Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 07/11/1989 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 JULY 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: - Certificate of Appreciation to CYA Workers for Creek Cleanup 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: 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. JUNE 27, 1989 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES l� 2. RESOLUTION NO. 42-89 - PPO AfY'11989 AS PARRS & REC- REATION MONTH 3. PROPOSED TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 12-87, 5192 PORTOLA RD. (Janis/Twin Cities Engineering) 4. STATUS REPORT ON DOWNTOWN MASTER PLAN/PROPOSED SIGNAGE FOR "CLASSIC AUTO DEALERS & MUSEUMS" 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 Engineering) (Cont'd from 6/27/89) 2. HERITAGE TREE REMOVAL REQUEST FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF EN CHANTO RD. (Barnes) (Cont'd from 6/27/89) 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 *** BREAK ** 4. APPEAL BY THOMAS MCNAMARA OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF 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) 2 5. CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING CONXISSION'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) C. REGULAR BUSINESS: 1. SET MEETING DATE FOR CLOSED SESSION FOR INSTRUCTIONS TO STAFF AND NEGOTIATOR ON BARGAINING POSITION RE: SALARY STUDY (Negotiator suggests 3:00 p.m. , July 19, 20 & 21) (Cont'd from 6/27/89) 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 (verbal report) 4 . Traffic Committee (Nothing to report) 5 . Solid/Hazardous Waste Mgmt. Committee (Verbal re- port) 6. Economic Opportunity Commission (Nothing to re- port) 7 . Finance Committee (Nothing to report) 8. B.I.A. (Nothing to report) 9. Downtown Steering Committee (See Item A-4) 2 . City Attorney 3 . City Clerk 4 . City Treasurer 5. City Manager * COUNCIL WILL ADJOURN TO WEDNESDAY, JULY 12, 1989, AT 3:00 P.M. IN THE FOURTH FLOOR CLUB ROOM FOR DISCUSSION OF DEPART- MENT OPERATING BUDGETS. i 3 � a • • • 1�EETi A..Et 0 ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JUNE 27, 1989 The regular meeting of the Atascadero City Council was called to order at 7:08 p .m. by Mayor Borgeson, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL: Present : Councilmembers Dexter , Shiers, Mackey, Lilley and Mayor Borgeson Absent • None Staff Present: Ray Windsor , City Manager ; Boyd Sharitz , City Clerk ; Bill Watton, Police Lt . ; Henry Engen, Community Development Director ; Paul Sensibaugh , Public Works Director; Jeff Jorgensen, City Attorney; Mark Joseph, Administrative Services Director and Andy Takata, Director of Parks, Recreation and Zoo . CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS: Certificate of Appreciation to CYA Workers for Creek Cleanup will be presented at the July 11th City Council Meeting . Councilwoman Mackey said she had received a letter from the president of the Horseman ' s Association inviting the council to walk the Cortez area with her . Councilwoman Mackey will make copies of the letter for the other councilmembers. Mayor Borgeson stated that she will be attending the Downtown Revitalization Conference in Sacramento on Wednesday and Thursday of this week . The following week she will be on vacation. CITY COUNCIL REORGANIZATION: MAYOR Nomination of Rollin Dexter for Mayor was made by Councilwoman Borgeson and seconded by Councilman Lilley. Motion was made by Councilwoman Mackey, seconded by Councilman Shiers to close the nominations. Rollin Dexter was selected as Mayor by a unanimous roll call vote. MAYOR PRO TEM Nomination of Bob Lilley for Mayor Pro-Tem was made by 1 Councilwoman Mackey, seconded by Councilman Shiers. Motion was made by Councilwoman Borgeson, seconded by Councilman Shiers to close the nominations. Bob Lilley was selected as Mayor Pro-Tem by a unanimous roll call vote. City Clerk Boyd Sharitz administered the Oath of Office to Mayor Dexter . He then presented a plaque of appreciation to Councilwoman Borgeson for her service as Mayor for the past year . COMMUNITY FORUM: None A. CONSENT CALENDAR: 1 . JUNE 13, 1989 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 2. CITY TREASURER ' S REPORT - MAY 1989 3. CITY FINANCE DIRECTOR ' S REPORT - MAY 1989 4. RESOLUTION NO. 44-89 —ADOPTING STANDARDS OF BEHAVIOR FOR COUNCIL AS THE POLICY-MAKING TEAM OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO 5. ACCEPTANCE OF FINAL PARCEL MAP 16-88, 12405 SANTA ANA RD. (First Nationwide Network Mortgage/Volbrecht Surveys) 6. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 4-89, 7445 CORTEZ AVE. .(Larson/Cuesta Engineering ) 7. AUTHORIZATION FOR STOP SIGNS AT "T" INTERSECTION OF CAYUCOS AND VALDEZ AVENUES: A. Resolution No . 45-89 - Designating a stop intersection on Cayucos Ave. at Valdez Ave. B. Resolution No . 53-89 - Designating a stop intersection on Valdez Ave. At Cayucos Ave. 8. RESOLUTION NO. 51-89 - ESTABLISHMENT OF A BUS LOADING ZONE AT 5570 EL CAMINO REAL 9. RESOLUTION NO. 50-89 - ACCEPTANCE OF THE STREETS IMPROVED BY ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 5 - CHANDLER RANCH • 10. RESOLUTION NO. 47-89 - PLACING ANNUAL ASSESSMENT CHARGES FOR ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 3 ON THE PROPERTY TAXES FOR FY 89/90 2 • 11 . RESOLUTION NO. 49-89 - PLACING ANNUAL ASSESSMENT CHARGES FOR ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 4 ON THE PROPERTY TAXES FOR FY B9/90 12. RESOLUTION NO. 48-89 - PLACING ANNUAL ASSESSMENT CHARGES FOR ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 5 ON THE PROPERTY TAXES FOR FY 89/90 13. REQUEST FROM AT&T FOR EASEMENT ACROSS CREEK RESERVATION 14. AFFIRM HEARING DATES FOR BUDGET REVIEW (cont ' d from 6/13/89) 15. RESOLUTION NO. 52-89 - APPROVING INTERIM BUDGETS FOR FYB9/90 Councilman Shiers asked that items #6 and #13 be pulled from the Consent Calendar for further discussion. Councilwoman Mackey asked that items #8 and #14 be pulled from the Consent Calendar for further discussion. MOTION: By Councilwoman Mackey, seconded by Councilwoman Borgeson to approve consent calendar items 1 ,2,3,4,5,7,9, 10,11 , 12, and 15. Passed unanimously by roll call vote. . Item #6 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 4-89, 7445 CORTEZ AVE. (Larson/Cuesta Engineering) Councilman Shiers stated he had received call from the public who had some concerns with the lots that were created on this tentative parcel map . The concern is with the creation of three lots, 1 1/2 acres each and one large lot left over 3.76 acres, the fact that it is located in a flood zone, close to the railroad and the gas lines running through some of the lots. Also that in the future that large lot could be sub-divided down again. Deborah Hallowell , Cuesta Engineering, responded that there will be little grading and no flooding problems. Councilwoman Borgeson suggested that this item be continued as a public hearing item at the next council meeting in order that the applicant have time to responded to concerns of the council . MOTION: By Councilwoman Borgeson, seconded by Councilman Shiers to continue this item until the July 11th Council Meeting as a public hearing . Passed unanimously. Item #8 RESOLUTION NO. 51-89 - ESTABLISHMENT OF A BUS LOADING ZONE AT 5570 EL CAMINO REAL Councilwoman Mackey stated the reason she pulled this item was that in the newspaper it stated that three spaces would be reserved for Greyhound Bus parking . The Atascadero News 3 expressed concern regarding this. There are only two spaces being reserved directly in front of the Antediluvian Antique Shop . MOTION: By Councilwoman Mackey, seconded by Councilwoman Borgeson, to approved Resolution No . 51-89. Passed unanimously by roll call vote. Item #13 REQUEST FROM AT&T FOR EASEMENT ACROSS CREEK RESERVATION Councilman Shiers said he wanted to make sure that the establishment of the easement would not interfere with the Creekway Development . Henry Engen, Community Development Director responded that it would not interfere with pathway development . City Manager , Ray Windsor , said that what the Council would be doing at this time is conceptually approving this easement and at the next Council Meeting would be approving a resolution that would formalize Council ' s approval of the easement . In this resolution there would be language that would make sure that this easement would not interfere with the City ' s intentions as far as the creekway is concerned . MOTION: By Councilman Shiers, seconded by Councilwoman Mackey to accept the concept of AT&T for the easement across the creek reservation and direct staff to prepare a resolution. Passed unanimously. Item #14 AFFIRM HEARING DATES FOR BUDGET REVIEW City Manager , Ray Windsor , reported that the meetings will be held on July 12, 13 and 17 at 3-6 p .m. MOTION: By Councilwoman Mackey, seconded by Councilwoman Borgeson, to approve the dates for budget review. Passed unanimously. B. HEARINGS/APPEARANCES: 1 . HERITAGE TREE REMOVAL REQUEST FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF ENCHANTO RD. AND A PORTION OF CORRIENTE RD. (Barnes) Staff report was given by Henry Engen, Community Development Director with the recommendation for approval of the heritage tree removal and required replacement tree contribution of $7,500. Council discussion followed . Bill Barnes, the applicant , responded to Council questions and concerns. 4 MOTION: By Councilman Lilley, seconded by Councilwoman Mackey to grant the tree removal request on Corriente Rd . but to continue the tree removal request on Enchanto Rd. until the July 11th Council Meeting . Passed 3:2 by roll call vote with Councilmembers Borgeson and Shiers voting no . 2. HERITAGE TREE REMOVAL REQUEST, 4750 DOLORES AVE. (Deering) Staff report was given by Henry Engen, Community Development Director recommending approval of the removal of the heritage tree as recommended by the arborist . Council discussion followed . Mrs. Deering , applicant , stated that they are trying to increase the size of their home by 560 square feet . MOTION: By Councilwoman Mackey, seconded by Councilman Lilley to approve the request for removal of a Heritage Tree and to work with staff on the location of the planting the replacement tree. Passed unanimously. 3. RESOLUTION N0, 46-89 ADOPTING ATASCADERO SANITATION DISTRICT SERVICE CHARGES TO BE ADDED TO THE 1989-90 PROPERTY TAX BILL Staff report was given by Paul Sensibaugh , Public Works Director with the recommendation for adoption of Resolution No . 46-89 and Exhibit A upon completion of the public hearing. There was no public comment . MOTION: By Councilwoman Borgeson, seconded by Councilman Shiers to approve Resolution No . 46-89. Passed unanimously by roll call vote. Mayor Dexter asked for a break at 8:40 p .m. Meeting reconvened at 8:47 p .m. C. REGULAR BUSINESS: 1 . PROPOSED ORDINANCE PROHIBITING THE CONSUMPTION/POSSESSION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES IN CITY PARKS Staff report was given by Andy Takata, Parks, Recreation and Zoo Director recommending that Council not take an action regarding prohibiting the consumption/possession of alcoholic beverages at city parks, and direct staff to further review the sales of alcoholic beverages at city facilities and public areas through a revised process with joint permit review and approval by the Director of Parks, Recreation and Zoo Department and Police 5 i Chief. Council discussion followed. Tom Bench, Parks and Recreation Commissioner , stated his concerns regarding glass containers in and around children ' s play areas at the City ' s Parks. He believes signs stating "No Glass Containers" should be posted in City Parks. Consensus of the Council was to refer this back to staff for further review the sale of alcoholic beverages in City facilities and public areas and the possibility of creating an alcoholic free zone within the park . Passed unanimously. 2. 10TH ANNIVERSARY CELEBRATION Andy Takata, Director of Parks, Recreation and Zoo stated that the committee had met and plans are going very well for this celebration which will be held on July 2nd at 1 p .m. 3. RESOLUTION NO. 43—B9 — ADOPTING COUNCIL POLICY RELATING TO PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS REVIEW Staff report was given by City Manager Ray Windsor . Commission discussion followed . There was no public comment . MOTION: By Councilwoman Mackey, seconded by Councilman Lilley to approve Resolution No. 43-89. Passed unanimously by Roll Call Vote. 4. SET MEETING DATE FOR CLOSED SESSION RE: GUIDELINES FOR WAGE AND CLASSIFICATION STUDY IMPLEMENTATION City Manager Ray Windsor stated that the language shown on item 4 is in error . It should state "Set Meeting Date for Closed Session For Instructions to Staff and Negotiator on Bargaining Position Re: Salary Study" . This should cover the concern that was raised by the City Attorney regarding the legitimacy of a closed session. In addition it appears that Council cannot get together before the 11th which is the next regular Council Meeting , so this item can be continued until July 11th . At that time additional dates will be presented that Council can possibly agree upon. MOTION: By Councilwoman Mackey, seconded by Councilman Lilley to continue this item until the July 11th Council Meeting . Passed unanimously by roll call vote. D. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION 6 CITY COUNCIL: Councilman Lilley stated he will be on vacation June 30 through July 10. Councilwoman Borgeson will be on vacation during the first week of July. CITY MANAGER: City Manager Ray Windsor reminded Council that the meeting on July 11th will have a long agenda therefore a long council meeting is expected. Meeting adjourned at 9:40 p .m. MINUTES RECORDED BY: BOYD C. SHARITZ, CITY CLERK • PREPARED BY: GEORGIA RAMIREZ, ACTING DEPUTY CITY CLERK 7 MEETlN^ AGENDA ©AT i ITEM#� RESOLUTION NO. 42-89 OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO SUPPORTING JULY 1989 IS PARKS AND RECREATION MONTH WHEREAS, the overall planning of the outdoor facilities has been designated as a recreation service; and WHEREAS, providing recreation opportunities has been a longstanding concern of various associations and groups; and WHEREAS, all levels of government and private enterprise incorporate the stages of planning, development and operation of parks and recreation facilities; and WHEREAS, public recreation provides leisure opportunities that contribute to the social, physical , educational , cultural and general well—being of the community and its people; and WHEREAS, advances in technology coupled with more free time aid in providing a positive recreation experience to community members; and WHEREAS, our parks, preserved for their beauty, provide something of value for everyone; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That we, the City Council of the City of Atascadero hereby proclaim July 1989 as "PARKS AND RECREATION MONTH" . On motion by and seconded by , the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted on the following roll call vote : AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ADOPTED: ROLLIN DEXTER MAYOR (RES. NO. 42-89, p. 2) ATTEST: BOYD SHARITZ, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: JEFFERY JORGENSEN, CITY ATTORNEY APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: RAY WINDSOR, CITY MANAGER • MEET#��. A1GENDA a_ 3 ,DATE-=/J ITEM if • REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 7/11/89 File No. : TPM 12-87 From: Henry Engen, Community Development Director pr�' SUBJECT: Request by Leon and Gloria Janis (Twin Cities Engineering) of a one year time extension for Tentative Parce Map 12-87 ( 5192 Portola Road) . RECOMMENDATION: Approval of a one year time extension for Tentative Parcel Map 12-87 , extending the approval date to June 9, 1990. • KGRO A . B C UND The above-referenced map was approved by the City Council on June 9 , 1989 based on the attached revised Conditions of Approval . The applicant has requested a continuance in order to examine the most desirable access to the site. There are two possible means to access the site; one from Portola Road and one from Santa Lucia Road. On June 20 , 1989 the Planning Commission recommended approval of the time extension. HE:ph Attachments : May 15, 1989 - Time Extension Request from Twin Cities Engineering May 19, 1987- Planning Commission Staff Report June 9, 1989 - City Council Staff Report cc : Twin Cities Engineering Leon and Gloria Janis • I80 5 434 •18s., TWIN CITIES ENGINEERING INC. CIVIL ENGINEERING & SURVEYING ALLEN W. CAMPBELL RCE 20244 May 15, 1989 City of Atascadero P.O. Box 747 Atascadero, CA 93423 ATTN : Planning Department, Doug Davidson RE: Janis Parcel Map 12-87, AT 87-084 Dear Doug: We are requesting a time extension on AT 87-084 so that we can examine alternate access to the site. Tank you, Allen W. Campbell R.C.E. 20244 Exp 9/89 -w AWC/pas MAY 1719$9 V'OM-11"u; j'% yrs=� • P.O. BOX 777 • 200 MAIN STREET • TEMPLETON, CALIFORNIA 93465 City of Atascadero Item: B-4 STAFF REPORT FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: May 19, 1987 BY:Ap Steven L. DeCamp, Senior Planner File No: TPM 12-87 Project Address: 5192 Portola (Ptn. Lot 17 ; Blk 16; Atas. Colony) SUBJECT• Subdivision of one parcel containing 6.0 acres into two (2) lots con- taining approximately 3.0 acres each. A. SITUATION AND FACTS: 1. Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Leon Janis 2. Representative. . . . . . . . . . . . . .Twin Cities Engineering 3. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6.0 acres 4. Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .RS (2. 5-10.0 acre minimum lot size) 5. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Parcel 1 - Vacant Parcel 2 - Single Family Dwelling 6. General Plan Designation. . . .Suburban Single Family 7. Environmental Status. . . . . . . .Negative Declaration posted May 5, 1987 B. ANALYSIS: The application before the Commission proposes the subdivision of one parcel containing 6.0 acres into two (2) parcels containing approximately 3.0 acres each. The property proposed for subdivision is located in the RS (Resi- dential Suburban) zone. Minimum lot size in this zone ranges be- tween 2.5 and 10.0 acres depending upon the "score" of various performance standards. For this site, the minimum lot size cri- teria are: • • Staff Report - TPM 12-87 (Janis/TCE) Page Two Distance from center (0 - 8 ,000) 0. 20 Septic suitability (Moderate) 0. 75 Average slope (21-25%) 1.00 Condition of access (all weather) 0.75 General neighborhood character (0. 96 acres) 0 .19 Minimum Lot Size: 2. 89 acres The applicant has proposed lots of 2. 5 acres and 3.5 acres. A1- though the 2.5 acre lot does not meet the minimum required lot size, the total site is large enough to accommodate two lots at the minimum required size. Therefore, approval of the map can be conditioned upon redrafting of the map to insure compliance with the minimum lot size standards. The new lot has an adequate building site that is relatively level. Proper siting of the building pad and driveway should result in a minimal amount of required grading. Any grading that is required for driveways or building pads on slopes in excess of 20% will requre a Precise Plan review and approval. Precise Plan review is done at staff level and is dictated by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and this City' s guidelines for its implementation. Access to the subject property is over a long private driveway from Portola. This driveway serves two existing lots on its way to the new parcel being created. Because of the number of dwell- ings served, this driveway should be upgraded to private road standards prior to the creation of any additional building sites. An alternate access is available and may prove-to be a more de- sirable approach. The property in question should pose few problems for residential development. An adequate building site is available and access can be upgraded. A properly designed septic system should provide adequate waste disposal. There are trees on the property; how- ever, the building site is relatively clear so that tree removal should be minimal. Finally, the density proposed for the property appears to be appropriate for the site and surrounding areas. C. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends conditional approval of Tentative Parcel Map 12-87 based on the Findings contained in Exhibit C and the Con- ditions of Approval in Exhibit D. 2 ��, .,.. ., . CITY OF ATASCADERO J COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT i PM 12 - S7 I�, 1 vENAD O►' y ' J 7 �F J pDRrG44 ~♦ j�♦� ( CMq IN ♦ �p -1 -E, I/O p£. s _ y j �O* i// OATOLA R L( H) i p / _ ITIC. RS s 0 CITY Of ATASCADERO CADF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT I Plvi Z - $-7 in rl # tt -t N ' • }f Oft T ''I•'y .j�" I.iN .. I tom.,.:,. •• I T 4 :�,tet'' J/� _ i ..�t�.•._jyt$�' j 1' sur 42.... .. EXHIBIT C - Findings for Approval TPM 12-87 (Janis/TCE) May 19, 1987 FINDINGS: 1. The creation of these parcels conforms to the zoning ordinance and the General Plan. 2. The creation of these parcels, in conformance with the recommended Conditions of Approval, will not have a significant adverse effect upon the environment. The Negative Declaration prepared for the project is adequate. 3. The site is physically suitable for the type of development pro- posed. 4. The site is physically suitable for the density of 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 of their habitat. 6. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvement will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision; or that substantially equivalent alternate easements are provided. 7. The proposed subdivision complies with Section 66474. 6 of the State Subdivision Map Act as to methods of handling and discharge of waste. i 3 EXHIBIT D - Conditions of Approval pproval TPM 12-87 (Janis/TCE) May 19, 1987 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. Water shall be obtained from the Atascadero Mutual Water Company and water lines shall exist at the frontage of each parcel or its public utility easement prior to recordation of the final map. 2. All existing and proposed utility easements, pipelines and other easements are to be shown on the final map. If there are other building or other restrictions related to the easements, they shall be noted on the final map. 3. Grading, drainage, and erosion control plans, prepared by a regis- tered civil engineer , shall be submitted for review and approval by the Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to recording the final map. 4. Road improvement plans prepared by a registered civil engineer must be submitted to and approved by the Public Works Department prior to recording the final map. Said plans shall not result in the elimination of any existing trees over 8 inches DBH. 5. Construction of road improvements shall be completed prior to re- cording the final map. 6. Road improvements shall be to the following standard for a pri- vate road if the existing driveway is utilized: (1) 16 foot wide all weather traveled way (2) 20 foot wide road bed (3) Minimum 50 foot centerline radius 7. 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, and a note to this effect shall be placed on the final map. 8. Access to the property may be provided by establishment of a pri- vate driveway serving two (2) or fewer lots over the easement for said purpose which runs to Santa Lucia Road. 9. Obtain encroachment permit(s) from the Public Works Department prior to recording the final map, and construct improvements as directed by the encroachment permit(s) prior to final building inspection. 4 Conditions of Approval- TPM 12-87 May 19, 1987 Page Two 10. If the existing driveway is to be utilized for the placement of utilities, a Public Utilities Easement shall first be established for said purpose. 11. The existing fire hydrant located along the existing driveway shall be upgraded to City standards prior to recording the final map. 12. An offer of dedication to the public for the Public Utilities Easements shall be made. 13. All offers of dedication shall be completed and recorded prior to or simultaneously to recording the final map. 14. The boundary between proposed Parcels 1 and 2 shall be adjusted to result in lot sizes not less than 2. 89 acres. 15. A final map drawn in substantial conformance with the approved tentative map and in compliance with all conditions set forth herein shall be submitted for review and approval in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and the City 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 submit- ted 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. 16. Approval of this tentative parcel 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. 5 ,t MEE';NG AG`N:)A M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council June 9, 1987 VIA: Michael Shelton, city Manager FROM: Steven L. DeCamp, Acting Community Development Director)0�p SUBJECT: Tentative Parcel Map 12-87 LOCATION: 5192 Portola Road (Ptn. Lot 17 , Block 16) APPLICANT: Leon Janis (Twin Cities Engineering) REQUEST: Subdivision of one parcel containing 6 .0 acres into two lots of approximately 3.O acres each. On May 19, 1987 , the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the above-referenced request, unanimously (with Commissioner Nolan abstaining) approving the parcel map subject to the findings and con- ditions contained in the attached staff report, with modification to Condition #6-1 to read: "16 foot wide as halt concrete traveled way Mr. a aD C mppointed out that conditions #3-#7 apply if the existing private driveway is to be turned into a private road to provide access to the new lot. Condition #8 would allow for the establishment of a private driveway over the other easement. (If the applicant opts for #8, then conditions #3-7 would not apply.) Tom Vaughan, engineer for the applicant, spoke in support of the re- quest and noted his concurrence with Mr . DeCamp' s clarification on the intent of the conditions. There was brief discussion among the Commission concerning private road standards. RECOMMENDATION: Approve Tentative Parcel Map 12-87 subject to the findings and condi- tions contained in the staff report, with modification to #6-1. HE:ps cc: Leon Janis Twin Cities Engineering • DATA-,� ITEM� REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: _ Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 7/11/89 From: Henry Engen, Community Development Director 1A46 SUBJECT: Status report on request for "Classic Auto Dealers and Museum' s" freeway sign ( Zoning Text Amendment request) . BACKGROUND: At the Council' s June 13, 1989 meeting, this request by Mr. James Berger was continued for a month for a status report at your July 11 , 1989 meeting. DISCUSSION: The Downtown Steering Committee met on June 15 , 1989 , and re- viewed background work for planning concepts for the downtown by Wurster, Bernardi and Emmons . This phase of the Downtown Master Plan work involved eliciting from the committee responses to these concepts, and these responses are being tabulated for pre- sentation at the sub-committee' s next meeting, which will probably be in late July. The appropriateness of the specific request for consideration for freeway signage for "Classic Auto Dealers and Museum" in the downtown was not something that could be addressed at this point in the planning process . However, the matter has been referred to the consultants for consideration in future recommendations for appropriate signage in the downtown. We will continue to keep the Council and Mr. Berger informed on this matter. HE :ph cc: Mr. James T. Berger Larry Cannon, WBE DAT`" R'cN)� REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 7/11/89 File No. : TPM 04-89 From: Henry Engen, Community Development DirectorVC SUBJECT: Subdivision of one parcel containing approximately 8 . 26 acres into 4 lots with 3 lots at 1 _5 acres each and one lot at 3 . 76 acres at 7445 Cortez Avenue (Larson/Cuesta Engineering) (contin- ued from 6/27/89 ) . RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of TPM 04-89 based on the Findings for Approval in Exhibit "C" and subject to the Conditions of Approval • in Exhibit "D" of the June 6 , 1989 report to the Planning Commis- sion. BACKGROUND : This matter was pulled from the Consent Agenda of the Council' s June 27 , 1989 meeting and scheduled for public hearing July 11 , 1989 . Concerns expressed at that meeting by Council members, included flooding, grading, and tree removal implications of the project, and the fact that proposed parcel No. 4 could conceiv- ably be split in the future. The applicant' s engineer has forwarded the attached letter responding to these concerns. ANALYSIS: At the public hearing held by the Planning Commission on June 6, 1989 , the Planning Commission voted 5 : 1 to recommend approval of the proposed lot split, with a modification to Condition No. 3 (a) to delete the phrase "including driveways" . With respect to issues raised at the Council' s meeting: 1 . Flooding - The project is in an area subject to flooding in the one to five hundred year interval range, which would • require minor mitigation in the course of reviewing project plans . The railroad serves as a dike to keep more signifi- cant flooding from occuring in the direction of the Salinas River. Proposed lot No. 4 was made larger partially to provide for downstream drainage on the property. • s 2 . Grading - Plans are required to be prepared by a registered CivilEngineer to address grading, drainage and public improvements, and are required to meet City of Atascadero standards. 3 . Pipeline - There is a 22' wide Chevron pipeline easement across parcel No. 1 which leaves more than adequate room for a home site. 4 . Tree Removal - There is no tree removal being proposed. 5 . Railroad Proximity - The parcels are adjoining the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way and the map provides for a 100' setback for home construction, together with landscap- ing requirements; hence, issues raised by the railroad would be mitigated. Part of the discussion by the Council was the concern that, in the future, parcel no. 4 which contains 3 . 76 acres could be split. The minimum permitted lot size parcel is 1 . 5 acres without sewer. Any future split request would be handled as a parcel map and if the proposed design is inappropriate it could be denied. It should be noted that were this area to be served by sewer the whole parcel could be divided into one acre lots; hence, the processing of an application at this time at a 1 1/2 acre minimum will preclude any future subdivisions for parcels 1 thru 3, which are 1 1/2 acres in size. Staff believes that the design as proposed is consistent with the General Plan and contains appropriate mitigation measures for those issues identified in the staff report to the Planning Com- mission. ALTERNATIVE : If the Council were to decide that an alternative design should be considered, it would be appropriate to return the matter to the Planning Commision to allow for consideration of re-design. HE:ph Attachments : July 3, 1989 Letter - Cuesta Engineering June 27, 1989 - Council Staff Report cc: Frederick Larson • Cuesta Engineering O CUESTA ENGINEERING 7401-B EI Camino Real/P.O. Box 2066 Atascadero, California 93423 40 (805)466.6827 July 3 , 1989 To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: TPM 04-89 / PARCEL MAP AT 89-013 for F. LARSON Ladies and Gentlemen: At the suggestion of Mr. Henry Engen, I would like to take this opportunity of respond to areas of concern that were mentioned at the Council meeting of June 6 , 1989 . 1. Oak Trees: It has been, and continues to be, the intention of my client to comply with the Tree Ordinance; we do not intend to remove or damage existing trees on or near the property. The three sizeable oaks near the road construction are all on neighboring properties . The one closest to Maleza is outside the work area for the proposed road extension, and will not be affected by road construction. Our preliminary plans past Lot 20 show the road work shifted east of the right-of-way centerline to minimize grading near the tree on Lot 20. In support of that alignment we have already contacted the owner on the opposite side of Cortez for permission to grade on that property as needed. The largest tree at the base of Pine Mountain is also off our property. We intend to construct without damaging this tree by shifting the road onto our property as necessary to protect the tree and to keep any grading at the base of Pine Mountain to a minimum. 2. Pipelines: There is a Chevron fuel line through the property as designated on the Tentative Map. There is an existing 22-foot easement described by Chevron to protect this line , which limits construction of buildings in the easement. This pipelines runs across the City of Atascadero , and we have worked around it in numerous projects around town. Chevron requires that their representative be on site before and during construction. 3 . Future Property Split: The 4-lot subdivision proposed on the Tentative Map represents the full intentions of my client regarding the property. Mr . Larson proposes to create 3 lots , 1 for each of his children' s families , and retain the balance of the property for himself , to be used as pasture and for a future homesite. R � A I do not believe here is any requirement to ubdivide a property to the fullest extent of the minimums allowable by zoning. Creating a fifth lot would create a lot line through the portion of the property Mr. Larson wants to retain. This would limit his building site as he could not put a structure over that lot line without merging the two lots back to one. Any change in the configuration of his four-lot proposal would only lengthen the proposed cul-de-sac in rough terrain, and would not change the number of new homes in the area. I believe that Mr. Larson's request for four lots is well within the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act and the City Subdivision Ordinance. Also, the lot sizes proposed meet the size that has been determined, by Zoning, to be an appropriate building lot in this area of town. According to the Subdivision Map Act, the subdivider does have the right to further subdivide his property, though that is not the intention of the applicant. While the Map Act preserves this right to consecutive subdivision, it also preserves the authority of the local agency to impose appropriate conditions or requirements on any such consecutive subdivision. Should a future owner come to the City for the creation of one additional lot, the Commission and Council at that time could call for a road extension, or deny a flag lot proposal , or impose any suitable conditions they deemed appropriate. Thank you for your further consideration of this tentative map application. Should you have any other questions , I hope that you will call on me, either before or during the next meeting. Sincerely, �/ &rX4 Deborah Hollowell 89-002 Q EYING-? ` '� =11A _ M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council June 27 , 1989 VIA: Ray Windsor, City Manager FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director SUBJECT: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 4-89 LOCATION: 7445 Cortez Avenue APPLICANT: Frederick Larson (Cuesta Engineering) REQUEST: Subdivision of one parcel containing approximately 8. 26 acres into four lots with 3 lots at 1 . 5 acres each and 1 lot at 3 . 76 acres . BACKGROUND: On June 6 , 1989, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the subject request and on a 5 : 1 vote, approved the land division request subject to the findings and conditions contained in the attached staff report with modification to condition #3a to delete the words . . ."including driveways" . . . There was discussion and public testimony as referenced in the attached minutes excerpt. RECOMMENDATION: Approval of Tentative Parcel Map 4-89 per the Planning Commission' s recommendation. HE :ps Attachments : Staff Report dated June 6, 1989 Minutes Excerpt dated June 6, 1989 cc: Frederick Larson Cuesta Engineering CITY OF ATASCADERO Item: B-1 STAFF REPORT FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: June 6, 1989 BY: �/p Steven L. DeCamp, Senior Planner File No: TPM 04-89 SUBJECT: Subdivision of one (1) parcel containing approximately 8. 26 acres into four (4) lots. Three of the new lots will contain 1. 5 acres each and the fourth will contain 3. 76 acres. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of TPM 04-89 based on the Findings for Approval in Exhibit C and subject to the Conditions of Approval in Exhibit D. SITUATION AND FACTS: 1. Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Frederick Larson 2. Representative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Cuesta Engineering 3. Project Address. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7445 Cortez Avenue 4. General Plan Designation. . . . .Mod. Density Single Family 5. Zoning District. . . . . . . . . . . . . .RSF-Y (1. 0 ac w/sewer; 1. 5 ac. w/o sewer min. lot size) 6. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8. 26 acres 7. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Vacant 8. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Negative Declaration posted May 23, 1989 ANALYSIS: The application before the Commission proposes to subdivide one (1) existing parcel which contains approximately 8. 26 acres into four (4) lots. Three of the new lots will contain 1. 5 acres each while the fourth will contain 3. 76 acres. The General Plan designates this property for "Moderate Density Single Family" development. The property is located within the Urban Services Line and is within the RSF-Y zoning district. The minimum lot size within this zone is 1. 0 acre where sanitary sewer service • is available, and 1. 5 acres where sewer service is unavailable. Because sewer service is not currently available to the subject property, the minimum lot size requirement is 1. 5 acres. The proposal includes an extension of Cortez Avenue to provide access to the new lots. The unimproved right-of-way for Cortez currently terminates at the most southerly boundary of this property. The applicant will be required to develop Cortez from its current terminus at Maleza Avenue to a City standard cul-de- sac at the southerly boundary of proposed Lot 4. The applicant will be required to obtain adequate right-of-way from the adjacent property to allow construction of the road extension. This right-of-way will then be offered for dedication to the City. Each of the new lots will, therefore, have access from a City standard road. It is anticipated that the extension of Cortez Avenue will be accepted into the City maintained road system. For this reason, there will not be a requirement for the establishment of a road maintenance agreement binding on the future parcels. There are two areas of concern relative to the development of this site for residential use. This site is adjacent to the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks which increases sound levels significantly when trains are passing. The General Plan' s Noise Element indicates that a freight train generates 70 dB (A) when measured at 50 feet. This level is above the 45 dB (A) considered maximum for rural single family areas during the day. This maximum recommended level drops to 35 dB(A) during the night. To reduce the impact of the anticipated noise, the applicant has proposed a 100 foot setback from the railroad right-of-way, and the installation of screen planting along the properties eastern boundary. These steps, along with additional sound attenuation measures incorporated into the design of the future residences, should reduce interior sound levels to acceptable levels. The second area of concern relates to the property' s location within the 500 year flood boundary of the Salinas River. The FEMA map that includes this area is attached to this report as Exhibit C. The FIRM (Flood Insurance Rate Map) includes this property within Zone B. Zone B is described as: "Areas between limits of the 100-year flood and 500-year flood; or certain areas subject to 100-year flooding with average depths less than one (1) foot or where the contributing drainage area is less than one square mile; or areas protected by levees from the base flood. " The property proposed for subdivision is lower than surrounding features (Pine Mtn. , the railroad, Curbaril and Cortez Avenues) and can be expected to incur some minor flooding problems. The property can reasonably be developed for residential use by providing adequate drainage facilities and, if necessary, raising building pad elevations above flood levels. The subdivision • • should be conditioned to insure conformance with the City' s recently adopted Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance (Ordinance 193) . So conditioned, the subdivision should not contribute to downstream flooding problems or expose future residents to unreasonable flood related damage or hazards. This project has been reviewed by the City' s Fire Department and the Engineering Division of the Public Works Department. Both Departments have provided recommended conditions of approval which are included in Exhibit E. With these conditions, neither Department has any objection to the approval of the proposed subdivision. CONCLUSIONS: The design of the proposed subdivision is in conformance with the City' s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The proposed home sites can be developed without adverse impacts on surrounding areas. The recommended Conditions of Approval will insure that the potential affects of noise and flooding on future residents are mitigated to acceptable levels. The proposed use, and the size of the proposed lots is consistent with existing development in the vicinity of the subdivision. Staff believes that each of the Findings required by the Subdivision Map Act can be made relative to this proposal. SLD/ ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Location and Zoning Map Exhibit B - Tentative Parcel Map Exhibit C - FEMA Map Exhibit D - Findings for Approval Exhibit E - Conditions of Approval • ■ �� ROO \�. sL S5 SITE • 7445 Cortez Avenue ♦ ., = Zone: IF FV . ♦ �..IM 1 _ 140 IJ44 • EXHIBIT B CITY OF ATASCADERO Tentative Parcel Map t-79- - `' � 1 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TPM 04-89 DEPARTMENT 4, d i• �,: tu i• �\ a ,\ X11 +M• ,' `V ` `,\ I %ling 0 EXHIBIT C CITY OF ATASCADERO FEMA Map COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TPM 04-89 DEPARTMENT RM2 {. s c)o 9AO 9,9 T FLOOD W AYF� 6G �AZi,� S 0o YQ FUS paWa `{ Z ��L Pte, 'r � '�;� �" '?7th 3f' •f� °�.� r r - 11 ZFA 1xf Il �0�' r EXHIBIT D - Findings for Approval Tentative Parcel Map 04-89 7445 Cortez Ave. (Larson) June 6, 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. 0 0 EXHIBIT E - Conditions of Approval Tentative Parcel Map 04-89 7445 Cortez Ave. (Larson) June 6, 1989 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. Water shall be obtained from the Atascadero Mutual Water Company. Water lines shall exist at the frontage of each parcel prior to recordation 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. 3a. Grading, drainage, and erosion control plans for the entire subdivision, including driveways, prepared by a registered civil engineer, shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval by the Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to recordation of the final map. b. The grading and drainage plan shall include the elevation of proposed structures and pads. If the site is to be filled above the base flood, the final pad elevation shall be certified by a registered engineer or surveyor and submitted to the City Engineer prior to transmittal to the Floodplain Administrator. Final pad elevations shall appear as a note on the final map. 4. Road improvement plans prepared by a registered civil engineer shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval by the Community Development and Public Works Departments, prior to the construction of improvements. Said plans shall include, but not be limited to: Cortez Avenue: a. Design shall meet all City development standards, including measures to protect and preserve existing trees on the site and in the public right-of-way. b. A City standard cul-de-sac shall be included at the terminus of the extension of the road at Lot 4. C. Road construction shall include the offsite work necessary to connect the extension of Cortez with the existing terminus of the road. 0 d. Design speed of the road shall be 25 mph. 5. Subdivider shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Public Works Department prior to the installation of improvements, including drainage facilities and all road construction. Subdivider shall also sign an inspection agreement guaranteeing that the work will be done in conformance with approved plans and inspection fees paid. All work required by the encroachment permit shall be completed prior to the recordation of the final map. 6. The subdivider shall install all street signs, traffic delineation devices, warning and regulatory signs, barricades, and other similar devices where required by the Director of Public Works. Signs shall be in conformance with the Department of Public Works standards and the current State of California uniform sign chart. Installation of traffic devices shall be subject to review and modifications within one year after construction. 7. All relocation and/or alteration of existing utilities shall be the responsibility of the subdivider. 8. A registered civil engineer shall provide written certification that all grading, drainage, and public improvements have been completed in full compliance with the approved plans prior to final inspection. 9. An offer of dedication to the City of Atascadero for the following right-of-way is required: Street Name: Cortez Avenue Limits: entire 40 feet of right-of-way and that right-of-way necessary to accommodate the cul-de-sac 10. An offer of dedication to the Public for a Public Utilities Easement along the frontages of the Cortez Avenue extension is required. 11. Offers of dedication shall be completed and recorded prior to or simultaneously with the recordation of the final map. 12. The fire hydrant located at the intersection of Cortez Ave. and Maleza shall be upgraded to City standards. A new fire hydrant shall be installed at the cul-de-sac at the terminus of the Cortez Ave. extension. All fire hydrant installation and upgrade shall be completed prior to recordation of the final map. 13. A landscaping plan for noise attenuation, including number, location and species of trees and other plants, and irrigation plans, shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval prior to the recordation of the final map. Installation of the required landscaping and irrigation system may be bonded for a period not to exceed one (1) year form the date of final approval of the map. 12. A final map drawn in substantial conformance with the approved tentative map and in compliance with all conditions set forth herein shall be submitted for review and approval in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and the City' s Subdivision Ordinance prior to 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. • PAGE TWO MINUTES EXCERPT - JUNE 61 1989 - PLANNING COMMISSION A. CONSB LENDAR 1 . Approval o nutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting of May 1989 MOTION: Made by Commission e aage, seconded by Commissioner Brasher an arried 6 :0 to approve the Consent Calendar as pres ed. B. HEARINGS, APPEARANCES, AND REPORTS 1. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 4-89; application filed by Frederic Larson (Cuesta engineering) to allow subdivision of one lot containing 8. 26 acres into three lots containing 1 . 5 acres each and one lot containing 3 . 76 acres. Subject site is located at 7445 Cortez Avenue. Steven Decamp presented the staff report; recommendation is for approval subject to 13 conditions . He then responded to questions from the Commission. There was discussion relative to location of the pipeline and its affect on placing structures, the potential for flooding from the Salinas River, what the City' s liabilities would be in the event of a flood, etc. Deborah Hollowell with Cuesta Engineering, representing the applicant, stated that due to the actual built-up railroad right-of-way which is between the applicant' s property and the Salinas River, the property is afforded some protection from possible flooding. Flood elevations will be established in relation to the federal mapping. with regard to the Chevron pipeline, it was noted that no construction work will take place within that easement. Ms . Hollowell requested modification to condition #3a to delete "including driveways" as there are no plans to develop all of the parcels at this time. She then responded to questions from the Commission. Mary McTaggart, 5200 Maleza, expressed concern with water draining from Maleza onto her property which is at the bottom of the hill and asked that the road be constructed in such a way as to prevent any further runoff. She also asked that care be taken in putting the road in the right legal position and asked for assurances that their oak tree be preserved. Mrs . McTaggart pointed out that there is also a high pressure gas line on the property owned by Southern California Gas . Frederick Larson, applicant, clarified that there is a natural gas line running across the property but he believes this line is within the Chevron easement. PAGE THREE MINUTES EXCERPT - JUNE 61, 1989 - PLANNING COMMISSION Ms. Hollowell noted that they will do whatever is necessary to mitigate Mrs . McTaggart' s concerns . Discussion followed. Commissioner Luna stated he could not support several of the findings (that the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development) as there are problems with flooding, one or two pipelines on parcel 1, and the noise factor (railroad) . MOTION: Made by Commissioner Highland, seconded by Commissioner Waage and carried 5 : 1 with Commissioner Luna dissenting to approve Tentative Parcel Map 4-89 subject to the findings and conditions contained in the staff report with modification to Condition #3a to delete the words : . . . "including driveways" . . . . TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 7-89; application fi ed by Thomas McNamara (Cuesta Engineering) to allow s division of one lot containing approxiamtely 7 . 00 res into four ots containing 1 . 55 , 1 . 60, 1 . 65 and . 20 acres each. S ject site is located at 7000 San alo Road. Mr. DeCamp resented the staff report oting staff' s recommendati for approval subject 11 conditions . There was discu ion concerning t proximity of the proposed building ites on Parce 3 and 4 with regard to minimum setbacks . John Falkenstien with esta ngineering, representing the applicant, stated they h no problems with the staff report. He clarified tha he applicant has no intention of reducing the distance be wee the two homes to the minimum side setback and is pr using a home sites as shown on the tentative map. The t ee on pard 1 2 will not be affected by development. Thomas McNamara, plicant, explained hat the grading on the property to place in 1956 and the ree has been there since that tim and has never suffered an adverse effects. In response o question Commissioner Lopez-Ba botnin, Mr. DeCamp res nded that the Fire Marshall has de rmined that one fire ydrant is adequate to serve the four 1 s . Commis Toner Brasher asked that provision be incorpo ted into he conditions that the two house sites on Parcel 3 and have a certain amount of distance between them as e fe t that it was not in keeping with the rural character e neighborhood to have the homes that close. REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 7/11/89 From: Henry Engen, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Heritage Tree Removal request for the construction of Enc$anto Road (continued from 6/27/89 meeting) . RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the Heritage Tree Removal for Enclianto Road, with the applicant required to deposit $4800 in the City' s Tree Replace- ment Fund as mitigation. BACKGROUND: At the Council ' s meeting of June 27, 1989 , action was taken to authorize tree removal for a related project by Mr. William Barnes for Corriente and Jaquima Road, together with tree replacement mitigation for some 27 trees ( $2700) for deposit in the City' s Tree Replacement Fund. However, the proposed tree re- movals on Enc anto Road were continued to the next meeting to provide for additional review as to whether there could be fur- ther adjustments in the road alignment to save additional trees . Council members were invited to field-tour the site, in the interim, with the applicants and their engineer. HE:ph Attachment: June 27 , 1989 - Staff Report cc: Mr. Bill Barnes Mr. Allen Volbrecht MEEEi?A�F�ti AGENDA EM 4 ► MEMORANDUM TO: City Council June 27, 1989 VIA: Ray Windsor, City Manager FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Heritage Tree Removal Request for the Construction of En4anto Rd. and a portion of Corriente Rd. BACKGROUND: The Tree Ordinance requires that heritage trees not be removed unless approved by the City Council following public hearing. ANALYSIS: The applicant is requesting removal of a total of nineteen (19) trees in order to construct Jaquima, Enc anto and a portion of Corriente Road (see attachments) . Of these trees, nine (9) are designated as heritage trees under the City' s Tree Ordinance (20 inches or greater in diameter) . As the attachments show, the trees requested for removal range in size from 8 inches to 50 inches. Three heritage trees are proposed for removal to build Corriente Rd. and six for Enchanto Rd, including one multi-trunk tree greater than 70 inches in diameter. One 12 inch white oak is proposed for removal to construct Jaquima Rd. These trees are located within the Colony rights-of-way. All three of these roads are original Colony roads which have not been built as of this date. In August of 1986, the City' s Public Works Director entered into an agreement with the .Gordon T. Davis Cattle Company (see attachment) . Each of these roads is shown on the City' s General Plan and all three are covered by the agreement with Gordon Davis. The Tree Ordinance requires that each tree removed shall be replaced with a similar native tree or a number of trees which will provide equal aesthetic quality. The minimum size of a replacement tree shall be a fifteen (15) gallon container. In this case, the arborist has devised a sliding scale for replacement; the larger the tree removed, the more replacement trees required. Thus, seventy-five (75) fifteen gallon trees are proposed to replace the nineteen (19) trees removed. i 0 The applicant and the arborist have moved the centerline alignment as much as possible within the right-of-way to save some trees. Furthermore, in areas where the applicant owns both sides of the right-of-way, the right-of-way has been moved to minimize tree removal. It should be noted here that this will require the necessary abandonments and dedications prior to acceptance of the road. Finally, Corriente Rd. will terminate in a cul-de-sac, and not be constructed to its full right-of-way. To build this section of Corriente Rd. would require extensive grading and tree removal. To deny a request for Colony road building within the right-of- way would be a denial of access rights and result in the need for City condemnation of additional right-of-way. Moreover, item #2 on the road construction agreement states that, "Every attempt will be made to maintain the constructed road at its mapped location. " The Tree Ordinance contains the following language: " (iii) Interfering with existing utilities, structures, or right-of-way improvements. " " (iv) Obstructing existing or proposed improvements that cannot be reasonably designed to avoid the need for tree removal. " RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the heritage tree removal and required replacement trees as recommended by the arborist. dd:HE Attachments: Letter from Applicant Street Location Map Enchanto Rd. and Corriente Rd. Tree Removal Enchanto Rd. (Detail) Corriente Rd. (Detail) Jaquima Rd. (Detail) Letter from Arborist Road Construction Agreement WM. E. BARNES CONSTRUCTION CONSULTING AND EQUIPMENT RENTAL 8755 SAN GREGORIO ROAD ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA 93422 PHONE (805) 466-6048 April 5; 1989 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF ATASCADERO 6500 PALMA AVENUE ATASCADERO, CA 93422 i; is Attention: Steve DeCamp Please find enclosed a map showing. the approximate location and size of-trees that need to be removed in order to build Enchante, Corriente, and Jaquima Roads. We have marked all trees, except j the one tree on Jaquima Road,with Pink Ribbons and Red Painted X's. I I 'm enclosing a list with size of each tree and they will be marked the same as on the plan. On Corriente Road there is a total of 5 trees on the part that comes off of -Santa Ana. On the part that comes off of Llano Road we will 1 not remove any trees. j On Enchante there are a total of 13 trees to be removed. We do not own Lot 14 so we will have to stay in the right-of-way @ Lot 14. s These trees. I have marked for removal are the ones I feel will have ' to come out. I have moved .cer.ter line alignment to take advantage of saving as many trees as possible. I am willing to meet and go over this tree removal and alignment anytime. I do not intend to build Corriente Road all the wav through because of the large amount trees- that-would have had to be removed on Lots 18,19,28,&26. Please turn to attached list: WM. E. BARNES CONSTRUCTION CONSULTING AND EOUIPMENT RENTAL 8755 SAN GREGORIO ROAD ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA 93422 PHONE (805) 466-6048 Page 2 of 2 TREE DESCRIPTION ON CORRIENTE ROAD 1. White Oak 32" diameter 2. White Oak 34" diameter 3. White Oak 8" diameter 4. White Oak 16" diameter 5. White Oak 36" diameter TREE DESCRIPTION ON ENCHANTE ROAD [two trees to be trimmed so road can go between] 1 . White Oak 15" diameter 2. White Oak 42" diameter TRIM 2 trees 3. Live Oak 24" diameter 4. White Oak 16" diameter • 5. White Oak 18" diameter 6. Live Oak 12,12,14,20 split 7. White Oak 14" diameter 8. White Oak 24" diameter 9. Live Oak 50" diameter 10. Live Oak 16"diameter 11. - White Oak 18" diameter 12. White Oak 20" diameter 13. White Oak 17" diameter TREE DESCRIPTION ON JAQUIMA ROAD 1. White Oak 12" diameter [This tree is not marked, as it is the only tree on the south side of the road approximately 300' from Corona Road.] If you need any other information, or need to look at the trees, I am available any time. Thanks Bill Barnes Atascadero Highlands WM. E. BARNES CONSTRUCTION CONSULTING Atao EQUIPMENT RENTAL 8755 SAN GREGORIO ROAD ATASCADERO. CALIFORNIA 93422 PHONE (805) 466-6048 ENCHANTO ROAD [BLK:444 LOTS 8,9,10,13,15,16,17,20 & 21 CORRIENTE ROAD [BLK #44 LOTS 12,13,18,19 28, & 27 [ [BLK #27 LOTS 28,29 30 & 31 JA UIMA ROAD [BLK #55 LOTS 28,29 & 36 91 E NC.H A N TO R D. P0a0 LORR i EN i E RD.40 1 i e I, J D n R , SaMiT ozz I 0A0� 11111 f� R.1 „b \ t O,p90 j i m LLA L( H) S i\ H) 7 Op y LOM,ts I �qro\ II i 1 j 54 rA 1 190 OPS Q�� '9Q VV 0 2 ( i\E- CN ti ) m vZ m 1 � Rod o ) � m ----------------- OWN 1 ; MW } .� .'I A , N K Pd O »O N 6 y� o a , � b b�V r 2 . n N ' +� 0 1 � N ' _ O d _ Rt 3 zZ �, ' 00 00 T D n 2 � m r Z i O A C 3r 0 - 0 F4nnn > 0 .-1 r F•t �J r. r o - 0 ; lu :0 Z (' b Zn ZD S � ` Y M -C Z v Z 0 M �' r rm � = ' D 2 - .' m f) ,. c / O U� W C3� roL" y � a O r a �•• cl r n r fib• 2 ' g { 0 • SCOVELL 'FREE SUr" RY P.O. BOX 1375 PASO ROBLES,CALIFORNIA 93446 805/238-0654 .-? �t u f1�ri c,�t _ Af , /SCC— jC,?lf7 L ./v is 8,.;irn CS Gl^d /'144-Sf 71ji 'J`' c=/!�'�r� 7`i C S-f p�j�} r�rJir►l 7b 6,ff i�Z✓C ) 7U 7,--r�, G I`i es C 0 r.�ccr/�.�5 L� /v Oil) Jct f-5 74D : fn7L i 1v Id 4c ,r� ✓ .�y,� rl ,r�j,j� �fGi�-jt+(ff%�'?rr'� tTTa'C7 ✓/ ' /t�J/at CGA 441111 42':le rlfc7t e �ttx.'tJy?Ct'Gi7/Gc��^aj �r�j �> l:�'r�%/�/Ct•�Q' r/t e;n !`f rrii7`n✓ ��!f /J ?�io^zs/ /�� �' 7, . . 1 . c (1) SCOVELL TREES ERY P.O. BOX 1375 PASO ROBLES,CALIFORNIA 93446 805/238-0654 101761 V6// gawc�tj �J %er n ot✓ l c,44 / All, t'. f^t.L >�� /G Cr'y►r.i� �t C r'�7 OA'' Z Oci-K, 3E" cvK 3 64e -a r,71 C 4� 0 /C ®Cr /E'rP/Cttr�nr'+� Aa>I a"A- 4G ..7 yir w�, 00 J(• "7, k Oei/( 'p !, s-b Oa I/i 06K /7'v 805/434 .1834 TWIN CITIES ENGINEERING INC. CIVIL ENGINEERING & SURVEYING ALLEN W. CAMPBELL RCE 20244 June 13, 1986 Mr. Paul Sensibaugh Public Works Director City of Atascadero PO Boc 747 Atascadero, CA 93423 RE: Road Construction Agreement Portions of Atascadero Colony (See attached map) Dear Mr. Sensibaugh: In accordance with discussions between Gordon T. Davis Cattle Company and the City, the following is a summary of our under- standing of the procedures to be followed for the improvement of the roads shown on the attached plot plan. 1. Developer to enter into an inspection agreement with the City to reimburse City for actual inspection costs . 2. Every attempt will be made to maintain the constructed road at its mapped location. Centerline monuments will be referenced prior to rough grading. 3. Developer will rough grade the roadway using information supplied by developer 's engineer and a qualified soils lab , approved by City, will take representative compaction tests at developer's cost and furnish the results to the City. 4. City Engineer' s office will make an on-site inspection of the completeed rough grading with developer's engineer. Adjustments will be made on recommendation concerning roadway grades and site distances . Cut and fill slopes will be examined at the time along with proposed location and size of drainage structures . Judgements will be based on well-recognized standards and practices . Drainage calculations are to be submitted to City prior to the field inspection. P.O. BOX 777 . 200 MAIN STREET a TEMPLETON, CALIFORNIA 93465 Page 2 Road Consturction Agreement Davis 6-13-86 S. All underground utilities shall be placed prior to paving. Trenches are to be adequately com- pacted with appropriate backfill material . 6. Developer shall place aggregate base . This work will be inspected by the City and will require compaction tests to be furnished by developer verifying the satisfactory placement of these materials . 7. After basing, City will review erosion control work and roadside drainage facilities . The City and developer's engineer will determine the location of any roadside ditches or downdrains . 8. Developer shall re-establish and monument centerline controls for the roadway as approved by City. County standard monument well at road intersections and on long tangents , 5/8" rebar with metal caps at all other locations . The monument wells are also to serve as bench marks with elevations shown on the As-Built Plans . C 9. Developer shall provide accurate As-Built plans -for r . the roadway including plan and profile , culvert locations and invert elevations, berm locations , utility locations , and any other improvement features . 10 . Drive approach cuts -and fills will be accomplished along with the subgrade preparation in order to eliminate the necessity of disturbing the completed roadway section when the balance of the driveways are constructed to serve individual lots . A no charge grading permit will be obtained and plans showing the location of the access points will be presented to the Planning Department and a field review of the driveway location made prior to approval to proceed with this work . The driveway grading should be kept to no more that 50 c.y. 11. Final improved section shall be a minimum of 2 inches A.C. over at least 4" of Class 3 aggregate base. The structural section is to be based on a traffic index of 4 and the R-value of the sub-base soils . 12 . The upper 18" of subgrade shall be compacted to 95% relative density as measured by California Test Method No. 216 or by calibrated nuclear density instrument. Page 3 Road Construction Agreement Davis 6-13-86 13. Final pavement width is to be 20 feet with an additional two foot required where A. C. berms are placed for drainage control . Aggregate base width would then be a minimum one foot outside the edge of pavement. Also an additional two foot of A.C. widening with adequate tapers will be required where sharp horizontal curves are encountered. 14. Cut ditches shall be paved with 2 inches of A.C. where the road grade exceeds 10% . 15. It is understood that Gordon T. Davis Cattle Co . also agrees to pay actual costs for City inspec tion and engineering performed on this project. 16. Developer will maintain roads for one year after date of acceptance. 17. The roads in question will be accepted for City maintenance when all steps have been completed. 18. Generally the roads are to be developed in accordance with the attached phasing plan. The stages of the work is to take place , such as tree removal , grubbing, rough grading, etc. prior to start of construction. Sincerely, Allen W. Campb 11 R.C.E. 20244 AIVCJp as enclosure cc: Henry Engen I agree with all conditions outlined in this agreement from Mr. Campbell. Signed J�CSsZ,��2G Signed Paul Sensibaugh Gorfdon T. Davis Cattle Co . Dated 8�Z�86 _ Dated V- 7 2 -`E ~ �= y � _:. _ Y '"z c ' - y {-� mac: •%/s / j� r � .' Ir a i4 \ � ./Y .• S�. • 1 �� j • 'i y' �i • rte- — ! w \�~ •Y _ ' \\ 1 Y y Y WO / ■ mo T Al o ! 10 v a r %\ l ♦ A t `- /o- ui6 • �� Y S p 13 to tt E0 En ril it I 8 r_ ��� s a l/Y � �\ .` '~'•ri• / - � �J� _ Y - � i .uta ', S ���.�� . ! .'��.� - 4f '�• p - `% . rc O (D (D n EETiN AGENt3� DAT AM REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 7/11/89 - File No. CUP 03-89 From: Henry Engen, Community Development Director 1*1 SUBJECT: Appeal by Don and Joyce Kline of the Planning Commission' s ap- proval of a use permit authorizing establishment of a church in an RS zone at 5400 San Anselmo. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission' s revised conditions of approval . BACKGROUND: True Spirit Missionary Baptist Church is proposing to convert an existing single family residence into a church at 5400 San Anselmo. The zoning is RS Suburban Residential and the property is outside the Urban Services Line, which is the centerline of San Anselmo at this location. The accompanying staff report and minutes excerpts of the Planning Commission provide further de- tail on the proposed project, together with a letter of appeal, dated June 19 , 1989 from Don and Joyce Kline outlining their basis for appeal. ANALYSIS : There are eight (8) conditions of approval contained in the Planning Commission' s modified Conditions of Approval (Exhibit "G" ) . The permit establishes a 3-year sunset clause requiring the extension of the use by the Planning Commission. The use is also limited to Wednesday and Sunday for services, with inciden- tal counseling being permitted on other days of the week between 8 :00 a.m. and 9 : 00 p.m. No parking signs along the frontage are required. The conditions address code requirements for fire, building, drainage, grading, road improvement plans, landscaping and parking lot development. • With respect to the issues raised in the letter of appeal , staff would respond as follows : Access/Traffic Generation. Appellants contend that San Anselmo does not meet arterial road requirements of the plan Page 111 of the General Plan indicates that "Arterials must have shoulders wide enough to accommodate multi-use paths and emergency parking.. " Proposed condition No. 5 requires pavement widening to 20' from centerline. Parking. Appellant is concerned about the adequacy of 22 parking spaces and waiver of curbs, gutters and sidewalks . Additionally, they disagree with the waiver of the 6 foot fence around the parking lot, in favor of a 3 foot height. The intent of the modifica- tions to parking standards providing for a proposed oil/gravel surface and modified fencing was to soften the appearance of the parking lot in relation to the residential setting. In actual- ity, the oil/gravel surface of the lot would appear like asphalt. Drainage/Public Improvements . Appellants question the waiver of curbs, gutters and sidewalks along the property frontage. Page 114 of the General Plan calls for curbs, gutters and sidewalks in commercial, industrial and multi-family districts, but not in single family zones . Land Use Characteristics/Impacts . • Appellant is concerned that "social and service organizations" are not a permitted use in the single family zones . Issues related to social service use, road improvement plans, curb, gutter and sidewalk, and landscaping plans were noted above. The relatively small scale of the project did not support the need for a special traffic study. Speed signs would have to be recommended by the Traffic Committee based upon speed studies, while design of San Anselmo is a function of Public Works . ALTERNATIVE : 1 . The City Council could uphold the appeal and direct staff to bring back findings for denial. 2 . City Council could modify Conditions of Approval . HE :ph Attachments : June 19, 1989 . - Letter of Appeal Exhibit "G" - Revised Conditions of Approval by Planning Commission (June 6, 1989) June 6, 1989 - Staff Report to Planning Commission • Minutes Excerpts - Planning Commission meeting of June 6 , 1989 cc: Mr. Vern Haynes Mr. Nick Gilman Don and Joyce Kline �iY..�+� '►'rL tip 7.: 4 � F,iliv City of Atascadero June 19, 1989 Atascadero, CA 93422 Attn: City Clerk Re : Appeal to Planning Commission Action on CUP 03-89 This appeal is being filed to contest the decision of the Planning Commission which met on June 6 , 1989 regarding CUP 03-89 and is based on the following findings from the Staff Report B-3 : ACCESS/TRAFFIC GENERATION "San Anselmo has been designated as an arterial road by the General Plan. " APPEAL: This road is a two lane , 22 feet edge to edge, no sidewalks, no curb, no gutters - this does not meet the requirements of an arterial circulation P . 111 - and staff did not order a traffic survey . PARKING "Proposed site plan shows required 22 parking spaces, paving of the parking area is required by Section 9-4. 118 (c) (3) . " APPEAL: Staff waived this requirement along with sidewalks , curb and gutters; making the church appear less permanent . If granted a CUP the church is permanent . Staff waived the 6 foot fence around the parking lot and suggested a 3 foot fence, this is not in keeping with Section 9-4. 119 (g) . DRAINAGE/PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS "The Public Works Department has recommended the construction of curb, gutters and sidewalks along the property frontage . " APPEAL: Staff says this is not consistent with the General Plan. If this is not done now, who is going to do it later? If this road is to be brought up to arterial standards - curbs, gutters and sidewa- lks are a must . LAND USE CHARACTERISTICS/IMPACTS "Staff states this is a small scale church with limited functions and hours of operation and will be a compatible neighbor in this location. Staff states the site ' s proximity to the El Camino Real commercial corridor limits its intrusion into the residen- tial community (one residential parcel lies between the subject site and the El Camino Real Commercial property . ) Community services such as drug. alcohol and family counseling are defined as a "social and service organization" , a land use not permitted in single family residential zones . " APPEAL: Staff calls this a small church operation, the Rev. Hayes states the church could accommodate 70 people . There are only 22 parking spaces, also the staff did not count the residential parcels on the south side of San Anselmo - only the parcels on the north side of the street . The Planning Commission ruled the church needs longer hours and needs to have counseling services, as stated by Mrs . Brasher, "No church can operate without counseling services . " "The proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with the General Plan. " APPEAL: San Anselmo. unless brought up to complete arterial standards , is not consistent with the General Plan. "Staff states this project will not be a detriment to health, safety or welfare of the general public, or persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the use or be injurious to proper- ty. " APPEAL: San Anselmo is not a safe roadway at this location because of the rise in the road as you approach from E1 Camino Real . Further- more, no provisions are made for a left turn lane , no speed signs are proposed, no ' no parking ' signs and no sign to warn traffic that cars could be stopped for a left turn into the church. "Staff states the project will not generate a volume of traffic beyond the safe capacity of all roads , or beyond the normal traffic volume of the surrounding neighborhood. " APPEAL: Staff making this type of statement without a traffic study, in my opinion, is not good judgement . A traffic survey must be done to fully know the volume of traffic on San Anselmo. "The characteristics of the use and its immediate vicinity do not necessitate the type of parking lot required by the Zoning Ordinance, specifically the required fencing and surface materi- als for parking lot construction. " APPEAL: Section 9 .4. 118 (c) (3) states what kind of materials will be used. Section 9 .4. 119 (g) states what height a fence will be, also states what materials are to be used. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL "The operation of the church is limited to the following: A: Days of operation - Wednesday and Sunday only. B: Religious activities - Bible study and worship services . Does not include social service functions such as counseling for drug, alcohol or family problems . " APPEAL: The Planning Commission over road staff ' s report stating the City Ordinance does not permit counseling in single family areas . Also the commission increased the hours of operation on Sunday to 8 AM to 9 PM. "Road improvement plans shall require approval from Public Works Department . These shall include the widening of the pavement on San Anselmo Road. " APPEAL: No provisions are stated for curb. gutter and sidewalks, no provisions are stated for a left turn lane . Widening of San Anselmo on one side only does not alleviate the danger of traffic accidents because of cars making a left turn into the church property. "Landscape plans . These shall include a three foot fence and shade threes at 30 foot intervals around the perimeter of the parking lot . " The three foot fence is not in accordance with the City Ordinance, Section 9 .4. 119 (g) . Shade trees are not spelled out as to height; a one gallon tree at 30 feet apart will do nothing for landscaping for years . Respectfully submitted, Don & Joyce Kline 5300 San Anselmo Atascadero, CA 93422 805) 466-0605 • 0 EXHIBIT G - Conditions of Approval Conditional Use Permit 03-89 5400 San Anselmo Rd. (Haynes/Gilman) Revised by the Planning Commission June 6, 1989 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. Project development shall be in conformance with Exhibits B (site plan) , C (floor plan) , G (conditions of approval) , and all other codes and ordinances of the City of Atascadero. Any modification to this approval shall be approved by the Community Development Department prior to implementing any changes. 2. All Uniform Fire Code and Uniform Building Code requirements shall be met to the satisfaction of the City Fire Marshall and Chief Building Inspector prior to occupancy. This shall include, but not be limited to: a. The upgrade of the fire hydrant at San Anselmo Rd. and LYra Ave. to City standard. b. y calculations, panic hardware, and fire esistance, as determined by the Chief Building fi Inspector. 3. ` JThe operation of the church is limited to the following: . P)la Days of operation - Wednesday and Sunday for services only. use of the church for sera-11-socialservice unc ' s is allowed on other days 1of the week. b. Hours of operation - Limited to 8: 00 a.m. to 9: 00 p.m. C. Parking is restricted to on-site parking only with the installation of "no parking" signs required along the property frontage. d. No caretakers will be allowed to live on the premises. e. This Conditional Use Permit shall expire in three years from the effective date of this approval, unless extended by the Planning Commission prior to that date. 4. An engineered grading and drainage plan shall require approval from the Community Development and Public Works Departments, prior to issuance of building permits. These shall address the increased runoff and necessary frontage drainage improvements. A drop inlet shall be installed at the culvert and the culvert extended beyond the right-of- way. • • 5. Road improvement plans shall require approval from the Public Works Department, prior to issuance of building permits. These shall include the widening of the pavement on San Anselmo Rd. to twenty (20) feet from centerline. 6. Landscape plans shall require approval from the Community Development Department, prior to the issuance of building permits. These shall include a three foot fence and shade trees at 30 foot intervals around the entire perimeter of the parking lot. 7. The design of the parking lot is approved as shown in Exhibit B, with the exception of the following: a. A rolled asphalt berm, or functional equivalent, must be provided to separate the landscaped area from the parking lot. b. Parking area must be relocated to provide a twenty-five_ foot front setback and a five foot side setback. 8. 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 a written request prior to the expiration date. CITY OF ATASCADERO Item: B-3 STAFF REPORT 40 FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: June 6, 1989 BY: Doug Davidson, Associate Planner File No: CUP 03-89 SUBJECT: Consideration of a request to convert a single family residence into a church in the RS zone. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit 03-89, based on the Findings for Approval in Exhibit F and the Conditions of Approval in Exhibit G. SITUATION AND FACTS: 1. Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Vern Haynes 2. Representative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Nick Gilman 3. Project Address. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5400 San Anselmo Rd. 4. General Plan Designation. . . . .Suburban Residential 5. Zoning District. . . . . . . . . . . . . .RS (Residential Suburban) 6. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .One acre 7. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Single family residence 8. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Negative Declaration posted May 25, 1989. ANALYSIS: The Spirit Missionary Baptist Church is proposing the conversion of a single family residence into a church. The request includes the use of the property for Bible study and worship services, as well as to provide community service functions, such as alcohol and family counseling. Under the Zoning Ordinance, churches and related activities are listed as conditionally allowed uses in all residential zones. The Zoning Ordinance states that, "The Conditional Use Permit is the process used to review land use proposals of a nature or magnitude which could significantly affect their surroundings". In this case, access, traffic • • generation, parking demand, drainage, and most importantly, the impact of the church on the residential character of the neighborhood, are items of potential concern. Access/Traffic Generation The location of the project and the site characteristics determine the magnitude of these potential impacts. Under the Zoning Ordinance, churches are required to be located on a collector or arterial. Arterials are major access routes between the residential areas, shopping areas, employment centers and primary recreation areas. San Anselmo Rd. is designated as an arterial by the General Plan and primary access to the site is provided by two arterials; El Camino Real and Del Rio Rd. These streets are more than capable of handling the traffic generated by this small church group. Parking The proposed site plan shows the required 22 parking spaces with adequate interior landscaping and circulation as dictated by the Zoning Ordinance. Although this site is located outside the Urban Services Line, the paving of the parking area is required, because churches are designated as a "high turnover" use (Section 9-4. 118 (c) (3) . Staff believes that the paving of a parking area is not compatible with a rural lifestyle, much like the construction of curb, gutter, and sidewalk is not appropriate in the RS zones. For this reason, staff believes that the proposed oiled gravel surface will eliminate the problem of dust, while maintaining the residential appearance of the neighborhood. Furthermore, an all-weather surface allows for an easier transition back to a single family residence, making the church appear less permanent. Likewise, the placement of a six (6) foot fence around the entire perimeter of the parking lot seems contrary to residential development. The intent of this Zoning Ordinance requirement (Section 9-4. 119 (8) is to shield commercial parking lots from adjacent residential uses. Staff is suggesting a three foot high fence and heavy landscaping around the parking lot. This will be less imposing than a typical commercial lot, while still blocking automoblie headlights and providing a screen. Finally, the parking area must be moved outside the front twenty five (25) foot setback and be located a minimum of five (5) feet from the side property line. Drainage/Public Improvements Although, the project development will not result in a significant change in drainage patterns, several drainage mitigation measures have been included (see condition #4) . The Public Works Department has recommended the construction of curb, gutter, and sidewalk along the property frontage, however, this i • is not consistent with the General Plan. The paveout of San Anselmo Rd. , however, is required to meet the General Plan policy that, "arterials must be wide enough to accomodate multi- use paths and emergency parking" (Circulation, p. 111) . Land Use Characteristics/Impacts Staff believes that a small-scale church with limited functions and hours of operation will be a compatible neighbor in this location. In addition to the street system serving the project, the site' s proximity to the E1 Camino Real commercial corridor limits its intrusion into the residential community (one residential parcel lies between the subject site and the El Camino Real commercial property) . On the other hand, a large- scale, full time church and social service organization could significantly change the nature of the neighborhood from residential to commercial. Thus, the recommended conditions of approval limit the days of operation and restrict the use to the provision of religious services only. Community services, such as drug, alcohol, and family counseling are defined as a "social and service organization" , a land use not permitted in single family residential zones. CONCLUSIONS: With location on San Anselmo Rd. and proximity to E1 Camino Real, this site is suitable as a church for a small congregation. By limiting the scope of the operation, the church can function without a significant impact upon the neighborhood. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Location Map Exhibit B - Site Plan Exhibit C - Floor Plan/Elevations Exhibit D - Developer' s Statement Exhibit E - Letter from Architect Exhibit F - Findings for Approval Exhibit G - Conditions of Approval , • XHIBIT A CITY OF ATASC_=�DERO LOCATION MAP ='. .' CUP 03-89 < .scwFRo�` C0MIvILINITY DEVELOPMENT 7-A SIE i I I i0���1 111 I� I MZONA o 1 �� STq+' 1 1 10 RS 6 I� is, •RENS i 1 v 2 �- f1V//iN'- 'O L 1 :PEM► �bIt ♦IAS. ♦VE ?(- -�� CE ALDA AV � J t�F "A LOU 4. I i rTRAN Vi A 'v tV , Ili 1 /� Si ALL. R C V � I L II+ CAt OS IQ CNS w S 1TE C •oNl pa- lwENAL EXHIBIT B r� CITY OF ATASCADERO SITE PLAN CUP 03-89 -sem COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT \`�^`G1DF.p�•J DEPARTMENT 11PR I I - - 1 \ a ,'ROas.4 TD,pC . � ;1•'.�'.r.�vs Tf��,.V �Yj�, tpuoc�l'FV.+Ii'IRa6 - �-. CE KKTIw1<t A!. owl G•5....�w.SL _ _—16_�aT�� ,__ .�,w��•Ts� �-an,sTJfr cr,a��s 0.. Ewe+-� `�� • XHIBIT C CITY OF ATASC_ DERO FLOOR PLAN/PHOTO CUP 03-89 ��' -• COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Eta 00 1 j j r. I; TRUE SPIRIT MISSIONARY BAPTIST CHURCH 5400 San Anselmo Avenue Atascadero, California 93422 February 24, 1989 EXHIBIT D DEVELOPMENT STATEMENT CUP 03-89 City of Atasc4per-o mmunity Development Department "6500 Palma Avenue Atascadero, California 9=422 Subject: Request for Conditional Use Permit Dear- Sir: The Pastor and members of our church humbly request your sincere consideration of granting a Conditional Use Permit of the property located at 5400 San Anselmo, Atascadero. The property will be used primarily for Church related functions, such as bible study and worship services on Sundays. We will also be having bible study classes on Wednesday afternoons and evenings. In addition to the Church related activities, we also propose to use the property for community service f=unctions, i . e. one-to- one and group counseling sessions (drugs, alcohol , and family related) . It is important that we offer- these services in order- to minister- to the needs of the congregation., youth, and young adults who have drug and family related problems. It is imperative that we have this Conditional Use Permit as soon as possible. We have purchased this property with the hope of our- Church becoming a vital part of our city. Our purpose is not only to minister- to the Christian community, but to also meet the growing needs of our community as a whole. For informational purposes, our present attendance is averaging twenty--five (25) persons per meeting. Please feel free to contact me at 805/238-4850 if ,:.any additional information is needed. Respectfully submitted, Rev. Vern H. Haynes Pastor April 7, 1989 • Nick Gilman, Architect 945 12th St., #E Paso Robles, CA 93446 805-238-3432 EXHIBIT E Mr. Doug Davidson LETTER from ARCHITECT Dept.of Community Development . CUP 03-89 City of Atascadero RE: Conditional Use Permit #3-89 5400 San Anselmo Dear Mr. Davidson: In reference to the three points made in your letter to Mr. Haynes, I offer these considerations. 1) I have been retained to provide Architectural Services for conversion of this residence to a Church use. Please see the attached plan. Detailed work should wait, however, until the success of the Use Permit Application is determined. 2) The attached Site Plan indicates parking in excess of the code requirement. More can be provided if thought desireable. 3) The septic system/leach field was previously successful for the residence. Both the 1985 Uniform Plumbing Code (fixture values) and the U.S. Health Dept. Manual of Septic Tank Practice (char`ts & fixture values) indicate a lesser volume of effluent with the proposed Church use than with a private residence. This is somewhat surprising until the kitchen, laundry, shower, washing machines, etc. are considered and the sporadic type of use in a Church. I hope this letter and drawings will constitute completeness of the application. If there are questions or any other items needed for the application please let me know. Respectfully Submitted, Nick Gilman Exhibit F - Findings for Approval Conditional Use Permit 03-89 5400 San Anselmo Rd. (Haynes/Gilman) ENVIRONMENTAL FINDING: The proposed project will not have a significant impact on the environment. The Negative Declaration prepared for the project is adequate. FINDINGS: 1. The proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with the General Plan. 2. The proposed project, as conditioned, satisfies all applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. 3. The establishment, and subsequent operation or conduct of the use will not, because of the circumstances and conditions applied in the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of the general public or persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the use, or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity of the use. 4. The proposed project, as conditioned, will not be inconsistent with the character of the immediate neighborhood or contrary to its orderly development. 5. The proposed use or project will not generate a volume of traffic beyond the safe capacity of all roads providing access to the project, either existing or to be improved in conjunction with the project, or beyond the normal traffic volume of the surrounding neighborhood that would result from full development in accordance with the Land Use Element. 6. The proposed project, as conditioned, is in compliance with the City' s Appearance Review Guidelines. 7. The characteristics of the use and its immediate vicinity do not necessitate the type of parking lot design required by the Zoning Ordinance, specifically the required fencing and surfacing materials for parking lot construction. ! i EXHIBIT G - Conditions of Approval Conditional Use Permit 03-89 5400 San Anselmo Rd. (Haynes/Gilman) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. Project development shall be in conformance with Exhibits B (site plan) , C (floor plan) , G (conditions of approval) , and all other codes and ordinances of the City of Atascadero. Any modification to this approval shall be approved by the Community Development Department prior to implementing any changes. 2. All Uniform Fire Code and Uniform Building Code requirements shall be met to the satisfaction of the City Fire Marshall and Chief Building Inspector prior to occupancy. This shall include, but not be limited to: a. The upgrade of the fire hydrant at San Anselmo Rd. and Lobos Ave. to City standard. b. Energy calculations, panic hardware, and fire resistance, as determined by the Chief Building Inspector. 3. The operation of the church is limited to the following: a. Days of operation - Wednesday and Sunday only. b. Religious activities - Includes Bible study and worship services - Does not include the provision of social service functions, such as counseling for drug, alcohol, or family problems. 4. An engineered grading and drainage plan shall require approval from the Community Development and Public Works Departments, prior to issuance of building permits. These shall address the increased runoff and necessary frontage drainage improvements. A drop inlet shall be installed at the culvert and the culvert extended beyond the right-of- way. 5. Road improvement plans shall require approval from the Public Works Department, prior to issuance of building permits. These shall include the widening of the pavement on San Anselmo Rd. to twenty (20) feet from centerline. i • 6. Landscape plans shall require approval from the Community Development Department, prior to the issuance of building permits. These shall include a three foot fence and shade trees at 30 foot intervals around the entire perimeter of the parking lot. 7. The design of the parking lot is approved as shown in Exhibit B, with the exception of the following: a. A rolled asphalt berm, or functional equivalent, must be provided to separate the landscaped area from the parking lot. b. Parking area must be relocated to provide a twenty-five foot front setback and a five foot side setback. 8. 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 a written request prior to the expiration date. MINUTES EXCERPTS f � PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE FIVE JUNE S, 1989 3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 3-89 ; application filed by Vern Haynes (Nick Gi man, agent) to convert a single family residence into a church in the Residential Suburban (RS) zone. Subject site is located at 5400 San Anselmo Road. Doug Davidson presented the staff report noting that parking demand, traffic generation, drainage, access, and the impact of the church on the residential neighborhood are the items of most concern for this use permit. Staff recommendation is for approval subject to 8 conditions . He then responded to questions from the Commission pertaining to the type of oil base being proposed for the parking, setbacks for the parking lot, limitations on size of congregation, days and hours of operation of the church, and that the use permit runs with the property and not with the specific applicant. Jim Cook, Nogales resident, expressed concern that the church will bring an increase of traffic along San Anselmo; if cars park on the side of the road, San Anselmo becomes a one lane street which is dangerous. Since there are no restrictions on the size of the congregation, this could have a major impact since the lot size cannot support major growth. Mr. Cook questioned whether San Anselmo will be widened, will curbs, gutters and sidewalks be installed, what environmental impacts will occur with the water runoff from the oil base parking lot. He asked the Commission to deny this use permit as this is not an appropriate location for a church. Nick Gilman, architect, representing the applicant, stated that the staff report is fair and clear to the point and noted his concurrence with the recommendation. There is room to modify the site plan to move the parking lot further back, and Mr. Gilman did not believe there would be environ- mental impacts from water runoff from the oil base parking lot. He expressed concern with the cost of the improve- ments ( i.e. fire hydrant, widening of San Anselmo, extension of the culvert, etc. ) He asked for an extension of time on the use permit in order for the applicant to be able to comply with these requirements. Rev. Haynes, applicant, explained the hours of church services and commented that he could not foresee a traffic congestion problem with members arriving for services . He spoke about constraints associated with the costs for the improvements and asked to be given a chance to meet the goals . In response to questions, Pastor Haynes stated the church could comfortably serve 70 members and explained how and when counseling would take place. Ruth Haynes spoke in support of the request and asked that consideration be given to allowing one other night for choir practice, etc. PAGE SIX Don Kline, 5300 San Anselmo Road, stated he was never informed of the proposed church use and expressed concern that permits have not been obtained for work which has been done to date. He felt this has been a sneaky way of "coming in the back door" . Mr. Kline commented on traffic impacts, the constant problem with water runoff down San Anselmo, the potential danger of cars waiting to make a left-hand turn due to a rise on the road, and paving requirements . If the use permit is approved, curbs, gutters, and sidewalks should be a requirement. Bob Trotter, 5260 San Anselmo Road, voicedconcernwith the excessive traffic speeds on San Anselmo and felt there should be a stop sign at Lobos and San Anselmo. Each year when the water company empties its reservoir on E1 Verano, all the water drains (like a river) down San Anselmo. Curbs, gutters, and sidewalks should be required. Dean Lees, San Anselmo resident, stated that the rise on San Anselmo restricts any type of view into the proposed parking area and is very dangerous for children walking along the road. He inquired if there will be signing restrictions for the church and if there will be a caretaker living on the premises, and questioned whether the septic system was adequate for this proposed use. Don Bauer, 7250 San Anselmo, inquired if the precedent set by approving this use permit would apply for future churches on the site. Christine Slack, 4150 Rosita, commented on her concern for a lack of a maximum membership as the church could grow to a point beyond which the street could handle. She emphasized the dangerous nature of San Anselmo with the rise, lack of sidewalks, curbs, and gutters, etc. as there is a high amount of foot traffic. Don Kline felt that if this use permit is approved, surrounding properties will devalue, and cited reasons for requesting that the project be denied. Rev. Haynes clarified the extent of work which has been done so far and added he has lived in Paso Robles for over 30 years across from a church and his property values have risen. He addressed concerns brought up by the previous speakers and added they are willing to work with the community in establishing this use. Nick Gilman explained the background involved with the application and did not feel this has been a "back door" approach. He addressed the drainage issue and suggested the applicant would be willing to limit the number of participants, limit evening service hours, etc. PAGE SEVEN Dixie Lacon, church member, questioned how the drainage would be affected by the proposed use when drainage has been occurring in this area for years. Eloise Trotter voiced concern with the water problem but was more worried about the traffic situation. Jim Cook stated it is not fair to make exceptions in this case in complying with the necessary requirements when others are required to do so. Commissioner Highland commented that he has difficulty in trying to separate "religious service" with "social service" functions of a church. Counseling is integral to a church and the wording contained in the staff report tends to be restrictive. Mr. Davidson explained the intent is to prevent a full scale social service organization. Discussion followed. Chairperson Lochridge spoke to several of the issues raised in public testimony and asked staff to elaborate further on some of the conditions of approval . Discussion ensued concerning routes-to-school, no one living on premises, septic system capacity, excessive speeds on San Anselmo, restrictiveness of Condition #3 (days and hours of church operations) , etc. Commissioner Luna referenced the definition and intent of a conditional use permit and noted opposition with Findings #3 and #4 . MOTION: Made by Commissioner Luna and seconded by Chair- person Lochridge to deny Conditional Use Permit 3- 89 . The vote resulted in a 3:3 tie as follows: AYES: Commissioners Luna, Brasher, and Chairper- son Lochridge NOES: Commissioners Lopez-Balbontin, Waage, and Highland It was noted that due to the 3 :3 tie, no action is taken. MOTION: Made by Commissioner Lopez-Balbontin to approve Conditional Use Permit 3-89 with the following modifications : 3a. Days of operation - Wednesday and Sundays only for services and use of the church in an incidental manner for counseling small groups or on a one-to-one basis which could take place any other day of the week. PAGE EIGHT )Commissioner Highland seconded the motion.1-7 Commissioner Waage offered the following amendment to the motion: - limit the hours of operation from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. - that there be no caretaker in residence. - that the maximum congregation be 40 members - that parking be limited to on-site with installation of "no parking" signs along the street Commissioner Lopez-Balbontin felt more comfortable with leaving the maximum number of occupants up to the Fire Marshalls determination. Commissioner Highland stated he could not agree with all of the proposed amendments . He felt that hours from 8 :00 a.m. to 9 :00 p.m. would be more realistic, and would prefer the Fire Marshall to determine a maximum number as this would provide for enforceability through the Fire Department. Discussion continued concerning the appropriateness of applying a type of "sunset clause" for this use permit (such as previous permit for the pre-school at 9148 Palomar) . In response to the proposed motion, Mr. Gilman stated the applicant would have no problem with a three-year sunset clause; 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. hours for services would be easier to live with. With regard the maximum occupancy, Mr. Gilman felt that with restricting the parking to on-site only, this would provide a manner in which to reasonably limit the congregation number. At this point, Commissioner Lopez-Balbontin restated his motion: MOTION: To approve Conditional Use Permit 3-89 based on the findings and conditions of approval with the following modifications: - Days of operation are restricted to Wednesdays and Sundays for services only. Incidental use of the church for counseling or small social service functions would be allowed other days of the week. - Hours of operation to be limited to 8 : 00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. - Parking is restricted to on-site parking only. - No caretakers will be allowed to live on the premises. PAGE NINE Commissioner Highland seconded the motion. Commissioner Brasher suggested a further amendment to the motion: - to include a limitation of three years for the conditional use permit. The motion with amendments carried 4:2 with the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Lopez-Balbontin, Highland, Waage, and Brasher NOES: Commissioner Luna and Chairperson Lochridge Response to Atascadero Unified School District's request for a report on the proposed Southeast Quadr school site acquisition (10857 E1 Camino Real) . Mr. De mp presented the staff report on this reques - recommen tion is that the proposed acquisition is consistent ith the General Plan. He then respo ed to questions fr the Commission. 0 Commissioner Lu n commented that is seems at the Commission should a assisting the school istrict in identifying potenti school sites each ime the General Plan is update but th t it seems the hool district is doing this on their own Mr. DeCam stated it would be in everyone' s interest to w k close together in identifying potential areas for school ite on the General Plan. Discussion followed. MOTION: Made by Chairper n L hridge, seconded by Commis- sioner Brasher d carr d 6:0 to continue the meeting past 1 :00 p.m. Paul Monn, assista business manager r the school district, stated a is available for que ions. He noted that due to th ight density area in the utheast quadrant, a gh percentage of the children ' 11 be walk-ins and it is n anticipated there will be any bu ing to or from the hool based on projections. Commi ioner Luna expressed concern that the 20-30 ue oaks on a site be incorporated within the site design fo the s ool. Mr. Monn indicated that the area of concern wi 1 robably be a parking lot. MEET AGMA DAT . ITEA�i _ • REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 7/11/89 File No: TPM 7-89 From: Henry Engen, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Appeal by Thomas McNamara of Planning Commission denial of Tenta- tive Parcel Map 7-89 (7000 San Palo) . RECOMMENDATION: Uphold the appeal and approve TPM 7-89 based on the Findings for Approval in the attached Exhibit "D" and subj4ct to the Condi- tions of Approval in Exhibit "E" . • BA. KGROUND: On June 6, 1989, the Planning Commission on a 4 : 2 vote denied this proposed lot division based on the attached Findings for Denial (Exhibit F) . The attached staff report and minutes excerpts provides a record of the material and comments considered in making these findings . ANALYSIS: The parcel in question contains seven (7 ) acres and the minimum required lot size under RSF-Z residential zoning is 1 1/2 to 2 1/2 acre minimum depending on site characteristics. The ordi- nance' s formula requires a minimum of 1 . 54 acres per site and all of the four (4) lots proposed meet this minimum. The primary issue at the Planning Commission was whether this should be a four (4) lot versus a three (3) lot subdivision, with Commission concern focusing on whether the building sites on lots 3 and 4 at the top of the hill would bring the homes too close together, and conflict with the "elbow room" intent of the City' s General Plan. Following the Commission' s action the applicants, in filing their accompanying appeal, have modified the tentative map to designate • a minimum thirty foot (301 ) yard on each side of the property line separating lots 3 and 4 thereby assuring a minimum of 60 feet (601 ) between adjoining residences at this location. By contrast, the conventional minimum side yard setback in the Zon- ing Ordinance is 5 feet for side yards, 10 feet for rear yards and 25 feet for front yards . This seven acre hilltop lot is occupied by one existing dwelling. The three proposed dwellings all meet the City' s standards with respect to density, setbacks, access, fire hydrant improvements, and other City requirements . Very little grading would be required in that the existing driveway would provide for access to all four parcels and no tree removal is required. Hence, staff continues to support findings for approval subject to the proposed eleven (11 ) Conditions of Approval . ALTERNATIVE : Should the Council desire to reject the proposed four-way divi- sion, the Findings for Denial made by the Planning Commission are enclosed herewith. HE :ph Attachments : . .June 12, 1989 - Letter of Appeal and Revised Tentative Parcel Map . .June 6, 1989 - Staff Report . . June 6, 1989 - Planning Commission Minutes Excerpts . .June 6, 1989 - Planning Commission Findings for Denial (Exhibit "F" ) cc : Thomas McNamara John Falkenstien • EXHIBIT D - Findings for Approval Tentative Parcel Map 07-89 7000 San Palo Road (McNamara) June 6, 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 subdivision is consistent with the character of the immediate neighborhood. 9. The installation of a standard street, either alone or in conjunction with a neighboring property is not feasible. 10. The flag lots are justified by topographical conditions. EXHIBIT E - Conditions of Approval Tentative Parcel Map 07-89 7000 San Palo Road (McNamara) June 6, 1989 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. Water shall be obtained from the Atascadero Mutual Water Company. Water lines shall exist at the Legado Avenue frontage of each parcel prior to recordation of the final map. 2. All existing and proposed utility, pipeline, open space, or other easements are to be shown on the final map. If there are building or other restrictions related to the easements, they shall be noted on the final map. 3. All relocation and/or alteration of existing utilities shall be the responsibility of the subdivider. 4. Grading, drainage, and erosion control plans for all accessways, prepared by a registered civil engineer, shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval by the Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to recordation of the final map. 5. Plans and profiles for the private accessway (Legado Avenue) shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval by the Community Development and Public Works Departments. The accessway shall be paved to a minimum width of twenty (20) feet with two foot graded shoulders within a minimum a twenty four (24) foot right- of-way (or to the standard in force at the time of construction) . 6. Permits shall be obtained and the construction of Legado Avenue shall be completed prior to recordation of the final map. 7. Road improvement plans prepared by a registered civil engineer shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval by the Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to the construction of improvements. Plans shall include, but not be limited to, the following: San Palo Road: a. Drainage improvement design shall meet all City development standards, including measures to protect and preserve existing trees on the site and in the public right-of-way. CUESTA ENGINEERING 7401-B EI Camino Real/P.O. Box 2066 Atascadero, California 93423 (805)466-6827 June 12, 1989 RECEIVE0 JUN 1 3 1989 Henry Engen City of Atascadero 6500 Palma Atascadero, CA 93422 Subject: Tentative Parcel Map 07-89/McNamara Dear Henry: As representative of Mr. Tom McNamara, I hereby request to appeal the Planning Commission decision of June 6, 1989 of denial of this appli- cation to the City Council . Attached is the application form and $100.00 fee. We have slightly revised the Tentative Parcel Map to indicate a 30 foot building setback along both sides of the lot line between lots 3 and 4. If you have any questions, please call me. Respectfully Sumitted, lwhn Falkenstien R.C.E. 33760 Exp. 6/30/90 JF:pd 87-245 Lai • O \y f • > � ° TPM 7- 8. I:z r j �� iF-VI SIoN To �s7�r3�5�y �U o `, 'moi i //� !/s i/y��/.^rr'}' +=•,' — _ �� ��J J 4` 'r � o� V� / / j '! y/./Y ✓ iii`y. a,'r`�"�\i \ _ V �41, -< NJ Ise '/�///, /:1 ✓!fir .� � \\\ �\ �.\\ `\\ \ e � //i /f/✓! ! sig✓ � �1 ��� �\`; \.` \\. \ - r � � 71 / / - � \ \ tU // J // \\ \\ \ \ \ Z ! �'// �/ � \ �\ \\ \\.� �•. / c , /XIS/ /.r;,, ,� - �\�tn�\ �\\ NV /� J/1 /( l,tl / ! I I t w r 1 �t i I I << 11S11�� , � ._ L �� a% ;: { 11( 11 �•It �t/I/ �� , I i NI + f 11 L1 ILII I / 1 1111 ; /liar/l/ i� 1�, 1 it( — .'IIIi I to I it 1 14 It �J ilr,Lt' 1 ��I 1 � 1 ...' :oiG• 1 !/ /J , t✓ 1/! / / '� , / lir I ud 5 � � f/ i� 'rr f.!• //IJ / f ' / L1 LI f(,i \ 1 s .- ////��./J/J/�/IIJJrJ �. / • \,� �'// sir/r fi✓�'JJJ \ 6 ✓ � /,. � /// ', ,1 i '" �'� '��'„-:.✓ Y /�/ �/��l%L/✓r 111 /f/ / / � _ IV / /J t i/i/ �/j ////.. / v��J f I/ / ✓ f rb 1/ to I' CITY OF ATASCADERO Item: R-2 STAFF REPORT FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: June 6, 1989 BY: p�P Steven L. DeCamp, Senior Planner File No: TPM 07-89 SUBJECT: Subdivision of one parcel containing approximately 7. 00 acres into four (4) lots of 1. 55, 1. 60, 1. 65, and 2. 20 acres. .RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of TPM 07-89 based on the Findings for Approval in Exhibit D and subject to the Conditions of Approval in Exhibit E. SITUATION AND FACTS: 1. Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Thomas McNamara 2. Representative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Cuesta Engineering 3. Project Address. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7000 San Palo Road 4. General Plan Designation. . . . .Low Density Single Family 5. Zoning District. . . . . . . . . . . . . .RSF-Z (1. 5 - 2.5 ac. min.) 6. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7. 00 acres 7. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Single Family Residence 8. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Negative Declaration posted May 23, 1989 ANALYSIS: The application before the Commission proposes the subdivision of one (1) parcel containing approximately 7. 00 acres into four (4) lots containing 1. 55, 1. 60, 1. 65, and 2. 20 acres. The General Plan designates this property for "Low Density Single Family" development. Consistent with this designation, the property is located within the RSF-Z zoning district. This district has a minimum lot size that ranges between 1. 5 and 2.5 acres depending on the "score" of the performance factors specified in the Zoning Ordinance. • • For the area in which this proposal is located, the lot size performance factors and the related scores are: FACTOR SCORE Distance from Center of Town 0. 10 Septic Suitability 0. 30 Average Slope 0. 70 Access Condition 0. 15 Neighborhood Character 0. 29 Minimum Lot Size 1. 54 acres The smallest lot proposed by this application is, therefore, larger than the minimum lot size allowed by the Zoning Ordinance for this neighborhood. Existing development on the property consists of a single family dwelling on what is proposed to become Lot 1. This dwelling is served by a dirt driveway that is located where the private road access for the new lots is proposed. The proposed house sites on Lots 2 - 4 appear to have been graded at some time in the past. There are no trees or other visible physical features which would restrict development of single family homes, or their related septic systems, in the locations shown on the tentative map. Two of the proposed lots are clearly "flag lots" (Lots 1 & 2) . Although the other two lots (Lots 3 & 4) have frontage on San Palo Road, their access will be from the private road. Because of this, the Subdivision Ordinance' s flag lot standards should be applied to each of the proposed lots. The subdivision' s major point of divergence from the Ordinance' s standards is that the lot furthest from the street does not own the accessway as required by Sec. 11-8. 209 C. The Developer' s Statement (see Exhibit C) provides a reasonable argument for an exemption to that requirement in this case, however. Staff concurs with the applicant that the topography of the site, and the configuration of the proposed lots is adequate justification for modification of the access ownership standard. Staff believes that granting the requested exemption will not be detrimental to the orderly development of the site nor will it adversely affect surrounding properties. The accessway for this subdivision is proposed to be thirty (30) feet wide with 16 feet of paving. Because the accessway is in excess of 150 feet in length, the paved portion of the access will be required to be 20 feet in width. This width can easily be accommodated within the 30 foot easement provided and will not require extensive additional grading. The applicant has proposed the name "Legado Avenue" for the new, private road serving the subdivision. Translated from Spanish, legado means "legacy" or "bequest. " This name does not conflict with other existing street names because of its spelling or • • pronunciation. Neither the Fire Department nor the Police Department expressed any objection to the establishment of Legado Avenue as a street name. CONCLUSIONS: The design of the proposed subdivision is in conformance with the City' s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Although the average slope of the property is relatively steep (30%+) , previous grading has created reasonable sites for the construction of three new homes. These home sites can be developed without significant additional grading or tree removal. Finally, the size of the proposed lots appears to be consistent with the character of the other residential lots in the vicinity. Staff believes that each of the Findings required by the Subdivision Map Act, as well as the "Flag Lot" Findings required by local ordinance can be made relative to this proposal. SLD/ ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Location and Zoning Map Exhibit B - Tentative Parcel Map Exhibit C - Developer' s Statement Exhibit D - Findings for Approval Exhibit E - Conditions of Approval I/ .. '::��►��r'.`►�'��'r ��� • ��� Ian • • .ii�Y►� � 11 ���• ���Ii i i� . !" • tiny,i-,�►�� .��' ��► �� �' '� . �� on, ►i��iiii���` BEER off.-INNEW all ' • �i -�!.�all, r ► �• qp 9 EXHIBIT B CITY OF ATASCADERO TPM 07-89 C-uui! t lens-7 -� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tentative Parcel Map DEPARTMENT _ nnr It R g e '►Y b hkh � Y q, q 4 ` M M 2 I /7, C , w� 1 ;I, nyr 'nr/'I//y Ill 'ISI C I r,,l I�11'1�1d1 1j11 Nw 111 , ,` 5 ° i l \I 'l l l 111 Il h nl' ►,�;�' n , � I � � �� 10 1 ..: f,•,, � 1' X11 'lll 1 // g B r ±,. ,:`;�� ' '1 '/',�•�' . I ',I' , tU�IUI 1 1111 11 +111 '/+/> `• n N Mi mit " +1(/111•,�.1„'I II/'u'' ! 1 \ x'((111 l� 1 +h11"111 ° c �'� @a'1 _ �' 1111 I�•'II+)))I�... �'�' It��'!� � � ,J" , irdl 1�'P,1�1, �� � 1. M1•��ri .�� �—... „111 ' UI��11 j111�1�.�' 111111 I/�.'�I,� I 'I'l +l'r.� J � \'11 11111j'11 1 , ;1 1 1u/ . 1 r 1 a , r $ vai1\,,1 1•.\•,,•J .•�.ti�i`oi� _ �. '• ^p ,�/ •,,l/'a,/, 1. / `,1 Rj�ah /,s Vii},/ 7/,.� t t ';t Z I.;q ,i' �"''s-� O '. - •r•*nrsA�•/vry.vw•1• ,l°` ,y a �02 • EXHIBIT C CITY OF ATASCADERO TPM 0'-89 —� IDW COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Developer' s Statemele CUESTA ENGINEERING 7401-B EI Camino Real/P.O.Box 2066 Atascadero,California 93423 (805)466-6827 i September 27, 1988 f MAR - 9 1989 City of Atascadero COPAPrfUit:P DLvEL:r rrc:-'T Planning Department 6500 Palma Atascadero, CA 93422 j Subject: Supplemental Development Statement Tentative Parcel Map AT 88-225 McNamara Gentlemen: This is an application to subdivide an existing 7.0 acre parcel into four parcels containing 1.60 acres, 2.20 acres, 1.55 acres, and 1.65 acres respectively. The property is zoned RSF-Z. The minimnsn lot size for this property is calculated to be 1.54 acres by use of the formula established in the Zoning Ordinance. Each lot has a comfortable area available for establishing a single family residence as indicated on the tentative map. There is one existing residence on the property. The existing driveway to the residence will be used to serve all four proposed parcels and will be paved to conform to the standards established in the flag lot section of the Subdivision Ordinance. Very little grading will be needed to accomplish this. The Subdivision Ordinance states that the lot most distant from the street shall own the main access. Lot 1 is the most distant lot from San Palo Road, however, its access splits Lot 2. There- fore we have shown the accessway under ownership of Lot 2 with an ease- ment overlay for use by the owners of Lots 1, 3 and 4. A maintenance agreement among the lot owners will control maintenance and ensure per- petual access rights. Sincerely, John Falkenstien R.C.E. 33760 Exp. 6/30/90 JF:pd 9 0 b. Construction shall include an eighteen (18) inch asphalt dike to convey water along the edge of the road and a City standard approach to serve Legado Avenue. 7. Subdivider shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Public Works Department for improvements in the public right-of-way for the private road encroachment and drainage facilities. Subdivider shall also sign an inspection agreement guaranteeing that the work will be done in conformance with City standards and inspection fees paid. All work required by the encroachment permit shall be completed prior to the recordation of the final map. 8. A registered civil engineer shall provide written certification that all grading and drainage improvements have been completed in full compliance with the approved plans prior to final inspection. 9. 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 affect shall appear on the final map. 10. Parcels 3 and 4 shall have no direct access to San Palo Road. Relinquishment of access rights shall be delineated on the final map. 11. An offer of dedication to the City of Atascadero for the following right-of-way is required: Street Name: San Palo Road Limit: twenty-five (25) feet from centerline 12. Offers of dedication shall be completed and recorded prior to or simultaneously with the recordation of the final map. 13. A fire hydrant shall be installed at the point where the driveway for Lot l leaves Legado Avenue prior to recordation of the final map. The exact location and specifications of the fire hydrant shall be as determined by the Fire Dept. 10. A final map drawn in substantial conformance with the approved tentative map and in compliance with all conditions set forth herein shall be submitted for review and approval in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and the City Subdivision 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. 0 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. 11. 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. PAGE THREE Ms . Hollowell noted that they will do whatever is neces y to mitigate Mrs . McTaggart' s concerns . Discussion owed. Commi ;oner Luna stated he could not suppor everal of the findings t the site is physically su ' le for the proposed densi of development) as t re are problems with flooding, one or tw ipelines on . reel 1 , and the noise factor (railroad) . MOTION: Made by Comm ' Toner H- and, seconded by Commissio r Waage and carr ' 5 : 1 with Commi oner Luna dissenting to rove Tentative P el Map 4-89 subject to the finds and conditions contained in the staff report -w th modification to Condition #3a to delete the . . . "including driveways" . . . . � 2. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 7-89 ; application filed by Thomas McNamara (Cuesta Engineering) to allow subdivision of one lot containing approxiamtely 7 . 00 acres into four lots containing 1 . 55 , 1 . 60, 1 . 65 and 2 . 20 acres each. Subject site is located at 7000 San Palo Road. Mr. Decamp presented the staff report noting staff ' s recommendation for approval subject to 11 conditions . There was discussion concerning the proximity of the proposed building sites on Parcels 3 and 4 with regard to minimum setbacks . ,john Falkenstien with Cuesta Engineering, representing the applicant, stated they have no problems with the staff report. He clarified that the applicant has no intention of reducing the distance between the two homes to the minimum side setback and is proposing the home sites as shown on the tentative map. The tree on parcel 2 will not be affected by development. Thomas McNamara, applicant, explained that the grading on the property took place in 1956 and the tree has been there since that time and has never suffered any adverse effects . In response to question Commissioner Lopez-Balbotnin, Mr. Decamp responded that the Fire Marshall has determined that one fire hydrant is adequate to serve the four lots . Commissioner Brasher asked that provision be incorporated into the conditions that the two house sites on Parcels 3 and 4 have a certain amount of distance between them as she felt that it was not in keeping with the rural character of the neighborhood to have the homes that close. PAGE iFOUR Commissioner Luna concurred adding that the two homes on one half acre in a one and one-half acre subdivision are not consistent with the General Plan' s com:ients on "elbow room" . He could support a three-way subdivision but not what is being considered this evening. Chairperson Lochridge remarked he, too, has reservations whether there is adequate room for the two home sites . He referenced the "elbow room" concept of the General Plan, the open space concept in the Zoning Ordinance, and the five foot side setback in the Zoning Ordinance adding there is opportunity to allow for more setbacks; he would support a three-way lot split. Commissioner Waage felt he could not make the findings supporting this lot split, but could support a three-way subdivision. MOTION: Commissioner Brasher moved to deny Tentative Parcel Map 7-89 . It was pointed out that findings for denial need to be made. Mr. Falkenstien stated the applicant would be willing to • accept incorporating a fifty foot setback between the two home sites . Mr. Decamp commented that if the Commission is morefcomfortable with establishing a wider setback, there is adequate room to do so which could be incorporated in the final map. Discussion continued. At this point, Commissioner Brasher restated her motion: MOTION: Made by Commissioner Brasher to deny Tentative Parcel Map 7-89 by amending the Findings for Approval to reflect Findings for Denial (modification of #1-4 and deletion of #5-10) . Commissioner Waage seconded the motion with the motion carrying 4 : 2 with Commissioners Highland and Lopez-Balbontin dissenting. Commissioner Highland stated his belief that the Commission is moving into the area of dictating where on a piece of property an individual shall build even though the Zoning Ordinance has minimum standards which are met. Philosophically, he feels this is not right. Chairperson Lochridge declared a break at 8 : 55 p.m. ; meeting reconvened at 9 : 10 p.m. EXHIBIT "F" - FINDINGS FOR DENIAL TPM 07-89 - 7000 San Palo Rd. (McNamara) June 6, 1989 - Planning Commission Action MAP FINDINGS: 1 . The proposed map is inconsistent with the applicable general or specific plan. 2 . The design and/or improvement of the proposed subdivision is inconsistent with the applicable general or specific plan. 3 . The site is physically unsuitable for the proposed type of development. 4 . The site is physically unsuitable for the proposed density of development. • AGR r REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 7/11/89 From: Henry Engen, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Consideration of Planning Commission' s recommendation for the City Council to adopt - on an urgency basis - a CR-D Commercial Retail-Downtown zoning district. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Following public hearing on June 20, 1989 the Planning Commis- sion, voted 3 : 2 to recommended that the City Council adopt an interim urgency ordinance to create a proposed CR-D Commercial Retail-Downtown Zoning District. A 4/5ths vote of the City • Council is required making the special findings outlined in attached draft ordinance No. 195-89, which would make the ordinance take effect immediately and be in effect for 45 days, whereupon it could be extended, on a 4/5ths vote, for up to an additional 22 months and 15 days. BACKGROUND: On April 4, 1989 the Planning Commission received the accompany- ing staff report suggesting that - as an alternative to establishing a moritorium on development in the downtown area pending preparation of a new downtown master plan element - consideration could be given to an urgency ordinance modifying the existing zoning in the downtown area to preclude establish- ment of the deleterious uses that are allowed under the present CR zoning. The Commission then directed staff to solicit opin- ions from the BIA, Downtown Steering Committee, the Atascadero Chamber of Commerce and Atascadero Homeowner' s Association, which were considered by the Planning Commission on June 20, 1989 (refer to the attached staff report and minutes excerpts) . ANALYSIS : It has been recognized by the City Council that there is a need • for a distinctive downtown zoning district, together with reduc- tion in the parking requirements and allowance for in-lieu parking contributions to encourage development in the downtown area. This led to retention of the firm Wurster, Bernardi and Emmons to prepare a downtown master plan element of the City' s • General Plan to provide direction for future revitalization of the area. This study is underway and is expected to result in a draft element in September or October of this year. A concern of the Planning Commission and others is that, in the interim, uses could be established which would be contrary to the spirit and letter of the ongoing General Plan process . To head off such problems, the Planning Commission sought a report on the pros and cons of establishing a moratorium in the downtown and were quick to determine that course would not be appropriate. However, as the attached materials indicate, focus then shifted to expediting a downtown zone pending receipt of plans for the downtown. Thereafter, the zoning would have to be modified consistent with the plan. As the attached minutes note, the issue that tilted the majority of the Planning Commission in its vote was a concern that deleterious uses presently allowed under current zoning could be established prior to the Council enacting changes in the General Plan and zoning. ISSUE: The primary issue among all the parties responding to the Plan- ning Commission' s request for input was when to proceed with establishing a discrete downtown zone. There was wide-spread support for creating such a zone with reduced off-street parking. ALTERNATIVES: The following recommendations have been made to the Planning Com- mission on this subject: (a) Downtown Steering Committee - Recommended modification to the proposed text as indicated in their May 22, 1989 memo, and on a 5 :4 vote recommended the ordinance be amended through the conventional public hearing process . (b) Joint BIA/Chamber of Commerce/Atascadero 2000 Committee - Recommended that the CR-D ordinance be deferred until the downtown plan is complete, but that the parking requirements for the BIA area be cut in half immediately. (c) Homeowner' s Association - Recommended that the CR-D zone be adopted as an interim ordinance on an urgency basis . They also concurred with the additional conditional uses proposed by the Downtown Steering Committee as possibly being allowed by conditional use permit, and they added refinements to • those recommendations. (The Commission included these changes in draft ordinance No. 195-89 . ) (d) Staff - Recommended deferring action on the proposed CR-D zone until the downtown plan had been completed, and thereafter modifying the proposed zoning approach for consistency with that plan to be processed and heard in conjunction with revisions to the General Plan. HE :ph Attachments : . .June 20, 1989 - Staff Report to Planning Commission . .June 16, 1989 - Homeowner' s Association Recommendation . . June 20,1989 - Planning Commission Minutes Excerpts . .Draft Ordinance No. 195-89 Creating a CR-D Zone an Urgency Basis cc: Business Improvement Association Chamber of Commerce Downtown Steering Committee Homeowner' s Association Atascadero 2000 Wurster, Bernardi & Emmons, Inc. i CITY OF ATASCADERO Item: B-1 STAFF REPORT FOR: Planning Commission MEETING DATE: June 20, 1989 BY: Henry Engen, Com. Dev. Dir. A& FILE NO: CR-D Zone Special Study SUBJECT: Consideration of creation of a CR-D Commercial Retail-Downtown zoning district. BACKGROUND : On April 4, 1989 the Planning Commission considered the attached staff report and directed staff to schedule a public hearing after two months to consider the possibility of creation of a new CR-D Commercial Retail-Downtown zoning district. At the • Commission' s direction, staff forwarded background materials to the BIA, the Downtown Steering Committee, Atascadero Chamber of Commerce, and Atascadero Homeowners Association for comment. To date, we have received the accompanying responses from the Downtown Steering Committee and a joint BTA/Chamber of Commerce/ Atascadero 2000 Committee. The Homeowners Association have scheduled a meeting prior to your June 20th hearing to develop their recommendation. ANALYSIS : There is wide-spread support for the logic of creating a distinctive downtown zoning district with reduced off-street parking requirements as proposed (see Exhibits A, B, and C - April 13, 1989 draft) . The text and map change as proposed would designate all of the present CR zoning in the BIA area as CR-D and eliminate some of the uses presently allowed in the CR zone (for comparison, see existing CR district) . In their review, the Downtown Steering Committee suggested the addition of several other potential conditional uses, i.e. , broadcast studios, social and service organizations, food and kindred products, schools - business and vocational . The sense of that committee was that many of those uses could be appropriate (e.g. , mini brewery use) but others within those defined categories might not; therefore, a conditional use permit would be an appropriate control. ISSUE : The primary issue - in addition to fine tuning the text and maybe modifying where the map might apply - is the timing for proceeding with this process. The City has engaged consultants, Wurster, Bernardi, and Emmons, Inc. of San Francisco to draft a downtown element to the General Plan. This is expected to be a six month process with their next meetings scheduled on June 14th and 15th, 1989 . This will represent approximately 35% completion of a six month work program which should be completed in September/October. The question then arises as to whether there is a need for ( 1) an urgency ordinance, i.e. , an ordinance that can be adopted immediately by the Council without public hearing by a four-fifths vote, or ( 2 ) proceed with a conventional CR-D rezoning process with a hearing before the Planning Commission, two readings before the Council and a 30 day implementation date before it becomes effective, or (3) put the project on hold pending the recommendations on the downtown plan to assure consistency between the two. RECOMMENDATIONS: A. Downtown Steering Committee: . The Downtown Steering Committee has recommended modification to the zoning text as indicated in their May 22, 1989 memorandum. On a 5 :4 vote, they are recommending that the ordinance be amended through the conventional public hearing process. B. Joint BIA/Chamber of Commerce/Atascadero 2000 Committee : As indicated in their May 26, 1989 memorandum, their unanimous recommendation is that: ( 1) The CR-D ordinance be deferred until the downtown plan is completed, but that (2) the parking requirements for the BIA area be cut in half immediately (refer to the April 13, 1989 draft, Section 9-3.XXX Parking Requirements) . C. Homeowners Association: As noted, the Homeowners Association is in the process of developing their recommendation. D. Staff Recommendation: Staff would recommend deferring action on the proposed CR-D zone until the downtown plan has been completed. Thereafter, it could be modified for consistency and heard in conjunction with the proposed revision to the General Plan. HE: s P Enclosures : May 26, 1989 Recommendation - BIA/Chamber of Com- merce/Atascadero 2000 May 22 , 1989 Recommendation - Downtown Steering Committee April 13, 1989 Transmittal to Interested Parties Zoning Excerpt - Existing CR Zone cc : Business Improvement Association Chamber of Commerce Downtown Steering Committee Homeowners Association Atascadero 2000 Wurster, Bernardi, and Emmons, Inc. � 0 t7sca&ro Lkam er f commerce 6550 EL CAMINO REAL - ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA 93422 TELEPHONE: (805) 466-2044 TO: CITY PLANNING COMMISSION VIA: HENRY ENGEN, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR FROM: JOINT B.I.A. , CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, ATASCADERO 2000 COMMITTEE DATE: MAY 26 , 1989 SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATIONS RELATIVE TO DRAFT OF PROPOSED URGENCY ORDINANCE NO . 89. CREATION OF A CR-D COMMERCIAL RETAIL DOWNTOWN ZONE BACKGROUND: At their April 4 , 1989 meeting, the Planning Commission discussed proposed urgency ordinance -89 which would create a specific downtown plan and zone. "Chairperson Lockridge directed that this matter be continued for a period of two months in order to allow the B. I.A. , Chamber of Commerce, Steering Committee, etc. time for review, comment and recommendation" . In response to Chairperson Lockridge' s request, the B.I.A. , Chamber of Commerce and Atascadero 2000 formed a joint committee to study the matter. RECOMMENDATIONS: After extensive discussion of the downtown past, present and future, the joint committee makes the following unanimous recommendations to the Planning Commission. The joint committee believes that although there may be merit in a CR-D ordinance, no action with respect to allowable uses should be taken until the downtown area study by the city' s consultant has been completed and studied. A new CR-D ordinance at this time would pre-empt the study being done by the city' s consultant. It would be putting the cart before the horse. We also questioned the validity of this proposed ordinance being considered an urgency. We fail to see where there is a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety or welfare. The joint committee strongly recommends that the parking requirements for the B. I.A. area be cut in half immediately. The new space requirement for B.I.A. merchants may be met by: (continued) -1- RECEIVED MAY 3 0 1989 CITY PLANNING CO1qA1ISSION PAGE TWO a. Providing the required spaces on the site occupied by 0 the use; b. Providing the required spaces off-site , but within five hundred feet of the proposed use, on a lot owned or leased by the developer of the proposed use; c. Participating in a commonly held and maintained off-site parking lot where other businesses maintain their re- quired spaces; d. Participating in a parking district which provides parking spaces for a fee or assessment program; e. Any combination of the above. The Community Development Department shall be notified of the expiration or termination of any agreement securing required parking. The department shall schedule a public hearing before the Planning Commission to consider revocation of the use authorized where no alternative location for required parking is provided. We believe that B. I.A. parking is a problem that can be dealt with immediately without pre-empting the study being done by the city' s consultant. B.I.A: JOHN HIT_ I CHAIR11AN, JOINT COMMITTEE LL %_ z� gp� KIRK PEARSON, PRESIDENT CHAMBER OF4RMDE MCE: KE , PRESIDENT ROBERT NIMMO ATASCADE 2000: COPE AN, 4PRESIDENT ERIC MICHIELSSEN -2- M E M O R A N D U M TO: Planning Commission May 22 , 1989 FROM: Rex Hendrix, Chairman Downtown Steering Committee SUBJECT: Proposed Commercial Retail Downtown Zone The Downtown Steering Committee considered your request for comment on this subject at their meetings of May 4 , and May 18, 1989 . With regard to the specific language for the CR-D zone, they suggested that the following uses be considered as allowable by conditional use permit: 1 . Broadcast Studios 2 . Social and Service Organizations 3 . Food and Kindred Products 4 . Schools - Business and Vocational Following considerable discussion and on a 5 :4 vote, the Steering Committee recommends that consideration be given to adopting this proposed ordinance through the conventional public hearing process, i.e. , not as an urgency ordinance, but following public hearings both before the Planning Commission and the City council. HE:ph RECEIVED MAY -39 -3- • EX IOING ZONING TEXT : CR ZONE ADOPTED JUNE 27, 1983 CR (Commercial Retail) Zone 9-3.221. Purpose: This zone is established 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. 9-3.222. Allowable Uses: The following uses shall be allowed in the Commercial Retail Zone. The establishment of allowable uses shall be as provided by Section 9-2.107 (Plot Plans) and Section 9-2.108 (Precise Plans) : (a) Broadcast studios (b) Building materials and hardware (See Section 9-6.165) (c) Food and beverage retail sales (d) Furniture, home furnishings and equipment (e) General merchandise stores (f) Mail order and vending (g) Temporary or seasonal sales (See Section 9-6.174) (h) Financial services (i) Health care services (j) Offices (k) Small scale manufacturing (1) Temporary offices (See Section 9-6.176) (m) Personal services (n) Light repair services (o) Accessory storage (See Section 9-6.103) (p) Eating and drinking places (q) Membership organizations (r) Horticultural specialties (See Section 9-6.116) (s) Auto, mobilehome, vehicle dealers and suppliers (See Section 9-6.163) (t) Vehicle and equipment storage (See Section 9-6.183) -33- 3-27 0 ADOPTED JUNE 27, 1983 (u) Schools - business and vocational (See Section 9-6.125) (v) Utility transmission facilities (w) Business support services, where all areas of use are lo- cated within a building (x) Social and service organizations (y) Collection stations (See Section 9-6.130) (z) Sales lots (See Section 9-6.139) (aa) Farm equipment and supplies (bb) Fuel and ice dealers (See Section 9-6.129) (cc) Hotels and motels (dd) Skilled Nursing Facility (See Section 9-6.134) (ee) Bed and Breakfast (ff) Retirement Hotel (gg) Funeral Services (hh) Schools (See Section 9-6.125 (ii) Utility service center (jj) Libraries and museums (kk) Temporary Events (See Section 9-6.177) 9-3.223. Conditional Uses: The following uses may be allowed in the Commercial Retail Zone. The establishment of conditional uses shall be as provided by Section 9-2.109 (Conditional Use Permits) : (a) Amusement services (b) Caretaker residence (See Section 9-6.104) (c) Service Station (See Section 9-6.164) (d) Public assembly and entertainment (e) Indoor recreation services (f) Animal hospitals (See Section 9-6.110) -34- 3-28 r • ADOPTED JUNE 27, 1983 w (g) Auto Repair and Services (See Section 9-6.168) (h) Churches and related activities (See Sectiuon 9-6.121) (i) Food and kindred products .(See Section 9-6.128) (j) Pipelines (k) Outdoor recreation services (See Section 9-6.123) (1) Sports Assembly- (m) Transit stations and terminals (n) Kennels (See Section 9-6.111) 9-3.224. Lot *Size: There shall be no minimum lot size in the Commercial Retail Zone. i -35- 3-29 March 7, 1989 To: Members of the Planning Commission From: Geri Brasher Since the Downtown Revitalization Committee is working on plans for the downtown area, i .e. , the area currently,within the boundaries established for the BIA, I strongly believe that no new building permits should be issued until such time as the committee presents its recommendations OR for a period of time not to exceed six (6) months, whichever time frame is the shorter. I do not believe, however, that the remodeling of ;e isting structures within this area should be placed under any strictures that are not currently in force. To this end, during the commission comment portion of this meeting, I will move to instruct the staff to investigate the positive and negative aspects of such a moratorium and report to the Planning Commission at the regularly scheduled meeting of April 4 as a new business agenda item. Staff ' s report should include the mechanism for the Planning Commission to make a formal recommendation to the City Council supporting a moratorium. _g_ The Planning and Zoning Law (This section out of sequence. See prior page.) 65858. (a)Without following the procedures otherwise required prior to the adoption of a Urgency measure: zoning ordinance,the legislative body,to protect the public safety,health and welfare,may Interim zoning adopt as an urgency measure an interim ordinance prohibiting any uses which may be in ordinance conflict with a contemplated general plan, specific plan,or zoning proposal which the legislative body, planning commission or the planning department is considering or studying or intends to study within a reasonable time.That urgency measure shall require a four-fifths vote of the legislative body for adoption.The interim ordinance shall be of no further force and effect 45 days from its date of adoption.After notice pursuant to Section 65090 and public hearing,the legislative body may extend the interim ordinance for 10 months and 15 days and subsequently extend the interim ordinance for one year.Any*** extension shall also require a four-fifths vote for adoption. Not more than the two such extensions may be adopted (b)Alternatively,an interim ordinance may be adopted by a four-fifths vote following notice pursuant to Section 65090 and public hearing,in which case it shall be of no further force and effect 45 days from its date of adoption. After notice pursuant to Section 65090 and public hearing, the legislative body may by a four-fifths vote extend the interim ordinance for 22 months and 15 days. (c)The legislative body shall not adopt or extend any interim ordinance pursuant to this section unless the ordinance contains a finding that there is a current and immediate threat to the public health,safety,or welfare,and that the approval of additional subdivisions,use permits,variances,building permits,or any other applicable entitlement for use which is required in ordertocomplywithatoningordinance wouldresultina threat to public health, saf&y,or welfare. (d) Ten days prior to the expiration of an interim ordinance or any extension,the legislative body shall issue a written report describing the measures taken to alleviate the condition which led to the adoption of the ordinance. (e) When an *** interim ordinance has been adopted,every subsequent ordinance adopted pursuant to this section,covering the whole or a part of the same property,shall automatically terminate and be of no further force or effect upon the termination of the first interim ordinance or any extension of the ordinance as provided in this section. (Added by Stats.1982,Ch.1108;Amended by Stats.1984 Ch.1009;Suus.1988,Ch. 1408.) 58A -9- PLJat�JNIN�3 GVr�l�7.� i a er of general circulation published :in�the area to be prezoned,rather than in § 65854. Prezoning comes effec ' e time the annexation becomes effecnv . 2. Interim ordinances- At times,for example,a property owner will submit a land-use proposal or request a building permit for use of property which may be in conflict c proposal with a contemplated general plan,spec' plan,or zoning P Po sal which the city is considering or studying or intends to study within a reasonable time. In this situation and other like situations, Section 65858 authorizes cities to adopt, as an urgency measure, an interim ordinance prohibiting such uses which may be in conflict with a general plan, specific plan or zoning proposal which the city is considering,without following the procedures otherwise required for the adoption of a zoning ordinance. However, such an urgency measure requires a four-fifths vote of the legislative body for adoption. No notice or hearing is required for the first adoption. Such interim urgency ordinances have time limitations on their force and effect. They shall be of no further force and effect 45 days from the date of adoption provided,however, that after notice and hearing, the city council may extend such interim ordinance for 10 months and 15 days and subsequently extend such interim ordinance for one year. Extensions require a four-fifths vote for adoption. Not more than two extensions may be adopted. Alternatively, an interim ordinance may be adopted initially by a four-fifths vote following notice and hearing, in which case it shall be of no further force and effect 45 days from the date of adoption,provided, that after notice and hearing,the city council may by a four-fifths vote extend such alternate interim ordinance for 22 months and 15 days. Before adopting or extending an interim ordinance,the city council must make certain findings,including a finding that there is a current and immedi- ate threat to the public health, safety or welfare. The findings must be contained in the ordinance. Ten days prior to the expiration of the ordinance the city council shall issue a written report describing the measures taken to alleviate the condition _ which led to the adoption of the ordinance. Since the essence of an interim ordinance is that it preserves the status quo by prohibiting a use of land that may be inconsistent with a contemplated zoning proposal pending enactment thereof, an interim ordinance cannot be used to authorize construction; this authorization can only be accomplished after notice 44 -10- and hearing under the State Zoning Law. Silvera v. City of South Lake Tahoe. 3 Cal. App. 3d. 554,558 (1970). An interim ordinance cannot be used to stop operation of a use already in existence. Kieffer v. Spencer. 153 Cal.App. 3d 954(1984). In light of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. County of Los Anger,_U.S._, 107 S. Ct. 2378 (1987), wherein the Court stated that money damages must be paid for temporary takings that occur due to improper land-use regulations,it is good practice to allow some use of the property while the interim period is in effect and K to insert a"safety valve"provision to allow the owner to apply for an exception. Further,the findings must properly justify the city's action. 3. Conditional zoning. "`Conditional zoning' is an ;appropriate phrase to describe a zoning - ange which permits use of a particular property subject to conditions not goner- r al`IyVplicable to land similarly zoned." Scrutton v. County of Sacramento,275 Cal. Ate. 2d 412,417 (1969). The term"contract zoning"has some " es been used syno usly with"conditional zoning." The court in stated at page 419 tha a phrase"contract zoning"has no legal significalice and simply refers to a reclas " ication of land use in which the landow agrees to perform conditions not impo on other landowners. In Scrutton,plat ff filed an applicati to have property rezoned from agricultural to multiple-family sidential to t its development for residential apartment purposes. The plannin ommi ion recommended approval of the application, subject to certain conditi , which included dedication and improve- ment of certain streets adjacent to p 1. The Board of Supervisors,after hearing, approved the Planning mmission commendation. Before adopting a rezoning ordinance, the Bo d tendered a d d contract for plaintiff's signa- ture and would not fo adopt the rezoning ordi ce until the applicant returned the executed and contract. Plaintiff refu to sign the contract and filed an action for claratory relief against the County on theory that the imposition of s conditions to a rezoning was improper. The court upheld both the County's action and the conditi rezoning as a ifestation of the same police power which supports the impositi of c ditions on approval of subdivisions, building permits, and zoning varianc supra, at 418. It should be noted,however, that the court also held tha 45 -11- ITEM : C. I M E M O R A N D U M TO: Planning Commission April 4 , 1989 FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director 3-1�, SUBJECT: Downtown Moratorium Evaluation BACKGROUND: At your March 7, 1989 meeting, staff was directed to prepare an analysis of the pros and cons of recommending a moratorium on downtown building permits pending completion of a Downtown Plan. With the assistance of the City Attorney, included herewith is the State Statute relating to urgency ordinances; an excerpt from Daniel J. Curtin Jr. ' s recent book, California Land Use and Planning Law - 1989 Addition; and memoranda from prior City Attorneys on the subject of moratoriums related to past land use issues . Although the law has been modified over the years, the basic thrust remains the same, i.e. , an urgency ordinance can be adopted by the City Council, with or without public hearing, which requires findings that there is "a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety or welfare and that the approval of additional subdivisions, use permits, variances, building permits, or any other applicable entitlement for use which is required in order to comply with a zoning ordinance would result in a threat to public health, safety or welfare. " As noted in the accompanying legal opinions, this is not a finding that can be made lightly. STATUS OF DOWNTOWN PLAN: The Downtown Steering Committee has made a recommendation for consultant selection which will be going to the City Council on March 28, 1989. The work program calls for completion of a draft Master Plan for the downtown area to be adopted as part of the City' s General Plan. The final presentation to the Planning Commission and City Council is proposed approximately six (6) months after beginning of work. It is safe to assume that it would take another three (3) months to adopt said plan. PROS AND CONS: The boundaries of the Business Improvement Association area, which is the study area for the Downtown Master Plan Program, is shown on the attached map. Over the past several years , the only new building constructed in the downtown was Dr. Anderson' s office on East Mall. Currently, however, there are a number of projects in the "pipeline" , in one form of approval or another, -5- • • which are identified on the map, and further as follows: 1 . Hotel Park - Precise Plan 30-87 at 5805 Capistrano. This is a 69,696 square foot retail/office project. Building permits have been submitted for the first phase. 2 . Virginia Plaza - Precise Plan 46-87 at 5735 E1 Camino Real . T is is a 12 ,832 square foot retail/office project. Building permits are ready to be picked up. 3 . Chinese Restaurant - This is a 6,786 square foot building at 6080 El Camino Real to rebuild the building destroyed by fire. Building permits have been issued, but construction has not commenced. 4 . Kentucky Fried Chicken - Conditional Use Permit 12-88 at 6900 E1 Camino Real . This permit is under appeal for a 2,686 square foot restaurant and 3,048 square foot retail building scheduled before the City Council for action on March 28, 1989 . 5 . Atascadero Bowling Center - Conditional Use Permit 18-88 at 6905 E1 Camino Real. This 31, 804 square foot bowling alley and related retail building, is scheduled before the Planning Commission on April 4, 1989 for consideration for approval based on a modified site plan. 6 . Police Station Site - Site has been acquired and plans are being prepared in anticipation of funding in the near future. In addition to these major projects, there are a number of minor types of building permits issued in the downtown area. For example, the undergrounding program requires a $30. 00 electrical permit to change that service. Remodels require building permits if there is electrical or plumbing work or structural changes involved, such as the medical office at 5960 West Mall . Sign permits are also needed for new signs, sometimes followed by building permits for construction. Hence, should the Planning Commission desire to make a recommendation to the City Council to initiate a moratorium for the downtown area, then it would have to provide direction as to what kinds of permits are to be subject to a moratorium. Clearly a major "con" aspect in considering a moratorium in the downtown is that it would undercut a substantial amount of private (and public) effort towards infill development of the BIA area. Further, it would send negative signals with regard to attracting desirable commercial development in the community in general, and the downtown in particular. A moratorium would preclude the possibility of making any land use mistakes as to the types of uses that we may someday decide are desired in the heart of the community. However, it should be pointed out that the uses which have generated the most controversy recently, the -6- i • bowling alley and drive-in restaurant, were subject to a discretionary decision by the City as to conformance with the City' s General Plan. In other words, the authority was there to approve or deny these uses. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION: Staff does not recommend approval of a moritorium on building permits for the BIA area. However, there is an alternative which could be considered, which would be the adoption of an urgency ordinance creating a downtown commercial zone which deletes some of the more obviously deleterious downtown uses from the presently allowed uses such as drive-through uses, automotive uses, storage lots, farm equipment supplies, indoor recreation services, sales lots, small scale manufacturing, mail order, and vending, etc. Staff has commenced work on the creation of a downtown zone as a special study and we have the ERA report' s recommendation, and the benefit of the debate over some of the uses that have been before the Commission and Council of late. Hence, rather than cast a pall over an area of the City that we' re trying to rejuvenate, an urgency ordinance which delimits the kinds of uses we are encouraging in the downtown, while concurrently proceeding to test the validity of same in the course of the creation of a Downtown Master Plan, could have merit. Further, we could incorporate an in lieu parking program and reduce the amount of parking needed for new uses to encourage additional intensification of the City' s core. The attached draft ordinance has been prepared for the Commission' s review and discussion. HE:ph cc: Kirk Pearson, BIA Downtown Steering Committee Ray Windsor, City Manager Jeffrey G. Jorgensen, City Attorney Encl: . .March 7, 1989 — Memorandum from Geri Brasher . .State Statute . .Excerpt - California Land Use and Planning Law . .April 18, 1986 - Memorandum from Robert M. Jones, City Attorney re. Moratorium on Building Permits for Multi- Family Housing . .April 20, 1983 - Memorandum from Allen Grimes, City Attorney, relative to Moratoriums on Coin Operated Game Machines and Arcades . .July 1, 1983 - Memorandum from Allen Grimes relative to Adoption of a Valid Urgency Ordinance . .BIA Area Map . .Draft Urgency ordinance creating a CR-D Commercial Retail - Downtown Zone -7- Proposed Boundaries of the Atascadero Business Improvement Association 1 Ol Shp 4r �:; ;. '•. _��-f:.: ¢'t,��i7°('.f�"•:... :,:�;,�• .:. .,:,� •. � '''7Y+'M�,u,+.�.�+►'.,�,.moi• �"'..i. :.•i•: ??: .;ayu. .:. .... t..;2"i}�{•,-:K�•'°°b... ' M,y?�•'�i'iS..' ' :t:.SM � -' �� 'i:•.�.y mow`{ •.fi '•'� -�°+r�':.�^ :. : .;�.tix;., 'i6Jt+v: '': .,+;+�: ,>w•.:,.' yx„S?F.n'x V+'••. ...:Gs�'- '�`"'�.w�it�:.,a' '.i..•-'+* � '=��„ •. .,, '�•• ,.' w-, .``tr` _ ,.v+y..., vi+ •,;�„�' -ugi,?.'+"�sla'�1b4ii,G,,�:. '".y++..''�'•�.►:-. w• w.M �• ,. ..: : ,�.:r.` '"'N” � �.." `"""".�:'� +rem- —�' � ::tea•: ,::. o-Z�:'• hi!: .r-..:-•, _�• •.. '� ��*.:�•, .. h. •�+.•fes wii[Wii.•�••.�w�y7 �C� '"':.,pmt•••�:,. 'Lr�. •' '.a:--'':�;t •.•;;..::-• ••,�:. ""' ..,�.e. Vit:;.: ;:. ye• :•:-.vi. . . e ,.'�?o-°"``:'�'•:i: ..:.�{-,. ,.xo-•.Sia. �+.... .: � .. :• � � •�Pv:' . '/��''?•Kms' �'',•�,YY••'•�.' ••':�':'. :C!•" •' •^!:;. "'4.:,�'^y7� •• ' y 1 „�,��'/.�.�RM.•;`1 .. yppfFip 'i�::95 i. 16i 6 4L Av i .• Z CL �• 1• t t G M11N0, ., .w..n.r;..... :�tpwuv.;¢ y� v ••NlOiCM6l060^^"^"•• s... :tX: '{: .. v ,.• .•• .......,..�-t'•. ..M7W000OOM •Y-, : '•:A, Gj(' .'•'.'��l. O mac, 26�.r T Pio JEG7 LOCA 7-1 otv Cm Mascadero. Homeowners Association : ...:_ P.O. Box 322 Mascadera, CA June 16, 1989 To: Atascadero Planning Commission From: Atascadero Homeowners Association Subject: Draft Commercial/Retail - Downtown Zone The Atascadero Homeowners Association concurs with the staff report which discusses an urgency ordinance and notes the need to create "A downtown commercial zone which deletes some of the more obviously deleterious downtown uses from the presently allowed uses such as drive-through uses, automotive uses, storage lots, farm equipment supplies" and such. _ He would like to speak to the point of an urgency or interim ordinance to clarify its purpose and time limitations. Such an ordinance requires a four-fifthsvote by the council and does not require notice or hearing for first adoption, although it could require them. The State Code, " Section 65858 authorizes cities to adopt, as an urgency measure, an interim (our emphasis) ordinance prohibiting such uses which may in conflict with a general plan, specific plan or zoning proposal which the. . city is considering, without following the procedures otherwise required for the adoption of a zoning ordinance. " This section certainly applies to the zoning proposal we are now considering as we await a report from the firm Wurster, Bernardi, and Emmons, Inc who are consulting with the Atascadero Steering Committee appointed to consider a plan for revitalization of the downtown area. ty"der no circumstances would an interim ordinance preempt this study by consultants and the committee. The interim ordinance would be passed in anticipation of a final draft ordinance which may be based on the consultants' study. The State Code further says, "Such interim urgency ordinances have time limitations on their force and-effect,.. They shall be of no further force and effect 45 days from the date of adoption provided, however, that after notice and hearing, the city council may extend such interim ordinance for 10 months and 15 days and subsequently extend 1 such interim ordinance for one year. Extensions require a four-fifths vote adoption. Not more than two extensions may be adopted. " Such an interim ordinance could give us breathing room in case a drive-through business were to sell to a similar business and could then be grandfathered in before we could get a new final ordinance passed. There are two or three such possibilities in the downtown area, and we understand' the Carlton Hotel is now listed for sale. Often when rules are changing there is a last minute rush of applications to qualify under the old guidelines. Therefore we ask the Planning Commission to recommend that the. City Council pass a 45 day interim ordinance which would cover part of the period to the anticipated September/October completion of the consultants ' study. The Council could grant a minimal extension to protect the area until the study is complete and a new ordinance for the downtown is ready for approval. Allowable uses under the draft proposal Next we want to discuss the proposed allowable uses given in the April 13, 1989 draft Exhibit A by staff. The Homeowners would like to see an overall statement which excludes drive-through facilities for all uses not grandfathered in, because the intent of this ordinance is to encourage a pedestrian-oriented area. Staff has specifically Provided for this in (c) Financial Services and (1) Eating and Drinking places. There are other possibilities such as drive-through pharmacies, dry-cleaners, etc. Consequently we propose a blanket exclusionary statement. We approve all the allowable uses listed below without changes: (b) Furniture, home furnishings and equipment - I (c) Financial Services (excluding drive-through. . facilities) (d) General Merchandise stores (e) Temporary or seasonal sales (g) Health Care services (h) Libraries and museums (i) Offices ( 1 ) Temporary offices (k) Personal Services (1) Eating and drinking places (excluding drive- through) (m) Temporary events We believe we would approve (f) printing establishments, (n) residences above ground floor, and (o) parking if there had been written descriptions of them in the Zoning Ordinance. Our .concern about (a) Food and Beverage retail sales is "with the sentence of the Zoning Ordinance which states, - "Establishments (except for wine tasting facilities) may include no more than two gas pumps as an accessory use" . We recommend that this statement be excluded when the interim ordinance is written. Cmuditional Uses Under the section given as Conditional Uses, the Homeowners Association approves all the uses proposed by staff except for one, (e) Financial Services with drive-through - facilities . • Financial Services are already included in _. allowable uses, and since, as we have previously stated, the purpose of this proposed zoning is to create a pedestrian- oriented community, we feel that allowing a drive-through' in this instance is in conflict with the staff recommendation which has specifically excluded such drive-through under allowable uses. The Downtown Steering Committee has recommended four additional uses in the Conditional Use category: I . Broadcast Studios: This would be acceptable if the interim ordinance would exclude the allowance of outside apparatus such as satellite dishes, antennas, and such. we approve the wording of the Ordinance which states "Communications uses including radio, television, telegraph and telephone broadcasting and receiving stations which are facilities and equipment enclosed entirely within buildings. " 2. Social and Service Organizations: We approve of these. 3. Food and Kindred Products : We are concerned that the definition on Page 3-67 and 3-68 allows "meat and poultry products (slaughtering, canning, and curing. . . ) . " We would like to see the definition of food products which are made on site be restricted to small bakeries and candy stores . 4 . Schools, Business and Vocational: We recommend that these be placed above the first floor to allow ground spaceto be used by retail merchants . This will increase our sales tax revenue. Lot Size The Association feels a bit uncomfortable with no minimum lot size requirement for downtown and would like to encourage further serious consideration of this matter. 3 Setbacks � li we strongly recommend a rear setback to facilitate deliveries in order to avoid traffic congestion on the main arteries . This is especially important since there is a proposal to reduce the parking requirement by one half for this zone. Enthusiastically we endorse the original 50 foot setback on . the creek required by the General Plan before 1982. We would like to see the creek setback requirement restored to the General Plan during its present rewriting and thereby .. encourage a pedestrian-oriented creek area. Height Limitations and Parking Requirements As proposed -in the Draft CR-D Zone, the Height Limitations and Parking Requirements are supported by the Atascadero Homeowners Association. Other organizations have recommended separating the Parking Requirement proposal from the rest of Exhibit A. If these organizations feel that only the Parking should be considered as an urgency ordinance, we feel that it would be unwise to choose just one section of the proposal for immediate implementation. The goal is -to provide a unified, workable plan to breathe life into the downtown area by creating a favorable environment for business which will thrive on foot traffic. Creating the parking spaces alone may provide only empty parking lots. . Conclusion The Homeowners applaud sta:f recommendations and creativity. We support almost all of the Commercial Retail-Downtown proposals in Exhibit A. We have called your attention to the few areas which we feel need revision. We appreciate the opportunity to share our ideas with you. Celia Moss,ss, President --Lind�ampton Ursula Luna Doro y McNei CR-D Zone study committee for the Atascadero Homeowners Association Board. cc: Henry Engen, Community Development Director 4 ORDINANCE NO. 195-89 AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO AMENDING TITLE 9 ZONING REGULATIONS BY ADDING A CR-D COMMERCIAL RETAIL-DOWNTOWN ZONE (PLANNING COMMISSION INITIATED) WHEREAS, Section 65858 of the Government Code authorizes the adoption by local legislative bodies of interim ordinances as urgency measures to protect the public safety, health and welfare; and WHEREAS, said ordinances may be adopted as urgency measures prohibiting actions which may be in conflict with a contemplated zoning proposal which the legislative body, Planning Commission or Community Development Department is considering, or studying, or intends to study within a reasonable time; and WHEREAS, the City has undertaken a program to develop a master plan for the downtown area for adoption as an element to the City' s General Plan; and WHEREAS, the City' s Zoning Ordinance permits a wide variety of uses within the downtown area which would be deleterious to the objective of a pedestrian-oriented downtown; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered this matter on June 20, 1989 and recommends adoption of this ordinance by the Council following public hearing; and WHEREAS, such urgency measures shall require a four-fifths vote of the legislative body for adoption. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Atascadero does ordain as follows: Section 1 . Council Findings. 1 . The proposed code amendment is in conformance with Section 65800 et seq of the California Government Code concerning zoning regulations . 2 . The proposed zoning text amendment will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is not necessary. 3 . That further study is necessary to determine what legislation, if any, is proper for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare. IV Ordinance No. 195-89 Page 2 4 . That there is a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, or welfare, and that the approval of additional building permits, plot plans, precise plans or use permits, inconsistent with the zoning text changes provided for herein, would result in a threat to public health, safety, or welfare. Section 2 . Zoning Text Change. Section 9-3 .261 is hereby added to the text of the Zoning Ordinance as shown in the attached Exhibit "A" ,which is hereby made a part of this ordinance by reference. Section 3 . Zoning Map Change. Map numbers 7, 16 and 17 of the Official Zoning Maps of the City of Atascadero on file in the City Community Development Department is hereby amended to reclassify portions of the Atascadero Colony as shown on the attached Exhibit "B" which is hereby made a part of this ordinance by reference. Section 4 . This ordinance is adopted under Government Code Section 65858 and is in full force and effect for forty-five (45) days. Section 5. The City Council hereby declares that this is an urgency ordinance necessary to preserve the public peace, health and safety due to the facts set forth above. Section 6. This ordinance being an urgency ordinance for the immediate protection of the public safety, health and general welfare, containing a declaration of the facts constituting the urgency and passed by a four-fifths (4/5) vote of the Council shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. Section 7 . Publication. The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published once within fifteen (15) days after its passage in the Atascadero news, a newspaper of general circulation, printed, published and circulated in the City in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code; shall certify the adopting and posting of this Ordinance No. 195-89 Page 3 ordinance, and shall cause this ordinance and this certification together with proof of posting to be entered into the Book of Ordinances of this City. On motion by and seconded by , the foregoing ordinance is hereby adopted in its entirety by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: DATE ADOPTED: CITY OF ATASCADERO; CALIFORNIA ROLLIN DEXTER, MAYOR ATTEST: BOYD C. SHARITZ, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: RAY WINDSOR, City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: JEFFREY G. JORGENSEN, City Attorney PREPARED BY: HENRY ENGEN Community Development Director EXHIBIT "A" Revised: April 20, 1989 Ordinance No. 195-89 CR-D (COMMERCIAL RETAIL-DOWNTOWN) ZONE 9-3 . 261. Purpose: This zone is established to encourage a pedestrian-oriented, mixed use district in the downtown area to accommodate a broad range of retail, office, entertainment, institutional and residential activities . 9-3 .262 . Allowable Uses: The following uses shall be allowed in the Commercial Retail-Downtown Zone. The establishment of allowed uses shall be as provided by Section 9-2 .107 (Plot Plans) and Section 9-2 . 108 (Precise Plan) : (a) Food and beverage retail sales (b) Furniture, home furnishings and equipment (c) Financial services (excluding drive-through facilities) (d) General merchandise stores (e) Temporary or seasonal sales (f) Printing establishments (g) Health care services (h) Libraries and museums (i) Offices (j ) Temporary offices (k) Personal services (1) Eating and drinking places (excluding drive-through facilities) (m) Temporary events (n) Residences, above the ground floor (o) Parking lots 9-3 . 263 . Conditional Uses: The following uses may be allowed in the Commercia Retail-Downtown Zone. The establishment of conditional uses shall be as provided by Section 9-2.109 (Conditional Use Permits) : Exhibit "A" - Ordinance 195-89 Page 2 (a) Amusement services (b) Indoor recreation services (c) Public assembly and entertainment (d) Bed and breakfast (e) Financial services, with drive-through facilities ( f) Hotels and motels (g) Membership organizations (h) Retirement hotel (i) Broadcast studios, excluding outside satellite dishes or antennas (j ) Social and service organizations (k) Food and kindred products (1) Schools - business and vocational, above the ground floor. 9-3 . 264 . Lot Sizes: There shall be no minimum lot size in the Commercial Retail-Downtown Zone. 9-3 . 265 . Setbacks: No front, side, or rear setback is required in the Commercial Retail - Downtown Zone. 9-3 .266 . Height Limitations . The maximum permitted height is 35 ' as provided in Section 9 .4 . 113 for the CR zone. 9-3 . 267 . Parking Requirements . One half of that required in Section 9-4 . 118 for that portion of the CR-D zone shown in Exhibit "C" . The space requirement may be met by: (a) Providing the required spaces on the site occupied by the use; (b) Providing the required spaces off-site, but within five hundred feet of the proposed use, on a lot owned or leased by the developer of the proposed use; Exhibit "A" - Ordinance No. 195-89 Page 3 (c) Participating in a commonly held and maintained off-site parking lot where other businesses maintain their required spaces; (d) Participating in a parking district which provides parking spaces for a fee or assessment program. (e) Any combination of the above. The Community Development Department shall be notified of the expiration or termination of any agreement securing required parking. The department shall schedule a public hearing before the Planning Commission to consider revocation of the use authorized where no alternative location for required parking is provided. EXHIBIT ►►B►► Ordinance No. 195-89 Y . ,► c !J J FROM CR(COMMERCIAL RETAIL) TO CR-D(COMMERCIAL RETAIL-DOWNTOWN) EXHIBIT "C" Ordinance No. 195-89 J r M 6 v P 0 u AFH AREA PERMITTING 1/2 PARKING REQUIREMENT MINUTES EXCERPTS INUTES - ATASCADERO PLANNING COMMISSION R gular meeting Tu day, June 20, 1989 7 :30 p.m. Ata adero Administration Building The regul meeting of the Atascadero Planning Commissio was called to der at 7 :30 p.m. by Chairperson Lochridge f lowed by the Pledge o Allegiance. ROLL CALL: Present: Commiss ners Highland, Luna, Brasher, opez-Balbontin (7 :37 p. ) and Chairperson Lochridge Absent: Commissoner aage Vacancy: One Staff Present: Henry Engen Community velopment Director; Pat Shepphard, A ministrat 've Secretary I PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment. A. HEARINGS, APPEARANCES, REPORT 1 . Approval of mi tes of the regu r Planning Commission meeting of Ju 6, 1989 2 . Considerat ' n of staff report to al w a time extension for Tenta ve Parcel Map 12-87 at 519 Portola Road - Leon Jan ' s (Twin Cities Engineering) Commission Luna requested Item A-2 be pulle for discussio after the hearings portion of the me ting. MOTION• Made by Commissioner Brasher, seconded b Commis- sioner Luna and carried 4 :0 to accept Ite A-1 on the Consent Calendar. B. HEARINGS, APPEARANCES AND REPORTS 1 . Public hearing to consider creation of a CR-D Commer- cial Retail-Downtown zoning district. Henry Engen presented the staff report and provided a background on the possibility of an ordinance which would create a new commercial retail downtown zoning district. He summarized responses and recommendations which have been submitted by the Downtown Steering Committee, Homeowners Association, and a joint response by the BIA/Chamber of Commerce/ Atascadero 2000 Committee. Staff recommendation is to defer action on the proposed CR-D zone until the downtown plan has been completed. Mr. Engen reported on two meetings held last week with the Steering Committee and Wurster, Bernardi, and Emmons (downtown consultants) and provided a time line on the progress of the study. It was noted that approximately 40% of the study has been completed to date. Mr. Engen explained how the urgency ordinance could be used as a tool to prevent an extremely inappropriate use from coming into the downtown area. 7 :37 p.m. - Commissioner Lopez-Balbontin is present. In response to question from Commissioner Brasher, Mr. Engen explained the current status of the six projects which are currently in the "pipeline" in the downtown area. There was discussion concerning what steps could be taken if a current allowable use vacated a site and an inappropriate (but allowable) use wanted to locate on that property. It was pointed out that when a use vacates a particular site, a similar use would be able to locate within a six month period. There was discussion concerning what steps could be taken if a current allowable use were to vacate a site and an inappropriate (but allowable) use desired to locate on that property (i.e. , use permit, urgency ordinance) . It was pointed out that the downtown area currently has too many allowable uses which are not compatible for this area. Celia Moss, speaking for the Homeowners Association, stated the Association concurs with the staff report noting the need to create a downtown commercial zone and summarized some of the issues contained in their response which included allowable uses, conditional uses, lot size, setbacks, height limitations and parking requirements . Dorothy McNeil stated that if the Commission and Council choose to defer the urgency ordinance, it leaves the downtown area unprotected from unwanted businesses in the future, and commented on the difficulty of obtaining a 4/5ths vote for an urgency ordinance. She expressed opposition to the conditional use permit process in which the Council does not have a "voice" when such decisions are made on the Planning Commission level. Commissioner Luna expressed concern over what type of controls staff has in trying to discourage an inappropriate but allowable use on a particular site where there is not a use permit, precise plan, etc . lever. Discussion followed. Chairperson Lochridge referenced a recent project (Kentucky Fried Chicken) in that this application would never have gone before the Commission had it not been for the signage request. There is a need for public input with regard to what types of uses are appropriate and that maybe an interim ordinance might be the tool Atascadero needs . Commissioner Highland stated he could only see a couple of permitted uses in the current zoning that there is any property vacant or occupied that could possibly be used for those uses. He did not feel an interim ordinance is necessary and commented that an urgency ordinance can extend beyond the 45 days to up to two years . Commissioner Brasher felt it would be fair to everyone to specify what uses for the time being should be permitted in the downtown area. She concurred with the proposed ordinance but felt some additions should be included as recommended by the Homeowners Association, Steering Committee, etc. We need to prevent any inappropriate uses until such time as the downtown plan is prepared. In response to question from Chairperson Lochridge, Commissioner Highland stated that if adopted under normal procedures, he could support a CR-D zone. Commissioner Lopez-Balbontin expressed concern that many of the BIA and Chamber members don' t support an urgency ordinance. Chairperson Lochridge stated his belief that there has been misunderstanding among the public of this urgency ordinance and its intent. Discussion ensued pertaining to the interpretations used with the General Plan vs . the Zoning Ordinance. Commissioner Luna thanked the various committees and memberships for their input and response on the issue and asked that a letter of thanks be directed to them. Chairperson Lochridge concurred adding that there are good ideas and plans with which the Planning Commission can work. In response to question, Mr. Engen explained the difficulty of controlling those businesses which establish without a business license. MOTION: Made by Commissioner Luna, seconded by Commissioner Brasher to recommend to the City Council that a public hearing be scheduled prior to considering and adopting a 45 day interim ordinance establishing a CR-D zone. Commissioner Brasher asked that amendment be made to the motion to include the Steering Committee' s recommendations for additions to .conditional uses . Commissioner Luna concurred. The motion carried 3 : 2 with the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Luna, Brasher, and Chairper- son Lochridge NOES: Commissioners Lopez-Balbontin and Highland Chairperson Lochridge declared a recess at 8 :53 p.m. ; meeting reconvened at 9 : 03 p.m. -2 (from Consent Calendar) Co sideration of staff report to allow a time extension f Ten tive Parcel Map 12-87 at 5192 Portola Road - Leon is (Twin ities Engineering) Mr. Engen rovided a background on this map notin he applicant d the option of developing an access rom Portola Road r from Santa Lucia Road. Commissioner Lun expressed his concern wi condition #8 and asked for cla fication. Mr. Engen dicated, that were the access easement oved it would re qu ' a re-submittal of a modified map. Discus ion followed. MOTION: Made by Commis 'oner Lu ,seconded by Commissioner Hig and o approve a time extension for Tentative Parc ap 12-87 . C. INDIVIDUAL COMMENT 1. Planning Commission Commissioner Luna nquired when the next eeting of the General Plan co ittee will be held. Commissioner rasher stated there is a large ite structure toward the ear of the Food-4-Less building and sked staff to repor back. Comm ' sioner Luna referenced the Food-4-Less site sta ing he wou d like developers to be encouraged to provide grea r s backs to avoid the type of brick wall, lack of Is andscaping towards the freeway this building lends itsel to. TO: COUNCILMEMBERS, CITY MANAGER AND DEPARTMENT HEADS: Report on San Luis Obispo Area Coordiratirg Council meeting July 5,1989 Cathy Corliss was introduced as the new staff person, also Julie Milsap. Cathy's introduction was interesting to me since she was staff person to the Hazardous Waste Commission and she has attended several of our Council meetings recently when that item was on our agenda. She was a capable person and I hated to lose her from the HWC but this a promotion. An item on our agenda may have an effect on us but very little is known about it at this time. . .I will copy it and enclose with this i�em. . . .title: 1989 State Transportation Improvement Prog. Cancell- ation. . . .the bottom line was "Highway 41 improvement may not happen. .".because of new ground rules being established legislatively." "Implications are unknown at this time." The budget was adopted with much discussion. Staff recommended addition of$52,000 for marketing new bus system. That was not adopted in total but I am not sure if any of it was. . : Some were unhappy if it wasn't. Motions were flying around, being amended and rescinded. David Ekbom had been complaining to me about several items before the meeting and he changed his vote after the voting. . .which did not change the outcome on the item. . .any way some of it was a little confusing. -They are going out for bids for the new system; Santa Barbara Transportation System is operating some of the system altho their contract had run out. . .it was extended at this meeting. . . until bids are received and a new contract awarded. I believe Laidlaw will be operating our leg until the new contract. I understand the Cuesta College r_un (including our area) will begin when Cuesta opens in August. The SIER1A CLUB presented an Alternate Transportation Plan.asking for more bike paths, more ride sharing, more land use planning to eliminate the -need for such long commutes, consider railroad ! They said the government needs to show committment. Staff felt that the budget needs to have contingency section as well as Equipment Replacement Reserve. (I gather this budget was drawn up by at least 4 elected persons on the SLOACC. ) As my first time there and I said very little but it seemed there was a lot of finger pointing between the Council and the Staff and within the Council. The next meeting will be Sept. 13 P.S. - we voted that Cuesta College should have a voting represen- tative on the Council (also an elected person) submitted by M. Mackey- alternat ' � I� SAN LUIS OBISPO AREA COORDINATING COUNCIL G i STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: JUI3t 3, 1989 1 SUBJECT: 1989 STATE TPJUgSPOR=ON IMPPOVEMEff.PROMAM C MCELA'i ON -- SLI49k"Y Due to the current negotiations between the Legislature and the administration on transportation progrannning, the Chairman of the' California mmnsportation Commission, Joseph Duffel, announced the CPC's intenticn to delay the adoption of the 1989 STIP until a later date so that it conforms to any new ground rules being established legislatively. ON: _ Information Item. DIS=ION• Annually your Council provides recamendations to the California Transportation Ccamnission (CIC) on regional priorities for new capacity-enhancing state highway improvement projects in the farm of a Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RMP) . CAIMWS prepares their own priorities in the form of a Preliminary State Transportation Inprovement program (PSTIP) . Both programs are reviewed by the CIC staff with any conflicts decided by the CTC. In. May, your Council approved the attached RMP and directed its presentation before the CIC. The adopted program (attached) was consistent with that reo ded by Q=ANS and was within the total funding allocated to the region. There would have been a high likelihood that all projects included would have been funded. As a result of the CIBC action, the proposed STIP will be delayed until the CIC hears otherwise from the Governor. rn= delay could be for a relative short time pending the Governor's action on transportation funding proposals, or it could be car cel i ed and reconsidered in 1990. Implications are unknown at this time. Projects on Routes 46 arra 101 would likely remain high priorities under any of the proposed transportation funding bills. Staff Report prepared by ' Ronald De Carli, Program Manager C-2-1 0 SAN LUIS OBISPO AREA COORDINATING COUNCIL 1989 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (Costs shown in thousands) iPrilCodeIRTE i P.M. IWork Project Costs -------------Project---- (Phase' 889 Escal 1 I---I----I----I---------i---- CAPACITY INCREASING/OPERATIONAL PROJECTS ----- I �� 1 1HE111101 114.6-15.611n Arroyo Grande at Oak Park Road OC lConstl 1 ,500 I 1 { =Revise interchange and replace bridge l { { (Previously programmed project with cost I l I 1 1 1 1 { increase over 30% I = 2 IH64CI 46 132.2-61 .0=Airport Road near Paso Robles to the KernlConstl 9, 108 1.1,600lCounty I 1variousons line, constructpassing lanes at I I 1 4 1HB4N1101 0.37.9 11n Santa Margarita at Jct Route 58/101 �Constl l 55I l I 'Extend N/B onramp and widen bridge 1,943 ' I---1-_- ----1------ --, --------- - _1---------Notal-Project- _Cost------ -----------N-� 112,159 13543--� I NON-CAPACITY INCREASING PROJECTS 1 3 IHB4C1 41 10.5-12.6 IJunction Route 1 in Morro Bay to 1.0 mi lConstl 3,369 4,300 I { I I Inorth of Los Altos Road, construct I I { ,passing lanes at various locations I I 1____; ---------- ;-----__------ ' 'Total Project Costs j 1--- ----�-- I. 3,369 4,300 ' Grand Total All Projects (in thousands) 15,528 17,843 NOTES: 1 . San Luis Obispo County recommends programming $15.5 million of the total $20 million and to defer bidding its full bid target in the 1989 STIP in order to retain bid capacity to consider programming the Cuesta Grade Route 101 truck climbing lane on the long lead list in the 1990 STIP. C-2-2 d REGIONAL TRANSIT BUDGET (D) � LI PROPOSED 1989-90 CONSOLIDATED=====___________________________� � I--------------------------------------------------------------------------188080I (ESTIMATE OF FUND BALANCE $ . � ,AVAILABLE AT 6-30-89 i IREVENUES I PASSENGER FARES I CASH AT FAREBOX 109,790 I I PASS SALES 39,250 IAGENCY CONTRIBUTIONS I I CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE 25,b00 I I CITY OF ATASCADERO 57,390 I CITY OF GROVER CITY 23,140 CITY OF MORRO BAY CITY OF PASO ROBLES ,_50,070 - CITY 0,070 -CITY OF PISMO BEACH 1�0 I CITY OF SLO 133,020 I COUNTY OF SLO 356,180 CUESTA COLLEGE 15,060 — GRANT—UMTA 32,800 I �s I 0 STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE i (INTEREST 25,200 I , ITOTAL REVENUES 901,510 I I ------ I ITOTAL FINANCING SOURCES $ 1,0$9,390 (EXPENDITURES VEHICLE OPERATIONS $ 106,100 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE I NON—VEHICLE MAINTENANCE 20, 150 GENERAL 119,280 I CAPITAL OUTLAY 50,000 I (CONTINGENCIES (5%) 0 I I ---------- I ITOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 881,490 I ------ I (PROVISIONS FOR RESERVES 0 EQUIPMENT REPLACE RESERVE A GENERAL RESERVE (FIRST QUARTER) 207,900 1 I -------- I (TOTAL BUDGET REQUIREMENTS $ 1,089,390 I �3 5� cam" 8-2-y 0 9 To: City Councilmembers, City manager & Staff members: Report on SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT COMMISSION meeting 7-6-89 1. Cold Canyon Landfill has requested that they be allowed to be open reduced hours (this was an oral report but I believe the hours requested were from 8 AM to 3 PM weekdays some Saturday hours but closed on Sundays. John Scholtes made the report and said more discussion needed to be done before the request goes to the Supervisors. Charlie Catt- aneo said the reason for the reduction in hours is to allow the operators more time to move dirt over the dumped garbage each day. He said his workers would be working the normal hours but it is difficult to work with public dumping long hours. Board members expressed concern about Sunday closing and the shorter hours. More information later. 2. Clint Milne announced that a Solid Waste Management person has been hired: her name is Carmen Fojo; she has a degree as a civil engineer and an advanced degree as an enviromnment al engineer from Stanford. She has extensive experience in hazardous waste management, worked for POE, Emcon, County of Los Angeles and other impressive background. 3. proposal of RALCOA (called a Material Recovery PPresentation on rogram,rather than recycling). This company has offered to build a 2.8 million dollar plant at Cold Canyon Landfill. Charlie Cattaneo says there is not enough room for the project there so I am not sure what will happen. More later. 4. Each commission member gave a report on their recycling efforts So far Morro Bay is the only one who has had a haziardous waste collection day. (not really on the subject but that was the report) Many are talking about doing theirs jointly with the County, especially the South County cities. They are discussing banding together for their effort and perhaps using the County knowledge. So far the County has no specialist in recycling. I will include my report with this one. Not part of the meeting but an underlying concern of all is the need for new sites. This was expressed by Bill Coy, Bill Cattaneo, and Bill Gibbs recently. They say it takes so long to obtain a new site that the process must be started at once, (if not sooner) ! submitted by Marj . Mackey 7-10-89 To: City Councilmembers, City Xanager & Staff members: Report on SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT COMMISSION meeting 7-6-89 1. Cold Canyon Landfill has requested that they be allowed to be open reduced hours (this was an oral report but I believe the hours requested were from 8 AM to 3 PM weekdays some Saturday hours but closed on Sundays. John Scholtes made the report and said more discussion needed to be done before the request goes to the Supervisors. Charlie Catt- aneo said the reason for the reduction in hours is to allow the operators more time to move dirt over the dumped garbage each day. He said his workers would be working the normal hours but it is difficult to work with public dumping long hours. Board members expressed concern about Sunday closing and the shorter hours. More information later. 2. Clint Milne announced that a Solid Waste Management person has been hired: her name is Carmen Fojo; she has a degree as a civil engineer and an advanced degree as an enviromnment- al engineer from Stanford. She has extensive experience in hazardous waste management, worked for POE, Emcon, County of Los Angeles and other impressive background. 3. Presentation on proposal of RALCOA (called a Material Recovery Program,rather than recycling). This company has offered to build a 2.8 million dollar plant at Cold Canyon Landfill. Charlie Cattaneo says there is not enough room for the project there so I am not sure what will happen. More later. 4. Each commission member gave a report on their recycling efforts So far Morro Bay is the only one who has had a hazardous waste collection day. (not really on the subject but that was the report) Many are talking about doing theirs jointly with the County, especially the South County cities. They are discussing banding together for their effort and perhaps using the County knowledge. So far the County has no specialist in recycling. I will include my report with this one. Not part of the meeting but an underlying concern of all is the need for new sites. This was expressed by Bill Coy, Bill Cattaneo, and Bill Gibbs recently. They say it takes so long to obtain a new site that the process must be started at once, (if not sooner) .f submitted by Marj . Mackey 7-10-89 7-6-89 F TO: PENNY RAPPA AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT COMMISSION FROM: Marjorie Mackey for City of Atascadero SUBJECT: Recycling efforts and plans for future Paper: Our public works dept. has been recycling their white paper and that from copying room for some time. Have raised enough money to buy two oaks trees. Recently Cindy (City Manager's secretary) asked her daughter's teacher for covers for boxes in each office for paper to recycle. As a class project each child made a cover for a box and these sit in all offices. Compost; After our disastrous snow in December we had an unbeliev- able amountof downed branches. With the help of Paso Robles Boys School, several city depts. and -the chipper borrowed from CDF tons of branches were chipped, making several massive piles of composted wood which is free for the taking. CDF has sold the chipper to private enterprise so we are considering other alternatives to provide a permanent solution to this problem. Committee: At a recent meeting we appointed a committee of people with experience (al.l volunteers) in recycling in other areas. . .Redondo Beach, Seattle etc. We have not had a meeting yet but will shortly. We had advertised through the paper, inviting anyone interested in Recycling to apply. The Council appointed fiveublie, one recycler, (Jim Patterson) ; one Industry rep. fBill Gibbs) ;one from Public Works and myself. We also have several outlets-centers; Bay Laurel Nursery, Coastal Recycling, Heilmann's, and Escuela del Rio. I have also talked to teachers of private schools and plan on making a presentation to them when school starts. I also want to talk to the public school curriculum people but have not done so yet. Of course 4e are all big on rummage sales which is a wonderful source of recycling! VI�I IbrechtTt" - - - --- _ - ------- -- - - -- • S U R V E Y S 7508 Morro Rd. Atascadero, CA 93422 805/466-9296 August 1, 1989 City of Atascadero Community Development Dept. P.O. Box 747 Atascadero, Ca. 93423 Subject: Tentative Parcel Map 3-89 Gentlemen, At their regular meeting of July 18, 1984 the Atascadero Planning Commission approved the tentative map above. Their approval included an additional condition (#15) to create a scenic easement in the rear of both new lots. This condition was not included in the original staff • report, but was imposed by the Commission at the public hearing and included with their approval . Please consider this letter as an appeal to Condition #15 of Tentative Parcel Map 3-89 for consideration by the Atascadero City Council . Thank you and please do not hesitate to call if you should have any questions. S'nc r(el'b k" Alan L. Volbrecht AV/ne cc: Richard Shannon • Surveying - Land Planning �� ���� �C/ �✓,���9 i�3-7z • CITY OF ATASCADERO Iter: B-1 STAFF REPORT FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: July 18, 1989 BY: PO Steven L. DeCamp, Senior Planner File No: TPM 03-89 SUBJECT: Request to divide one (1) parcel containing approximately 6.2 acres into two (2) residential lots of 3. 1 acres each. RECOrMENDATI ON: Staff recommends approval of Tentative Parcel Map 03-89 based on the Findings for Approval in Exhibit D and the Conditions of Approval in Exhibit E. SITUATION AND FACTS: 1 . Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Larry Von Dollen 2. Representative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Volbrecht Surveys • 3. Project Address. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4200 Obispo Rd. 4. General Plan Designation. . . . .Suburban Single Family 5. Zoning District. . . . . . . . . . . . . .RS (Residential Suburban) 6. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2 acres 7 . Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Vacant 8 . Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Negative Declaration posted July 3, 1989 ANALYSIS: The application before the Commission proposes the subdivision of one (1) parcel containing approximately 6.20 acres into two (2) lots containing 3. 10 acres each. The General Plan designates this property for "Suburban Single Family" development. The property is located within the RS zoning district, which is consistent with its General Plan designation. This district has a minimum lot size that ranges between 2 .5 and 10. 0 acres depending on the "score" of the performance factors specified in • the Zoning Ordinance. For the area in which this proposal is located, the lot size 0 0 performance factors and the related scores are: • FACTOR SCORE Distance from Center of Town 0.40 Septic Suitability 0 .50 Average Slope 1 . 00 Access Condition 0 .40 Neighborhood Character 0 .55 Minimum Lot Size 2 . 85 acres The lots proposed by this application are, therefore, larger than the minimum lot size allowed by the Zoning Ordinance for this neighborhood. The property proposed for subdivision is vacant . Other properties in the surrounding area are either vacant or developed for relatively large-lot residential use. The average lot size of parcels within 1500 feet of this site is 2 .74 acres. This is slightly smaller than the lots proposed for this application. Obispo Road is a paper road and is not, at present, passable in the vicinity of the subject property. The property located to the north, which was subdivided in 1987 (TPM 44-87 - Johnson) , was required to construct the portion of Obispo Rd. that is adjacent to that property. The Public Works Department has notified the property owner that it is now necessary to proceed with the improvement of the road. This improvement will bring Obispo Road to a paved, private road standard, at the northern boundary of the Von Dollen property. The Von Dollen map will likewise be conditioned to improve Obispo Road across the entire frontage of that property. In addition, the Fire Department has requested that emergency access be provided from the new terminus of Obispo Road at the southern property line of the Von Dollen parcel to the existing dirt portion of Obispo Road north of Del Rio. This application will, therefore, be required to provide an emergency access, 16 feet wide with an all weather surface, within the Obispo Road ROW extending south to the existing dirt road. Emergency access will thus be provided for the full length of Obispo Road between Traffic Way and Del Rio. It is anticipated that the remaining portions of Obispo Road will be improved to City standards in the future either by adjoining property owners or by an Assessment District. At that time, the road will be brought into the City maintained road system. The design of the proposed subdivision will result in the creation of lots with depth to width ratios in excess of 3: 1 . Section 11-8.206 of the City' s Subdivision Ordinance provides • 2 0 • • that: "Lots with a ratio of depth to width greater than three shall not be permitted unless there is adequate assurance that deep lot subdivision will not occur or that deep lot subdivision and subsequent development will be accomplished without detriment to adjacent properties. " In order to authorize an exemption to this standard, the City Council must, upon recommendation from the Planning Commission, make the following four findings : 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. Although the proposed lots do not conform to the depth to width requirements, staff does not believe that future deep lot subdivisions will be encouraged, and that the findings above can be made in this case. In general terms, it must be remembered that the proposed lots are close to the minimum lot size and that further division could not occur without a change in the Zone District or standards. In addition, the topography of the site lends itself to the creation of building sites toward the front of the site and not the rear. The only alternative design available to the applicant would turn the proposed lot line perpendicular to its current location. Such a design would avoid the 3: 1 problem but would in itself create a deep lot subdivision. As noted above, the topography of the site is not conducive to that lot configuration. Required grading to access the rear lot would also be considerably more extensive under this alternative. The front, or easterly, portion of the site offers good locations for home sites. The slopes in some areas do exceed 20%, thus 3 i r necessitating the need for future Precise Plans for driveway and • house site grading. The Precise Plan process, however, will allow staff an opportunity to insure that grading is minimized and that tree protection and preservation policies are followed. the slopes in the areas shown for development should not create problems for the installation of septic systems. CONCLUSIONS: The design of the proposed subdivision is in general conformance with the City' s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The required findings can be made to allow for an exemption from the lot width to depth ratio specified in the City' s Subdivision Ordinance. No detrimental affects should occur as a result of the exemption. The proposed home sites can be developed in conformance with existing and anticipated neighborhood character and without adverse impact on surrounding parcels. Finally, the size and character of the proposed lots is consistent with the other lots in the vicinity of the subdivision. SLD/ ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - General Plan Map Exhibit B - Zoning Map Exhibit C - Tentative Parcel Map Exhibit D - Findings for Approval Exhibit E - Conditions of Approval 4 • EXHIBIT A_ CITY OF ATASCADERO TPM 03 a COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT `A �'Deu' General "'man Map DEPARTMENT �---- � PUBLI \ Ira 455 vw TPA IC AY' \ TRAFFIC c � Y JI•FAMIL. a f 4EAt r { E / CPLI A s % o M R / E MM IAL L Pq K f —.� _o �oo� • ►Iw • I IZ1 I / 11 \XA // \ r� T'—to f7� V. .ems. I �n l� rA • EXH_-;=T C CITY OF ATASCADERO TPM 03-89 . � COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tentative Parcel Map • 01 J DEPARTMENT �v.►�t�. !lsfr .s td \ \� qZ m 1� y ,`\\ \ O\p \ \ fill'.` J • ,r- - �r EXHIBIT D - Findings for Approval • Tentative Parcel Map 03-89 4200 Obispo Rd. (Von Dollen) July 18, 1989 ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS: The proposed project will not have a significant impact on the environment. The Negative Declaration prepared for the project is adequate. MAP FINDINGS: 1 . The proposed map is consistent with the applicable General or Specific Plan. 2 . The design and/or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the applicable General or Specific Plan. 3. The site is physically suitable for the proposed type of development. 4 . The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. • 5. The design of the subdivision, and/or the proposed improvements, will not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish and wildlife or their habitat. 6. The design of the subdivision, and the type of improvements, will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision; or substantially equivalent alternate easements are provided. 7. The design of the subdivision and/or the type of proposed improvements will not cause serious public health problems. SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE FINDINGS: 1. Creation of lots with a ratio of depth to width greater than three is acceptable in this case because minimum lot size requirements preclude deep lot subdivisions. 2 . The property to be divided is of such size or shape, or is affected by such topographic conditions, that it is impossible, impractical or undesirable, in the particular case, to conform to the strict application of the • regulations codified in this title. . 3. The cost to the subdivider of strict or literal compliance with the regulations is not the sole reason for grantwng the modification. 4 . The modification will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, or be injurious to other properties in the vicinity. 5. Granting the modification is in accord with the intent and purposes of these regulations, and is consistent with the General Plan and with all applicable specific plans or other plans of the City. • 0 0 EXSIBIT E - Conditions of Approval • Tentative Parcel Map 03-89 4200 Obispo Rd. (Von Dollen) July 18, 1989 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1 . Water shall be obtained from the Atascadero Mutual Water Company. Water lines shall exist at the frontage of each parcel prior to recordation of the final map. 2. All existing and proposed utility, pipeline, open space, or other easements are to be shown on the final map. If there are building or other restrictions related to the easements, they shall be noted on the final map. 3. Road improvement plans for Obispo Road, 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. Said plans shall include, but are not limited to: a. The design shall meet all City development standards for a public road which shall include a 20 foot wide paved surface along the property frontage with 4 foot shoulders on each side. b. Plans shall include measures to preserve and protect any existing trees within the public right-of-way. C. Plans shall include an emergency vehicle access with a minimum width of 16 feet with an all weather surface extending from the southerly boundary of the subject property to a point on Obispo Road that is passable for emergency vehicles. Said point shall be established by the Atascadero Fire Department. 4 . Obtain an encroachment permit from the Atascadero Public Works Department and sign an agreement guaranteeing that the work will be done and the inspections paid for, prior to the start of publics works construction. Construction of the public road improvements required herein shall be completed prior to recording the final map. 5. The subdivider shall install all street signs, traffic delineation devices, warning and regulatory signs, guardrails, barricades, and other similar devices where required by the Director of Public Works. Signs shall be in conformance with the Department of Public Works standards and the current State of California uniform sign chart. • Installation of traffic devices shall be subject to review and modification after construction. 6. All relocation and/or alteration of existing utilities shall be the responsibility of the developer. 7. Drainage facilities in the public right-of-way shall be constructed to City of Atascadero standards. All work shall be completed or bonded for prior to the final inspection of road improvements. 8. Written certification by a registered Civil Engineer shall be provided attesting that all grading, drainage, and public improvement work has been completed and is in full compliance with the approved plans. 9. All public improvements shall be covered by a 100% Performance Bond until construction receives final approval and a 10% Maintenance Bond until 1 year after final approval. 10 . An offer of dedication to the City of Atascadero for the following right-of-way is required: Street Name: Obispo Road Limits: 20 feet from centerline 11 . Offers of dedication shall be completed and recorded prior to or simultaneous with the recordation of the final map. 12. A City standard fire hydrant shall be installed along the frontage of the subject property along Obispo Road. The exact location and specifications of the hydrant shall be as determined by the Fire Department at the time of preparation of road improvement plans . 13. A final map drawn in substantial conformance with the approved tentative map and in compliance with all conditions set forth herein shall be submitted for review and approval in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and the City' s Subdivision Ordinance prior to 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 . 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. �P' ANN I NG CO" " S 5 1 ON JUTES EXCEi ?TS - 7/ 18/89 i MINUTES ATASCADERO PLANNING COMMISSION Regular M ting Tuesday, Ju 18, 1989 7:30 p.m. Atascadero A inistration Building The regular meet ig of the Atascadero Planning Comm ' sion was called to order a 7 :30 p.m. by Chairperson Lochr ' ge followed by the Pledge of Alle ' ance. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners aage, Brasher, Lo z-Balbontin (7 : 33) , Highland, Luna, and Chairperson ochridge Absent: None Vacancy: One Staff Present: Steven DeCamp, S- for Planner; Doug Davidson, Associate Plan r; Karl Schoettler, Assistant Planner; and t Sh phard, Administrative Secretary I PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public mment. A. CONSENT CAL AR 1 . App oval of minutes of the regular Planing Commission m ting of July 5, 1989 NOT N: Made by Highland, seconded by Commissi er Luna and carried 5 :0 to approve the Consent lendar as presented. (7 :33 p.m. - Commissioner Lopez-Balbontin is present. B. HEARINGS, APPEARANCES, AND REPORTS 1. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 3-89 : Application filed by Larry Von Dollen (Volbrecht Surveys) to divide one parcel containing approximately 6 . 2 acres into two residential lots of 3 . 1 acres each. Subject site is located at 4200 Obispo Road. Steve Decamp presented the staff report on this two-way lot division request. Since the creation of the lots would have a depth to width ratio in excess of 3 : 1 , Mr. Decamp read the four findings necessary to make an exception to the standard. Staff is recommending approval subject to certain conditions. Commission questions and discussion followed. Commissioner Luna noted assurances need to be made that no further subdivisions occur with this property, and referenced a General Plan Amendment currently in review wherein 1. 5 acre zoning is being requested. Concern was expressed that this property not allow for future flag lot development based on the depth to width ratio. Commissioner Luna also stated it is difficult for the Commission to make a decision concerning this map without a specific plan as it pertains to tree removal, development standards, etc. Discussion ensued regarding the various levels of the review process; that a precise plan is an environmental analysis, and how it is used as a tool for proper site development; that precise plans may or may not be required for this property at the time of development. Discussion also centered around the cumulative effects of tree removals for Atascadero. In response to question from Commissioner Luna, Mr. DeCamp explained procedures for requiring an open space easement. Discussion followed. Linda Richardson with Volbreeht Surveys, representing the applicant, spoke in support of the application. with regard to condition ##3a, the applicant is proposing that the four foot shoulders be changed to two foot in order to eliminate some tree removal within the public right-of-way. Ms. Richardson asked for modification of ##3b to read: "Grading plans submitted should be in accordance with the Atascadero Tree Ordinance" . She then responded to questions from the Commission. In response to question, Mr. DeCamp explained that road standards are set by the Public works Department and noted that the final road improvement plans will determine where a 2 foot shoulder would be more appropriate in the interest of preserving trees, and explained that condition ##3b makes the necessary assurances for ##3a. Richard Shannon, co-owner of the property, stated he felt the application to be in conformance with the applicable regulations and that this lot split added benefits by widening the road, installing a fire hydrant, etc. He noted that he would prefer not having a scenic easement on the property, if possible. Discussion took place concerning the appropriateness of requiring an open space easement in an effort to preserve future open space for the City. Mr. Shannon asked that provision be made to allow construction of a barn at some future date within the scenic easement and that perhaps there could be something incorporated to restrict future residences at the rear of the property. Alan Volbrecht asked that if a barn were to be built in the future, wouldn' t this trigger a precise plan (grading permit) at which time the City would have an opportunity to review. Mr. Decamp responded. There was further discussion relative to road standards in conjunction with this lot split and adjacent splits where standards for a private road were incorporated (Johnson) . Commissioner Waage commented that it seems a scenic easement is not necessary as he did not feel there would be any additional lot splits for this property. Commissioner Luna referenced the General Plan pertaining to neighborhood character and inquired how staff determines this factor. Commissioner Highland stated he would rather see a 3 : 1 depth to width ratio lot than a flag lot and did not see any problem with this particular lot split. MOTION: Made by Commissioner Luna, seconded by Commissioner Brasher to approve Tentative Parcel Map 3-89 subject to the findings and conditions contained in the staff report with the addition of condition ##15 to read: 1115 . A scenic easement shall be established over that area of both new lots situated north of the bottom of the swale shown on Exhibit C. " The motion carried 6 :0 with Commissioners Highland and Waage voicing their feelings that the scenic easement is not needed in this case. Chairperson Lochridge declared a recess at 8 :35 p.m. in order to allow the Commissioners an opportunity to review some additional material for item B-2 . Meeting reconvened at 8 :48 p.m. 2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 20-88 : on i ed by SLO Moving and Stora e Harcourt, agen ow a "Veh ' Freight Terminal" to locate ii ial Service) ' zone. Suba is located at 8365 E1 i� z PLANNING ' SS!'-". MODIFIED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - 7/ 18/89 EXHIBIT E - Conditions of Approval Tentative Parcel Map 03-89 4200 Obispo Rd. (Von Dollen) July 18, 1989 [as revised by the Planning Commission) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1 . Water shall be obtained from the Atascadero Mutual water Company. Water lines shall exist at the frontage of each parcel =.rior to recordation of the final map. 2. All existing and proposed utility, pipeline, open space, or other easements are to be shown on the final map. If there are building or other restrictions related to the easements, they shall be noted on the final map. 3. Road improvement plans for Obispo Road, 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. Said plans shall include, but are not limited to: a. The design shall meet all City development standards for a public road which shall include a 20 foot wide paved surface along the property frontage with 4 foot shoulders on each side. b. Plans shall include measures to preserve and protect any existing trees within the public right-of-way. C. Plans shall include an emergency vehicle access with a minimum width of 16 feet with an all weather surface extending from the southerly boundary of the subject property to a point on Obispo Road that is passable for emergency vehicles. Said point shall be established by the Atascadero Fire Department. 4 . Obtain an encroachment permit from the Atascadero Public Works Department and sign an agreement guaranteeing that the work will be done and the inspections paid for, prior to the start of publics works construction. Construction of the public road improvements required herein shall be completed prior to recording the final map. 5. The subdivider shall install all street signs, traffic delineation devices, warning and regulatory signs, guardrails, barricades, and other similar devices where required by the Director of Public Works . Signs shall be in conformance with the Department of Public Works standards and the current State of California uniform sign chart . 7 Installation of traffic devices shall be subject to review and modification after construction. 6. All relocation and/or alteration of existing utilities shall be the responsibility of the developer. 7. Drainage facilities in the public right-of-way shall be constructed to City of Atascadero standards. All work shall be completed or bonded for prior to the final inspection of road improvements. S. written certification by a registered Civil Engineer shall be provided attesting that all grading, drainage, and public improvement work has been completed and is in full compliance with the approved plans. 9. All public improvements shall be covered by a 100% Performance Bond until construction receives final approval and a 10% Maintenance Bond until 1 year after final approval. 10. An offer of dedication to the City of Atascadero for the following right-of-way is required: Street Name: Obispo Road Limits: 20 feet from centerline 11. Offers of dedication shall be completed and recorded prior to or simultaneous with the recordation of the final map. 12 . A City standard fire hydrant shall be installed along the frontage of the subject property along Obispo Road. The exact location and specifications of the hydrant shall be as determined by the Fire Department at the time of preparation of road improvement plans. 13. A final map drawn in substantial conformance with the approved tentative map and in compliance with all conditions set forth herein shall be submitted for review and approval in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and the City's Subdivision Ordinance prior to 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. 8 0 0 C. A preliminary subdivision guarantee shall be submitted for review in conjunction with the processing of the final map. 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. 15. A scenic easement shall be established over that area of both new lots situated north of the bottom of the swale shown on Exhibit C. 9 0 • REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: �= Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 8/22/89 From: Henry Engen, Community Development Director }k,L SUBJECT: Consideration of extension of Urgency Ordinance No. 196 , which created a CRD Commercial Retail-Downtown Zoning District. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the attached interim Ordinance 197 , which extends the CRD Urgency Ordinance for up to 22 months and 15 days (4/5ths vote required) . • BACKGROUND: At the City Council ' s meeting of July 25, 1989 , Council adopted the attached Ordinance No. 196, which created a conditional use permit requirement for a number of uses in the downtown to allow time for preparation of and adoption of a distinct downtown element of the City' s General Plan. State statute provides that, once so adopted, such ordinances are in effect for forty-five days. Given an additional public hearing as has been scheduled for your August 22nd meeting, the ordinance can be extended for up to 22 months and fifteen days . ALTERNATIVE: A number of alternatives were outlined in the past staff reports . The "CUP alternative" appears the best compromise by subjecting possible deleterious uses to a use permit approval process, while not creating any nonconforming uses during the period of time that we are working on the General Plan Element. HE :ph Encls: Ordinance No. 196 Ordinance No. 197 - Extending Ordinance No. 196 • • 0 ORDINANCE NO. 197 AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO AMENDING TITLE 9 ZONING REGULATIONS BY EXTENDING ORDINANCE NO. 196 (CREATING A COMMERCIAL RETAIL-DOWNTOWN ZONING DISTRICT) FOR 22 MONTHS AND 15 DAYS (CITY OF ATASCADERO) WHEREAS, Section 65858 of the Government Code authorizes t?.- adoption by local legislative bodies of interim ordinances as v gency measures to protect the public safety, health and welfare; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted, on an urgency basis, interim ordinance No. 196 on July 25, 1989 creating a Commercial Retail-Downtown Zoning District, which ordinance is attached hereto and incorporated herein; and WHEREAS, notice was given pursuant to Section 65858 (b) of the Government Code for public hearing by the City Council on August 22, 1989; and WHEREAS, passage of ordinance No. 196 was effective for a period of forty-five days from its ' adoption, unless extended, following notice pursuant to Section 65090; and WHEREAS, the City has undertaken a program to develop a Master Plan for the downtown area for adoption as an element to the City' s General Plan which is presently under study; and WHEREAS, consideration of an urgency measure shall require a 4/5ths vote of the legislative body for adoption. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Atascadero does ordain as follows: Section 1 . Council findings . 1 . The proposed code amendment is in conformance with Section 65800 et seq of the California Government Code Concerning zoning regulations. 2 . The proposed zoning text amendment will not have a signifi- cant adverse effect on the environment. Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is not necessary. 3 . That further study is necessary to determine what legisla- tion, if any, is proper for the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. 4 . The proposed zoning text amendment designates a number of presently allowed uses to be uses which may be permitted subject to a conditional use permit to ensure consistency with the Central Business District policies of the General Plan and with the goals of the pending master plan for the downtown area. 5 . That there is a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, or welfare, and that the approval of additional building permits, plot plans, precise plans or use permits, inconsistent with the zoning text changes pro- vided for herein, would result in a threat to public health, safety, or welfare. Section 2 . Zoning Text Change . Changes to Sub-section 9-3 . 261 through 9-3 . 265 contained in Ordinance 196 is continued as part of the text of the Zoning Or- dinance as shown in the attached Exhibit "A" which is hereby made a part of this ordinance by reference. Section 3. Zoning Map Change . Map numbers 7 , 16 and 17 of the Official Zoning Maps of the City of Atascadero on file in the Community Development Depart- ment is hereby continued to be amended to reclassify portions of the Atascadero Colony as shown on the attached Exhibit "B" which is hereby made a part of this ordinance by reference. Section 4. This ordinance is adopted under Government Code Section 65858 and is in full force and effect for 22 months and 15 days. Section S . The City Council hereby declares that this is an urgency ordinance necessary to preserve the public peace, health and safety due to the facts set forth above. Section 6. This ordinance being an urgency ordinance for the immediate protection of the public safety, health and general welfare, con- taining a declaration of the facts constituting the urgency and passed by a four-fifths (4/5) vote of the Council shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. Section 7. The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published once within fifteen (15) days after its passage in the Atascadero News, a newspaper of general circulation, printed, published and circulated in the City in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code; shall certify the adopting and posting of t ,w_. ordinance, and shall cause this ordinance and this certificatioi. together with proof of posting to be entered into the Book of Ordinances of this City. On motion by , and seconded by the foregoing ordinance is hereby adopted in its entirety by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: DATE ADOPTED: CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA ROLLIN DEXTER, MAYOR ATTEST: BOYD C. SHARITZ, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: RAY WINDSOR, City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: JEFFREY G. JORGENSEN, City Attorney PREPARED BY: HENR ENGE Community D velopme,19 Director EXHIBIT "A" Ordinance No. 196 CR-D (Commercial Retail-Downtown) Zone (BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION AREA) 9-3 . 261 . Purpose: This zone is established to provide for a wide rangeof commercial uses to accommodate most of the retail and service needs of the residents of the City and surrounding areas . 9-3 . 262 . Allowable Uses : The following uses shall be allowed in the Commercial Retail Zone. The establishment of allowable uses shall be as provided by Section 9-2 . 107 (Plot Plans) and Section 9-2 . 108 (Precise Plans) : (a) Broadcast studios (b) Food and beverage retail sales (c) Furniture, home furnishings and equipment (d) General merchandise stores (e) Temporary or seasonal sales (See Section 9-6. 174) (f) Financial services (g) Health care services (h) Offices ( i) Temporary offices (See Section 9-6 .176) (j ) Personal services (k) Eating and drinking places (1) Membership organizations (m) Schools - business and vocational (See Section 9-6 . 125) (n) Social and service organizations (o) Hotels and motels (p) Bed and breakfast (q) Retirement hotel (r) Funeral services (s ) Libraries and museums (t) Temporary events ( See Section 9-6 . 177 ) 9-3 . 263 . Conditional Uses : The following uses may be allowed in the Commercial Retail Zone. The establishment of conditional uses shall be as provided by Section 9-2 . 109 (Conditional Use Permits ) : (a) Amusement services (b) Caretaker residence (See Section 9-6 . 104 ) (c) Service Station (See Section 9-6 . 164) (d) Public assembly and entertainment (e) Indoor recreation services ( f) Animal hospitals (See Section 9-6 . 110) (g) Auto repair and services (See Section 9-6 . 168) (h) Churches and related activities (See Section 9-6 . 121 ) ( i) Food and kindred products (See Section 9-6 . 128) (j ) Pipelines (k) Outdoor recreation services (See Section 9-6 . 123) ( 1) Sports assembly (m) Transit stations and terminals (n) Kennels (See Section 9-6 . 111) (o) Building materials and hardware (See Section 9-6 . 165 ) (p) Mail order and vending (q) Small scale manufacturing (r) Light repair services (s) Accessory storage (See Section 9-6 . 103) ( t) Horticultural specialties (See Section 9-6 . 116) (u) Auto, mobilehome, vehicle dealers and suppliers (See Section 9-6 . 163) (v) Vehicle and equipment storage (see Section 9-6 . 183) (w) Utility transmission facilities (x) Business support services, where all areas of use are located within a building (y) Collection stations (See Section 9-6 . 130) (z) Sales lots (See Section 9-6 . 139 ) (aa) Farm equipment and supplies (bb) Fuel and ice dealers (see Section 9-6 . 129 ) (cc) Skilled nursing facility (See Section 9-6 . 134 ) (dd) Schools (See Section 9-6 . 125) (ee) Utility service center 9-3 . 264. Lot Size: There shall be no minimum lot size in the Commercial Retail Zone. 9-3 . 265 . Site and Development Standards : Shall be as estab- lisheT-for tla CR Commercial Retail Zone. EXHIBIT "B" Ordinance No. 196 10 FROM CR(COMMERCIAL RETAIL) TO CR-D(COMMERCIAL RETAIL-DOWNTOWN) • _ 7�5/89 Council Agenda Item B-4 CUP Alternative ORDINANCE NO. 196 AN INTERIM ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO AMENDING TITLE 9 ZONING REGULATIONS BY ADDING A CR-D COMMERCIAL RETAIL-DOWNTOWN ZONE WHICH REQUIRES CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR CERTAIN CURRENTLY ALLOWABLE USES IN THE CR (COMMERCIAL RETAIL) ZONE WITHIN THE BIA (BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION) AREA (CITY COUNCIL INITIATED) WHEREAS, Section 65858 of the Government Code authorizes the adoption by local legislative bodies of interim ordinances as urgency measures to protect the public safety, health and welfare; and WHEREAS, said ordinances may be adopted as urgency measures prohibiting actions which may be in conflict with a contemplated zoning proposal which the legislative body, Planning Commission or Community Development Department is considering, or studying, or intends to study within a reasonable time; and WHEREAS, the City has undertaken a program to develop a master plan for the downtown area for adoption as an element to the City' s General Plan; and WHEREAS, the City' s Zoning Ordinance permits a wide variety of uses within. the downtown area which could be deleterious to the objective of a pedestrian-oriented downtown; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered this matter on June 20, 1989 and recommends adoption of an urgency ordinance by the Council following public hearing; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on their recom- mendation on July 11, 1989 and continued the hearing to July 25, 1989 with direction to staff for revised ordinance language; and WHEREAS, such urgency measures shall require a four-fifths vote of the legislative body for adoption. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Atascadero does ordain as follows: Section 1. Council findings . 1 . The proposed code amendment is in conformance with Section 65800 et seq of the California Government Code conderning zoning regulations . 2 . The proposed zoning text amendment will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is not necessary. 0 Ordinance No. 196-89 Page .2 of 3 3 . That further study is necessary to determine what legislation; if any, is proper for the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. 4 . The proposed zoning text amendment designates a number of presently allowed uses to be uses which may be permitted subject to a conditional use permit to ensure consistency with the Central Business District policies of the General Plan and with the goals of the pending master plan for the downtown area. 5. That there is a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, or welfare, and that the approval of additional building permits, plot plans, precise plans or use permits, inconsistent with the zoning text changes provided for herein, would result in a threat to public health, safety, or welfare. Section 2 . Zoning Text Change_ Section 9-3. 261 is hereby added to the text of the Zoning Ordinance as shown in the attached Exhibit "A" , which is hereby made a part of this ordinance by reference. Section 3. Zoning Map Change . Map numbers 7, 16 and 17 of the Official Zoning Maps of the City of Atascadero on file in the City Community Development Department is hereby amended to reclassify portions of the Atascadero Colony as shown on the attached Exhibit "B" which is hereby made a part of- this ordinance by reference. Section 4. This ordinance is adopted under Government Code Section 65858 and is in full force and effect for forty-five (45) days. Section 5 . The City Council hereby declares that this is an urgency ordinance necessary to preserve the public peace, health and safety due to the facts set forth above. Section 6. This ordinance being an urgency ordinance for the immediate le protection of the public safety, health and general welfare, containing a declaration of the facts constituting the urgency and passed by a four-fifths (4/5) vote of the Council shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. • i Ordinance No. 196-89 Page 3 of 3 Section 7. Publication. The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published once within fifteen (15) days after its passage in the Atascadero News, a newspaper of general circulation, printed, pub!-,;zhed and circulated in the City in accordance with Section 3697 -f the Government Code; shall certify the adopting and posti= f this ordinance, and shall carpe this ordinance and this ce: ' ication together with proof of posting to be entered into the Book of Ordinances of this City. On motion by Councilperson Mackey and seconded by Coucilperson Lilley , the foregoing ordinance is hereby adopted in its entirety by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Mackey, Lilley, Shiers, Borgeson and Mayo- xter NOES: None ABSENT: None DATE ADOPTED: /-25-89 - CIT A SCAD RO, CALIFORNIA LIN DEXTER, MAYOR ATTEST: BOYB C. SHARITZ, CiFY Cleric AP OVED AS TO r-ONTENT: Z bo'� RAY WTYDSOR1 City Manager APPROVED AS TO,� FORM: 6, - //'ry-( JEFFREY G. JORGENSEN, City Attorney PRE ARED BY: HENRY ENG N, Community Development Director EXHIBIT °A° Ordinance No. 196-89 CAPS - Language added to CR text CR-D (Commercial Retail-DOWNTOWN) Zone (BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION AREA) 9-3. 261. Purpose: This zone is established to provide for a wide range oT commercial uses to accommodate most of the retail . and service needs of the resigents of the City and surrounding areas. 9-3. 262 . Allowable Uses: The following uses shall be allowed in the Commercial Ret-a-1--Zone. The establishment of allowable uses shall -be as provided by Section 9-2 .107 (Plot Plans) and Section 9-2. 108 (Precise Plans) : (a) Broadcast studios • (b) Food and beverage retail sales (c) Furniture, home furnishings and equipment (d) General merchandise stores (e) Temporary or seasonal sales (See Section 9-6. 174) (f) Financial services (g) Health care services (h) Offices (i) Temporary offices (See Section 9-6 . 176) (j ) Personal services (k) Eating and drinking places (1) Membership organizations (m) Schools - business and vocational (See Section 9-6.125) (n) Social and service organizations (o) Hotels and motels (p) Bed and breakfast (q) Retirement hotel (r) Funeral services (s) Libraries and museums (t) Temporary events (See Section 9-6 . 177) 9-3 . 263 . Conditional Uses : The following uses may be allowed in ti�Commercial Retail Zone. The establishment of conditional uses shall be as provided by Section 9-2 . 109 (Conditional Use Permits) : (a) Amusement services (b) Caretaker residence (See Section 9-6 . 104 ) (c) Service Station (See Section 9-6 . 164 ) (d) Public assembly and entertainment (e) Ind{ -',r recreation services (f) Animal hospitals (See Section 9-6 . 110) (g) Auto repair and services (See Section 9-6 . 168) (h) Churches and related activities (See Section 9-6 . 121) ( i) Food and kindred products (See Section 9-6 . 128) (j ) Pipelines (k) Outdoor recreation services (See Section 9-6 . 123) (1) Sports assembly (m) Transit stations and terminals (n) Kennels (See Section 9-6 . 111) (o) Building materials and hardware (See Section 9-6 . 165) (p) Mail order and vending (q) Small scale manufacturing (r) Light repair services (s) Accessory storage (See Section 9-6 . 103) (t) Horticultural specialties (See Section 9-6 . 116 ) (u) Auto, mobilehome, vehicle dealers and suppliers (See Section 9-6 . 163) (v) Vehicle and equipment storage (see Section 9-6 . 183) (w) Utility transmission facilities (x) Business support services, where all areas of use are located within a building (y) Collection stations (See Section 9-6.130) (2) Sales lots (See Section 9-6 . 139) (aa) Farm equipment and supplies (bb) Fuel and ice dealers (see Section 9-6 . 129) (cc) Skilled nursing facility (See Section 9-6 .134 ) (dd) Schools (See Section 9-6 . 125) (ee) Utility service center 9-3 . 264. Lot Size: There shall be no minimum lot size in the Commercial Retail Zone. 9-3 . 265 . SITE AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS : SHALL BE AS ESTABLISHED FOR THE CR COMMERCIAL RETAIL ZONE. EXHIBIT "B" Ordinance No. 196 -89 ~gra E. 1 a Li FROM r r FROM CR(COMMERCIAL RETAIL) TO CR-D(COMMERCIAL RETAIL-DOWNTOWN) 0MEETiIy�, , . AENDAf DATEMI MEMORANDUM . City of Atascadero" August 8, 1989 TO: Ray Windsor, City Manager FROM: Jeffrey G. Jorgensen, City Attorney SUBJECT: BIA Parking Lot Enclosed for your information and review are the revised final documents for the BIA parking lot, including the following: 1) Lease with Option to Purchase (City-Stinchfield) 2) Assignment and Assumption of Lease with Option to Purchase (City-BIA) 3) Agreement Quitclaiming Real Property, Releasing Easement, and Granting Easement (City-Smith) These documents have been distributed to the various parties r review and execution with the understanding that no final agreer, will be entered into until reviewed and approved by the C_� :y Council at a public meeting. Once the executed documents have been • returned to me, we can schedule an agenda item before the City Council. At this point, I am hoping to place it on the August 22, 1989 agenda. If you or any other affected department head have questions, comments, or proposed changes, please let me know immediately. The various documents reflect the original memorandum of understanding as refined through negotiations over the past several months. I would hope that no significant changes would be required at this point. Finally, I would note that the lending commitment from Santa Lucia National Bank has been extended for a period of 18 months from August 3, 1989 at my request. Mr. Cherry, president of Santa Lucia, was most helpful in this regard, and the additional time may be helpful to complete the project. If you have further questions or comments concerning this matter, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincere y, RE JORGENSEN City Attorney • JGJ: fr A:MMATA292 Enclosures cc: City Council Community Development Director Public Works Director Administrative Services Director LEASE WITH OPTION TO PURCHASE THIS LEASE is made this 1st day of August, 1989, between STINCHFIELD FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. , a California corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Landlord"') , whose address is 7350 El Camino Real, P.O. Box 989, Atascadero, California 93423, and the CITY OF ATASCADERO, a municipal corporation of 'the state of California (hereinafter referred to as "'Tenant"') , whose address is 6500 Palma Avenue, Atascadero California 93422, who agree as follows: This lease is made with reference to the following facts and objectives: A. Landlord is the owner of the premises described in • Exhibit OAff attached hereto and incorporated herein by , reference, which consist generally of two unimproved parcels of approximately 2,250 square feet each. B. Tenant is willing to lease the premises from Landlord pursuant to the provisions stated in this lease. C. Tenant wishes to lease the premises for purposes of . constructing and operating a public parking lot. D. Tenant has examined the premises and is fully informed of their condition. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby agreed by and between the parties as follows: 1 1. Premises. Landlord leases to Tenant and Tenant leases from Landlord the real property located in the City of Atascadero, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, described in Exhibit "A". 2. Ingress and Egress. Tenant shall have full and unimpaired access to the premises at all times. 3 . Tem. The term of this lease shall be for a period of three (3) years, and shall commence September 1, 1989 and shall expire August 31, 1992 . 4. Rent. Tenant shall pay to Landlord as minimum monthly rent, without deduction, setoff, prior notice, or demand, the sum of Four Hundred Dollars ($400. 00) , which sum is subject to possible adjustment as provided in Paragraph 6, per month, in advance, on the first day of each month, commencing on the date the term commences, and continuing during the term. Minimum monthly rent for the first month or portion of it shall be paid on the day the term commences. Minimum monthly rent for any partial month shall be prorated at the rate of 1/30th of the minimum monthly rent per day. All rents shall be paid to Landlord at the address to which notices to Landlord are given. 5. Negation of Partnership. Landlord shall not become or be deemed a partner or a joint venturer with Tenant by reason of the provisions of this lease. 6. Real Property Taxes. Tenant shall pay all increases in real property taxes, whether the increases result from 2 increased rate and/or valuation levied and assessed against the premises, over and above those real property taxes levied and assessed against the premises for the base year, which is 1988-89. Each year Landlord shall notify Tenant of the real property taxes, and together with such notice shall furnish Tenant with a copy of the tax bill, including the tax bill for the base year. Tenant shall reimburse Landlord for the increase in the real property taxes semi-annually, not later than ten (10) days before the taxing authority's delinquency date or ten (10) days after receipt of the tax bill, whichever is later. 7. Use. Tenant shall use the premises for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a parking lot, open to the public on a nonexclusive basis, and for no other use without Landlord's consent. Tenant shall have the right to make all improvements deemed by Tenant to be necessary to grade, level, prepare, pave, stripe, landscape, and any other activities incident thereto, the premises for public parking on a nonexclusive basis for the benefit of the downtown area. 8. Maintenance. Tenant, at its cost, shall maintain, in good condition, all portions of the premises, including, without limitation, all Tenant's personal property, and any improvements made by Tenant to the premises. 9. Mechanics' Liens. Tenant shall pay all costs for construction done by it or caused to be done by it on the 3 0 • premises as permitted by this lease. Tenant shall keel;} the premises free and clear of all mechanics' liens resulting from construction done by or for Tenant. 10. Exculpation of Landlord. Landlord shall not be liable to Tenant for any damage to Tenant or Tenant's property from any cause. Tenant waives all claims against Landlord for damage to person or property arising for any reason, except that Landlord shall be liable to Tenant for damage to Tenant resulting from the acts or omissions of Landlord or its authorized representatives. 11. Indemnity. Tenant shall hold Landlord harmless from all damages arising out of any damage to any person or property occurring in, on, or about the premises, except that Landlord shall be liable to Tenant for damage resulting from the acts or omissions of Landlord or its authorized representatives. Landlord shall hold Tenant harmless from all damages arising out of any such damage. A party's obligation under this paragraph to indemnify and hold the other party harmless shall be limited to the sum that exceeds the amount of insurance proceeds, if any, received by the party being indemnified. 12. Public Liability and Property Damage Insurance. Tenant, at its cost, shall maintain public liability and property damage insurance with a single combined liability limit of $1, 000, 000. 00, and property damage limits of not less than $100, 000. 00, insuring against all liability of Tenant and 4 its authorized representatives arising out of and in connection with Tenant's use or occupancy of the premises. All public liability insurance, and property damage insurance, shall insure performance by Tenant of the indemnity provisions of Paragraph 11. 13. Assignment. Tenant shall not voluntarily assign or encumber its interest in this lease or in the premises, or sublease all or any part of the premises, or allow any other person or entity (except Tenant's authorized representatives) to occupy or use all or any part of the premises, without first obtaining Landlord's consent. Any assignment, encumbrance, or sublease without Landlord's consent shall be voidable and, at Landlord's election, shall constitute a default. No consent to any assignment, encumbrance, or sublease shall constitute a further waiver of the provisions of this paragraph. Notwithstanding any of the above provisions, Tenant shall have the right, without Landlord's consent, to assign this lease and the option provisions of Paragraph 18 to the Atascadero Business Improvement Association (MBIA") , or a public agency or nonprofit organization, for the purpose of providing public parking on a nonexclusive basis, within a period of three (3) years from the commencement of this agreement. 14. Landlord's Entry on Premises. Landlord and its authorized representatives shall have the right to enter the 5 premises at all reasonable times for any of the fc owing purposes: a. To determine whether the premises are in good condition and whether Tenant is complying with its obligations under this lease. b. To do any necessary maintenance and to make any restoration to the premises that Landlord has the r::.tht or obligation to perform. Landlord shall conduct its activities on the premises as allowed in this paragraph in a manner that will cause the least possible inconvenience, annoyance, or disturbance to Tenant. 15. Landlord's Title to Premises. Landlord represents to Tenant that Landlord has full authority to enter into this lease and that Landlord has fee title to the premises. 16. Notice. Any notice, demand, request, consent, approval, or communication that either party desires or is required to give to the other party or any other person shall be in writing and either served personally or sent by prepaid, first-class mail. Any notice, demand, request, consent, approval, or communication that either party desires or is required to give to the other party shall be addressed to the other party at the address set forth in the introductory paragraph of this lease. Either party may change its address by notifying the other party of the change of address. 6 17. Recordation. This lease shall not be recorded, except that if either party requests the other party to do so, the parties shall execute a memorandum of lease in recordable form setting forth the relevant provisions of this lease. 18. Grant of Option to Tenant. Landlord grants to Tenant the option to purchase the premises in accordance with the provisions of this lease, as long as Tenant is not in default at the time Tenant exercises the option. 19. Option. Tenant shall have the right to exercise the option to purchase at any time during the term of this lease. 20. Method of Exercising Option. Tenant shall exercise the option by giving notice ("option notice") to Landlord within the option period as set forth in Paragraph 19. 21. Purchase Price. The purchase price of the premises shall be Forty Thousand Dollars ($40,000.00) , payable in accordance with Paragraph 22. 22. Method of Payment. Tenant shall pay to Landlord a cash down payment, in lawful money of the United States, Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00) upon exercise of the option. The remainder of the purchase price shall be payable to Landlord by Tenant at close of escrow (the date the grant deed is recorded as provided in Paragraph 24. 23 . Title to Premises. Landlord shall deliver to Tenant an executed grant deed in recordable form conveying the premises. Title to the premises shall be conveyed by Landlord to Tenant free and clear of all liens, encumbrances, 7 covenants, conditions, restrictions, easements and rights-of- way of record, leases or other tenancy agreements, and any other matters of record, except current taxes, a lien not yet delinquent, those portions of current assessments not yet due and payable, anything of record or not of record that in an, way affects title to the premises resulting from the acts or omissions of Tenant, and those items in Exhibit "B". 24 . Escrow. The sale shall be consummated through an escrow with Ticor Title Insurance Company, San Luis Obispo, California ("Escrowholder") , to be opened within ten (10) days after the option notice has been given to Landlord. Escrow shall be deemed to be opened under this paragraph on the date the escrow number is obtained. The parties shall execute all documents required by Escrowholder as long as they are consistent with the provisions of this lease. Escrow shall close within thirty (30) days after the option notice has been given to Landlord. Escrow shall be deemed to be closed pursuant to this paragraph on the date the grant deed is recorded. 25. Title Insurance. At the close of escrow, Escrowholder must be prepared to issue a CLTA standard coverage policy of title insurance in the amount of the purchase price insuring title to the premises vested in Tenant subject only to the matters set forth in Paragraph 23 . 26. Closing Costs. Transfer taxes and recording fees on the deed shall be paid equally between the parties. The cost 8 of the title policy referred to in Paragraph 25 shall be paid by Landlord-Seller. Charges of escrow and all other closing costs shall be paid equally between the parties. 27. Nonassignability of Option. Tenant shall not assign its interest, or any portion of its interest, in the option granted by Paragraph 18, except as provided in Paragraph 13 , without Landlord's consent. 28. Close of Escrow; Termination. On close of escrow, this lease shall terminate, and the parties shall be released from all liabilities and obligations under this lease. 29. Attorneys' Fees. If either party commences an action against the other party arising out of or in connection with this lease, the prevailing party shall be entitled to have and recover from the losing party reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit. 30. Holding Over. Any holding over of tenancy by Tenant beyond the term of this lease, with the express or implied consent of Landlord, shall be a month-to-month tenancy only, unless otherwise specifically agreed upon in writing by Landlord and Tenant. 31. Default. Tenant agrees (i) that should default be made in the payment of any rents herein reserved, or (ii) should Tenant fail to perform or observe any other covenant, condition or agreement herein contained (other than nonpayment of rent) and such default continues for a period of ten (10) days after written notice thereof, or (iii) should the leased 9 0 • premises be vacated or abandoned, Landlord may, at its option, (a) remain out of possession of the leased premises and continue to enforce all of the terms and conditions of this lease, which shall include the right to recover from Tenant each installment of rent as it becomes due, or (b) enter upon and repossess the leased premises and terminate this lease and all rights of Tenant under it and to the leased premises. Tenant agrees that re-entry by Landlord shall not release Tenant from any liability which would otherwise attach or accrue under this lease or for any loss, damage or liability which Landlord may suffer prior to termination of this lease. In the event of any default as aforesaid, Landlord may pursue any of the foregoing remedies or seek any other remedy or enforce any right to which Landlord may by law be entitled. 32 . Termination by Tenant. Tenant may terminate this agreement at any time, without cause, upon the giving of sixty (60) days advance written notice to Landlord. 33 . Time of Essence. Time is of the essence of each provision of this lease. 34. Consent of Parties. Whenever consent or approval of either party is required, that party shall not unreasonably withhold such consent or approval. 35. Successors. This lease shall be binding on and inure to the benefit of the parties and their successors, assigns, and personal representatives. 10 36. Integrated Agreement: Modification. This lease contains all the agreements of the parties and cannot be amended or modified except by a written agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this lease in duplicate the day and year first above written. LANDLORD: STINCHFIELD FINANCIAL SERVICES,, ,INC. ,.. a California cprporati By. J1kCX STINCHFIELb TENANT: CITY OF ATASCADERO, a municipal corporation By BONITA BORGESON, Mayor ATTEST: BOYD C. SHARITZ, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: JEFFREY G. JORGENSEN, City Attorney JGJ:fr/8/3/89 C:LSATA695 11 Exhibit "A" Property Description Lots 23 and 24 in Block MF Atascadero, in the City of Atascadero, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, according to Amendment 'IW" to map of Atascadero, filed for record August 7, 1929 in Book 4, Page 67D of Maps. Said land is also shown on Licensed Survey filed for record July 12, 1982 in Book 43, Page 26 of Record of Surveys. 12 Exhibit "B" Easements, Rights, Rights-of-Way, Covenants, Conditions and Reservations of Record 1. Such rights, rights-of-way, and easements as were granted to Atascadero Mutual Water Company by deed recorded in Book 113, at Page 56 of Deeds. 2. Rights, rights-of-way, easements, conditions, restric- tions, covenants, and reservations imposed by deeds for other lots in said tract as part of a general plan for the improvement thereof, one of which was: Recorded: November 13, 1925 in Book 7, Page 286 of Official Records. Executed by: The Atascadero Estates, Inc. , a corporation. Which provide that a violation thereof shall not defeat or render invalid the lien of any mortgage or deed of trust made in good faith and for value. Excluding and omitting, however, any such covenant or restriction based on race, color, religion, or natural origin (if any) contained in the instrument above referred to. 13 ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION OF LEASE WITH OPTION TO PURCHASE THIS AGREEMENT is made this 1st day of August, 1989, between the CITY OF ATASCADERO, a municipal corporation of the State of California (hereinafter referred to as "City") , whose address is 6500 Palma Avenue, Atascadero, California 93422, and the BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION, an unincorporated California nonprofit association (hereinafter referred to as "BIA") , whose address is P.O. Box 1607j , Atascadero, California 93423, who agree as follows: This Agreement is made with reference to the following . facts and objectives: A. City has entered into a lease agreement (with option to purchase) (hereinafter referred to as the "Lease") dated August 1, 1989, with Stinchfield Financial Services, Inc. for two unimproved parcels of land in the City of Atascadero, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, more particularly described as follows: Lots 23 and 24 in Block MF Atascadero, in the City of Atascadero, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, according to Amendment "W" to map of Atascadero, filed for record August 7, 1929 in Book 4, Page 67D of Maps. Said land is also shown on Licensed Survey filed for record July 12, 1982 in Book 43, Page 26 of Record of Surveys. 1 for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a parking lot which shall be open to the public on a nonexclusive basis for the benefit of the downtown area of Atascadero. A copy of said Lease has been made available by City, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged by BIA. B. Consistent with the above-referenced Lease, City intends to improve Lots 23 and 24 as a parking facility in a manner deemed appropriate by City, to include, at the discretion of City, any immediately adjacent publicly-owned property. C. The Lease provides for an option to purchase Lots 23 and 24 by City, which lease and option may be assigned by City to BIA,• and BIA desires to assume said lease and option to purchase Lots 23 and 24 for use for public parking, subject to certain terms and conditions. D. BIA has obtained a lending commitment from Santa Lucia National Bank to facilitate the purchase of Lots 23 and 24 by BIA. A copy of said lending commitment is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby agreed by and between the parties as follows: 1. Within the period of the lending commitment set forth in Exhibit "A" of this Agreement, City shall improve Lots 23 and 24 as a parking facility in a manner deemed appropriate by City, to include, at the discretion of City, any immediately adjacent publicly-owned property, for use as a 2 parking lot, open to the public on a nonexclusive basis, for the benefit of the downtown area of the City of Atascadero. 2. Upon completion of the above-referenced parking facility by City within the period of the lending commitment set forth in Exhibit "A" of this Agreement, City shall transfer and assign, and BIA shall assume, all of City's right, title, and interest as tenant under the Lease. Further, BIA shall, upon written demand from City, immediately execute the option to purchase contained in said Lease pursuant to the terms thereof, and subject to the following conditions: (a)• The maximum obligation of BIA under the purchase option shall be Thirty Thousand Dollars ($30,000.00) , • representing the loan commitment from Santa Lucia National Bank as specified in Exhibit "A". Upon written demand from City, as specified above, BIA shall immediately take any and all steps necessary to consummate said loan so that escrow may close in the manner specified in the Lease. In addition, BIA shall pay all closing costs as specified in Paragraph 26 of the Lease, any transaction costs required by Santa Lucia National Bank, and any other costs, expenses, charges, or fees of any kind whatsoever associated with the sale and transfer of Lots 23 and 24, including, but not limited to, title insurance, recording fees, and taxes. (b) The maximum obligation of City under the purchase option shall be Ten Thousand Dollars ($10, 000. 00) , of 3 i 0 which City shall pay the sum of Five Thousand Dollars ($5, 000.00) as specified in Paragraph 22 of the Lease upon exercise of the option to purchase, as a down payment, and an additional Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000. 00) , being the balance of the purchase price, at close of escrow. (c) Upon close of escrow, and at all times thereafter, BIA shall operate and maintain Lots 23 and 24, at its sole cost and expense, as a parking lot, open to the public on a nonexclusive basis for the benefit of the downtown area of the City of Atascadero. (d) In the event a parking authority or agency, or any other public, quasi-public, or nonprofit entity is created for the purpose of construction, operation, and/or maintenance of parking facilities in the downtown area of Atascadero, or • in the event BIA shall cease to exist or operate for whatever reason, BIA, and its successors, shall cooperate with City and take any and all steps necessary to transfer its interest in the parking lot which is the subject of this Agreement to said authority, agency, or entity without cost and in consideration of the assumption of operation, maintenance, and taxes by said authority, 'agency, or entity. 3. Negation of Partnership. City shall not become or be deemed a partner or a joint venturer with BIA by reason of the provisions of this Agreement. 4. Notice. Any notice, demand, request, consent, approval, or communication that either party desires or is 4 0 0 . required to give to the other party or any other person shall be in writing and either served personally or sent by prepaid, first-class mail. Any notice, demand, request, consent, approval, or communication that either party desires or is required to give to the other party shall be addressed to the other party at the address set forth in the introductory paragraph of this Agreement. Either party may change its address by notifying the other party of the change of address. 5. Time of Essence. Time is of the essence of each provision of this Agreement. 6. Consent of Parties. Whenever consent or approval of either party , is required, that party shall not unreasonably withhold such consent or approval. • 7. Successors. This Agreement shall be binding on and inure to the benefit of the parties and their successors, assigns, and personal representatives. 8. Integrated Agreement; Modification. This Agreement contains all the agreements of the parties and cannot be amended or modified except by a written agreement. • 5 i 0 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement in duplicate the day and year first above written. BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION, an unincorporated California nonprofit association By BY CITY OF ATASCADERO, a municipal corporation By ROLLIN DEXTER, Mayor ATTEST: BOYD C. SHARITZ, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: JEFFREY G. JORGENSEN, City Attorney JGJ:fr/8/8/89 C:LSATA701 6 CONSENT OF LANDLORD As landlord to that certain Lease With Option to Purchase dated August 1, 1989 (the OLease") , between Stinchfield Financial Services Inc. and the City of Atascadero, I have reviewed the above agreement and hereby consent to the assignment and assumption of the lease to the Business Improvement Association pursuant to the terms contained herein. STINCHFIELD FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. , a California corporation By JACK STINCHFIELD 7 St43 SANTA LUCIA NATIONAL BANK August 3, 1989 City Council City of Atascadero 6500 Palma Ave. Atascadero, CA 93422 Dear Councilpersons: Santa Lucia National Bank would like to help the Atascadero B.I.A. in their efforts to obtain parking for the downtown. It is our understanding that the B.I.A. wants to purchase the lot behind Grisanti Hardware for downtown parking. Santa Lucia National Bank would be willing to finance the lot for the B.I.A. under the following terms and conditions: Terms Interest rate at Wall Street Prime minus 1%, floating, fully amor- tized over 15 years or Wall Street Prime, fixed for five years at prime, fully amortized over fifteen years. The bank would charge no points or fees but would collect for our out-of-p9cket title insurance, recording fees, etc. The maximum loan amount would be $30,000. Conditions Our lien must be in a first position. All parking lot improvements must be completed prior to our funding. In addition to above improvements at least $10,.000 cash equity must exist in the lot purchase. This offer to finance is good for eighteen months from August 3, 1989. Sincerely, Zanley R. Cherry President SRC:cf cc: File Exhibit "A" (805) 466-7087 • P.O. BOX 6047 • 7480 EL CAMINO REAL • ATASCADERO, CA 93423 AGREEMENT QUITCLAIMING REAL PROPERTY, RELEASING EASEMENT, AND GRANTING EASEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made this 1st day of August, 1989, between DAVID K. SMITH and CHARLOTTE W. SMITH, husband and wife (hereinafter referred to as "Smith") , whose address is 5801 Traffic Way, P.O. Drawer B, Atascadero, California 93423, and the CITY OF ATASCADERO, a municipal corporation of the State of California (hereinafter referred to as "City") , whose address is 6500 Palma Avenue, Atascadero, California 93422. This agreement is made with reference to the following facts and objectives: A. City has entered into a lease agreement (with option to purchase) dated August 1, 1989, with Stinchfield Financial Services, Inc. , for two unimproved parcels of land in the City of Atascadero, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, more particularly described as follows: Lots 23 and 24 in Block MF Atascadero, in the City of Atascadero, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, according to Amendment "W" to map of Atascadero, filed for record August 7, 1929 in Book 4, Page 67D of Maps. Said land is also shown on Licensed Survey filed for record July 12, 1982 in Book 43, Page 26 of Record of Surveys. for the construction, operation, and maintenance, either by itself or its assignee, of a parking lot which shall be open to the public on a nonexclusive basis for the benefit of the 1 downtown area of Atascadero. A copy of said lease has been made available by City, receipt of which is hereby acknowl- edged by Smith. B. Smith is the owner of an easement for parking and incidental purposes over and upon the Southeasterly 39 feet of the above-referenced Lot 23, as more particularly described in Exhibit NAO attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Said easement is for the benefit of that certain real property in the City of Atascadero owned by Smith, as more particularly described in Exhibit ~B" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. C. City, or its assignee, desires to purchase, construct, operate, and maintain the above-referenced lot for public parking free and clear of the easement currently owned by Smith. D. Smith is willing to transfer, remise, release, and quitclaim any interest he may have in the above-referenced easement to City, or its assignee, provided City, or its assignee, grants to Smith a new easement on a nonexclusive basis. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby agreed by and between the parties as follows: 1. For valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, Smith hereby agrees to remise, release, and forever quitclaim any interest he may have in that certain property located in the City of Atascadero, County of San Luis 2 Obispo, State of California, described in Exhibit "An, being an easement for parking and incidental purposes, pursuant to a quitclaim-release of easement in the form as specified in Exhibit OCy attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, which shall be deposited into escrow and recorded by City, or its assignee, at such time as City, or its assignee, purchases the above-referenced Lot 23 pursuant to the lease agreement specified in Paragraph A above. 2. In consideration for the above-referenced quitclaim- release of easement, City, or its assignee, hereby covenants and agrees as follows: (a)• City, or its assignee, shall execute a new easement for parking purposes for four (4) parking spaces on a nonexclusive basis in the form as specified in Exhibit ND" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, which shall be recorded by City, or its assignee, concurrent with the recordation of the quitclaim deed described in Paragraph 1 above, at such time as City, or its assignee, purchases the above-referenced Lot 23. (b) In the event the parking lot contemplated by the lease agreement between City and Stinchfield Financial Services, Inc. , dated August 1, 1989, is not completed by City, or any permitted assignee, and said lease (together with the option to purchase contained therein) is terminated, for whatever reason, this agreement and any warranties contained herein shall cease and be of no further force and effect. 3 3. At all times during the term of the lease referred to in Paragraph A above, City, or its assignee, shall have the right to enter upon Lot 23, including the easement area owned by Smith, for the purpose of construction, operation, and maintenance of a parking lot open to the public on a nonexclusive basis. City, or its assignee, shall have the right to make all improvements deemed by City, or its assignee, to be necessary to grade, level, prepare, pave, stripe, landscape (and to conduct any other activities incident thereto) the premises for public parking. Upon completion of said parking lot, Smith shall have the right to use said parking lot, on a nonexclusive basis, together with other members of the general public, and suject to the same rules, regulations, fees, and restrictions as may from time to time be applied to the public generally. 4. This agreement shall be binding on and inure to t -e benefit of the parties and their successors, assigns, and personal representatives. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this agreement in duplicate the day and year first above written. SMITH: DAVID K. SMITH CHARLOTTE W. SMITH 4 CITY: CITY OF ATASCADERO, a municipal corporation By ROLLIN DEXTER, Mayor ATTEST: BOYD C. SHARITZ, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: JEFFREY G. JORGENSEN, City Attorney JGJ: fr/7/31/89 C:AGATA706 5 Exhibit "A" Description of Easement An easement for parking purposes over and upon the Southeasterly 39 feet of Lot 23 in Block MF of Atascadero, according to amendment "W" to map of Atascadero recorded August 7, 1929 in Book 4, at Page 67D of Maps. Exhibit "B" Real Property Benefitted by Easement Lot 1 in Block MF of Atascadero according to amendment "J" to map of Atascadero recorded March 31, 1924 in Book 4, at Page 67D of Maps. Except therefrom that portion thereof or those portions thereof lying within the lines of Traffic Way and South Mall, as shown on the map above referred to. Exhibit "C" • After recording return to: Mail tax statements to: A.P.N. QUITCLAIM - RELEASE OF EASEMENT FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, DAVID K. SMITH and CHARLOTTE W. SMITH, husband and wife (hereinafter referred to as "Smith"') , do hereby remise, release, and forever quitclaim any right, title, and interest Smith may have in that certain real property located in the City of Atascadero, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, described as follows: An easement for parking purposes over and upon the Southeasterly 39 feet of Lot 23 in Block MF of Atascadero, according to amendment "W" to map of • Atascadero recorded August 7, 1929 in Book 4, at Page 67D of Maps. This quitclaim deed is given specifically to release the easement granted by that certain grant deed dated April !6, 1975, and recorded June 18, 1975, in Vol. 1838, Page 659, as Document No. 19032,of the Official Records of San Luis Obispo County, California. Executed on , 1989, at Atascadero, San Luis Obispo County, California. �l �l DAVID K. SMITH CHARLOTTE W. SMITH JGJ:fr/8/3/89 C:AGATA698 Acknowledgment STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ) ss. On this day of in the year 1989, before me, , a notary public, personally appeared DAVID K. SMITH and CHARLOTTE W. SMITH, personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the persons whose names are subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged that they executed it. Witness my hand and official seal. Notary Public for the State of California My commission expires: r [Notary Seal] , 19 Recording requested by: Exhibit "D" When recorded mail to: CITY OF ATASCADERO • 6500 Palma Avenue Atascadero, CA 93422 A.P.N. GRANT OF EASEMENT THIS AGREEMENT made this day of 1989, by and between [the CITY OF ATASCADERO, a municipal corporation of the State of California, or its assignee,3 (hereinafter referred to as ffGrantor0) , and DAVID K. SMITH and CHARLOTTE W. SMITH, husband and wife (hereinafter referred to as "'Grantee"') . WHEREAS Grantor is the owner of certain real property in the City of Atascadero, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, hereinafter referred to as the "'Servient Tenement', and described as follows: Lot 23 in Block MF of Atascadero, accordingto Amendment "W" to map of Atascadero, recorded Auust 7, 1929 in Book 4 at Page 67D of Maps. WHEREAS, Grantee desires to acquire certain rights in the Servient Tenement; NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed as follows: 1. Grant of Easement. For valuable consideration, Grantor hereby grants to Grantee an easement as hereinafter described. 2. Character of Easement. The easement granted herein is an easement in gross. 3. Description of Easement. The easement granted herein is an easement for parking purposes for four (4) parking spaces on a nonexclusive basis, together with other members of the general public, and subject to the same rules, regulations, fees, and restrictions as may from time to time be applied to the public generally. 4. Location. The easement granted herein is located as follows: Lot 23 in Block MF of Atascadero, according to Amendment "W" to map of Atascadero, recorded August 7, 1929 in Book 4 at Page 67D of Maps. 5. Entire Agreement. This instrument contains the entire agreement between the parties relating to the rights herein granted and the obligations herein assumed. Any oral representations or modifications concerning this instrument shall be of no force and effect, excepting a subsequent modification in writing, signed by the party to be charged. 6. Attorney's Fees. In the event of any controversy, claim, or dispute relating to this instrument or the breach thereof, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover from the losing party reasonable expenses, attorney's fees, and costs. 7. Binding Effect. This instrument shall bind and inure to the benefit of the respective heirs, personal repre- sentatives, successors, and assigns of the parties hereto. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this instrument the day and year first above written. GRANTOR: GRANTEE: CITY OF ATASCADERO, a municipal corporation DAVID K. SMITH By ROLLIN DEXTER, Mayor )3 TTE W. SMITH ATTEST. J` BOYD C. SHARITZ, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: JEFFREY G. JORGENSEN, City Attorney JGJ: fr/8/3/89 C:AGATA707 Acknowledqments STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ) ss. On this day of in the year 1989, before me, , a notary public, personally appeared DAVID K. SMITH and CHARLOTTE W. SMITH, personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the persons whose names are subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged that they executed it. Witness my hand and official seal. Notary Public for the State of California My commission expires: [Notary Seal]- , 19 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ) ss. On this day of , 1989, before me, a Notary Public, State of Cali- fornia, duly commiss oned and sworn, personally appeared ROLLIN DEXTER, known to me to be the Mayor, and BOYD C. SHARITZ, known to me to be the City Clerk, respectively, of the CITY OF ATASCADERO, a municipal corporation of the State of California, that executed this instrument, and known to me to be the persons who executed this instrument on behalf of said municipal corporation therein named, and acknowledged to me that such municipal corporation executed it. Witness my hand and official seal. Notary Public for the State of California My commission expires: [Notary Seal] , 19 • REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date : 8/22/8 From: A95P&ul M. Sensibaugh, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Henry Engen, Director of Community Development SUBJECT: Policy for Roadway Construction Within Colony Road Alignments/Tree Preservation Conflicts . RECO)OHMAT I ON: Staff recommends that Council adopt Resolution 59-89 . BACKGROUND: At the July 11 regular council meeting Council requested sta? f to prepare a suggested policy regarding the conflict between tt; : construction of roadways within the original Colony road alignments and the protection and preservation of heritage trees . Historically • the road alignments have been sacred since they were platted with the original Colony layout and were to be used by any resident of the Colony as a public way. These alignments for the most part follow the contours of the land to balance the cuts and fills necessary for construction and to eliminate excessive profile slopes . Each lot relies upon the future dedication of the roads since without the same the parcel would be land-locked unless easements or flags were substituted. Specifically, however, these roads were not dedicated as public roads on the original recorded maps and deeds . The City, and former County, policy has been to accept such roads into the City-maintained system if they are brought up to a standard acceptable to the City. Recent policy has also dictated that such roads must be contiguous to an existing City-maintained road to be acceptable . Many roads are in such dense terrain that even the preliminary engineering is difficult to obtain. We have been working, however, with a system that allows preliminary profiles to be approved in the field that will accommodate the alignments that are pre- established. From that information, which includes the most feasible route to save major trees, a more refined plan can be drawn and eventually "as-built" drawings are presented for the records . • During the last 75 years many trees have grown within the rights-of-way or have matured to a "heritage" status. In some cases, due to the use oftheadjacent land for farming or orchards, more trees have grown within the rights-o€-way than outside of the same. In the past 10 years, at least, there has been an effort to save as many trees as possible when land is developed. More recently the efforts have been stepped up to especiallyprotect heritage trees regardless of their location being private or public. DISC MION: Efforts have been made in the past couple of years to adjust the roadway alignment within the right-of-way and sometimes the right-of- way itself in order to accommodate significant trees. These actions have taken into account the safe geometric alignment of the roadway, the size and condition of the tree and the proximity of the tree to the road if allowed to remain. Easements essentially parallel to the planned roadway can be a solution to some alignment problems if the cross section of the road will not result in excessive cuts or fills, if the roadway can be smoothly transitioned to rejoin the original alignment. and if the property owner will grant the necessary easement. If the trees in question were significant enough to warrant a taking of the land, the City could pursue that avenue but most likely would have to do so at their own cost since the original roadways are also recorded property lines and no subdivision of land or conditions controlling the same will occur. Council has given direction to staff to prepare a resolution that will document the City's position with respect to the above practice in an effort to accommodate historic road alignments and recent tree preservation and protection guidelines used for private development. Fl OG& IRP'XGTr The policy resolution -is not expected to cost the City any out- of-pocket expences Attachments: Resolution PMS/per 8/15/89 LIVE FILE Convert ( Access I Star THIS SHEET INDICATES THIS SECTION CONTAINS POOR QUALITY IMAGES _�� _ .._ _ _ _ ._ _—., .u_i�' _. _ . __..lei.. __ _ .V._ • _•'_'_ _ _. _!�.. ! _ _.._., r U. BIZ.... .6F-'-F c. .- ci..J,....__ !� c'o'r-'.1.. .r .. l'_T'!'_ 1-.i._ ri n .[? 't',T"! E s ' c r. -.i .:t1=-+a. is H c Cr n a jv4 E_.-...� a_ C: .1 _ _ C' .__. . wtth'e en r0a_ivFic=;ris-_.Y uC?.._ _ .. =:_'!C'! rC-Ml^_- -.rE- F aria j4 W such C'Yl_ iiC'? V,Ill p,1 _ E o-7,c,=rti'.i.nC? .'1C)L_`. _ne J12gina cl C.I!v Ge14 e3� 1 '�IiTTI"Y?'._ v!l la f_'o c �J}i 11 ., nT!1 I�C alit. a1-e iii- number . NOS', '."HEIPEEE(D RE, ,E ?m RES )LVE THA': . Nl!' ene-,vE'r r oaatdays 3:! COY!S rLICteCl wiT_n:Ln --.1e Co1ony r_,aa aiiCT,riRlE �.. _ Crib':ciFZ 3" 1 on _:n,3 11 h)c r"' Yl n ;; ryr_Y1g Yti _E-C ._ ^Y? _:_ SuC'Yi c nZi=.cra on Cjlc_ 1 4.nc ude , LIU I c,t l iTP.i t lj n rC)ad%..7a' i. . _ I?meri .s ho11iCi +ary ":J i. _:111 E' ' iaht— '"__-way t o cCi.=„'1r of,--ia e t--I- �'S t!!F C�ti1 Pri _Ti - -1iF X11." fe--ent, than _TiE� :•ar!'t -r-1 n r;I _ tic• 1't £' 4;J:`i1C1'1 ,a1 __ "!I `_ !-1P -,Y -T.!,:_. t: d!' a .-1 rJ l; _C111,F+. I- -Ie _a_C _P'.11U f c:.'. " 12 .1 E-Y -1 fa e c,,-* :.he right-�:,f- �L- a �Du W 2 V "nal a E 1111 7-'2* C,I- C- a C.1i.t5 M e!-I u- :)7 -; ana a u a 1 7 1 1 en't c- ie-* �re�- s c,u 2,-a E4 rte rignt- a i'- nI cl a CC-,zD U,ri T n c, -w a Y a E-- vi e s e-c e i-s, e ."_'.)::s s ec on cu z zana' an C- C" *s s 4 o e grades T C- C)-t e npia,::_. Z.- a E CT C-"k:E-1- DV '-ticlse La e de-v-7 cipmen�. -,-,ut-. may h�e u Q I ri e Z; I S F-I -a T 1-,17 c w a -v e T- r,C- c.;-u d e a a iDD,\7 e are a, s a C- q u e- n C� I C,a 01w a _ .n.=r u c,r; I D a- r e on C ea s ay. n r-T co n z� ur- L �02 y tne n.--rri L t "I 't E-X,C,e'_a a' road Cost -- --eeZ :3na.L. savl,_d. ,_)I*; ret i,.-)n -n Y -,Ounc-, !,!tan t oun,--i 1 ma n t h e f o! e j c! nq b- r e s- u n s r,Et sc-a - Ol'i Zlie ow n c., r c-, c a vuce: AYES vOES ABSENT : ADOPTED: ATTEST : -iL i, e r k ROLLIN DFXTER . Mayor -,;.C)YI) C . SHAR-i '7- �_jly C APPROIJEEI) TO FOR"11- 17,%PPROV7-*. JE-FFREEY PAUL M. (--' ty Attorney Director ,:-f Pu?-,iic Worhs gloo ins In , 1 ♦ � ,�, _ fir AC MOM y it ��'� ��!0? awe Lh to NA doe 1"4 kwon 00,14 low now Nib SIMI IIS ♦ � �� ��'� ��� - . , fit � ry •viii�J ''rel ' . �� .n } •pp/.� 2 2 �tO1 V: C7 Q I. Y W .u•:. Z _ _� O a ~ � w A ur/� • y Q o wti a it .J10 ~ O ` e Y O •►°w v Y +� vi of O= CM a _ : r sea/ 2 V#fbffNM w ,#♦ t .a /\ Wsii „ a; Op Q 01. W ♦ 2 in Fo SOi to 14 Ul b, a i � L w w i Or, 00 10 a ll .l v 3n i e • 1i� t J J MARCHANT AVE rt u o iG '� oO 6 M 6 iNS�°I O'C n O c N c tib C M V w 41 m iii f.�f AV,O N Q. ti- �, ' mor "i v. ` � • N �b /A Z p , W N C y O I FA •� tll� of p� o M c _w W `1 w, v N' A �i0t r d tV •_„ s, ro 7 pit oa _ 40 o ear+ .. w V+ I All Q~ a O w pV Vi 62 A �� CDN i�^ P Or Okv a. o �n m � L ��� w•.6- •F M a °o -�. N���30 E S'60, PTN. CITY OF ATASCADERO 48 .C" �. _--' ppRTOLA -+fir• -- mss, — -o g 0 6 35 o, b 3 3 33 r o ; 3 a 34 H � o DA r !vim m A. cb ,o m 3 2 so so y -N ' w - c 38 h !sd" n 101.96 N6 00 W t3 3 ; 1� , -G) FR. t 3 30 i 39 e 44 � ria '� M 100 �. 123.7 Nom; bow m IZ 29 " a 56 W ►LL g7 154.91 81.75 150 Z .v 39A c 39B O 6 I N S W 154.51 Q is2— N6m 54 , �1 114.15 N 55'W 3 e. 95 81.>'1 90 _ 20 ai 27 �• 4.1 7 3 r o40'W 16 r 1.85 p. qr as N 870 49 gi.36 aaq e oQ, 'v► r N63°29 W o Oj to 4I 40A m • 40 r— o 25 26 M _ . or _ 1 � 90 v 101.5 4 v 88,60 1^ - - -- -t-- a R.2 ' 71 LAGO ARAN RF-f. 7:-73 NOTE–THIS MAP IS FOR 37 NOTE—ASSESSOR'S BLOCK ASSESSMENT LOT NUMBERS SHOWN PURPOSES ONLY IN CIRCLES `��i'.'°�t�Ciw'{' �1.��`.:F'['.j"1�"�1?t+' .4��4ri�'2Y.fd.='R.i:a�r{'. .-r.. L+..�j:+�Y.r>. _+..a.-.« ..a,;►:.�Lit�s�., •. .,n:. .. _.. _ ......,, _. .. _.... .. PTN. CIT; Dr ATAS CADer?G 1 lie • r B PORTO t 3 4� o 8 e,.92 o O o `eio- �'? _$ ` 36 a 3 0, 3 3N 33 35 N 01 o0 o► i�A 34 9t %, hcm ILI a cr CV G) 90 a so h 3 3 2 0 W �l �lOf.96 N6 00 AQ t� o y �,• FR. n ;fZ.7_ o+ i Z m 3 N d `' i. r 39 0 G 100 123-7.3 67 50 W �j�y °f 3v2 os clk 12 29 wo 5 56 W =� 7 el.�5 f 28 37 150 Z 154.91- _ 39A o 39B aO 6 N 154.51 Q +. N67 54 W o 114.15 N 554 152.06 fa lw 95 81 90 .21 ' 20 r. a 27 Z 41 . b s 7 3 N6604O W 161.85 3 00 81.36 ; _ a %70.49 0 ro = N63029 WOj t° 4I N 40A m 40 m o _ m Oy ♦1 22 N N 25 26 Li.. .. _ N ' p in H 0 y a _ 40 IV9\��V - -- I � 90 101.5429660 v :/� - 't z I 971 LAGS �' ---. ..;. _ ABA RFS. 7.-7S a NOTE-THIS MAP IS FOR 3.T NOTE—ASSESSOR'S BLOCK 81 ASSESSMENT O LOT NUMBERS SHOWN PURPOSES ONLY IN GIRCLES �s`�Cl.'w.x�krt':x'+._ h}�; ►� +is •,: aYa tit).f. .J,..'f ?f.». rr ... a :. 77-77-- . , PTN. CITY OF ATASCADtRO - Not# SEXHISI - 1 ' ----.- RT04A _- frr� 5 36 3 y m 34 H x, 6 a 2.1 Pm 2 `" 32 so eo " w 38 i�� 1Zpt N M ^h 10.96 O W t •{ 13 `, l :'a n4 FR. t ic ' 3 11+ 30 ~ 1 39 r3o t e P 10 �. t23•73 673 50 W 362 � 29 5540 5 � _ � 22'13",, b • 56 w p 1t9.e7 49 81.75 150 15 1 39A o 39B a J- H / m Q /rzt N6� 54 W Q 114.15 N 55'w 152.06 o a '1 ^ 95 81.21 90 _' _ 20 N 27 u T 33 4p'w 161.85 "' ¢+ N6 91.36 91.36 a�� o ; o C 70. O m 'm N63029'W iO O41 40A m 40 ae O Qyy - 22 N 25 cr 26 a � t 16 90 101.5 $6.60 1" R`2 71 :._ ASAN RF.f. 7r-70 NOTE-THIS MAP IS FOR 3,7 NOTE—ASSESSOR'S BLOCK 8 ASSESSMENT O LOT NUMBERS SHOWN PURPOSES ONLY IN CIRCLES ' bxiifJ�'a'4..tie�twyl:6s�Y+�,'� t=+ 0, ."'+�fNE`i:7i.9a �' •:�; ..rk.YN... .�..,y:.e':+!,.i.d.,•s t:,;'. .r:,;,. ... .« .......w.r.:. :: - .. P,,9ReFZ 2 5c-.?7. AMS OPMONZ ,9762-9-3 \ � � OF ATf'SCAOE�P FOR 6� ` ILI 71.1 A1ER0 i i 30 -28 - 1 EX1419jr 4ORRO o qV , J 27 ! F J' 4 , 24' ; , v _} (282 a U 303 ` � v, WAs 22 - 0 9 � 0181 17 1 t 15 , g5 ao � , X05 i ` Q co d 0 3 2 W O�� , Ycc PN' �3'g �(� 1• O A 31 qV qJ0q v A0 0505— b c �7J AVE CITY OF ATASCADERO Assessor's Map Bk.30—Pg.2 County of Son Luis Obispo, Calif. Sk. 4, Pg.30 MSE' •,, � �3ENDA _ � DATc� , �Y 1isM# • MEMORANDUM City of Atascadero August 14, 1989 TO: Andy Takata, Parks and Recreation Director Attn: Karen Vaughan FROM: Jeffrey G. Jorgensen, City Attorney SUBJECT: Recreation Systems, Inc. Consultant Agreement Attached for your information is a revised consultant agreement with Recreation Systems, Inc. with revisions from the previous agreement circled for your review. Provided the scope of services covers those activities you wish to accomplish, the revised agreement is acceptable to me in form. When this agreement is presented to the City Council for approval, I think it is important that we emphasize that the compensation of $50,275 is based upon an estimated construction budget of $617,000. In the event the scope of • work is changed so that the construction budget exceeds $617,000, then the fee will increase pursuant to the sliding percentage schedule on page 6 of the agreement. The Council has control of any change in scope pursuant to PaIrt I-12, but it should be emphasized that if they do so, the compensation for consultant services will increase as well. I am also including the original certificates of insurance forwarded to my office for your files. Recreation Systems, Inc. appears to have adequate insurance coverage for this project. If you have additional questions or comments, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely6orney 4City GENSEN JGJ: fr A:MMATA296 Attachments • cc.-----J City Manager Ron Paige, Recreation Systems, Inc. ` P _ A G R E E M E N T Of THIS AGRREMENT, made and entered into this _ 1989, by and between the CITY OF p (hereinafter CATASCI►DFP CITY) and RECREATION SYSTEMS, IN(r. CONSULTANT); (hereinafter WITNESSETH: The parties hereto do agree as follows: (1 ) ALS. This Agreement is made and entered into with respect to ;Fie following facts: (a) That the CITY is desirous of obtaining professional design services for certain developments to be located at ATASCADERO LAKE PARK (hereinafter FACILITIES) ; and (b) That the CITY has heretofore determined that the CONSULTANT is qualified to perform the work necessary to provide such services in the time and manner sct forth hareinaftat; and (c) That CONSUt"TANT has agreed to perform the seTvip.9S requfred pursuant to this Agreement in the time and manner hereinafter set forth; and • (d) That the legislative body of CITY has heretofore determined that the public interest, convOn Once, and necessity require the execution - of this Agreement. (2) ERVI_ CES O p�ULT CONSULTANT shall prepare a narrat ve report an , all pians, sketches, and other ghics as may be necessary to accurately depict a revisedrmastear ;then for the entire park site and construction drawings for Pavilion building in accordance with CITY direction. Work shall. include, but is notlimited to, the foil ' sarvice�o; PART I - DESIGN DEVEWPMENT REPORT 1. Review suggested project scope and intent. with City of Atascadero staff and others as directed. 2. Review physical limitations and opportunities of the existing park site, including co0figuratign, drainage-, external influences, access and relationships with the lake and zoo improvements. 3� Prepare preliminary development studies, conceptual floor plans, and special feature concepts to depict' alternative solutions to program requirements for the existing park site and proposed new pavilion building. - x P - 0 _ 4 . Meet and confer with City staff Citizen Advisory Committee and others, as directed, and present alternative studies for discussion and input. 5. Prepare preliminary development plan for park and refined schr_mat:ic floor plans for the pavilion, detailing recommended program scope, space requirements, circulation patterns, and functional relationships for review by all interested parties, as directed . 6. Prepare initial opinion of probable cost of proposed improvements . 7. Present preliminary development plan to City staff and others, as directed. 8. Prepare schematic construction plans of the pavilion building incorporating approved changes as determined by review meetings, to verify design feasibility, define engineering or construction problems and establish project scope for review and approvals; 9. Prepare detailed opinion of probable cost for all project improvements, and establish a logical phasing program for implementation consistent with funding availability. 10. Prepare and present colored rendering of final, master plan of park and floor plan of pavilion building to scale with basic dimensions. shown, incorporating all desirable or required changes for review and approval by staff, Commission, City Council and others, as directed. 11. Prepare the final Design Development Report (DDR) including a narrative description of proposed improvements; reduced copies of the final master plan of the park and floor plan of the proposed pavilion; functional criteria for development control; estimates of probable costs and a recommended phasing program for ultimate implementation. 1C!12. Present the final Design Development Report to thDe Council for review and approvals. No work sh initiated on Construction Plans and Specificwithout City council approval of the scope and est construction costs for Phase I improvements. PART It. - CONSTRUCTION PLANS, SPECIFICA'T'IONS AND ESTIMATE 1. Prepare preliminary plans and outline specifications based on approved master plan to establish design theme and finalize actual scope of the building improvements. 2. Prepare detailed opinion of probable cost for all improvements. 2 , . � • F• _ 43 4 3. Submit for City of Atascadero review and approvals, as required. 4 . Prepare final plans, specifications and bidding documents for Phase I improvements in sufficient detail to obtain competitive bids. Plans to* incorporate City of Atascadero standards and meet the Federal, State and local requirements, as necessary. Consultant shall provide five sets of required check prints and reading copies of specifications for checking and processing. S. Submit for final checking and correct plans as necessary. 6. Present final opinion of probable cost for review and Approval. PART III - CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION SERVICES 1. Assist in the bidding process. Z. Review and approval of all . shop drawings. 3. Provide site visitations on a biweekly basis and reports on construction progress and quality, with recommendations for correction of deficiencies as required. 4. Assist in determining and processing change orders. S. Participate in preliminary and final inspections a$ required. (3) OPTIONS FOR ADDITIONAL SERVICES CONSULTANT agrees to grant CITY an option or options to procure additional professional services consisting of construction plans, specifications and bid documents, and the provision of construction observation services for subsequent phases of this project for professional fees computed at 1% less than outlined in the Sliding Percentage Fee Schedule attached hereto. (4) TIME SCHEDULE. The CONSULTANT agrees to perform all services as detailed in Paragraph (2) in a period not to exceed one hundrnd eighty (280) days following written authority to proceed and provision of a required topographic survey from City. Time schedules are subject to change dependent on delays caused by processing or community coordination requirements and as mutually agreed to by CITY and CONSULTANT. Time schedules for optional work as detailed in Paragraph (3 ) shall be determined upon exercise of options and execution of separate agreement addenda. 3 - • • F• _ 0 (5) COMPENSATION. CITY agrees to pay CONSULT;JNT for its services hereunder and CONSULTANT agrees to accept from CITY a lump sum fee of $50, 275.00 (based on the $617, 000.00 construction budget established by the City) . Should�e City Council_ 33rove a change in scope that aff cts the coris�rucion bu getr' fie��es gn fee would be commensurately adjusted to reflect the increase or decrease in design scope. The construction design fee would be adjusted according to the sliding percentage schedule attached. Payment of said compensation shall be made fallowing monthly billings providing payments do not exceed: MASTER PLAN & DESIGN DEVELOPMENT REPORT $7 , 591 PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION PLANS & OUTLINE SPECIFICATIONS $12, 569 FINAL, CONSTRUCTION PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND BID DOCUMENTS $20, 110 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION SERVICES $10,055 $50,275 j I FEES FOR ADDITIONAL SERVICES Recreation Systems, Inc. will provide additional services, as may be required and authorized by the CITY, according to our standard hourly rates: Principal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $75.00 Project Coordinator/Project Architect. . . . . . . . . . t60.00 Project Landscape Architect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $55.00 Landscape Architect/Designer. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .$50.00 Draftsperson. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$35. 00 Technical Typist. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$30.00 hese rates will be in effect throughout the term of this contract. t. (6) TERMINATION. Either party hereto may terminate this Agreement upon giving of ten ( 10) days written notice to the other party, and upon such termination, CONSULTANT shall be entitled to a prorata fee based upon work actually accomplished by him as of the date of the giving of notice of such termination. (7) SURVEYS. The CITY shall assume costs for soil/geotechnical testing and topographic surveys as required. RSI can coordinate these services at cost plus 5% for handling if desired. 4 _ • F_ _ ►w t. (8) BLUEPRINTINGIREPRODUCTION. CONSULTANT Shall provide, at no cost to the CITY, all check prints and reading copies of* specifications as necessary to process plans. CITY shall assume costs of reproduction of construction documents for bidding purposes. ( 9) LIABILITY. CONSULTANT agrees to hold the CITY, its officers—, and agents, free and harmless from any claim, demand, or judgment which arises as a result of the CONSULTANT'S negligent activities pursuant to this Agreement. To assure the fulfillment of the purposes of this paragraph, CONSULTANT during- the term of this Agreement, will carry and maintain, to the extent that such coverage is reasonably available, professional liability insurance coverage for the Errors, omissions, and negligent acts of CONSULTANT in minimum amounts approved by the CITY MANAGER. In addition, CONSULTANT will take out and maintain during the term of this Agreement, general liability insurance coverage in minimum amounts approved by the . CITY, its officers, employees and agents being an additional named insured undear said policy. Evidence of such coverage shall be in the form ' of a certificate of insurance which shall be filed with the CITY contemporaneously with the execution of this Agreement. All the policies required and maintained pursuant to the Provisions hereof shall afford thirty (30) days prior written notice to, the CITY with respect to material change or cancellation of the policy. (10) NOTICES,. Notices pursuant to this Agreement shall be given by United States mail., postage prepaid, addressed to the parties as follows: (a) To Agency: Mr. Andrew Takata Director of Parks, Recreatlon & Zoo Dept. 6500 Palma Avenue Atascadero, California 93422 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto cause this Agreement to be executed on the day and year first above written. CITY OF ATASCADERO By: ATTEST: RECREATION SYSTEMS, INC. By: Ronald F. Paige, Pres ent _ 5 w • F' - C-1 i SLIDING PERCENTAGE SCHEDULE Compensation under the following Sliding Percentage Fee Schedule shall be computed based on the approved construction estimate , including approved alternatives. Should the median of all valid bids including alternatives be less than the final approved construction estimate including alternatives, the total compensation shall be reduced proportionately. Construction Cost - CONST_RUCTION DOCUMENT PREPARATION & OBSERVATION SERVICES FEES $0 - $30,000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12% $30,000 - $60,000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10% $60,000 - $100,000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9% $100,000 - $200,000. . . . . . . . . . . . . $9,000 + 8 1/2$ of amount over $100,000- $200,000 100,000$200,000 - $500,000. . . . . . . . . . . . .$17,500 + 8% of amount over $200,000 $500, 000 - $1 Million. . . . . . . . . . . $41 , 500 + 7 1/2% of amount over $500,000 $1 Million. - $2 Million. . . . . . . . .$79,000 + 7% of amount over $1 Million $2 Million - $5 Million. . . . . . . . . $149,000 + 6 1/2% of amount over $2 Million $5 Million, - $10 Million. . . . . . . .$344,000 + 6% of amount over $5 Million For the purpose of separating plan stages, or for interim billing control, preliminary construction plans and outline specifications shall be considered 40% of the fee; final construction plans, specifications and bid documents shall be an additional 40% to a total of 80%; and construction observation services shall be the balance of 20% to the total of 100%. 6 'v3■i�iii€, '.t+�sz`1aG+,�ya ,::�`> �`�''- :iv it `.,..-h" Y .._._ :.a.:!. ,. ._: . ..... ' .r�?�`:llk';+�I ` _._8/11-/89_ f?: tt ,. n'fk.lr,)AMATION ONLY AN2 Ccr FERE 'WI>CERTIFICATE DOES NC)", AMEN". R. D. Crowell Insurance Agency E-.�• HEPouaEss�Lov. — 3151 AirwayAvenue, Suite B3 �' COVERAGE Costa Mesa, CA 92626 F` Recreation Systems, Inc. 1230 N. Jefferson, Ste K Anaheim, Ca 92807 i " Desf n Professionals Ins. Co. THIS IS TO CERTI9Y THAT POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE SEEN ISSUED TO TIE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED, F+j NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT,TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY :P BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN.THE INSURANCE AFFORDED 6Y THE PC'LICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS°I_UF.JECT"O ALL THE TERMS.EXCLUSIONS,AND CONDI- TIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. C-0 i ?�'PE C "':SU ANC= I FOLIC v ::;f".E3EF i - ALL LIMITS IN THOUSANDS 'y. Ta, . GENERAL LIA 81.J7Y y S AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY r ! *For professional liability coverage, the aVgrega limit is th'e total insurance avail— PE-SON, eI 1 ` =c '-E==bile fori all covered claims presented within ;:e 'eps�'.'IS the polio period. The limit Will b i reduced A . !FEF paymen s of indemnity ani! expense. ACCIDE!:-, S GARAGE_L.6B1L?Y I PROPE!Iy f i pAMtGE s ' F j._w EACH �GG4EG,'E 'EXCESS LIABILITY s' OCCURRENCE 0"HER'nA%X.!BRELLA.FORK' I I I t:µ $ GTATUTDRV - "��• WORKERS'COMPENSATION I ! s (EACH ACC 0E%7,V~ AND i � D'SEASE-DGS.'•_!'"i EMPLOYERS'LIABILITY ! S !WSEASE•E-C-i!s..:�EE OTHER PL43222301 X6/11/89 ;b/11!90 i ROFESSIONAL LIAB j ( $1, 000 EA CLAIM AND IN THE AGGREGATE DESCRIPI!ON OF CPERATION'SILOCATICNSI VEHICLES;RESTR!—?!v'JSiS='E:C!A. ITE:'S • 13 RITI I Mr.• • + SHOULD ANY-W Thf APOC'E :;.SCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EX JEFF JOROENSEN, P'RATION Ci Ti TrpFLCF. 1HE ISSUING COMPANY WILL ENDEAVOR ATASCADERO CITY ATTORNEY MAIL 10 DAPS vvr?l TLh NO',CE_ TO TME CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED T POST OFFICE SOX 910 LEFT. IWT I-All f}FE 'C: VWL :OCHI NOTICE SHALL IMPOSE NO 08- :)N SAN LUIS OB ISBO, CA 93406 LIA&1_17\ OF ANI KINE'_F".,I._hl COMPANY. ITS ENTS OR REPRESENTATIVES. ........... • , 8/10/89 PF^UUC[F I THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND. E � xTE1�tD OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFOftiDED EY-7Hc POLICIES BELOW. The Dougherty Company, Inc. P.O. Box 7277 COMPANIES AFFORDING COVERAGE Long Beach, California 90807 COMPANY merCompany A American National Fire Insurance Com �E--TEP Y COMPANY' -- --- ---- -- iNSUF'EU LE iER B Great American Insurance Company ' Recreation Systems, Inc. ; COMPANY i LETTER C 1230 North Jefferson, Suite K COMPANY D Anaheim, California 92807 LETTER COMPANY LETE TER THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. riOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT,TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN,THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS.EXCLUSIONS. AND CONDI- TIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. CO TYPE OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER POLICY EFFECTIVE POLICY EXPRAii� LIABILITY LIMITS IN THOUSANDS LTR DATE IMMIDDM/) DATE IMMIDO.Mr, EACH AGGREGATE OCCURRENCE I GENERAL LIABILITY BODILY ( 1 Y I COMPREHENSIVE FORM INJURY I $ $ ���+ PRLMISES'OPERATIONS I P4iOPERTY U"D RGPOUND I DAMAGE C� I EXP:OS'O.8 COLLAPSE HAZAR- i, PRODUCTS/COMPLETED OPERATIONS I , AcorcTFw TUAL 1 PAC 2795812 10/1 /88 10/1 /89 si&PC)eD $ 1,0001$ 2,00 INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS BROAD FORM PROPERTY DAMAGE f PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY $ • 1,00 1 AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY BJD r ANY AUTO °EP PIHJURrERS $ ALL^WNED AUTOS(PRN PASS.) BJ(M Y rnT. ALL OWNED AUTOS OTHER THAN)PRIV PAS $ AI HIRED AUTOS BA 8980010 10/1 /88 1011 /89 PROPERTY NON-OWNED AUTOS I DAMAGE $ GARAGE LIABILITY 81 8 PD 1 I COMBINED $ 1 Alin EXCESS LIABILITY PD UMBRELLA FORM BI 8 COMBINED $ $ OTHER THAN UMBRELLA FORM STATUTORY WORKERS'COMPENSATION $ SACH ACC'DENTI B AND EMPLOYERS'LIABILITY I WC 6699993 10/1 /85 � Continuous $ �0 11SI EASE-POLICY LIMIT) ( � � ;{�0�, �SE:SE-EACH EMPLOYEE) OTHER I 1 DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS,'LOCATIONSIVEHICLES'SPECIAL ITEMS ALL OPERATIONS - U.S.A. The General Liability Policy excludes Professional Liability. . . Jeff Jorgensen SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EX- Atascadero City Attorney PIRATION DATE THEREOF. THE ISSUING COMPANY WILL ENDEAVOR TO MAIL 10 DAYS WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE P.0. BOX 910 LEFT,BUT FAILURE TO MAIL SUCH NOTICE SHALL IMPOSE NO OBLIGATION OR LIABILITY San Luis Obispo, California 93406 of ANY KIND UPON THE COMPANY,ITS AGENTS OR REPRESENTATIVES. AUTMPR REPR E TIVE — ADMINISTRATION BUILDING CITY ATTORNEY =x0movemc= ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA 93423 yy��yy��yy����yyqq�� PHONE: (805 466-8000 ^'^-!1;'!�L taseadee® _ CITY COUNCIL CITY CLERK POLICE DEPARTMENT INCORPORATED JULY 2. CITY TREASURER 1979 POST OFFICE BOX CITY MANAGER ATASCADERO. CALIFORNIA A 9 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT PHONE: (805( 466.8600 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT .r.. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT FIRE DEPARTMENT 6005 LEWIS AVENUE ATASCADERO.CALIFORNIA 93422 PHONE: (805( 466.2141 August 14, 1989 Ron Paige Recreation systems, Inc. 1230 N. Jefferson, Suite R Anaheim, CA 92807 Re: Atascadero Lake Park Dear Ron: I have reviewed the revised consultant services agreement Which you sent by FAX transmission on August 11, 1989. The revised agreement is. acceptable to me in form. I have also reviewed the certificates of insurance and find them acceptable. Please forward three executed copies of the agreement directly to Ray Windsor, City Manager, City of Atascadero, 6500 Palma Avenue, Atascadero, CA 93422, for inclusion on the next Council agenda. Thank you for your 'assistance and prompt attention to this matter. Sincerely, *tyAtto G.PR SEN ey JGJ:fr A:LTATA297 cc�City Manager Parks and Recreation Director 8-17-89 ilc�mbers Cit Mian er and Stgf To Counc Y � The second meeting of the Recycling Committee was held on Wednesday Aug. 16 at 5:00 P. Z. All members except for David Crouch, Pub. Works representative who was on vacation; were present. This is a diverse group = Y of people who were mostly unknown to each other but brought together by an interest in recycling. At the first meeting only five people were present At that time Craig Dingman volunteered to be secretary. At this second meeting Paul Sensibaugh acted as chairman and conducted the meeting. He asked for nominations for chairman but there was consensus that members were not acquainted with each other and would prefer to wait until the next meeting to select a chairman. Most of the committee are new to the area so many questions were raised regarding local practices at this time. Meeting times were chosen as the first and third Thursday of each month at 5 P. I. at least for the time being, with the next meeting to be held on Sept. 7. submitted by Aarj. Mackey I am including the minutes from the first meeting. C — C City of Atascadero Recycling Committee Meeting of 7/26/89 MINUTES The meeting was called to order at 5: 10 p.m. Committee members present were David Crouch, Craig Dingman, Marge Mackey and Jim Patterson. Also present was Paul Sensibaugh, City Director of Public Works. Paul Sensibaugh distributed binders for Committee records and for collecting miscellaneous information to the members present. Marge Mackey distributed miscellaneous publications on the subject of recycling. This was the first meeting of the Committee and the primary purpose for it was to establish a regular meeting date and to select a Chair and a Secretary. In the absence of five Committee members it was determined by those present that not much business could be accomplished. It was mutually agreed that selection of a Chair should be deferred until more members are present. Craig Dingman volunteered. to serve as Secretary. Regular meeting time was tentatively set for the third Wednesday of each month at 5 p.m. , pending agreement from members not present, on both the time and frequency of meeting. Since the City Council has directed the Committee to establish goals and operating rules and bring these to the Council for adoption by resolution, Jim Patterson suggested that members present do some research prior to the next meeting with respect to those objectives. In line with this suggestion, Mr. Sensibaugh was requested to supply Committee members with sample ordinances from other committees. There was some general discussion on the subject of recycling. The next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, 8/16/89 at 5:00 p.m. in room 304 of the City Administration building. The meeting was adjourned at 5:40 p.m. 6500 City Council tascacle�® ATASCADERO CA 93 2 INCORPORATED JULY Z.1979 (805) 466-8000 Report from Traffic Committee: The traffic committee met on 'wed. Aug. 16 for the ride-around meeting. We have had several requests for crosswalk at Amapoa by the new Minimart also a stop sign at Amapoa at Portola so we visited the site. We also drove by Carmelita near the Curbaril paper crossing where there was a recent accident. Also visited was the area of Santa Rosa from the school to the freeway. A request was received for speed limit -y{ signs on Santa Rosa, also for Speed reduction on San Ramon Road. We had visited that site earlier. All the above will be reviewed and acted upon at the regular meeting in room 304 next Wednesday. submitted by X. Mackey