Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda Packet 11/14/1989
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 14, 1989 7 :00 P.M. RULES OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: Members of the audience may speak on any item on the agenda. A person may speak for five (5 ) minutes'; * No one may speak for a second time until everyone wishing to speak has had an opportunity to do so: No one may speak more than twice on any item. Council Members may question any speaker, the speaker may respond but, after the allotted time has expired, may not r.itiate further discussion. The floor will then be closed to public participation and open for /Council discussion. Call to order V Pledge of kllegiance\/ Poll Call✓ City Council Comment e/ COMMUNITY FORUM: The City Council values and encourages exchange of ideas and comments from you, the citizen. The Community Forum period is provided to receive comments from the public on matters other than scheduled agenda items . To increase the effectiveness of Community Forum, the following rules will be enforced A maximum of 30 minutes will be allowed for Community Forum, unless Councilauthorizes an extension. All remarks shall be addressed to Council , as a whole, and not to any individual member thereof. No person, shall be ;permitted to make slanderous , profane or personal remarks against any Council Member, commissions & staff . A. CONSENT CALENDAR: All matters listed under Item A, Consent Calendar, are considered to be routine , and will be enacted by one motion in the form listed below. There will be no separate discussion on these items . A member of the Council or public may, by request, have any item removed from the Consent Calendar, which shall then be reviewed and acted upon separately after the adoption of the Con- sent Calendar. 1 . OCTOBER 30, 1989 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 2. CERTIFICATION OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PAVILION PROJECT 13 . 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 INTER- SECTIONS ON LIGA 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' d 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 & ASSOCI- ATES FOR SELECTED CITY ENGINEER SERVICES B. HEARINGS/APPEARANCES . 1. 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 14/10/89 and 10/30/89 ) 2 . CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST TO REMOVE A HERITAGE, TREE, 12550 SANTA ANA ( Sandel) (Cont'd from 10/30/89 ) 3`. CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST TO REMOVE A HERITAGE TREE, 5550 TRAFFIC WAY ("The oaks" ) (Cont' d from 10/30/89) • 4 . ZONE CHANGE 8-89 7715/7745 SINALOA ROAD A. Ordinance No. 198 - Amending Map 17 of the official zoning maps by rezoning 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 by title only Voice vote; ( Z) motion to approve Ord. No. 158 on first reading Roll call) C. REGULAR BUSINESS ; 1 . POLICE FACILITY PROJECT - BID RESULTS:AND RECOMMENDATIONS 2. CONSIDERATION OF REVISION TO CONTRACT: SAN ANDRES DRAINAGE PROJECT 3. RESPONSE To COUNCIL'S REQUEST TO REVIEW DEVELOPER FEE RATES 4 . REQUEST TO SET JOINT MEETING WITH PLANNING COMMISSION AT ITS MEETING OF NOVEMBER 21, 1989, TO DISCUSS GENERAL PLAN MAT- TERS D. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION; 1 . City Council: A. Confirmation of City Attorney Appointment (Verbal) B. Consideration of revisions to Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (Councilman Shiers) C. Committee` Reports (The following represents ad,hoc or standing commitees . Informative status reports will be given, as felt necessary. ) . 1 City/School Committee (Nothing to report) 2 . North Coastal Transit (Nothing to report) 3 . S .L.O. Area Coordinating Council (Nothing to re- port) 4 . Traffic Committee (See Items A-3 & 4 ) 5 Solid/Hazardous waste Mgmt. Committee (See report in agenda packet) 6 . Recycling_ Committee (See report in agenda packet) 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) 3 • 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 JOINT SESSION WITH THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AT THE COMMISSION'S NEXT REGULAR MEETING ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 1989, 7 :00 P.M. IN THE FOURTH FLOOR ROTUNDA ROOM, FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISCUSSION REGARDING GENERAL PLAN MATTERS. • i 4 MEETIN AGENDA DATE ITEM# ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 30, 1989 The regular meeting of the Atascadero City Council was called to order at 7:01 _ ` {• p.m. by Mayor Dexter, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance led by City Attorney Jorgensen. Mayor Dexter read the proclamation for "NATIONAL HOSPICE MONTH" and the Council voted unanimously to officially proclaim the month of November as Hospice Month. ROLL CALL: • Present: Councilmembers Bor eson 9 , Mackey, Shiers and Mayor Dexter Absent Councilman Lilley Staff Present : Ray Windsor, City Manager; Henry Engen, Community Development Director; Chief Bud McHale, Police Department ; Andy Takata, Director of Parks, Recreation and Zoo; Mark Joseph, Director of Administrative Services; Boyd Sharitz, City Clerk and Georgia Ramirez, Acting Deputy City Clerk. The City Clerk presented and swore in his new Deputy City Clerk , Lee Dayka. Mayor Dexter reported that a closed session was held prior to the meeting to discuss personnel matters; no action was taken. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Stephen P. LaSalle of Atascadero submitted a letter (Exhibit A) regarding the tone of Mayor ' s Memorandum of October 19, 1989. Gail Lee Mudgett , 3125 Ardilla Road in Atascadero, read the attached prepared statement (Exhibit B) expressing her concerns • with the implementation of the General and Seismic Plans.` Dolores Berry, who resides at 6955 Balboa Road in Atascadero, r supported the concerns of Mrs. Mudgett (see Exhibit C) . Mayor 1 • Dexter referred to staff for an answer to her letter. Tom Bench , liaison from Little League and observer Chairman from Parks & Recreation Commission, thanked the Council for their support and for allowing him to serve on the Pavilion Committee. Irene Bishop of Atascadero complimented the decor of the Rotunda Room. Mayor Dexter credited the filming of the movie, "My Blue Heaven" for the sprucing up of City Hall . COUNCIL COMMENTS: Councilwoman Borgeson urged the Council to address the comments made regarding the Drainage Plan and consider placing it on a future agenda for action. Mayor Dexter commented that an open study session may be declared to establish guidelines and referred the matter to staff. Councilwoman Mackey announced the 8th Annual Bowl-a-Thon, November 2-5, being held as a benefit for Hotline. • A. CONSENT -CALENDAR 1. OCTOBER 10, 1989 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 2. CITY TREASURER'S REPORT - SEPTEMBER 1989 3. FINANCE DIRECTOR'S REPORT - SEPTEMBER 1989 4. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 17-89, 7550 CORTEZ - Subdivision of one Parcel containing 6.25 ac . into four lots of 1 .5 ac . , 1 .5 ac. , 1 .58 ac . and 1 .66 ac. (Barrett/Twin Cities Engineering) . 5. REQUEST FOR ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 23- 87, 13900 LOS ALTOS ROAD (Vaughan) 6. AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE VEHICLES (Public Works Dept. ) 7. AWARD CONTRACT FOR BACKHOE ATTACHMENT AND HYDRAULIC SCRAPER (Parks Divn. ) B. RESOLUTION NO. 76-89 - ESTABLISHING ANNUAL DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISES (DBE) POLICY AND LIAISON OFFICER 9. NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE ATASCADERO ADMINISTRATION BLDG. • RENOVATION, PHASE IIC 2 r, 10. AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO SUBMIT REQUEST TO THE STATE FOR REDUCED CENTREX SERVICE CHARGES t` r Item #6 was corrected to read, "AUTHORIZATION FOR BIDS TO PURCHASE VEHICLES. ' Item #9 was removed from the calendar . MOTION: By Councilwoman Mackey to approve the Consent Calendar , with Item #6 corrected and Item #9 removed , seconded by Councilman Shiers; passed unanimously by roll call vote. n a: B. HEARINGS/APPEARANCES: 1. Tentative Parcel Map 7-89, 7000 SAN PALO ROAD Reconsideration 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 Engineering) (Reference July 11 , 1989 City Council Meeting ) (Applicant requests continuance) . G Henry Engen, Community Development Director , gave staff report and recommended - continuation based upon the applicant 's request (see Exhibit D) . MOTIONS By Councilwoman Mackey and seconded by Councilwoman Borgeson to continue the item until the regular meeting of November 28, 1989. Passed unanimously. 2. CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST TO REMOVE A HERITAGE TREE, 12500 SANTA ANA (Sandal ) Henry Engen reported that when he went to make an inspection, -the - trees were not marked as specified by the ordinance and recommended continuing the matter -until the required '' identification could be completed. Council discussion followed - regarding the failure of some applicants to mark trees properly. The applicant was not present. • MOTIONs By Councilwoman Borgeson to continue the item until the regular meeting of November 14, 1989. Councilman Shiers seconded and the motion passed unanimously. 3 i • 3. CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST TO REMOVE A HERITAGE TREE, 3550 TRAFFIC WAY ( "The Oaks" ) Henry Engen gave staff report with the recommendation of approval with a 3 to 1 replacement . He indicated that when he attempted to inspect this tree, it too was not marked. Councilwoman Mackey corrected the street number from 3550 to 5550. The applicant was not present . Further Council discussion ensued and the consensus was to continue this request until the tree has been properly marked and inspected . Public Comment • Steve LaSalle commended the City Council for it 's serious consideration of the ordinance. MOTION: By Councilwoman Borgeson and seconded by Councilman Shiers to continue the matter until the meeting of November 14, 1989. The motion passed unanimously. 4. Tentative Parcel Map 16-890 9350 SANTA CRUZ Subdivison of one parcel containing approximately 9.63 ac . into two lots of 4.0 ac. and 5.63 ac . (Lobo Investments/Volbrecht Surveys) (Cont 'd from 10/10/89 meeting) Henry Engen gave staff report with recommendation for approval . Chief Hicks gave additional comments regarding residential sprinkling systems and answered Council questions regarding area growth and emergency response times. Councilwoman Borgeson complimented Chief Hicks on his responsible statement. Henry Engen responded to additional Council questions and noted that the Cities and County are going forward with the hiring of a consultant to update our Seismic and Safety Elements. 4 • Public Comments Mrs. Mudgett asked that her statement (Exhibit B) be applied to this item. Mrs. Berry requested that her concerns (Exhibit C) also be applied . Alan Volbrecht, of Volbrecht Surveys located at 7508 Morro Road in Atascadero , appeared as agent for the applicant and volunteered to answer questions from the Council or public . Barbara Schoenicke, 7505 Marchant in Atascadero , addressed the Council with a prepared statement (see Exhibit E) asking that the cumulative effects of this lot split be considered . George Wolfrank , 5561 Tunitas in Atascadero , voiced his concerns about access bridge installation, cost and funding . • John McNeil , 8765 Sierra Vista in Atascadero , read the attached prepared statement (see Exhibit F) urging the completion of an Environmental Impact Report for this project. Joan O ' Keefe, residing at 9985 Old Morro Road East in Atascadero , submitted her statement (Exhibit G) requesting that this Tot split application be denied until an Environmental Impact Report has been done. Steve LaSalle requested that the Council consider his packet (Exhibit H) of concerns. Dorothy McNeil , 8765 Sierra Vista Road in Atascadero, submitted a prepared statement with attachments (Exhibit I ) for Council consideration. Tom McNamara of Atascadero verbalized his concerns with the "no growth" tone of the meeting and urged the Council to give credence to the paid staff by allowing them to deal with development problems. Whitey Thorpe, 805 Santa Ynez in Atascadero, asked that we ( the public ) extend to other newcomers the same courtesies. Bob Nimmo, 7375 Bella Vista Road in Atascadero , supported the • Council ' s responsibility to observe the ordinances and asked that the public be confident that they can rely on the objectivity of the City Staff. 5 ._ • Mrs. Mudgett urged the Council to abide by the General Plan. Mr . Volbrect explained, from the consultant ' s side, the process of lot split . He stated that , in his professional opinion, the application fits within the guidelines of both the Atascadero General Plan and Subdivision Ordinance and urged that the approval/disapproval of the project be considered based solely on those merits. Mr. Volbrecht responded to Council questions. Mayor Dexter observed that the matter has been before the Planning Commission and has been recommended for approval . He also noted that Santa Cruz Road was completed during the week of October 16, 1989. The chair recognized the concerns of the public and clarified that the issue is to consider the recommendation of the Planning Commission. Lengthy Council discussion followed regarding the Negative Declaration of the project , the emergency response time and the possible bridge fee issue. Mr . Volbrecht added that the • applicant is more than willing to fire sprinkle the homes on his own accord . City Attorney Jorgensen stated that the City needs to deal with the concerns and , if - necessary, develop new policies to address them. He stressed that inventing policies on a case-by-case basis or applying new policies on a case-by-base basis where they don ' t already exist would create some serious potential problems for the City. On the issue of response time, Mr. Jorgensen stated that it is obviously an issue of major concern and that it should be looked at . He reported that the City does not currently have any mechanism for denying lot splits on the basis of response time. He urged theCouncilto very carefully consider what the impact of denying any additional development or split outside of a five-minute response time would have on the City and the potential liability to the City. If the Council wants to address response time, it needs to be in the policy-making context , not in the case-by-case analysis of individual applications. Mr . Jorgensen responded to Council questions and stated that if the Council cannot make the mandatory findings, it must admit so based on evidence in the record . The City Attorney asked the Community Development Director when the Negative Declaration was issued for the project . Discussion ensued regarding an appeal to the Declaration and it was the • consensus that the time had expired for any possible appeal . Mr . Jorgensen advised that the Planning Commission' s approval and the 6 Negative Declaration would be legally sustainable since an appeal was never an issue before the City. He noted that while the Council may have the discretion to require an Environmental Impact Report , it would bear additional staff analysis to determine whether overturning the Negative Declaration is the appropriate procedure. MOTION: By Councilwoman Mackey to accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission based upon the findings of the staff report to approve Tentative Parcel Map 16-89, seconded by Mayor Dexter . A roll call vote was taken resulting with a 2:2 split ; with Councilmembers Mackey and Dexter voting Yes and Councilmembers Shiers and Borgeson voting No . City Attorney Jorgensen stated that consistent with past interpretation, a 2:2 tie represents no action on the item and recommended that the Council continue the item until such time that all councilmembers are present. • MOTION: By Councilwoman Mackey and seconded by Councilman Shiers to continue the matter ; passed unanimously. Mayor Dexter called for a recess at 9: 10 p .m. The meeting reconvened at 9:22 p .m. C. REGULAR BUSINESS: 1. RESPONSE TO JOHN McNEIL'S COMPLAINT RE: GRADING FEE VIOLATIONS (Verbal ) Henry Engen responsed to Mr. McNeil ' s question as to the County ' s stand on grading violations. Mr . Engen indicated that the County 's Grading Ordinance has recently been amended and allows them to prosecute major grading violations as misdemeanors rather than infractions. Mr . Engen further compared the policies of both the City of Atascadero and the County. He explained that the Planning Directors meet monthly and it is their wish to create an enforcement subgroup that might meet quarterly to exchange ideas on this key area. Public Comment: John McNeil , identifying himself as the citizen who raised the question, made additional comments regarding the grading fee • issue and expressed his appreciation to Mr . Engen for looking into the matter . 7 2. RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS RAISED BY STEVE LaSALLE RE: PLANNING COMMISSION SELECTION. Mayor Dexter reminded the public that it is unacceptable to hand out lengthy materials and expect the Council to be able to deal with them during the meeting. He requested that items be submitted to the City Clerk ahead of time for Council consideration. Mayor Dexter responded to Steve LaSalle ' s questions regarding the recent Planning Commissioner selection. He then asked the Council if they wished to reconsider their appointment . Lengthy Council discussion followed regarding Resolution 35-81 and the voting process used to appoint Commissioner Hanauer . Public Comments: Steve LaSalle referred back to Exhibit A stating that he did not want to enter into a personal debate. He then read the attached letter (Exhibit J) criticizing the elimination process of the • balloting. Barbara Schioenicke, resident , supported thoughts of Elaine Oglesby and asked the Council if it could refuse to correct the error . City Attorney Jorgensen stated that the appointment of a Planning Commissioner is a political appointment of the Council dependent upon a majority vote. He expressed his concern that a disservice was being done to the Mayor ; that the method of selection was done in the ignorance of the resolution and was conducted in fairness and in good faith . The Commissioner was, in fact, appointed with a majority vote of the City Council even though there was indeed a deviation from the resolution. Mr. Jorgensen did not feel it was legally necessary to re-appoint unless a majority of the Council no longer wishes the Commissioner to remain a commissioner , or members of the community want to challenge the decision. If either is the case, Mr . Jorgensen stated that the recommended action would be to rescind the resolution and re-appoint . Additional Council discussion followed . MOTION: By Councilwoman Borgeson and seconded by Councilman Shiers to direct staff and appoint two members of the Council to examine, amend as needed and re-affirm • Resolution 35-81 ; passed unanimously. 8 Mayor Dexter appointed himself and Councilwoma Borgeson to the committee for review. Mayor Dexter polled the Council with t e question, "Do you desire to reconsider your appointment of Mr. Hanauer?" Councilman Shiers abstained , Councilwoman Mackey answered "No" , The City Attorney advised that an abstension is considered a "Yes" vote under the Municipal Code creating a 2:2 tie; therefore no action could be taken and the appointment of Commissioner Hanuaer stands. D. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION: 1. Council : Council discussion regarding the interviewing process for the new City Attorney was held . The item was placed first on the -agenda for the meeting of November 8, 1989. A. Committee Reports 1 . City/School Committee report was given by Mayor Dexter . 2. North Coastal Transit - nothing to report. 3. SLO Area Coordinating Council report given by Councilwoman Borgeson. 4. Traffic Committee Meeting date announced by Councilwoman Mackey. 5. Solid/Hazardous Waste Mgmt. Committee Meeting date announced by Councilwoman Mackey. 6. Recycling Committee - Meeting date given by Councilwoman Mackey. 7. Economic Opportunity Commission Committee report given by Mayor Dexter. B. Finance Committee had nothing to report . 9. H. I .A. Committee had nothing to report . 10. Downtown Steering Mgmt . Committee submitted a written report . 11 . Interim Growth Management Committee had nothing to report . 12. General Plan Subcommittee - Mr . Engen set a tentative meeting date. Mayor Dexter announced that the League of California Cities Annual Conference has been rescheduled for December 17-19 in San • Francisco due to the earthquake. 9 • 2. CITY ATTORNEY Mr . Jorgensen, in this his last City Council meeting, expressed pleasure at the liveliness of the meeting and said, "He would never forget the first or the last meeting . " He also thanked the City for the opportunity to serve as the City Attorney and the Council wished him well in his new position with the City of San Luis Obispo . 3. CITY CLERK Mr . Sharitz welcomed his new Deputy, Lee Dayka, and expressed his appreciation to Georgia Ramirez , Acting Deputy Clerk for her work . 4. CITY MANAGER Mr . Windsor quiped that, "Out of compassion, Mr . Jorgensen should be given 20 seconds to leave the building, because he deserves a running start" . • MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:06 P.M. TO NOVEMBER 9, 1989 AT 10:00 A.M. (CITY ATTORNEY INTERVIEWS) . MINUTES RECORDED BY: HOYD C. SHARITZ, CITY CLERK PREPARED BY: ----------------------------------- LEE DAYKA, DEPUTY CITY CLERK 10 REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: A-2 Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 11/14/89 From: Henry Engen, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Request for Council certification of Negative Declaration for the Pavilion project. RECOMMENDATION: Certification of Negative Declaration for the Pavilion project. BACKGROUND: • The Parks and Recreation Director has recieved the attached Notice of Negative Declaration and accompanying environmental analysis from the Community Development Department, and is de- sirous having the Council formally certify the Negative Declaration. This will then be utilized in seeking government grant assistance. HE:ph Encl: Negative Declaration: Pavilion Project • CITY OF ATASCADERO PLANNING DIVISION NEGATIVE DECLARATION* COMMIMIY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 6500 PALMA AVE. ATASCADERO, CA 93422 (805)461-5035 APPLICANT: City of Atascadero Parks & Recreation Dept. 6500 Palma Ave Atascadero, CA 93422 PROJECT TITLE: Lake Park Pavilion Replacement PROJECT LOCATION: Atascadero Lake Park AP # 31-372-01 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project consists of the demolition of the existing pavilion structure which contains approximately 6000 square feet and the construction of a new building containing 8000 square feet at the same location. The building FINDINGS: will be used for community functions and recreation programs. 1. The project does not have the potential to degrade the environment. 2. The project will not achieve short-term to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. • 3. The project does not have impacts which are individually limited,but comulatively considerable. 4. The project will not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings either directly or indirectly. DETERNIINATION: Based on the above findings, and the information contained in the initial study(made a part hereof by refer- ence and on file in the Community Development Department), it has been determined that the above project will not have an adverse impact on the environment. Henry Enge Community Development Director Date Posted: October 3, 1939 Date Adopted: CDD&89 ... _ Atl:NCOVORATED JULY INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST I. BACKGROUND: 1. Proposal Title: LA1kE PAev- PAviwc� 2Ef GA4.'aMUNY 2. Primary Entitlement and/or file number (s) : 3. Brief description of proposal: DEMo wrt om viz -r" E)CIS74fU G 4P000 50. FT. t-AKe 1°AW-r- PAXIL014 ArMP ajo A ROW Saco s cQ. F7. FAC-IL"'r"f 4r*r TUC SAMG L0444Tcohl. II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are provided on attached sheets. ) 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in YES MAYBE NO a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? X b. Disruptions, displacements, com- paction or overcovering of the soil? c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? d. The destruction, covering or modifica- tion of any unique geologic or physical features? X e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? ?� f. Changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of any lake? g. Exposure of people or property to geo- logical hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? X 0 • YES MAYBE NO 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterio- ration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? _ c. Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? C 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? �c b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? X c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? X e. Discharge into surface waters or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to, tempera- ture, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? _ C� h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (in- cluding trees, shrubs, grass, crops, aquatic plants) ? 2 YES MAYBE NO b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, or endangered species of plants? c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? X d. Reduction in acreage of any agricul- tural crop? X 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species , or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, or insects) ? X b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, or endangered species of animals? _ CL c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? X 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise? -7k_ 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal pro- duce new light or glare? _ , 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? _A b. Substantial depletion of any nonre- newable natural resource? Y. 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: 3 YES MAYBE NO a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? mac_ b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? ?C 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect ex- isting housing, or create a demand for additional housing? X 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? _ b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? X c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? _ C� d. Alterations to present patterns of cir- culation or movement of people and/or goods? _ e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f. increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? _ C� 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? _ C� b. Police protection? c. Schools? CL d. Parks or other recreational facilities? _ C� e. Maintenance of public facilities, in- cluding roads? _ 4 YES MAYBE NO f. Other governmental services? 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: + a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? _ b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? X 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? _ b. Communications systems? c. Water? X d. Sewer or septic tanks? _ e. Storm water drainage? _4 f. Solid waste and disposal? 4 _ 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or poten- tial health hazard (excluding mental health) ? _A b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? _ 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? 20. Cultural Resources. a. Will the proposal result in the alter- ation of or the destruction of a pre- historic archaeological site? x b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a 5 • YES MAYBE NO prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? X c. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? X d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? _X 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to elim- inate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or or prehistory? _ C� b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disad- vantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure will into the future) . _ C� c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant. ) �C _ d. Does the project. have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? _ III. DETERMINATION 6 On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. t 1 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARA- TION will be prepared. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. 3 ACf06 6r,__ 19,99 Date Henry Engen Community D elopmen Director 7 M • RESPONSES TO POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Lake Park Pavilion Replacement 1 .a. The replacement building will be approximately 2000 square feet larger than the existing structure. The additional square footage will result in additional localized soil compaction. 1 .f. Because the project is located adjacent to the Lake, minor siltation may ocur during demolition of the existing structure and construction of the new building. This additional siltation will be limited to the time period during demolition and construction and will be minimized through standard erosion control techniques. No long-term adverse on the quality of water in the Lake are anticipated. 3.b. See responses to items l .b and 1 .f. above. 6.a. Increased use of the new pavilion will result in an increase in noise levels around the building. Because of the sites relative isolation from residential areas, the increased noise levels should not have any serious concequences. 6.b. Noise levels generated during demolition and construction activities will be higher than anticipated during normal use of the facility. These higher noise levels will be of limited duration. 13.a. Operation of a new pavilion will generate additional traffic beyond current levels. The roads and parking facilities that serve the site are adequate to serve the additional traffic. 13.b. See response to item 13.a. above. 14 .d. Construction of a new pavilion will provide a location for many of the City' s recreation programs amd will allow for the ititiation of new programs. 18 . Because the new pavilion will be located on the same site as the existing structure, the impact on the view shed will not change. 19. See response to item 14 .d. above. 20.b. The existing pavilion is not listed on any register of historic buildings. The building is Page - 1 • i considered by some to be of local historic importance. Restoration of the existing structure was considered, but was rejected due to the delapated and unsafe condition of the building and the estimated cost of such renovation. Page - 2 taseadets INCORPORATED JULY 211979 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires all state and local agencies to consider and mitigate potential environmental im- pacts for their own actions and when permitting private projects. The Act also requires that an environmental impact report (EIR) be pre- pared for all actions that may significantly affect the quality of the environment. The purpose of this form is to obtain information to help the City of Atascadero's Director of Community Development deter- mine which type of environmental clearance will be required relative to your project. Please answer the following questions as completely as possible. Where you believe an explanation of your response would be helpful, or to provide additional information, please attach additional pages, if necessary. PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT YOUR ANSWERS CLEARLY IN INK.. I. GENERAL INFORMATION. 1. Applicant: CTT pF ATASC,at3geD a. Contact person: AA1met/j T- b. Address: (nomAirs-? c. Telephone: `�FJS 2. Describe the project in detail (discuss what you are going to do, such as subdivide and sell lots, build. a shopping center. . . . . ) 1,A-r( . - 3. Project Location: a. Legal description: Lf 4s• t3►k Afixs. b. Assessor ' s Parcel Number: 3i- 31Z -6� C. Address: L;," PA,, L d. Include vicinity map showing nearest crossroads on site plan and exact location of site. 4. Size of Project: a. Total acreage of owner 's property at this location: b. Total acreage of project: C. If the project involves a land division, please answer the following: 1) Check one: parcel map tract map 2) How many lots will be created? 3) What size will the lots be? d. If the project includes development of structures, please answer the following questions: 1) What is the total floor space area? WO sq. ft. 2) What percentage of the total site will be utilized for: a) building q4"A,% b) paving c) landscaping o d) other (specify) 5. What will be the eventual use of the property? Residential Industrial OtherC, t ' Cv Commercial Agricultural 6. What is the existing zoning? Land use? 7. What is the land use of the surrounding area? a. North: ?A'eL b. South: PA's.- C. East: I .AK- d. West: 1pkey - 8. Do you plan to request a rezone? If yes, explain: 9. Will development occur in phases? Describe: 10. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? Yes No If yes, explain: r 11. Have you considered alternative development schemes? If so, list and briefly state why each was found ta. be unacceptable: S _ -t,,e.. 11,1'7 � 'y?'C`t D ►--! rfwt'" ?�°ti 2 12. List all permits, licenses, or government approvals that wil,1 be required for your pxoject (federal, state and local) : `�w'',r.a•-i II. PHYSICAL SITE CHARACTERISTICS. 1. Describe the topography f t�,e site: �otZ�- - - �t`uwc �-C. ".�-- 14!14 Level to gently rolling, 0-10% slopes_ __ acres. Slope of 10-30%: acres. Steep slopes over 30%: acres. 2. Are there any springs, streams, lakes, or marshes on or near the site? Y, Yes No Describe: 3. What type of vegetation exists on the site? tJa Nr 4. Will the project necessitate tree removal? Yes No Number to be removed Type to be removed 5. Describe any unique or significant features on or adjacent to the site: C- 6. 6. Are there any unique, rare or endangered species (vegetation or wildlife) associated with the project site? Yes '_No List: 7. What is the drainage pattern of the site? Describe: ZO;,7L3.r,-C)S 8. Has a drainage plan been prepared? �J O If so, please attach. 9. Are there any flooding problems on the site or in the surrounding area? I� Describe: 3 10: Has there been any grading or earthwork on the project site? 1J Q Explain: 11. Will there be any gradingor lteration of the existing topography necessary? Yes _No a. Describe purpose and extent: b. Has a grading plan been submitted? 12. Will there be any drainagge swale or streambed alteration associa- ted with the project? N Explain: III. WATER. .1. What source of water is proposed? a. Water company X b. Surface b. Well 2. Has there been a sustained yield test on proposed or existing wells? K. p If yes, please attach a copy of the results. 3. What is the proposed use of the water? Residential Agricultural Explain Commercial Explain '"i^► i -^-'+-� � Industrial Explain 4. What is the expected daily water demand associated with the project? v 5. How many service connections will be required? 6. Population served? IPSO 1Mca. r w 7. Do operable water facilities exist on the site? Describe: 8. Does water meet Health Department quality requirements? Yes No 9. Do you have a letter or documents to verify that water is avail- able for the proposed project? _Yes No 4 IV. WASTE DISPOSAL. 1. Is this project to be connected to an existing sewer line? a. X _Yes No b. Distance to nearest sewer line:. 2. What is the amount of proposed flow? Soo g.p.d. 3. Does the existing collection treatment and disposal system have adequate additional capacity to accept the proposed flow? Yes No 4. Do you have a letter or documents from the facility operator veri- fying the above? Yes _ _No 5. Will this project utilize an individual subsurface sewage disposal system? Yes \� -No If yes, please explain (i.e. septic tank, evapotranspiration. . . ) : 6. Has an engineered percolation test been accomplished? Yes I No a. Has a conclusion been stated as to the suitability of indiv- idual systems? Yes ► P• No b. Has a conclusion been stated as to the amount of required square feet of bottom area of leaching lines per 100 gallons of septic tank capacity? Yes No C. Has a conclusion been stated as to the amount of required cubic feet of seepage pits per 100 gallons of septic tank capacity? Yes No (If yes, please attach) d. Is the area (parcel, lot, etc. ) of sufficient size to provide an area equal to 100% of ori gi al installation to provide for expansion? Yes rJ?P No e. What is the depth of the water table? ZN f. What is the quality of any shallow ( in relation o existing ground elevations) water table? Explain: g. Is there a portion of the lot (s) that is unsuitable for indi- vidual installations due to soil or geologic conditions, slope, etc.? Yes .hNo If yes, please explain: 5 7: What is the distance from proposed leach field to any neighboring water wells? ► ft. 8. What type of solid waste will be generated by the project? Domestic Industrial Agricultural Other (explain) 9. What type of storage will be used for solid waste? Dumpster Single containers Other (explain) 10. Where is the waste disposal storage in relation to buildings? V. COMMUNITY SERVICES. 1. Number of school children in project: ��S .2. Distance to nearest police station: w• -�t� a. Response time (in minutes) : 'J 3. Distance to nearest fire station: a. Response time (in minutes) : VI. COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL PROJECTS. 1. Hours of operation: _ _a,�,,.,• LZ p ^-- 2. Days of operation: -- 3. Will this project produce any emissions (gases, smoke, odors, fumes, vapors. . . ) ? tats G Explain: 4. Will this project increase the noise level in the immediate vicinity? t`,-)-D Explain: 5. What type of waste materials will result from the project? Explain in detail: V.-c- C, �— 6 T . 0 0 6: How many people will this project employ? VII. MISCELLANEOUS. 1. How will access be provided to your project? e Yrs3 r� 2. Is a railroad or by adjacent to your project site? Yes No Location: 3. Describe the view of y r project fort the surrounding area: .. f''1^ tv l.�. G�-er �. A Ge i4.4 G.✓ili TS. 4. Describe any energy conservation measures that will be incorpora- ted your project: S. Are you aware of the presence of an historic cultural or archae- ological r h - Y p y c ae ological materials on the project site or in the vicinity? Yes No If yes, please describe. S, 6. If you think the project will not or cannot have any significant environmental effects, please indicate your reasons below: L�.3f1\ .r c.-Le.... ey �-i�i s�o� 'k. vim. V: •r:"'r7.r .. 4"' .,R- X rr. 7. Describe any amenities included in the project, such as park areas, open space, common recreation facilities, etc. : ToL6.c •� k c 8. Historically, how has the project site been utilized?f Describe: 7 toFA M, 11 f J A. / F a RAT � L&4 71.v4. OL ►-+-d VIE48 W� s? Ao ° HIGH ITY E MIL � M\. 1 RCIAO °' `REEL z 1 P c St ♦ \SS'�� Ili OPSAVE 040 ST ,1 %� �p� rte,, � � - • ���. � ROAD OS � /; / / X04" i �Ta6so�� / 1 r ' \/ .. \ O �- "'1177 J._-_� � • �\. O N ' l \ 0 0 • REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: A-3 Through : Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date : 11/14/89 From: Department of Public Works SUBJECT: Request by the Department of Public Works for stop signs on Capistrano Avenue at the Hotel Park project . RECOMENDATION: The Traffic Committee recommends that Council adopt Resolution No . 82-89 establishing a stop intersection on Capistrano Avenue . BACKGROUND: The Department of Public Works has received numerous • complaints regarding the sharp curve recently created on Capistrano Avenue at Hotel Park. DISCUSSION: The ultimate confia_uration of this section of roadway will incorporate a three way stop intersection. The roadway construction will be completed by the Century Plaza development . It is the request of the Public Works Department that two of the three stop signs be installed at this time . OPTIONS: 1) Adopt Resolution 82-89 and establish a stop intersection . 2) Return item to Traffic Committee for further review. 3) Deny request . FISCAL IMPACT: The cost of the improvement will be billed to the developer • of Hotel Park. Attachments : Resolution No. 82-89 Diagram of Location VJH/vjh 11/7/89 • RESOLUTION NO. 82-89 RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO DESIGNATING A STOP INTERSECTION ON CAPISTRANO AVENUE AT HOTEL PARK WHEREAS, Section 4-2 . 801 et seq. of the Atascadero Municipal Code allows the City Traffic Engineer to determine the location of STOP intersections , and to place and maintain appropriate signs or markings indicating the same; and WHEREAS, the Atascadero Traffic Committee has recommended that establishing a STOP intersection on Capistrano Avenue at Hotel Park will improve a potentially hazardous traffic situation . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Atascadero directs the City Traffic Engineer to place and maintain appropriate signs or markings indicating a STOP intersection at the location listed above. • On motion by , and seconded by ,the foregoing Resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety on the following roll call vote: AYES : NOES : ABSENT: ADOPTED: ATTEST : BOYD C . SHARTIZ, City Clerk NROLLIN DEXTER, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: JEFFREY G. JORGENSEN RAY WINDSOR • City Attorney City Manager tL � /' /i j �s �•% w / V6 S9 � t�; J CSP 6K6x /Ox/0 \ wAIR 33.10 CL. 'Z 1845E A 2 t�4• � h ilei v N/5'o.2inin. A�oar • REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL Meeting Date : 11/14/89 CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: A-4 Through : Ray Windsor, City Manager From: Department of Public Works SUBJECT: Recommendation for stop intersections on Liga Avenue at Amargon Avenue and Liga Avenue at Arena Avenue . RECOMENDATION: The Traffic Committee recommends that Council adopt Resolution No. 83-89 establishing stop intersections on Liga Avenue at Arena Avenue and Liga Avenue and Amargon Avenue . BACKGROUND: Liga Avenue was recently paved during the annual street • overlay program. A request was received from the Public Works Department for stop intersections at each end of Liga Avenue. DISCUSSION: Both intersections of Liga Avenue are currently uncontrolled. It is anticipated that the recent paving of the street will increase traffic and that stop signs on each intersection are warranted at this time. OPTIONS: 1) Adopt Resolutions 83-89 2) Return item to Traffic Committee for further review. 3) Deny request . FISCAL IMPACT: The cost of this improvement would be approximately $150. 00 to be funded through the street department 1989-90 budget . Attachments : Resolution No . 83-89 • Diagram of Location VJH/vjh 11/7/89 0 • RESOLUTION NO. 83-89 RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO DESIGNATING A STOP INTERSECTION ON LIGA AVENUE AT AMARGON AVENUE AND LIGA AVENUE AT ARENA AVENUE WHEREAS, Section 4-2 .801 et seq. of the Atascadero Municipal Code allows the City Traffic Engineer to determine the location of STOP intersections , and to place and maintain appropriate signs or markings indicating the same; and WHEREAS, the Atascadero Traffic Committee has recommended that establishing a STOP intersection on Liga Avenue at Amargon Avenue and Liga Avenue at Arena will improve a potentially hazardous traffic situation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Atascadero directs the City Traffic Engineer to place and maintain appropriate signs or markings indicating a STOP • intersection at the location listed above. On motion by Y and seconded by ,the foregoing Resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety on the following roll call vote: AYES : NOES : ABSENT: ADOPTED: ATTEST: BOYD C . SHARTIZ, City Clerk ROLLIN DEXTER, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: JEFFREY G. JORGENSEN RAY WINDSOR • City Attorney City Manager bb G o _ z m ;, rn Ab 4-00 O N cp 01 A m 0 � ti N N fub o� w ° oA`D v M3CyrO loo N v �Z w 4 �� O o �- a / '� l N Ooe � OD i m N ori y`Z y / N C3 ��� W N Two ,�4Z � O r m ti • REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL Meeting Date: 11/14/89 CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: A-5 Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager From: Department of Public Works Subj ect : Notice of Completion for the Atascadero City Administration Building Renovation - Phase IIC . Background: Bids were received for this phase of the project on November 10, 1988 and awarded on February 14 , 1989. The successful bidder was • R.P. Richards Construction Co. from Goleta . The work under this contract includes removal and sealing of asbestos insulation within vertical pipe chases and piping in basement (originally $54 ,000 - Change Order No . 1 increased this line item to approximately $95 , 000) . Construction of mechanical pad and brick masonry unit enclosure at parking lot ($58,000) Mechanical Renovation (HVAC System) including soffit work ($345 , 000) , and Architectural Renovation including the 3rd Floor restrooms and painting and carpeting in some offices ($101 ,476) . Discussion: Inspections have been held with the contractor , architect, and city staff and the project has been determined to be substantially, complete. It is customary to allow the Notice of Completion to be recorded upon substantial completion and permit the contractor tc complete any minor or touch-up work during the 30 day period. The filing of the Notice of Completion allows the sub contractors 30 days in which to file a Mechanic' s Lein against the prime contractor to recover any past-due payments . • • Options : 1) Approve the Notice of Completion 2) Reject the Notice of Completion and direct staff to resubmit at a future meeting. Fiscal Impact : The City has held in retention 10% of all progress payments paid to R.P. Richards . Upon completion this will amount to approximately $61 ,000 . Attachments : Notice of Completion VJHIvjh • • RECORDING REQUESTED BY / 1 AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO r C Name City of Atascadero street 6500 Palma Avenue Ad,ress Atascadero, CA 93422 City A State Department of Public Works J SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RE R'S USE NOTICE OF COMPLETION Notice pursuant to Civil Code Section 3093,must be filed within 10 days after completion.(See reverse side for Complete requirements.) Notice is hereby given that: 1. The undersigned is owner or corporate officer of the owner of the interest or estate stated below in the property hereinafter described: 2. The full name of the owner is City of Atascadero 3. The full address of the owner is 6500 Palma Avenue Atascadero CA 93422 4. The nature of the interest or estate of the owner is; In fee. Municipal Government Building (If other than tee.strike"in fee"and insert,for example."purchaser under contract of purchase,"or"lessee") 5. The full names and full addresses of all persons,if any,who hold title with the undersigned as joint tenants or as tenants in common are: NAMES ADDRESSES 6. A work of improvement on the property hereinafter described was completed on The work done was: 7. The name of the contractor,if any,for such work of improvement was ds r—f.rltctiCM Company n Of no contractor for work nt improvement as a whole,insert"none".) (Date of Contract) 8. The property on which said work of improvement was completed is in the city of ..Atascadero r County of_San Luis Obispo State of California.and is described as follows: etasc dera eery Hall 9. The street address of said property is 6500 Palma Avennp (If on street address has been officially assigned,insert"none'.) Dated: Verification lot Individual Owner Signature of owner or corporate officer of owner named in paragraph 2 or his agent VERIFICATION I,the undersigned,say:I am the City Manager the declarant of the foregoing ("President of"."Manager of,"A partner of","Owner of".etc.) notice of completion;I have read said notice of completion and know the contents thereof:the same is true of my atm knowledge. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on __,19 at California. is (Date of signature.) (City where signed.) (Personal signature of the individual who is swearing that the contents of the notice of c"Plelron are true.) RAY WINDSOR City Manager NOTICE OF COMPLETION-WOLCCTTS FORM 1114—REW 6 74 fix"C101131 8 If.type or larger -asodmd iaoA fol ssouly s,wiol 941 >gnoP n0A}m taArwl a linsuo3 'uoppesueij moA of iado,d sa3ue43 a+1ew put 'squelq Ile u! II!l 'l! peal lulls ROA moles 'Paln!pul Play a4l u! swaigoAd lensn lsow iJaeoa uviol piepuels $ill -490410e leluaMaA03 A0 allgnd luslodwo0 Aue Aq Alladold 941 o) podine 'Aue 1! 'ssalppe leaps all M04s '6 gdeileled ul 'p8113e11e aq AM Aapu a '1uaPlllns lou s! uog 1 ,130p Ao1 pap!AOAd aaeds a41 11 -90uemsul ap!l 10 A�!lod Ao peep of Aalaa 'uollduosap xel Ao ssalppe laaAls a AlaAaw lou 'uogduasap 1e8al '11111 941 Mosul 'g 4dei3eied ul ,;sgol A9pl!nq-AauMo„P011Mos uo'-8'8'LoheAlm lelaua8 ou Si M41 1!uanll aq peau aweu s,1013eAlu03 ON '9lo4m a It luawan0ldwl 10 glom 841 lo) A013el11103 a4l 10 aweu a4l 1Aasu! '010u a4l 1u L gdeA811Aed ul -L gdeAleled u! 13eA1un Aejulled o4l Aapun A013eAluoa all 10 aweu 94) 1Aasul (Z) '011124,1180,1411111 941 /ol suollepuno) aql„ '-8'a) IaeAluo:) 40ns of luens/nd pagslwn{ sleualew Ao auop 4AOm 10 pui4 9ql 10 luawalels lelaud a Vasil' put g 460eled w0A1 „luawaAoldwi 10 vom V. spAOM a4l 8VIS lq smopol It paylpow eq lsnw wlol s141 u841 's13eA1u03 ieulHuO aloes Ao oml 01 luenslnd spew s! lUawaA0Adwi 10 !lAom 9ql aAa4m 113uluoa jelmil/ed a 10 uollaldwoo 10 Aluo uaA,j aq of si a11gou a41 11 alogm a se luawaeoidw! 10 Alam sol SJOA09 uollaldwoo l0 a011ou a4l ala4m 41110 Pasn aq pinogs wlo{ Vill 11 put g sydeAleled of sy 'alels put Alum 'Al!0 'Aagwnu laoils WIN' pinogs lot palm ssalppe 11n1 941 'S put E s4deAHeled ul -slolalsueAl Ao AolalsueAl s14 10 sassaAppe Put s8411e11 841 DOW Heys MAP u! Aossaaans a Aq pauflls uollaldwoo 10 VRON Aue 11143 a)ON WO) 941 10 S 4del8eled u, palels aq lsnw slaum0-03 Aa410 841 {o sassalppe put saweu aql inq '(lueualoo auo Aluo Aq aallou a41 10 BulAIS fol PauBlsap s! wlo{ HUIOSaAO{ a4l '13el u!) SJOUM0-03 a4l 10 auo Aue Aq pauels aq Aew a31lou aql 'uowwoa u! slueual AO slueual 1u101 se suoslad alow Ao oM1 ui s! d14slaumo 941 ll -aapou aq)ail lsnw 'poly s! 001lou 841 alep a4l It lsalalu! s14 of papaa00ns seg AaAo04m A0 'g ua4) 'palmisu00 aq of 3ulpl!nq e Iowa 'aseal a Aapun 9assal 'g put '9a1 u! Aaumo a4l s! y 1! '91dwexa Aol •aliq aal a4l ue41 ssal si d14sl8umo s14 g3no4l '9uop sem lAom 9ql llegaq aso4m uo (poly s! a311011 041 alep 94) 111 lsalalu!-ul Aossa00ns s14 Ao) AauMO aqi sueaw luawmidwl 10 11JOm 19410 Ao 3u1P1!nq a 10 110114110w00 10 011011 a Waal A01 aly MID 04M „dom" a4l 'E60E UO'PaS OP03 !!A10 ui pap!Aoid se '(uollaldwoo )o Aep aqi l0 amsnloxa palndiaw aq 01) luawaAOAdw! 10 4iom 041 10 uollaldwoo Aalle SAVO 01 WHIM P109a1 Ao{ pall aq lsnw uollaldwoo 10 aallou q N0IMA00 30 33110N 01 SV S1NA3003S P.11 0e033a 10 oa PO r 00j • REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: A - 6 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date : From: Richard H. McHale , Chief of Police &� ----------------------------------------------v-�'----------------------- SUBJECT: Police Car Purchase - F.Y. 1989-90 RECOMMENDATION: By motion, authorize the purchase of two replacement black and white patrol sedans and one unmarked administrative/investigative sedan for a total not to exceed $47, 265 . 56 . BACKGROUND: The purchase of these three replacement vehicles is in keeping with the previously adopted 1989-90 F.Y. budget which • aut.horizes the acquisition of two marred and one unmarked sedans . _ Did proposals were sought from S .L.O . County-wide dealers by mail , legal ads and telephone on two different occasions . Atascadero Ford was the only local dealer bidding on the three cars . I;,asmac has we had received on'y one. bid through the standard biddang process after two attempts, I contacted three cooperative bidding contractors, including: 1 . State of California, Allied Agency Cooperative Bidder 2 . Sopp Chevrolet, L.A . County Cooperative Bidder 3. Bayshore Chevrolet, Santa Barbara County Cooperative Bidder The State of California will not have patrol cars available for approximately five months . Scpp Chevrolet can deliver one (badly needed) patrol car immediately and. another at the end of January. Bayshore Chevrolet can accept our order for two patrol cars but cannot deliver for about four months, and their bid was about $100 less than Sopp Chevrolet . It must be stated that police patrol cars are a custom order package and most car dealers , for many reasons , simply do not offer such vehicles for sale . These heavy-duty cars are a so expensive to produce and the manufactur ers ' and dealers ' maygln of pro-fat- 18 typically quite low. In 1987 , Chrysler Corporation withdrew entirely • as a police car manufacturer - the results of which increased the price of Fords and Chevrolets, at this time the only cars offered as pol _ce-package cars . Tn keeping with the facts s above, my recommendation includes the purchase of the two patrol cars from SopT Chevroletat a total cost. of $31 , 224. 58 . The third car (unmarked sedan) will be purchased as bid from Atascadero Ford at $16, 040 . 98 including sales tax. FISCAL TMFACT: Our police budget lists an item allocation of $45, 000. 00 for these three cars . The additional $2,265 . 56 necessary to purchase these vehicles will come from our P .D. operating budget. No additional City funding will be required. For your consideration.. . RHML:sb • • 0 & • REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL Meeting Data: 11/14/89 CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Items A-7 Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager From: Department of Public Works SUBJECT: SLOACC Joint Powers Agreement RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Council approve the above agreement . BACKGROUND (Please refer to attached letter from Ron DeCarli) DISCUSSION: There has been considerable discussion regarding the • "Supervote" clause of the JPA. Although there is still concern regarding this issue approval of the agreement is recommended. Mr . DeCarli has agreed to discussion of this provision by the full Area Council prior to final ratification . OPTIONS : (a) Approve the staff recommendation . (b) Approve the agreement without the supervote provision . (c) Pull out of the JPA FISCAL IMPACT: There are no costs to the City relative to the recommended action and all money issues will be addressed on a case by case basis . Attachments : July 7 letter - De Carli VJH/vjh 11/7/89 0 San Luis Obispo Area Coordinating Council Arr A aGrande Grover City Morro ift and Regional Transportation Planning Agency Paso Ro Pismo Beach San Luis Obispo - San Luis Obispo County JUL 1 U July 7, 1989 CITY ltrj s: Mr. Ray Windsor, City Manager City of Atascadero P. 0. Box 747 Atascadero, CA. 93422 Dear Mr. Windsor: SUBJECT: MODIFICATION OF AREA COUNCIL JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT On June 19th, our office transmitted a request for your Board to ratify a modified joint powers agreement. The modifications were recommended to eliminate two ambiguous provisions in the existing JPA relating to quorum and voting that were raised at a prior Area Council meeting. We were recently contacted by one city that opposed the changes as it created further ambiguities. These objections were evaluated and the following revised language was suggested: 1. Page 6, V. Operation, Paragraph 5: Retain original wording and not replace . .. a quorum consisting of a majority of representa- tives with the phrase ".. . a majority of delegates .. . ." The term representatives is clearly defined in a prior section nullifying any ambiguity. 2. Page 6, V. Operation, Paragraph 5: Relative to the definition of an "affirmative" vote: recommend a modification that an affirmative vote is a majority of representative present rather than a majority of the quorum as initially recommended. On July 6th, the Area Council concurred with the above suggested modifica- tions. They further noted that the "supervote" provision, which requires an affirmative vote of eight (8) representatives, is a forceful protective provision that encourages cooperation, as no "minority" could force an item through without at least some support from the "other" side. Accordingly, please schedule this agreement as modified above, with the two revised attached pages, before your governing board for ratification and forward a copy of your action to our office. Our apologies for any County Government Center, San Luis Obispo, CA 93408 (805) 549-5706 Mr. Ray Windsor July 7, 1989 Page 2 inconvenience this may have caused. If you have any questions, please give me a call at 549-5714. Thank you for your cooperation, Sincerely, PAUL C. CRAWFORD Executive Director A 4 RONALD L. DE CARLI Program Manager Attachments: Revised JPA pages RLD/9619-1 07-07-89 • REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: A-8 Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 11/14/89 File No: TPM 23-85 From: Henry Engen, Community Development Directory SUBJECT: Acceptance of final Parcel Map 23-85 at 5495 Traffic Way (Bill Carroll/Dan Stewart) to allow the creation of two lots where three existed in the IP (Industrial Park) zone. RECOMMENDATION: Acceptance of final Parcel Map 23-85 as all conditions of approval have been met by the applicant. • BACKGROUND : On September 23 , 1985; the City Council concurred with the Planning Commission' s recommendation to approve Tentative Parcel Map 23-85 based on the Findings and revised Conditions of Approval . On October 27 , 1987 , Council approved a time exten- sion request based on the conditions set forth at the time the map was originally approved. HE :ph cc: Bill Carroll Dan Stewart i_ I':�46•• y�'' ��' �at;i �''^"�=''.t •eS'r r�L+'.l. .f \ ~_`i�tlol�\(�S'i�'a 1 �%F"�:ry' _ 4 L`�.+I,��'��+j,•�`��. �\tea�\,J�• q/.�•r�,1��.�).J a, ,,, ' ��,....,,)��N1 ° S'y�liS'�1/�,• ^.t•.+a.•'d .• ... .. �.�r d'a�'.; �• s +f '��•r ;•11 ) w• tS• I )si Itq,o '1 •• ` 3Jb'� jJ l��f-�� � ar..s Y/'iA71S,s• V4A\ n ►/ - 1..,.; -!•gr>p,.•L� v +r 4 r` r r,'a�u - L,n ,•t ah• i!Y��'\...ya > '.t - � r. ss q aQj i{�) 4`as a`'ay, y'i �..- )t,L `s3•����,\'T.a`✓ St C sal {1� ! i���.y-? „ Lr Ltr. 13it5�/,•_•;,� \� !l�a� `'•14•+'$..�. i \� r1. • ��'� [+•'"h�'•)•'s��:�``�'))'/• K, ° a I „! is �'' `�'!� 7�t'(_�*C:. +;.��'1 � ��• -.i �:) /•' s°io� ��}�f�:T�•r..`7:FriC..; �• ^T 1 � 7U +-.)t � r \ t \Y �tlJ;1;3�.�).��it L I- �. . / i F'n y ' A� a a � r Zt"'�'!•.ti � °•.�!•u,T• r r I ao t Y� y_` ��LA+• \ S ,y \ao3 �alp 'raa�•,. ���a37,ws+••Zld�yT lte. .�rilec�yiy, }.;; �'J/L /f { `\•�-\Y '\a+_d M so3 G4 .�•a>�\ ,�/ia �C'- too wy' / ♦ )`:r/ : ;(y ° ` •/[ao'1•` !Y I ,\: �� \ �\\���11+•CsK\,�..� rr z' '.'��,. P +! �' �` ,t�• \b.Y,\'� hro/ s Jf•tt.f ¢• ..n `y i\.)•11 T 'yi> .a la \!a•\.QC -,a7�'"•'�,�.\� aZar.. l+ Y,litayi�}°�9.`�Vr F r y�,.rv��,o�\", \�� i�' ) ,ij" YI �.. f, Y r � J,r Com;, . \, \Y Jam♦ It'C rL r.._ 1. �. 1g1\ a; ,°a tro • 'a ,f b:a4: y • (/') tri .�Y .a, s �yO° r ra ~•'� ,-7�."u,.i isy �` a 31,x,\ //��' fb•[.�`• L'�v� /�y,;s!� 4•°•* f+'••r '•' JarsS ,.o°� II 'tea ^H i L? zi ! '�'.°fa',`.• � '�a' :�a^o� sNL,. � r•,. 0 :. LF /:'A� �•. 4��\ ?1i' �• ,� n"• 4♦'•a Yi, �• °\ ..%Blr v R, '•u �la Yd's ._� V .�.a � .r'�� 11•��y •set / ,, �yi�.�/• rr ,t � a�rT �::.. �, ,tsr -� ,, ,:{+_•\.�''^ 1: I,a� '•o Jyd, ,�•F,r�.rr!"\+,�� °° .� '6` Y's 2 N =�f �J✓ +n _ ., R(FH) j .415, T� q, ,• �\T 't �.t!i�k 1aC - ~ 'if�/�/ ^{y/ ! ,( / 1/ \ 7Z Ff_17- LDCATI CN as ,g r•`� ,�7 ,,�,J,.� � �� s, ,T 4 `:�•M ''• � -'•r '� la, /•�`-��� `I t a� ,ij 'i�M�"\y 1 Y ° M'/�C 4. �a 1•f!°. r>V.//�a. •• n a '��I.•7 Yy7•••v.• +,r,• IP 4 /('r a• ri I•ciY ;s " s'�/ J2 Y "..� ". 44 Ca a� r.v..)� � a,.• ! !'/�ra Ir s•I.°)`L{\}ss,3.'•�a •' ' 1•o.F�`�t•�� a° `.� �'a'l �;� .i� �Y.� j>.`,�/jc moi: �ha it♦7 .L�C�� .o.�r•L�+nO{•'S�i1..�1�- •. \ I M', /' {IT \�j t{ I•. /i•:I.T \' , �y ..N M YW' ' •73 > Ta i. i) ?+LL_. •. L.L Ts Lo�' YSL{4 "-'.1-„ ��,I�''• �'� :..� f: .y-'^v/ �� R+,/)�'� 1..� .• � JQ .4 _•O.. ra-.C�•' aJv.:•.'y Irk. K" „�.'.. �i i i •i`/ -\i'tl it " r. kO FA.t �\ �vF=. _� ,�.'.�,`\�_` C ,+ , 3; a .y}+��r:!', •'�?\.;w 7 '+ra. r (Z s=is�S.'--� Y+ :i/,.'% u � ..,rte q �•./ JW'F.fi yy, rim ., •� Lil(/ t�\•�' 7�t.Jn. ••trM•1� „ ,+•e JR is .): �'r l N- /may,�✓:. a � J Y `'alp i,f'\/�p�•1- sisi•�'1°°1a � aa,`,4•� ! ��/` rar IS`.��ri�1�y•�a a��� '��/ :,; .�_ '♦ ••% ° / mss. ` /,4,+'\ �O>asi + , •, \f• 1�1 • ,t ).•.., �•J a, - 13 �1 ✓'` � ♦+ tt Y '�_7ut +L�%��•.r] � l � ,�/o'�!/` ^•��•,'S'4 - •-' 7 �1�«. •'�-�::t �'.! /\ �•c.0. s'«Av a ss+o +wi�iso v,n., <ra{'r S•.v/♦��J'• i / 'a•.. rr.� 7,�; +'''�Rl q:>a., j•`�c�Cv,�: / 4 I "sr�Tstae •L:1 C:.',l� °.u:• 1��^�J' �"rlt �'�f`> �k� ,��a♦ •/ �i"f,//- '<��"�"9:�1 IIx -- :�•t ..r c `•.ti Jr AG�'o/o!!��rPa?'j�JffF���7'�Y'`Fa�•"�:. 7- 0 S �i'•t+...:ft_-�-) ' _ `1�\�UI:+,ra�evj!, 7y"•.'.',I<.I•d,�•a',•^.;.•�;v�:•a J•..• '`•�•'. �+. +� s)\s \1 L� •1.y.1%.•' •i~• +J�,♦,; . • - .�' a a. �);'1`.•••+' J' ..s • .. (r•�`:"v���C lAir '1 -,�.{ �'1. 7{" a,ry. 12 !1 II r. ,r r� i«r' r�.�`•�°Tr:j+,u{:,; � is Q ` W; .,; :�\ N' I " ""` .t Cil C+ •`• �.. . .,\ Cp< a " lam•/\ 1 i✓/ f Ilk V•!%��;%;: a,a./ wM• .1• ,a �'.d�;. ,� as CR • REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: A-9 Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 11/14/89 File No: TTM 12-88 From: Henry Engen, Community Development Director INC- SUBJECT: Acceptance of final Tract Map 12-88 at 6805 Santa Lucia Road (Robert Anderson/Don Messer/Cuesta Engineerings to convert an approved, but not yet constructed, 9 unit apartment complex into residential condominiums. RECOMMENDATION: Acceptance of filial Tract Map 12-88 as all conditions of approval • have been met by the applicant. BACKGROUND : On July 12, 1988, the City Council concurred with the Planning Commissions recommendation to approve Tentative Tract Map 12-88 based on the Findings and revised Conditions of Approval . HE :Dh cc: Robert M. Anderson Don Messer Cuesta Engineering • EPA,FER •� O ... . ,� • ,nul�m nunln i 0 ISM • REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: A-10 Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 11/14/89 File #t: City Enginering Services From: Henry Engen, Community Development Director +A& SUBJECT: Request for authorization of City Manager to utilize John L. Wallace and Associates for selected City Engineer services . RECOMMENDATION: Authorize retaining Wallace & Associates per the attached com- munication. BACKGROUND : With the departure on November 10, 1989 of Paul Sensibaugh, the City needs to designate a City Engineer with sufficient regis- tration to sign subdivision maps . The City technically has a contract with Wallace and Associates for interim City engineering services . The attached letter and up-dated schedule of fees reflects their willingness to continue under terms of that con- tract. They have also expressed their willingness to negotiate a new contract with the new City Attorney if the City Council so desires. HE:ph Enclosure: November 7 , 1989 - Communication with Updated Schedule of Fees • ! a JOHN L. WALLACE & ASSOCIATES CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS • November 7, 1989 Mr. Henry Engen Director of Community Development City of Atascadero P.O. Box 747 Atascadero, California 93423 Subject: Request for Interim Engineering Services Dear Mr. Engen: As requested, we are hereby offering our services to provide Interim City Engineering and Plan Check Services for the City of Atascadero. As we understand it, these functions would be similar to those that we provided in 1988, while the City Engineer was acquiring registration sufficient for the signing of subdivision maps. The City previously executed a contract with our firm that would enable our services to continue to be provided under its existing terms and conditions, subject to our current fee schedule. We • suggest, in order to expedite these arrangements, that we provide our services under the existing contract and when a new City Attorney is chosen in the coming weeks, we enter into a revised agreement, if desired by the City, to continue these services. We have long been associated with the City of Atascadero and relate to its needs and the work that needs to be accomplished. As you know, we have served as Interim City Engineer for the City of Pismo Beach and represent several other municipal agencies including the South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District, San Simeon Acres Community Services District and other agencies. Additionally, we recently served as the Interim City Engineer for the City of Guadalupe, as they were acquiring permanent staff. We look forward to assisting you in this effort and if I can answer any questions, or be of any further service, please do not hesitate to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, L ohn L. Wallace Principal JLW:rmb/23-1 • 1458 HIGUERA STREET• SAN LUIS OBISPO,CALIFORNIA 93401 • (805)544-4011 • FAX(805)544-4294 0 0 JOHN L. WALLACE & ASSOCIATES CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS JOHN L. WALLACE & ASSOCIATES SCHEDULE OF FEES Effective through June 30, 1990 Personnel Compensation: a. Principal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 70.00 b. Senior Engineer . . . . . . . . . . $ 60.00 C. Registered Civil Engineer . . . . . . . $ 48.00 d. Assistant Civil Engineer . . . . . . . $ 42 .00 e. Senior Draftsperson . . . . . . . $ 35.00 f. Draftsperson . . . . . . . . . . $ 29 .00 g. Secretary . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 24 .00 Direct Expenses: Reimbursement of direct expenses incurred in connection with the work will be at cost plus 15% for work and services requested by the Client, including but not limited to: - automobile at $0.30 per mile; - lodging and meals; - long distance telephone, telegram, and data transmission; - postage and other delivery charges; - cost for outside professional consultants required for the work; - materials required for the job and used in drafting and allied activities including printing and reproduction costs. 1458 HIGUERA STREET• SAN LUIS OBISPO,CALIFORNIA 93401 • (805)544-4011 • FAX(805)544-4294 REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: -9-4- B-1 Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 10/30/89 & 11/14/89 File No: TPM 16-89 From: Henry Engen, Community Development Director 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 Council' s 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 #k14 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 lands 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 Investments, 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 required. " 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 of Approval 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 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. 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 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 . 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. RECODMENDATION 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 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 0 f �� \ CITY OF ATASCADERO EXHIBIT A �� "'•`-' GENERAL PLAN MAP r,,D 1 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TPM 16-89 0 1 to / (/ \ AN SIN FAMI S.L.O. County i� yi SITE O \\ \ (( \ S.L.O. \ County (�\� %f\��• `� \\ \\ o N �\ 0' 2000 \\ qo i c _ -=dMilso.,d- CITY OF ATASCADERO EXHIBIT B 1:_•-7 LOCATION AND ZONING MAP COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TPM 16-89 RS f p !r 11 c 1/ 1 ill \\\ ! Jt I, a cr r�► \1 111 � S.L.O. County Ori`Gof,;• � NS' /, 11 i site 11 County Z ' - �,� 11 �\ 0' N. '2000 \ oil; 114 i CITY @� ATASCADEROEXHIBI T C I*tx soft cAn COMMUNITY DEVELOPMrNT TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP ,to��• DEPARTMENT TPM 16-89 1 I SITF r e Py / V VIG�NIL em m scatAI s _ p �. 1`S(,.\ '���/f�,`/f 1� epi. a[0.1MI !�rY r• e.:.. ! < {{ JUN 271939 t 1111`1y�7,111r#.IN% (i.: 1\tNl"r OWNERS CERTI�/CAT£ cr ' ,•.. 1 wv Rnmwrei9Vi enwrfrr-sW.w/r 1\ it j(j§ hhh uiliTY DEVEL;;i TM LD4T \1\11\I \111111�''i��\ ON 7NK rrMIaTIY(M1111Me lrRrt \\\\\\\\\`11 1\\\\\+ a R(Rturnmaw sM aww.ertnts re Itr `P\\\ a mr aNr ew.nr A rw rPr q7 iy r� r.�i. �� 1 \ � _f �� \\\�����\��,urLr.)w\.+l •. nr cr«+.�w` y!`, 1 lSrfre! �,t rjAi '�iNti Z M \'•t 1\\ i .t `�\\��` \ \\ ay4c. \ F' 1•.-+ "` �. � ♦ O �,r ♦ 1 \ ^�7��T� M \ "F' \ \ \ tFRRY NCt,yr �� _ 7fN7A £PARCEL H�P ! .,.t .V1J. r r { r nt.ww �,.� �=a'PC ss.u•n —moi y1 I AT 89-173 fl,v�..) >.;;i +v.),:; +: r > •�+ , Wj-Ne t swe.vis wjort es e.otR t.os' ArAii(OtRo CrtrNt;tr+No WWINTRI Cfry. :,IMr Nr.Me avvawrwsi..mnrov: ! ; SIAMd 4YiMrr M SAN(►If ttert/q 1... ....1,�.tt0 tans PxrR..er r�e4 sir e+e - 'e.r....e�.r rug • o n ' Tn+ras,rrw.c evr'er•../:-.. ::re rhea:�/ae .. t ' MlfO N A/ise M<ILv Low 1I1/VLSTMGNIS,NA.. PRf.-I fE:fAY.�+Ir.n MI'M�••w a.LR S JAJt" ACE,VP vomwGHT _ bRVEYS U rterrAs.s Ewsuaa,vr ri "j P-ar 9Se}MORRD ACRO + PJrwe L wq,a IRb+rs, 5-L n O.uw,4 tlN+ • Ar1Kta/ro.CHNWrn q34" p.►et•M 4 .i1 t •;, AAa.11lrwrr !!•q reWsn Z.S.taa.Ma.wow) . It .'.- _ saws r,nr er se►.wa wm.oa. 0 EXHIBIT D - Findings for Approval Tentative Parcel Map 16-89 9350 Santa Cruz Road Lobo Investments, Inc. / Volbrecht Surveys (September 19, 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. 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 Parcell 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. • WINUTES EXCERPT - 9/16/89 B. ARINGS, APPEARANCES, AND REPORTS 1 . CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 20-88 : pplication filed by SLO Moving and Storage Gary court, agent) for consideration of a re est to all w a "Vehicle and Freight Terminal" to ocate in the CS ( mmercial Service) zone. Subject to is located at 836 E1 Camino Real. (CONTINUED FRO X18/89 MEETING - CONT I CE 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 coi 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-Balt ltin is now present. ) Commissioner Waage tated this is the s •ond 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: M e by Commissioner Highland, seconde by Commis- ioner Lima 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 continuing 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 prior to the public hearing. CoAmllssioner Luna also expressed concerns with attemutl:lg to view the Site and did not feel he should use his Dower is as a Commissioner to take the place of the public ' s right to 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 Findings for a lot in excess of the 3 : 1 depth ratio. The Conditions of Approval have been revised to delete #k7 ( 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 applicant, complimented engineering and planning staff on their efforts in preparing the staff report and clarified that the reason the gates are locked is that there are rather 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 Dave-out by the middle of October. Mr. Baldner discussed concerns and objections he had with revised conditions =5 , =7 , �;8 , ##9, (pertaining to road improvements ) and +13 ( rCsidential sprinklers) , and offered suggestions for modification. He noted the City 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 clarification on his intent concerning the road 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 experience wherein the Committee received criticism for tresspassing onto private property in order to monitor the tree ordinance. Bern 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 13-15+ minutes for a heavy fire vehicle. He explained the sprinklers are a mitigation measure and spoke to a proposed master plan which the Fire Department is presently developing. 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 applicant come in and claim any rights under this agreement. What is authority did the City Engineer have to enter into the agreement? Was it approved by the Planning Commission or City Council? Was it delegated• to the City Engineer by the City Council, in which case, Mr . McNeil 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 place. 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 ##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 agreement with Gordon Davis. MOTION: By Commissioner Luna to continue the hearing on Tentative Parcel Map 16-89 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. Commissioner Lopez-Balbontin stated he had not heard from any citizen who was unable to visit the site and felt that the matter Should not be continued. Commissioner Highland commented that the condition requiring residential sprinklers is going to become a standard so condition for future land divisions on the west side . Discussion followed 'relative to the enforceability of the condition. The motion was defeated 4 :3 with the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Luna, Brasher and Chairperson Lochridge NOES: Commissioners Lopez-Balbontin, 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 map 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 upon on its own merit. Commissioner Luna expressed concern that there isnot 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 acquire ownership of the road, then that condition would be moot. Commissioners Highland and Waage agreed with this 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 : Application 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 iient of two new Ci v standard roads to serve the su ivision - via Tortuga d Calle Refugio. Subject s ' e is located at 8625 Atasc ero 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 re c ed. MOTION: By Commissio r Highla seconded by Commissioner Lopez-Balb tin and cam d 7 :0 to continue the hearing Tentative Tract p 14-89 to a future date. 4. COND IONAL USE PERMIT 7-89 : Ap ication filed by Folkins and Folkins, c . (R. P. eim, agent) to establish a service station asoline cardlock) including a 1,350 square foot retail ore in the CN (Commercial Neighborhood) zone. Subject s ' a 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 El 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. 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 rconvarsion. 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 .0 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) Two lots of 10 acres into three lots of 3 .42 acres each. Application is currently incomplete. lz Z �,1� ��`CC�-ty)moi il.• JI (� A\ fV v OL IX •.'tf.• • �\ t�1V .•mow,.` //•/y/ /� � � �,� / /.��e - �� �% _ �• i _� / �� - '�_� j Al YJ � / 7 �� T r 4� i¢71r Ta�/�L4 iy \t ItI P. ••��+` ` /,/ ' �`x //� Y e�- f,./�_�, `r 41 a/ 'I �.C= *!% e e p •. _ _.-�'... �'.. °' IV r .> `./ j/l l�'� '_ 3K� � � L�"�i �Cs� e1• � I �,`y ;.e"1 'd J �C r�F-'� \�.!) Y��� \\ �/ � ,,•"'I ({\� 7 c�I, I ,gY ��� ., �� �., / ��l` Q„ ,-:,,< _�, ... _.�`�. .G.•�' � _ c "�5/ ..ri- '�i, e. /fid wl• i � F`"° . -F �� ,r�- �� -..�:�•% i t„d� ': � y � '� '\ / O .���- Q y�.�t"=}��T,..•,.±G�y-•r• 1`i f I--es�iz�1 �v,.;=� ;,• � i/ 9�,�l.Nl "�6 � Y` ���� �,r% %....+��/k �'➢� �'P'rro}}`ft,t/t"�a �� - t i�F "�� °�/ Y` ,x � , (•-. �,, ao s e7;�?' � +• a •r q __ / \- � \: ��' A �,�. ..r e+r 9 • e r - ��� - ..l,Y h-� '.•r•1�,<� l� R lJl.., �J e••• 1�-'^1 I , t-�. 3� ' lKr�,x v'r" vet .... '��f��it; t 1 •�' � - vX r �--IJ�i-"`. / ' �i' wS�pE .,»m�'i``,Y s�.• �, $ Ly ��. .oar t� 14.& -I- +4•, �•�� I t�a��I���l�����`� ISI • ` �"t< i \^?{ V ,� _ �• ''I; � 1: .r „ •�� ,� i3 ,� y.Orr �� l � I,ice '� �J � �• �j�'T�� t \, ! \ ��/ p-: _ � \\ � •t ��� r_ r%`.•�1j��T� /V � 1.-- J ,,I� ��� .� `� - 'S � ao �v\�� �\I) ,L�� * •, j41t« �-'+ .s. F 1 1:1t y. ,'� t _ /q+ a _,e„ =•2, 't=t - e �••�•.. s � 'sll�1 '� ..�� `// },^.1 Y/ ' ,�, Ft�J- !9� l 'I` .•\\�`'��'� �J'�l� 3.� j/ •� - ! i � 1/� � tr _ 1 Z `,moi � ;• � /.� � -_._ �� �\ j / 11\C: �_- RMRT TO MT COUNCIL 0 0 CITY OF ATASCADERO AgenkIlM B-2 �in: a,Through: Rag Winder,City Manager Meeting l)OX A 0P: OW AND 11/14/89 Hoary E gan,Commnm*y Devebpment Director POile No: From Lisa Schicker,My Arborist SUBNM Comidernoon of a request b rerYnYe three herlige trees ID enable constuction of a home and garage, a 24" and 26" Qwxcw agzifolia, coast be oak and a 26" Quercus lobft.. valley oak by Aadrev Samdel, Box 2466, Aftwedem on his pro" ax 12590 Sam Ana,Lot 6,Block 45. RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the trace removals and the tree protection plane as recommended byte arborist, D.O. Denney, vflh a two-for-one replacement Please see Deaaey's report acrd additional comments and suggeard=in the a aalysls section of tib sport. BACKGROUND: The tree mdi=ft spies*at native trees 20"or grater in diameter are dmrad heritage taxa arab cannot be removed unless approved by ft City Council following public bo g. Orsri-ier amMft or east live oak is a native Caliform evergreen tine species graving In California coastal ranges and low hills and vatteys in oak woodland and oak grassland plena communities and in semi-moist canyons usually below 3000 feet. oaks typically have a broad crown and a short trunk which dudes into mamaeroas massive branches. It is a relatively fast growing oak, adding 2-4 feet per year under good conditions. It is a strong foliage and form tree which begins to achieve good ch uscur between 20-25 years. It can reach heights of 39 feet(witho.spread of 42 feet and a dbh of IBM in twenty yaers (Lena and Domiey,Cahforma Native Shrubs and Trees3. The coast live oak is resistant to heat and cold, drought end heavy raiz►masons,graweny or hard-packed soil and repels may insect pest tbal desoaoy other tines; thsrefora it is one of ft mwt valuable of tris from a natural Mdw4pe mvpoint. The In oak is gtdte impo r=to wi?d>Se as wen, providing food and ahe,#x for many species of birds and mammals. Omn.w.b1vfit or valley oak is a California.native and decAvtious tree species usually growing in rich bamg volley soils as a member of the foothill woodland and oak woodland pent commvnoMM. It 33 usually found below 2000 feet in elevation and is reporled b be the largest of all American Oaks. (7wjrffj7d &favors hot valleys away from ocean inrnuer w in deep rich sails with 1he voter able 10-40 feet below to surface. It exhibits four stages of growth: fe pole stege, the elm stage, the weeping stege and "second yontn". Valley oaks can grow rapidly under good conditions,and have been know m grow 36 feet VA(with a 36 foot spread)in twenty five yew. Bacon the Saunders homesite is on a bill", it is interesting to find a valley oak growing there;perhaps they have a high vater able andlor deep soils. rrr 17&7 ►ora also %e most sensitive of ttae oaks to improper constwdon practices and diambance. The t w were inspected will Randy Rossi and discussions were held vilh the wrist, D.O. Denney regarding the condition Wthese trees. A site plan and photographs of arose trees on provided wit this report. ANALYSIS. • • The three trams ftlec d for removal an ft least hSOMYtrees on the sue. From 0*sue plan and pholoMbs, one an see that one of the trees is completely b=ed out on the;inside and the other two are In steges of dectbo* health. thane is evideme of two bafuslima and a great dad of mt and branch loan in eR three trm. As tore is cmully no buMbaga on fhb site, to declhre exon be aMdbuaad b neturel factors. There are,hov ever,nveral be thy trees on this site(memu'!y Quem egODDe) and pbmty of opportunities for reel on the parcel after ft conmvtkm of to nev home telees place. The Sond* are agaoeeable b a two m ere aphcemew for to removals,and I thbak thio is a good a ftft. It Wxmld also be aam broad that sevad healthy oafs (at lit 6 trees-phn see site plias) on vary clam lo the propos conmwft of the home end game (between 3-15 feet fmm the footings). I vould telae t ask the epphcm to attempt all means 1D we sotmd comstruction practices around these tress(t adjust the footings 1D Puaotect these troea) if at 8A passibh. D.O.Dm"has also prepared a plena to prevent the oaks from bebag damaged dm*conmwtkm,and it vin be important for the controctorm to foliov his rmmomanendeodao s carefully. It vm make a difference to to auavivai of thm old trees, and provide the Sauadels vith a my a urectiv+e homesite">asstiod in the trees". Buse of the heritage status of these trees end the portioulam described above, I vould oak for In cempen gm of the appliceM and recommend the following: a. Upon D.O. Denmy's recommendation,request that a two to one replacement for then trees be made. The property is large and there m ample apex for the replacement trees. A fev ply guidelines are listed here to aid ft applicom vith reploucenbm that vm have a good cb aaee of survival: • 1: Choose 6, 15 gallon size u+4PK*xd .Rrl?kb. 2. Inspect the um for enabaclbag rood(roots that vrep arairad the pot have a poorer ch ce of m0waft out dead growing right in the ground). 3. When pknft,melee aware Im the mots have been untangled,stofthwied and limned as mwch es ponible 4. Plasm in a hole at list"rice es big as the peon,and use the native seas in the hole. S. Provide the tree vith a deep vateadng-meenft a slov,gradual and long vat ft (which encom eges mot gmvth ID anchor the tree). Provide one drip via in load spft and tw in too ammmer. If drip irrigation is und, do long,slov va�terbgs applymg 10-20 gallons over a three-four homy period. 6. Pmteet the youg tress from grazirig anboaab-espy deer(vith voided viae funding-I cam provide same specs)unffi fey are at least four feet in height. b. If the appy are vinbag,ask if fhey eBov the city to receive a slice of the trunk to record the age of Us trod. (These slues can be taken to the zoo or ft corporetian yard for=pg=storeae until the information con be recorded.) Thep con then be dbcorded or used for"m eppiag stones"along pathways in public areas. c. Request That The applicent provide evidence of the pleating (through receipts or photagrephs) and a one-year's follow-up (luw4h photogWhs or on-site inspection)on the heap aced stators of then plontings. A,Mchmems: Location Map She Phan Permit applicator Arboitt's report(including photographs of Im trees) Tree protection pin(included in orborfat's report) • I - o' J//-1\ !PD•0 � tiW� ' ,Cyt t�/�� All cr 4 44D 0. 41(4,0 \ i �0 Sol fill tl It r IN, 1 �1 9 \\ L H) r -\ Y M .9 � �? •�� �' �----•:-�---fir:.=:, " , - CIC .0 dOp 1 IL _ hN �� Jai ►: � n. `� a. Lr . nvi jAni 14 rNo � n 2. �s \N 2 � z Ah Ah AMEFI1CAN SOCIETY OF COHSUL7?NG ARBORISTS FIELD REPORT CASE LOCAIION Block#45, Lot #8. Santa Ana Road CITY Atascadero, CA OWIJER NAME A. L. Sande 1 ADDRESS ( 1 ) P.O. Box 2486 CITY Atascadero, CA 93423 -(2)-22$(;eaar ree -TaciTic Grove, its RES. PHONE ( ) BUS. PHONE ( 408 ) 372-6332 AGENT NAME ADDRESS CITY nES. PHONE ( ) BUS. PHONE ( ) DAMAGE or ACCIDENT DATE TYPE OF DAMAGE INSPECT ION DATE 8/9/89 WEATHER TEMP. D. 0. Denney Certified Arborist #391 P.O. Box 3090 Paso Robles, CA 93447 C) The purpose of this report is to make application to cut down three (3) structurally weak and declining oak trees and to remove some overhanging limbs on tree # for structure clearance. 140. SIZE NAME CONDITION RECOMMENDATION 1 . 24" Live oak leaning cleaning out (Quercus agrifolia) 2. 24" Live oak structurally weak remove (Quercus agrifolia) burned out 3. 30" Live oak major deadwood side trim (Quercus agrifolia ) 4. 26" Live oak good clean out (Quercus agrifolia) 5. 26" Live oak poor remove (Quercus agrifolia) 6. 26" White oak poor remove (Quercus 1 b ta) Consultation Report cont'd. Page 2 NO. SIZE NAME CONDITION RECOMMENDATION 7. 21 " White oak fair (Quercus lobata 8. 32" Live oak good (Quercus agrifolia) 9. 34" Live oak off balance, leaning (Quercus agrifolia) 10. 26" Live oak good (Quercus agrifolia) 11 . 32" Live oak fair (Quercus agrifolia) 12. 26" Live oak good (Quercus agrifolia) 13. 26" Live oak good (Quercus agrifolia) 14. 26" Live oak good (Quercus agrifolia) \ ' .i•`3',�1M���-� [rte , � � ,. _.�. - 3. .� .;•�.�r � ..�z. 666 '"� '„� ti,�, ' � . __�__ may,.. _�, •_ 6 • a Mer-To • a lips �r`.,i �'� � 4� t .y ec.r '1. f� z' a- r •� �':S. a: r • 0 TREE PROTECTION PLAN In most cases when building, we change the complete environment around a tree. It survived very well in it's natural state. We sever its roots which are needed for anchorage and absorption of water and nutrients. We pave and compact the soil around them, hindering the oxygen and water supply to the roots. Yes, you purchase the property because of the beautiful tree scape only to witness many of your trees declining soon after or even some years after you have built your home. Who is to blame? Did the Architect, City Planner, the Arborist, Contractor add to the demise of the tree? Was your building plan conducive to the impact on the trees on your property? Your City or County Planner have codes and regulations to follow and public pressure to preserve and protect your trees. Even trees that are in excellent health sometimes cannot tolerate the transition from natural (growing in a desirable natural condition) to semi-natural (sever the roots, compact the soil and build within.-.the dripline) to the unnatural (paved all the way around the trees causing disturbances in air and water exchanges in soil and many other changes). Many changes can take place in the soil during construction. Physical changes may have effects on aeration and moisture. Changes in grade, new paving, trenching, soil compaction, can all affect the soils ability to support life. Almost all building and landscape development will involve some grading and exca- vation. The consequences of these changes can sometimes be detrimental to trees. Soil aeration is a critical factor. Roots must receive adequate oxygen. Trees can also suffer from moisture related problems, either not enough or too much. Now that you are aware that trees are sensitive living things, and we all must put measures into effect that will protect them. Protective measure needs to be applied: Yes No >_ During construction, trees on the property outside the immediate construction zone will be barricaded off with bright color flagging. No parking, storage of materials and dumping of excavated or building material will be permitted. frees within o feet of the construction zone will be protected by installing aht colored protective fence (temporary) around the drip line area of the trees. >� 1rees within tc) feet of construction zone will have their trunks barricaded to minimize damage caused by construction equipment. No parking of equipment, storage of equipment, disposing of gasoline, Faint, thinner or anyother foreign material will be permitted in a around this property unless so noted in report. Tree Protection Plan cont'd. Page 2 Yes No Trenching for utilities is required. Line will run feet from base of tree. Hand dig and tunnel under or above major anchorage roots. If a major root is encountered in direct line of utility, a Certified Arborist will be consulted before severing it. - No grade changes will be made around the tree unless (1 ) a protec- tive measure is applies, (2) and it is so noted in the Certified Arborist report. Factors have been used to determine the tree condition before con- struction begins. This report has been reviewed by all people involved in this pro- ject. Diligent care will be applied to protect the trees. ' 1 CF?! ••. • ■� S E P 81989 9 COMMINVITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT �' , • COMMUNITY GE'JLLii'{�:F FEj PLANNING DIVISION 6500 Palma Ave. P.O. Box 747 Atascadero, CA 43423 (805) 466-8000 APPLICATION FORM Please type or print in ink Owner: Q i„r�r� yah�p_I Agent : - . O , t>er.r.► Address: 60X : 4 & Address: p • O • Bo.c 4o T/qs c!9j9AC G c-y 9342 3 Ras c, Rcd,Ir-s Ca q 3447 Phone #: .SOF - -372 - 633.E Phone #: SOK-- :;2� 3 �—R303 /✓/�G<FiC .�o rd GA . € t CdYh�ty�� 23q- C2-3 I Applicant. SArlC '{ Address: ,S F,h a l� n Phone #: ri Project Description: Existing Use: Project Address: Legal Description: Lot(s) 3 ; Block 4 5 ; Tract Assessors Parcel No(s) : I/We consent to the filing of this application and declare that this application and related documents are true and correct. (NOTE: The signature of the property owner is required on the application before it will be accepted for processing. ) 0"4170.1 1 Owner Agent 8 -2l 65 Date Date For Staff Use Only IF Fee: Receipt #: Tree Removal Permit Application N1129.1- Big Supplemental Information s 1979. (Please type or print in ink) Reason for Removal: nc -a.r,et ICLtnn 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: 1 . OPcAecLn%'nr 2. E� b v{- . 3. �h� Z�w c'.P.c` moo,-,C�l�a� lJ or— ii _ � _ � GGCAintnG 4. 5. Specify the size and species of the trees proposed to replace those intended (t for removal :. . p 1 . l7,an`r S►� �►) Yl aT�.y� S ��.S-- ��-�c-x� •�-c� �.�i. n �. r+�z_S C:-�C�e� 2. —1-t zc �►►-��-,a c c 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 Arborist � �9f Certificate Number I— (T Date Date REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL 0 CITY OF ATAXCADERO Agenda Item: B-3 Tkww.k Ray Windsor,City Manager Meeting D*%: l0W e9 AND 11/14/89 Wit: Helly Eno,Comma w1V Deve1apment Director W File No: From: Lisa K. Schicker,City Arbodit Cam of a regvicest ID remora one haitege tu,20" (%m.w4p**, or Coast Live Cask, by Homaervoa HomwnmWs Association,(managed by Estrella )"Tisa Oaks"5550 Tfia Way. Approval of the toe removal as mended by ft arborist, Chuck Stowell, vkh a three to one meplmcemextt. PI"M see adfiftool commmans iu ft anslyaia scion of report. BACKGROUND: The we - my Puaoe specs in W native trees 20"or greater in diameter are deemed herbege tensa and cannot be removed voalen approved by the City Coorrcil folbvyag public bee CAnTW , or cyst lime oak is a native C ONDE is evergreen tree species gmft tin Ca loEm coastal ranges and kov 0 and velleps in 0&voodland and Oak grassland plant communities and in,semi-moast canyons wnelly belov 3000 feet. Live oeb typically have e.broad erovn ad a short trtmk vhich divides=nvmnerovs mw&e branches. It is a relatively fest grovhcg oak, adding 2-4 feat per year ander good condidlans. It is a st ong foliage and form tee vbkh begins to achieve good Ouscter between 20-25 years. It can roach heights of 39 feet with a spread of 42 feet and a dbh of 18" in tvertty years (Lenz and Dovmley,California Native Shrubs and T zees). The coast live oak is resistant to haat acrd cold, drought and heavy rain seasons,gravelly or hard-packed soils and repels many insect peat ttaat decoy ottyer trees; t nftn tt is one of the most vabmble of t w from a nemd huadseape vlsarpoirll. The tree has hgh vWMe w1m, providing food and shelter to many birds and mammals. As vide most oaks,it provides shade and relief from hot su aw lemperstvn<ea and cleans and filters over eir through photosydnesis. This tree is 10W approximmly flme feet aW from ft edge of one of the condon>inium buildings and is 1oMW on a vegetated sloping beck portion of the lot Then on other oaks grovi ng on this slope and ft an does not appear tD be used by the nidemb. The tree vas pboiographad and discussions were bald vim Randy Rossi,the arborist Chunk Scowl and the property manager,REbad WMjDit regarding the condition of this tree. ANALYSIS: This vas a difficult tree v make a recommendet1on for removal, because at first glance, the trace did not look in danger of 0,11ing,dying or presenting a hazard ID the public,as The arborist had stated. The canopy is alive and veU,and the cambium is fvmctiorring. Hovever, this oak is quite large and does have two large limbs vhich bug over one of the residential condominiums on the site. There has been major branch breakage vift to year, and than is evidence of insect infestation ad some heart mt(most old trees E get W). AMMO UMM reor MIRM messany male a tree 16R, May an aigtrr dint the tree b vmdetr some stress. My mein aoncem vovM be for to sdeV of dee children vb o lin in to complex vbo von ple� ft on the edge of do aspW pafog am ad*W tQ vben It large bmb feR lest year. I dtk 10 is dte cxracaeacua of do hmmoviien as veli,end diet pucime re a four awing for to removal of to tree. They we also co a nod about a fWft on and demoagbig the mof. It b difflcult for.Mw to predict when,if and boy an oak bmb is gaWg ID faL abm*co ditiom can kbience be "vbW - oftentimes hot, hid and vmdless summer days as yell as to obvious harry vet wowfoR days area times b vatch for breakage. Then are ebo physical siguas to look for vbich might Delp 1D pnW, (such as dead bureuochas or stress iractmaes in be baM,but dose an not evident in this tn. (7w only vase to possibly see a stress fractame voWd be b get vp in do in (erifer by bwJmt or by climbing up to exanmae clo *and even don doy may not be evidwo. Art qh I do wt ply see away immbent danger from Us tree, to maaager of Us pmpuV, Richard WMeft and It cansulttog a boM an con- cerned about the pot nW damage and danger to dee residents and dofr property;therefore I feel compelied to defer to drag request Eecanse of The heitege states of ft tree end do;a"r dug descilbed above,I v Wd ask for dte cmaperadoa of do appbc ua and ncormmend die follovigg: a upon Cbwk 3c mlrs recommendatbn,request theGt a three tow replacemeumt for dt tree be made. The proper y slopes behind the condominium,and don are soma ()WA-W on doing vat back don;iris vould be an ideal site for do replacemerrb. A fev pbnft guidebes an bsW hen to aid do eppbcaa vdth replace meata brat vM have a good at P we Of Mnybal: • 1. Moose draee healthy 15 galbu size Qmw4 2. Inspect do trees for en*c>fiag roots(mob Stat vrgp amvand do pot base a poorer cbence of streigh*ft out artd gm in dx )• 3. When planting,make surae drat do roots have been untangled,suaighwied and loosened as much as possible. 4. Plant in a hole at least twat as big as do pot,and use to na&e sods ha do hole. S. PmvAe dee tri vim a deep vault-meaning a sloe,gradual and brag veazing (vbich eneonucages mot grovfh ID anchor dee tree). Provide one deep vvaa t to late spimg and tvno in do summer. If dip mWation is wed, do k ng, sbv vaterings applying 10-20 galiow over a duee-four hover period. 6. Pmtect do young trees from grazfmg animab-espec*Ry deer(viii vekled vire fencing-I can provide some specs)unroll dtey an at least four feet in height b. If do apphean s an vitlhdg,ask if they albv do city tD receive a slice of dte irmik to ncord do age of this twee. shceaAn abe taken to the zoo or the corporaatt m yeud for MMM stoW until to infomta*m eon be retarded.) They can don be discarded or used for"stepping stones"abng pathvays in pubbc was. c. Request tat do eppbmt pmvde evidence of do planting (through receipts or pbotognphs) and a ona-year's follow-up (drarough photograpbs or on-site inspect*on the hretth aid suras of then pleurdmgs. Aacbmerms Permitapp kation • Location Map sib Plain I � Y 1 ■ IMP oil will I If OR F, d� OAF OWN ► ��' too //tom,- --a �y� ��� • � ��� � _.���.�� low IL vows 01 ri Ilk I .,, 16 Cl us D ••SIM � � ��1 ( I O� � a. _ �:ly'• ,1 o I fir ~ $ � • � ' _ I - •• O� � � fir' : � � � o vF. -�• �' �. � '-•moi �- -.... ... .. _ N ... L < i y� .. i . �� • �_� \... .•■ • •L31••ISra ». •••.• •s.am /1A III—arM1$i N43 w• r•rw••.-•,..wr-Aw••aY•HO ww J-J• PAllf9.Is SII.7�{I j i. —_ _ cI L •I. -•�..ftD N• v c•0 YIN 11r.R,u •wl I�I .Z 7! St.� fi1g�g COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION rir:)►�/ v�3t �Y:i�le� ,��, r►�� 6500 Palma Ave. 19171 11■i, [ SA7rA 7 P.O. Bo x 747 —yScanE1 j Atascadero, CA 93423 (805) 466-6000 APPLICATION FORM 4 Please type or print in ink Owner: /AA?t cVJrApa-, l Agent: C,I�t[e it'fc ar�elj Address: LK:.r—t> 7f-4 Address: -Z Phone #: �P3r -/Io Phone #: c•7��z Applicant: Address: Phone #: c Project Description: —/d !r z&,"ex"A Existing Use: C7 Project Address: S .SV 7%�r?•�6c4 k)^ Legal Description: Lot (s) ; B ock ; Tract Assessors Parcel No(s) :qY� „ 9.25.6 _ lfmazo-k 43 00 G72 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. ) 4Kd-.4 f 4 CIL Owner Agent Date Date For Staff Use Only Fee: Receipt #: Tree Removal Permit Application a 11 r;� Supplemental Information 1 las ! OF7 "' 6 179 (Please type or print in ink) Reason for Removal : Of 12 J, , O'"YdJewd %J a11t o of ro 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: 3. 4. 5. Specify the size and species of the trees proposed to replace those intended for removal : 1 . J �.f C1a/ �i�• (I C4 A' 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 Ar6drist W.?*7 Certificate Number Date Date • REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: B-4 Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 11/14/89 File No: ZC 08-89 From: Henry Engen, Community Development Director , SUBJECT: Consideration of a request to establish a Planned Development Overlay zone (PD7 ) to allow for the creation of a small lot residential subdivision at 7715/7745 Sinaloa Road. RECOMMENDATION: 1 . Motion to waive reading of ordinance in full and approve reading by title only. • 2 . Motion to approve Ordinance No. 198 on first reading. BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the above- referenced zone change on October 17 , 1989 and recommended approval of Zone Change 08-89 subject to the Findings and Condi- tions of Approval contained in the attached staff report . HE:ph Attachments : ordinance No. 198 Planning Commission Staff Report - Oct. 17 , 1989 Planning Commission Minutes Excerpt - Oct. 17 , 1989 CC: Bruce & Sandra Jones Cuesta Engineering • 0 ORDINANCE NO. 198 AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF • ATASCADERO AMENDING MAP 17 OF THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAPS BY REZONING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY AT 7715/7745 SINALOA FROM RMF/16 TO RMF/16 (PD7) (ZC 08-89: Jones/Cuesta Engineering) WHEREAS, the proposed zoning map amendments are consistent with the General Plan as required by Section 65860 of the California Government Code; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendments are in conformance with Section 65800 et seq. of the California Government Code concerning zoning regulations; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendments will not have a significant adverse impact upon the environment. The Negative Declaration prepared for the project is adequate; and WHEREAS, the Atascadero Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 17, 1989 and has recommended approval of Zone Change 08-89. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Atascadero does ordain as follows : • Section 1 . Council Findings. 1 . The proposal is compatible with the surrounding land use and zoning. 2 . The proposal is consistent with the General Plan land use element. 3. The proposal will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts. The Negative Declaration prepared for the project is adequate. 4 . Modification of development standards or processing requirements is warranted to promote orderly and harmonius development. 5. Modification of development standards or processing requirements will enhance the opportunity to best utilize special characteristics of an area and will have a beneficial effect on the area. 6. Benefits derived from the overlay zone cannot be reasonably achieved through existing development standards or processing requirements. • • Ordinance No. 198 7 . The proposed plans offer certain redeeming features to compensate for requested modifications. Section 2 . Zoning Map. Map number 17 of the Official Zoning Maps of the City of Atascadero on file in the City Community Development Department is hereby amended to reclassify the parcels listed below and as shown on the attached Exhibit A which is hereby made a part of this ordinance by reference. Ptn. of Lot 39 and Lots 40 and 41; Block HA; Atascadero Colony Section 3. Publication. The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published once within fifteen (15) days after its passage in the Atascadero News, a newspaper of general circulation, printed, published, and circulated in the City in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code; shall certify the adopting and posting of this ordinance and shall cause this ordinance and this certification together with proof of posting to be entered into the Book of Ordinances of the City. Section 4 . Effective Date. This ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and effect at 12: 01 a.m. on the 31st day after its passage. On motion by and seconded by the foregoing Ordinance is approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: DATE ADOPTED: By: ROLLIN DEXTER, Mayor City of Atascadero, California ATTEST: BOYD C. SHARITZ, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: RAY WINDSOR, City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney PREPARED BY: HENRY ENGEN, Community Development Director 0 CITY OF ATASCADERO Item: B-2 STAFF REPORT FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: October 17, 1989 BY: Doug Davidson, Associate Planner File No: ZC 08-89 SUBJECT: Consideration of a request to establish a Planned Development Overlay zone (PD7) to allow for the creation of a small lot residential subdivision. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Zone Change 08-89 based on the Findings for Approval contained in the Draft Ordinance (Exhibit E) . SITUATION AND FACTS: 1 . Owner. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Bruce Jones 2 . Representative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Cuesta Engineering 3. Project Address. . . . . . . . . . . . . .7715/7745 Sinaloa Rd. 4 . General Plan Designation. . . . .High Density Multiple Family 5. Zoning District. . . . . . . . . . . . . .RMF/16 6. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.51 acre 7 . Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Single family residences (2) 8 . Environmental Status . . . . . . . . .Negative Declaration posted on October 3, 1989. ANALYSIS: The proposed project is six single family dwellings on a site currently comprised of two separate legal lots. The site contains two existing single family residences, one of which is to remain (lot 41) . With a site area of just over one-half acre (0 .513 acres) , a maximum of six two-bedroom units could be constructed under the Multiple Family Density standards of the Zoning Ordinance. A project of this size would normally be processed as a Precise Plan application, however, this project • 0 proposes the creation of individual small lots. With a minimum lot size of one-half acre in the RMF zones, small lot subdivisions require the establishment of a Planned Development Overlay Zone (PD) . The City has created an generic overlay zone of PD7 for small lot residential subdivisions. In addition to minimum lot size, the master plan of development (Exhibit C) proposes a modification to the required setbacks. Minimum Lot Size Standards The Zoning Ordinance and General Plan set a minimum lot size of one-half acre in multiple family zones. Residential Policy #6 of the General Plan (Page 57) allows smaller lot sizes "in conjunction with planned residential developments, provided that the overall density within the project is consistent with other density standards contained herein. " As stated above, the proposed density conforms to the density standards of the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan. Twelve (12) two-bedroom units are the maximum allowed per acre on a level to gently sloping lot in the RMF/16 zone. Thus, the creation of the PD Overlay to allow a small lot subdivision is the key issue of the analysis . Planned Development Overlay Zone To implement the General Plan policy cited above, the Zoning Ordinance contains the purpose and required findings for PD zones. The purpose statement (Section 9-3. 641) reads as follows: "The Planned Development Overlay Zone identifies areas where development standards or processing requirements different from those established by the underlying zoning district are deemed necessary to promote orderly and harmonius development and to enhance the opportunity to best utilize special characteristics of an area. " To fulfill the purpose statement, the following four findings (Section 9-3. 644) must be made: 1 . Modification of development standards or processing requirements is warranted to promote orderly and harmonius development . 2 . Modification of development standards or processing requirements will enhance the opportunity to best utilize special characteristics of an area and will have a beneficial effect on the area. 3 . Benefits derived from the overlay zone cannot be reasonably achieved through existing development standards or processing requirements. 4 . The proposed plans offer certain redeeming features to compensate for the requested modifications . The applicant' s development statement (Exhibit D) presents a valid argument for allowing smaller lot sizes. Although the lots are quite small (2, 775 to 5, 040 square feet) , the identical project could be approved under a Precise Plan, without the small lot subdivision. Staff agrees with the applicant that the ability to provide small lots for single family home ownership is a worthy benefit, particulary in the current climate of rising real estate values. A quick survey of local realtors indicates that the selling price of a typical single family home increased by an average of 30 percent within the last nine months ! One of the fundamental goals of the General Plan (Page 130) is "a desire to encourage residential projects to provide housing units affordable to persons with low and moderate incomes by offering developers either a density bonus or other bonus incentives. " In this case, the goal of providing more affordable housing cannot be achieved with a minimum lot size of one-half acre. Development Standards The applicant is also requesting a modification to the rear setback requirements. Again, it is the request for a PD Overlay that triggers the setback modification. If this were a typical multiple family project, the required rear setback (10 feet) , side setback (5 feet) , and setback between buildings (10 feet) are satisfied. The creation of individual lots, however, changes the building and parking orientation, and thus the required setbacks. The plot plan shows a five feet rear setback for Lots 1 and 2 of Block 41 and a nine feet and six feet rear setback for Lots 2 and 3 of block 40, respectively. The existing residence is nonconforming as to the required front setback along Sinaloa Ave and the 10 feet rear setback. Lastly, the proposed residence on Lot 3 of Block 40 does not meet the rear setback, but this can easily be modified. In general, the proposed modifications present no problems to the staff. The proposed setbacks maintain the character of the neighborhood, with the exception of parking in the front setback on Sinaloa Ave. Staff will condition the development plan to provide both required parking spaces outside the front 25 feet setback for the existing residence. The four smaller lots to the rear have met the required parking by providing one parking space for each lot less than 4, 000 square feet (Zoning Ordinance Section 9-4 .118 c 5) . Additional parking is provided to the front of these residences . The other development standards required by the Zoning Ordinance, including outdoor recreation, enclosed storage, and maximum percent coverage have been satisfied. CONCLUSIONS: Staff is confident that this site is suitable for the proposed development. The density of the project is consistent with the General Plan, while the creation of a small lot subdivision provides more opportunities for single family home ownership. Staff is recommending that the conceptual site plan (Exhibit C) be approved as part of the Ordinance (see draft in Exhibit E) . Minor modifications to the site plan will be necessary, such as the elimination of parking in the front setback on Sinaloa Ave. The next step in the review process is the submittal of a tract map application in conformance with the PD to create the six lots. Drainage plans will be required as part of the map application with the necessary public improvements and access easements being conditions of the map. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Zoning Map Exhibit B - General Plan Land Use Map Exhibit C - Conceptual Site Plan Exhibit D - Developer' s Statement Exhibit E - Draft Ordinance ' N EXHIBIT A CITY ATASCADERO ZONING MAP c—twu'i ow "is .d7x COMMUNITY DE VELOPMENT ZONE CHANGE 0$-89 DEPARTMENT it \v� \,\\\, •�ly���—J�� fr`'moo -16 I Jll b ~ � •.rte--�1 r < I (/�� '�X �� VEV �Nr4 �— RMF- 41P,JpJ (FH - ( ' i ' SITE 1j1 J �' — E RS Fo 1/ c _ i 6 W Y i ` �/`. S Nt::�;--ANDQE y< be • cr I _ � ' '� X11:• ���Il�r s rl��� % �� ,mss ♦ ��� ��� .""i, � c _ (', Lxl EXHIBIT C fCITY A ATA.SCADERQ , a„. CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN ..«u!Ilio ”li rein CAD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ZONE CHANGE 08-89 ,., DEPARTMENT r'- 31 N' t � ..E i t—.ri 14 �•I. oor E i is i 3t `ljlfi R g ... . : E r fill I •e2 , tt ��o� ici ff; EXHIBIT D l DEVELOPER' S STATEME1 ZONE CHANGE 08-89 June 29 , 1989 Community Development Department City of Atascadero !110 „ � . 6500 Palma Ave JL 1.990- Atascadero . CA 9342-2- Gentlemen: The attached is an application to rezone two parcels on Sinaloa Avenue from RMF-16 to RMF-16 with a PD overlay designation. The PD overlay is being requested so that we will have the flexibility to offer individual units with small-acreage lots to first-time buyers in the community. The eventual development we propose will create si., units on six separate parcels in a neighborhood of older homes and apartments . Each property currently has one residence on it . We propose to keep the house on Lot 41 and to demolish the building on Lot 40 as the structure is in a state of serious disrepair. We propose five new single-family detached residences . The units will be two- story, approximately 1445 square-feet each, and will be served with individual utilities and a common driveway off of Sinaloa avenue. Our preliminary design meets all of the current site design standards for the RMF zone and been reviewed with favorable response by the Fire Department, Public Works Department, Atascadero Mutual Water Co. , and Wil-Mar Disposal. The preliminary plan has also been reviewed by Jack Bra-zeal , certified arborist , who has determined the design to be in conformance with the Tree Ordinance. The units described in this plan could be built as apartment units under the current RMF-16 zoning. Under the PD-7 type zone we are requesting, we could build the identical project with the added benefit of creating an individual lot for each unit . With housing prices continuing to increase faster than inflation, it is becoming more difficult for the entry level or lower income buyer to purchase a home. The only affordable housing options for these buyers are to rent , to purchase an older home , to purchase a condo, or to purchase a new home on a smaller lot. Apartment living offers no chance to build equity, and mortgage financing for condominiums is not always readily available. Condo ownership also comes with Homeowner Association fees that are tied to inflation and unpredictable insurance rates . The purchase of an older home is often complicated with hidden repair costs and inflated by the value of a large lot . A new unit on the small lots propose could be more readily financed, would have only the EXHIBIT D (cont. ) Jure 29 , 1?39 Pace 2 shared maintenance of the access driveway . and wculd arov--de a nome and vara that would be privatel=r cwned . We propose that the ?D overlay designation include 3 =equirement that the property -a developed according to an approved mast�rplaa simmilar to the one submitted . tc establish the site des �..;n standards for the project. This will ensur= the orderly and harmonious development of t.`:. property while C. C . « R. ' s will ensure the confined maintenance of the property. Thank you for your review and consideration of this proposal . Bruce Sones 1200 Calle Cordoniz Los Osos , CA 93402 EXHIBIT E ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO AMENDING MAP 17 OF THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAPS BY REZONING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY AT 7715/7745 SINALOA FROM RMF/16 TO RMF/16 (PD7) (ZC 08-89: Jones/Cuesta Engineering) WHEREAS, the proposed zoning map amendments are consistent with the General Plan as required by Section 65860 of the California Government Code; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendments are in conformance with Section 65800 et seq. of the California Government Code concerning zoning regulations; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendments will not have a significant adverse impact upon the environment. The Negative Declaration prepared for the project is adequate; and WHEREAS, the Atascadero Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 17, 1989 and has recommended approval of Zone Change 08-89. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Atascadero does ordain as follows: Section 1 . Council Findings. 1 . The proposal is compatible with the surrounding land use and zoning. 2 . The proposal is consistent with the General Plan land use element. 3. The proposal will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts. The Negative Declaration prepared for the project is adequate. 4 . Modification of development standards or processing requirements is warranted to promote orderly and harmonius development . 5. Modification of development standards or processing requirements will enhance the opportunity to best utilize special characteristics of an area and will have a beneficial effect on the area. 6. Benefits derived from the overlay zone cannot be reasonably achieved through existing development standards or processing requirements. Ordinance No. 7 . The proposed plans offer certain redeeming features to compensate for requested modifications. Section 2 . Zoning Map. Map number 17 of the Official Zoning Maps of the City of Atascadero on file in the City Community Development Department is hereby amended to reclassify the parcels listed below and as shown on the attached Exhibit A which is hereby made a part of this ordinance by reference. Ptn. of Lot 39 and Lots 40 and 41; Block HA; Atascadero Colony Section 3 . Publication. The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published once within fifteen (15) days after its passage in the Atascadero News, a newspaper of general circulation, printed, published, and circulated in the City in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code; shall certify the adopting and posting of this ordinance and shall cause this ordinance and this certification together with proof of posting to be entered into the Book of Ordinances of the City. Section 4 . Effective Date. This ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and effect at 12 :01 a.m. on the 31st day after its passage. On motion by and seconded by , the foregoing Ordinance is approved - by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: DATE ADOPTED: By: ROLLIN DEXTER, Mayor City of Atascadero, California ATTEST: BOYD C. SHARITZ, City Clerk RAY WINDSOR, City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: JEFFREY JORGENSEN, City Attorney PREPARED BY: HENRY ENGEN, Community Development Director MINUTES EXCERPTS GE FOUR of Atascadero. Any modific on to this pproval shall be approva y the Community D elopment Department ,ior to implementing any ianges. " 113. Nooutdoo stora of semi-trailers, trucks, vans, or an o ler storage equipment is allowed on a ite. Moving vehicles are. permitted n the -ite for loading and unloadi only for eriod not to exceed 24 hour 115 . 1 conditions herein steal a implemented within 30 days of this approv This Condi- tional Use Permit shall be revie d by the Planning Commission in three month for compliance with these conditions . The motion carried 6 : 1 with Commissioner Brasher dissenting. 2. ZONE CHANGE 8-89 : Application ffiled by Bruce Jones (Cuesta Engineering, agent) to request establishment of a Planned Develop- ment Overlay Zone (PDI) to allow for the creation of a small lot residential subdivision. Subject site is located at 7715/7745 Sinaloa Road. Mr. Davidson presented the staff report which focused on issues of minimum lot size standards, the Planned Development Overlay Zone and general development standards . Staff is recommending approval of the zone change request as outlined in the draft ordinance. Commission questions and discussion followed. Commissioner Hanauer commented that because of the various costs involved with developing this project, the homes would not fall under the low and moderate income level . Discussion ensued relative to the merits of developing a planned development rather than apartments or condominiums with the planned development overlay being the controlling factor in assuring uniformity in development of the individual lots. Deborah Hollowell, representing the applicant, spoke in support of the project stating that it is the applicant' s intent to see the project through to completion, and explained that the site plan at this point is conceptual . It is hoped that this small lot subdivision will provide an alternative for ownership other than condominiums . PAGE FIVE Charles Harrington, Sinaloa resident, expressed concerns regarding on-street parking, reduced setbacks with regard-to adequate emergency vehicle access, and drainage. Bruce Jones, applicant, spoke in support of the request and described the various project amenities. He addressed the criteria involved with the four findings necessary to fulfill the purpose statement and explained his intent to provide an alternate form of occupancy other than apartment rentals, condominiums, etc. In response to question from Commissioner Brasher, Mr. Jones stated there will be an additional parking space provided so there will be space for two vehicles on each lot at all times that are not on the street. He added that there will be no need for a dumpster or any onstreet trash pickup as the disposal company will go to each individual residence. In response to question from Commissioner Waage, Mr. Jones responded that he will be able to meet any appearance review guidelines imposed. Discussion continued relative to incorporating minimum lot sizes within the zoning ordinance. Commissioner Highland stated he prefers single family residences to apartments and would like to see more projects like this one developed. Commissioner Brasher concurred adding that this plan is well thought out. A single family mix in this area would enhance the neighborhood. There was continued discussion relative to assurances being made that this project is reviewed under the appearance review guidelines. MOTION: By Commissioner Highland, seconded by Commissioner Brasher to recommend approval of Zone Change 8-89 subject to the Findings and draft ordinance contained in the staff report. The motion carried 7 :0. Chairperson Lochridge declared a break at 9 :08 p.m. ; meeting reconvened at 9 : 17 p.m. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 4-89 : ation filed by House of Glory Fel p (Fred 0 Watkins uest the use of isting single family residence a ryle garage as a church in the RS/FH (R al Subui Flood Hazard) zone. Sub a is located at 11700 Vied 'no. MEEnNG AGEND�C-1 TES ll/�ZAQ IMM■ E 2 2 2 2 2 23. City 2a2&ger Ray Windsor TR I: Chief of Police DOSJ: Police Facility Project - Fid Results and EecG endations . . .z yOe sealed bid proposals were received in the /it/ Office on ycEEesJay, October 18 , 1989 in response to -ur aO2e£tisemen- for the renovation/construction of our police facility at 5505 EI "amino Real . F £TS OF REQUESTS FOR BIDS : IB Sum a2/, seven construction companies submitted proposals 2gs this yzcject as follows : TOTAL BID: I . R.P . &icbazJs Const . . Inc. Santa 55=552£ $1, 198 . 064 ( low) 0 Sete : OG 10-2g-E9 . 2. P . . ElebC-.E sobsitte6 a letter (aEta2§s6} t2 our City =52ing to withdraw his bid 552 =coSestiEg return of bis b2\6 , 2 . Larry T,,n Const . Inc . , ? 2tesca6te=o $1, 289, 000 3 . 25120 CC28t . , IEc . , S .L . O. $1, 395 , 000 . . . 4 . So:2ao 2o=t0E Court . , Tec . , \%asc=6e=o . $11453 , 859 . 5 . 3 q:J 2 CCEst . . Inc . 5l:ez=£1516 $1, 510 . 895 E . SQ22e11 Co=st . Inc . , . S .L .O . $1, 645 , 000 7 . Sate DcsS CO2Bt . , Inc . 222£0£6 $1, 680, 000 (high) \\3 ; iz\e2 iD tle \ttacGe6 bid materials , contractors Were 222\ to\ gz\/Oze \\e1= bids is such a way that any of eight ri<S£9aLi2e oeƒ\Tots of the total project may be deleted by al and other • t the b i d proposals reflected of I-Ine total project , therefore , reduce the final cost 7, ",7 L e E-ar_ ier, R .P . P-'Lchards Construction Company asked to (A and h)ond after thep resident of their firm Eu C e E.I " coF.-puter error in their bid computations 1) 1 7(-1 n necessary work . As you know, I 1 L- f -ol-gensen who agreed with me that A ,_.I Z7 C) sub--:itta1 would likely not be in s' s7 of -L �ie pity ana project for many reasons , a s c f v4h4L--h would include an uncomfortable and 4 "nship . (See letter from City Attorney U- I '-)- d -,.;:,s L7,-c-oosed by Larry Wysong Construction L -ry s bid stands at $90 , 936 more than a. b R'P . R il CII a.L d S 'VI-ith input from Rod Levin of Ross , 7 - e & Var-ner, I re-orLmiend award of the bid to 2 C- 1:u,c t ( it is noteworthy that Dave Baker, �'c I r h4 e for 2��-oc_ation, offered Lgh of prais Cr, - C"<-2 Of T"71l_-'Lch i I !! address in Lhis memo I am 0 we contract- now to do the eves -._luded. f c" 7--)c 7, to 5-let- one tion of this porL-- 1.J V E wou' d urge that only JJ i M" u-sde si-e work including (cutside and irrigation) be excluded for T! c)s-IL- to c=uplete the outside site work 7 7 - t_-d a.1 t e r n a t e #1 for possible 4 cost of all listed 2 . oo.Lt_- cns , while important from an LI,-_L 1-11- , can be addressed (at ovel a longer time frame ; L,o _' na -i(_,edr n a phased basis ; and perhaps can be addressed through Force esu .' volnteer f labor (parking lot and land- _,7 z --i a thus reducing the overall s J oi 'Li)is al'�e_i 1, te G.ill impact current --aae - 2 1;CC'ds she least of ? c _struction activities after we have f- t -le building will least impact our _e-_;,_.-te No . 2 is the second most expensive option t :e a _te_nate bid. list . This item includes the detention faci_J_i t� as authorized and required by the State Department of CC__eCLiW1S . Deletion of this option will eliminate all orgy hoicing fa-ciiities from the project - needless to '.y rt ?.p^i_lt �f cc'st effectiveness and efficiency, L _ nd:..lg t .at the detention facilities be _.f t. i 1 i_! e c:_ ,t-act for construction. As there have been reading the need for the holding 1J_ tes , T_ offer t.-1e following discussion for your i!� '� a.�1d CG�i. moderation . T. _ ()7J c:. calcnd.a.r y:_ar 1989 , A.P .D . officers will have t 1 OC sc llers . In order to book a prisoner into y 7;7i a. _reserlt_ __lite, the average round-trip and ti%:e req- fired is one hour and forty-five � = :t, -five percent of the trips occur at a c ; 1_.ust be compensated at the time and one- .47 �2 _ (a.b3ut 1600 man-hours ) for 1 e 1t tes to approximately $36 , 000 1 , e hosts . Police car costs , including .c- C,- Orecia-ion are estimated at $15 , 000 pectancy of the car) . Other factors :.1: ! tfe ri ski of la::jury in transit to both the As an ey_ample, in a recent case, our i c a p__soler ,mho complained about an injury r«_ i_ti_1 from being handcuffed for a prolonged L i :� � lr:e . In another situation in which a combatant c detained_ in the police car (no holding cell - :Gr i1:j ii-ed hilr,self and badly damaged our There are many other examples also at th— flute which place the City in 1 ..._ _ t1-,_-a,_ the financial impacts of prisoner L _ c 11 + i; : _E-d.JCed manning level within our city c?ff i cern are transporting and booking 1;1t1 a l . Tea often, we are left with only one etilU_lid to emergency and service calls - a _ ti rE �.ard. to both our officers and residents as the least effective method of dealing Pane 3 7 would be used in our city, os t of the prisoners we would book in af ter a short term not ot through a signed promise to appear. In of D .T ! S , 8.j - pubs is inebriates , a complaint would _, j-i h T` f owing the prisoner' s detention for a - _L J.C, ell t ::ega n sobriety in the interests of public Ti; crcer to expedite the processing of arrested drunk -e J 'TE�, w i a- e a,n intc-ily zer (furnished by the StalL_ C e -a _s'_ ' led -f _L n our detention/booking area or � r-l-,l C) -L)-r,e . Crar go-al in rhe North County will be to J _e pitl_-L ::f trips to county Jail by taking two to eE-,_2h ti.-Re as opposed to taking just one per C u_1, y officials have been discussing a orti. County Govern"T'ent Center tentatively r) intersE_ction of U. S . Hwy 101 and Main learned through discussions I lea with the P. '51-1perior Cc)-..).rt judge and a County administrative 4 a_ r t;�at this roject is likely three to five years -oc' n+- '21r, C:01:,l _L e L L A -A C the nc=,-�ect had grown from the L staff a e -ed by an administrative st J__ aiter input from Court and v the projec-IC-ed cost of the eth s has served to slow the _2 _ k J tto be l-e d E t n cells proposed L J i-th ti1- r --j r -cacilities and sub-station L tI L-term County prisoners . He "'pa falls voefuilly short of = the needs s t _C4 ly p i)c-DL r-- cS not to mention fresh arrests by only 1 AL 1l I e Sheriff said that current J pr, soner processing are such li ti-I E; ae -,.er-taxed and the space for eight o . no impact upon his space IJat -osed detention facility is �J sale that�_ cur �n-oI r --7J -)'1- the presence of North h County L L sdj4-cirulty is compounded by a C r M El I,: i r i,::,a d for prisoner processing an 11 be discussing the potential of at L_..ai-Sportat ion in collaboration with ligai- the -..tent ywill be to reduce the e . -�-rom co-ant-y Jail by taking Wore than one ;_J-:Js , of course, can only work if we have tcy as proposed in the P.D . -_ i _ _-;�acilitL rage - 4 S t projects of this nature, the -- ---- In re- _L ion of this, cogn-' tL - Cnt-_r_Acto_rs Association �2 -ng :If L i he City decides to omit a nate (witin plans to complete the work -:- c E,1-i-al inflation rate is about five and one- -t . 11_I ` ticnally, future construction work within an -stingy, ocl Ul i" '-1` ldirg -,,,ill be mere difficult and complex. _ij)CfJ.Vr a rc3tent bid will be significantly higher 0 L 2. a,1 e S t- 1'1 11_;�-'-e . L L_ jj L-i L r;._:-] c delete one or more of the bid a L s , d S+ rungiv urge setting a target date for phases (one, o- two years , etc . ) . In completion of the project, I would ELIear-inarking a- Special account into which a of the tctal amount be deposited each -a_J vr a of the P .D . caoital budget . 1_,A.s Y fincincing of the project will have a significant ability to fund other projects during f v,,e -�.ust make annual payments o 'Dt 6.r d our $2 , 000 , 000 in to me that while we on, a rract41cal standpoint , J. L 7- f-, -1 7 - nan-Ja 1 capability to fund other 2. " Y p oe ct simultaneously taneously. My fear, a i a we ' 11 4 ng o L"__t'pt _L our project, P within a time frame that iL: 1�,olice L-- ! J_k_ within ,-a L ri ` callv reasonable . Adding 4 1— a 1: : . ..__n facility 10 years from now could well , iiit _L t lets i g t"n s project as proposed so that p i: _L ' emned project finally behind us , provide 1. u.- d y Eu `�Dpe , modern facility and make a " i:ew_ - 14ze -I ;� cl-ion of the downtown L_1L j e0� 7 7 7 Pain - 5 Doss Levin MacIntyre & Varner ATASCADERO POLICE SERVICES FACILITY Architects RLM&V PROJECT NO. 8802 RODNEY R. LEVIN AIA OCTOBER 18, 1989 KENNETH H.MACINTYRE AIA JAMES R.VARNER AIA HID TABULATION oK rs ib E 406TL3vt7u4 raa-+D/NG' S/TGr G✓ORK r-7kc.ic.,:i-C4 c=OC CONTRACTOR BASE HID ALT. BID #1 ALT. HID #2 ALT. HID #3 A. MAINO CONSTRUCTION B. BUNNELL CONSTRUCTION Qp �2�, 000 %�^f C�00 ;2617,00 C NORMAN NORTON CONSTR. / � $S9 l�3 2 3 S� /d 9, 7/G z 2S"cf ( R.P. D. RICHARDS CONSTR. � E. H & A CONSTRUCTION l Sv �95� //767/ �8� 0$S F. LARRY WYSONG CONSTR. (� �89�00 ��G99 109. 3yd 2 ,2s' G. DAVE BUSH, INC. 480 oco G��� 206 1129 Marsh Street, San Luis Obispo, California 93401 (805) 543-1291 HID TABULATION 000IL4 TSIPaa C.Lr��/c= C'TItVL / DMViEw^y t4isvEtLc,W.vc. olrlot « FAc.gOME 3,"N2orc�alvT CQ v/a/haNrT MOP-4 c.cS L..7-0 PLK NN r=ims 1 Nap ALT. BID #4 ALT . BID #5 ALT. BID #b ALT. BID #7 ALT. BID #8 E Z—zi-- I poi 000 �S 000 ST�so B. 9.21f 606 1 (.p700 ,700 /87oo G,'7oo I34N N EcI c. 93 s'31 l3 3q.3 / 8 � s� /�+ 27y Gf, '17"r NOF-Tv Ec73�000 2� 000 -!mzas ( q8, 000 2, 61.2 rJ 9;z 06S Ew goo 026 s—o� G. ' l om 2,yoo / S 3o© 13, 3 .2-z �o0d Ous K I i �r'i'v r v i•!y ILAoc 17 amu.' ry ._ t `p•�'.'� ,. :... (,L lmi OCT .. ' -i%t;'' fir'. .% `•�.'1':��: �: i v I -.._�i -�_r-__ __.:!�'-__-1'i._.Lis. '���IS.�L.-. C�j.C_.._•__. _ v � ` l 1 GI r : ICN I i i .o. R, 3c-H za.z�s 4C 0MST; ;l U CT fC 'tCom..;. I� Box 747 i - i aK. ObViOLS Via_ r4.j .::at t hat made a d C ` a:.I .Car:t: m o ta'<�. ! iti __ z ev ew of our bldg 4 n lu ..= rte _r i'a. »_sCCver ::at two, _ _n .'.t9;[is wex— s' st..'.ken7V z a f_ ,r a tackled _iur bid doment. As :e- =:ems s:1`u:a _. •;e been entered r_to U ::i _ s -- ed s?-, "' _ RJ_ra:ards ors`ruc=._on C: z: mstL'' I. rd i Y-0U I W-I th the e_zptsCLA`._ . n 04- .i t '�2i"J may ._ -.:`r I i' __ `ter ! i YC LZ i = i 1 i i t _ t f i j I i I I i .. Ti~. tee,:. of -he awarding tha: the oris-ake a�_t� *l=s not sue an a=_or in z _ :... :e, �zA < e -c I •�r r iai the pians and ion. Company _ -•_a}� $ .�' _ -: I--- _oi eve R. P. >c- On '.^, ld:y"y. '�7:i� �._jm In.'s :,Ij ^and r`e11%^1 its b.._QS .I-.ng nd. bid bond . C �y .sours, j _.� Pras.dtr, i I I C I 1 ii 1 I i 1 j i I i 1 i t MEMORANDUM City of Atascadero October 26, 1989 TO: Ray Windsor, City Manager FROM: Jeffrey G. Jorgensen, City Attorney SUBJECT: R. P. Richards Bid - Atascadero Police Services Facility You have requested an opinion concerning the validity of R. P. Richards' request to be relieved from its bid for the Atascadero Police Services Facility. In reviewing the material submitted by R. P. Richards, they have claimed that they failed to include the amount for subcontracts for fire protection and electrical (lines 37 and 38) in their bid, and therefore, the total amount of their bid as submitted was in error. In looking at the numbers, I was unable to actually verify the mistake, but assuming that Finance can confirm that the failure to include lines 37 and 38 in column 5 under subcontracts did have a material effect on the amount of the bid, then it would appear that R. P. Richards would qualify for relief pursuant to Public Contract Code Section 5100, et seq. (The applicable provisions of the Public Contract Code are attached for your information. ) In order to relieve R. P. Richards of its bid, the City Council must consent, based upon a finding of mistake, and if the Council fails to consent, the bidder may bring an action against the City for recovery. Public Contract Code Section 5103 sets forth the grounds for relief which must be established. Again, assuming that the Finance Department verifies that a mistake was made, it would appear that R. P. Richards would qualify for relief under the provisions of Section 5103. Recommendation: If it is determined by independent analysis of the City that a mistake has been made which had a material effect on the amount of the bid, then it would be my recommendation that this matter be presented to the City Council with a recommendation that they consent to relieve R. P. Richards from its bid pursuant to Public Contract Code Section 5103 (with appropriate findings) and award the contract to the second or third lowest bidder pursuant to Public Contract Code Section 5106. MEMO: Ray Windsor SUBJ: R. P. Richards Bid October 26, 1989 - Page 2 If you have further questions or comments concerning this matter, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, 4E REY G. OR�NSEN Ci y Atto ey JGJ: fr A:MMATA381 Attachments § 3400 ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS Div. 2 (b) Subdivision (a) shall not be applicable if the governing body of one of the entities named therein by resolution makes a finding which is included in the specifications that a particular material, product, thing, or service is designated by specific brand or trade name in order that a field test or experiment may be made to determine the product's suitability for future use. (Added by Stats.1983, c. 256, § 81.) Historical Note Derivation: Gov. C. former § 4380, add- Gov. C. former § 4381, added by Stats. ed by Stats.1961, c. 2171, p. 4493, § 1, 1965, c. 1516, p. 3611, § 2. amended by Stats.1965, c. 1516, p. 3610, § 1; Stats.1968, c. 1378, p. 2709, § 1. Cross References Plans and specifications, State Contract Act, see § 10120 et seq. Library References Counties 4-115 to 118. C.J.S. Counties § 185. Municipal Corporations 0-234 to 238, CJ.S. Municipal Corporations §§ 998, 330(4). 1 1147, 1148. Public Contracts C=8. CJ.S. Public Contracts §§ 7, 12, 13. States e-98. CJ.S. States § 162. Notes of Decisions 1. In general Contract to furnish and install specific For purpose of determining whether tax- brand name movable metal partitions was payers' complaint was filed within 60 days modified by addendum requiring only-that of school district's award of contract for partition meet standard of construction and purchase of a computer,under C.C.P..§ 864 quality of named brand, and refusal to ac- which provides that contract is in existence cept different name brand which met stan- as of the date on which the governing body dard of construction quality of named of a public agency adopts a resolution ap- proving the contract, contract was formed brand, but instead of solidly extending to when school board passed motion accepting floor, came with a six-inch base which cov a written bid, despite taxpayers' contention ered gap to floor was based on aesthetics that allegedly improper bidding procedures which was not proper basis for refusal. had precluded formation of a contract. Argo Const. Co. v. Los Angeles County Smith v. Mt. Diablo Unified School Dist. (1969)76 Cal.Rptr. 361, 271 C.A.2d 54. (1976) 128 Cal.Rptr. 572, 56 C.A.3d 412. Chapter 5 RELIEF OF BIDDERS Section 5100. Definitions. 5101. Consent to relief by awarding authority; action for recovery of amount forfeited: costs and attorneys' fees upon failure of plaintiff to recover judgment; report documenting grounds for relief because of mistake. 6 ► j I r RELIEF OF BIDDERS § 5101 Pt. 1 Section 5102. Complaint; summons. 5103. Grounds for relief. 5104. No claim, other than notice, required to be filed. 5105. Prohibition against further bidding on project. 5106. Award of contract to second or third lowest bidder. 5107. Preference to actions under this chapter. 5108. Applicability of chapter. Chapter 5 was added by Stats.1982, C. 435, P. 1803, § 2. Cross References State Contract Act, relief of bidders, see § 10200. § 5100. Definitions (a) "Public entity" means the state, Regents of the University of California, a county, city and county, city, district, public authority, public agency, and any other political subdivision or public corporation in the state. (b) "Bid" means any proposal submitted to a public entity in competi- tive bidding for the construction, alteration, repair, or improvement of any structure, building,'road or other improvement of any kind. (Added by Stats.1982, c. 435, p. 1803, § 2.) Historical Note Derivation: Gov.C.former§ 4200,added by Stats.1971, c. 1584, p. 3195, § 2. Cross References Public entity defined, see § 1100. Library References Words and Phrases (Perm. Ed.) § 5101. Consent to relief by awarding authority; action for recov- ery of amount forfeited; costs and attorneys' fees upon failure of plaintiff to recover judgment; report doc- umenting grounds for relief because of mistake Text of section effective Jan. 1, 1986. (a) A bidder shall not be relieved of the bid unless by consent of the awarding authority nor shall any change be made in the bid because of mistake, but the bidder may bring an action against the public entity in a court of competent jurisdiction in the county in which the bids were 7 NEW 'MW RELIEF OF BIDDERS § 5103 Pt. i Cross References Forfeiture of security,State Contract Act, failure of successful bidder to execute contract, see §§ 10181, 10182. Similar provision, State Contract Act, see § 10200. s4' Library References Counties e-127. C.J.S. Counties § 198. Municipal Corporations X335(3). C.J.S. Municipal Corporations § 1003. States 4-354. C.J.S. States § 164. § 5102. Complaint; summons The complaint shall be filed, and summons served on the director of the department or the chief of the division or other head of the public entity under which the work is to be performed or an appearance made, within 90 days after the opening of the bid; otherwise, the action shall be dismissed. (Added by Stats-1982, c. 435, p. 1803, § 2.) Historical Note Derivation: Gov.C.former.§ 4202,added by Stats.1971, c. 1584, p. 3196, § 2. Cross References Commencing civil actions, see Code of Civil Procedure § 411.10 et seq. Service of summons, see Code of Civil Procedure § 413.10 et seq. Similar provision, State Contract Act, see § 10201. § 5103. Grounds for relief The bidder shall establish to the satisfaction of the court that: (a) A mistake was made. (b) He or she gave the public entity written notice within five days after the opening of the bids of the mistake, specifying in the notice in detail how the mistake occurred. (c) The mistake made the bid materially different than he or she intended it to be. (d) The mistake was made in filling out the bid and not due to error in judgment or to carelessness in inspecting the site of the work, or in reading the plans or specifications. (Added by Stats.1982, c. 435, p. 1803, § 2.) Historical Note Derivation: Gov.C. former§ 4203,added by Stats.1971, c. 1584, P. 3196, § 2. 9 i E Now § 5103 ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS ti Div. 2 Cross References Similar provision, State Contract Act, see § 10202. x Library References s Counties C-115, 116, 118. C.J.S. Municipal Corporations §§ 1000, 4 Municipal Corporations e-234, 235, 238. 1003. 4 Public Contracts C-18. C.J.S. Public Contracts § 14. "; 1 States.e=98. U.S. tates § 164 C.J.S. Counties § 186, . . ! Notes of Decisions In general 1 City of King (1976) 126 Cal.Rptr. 585, 54 Estoppel 3 C.A.3d 457. ' Evidence 4 Purpose 2 3. Estoppel Where contractor indicated at trial that estoppel was not an issue in its action to recover bid bond from city, court of appeal 1. In general could not consider whether city attorney's Gov.C.§ 4200 et seq.(repealed; see,now, comments to contractor misled contractor § 5100 et seq.) governing public contracts into filing late claim and thus estopped city by public entities established exclusive Pro- from challenging lateness of claim. A &A cedure for relieving bidder from mistake in Elec., Inc v. City of King (1976) 126 Cal. Rptr. 585, 54 C.A.3d 457. bid submitted to public entity. A&A Elec., Inc.v.City of King(1976)126 Cal.Rptr.585, 4. Evidence 54 C.A.3d 457. Evidence that contractor notified city at time bids were opened of error in its bid, 2. Purpose but that contractor did not give city written Purpose of Gov.C.§ 4203(repealed; see, notice of spec detail of mistake within now, this section) for relieving bidder from five days, did not support trial court's find- its mistake in bid submitted to public entity mg that contractor had supplied "notice in detail" of mistake in bid within meaning of was to provide public entity with definite Gov, C. § 4203 (repealed; see, now, this and specific information about nature of section) providing procedure for rectifying mistake, so that public entity could make mistake in public bid. A & A Elec., Inc. v. informed decision on whether to grant bid- City of King (1976) 126 Cal.Rptr. 585, 54 der relief from bid. A & A Elec., Inc. v. C.A.3d 457 § 5104. No claim, other than notice, required to be filed Other than the notice to the public entity, no claim is required to be filed before bringing the action. (Added by Stats.1982, c. 435, p. 1803, § 2.) Historical Note Derivation: Gov.C. former§ 4204,added by Stats.1971, c. 1584, p. 3196,§ 2. Cross References Similar provision, State Contract Act, see § 10203. 10 i RELIEF OF BIDDERS § 5106 Pt. 1 § 5105. Prohibition against further bidding on project A bidder who claims a mistake or who forfeits his or her bid security shall be prohibited from participating in further bidding on the project on which the mistake was claimed or security forfeited. (Added by Stats.1982, c. 435, p. 1803, § 2.) Historical Note Derivation: Gov.C.former§ 4205,added by Stats.1971, c. 1584, p. 3196, § 2. Cross References Forfeiture of security,State Contract Act, failure of successful bidder to execute contract, see §§ 10181, 10182. Similar provision, State Contract Act, see § 10204. Library References Counties 4-116. CJ.S. Counties § 198. Municipal Corporations e-337. CJS. Municipal Corporations § 1003. States e-98. CJ.S. States § 164. Notes of Decisions 1. In general in price of less than four percent of total Evidence in declaratory judgment action cost of bid, was sufficient to support find- brought by contractor seeking determina- ing that second bid was in fact on same tion that.Gov.C. § 4205(repealed; see,now, project so that bar of section applied to this section)did not bar his rebid, including prevent contractor from submitting bid. evidence that only major structural change Colombo Const. Co., Inc. v. Panama Union in buildings to be constructed was flooring School Dist. (1982) 186 Cal.Rptr. 463, 136 on relocatable classrooms, with difference CA.3d 868. § 5106. Award of contract to second or third lowest bidder If the public entity deems it is for its best interest, it may, on refusal or failure of the successful bidder to execute the contract, award it to the second lowest bidder. If the second lowest bidder fails or refuses to execute the contract, the public entity may likewise award it to the third lowest bidder. On the failure or refusal of the second or third lowest bidder to whom a contract is so awarded to execute it, his or her bidder's security shall be likewise forfeited. (Added by Stats.1982, c. 435, p. 1803, § 2.) Historical Note Derivation: Gov.C. former§ 4206,added by Stats.1971, c. 1584, p. 3196, § 2. 11 4 § 5106 ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS Div. 2 Cross References Forfeiture of security,State Contract Act,failure of successful bidder to execute contract, see §§ 10181, 10182. Library References Counties C-120. C.J.S. Counties § 189. Municipal Corporations e-337. CJ.S. Municipal Corporations § 1157. States 4-98. CJ.S. States §§ 165 to 167. Notes of Decisions 1. In general bid again on default of low bidder. Colom- Under Gov.C. §§ 4205, 4206 (repealed; bo Const. Co., Inc. v. Panama Union School see, now, § 5105 and this section), public Dist. (1982) 186 Cal.Rptr. 463, 136 C.A.3d entity has option of putting project out for 868. X § 5107. Preference to actions under this chapter In all actions brought under the provisions of this chapter, all courts wherein such actions are or may hereafter be pending, shall give such actions preference over all other civil actions therein, in the matter of setting the same for hearing or trial, and in hearing the same, to the end that all such actions shall be quickly heard and determined. ` (Added by Stats.1982, c. 435, p. 1803, § 2.) Historical Note Derivation: Gov.C.former§ 4207,added by Stats.1971, c. 1584, p. 3196, § 2. Cross References Similar provision, State Contract Act, see § 10205. § 5108. Applicability of chapter This chapter shall not apply to contracts awarded pursuant to Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 10100) of Part 2 of Division 2 of this code, nor to contracts awarded pursuant to Chapter 14 (commencing with Section 25200) of Division 18 of Part 4 of the Education Code.' (Added by Stats.1982, c. 435, p. 1803, § 2.) 1 Repealed; see, now, Pub. Con. C. § 10700. Repeal V. Section 5108 is repealed by Stats.1985, c. 262, §2, eff. Jan. 1, 1986. 12 A R. �• t�i CH�lz�.S r • Atascadero Police Services Facility 8802 00310 BID FORM TO: CITY OF ATASCADERO hereinafter called "Owner" 1 . The undersigned, having examined the proposed Contract Documents titled: ATASCADERO POLICE SERVICES FACILITY and having visited the site and examined the conditions affecting the Work , hereby proposes and agrees to furnish all labor, materials, equipment, and appliances, and to perform operations necessary to complete the Work as required by said proposed Contract Documents, for that portion of the work identified as "Base Bid" for the stipulated sum of //V is / /iLc !big 0/'.;j iD`i^�D 1��� / /f�,z `y/a i r -'yr/ �.E^ •,s . A> x7y— hc1� ��rn�s'_MDLLARS ('b__ 2. Alternates A. Deductive Alternate No . 1 : Delete the following Site Improvements: 1 . All concrete walks, curbs, planters and paved patios. 2. Security concrete block wall with personnel and vehicle sliding gate. Stub out conduit for power 2 ' + beyond building for future electrically operated gate. 3. All security chain link fencing with the exception of 325 + L.F. of new 6' high chain link fencing at west and north retaining walls and straightening and repairing 560 + L.F. of existing 4 ' high chain link fence at east , south and west retaining walls as designated by note C1 and C2. 4. Omit all landscaping and irrigation and provide electrical and plumbing stub out 2' + beyond water service or building and mark for future. 5. Omit removal of existing asphaltic concrete paving and installation of new asphaltic concrete paving and base. 6. Omit all new storm drain lines. 7. - In lieu of items 5 and 6 above, contractor to seal existing A.C. paving and re-stripe parking area as per the existing striping. D .c,2 x,-L DOLLARS-`(t_ BID FORM 00310-1 • . • Atascadero Police Services Facility 8802 B. Deductive Alternate No. 2: Delete all work in the detention area including electrical electronic (special systems) and mechanical systems which also includes removal of floor slab and rough plumbing which will be stubbed to the area only. See note on drawing A-4 for replacement of walls at rooms 106A, 112, and 113. Provide two pendant mounted keyless porcelain light fixtures with switch at door. DOLLARS C. Deductive Alternate No . 3 : Delete folding door , track and hardware in room 111 with supporting beam and columns to remain in the base bid. Nv . ef%%'f /rd ✓s ��'� �/vis ,(5 .�.✓�� � Jix7�/-NinJ - - DOLLARS(s,,",2 D. Deductive Alternate No . 4 : Delete the furnishing and installation of the special electronic security control , and communications systems as specified in the following sections of the Specifications: Section 16751 Prisoner/Visitor Communications Section 16752 Interview/Polygraph -Monitoring Section 16753 Personnel Security Alarms Section 16754 Closed-Circuit Television Section 16755 Intercommunications System Section 16756 Television Distribution System Section 16757 Sound Distribution System Section 16758 Facility Control Panels Section 16759 Prisoner Audio Monitoring System All conduit, back boxes and primary AC power outlets to be provided by the electrical contractor for the above systems and shown on the electrical and special systems drawings as described in the electrical specifications are to remain and are not a part of the above deletions. i ��cs iii^Ji% 7"h�',%G/•, �i5�.r-c!S^' ^ c'� f�-+�J I„� DOLLARS}(s�' 7 3 BID FORM 00310-2 • 0 Atascadero Police Services Facility 8802 E. Deductive Alternate No . 5 : Delete movable partitions and library shelving in room 159. �G>o'��-lam/y f� �/.-�:z/✓Sk�✓� �: •h / .. r� 0LLARS>$ F. Deductive Alternate No . 6 : Delete proposed new work to south and west facades as shown on drawing A-7 and replace with work called out to be done on west and south elevations on drawing- A-40. / Lr DOLLARS y <12-,,Z, U 7/ �' ) G. Deductive Alternate No . 7 : Delete all interior finishes, including ceilings and carpeting from rooms 126, 127, 126, 129 and 130. At interior of walls adjoining corridor 106B provide 5/8" gyp . board as per note H, drawing A-4. Delete all cabinets in these rooms and provide rough-in plumbing at room 127. Delete all furring at exterior walls. Doors 44, 45, 46, 47 and 48 and adjacent glazing in walls of rooms 126, 127, 128, 129 and room 130 are to be deleted if Alternate #7 is accepted by the Owner . If Alternate #7 is accepted by the Owner , provide one ( 1 ) door type B, 3 ' -0" x 7 `-0" , 1 3/4" thick , SC, WD, P, HM frame; hardware group 9 in wall at cooridor 106B located as directed by the architect . DOLLARS/( H. Deductive Alternate #8 : Delete improvements to driveway approach at Rosario Ave. entrance to site. /V fl' J �-• DOLLARS($ _ 3. The undersigned understands and agrees to comply with and be bound by instructions to bidders issued for this Work . 4. The undersigned acknowledges receipt of Addenda numbers: 1 and 2 - BID FORM 00310-3 AtascaderoPolice Services Facility 8802 5. Enclosed with this bid is bid security in the amount of not less than 10% of the bidder ' s proposed Contract Sum. BIDDER: i ( ) R.P. R HARDS CONSTRUCTION CO. ' MUND B. RICHARDS , President ( CO*-,I; ;SATE SEAL ) Address_ 5949 Hol 1 i c Qr AVPn11P Gol Pta o CA 93117 License number 199946 License type R + vari nus tether-s 'Bid dai)d, this 17th day of nctcher 19 89 END OF BID FORM BID FORM 00310-4 Atascaderc Police Services Facility 8802 USE ADDITIONAL SHEETS IF REQUIRED PROVIDE SIGNATURE BIDDER: IDENTICAL TO THAT SHOWN ON THE BID R . RICHA DS CONSTRUCTTON, ,CU., FORM by EDMUND B. RICHARDS President END OF SUBCONTRACTOR LISTING >>,, SUBCONTRACTOR LISTING 00430-3 . . . � . � . k / . I 0 ON \ f 00 o u $ . 2 0 q # . � f 0 7 k E = 2 £ f / J k _ « > U) o / . \ m a E a)\ 7 { E 2 c / \ c = k 0 0 ° # k 0 a \ _ (D « £ E \ E f u 0 ) 2 3 ( D 0 co 0) / . £/ / { a = 2 p . « ` r � ` .0 a) o j a 2 ° 0 c :1 / 5c 2 0 6 ° R7 c 'a k c c E c « P £ 2@ 0 2 e m $ § < « 7 / g £ Oee y n. (D '0 { / = 2 k = 2 / 2 / X 0 2 E R o f 2 aCc c k E 2 / \ @ § 0 / _I � E & 3 CD z i$ 4 7 k b E ■ �` 0 =) § / } J - cc ��-ui . . W� © \\� § pu� \ m/ W . 014 ' « Y§ 2 -jƒ/zE § cw\ < cz �� �£ § �< W ' � § L 3 ` ` =u 0 � � `qM®= 7 U)kU-) ) ( Cl) � / /.h \ / ' . S Bond No. 5051052 Bid Bond: THE HARTFORD KNOW ALL HIEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That.......................F3.J.....R.ICHARAS...CQN S.T.R.UCTLQ.N...QQ.................................................................................... ................................................................................................................................................................................................. ............................................................................................................................................................................................... (hereinafter called the Principal), as Principal and the...HARTFORD,,,FIRE,,,INSURANCE.........COMPANY,,,-,--„--,- ...... a corporation created and existing under the laws of the State of.......Connecticut,,,,,,,,,,,,,, with its princip office in the City of.........Rant f ord,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,(hereinafter called the Surety), as Surety, are held and firmi boundunto..........the....Clt.X....9f...A.t. .sc.l3 crs.......................................................................................................... ................................................................................................................................................................................................. ................................................................................................................................................................................................. (hereinafter called the Obligee). in the full and just sum of...ten the amount bs ............................... ........................................................................................................................................... . Dollars (S................................). good and lawful money of the United States of America,to the payment of which sum of money well and truly to be made,the said Principal and Surety bind themselves,their and each of their heirs,executors,administrators,succes- sors and assigns,jointly and severally, firmly by these presents. WHEREAS, the Principal herein is submitting a proposal for.... vi...Atascadero..........................P.....olice...................Ser............ces.......:.... ...............................Fa c i 1 i.tY...................... ......................................................................................................................... .................................................................................................................................................................................................. .................................................................................................................................................................................................. .................................................................................................................................................................................................... NOW,THEREFORE, if the bid or proposal of said Principal shall be accepted,and the contract for such work be awarded to the Principal thereupon by the said Obligee, and said Principal shall enter into a contract for the completion of said work and furnish bonds as required by law,then this obligation shall be null and void,otherwise to remain in full force and effect. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF,the Principal and Surety have caused these presents to be duly signed,sealed and dated this....................17.k}1.........................................day of........................October........... ` L9.89...... Witness: P. RICHA DS C0RS'TRJCT.ION (�AL) BY .......... — ........................(SEAL) E ND B. RICHARD', ....................................................................................................... :...resident, .............. ...... ........(SEAL) IIF INDIVIDUAL OR FIRM) •,���� IV�Cj� Principal....(SEAL) Attest: ....................................................................................................... (IF CORPORATION) HARTFORD,-FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY ................. K. VAN IDERSTINE B ! .... AftornP}'-ltl-j'aft Fortn 5.1679-2 lC+lifJ Prinad in C.S.A.r'fii HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY fiertionk Cornriwaeut POWER OF ATTORNEY Know all men by these Presents, That the HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, a 5 O`t O corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of Connecticut,and having its principal office in the City of Hartford.County of Hartford.State of Connecticut,does hereby make,constitute and appoint PAUL MANCHESTER and/or ORLANDO IUELE of SANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA its true and lawful Attomey(s)-in-Fact, with full power and authority to each of said Attomey(s)-in-Fact, in their separate capacity if more than one is named above, to sign, execute and acknowledge any and all bonds and undertakings and other writings obligatory in the nature thereof on behalf of the Company in its business of guaranteeing the fidelity of persons holding places of public or private trust; guaranteeing the performance of contracts other than insurance policies; guaranteeing the performance of insurance contracts where surety bonds are accepted by states and municipalities, and executing or guaranteeing bonds and undertakings required,or permitted in all actions or proceedings or by law allowed, in penalties not exceeding the sum of TEN MILLION DOLLARS ($20,000,000.00) each, ----------------- —--------------------------------------------� and to bind the HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY thereby as fully and to the same extent'as if such bonds and undertakings and other writings obligatory in the nature thereof were signed by an Executive Officer of the HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY and sealed and attested by one other of such Officers, and hereby ratifies and confirms all that its said Attomey(s)-in-Fact may do in pursuance hereof. This power of attorney is granted by and under authority of the following provisions: (1) By-Laws adopted by the Stockholders of the HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY at a meeting duly called and held on the 9th day of March,1971. ARTICLE IV SECTION 8. The President or any Vice-President:acting with any Secretary or Assistant Secretary,shall have power and authority to appoint.for purposes only of-executing and attesting bonds and undertakings and Other writings obligatory in the nature thereof.One or more Resident Vice-Prestdents,Resident Assistant Secretaries and Attom rys-in-Fact and at any time to repave any such Resident Vice-President. R:ioent Assistant Secretary,or Attorney-in-Fact,and revoke the power and authority given to him. SECTION 11. Attorneys-in-Fact shall have power and authority.subject to the terms and limitations of the power of attorney issued to them.to execute and deliver on behalf of the Company and to attach the seal of the Company thereto any and all bonds and undertakings and other writings obligatory in the nature thereof.and any such instrument executed by any such Attorney-in-Fact shall be as binding upon the Company as of signed by an Executive Officer and sealed and attested by one other of such Officers. (2) Excerpt from the Minutes of a meeting of the Board of Directors of the HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY duly called and held on the 11th day of June,1976: RESOLVED: Robert N. H. Serer.Assistant Vice-President, shall have as long as he holds such office the$&me power as any Vice- President under Sections 6.7 and 8 of Article IV of the By-Laws of the Company. This power of attorney is signed and sealed by facsimile under and by the authority of the following Resolu- tion adopted by the Directors of the HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY at a meeting duly called and held on the 6th day of August,1976. RESOLVED,mat,whereas Robert N.H.Seiner.Assistant Vice-President,acting with array Secretary or Assistant Secretary,has the power and authority,as long as he holds such office.to appoint by a power of attorney.for purposes only of executing and attesting bonds and undertakings and otter writings Obligatory in the nature thereof.One or more Resident Vice-Presidents,Assistant Secretaries and Attorney- in-Fact Now.therefore,the signatures of such Officers and the seal of the Companymay be affixed to any such power of attorney or to any Certificate relating thereto by facsimile,and any such power Of attorney or cenifi4;ate bearing such facsimile signatures or facsimile seal shall be valid and binding upon the Company and any such power so executed and centfied by facsimile signatures and facsimile seal shall be valid and binding upon the Company in the future with respect to any bond or undertaking to which it ns attached. In Witness Whereof, the HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY has caused these presents to be signed by its Assistant Vice-President,and its corporate seal to be hereto affixed,duly attested by its Secretary, this 18th day of March 1988. Attest: HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY i Robert J.Mathieu Robert N.H.Saner Secretary Assistant Vice-President STATE OF CONNECTICUT, SS. COUNTY OF HARTFORD, On this 18th day of March.A.D. 1988, before me personally came Robert N. H. Sener, to me known,who being by me duly sworn, did depose and say:that he resides in the County of Hartford, State of Connecticut; that he is the Assistant Vice-President of the HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, the corporation described in and which executed the above instrument; that he knows the seal of said corporation: that the seal affixed to the said instrument is such corporate seal:that it was so affixed by order of the Board of Directors of said corporation and that he signed his name thereto by like order. STATE OF CONNECTICUT, CJ. "` SS. Jacqueline T.Derosrors.Notary Public COUNTY OF HARTFORD, I CERTIFICATE My Commission Expires April 1.1993 I, the undersigned, Assistant Secretary of the HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Connecticut Corporation, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing and attached POWER OF ATTORNEY remains in full force and has not been revoked: and furthermore, that the Resolutions of the Board of Directors, set forth in the Power of Attorney,are now in force. Signed and sealed at the City of Hartford. Dated the 1 th day of OC t e r 19 $9 David A.Johnson Foran S-3507✓ (HF) Printed in U.S.A. Assistant Secretary Atascadero Police Services Fac ilit 8802 00430 SUBCONTRACTOR LISTING TO: CITY OF ATASCADERO hereinafter called "Owner" 1 . Pursuant to bidding requirements for the Work titled : J ATASCADERO POLICE SERVICES FACILITY for portions of the Work equaling or exceeding 1 /2 of 1'/, of the total proposed Contract Sum the undersigned proposes to use the following subcontractors. Except as otherwise approved by the Owner , the undersigned proposes to perform all other portions of the Work with his own forces . 2. Portion of the Work : Subcontractor name and address : IJ 7p,>;G6 LL -72 Gp u J, (.�s I L�/✓G� �NT/d/�f��2 t/J/rJi��.5 rG�c �-- '- ���-� /'r, L/N u zz iz SUBCONTRACTOR LISTING 00430-1 • �-�1/�Y �YSon�(r SNS � Atascadero Police Services Facilitv 8802 00310 BID FORM TO: CITY OF ATASCADERO hereinafter called "Owner" 1 . The undersigned, having examined the proposed Contract Documents titled: ATASCADERO POLICE SERVICES FACILITY and having visited the site and examined the conditions affecting the Work, hereby proposes and agrees to furnish all labor , materials, equipment, and appliances, and to perform operations necessary to complete the Work as required by said proposed Contract Documents, for that portion of the work identified as "Base Bid" for the stipulated sum of One m i l hom +wy h u k.dye4 �h at-ca d !?2 cv- — DOLLARS (s 2. Alternates A. Deductive Alternate No. 1 : Delete the following Site Improvements: 1 . All concrete walks, curbs, planters and paved patios. 2. - Security concrete block wall with personnel and vehicle sliding gate. Stub out conduit for power 2' + beyond building for future electrically operated gate. 3. All security chain link fencing with the exception of 325 + L.F. of new 6' high chain link fencing at west and north retaining walls and straightening and repairing 560 + L.F. of existing 4 ' high chain link fence at east , south and west retaining walls as designated by note C1 and C2. 4. Omit all landscaping and irrigation and provide electrical and plumbing stub out 2' + beyond water service or building and mark for future. 5. Omit removal of existing asphaltic concrete paving and installation of new asphaltic .concrete paving and base. 6. Omit all new storm drain lines. 7. In lieu of items 5 and 6 above, contractor to seal existing A.C. paving and re-stripe parking area as per the existing striping . Di e h L4 M red TW-I ve- 4ha t:W,0 i --,Ix Vu. m,4 v66f n t tjf-rj v1 r M c - I I2,ldlq DOLLARS t$ � BID FORM 00310-1 Atascadero Police Services Facility B. Deductive Alternate No . 2 : Delete all work in the detention area including electrical electronic (special systems) and mechani- systems which also includes removal of floor slab a rough plumbing which will be stubbed to the area or See note on drawing A-4 for replacement of walls at rooms 106A, 112, and 113. Provide two pendant mour keyless porcelain light fixtures with switch at do Ne huyicEret n►h� -t ou h�. -tt�rc� huvidred {or+c.( ei�!-rt— DOLLARS (S C. Deductive Alternate No . 3 : Delete folding door, track and hardware in room 11 with supporting beam and columns to remain in the bid. Tu-v +ko►45a.nd 5eye.4 humclreA DOLLARS ($ Z+750 D. Deductive Alternate No . 4 : Delete the furnishing and installation of the spec electronic security control , and communications sy=- as specified in the following sections of the Specifications: Section 16751 Prisoner/Visitor Communications Section 16752 Interview/Polygraph Monitoring Section 16753 Personnel Security Alarms Section 16754 Closed-Circuit Television Section 16755 Intercommunications System Section 16756 Television Distribution System Section 16757 Sound Distribution System Section 16758 Facility Control Panels Section 16759 Prisoner Audio Monitoring System All conduit , back boxes and primary AC power outle-: be provided by the electrical contractor for the at systems and shown on the electrical and special syr drawings as described in the electrical specificati are to remain and are not a part of the above deletions. ,�eyen+L� -the -ffw(isaM ---- DOLLARS BID 00 : Atascadero Police Services Facility 8802 5. Enclosed with this bid is bid security in the amount of not less than 10% of the bidder ' s proposed Contract Sum. i BIDDER: { ) Larry 1q./Song Construction Co . s ( ) ( by ( ) G ( CORPORATE SEAL ) Ad ss 848 Los Oso a { ) { ) to caaero , UA { ) ( ) License number 471850 License type B-General Building Bid dated this Eighteenth day of October 1989 END OF BID FORM BID FORM 00310-4 Atascadero Police Services Facility8802 E. Deductive Alternate No . _5 : Delete movable partitions and library shelving in room 159. DOLLARS ($ 'qio'0006 ) F. Deductive Alternate No . 6 : Delete proposed new work to south and west facades as shown on drawing A-7 and replace with work called out to be done on west and south elevations on drawing A-40. '—we v t4 _tVVL t&iM five A(A M rcd DOLLARS ($ G. Deductive Alternate No . 7 : Delete all interior finishes, including ceilings and carpeting from rooms 126, 127, 128, 129 and 130. At interior of walls adjoining corridor 106B provide 5/8" gyp . board as per note H, drawing A-4. Delete all cabinets in these rooms and provide rough-in plumbing at room 127. Delete all furring at exterior walls. Doors 44, 45, 46, 47 and 48 and adjacent glazing in walls of rooms 126, 127, 128, 129 and room 130 are to be deleted if Alternate #7 is accepted by the Owner . If Alternate #7 is accepted by the Owner , provide one ( 1 ) door type B, 3 ' -0" x 7 ' -0" , 1 3/4" thick , SC, WD, P, HM frame, hardware group 9 in wall at cooridor 106B located as directed by the architect . 1G1 F+e_eVg -{i-tyclSakl/_J 61x KjAV)ctred _FOLt +' DOLLARS ( H. Deductive Alternate #8 : Delete improvements to driveway approach at Rosario Ave. entrance to site. �w v 'f"it v��sic vtr,� �!c(11-f' h+•t�tc.�r� DOLLARS ($ 3. The undersigned understands and agrees to comply with and be bound by instructions to. bidders issued for this Work . 4. The undersigned acknowledges receipt of Addenda numbers: 1 , 2 BID FORM 00310-3 Atascadero Police Services FacilitY 8802 00430 SUBCONTRACTOR LISTING TO: CITY OF ATASCADERO hereinafter called "Owner" 1 . Pursuant to bidding requirements for the Work titled : ATASCADERO POLICE SERVICES FACILITY for portions of the Work equaling or exceeding 1/2 of 1% of the total proposed Contract Sum the undersigned proposes to use the following subcontractors. Except as otherwise approved by the Owner , the undersigned proposes to perform all other portions of the Work with his own forces. 2. Portion of the Work: Subcontractor name and address: Concrete Demo F. Muff Co. Atascadero, CA Structural Steel 1-}S GA ,211 Asphalt4-T r G Sc .0 Masonry (J 2?' &PZ(-10 I Security Gates _, c��l• �s5 f-'�� i SUBCONTRACTOR LISTING 00430-1 Atascadero Police Services Facility 8802 Fencing F�erD2 J Sandblasting l� f N G DQT2A t/ &, Electrical H.V.A.0 �TAx�,�2D Plumbing - Insulation �EA2.�g2T .Tti�s��oQ�o� Roofing r rzTz dip 2&o r—iAr(e, SUBCONTRACTOR LISTING 00430-2 Atascadero Police_Services Facility 8802 Drywall r� o 12oa4,r--3- Plaster Plaster S Q Acoustics , .,,.A)Tg i'I1,4121tq �2fl�y (p2�4�.a0, Painting � 1 2rzSUC7 Flooring ��/►'JP��TD�tJ ��OYL/l..Xv T /r Pc 67--OA-1 Glass .moi► ,. �P��� �J-T�}SG/�z�e-2f� Cell Padding �� SUBCONTRACTOR LISTING 00430-2 ca Insurance: Agi. „eTransamegba 0. , o Los ssC&MomIS T .Insurance Services Pow�t of Attomey KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That TRANSAMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation of the State of California,does hereby make, tote and appoint Joe A. Ferrante, Ann S. Ferrante - its true and lawful Attomey(s)-in•Fact, with full power and authority, for and on behalf on the Company as surety, to execute and deliver and affix the seal of the Company thereto, if a seal is required, bonds, undertaking:, recognizances or other written obligations in the nature thereof,as follows: and to bind TRANSAMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY thereby,and all of the acts of said Attomay(s)-in-Fact,pursuant to thew presents,are hereby ratified and confirmed. This appointment is made under and by authority of the following by-laws of the Company which by-laws are now in full force and effect. ARTICLE VII SECTION 30. All policies, bonds, undertakings, certificates of insurance, cover notes, recognizances, contracts of indemnity, endorsements, stipulations, waivers, consents of sureties, re-insurance acceptances or agreements, surety and co-suety obligations and agreements, underwriting undertakings, and all other instruments pertaining to the insurance business of the Corporation, shall be validly executed when signed on behalf of the Corporation by the President,any Vice President or by any other officer,employee,agent or Attomay-in-Fact authorized to so sign by (i) the Board of Directors, (ii) the President, (iii) and Vice President, or (iv) any other person empowered by the Board of Directors, the President or any Vice President to give such authorization;provided that all policies of insurance shall also bear the signature of a Secretary, which may be a facsimile, and unless manually signed by the President or a Vice President, a facsimile signature of the President.A facsimile signature of a former officer shall be'of the same validity as that of an existing officar. The affixing of the corporate seal shall not be necessary to the-valid execution of any instrument, but any p authorized to execute or attest such instrument may affix the Corporation's seal thereto. This Power of Attorney is signed and sealed by a facsimile under and by the authority of the following resolution adqdpield by the Board of Directors of the Company at a meeting duly called and held on the 17th day of October 1963. "Resolved, That the signature of any officer authorized by the By-laws and the Company seal may be affixed by facsimile to any power of attorney or special power of attorney or certification of either given for the execu. tion of any bond undertaking, recognizance or other written obligation in the nature thereof;such signature and seal, when so used being hereby adopted by the Company as the original signature of such officer and the original seal of the Company, to be valid and binding upon the Company with the same force and effect as though manually affixed." IN WITNESS WHEREOF, TRANSAMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY•has caused these presents to be signed by its proper officer and its corporate seal to hereunto affixed this 13th day of October .19 89 By G.Tanner,Vice President State of California ) County of ) On this 29th day of July 01988 , before me Hazel Yamasawa,a Notary Public in and for the said County and State, residing therein, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared J.H.Tanner personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be a Vice President of TRANSAMERICA INSURANCE COM- PANY the corporation whose name is affixed to the foregoing instrument; and duly acknowledged to me that he knows the seal of said Corporation; that the seal affixed to the said instrument is such corporate seal;that it was so affixed pursuant to authority given by the Board of Directors of said corporation and that he signed his name thereto pursuant to like authority, and acknowledges same to be the act and deed of said corporation. _ OFFICIAL SEAL me HAZEL YAMASAWA NOTARY PUBLIC-CALIFORNIA PRINCIPAL OFFICE IN a-' Los ANGELES COUNTY Hazel Yamasawa,Notary Public IL My commission Expires Sep.. 30, 1988 in and for the County of Los Angeles, California Atascadero Police Services Facility 8802 Counter Window 40-f 6(3&-,D Ceramic Tile F4,. "IPY Fc-Dc a 6.006211J& Landscape �.r�'LBc�r2-rS t"7-/HSc.�oF SUBCONTRACTOR LISTING 00430-2 880? Atascadero Police Services Facilit USE ADDITIONAL SHEETS IF REQUIRED PROVIDE SIGNATURE BIDDER: IDENTICAL TO THAT LARRY WYSONG CONSTRUCTION CO . SHOWN ON THE BID FORM /► by Larry Wysong , wne END OF SUBCONTRACTOR LISTING SUBCONTRACTOR LISTIN( 00430- Transaemca Insurance Group Proy�rty and Caruatry J�,�nr f�v..I}aun>wer;ca CurporntioR Transamepica Insnpance company A STOCK COMPANY HOME OFFICE: LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA BID BOND Approved by The American Institute of Architects A.I.A. Document No-A-310 (February 1970 Edition) KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that we Larry 1rlysong Construction Company as Principal, hereinafter called the Principal, and TRANSAMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation duly organizec under the laws of the State of California, as Surety, hereinafter called the Surety, are held firmly bound unto City of Atascadero as Obligee, hereinafter called the Obligee, in the sum of Ten Percent of the AIIount Of Bid Dollars (S 10% for the payment of which sum well and truly to be made, the said Principal and the said Surety, bind ourselves,our heir. executors, administrators, successors and assigns, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents. WHEREAS, the Principal hos. submitted a bid for Atascadero Police Service Facilitv, Atascadero, Ca. Job # 8802 NOW, THEREFORE, if the Obligee shall accept the bid of the Principal and the Principal shall enter into a contract wit the Obligee in accordance with the terms of such bid, and give such bond or bonds as may be specified in the bidding o contract documents with good and sufficient surety for the faithful performance of such contract and for theprompt paymen! —f-Aahnr and material furnished in the prosecution thereof, or in the event of the failure of thePrincial to enter sucf, THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF Santa Cruz SS. On this 13th T day of October in the year 1989 before me Joe A. _errante ,a N%alr�Polic in and for the said County and State,residing therein,duly commissioned and sworn,personally appeared herr_ante personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the duly authorized Attorney-in-Fact of the TRANSAMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY the corporation whose name is affixed to the foregoing instrument; and duly acknowledged to me that he (she) subscribed the name of the TRANSAMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY thereto as Surety and his (her) own name as Attomey-in-Fact. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year in this certificate first above written. ! .•:-� s OFFICIAL SEAL .NE A.FERRM7E NOTARY KWIC-CALIFIMMIA s' 'x• SANTA caul CQNTy t � NOTARY Pj:1QLIC IN AND FOR SAID COUNTY AND STATE tr CO1'"S510M EV.ALIG.21.IM J/ 14222 CALIFOR — ACT 11-82 (NOTARY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT) • REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL Meeting Date: 11/14/89 CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: C_2 Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager From: Gary R. Sims, Senior Engineer Subject: San Andres Avenue Storm Drain Project - Tree Protection Plan Compliance Recommendation: 1 . Approve deletion of a portion of requirement 10, "All cuts within the dripline of trees to be retained are to be dug by hand, " and find that there are overriding considerations resulting in the conclusion that the benefits of the proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects. Refer to "Tree Protection Measures, " by Jack Brazeal. 2 . Proceed with the project according to the Plans and Specifications and change orders as necessary to comply with the remaining tree protection measures. • 3. Hire a certified arborist to value the four oaks in question and report the potential cost to the City Council. Have the arborist examine the four trees one year from the date of substantial completion of the storm drain project to determine if the trees should be removed. If any of the trees are to be removed the City Council can make a determination of whether or not and how much to contribute to the tree fund. Note that if trees have to be removed it will likely be at City expense. Background: The region near the intersection of San Andres, Navarette and San Marcos roads has been subject to significant flooding. Historically, a small pond has formed during high runoff events, submerging San Marcos road and the adjacent ravine. The intersection collects water from approximately 135 acres. The primary problem is that residential construction has been allowed in the bottom of a drainage swale and is now in danger of periodic flooding. • • 0 This project has been under study for a number of years but a • project of sufficient magnitude to drain a 10 year event was awarded by the City Council on September 12, 1989. The job was awarded to R. Baker Inc. for $94, 248 .50 . The notice to proceed has been issued and a substantial amount of pipe has been delivered to the construction site. At this point it is likely that the Contractor could abandon his bid if desired due to the lapse of time since award. Shortly after the bid award a change of internal procedure was implemented requiring an environmental determination for City projects. A tree protection plan was completed and on October 9, 1989 a negative declaration was issued. The difficulty arises from the tree protection plan. Item 10, "All cuts within the dripline of trees to be retained are to be dug by hand, " substantially increases the cost of the project to the City. Despite the fact that most of the project is within the paved roadway, the pipeline route passes beneath the driplines of four oak trees, for a distance of approximately 208 feet for the storm drain and 124 feet of sewer laterals. This is equivalent to approximately 227 cubic yards of excavation or 23 truck loads of material. The Contractor has indicated that to achieve compliance with item 10, the additional cost to the City, at prevailing wage • rates, would be $49,571. This would result in a total project cost of $143,819.50, not including normal contingencies. Discussion: This project illustrates the difficulty in applying some of the common assumptions of the tree protection plan system to Public Works or utility projects within street or utility rights-of-way. The large magnitude of excavated materials, problems with excavating through rock, dewatering, shoring, the depth of the trenches, and the difficulty with coupling slow hand labor with expensive excavating equipment, work to magnify the added cost of complying with the hand excavation requirement. It is unclear whether or not the scope of large scale trenching operations were envisioned when the tree protection ordinance was formulated. Options: 1 . Complete the three steps recommended above. 2 . Abandon the project and research the feasibility of obtaining Federal flood insurance for the three properties. Reimburse the $2000 . 00 drainage fee conditioned and collected for this project. 3. Proceed with the project and pay the additional • $49, 571 . Fiscal Impact: Option 1 . Proceed with original plans and specifications $94, 248 .50 Process change orders as necessary to comply with the remaining tree protection measures. Option 2 . Federal flood insurance - unknown Litigation cost - unknown Option 3. Proceed with original plans and specifications - $94, 248.50 Pay to hand excavate trenches - $49, 571 Total cost - $143, 819.50 Enclosures: "Tree Protection Plan, " Jack Brazeal Correspondence, Paul Sensibaugh • �TtF� • • _ JACK BRAZEAL TREE CONSULTANT0 WESTERNS • CHAPTER 4531 SKIPJACK LANE 1 PASO ROBLES, CA 93446 WCISA #163 (805) 227-6140 -99$OR15 October 9, 1989 Gary R. Sims Senior Civil Engineer City of Atascadero Dept. of Public Works 6500 Palma Avenue Atascadero, California 93422 805/461-5027 Tree Protection Report for: City of Atascadero San Andres Avenue Drainage Project Improvement Plan 0 Four large oak trees are impacted by this drainage improve- ment plan and tree protection measures are to be followed to insure their protection and preservation. See attached "Tree Protection Measures. " COMMENTS: Trees that exist, adjacent to paved streets, usually have root deterioration under the paved area of the street. Feeder and/or capillary roots are almost always non-existant. Large anchor and/or sinker roots can be found under the paved areas. When excavating adjacent to trees, all roots encountered larger than two inches in diameter are to be cut by hand to prevent ripping and causing severe root damage. SUMMARY: I- am concerned that contractors do not follow all the guidelines of the City Tree Protection Ordinance and Tree Protection Guide- lines. I recommend that this project be approved with the conditions of this report and that all conditions be followed implicitly by the contractor and that the City Inspectors take the responsibility to enforce these requirements for tree protection. _4 . A-p-c Brazeal , rbori.st Da • GIRT I F��O 1 JACK BRAZEAL TREE CONSULTANT WESTERN CHAPTER 4531 SKIPJACK LANE PASO ROBLES, CA 93446 WCISA #163 • - _ (805) 227-6140 TREE PROTECTION MEASURES: 1. All existing trees are to be identified and retained unless otherwise noted. 2. No cuts, fills, construction material or equipment is allowed within the dripline of trees to be retained unless otherwise noted. 3. No branches six inches or larger in diameter, one foot from the tree trunk shall be cut without prior approval of the city. 4 . Trees proposed to be removed shall be identified with a sign provided by the City and posted with a Notice of a Tree Removal permit visible from the street. 5. Temporary tree protection fences shall be installed at the dripline of all trees twenty feet or closer to any development. 6. Where development encroaches within the tree' s dripline, a tree protection fence shall be installed at the line of encroachment. 7. All tree protection fences shall be installed before the commencement of any work on the site and shall remain in place until the development has final approval. S. Encroachment within the dripline of trees to be retained shall have specific dimensions and a profile showing the extent of encroachment and tree protection measures. 9 . All tree determinations and protection measures are to be approved by the City prior to any commencement of work on this site. 10. All cuts within the dripline retained inchess to be dug by hand and all roots encountered two in diameter or larger are to be cut ba, i.e. ,ee chain- saw, axe, etc. and sealed with an approved �r RE CEJ VED SEP 1 1988 •1� \ September 13 , 1988 • S CITY MGR. Paul M. Sensibaugh \S Director of Public Works City of Atascadero 6 6500 Palma Ave. Atascadero, CA 93423 \ ` 1 Dear Sir, It is my desire to refocus your attention on the drainage problem in the area of Navarette, San Andreas and San Marcos in the vicinity of the ffigh school. I would very much appreciate a commitment as to the timing of resolution of the problem. Please consider the following chronology of events . When I purchased my home at 7455 San Marcos Ave. in August 1986, I was provided with a letter signed by you (copy attached) indicating awareness of the problem and a budget proposal to correct the problem. During a subsequent phone conversation in October 1986, you stated to me that no specific timetable had been established but the problem would be corrected "before the rainy season. Two rainy seasons since, fortunately not heavy, the problem still exists and there is no sign of the City honoring it ' s commitment. When my neighbors at 7475 San Marcos purchased their home, they were provided with a copy of a memo from you to Bob Fielding (copy attached) concerning resolution of the very same problem. In this case, the commitment from the City was a requirement for the close of escrow. This memo indicates very clearly that the regrading and possible replacement of an 18" culvert that runs under the entire width of my lot will be necessary to properly handle drainage. Also, specifics are outlined as to the costs the City forced on the builder of the home at 7475 San Marcos to construct culverts to accomodate the drainage. This memo was dated August 1, 1986. As best I can determine, it is now Sept- ember 1988 and the problem seems to have been forgotten by your- self and the City. Understand that my impatience is growing for a number of reasons . I have delayed landscaping and fencing projects for two years because of the anticipated digging and equipment that will be necessary to complete the project . It will be necessary, at my expense, to resurface my driveway because of deterioration caused by the constant flow of water coming around the corner from Nav- arette and flooding the front third of my driveway everytime it rains . This problem is now compounded by the fact that High School students park on both sides of San Marcos as a result of the school' s locked gate policy and the placement of "No Parking" signs on San Andreas . When they park with their tires in the ditch it was necessary for me to dig along the front of my property to channel water away from my driveway, it tends , obviously, to restrict the flow of water. Paul M. Sensibaugh September 13 , 1988 Page Two As previously stated, we have been fortunate over the past two years because of lower than normal rainfall and no serious damage or inconvenience has occured as a result of the City' s inefficiency in correcting the problem and honoring commitments . It seems to me that the potential liability to the City should flood damage occur would be enough to create a sense of urgency for this project , but for the time being it is my sincere hope that this letter will be sufficient and the project will in fact be completed prior to the 1988/89 rainy season. Thank you for your attention to this matter and I look forward to hearing from a representative of the City very soon. I can be reached by phone days at ( 805 ) 595-5660 and evenings at ( 805 ) 466-7573. Regards, erry P. Barton 7455 San Marcos Ave. cc: Atascadero City Manager Atascadero City Council ADMINISTRATION BUILDING • - CITY ATTORNEY POST OFFICE BOX 747 POST OFFICE BOX 606 ATASCADERO. CALIFORNIA 93423 ATASCADERO,CALIFORNIA.93423 PHONE: (805) 466-8000 PHONE: (805)466.4422 Atas-cadejCo CITY COUNCIL CITY CLERK POLICE DEPARTMENT 47 CITY TREASURER POST OFFICE INCORPORATED JULY 2. 1979 ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIAOR IA 93423 CITY MANAGER PHONE: (805) 466.8600 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT FIRE DEPARTMENT PARKS AND RECREATIONbEPARTMENT 6005 LEWIS AVENUE ATASCADERO,CALIFORNIA 93422 PHONE: (805) 466-2141 July 16, 1986 Ms. Annette Landry. Santa Lucia Properties 7401 E1 Camino Real Atascadero, CA 93422 Dear Ms. Landry: Thank you for your inquiry regarding the role that the city will play in the correction of the drainage problem in the area of the High School at San Andreas. The drainage problem in the area of Navarette, San Andreas and San Marcos is recognized by the Public Works Depart- ment in their budget proposal for the 1986-87 fiscal year. The City intends to catch the storm water at Navarette and San ° Andreas, cross under San Andreas and empty the runoff into Atascadero Creek at the point east of San Marcos. This will eliminate the flow along San Marcos to 'the south that re-enters San Andreas at the proposed outlet point. The newly developed properties along San Marcos area being conditioned to handle the overland flow as development occurs. Specifically, the lot immediately south of 7455 San Marcos has been conditioned to provide drain pipes with sufficient capacity to handle future flow (without the flow deleted by the above pro- ject. ) The existing 18" culvert at 7455 is for now, planned to remain but the flow entering the same will be greatly reduced due to the above project. Since this system is designed on the standard 10-year frequency storm, the City cannot guarantee that problems from runoff will never occur . You can be sure, however , we are committed to the above project, which will enhance the area significantly over current conditions. If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, PAUL M. SENSIBAUGH Director of Public Works City Engineer 2 -081- o, cn w NO Q W rt n ! C3. :• O n CD 0 W fD O " m D w C O OO n O N y n 0' 0 p ;� !D rt r rt E b a w E w d N. �' w n v 0o W m ~• N OCD = O w n m O W m a O fA T N W 0 rt p V. fD <D n G r7 xr a d w 00 rn rt o G 3 ° cm o c D a Ix ~• n, r m w w W rt 0 o: ? °' d 0 O �c d H.n X �.CD V d y � •�- r7 =y W ;G y » 0 rt C', t" 7ioo W oc O � ocmc� cn � ma x -+ pc� cnc� r- �_ m O arr fD dDc m 0O. O p c p N � c m � 0 5-'a c a �, � (D CL 3 L rk '+ p o n c D » Z n /mom � � r 9e � C O O b 0 O n �0 �m °' Q H. 00 rt fD Ca W» o odc� oH �n m ' ' h ° � `�. � ' m r rtn rt 0 CNNO G (D VV�\ IN '� 1 4j>4z. to O C CIN v c a y O�OO y 00 O lJl y 14) v O O y C O 7 Co MEMORANDUM TO: Bob Fielding , Chief Building Inspector FROM: Paul M. Sensibaugh, Dire` it of Public Works SUBJECT: 7475\\San Marcos (Lindsy/Yoemans) Drainage Problem DATE: August 1, 1986 Problem: The driveway for the above project crosses a roadside ditch that carries a significant quantity of storm water runoff . The design calculations assumed a head over the driveway and calculated the cubic feet per second of flow that would go through 2 12" culverts. The calculations did not solve the head and pipe size for the actual 10 year-Q or the pipe size for the given slope. Water is, therefore, assumed to back up onto the drive due to downstream obstructions. This could prohibit reasonable access to the building under minimum design standards. Solution: The downstream obstructions must be cleared which involves relocating the elevation of an 18" culvert and regrading the ditch from San Andreas to the upstream property line of the above project. The City will be constructing a storm sewer system in San Andreas this summer that will (1) pick up the flow from Navarette to keep it from entering San Marcos, and (1) that will provide an outlet basin to accomodate the outflow from the above driveway culverts. Recommendation: City: Set catch basin at San Andreas. Determine slope of ditch through project, size pipes for project drive, within 30 days of above date. Grade ditch at new slope to downstream property line of above. Remove and reset existing 18" culvert. Provide additional pipe adjacent to 18" (work to be done at a later date) Obtain right to enter on neighboring property. Developer : Grade ditch at new grade between project property lines. Lay culvert (s) as sized. by City to new grade established by City. ' Pay City $2000 for downstream mitigation of develop- ment impact. i Suggested Terms: (1) Development to Proceed Immediately ' (2) City to proceed with drainage as time and money allows. (3)* Final Inspection for building to be held ^• up until drainage work that is to be done by the developer only is completed and the $2000 is paid by the developer to Public Works to accomplish its drainge work. *Includes Occupancy The signatures below constitute an agreement to the above recommendation. PAUL M. SENSIBAUGH, Director of Public Works/City Engineer BOB FIELDING, Chief Building 01spector LI SY eveloper/0er • i i REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO AGENDA ITEM: C-3 Through : Ray Windsor , City Manager Meeting Date: 11/14/89 From: Mark Joseph , Administrative Services Director] SUBJECT: Response to Council ' s Request to Review Developer Fee Rates RECOMMENDATION: Direct Staff to conduct a Comprehensive Rate Review Study and report the findings and proposed rate adjustments to Council . BACKGROUND: Councilmember Borgeson requested Staff to review Developer Fees at Council ' s October 10, 1989 session. Since many fees and charges have not been reviewed for several years, the City Manager suggested a comprehensive review. The purpose of • this report is to outline the scope, methodology and timing of such a review. 1 . Fees to be Reviewed - The following fees could be reviewed : *Planning and Building Fees ( Including Public Works and Fire) *Development Impact Fees *Public Safety Fees (e.g . accident reports, weed abatement ) *Sewer Fees *Recreation Fees *Business License Fees (particularly as it may relate to the basis of the fee) *Miscellaneous Fees (e.g . photocopying , sale of various publications , administrative fees) . 2. Methodology - The full cost of the service mill be identified , based on direct and indirect (overhead ) costs. The actual amount proposed to be recovered will be set by Council , based upon comparison of rates in other County cities and the level of General Fund support appropriate. For example, there are public benefits gained by recreational programs and it may not be prudent to expect those programs to be fully self-supporting . In addition to the staff study, outside advisory groups or organizations would be encouraged to review and participate. This will help keep the fees realistic and help to make those fees more acceptable to those affected . Furthermore, safeguards need to be developed to avoid denying services to those least able to afford them. After the fees have been developed and adopted by Council , a Comprehensive Fee Schedule should be prepared and maintained by Administrative Services, in order to assure fees are properly charged and available for public review. 3. Timinc - Given the magnitude of the study and the substantial public comment and review, it is recommended that the general implementation date be July 1 , 1990, and that the study be initiated shortly after the first of the calendar year . Progress reports to Council could be provided. ALTERNATIVES: 1 . Consider a comprehensive study conducted by outside consultants. This would likely cost $25,000-$50,000. Although the increased fee revenue would more than offset the study ' s cost , staff feels confident the study can be conducted in-house. 2. Limit the scope of the fees considered . Council ' s concern is centered on developer fees; however , several other areas • also need review. The City ' s current operating budget is balanced , but preliminary revenue and expenditure projections suggest a tighter budget without some fee increases. In addition, fees are often considered more equitable than general tar, increases, since they are charged to the people most directly benefiting . FISCAL IMPACT: The exact amount of additional revenue is unknown at this time, depending upon the level of General Fund support . The impact of the fees on demand for services is also difficult to estimate, although a one-time demand peak can be expected immediately before certain new fees go into effect . One way to offset this would be to phase in the rates over a period of six to nine months. This may be particularly useful for Planning fees . As a final note, fees are exempt from the Proposition 4 spending limit . • REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: C-4 From: Ray Windsor, City Manage Meeting Date: 11/14/89 SUBJECT: General Plan Issues RECOMMENDATION: Staff is suggesting that a joint meeting with the Planning Commission be held on Tuesday, November 21 , 1989 . • BACKGROUND : Given the recent level of concern over various issues re- lated to the General Plan, CEQA, Growth management, etc . , and the fact that Council has indicated an interest in convening an ad- journed meeting to discuss some or all of these issues , the above recommendation is made . Background information and an agenda for the joint meeting will be prepared and distributed by staff in advance of November 21st. RW:cw ! f : landuse) 1 MEETING AGENDA -1 (C) DATE 11/14/891T=M# (Vs 5&6) rZEi'GtTS: Nov. 14, 1959 • SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT COMMISSION- The County appointed Nancy Wood, former director of ECG-SLO to direct the recycling effort for the County. Our November meeting was postponed from Nov. 2 until Nov. 17. HAZARDOUS WASTE COMMISSION: Diet Nov. 2. Still under discusion are plans for 4 collection days in the spring of 1990; now talkdd of being in June and ? ?. At a recent (Oct. 2) meeti,ig of the City Managers sub-committee on Household Hazardous Waste (our commission just received the minutes of this tweeting). They did not come to any conclusion and will have another meeting discussing siting, publicity, insurance etc. Next meeting of managers Nov. 20. A new person has been hired to provide staffing for our commission. (To me, this is all self defeating—the contract runs out, the staff person who has handled this for a year does not know if she will be rehired so she Applie�L for another job and gets it. Then they rehire, then that person has to learn from scratch what the previous person already knew. I think the County should have some consistent policy or more sensible policy on these contract jobs. ) RECYCLING COIMITTEE: Met on Nov. 2; I had a conflict so I did not attend. I had received a packet of • recycling material from the state so I delivered that. They were to discuss Goals & Objectives and hope to present some- thing to the Council either the last meeting in November or .at our December meeting. I continue to be impressed with this committee. They are all sincere with a variety of backgrounds in recycling. There is a certain amount of marking of time in getting into actually RECYCLIiuG which is what has been going on up till now. I think we are all waiting anxiously waiting for that time. Two weeks ago we heard from Wil-Liar representatives. They had just attended a conference on Recycling and had lots of good information so I think they are ready to get into the system. submitted by M. Mackey c