Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 11/28/1989 i BOYD C. SHARITZ CITY CLERK A G E N D A; ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING ATASCADERO ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 6500 PALMA FOURTH FLOOR, ROTUNDA ROOM NOVEMBER 28, 1989 7 :00 P.M. RULES OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: y speak ma s on an Members of the audience p Y 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 onemay speak more than twice on any item. Council Members may question any speaker; the speaker may • respond but, after the allotted time has expired, may not initiate -further discussion. The floor will then be closed to public participation and open for Council discussion. Call to Order Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call City Council Comment COMMUNITY FORUM: The City Council values and encourages exchange of ideas and comments from your the citizen. The Community Forum period i provided to receive comments from the public on matters other than scheduled ,agenda items To increase the effectiveness of Community Forum, the following rules will be enforced: A maximum of 30 minutes will be allowed for Community Forum, unless Council authorizes an extension.- * All remarks shall be addressed to Council , as a whole, and not to any individual member thereof . * No person shall be permitted to make slanderous, profane or personal remarks against any Council Member, commissions & staff. • A. CONSENT CALENDAR All ratters 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 uponseparately after the adoption of the Con- sent Calendar. 1. NOVEMBER 14, 1989; CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 2 . TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 20-85, 10450 MORRO ROAD - Consideration of Planning Commission recommendation to deny proposed lot split of 33 . 13 ac into two lots of 28 .0 and 5 . 13 acres ;Evans/Stewart) B HEARINGS/APPEARANCES : 1 CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST TO REMOVE A HERITAGE TREE, 5550 TRAFFIC WAY ( "The Oaks" ) (Cent' d from 10/30 and 11/14/89 ) 2. CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST TO REMOVE A HERITAGE TREE, 8250 LOS OSOS ROAD 3. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 16-89 9350 SANTA CRUZ Subdivision of one parcel containing approx. ;9 . 63 ac. into two lots of 4 . 0 ac. and 5 .63 ac. (Lobo Investments/Volbrecht Surveys) (Cont ' d from 10/10 , 10/30 and 11/14/89) A. City Attorney' s response to Elizabeth Scott-Graham' s letter of Oct. 27 , 1989 4 . TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 7-89, 7000 SAN PALO ROAD - Reconsidera- tion of proposed subdivision of one 7 .0 ac . parcel into four lots of 1 .55, 1 . 60, 1 .65 and 2 . 2 acres (McNamara/Cuesta En- gineering) (Reference 7/11 and 10/30/89 Council Meetings) C. REGULAR BUSINESS : 1 . ATTORNEY SERVICES CONTRACT - ART MONTANDON 2. CONSULTANT SERVICES RECOMMENDATION - FIRE MASTER PLAN 3 . CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST BY GEORGE HIGHLAND TO AMEND ORDI- NANCE NO. 101 RE: PLANNING COMMISSIONER TERMS 4 REQUEST TO SET SPECIAL MEETING, RECOMMENDED TO BE HELD AT 3:00 P.M. THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 1989, 4TH FLOOR CLUB ROOM, FOR THE FOLLOWING: A. DISCUSSION OF LAND DISPOSITION (SALE AND/OR PURCHASE); RESULTING FROM APPRAISALS BY DENNIS E. GREEN, INC. (Closed session) (verbal) B. STATUS OF LAND SALE AT SAN BENITO & HIGHWAY 101 (SUR- PLUS PROPERTY) (Closed Session) (Verbal) C. REQUEST TO REAFFIRM CITY-OWNED LOT ON SYCAMORE RD. AS SURPLUS PROPERTY AND PROCEED WITH APPRAISAL (open Ses- sion D. STATUS OF MANAGEMENT, MID-MANAGEMENT AND CONFIDENTIAL EMPLOYEE AGREEMENTS FOR 1989-1990 (Closed Session) D. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION 1 . City Council: A. Committee Reports (The following represents ad hoc or standing commitees . informative status reports will be given, as felt necessary. ) : 1 . City/School Committee (Nothing to report) 2 . North Coastal Transit (Nothing to report) 3 . S L.O Area Coordinating Council (Nothing tore- port 4 . Traffic Committee (Nothing to report) 5 . Solid/Hazardous Waste Mgmt. Committee (Nothing to report) 6 . Recycling Committee (Nothing to report) 7 . Economic Opportunity Commission (Nothing to re- port) 8 Finance Committee (Nothing to report) 9 . B.I .A. (Nothing to _report) 10 . Downtown Steering Committee (Nothing to report) 11 . Interim Growth Management Committee (Nothing to report) 12 . General Plan Subcommittee (Nothing to. report) 2 . City Attorney 3. City Clerk 4 City Treasurer 5 . City Manager COUNCIL WILL ADJOURN TO A CLOSED SESSION ON THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 1989 AT 3:00 P.M. , 4TH FLOOR CLUB RM,. FOR DISCUSSION RE: 1 . TO INSTRUCT CITY' S NEGOTIATOR RE: PURCHASE AND SALE OF REAL PROPERTY BY CITY; 2 . TO INSTRUCT CITY' S NEGOTIATOR RE: EMPLOYEE NEGOTIATIONS 3 iF G MEQ 1"ING AGENDA DATE ITEM# • ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 14, 1989 The regular meeting of Atascadero City Council was called to order at 7:00 p .m. by Mayor Dexter followed by the Pledge of Allegiance led by John McNeil of Atascadero . Mayor Dexter announced that he had received a proclamation signed by Governor Dukmejian officially proclaiming November 19-25, 1989 as "Family Week " . ROLL CALL: Present : Councilmembers Shiers, Mackey, Borgeson, Lilley and Mayor Dexter • Staff Present : Ray Windsor , City Manager ; Chief Bud McHale, Police Department ; Henry Engen, Community Development Director ; Gary Sims, Engineering Department ; Mark Joseph , Director of Administrative Services; Boyd Sharitz , City Clerk and Lee Dayka, Deputy City Clerk . PUBLIC COMMENTS: George Luna, 10600 San Marcos Road in Atascadero and speaking as a private citizen, expressed his concerns regarding the public ' s right to tape City Council meetings quoting both Atascadero City Council Procedures Section 2-1-19 and the California Government Code Section 54953.5. Council discussion followed and Mavor Dexter referred the matter to the City Attorney. Karen Coniglio , 7600 Graves Creek Road , read the attached prepared statement (see Exhibit A) regarding the proposed road construction in the Ardilla Road and Graves Creek Road areas. Terril Graham, 6205 Conejo Road , spoke in support of the General Plan. He urged the Council to fulfill the specific commitments of the Plan. • 1 r • ., • COUNCIL COMMENTS: A. CONSENT CALENDAR: 1 . OCTOBER 30, 1989 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 2. CERTIFICATION OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PAVILION PROJECT 3. RESOLUTION NO. 82-89 - AUTHORIZE INSTALLATION OF STOP SIGNS ON CAPISTRANO AT THE HOTEL PARK PROJECT 4. RESOLUTION NO. 83-89 - AUTHORIZE INSTALLATION OF STOP INTERSECTIONS ON LICA AVE. AT AMARGON AVE. AND ON LICA AVE. AT ARENA AVE. 5. NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE CITY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING RENOVATION - PHASE IIC 6. POLICE CAR PURCHASE (3) —FISCAL YEAR 1989-90 7. APPROVAL OF S.L.O. AREA COORDINATING COUNCIL JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT (Cont . from 8/8/89 meeting ) • 8. ACCEPTANCE OF FINAL PARCEL MAP 23-85, 5495 TRAFFIC WAY - To allow the creation of two lots where three existed in the IP ( Industrial Park ) Zone (Carroll /Stewart ) 9. ACCEPTANCE OF FINAL TRACT MAP 12-88, 6805 SANTA LUCIA ROAD- To convert an approved , but not yet constructed , 9-unit apartment complex into residential condominiums (Anderson/Messer/Cuesta Engineering) 10. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION TO UTILIZE JOHN L. WALLACE & ASSOCIATES FOR SELECTED CITY ENGINEER SERVICES Councilwoman Borgeson pulled item #1 , the Minutes of the City Council Meeting of October 30, 1989. Irene Bishop , 7151 Serena, asked that item #3 be pulled for discussion. MOTION: By Councilman Lilley and seconded by Councilman Shiers to approve the Consent Calendar with the exception of items #1 and 3 to be discussed separately; passed unanimously by roll call vote. 2 • • 1 . OCTOBER 30, 1989 ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - Councilwoman Horgeson asked that the minutes be amended to reflect the omitted votes of Mayor Dexter and herself, as well as include her own comments giving her reasons for her vote. MOTION: By Councilman Lilley, seconded by Councilwoman Mackey to approve the amended minutes; passed unanimously. 3. RESOLUTION NO. 82-89 - AUTHORIZE INSTALLATION OF STOP SIGNS ON CAPISTRANO AT THE HOTEL PARK PROJECT Henry Engen, Community Development Director , gave staff report with recommendation for approval stating that the Traffic Committee had voted unanimously to approve. Public Comment: Irene Bishop , resident , was concerned that the people who are to • be affected most are not fully aware of this action and spoke in opposition of the two stop signs. Henry Engen answered questions of the Council and discussion followed . MOTION: By Councilwoman Horgeson and seconded by Councilman Lilley to approve Resolution No . 82-89; passed unanimously by roll call vote. B. HEARINGS/APPEARANCES: 1 . TPM 16-89, 9350 SANTA CRUZ - Subdivision of one parcel containing approx . 9.63 ac . into two lots of 4.0 ac . and 5.63 ac . (Lobo Investments/Volbrecht Surveys ) (Cont ' d from 10/ 10/89) Henry Engen gave staff report with recommendation to approve. He added that the issue of emergency services to the fringe areas of the City is one that is to be addressed under the Fire Services Master Plan, which is currently out for proposals. Mr . Engen responded to Council questions in reference to a letter received from Elizabeth Scott-Graham ( attorney for the Homeowner ' s Association) . The City Manager stated that no written opinion has been rendered by legal counsel on this matter due to the • timing of Mr . Jorgensen ' s leave and the new City Attorney ' s appointment . 3 • Councilman Lilley stated that he did not share the opinion of Ms. Scott-Graham and was prepared to vote on the matter . MOTION: By Councilwoman Borgeson, seconded by Councilman Shiers to continue the matter until the new City Attorney has an opportunity to review the issue. The motion was passed 4: 1 , with Councilman Lilley opposing. Alan Volbrecht , representing the applicant , asked the Council for a meeting date and expressed his concern to have this issue resolved . November 28, 1989 was the date set for this continuance. 2. CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST TO REMOVE A HERITAGE TREE, 12550 SANTA ANA (Sandel ) (Cont ' d from 10/30/89) Henry Engen responded to Council questions regarding parcel size. The Council complimented Lisa Schicker , City Arborist , on her • report . MOTION: By Councilwoman Borgeson and seconded by Councilman Lilley to approve the removal of three trees located at 12550 Santa Ana; passed unanimously by roll call vote. 3. CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST TO REMOVE A HERITAGE TREE, 5550 TRAFFIC WAY ( "The Oaks" ) (Cont ' d from 10/30/89) Following a brief Council discussion regarding the proper tagging of the tree, the City Manager stated that applicants must identify trees not only for the Council ' s inspection, but to give proper notice to the general public well in advance of the City Council meeting . Public Comment : Stephen LaSalle of Atascadero complimented the City Council for the serious consideration of the tree ordinance and urged the public to abide by the ordinance. The Council discussed the possible alternative of pruning the tree. � II 4 ------------------- • MOTION: By Councilman Shiers and seconded by Mayor Dexter to continue this item; passed unanimously by roll call vote. 4. ZONE CHANGE 8-89 - 7715/7745 SINALOA ROAD A. Ordinance No. 198 - Amending Map 17 of the official zoning maps by certain real property at 7715/7745 Sinaloa from RMF/16 to RMF/16 (PD7) (Jones/Cuesta Engineering ) (FIRST READING: Recommend ( 1 ) motion to waive reading of ordinance in full and approve Ord . No . 198 on first reading - Roll call ) Henry Engen gave staff report with recommendation to approve the Planned Development . Mr . Engen responded to Council questions regarding lot size and density, setbacks, road size and parking and recreational space. Public Comments: • Deborah Hollowell , of Cuesta Engineering , appeared on behalf of the applicant , Bruce Jones. Ms. Hollowell spoke in support of the project stating that the applicant is trying to make use of an approved zoning density and offer some alternative ownership options. Ms. Hollowell responded to Council questions regarding CC&Rs. Bruce Jones, applicant , asked the Council to consider this not as a growth issue, but rather one of occupancy and ownership of residential buildings constructed under the multiple family density standards of the zoning ordinance. He further described the proposed benefits of the project . Dorothy McNeil , of Atascadero , asked what the expected price of the homes would be. Lengthy Council discussion followed with the concensus that although the Council was impressed with the concept and goals of the development , six homes may be too many for this planned development . Councilwoman Mackey raised the issue of no open space area for children to play in. Councilman Lilley expressed his concerns regarding property maintenance regulation. Mayor Dexter reminded the Council that the Planning Commission approved the development 7:0 and asked for a motion. 5 • MOTION: By Councilwoman Borgeson and seconded by Councilwoman Mackey to deny Zone Change 08-89 and refer back to the Planning Department . The motion was withdrawn after Henry Engen suggested an alternative in order to keep the application alive. MOTION: By Councilwoman Borgeson and seconded by Councilwoman Mackey to refer back to the Planning Commission for re- design; passed unanimously by roll call vote. The applicant asked the Council for clarification of "re-design" . Mr . Jones stated that the way to provide more affordable housing is to reduce lot size. The City Manager asked the Council to give more clarification as to how many homes they feel would be appropriate. Henry Engen indicated he understood that the Council was looking for four or five homes instead of the proposed six . Councilman Lilley stressed the need for a maintenance agreement that would mitigate the obligation of the homeowners to maintain the frontageway along the easements and driveways of the homes. Councilwoman Borgeson proposed four homes with an open space area • to provide a playground for the children. Henry Engen stated that the Planning Department would look at the Young Project density when they re-check . Mayor Dexter called for a recess at 9:49 p .m. The meeting reconvened at 9:06 p .m. C. REGULAR BUSINESS: 1. POLICE FACILITY PROJECT - BID RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Mr . Windsor asked the Council to review the results of the bids and award the contract , explaining that in order to maintain the legality of the bid process, a decision needed to be made within the 30-day period from the date the bids were opened . Rod Levin, architect , stated his support of the views and recommendations of the staff and availed himself for questions. Councilwoman Borgeson raised the question of relieving R.P. Richards Construction Company from their bid . Mr . Windsor recommended that Council accept all the bids, with the exception of R.P. Richards. Mark Joseph , Director of Administrative 6 • • Services , verified that a mistake had been made by R.P. Richards and that they did , in fact , qualify for relief under Provision 51 .03. MOTION: By Councilman Lilley and seconded by Councilwoman Borgeson pursuant to Administrative Provisions of the Government Code Sections 51 .00 et seq . to relieve R.P. Richards from any obligations as a result of their previously tendered bid to the City of Atascadero for the Atascadero Police Facility; passed unanimously by roll call vote. Bud McHale, Police Chief, stated that he would be open to questions from the Council . Discussion followed regarding the cost of a detention facility. Councilman Lilley expressed his concern over the cost of the facility, but granted if it is to be done, it should be done right and doing it right means having a detention facility. Rod Levin explained the alternative bids and answered questions from the Council • Public Comment : Larry Wilson, 7910 San Marcos, spoke in support of awarding the contract and getting the project going . Mike Tobey, 8193 San Dimas, enthusiastically encouraged the Council to award the contract in its ' entirety so that we may provide the proper tools to our Police Department . Morey Lane, 3105 Ardilla Road , commended the Police Department and recommended full approval as presented . Councilman Lilley gave credit to the Police Chief for making the project as affordable as possible. Mayor Dexter urged the Council to accept the whole package and go with it . Councilmembers Shiers and Borgeson reported that they had received calls from concerned citizens asking that the Council consider some community volunteer assistance to help shave costs. Discussion followed regarding this issue and it was the consensus of the Council that this project be completed as a whole package under professional leadership . • 7 • MOTION: By Mayor Dexter and seconded by Councilwoman Borgeson to authorize City staff and the architect to negotiate a contract with Larry Wysong Construction Company , Inc . in a total project amount not to exceed $1 ,289,000; passed unanimously by roll call vote. t Chien McHale expressed his appreciation and gratitude. 2. CONSIDERATION OF REVISION TO CONTRACT: SAN ANDRES DRAINAGE PROJECT Gary Sims , Engineering Department , gave staff report with recommendations for approval . Mr . Sims and Mr . Engen responded to questions from the Council . Lengthy Council discussion followed regarding the cost of the project , the necessity to abide by the Tree Protection Ordinance and the need to have the City Arborist on the site to oversee the project and give tree protection. Mr . Windsor reminded the Council that they had a fiduciary • responsibility to the taxpayers in doling out funds. Public Comment : Whitey Thorpe, 8025 Santa Ynez , stated the City needs to abide by its ' own Ordinance, despite the cost . Ursula Luna, 10600 San Marcos Road , stated that there should be no exceptions to the Ordinance and expressed hopes that the City Arborist would be on the site. Robert Nimmo , 7375 Bella Vista Road , asked the Council to observe the Ordinance and give more consideration and tolerance to the individual applicant . George Luna, 10600 San Marcos Road and speaking as an individual criticized the Public Works Department and stressed that environmental review should be done before Council gives approval to projects such as this. MOTION: By Councilwoman Mackey to proceed with the project according to the plans and negotiate the hand-digging around the trees with proper supervision and care of the roots. Motion failed due to lack of second . . Further Council discussion followed . 8 • Further Council discussion followed . MOTION: By Councilwoman Borgeson and seconded by Mayor Dexter to authorize the project and to have Lisa Schicker , City Arborist (or another arborist if she is unavailable) on hand to supervise; passed unanimously by roll call vote. 3. RESPONSE TO COUNCIL'S REQUEST TO REVIEW DEVELOPER FEE RATES Mr . Joseph gave staff report and asked Council for authorization to conduct a comprehensive in-house study. MOTION: By Councilwoman Borgeson and seconded by Councilman Lillev to direct staff to conduct a comprehensive in- house rate review and report the findings and proposed adjustments to the Council as recommended in the staff report ; passed unanimously by roll call vote. 4. REQUEST TO SET JOINT MEETING WITH PLANNING COMMISSION AT ITS MEETING OF NOVEMBER 21 , 1989, TO DISCUSS GENERAL PLAN • MATTERS Mayor Dexter set the time at 7:00 P .M. and the place for the meeting at the Ken Beck Building . D. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION: 1 . City Council : A. Confirmation of City Attorney Appointment Mr . Windsor confirmed the appointment of the new City Attorney and stated that an agreement between the City and himself will be on the next agenda for ratification. Mayor Dexter introduced the new City Attorney, Arther R. Montandon. Mr . Montandon thanked the Council for the appointment and stated that he was looking forward to working with the Council and the citizens of Atascadero . H. Consideration of revisions to Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (Councilman Shiers) Councilman Shiers expressed the need for some changes 9 • Councilwoman Borgeson conveyed the concern of a citizen to have the Sign Ordinance (with respect to City businesses) tightened up . C. Committee Reports: 1 . City/School Committee - Mayor Dexter reported that a meeting has still yet to be established . 2. North Coastal Transit - Nothing to report . 3. S.L.O. Area Coordinating Council 4. Traffic Committee - Nothing to report . 5. Solid/Hazardous Waste Mgmt . Committee - Written report submitted by Councilwoman Mackey. 6. Recycling Committee - Written report submitted by Councilwoman Mackey. 7. Economic Opportunity Commission - Mayor Dexter announced a meeting date. 8. Finance Committee - Nothing to report . 9. B. I .A. - Nothing to report . 10. Downtown Steering Committee - Nothing to report . is 11 . Interim Growth Management Committee - Nothing to report . 12. General Plan Subcommittee - Nothing to report . 2. CITY ATTORNEY No report . 3. CITY CLERK Mr . Sharitz reported that he was happy with the progress of the new Deputy City Clerk and thanked Georgia Ramirez for her help . 4. CITY TREASURER Not present . 5. CITY MANAGER No additional comments . 10 • MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 10:50 P.M. TO JOINT SESSION WITH CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ON TUESDAY , NOVEMBER 21 , 1989 AT 7:00 P.M. MINUTES RECORDED BY: --------- HOYD C. SHARITZ, CITY C PREPAREDBY: A LEE DAYKA, DEPUTY CITY CLERK Attachment : Exhibit A (Coniglia ) 11 Karen K. Coniglio 7600 Graves Crk . Rd . Atascadero , Ca . 93422 November 14 , 1989 City Council of Atascadero 6500 Palma Ave . Atascadero , Ca . 93422 Dear Sirs : I am writing to you in regards to the proposed road construction of Ardilla from Balboa to Graves Crk . Rd . and the future develop- ment of that hill . At the present time this area is open space , therefore I will refer to the sections of our city ' s General plan which pertain to open space . As you are well aware the general plan is likened unto the Con- stitution of our beloved United States . It is our basis for gov- erning our city. It gives us insight into the character of the land we occupy as Atascadero . It also gives us rules to wisely protect the people who live here . We are deeply indebted to the many people who contributed much work and effort to make a guide for us to follow in ruling our city ' s development . They saw great need for responsible stewardship of this land of Atascadero . I Quote to you a passage from page 47 . . . "The right to use of land is a privelege conferred by the community and includes responsibil- ity for considerate stewardship . " I hold the position that it was definitely not considerate of our city to allow Bill Barnes the right to grade over the natural drainage of that hill and put the u presidents below that hill in imminent danger should we receive a j heavy rainfall this year . On page 51 under Land Use Policy Proposals #6 I quote . . . "High pri- ority is placed upon open space as a land use element . This in- cltides '.the .pr.otection and preservation of scenic areas , water courses , hazard lands , hilltops , etc . that add much to the quality of the rural atmosphere in Atascadero . " I would like you to take note of the words HAZARD LANDS , then to refer to page 57 #9 under Residential Policy Proposals . "Hazard areas ( geologic , landslide , flood , ets . ) shall have appropriate development standards . " This area is a landslide area as pointed out in your own general plan and assigned a specific number , landslide area #7 . Therefore , This is a hazard area and should be under the: protection ofyouUr own Land Use Policies as pointed out and quoted above . Also , listed on page 58 under Residentioi Policy Proposals , we as a city are further urged to preserve our "trees , watersheds , and natural slopes and other natural amenities from abuse and destruc- tion resulting from poor design and development practices . " I would like to inform you of the Random House Dictionary definition of PRESERVE. " a= to keep alive or in existence , make lasting b- to keep safe from harm or injury ; save c- to keep possession of , to retain . " Now, please refer to page 70 Preservation- Policy Proposals #1 . " Because water resources are the principal key to the survival of whole plant and wildlife communities , the watershed areas of Atascadero shall be allowed to continue to function without dis- ruption . " The city has already acknowledged that it was poor practice to allow Bill Barnes to do preliminary grading on the proposed Ardilla Rd . It is also very poor practice not to reopen the natural drainage or watershed ditches since the rainy season is here . These natural drainage areas of landslide hill #7 should have been "allowed to function without disruption . " Let us stop this disruption and destruction and use our own general plan as it was meant to be used , as a guidebook to the development and preser- vation of our beautiful city . To delve further into the general plan , we find page 69 entitled Open Space and Conservation. "Open space uses are defined by the State of California as those necessary for public health and safe- ty. . . . #3 Open space Principles Scenic and sensitive lands shall be protected from destruction , overuse and misuse . " Hill #7 is definitely sensitive and has definitely been misused be Bill Barnes and the city that gave him permission to rough grade that road . I will now quote page 71 "Open space for public health and safety includes areas which require special management or vegetation be— cause of hazardous or special conditions , such as earthquake fault zones , unstable soil areas . . . " Hill #7 is unstable soil , alluvium, L,as stated un our general plan and is very hazardous soil in an earthquake . Mrs . Mudgett has taken up this topic with you and I feel no need to elaborate more on the topic for she has covered it extensively. Therefore , I conclude from reading Atascadero' s general plan that this area should remain open space and should be protected by the city from future development . Your action will either ensure the safety of many future citizens of Atascadero or ensure harm to come to them at some future time . Which action will you take? Will you be considerate stewards of the land we call home? Sincerely`, /1 Karen K. Conigli'�f • REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: A-2 Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 11/28/89 File No: TPM 20-88 From: Henry Engen, Community Development Director y6, SUBJECT: To consider a request to subdivide on 33 . 13 acre lot into two ( 2 ) parcels containing 28 . 0 and 5 . 13 acres each at 10450 Morro Road (Stella Evans/Dan Stewart, agent) . RECOMMENDATION: Denial of Tentative Parcel Map 20-88 in accordance with the Plan- ning Commission' s recommendation and the attached Findings for Denial . BACKGROUND: On November 7 , 1989, the Planning commission conducted a public Bearing on this subdivision request. on a 4 : 2 : 1 vote, the Commission supported staff' s recommendation for denial . There was discussion and public testimony as reflected in the attached minutes excerpt. HE :ps CC : Stella Evans Dan Stewart ATTACHMENTS : STAFF REPORT DATED NOVEMBER 7, 1989 MINUTES EXCERPT - PLANNING COMMISSION - NOVEMBER 7, 1989 • CITY OF ATASCADERO Item: g . 1 STAFF REPORT FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: November 7, 1989 BY:p•F Doug Davidson, Associate Planner File No: TPM 20-88 SUBJECT: To consider a request to subdivide one 33. 13 acre lot into two parcels containing 28.0 and 5. 13 acres each. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of Tentative Parcel Map 20-88 based on the Findings in Exhibit I . SITUATION AND FACTS: 1 . Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Stella Evans 2 . Representative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Daniel Stewart Engineering • 3. Project Address. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10450 Morro Rd. 4 . General Plan Designation. . . . .Suburban Single Family 5. Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .RS (Residential Suburban) 6. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33 . 13 acres 7 . Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Single family residence- Mobile home - Barn 8 . Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Negative Declaration posted October 24, 1989. ANALYSIS: The applicant proposes to subdivide one existing lot containing 33 .13 acres into two parcels of 28 . 0 and 5. 13 acres each. Proposed Parcel 2 contains an existing single family residence, mobile home, and accessory buildings. Thus, the analysis will focus on the feasibility of creating a new building site on proposed Parcel 1 . 1 • The subject property is located in the RS (Residential Suburban) zone. Minimum lot size in this zone ranges between 2 .5 and 10 acres depending on the "score" of the various performance standards. For this site, the minimum lot size criteria are: Distance from Center (12, 000 - 14, 000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . 40 Septic Suitability (40 - 60 min/inch) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . 00 Average Slope (40%+) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 .25 Access Condition (State Highway) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 .40 General Neighborhood Character (2. 68 acres) . . . . . . . . . . 0.54 Minimum Lot Size. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 .59 acres The proposed lot sizes of 5. 13 and 28 . 0 acres are larger than the minimum lot size required for this site. Although the minimum lot size criteria are met, this site contains severe development constraints . As the following analysis indicates, the site' s steep slopes and poor access pose major obstacles to residential construction. The General Plan and Subdivision Ordinance contain policies for appropriate land division and development. General Plan/Subdivision Ordinance Language A foremost City policy on land divisions is contained on Page 57 of the General Plan: "Attention shall be paid to the aesthetic result of land division. Building sites shall be encouraged on natural slopes, with minimum disruption of native vegetation and watersheds, and efficient layout of access and utilities . " This policy is incorporated within the basic requirement of the Subdivision Ordinance (Chapter 11-8 .201) : "The design of lots should be based on intended use, topography, and access requirements. Lots which are impractical for intended uses due to terrain, location of natural features, inadequate access, frontage, or buildable area, or other physical limitations will not be approved. Upon review and site checks of the proposed building location, it is clear that staff cannot recommend favorably in light of the these policies. Site Characteristics The building site for Parcel 1 is characterized by slopes in excess of 40 percent, dense coverage by native oak trees, and a swale which drains to Atascadero Creek. Slopes of 40 percent present a number of problems, with the placement of septic systems being one of the foremost. Septic systems are not 2 • allowed on slopes over 30 percent, unless an exemption is received from the Regional Water Quality Control Board. With slopes exceeding 40 percent and placement of the system adjacent to a swale which feeds Atascadero Creek, staff believes that the granting of an exemption with City concurrence is doubtful. Atascadero Creek is approximately 100 feet away from the proposed septic system and a potential exists for effluent draining into the Creek. The grading necessary to access the building site is extensive. To construct a 20 percent driveway on natural slopes of over 40 percent would require excessive grading and tree removal. Moreover, the soils of the building site are characterized by a thin soil mantle underlaid by rock fragments, with bedrock being well below the surface. The slopes appear stable in the natural condition, however, these soils will quickly erode when the native cover is exposed. Staff believes that grading of this magnitude with potential for erosion does not conform to the General Plan policy of preserving the contours and tree cover of the hillsides (Community Appearance and Standards Goals #1 and #2, Page 157) . Furthermore, it is not in the City' s best interests to create a lot with these intrinsic development constraints . The staff is continually dealing with original Colony lots and County subdivisions that do not take the topography into account. Access and Utilities Access to proposed Parcel 1 is provided by Highway 41 . All the reviewing agencies agreed that this access lacks adequate sight distance and is a dangerous entry to a single family home. The Public Works Department and Fire Department both recommended against the subdivision because of the poor sight distance and hazardous access . Caltrans also believes that the proposed access is "less than desirable" (Exhibit G) . The Highway 41 realignment project does not eliminate these concerns. The basic utilities of water, gas, electricity, and cable are currently not available to Parcel 1 . Each utility company stated that service could be extended to Parcel 1 at substantial cost . The lack of existing utilities is another indication that proposed Parcell was not intended for residential development. The Fire Department was also concerned about the water supply and lack of fire hydrants in the area. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed project does not incorporate the guidelines on residential subdivision and development as established by the City' s General Plan and Subdivision Ordinance. Parcels proposed for creation must contain adequate access and building sites that . 3 necessitate a minimal amount of site disturbance. Staff notified • the applicant of our concerns during the initial review of the project (Exhibit H) . In response to this letter, the proposed building site was revised. However, the site' s topographical constraints remain the same. Since the analysis has shown that the site is not physically suitable for development, staff cannot affirm the required findings . ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Zoning Map Exhibit B - General Plan Map Exhibit C - Tentative Map Exhibit D - Map Detail Exhibit E - Grading Plan Exhibit F - Letter from Engineer Exhibit G - Letter from Caltrans Exhibit H - Letter from Staff Exhibit I - Findings for Denial • 4 EXHIBIT A " TAJ CITY OF A��++�� cc ZONING MAP CADEROPARCEL MAP 20-88 r ts1; I 1.78-7 - ULD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT . '6ASI R C —CA F 'TAS 8445Ax os cs f � -_�- '-ti_ , ,_ OLOSC' c ^ X a—� -� —L(Fu) o o TRACT 1�,zS2 / RS J►p z =� 4 _ _ i EXHIBIT B GENERAL PLAN MAP miss ,0 . , . CITY OF ATASCADERO PARCEL MAP 20-88 ►scam»� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT . DEPARTMENT T � � SING i�---;� FAM I LY ' p\ I f LY J t C i {i 1 Stti } / RECREATION i b i I /4 �,Ug U 913A N S1NC-LE FAN\ ILY j o Q ts �, EXHIBIT C TENTATIVE MAP Ap CITY OF ATASCADERO PARCEL MAP 20-88 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT . S � ` ZrP 2rD;of rDrr7n \ � ��/ � �.'•'r�� tia !'•.� '!6n�nN_oopg JfBoo � u r•�. � -^ ti. Q�p T� t �1ER tm'1m rn A6 x un344 I 66 g ` i , EXHIBIT D MAP DETAIL CITY OF ATASCADERO PARCEL MAP 20-88 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT \ Za in (�� �(��r�. "µ r e_ ..irk•: i c ry �►0 4t b T W � } c: „,�F ta:_ �1 a..}h-.^Q .yi:s.Y' ".•'��y1�.�(� `y� Y^ � .zy"��R�+t EXHIBIT E PROPOSED GRADING PLAN CITY OF OF ATASCADERO .,� ; PARCEL MAP 20-88 — ►scn79 � COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT i \ yr I y 1 . 07 I E _ i or rJul °1 � t� EXHIBIT F DANIEL J. STE Y VART & ASSOC. ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS r, ; • POST OFFICE BOX 2038 597 Twelfth Street PASO ROBLES, CALIFORNIA 93446 (805) 238-0700„f' 1, ,`1-1-T7 September 13, 1989 City of Atascadero Planning Departnent City Hall Atascadero, CA 93422 Re: Stella Evans - Parcel Map AT 89-273 Dear Staff, At the request of my client, I have expanded my previous drawings indi- cating another build site. drawing shifts the site further away frau Atascadero Creek to allow for the sewage disposal system to be placed a safe distance therefrom (100 feet minimum) . In order to locate the site further up the hill, a longer driveway was necessary and since the contractor has scene obligation to Mrs. Evans durinq the construction • of the Highwav 41 realignment he has agreed (according to Mrs. Evans) to assist her in preparing a 'build-inc site. If you visit the site, you will see a large stockpile of material within the Old Morro Road right-of-way next to the right-of-way of Highway 41. You will also note that my drawings show the driveway mostly in fill. This stockpile material could be used to construct the driveway. Please review the attached tentative map and topo and continue processing this application. If you have any questions, please contact me. Very truly yours, - Daniel J. Vew� DJS/nm 0 0 EXHIBIT G STATE OF r-AIIFORNIA-3USiNESS TRANSPCRTATICN AND HOUSING AGENCY GEC'RG`r ✓EUKMF;IAN v—ernor DEPARTMENT OE TRANSPORTATION - : P.C. BOX 2114 - 'p•,' y SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93403-311, TCD ;305; 549-3259 January 23, 1989 5-SLO-41-13 . 5/13 .7 Tentative Tract Map 20-88 5-252 - 908008 Mr. Doug Davidson Planning Division City of Atascadero P.O. Box 747 Atascadero, CA 93423 Dear Mr. Davidson: Thank you for providing Caltrans the opportunity to review and comment on the Tentative Tract Map 20-88 at 10450 Morro Road adjacent to State Highway 41. Our review has generated the following comments: A. The point of access to the proposed Parcel 1 is via old abandoned Morro Road and is less than desirable in Caltrans ' opinion. B. It is noted that the building site is very small and adjacent to abandoned old Morro Road and Atascadero Creek. The septic tank and leach field can and will drain into Atascadero Creek, posing a health hazard to downstream property owners. If I may be of further assistance, please contact me at (805) 549-3120. Sincerely, �- _ k Vaughn L. Newlander Special Studies ;� V: y I" t:L I EXHIBIT H ADMINISTRATION BUILDING ` 8500 PALMA AVENUE taseade�® • ATASCAOERO. CALIFORNIA 93422 POLICE DEPARTMENT PHONE: (8051 466.8000 INCORPORATED JULY 2. 1979 6500 PALMA AVENUE CITY COUNCIL ATASCADERO. CALIFORNIA 93422 CITY CLERK PHONE: (6051 468-6600 CITY TREASURER CITY MANAGER ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT FIRE DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 6005 LEWIS AVENUE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ATASCAOERO.CALIFORNIA 93422 PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT PHONE: (8051 466-2141 February 16, 1989 Mr. Daniel Stewart Box 2038 Paso Robles, Ca. 93447 SUBJECT: Tentative Parcel Map 20-88 10450 Morro Rd. (Evans) Dear Mr. Stewart: We have reviewed the above referenced project and received comments from all the affected agencies. Based on this agency response and subdivision criteria from the Subdivision Ordinance and General Plan, staff will, as previously discussed, be recommending denial. The main concerns are: 1. Poor access and sight distance. 2. Lack of available utilities. 3. Creation of a house site on slopes in excess of 30%. 4. Lack of sufficient area for septic system placement due to the steep slopes and proximity to Atascadero Creek. The purpose of this letter is to inform you of our intended action, not to provide a detailed analysis of your application. Unless we hear otherwise, staff will continue to process this proposal, with a tentative hearing date of March 7, 1989 for Planning Commission action. .. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please call the office for assistance. sincerely, ,/ ' o�ug vic�sL • Associate Planner , DD:dd cc: Stella Evans EXHIBIT I - Findings for Denial . Tentative Parcel Map 20-88 10450 Morro Rd. (Evans/Stewart) November 7, 1989 ENVIRONMENTAL FINDING: The proposed project will not have a significant impact upon the environment . The Negative Declaration prepared for the project is adequate. MAP FINDINGS: 1 . The proposed map is not consistent with the General Plan. 2 . The design and/or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with the General Plan. 3 . The site is not physically suitable for the proposed type of development . 4 . The site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development. 5. The proposed map is not consistent with the general • requirements of the City' s Subdivision Ordinance, as contained in Section 11-8 .201 . 0 IRMINUTES EXCERPT - PLANNING COMMISSION - 11 /89 Chairperson Lochridge referenced a letter received from the applicant asking for a continuance to the December 5, 1989 meetina. Mr. DeCamp explained that the December 5th agenda is already full and would prefer to have the matter heard at the December 19th meeting. No public comment was received. MOTION: By Commissioner Brasher, seconded by Commissioner Luna and carried 7 : 0 to continue the hearing on Tentative Parcel Map 13-89 to the meeting of December 19 , 1989 . 1 . TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 20-88 :' Application filed by Stella Evans (Daniel Stewart) to subdivide one parcel of 33 . 13 acres into two lots of 28 . 0 and 5 . 13 acres each. The subject site is located at 10450 Morro Road. Chairperson Lochridge stated he would step down from is discussion and voting on this matter due to a possible conflict of interest. Vice Chairperson Luna then took the chair. He referenced various documentation the applicant submitted to the Commission prior to the meeting at which point a few minutes was taken to review the items . Doug Davidson then presented the staff report which focused on issues such as the feasibility of creating a building site on Parcel i , site characteristics, access and utilities, etc . Staff is recommending denial based on policies contained in the General Plan and Subdivision Ordinance which speak to the site' s severe development constraints . Commission questions and discussion followed relative to time lilies in processing the application, environmental determination, etc . Vice Chairperson Luna referenced the adjacent property (Tract 1382 - Langford/Ibsen) for which an Environmental Impact Report was prepared and certified, and read summary conclusions from the E . I .R. concerning impacts which could not be mitigated. Dan Stewart, agent for the applicant, explained reasons for selection of the second building site which included percolation rates and the proximity to the creek (which is about 120 feet away) . He added that there is enough land for this parcel on which to locate a suitable septic system. CalTrans is constructing a driveway on Highway 41 to connect to parcel 1 . Mr. Stewart stated this proposed land division 0 0 MINUTES EXCERPT - PLANNING COMMISSION - 11/7/89 meets the necessary conditions based on the "score" of the various performance standards . He spoke on erosion control measures and did not see any significance in the rule-off into the creek from developing this site. Mr. Stewart then responded to questions from the Commission pertaining to roadway visibility from the driveways, tree removals, amount of site disturbance with regard to grading, etc. Commissioner Highland asked if there was land less than 30% slope to locate a septic system. Mr. Stewart replied there is not any except in the roadway. Commissioner Waage commented that he did not see a way to construct a house without extensive cuts or fills to which Mr. Stewart stated that pole type construction is possible, but would be very costly. Stella Evans, applicant, stated she has owned this property since 1959 and spoke about the history of the site. She addressed where the access from the parcels would tie into the Highway 41 realignment. Mrs . Evans explained that the documents she presented to the Commission noted that her application was not processed in a timely manner, and read a prepared statement in support of the subdivision. Joan O' Keefe, 9985 Old Morro Road, read a prepared statement opposing the subdivision. She referenced the Vista Road subdivision (adjacent to this one) for which an E . I .R. was prepared and pointed out cumulative negative environmental impacts discussed in the E .I .R. which would make it difficult to establish a building site. This proposed project poses the same environmental problems for development, therefore, an E . I .R. should be required. Vice Chairperson Luria referenced two appellate cases which have directly discussed the effects of the permit streamlinina act. Commissioner Waage stated this property is too steep for a building site and there would be too marry cuts and fills and trees impacted. The septic system is also too close to the creek. There are places in the larger parcel to split off five acres which would be better than the present proposal . Commissioner Hanauer remarked that it is not impossible to construct safe, liveable homes on these kinds of slopes although this type of construction would be more costly. Vice Chairperson Luna Commented that the issue Was not whether this property could be built upon but whether it could be built consistent with the General Pian and CEQA requirements . He stated he did not feel this project MINUTES EXCER 0- PLANNING COMMISSION - 10189 accomplishes that. Commissioner Brasher stated it is very important that the Commission be guided by the General Plan the General Plan and Subdivision ordinance. MOTION: By Commissioner Luna, seconded by Commissioner Brasher to deny Tentative Parcel Map 20-88 subject to the Findings for Denial contained in the staff report. The motion carried 4 : 2 : 1 with the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Luna, Brasher, Waage, and Lopez-Balbontin NOES: Commissioners Highland and Hanauer ABSTAIN: Chairperson Lochridge At 8 : 25 Vice Chairperson Luna declared a break; meeting reconvened at 8 :35 p.m. Chairperson Lochridge took his seat back on the commission. 3 . CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 10-89 : Application filed by Beehive Mobile Home Sales (Tom Gouff) to establish a mobile home dealer in the CT (Commercial Tourist) zone. The subject site is located at 6000 San Anselmo Road. Mr. Davidson presented the staff report which focused on the appropriateness of the proposed use in the CT zone. Staff ' s recommendation is for denial . Commission questions and discussion followed relative to what types of uses would be more compatible in occupying the site. Commissioner Hanauer commented that many of the mobile home sales are venerated by travelers on Highway 101 rather than local residents . Robert Nimmo, 7375 Bella Vista, stated that the Commission should take a closer look at the present allowable uses under CT zoning with regard to desirable aesthetics and realistic uses . Most City studies dobe to date Tuve called for nodes of commercial development at the freeway overpasses within the City. You won' t get successful commercial nodes if commercial retail or commercial service activities are denied and restrict the uses to such things as truck stops, museums , zoos , etc. REPORT TO CITY C OUNC;M • • CITY OF ATASCADERO Agook Item: -$-3- B-1 Tkmv& Ray Windsor,My Mugu peeft DgtE. 10-130/89, 11114/89 8 11128/89 oil: Henry Engen,Com,►Development Director W File No: From: Lisa K. Schicker,City Arborist SiECT. Consideration of a request io remove one heritage tri,20" pwim4puMk or Coast Live Oak, by Homerun HomWvrre 0 Asaocieodon,(managed by Esmella Associaxa) "The Oaks"SM Trac Wary. RECO DMHDA3MN: Approval of the me removal as recomamerdsd by the arbozW,Chock Sco"U, with a three io one runt Plow see additionat comnments in the aanalysia section of report BACKGROUM The tree ordinance species to rat"trees 20"or greater In diwooler are deemed herbage trees and cannot be removed unless approved by ft C*Council foll ing public heariag. � , or coast live oak is a ne►mve California evergreen tree species gloving m CUR=coastal ranges and lov► and valleys in Oak vroodlend and Oak grassland plant communities and m semi-moist canyons usually belovr 3000 feet Live oaks typically have a broad crovii and a short trunk vb3ch divides imo numerous massive branches. It is a relatively fast grog*. oak, adding 2-4 feet per year under good conditions. It is a strong foliage ad form nee vrhich begim to achieve good cbuwter lemur 20-25 yearn. It coon reach heights of 39 feet(vim a spread of 42 feet ad a dbh of ISO in twenty years (Lenz and Dorney,CaMpEak NeAre Shrubs and'Iyaeesl. The coast be oak is resistant to heat and cold, draught and heavy rehn sons,gravelly or hard-packed soils and repels may insect pest that desmay other trees; therefore it is one of the most valuable of codes from a natural ludeco pe vievpoWL The tree has high vitdlife value, proves food and shelter to moony brads and mammals. As v Uh most oaks,it provides shade and relief from bat summer temPratuaues and cleans and More our air through photosynthesis. This use is located apprnaba wly five feet nV from the edge of one of the Condominium buildings and Is Waled on a vege%td sloping back porton of the let There are other oeks grovrmg on this slope and the area does not appear to be used by the residents. The tree vas phoiogrophed and di ions van held vilh Randy Rossi,the arborist Chuck Scovell and the Property manager,Richard WMhoit regarding the c on U*m of Us tree. ANALYSIS: This vas a difficult tree to make a recommendation for removal, beam at first glam, the true did not look in danger of �al>mg,dying or pr+esent�a hazard io the public,as the arborist had stated. The eaaopy is alive and veil,and tie cambium is functioring. Hovever, this oak is quite large and does have two large limbs which hang over one of the residential condommiwo on the site. There Iran been major branch breakage villiin the year, and be is evidence of mum infestation and some heart rot(most old fates will eventi ly get this). Although MMM nor rot VM AW83MM mob a the 22, they on suns limit the tree is coder some srieas. My mein conceon veould be forte whitr of the cbMmvbo be in.the comp]ax v ho Vero playing on ft edge of the asphedt par9Ig area ad jecent b vhare the lade limb feILleen yw. IftkWistactmaraot. the homdeovnaers as wall,acrd teir1rime reasoon for asking four the removal of the tree. They are also c oacaaed ebom a fto fit m and demneging the roof. Itis difflica for amore ID Mj act whomff and bow an oak limb is g jD fall. Cltafac condf0 w can i 0wri x the `vhe a" - oflMmes loot, humid and vindless summer days es vd as ffie obviom heavy wet snowfall days aro Mmes b vetch for breakage. Thera arc also physical suds tD look for vhich might help to predict, (such as deed brauoches or stress fuctamas in the beds,bm Use aro not evident in ft watt. (Ma Daly vq b possibly see a stress froctme would be b get up in the free (eitloer by bachet or by climbing up b=nine closely acrd even then they many not be evide". AMxMh I do not persona► see any imm dent danger ftom this free, the men ger of ft property,Richemd and fie coDn aft arborist aro coca cea d abom doe pmaW damage and danger to dee resiidems and Ur property;therefore I feel compelbd b defer 1D their request Buse of ft herbal steres of this the and the;udeubn described above,I would ask for doe co7operoifan of ft epplic arra recommend the fob: a. Upon Chuck Scovell's rocown=delim,ngaest We.three m One replacement for ft tree be mode. The properq►slopes behind be coadom inim end there a e some <hmnw are doing veR back flyer;flris vrould be an ideal site for ft repheemea. A fev p1amAirg guidelrnes are hstad hero m aid the gpbmw vith roplacemea that viIl heave a good CIO* Of sno vhml: 1. Choose tun healthy IS gallon size -aro 2. Inspect the trees for encircling roots(rte amt wrap around 4oe pot hese a poorer chance of st*hte ring out and growing right in the ground). 3. When pltnft,make sun fat the roots have been urtt Xled,straightened and lowered as much as possible. 4. Pont in a look at least twice as bag as floe pot,end we the nntive soils is ft hole. S. Provide doe free with a deep watering-meaning a slov,gradual and long vateft (which enramrMes root growth ID anchor the tree). Provide one deep w in late spring and two in the summer. If d4 itrigadon is used, do long, sbv waterimgs applying 10.20 gallons over a tluee-four hour period. 6. P ootect The young votes from grazing edirrmls-especially deer(with welded wire fencing-I can provide some specs)ural they are at least four feet in height. b. If doe applicam an villi,ask if fhcy allov the city ID receive a shin of the trunk to record the age of this tree. (These slicesabe taken to to zoo or the cozpo ratm yard for tcrnMary MM ural the i dmmetyon can be recorded.) They can then be discaaded or used for"stepping stones"siong pathways in public areas. c. Request that the applicant provide evidence of the plaafirg (through receipts or pbotogrephs) and a ane-year's follow np (&mongh photographs or on-site inspection)on the hsslth and atedtts of Use plantings. • Attachments: Permit gplicad n Location Map Site Plaid � moMLi .• � , ���•, 'fie Wig �t . ��� . .;,�� ��1. ��► POP �� �i '1 , -•. �,:. ,�. � Edi �N ,� � �� low� •l�/j� .ter • � � ._+ 11� sem.► ���� �,,� V IL It i z •�t.. Jim " •• ` p ( z Alr It 10 lb Is _71 41. IN 3 9 t,/ • 1 0 .• �}_ate"' w4cub n:dl1ta r0 �. .� �•�� a m t p o`a ?OD .. t f -�� D r •D D�f l f .-. \ �..'• �. '. •ee$ trwnli .awl • - .. R P I M i associates f -� �-� \•._ •or • PLANNING ••• .••.• fit•JMR AA !d_a•,nia ►43 I t �; •••.r •••rreww•.�•e.w+-.•e••••e,.er•r• -- J.J. Pwll1D4S WN f.41•7444 C�:I _ _ c.1 •• ••`.Mtp K. v rwJ er•.•,.. e.ut JJ •i� 'y�!� ' SEP c 1989 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION p'yi� �cv4L�rE�" 6500 Palma Ave. ���il�iJi �{,,,,, or" I n -----7 , P.O. Box 747 ME Atascadero, CA 93423 (805) 466-8000 APPLICATION FORM Y Please type or print in ink Owner; ,,terY.i• Agent: CfiiecK�eovedl Address: LK:1 Address: 2-TI ag"o"nAa A4-to, Phone #: Phone #: 3��5 -f7P/i Applicant: S'osnt- Address: Phone #: fee-. e • Project Description: /qtr 2&r"rX1A / Existing Use: a ,-'t,,, Project Address: S'l.S'a -I;& icy k�a.Z Legal Description: Lot (s) H ock Tract /3�,s-- Assessors Parcel No (s) :O ?At d cr iz Co on I/We consent to the filing of this application and declare that this application and related documents are true and correct. (NOTE: The signature of the property owner is required on the app ication before it will be accepted for processing. ) Owner Agent Date Date • For Staff . Use Only Fee: Receipt #: al rr Tree Removal Permit Application 1112 a,A ffMi. Supplemental Information • Isla 1979 AT�scA►n�o; (Please type or print in ink) Reason for Removal : ! , alt 04 Otlo� ro � OL"A Ydi Number of Trees to be Removed: Specify the size (measured 4 ' above ground level ) , species (both common and botanical name) and condition of each tree to be removed: 2. 3. 4. 5. Specify the size and species of the trees proposed to replace those intended for removal : / 2. 3. 4. 5. Please prepare a "Plot Plan" showing all improvements on your property, trees to be removed, trees to remain, and the proposed locati of replacement trees as per the attached example. wner ArWrist Certificate Number Date Date &-till • REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: B.2 Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meetina Date: 111/28i89 Via: Henry Engen. Colfmun tv Development Director From: Lisa Schicker, City Arborist SUBJECT: Consideration of a request to remove one Heritage tree; a 30=' dbh Ouercus lobata from a field used for grazing animals,. by Daryl Shull at 8250 Los Osos Road. RECOMMENDATION: Based on arborists ' reports and Current ordinance, approve removal subject to 2 : 1 replacement . Please see additional cow- 11-lents . ow- iilelits . BACKGROUND: Tile tree ordiIiance specifies that live Native trees 20" or greater dbh are deemed heritage trees and cannot be removed unless approved by the City Council following a public hearing. in addition to previous comments I Have Blade about Quercus lobata ivallev oak) . tYlese trees; esuecially in their older age; provide all ecological niche and Habitat for Numerous species of wildlife . This tree in particular has become the main acorn "granary" for a family group of acorn woodpeckers , Dile of the only gregarious species of woodpeckers in North America (Koenig and Muliuiie, Tlie Population Ecology of Cooperatively Breeding Acorn Woodpeckers, 1987 ) . This particular tree ion the Sligh' s property) has thousands of storage holes along its trunk that were created by the acorn woodpeckers over many years; they use this tree to store acorns for winter and spring feeding. This tree was inspected by arborists D .O. Denney (for- the Sl igii:� ) , Jack Brazeal ( for the City) . Randy Rossi and myself oil separate occasions . Photographs of the tree are provided in Denney' s report . There are no other Quercus lobata on tiie property, and there are over 100 Quercus dougalsii (blue oak) oil site. ANALYSIS : • It is riot disputed that this tree is over n0 dead; as both arborists state . Based on this fact; the wording of the current ordlnance and the owner' s request, this tree permit way be issued. • Therefore, I recommend the following: If Mr. Sligh is not willing to save this tree, and still wishes to Have it removed. ask for a two to one replacement ( 15 gallon Quercus lobata) on site . if Mr. Sligh still wants to use this land for grazing, these young trees will need to be protected with fencing for a few years until they get tall enough to avoid being browsed. The following guidelines should assist Mr. Sligh with the planting of these replacement oaks : 1 . Choose 21 15 gallon size Quercus lobata. 2 . inspect the trees for encircling roots (roots that wrap around the pot have a poorer chance of straightening out and growing right in the around. 3 . When plantinal make sure that the roots have been untanaled'. stral' uhtened and looselled as much as uossible . 4 . Plant in a hole at 'Least twice as big as the pot, and use native Soils 1*1-1 the Hole . 5 . Provide ti-le tree with deep watering - meaning a slow, • gradual and lc)rlcf watering (which encourages downward root e tree ) . Provide one deep watering in growth to anchor til late surinu and two in the surnifter. if drip -irrigation is used, I do long.. slow waterings applying 10-20 gallons over a three-four Hour period. 6 . Protect the young trees from grazing animals with some kind of fencinu - welded wire fencing of at 'Least 4 feet in neluht ( I can urovide some specs if needed) . Iii either case; we should also acknowledge that this site has a very valuable stand of blue oaks (over a Hundred) in this field as well . Because Mr. Sliah is intenaing to irrigate his new landscape, it would be important to note that oaks can decline or die as a result of root rot fungus from overwatering, and it would be advisable for 1-1--hii to avoid watering those areas . Attacl-Iments : Application Site Plan Arboristslrei)orts and uhotoarauhs cc Dal:vl Sliuh iJQQ- - Irk - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ia79 PLANNING DIVISION 6500 Palma Ave. P.O. Ho x 747 Atascadero, CA 93423 (805) 466-8000 APPLICATION FORM Please type or print in ink Owner: DARYL SLIGH Agent : n_n_ nFNNFY Address: 8250 LOS OSOS RD, Address: P_n, BOX 1090 ATASCADERO. CA, 93422 PASO ROBLES, CA, 93446 Phone #: (805) 466-1381 Phone #: Applicant: DARYL SLIM 'S� C�^ nt cr WM eo Address: 8250 LOS OSOS RD. ATASCADERO, CA. 93422 Phone #: (805) 466-1381 • Project Description: REMONIAT, nF _ DYING TRF.F. FOR SAFETY RRAS(]N;S-StrH AS FALLEN LIMBS AND BRANCHES ENTDAN""EHNG PEOPLE, ANIMALS. AND P.Q. & E. POWER LINES THAT ARE WITHIN THE IMMEDIATE AREA OF THE DYING TREE. Existing Use: —FIELD USED FOR GRAZING ANIMALS. Project Address: 8250 LOS OSOS RD Legal Description: Lot(s) 18 ; Block 37 ; Tract 126 Assessors Parcel No (s) .05(o. 401. 00+ I/We consent to the filing of this application and declare that this application and related documents are true and correct. (NOTE: The signature of the property owner is required on the application before it will be accepted for processing . ) Owner Agent 10104/Sq 10 - 2- Date -Date Date For Staff Use Only Fee: Receipt #: Tree Removal Permit Application ■11RI . I Ipnr Supplemental Information Iola , .. 1979 (Please type or print in ink) Reason for Removal : n� - 4-E-c-e- AInA- bol Ae-�,ct_ La-at. t-n%4c ��iLas Number of Trees to be Removed: Crkr- Cil Specify the size (measured 4 ' above ground level ) , species (both common and botanical name) and condition of each tree to be removed: S;z� S��cceS eo�d'l4-�c., 1 . 3 i- 11 w6,;4_ CAL Pno- �-o 76 dead 2. 3. 4. 5. Specify the size and species of the trees proposed to replace those intended for removal : . r 1 �P_.G�2�C c Lai ��, C'n.1 !'2 G. �'1 �."�l1/CS.E'F_C►C� 2. 3. 4. 5. Please prepare a "Plot Plan" showing all improvements on your property, trees to be removed, trees to remain, and the proposed location of replacement trees as per the attached example. Owner 7 Arborist Certificate Number in Inilag %C — 2- 9cf Date Date i v CO Ap R TH �l''' j' 1 � f• � s14PE 500 � ;-Re , 0 8 i 8260 LOS DOS ROAD AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CONSULTING ARBORISTS FIELD REPORT CASE LOCATION 8250 Los Osos Road CITY AtacrndPrn, Cn OWNER NAME Darrell Sligh ADDRESS 8250 Los Osos Road CITY Atascadern_, CA RES. PHONE ( 805 ) 466-1381 BUS. PHONE ( 805 ) 239-2550 AGENT NAME ADDRESS CITY RES. PHONE ( ) BUS. PHONE ( ) DAMAGE or ACCIDENT DATE TYPE OF DAMAGE INSPECTION DATE WEATHER TEMP. i D. 0. Denney Certified Arborist #391 P.O. Box 3090 Paso Robles, CA 93447 f Number Size Species Condition 1 36" White Oak Poor, 40% dead (Quercus lobata) Recommendation : Removal Attach All correspondence Ilere Kraphs: Itanrermber to date, deslgnale direction lacing camera, explah� each photo and number accordingly. ?Y ''"� ✓'..•."J omw- .� .s •^"�� ��' 1r=�"` ':�'�". "' �.'"�� -�+ f _+ "�Aid-' .+.. u .. .s r,.�j • � +h. `. �: t mss .�'�' .� � u��t'�,� .gfk.. AM /1 rs 1 4- �_ SurlrinAty and ttecommendations; G�P�; I FBF O JACK BRAZEAL TREE CONSULTANT j =,^,N y . Cf;APTER 4531 SKIPJACK LANE � PASO ROBLES, CA 93446 WCISA #163 (805) 227-6140 .gRBOFOS i October 25, 1989 Lisa Schieker, City Arborist Community Development Department City of Atascadero 6500 Palma Avenue Atascadero, California 93422 Certified Arborist Review for: I Tree Removal Request by Darrell Sligh 8250 Los Osos Road Atascadero, California 93422 This report is to give a second opinion of the tree removal request, by Mr. Sligh, for the City of Atascadero. The tree requested for removal is a thirty-six inch diameter Valley Oak (Quercus lobata. ) The tree is located in a group of Blue Oaks of various diameters, mostly eighteen to twenty- i four inches. This thirty-six inch diameter Valley Oak ap- pears to be the only Valley Oak in the immediate area. The condition of this Valley Oak is declining and is forty to sixty percent dead. This tree could be safety pruned and retained for an undetermined life expectancy, extremes would be five to twenty years. 1 My opinion is that, due to the present condition of this i tree and the short life expectancy and the presence of many other healthy oak trees in the immediate area, this old and declining Valley Oak be allowed removal. i 2.4 . 91 ck Brazeal, Arborist Date • REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: -9-4- --ij3- B-3 Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 10/30/89 & 11/14/89 & 11/28/89 File No: TPM 16-89 From: Henry Engen, Community Development Director �Z, SUBJECT: Proposed subdivision of one parcel containing approximately 9 . 63 acres into two ( 2) lots, one of 4 . 00 acres and one of 5 . 63 acres at 9350 Santa Cruz Road (Lobo Investments, Inc. /Larry Pace) . RECOMMENDATION: Approval in accordance with Planning commission recommendation • based on the Findings contained in the staff report, dated Sep- tember 19 , 1989 , and the attached Revised Conditions of Approval . BACKGROUND: This matter was on the Councils consent agenda for the meeting of October 10 , 1989 , and was pulled and scheduled as a public hearing on October 30, 1989 . Staff was directed to check on response time for emergency services and the cumulative affect of subdivision activity in the western portion of the City. ANALYSIS: The Planning Commission minutes reflect their discussion and the concerns expressed relative to emergency response to this loca- tion. The Fire Marshall indicated that it could be 13 to 15 minutes before a fire truck could reach the site. This issue was identified early on in the staff-review process ( including legal review) and as a result Condition #14 calling for a resi- dential sprinkler system for future construction was added. importantly for long-range planning, Council has authorized preparation of a Fire Services Master Plan, which will address needs City-wide. The present General Plan calls for a third fire station. The Master Plan work program will also get into issues • of type of construction appropriate in areas where wildland fire hazards exist and response time analysis and standards . • The attached staff memorandum provides a 1989 update on subdivi- sion applications within the City. A total of 22 applications, including one condo conversion, have been submitted. Although several were withdrawn and resubmitted as new applications, the net result was that a total of 25 existing lots are being pro- posed to be converted to 145 lots for a net increase of 120 building sites . As indicated on the map, these sites occur throughout the City, with most lots being created within the Urban Services Line. The parcel map in question is identified as Item 16 on the City-wide map. This increase in parcels has been anticipated in calculating the City' s population holding capacity of approximately 33,000 people. with respect to parcels located beyond desirable response times, it should be recollected that the City' s General Plan states that: "It is not in accordance with Atascadero' s development policies to fill up the core before the lauds to the west and south are built upon. " (Page 56) . As a final note, Santa Cruz Road was completed during the week of October 16, so that issue discussed before the Planning Commis- sion has been resolved. Enclosures : October 10 . 1989 - Staff Report and Attachments • 1989 Update - Subdivisions Staff Memorandum HE :ph cc : Lobo InvestmeIlts, Inc . Larry Pace Volbrecht Surveys • • REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: A-3 Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 10/10/89 File No: TPM 16-89 From: Henry Engen, Community Development Director }, SUBJECT: Subdivision of one parcel containing approximately_ 9 .63 acres into two (2 ) lots, one of 4 . 00 acres and one of 5 . 63 acres at 9350 Santa Cruz Road (Lobo Investments, Inc./Larry Pace) . RECOMMENDATION: Approval in accordance with Planning Commission recommendation based on the Findings contained in the staff report dated Sep- tember 19 , 1989, and the attached revised Conditions of Approval . BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the above- referenced map on September 19 , 1989 and recommended approval of Tentative Parcel Map 16-89 on a 4 :3 vote subject to the Findings and Conditions of Approval with modification to Condition #5 as follows : 'Construction of Santa Cruz Road to City standards along the entire frontage prior to recording the final map shall be 'equired. 11 HE :ph Attachment: Planning Commission - Revised Conditions of Approval Planning Commission Staff Report- Sept. 19 , 1989 Planning Commission Minutes Excerpt - Sept. 19 , 1989 cc : Lobo Investments, Inc. Larry Pace Volbrecht Surveys EXHIBIT E - Conditions ofAPP roval Tentative Parcel Map 16-89 9350 Santa Cruz Rd. Lobo Investments, Inc. September 19, 1989 (Revised 9/19/89 by 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 prior to recordation of the final map. 2. All existing and proposed utility, pipeline, open space, access, or other easements are to be shown on the final map. If there are building or other restrictions related to the easements, they shall be noted on the final map. 3. All relocation and/or alteration of existing utilities shall be the responsibility of the developer at his sole expense. 4. Grading, drainage, and erosion control plans prepared by a registered civil engineer shall be submitted for review and approval by the Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to issuance of building permits. 5. Applicant shall obtain an encroachmentermit from the City Y of Atascadero Public Works Department, and shall sign an inspection agreement guaranteeing that the work will be done and the inspections paid for, prior to the issuance of a building permit or start of public works construction. Construction of Santa Cruz Road to City standards along the entire frontage prior to recording the final map shall be required. 6. 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 shtLll be in conformance with the Department of Public Works standards and the current State of California uniform sign chart. Installation of traffic devices shall be subject to review and modifications after construction. 7. Construction of the public road improvements shall be completed or bonded for prior to the recording of the final map. 8 . All public improvements shall be covered with a 100% Performance Bond until construction is approved, and by a 10% Maintenance Bond until one year after construction approval. s � • Exhibit E - Conditions of Approval (continued) TPM 16-89 September 19, 1989 (Revised 9/19/89 by Planning Commission) _ 9. Applicant shall offer to dedicate to the City of Atascadero for right-of-way and/or easement purposes, the following: Street name: Santa Cruz Road Limits: 20 feet from centerline to edge of right-of-way along entire frontage of lots. 10. Applicant shall offer to dedicate to the public for public utility easements the private access easement on Parcel 1 and Parcel 2. 11. Offers of dedication shall be completed and recorded prior to or simultaneous with the recordation of the final map. 12. Vehicular access to Parcels 1 and 2 shall only be from one common driveway originating from Santa Cruz Road. 13. Residential sprinkler 4ystems, approved by the city Fire Department, are required in future residences built on these parcels. 14 . A final map drawn in substantial conformance with the approved tentative map and in compliance with all conditions set forth herin shall be submitted for review and approval in accordance with the California Subdivision Map Act and the City of Atascadero Subdivision Ordinance prior to recording of the final map. A. Monuments shall be set at all new property corners created and a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor shall indicate, by certificate on the final map, that 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. 15. Approval of this tentative map shall expire two years from the date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted pursuant to a written request prior to the • expiration date. • CITY OF ATASCADERO Item: B-2 STAFF REPORT FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: September 19, 1989 BY: Michael Sullivan, Assistant Planner File No: TPM 16-89 M SUBJECT: Consideration of a request to subdivide one existing lot of 9. 63 acres into two lots, one of 4 . 00 acres and one of 5. 63 acres. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Tentative Parcel Map 16-89 based on the Findings for Approval in Exhibit D and the Conditions of Approval in Exhibit E. SITUATION AND FACTS: 1 . Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • •Larry Pace for Lobo Investments, Inc. 2. Representative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Volbrecht Surveys 3. Project Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9350 Santa Cruz Road 4 . General Plan Designation. . . . .Suburban Single Family 5. Zoning District . . . . . . . . . . . . . .RS (Residential Suburban) 6. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9. 63 acres 7 . Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Vacant 8 . Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Negative Declaration posted September 7, 1989 ANALYSIS: The applicant proposes to subdivide an existing lot of approx- imately 9. 63 acres into two lots, one containing 4 . 0 acres (Lot 1) and one containing 5. 63 acres (Lot 2) . Access to the lots would be from a common driveway originating on Santa Cruz Road near the northeast corner of Lot 1 . A 30-foot wide easement would provide for access to Lot 2 . 1 This property and surrounding properties to the north, south and east are in the RS (Residential Suburban) zone. Property to the west is in San Luis Obispo County jurisdiction. Land use in the local vicinity is currently vacant land at the site and at the surrounding properties. Using the performance standards for minimum lot size in the RS zone (Zoning Ordinance 9-3.144) , staff determined that the minimum lot size for this site is 3. 87 acres. Lot size factor Distance from Center (>20, 000 ft) 0. 90 Septic suitability (52 . 6 min/inch) 1 . 00 Average slope (19.5%) 0.75 Access condition (Paved road, <15% slope) 0.40 General neighborhood character (4 . 12 acres) 0 . 82 Minimum lot size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. 87 acres The proposed parcels 1 and 2, of 4. 00 and 5. 63 acres, meet the minimum lot size standards for the Residential Suburban zone. The two proposed parcels would each be similar in size to the the average lot size of 4 . 12 acres existing in the neighborhood. The percolation rate for Lot 1 was 52 . 6 min/inch and is classified as "slow"; an engineered septic system would be required since the rate is over 30 min/inch. For Lot 2 the rate is 12 . 8 min/inch. "Los Padres Engineers" performed the perco- lation tests and recommended conventional leach-line systems for both proposed lots. Lot 1 has a proposed building site in the northeast corner of the lot . Lot 2 has a proposed building site near the southern lot boundary. Each of these sites would require grading on slopes of about 19% (or less) for the building sites and for the driveways. Construction of houses, driveways and septic systems on either of the lots would not require any tree removal. The driveway leading to Lot 2 would require a fill area crossing a swale. Proposed culvert pipes under this fill area would allow proper drainage down the swale. The city Fire Department has expressed concern about slow response times for this general neighborhood. As a mitigation measure, residential sprinklers are recommended by the Fire Department . 2 0 0 0 The Public Works Department is requiring that the street improvements for Santa Cruz Road along the property frontage shall be constructed to city standards prior to recording the final map. Santa Cruz Road has a right-of-way width of 40 feet and would be paved to a width of 20 feet . At this site the utilities which presently are in place along Santa Cruz Road include water, power, and natural gas . Telephone and cable TV lines will also be installed. CONCLUSIONS• The proposed subdivision meets applicable standards of the Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance, and the General Plan. The subdivision would be suitable for the intended residential use, would be compatible with the neighboring properties, and would not produce any significant environmental problems . 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 3 I fell - .19CITY OF ATASCADERO EXHIBIT A GENERAL PLAN MAP COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TPM 16-89 1, it 1r 1 ' .1 0 ! ,I fr 111 J 1 ` U fAN SIN FAMI —J S.L.O. County 1 f f G Goat !/ C'f 1T► 1, SITE fill / 1 (►� pO'All !I 11 S .L.O. i \ 11 o County �\ 1 .� 0 '2000 Y ao CITY OF ATASCADERO EXHIBIT B bd�. ' Ir1N Emil AND ZONING MAP -� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TPM 16-89 RS II k r It T \{ Or r�► S.L.O. i County �' \\ - R S \ o \\ N �O=�ortr �� S►HS► /, site S.L.O. \`♦\.= ►N'�i �kEgO`- `\\ a County "� O' 2000' - CITY fF ATASCADERO EXHIBIT C TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEr NT • DEPARTMENT TPM 16-89 SITFv�\F'! a .. Y VIGINIT_`LHAP "� HOT To seas =y P F C E Iit ,JUN 271999 QWNERS CEQL/CAT£ ' � i ,`.. \��,In1t t IIYI � ra rsrRLerAmrroR nvnia✓.aw t ON NNIS ar Rru lRwurrAs s.m✓w \�'� ` oNnvrsrrNS0 ro.lAA ans.t + \\`i rw.r r AM rvt OwNAA tr<A✓.eA.AAA r's�. t -y. O } �`-^ F ( ` \`y`\\\A\� ��\\P� ... Rtnttse.mAnw c•s«e a.Nr.A.n n.r,rr w.w.rA.v,✓rA°.rN N.td/ I .� � r. �1 ` 1 � O \ \� i .zr - ,, \\\\\�\��@- \ \ ,•i A,r u..wrcr.wr.°wr....tr NI VIC < rr� c � rpy� •1:.�'S.nt \ . � .r \�\ ����\ \ { t t-j i. i a• L. ; - V �f�` - \\ \ \ C / lA3_, �=cam; TENTAT/yEPARCELIIA P "'' >; 'Yr _1 ..t n,..tn -a� ta.u•n / -f' A7'B9-/73 ' ''- T••'' (( ` � BE/NY ASI/10�✓r,roNLV'LOr1°!MO[R f/0! M 1 I Dl A1ftL.M.D.cOW.rrpN N SAYI, r[M, ,try Mr.mvw roavruwrrou: .. - I `•... srAa er uuls.rrA. .1.,•. unc - ' '� •I Ariepuso D+Mv.S R+QsW }f� t ' • .. ' .. Ti.•nuR/w.Y r.V/M•q/�^. �K[MRI:`Fk _ e+stO sv w nrro A•.r,cr Low hw"rmimm 5,L,A: pArf-.,,frt r l!jARRYPALt,ICP WaR£GNT SU_RVfYa (/MH°rrAe.t E..st.+ty r ,y5 P...lc,r 7508 MORRO ROAD 11 ' Oaur CWiutrr,lRM Ta, at L..0A .C. L,t, ., Aris"Dreo,cjtA m Am IaAAt (br)rw-f.rt rYrt 6.9-M I { �w♦�1 1�:,• ..2.3• i •p Rwtr atw.'nR aq mm...n e.t.!aa IV-rra) EXHIBIT D - Findings for Approval Tentative Parcel Map 16-89 9350 Santa Cruz Road Lobo Investments, Inc. / Volbrecht Surveys (September 19, 1989) ENVIROMONTAL 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. EXHIBIT E - Conditions of Approval Tentative Parcel Map 16-89 9350 Santa Cruz Rd. Lobo Investments, Inc. / Volbrecht Surveys (September 19, 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, access, or other easements are to be shown on the final map. If there are building or other restrictions related to the easements, they shall be noted on the final map. 3. All relocation and/or alteration of existing utilities shall be the responsibility of the developer at his sole expense. 4 . Grading, drainage, and erosion control plans prepared by a registered civil engineer shall be submitted for review and approval by the Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to issuance of building permits. 5 . Applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the City of Atascadero Public Works Department, and shall sign an inspection agreement guaranteeing that the work will be done and the inspections paid for, prior to the issuance of a building permit, or start of public works construction, and shall construct improvements as directed by the encroachment permit prior to the recording of the final map. 6. The subdivider shall install all street signs, traffic delineation devices, warning and regulatory signs, guardrails, barricades, and other similar devices where required by the Director of Public Works. Signs shall be in conformance with the Department of Public Works standards and the current State of California uniform sign chart. Installation of traffic devices shall be subject to review and modifications after construction. 7 . Road improvement plans prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval by the Public Works Department prior to recording of the final map. Plans shall include, but shall not be limited to: A. Santa Cruz Road: Design shall meet all City development standards, including measures to preserve and protect • existing trees on the site and in the public right-of-way, as approved by the Community Development and Public Works Departments . Exhibit E - Conditions of Approval (continued) TPM 16-89 (September 19, 1989) 8 . Construction of the public road improvements shall be completed or bonded for prior to the recording of the final map. 9. All public improvements shall be covered with a 100% Performance Bond until construction is approved, and by a 10% Maintenance Bond until one year after construction approval. 10 . Applicant shall offer to dedicate to the City of Atascadero for right-of-way and/or easement purposes, the following: Street name: Santa Cruz Road Limits: 20 feet from centerline to edge of right-of-way along entire frontage of lots. 11 . Applicant shall offer to dedicate to the public for public utility easements the private access easement on Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 . 12 . Offers of dedication shall be completed and recorded prior • to or simultaneous with the recordation of the final map. 13 . Vehicular access to Parcels 1 and 2 shall only be from one common driveway originating from Santa Cruz Road. 14 . Residential sprinkler systems, approved by the city Fire Department, are required in future residences built on these parcels . 15. A final map drawn in substantial conformance with the approved tentative map and in compliance with all conditions set forth herin shall be submitted for review and approval in accordance with the California Subdivision Map Act and the City of Atascadero Subdivision Ordinance prior to recording of the final map. A. Monuments shall be set at all new property corners created and a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor shall indicate, by certificate on the final map, that 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. . Exhibit E - Conditions of Approval (continued) TPM 16-89 (September 19, 1989) 15. 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. 16. 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. �IINUTES EXCERPT - 9/16/89 B. ARINGS, APPEARANCES, AND REPORTS 1 . CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 20-88 : pplication filed by SLO Moving and Storag/in 'court, agent) for consideration of a re all w a "Vehicle and Freight Terminal" to CS ( mmercial Service) zone. Subject to is located at 836 El Camino Real. (CONTINUED FRO 7'18/89 MEETING - CON TI ' NCE REQUESTED TO 10/3/89 M" TING) Doug Davidson re rted that the applic- t has requested a continuance in ord - to allow additio al time to address the Commission' s concern on this matte ,. However, revised plans Were just recei d this aft- noon, therefore, it is requested that the hears g be co inued to the meeting of October 17 , 1989 . In response to question from ommissioner Brasher, Mr. Decamp stated it appears n of rt has been made to clean up the site . ( 8 : 05 p.m. - Commissio er Lopez-Bal b ltin is now present. ) Commissioner Waage tated this is the s and time this matter has come b- ore the Commission. H would 'Like to see the matter resol ed one way or the other at the October 17th meeting. MOTION: Mi e by Commissioner Highland, seconde by Commis- ioner Liana and carried 7 : 0 to continue he hearing on Conditional Use Permit 20-88 tO the meeting of October 17 , 1989 . 2 . TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 16-89 : Application filed by Larry Pace for Lobo Investments, Inc. (Volbrecht Surveys , agent) to subdivide one existing lot of 9 . 63 acres into two lots of 4 . 00 acres and 5 .63 acres each. Subject site is located at 9350 Santa Cruz Road. Chairperson Lochridge spoke about the difficulties he encountered in gaining access through locked gates of the subject property. He stated he would feel more comfortable in Continulna the matter until such time as anyone who wanted to view the site would have the opportunity to do so. Commissioner Brasher commented she was disturbed that the applicants had not made arrangements so that the Commission or the public could have access prig to the public hearing. Commssioner Luna also expressed concerns with attempting to view the site and did not feel he should use his power is as a Commissioner to take ttie place of the public ' s right to i visit these sites . He referenced a section of the Government Code relative to the public' s right to comment on environmental effects of a project prior to a hearing. Commissioner Waage stated it was his understanding that the Planning Commission is here to consider the public' s best interests when voting on an item and noted he felt comfortable with conducting the hearing at this time. Commissioner Lopez-Balbontin commented that if any member of the public is uncomfortable with hearing the matter, then he could support a postponement. Commissioner Highland stated he had no problem with conducting the hearing. There are times when we have to reach a balance between full access and protection of property ( i.e. , possibility of vandalism concerning the present work being done on utility lines on the site) . Commissioner Hanauer said he walked to the site and could understand why the owner would not want to keep the gate open with all the utility material on the site. At this time, Mr. Davidson presented the staff report. The Findings have been revised to include Subdivision ordinance Findinas for a lot in excess of the 3 : 1 depth ratio. The Conditions of Approval have been revised to delete #7 ( regarding road improvements) and the addition of a sentence to #5 . In response to question from Commissioner Luna, Mr. DeCamp explained staff is not aware of the full extent of the subdivisions that will be proposed in this area. As a result, applications will be responded to on a case by case basis . Engineering is reviewing drainage concerns which have been expressed in the past. Discussion followed relative to the need for a fire station on the west side of the City and funding measures by which this need can be fulfilled. There was also discussion concerning ultimate lot build-out and what impacts will result, and the funds necessary to take care of the various list of projects such as drainage, roads, bridge replacement, etc. Philip Baldner with Volbrecht Surveys , agent for the applii:ant, complimented engineering and planning staff on their efforts in preparing the staff report and clarified that the reason the dates are locked is that there are Lather extensive utilities presently being installed along with open trenches ( safety hazard) . He has been informed that it is the intent of the developers to finish pave-out by the middle of October. Mr- Baidner discussed :-ancerns and Objections he had with revised c::o2iditions s5 , =7 #9, (pertaining to road improvements ) and =13 ( r--si'dential sprinklers) , and offered suggestions for modification. He 0 noted the Citv already has a road agreement signed by the City Engineer and developer (Gordon T. Davis) which covers road construction, an inspection agreement and reimbursement of inspection fees , installation of underground public utilities , installation of erosion and drainage control facilities, remonumentation of centerlines , provision for accurate as-builts , and maintenance of the roads for one year after construction. After the one year period, the City would then have the responsibility for maintaining the roads . Mr. Baldner asked that #13 (requiring fire sprinklers) be deleted and instead be made a part of the building conditions as he understood fire sprinklers have not been required for this area in the past. He added that it took him seven minutes to drive from City Hall to the property. In response to question from the Commission, Mr. Baldner stated the conditions pertaining to the road improvements are inappropriate for this project and need revision. Chairperson Lochridge referenced the road construction agreement with respect to the phasing portion and asked Mr. Baldner for c:lariflCation on his intent concerning the read conditions . Commissioner Highland Stated that this road agreement is essentially one of the few in the City where any one has signed an agreement to develop streets to full City standards in a large area with subsequent dedication to the City. This is a different situation. Steve LaSalle noted he was previously a member of the Tree Committee and related his ex-oerience wherein the Committee received criticism for tresspassing onto private property in order to monitor the tree ordinance. Vern Elliott, City Fire Marshall, stated he did a time test from Fire Station #1 to the property in his vehicle. It took him over 10 minutes to reach the site. It could be at least 13-15t minutes for a heavy fire vehicle. He explained the sprinklers are a mitigation measure and spoke to a proposed master pian which the Fire Department is presently develooinu. Commission questions and discussion followed. John McNeil expressed concern With the road agreement. He asked if the applicant was relying upon the road agreement as the basis for his road grading within the subject parcel . He asked under what possible "cloak" can the avpl.iC:alit Come in and claim any rights under this agreement. What authority did the City Engineer have to enter into tale agreement? Was it approved by the running Commission or City Council? Was it delegated to the Citv Engineer by the City Council , in which case, Mr_ Mc+Ncii felt that this delegation is completely illegal and cannot be authorized in any sense. Mr. McNeil further questioned the validity of the agreement itself and asked that an investigation take glace. Mr. Baldner stated he was at a disadvantage to address Mr. McNeil ' s questions in that the agreement predates his involvement with this area. He stated that Santa Cruz Road will be built under that agreement and pointed out his client does not own any portion of the Santa Cruz Road right-of-way and has no ability to offer Santa Cruz for any form of dedication. Discussion continued relative to timing problems with respect to the road agreement and the conditions of approval . Mr. Decamp explained that with regard to #5, the anticipation is that the road will be constructed under the terms of the existing agreement and #5 , #7 , and i#8 may be moot by the time the applicant is prepared to file the final map. However, the agreement may not be legally binding and the City has no assurance that the road will be completed. Barring completion of the road, the standards used in determining the minimum lot size will Change. Discussion continued. Commissioner Highland explained that the City Council did authorize the Public Works Director to sign the road aureement with Gordan Davis . MOTION: By Commissioner Luna to continue the hearing on Tentative Parcel Map 16-85 to give the public the opportunity to view the site and give their input. Commissioner Brasher seconded the motion. Commissioner Waage stated it would be a waste of time to continue this matter. There were no speakers from the general public who said they had tried unsuccessfully to view the site. Commissioner Hanauer concurred. Chairperson Lochridge indicated that he would like to see the matter continued until such time as the validity of the road agreement has been researched. An EIR may be necessary because of the possible cumulative impacts that may result with future projects in the neighborhood. CollmissioIier Lopez-Balbontin stated he had not heard from anv citizen who was unable to visit the site and felt that the matter should not be continued. Collmissioner Highland commented that the Condition requiring residential sprinklers is going to become a standard condition for future land divisions on the west side . Discussion followed relative to the cnforceabiiity of the condition . The motion was defeated 4 : 3 with the following roil call vote: AYES: Commissioners Luna, Brasher and Chairperson Lochridge NOES: Commissioners Lopez-Baibontin, Waage, Hanauer and Highland MOTION: By Commissioner Highland to approve Tentative Parcel Map 16-89 subject to the revised Findings and Conditions of Approval with modification to condition #5 to read: 115 . Applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the City of Atascadero Public works Department, and shall sign an inspection agreement guaranteeing that the work will be done and the inspections paid for, prior to the issuance of a building permit, or start of public works construction, and shall construct improvements as directed by the encroachment permit prior to the recording of the final map. Construction of Santa Cruz Road to City standards along the entire frontage prior to recording the final wap shall be required. " Commissioner Waage seconded the motion. Comissioner Waage stated he understands the Commission members ' concerns relative to the roads and drainage, but he believed this will be resolved. This parcel map should be voted uUon on its own merit. Commissioner Luna expressed concern that there is not enough information on which to base a vote . All the possible subdivisions which exist in the west (Las Encinas II and III ) should trigger an EIR because of the cumulative effects , impacts on tree removal, drainage, air pollution, fire hazards, etc . Commissioner Brasher added there are unanswered questions which relate either directly or indirectly to this project. In clarifying condition #9, Mr. Decamp explained that conditions cannot be imposed upon an applicant which cannot be met . If the applicant is unable to accruire ownership of the road, then that condition would be moot . Commissioners Highland and Waage agreed with tills clarification. Chairperson Lochridge expressed concern that the Commission may be facing a similar situation such as Mrs . Mudgett' s . There are going to be cumulative effects which must be addressed before going further and he would support a continuance. The motion carried 4 : 3 with the following roil call vote: AYES: Commissioners Highland, Waage, Hanauer, and Lopez-Balbontin NOES: Commissioners Luna, Brasher and Chairperson Lochridge Chairperson Lochridge declared a break at 9 :45 p.m. : meeting reconvened at 9 : 57 p.m. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 14-89 : Avplication filed by Clark Iverson (Central Coa- "ngineering, agent! to subdivide a portion of wo e sting lots ( 13 . 9 acres) into 23 parcels one-half acre each. Request includes the establis gent of two new Ci v standard roads to serve the su ivision - Via Tortuga id Calle Refugio. Subject s ' e is located at 8625 Atasc`c4ero Avenue . Mr. Davidson report the applicant as asked for a continuance as they ai - in the pr •ess of redesigning the map. No public testimony was rec iwed. MOTION: By Commissioi r Highlai ,, seconded by Commissioner Lopez-Balb tin and c:arri`ed 7 : 0 to continue the hearing Z Tentative Tract -p 14-89 to a future date. 4. COND IONAL USE PERMIT 7-89 : Ap ication filed by Folkins and Foikins; c . t,R. P . eim . agent) to establish a service station ..Oil cardlock! including a 1 , 350 square foot retail ore in the CN (Commercial Neighborhood) zone . Subject s ' e is located at 2025 E1 Camino Real . Mr. Davidson presented the staff report noting staff' s concern with the nature and magnitude of the proposed use in the Commercial Neighborhood zone . � MEMORANDUM TO: Henry Engen, Community Development Director Oct . 30, 1989 FROM: Doug Davidson, Associate Planner RE: 1989 Update - Subdivisions The following subdivision applications have been reviewed in 1989 as of this date: 1 . Tentative Tract Map 01-89 - 8625 Atascadero Ave. (Iverson) Withdrawn - Resubmitted as Tentative Tract Map 14-89. 2 . Tentative Parcel Map 02-89 - 7503 Carmelita Ave. (Bench) One lot of 3. 44 acres into three lots of approximately one acre each. Pending resolution of land purchase options . 3. Tentative Parcel Map 03-89 - 4200 Obispo Rd. (Von Dollen) One lot of 6.2 acres into two lots of 3. 1 acres each. Tentative Map approved on August 22, 1989. 4 . Tentative Parcel Map 04-89 - 7445 Cortez Ave. (Larson) One lot of 8 .26 acres into four lots, with three lots of 1 .5 acres each and one lot of 3.76 acres . Tentative Map approved July 11, 1989. 5. Tentative Parcel Map 05-89 - 7255 Pinal (Whelpley) One lot of 3 .21 acres into two lots of 1 .50 and 1 .71 acres each. Incomplete - awaiting Water Quality Control Board review. 6. Tentative Parcel Map 06-89 - 9451 Cortez Ave. (Barrett) Withdrawn - Resubmitted as Tentative Parcel Map 17-89. 7 . Tentative Parcel Map 07-89 - 7000 San Palo Rd. (McNamara) One lot of 7 . 00 acres into four lots of 1 .55, 1 . 60, 1 . 65, and 2 .20 acres each. Denied by City Council on July 25, 1989. Reconsideration set for 10/30/89. 8 . Tentative Parcel Map 08-89 - 5455 Bolsa Rd. (DeKocker) Withdrawn - Did not meet minimum lot size. 9. Tentative Parcel Map 09-89 - 905 E1 Camino Real (Rochelle) Withdrawn - Resubmitted as Tentative Parcel 11-89. 10 . Tentative Parcel Map 10-89 - 12500 Santa Ana (Master Mort . ) One lot of 10 .51 acres into two lots of 5.26 acres each. Tentative Map approved on September 12, 1989. a • • 11 . Tentative Parcel Map 11-89 - 905 E1 Camino Real (Rochelle) One lot of 100 acres into one 90+ acre lot and one 10 acre lot . Tentative Map approved on September 12, 1989. 12 . Tentative Parcel Map 12-89 - 10785 El Camino Real (Colombo) One lot of 10 acres into four lots of 1 . 0, 2 . 0, 2 . 0, and 5. 0 acres each. Tentative Map approved on August 22, 1989. 13 . Tentative Parcel Map 13-89 - 10955 San Marcos Rd. (Highfill) One 20+ acre parcel into one 16 acre lot and one 4 .52 acre lot. Map is tentatively scheduled for the Planning Commission meeting of 11/07/89. 14 . Tentative Tract Map 14-89 - 8625 Atascadero Ave. (Iverson) Two lots of 14 acres into 23 lots of one-half acre each. Tentatively scheduled for Planning Commission meeting of 11/21/89. 15. Tentative Tract Map 15-89 - 5900 Bajada Ave (Low) 4-unit condominium canvarsion. Tentative Map approved on September 12, 1989. 16. Tentative Parcel Map 16-89 - 9350 Santa Cruz Rd. (Pace) One lot of 9. 63 acres into two lots of 4 . O and 5 . 63 acres each. Continued to City Council meeting of 10/30/89. 17 . Tentative Parcel Map 17-89 - 9451 Cortez Ave. (Barrett) One lot into four lots of approximately 1 .50 acres each. Scheduled for City Council meeting of 10/30/89. 18 . Tentative Parcel Map 18-89 - 8555 E1 Centro Rd. (Lindsey) One lot of 3 . 64 acres into six one-half acre lots . Application is currently incomplete. 19. Tentative Parcel Map 19-89 - 7675 Bella Vista Rd. (Gearhart) One lot into two lots of 2 . 83 and 3 . 72 acres each. Project is currently being reviewed. 20 . Tentative Parcel Map 20-89 - 14205 Santa Ana Rd. (Atas . Highlands) Two lots of 17 acres into three lots of 5 . 7 acres each. Project is currently being reviewed. 21 . Tentative Tract Map 21-89 - 8555 El Corte Ave. (Bunnell) Six lots of 21 acres into a residential subdivision of 77 lots ranging from 3, 283 to 9792 square feet . Application is currently incomplete. 22 . Tentative Parcel Map 22-89 - 8000 Santa Cruz Rd. (Long) is Two lots of 10 acres into three lots of 3 . 42 acres each. Application is currently incomplete. 1 � fill \ + 7CO P, V-(`tom �,- v_-l1 f 1 vi \ PPryG. \ � // / � qua'//`—tel ----�� � � < �.�• / .� �� ��,�.� i�i� t•, mw y� =% wry \s \y' ^ F 40 �v 1 I l n�. 37� sl i\:of J 1:\I�91 �! -;�++t`✓����� �''�� s5i-. f�.,{-�7' �C r '�I-h -,�_~ ���;'•• -�'� ,�' � �. 11\ ��._ ` ✓��� �� 7 1� �� �w •••+.' 3✓".,e.3L'_`-'rte j� �,tc� 0 1 � � g\l) `�a~ \ � / s� i. t ~� ,�� ,� ✓I y�.�4�a 1�� !�y� �������,�It ✓ _� e r_,, Wit— e�S� �i_ =i ; .,_¢r /�� / j i 7 i , A I—. 11 rF- `����., � ��'� � s� x'13 `'�.� '" ��, � � � � /�_ - � ..•,/�. $ t�. A� o�t .` �. ���.�..• y, L >I� %i ! ` 11 �e`�I �/ ,,.fir ,/q d 1, Aj Ll� 1 a. �t 't..-- -• r 1 ,o. yea r� \ / a I� AGENDA. 89B3(A1 • NOTE: THE CITY'S ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE TO ELIZABETH SCOTT-GRAHAM'S LETTER OF OCT. 27TH WILL BE DISTRIBUTED AT A LATER TIME. i i f f Elizabeth Scott.-Graham Atcomey-at-Law Mailing Address: DRAWER CC 312 MILLER WAY .ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA 93420 (805)481-4467 October 27, 1989 Mayor Rollin Dexter City Council Members of the City of Atascadero P.O. Box 747 Atascadero, Ca. 93423 Re:Agenda Item B-4, File No. TPM 16-89 Honorable Mayor and Council Members: I sincerely regret that I will not be able to make a personal presentation to you on October 30th,but I will be out of the country,and this letter will serve as a preliminary statement regarding the issues involving the specific application to split the parcel at 9350 Santa Cruz Road,and the overall problems arising out of the City's development agreement for the Las Encinas projects. I have not reviewed the development agreement and therefore, I cannot speak directly to this project although it is my understanding that this project was given approval absent any environmental review process. If this is correct, then it would be my opinion that any deviation whatsoever from the agreement would subject the entire project to the environmental review process. It would appear to me that absent further environmental review the city cannot grant any lot splits, or any changes whatsoever,absent an EIR for that lot split or deviation. In any case, it is my legal opinion that under the current circumstances the application for the split at 9350 Santa Cruz road requires the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report(EIR). A number of California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) cases deal with the subject of growth-inducing impacts. A draft EIR must discuss"cumulative impacts"when they are significant. (Guidelines, section 15130, subd. (a).) These are defined as"two or more individual effects which,when considered together,are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts."(Guidelines,section 15355;). '"The cumulative impacts from several projects is the change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present,and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectivelysignil;cant projects taking place over a period of time.(Guidelines, section 15355, subd. (b).) (Emphasis added.) Such an analysis is necessary because'"[t]he full environmental impact of a proposed...action cannot be gauged in a vacuum."' Environmental Protection Information Center v. Johnson(1985) 88 Cal. App. 3d 397, 408 Cal. Rptr. 502. • [A]n agency may not ...[treat]a project as an isolated'single shot'venture in the face of persuasive evidence that it is but one of several substantially similar operations...To ignore the prospective cumulative harm under such circumstances could be to risk ecological disaster."' Whitman v. Board of Supervisors 88 Cal. App.3d 397, 151 Cal. Rptr. 866. The Las Virgenes Homeowners Federation, Inc. v. County ofLos Angeles; 177 Cal.App. 3d 300, 233 Cal. Rptr. 18, described the dangers of approving projects without first preparing adequate cumulative impact analyses: The purpose of this requirement is obvious: consideration of the effects of a project or projects as if no other existed would encourage the piecemeal approval of several projects that, taken together, could overwhelm the natural environment and disastrously overburden the man-made infrastructure and vital community services. This would effectively defeat CEQA's mandate to review the actual effect of the projects upon the environment. (page 306,23). In light of the requirements of the Public Resources Code, the CEQA Guidelines and the case law as handed down by the appellate courts, it is my belief that the City of Atascadero must require an Environmental Impact Report on this lot split, and on any subsequent applications for lot splits or changes from the original Las Encinas agreement. Should the City fail to require an EIR on this project, my clients and I will seriously consider enforcing CEQA through court action. Si erely yours, p El' th Scott-Graham MEET! AGENDA f J! DAT ;zs ITEM I .�.".�. . M E M O R A N D U M • DATE: November 22, 1989 TO: Ray Windsor , City Manager FROM: Arther R. Montandon, City Attorney SUBJECT: TENTATIVE MAP 16-89, 9350 SANTA CRUZ - CITY COUNCIL'S NOVEMBER 14, 1989 REQUEST FOR LEGAL OPINION ISSUE: May the City Council legally act upon Tentative May 16-89 without further environmental review? RULING: • The City Council may act to approve Tentative Map 16-89. The environmental review is legally adequate . BACKGROUND: The City Council , at its November 14, 1989 meeting, requested an opinion as to the legality of acting to approve or disapprove Tentative Map 16-89, 9350 Santa Cruz. Consideration of this map was continued to the November 28, 1989 meeting. The Council ' s inquiry was prompted by a letter received from an attorney, Elizabeth Scott-Graham, who objected to consideration of the map. This opinion will respond to the points raised by that letter. DISCUSSION: Two factual discrepancies are set forth in the letter . First, it states that there is a "development agreement" involving this property. There is no such agreement. Second, the letter states there has been no environmental review. Your Council report states a negative declaration has been adopted after environmen- tal review. (Staff report Exhibit "D" ) . The rest of the letter talks of lack of "cumulative impacts" analysis. This dialogue is almost a direct quote form the 1989 Edition of "Guide to the California Environmental Quality Act (C.E.Q.A. )" , pgs. 211-213, by Remy, Thomas, Duggan and Moose . I • should point out that the letter mis-cites the case at the bottom of page 1 . It should be Whitman v. Board of Supervisors (2d Dist. 1979) 88 Cal .App. 3d 397• - 1 Given the true factual picture and construing the objections posed by the letter in the best light, the issue raised is whether the City' s environmental review, a negative declaration, • properly addressed the potential cumulative environmental impacts of Tentative Map 16-89. Tentative Map 16-89 involves a lot split that would create one additional building site. To grant or deny such a minor request, under most circumstances, would have little impact, except upon the applicant. This decision has a much greater potential for impacting Atascadero' s development. A denial of this project for the City' s inadequate environmental review of cumulative impacts could greatly impair current development. The procedure employed by City staff was correct. A negative declaration may be based upon findings of an E.I.R. for an earlier project. (C.E.Q.A. Guidelines 15153 subd. (c) ) . Ms. Scott-Graham opines that an E.I.R. is required. The City must prepare an E.I .R. if there is substantial evidence in the Hearing' s record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. (Public Resources Code 21082.2; No Oil , Inc. v. City of L.A. (1974) 13 Cal . 3d 68, 75, 118 Cal .Rptr. 34, 38) . I have reviewed the record of the Hearing in this matter. There is little , if any, evidence to overturn City staff' s determina- tion that there is no potentially significant environmental impact. Given this , the environmental review is legally adequate • and the City Council may approve this project. ARM merw22 • 2 - REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item:--&-4- B-4 Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 10/30/89 & 11/28/89 File No: TPM 7-89 From: Henry Engen, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Reconsideration of Council denial of Tentative Parcel Map 7-89 , 7000 San Palo (McNamara/Cuesta Engineering) . RECOMMENDATION: Approval of Tentative Parcel Map 7-89 based on Findings for Approval contained in the attached Exhibit "D" , and subject to • modified Conditions of Approval in Exhibit "F" . BACKGROUND: On July 25, 1989, the City Council on a 2/2 vote did not over- rule the recommended denial of this map by the Planning Commission. This vote was handled as a denial of the map. Subsequently, legal counsel for the applicant has met with staff and the City Attorney to review the intricacies of this particu- lar case and to re-evaluate the conditions with the hope of obtaining approval . PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS: The attached map and modified Conditions of Approval include the incorporation of an open-space easement across most of the prop- erty to assure that home sites on lots 3 , & 4 will avoid grading, construction, and tree removal on the highly visible slopes on the property. Placement of the open-Space easement line on approximately the 1, 045 foot contour would serve to preclude tree removal for home Construction, including septic fields . In addition, the applicants are agreeable to respond to the City' s esthetic concerns by addition of the following Condition. #12 : • 1112 . A Rote shall be placed on the final map indicating that: 'New residences constructed on lots 2 , 3 . and 4 shall be subject to the approval of the Community Development Director pursuant to the criteria and procedures for precise plan applications contained in the City' s Appearance Review Manual, dated May 15 , 1987 . ' " With the foregoing added conditions, this lot would be subject to more careful scrutiny than any single family lot in the City, in that the City' s Appearance Review Guidelines presently exempt single family homes from appearance review criteria. HE:ph Enclosures: Modified Tentative Map - October 18, 1989 Exhibit "F" - Conditions of Approval (modified 10/30/89) City Council staff Report - July 25, 1989 cc: Thomas McNamara Cuesta Engineering • • a W 2 ►� _ Ok W �' .t ` _ l xH•Z.}>Sairv4 ,y_ _`r��'P�;��c.++��w,,-c. i 1-- 00 1iJLL co 2w j/ '/ /�''/• ' 1''+!! ___== :\� �w< via f O 211x1 VL '//////%///, , �� ' � _ \�` � `�\ ♦��`..\kY\ t. � `r � 14 till /" \el 14 �vJ%; /' 1 � ' g I� �1i1It `aI11.111i11ff11 1 / 'i � ! - 1 '111111 ' �7Aw' 2 _ _� !/ III {/,i /,r , (f• �vi � C� ��pv �--- er/rr 1,Il lrl// I t� ' � L �ti ,V t`fl�l•�e� � t L 1�;` , �l� a� Fav � _ � :� N r V � 0 1,N57� EXHIBIT F - CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (MODIFIED 10/30/89) . Tentative Parcel Map 07-89 7000 San Palo Road (McNamara) 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. • s • 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 1 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. b. A recently updated preliminary title report shall be i 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. 12 . A note shall be placed on the final map indicating that : '"New residences constructed on lots 2 , 3, and 4 shall be subject to the approval of the Community Development Director pursuant to the criteria and procedures for precise plan applications con- tained in the City' s Appearance Review Manual , dated May 15 , 1987. " i DMAETE'TIN i . f AGENDA -z � = ----- REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL Agenda Item: CITY OF ATASCADERO Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 7/25/89 File Number: TPM 7-89 From: Henry Engen, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Appeal by Thomas McNamara of Planning Commission denial of Tenta- tive Parcel 7-89 (7000 San Palo) (continued from 7/11/89 meeting) . BACKGROUND : At the Council' s July 11, 1989 meeting, there was a 2 : 2 tie vote on this appeal resulting in no action. At the request of the City Attorney, this matter was continued to meeting of July 25, 1989 to permit time for legal evaluation. HE :ph Enclosure: July 11, 1989 - Staff Report to City Council CC : Thomas McNamara John Falkenstein 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 subject to the Condi- tions of Approval in Exhibit "E" . i 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 CUESTA ENGINEERING 7401-B EI Camino Real/P.O. Box 2066 Atascadero, California 93423 (805)466-6827 June 12, 1989 RECEIVEE3 JUS' 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, 6hn Falkenstien R.C.E. 33760 Exp. 6/30/90 JF:pd 87-245 cr- t ; iz'"j 9/ON T© "STAJ9u5y 3D c T AcK44 S 01, Q \ C '�� '/ / J '�. .:fr�i r1 .i.,•� _ _' _.: 1�^�\ �'` �� mac. �- ^ -� rr r✓ff may. �i✓r -,.:. i".�-� .... ' «.e .+� ,.y y:: �'� �1 \•� �\\ \ ,,(n � �<\ W\\ /;/i//r rr /// 9h4!'V�,'/ / _;J.-. �..��� �•O ` y�\\� Y�\i..`��o\\ -�\\�\`\ . \ . . /� YT ti �: `� -�'- / l r�11 J l `C�✓ /� ti 1� ��1�` 1 t 'M!� / - ,; riJJ l��i .,f r r � f' irr � �, �� ! J � lr,r �/ 1', /rlr J r 1 {II •i J r(/ r � � li I �)'I :11,11/71 - '� J1, 11JI ,1r cli 144 N-Y rib / r, �rrl�rl / /r/ll� ,1 1111 /1 1 +k; VZ � h CITY OF ATASCADERO Item: R-2 STAFF REPORT FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: June 6, 1989 BY: ��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. RECOMIlKENDATI ON: 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 Noulm � iII WAIIIIII ON ills MEN 993 iii ����►��: ='����>��,� �i �1�� ���i Iwo amaw Imp Ift �i►� •i�i�e����iiiii ����►���1 its r �' �"� • I I� � ,ice � 0 EXHIBIT B &. , CITY OF ATASCADFRO TPM 07-89 .1... �-1su!� t lege * ��. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tentative Parcel Ma� DEPARTMENT kg {w[ •�e�;y' ,/ � i� ° X11 6 Z km y ��� � �. �� t 1 r ,1 ,l llh I I '•�1 v IRS ll Nw� I ..♦ h ,I //,/1 / /Jii'I i/'��f;111 ', 1�l' � n ' ��kh t �� •fir � :3t /:�'. ��� �;C . :/ I� � 1 i Y i ,il /� ' '�1 p ,,,•, , /, , �'�I O P i7::wL , �,t 11 J' ,I•,..1.,', i/r''i' I I y, EXHIBIT C CITY OF ATASCADERO TPM 07_89 9 79-7 . oCOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Developer' s Statement DEPARTMENT CUESTA ENGINEERING 7401-B EI Camino Real/P.O.Box 2066 Atascadero,California 93423 (805)466-6827 September 27, 1988OR�. air� F� MAR -9 1949 City of Atascadero COMMUNITY OEV�_,; „�;•; Planning Department 6500 Palma Atascadero, CA 93422 • 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 minimum 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 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. 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 1 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. • 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 7HRE= 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 e are problems with flooding, one or tw ipelines on , rcel 1 , and the noise factor (railroad) . MOTION: Made by Comm ' Toner H.I. 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 s : . . . "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 FOUR 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 comments 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 more comfortable 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. •1 • EXHIBIT "F" - FINDINGS FOR DENIAL TPM 07-89 - 7000 San PaTo 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. .L�3 236 .L�QQ 1�•0� ,96y " 9R�F2 22 ' ove�e� 0% CgS..�' Zvi Pact C°rtpEgp C1tY� 'es cont A2A5Gp �Og��SE rey Se��ye LZ2Y d� .yL1�s & th tie Attos een tr E I Wl for e= 2Y'is 'DEt� �QI�` t sets .gena t° 1,Y and on, and, a ContYac t°rneYS t° erte1ed In 1 cozpo�atl Y°�m111 eta�red At ricvP a 12W ras a �� 5.,•� , Clt� o=re`1 W-t�icr the �itY • to i asi5 On Gey t° tie Atto�ne�✓ p el se�`�1 �gCT2�'j� t° engage WPL leg ides ees and� the e City C1tYGki11s � said Shall kl'�'g ► tr Ces for the y�ss t7ie '" to c°u.nc egal �e�V1ttUl�ti�`1y �°� nece"5az`I i 1 er SO 1 g1;�'S' e�fence t9 2 p 'All and eYp tie C1 of adjustment � lifiGatlons � o� ne»alf � 213 city council . oup se��1ces S S ereto aq" Or'� legal W Z `� e patties 1' ill he to jhourred by A CZ Att ttOrl SOW ► pec °rneys for the u: 05' �VZceSof Co�r'sf E.,sary for th o110��• �G° e tard°n eY f Lo e rep. torr, c ' filing fees r ep rt,�e� g. ,e tY A t chat-ge$ ecord A tie c;l �oY a if such ' rep2oaOctlon Of sig�atee as fln�i�il1tY ManaSe j�vestig'�t1Ve w be de si�,as'3 Yesp �, t, ubmit- - let,,,,., „701 • REPORT TO CITZ COUNCIL CITY OF aTISCADERO agenda item: C-2 Through : Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting date : 11/28/$9 From: Mike Hicks , Fire Chiefmy SUBJECT: Fire Department Master Plan contract approval RECOMMENDATION : The RFP Review Committee recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to enter into an agreement with Hunt Research Corporation for the purpose of developing a city fire and emergency medical master plan . Estimation for completion is March 1st . DACKGROLND : . Thie C7 i_`. Fire Department solicited fire and emergent meii-Leal master plan proposals from eleven firms , with five submitting • proposals for consideration . a comm .4 Inclu 'inn Counciimeml�eY Shiers , CvliYlCilmeiIl�ier ",a -n , citizen-at-large Fred Frank , Cammul�it - Developmcn Director Henry Engen , Planning Commission Chairman Denr:is '. ochridge and. the Fire Chief , reviewed the proposals . Tile review process consisted of reviewing the written proposals and meeting with the top three candidates . OPT I O` S : 1 ) yuthorize the City Manager to enter into an agreement . 2 ) Deni- request . FISCAL IMPACT : The 1989/96 cite budget approves $26 , 600 for the master plan . The bid from Hunt Research is $19 , 966 . The loz,- bid is $18 , 756 and the high bid is 543 , 60 . The bid from Hunt Research is t1le second to the lowest , however the committee feels their proposal will best address our needs at this time . • SVEE CIN: A EN:DA TET].1.,L2� €TSN:t C-1 • 13 November 89 'z S C E IV E D NOV ? 4 `:�Ziq C;-r-v MGR. Ray Windsor, City tanager. Dear Ray: Enclosed is my revised proposal for changing Ordinance 101. As you know, it is designed to stagger the tersm of the Commissioners, it removes the requirement of resignation prior to running for public office and it delays (at the suggestion of two Council members ) the appointment of Commissioners from August until September. I am requesting that my proposal be put on the Council' s agenda as soon as is reasonably possible. I an, hoping that a majority of the Council will take a definitive action on the proposal (either "Yes" or "No" ), rather than referring it for study or to subcommittee. Sincerely, Georighland • CPOSED REJj IS ION ORCr INA NCE NO. 101 Th.e ^ouncil of the City of Atascadero does ordain as follows: • Section 1. Section 2-9.02 of Chapter 9 of Title 2 of the Atascadero I-Iunicipal Code, relating to the terms of office of the Planning Commission, is hereby repealed. Section 2. A new Section 2-9.02 is added to Chapter 9 of Title 2 of the Atascadero Municipal Code, relating to the terms of office of the Planning Com^ ission, to read as follows: Section 2-9,02. Members: Appointment: Terms of Office, The City Council shall appoint the members of the Planning Commission. Three (3) members have been appointed for terms which shall expire August 1, 1990, and four (4) members have been appointed for terms which shall expire August 1, 1992. These terms"shall be extended to September 1 of the respective years. Commencing September 1t 1990, one (1) member shall be appointed for a three (31 year term, which shall expire September 1, 1993, and two (2) members shall be appointed for four (4) year tersm, which shall expire September 1, 1994. Commencing September 1, 1992, two (2) members shall be appointed for three (3) year terms, which shall expire September 1 1995, and two (2) members shall be appointed. for four (41 year terns, which shall expire September 1, 1996. Thereafter, all terms shall be for four (4) years and shall expire four (4) years after September lst of the date of appointment, except those appointments made • after the commencement of the term to fill- a vacancy or removal, in which case the term of office shall be for the balance of the unexpired term. Section 2-9.03. Absences from meetings: Absence of a member of the Planning Commission from three (3) consecutive meetings, or from four (4) meetings during a calendar year, without formal consent of the Planning Commission noted in its official minutes, shall be reported by the Planning Director to the City Council for consideration of removal from office. • i, 11/22/89 11:07 %T213 236 2700 BW&S LA MEETING AGENDA DAT /I ?�' TEEM 8 • November 22, 1989 - DRAFT ATTORNEY SERVICES„�QNTIZACT This Attorney Services contract ( "Contract") is entered into by and between the CITY OF ATASCADERO ( "City" ) , a municipal corporation, and a BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN ( "Attorneys" ) , a law form. This Contract sets forth the basis upon which the City has retained Attorneys to render legal services to the City. • RECITALS WHEREAS, the City desires to engage Attorneys to perform legal services for the City; and, WHEREAS, Attar;ieys possess the skills, qualifications, and experience necessary to perform said legal services on behalf of the City; W I T N E S S E T H Now, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. 5.cope of services Arther R. Montandon, of Counsel to Attorneys, shall be designated as the City Attorney for the City and shall • lidve primary responsibility for attending regular and jrf:irjAGR20197 11/22/89 11:08 V213 236 2700 BW&S LA --- SANTA MARIA CITY 'Z 003 • special meetings of the City Council. Don G. Kircher, a Senior Associate of Attorneys, shall be designated as the Assistant City Attorney, and shall assist Mr. Montandon in providing legal services to the City as required and authorized. Mr. Montandon shall attend all regularly scheduled meetings of the City Council and attend adjourned or special, meetings of the City Council , as required by the City Council . In addition, Mr. Montandon shall attend agenda preparation meetings and pre-meeting agenda review, as required by the City Manager or his designee. Upon request by the City Attorney, and with the approval of the City council members of the Attorneys firm shall perform legal services for the City at their then regular billing rates. 2 . Compe-nsation -And Metho¢ of paYJent A. Compensation: The basic retainer fee shall be $11600 per calendar month, tor the first twenty (20) hours of legal services performed during each.month. Legal services in excess of twenty (20) hours in any calendar month provided by Attorneys shall be billed at $12o and $115 per hour, respectively, for Mr. Mondandon and Mr. Kircher, or at the hourly rates of the attorney who • -2- jrf:ir/AGR20197 f 11/22/89 11:08 $213 236 2700 BW&S LA •• SANTA MARIA CITY Z 004 • performs the services. For authorized non-retainer matters, including specialized litigation and non-routine municipal related services, the City will be bilked at regular hourly rates of the attorneys performing the work, which rates will depend upon the area of specialization and level of experience of the individual attorney performing the work. Such work shall require prior approval and authorization by the City Council . The rates quoted above shall be subject to • adjustment on an annual basis, subject to approval of the City Council . The City will not be billed for travel time incurred by Attorneys; however, the City will reimburse Attorneys for the usual and customary expenses reasonably necessary for the representation including, but not limited to, filing fees, recording fees, long distance telephone charges, reproduction of documents and investigative work, if such investigative work is first authorized by the City Manager. B. Method of Paynei,L. ALturneys shall submit to city a monthly itemized statement describing the legal services performed and the respective work time by for • each attorney performing services hereunder, for each item -3- jrf :ir/AGR20197 11/22/89 11:09 %T213 236 2700 BW&S LA ••- SANTA MARIA CITY 11 005 • for which the billing is submitted. The City shall pay attorneys on a monthly basis in accordance with the billing stdLement. 3. Termination- of cflntract This Contract and all legal services to be rendered hereunder may be terminated upon sixty (64) days written notice form either party with or without causer IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and Attorneys agree as set forth hereinabove. Dated: CITY OF ATASCADERO, d municipal corpordLion By Dated: BURKE, WIL.LTAMS & SORENS£N BY James T. Bradshaw, Jr. Managing Partner • -4- jrf:ir/AGR201.97 • REPORT TO CITI COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda item: C-2 Through : Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting date : 11/28/89 From: Mike Hicks , Fire Chief may SUBJECT: Fire Department :Master Plan contract approval RECOMMENDATION: The RFP Review Committee recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to enter into an agreement with Hunt Research Corporation for the purpose of developing a city fire and emergency medical master plan . Estimation for completion is March 1st . B.tiCF�GP. LND The C'i {.. Fire Department solicited fire and emergencv medical master pian proposals from eleven firms , [.li.h fix submitting • proposals for consideration . A commit ,ee , ncluding COUriCiimembel" Shiers , Counciifiiembcr ao1ce , citizen-at large Fred Frank , Co�;,mul�i t - Development Director Henry Engen , Planning Commission Chairman Denr:is Lochridge and. the Fire Chief , reviewed the proposals . The review process consisted of reviewing the written p-oposals and meeting with the top three candidates . OPTIONS 1 ) Authorize the City Manager to enter into an agreement . 2 ) Dene request . FISCAL IMPACT: The 1989/90 city budget approves 520 , 000 for the master pian . The bid from Hunt Research is $19 ,900 . The low bid is $18 , 750 and the high bid is 543 , 460 . The bid from Hunt Research is the second to the lowest , however the committee feels their proposal will best address our needs at this time . • EfiTING AGENDA 71+Tt17-�28 jS9 TEN t c-3 • 13 November 89 F- C t i V E L) C;"ry MGR, Ray Windsor, City Manager. Dear Ray: Enclosed is my revised proposal for changing Ordinance 101. As you know, it is designed to stagger the tersm of the Commissioners, it removes the requirement of resignation prior to running for public office and it delays (at the suggestion of two Council members) the appointment of Commissioners from August until September. I am requesting that my proposal be put on the Council' s agenda as soon as is reasonably possible. I an hoping that a majority of the Council will take a definitive action on the proposal (either "Yes" or "No" ), rather than referring it for study or to subcommittee. Sincerely, Georg-4 Highland • CPOSED REVISION ORP INA VCE NO. 101 The Council of the City of Atascadero does ordain as follows: • Section 1. Section 2-9.02 of Chapter 9 of Title 2 of the Atascadero Municipal Code, relating to the terms of office of the Planning Commission, is hereby repealed. Section 2. A new Section 2-9.02 is added to Chapter 9 of Title of the Atascadero Municipal Code, relating to the terms of office of the Planning Commission, to read as follows: Section 2-9.02. Members: Appointment: Terms of Office. The Cit_y Council l shall appoint the members of the Planning Commission. Three (3) members have been appointed for teras which shall expire August 1, 1990, and four (4) members have been appointed for terms which shall expire August 1, 1992. These terms shall be extended to September 1 of the respective years. Commencing September l 1990, one (1) member shall be appointed for a three (33 ear term, which shall expire September 1, 1993, and two (2T members shall be appointed for four (4) year tersm, which shall expire September 1, 1994. Commencing September 1, 1992, two (2) members shall be appointed for three (3) year terms, which shall expire September 1t 1995, and two (2) members shall be appointed. for four (4) year terms, which shall expire September 1, 1996. Thereafter, all terms shall be for four (4) years and shall expire four (4) years after September 1st of the date of appointment, except those appointments made • after the commencement of the term to fill- a- vacancy or removal, in which case the term of office shall be for the balance of the unexpired term. Section 2-9.03. Absences from meetings: Absence of a member of the Planning Commission from three (3) consecutive meetings, or from four (4) meetings during a calendar year, without formal consent of the Planning Commission noted in its official minutes, shall be reported by the Planning Director to the City Council for consideration of removal from office. �f S Tt� G T�',K'�'►"► 5 r r i w Y L r A ,po SES TE/1.- 5 q A9-,- 9i�°- 947 MEET IN- AGENDA / / D/J 11 28 89 ITEV fi C-4(C) -I-t--is noted by Mr. Bewsey that trees located on the site wil>...-Trot be affected by proposed fill due to their elevation. No public co emm n�-3._ given on this item. Councilmembers discuss the concern's regarding the proposal being too dense, and that _i-t- ops---h�of meet overwhelming benefit criteria to justify a o,1-aifried developmeone change. MOTION: ,Go"cilmember Bourbeau moves Deny Zon �cae -87 and not adopt Ordinance 160 and 87; Councilmember Borgeson seconds; Motion =_.0, _ (Councilmember Handshy absent) C-4 PROPOSED SURPLUS OF CITY-OWNED LOT ON SYCAMORE ROAD (LOT 4, BLOCK H) (CONT'D FROM 7/14/87) The Planning Commission recommended the surplus of the Sycamore Road site, but to allow an easement for emergency access to the river . The Public Works Department agrees with surplus of the property, after 'Public Works no longer requires access (approximately 1 year) . r The Park and Recreation Commission agrees with the surplus • proposal, but requests monies from the sale be earmarked for recreational opportunities within the City. No public comment is given on this item. MOTION: Councilmember Bourbeau declares the above property surplus, and directs staff to surplus it after the Public Works Department no longer requires access; Councilmember Mackey seconds; Motion carries 4-0 . (Councilmember Handshy absent) D-1 AUTHORIZATION TO ENTER INTO AGREEMENT WITH VANDENBERG CONSTRUCTION COMPANY TO ALLOW TEMPORARY ACCESS ACROSS-CITY PROPERTYATPALOMA CREEK PARK Bob Best, Parks and- Recreation Director , yewiews the proposed access easement requestedby Vandenb-e—rghe Construction. The easement will be used to `sexyi_ce the apartment construction project adjacent to the gar-k--- -,..__The State has authorized this easement, and safety concerns have''---Keen mitigated with the provision of a chain--link fence along the -easement. The Vandenberghe Construction Company has offerer to either cement around a restroom facility at the park (reduce-slrainage ,rnto the restroom) or pave the service road. Either proposal_, is • estimated at $7, 000. ��, Mr':- ngen, Commun. bevel. Director , gave staff report. There s • public comme -t. `n MOTION: By Councilman 1ouT-b.eau to co ally approve staff's recom- mendation, directin� t ff conduct negotiations and come back with a ti, comprehensive sal for Council consid- erat,i.an-- seconded by Councilwoman Mac assed unanimously 2. General Plan Conformity Status Report - Sycamore Road Property in River Gardens Area for Sale by City (Cont'd from 5/26/87 Council Meeting) Mr. Engen, Commun. Devel. Director, gave staff report and responded to questions from Council. Public Comment Mike Arrambide, 7243 Del Rio Rd. , concurred with Councilwoman Mackey that subject property should be conveyed and kept within the City. He opposes its sale and the funds used for General Fund purposes, feeling any funds acquired from its sale should be earmarked for acquisition of other property that would meet City plans. Councilwoman Borgeson suggested that the Parks & Rec. Commission co - sider possible use of subject site for a park, perhaps solicit homeowners interest in such a use. MOTION: By Councilwoman Borgeson to deny that subject property on Sycamore Road be designated as surplus. Motion died for lack of a second. MOTION: By Councilwoman Mackey to concur with staff recommendation to receive the Conformity Report per the Planning Commission's recommendation, seconded by Councilwoman Borgeson; passed unanimously. . AMENDMENT TO MOTION: By Councilwoman Mackey that Council also refer this item to the Parks & Rec. Commission for their opinion, seconded by Councilwoman Borge- son; passed unanimously. 3.' Atascadero Lake Pavilion Building Status Report --Verbal----'­- Mike Verbal---Mike Arrambide, Chmn of the Lake Pavilion_--�"oject, gave a brief historyof the __ progress Of project "and a status report.. Mr. Jorgensen, City Atty. ,g y. noted that the-Cixy_ doesn' t have liability coverage for the volunteer laborers on this projec-t-F__ saying this issue should be carefully explored before proceeding. No action was taken on this item. 5 STEVE: A9 APPARENTLY WE NEED A GENERAL MEMORANDUM PLAN CONFORMANCE REPORT. THIS HAS BEEN SCHEDULED FOR THE COUNCIL MEETING ON JUNE 9th. To: Honorable Mayor and City Counci: Through: Michael Shelton, City Manager THANKS SO MUCH. From: Paul M. S ensibaugh, Director of VALERIE Subject : Sale'of Lot on Sycamore Rd. Date : May 15, 1987 Recommendation: Staff recommends that Council declare the above lot surplus and authorize the City Manager to obtain an appraisal of the said property and to advertise for sealed bids to dispose of the same. Backround: The City recently acquired the above property (map attached) from the County in the land swap which included the Armory and the Police site lease . This property was not obtained for any specific purpose ibut was just a part of the overall negotiations for available parcels . Discussion: This property was used by the County to access the Salinas River for emergency flood control prior to the Army Corps of Engineers ' construction of the dike which now protects the River Gardens area from a 100—Year flood. The Atascadero Mutual Water Company has requested that the County and/or the City maintain an easement through the property to the river for emergency repair of the dike . Staff agrees that such an access should be perpetuated. The property is not adequate in size for a Police, Fire or Street facility and is too small for a neighborhood park. The zoning is single family residential and subject to the above mentioned dike is within the FEMA flood plain. The City has had at least one inquiry on this parcel . Fiscal Impact : The lot has not been appraised but may be valued between $20, 000 and $40, 000, but will be subjected to a 15—ft . access to the river and the buyer will have to install a gate within the said easement to the river to prohibit indiscriminate access . If the lot is not sold the property will have to be maintained by the City which will require, at minimum, weed abatement a couple of times per year. D;.T= / / ►TEM -� ( _. EM O RAN D UM TO: City Council July 14, 1987 VIA: Michael Hicks, Acting City Manager FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director SUBJECT: General Plan Conformity Report: Sycamore Road BACKGROUND: On June 16, 1987, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the above-referenced matter. Upon review, the Commission recom- mended that-the property be designated as surplus property as outlined in the attached report (on a 6:1 vote) . There was brief discussion among the Commission concerning a suitable building site for the property. There was no public testimony given. RECOMMENDATION: Receive the Conformity Report per the Planning Commission' s recommend- ation. HE:ps 0 • City of Atascadero Item: B-7 STAFF REPORT FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: June 16, 1987 BY: Joel Moses, Associate Planner- Project Address: Sycamore Road 4 , Blk H, Atas. Colony) SUBJECT: General Plan Conformity Report - City sale of real property located on Sycamore Road north of Hidalgo Road in River Gardens. (APN 28-092-09 Northern ptn. Lot 4, Blk H, Atascadero Colony) (Exhibits A & B) . BACKGROUND: The City of Atascadero acquired the approximate 12,000 square foot property as a part of the recent transfer of properties. The County had previously noted the property_ as surplus and had. contacted the City in 1985. The City has found no specific public purpose for the • property and now is seeking to have the property declared as surplus( property so the property can be disposed of. ANALYSIS: The property is presently vacant. The City presently has no plans to use the property except as a detour route during the reconstruction of the Sycamore Road Bridge. The adjoining property is currently gen- erally developed with single family residential uses. The area to the East is owned by the Water Company and is used for gravel/sand extrac- tion. The area is designated Moderate Density Single Family on the General Plan; the corresponding zoning is RSF-Y (Residential Single Family - minimum lot size of 1 acre with sewer 1 1/2 acre without sewer) . The site is currently not provided with sewer but is within the Urban Service Area. The area to the West is within a leachfield problem area as noted in the City' s sewer study (John Wallace & Assoc- iates) . . A review of the General Plan makes no specific statement as to the need for the property. However, a need is noted as to the need for the retention of an easement for emergency access and recreational use. Additional comments made in the General Plan might note the site as undevelopable. The Open Space and Conservation Element notes the site in the inundation and alluvium areas (Maps X-1 and X-2) (Exhibits C&D) and as such falls under the Public Safety Policies (page 84) sta- ting, "that permits shall be denied in the potential inundation areas" . Staff Report General Plan Conformity Report • Page Two RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the property be designated as surplus prop- erty, but maintaining a 25 foot access and recreational easement cros- sing the site connecting Sycamore Road and the Water Company property for access and recreational uses. The action would qualify as a Class 12 categorical exemption (sale of surplus property) from the California Environmental Quality Act pro- cess. JM:ph Attachments: Exhibit A - Location Map Exhibit B - A.P.N. Map Exhibit C - Alluvium Map Exhibit D - Inundation Map •' iii"` r' �� - - - %� ,, — I �.�,i� ,�►� I.r . ,' .I i► 1. AD IP, Is milli •I �iil►�� �� � ���,�:� �.�� �"� •"moi �1 :� 1/�� • : �� =y ,goes , .iii Mug Y► ������! • ♦MAan 1111►�� � —� �♦ ♦ .� � • ►y7 an ling VIA' All •.: ��L•.. . J . ;.� „mire r • EXHIBIT B A.P.N. MAP { \ � GENERAL PLAN CONF. REP. CIT Y OF ATASCADERO SURPLUS PROPERTY SALE S�* err �'� '"'•-' SYCAMORE ROAD CAD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT w 117.30 4, v co iG9 ° v) s �S n rn O l6--4r7 O e \ fn T • .r VA. tJ1 � cr U a o_ v 3 pd �L p W O • EXHIBIT C ALLUVIUM MAP J- CITY OF ATA ��_.•," :"� 4��y SCADERO GENERAL PLAN CONF. REP . �'•'•'��� -'� '»�•-/ SURPLUS PROPERTY SALE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SYCAMORE ROAD > ;Q DEPARTMENT NA r.S\ 1­Z ww '�\ ,yd, �J ..� `J.Y�>!\� 1. '• [ � •�'_ >w 1�; � O v. }SI,`/1,..;• � 1r/:ra M]Jt:�:'C�S_�e"C•�"'1'�"/`� ' I7 4 �1 f ' +��.`.�, .J r<.Z' .4,� � -1:. . .�.•�� �� V t r :i: r f i f .> i. � G. � /l .�' �. r.,' 7 '\t'•:t►+ 'y/ t :i -fir 1N�";er f ~41•,�• ."�`, .� C.!r j ..�.s �lrc�``1.� _�_•�i�1 .l `'t": ' •/ t i t Tt�'�� :��.t' •,` � , •0141 r"f . K�. `r","._ �''�' c n�f`� �1���^t,a r, ``�..{J((��3,a� �0.2 '• �4 �•>Li��1�.'t.t �p�.• \a��/'���z �� ✓�� `•cam 1 {,Lr"•;,J� �4vV_ t �, i t 9 �i��;!y:. !'+ o'W'�. ..Min i'•r. Gb V J j f C � a�4 4.`' 1. J ✓rN�• f °i fe{r�1 9 y • •+>l ..t. Y /��,1 k��' �;r� f `��i�r``},l� ala s�`' .. +,• �Y :� i:'��t v !.�'i t '�/, t �� 1 ;+�� >•• � ti/ '_`` „ ..c }„�a,7',m tit.: " ��^�� � y�• _ �:_.��•.� >� 1 ': �I' .', f.. � 1>. l til . r 1 +� ,� it tit `.�•;fv'; h. ': y sX�t .1♦ 'Y✓1. l t+ J" '\01,�, lF. , �:1• / :/ + 1 �.r �}> �rtR"tZ !. 1�1 .tom_ r,� 1- IN. SIT'E or /r�` '<�. � i t, ♦ � •�Vr• ' '� �•i M MAP X'7 _t 1. ..i ! 'aD �f �•�.�at• .. 1 •moi- .\ �.1 ,(�•'f < t ',Fri��' G / aa� 00 of 3 . m 4 � ♦ • LI • • EXHIBIT D INUNDATION MAP CITYOF A TAS CADERO GENERAL PLAN CONF. REP . SURPLUS PROPERTY SALE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SYCAMORE ROAD DEPARTMENT i jr ��--� r•^!.!' •'Ks�r,�„t it". s � h" �s y ..(�` .�` .. i A•' ><J �h'�•.1,•a`Y^J�3� ..'sy i= = r.ll� - i7 I.�.<•'`' /M- 't j s.. �,. '1"' •�l `) •� �.-fti' 4a c � i 1 J,.�_i. ( y -� ti a w iKs\ r i �l s'�`7`"V'.�) •� J a \.t `. - 1 f '.��\r � �.. {r", r `\,- + .y �i\�\ ' \ �• `1 l i � l w 's 1 ::- �,r .... � ; / Itis,\Is a ... /�� i .s�•L• � ! It �'l" •��-, t r r• r-_• •d ..'<+. � :� > y<T,<I , r t\�%:r t�'I i„r�� ' `_, .-_.. ,.:'mss r j"' \ J i � 1r�' _ �\\ � r•� (w't l/.1(•.-'�1 t 3. � _�• >I , :•� 1 s ��.f'cz � 4,+v-�C ' ✓ r�ri y'ti �;�a,��1"t�'��• ,�4?'+rt?• ' `'��- •1 ' Jy 17,,f s` „!•j R •'�D T ,y 6ey�f' � I]�;I<i '� _ rye , 5[TE �4..• ' .••t • r:�,`=•' <�>:. `` �' p <- MAP X-2 M, •�� r �• C�t��\.!!lrSyj )mac/ � S:moi 0 D 0 n(n 33 m 13 0 00 D , O D m D D a m m J 3 0 �I a 3 M E M O R A N D U M TO: Bob Best, Director of Parks and Recreation Department FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director RE: Sycamore Road Surplus Property DATE: July 20, 1987 At the Council's meeting of July 14 , 1987, the City Council considered the attached staff report and took the following actions: 1) To accept the report from the Planning Commission (which gives the Council future discretion to dispose of the property as surplus to City needs) . 2) Referred the matter to the Parks and Recreation Department for your consideration as a possible recreation site for the neighborhood. The Public Works Department has indicated that the property will be needed for access while bridge construction is undertaken, but after that time there would be no public use needed except emergency access. The question at hand that needs some type of report back, however, is whether this property would have any potential as a neighborhood park and/or tie into Salinas River recreational activities (the intent of the Planning Commission' s recommendation was to keep the latter option open) . HE:ps Enclosure: Staff Report cc: Michael Shelton, City Manager MEMORANDUM September 14 , 1987 To: City Council Planning Commission Via: Mike Shelton, City Manager ., : From: Parks and Recreation Commission ' .Subject: Traffic Way and Sycamore Road Properties At the September 10 meeting , the Parks and Recreation Commission ;took the following action: , =1Recommended that City owned property located on Sycamore Road in River ' s Gardens (APN 28-092-09) be designated as surplus property. All revenue , received from the sale of this property shall be used to purchase prop- erty in the 8000 Block of Morro Road and Amapoa Avenue for the develop ment of a Community Center. 2. Recommended that City owned property located on Traffic Way (APN-29-091- 06) adjacent to 01 Smokey Meats be designated as surplus property. All Y revenue received from the sale of this property shall be used to purch property in the 8000 Block of Morro Road and Amapoa Ave. for the devel ment of a Community Center. In addition , the Commission recommends either a lot line adjustment or easement prior to sale for the purpose of ingress/egress to the Traffic Way Multi-Purpose Fields, as a driveway is planned for a corner of the Property. Some type of slope maintenance should be part of any sale to prevent excessive water runoff. Finally, to provide for the sale of this property the commission recommends this property be re-zoned from Public to Industrial. The decision to recommend surplusing these properties was made more difficult due to the lack of a Master Plan for the department . To make future decisions on properties in the City , it is imperative that the department have a planning document available for guidance. Mike Lara, Chairman It Parks and Recreation Commission cc : Henry Engen Bob Best ti:._ /07 • MEMORANDUM June 30, 1987 To : City Council From: Land Acquisition Committee Subject : Acquisition of Properties BACKGROUND The Land Acquisition Committee , consisting of Councilpersons Mackey and Borgeson , City Manager Mike Shelton, Administrative Services Director Dave Jorgensen , and Parks and Recreation Director Bob Best have met to discuss the possible purchase of properties in the 9000 Block of Morro Rd. and the 9000 Block of Amapoa (Atascadero Lake) . The Committee has dis- cussed possible alternatives for the purchase of the ten ( 10) lots . A map is attached in this report for Council review. LISTING OF PROPERTIES Properties considered by the committee include : Or APN 31-361-08 , Lot 33 of Block JC , City of Atascadero. 2 ) APN 31-361-21 , Lots 1 , 2 , and 32 of Block JC , City of Atascadero . Current Owner of Record of 1) and 2) : James H. and Dayne V. Johnson. This is in the process of being changed to Mr. Eugene Mumford. 3) APN 31-361-15 , Lot 31 of Block JC, City of Atascadero 4) APN 31-361-03 , Lot 4 of Block JC 5) APN 31-361-18 , Lot 5 of Block JC f 6) APN 31-361-12 , Lot 29 of Block JC 7 ) APN 31-361-11 , Lot 30 of Block JC Owner of Record of ;#3-7 : Phil and Shirley Guidry 8) APN 31-261-18 ,Lot 3 of Block JCS Owner of Record: � L. Brqwn. bifep- CIAL PLANS DISCUSSED BY COMMITTEE Without benefit of a current appraisal on the above listed properties , the )committee utilized the following values : Johnston (Mumford) Property - . $177,000 ..,� v✓���. ` Guidry Property - S325 ,000 _;�rown Property - $100 , 000 As discussed b �„ Y the committee , the financing plans Included the follow- /�n g 1 . For the Guidry and Mumford properties , an option to purchase in the amount • of $10 ,000 to each property owner , with this used as a credit toward the purchase price . For the Brown property , consideration was given,, toward a Life Estate or an j option. �• _ � s -2 a X11 �GGf 2 ., Selling some properties currently owned by -1}/{s/he Cit[/y(' o help offset the J cost of acquisition. Included in discussions with estimated values were* Traffic Way Property ljLOO_,000 ( 32 ,600 s.f. ) Sycamore Property -L0,000=(This.property. will, not be avai,�abl to sell for at least one year), �►Z►-t � r �c, �� ,�� Properties on S nta Rosa Road ear Lake �Y $50,000 (2) 3• . -Fund Raising - A cdmmunity-wide campaign to raise needed funds for a . community center. RECOMMENDATIONS o Authorize staff to engage the services of a licensed appraiser to have a?i affected properties appraised. This would be accomplished as the City is ready to acquire/sell specific sites . Authorize Staff to engage the services of a Realtor, to be selected by Council , to negotiate purchase options with the property , wners, and to market any. prope }ties the City. wishes to sell . ,� ate' . . �, -- ALTERNATIVE I f' Included i the committee ` s (,discussions were the following : 1) Vote of Publyic - General Obligation Bond L 2 ) Grants 3 ) Loans J / • j 4) Lease - Buyback 5) Lease - Purchase -: = ,c� 1- Have Jorgensen and Bob Best will provide additional information on the above alternatives verbally to Council. n� .S"e% eel Ze I r' CQ 69 j ASSESSOR"S PLAT w Q z � CL OICZ U W p Z Q %Z CC ' - 0 Q Q O ] LU ~ y U - a N 0. 60 R*s • spy fro N { 00 fA So ..� NWN� 0116 sec .O .. W2cc .- . - m M•. Jas, 1_ E` m 0 'l�T:_nf 'N Or (O O' m '^ M 6 Seg 1 S ti Ncc O 2 W i Q t NOA ►25 d/Ort J M — Q AV -Off CW `10901 -i fj� ^ e -+y i Is•-►e }- ;o s °°x'11;last11%0009- MZ0.aS♦I., 3 Moo Pzs �. z cr t U j`r ty M^ N w J y o • t N1-O t ►N ♦ rn �� QZW a w * n 19g► = 9Zt►r yNm S ► IS 9►16 M•20 6 OCs 021• = V,O _ O CID o F 2 Qm• fa Om H o a '\ •' oiH - 'ON �dM �� oaaow) Nd m 9'ON NOf VALI3S3H _ 13�2�J O�1�adOSt11t1 V wtcz�rj — ,,p ) _ J c-a v �l1 — - ------ - - — zj Dn 1 ur, ea Y1 e f n -t `� •�.y ��c a c. �i l �a^ �p VJ - �� J ^ U v GQ , - �� ;d � ---- -------- ---- _--------.-_ � to � a cz - - - ---�----- -------- __--_ __,`-------- ----- ------- ---- -- l du � azo cy cc