowed to be created in the RS zone under any
circumstances is 2. 50 acres, even if the total of the five
factors is less than that. As Exhibit C shows, there are many
lots in this vicinity that are nonconforming in size under the
current RS zoning criteria. There are many similar cases in the
City, due to the lot sizes established for the original
Atascadero Colony subdivision and the previous approvals granted
by the County. Both of these factors are responsible for the
small average lot size (general neighborhood character) of 1. 31
noted above, particulary the inclusion of the quarter acre lots
on Marchant Way. The County approval dates of many of the
neighboring subdivisions are shown on Exhibit C.
In this case, the site' s location, natural terrain, soils, and
access all indicate that this lot is appropriate for the proposed
division. These same favorable site characteristics justify the
flag lot configuration, for the subdivision is consistent with
the neighborhood character and justified by topographical
conditions.
C. RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of Tentative Parcel Map 24-88 based on
the Findings in Exhibit D and Conditions of Approval in Exhibit
E.
ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Location Map
Exhibit B - Tentative Map
Exhibit C - Assessor' s Parcel Map
Exhibit D - Findings for Approval
Exhibit E - Conditions of Approval
2
•' c,„ Exhibit A
CITY OF ATASCADERO Location Map
`s cwF.R) C0,14li11. LAITY DEVELOPMENT TPM 24-88
DEPARTMENT
•
fr
L •�
r ,
-IJ
v �
v
lam\ U1) \ _ ✓ � /'.`- _..� ���. - :'/
-ate`- V -. �'r .i��£N, _ •"� �,•-+� �/�
1i
SA - '
G
\ate RSr X(�}i)' `\AL1
S_-
c,aaa{e� qqa
I - �f
7-1
S R S
` MAS
.b
a Oho- �ap►i
d
f - AS{t
AVE -CA IT
j� My asT
/ - Exhibit B
'.j°---�••t' CITY OF ATASCADERO Parcel Map
'� - TPM 24-88
� �^
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
d I +. JSJ:.o..-e~-•o7sa$ ! !. Te mnnve
%1 , ♦ `„ ` PARCEL MAP A 8g-k72
� L
�,. F 1 1 �\ `\\ �A PzoPBSED D/✓/S/O.v or
Lois 22-23 w 6Locx /3
3 t j t �, \� ♦\♦ "�X Oi ATA3CA.1YR0 CC-,C,v/.
` 1 i 7 /. ♦
C17
Oi ATASCAOE,CO,SA?v
`♦' 1 1 1 1 �` �\ ♦ + G /SPO CJvNTy/
CA"blo'c""I.A.
;rw _aa.-._ ; ♦.`` ♦�` 1 '..l•. 'f6ty w/►r .ba.rRsr�.:,c cF 7
♦\ ANA'S •�
r /r I \\ ��\ .♦ \ - rer wrraeanncN owo�w.rrcto: . r.--c .,.._..-
}t� � / I . ♦ `� rD ru Rsr o�ny .cw..a c�oL�.
MIO I /--/ •„ �..�� f�1 K+ S...Kn: !). � fn./c ,_ i'(
y � �` 1 •� I , w E/VG/NEE,Q•S STATE/1s E/+rT
•rttl tro,� `, / - ._ - 1 ..-_ urtlfe w.yittD,rr ww>.av�A✓ soYe:^>- .a,.�.,'
.1•/Ys•raM ♦ ♦ �-f—"-' KNfiweE4wf eo.Jefs .r:nr :r�'.•or J,..>.s.,
21
Q..¢•nK �'� .� ♦ - e�� �i I' / .ate Jw>/ _.- .. ...
C•N•6✓u.yrua \ i 11 cMS .+Pyry cc..NTi
/ aw.+�c �ircunar
o
IZOA •° i
• !w rrra:-w. L-.a i•�tt. .rr.an,,L. D.SN/EL J..SlL'WA¢7"d ASsa
,497 aw orrncery o.&a zzcas
Plk-ROBLEs, CA 531-0G
Exhibit C
r ==kCi Assessor' s Parcel Map
ALA5 CAD TPM 24-88
,
IIS ZI _
1I i'Z` 16
ROAD
__ •1• ( t (3�>�' yah ( 1 A
Z "1 �� I �13) AIIrk p s ��
`Ihl�• ! (.. .�Ca• 97
�1
A;t.1 a
OS P
J'
j� 1/+ � v b 1 //C /�`8� w sw•w ,a,
1918 �—
y 74 nC.
0 h _y�— 15 ��n ••P
1112 `t4 A6. 1.it• 0� a
AJ ) e
nn
tolAel q 4 25D 8
G:A.l�9 Q ^lea"35r lu.a2 t ,nl oz 1
yJ ' W 240
J la U 19 �. ,FR,
In` 13
552"Oo' JS"E. P15�Fh �4G1
"AA
u t
24IA-
19
A-
1/ N a 20 IIq I ° td 23
1 I 1 I t7 (\
6 °r 22 �` 41.95AG t\ 1 2 t„
n 4.78 AG. ;I o
�r (40)
p Y ly .11 , (38)
?
! "R'cR ,•n (I /^ IK - hl � 1 ISI 1,...
VIM
SAN GABRIEL 24
"dCI
NOTE—ASSESSOR'S BLOCK 8
EXHIBIT D - Findings for Approval
Tentative Parcel Map 24-88
8005 San Gabriel Rd.
Kenney/Stewart
March 21, 1989
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL
1. Creation of the proposed parcels conforms to the Zoning
Ordinance and the General Plan land use designation,
densities and other policies.
2. Creation of these parcels, in conformance with the
recommended Conditions of Approval, will not have a
significant adverse effect, upon the environment. The
Negative Declaration prepared for the project is adequate.
3. The site is physically suitable for the type of development
proposed.
4. The site is physically suitable for the density of the
development proposed.
5. The design of the subdivision, and the proposed
improvements, will not cause substantial environmental
damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish and
wildlife or their habitat.
6. The design of the subdivision, and the type of the
improvements, will not conflict with easements acquired by
the public at large for access through or the use of
property within the proposed subdivision; or substantially
equivalent alternate easements are provided.
7. The proposed subdivision complies with Section 66474. 6 of
the State Subdivision Map Act as to the methods of handling
and discharge of waste.
8. The flag lot (deep lot subdivision) is in conformance with
Section 11-8. 209 of the Subdivision Ordinance.
I
•
EXHIBIT E - Conditions of Approval
Tentative Parcel Map 24-88
8005 San Gabriel Rd.
Kenney/Stewart
March 21, 1989
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. Grading, drainage, and erosion control plans prepared by a
registered civil engineer, shall be submitted for review and
approval by the Community Development and Public Works
Departments prior to issuance of building permits.
3. Private road improvement plans, prepared by a registered
civil engineer, shall require approval prior to recording of
the final map. These shall include the accessway of
twenty-four feet wide with twenty feet of pavement, as
required by the Subdivision Ordinance. The construction of
the access to the rear parcel shall be completed prior to
the recording of the final map.
4. A road maintenance agreement, in a form acceptable to the
City Attorney, shall be recorded with the deed to each
parcel at the time it is first conveyed. A note to this
effect shall be placed on the final map.
5. Public 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
recordation of the final map. Paveout on San Gabriel Rd.
shall be sixteen (16) feet from centerline and include a
five (5) foot concrete sidewalk along the entire frontage
for pedestrians, or as approved by the Director of Public
Works.
6. Construction of the public improvements shall be completed
prior to recordation of the final map.
7. 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 of the final map. This
shall include construction of City standard drive approaches
to the existing house, as well as at the conjunction of the
new accessway and San Gabriel Rd.
8. If the sidewalk is not constructed per condition #5 above,
the applicant shall deposit with the Director of Public
Works a dollar amount of $1.75 per square foot of the five
foot sidewalk to be utilized for the future development of
the Routes to School plan (San Gabriel School) , prior to the
recording of the final map.
9. The fire hydrant located at 8200 San Gabriel shall be
upgraded to City standards prior to recordation of the final
map.
10. Parcel 3 shall have access from the accessway serving (and
owned) by Parcel 1 only. Relinquishment of access rights
for Parcel 3 shall be delineated on the final map. Parcel 3
shall have access and utility easement rights over the
accessway serving Parcel 1. These shall be designated on
the final map.
11. The applicant shall make an offer of dedication to the City
on San Gabriel Rd. of 25 feet from centerline to the right-
of-way. The offers of dedication shall also include public
utility easements. All offers of dedication shall be
recorded prior to or simultaneous to the recordation of the
final map.
12. 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 and a registered civil engineer or licensed
land surveyor shall indicate, by certificate on the
final map, that corners have been set or shall be set by
a date specific and that they will be sufficient to
enable the survey to be retraced.
b. A recently updated preliminary title report shall be
submitted for review in conjunction with the processing
of the final map.
c. A preliminary subdivision guarantee shall be submitted
for review in conjunction with the processing of the
final map.
13. 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 24-88
8005 San Gabriel Rd.
Kenney/Stewart
March 21, 1989
(Revised by the Planning Commission)
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. Grading, drainage, and erosion control plans prepared by a
registered civil engineer, shall be submitted for review and
approval by the Community Development and Public Works
Departments prior to issuance of building permits.
3. Private road improvement plans, prepared by a registered
civil engineer, shall require approval prior to recording of
the final map. These shall include the accessway of
twenty-four feet wide with twenty feet of pavement, as
required b the Subdivision Ordinance. The construction of
re
q y
the access to the rear parcel shall be completed prior to
the recording of the final map.
4. A road maintenance agreement, in afor e
acceptable
eed to eto the
City Attorney, shall be recorded with
parcel at the time it is first conveyed. A note to this
effect shall be placed
on the final map.
Public road improvement plans, prepared by a registered
5. Pu P e
civil engineer, shall be submitted to and approved by th
Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to
recordation of the final map. Paveout on San Gabriel Rd.
shall be sixteen (16) feet from centerline.
6. Construction of the public improvements shall be completed
prior to recordation of the final map.
7. 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 of the final map. This
shall include construction of City standard drive approaches
to the existing house, as well as at the conjunction of the
new accessway and San Gabriel Rd.
0 •
8. The applicant shall deposit with the Director of Public
Works a dollar amount of $1 .75 per square foot for the five
foot walkway to be utilized for the future development of
the Routes to School plan (San Gabriel School) , prior to the
recording of the final map.
9. The fire hydrant located at 8200 San Gabriel shall be
upgraded to City standards prior to recordation of the final
map.
10. Parcel 3 shall have access from the accessway serving (and
owned) by Parcel 1 only. Relinquishment of access rights
for Parcel 3 shall be delineated on the final map. Parcel 3
shall have access and utility easement rights over the
accessway serving Parcel 1. These shall be designated on
the final map.
11. The applicant shall make an offer of dedication to the City
on San Gabriel Rd. of 25 feet from centerline to the right-
of-way. The offers of dedication shall also include public
utility easements. All offers of dedication shall be
recorded prior to or simultaneous to the recordation of the
final map.
12. 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 and a registered civil engineer or licensed
land surveyor shall indicate, by certificate on the
final map, that corners have been set or shall be set by
a date specific and that they will be sufficient to
enable the survey to be retraced.
b. A recently updated preliminary title report shall be
submitted for review in conjunction with the processing
of the final map.
c. A preliminary subdivision guarantee shall be submitted
for review in conjunction with the processing of the
final map.
13. 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.
0
•
-2- MINUTES EXCERPT - PLANNING COMMISSION - 3/21/8
9
H. HEARINGS, APPEARANCES, AND REPORTS
I. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 24-88 :
Request initiated by A.D. Kenney (Daniel J. Stewart) to
allow subdivision of two existing lots of 9 . 35 acres
total into three parcels containing 2 . 50, 2 . 50, and
4 .35 acres each. Subject site is located at 8005 San
Gabriel Road (continued from 3/7/89 meeting).
Doug Davidson presented the staff report on the proposed
three way lot division; staff is recommending approval
subject to certain conditions . Mr. Davidson then responded
to questions from the Commission.
Dan Stewart, representing the applicant, stated the staff
report was most restrictive with regard to the conditions .
He objected to Conditions #1 (relocation of utilities ) , #3 ,
(private road improvement plans) , #4 (road maintenance
agreement) , #5 (paveout requirements) , #6 (completion of
public improvements) , #7 (Construction of City standard
drive approaches) , #8 ( five foot sidewalk) , #10 (access
requirements) , #11 (offer of dedication). He felt there are
many inconsistencies with the road improvement requirements.
In response to Mr. Stewart's concerns , Paul Sensibaugh
addressed the intent behind these requirements .
Mr. Stewart stated that there are two utility poles fronting
the property and if the street is to be widened, those poles
will have to come out or be relocated. It will cost between
$20, 000 to 30,000 to comply with the conditions .
Discussion followed concerning procedures involved if an
applicant must relocate utilities .
Commissioner Lopez-Balbontin inquired if the school district
participates in any public contributions when building a new
school . Mr. Sensibaugh responded that the school district
did widen a portion of San Gabriel Road by the new school
but no development fees , etc. are required from the school
district.
In response to question from Commissioner Lopez-Balbontin,
Mr. Sensibaugh explained public contributions made by the
school district with regard to San Gabriel Road but,
typically, the district does not pay any development fees
for control of traffic, roadway bridges, etc .
Commissioner Luna asked if there are any problems with
emergency vehicles being able to locate flag lots . Mr.
Davidson replied that under the Subdivision Ordinance, a
minimum 24 wide access with 20 feet of pavement which is the
-3- t� i
MINUTES EXCERPT - PLANNING COMMISSION - 3/21/89
that there have been problems as there are many houses and
businesses that do not have address numbers but these
preceed the current building code requirement. The Subdi-
vision ordinance does contain the condition requiring
reflectorized house numbers at the street (right side of the
driveway) .
Discussion ensued concerning condition #5 specifically
requiring a "concrete" sidewalk; what type of walkway would
be most appropriate for this area in conjunction with the
Route-to-School plan, etc. Discussion also centered around
suggested modifications to conditions #5 and #8; the
.feasibility of assessment districts with regard to
sidewalks.
MOTION: Made by Commissioner Tobey, seconded by Commis-
sioner Lopez-Balbontin to approve Tentative Parcel
Map 24-88 subject to the findings and conditions
contained in the staff report with modification to
the following:
#5 . Delete. . . .and include a five (5) foot
concrete sidewalk along the entire frontage for
pedestrians or as approved by the Director o
Public Works.
#8. The applicant shall deposit with the Director
of Public works a dollar amount of $1 . 75 per
square foot for the five foot walkway to be
utilized for the future development of the
routes to School plan (San Gabriel School ) ,
prior to the recording of the final map. "
Commissioner Luna stated he could not make finding #8
concerning flag lot standards and read some statements from
the Subdivision Ordinance and the Minutes from the 9/29/88
joint Commission/Council meeting. Based on these concerns,
he could not vote for the project. Discussion followed
relative to the continuation of establishing flag lots and
the undesireability of flag lots in general .
The motion carried 3 : 2 with the following roll
call vote:
AYES: Comissioners Tobey, Lopez-Balbontin, and
Vice Chairperson Highland
NOES: Commissioners Brasher and Luna
It was noted that Items B-2 - and B-3 would be considered
simultaneously.
M16FT NDA AGE
9AMEMO ..��....'L.
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: City Council April 11 , 1989
VIA: Ray Windsor, City Manager
FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director A-WA
SUBJECT: Tentative Tract Map 1-89
LOCATION: 8625 Atascadero Avenue
APPLICANT: Clark Iverson (Central Coast Engineering)
REQUEST: To subdivide 13 . 9 acres into twenty-one (21 ) parcels
of approximately 1/2 acre each. The request includes
establishment of two new City standard roads to serve
the subdivision: Via Tortuga and Calle Refugio.
BACKGROUND:
On March 21 , 1989, the Atascadero Planning Commission conducted a
public hearing on the above referenced subject. On a 5 : 0 vote
(Commissioners Waage and Lochridge absent) , the Commission
approved the tract map request subject to the revised conditions
of approval . There was considerable public testimony and discus-
sion on this item as reflected in the attached minutes excerpt.
The major changes to the project made in the course of Planning
Commission review was to reduce the number of lots from 22 to 21
(to protect heritage trees on Lot #8) and to delete sidewalks in
favor of a cash contribution to the routes-to-school plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approval of Tentative Tract Map 1-89 per the Planning
Commission' s recommendation.
HE :ps
cc : Clark Iverson
Central Coast Engineering
Attachments : Staff Report - March 21 , 1989
Revised Conditions of Approval - March 21 , 1989
Minutes Excerpt - March 21 , 1989
• •
CITY OF ATASCADERO Item: B-3
STAFF REPORT
FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: March 21, 1989
BY:�9 Doug Davidson, Associate Planner File No: TTM 01-89
SUBJECT:
To consider a request to subdivide a portion of two existing
lots (13. 9 acres total) into twenty-two (22) parcels of
approximately one-half acre each. The request includes the
establishment of two new City standard roads to serve the
subdivision; Via Tortuga and Calle Refugio.
A. SITUATION AND FACTS:
1. Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Clark Iverson
2. Representative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Central Coast Engineering
3. Project Address. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8625 Atascadero Ave.
4. Legal Description. . . . . . . . . . . .Lots 27 and 28, Blk. 7
5. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13. 9 acres
6. Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .RSF-X (Residential Single
Family, minimum lot size
one-half acre)
7. General Plan Designation. . . . .High Density Single Family
8. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Single family residential
9. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Negative Declaration posted
March 9, 1989.
B. ANALYSIS:
The applicant proposes to subdivide a portion of two existing
lots containing a total of 13. 9 acres into twenty-two parcels of
approximately one-half acre each. The proposed subdivision will
be served by two new streets; Via Tortuga, a connecting street
between Atascadero Ave. and Coromar Rd. and Calle Refugio, a cul-
1 0
de-sac serving the southerly lots of the project. The street
names of Via Tortuga (Turtle or Tortoise Way) and Calle Refugio
(Shelter or Refuge Lane) pose no problems to the public safety
agencies or the utility companies. In addition, this street
pattern results in a desirable circulation connection between
Atascadero Ave. and Coromar Rd. The utility providers have also
responded that all the necessary utilities, including water,
sewer, gas, electricity, telephone, and cable are available to
the site.
Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Requirements
The RSF-X zoning designation sets a minimum lot size of one-half
acre. In this proposal, the lots range from 0.50 to 0. 67 acres,
with most of the lots being exactly one-half acre in size. All
lot sizes shown on the map (Exhibit B) are net acreage, not
including any street right-of-way in the calculation.
With the exception of the depth-width ratio, the proposed lots
meet the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance, including the
proper lot dimensions, lot lines, corner radii (minimum 20 feet) ,
street design, and access restrictions. Lots #15, 16, and 17
are in excess of the depth to width ratio of three, however,
there is adequare assurance that deep lot subdivision will not
occur. The project is designed as a one-half acre subdivision
and no further land divisions could occur under this zoning
designation.
General Plan Language
In addition to conformance with the specifics of the Zoning
Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance, the proposal is consistent
with the policies of the General Plan. Page 57 of the General
Plan contains the City' s policies for residential development.
Policy #10 states that, "Lot splits shall be thoroughly evaluated
and be in accordance with community plans and principles. " It
goes on to say that, "Strict adherence to the lot sizes of the
Plan is essential in order to retain the desired character of the
community. " This proposal meets the minimum lot size criteria
and the resultant lot sizes are compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood (see Exhibit A) .
Policy #11 reads that, "Attention shall be paid to the aesthetic
result of land division. Building sites shall be encouraged on
natural slopes, with minimal disruption of native vegetation and
watersheds, and efficient layout of access and utilities. Staff
believes that this policy is carried out in this subdivision for
the site is gently sloping, no tree removal is proposed, minimum
grading is necessary, and the proposed access and utilities
provide an orderly pattern of development.
2
C. RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of Tentative Tract Map 01-89 based on
the Findings in Exhibit E and Conditions of Approval in Exhibit
F.
ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Location Map
Exhibit B - Tentative Tract Map
Exhibit C - Preliminary Grading/Road Improvemeht
Plans
Exhibit D - Supplemental Development Statement
Exhibit E - Findings for Approval
Exhibit F - Conditions of Approval
3
•
1 I •
I
� w r
:ems'� ® ��1►, 1' ��. � �.
i• ��. �� ISA, ��I �- �
f - Exhibit B
'f�----�• '._ CITY OF ATASCADERO Tract Map
�-
"c�n'�= TTM 01-89
c.aF COUNIT`f DEVEL0P.'vIENT
DEPARTMENT
e•-
$;• ° � ter./ �—;�
lki
ir
q Via` s e
e
a
w ��•.l _.
yqp E ;
'1 8
bg® a
Sig m
u
�. . • Exhibit C
` CITY OF ATSCDERO
Preliminary Grading
and Road Improvements
C0,1v1�L1UNITY DEVELOPMENT TTM 01-89
DEPARTMENT
. L 0 OCD
;i: ••je i i� �per,^—r+� .
oil Z 11
! •i tt i� irk
m .•�:.sem L +I L. t t
iIi0 ht til
..t c t
E f ; u, •;
mz
: m
z n �
i
St
in Q �`
i1ti21-� :t a
Exhibit D
Development Statement
TTA'! 01-89
CENTRAL COAST
ENGINEERING
3% Buckley Road
San Luis Obispo December 25 1988
California 93401 s
E557
City of Atascadero
Planning Department
P.O. Box 747
Atascadero, CA 93423
SUBJECT: TENTATIVE MAP APPLICATION TRACT 1671.
At the request of Mr. Clark Iverson we are submitting the application for
Tentative Map 1671. Tne following are enclosed:
1. Application Form
2. Fee $485.00
3. 15 Copies of Proposed Tentative Map
4. 15 Copies of Proposed Grading Plan
5. Environmental Form
6. Preliminary Title Report
7. Assessor Maps and Addresses of Adjacent Owner within 300 feet.
8. Labels of Addressess of Adjacent Owners within 300 feet.
9. 8 1/2 x 11 Reduction
The proposed tentative map is to be processed in conjunction with ATAL
88-299. The tract was approved in its present form by the County in 1979
but the owner , of his own choice did not proceed. The tract complies with
existing Zoning. No trees are disturbed and no lot grading is proposed.
The site has access to sewer, water, gas, power. The proposed street will
provide a needed cross tie between Atascadero Road and Coroman Street . The
property has been owned by the same family for 57 years.
Sincerely,
Ben L. Maddalena
City Atascadero/D23
Telephone(805) 544-3278
EXHIBIT E - Findings for Approval
Tentative Tract Map 01-89
8625 Atascadero Rd.
Iverson/Central Coast Engineering
March 21, 1989
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL
1. Creation of the proposed parcels conforms to the Zoning
Ordinance and the General Plan land use designation,
densities and other policies.
2. 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.
• i
EXHIBIT F - Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract Map 01-89
8625 Atascadero Ave.
Iverson/Central Coast Engineering
March 21, 1989
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. Water shall be obtained from the Atascadero Mutual Water
Co. Water lines shall be extended to the frontage of each
parcel or its public utility easement 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. All
relocation and/or alteration of existing utilities shall be
the responsibility of the developer at his sole expense.
3. Grading, drainage, and erosion control plans for each
proposed lot, prepared by a registered civil engineer, shall
be submitted for review and approval by the Community
Development and Public Works . Departments prior to recording
of the final map. Drainage facilities shall be constructed
to City of Atascadero standards and completed prior to
recording of the final map.
4. 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
recordation of the final map. Plans shall include, but not
be limited to the following:
a. Paveout on Atascadero Ave. to twenty (20) feet from
centerline, including a design for a five (5) foot
sidewalk along the property frontage. Prior to
recording the final map, a contribution of $1. 75 per
square foot of sidewalk along the Atascadero Ave.
frontage shall be made to the Routes to School fund.
b. The new roads (Via Tortuga and Calle Refugio) shall be a
minimum paved section of 20 feet, with curb, gutter, and
sidewalk on both sides of all new streets. The new
roads shall be constructed to City standards and shall
be accepted into the City maintained mileage after the
required one year maintenance period, as determined by
the City Engineer.
• •
5. Construction of the public improvements shall be completed
prior to recordation of the final map.
6. Public improvement plans shall be reviewed and approved by
the Fire Department prior to recording the final map.
7. Sewer improvement plans shall require approval from the
Public Works Department prior to recording of the final map.
All newly created lots shall be connected to public sewer.
All annexation fees shall be paid for the newly formed lots
prior to recording the map. Any sewer extensions for
annexations must be completed within one year after
annexation.
8. 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 Public Works Department sign standards
and the current State of California uniform sign chart.
Installation of traffic devices shall be subject to review
and modifications after construction.
9. 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 of the final map. Applicant
shall sign an inspection and curb/gutter 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.
10. Prior to recording of the final map, a soils investigation
shall be submitted, recommending corrective measures to
prevent structural damage to each structure where soil
problems exist. The date of the report, name of the
engineer, and the location where the reports are on file
shall be noted on the map.
11. Parcels 1 and 22 shall have no direct access to Atascadero
Ave, while Parcels 10 and 11 shall have no direct access to
Coromar Rd. Access to all lots of the tract shall be from
the new public roads. Relinquishment of access rights shall
be shown on the final map.
12. The applicant shall make an offer of dedication to the City
for Via Tortuga and Calle Refugio (50foot right-of-way) .
The offers of dedication shall also include public utility
easements. All offers of dedication shall be recorded prior
to or simultaneous to the recordation of the final map.
• i
13. 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 and a registered civil engineer or licensed
land surveyor shall indicate, by certificate on the
final map, that corners have been set or shall be set by
a date specific and that they will be sufficient to
enable the survey to be retraced.
b. A recently updated preliminary title report shall be
submitted for review in conjunction with the processing
of the final map.
c. A preliminary subdivision guarantee shall be submitted
for review in conjunction with the processing of the
final map.
14. The Lot Line Adjustment (ATAL 88-299) shall be recorded
prior to or simultaneous with the recording of the final
map.
15. Approval of this tentative map shall expire two years from
the date of final approval unless an extension of time is
granted pursuant to a written request prior to the
expiration date.
• i
EXHIBIT F - Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract Map 01-89
8625 Atascadero Ave.
Iverson/Central Coast Engineering
March 21, 1989
(Revised by the Planning Commission)
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. Water shall be obtained from the Atascadero Mutual Water
Co. Water lines shall be extended to the frontage of each
parcel or its public utility easement 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. All
relocation and/or alteration of existing utilities shall be
the responsibility of the developer at his sole expense.
3. Grading, drainage, and erosion control plans for each
proposed lot, prepared by a registered civil engineer, shall
be submitted for review and approval by the Community
Development and Public Works Departments prior to recording
of the final map. Drainage facilities shall be constructed
to City of Atascadero standards and completed prior to
recording of the final map.
4. 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
recordation of the final map. Plans shall include, but not
be limited to the following:
a. Paveout on Atascadero Ave. to twenty (20) feet from
centerline, including a design for a five (5) foot
walkway along the property frontage. Prior to
recording the final map, a contribution of $1. 75 per
square foot of walkway along the frontage of Atascadero
Ave. and Coromar Rd. and the linear frontage of Via
Tortuga, shall be made to the Routes to School fund.
b. The new roads (Via Tortuga and Calle Refugio) shall be a
minimum paved section of 20 feet, with curb and/or
gutter, as determined by the City Engineer. The new
roads shall be constructed to City standards and shall
be accepted into the City maintained mileage after the
required one year maintenance period, as determined by
the City Engineer.
5. Construction of the public improvements shall be completed
prior to recordation of the final map.
6. Public improvement plans shall be reviewed and approved by
the Fire Department prior to recording the final map.
7. Sewer improvement plans shall require approval from the
Public Works Department prior to recording of the final map.
All newly created lots shall be connected to public sewer.
All annexation fees shall be paid for the newly formed lots
prior to recording the map. Any sewer extensions for
annexations must be completed within one year after
annexation.
8. 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 Public Works Department sign standards
and the current State of California uniform sign chart.
Installation of traffic devices shall be subject to review
and modifications after construction.
9. 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 of the final map. Applicant
shall sign an inspection and curb/gutter 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.
10. Prior to recording of the final map, a soils investigation
shall be submitted, recommending corrective measures to
prevent structural damage to each structure where soil
problems exist. The date of the report, name of the
engineer, and the location where the reports are on file
shall be noted on the map.
11. Parcels 1 and 22 shall have no direct access to Atascadero
Ave, while Parcels 10 and 11 shall have no direct access to
Coromar Rd. Access to all lots of the tract shall be from
the new public roads. Relinquishment of access rights shall
be shown on the final map.
12. The applicant shall make an offer of dedication to the City
for Via Tortuga and Calle Refugio (50foot right-of-way) .
The offers of dedication shall also include public utility
0 •
easements. All offers of dedication shall be recorded prior
to or simultaneous to the recordation of the final map.
13. 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 and a registered civil engineer or licensed
land surveyor shall indicate, by certificate on the
final map, that corners have been set or shall be set by
a date specific and that they will be sufficient to
enable the survey to be retraced.
b. A recently updated preliminary title report shall be
submitted for review in conjunction with the processing
of the final map.
c. A preliminary subdivision guarantee shall be submitted
for review in conjunction with the processing of the
final map.
14. The Lot Line Adjustment (ATAL 88-299) shall be recorded
prior to or simultaneous with the recording of the final
map.
15. Approval of this tentative map shall expire two years from
the date of final approval unless an extension of time is
granted pursuant to a written request prior to the
expiration date.
16. Lots #6, 7, 8, and 9 shall be combined into three lots to
preserve the two heritage oak trees on lot #8 and the one
heritage oak on lot #6.
-4- M
MINUTES EXCERPT - PLANNING COMMISSION - 3/21/89
2. LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT 2-89 :
Request initiated by Alice Johnson (Central Coast
Engineering) to record a lot line adjustment of two
existing lots of record. Subject site is located at
8625/8785 Atascadero Avenue.
3. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 1-89 :
Request initiated by Clark Iverson (Central Coast
Engineering) to allow subdivision of a portion of two
existing lots ( 13 . 9 acres total) into 22 parcels of
approximately one-half acre each. The request includes
the establishment of two new City standard roads to
serve the subdivision: via Tortuga and Calle Refugio.
Subject site is located at 8625 Atascadero Avenue .
Mr. Davidson presented the staff report on this tract map
request; staff recommendation is for approval subject to 15
conditions .
Commissioner Luna inquired whether proposed parcel 8 had an
adequate building site in view of the two heritage trees on
that parcel .
. Ben Maddalena with Central Coast Engineering, representing
the applicant, stated he was in agreement with the lot line
adjustment and tract map with the exception of condition #4-
b. It is the applicant' s desire to install an asphalt berm
rather than a concrete walk. He added that an arborist' s
report will be provided with a preliminary house design for
parcel 8 that shows that the site is buildable.
Commissioner Luna asked if Mr. Maddalena would be willing to
redraw the lot lines for Lots 6 , 7 , 8, and 9 to make three
lots in order to preserve the trees on lot 8 and 6 . Mr.
Maddalena guaranteed that the trees will stay and felt that
through an arborist report, they can prove that the trees
will not need to be removed. Discussion followed.
Mr. Sensibaugh addressed condition #4 in relation to reasons
for requiring sidewalks for the new proposed streets in
relation to the "route-to-school" plan.
Mr. Engen added that although the "route-to-school" plan has
not been technically adopted, an account has been
established to require contributions towards this plan for
certain subdivisions , lot splits, etc. With regard to
keeping with the "spirit" of the General Plan, it may be
appropriate to forego the concrete walk in this instance.
Commissioner Brasher asked if the language for condition 4-b
could be made more flexibile, contingent upon a study of
what would be most practical in this particular location.
Mr. Sensibaugh suggested some alternative language.
-5- 9 0
MINUTES EXCERPT - PLANNING COMMISSION - 3/21/89
0
Mr. Maddalena responded to questions from the Commission
relative to downstream drainage improvements, etc .
Bill Greenfield, Montura Lane resident for 10 1/2 years ,
expressed concern that the subdivision would further impact
Coromar with respect to traffic . He would like to see
Coromar widened before any approval of the project and spoke
on the drainage problems in this area.
Bob Gerfen, Montura Lane resident, thanked the Commission
for their concerns with the trees on the lots , and stated
his main concern is with the traffic on Coromar.
James Watson stated he owns property directly across the
street from the subdivision (8400-8600 Atascadero Ave. ) and
commented that it appears that nine of the lots drain onto
Atascadero Avenue. He asked if the City has addressed the
natural drainage on the east side of Atascadero Avenue as it
has been pretty heavy in the past. He read a letter asking
that his property be considered for rezoning from one-acre
to one-half acre as his property is located right in the
middle of one-half acre zoning.
Doris Rusti, 8753 Atascadero Avenue, added some comments
concerning the drainage problem and asked for clarification
on how the lot line adjustment and tract map tie together.
Terry Webb, Montura Lane resident, stated his daughter walks
down coromar to get to Santa Rosa School which is a
dangerous road (no sidewalks, etc. ) . He expressed concern
that the increase in density will impact the traffic on
Coromar.
Mike Prainer, 8690 Atascadero Avenue, noted there is a
Montessori School directly across the street which
contributes to increased traffic on school days . There
needs to be some type of regulations of the driveways from
the subdivision onto Atascadero Avenue.
Barbara Schoenike proposed that the lot lines be readjusted
so Lot 8 would have one oak tree rather than two. She
addressed the importance of making a concerted effort to
protect trees in an effort to avoid any future risk to them
by development or removal .
Mr. Maddalena felt that a house can be sited between the two
trees and added the Iverson family has owned this property
for 57 years and he can assure everyone that the trees will
be protected.
Steve LaSalle voiced support for readjusting the lot lines
as he did not think there was adequate space between the two
trees to provide a building site and to build within the
dripline.
-6- •
MINUTES EXCERPT - PLANNING COMMISSION - 3/21/89
End of public testimony.
Vice Chairperson Highland called a recess at 9 :38 p.m. ;
meeting reconvened at 9 : 48 p.m.
Commissioner Tobey did not see an adequate building site for
Lot 8 and suggested that the four previously discussed lots
be redivided into three lots or make lot 8 a open space
area. Commissioner Luna agreed that a scenic easement on
lot 8 would be appropriate.
MOTION: Made by Commissioner Luna to add condition #16 to
make Lot 8 a scenic easement.
Mr. Engen stated that this lot is not shown as a public
recreation site in the General Plan; also there is not a
mechanism for maintaining a property of that size without a
specific purpose in mind. He explained the differences -
between a scenic easement and a neighborhood park space.
Commissioner Luna withdrew his motion.
MOTION: Made by Commissioner Luna to approve Tentative
Tract Map 1-89 subject to the findings and
conditions contained in the staff report with the
following modifications :
4a. Paveout on Atascadero Avenue to twenty (20)
feet from centerline, including a design for
a five (5) foot walkway along the property
frontage. Prior to recording the final map,
a contribution of $1 . 75 per square foot of
walkway along the linear frontage of
Atascadero Avenue, Coromar Road, and Via
Tortuga, shall be made to the Routes to
School fund.
b. The new roads (Via Tortuga and Calle Refugio)
shall be a minimum paved section of 20 feet,
with curb and/or gutter, as determined by the
City Engineer. The new roads shall be
constructed to City standards and shall be
accepted into the City maintained mileage
after the required one year maintenance
period, as determined by the City Engineer.
16 . Lots #6 , 7, 8, and 9 shall be combined into
three lots to preserve the two heritage oak
trees on lot #8 and the one heritage oak on
lot #6.
Discussion ensued concerning assurances that drainage
problems will be resolved through fees assessed in the
0 0
MINUTES EXCERPT - PLANNING COMMISSION - 3/21/89
Amapoa-Tecorida drainage area, circulation studies ,
traffic and speed issues, stop signs along Coromar
Road, Atascadero Avenue, etc.
Upon conclusion of discussion, the motion carried
5 :0.
APPEAL OF STAFF DETERMINATION:
Appeal initiated by Howard Jenning/na
of
Creative Alternative for Learning Inc. of
staff' s determination that their pgram is a
social and service organization" school"
a thereby not a permitted use inamily
di riot.
Henry Enge presented the staff reportreasons
for determi 'ng this proposed program be a "social and
service organization" . He then respo ed to questions from
the Commission.
Howard Jennings, ppellant, explai ed the intent of the
program and the clientele it sery s and noted that this
program is an "inte e" school . There is a great need in
the north county for his type f service; the alternative
to this program would a plat ' g people in the state
hospital at a cost of $ 9,00 per person.
Kevin Bennefield, program irector for C.A.L.L. , spoke on
behalf of the appeal. He n ted that the State feels this
program is a school_; cr ent led special education teachers
who are licensed throu the ate are employed (as with the
school districts) and ran port tion will be provided for
the students . Mr. B nefield fu ther stated that two years
ago a needs assessor t was taken; ' t was revealed that there
is a need for this type of service n this area. He added
that this program is tied to a grant which expires in June,
1989 .
Vice Chairman ighland reminded the appe lant that the
question for he Commission' s determinati is not the merit
of the prog am but whether, according to t Zoning
Ordinance, this is a school or social and se vice
organizat on. He then asked Mr. Bennefield q estions
relativ to licensing, funding, certification personnel,
etc.
Mr. ennefield stated that the primary purpose of is
pro ram is "habilitative services" (students who ha not
re ched a level to do basic things on a daily basis ) . He
t en discussed the program' s outline on what is taught to
he students.
• MEET1 AGENDA _
REMI
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: City Council April 11 , 1989
VIA: Ray Windsor, City Manager
FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director -NC
SUBJECT: TREE ORDINANCE REVISION: REFERRAL TO PLANNING
COMMISSION
BACKGROUND:
At the March 28, 1989 Council meeting, the Council continued to
April 11th the matter of scheduling comprehensive revisions to
Ordinance No. 168 for public hearing. The question has been
raised as to whether the ordinance needs to go back to the
Planning Commission before being scheduled by the City Council
for public hearing.
ANALYSIS :
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Tree
Committee' s proposed rewrite of the ordinance and subsequently
held a joint meeting between the Planning Commission and Council
for direction prior to referring it to the City Council ' s tree
subcommittee for final draft. In reviewing the tree
subcommittee' s final draft, it would appear that there are two
items that were not considered during the course of discussion by
/ the Planning Commission and City Council, i . e. , ( 1) restitution,
and ( 2) exemption of single family uses from the conformance
security subsection. Section 65857 of the Government Code
provides that "any modification of a proposed ordinance or
amendment by the legislative body not previously considered by
the Planning Commission during its hearing, shall first be
referred to the Planning Commission for report and
recommendation, . . . . . " The section goes on to indicate that the
Planning Commission need not hold a public hearing on such
referrals .
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council refer the restitution language and single
family performance guarantee exemption language to the Planning
Commission for a report back within 40 days and then set a date
of public hearing for the Council ' s subcommittee' s draft
ordinance.
HE :ps
Enclosure: March 28 , 1989 Tree Ordinance Agenda Material
PLEASE NOTE THIS WRIAL IS MEETIN J AGENDA /
NOT FOR PUBLIC DI SION AT • DAT 20 /P ITEMN .49
THIS TIME, PENDING COUNCIL
SETTING A FORMAL PUBLIC HEAR-
ING FOR SUCH. MEMORANDUM
City of Atascadero
March 6, 1989
TO Henry Engen, Community Development Director
FROM: Jeffrey G. Jorgensen, City Attorney
SUBJECT: Tree Ordinance Revision
This memorandum is to follow up on the March 3 , 1989 meeting
of the Tree Subcommittee concerning the revisions to the tree
ordinance. Attached for your information and use is a final
draft of the proposed tree ordinance revision reflecting the
comments of the committee. I would appreciate it if you would
coordinate further action on this matter.
It is my understanding that we will target the March 28, 1989
Council meeting for a presentation of the draft. This will be
done by Councilman Shiers and Councilman Dexter as an
information item to hopefully get final conceptual approval
and/or further direction from the Council as a whole to bring
back an ordinance for first reading.
Tasks that remain to be done appear to be: ,
1. The Council needs to give formal direction concerning who
the City Arborist/Urban Forester will be, what department
he will operate in, and funding mechanisms for
consultation.
2 . If the Council accepts the recommendation concerning
performance security, then a resolution establishing tree
value will need to be presented.
3 . The amount equal to the cost of purchasing and planting
replacement trees also needs to be established by
resolution.
4 . The question of whether to include an optional provision
for restitution in the event of violation needs to be
addressed by the Council.
5. The question of whether appeals should be placed on the
Council 's consent agenda, and in what capacity, needs to
be resolved.
0 0
MEMO: Henry Engen
SUBJ: Tree Ordinance Revision
March 6, 1989 —Page 2
If you have further questions or comments, or if I may be of
further assistance in any way in this matter, please feel free
to contact me at your convenience.
Sincerely,
RE*/ JNSEN
Ci�y At Dorney
JGJ: fr
A:MMATA100
Attachment
cc: City Manager
Councilman Shiers
Councilman Dexter
DRAFT
THIRD DRAFT
March 28, 1989
PROPOSED REVISION OF TREE ORDINANCE NO. 168
"TREE ORDINANCE"
9-4. 155. Tree Protection.
Preservation of natural flora and fauna is a basic
community goal of the Atascadero General Plan.
(a) Purpose. The trees of Atascadero are valued
community assets. The purpose of this section is to establish
regulations for the installation, maintenance, preservation,
and selected removal of oak trees, heritage trees, and other
mature trees within the City. In establishing these
procedures and standards, it is the City's intent to encourage
the preservation of trees and other natural amenities with
sensitive design and development practices. City review of
proposed projects shall take into consideration trees existing
on the property with applicants encouraged to design projects
to utilize existing trees in the landscaping pattern. The
provisions of this section shall apply to all property within 0
the City of Atascadero, public or private, and to any person,
firm, corporation, and public or private utility.
(b) Definitions:
(1) Dripline: A line on the ground established by
drawing an imaginary line extending downward from the ends of
the outermost branches of a tree.
(2) Hazardous: Presenting an immediate danger to
people or real property.
(3) Heritage Tree: Any tree designated by
resolution of the City Council on the basis of age, size,
location, visibility, historic origin, or special value to the
property owner, which the Council finds is deserving special
consideration and protection.
(4) Oak Sapling: Any species of the genus QUERCUS,
having a trunk three (3) inches or more in circumference at
ground level.
(5) Oak Tree: Any species of the genus QUERCUS,
having a trunk twelve (12) inches or more in circumference
measured four and one-half (4-1/2) feet above grade, including 0
1
ibut not limited to, Blue Oak (QUERCUS DOUGLASII) , Live Oak
(QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA) , and Valley Oak (QUERCUS LOBATA) .
(6) Other Mature Tree: Any species other than the
genus QUERCUS, having a trunk twenty-five (25) inches or more
in circumference measured four and one-half (4-1/2) feet above
grade.
(7) Removal: Destruction or displacement of a tree
by chemical means, or cutting, bulldozing, or other mechanical
means which results in physical transportation of the tree
from its site and/or death of the tree.
(8) Topping/Pollarding: Removal of terminal limbs
or apex from the living tree.
(c) Tree Removal Permit. A tree removal permit is
required for the removal of any oak tree, heritage tree, or
other mature tree.
(1) Exemptions. A tree removal permit is not
required for the following:
(i) Trees that are identified and approved
for removal in an approved plot plan, precise plan, or
conditional use permit, provided that such removal complies
with the removal criteria of Section (c) (3) (i) , (ii) .
(ii) Trees in a hazardous condition.
(iii) Trees that are to be removed as part of
management practices in orchards, christmas tree farms,
nurseries, or trees specifically planted as a woodlot and
intended to be harvested as a forest product.
(iv) Trees planted by the current property
owner, other than oak trees, heritage trees, or trees planted
to meet conditions of approval of a development project or
tree removal permit.
(2) Posting Procedures. All trees proposed for
removal, requiring a removal permit, shall be identified by
the applicant for field inspection, utilizing a city-provided
identification sign. The City shall post a notice of tree
removal on the first day of a fourteen (14) day appeal period.
The notice shall be posted on the property so as to be
readable from the street and shall remain until tree removal
has occurred. Notice shall also be posted in City Hall.
2
• ! c
l
t
r
r
91
(3) Oak Tree Removal Criteria. An application for
oak tree removal shall be reviewed and approved, modified, or
denied by the City Arborist/Urban Forester.
(i) The City Arborist/Urban Forester's
decision shall take into consideration:
a. The topography of the land, and the
potential effect of the requested tree removal on soil
retention, and diversion or increased flow of surface waters.
He shall consider the effects of grading and drainage.
Hilltops, ravines, streambeds, and other natural water courses
that provide a habitat for trees and wildlife should not be
disturbed.
b. The number, species, size, and
location of existing trees in the area.
c. The special need to protect existing
blue and valley oaks and existing regeneration of blue and
valley oak saplings.
(ii) At least one of the following conditions
shall be satisfied before a removal permit can be approved:
a. The tree is dead, diseased beyond
reclamation, or hazardous.
b. The tree is crowded, with good
horticultural practice dictating thinning.
c. The tree is interfering with
existing utilities, structures, or right-of-way improvements.
Right-of-way improvements--especially sidewalks--shall accom-
modate existing trees whenever possible.
d. The tree is obstructing existing or
proposed improvements that cannot be reasonably designed to
avoid the need for tree removal.
e. The tree . is inhibiting sunlight
needed for either active or passive solar heating or cooling,
and the building of solar collectors cannot be oriented to
collect sufficient sunlight without the total removal of the
tree.
(4) Heritage Tree Removal. A heritage tree shall
not be removed except upon approval by the City Council after
a public hearing pursuant to the removal criteria of Section
(c) (3) (ii) (a) -(e) .
3
•
(5) Other Mature Tree Removal. The City Arborist/
Urban Forester shall base his decision to approve, modify, or
deny the removal request of other mature trees on the removal
criteria of Section (c) (3) (ii) (a) -(e) .
(6) Topping/Pollarding. Topping/pollarding shall
not be allowed for oak and heritage trees.
(7) Application Content. Tree removal applications
shall include all information specified by Section 9-2 . 107 (b)
(Plot Plan Content) and:
(i) The size, species, and condition of each
tree proposed for removal.
(ii) The purpose for removal.
(iii) The size and species of trees proposed
to replace those intended for removal.
(d) Tree Protection Plan. A tree protection plan shall
be required as part of a plot plan, precise plan, or
conditional use permit. The plan shall be reviewed by the
City Arborist/Urban Forester, who shall approve, deny, or
require modification of said plan to assure conformity with
tree removal criteria and compliance with the City's goals of
preserving existing trees from indiscriminate or unnecessary
removal.
(1) Plan Content. Plans shall include all informa-
tion specified by Section 9-2 .107 (b) (Plot Plan Content) and:
(i) Size, species, aesthetics, state of
health, and dripline of each tree that reaches to within
twenty (20) feet of any development areas, including any areas
where trenching is proposed.
(ii) Mitigation measures proposed to ensure
the survival of remaining trees through the construction
process and thereafter.
(iii) Size, species, and location of trees
proposed to replace those proposed for removal.
(2) Tree Protection Standards. Approval of tree
protection plans shall require compliance with the following
standards:
(i) Dripline Protection. The applicant is
responsible through final building inspection for the
4
0 0
preservation of all trees which are to remain on the project
site.
a. Each tree or group of trees to be
preserved shall be protected by enclosure of the entire
dripline area with a five (5) foot fence prior to grading,
movement of heavy equipment, or other construction activity.
Exceptions may be approved by the City Arborist/Urban
Forester.
b. The existing ground surface within
the dripline of any oak or heritage tree should not be cut,
filled, compacted, or paved unless there is no other
reasonable design alternative. Excavation within the dripline
of any said tree shall not be permitted where, in the judgment
of the City Arborist/Urban Forester, material damage to the
root system will result.
c. All cuts or trenching within the
dripline of a protected tree and all root cuttings are to be
made by hand. No backhoes or graders shall be used.
Appropriate measures shall be taken to prevent soil and
exposed roots from drying out.
(ii) Landscape Plans. Landscape plans, where
required, must show the proposed landscaping within the
dripline of trees. Drought tolerant landscaping or mulching
may be required as an alternative to irrigated landscaping
where appropriate.
(iii) Nonconformance. In case of noncon-
formance with the tree protection requirements, the City
Arborist/Urban Forester shall immediately issue a Stop Work
Order until all requirements have been met.
(iv) Tree Damage or Destruction. Should
unauthorized work or nonconformance lead to tree damage or
destruction, the City Arborist/Urban Forester shall issue a
Stop Work Order and require mitigation of the damage.
(v) Performance Security. Performance
security, whether by surety bond, cash deposit, or other
security acceptable to the City, may be required prior to
issuance of an entitlement whenever the City Arborist/Urban
Forester determines that there is a significant risk of damage
or destruction to trees on the site, and performance security
is necessary to assure protection of trees on the site. The
amount of any said performance security shall be $1,500 per
tree or the value of the affected tree(s) , whichever is
greater. Tree value shall be determined utilizing criteria
established and adopted by resolution of the City Council.
5
The performance security shall be forfeited if, prior to final
inspection, the City Arborist/Urban Forester finds that the
tree has suffered permanent damage. If no permanent damage
has occurred, the performance security shall be returned upon
final inspection. Funds collected through the forfeiture of
performance security shall be placed in the Oak Tree
Preservation/Replacement Fund. Single family uses on existing
single family lots shall be exempt from the performance
security requirements of this paragraph.
(e) Replacement Trees. All trees removed pursuant to a
tree removal permit shall be replaced as specified herein.
Replacement trees shall be planted within twelve (12) months
of the tree removal or before final building inspection,
whichever occurs first.
(1) Other Mature Trees. Every tree removed shall
be replaced. The minimum size of a replacement tree shall be
in a five (5) gallon container.
(2) Oak Trees. Every oak tree removed shall be
replaced with an oak tree. The planting of blue and valley
oaks shall be especially encouraged. Every oak removed shall
be replaced with two (2) trees, each in a fifteen (15) gallon
container (one (1) inch minimum trunk caliper measured twelve
(12) inches above soil level) .
At the option of the applicant, fifty (50)
percent of the required replacement trees may be substituted
by protecting existing blue and valley oak saplings between
three (3) and six (6) inches in circumference. Three (3)
saplings shall count as one (1) replacement tree. The
saplings must be on the same property and located within
seventy-five (75) yards of the removed tree. Protection shall
include, but not be limited to, a five (5) foot high fence
totally surrounding the sapling during construction. Long-
term protection after construction shall be as approved by the
City Arborist/Urban Forester.
(3) Oak Tree Preservation/Replacement Fund. If the
City Arborist/Urban Forester determines that the site cannot
accommodate replacement trees, then an amount established by
resolution of the City Council as the amount equal to the cost
of purchasing and planting replacement trees shall be required
and placed in the Oak Tree Preservation/Replacement Fund.
This fund is to be utilized for the preservation, replacement,
and planting of oaks within the City.
6
0 •
(f) Violation, Penalties. Any person in violation of
this ordinance shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and
upon conviction may be punished as set forth in Chapter 3 of
Title 1 of this Code.
9-4. 156. Street Trees (Reserved) .
9-4 . 157. Tree Management Plan (Reserved) .
JGJ: fr/3/6/89
C:ORATA169
7
0
[OPTIONAL] :
(g) Violation. Restitution. It has been determined that
the oak trees within the City are valuable assets to the
citizens of this community, and as a result of the loss or
damage to any of these trees, the public should be
recompensed. In addition to any penalties provided by section
(f) above, any person who cuts, damages, or removes any oak
tree in violation of the terms of this chapter is responsible
for proper restitution and may be required to replace the oak
tree(s) so removed or damaged, by the donation of or by
replanting two (2) or more oak trees of reasonable equivalent
size and value to the tree damaged or removed. The number,
size, and location of said equivalent replacement oak tree
shall be determined by the City Arborist/Urban Forester. The
City may bring a civil action for restitution to enforce this
section pursuant to Government Code Section 36900.
8
a • (MIM/. We""' ..
M E M O R A N D U M
To : City Council
Through : Ray Windsor , City Manager '
From: Mark A. Joseph, Director off Admin. Service4l
Date: April 2, 1989
Subject : Funding Community Agency Requests
This memo outlines some policy and procedural issues relative to
funding annual Community Agency requests. A clear policy would
be helpful at this time to properly handle the requests we have
already received and that we anticipate receiving .
Background
In FY 87-88, Council allocated slightly less than one percent or
$38,662 of the General Fund revenues towards Community groups.
In this current year , the percentage is slightly over one
percent or $62,527. In terms of actual dollars, this year ' s
request is almost two-thirds higher than last . Partly in
response to this increase, staff was directed to develop some
policy options for Council ' s review prior to the FY 89--90 budget
cycle.
General Requirements
Four basic requirements appear appropriate relative to Community
Agency funding requests. These are listed below:
1 ) Total funds available for distribution should
approximate one percent of the estimated General Fund ' s
Operating Revenues.
2) All groups should fill out a standard Community Agency
Funding Request form (see attached ) , with requests
being solicited in early April of each year .
3) Eligible groups should be Community-based , with
membership open to the general public .
4 ) Requests should be considered and acted upon only once
per year , at budget time ( late May, or early June ) and
o ly fter a� timely submittal of the request .
r 't1
Additional Ideas For Allocatiing Funds
In addition to the parameters set forth above. other criteria
that could be considered are briefly discussed below:
1 ) Services provided should be cost-effective, relative to
the City providing the same service.
0 0
2 ) The magnitude of community benefit should be 14100
considered . ( For example, the program with the highest
level of participation. )
9) Programs or services that address compelling social
needs not otherwise provided for ; or programs that
contribute to the historical , cultural and/or aesthetic
values of the community might be given a higher
oriority ranking .
in the event that more requests are made than funds are
available, some methods of determining how to allocate the scarce
resources are suggested below:
1 ) Council can continue to review the requests and enter
into discussions with the various agencies, and
allocate the funds accordingly . This would be done
during one of the scheduled Budget Workshops .
2) Given clear guidelines, staff could review the requests
and make recommendations to Council . The challenge is
whether the guidelines could substitute for Council ' s
assessment of community needs and eyoectations .
3) Fund each request proportional to the amount that the
available funds compare to the total requests . In
other words, if the available money is only 75 percent 11011
of the total request , each request would only receiv(,?
75 percent . This proposal is certainly fair , but it
does preclude any opportunity to prioritize requests.
it would require all proposals to receive some funding
regardless of the merits of the request .
4 ) A combination of the above could be emplored .
Recommendations
Some type of policy ant procedure appears to be needed in
addressing community funding needs. Some minimum standards have
been suggested , and additional options have also been olfered .
It is hoped that Council will discusy this isswe and givp
direction to staff .
MAJ: al
aqfd\policy
0
CITY OF ATASCADERO
COMMUNITY AGENCY FUNDING REQUEST
Agency Name:
Address
Con ta=t Phone:
1 . On a single sheet . please describe your Agency , including a
brief history an.a puroose of the organization, and your
current goals and accomoli=_hmenr,=_ .
2 . Number of member=_
3. What restriction=_ , if any, on becoming a member .
4 . Legal status of organization: C3 Non-Profit Corooration
C3 Other ( explain )
5. Amount Requested $ _
b . Preferred method of disbursement : C3 Annually, on
r3 Semi-annual CJ Quarterly W monthly
?. Please complete the attaches nudge. Form.
G. How will the money be spent? What services will be
provided? (Attach additional sheets . )
9. Describe how the community will benefit from the City ' s
contribution? What consequences will occur if funding is
not provided , or only a portion is aooroved" (Attach
additional sheets . )
10. I certify that the information supplied is current , complete
and accurate.
Authorized Signature Titie
Print Name Date __—�
CITY OF ATASCADERO
COMMUNITY AGENCY PROJECTED BUDGET
Estimated
_Revenues Amounts
Cary over from Pr !or Year {Beeinninq Balance
memoership Dues
Donations
Fund Raises
Gove-nmert SUDDort
Federal
State
County
CITY 0P ATASCADERO
Other Cities
Other Government
A11 other Revenue=_ _
TCTAL REVENUES
Expenses
Administrative Costs
Operating Costs
Equipment
Other Expenses
TOTAL EXPENSES
ENDING YEAR BALANCE $
rEtTI�'W AGENDA _
fT_ki k
MEMBERS JIM CATHCART
CHIEF CONSULIANI
JIM NIELSEN SAL BIANCO
.'CE CHAIRMAN
PRINCIPAL CONSULTANT
*ED
LEAHCUNO
OHNDGRUINTLE Catif
orniaXegiglatore ASSCIATE CONSULTANT
CECIL
MAUREEN BROOKS
BARRY KEENE
COMMITTEE SECRETARv
DAN McCOROUODALE
JOSEPH MONTOYA ROOM 5122
SENATE COMMITTEE ON STATE CAPITOL
SACRAMENTO.CA 95814
INSURANCE, CLAIMS AND CORPORATIONS `916'445-0825
F�. .ALAN ROBBINS
CHAIRMAN
March 31, 1959
City of Atascadero
City Hall
Administration. Building
6500 Palma
Atascadero, CA 911,423
Gear Members of the City Council :
Over twenty cities and counties have joined the fight against
high insurance costs and have voted to endorse SB 103. Others
are scheduled to vote on taking a stand next week.
It would be helpful if we could add the City of Atascadero to our
support list, especially since April is the crucial time in this
struggle. If you support our legislative efforts, please tell
your local state legislators that you are in favor of SB 103 and
urge them to vote yes on this bill .
We appreciate your consideration of this request.
My best regards.
Sincerely
6'e.,
0'f�y��
ALAN ROBBINS
AR:LeaC/gny
Enclosures
SUPPORTERS OF SB 103
BUSINESS ORGANIZATIONS CONSUMER AND SENIOR ORGANIZATIONS
*Arleta Chamber of Commerce •American Association of Retired Persons
*California Highway Carriers •Congress of California Seniors
*California Retailers Association •FAIR (Fair Automobile Insurance Rates)
*Canoga Park Chamber of Commerce *ICAN (Insurance Consumers Action Network)
*Chatsworth Chamber of Commerce *Seniors for Legislative Action
*Citrus Heights Chamber of Commerce *Council on Aging, City of Los Angeles
*Granada Hills Chamber of Commerce
*Insurance Agents & Brokers
Legislative Council GOVERNMENT
*Mission Hills Chamber of Commerce
*Northridge Chamber of Commerce *County Supervisors Association of Calif.
*Pacoima Chamber of Commerce *Regional Council of Rural Counties
*Panorama City/Sepulveda Chamber
of Commerce •Alpine County *Amador County
*Reseda Chamber of Commerce *Contra Costa County *E1 Dorado County
*San Fernando Chamber of Commerce *Fresno County *Glenn County
*San Juan Capistrano Chamber of Commerce *Los Angeles County *Mono County
*Sherman Oaks Chamber of Commerce *Nevada County *Plumas County
*Studio City Chamber of Commerce *Santa Cruz County *Siskiyou County
*Sunland/Tujunga Chamber of Commerce *Trinity County
*Sun Valley Area Chamber of Commerce *City of Adelanto *City of Anaheim
*Sylmar Chamber of Commerce *City of Artesia *City of Gardena
*Tarzana Chamber of Commerce *City of Irvine *City of Lancaster
*Van Nuys (Greater Area) Chamber *City of Los Alamitos *City of Norco
of Commerce *City of Orange Cove *City of Pacific Grove
*Woodland Hills Chamber of Commerce *City of Tehachapi
EDITORIAL SUPPORT LAW ENFORCEMENT
*Oakland Tribune *California Association of Special
*KMJC-AM Radio, San Diego Investigators
LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
*California Conference of Machinists *Teamsters Public Affairs Council
*California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO *Transportation Communications International
*California State Employees Association Union
*Communications Workers of America *United Brotherhood of Carpenters and
*Internation Longshoremen and Joiners of America
Warehousemen Union, Northern *United Transportation Union
California Council
Prepared and Distributed
by Senator Alan Robbins
330
0 4p
SNSUFRAfVCE FREFOFRM IN CAL= FOFtMXAk
FACT SHEET - SENATE BILL 103 (ROBBINS)
INTENT SB 103 will prevent illegal blanket cancellations in the private
passenger automobile insurance segment of the market at least until November,
1989. On a permanent basis, it also will prevent abuse of the "Good Driver
Discount" called for in Proposition 103.
THE EXISTING OBLIGATION UNDER PROP. 103 On December 7, 1988, the California
Supreme Court ordered into effect the provision in Proposition 103 that
prohibits an insurance company from declining to renew a private passenger
automobile insurance policy unless the action is legitimately based on:
- Nonpayment of premium;
- Fraud or material misrepresentation affecting the policy of the
insured; or
- A substantial increase in the hazard insured against.
SB 103 ADDS TEETH FOR ENFORCEMENT If the insurers declined to renew 5% or more,
the company must offer each po icyholder who was cancelled an option to renew.
In the event a policyholder who was not renewed has found a replacement policy
at a higher premium rate, the former insurer must pay the policyholder the
increase in premium. This portion of SB 103 and the penalty assessment
provision are both temporary and only apply to private passenger automobile
insurance policies that come due for renewal between the Act's effective date
and November 8, 1989. If either the U.S. or the California Supreme Court holds
Proposition 103's renewal provisions unconstitutional , this bill immediately
goes out of effect.
THE PENALTY ASSESSMENT UNDER SB 103 An insurer in violation of the law may be
assessed 0° o its aggregate private passenger automobile insurance premiums on
the policies illegally cancelled. If there has been substantial compliance, the
Insurance Commissioner may reduce the percentage assessment to 25%. Assessment
funds may be appropriated by the Legislature solely to subsidize those unable to
afford automobile insurance, thus reducing the uninsured motorist problem.
UNDER SB 103 AN INSURANCE COMPANY MAY STILL LEAVE CALIFORNIA, but it must do so
in a lawful manner. No penalty will be Carved against a, insurance company so
long as it complies with the law and fulfills the existing Insurance Code
requirement that it have another insurer assume its renewal obligations before
it leaves the state.
"GOOD DRIVER DISCOUNT" The Good Driver Discount plan mandated by Proposition
103 provides t ata river with only one citation must be included in the pool
of motorists given the good driver discount. Allowing drunk drivers and others
who commit vehicle-related crime to be part of that pool drives up the cost for
all good drivers. To prevent abuse, this bill clarifies the Good Driver
Discount program so that a person convicted of drunk driving, reckless driving
or automobile manslaughter within the three year period will not qualify for the
discount.
leaC327