HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 07/25/1989 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
JULY 25, 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
COMMUNITY FORUM:
The City Council values and encourages exchange of ideas and
comments from you, the citizen. The Community Forum period is
provided to receive comments from the public on matters other
than scheduled agenda items . To increase the effectiveness of
Community Forum, the following rules will be enforced:
* A maximum of 30 minutes will be allowed for Community Forum,
unless Council authorizes an extension.
All remarks shall be addressed to Council, as a whole, and
not to any individual member thereof.
* No person shall be permitted to make slanderous, profane or
personal remarks against any Council Member, commissions &
staff.
* 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:
s�
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. JULY 11, 1989 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
2. FINANCE DIRECTOR'S REPORT —JUNE 1989
3. CITY TREASURER' S REPORT - JUNE 1989
4. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 21-88, 8400 ATASCADERO AVE. (Watson/
Cuesta Engineering)
5 . .� ARCEL MAP 08-87, 8660/8700 COROMAR (Silverstein/
arbieri / Volbrecht Surveys)
6. FINAL TRACT MAP 8-88, 9180 SANTA LUCIA RD. (Key/Morris / •
Cuesta Engineering)
B. HEARINGS/APPEARANCES:
l 1. CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST TO REMOVE A HERITAGE TREE, 5405
OLMEDA (Pearson)
y / 2. APPEAL BY THOMAS McNAMARA OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF
�j THE PROPOSED DIVISION OF A 7 .0 AC. LOT INTO FOUR LOTS RANG
ING FROM 1.55 TO 2.20 AC. IN AN RSF-Z ZONE AT 7000 SAN PALO
(Tentative Parcel Map 7-89) (Cont'd from 7/11/89)
�/3.- RESOLUTION NO. 54-89 - CONFIRMING THE COSTS OF WEED ABATE-
MENT
** BREAK **
l
II ` 4. CONSIDERATION OF P ING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION FOR
1/LJ THE CITY COUNCIL TO PT--ON AN URGENCY BASIS FOLLOWING
PUBLIC HEARING--A CR- COMMERCIAL RETAIL-DOWNTOWN ZONING
DISTRICT (Requires a /5 vote of Council) (Cont' d from
7/11/89)
22-
a O
D
2
REGULAR BUSINESS: f, s �,1<<L 0
�S 1. CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENT TO CITY ATTORNEY'S CONTRACT
(Verbal)
® `Yt�v
2. RESOLUTION NO. 5549 - ADOPTING THE FY1989-90 PROPOSITION 4
SPENDING LIMIT
RESOLUTION NO. 56-W_ - ADOPTING THE FY1989-90 BUDGET AND
' APPROPRIATING FUNDST7
REI�EL
� __D? 4.
AWARD SANTA ROSA/EL �IGNAL BID & AUTHORIZE CON-
TRACT J� T -7
5. SELECTION OF ARCHITECT - ATASCADERO LAKE PAVILION
V '7 4
6. SELECT DATE FOR INTERVIEW OF APPLICANTS TO PLANNING COMMIS-
SION VACANCY
D. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION:
• 1. City Council :
A. Committee Reports (The following represents ad hoc or
standing commitees. Informative status reports will be
given, as felt necessary. ) :
1 . City/School Committee (Nothing to report)
2 . North Coastal Transit (Nothing to report)
3 . S.L.O. Area Coordinating Council (Nothing to re-
port)
4 . Traffic Committee (Nothing to report)
5 . Solid/Hazardous Waste Mgmt. Committee (Nothing to
report)
6 . Economic Opportunity Commission (Nothing to re-
port)
7 . Finance Committee (Nothing to report)
S. B. I .A. (Nothing to report)
9 . Downtown Steering Committee (Nothing to report)
B. Request to consider adoption of a Growth Control ordi-
nance (Borgeson)
2 . City Attorney
3 . City Clerk
4 . City Treasurer
5 . City Manager
3
MEETINa AGENDA
ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES
JULY 11, 1989
The regular meeting of the Atascadero City Council was called to
order at 7 : 05 p.m. by Mayor Dexter, followed by the Pledge of
Allegiance.
ROLL CALL
All Present: Councilmembers Borgeson, Lilley, Mackey, Shiers &
Mayor Dexter
Staff: Ray Windsor, City Mgr. ; Henry Engen, Dir. of Community
Development; Paul Sensibaugh, Dir. of Public Works;
Andy Takata, Dir. of Parks, Rec . & ' Zoo; Chief Bud
McHale, Police Dept. ; Jeff Jorgensen, City Attorney;
Mark Joseph, Dir. of Admin. Services; Cindy Wilkins,
Admin. Secy.
COUNCIL COMMENT
Mayor Dexter commented on the condition of Councilwoman Borge-
son' s daughter, Bernadette, who is at Sierra Vista Hospital
recovering from injuries suffered in a traffic collision several
days ago.
Mayor Dexter noted that presentation of the Certificate of Ap-
preciation to the C.Y.A. workers will be postponed, as its
recipients are out of the area fighting fires .
COMMUNITY FORUM - No public comment.
A. CONSENT CALENDAR:
1. June 27, 1989 City Council Minutes
2. Resolution No. 42-89 - Supporting July 1989 as Parks & Rec-
reation Month
3. Proposed time extension for TPM 12-87, 5192 Portola Rd.
(Janis/Twin Cities Eng. )
4 . Status Report on Downtown Master Plan/proposed signage for
"Classic Auto Dealers & Museums"
There was no public comment.
Motion: By Councilwoman Mackey to approve the Consent Cal-
endar, seconded by Councilman Shiers; passed
unanimously by roll-call.
1
B. HEARINGS/APPEARANCES :
1. Tentative Parcel Map 4-89, 7445 Cortez Ave. - Proposed Sub-
division of 8.26 ac. into four lots, with three lots at 1.5
ac. each and one lot at 3.76 ac. (Larson/Cuesta Eng. )
(Cont' d from 6/27/89)
Mr. Engen gave staff report, recommending approval subject to 13
Conditions, and responding to concerns from Council at its last
meeting, primarily in the areas of flooding, grading, tree remov-
al, noise from the nearby railroad, the possibility of a future
split of the proposed fourth lot, and proposed construction of a
driveway over the existing pipeline on Parcel 1 . Related discus-
sion ensued. The City' s liability exposure in the event of a
future occurrence involving a problem with the pipeline was dis-
cussed. Mr. Jorgensen, City Atty. , noted that construction would
be subject to the pipeline company' s criteria, as well as Build-
ing Code requirements; he does not believe that approval of the
parcel map would give rise to direct liability to the City.
Public Comment
Deborah Hollowell, Cuesta Eng. , representing the applicant,
responded to concerns expressed by Council . She noted that the
landscape screening from the railroad was proposed by the appli-
cant. She indicated that there is no limitation for construction
over the pipeline other than for buildings, so the driveway can
cross that easement, adding that Chevron is very willing--if not
demanding--to see the construction plans, on which their signa-
ture of approval is required. She requested deletion of the
phrase, "including driveways" from Condition #3 (a) , since con-
struction of one house is proposed at the present time, and the
locations of the others are not known yet. Mr. Engen responded
that he does not view that as a problem.
Motion: By Councilman Lilley, seconded by Councilwoman
Mackey, to approve TPM 4-89, incorporating the
Conditions of Approval as set forth in staff' s
report, omitting the phrase, "including drive-
ways" found in Paragraph 3 (a) of said conditions;
passed unanimously.
2. Heritage tree removal request for the construction of En-
canto Rd. (Barnes) (Cont' d from 6/27/89)
Mayor Dexter noted that "Encanto" is the proper spelling of the
road (not "Enchanto" ) , which translated means "enchanted" .
Mr. Engen gave staff report, indicating that since the last
Council meeting members of staff and Council had toured subject
site. Staff recommends that the tree removals outlined in its
2
i
report be approved with the understanding that Mr. Barnes seeks
to save two of the trees in question, if possible, as he pro-
ceeds on detailed road engineering.
Public Comment
Bill Barnes, applicant, responded to concerns expressed by Coun-
cil, indicating his willingness to work with the City to save as
many trees as possible.
Council discussed with staff the need to establish a policy which
addresses the subject of adjustment of platted Colony roads to
accommodate trees .
Motion: By Councilman Lilley, seconded by Councilwoman
Mackey, to approve the requested heritage tree
removal for El Encanto Rd. , under the Conditions
as set forth in staff' s report, and that tree
protection requirements will be employed as a
part of the development of this road; passed
unanimously by roll-call.
3. Appeal by Don & Joyce Kline of Planning Commission approval
of C.U.P. 3-89 authorizing establishment of a church in an
RS zone at 5400 San Anselmo
Mr. Engen gave staff report, including a recommendation for
denial of the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission's
revised conditions of approval . Discussion with Council fol-
lowed.
Public Comment
Nick Gilman, Architect representing the applicant, spoke in
support of the proposal . He clarified that the 3-year use was a
concession on behalf of the applicant in order to get approval
for the project--this was not intended to be limited to a 3-year
use, and he noted that significant improvements are called for
by the City.
Rev. Vern Haynes, Applicant, spoke in support of the proposal,
requesting Council consideration and fairness, and he responded
to questions . It was clarified that incidental use for counsel-
ling at the location is interpreted as, basically, not operating
a major, organized counselling program.
• Don Kline, Appellant, 5300 San Anselmo, expressed his objections
to the proposal, mainly due to the potential creation of addi-
tional traffic to the area, noting that San Anselmo hasn't been
brought up to full arterial road standards . He presented a 46-
3
name petition from residents requesting denial of the request.
He asked that Council ' s decision be based on traffic concerns,
with particular attention to the rise in the road and student
pedestrian safety.
Jim Cook, 4130 Nogales Ave. , expressed student pedestrian and
traffic concerns, including the rise in the road. He feels the
absence of a left-turn lane to enter subject site will increase
the potential for rear-end collisions. He also feels the prop-
erty and building are inadequate for the proposed use, pointing
out that he is not opposed to churches . He also inquired who
will police the church to make sure the approved use is complied
with.
(Note: Deputy City Clerk arrived 9 p.m. )
THE ABOVE PORTION OF THE MINUTES RECORDED BY:
CINDY WILKINS, Admin. Secy.
i
•
4
David Hunt , 4585 San Anselmo , stated he welcomed this church to
Atascadero but he has sincere concerns about the location of this
church . The street is used for children to be picked up by
school buses and thinks there is a definite safety concern for
these children.
Bob Trotter , 5260 San Anselmo , said his main concern is the
children who use San Anselmo . He also expressed his concerns
about the drainage problems on this street during the rainy
weather . He feels that the church ' s parking lot will be filled
with water during the rainy season.
Nick Gilman responded that the restricted times of the facility
are outside of either rush hour or school bus traffic . The
incidental use of this facility during day time hours should not
affect other traffic problems. He agrees that the drainage
problems in that area are quite strange by any city ' s experience
but he recognizes that and will deal with it as requested in the
staff report .
Mr . Klein read his closing statement which stated : This
conditional use permit shall expire one year from the date of
final approval unless all conditions are satisfied and the
project shows substantial progress or unless a time extension
has been granted pursuant to the written request prior to the
expiration date. With the amount of money that is going to be
expected from this church to widen the street and do all the
necessary upgrading that is being put onto this, he questions
whether and how much is going to actually get done before the
church comes back and asks for this extension. We could go three
years and still never get all of it done that has been requested
of the church .
Ruth Haynes stated there are many concerns regarding the children
and the school buses. During this time of the day their church
will not contribute to the traffic problem. It is being made
very difficult for the church to even begin. Since they have
purchased the property and went in with very good intentions, and
would not in any way cause the city any problem. They could have
gotten petitions signed and had a large number of people show up
for this meeting , but they didn ' t want to do that . They came
with good intentions and are able to follow the guidelines that
the City has set up and if the neighbors will give the church
the opportunity and see what the church can accomplish before
imposing all of these restrictions on them. They will do
everything they can to enhance this neighborhood .
Harley Molanex realizes that there is a traffic problem in that
area but does not believe it will increase with 22 cars on a
Sunday morning or Wednesday evening . He wonders if the Council
or Police Department or the neighbors around the church has the
right to restrict the church .
Rev. Haynes stated that people have to learn to adjust . We are
5
living in a changing world. All they are trying to do is
establish a nice church and hope they can all work together to
make this a better community.
Council discussion followed.
At 9:40 Mayor Dexter asked for a 10 minute break . The meeting
reconvened at 9:50 p .m.
MOTION: By Councilwoman Borgeson, seconded by Councilman Shiers
to uphold the appeal by Don and Joyce Kline and to deny
the conditional use permit authorizing the
establishment of a church in a RS zone at 5400 San
Anselmo . Motion failed by 3:2 vote with Councilmembers
Lilley, Mackey and Dexter voting no .
MOTION: By Councilman Lilley, seconded by Councilwoman Mackey
to uphold the conditional use permit with the
following modifications to the conditions of approval :
modification of the second sentence in 3(a) to delete
"for counseling or small social service functions" .
Modifying paragraph 6 of the conditions to require a 6
foot fence and modifying paragraph 5 to require a
pedestrian walkway of some suitable natural material
other than a sidewalk ( to be determined by staff other
than concrete) along the frontage on San Anselmo .
Motion passed by 3:2 vote with Councilmembers Borgeson
and Shiers voting no .
4. APPEAL BY THOMAS MCNAMARA OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF
THE PROPOSED DIVISION OF A 7.0 AC. LOT INTO FOUR LOTS
RANGING FROM 1 .55 TO 2.20 AC. IN AN RSF-Z ZONE AT 7000 SAN
PALO (Tentative Parcel Map 7-89)
Councilman Lilley said he had a conflict of interest and he
didn ' t intend to participate in the discussion or to vote on this
issue and asked to be excused .
Staff report was given by Henry Engen, Community Development
Director with the recommendation to uphold the appeal and approve
TPM 7-89 based on the Findings for Approval in the attached
Exhibit "D" and subject to the Conditions of Approval in Exhibit
"E" .
John Falkenstein, representing Mr . McNamara, answered questions
from the council .
MOTION: By Councilwoman Mackey, seconded by Mayor Dexter to
uphold the appeal and approve TPM 7-89 based on the
findings for approval with the amendments that have
been made approving exhibit "D" subject to conditions
of approval in exhibit "E" . (Requirement for an open
space easement on lots 2,3,4 and tree protection around
the oak tree on #2) . No action was taken due to the
6
•
2:2 vote (Councilwoman Mackey and Mayor Dexter voting
yes, Councilman Shiers and Councilwoman Borgeson voting
no ) . This will be continued to the next council
meeting due to the no action vote.
MOTION: By Councilwoman Mackey, seconded by Mayor Dexter to
continue this until the next council meeting . Passed
unanimously.
Councilwoman Borgeson asked the City Attorney for a written
report on the "no action" vote. Mr . Jorgensen stated that he
would prepare this written report for the Council .
5. CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION FOR
THE CITY COUNCIL TO ADOPT--ON AN URGENCY BASIS FOLLOWING
PUBLIC HEARING--A CR—D COMMERCIAL RETAIL—DOWNTOWN ZONING
DISTRICT (Requires a 4/5 vote of Council )
Staff report was given by Henry Engen, Community Development
Director .
Council discussion followed .
• MOTION: By Councilman Lilley, seconded by Councilwoman Mackey
to continue the meeting past 11 p .m. Passed
unanimously.
Council discussion followed .
John Himes, president of the BIA, stated that they feel it is not
an emergency but that study of changing of the zoning has merit
and should be looked into in the future. Their main concern is
that an excellent consultant has been hired and hopefully he will
come forth with a very nice and workable plan and the City will
adopt something and would like to see the consultant have a
chance to bring forth what he feels is good rather than us trying
to intercede before he has a chance to do what he is being paid
to do .
Bob Nimmo said he didn ' t see what threatens the public health ,
welfare or safety of the people of Atascadero . The people most
affected by the proposed ordinance ( the BIA, the Chamber of
Commerce) are opposed to this Urgency Ordinance as well as
Atascadero 2000 and several other groups. He urged the Council
to proceed cautiously on this matter .
Whitey Thorpe spoke against an urgency ordinance. He asked the
Council to leave it in the hands of the consultant .
Lon Allan spoke against the urgency ordinance. He expressed his
concern about excluding businesses that would require the need
for satellite dishes or antennas.
7
0
Further council discussion followed .
MOTION: By Councilwoman Mackey, seconded by Mayor Dexter to
continue the public hearing and direct staff to draft
an urgency ordinance prohibiting the identified uses
in the downtown area. Passed by roll call vote 4:0: 1
with Councilman Lilley abstaining .
C. REGULAR BUSINESS:
1 . SET MEETING DATE FOR CLOSED SESSION FOR INSTRUCTIONS TO
STAFF AND NEGOTIATOR ON BARGAINING POSITION RE: SALARY STUDY
City Manager, Ray Windsor , asked that this item be continued to
the next regular Council meeting .
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11 :40 P.M. TO A BUDGET HEARING ON WEDNESDAY,
JULY 12 AT 3 P.M. IN THE CLUB ROOM.
MINUTES RECORDED BY:
BOYD C. SHARITZ, CITY CLERK
PREPARED BY:
GEORGIA RAMIREZ, ACTING DEPUTY CITY CLERK
8
0 MEq-LLI
NAGENDA
gam# .... .r
CITY OF ATASCADERO
• SCHEDULE OF DISBURSEMENTS
FINANCE DIRECTOR` S REPORT
FOR THE MONTH OF JUNE, 1989
DISBURSEMENTS
Hand Warrant Register for June, 1989 10 ,345.08
06/02/89 Accounts Payable Warrants 74 ,966. 81
06/09/89 Accounts Payable Warrants 124,143. 42
06/16/89 Accounts Payable Warrants 34,770.29
06/23/89 Accounts Payable Warrants 105 ,966.01
06/30/89 Accounts Payable Warrants 169 , 354.69
Service Charge-Mastercard/Visa 5. 00
Wires for June 1,477,255.55
06/07/89 Payroll Checks #46289-46425 108,444.21
06/21/89 Payroll Checks #46426-46562 105 ,898. 04
Total 2 ,211,149.10
LESS:
Voided Check #46583 28.50
Voided Check #46544 50. 00
Voided Check #46676 40.00
Voided Check #46169 296. 07
• Voided Check #46498 2 ,142. 88
Total Disbursements 2,20'8,591.65
I, MARK A. JOSEPH, do hereby certify and declare that
demands enumerated and referred to in the foregoing register
are accurate and just claims against the City and that there
are funds available for payment thereof in the City Treasury.
The breakdown detail on all accounts is available for your
viewing in the Finance office.
MARK A. JOSEPH
Administrativeer ices Director
•
M€Ef1 , AGENDA 3
�......--
CITY OF ATASCADERO
SCHEDULE OF CASH RECEIPTS AND TRANSFERS IN
TREASURER' S REPORT
FOR THE MONTH OF JUNE, 1989
CASH RECEIPTS:
Taxes :
Property Taxes 124 ,843. 84
Occupancy Tax (3 ,353. 66)
Sales Tax 135 ,995. 85
Motor Vehicle In-Lieu 69,728. 98
Cigarette Tax 3,281. 33
Homeowners ' Relief 22 ,246.19
Miscellaneous Taxes 391.26
Gas Tax 57 ,707. 88
Sanitation Fees 38,511. 34
Licenses/Permits/Fees 89 ,166. 65
Franchise Fees 8 ,997. 88
Fines/Penalties/Overages 1,947. 73
Investment Earnings 44 ,422.21
P.O.S.T. Reimbursement 5 ,864. 78
School Resource Officer 3 ,153. 18
Sales-Maps/Publications/Reports 529.20
Rents/Concessions 143. 27
Police Services 606. 35
Parks and Recreation Fees 18,544. 30
Traffic Safety 12 ,426.41
Local Transportation 100 ,479. 00
Development Fees 45 ,168.54
Zoo Reserve 75.00
Assessments (Districts 3 , 4 & 5) 4 ,249.42
Zoo Receipts 7 ,827. 49
Amapoa-Tecorida 2 ,460.16
Miscellaneous 2 ,305.58
TOTAL CASH RECEIPTS 797,720.16
OTHER CASH RECEIPTS:
Refunds 9 ,043. 87
Bail/Refundable Bonds 1,140.00
Reimbursement to Expense (2 ,394.63)
TOTAL OTHER CASH RECEIPTS 7 ,789.24
CITY OF ATASCADERO
CASH ACTIVITY SUMMARY
TREASURER' S REPORT
FOR THE MONTH OF JUNE, 1989
BEGINNING CASH RESOURCES 7 ,306 ,459.53
ADD:
RECEIPTS 805 ,509.40
FUND TRANSFERS 1,600 ,000.00
LESS:
CURRENT YEAR REVENUE RECEIVED JULY 167 ,605.01
DISBURSEMENTS 731,336.10
FUND TRANSFERS 1,600 ,000. 00
ENDING CASH RESOURCES 7,213 ,027. 82
SCHEDULE OF CASH RESOURCES Int. Due
AS OF JUNE 30 , 1989 Rate Date
Checking Account:
Mid-State Bank 197,430. 88
Certificates of Deposit:
Butterfield Savings 99 ,000.00 9. 95 07/11/89
First Cal Savings 99 ,000.00 10. 38 08/22/89
. Other Investments:
Local Agency Inv Fund 3,900 ,000.00 9.20 N/A
Fed Home Loan Bank
Discount Note-City 488,947.22 8. 97 09/29/89
Fed Home Loan Bank
Discount Note-Sanit. 937,537. 50 9.12 10/24/89
Fed Farm Credit Note 502 ,263. 89 10.16 09/01/89
Banker's Acceptance-City 988,308. 33 9. 39 08/08/89
Other Cash Resources:
Petty Cash 540.00
TOTAL CASH RESOURCES 7,213 ,027. 82*
*Unaudited cash balance for the General Fund is $1,956 ,015.80.
GERE SIBBACH
City Treasurer
. MWnN `
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item:
Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 7/25/89
File Number: TPM 21-88
From: Henry Engen, Community Development Director
SUBJECT:
Tentative Parcel Map 21-88: 8400 Atascadero Avenue (James and
Darlene Watson/Cuesta Engineering)
RECOMMENDATION:
Denial in accordance with Planning Commission recommendation and
and Findings for Denial contained in the attached staff report.
BACKGROUND:
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the above-
referenced map on May 16 , 1989 and again on July 5, 1989 . The
applicant requested an exception from the Subdivision ordinance
flag lot standards. The Subdivision Ordinance contains four man-
datory findings which must be made to grant an exception. Staff
could not make these findings and recommended denial .
HE:ph
Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report - July 5, 1989
cc: James and Darlene Watson
Cuesta Engineering
•
�.. Is_PNDA
, c r etch
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Doug Davidson, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Tentative Parcel Map 21-88 - 8400/8600 Atascadero Ave.
(Watson/Cuesta Engineering)
DATE: July 5, 1989
At the May .16, 1989 meeting, the Planning Commission moved to
continue the above-referenced item to consider a revised map.
Staff has received and reviewed the revised map (see
attachments) . The revised map also includes a request for an
exception from the Subdivision Ordinance flag lot standards (see
development statement) .
The revised map differs from the original submittal in several
ways. First, the parcel to the rear (Parcel 4) is not included
in the current configuration. Most importantly, the access to
Parcel 3 has changed in alignment and ownership. The flag lot
standards of the Subdivision Ordinance require that " the lot
farthest from the street shall own the accessway in fee. Other
lots using the accessway shall have an access and utility
easement over it. The revised map shows a 30 feet private •
easement to serve Parcel 3. This private easement would also
serve the lot to the rear which is no longer a part of this
application (Parcel 4 on former map) . Thus, this is the request
for an exception from the Subdivision Ordinance standards.
Page 50 of the Subdivision Ordinance contains the four mandatory
findings which must be made to grant an exception
1. That the property to be divided is of such size or shape, or
is affected by such topographic conditions, that it is
impossible, impractical, or undesirable, in the particular
case, to conform to the strict application of the
regulations codified in this title; and
2'. That the cost to the subdivider of strict or literal
compliance with the regulations is not the sole reason for
granting the modification; and
3. That the modification will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety, and welfare, or be injurious to other
properties in the vicinity; and
4. That granting the modification is in accord with the intent
and purposes of these regulations, and is consistent with
the General Plan and with all applicable specific plans or •
other plans of the City.
0 •
Staff cannot make these findings, particulary #1 and #4. The
applicant states that it is desirable to provide this private
easement as shown to avoid damaging existing landscaping on Lot
One. Staff beleives that a minimal amount of disruption would
occur with the construction of the driveway as shown on the prior
map; possibly the removal of one six inch pine. The size,
shape, or topography of this lot does not prevent it from
meeting all of the flag lot standards. In fact, it was the
site' s regular shape and gentle slopes which led us to recommend
approval of a flag lot design.
The granting of this exception is not in keeping with the intent
of the Subdivision Ordinance. Deep lot subdivisions are not the
most favorable lot configurations for proper access, especially
for public safety. Thus, the City has developed a minimum set of
development standards for flag lots. Flag lots can only be
approved if justified by topographical conditions; exceptions to
these standards should be granted only when unique site
characterisics warrant it.
Finally, finding #2 should be noted, for it seemed at the prior
hearing that the cost of the required improvements was the
applicant' s primary reason for requesting a continuance. Staff
made it clear at this meeting that we did not envision conditions
of approval substantially different under a revised map, for
these are the minimum flag lot improvement requirements. Staff
was prepared with a recommendation of approval on April 18; the
current proposal, however, does not meet the provisions of the
City' s Subdivision Ordinance.
DD:dd
Attachments: Revised Map
Supplemental Development Statement
Findings for Denial
Prior Staff Report dated April 18, 1989
i
n`
.1
tl� U
•, lI
I
I x4
Di
IJ �• D �.• . M
O y�
R
t
nH � ' �,� k
It
�oQ
CUESTA ENGINEERING IS
7401-B EI Camino Real/P.O. Box 2066
• Atascadero, California 93423
(805)466-6827
June 21 , 1989
PIG
Doug Davidson ,JUN 211999
City of Atascadero
6500 Palma
Atascadero, CA 93422
Subject: Tentative Parcel Map 21-88
8600 Atascadero Avenue/Watson
Supplemental Develpoment Statement
Dear Doug:
This application involves the subdivision of two parcels into three. As
part of this application, we request an exception to Section 11-8.209 E
which states that the lot farthest from the street shall own the access
way.
In order to place the accessway in a consistent alignment without damaging
existing landscaping improvement on Lot 1 , it is desirable to designate the
accessway as a 30 foot private road easement. Three lots (one that is not
a part of this subdivision) will be served by the private road. The road
will be developed in accordance with all flag lot road standards.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
o"h 'FaYke6en
R.C.E. 33760
Exp. 6/30/90
JF:pd
86-092
•
! 0
Findings for Denial
Tentative Parcel Map 21-88
8400/8600 Atascadero Rd.
Watson/Cuesta Engineering
July 5, 1989
ENVIRONMENTAL FINDING:
The proposed project will not have a significant impact on the
environment. The Negative Declaration prepared for the project
is adequate.
MAP FINDING:
1. The flag lot (deep lot subdivision) is not consistent with
Section 11-8. 209 of the Subdivision Ordinance, specifically
that the lot farthest from the street shall own the
accessway in fee.
EXCEPTION FINDINGS (Section 11-11.002) :
1. The property to be divided is not of such size or shape, nor .
is it affected by such topographic conditions, that it is
impossible, impractical, or undesirable, in the particular
case, to conform to the strict application of the
regulations codified in this title.
2. The granting of the modification is not in accord with the
intent and purposes of the Subdivision Ordinance.
CITY OF ATASCADERO Item: B-1
STAFF REPORT
FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: April 18, 1989
BY: Doug Davidson, Associate Planner File No: TPM 21-88
SUBJECT:
Consideration of a request to subdivide three existing lots of
4. 22 acres total into four parcels containing 1 . 00, 1. 00, 1. 00,
and 1. 22 acres each.
A. SITUATION AND FACTS:
1. Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .James and Darlene Watson
2. Representative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Cuesta Engineering
3. Project Address. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8600 Atascadero Rd.
4. Legal Description. . . . . . . . . . . .Parcels 1 and 2 of PM 40-74
Parcel C of Tract 770
5. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. 22 acres
6. Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .RSF-Y (Residential Single
Family)
7. General Plan Designation. . . . .Moderate Density Single
Family Residential
8. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Proposed parcels 1 and 2 -
Single family residences
Proposed parcels 3 and 4 -
Vacant
9. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Negative Declaration posted
April 6, 1989.
B. ANALYSIS:
The applicant proposes to subdivide three existing lots
containing a total of 4. 22 acres into four parcels of 1. 00, 1. 00,
. 1 . 00, and 1. 22 acres each. Proposed Parcel 1 and Parcel 4 are
existing parcels created by Tract 770 and modified by a
1
0
subsequent lot line adjustment (see attachments) . They are
included here to gain the required minimum lot size with the
necessary improvements for the true intent of this map; to split
the existing two acre lot into two one-acre parcels as proposed
by Parcels 2 and 3. The parcel to the rear (Parcel 4) will own
twenty-five (25) feet accessway in fee, as required by the
Subdivision Ordinance. To avoid additional encroachments onto
Atascadero Rd. , proposed Parcels 1 and 2 will be limited to using
this access as well.
The minimum lot size in the RSF-Y zone is one acre with sewer
available and one and one-half acres without sewer. The site is
located within the Urban Services area, with sewer and all other
necessary utilities available. Thus, the proposed net lot sizes
of 1. 00, 1. 00, 1. 00, and 1. 22 acres each are above or equal to
the minimum required by the Zoning Ordinance. The site' s
location, gentle slopes, and access via an arterial also 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. The private road standards for flag lots (20 feet
wide pavement with adequate turn around) and the required
provision of address signs (condition #12) ensure that the lots
result in an orderly pattern of development.
C. RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of Tentative Parcel Map 21-88 based on
the Findings in Exhibit F and Conditions of Approval in Exhibit
G.
ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Location Map
Exhibit B - Tentative Parcel Map
Exhibit C - Prior Tract Map (Tract 770)
Exhibit D - Prior Lot Line Adjustment
Exhibit E - Supplemental Development Statement
Exhibit F - Findings for Approval
Exhibit G - Conditions of Approval
0
2
} EXHIBIT A
--=k -- • LOCATION MAP
TPM 21-88
LSF ! p
y .
S N \ vv
,Sro8q
CT 1
Y(FJ,1�t.
SITE -
AD
R §�,
�1f0%-
VIEW
-
'R C, <
R S F Z� �L(FH & "' L '
L(
VS?� �' � 15 � i �\ E' ���\✓IFw �\
i( V Irl j i I S �1T► \
R S- - " ��
I (�ABiI i 1 L(F , j _��
r 1 . EXHIBIT B
- TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
:•c.: � - - - - -j- -- -- -� �' TPM 21-88
Q1ia..�..1. .. .. .7. .7 t,i
c-esr•.
rte✓ �� -.
�-
/ `� -ens,..l�rnt,•!»tea t - '
vY•+I"i•:t6G:/'P _ N'S'f,-I! OV 4 _ 'f.11
t>n-sv3 nry s/ �'-/raro3to cn<i t rs et Perorco
<tS.,C gNl3 /PneS'YC<erU f (
INNER S LE PT/f/LATE
,wrZAlU /YE PARG
cz[s //
� /<v ror we w,rrtnw<or iL`'l�- �f e•-. f[ HAP4—®x-/92
_ ov.3.as'd ruc nrtvr/rr sxw9 er,-Nrs ;,4 �7; r_.w:xs��,.w�•is,«: /.- .-r_
- �•'.~• OLr'[/ O!rNl A.:7 LIf/ZLO 1[3[.vT.'�i1=
P` Se/D a-m rK
Aw'wr -roe`... -"-.::IIP' •ny._.�v.�/�-a.rl�l,- s •'Y.a'
- SMYJN.[/[Lw „e v rar/[[r>n Pit RA
rN[OCSr d'nr rAVY fr`6f
Y/G/N/TY/UP 7�; 7—w,,Z z slrso Mir
IF :1f
EXHIBIT C
............... PRIOR TRACT MAP
TPM 21-88
-�;U4-lit V.1
�/�� �-}_�_ /�=CiC,dc•�✓re nit'
ca <•...-f C:,ehl.�`k�ay.ice .(-xwn , i - ..
F ~�.,t.,r.•»cnt O<� b<•l..�//vf GLC - . ' :i: � r..r .:
>Y.anct n�.l .:w/c..fyed•fz�mv_ 1 r
�. �.erL•YC�Yh^_.5a.»c cts One/i[../•y /-�� a..f`.J,:..{v � •�i', L .F,.r,G+ _1 _ ./�A CCO 7'7 7B
� LCliy tom//-t�✓-rl n� �.:.: '•� ., ,y.:,, _ � �� �,
�... .�a L9_ ,QST/S OF,QL�LP/NG.". Fa<' Tiscs S�.•�-Y '/ \
�1 j' (.' j.G / /S N•'r ''00'ltl � G-TNC�G T---C'!I C f 9n?/'�.c A-3 1.. /C'3
4,-As�.7z) /ia.ro .3 HOu�N O.v F-s>• 1 u
° ::s •BENGF/Cl.4C.INTE.eE3'T •' tth '� '.�-s.•<
Gz y�vv-at rn,,6-ne.<'/ci Y ti�wYe 6:at<ertwn.Ye•�{Of .�.n3 _ ".n,
, .f<•coi•ds 5+�+l.ccs Gb<s�Coc�..ty •, .. ', vd r
S
r."E n.er FEOF-<'/K.S.o .v�.T.w�GO�Iry ASSdGAT•tYv 4 rn.e�e.<s�a•v t� '
00
.r+ " ' �•� f :.:.P c �� _ Lf� / .r.r..z.r<sv23 ti..•.�.�r r F
3a�3 .f<: Gtas R ` / N.Etta. <4c�r.Ee AS ,Y•.''� ?,
- :N ry ... '-.8J G7'r �-•357.9�<iY - .�� O ' ,' II���
.' � � �/• 73 I �-2V r1 cG s '� Bc/C c• < r c..scvE r ,� n/ p�r 1 ' N9'•'9�
Nary r ! a-sv
3� A EA- /.Q�AC.C'ES � �` �;A.eer zsoo���s M cr•�F�- �D 1p � yP # "
. 0 .� _i•xAREn•�36/ ccEs %aF.sF�e �_ . V• ��. � ,,p -
� '/TRACT`
r e
A54A7CK 45
r air a.c sv_3 r-.F.-7v ,ro��NSS� t .��. 7iI%R A•E-E/I/N 'q, �.0� �� I �% Cir• o><
.0-'.7%o=6:C�•-.' N/S'//L+ G r N/r-'r%OCG P/ N/S'// . E H � rA� ���`t 1'�'r _ AS �/Per�uCS
/`n.c•cE.L A t _ /�'.vec.CL .B i ° r s ��0�� 5G i t f) � �' _
- \�,. 'E.oseyE>vr.S.y!/:�orrvae.,e. � rf/r.�P s�4� ?^`,�/ .,,. ..-. .. ..• - i��,.��
J s cv.C'iG.s'r.T .P.cvrsa wnr Amo E,tLSCHENf
Te
\`•/ °., ._ ��,., � Ga � rT.Sr .Ofc-o'.f'�t«-or-o /.v.Boor//.
EXHIBIT D
(-7—,-- = _ \ PRIOR LLA
.�..,7� _ TPM 21-88
T[muTIV£L07IU7/f,4DX13? SENT,
P-4RCE1 l e4P AT,55 OZ
I
I
AUSCAD£RO
ROAD
u eiri'aTR :67 m' OWW£RS CUT/f_ICATE
I V.E•Ci9i pl�o'/C ai/a Dllul&11151a-Cf 4:
0aT� r �T � �T .
LJZ-S II B G111i�T .'SI U EXHIBIT E
7401-B EI Camino Real- P.O. Sox 2066
Atascagero. California 93423
(805) 466-6827
November 9, 1988
City of Atascadero
Planning Department
6500 Palma
Atascadero, CA 93422
Subject: Supplemental Develoment Statement
Tentative Parcel Map AT 88-182/ Watson
Gentlemen:
Tentative Parcel Map AT 88-182 is a proposal to split an existing 2 acre
lot in half. The property .s zoned RSF-Y. Sewer is directly available
to the property. We believe that this application is very much in accor-
dance with the character of the neighborhood, especially given that the
adjacent property to the south and east is zoned for half-acre lots.
Sincerely,
,,�,r-c)Kn Fal kensti en
R.C.E. 33760
Exp. 6/30/90
JF:pd
_ l
EXHIBIT F Findings for Approval
Tentative Parcel Map 21-88
8600 Atascadero Rd.
Watson/Cuesta Engineering
April 18, 1989
ENVIRONMENTAL FINDING:
The proposed project will not have a significant impact on the
environment. The Negative Declaration prepared for the project
is adequate.
MAP FINDINGS:
1. The proposed map is consistent with the applicable General
or Specific Plan.
2. The design and/or improvement of the proposed subdivision is
consistent with the applicable General or Specific Plan.
3. The site is physically suitable for the proposed type of
development.
4. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of
development.
5. The design of the subdivision, and/or the proposed
improvements, will not cause substantial environmental
damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish and
wildlife or their habitat.
6. The design of the subdivision, and the type of improvements,
will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at
large for access through or use of property within the
proposed subdivision; or substantially equivalent alternate
easements are provided.
7. The design of the subdivision and/or the type of proposed
improvements will not cause serious public health problems.
8. The flag lot (deep lot subdivision) is in conformance with
Section 11-8. 209 of the Subdivision ordinance.
EXHIBIT G - Conditions of Approval
Tentative Parcel Map 21-88
8600 Atascadero Rd.
Watson/Cuesta Engineering
April 18, 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. Engineered grading, drainage, and erosion control plans for
each lot, shall be submitted for review and approval by the
Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to
issuance of any 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. The design shall include City
standard curb, gutter, five foot walkway, and paveout (not
to exceed 20 feet from centerline) , as determined by the
City Engineer. Design shall include measures to preserve
trees within the right-of-way, as approved by the
Departments of Public Works and Community Development.
6. Construction of the public improvements shall be completed
prior to recordation of the final map. The construction of
the walkway may be met by contributing to the Routes to
School fund (see condition #8 below) .
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.
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 (Santa Rosa School) , prior to the
recording of the final map.
9. Parcels 1 and 2 shall have access from the private road
only. Relinquishment of access rights shall be delineated
on the final map. All driveway encroachments other than
that for the new private road shall be abandoned prior to
recording the final map. Parcels 1, 2 and 3 shall have
access and utility easement rights over the accessway owned
by Parcel 4. These shall be designated on the final map.
10. The applicant shall make an offer of dedication to the City
on Atascadero 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.
11. The newly created lots shall be connected to the public
sewer system. All annexation fees shall be paid for the
newly created lots prior to recording of the final map.
12. A reflectorized house number master sign shall be located at
the intersection of the street and accessway and individual
reflectorized address signs shall be placed on the right
hand side of the driveway to each individual lot.
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.
0 0
• 14. 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.
MEET i�v, .AGENDA
tDA r-
•
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item:
Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 7/25/89
File Number: TPM 08-87
From: Henry Engen, Community Development Director
SUBJECT:
Acceptance of Final Parcel Map 08-87 : 8660/8700 Coromar (Steve
Silberstein/Alphonso Barbieri) (Volbrecht Surveys)
RECOMMENDATION:
The required conditions have been complied with and the final map
is recommended for approval .
• BACKGROUND:
On May 12 , 1987 , the City Council approved Tentative Parcel Map
8-87 , subject to certain conditions and in concurrence with the
recommendation of the Planning Commission.
HE:ph
CC : Steve Silberstein
Alphonso Barbieri
volbrecht Surveys
•
EX41Bit A
�►, , . . CITY OF ATASCADERO
19,0-7
-
CAD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT •
J �
I 1 i RMF
F M • t}yam1 D ,
i
\\
/ ti'1 E '�O e •
c
rye'/ `O� ° qF.4 u \,P O =_f ` J,♦
J
6
co
Q,Sr
094cR
♦yE � ayE T �
7C R-
/ °
p P �
� \EFo
r
♦ AVE
:' � � 8!o(oa�87o0 Gcrom�r p
X (Zo�
'o 00
VIEW i
� s
(FH '
'^o tvE�
MEETIM, AGENDA
REMN
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item:
Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 7/25/89
File No. : TPM 8-88
From: Henry Engen, Community Development Director
SUBJECT:
Request by Linda Key and Nicki Morris (Cuesta Engineering) for
acceptance of Final Tract Map 8-88.
RECOMMENDATION:
The required conditions have been complied with and the final map
is recommended for approval .
BACKGROUND :
• On August 23, 1988, the City Council approved Tentative Tract Map
8-88, subject to certain conditions and in concurrence with the
recommendation of the Planning Commission.
HE :ps
CC: Linda Key/Nicki Morris
Cuesta Engineering
•
EXHIBIT A LOCATION NIAP
j CITY OF ATASCADERO; ••�� �•� • :y� 9180 Santa Lucia Road
e �•._•- Tentative Parcel Mal °3
cwIF11COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT xey/Morris/Cuesta
DEPARTMENT
d r.
U �
MAN(
� 5 N
[t
S7,
�, � •1--�/C rE/ IN/O �
SITE: 9180 Santa Lucia Rd
C•
v IE'.Z
ROS • PdflTOIA
R
<o
L( H)
�pS ►tps V
• `JCS A hr
qN�
R S�
_,SAN
L(FH) �
4640�
A