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 01/23/1990
LEE DAYKA DEPUTY CITY CLERK A G E N D A ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING ATASCADERO ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 6500 PALMA FOURTH FLOOR, ROTUNDA ROOM' JANUARY 23, 1990 7:00 P.M. RULES OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: * ' Members of the audience may ,speak on any item on the agenda. * A person may speak for five (5) minutes. * No one may speak for a second time until everyone wishing to speak has had an opportunity to do so. * No one may speak more than twice on any item. * Council Members may question any speaker; the speaker may respond but, after the allotted time has expired, may not initiate further discussion. * The floor will then be closed to public participation and open for Council discussion. Call to order Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call City Council Comment COMMUNITY FORUM: The City Council values and encourages exchange of ideas and comments from you, the citizen. The Community -Forum period is provided to receive comments from the public on matters other than scheduled agenda items. To increase the effectiveness of Community Forum, the following rules will be enforced: ` * A maximum of 30 minutes will be allowed for community 'Forum,- unless Council authorizes an extension. * All remarks shall be addressed to Council, as a whole, and not to any individual member thereof. * No person shall be permitted to make slanderous, profane or personal remarks against any Council Member, commissions staff. PRESENTATION BY PAVILION ARCHITECT AND REQUEST FOR DIRECTION 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. I. JANUARY 9, 1990. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 2. CITY `TREASURER 18 REPORT - DECEMBER, 1989 3 FINANCE DIRECTOR'S, REPORT_ DECEMBER, 1989 4. CLAIM OF STANLEY DeROSA - RECOMMENDDENIAL 5. DOWNTOWN PARKING ' LOT AGREEMENTS (3) (City of Atascadero w/: BIA/J. Stinchfield/D. smith) (Cont'd from 8/22/89 & 9/12/89) 6. HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE COLLECTION SvBNT B. HEARINGS/APPEARANCES: . 1. CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST TO REMOVE A HERITAGE TREE TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF A SKIMMING POOL, 8170 ATASCADERO AVE. (Mad- rigal) 2. CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST TO REMOVE TWO HERITAGE TREES TO PERMIT HOME CONSTRUCTION, 8412 ALTA VISTA ROAD (Pyo/Sherer) 3. CONSIDERATION OF TREE REMOVAL REQUEST, 13` OF HERITAGE STA- TUS, TO 'ALLOW FOR THE NXTENSION OF GARCIA ROAD (Langille/ Pippin/Vaughn) 4. ORDINANCE NO. 198 - ZONE CHANGE OS-89, 7715/7745 SINALOA- Considiratlon of proposed Planned Development Overlay Zone to allow for the creation of a small lot residential subdivision (Redesigned--Reference 11/14/89 City Council Meeting) (FIRST READING: Recommend (1) motion to waive reading of ordinance in full and approve by title only - Voice vote; (2) motion to approve Ord. No. 198 on first reading - roll call) C. REGULAR BUSINESS 1. PROPOSED URGENCY ORDINANCE RE: CLARIFICATION OF ;CREFKWAY SETBACK 2 2. ROAD STANDARDS: A. RESOLUTION NO. 6-90 - ESTABLISHING THAT THE ROAD CON- STRUCTION AGREEMENT DATED AUGUST 22, 1986 BETWEEN THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND THE GORDON T. DAVIS CATTLE CO. WILL BE HONORED B. RESOLUTION No. 7-90 -- ESTABLISHING A MINIMUM ROAD STANDARD FOR THS CONSTRUCTION OF PRIVATE AND PUBLIC ROADS 3. PROPOSAL FOR THE CITY of ATASCADERO TO OPERATE THE ATASc.A- DERO SCHOOL DISTRICT SWIMMING POOL 4. ORDINANCE NO. 203 - AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT RELATIVE TO NON-CONFORMING USES OF LAND (Zone Change 3- 89 - City of Atascadero) (SECOND READING: Recommend motion for adoption of Ord. No. 203 Roll call') 5. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA FORM 6. SCHEDULING KID-YEAR BUDGET REVIEW (Recommend 2/13/90# 5:30 P.M. ) D. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION 1 City Council: A. Committee Reports (The following represents ad hoc or stan ing commitees'. Informative status reports will be given,, as ,felt necessary. ) 1 . City/school Committee 2. North Coastal Transit 3. S.L.O. Area Coordinating Council 4. Traffic Committee 5. Solid/Hazardous Waste`Mgmt. Committee 6. Recycling Committee 7 . EconomicOpportunity Commission 8. B.I.A. 9. Downtown Steering Committee 10. General Plan subcommittee 2. City Attorney 3 City Clerk 4. City Treasurer 5. City Manager: Absence from. February 13th Council Meeting * NOTICE: COUNCIL WILL ADJOURN TO AN OPEN SESSION ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 1990 AT 5:30 P.M. IN THE 4TH FLOOR CLUB - ROOM FOR THE PURPOSE OF KID-YEAR BUDGET REVIEW. 3 REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM: CITY OF ATASCADERO (Prior to Consent Agenda, THROUGH: Ray Windsor MEETING DATE: FROM: Andrew J. Takata, Director 1/23/90 Parks, Recreation & Zoo Department SUBJECT: STATUS REPORT ON THE ATASCADERO LAKE PARK AND PAVILION ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN RECOMMENDATION: The Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed various Pavilion . design alternatives at their meeting of January 4, 1990, and recommended Scheme 3 (attached ) , with the first phase improvements at approximately $665,000. BACKGROUND: As per City Council direction, the Citizen Advisory Committee for the Atascadero Lake Park and Pavilion Master Plan have met and reached a point that requires further direction from the City Council . There are various alternatives provided related to size and cost for the Council 's review. AJ: kv Attachments ;pav4 STATUS REPORT - MASTER PLAN OF ATASCADERO LAKE PARK AND PAVILION The Citizen' s Advisory Committee for Atascadero Lake Park Master Plan have met with Department staff and Recreation Systems, Inc. (our consultants) on three separate occasions. The primary purpose of these initial meetings was to* establish the intended function of the Pavilion; to determine scope for both the building and the ultimate development of the park; and to review initial development concepts for both facilities. The meetings were productive with active participation by all parties. Early in the process, the Committee unanimously supported the concept that the Pavilion should . be designed to serve social activities for the community as a whole. Recreation programming would be secondary and could use facilities when not in use. It was also recommended that the Pavilion be located on the shoreline in the vicinity of the original structure. Discussion on the park emphasized the retention of all existing activities and uses with special attention to the preservation of the lake itself and the provision of a safe and attractive walkway or path around the water. Concern was expressed about the conglomeration of structures throughout and the treatment of the shoreline within the park proper. . A series of three pavilion schemes and two park concepts were presented at the third meeting of the Committee on November 27th. Preliminary cost estimates of the various alternatives were discussed in some detail. It became quite obvious that the desired scope, amenities and location for the pavilion could not be completed within the designated budget. It was determined that RSI would prepare additional alternatives and cost studies for submission and review by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and the City council. Specific direction on scope, location and amenities must be resolved before planning can proceed. On January 4, 1990, Mr. Ron Paige of RSI presented five alternatives for the pavilion to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. These alternatives reflected the three concepts considered by the Citizen's Advisory Committee (CAC) with two suggested modifications for phasing one of the schemes recommended by the CAC. Estimated probable costs for each scheme and phasing programs were submitted. Separate costs were prepared for a building location at grade level. The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board recommended the lake front location over the alternate level site despite possible savings of from $90,000. 00 to $120,000. 00 with the structure on grade. They also selected Scheme 3 (formally labeled Scheme 4) as the most logical solution to meet basic needs and keep costs to a minimum. It was understood that this scheme could be expanded at a later date. RSI has prepared five separate schemes involving three basic design concepts. Summaries of advantages and disadvantages are as follows: Scheme 1 is the first concept presented to the Committee following initial discussions on function and scope. It provides for banquet seating of up to 300 with the auditorium dividable to accommodate two separate activities. This scheme has limited flexibility and would be difficult to expand if desired. This plan incorporates a concession to serve the park restrooms, lobby, kitchen, storage and a small control office or reception area. Plan shows 8, 260 sq. feet. Estimated costs at lake shore - $745, 200; on level site - $620,000. Scheme 2 reflects changes in scope and function based on the CAC' s comments and concerns. It provides the same 300 banquet seating auditorium with operable wall for separation into two units. It' s primary difference involves the addition of a separate room of 1,000 square feet that has independent access to lobby and kitchen; and the inclusion of a small restroom and concession to serve outside deck users. Plan has 9,560 sq. feet. Estimated costs at lake shore - $850,000; on level site - $720,000. Scheme 2a was prepared to show a possible phasing program to reduce initial costs of Scheme 2. This scheme eliminates most of the outside deck, one third of the main auditorium, the concession and the outside restroom. Flexibility of use is limited with only two activity centers, a reduced capacity and . no outside deck other than fire exit requirements. This scheme can be expanded in the future to approximate Scheme 2 scope. Total square footage is 7, 100 sq. ft. Estimated costs at lake shore is $610,000; on level site - $580,000. Scheme 2b is similar to Scheme 2a except that it retains the outside observation deck. Both Scheme 2a and Scheme 2b would require completion. of the second phase improvements to achieve full flexibility and desired capacity. Total square footage of building is the same as 2a @ 7,100 sq. feet. This scheme adds over 1100 sq. feet of deck. Estimated costs at lake shore is $635,000; on level site - $580, 000. (Costs for expanding each of these modifications to the Scheme 2 scope would require a total cost of approximately $6,000 more than Scheme 2) . Scheme 3 is a reduced modification of Scheme 2 that retains the full flexibility and functional efficiency of Scheme 2 but limits the auditorium banquet seating to 215 instead of 300. It retains the separate meeting room that can be opened to the auditorium and can seat an additional 65 for a single function capacity of 280 people. A second phase would add the concession and deck restrooms. Estimated cost of first phase improvements is $665,000 at lake shore and $570,000 on level site. Future addition of restrooms and concession would cost an additional $60,000 for a total cost of $725,000.00. It must be clearly understood that the above costs do not include demolition and site preparation of the lake front site. It is estimated that these costs would range between $12 , 500 to $15,000.00. 1 � , 1 � • 1 �^ V LL Q 1 N _m a hL vi lu In t— T c lu in r 00 4 3 C .r cc W � n CL oO _ e ILM bw CL V m o� Y mom mmm� r v` IL U N V plan 7:1 o'foll- � L UL ted' 4 r s IW CL v w L � CL �a E CM m � Y ca � ' Sao CISp 0 hl Lu to a ac Q Y ~ — - u C iq I a In int ID II \Y o _ ca Xa o 'T L F as CL cw I N m40 u u co IL 17 10 Fo)E a� � :z Q % m � __ __.gig. h SSS hl � •R 4 LL '- T lL OL V? a ta z — — — "�- lL IL � s N 'ry Amk D -�- o � C_ w N occ �• OL :7 a "' rx � 72 i La L m 72 s Cc 'o CL co ~ CM d! .0 co � h i O s � z 40 SIN a M r 4� c V MEETiNG � c AGENDA DATE. fTEM ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 9, 1990 The regular meeting of the Atascadero City Council was called to order at 7:02 p .m. by Mayor Dexter . The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Art Montandon. ROLL CALL: Present : Councilmembers Shiers, Lilley, Borgeson, Mackey and Mayor Dexter Staff Present : Ray Windsor , City Manager ; Henry Engen, Community Development Director ; Mark Joseph , Administrative Services Director ; Bud McHale, Police Chief ; Andy Takata, Director of Parks, Recreation and Zoo ; Arther Montandon, City Attorney; Boyd Sharitz , City Clerk and Lee Dayka, Deputy City Clerk COUNCIL COMMENTS: • Councilwoman Borgeson reported that she had received some positive comments from the public regarding the noticing and enforcement of burning regulations . Councilwoman Mackey announced that the 25th Anniversary of the Atascadero Historical Society would be celebrated on Thursday, January 11th from 1 :00 to 4 :00 p .m. during an Open House in the City Museum. She extended an invitation to all . Mayor Dexter wished all a Happy New Year and invited public participation at the meetings. He reminded everyone to maintain dignity and decorum. Andy Takata introduced Michael Walsh as the newly hired custodian. PUBLIC COMMENTS : George Highland , 7275 Carmelita, urged the commercial public to conserve water . Miles Wemp , 3600 Traffic Way, stated that while he was in support of the Tree Ordinance, he felt that there should be a provision CC1/9/90 1 • for giving permission to cut down trees when they are obviously dead . Mayor Dexter explained that the Tree Ordinance is currently being rewritten and that a public hearing will be conducted on its ' completion. Doug Lewis, P.O. Box 1017 in Atascadero , asked Council to allow a burn day to allow the public to dispose of tree prunings before the predicted storm makes the area too wet for burning . Brief discussion followed regarding the need for a chipper and Councilwoman Borgeson asked that the Council put this on the agenda for a future meeting . Irene Bishop , 7151 Serena Road and representing the Atascadero Community Band , announced a fund raising concert on Tuesday, January 30, 1990 at 7:00 p .m. in the San Gabriel School Auditorium. Karen Coniglio , 7600 Graves Creek Road and representing a group of homeowners, spoke regarding their letter of November 14 , 1989 addressed to Henry Engen regarding resident concerns about Atascadero roads. She stated that the letter was distributed to the Planning Commission without the second page and presented a copy of the entire letter to each member of the Council ( see Exhibit A) . A. CONSENT CALENDAR: • 1 . DECEMBER 12, 1989 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 2. NOVEMBER 21 , 1989 JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION/CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 3. CITY TREASURER'S REPORTS — OCTOBER AND NOVEMBER, 1989 4. FINANCE DIRECTOR'S REPORTS — OCTOBER AND NOVEMBER, 1989 5. RESOLUTION NO. 2-90 — RATIFYING THE REVISED JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT FOR CENTRAL CAST CITIES SELF—INSURANCE FUND 6. RESOLUTION NO. 2-90 — RENEWING THE CITY'S ELIGIBILITY N THE FEDERAL SURPLUS PROPERTY PROGRAM 7. RESOLUTION NO. 3-90 — AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF ANNUAL CLAIM FOR TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT (TDA) FUNDS 8. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 13-89, 10955 SAN MARCOS RD.— Consideration of Planning Commission recommendation to deny CC1 /9/90 2 • request to subdivide 20. 52 ac . into two lots of 4 .52 ac . and 16.0 ac . (Highfill /Stewart ) 9. RESOLUTION ND.-4-90 — ESTABLISHING A MONUMENT WELL STANDARD FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF MONUMENT WELLS 10. S.L.O. COUNTY REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT 11 . RESOLUTION- NO. 5-90 - ADOPTING BY-LAWS FOR THE CITY 'S RECYCLING COMMITTEE 12. MEMBERSHIP IN S.L.O. COUNTY FILM COMMISSION Councilwoman Borgeson pulled item #7 for discussion. MOTION: By Councilman Shiers and seconded by Councilwoman Mackey to approve the Consent Calendar with the exception of item #7 regarding TDA funds; passed unanimously by roll call vote. Councilwoman Borgeson asked for a report from Mark Joseph , who explained that this is the Council ' s annual authorization for the allocation of funds. He reported that there was a surplus in the Dial-a-Ride program and that the excess funds would be used for street overlay programs. Councilwoman Borgeson stated that during budget review time, the Council should look at this matter and consider Saturday service for Dial-A-Ride. MOTION: By Councilwoman Borgeson and seconded by Councilman Lilley to approve Resolution 3-90 authorizing the filing of annual claim for Transportation Development Act Funds; passed unanimously by roll call vote. B. HEARINGS/APPEARANCES: 1 . PROPOSED ADOPTION OF MODEL CODES AND TITLE 8 BUILDING REGULATIONS: A. Ordinance No. 199 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO AMENDING TITLE 8 (BUILDING REGULATIONS) TO THE ATASCADERO MUNICIPAL CODE AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE, THE UNIFORM CODE FOR BUILDING CONSERVATION INCLUDING ALL APPENDICES (LATEST PRINTING) , THE UNIFORM ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, 1985 1988 EDITION, PUBLISHED BY THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF BUILDING OFFICIALS; THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE, INCLUDING APPENDIX CHAPTERS 7, 32, 35, 38, 57 AND 70, 1985 1988 EDITION, AND THE CC, /9/90 3 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE STANDARDS, ALL PUBLISHED BY THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF BUILDING OFFICIALS; THE NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE, 1987 EDITION, PUBLISHED BY THE NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION ASSOCIATION; THE UNIFORM PLUMBING CODE, INCLUDING ALL APPENDICES, 1985 1988 EDITION, AND THE IAPMO INSTALLATION STANDARDS, 1985 1988 EDITION, ALL PUBLISHED BY THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF PLUMBING AND MECHANICAL OFFICIALS AND THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BUILDING OFFICIALS; THE UNIFORM MECHANICAL CODE, INCLUDING ALL APPENDICES, 1985 1988 EDITION, PUBLISHED BY THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF PLUMBING AND MECHANICAL OFFICIALS AND THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF BUILDING OFFICIALS; THE UNIFORM SWIMMING POOL, SPA AND HOT TUB CODE, 1985 1988 EDITION, PUBLISHED BY THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE PLUMBING AND MECHANICAL OFFICIALS; THE UNIFORM SIGN CODE, 1985 1988 EDITION, PUBLISHED BY THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF BUILDING OFFICIALS; THE UNIFORM FIRE CODE, INCLUDING APPENDIX CHAPTERS I-A, I-B, I-C, II-A, II-B, II-D, II-E, III-A, III-D, IV-A, V- AND VI-A, VI- B, 1985 1988 EDITION, AND THE UNIFORM FIRE CODE STANDARDS, 1985 1988 EDITION, PUBLISHED BY THE WESTERN FIRE CHIEFS ASSOCIATION AND THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF BUILDING OFFICIALS; THE UNIFORM HOUSING CODE, 1985 1988 EDITION, PUBLISHED BY THE CODE FOR ABATEMENT OF DANGEROUS BUILDINGS, 1985 1988 EDITION, PUBLISHED BY THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF BUILDING OFFICIALS, ALL AS AMENDED. (SECOND READING: Recommend motion for adoption Ord. No. 199 Roll Call Vote) There was no discussion. MOTION: By Councilwoman Borgeson and seconded by Councilwoman Mackey to approve Ordinance No . 199 on second reading by Title only; passed unanimously by roll call vote. MOTION: By Councilman Lilley and seconded by Councilwoman Mackey to adopt Ordinance No . 199; passed unanimously by roll call vote. 2. REVISIONS TO TERMS OF PLANNING COMMISSIONERS A. Ordinance No. 200 - Amending Sections 2-9.02, 2-9.03 and 2-9.04 of the Atascadero Municipal Code revising the terms of office of the Planning Commissioners (SECOND READING: Recommend motion for adoption of Ord. No. 200 - Roll call ) CCl/9/90 4 There was no discussion. MOTION: By Councilman Shiers and seconded by Mayor Dexter to adopt Ordinance No . 200; passed unanimously by roll call vote. 3. TAPE RECORDING OF CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS A. Ordinance No. 201 - Repealing Section 2-1 . 19 of the Atascadero Municipal Code, which regulated the recordation of Council meetings (SECOND READING: Recommend motion for adoption of Ord. No. 201 - Roll call ) There was no discussion. MOTION: By Councilwoman Borgeson and seconded by Councilwoman Mackey to waive the reading and adopt by title only Ordinance No . 201 ; passed unanimously by roll call . 4. ZONE CHANGE 12-89, 2025 EL CAMINO REAL (Folkins & Folkins , Inc . ) A. Ordinance No. 202 - Amending Map 4 of the official zoning maps by rezoning certain real property at 1950/2000/2025 EI Camino Real from CN to CT (FIRST READING: Motion to ( 1 ) waive reading of ordinance in full and approve by title only - Voice vote; (2) motion to approve Ord. No. E.02 on first reading - Roll call ) Henry Engen gave staff report summarizing the request of Folkins & Folkins to change the zoning from Commercial Neighborhood to Commercial Tourist . He stated that the owners had originally requested a Conditional Use Permit to operate a cardlock gas station/mini-mart on the property, but had been turned down by the Planning Commission. The applicants were then encouraged to pursue the zone change. Mr . Engen reported that the General Plan identifies the area as Retail Commercial which could be Commercial Neighborhood , Commercial Tourist or Commercial Retail zoning and still be consistent with the Plan. He stated that the Council was only looking at a zoning change and that the site plan and follow-up were not the present issue. Based on the Findings of Approval in the Draft Ordinance, Mr . Engen recommended to waive the reading of the full ordinance, approve by title only and introduce on CC1 /9/90 5 first reading . Mr . Engen responded to Councilwoman Borgeson ' s questions regarding other CT zoned areas in Atascadero stating that there were approximately 60 acres in that zone and summarized their locations. Councilwoman Mackey asked , if the Council were to approve the zone change, what kind of review process the project would follow. Mr . Engen explained that a precise plan would be filed , neighbors would be notified and an appeal opportunity would be provided . Further Council discussion followed regarding CT and Commercial Neighborhood zoned acreage. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Dan Folkins, applicant , spoke in favor of the proposed project . He gave a brief background on his family business and elaborated on the service they wish to provide to the community. He stated that the location was ideal for freeway access and that trucks would be able to fuel up within a five minute period . He emphasized that the proposed use is not a truck stop and that the mini-mart would not sell alcoholic beverages. Robert Nimmo , 7375 Bella Vista, urged the Council to take a look at the allowable uses under CT zoning . Ardean Werner , 4999 Del Rio Road, asked the Council to consider the additional traffic generated following completion of the new elementary school . Terry O ' Farrell , 4840 Del Rio Road , spoke in opposition to the project stating that the neighborhood does not need an additional gas station/mini-mart and made reference to those already in existence. He said that it would make more sense to put this type of project in an area that is already zoned Commercial Tourist . Geraldine Brasher , 3202 Monterey Road and a member of the Planning Commission, stated that she had voted against this project because she felt that the City needs to take a serious look at the uses in CT before further decisions are made. Martin Kudlac , 4740 Del Rio Road and representing homeowners living in the area of the proposed zone change, presented a petition opposing the project (see Exhibit B) . He stated that CC1/9/90 6 if the property in question is changed to CT and a cardlock fueling facility is installed , it will have a definite impact on the safety and lives of both children and adults because of increased traffic created by large diesel trucks stopping for fuel . Mr . Kudlac debated the proposed fueling times. He further voiced the concerns of area residents by explaining to the Council that they were not against a project of this nature, but felt that the proposed property was not the right place for it . Brad Folkins, B52 Sunshine Court in Santa Maria, addressed issues brought forward by Mr . Kudlac stating that he did not foresee a large increase of big rig usage and reiterated short fueling times. He indicated that the original request was to rezone .65 acres and that it was the Planning Commission who recommended rezoning the additional lots. Randolph Lawrence, 4600 Obispo Road , opposed the proposed project because of the increase in traffic it would create. Further Council discussion followed . Henry Engen answered Council questions regarding the General Plan revision and whether or not it would reflect a change of this type. Councilman Lilley stated that he would be very uncomfortable voting for a zone change or any other modifications for this zoning until it has had a full public hearing . It was the consensus of the Council that staff needs to give a comprehensive review of allowable uses in each of the designated commercial zones, clarify the descriptions of those uses, hold public hearings and work more closely with applicants to ensure development consistent with those zones. Dan Folkins addressed the Council once more describing his company ' s original intent . He explained that they had wanted to put in a commercial fueling system only but City staff had advised that , because of the CN zoning , they provide more of a service to the community. Mr . Folkins reiterated that Folkins & Folkins is a small business, has spent a lot money to get this project going and expressed disappointment stating that now they did not know what they could do with the property. Mayor Dexter responded to Mr . Folkins stating that the City would be willing to work with him in trying to find a location for his service in Atascadero . He then asked the Community Development Director what could be appropriate zoning be for this type of service to which Mr . Engen replied Service Commercial . 0 CCl /9/90 i MOTION: By Councilman Lilley and seconded by Councilwoman Borgeson to deny the zone change request of Folkins & Folkins at 2025 E1 Camino Real ; passed unanimously by roll call vote. Mayor Dexter asked the Community Development Director to begin the process of examining the uses, particularly in the commercial zones. Mr . Engen stated that this has been identified as the key issue in the General Plan rewrite and that the revision of the Zoning Ordinance should be the City ' s number one priority project following the General Plan adoption. Mayor Dexter recognized the need for a cardlock station and asked the Folkins not to give up on the City. He stated that a suitable area could be found for such a outlet . Councilman Lilley asked the City Attorney whether the Council needed to direct staff to prepare findings consistent with the denial . Mr . Montandon stated that because the Council had a legislative act before them, there was no need to prepare findings; those are normally appropriate for quasi-judicial acts such as conditional use permits and variances. Mayor Dexter called for a recess at 8:40 p .m. The meeting was reconvened at 8:50 p .m. 5. ZONE CHANGE 3-89 (City of Atascadero) A. Ordinance No. 203 - Amending the official Zoning Ordinance Text relative to non-conforming uses of land (FIRST READING: Motion to ( 1 ) waive reading of ordinance in full and approve by title only - Voice vote; (2) motion to approve Ord. No. 203 on first reading - Roll call The Community Development Director gave staff report with recommendation to approve. Mr . Engen indicated that the applicant , Mr . L. Kent Williams, was seeking to build an additional storage building on a single family residential lot which already contains two single family dwellings (which are non-conforming ) . He stated that the current Zoning Ordinance does not permit the expansion of nonconforming uses and explained that the proposed amendment to the Zoning Text would allow for consideration by Conditional Use Permit on a case-by-case basis before the Planning Commission for unusual situations such as this. Greg Peterson, 6599 San Gabriel Road and representing the CCl /9/90 8 0 applicant , addressed the Council and stated that he was hoping to be the builder of the storage building . Mr . Peterson urged the Council to approve the ordinance and allow the property to be put to good use. Steve LaSalle, resident of Atascadero , asked what kind of impact this amendment would have on some of the historical colony houses in the City. He wondered whether it would ease some of the restrictions placed on them while allowing them to stay within the architectural integrity of their building period . Mr . Engen responded that if the historical building is a non-conforming one, a conforming expansion could be allowed . MOTION: By Councilwoman Borgeson and seconded by Councilman Lilley to waive reading of Ord . No . 203 in full and approve by title only; passed unanimously. MOTION: By Councilwoman Mackey and seconded by Councilman Shiers to approve Ord . No . 203 on first reading ; passed unanimously by roll call vote. C. REGULAR BUSINESS: 1 . PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED FOR ANALYSIS AND ACTION IN THE FIRST CYCLE OF 1990 The Community Development Director stated that the Planning Commission had reviewed four General Plan Amendment applications . On the advice of the City Manager , Mr . Engen described each proposed amendment individually. Mr . Engen gave staff report with recommendations for the following : GP 1A-90 - The property, 10060 Atascadero Avenue, is located outside the Urban Services Line. The applicants are seeking to go from Suburban Single Family to High Density Single Family. The Planning Commission concurred with staff recommendation to refer this to the General Plan Update and not proceed as a separate matter at this time. GP 19-90 - Property at 9110 Santa Barbara Road was described as a 23.5 ac . site currently designated Retail Commercial in the General Plan. The applicant is seeking a rezoning to 11 .0 acres of Recreation, 11 .0 acres of High Density Single Family and the remaining 1 .5 acres to be left as Retail Commercial . The Planning Commission concurred with staff to look at this request CCl i""9/90 9 as a separate General Plan application outside of the General Plan rewrite. Mr . Engen responded to Council questions regarding homesites, drainage and the Agricultural Preserve adjacent to the property. The Community Development Director further stated that testimony had been taken at the General Plan neighborhood meetings from people concerned about permitted uses. Staff has encouraged the applicant to move forward in this direction rather than with an RV park because it is more compatible with the objectives of those forums. Mr . Engen additionally reported that environmental analysis and further study are needed . Mr . Engen reiterated that the Council was not considering at this time approval of the requests, only to give staff direction to proceed with studies and environmental review. He added that public hearings would also be held before the Council was asked to take action. GP 1C-90 - This request involves 62 acres at 11600 E1 Camino Real where the applicant is proposing a factory outlet and entertainment center . Mr . Engen indicated that this is a unique request : A zoning change from Suburban Single Family to an undetermined General Plan and Planned Development category that would guarantee the kind of project that is being proposed . The Community Development Director reported that the recommendation of the Planning Commission is to give separate analysis to this project because it does not lend itself to making a judgment as part of the General Plan Update. He added that the project would need to go through an environmental review process, that the study area would be enlarged to allow analysis of both sides of El Camino Real and that the Urban Services Line would need to be expanded . GP 1D-90 - This request , initiated by Planning Commissioner George Luna , is to amend the text of the General Plan with regard to language on creek setbacks. It was noted that at one time, under creek policy proposals in the General Plan, access to any recreational use of the creek shall be assured by establishing building setbacks of no less than 50 feet from the bank of the creek . Mr . Engen explained that this language was deleted in 1982 or 1983 and that the Planning Commissioner is proposing to initiate a General Plan amendment to consider adding language that relates to the creek setbacks. Council concluded to take action on GP 1A-90, GP IB-90 and GP 1C- 90 as one and discuss GP 1D-90 separately. CCl /9/90 10 MOTION: By Councilwoman Mackey and seconded by Councilman Lilley to approve the Planning Commission recommendations for GP 1A-90, GP 19-90 and GP 1C-90; passed unanimously. Council continued with discussion of GP 1D-90 regarding creek setbacks. Mr . Engen clarified by stating that the request is to establish specific creekway building setback standards in the General Plan and give the Planning Commission latitude to look at additional solutions and the parallel zoning action to implement a setback strategy. Councilman Lilley asked if the Council was being asked to vote to restore the language that existed at one time. Mr . Engen responded that the Council was being asked to start the study process to bring back language that deals with appropriate setbacks along the creekway. Council discussion followed regarding creek protection and the proposed 50 foot setback and determination of such . Councilman Lilley suggested adoption of an interim ordinance that would require building permits for any structure within 50 feet of the creek to be subject to Conditional Use Permit until a specific creekway plan is finalized and adopted. Councilwoman Borgeson opposed the CUP process, stating that it was very discretionary. She supported establishing a 50 foot creekway building setback in the General Plan with exceptions only if public benefit can be shown. Mayor Dexter supported establishing a setback that would protect the creek but opposed a rigid standard without means for adjustment , such as a CUP. Lengthy Council debate followed . The City Attorney interjected by stating that the Council seems to be in agreement that something needs to be done now to protect the creekbed until it can be studied further . He observed that the Council did not want a moratorium for construction and that some exceptions should be made. Mr . Montandon reminded the Council that what they had before them was a policy review of a proposed General Plan amendment and advised that anything done quickly should be done as an emergency ordinance; one that could be brought back in a short period of time that would address all their concerns. Mr . Montandon suggested to the Council that they direct staff to prepare an interim emergency ordinance that would CC1 /9/90 11 require a strict CUP standard and that it be effective immediately upon first reading. Councilwoman Borgeson asked the City Attorney if a requirement of an emergency ordinance was to show protection of health , safety and welfare of the public . Mr . Montandon stated that those findings could be made as the creek is an aesthetic and natural resource of the City. Mr . Montandon added that an Urgency Ordinance would require a 4/5 vote of the Council to approve. Councilman Shiers stated that he would like to see any exceptions to the setback be very strict in order to protect the creek . He expressed his concerns with the CUP process and implied that there may be other ways of imposing stricter conditions on what type of development would be allowed close to the creek . Mayor Dexter clarified that there were two things before the Council : 1 ) the development of the Creekway Plan and 2) the emergency ordinance to be implemented in the interim. Henry Engen supported establishing a interim setback by developing the interim ordinance and to initiate GP 1D-90 as a study item that would carefully evaluate this issue. Further discussion ensued regarding the concept of the interim ordinance. Mayor Dexter expressed support of the such an ordinance. Councilwoman Borgeson opposed such an ordinance and to the CUP process. Councilwoman Mackey stated that she felt the Council should take a fast-track action. George Luna addressed the Council clarifying that the 50 foot setback is a minimum standard . He stated that there is no proposal to put specific setbacks in the General Plan and explained that the proposed amendment is two fold : To give clear policy by establishing minimum setbacks in a creek ordinance and. in the interim, protect the creeks and their banks as mandated in other sections of the General Plan. He stated that a CUP process, unless it establishes building setbacks, could not be consistent with the General Plan. Mr . Luna, quoting from the Planning Commissioner ' s handbook , stated that amendments should only be made when in the public interest and every commissioner or councilperson should be able to make the following four findings: ( 1 ) is the amendment in the public interest , (2) does the amendment advance community goals, (3) if the amendment creates a ripple affect necessitating other changes to the plan, are those related changes being considered at the same time and (4 ) will the amendment necessitate changes in zoning or other ordinances and are those changes to be CC1/9/90 12 considered in a reasonable time. To support his statements in favor of the proposed amendment , Commissioner Luna read portions of the Land Use Element pertaining to long term protection of environment and areas of open space available for recreation, including the banks and beds of Atascadero and Graves Creek . Additionally, Mr . Luna read excerpts from an October 1988 memo from former City Attorney Jeff Jorgenson, a portion of the Santa Cruz General Plan and the Government Code to further sustain his proposal . He urged the Council to fulfill the twelve-year old process to protect the City creeks . PUBLIC COMMENTS: Lee Rush , 7475 Carmelita, opposed the creek setbacks and stated that he owns a portion of the creek and does not want the City to tell him what he can do with his land . Mr . Rush indicated as a member of the Atascadero Homeowner ' s Association, he was not polled for his feelings on this issue. Tim O ' Keefe, 9985 Old Morro Road East , read portions of a prepared statement and resolution (Exhibit C ) submitted to the Council by the Board of the Atascadero Homeowners ' Association. He spoke supporting immediate restoration of the sentence, "Access to and recreational use of the creek shall be assured by establishing the building setback of not less than 50 feet from the bank of the creek . " back into the General Plan. He stated that the Board also supports a creek ordinance that would establish specific creek setbacks. Sarah Gronstrand , 7620 Del Rio Road , stated that she is a member of the Atascadero Homeowners ' Association. She announced that the group at-large has not heard any of the discussion and that the resolution has not been presented to them. She declared that the 50 foot setback is absurd and illogical . Mike Arrambide, 7243 Del Rio Road , voiced the need to look at case law and the property rights of those that would be affected by an arbitrary setback of this size. He stated that property owners who would be losing rights to use their property would be given an opportunity to prevail in court , in terms of having the City buy that property. Bob Nimmo , urged the Council to provide adequate public notice and give ample opportunity for public input . CCl /9/90 13 Larry Sherwin, 2755 Campo Road and creekside property owner , spoke out strongly against public access to the creek . He urged the Council to give adequate public notice before adopting an emergency ordinance stressing that he was in support of creek preservation but was against taking private property to do so . Hill Conlin, 20700 Santa Lucia, applauded the efforts to preserve the creeks but opposed the 50 foot setback standard . Mr . Conlin explained that his home is very close to the creek and that he currently is involved in what has been a long , costly process to expand his residence. He stated that a setback of this kind would make a definite impact on his family. He asked the Council to consider approving projects on a conditional basis. Celia Moss, 8040 Coromar , supported the comments of Mr . Nimmo and urged the Council to take action now. She stated that an urgency ordinance would not be locked in concrete, that it would have a time limit and would allow public testimony before the Council voted on it . Ellen Heinz , 7555 Carmelita, sympathized with problems of homeowners and supported the preservation of the creeks. Virginia Powers, 7505 Carmelita, commented that no specific action has been taken on the creek setbacks in a long time and Plan urged the Council to consider the General P la petition before them (see Exhibit D) indicating that signatures represented citizens from all parts of the City. She added that she would like to see more publicity next time the Council looks at this issue. Don Hardick , 7205 Carmelita Avenue, asserted that he did not feel anyone was proposing confiscation of land or that the City was going to force anyone to accept a walkpath across their land without compensation for it . He supported preservation of the creeks and asked the Council to take action now. Ursula Luna, resident of Atascadero , urged the Council to reinstate the minimum 50 foot setback standard to assure the protection of the creeks until the creek ordinance is written. She stated that it may be appropriate to allow exceptions. She asked the Council to delay no further and to treat this precious resource with respect and responsibility. Joan O 'Keefe, 9985 Old Morro Road East , identified herself as one of the members of the Atascadero Homeowners ' Committee that drafted the Creekway Resolution. Ms. O ' Keefe referred to discussions with Randy Rossi over the legality of 50 foot CCl /191190 14 setbacks and identified reasons for creating them. She asked the Council to take into consideration the unique rural character of Atascadero and what will be of benefit to the community versus a few individuals. Steve LaSalle of Atascadero supported the reimposition of the 50 foot setback as proposed by the Homeowners ' Association Board . Dorothy Bench , 7503 Carmelita, stated that she believed very strongly in creek preservation but opposed the blanket 50 foot setback . She further declared that each parcel should be judged on an individual basis to be fair to property owners. Ms. Bench asserted that she believed the ordinance was deleted because it was illegal and told the Council that they cannot take people ' s property. COUNCIL DISCUSSION: Mayor Dexter closed public discussion and asked the Council for some definitive action. Further Council discussion ensued regarding the emergency ordinance. Mayor Dexter clarified that the Council would not be adopting an ordinance now, but would be referring to staff to draft . He further stated that ample time would be allowed for public input . The City Manager advised that an appropriate target date for looking at a draft urgency ordinance would be February 13, 1990. Henry Engen clarified for the Council that the Planning Commission recommended GP 1D-90 to proceed as a separate action from the General Plan Update and did not discuss an emergency ordinance . He advised that if the Council wished to move faster , they should go with the urgency ordinance. MOTION: By Councilwoman Mackey and seconded by Councilman Lilley to refer the matter to the City Attorney and the Community Development Director to prepare an urgency ordinance to be brought back to the Council at the first Council meeting in February regarding the creekway; passed unanimously. It was the consensus of the Council to proceed with GP 1D-90 as a separate hearing item. The City Clerk asked the Mayor to entertain a motion to extend the meeting past 11 :00 p .m. CCI/9/90 15 MOTION: By Councilwoman Mackey and seconded by Councilwoman Borgeson to extend the meeting past 11 :00; passed unanimously. 2. CODE VIOLATIONS - LEGAL SERVICES The City Attorney gave his report with his recommendation to adopt the proposed Code Enforcement Policy and allow the retention of Roy Hanley, Attorney at Law, as the City Prosecutor . Brief Council discussion ensued supporting code enforcement . Councilman Shiers stated that many people are concerned about the backlog and that he felt the policy should get some publicity to let the public know that the Council is doing something about it . By common consensus, the Code Enforcement Policy was adopted . The City Manager advised that no vote was necessary to retain the services of Mr . Hanley, as the City Attorney ' s contract allows him to do so . 3. SELECT CITY REPRESENTATIVE TO THE COUNTY WATER RESOURCES ADVISORY COMMITTEE Mayor Dexter appointed Councilwoman Borgeson to the committee. Ms. Borgeson accepted and the City Manager volunteered to be an alternate. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION: 1 . CITY/SCHOOL COMMITTEE - Mayor Dexter reported that the next meeting was to be January 18, 1990. 2. NORTH COASTAL TRANSIT - No report . 3. S.L.O. AREA COORDINATING Council - Councilwoman Borgeson announced the next meeting would be on January 10, 1990 from 1 :30 to 4:30 p .m. in the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors Chambers to continue discussion of community transit needs . 4. TRAFFIC COMMITTEE - Councilwoman Mackey reported there had been no meeting . 5. SOLID/HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE - Councilwoman Mackey gave her report and announced May 19, 1990 as Household Hazardous Waste Clean-up Day. b. RECYCLING COMMITTEE - Councilwoman Mackey gave her report . CCi/9/90 16 7. ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION - Mayor Dexter gave his report . B. FINANCE COMMITTEE - Mayor Dexter gave his report . 9. BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION - No report . 10. DOWNTOWN STEERING COMMITTEE - Report given by HE. 11 . INTERIM GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE - No report . 12. GENERAL PLAN SUBCOMMITTEE - Mr . Engen reported . Chief Bud McHale announced that the Police Department was currently operating a radar survey and that the public may notice this equipment being used . There were no additional reports from the Council , City Attorney , City Manager , City Clerk or City Treasurer . THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 11 : 10 P.M. UNTIL THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL ON JANUARY 23, 1990. MINUTES RECORDED BY: BOYD C. SHARITZ, CITY CLERK MINUTES PREPARED BY: LEE DAYKA, DEPUTY CITY CLERK Attachments : Exhibit A (Letter and Petition re: City Roads ) Exhibit B (Petition Against Zone Change at 2025 E1 Camino Real ) Exhibit C (Atascadero Homeowners ' ) Exhibit D (Petition for Creek Setbacks ) CC"9/90 17 Meeting Agenda Date . 1/23/90 Item p_Z CITY OF ATASCADERO SCHEDULE OF CASH RECEIPTS AND TRANSFERS IN • TREASURER' S REPORT FOR THE MONTH OF DECEMBER, 1989 CASH RECEIPTS: Taxes : Property Taxes $ 517,844. 74 Sales Tax 19.7 ,342. 91 Motor Vehicle In-Lieu 48,113.15 Cigarette Tax 3, 874. 82 Miscellaneous Taxes 160. 00 Sanitation Fees 144 ,390. 62 License/Permits/Fees 68 ,817. 10 Franchise Fees 4 ,330. 70 Fines/Penalties/Overages 488. 78 Rents/Concessions 262. 02 Sales-Maps/Publications/Reports 122. 60 Police Services 449. 00 Weed Abatement 6 ,220.10 Parks and Recreation Fees 12 ,469. 69 Miscellaneous 1,186.18 Developer Fees 86 ,322.57 Zoo Receipts 3,257. 11 Dial-A-Ride 2 ,991. 04 • Lake/Park Concessions 128. 65 B. I.A. Dues 3,587. 50 Gas Tax Receipts 28,952. 91 Assessment District (3,4 , & 5) 25 ,478. 53 SUB-TOTAL 1 ,156 ,790. 72 OTHER CASH RECEIPTS : Reimbursement to expense 6 ,108. 33 TOTAL OTHER RECEIPTS 6 ,108. 33 TOTAL CASH RECEIPTS $1,162 ,899.05 • CITY OF ATASCADERO CASH ACTIVITY SUMMARY • TREASURER' S REPORT FOR THE MONTH OF DECEMBER, 1989 BEGINNING CASH RESOURCES $7 ,872 ,082. 33 ADD: RECEIPTS 1 ,162 ,899.05 FUND TRANSFERS 116 ,889. 22 LESS : DISBURSEMENTS 6-55 ,746.,81. ENDING CASH RESOURCES $8 ,496 ,123. 79 SCHEDULE OF CASH RESOURCES As of December 31, 1989 Checking Account: Mid-State Bank $ 624 ,041. 46 Certificates of Deposits : Butterfield Savings 99,000.00 9.25 12/12/89 Other Investments : Local Agency Inv. Fund 5 ,$41,000.00 8. 68 N/A • Fed Home Loan Bank-FICO 1,827 ,445.00 8. 35 12/06/89 Other Cash Resources : Petty Cash 540. 00 TOTAL CASH RESOURCES $8,496 ,123. 79 GERE SIBBACH City Treasurer • Meeting Agenda Date 1/23/90 Item#A-3 CITY OF ATASCADERO • SCHEDULE OF DISBURSEMENTS FINANCE DIRECTOR' S REPORT FOR THE MONTH OF DECEMBER, 1989 DISBURSEMENTS: Hand Warrant Register for December, 1989 $ 83,319. 84 12/8/89 Accounts Payable Warrants 105 ,873. 19 12/22/89 Accounts Payable Warrants 226 ,408. 43 Service Charge-Mastercard/Visa 5. 00 12/6/89 Payroll Checks 48297-48443 123,098. 37 12/20/89 Payroll checks 48587-48731 117,041. 98 TOTAL $ 655 ;746. 81 LESS : Voided Check #48195 88. 60 Voided Check #49346 18. 00 Voided Check #43153 39. 00 Voided Check #47940 9. 00 Voided Check #49365 21.18 Voided Check #48574 74. 00 Voided Check #49498 11,407.00 Voided Check #49514 1,017. 84 Voided Check #49504 62.27 Voided Check #49570 50.00 . SUB-TOTAL VOIDED CHECKS 12 ,786. 89 TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS $ 6:42 ,959. 92 I, MARK A. JOSEPH, do hereby certify and declare that demands enumerated and referred to in the foregoing register are accurate and just claims against the City and that there are funds available for payment thereof in the City Treasury. The breakdown detail on all accounts is available for your viewing in the Finance Office. MARK A. JOSEPH Administrative Services Director • • REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: A-4 From: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 1/23/90 SUBJECT: Claim of Stanley DeRosa RECOMMENDATION: The City' s insurance adjustor has reviewed and recommends • that Council deny Mr. DeRosa' s claim. BACKGROUND: Claimant alleges gravel on El Camino Real, 1900 Block, caused him to lose control of his motorcycle, October, 1989 . RW:cw • REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: A-5 From: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 1/23/90 Councilman Bob Lilley SUBJECT: B.I.A. Downtown Parking Lot RECOMHZNDATION: After several months of negotiations with David Smith relating to the terms and conditions of his use of a portion of the subject property, Councilman Lilley and I are now recom- mending that we move ahead with the formal approval of the (3) attached agreements related to this subject: ( 1) Lease with Option to Purchase (City-Stinchfield) (2) Assignment and Assumption of Lease with Option to Purchase (City-BIA) (3) Agreement Quitclaiming Real Property, Releasing Ease- ment and Granting Easement (City-Smith) BACKGROUND: Although we regret the undue delay in arriving at this point with the parking lot, the additional delay was not without its benefit. By this, I reference the Downtown Master Plan study which is now in draft form and which affirms the use of the sub- ject property, at least for the immediate future, as a parking lot. I think the Council would agree that having the consultant confirm the appropriateness of the intended use on this property makes for a "cleaner" decision. In light of the fact that these agreements have been for- warded to the Council previously and discussed, we are placing this under the Consent portion of the agenda for final action. • It should be noted that the delay necessitated by further neg- otiations with Mr. Smith has not resulted in any substantive modification. RW:cw MEMORANDUM City of Atascadero" f August 8, 1989 TO: Ray Windsor, City Manager FROM: Jeffrey G. Jorgensen, City Attorney SUBJECT: BIA Parking Lot Enclosed for your information and review are the revised final documents for the BIA parking lot, including the following: 1) Lease with Option to Purchase (City-Stinchfield) 2) ' Assignment and Assumption of Lease with Option to Purchase (City-BIA) 3) Agreement Quitclaiming Real Property, Releasing Easement, and Granting Easement (City-Smith) These documents have been distributed to the various parties for review and execution with the understanding that no final agreement will be entered into until reviewed and approved by the City Council at a public meeting. Once the executed documents have been • returned to me, we can schedule an agenda item before the City Council. At this point, I am hoping to place it on the August 22, 1989 agenda. If you or any other affected department head have questions, comments, or proposed changes, please let me know immediately. The various documents reflect the original memorandum of understanding as refined through negotiations over the past several months. I would hope that no significant changes would be required at this point. Finally, I would note that the lending commitment from Santa Lucia National Bank has been extended for a period of 18 months from August 3. 1989 at my request. Mr. Cherry, president of Santa Lucia, was most helpful in this regard, and the additional time may be helpful to complete the project. If you have further questions or comments concerning this matter, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincere y, RE JORGENSEN City Attorney JGJ: fr A:MMATA292 Enclosures cc: City Council Community Development Director Public Works Director Administrative Services Director LEASE WITH OPTION TO PURCHASE THIS LEASE is made this 1st day of August, 1989, between STINCHFIELD FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. , a California corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Landlord") , whose address is 7350 E1 Camino Real, P.O. Box 989, Atascadero, California 93423, and the CITY OF ATASCADERO, a municipal corporation of the state of California (hereinafter referred to as "Tenant") , whose address is 6500 Palma Avenue, Atascadero, California 9342211 who agree as follows: This lease is made with reference to the following facts i and objectives: A. Landlord is the owner of the premises described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, which consist generally of two unimproved parcels of approximately 2,250 square feet each. B. Tenant is willing to lease the premises from Landlord pursuant to the provisions stated in this lease. C. Tenant wishes to lease the premises for purposes of constructing and operating a public parking lot. D. Tenant has examined the premises and is fully informed of their condition. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby agreed by and between the parties as follows: 1 1. Premises. Landlord leases to Tenant and Tenant leases from Landlord the real property located in the City of Atascadero, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, described in Exhibit "A". 2. Ingress and Egress. Tenant shall have full and unimpaired access to the premises at all times. 3. Term. The term of this lease shall be for a period of three (3) years, and shall commence September 1, 1989 and shall expire August 31, 1992 . 4. Rent. Tenant shall pay to Landlord as minimum monthly rent, without deduction, setoff, prior notice, or demand, the sum of Four Hundred Dollars ($400.00) , which sum is subject to possible adjustment as provided in Paragraph 6, per month, in advance, on the first day of each month, commencing on the date the term commences, and continuing during the term. Minimum monthly rent for the first month or portion of it shall be paid on the day the term commences. Minimum monthly rent for any partial month shall be prorated at the rate of 1/30th of the minimum monthly rent per day. All rents shall be paid to Landlord at the address to which notices to Landlord are given. 5. Negation of Partnership. Landlord shall not become or be deemed a partner or a joint venturer with Tenant by reason of the provisions of this lease. 6. Real Property Taxes. Tenant shall pay all increases in real property taxes, whether the increases result from 2 increased rate and/or valuation levied and assessed against the premises, over and above those real property taxes levied and assessed against the premises for the base year, which is 1988-89. Each year Landlord shall notify Tenant of the real property taxes, and together with such notice shall furnish Tenant with a copy of the tax bill, including the tax bill for the base year. Tenant shall reimburse Landlord for the increase in the real property taxes semi-annually, not later than ten (10) days before the taxing authority's delinquency date or ten (10) days after receipt of the tax bill, whichever is later. 7. Use. Tenant shall use the premises for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a parking lot, open to the public on a nonexclusive basis, and for no other use without Landlord's consent. Tenant shall have the right to make all improvements deemed by Tenant to be necessary to grade, level, prepare, pave, stripe, landscape, and any other activities incident thereto, the premises for public parking on a nonexclusive basis for the benefit of the downtown area. 8. Maintenance. Tenant, at its cost, shall maintain, in good condition, all portions of the premises, including, without limitation, all Tenant's personal property, and any improvements made by Tenant to the premises. 9. Mechanics' Liens. Tenant shall pay all costs for construction done by it or caused to be done by it on the 3 premises as permitted by this lease. Tenant shall keep the premises free and clear of all mechanics' liens resulting from construction done by or for Tenant. 10. Exculpation of Landlord. Landlord shall not be liable to Tenant for any damage to Tenant or Tenant's property from any cause. Tenant waives all claims against 'Landlord for damage to person or property arising for any reason, except that Landlord shall be liable to Tenant for damage to Tenant resulting from the acts or omissions of Landlord or its authorized representatives. 11. Indemnity. Tenant shall hold Landlord harmless from all damages arising out of any damage to any person or property occurring in, on, or about the premises, except that Landlord shall be liable to Tenant for damage resulting from the acts or omissions of Landlord or its authorized representatives. Landlord shall hold Tenant harmless from all damages arising out of any such damage. A party's obligation under this paragraph to indemnify and hold the other party harmless shall be limited to the sum that exceeds the amount of insurance proceeds, if any, received by the party being indemnified. 12. Public Liability and Property Damage Insurance. Tenant, at its cost, shall maintain public liability and property damage insurance with a single combined liability limit of $1, 000, 000.00, and property damage limits of not less than $100, 000.00, insuring against all liability of Tenant and 4 . its authorized representatives arising out of and in connection with Tenant's use or occupancy of the premises. All public liability insurance, and property damage insurance, shall insure performance by Tenant of the indemnity provisions of Paragraph 11. 13 . Assignment. Tenant shall not voluntarily assign or encumber its interest in this lease or in the premises, or sublease all or any part of the premises, or allow any other person or entity (except Tenant's authorized representatives) to occupy or use all or any part of the premises, without first obtaining Landlord's consent. Any assignment, encumbrance, or sublease without Landlord's consent shall be voidable and, at Landlord's election, shall constitute a default. No consent to any assignment, encumbrance, or sublease shall constitute a further waiver of the provisions of this paragraph. Notwithstanding any of the above provisions, Tenant shall have the right, without Landlord's consent, to assign this lease and the option provisions of Paragraph 18 to the Atascadero Business Improvement Association ("BIA") , or a public agency or nonprofit organization, for the purpose of providing public parking on a nonexclusive basis, within a period of three (3) years from the commencement of this agreement. 14 . Landlord's Entry on Premises. Landlord and its authorized representatives shall have the right to enter the 5 premises at all reasonable times for any of the following purposes: a. To determine whether the premises are in good condition and whether Tenant is complying with its obligations under this lease. b. To do any necessary maintenance and to make any restoration to the premises that Landlord has the right or obligation to perform. Landlord shall conduct its activities on the premises as allowed in this paragraph in a manner that will cause the least possible inconvenience, annoyance, or disturbance to Tenant. 15. Landlord's Title to Premises. Landlord represents to Tenant that Landlord has full authority to enter into this lease and that Landlord has fee title to the premises. 16. Notice. Any notice, demand,. request, consent, approval, or communication that either party desires or is required to give to the other party or any other person shall be in writing and either served personally or sent by prepaid, first-class mail. Any notice, demand, request, consent, approval, or communication that either party desires or is required to give to the other party shall be addressed to the other party at the address set forth in the introductory paragraph of this lease. Either party may change its address by notifying the other party of the change of address. 6 17. Recordation. This lease shall not be recorded, except that if either party requests the other party to do so, the parties shall execute a memorandum of lease in recordable form setting forth the relevant provisions of this lease 18. Grant of Option to Tenant. Landlord grants to Tenant the option to purchase the premises in accordance with the provisions of this lease, as long as Tenant is not in default at the time Tenant exercises the option. 19. Option. Tenant shall have the right to exercise the option to purchase at any time during the term of this lease. 20. Method of Exercising option. Tenant shall exercise the option by giving notice ("option notice") to Landlord within the option period as set forth in Paragraph 19. 21. Purchase Price. The purchase price of the premises shall be Forty Thousand Dollars ($40,000.00) , payable in accordance with Paragraph 22 . 22. Method of Payment. Tenant shall pay to Landlord a cash down payment, in lawful money of the United States, Five Thousand Dollars ($5, 000.00) upon exercise of .the option. The remainder of the purchase price shall be payable to Landlord by Tenant at close of escrow (the date the grant deed is recorded as provided in Paragraph 24. 23 . Title to Premises. Landlord shall deliver to Tenant an executed grant deed in recordable form conveying the premises. Title to the premises shall be conveyed by Landlord to Tenant free and clear of all liens, encumbrances, 7 covenants, conditions, restrictions, easements and rights-of- way of record, leases or other tenancy agreements, and any other matters of record, except current taxes, a lien not yet delinquent, those portions of current assessments not yet due and payable, anything of record or not of record that in any way affects title to the premises resulting from the acts or omissions of Tenant, and those items in Exhibit NBn. 24. Escrow. The sale shall be consummated through an escrow with Ticor Title Insurance Company, San Luis Obispo, California (mEscrowholderm) , to be opened within ten (10) days after the option notice has been given to Landlord. Escrow shall be deemed to be opened under this paragraph on the date the escrow number is obtained. The parties shall execute all documents required by Escrowholder as long as they are consistent with the provisions of this lease. Escrow shall close within thirty (30) days after the option notice has been given to Landlord. Escrow shall be deemed to be closed pursuant to this paragraph on the date the grant deed is recorded. 25. Title Insurance. At the close of escrow, Escrowholder must be prepared to issue a CLTA standard coverage policy of title insurance in the amount of the purchase price insuring title to the premises vested in Tenant subject only to the matters set forth in Paragraph 23 . 26. Closing Costs. Transfer taxes and recording fees on the deed shall be paid equally between the parties. The cost 8 of the title policy referred to in Paragraph 25 shall be paid by Landlord-Seller. Charges of escrow and all other closing costs shall be paid equally between the parties. 27. Nonassianability of Option. Tenant shall not assign its interest, or any portion of its interest, in the option granted by Paragraph 18, except as provided in Paragraph 13, without Landlord's consent. 28. Close of Escrow; Termination. On close of escrow, this lease shall terminate, and the parties shall be released from all liabilities and obligations under this lease. 29. Attorneys' Fees. If either party commences an action against the other party arising out of or in connection with this lease, the prevailing party shall be entitled to have and recover from the losing party reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit. 30. Holding Over. Any holding over of tenancy by Tenant beyond the term of this lease, with the express or implied consent of Landlord, shall be a month-to-month tenancy only, unless otherwise specifically agreed upon in writing by Landlord and Tenant. 31. Default. Tenant agrees (i) that should default be made in the payment of any rents herein reserved, or (ii) should Tenant fail to perform or observe any other covenant, condition or agreement herein contained (other than nonpayment of rent) and such default continues for a period of ten (10) days after written notice thereof, or (iii) should the leased 9 premises be vacated or abandoned, Landlord may, at its option, (a) remain out of possession of the leased premises and continue to enforce all of the terms and conditions of this lease, which shall include the right to recover from Tenant each installment of rent as it becomes due, or (b) enter upon and repossess the leased premises and terminate this lease and all rights of Tenant under it and to the leased premises. Tenant agrees that re-entry by Landlord shall not release Tenant from any liability which would otherwise attach or accrue under this lease or for any loss, damage or liability which Landlord may suffer prior to termination of this lease. In the event of any default as aforesaid, Landlord may pursue any of the foregoing remedies or seek any other remedy or enforce any right to which Landlord may by law be entitled. 32. Termination by Tenant. Tenant may terminate this agreement at any time, without cause, upon the giving of sixty (60) days advance written notice to Landlord. 33 . Time of Essence. Time is of the essence of each provision of this lease. 34. Consent of Parties. Whenever consent or approval of either party is required, that party shall not unreasonably withhold such consent or approval. 35. Successors. This lease shall be binding on and inure to the benefit of the parties and their successors, assigns, and personal representatives. 10 r 36. Integrated Agreement; Modification. This lease contains all the agreements of the parties and cannot be amended or modified except by a written agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this lease in duplicate the day and year first above written. LANDLORD: STINCHFIELD FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. , a California corppration By Da JACX\STIRCHFIELD TENANT: CITY OF ATASCADERO, a municipal corporation By ROLLIN DEXTER, Mayor ATTEST: BOYD C. SHARITZ, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: ARTHER R. MONTANDON, City Attorney JGJ:fr/8/3/89 C:LSATA695 M Exhibit "A" Property Description Lots 23 and 24 in Block MF Atascadero, in the City of Atascadero, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, according to Amendment "W" to map of Atascadero, filed for record August 7, 1929 in Book 4, Page 67D of Maps. Said land is also shown on Licensed Survey filed for record July 12, 1982 in Book 43, Page 26 of Record of Surveys. 12 Exhibit "B" Easements, Rights, Rights-of-Way, Covenants, Conditions, and Reservations of Record 1. Such rights, rights-of-way, and easements as were granted to Atascadero Mutual Water Company by deed recorded in Book 113, at Page 56 of Deeds. 2 . Rights, rights-of-way, easements, conditions, restric- tions, covenants, and reservations imposed by deeds for other lots in said tract as part of a general plan for the improvement thereof, one of which was: Recorded: November 13 , 1925 in Book 7, Page 286 of Official Records. Executed by: The Atascadero Estates, Inc. , a corporation. Which provide that a violation thereof shall not defeat or render invalid the lien of any mortgage or deed of trust made in good faith and for value. Excluding and omitting, however, any such covenant or restriction based on race, color, religion, or natural origin (if any) contained in the instrument above referred to. 13 l ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION OF LEASE WITH OPTION TO PURCHASE THIS AGREEMENT is made this 1st day of August, 1989, between the CITY OF ATASCADERO, a municipal corporation of the State of California (hereinafter referred to as /°'Cityn) , whose address is 6500 Palma Avenue, Atascadero, California 93422, and the BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION, an unincorporated California nonprofit association (hereinafter referred to as "BIA") , whose address is P.O. Box 1607j , Atascadero, California 93423, who agree as follows: - This Agreement is made with reference to the following facts and objectives: A. City has entered into a lease agreement (with option to purchase) (hereinafter referred to as the NLease") dated August 1, 1989, with Stinchfield Financial Services, Inc. for two unimproved parcels of land in the City of Atascadero, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, more particularly described as follows: Lots 23 and 24 in Block MF Atascadero, in the City of Atascadero, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, according to Amendment "W" to map of Atascadero, filed for record August 7, 1929 in Book 4, Page 67D of Maps. Said land is also shown on Licensed Survey filed for record July 12, 1982 - in Book 43, Page 26 of Record of Surveys. 1 for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a parking lot which shall be open to the public on a nonexclusive basis for the benefit of the downtown area of Atascadero. A copy of said Lease has been made available by City, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged by BIA. -=B. Consistent with the above-referenced Lease, City intends to- improve Lots 23 and 24 as aarkin facility P g f cility in a manner- deemed appropriate b City,y, to include, at the discretion of City, any immediately adjacent publicly-owned property. C. The Lease provides for an option to purchase Lots 23 and-24 by City, which lease and option may be assigned by City to BIA,•- and BIA desires to assume said lease and option to purchase Lots 23 and 24 for use forublic parking,P P g, subject to certain terms and conditions. D. BIA has obtained a lending commitment from Santa Lucia National Bank to facilitate the purchase of Lots 23 and 24 by BIA. A copy of said lending commitment is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby agreed by and between the parties as follows: 1. Within the period of the lending commitment set forth in Exhibit "A" of this Agreement, City shall improve Lots 23 and 24 as a parking facility in a manner deemed appropriate -by City, to include, at the discretion of City, any immediately adjacent publicly-owned property, for use as a 2 parking lot, open to the public on a nonexclusive basis, for the benefit of the downtown area of the City of Atascadero. 2. Upon completion of the above-referenced parking facility by City within the period of the lending commitment set forth. in Exhibit "A" of this' Agreement, City shall transfer and assign, and BIA shall assume, all of City's right, title, and interest as tenant under the Lease. Further, BIA shall, upon written demand from City, immediately execute the option to purchase contained in said Lease pursuant to the terms thereof, and subject to the following conditions: (a)• The maximum obligation of BIA under the purchase option shall be Thirty Thousand Dollars ($30, 000.00) , representing the loan commitment from Santa Lucia National Bank as specified in Exhibit "All Upon written demand from City, as specified above, BIA shall immediately take any and all steps necessary to consummate said loan so that escrow may close in the manner specified in the Lease. In addition, BIA shall pay all closing costs as specified in Paragraph 26 of the Lease, any transaction costs required by Santa Lucia National Bank, and any other costs, expenses, charges, or fees of any kind whatsoever associated with the sale and transfer of Lots 23 and 24, including, but not limited to, title insurance, recording fees, and taxes. (b) The maximum obligation of City under the purchase option shall be Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000. 00) , of 3 which City shall pay the sum of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00) as specified in Paragraph 22 of the Lease upon exercise of the option to purchase, as a down payment, and an additional Five Thousand Dollars ($5, 000. 00) , being the balance of -the purchase price, at close of escrow. (c) Upon close of escrow, and at all times thereafter, BIA shall operate and maintain Lots 23 and 24, at its sole cost and expense, as a parking lot, open to the public on a nonexclusive basis for the benefit of the downtown area of the City of Atascadero. (d) In the event a parking authority or agency, or any other public, quasi-public, or nonprofit entity is created for the purpose of construction, operation, and/or maintenance of parking facilities in the downtown area of Atascadero, or in the event BIA shall cease to exist or operate for whatever reason, BIA, and its successors, shall cooperate with City and take any and all steps necessary to transfer its interest in the parking lot which is the subject of this Agreement to said authority, agency, or entity without cost and in consideration of the assumption of operation, maintenance, and taxes by said authority, 'agency, or entity. 3. Negation of Partnership. City shall not become or be deemed a partner or a joint venturer with BIA by reason of the provisions of this Agreement. 4. Notice. Any notice, demand, request, consent, approval, or communication that either party desires or is 4 required to give to the other party or any other person shall be in writing and either served personally or sent by prepaid, first-class mail. Any notice, demand, request, consent, approval, or communication that either party desires or is required to give to the other party shall be addressed to the other party at the address set forth in the introductory paragraph of this Agreement. Either party may change its address by notifying the other party of the change of address. 5. Time of Essence. Time is of the essence of each provision of this Agreement. 6. Consent of Parties. Whenever consent or approval of either party - is required, that party shall not unreasonably withhold such consent or approval. 7. Successors. This Agreement shall be binding on and inure to the benefit of the parties and their successors, assigns, and personal representatives. 8. Integrated Agreement; Modification. This Agreement contains all the agreements of the parties and cannot be amended or modified except by a written agreement. 5 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement in duplicate the day and year first above written. BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION, an unincorporated California nonprofit association By By CITY OF ATASCADERO, a municipal corporation BY ROLLIN DEXTER, Mayor ATTEST: BOYD C. SHARITZ, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: ARTHER R. MONTAN-DOR,- City Attorney JGJ:fr/8/8/89 C:LSATA701 6 CONSENT OF LANDLORD As landlord to that certain .Lease With Option to Purchase dated August 1, 1989 (the "Lease"') , between Stinchfield Financial Services Inc. and the City of Atascadero, I have reviewed the above agreement and hereby consent to the assignment and assumption of the lease to the Business Improvement Association pursuant to the terms contained herein. STINCHFIELD FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. , a California corporation B Y JACK STINCHFIELD 7 ";N3 r SANTA LUCLA NATIONAL BANK August 3, 1989 City Council City of Atascadero 6500 Palma Ave. Atascadero, CA ' 93422 Dear Councilpersons: Santa Lucia National Bank would like to help the Atascadero B.I.A. in their efforts to obtain parking for the downtown. It is our understanding that the B.I.A. wants to purchase the lot behind Grisanti Hardware for downtown parking. Santa Lucia National Bank would be willing to finance the lot for the B.I.A. under the following terms and conditions: Terms Interest rate at Wall Street Prime minus 1%, floating, fully amor- tized over 15 years or Wall Street Prime, fixed for five years at prime, fully amortized over fifteen .-years. The bank would charge no points or fees but would collect for our out-of-pocket title insurance, recording fees, etc. The maximum loan amount would be $30,000. Conditions Our lien must be in a first position. All parking lot improvements must be completed prior to our funding. In addition to above improvements at least $10,000 cash equity must exist in the lot purchase. This offer to finance is good for eighteen months from August 3, 1989. Sincerely, /tanleyy R. Cherry President SRC:cf cc: File Exhibit "A" (805) 466-7087 •. P.O. BOX 6047 • 7480 EL CAMINO REAL • ATASCAD£RO. CA__93423 AGREEMENT QUITCLAIMING REAL PROPERTY, RELEASING EASEMENT, AND GRANTING EASEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made this 1st day of August, 1989, between DAVID K. SMITH and CHARLOTTE W. SMITH, husband and wife (hereinafter referred to as "Smith") , whose address is 5801 Traffic Way, P.O. Drawer B, Atascadero, California 93423, and the CITY OF ATASCADERO, a municipal corporation of the State of California (hereinafter referred to as "City") , whose address is 6500 Palma Avenue, Atascadero, California 93422. This agreement is made with reference to the following facts and objectives: A. City has entered into a lease agreement (with option to purchase) dated August 1, 1989, with Stinchfield Financial Services, Inc. , for two unimproved parcels of land in the City of Atascadero, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, more particularly described as follows: Lots 23 and 24 in Block MF Atascadero, in the City of Atascadero, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, according to Amendment "W" to map of Atascadero, filed for record August 7, 1929 in Book 4, Page 67D of Maps. Said land is also shown on Licensed Survey filed for record July 12, 1982 in Book 43, Page 26 of Record of Surveys. for the construction, operation, and maintenance, either by itself or its assignee, of a parking lot which shall be open to the public on a nonexclusive basis for the benefit of the 1 downtown area of Atascadero. A copy of said lease has been made available by City, receipt of which is hereby acknowl- edged by Smith. B. Smith is the owner of an easement for parking and incidental purposes over and upon the Southeasterly 39 feet of the above-referenced Lot 23, as more particularly described in Exhibit NA" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Said easement is for the benefit of that certain real property in the City of Atascadero owned by Smith, as more particularly described in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. C. City, or its assignee, desires to purchase, construct, operate, and maintain the above-referenced lot for public parking free and clear of the easement currently owned by Smith. D. Smith is willing to transfer, remise, release, and quitclaim any interest he may have . in the above-referenced easement to City, or its assignee, provided City, or its assignee, grants to Smith a new easement on a nonexclusive basis. - NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby agreed by and between the parties as follows: 1. For valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, Smith hereby agrees to remise, release, and forever quitclaim any interest he may have in that certain property located in the City of Atascadero, County of San Luis 2 Obispo, State of California, described in Exhibit "A", being an easement for parking and incidental purposes, pursuant to a quitclaim-release of easement in the form as specified in Exhibit "C" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, which shall be deposited into escrow and recorded by City, or its assignee, at such time as City, or its assignee, purchases the above-referenced Lot 23 pursuant to the lease agreement specified in Paragraph A above. 2. In consideration for the above-referenced quitclaim- release of easement, City, or its assignee, hereby covenants and agrees as follows: (a)• City, or its assignee, shall execute a new easement for parking purposes for four (4) parking spaces on a nonexclusive basis in the form as specified in Exhibit "D" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, which shall be recorded by City, or its assignee, concurrent with the recordation of the quitclaim deed described in Paragraph 1 above, at such time as City, 'or its assignee, purchases the above-referenced Lot 23. (b) In the event the parking lot contemplated by the lease agreement between City and Stinchfield Financial Services, Inc. , dated August 1, 1989, is not completed by City, or any permitted assignee, and said lease (together with the option to purchase contained therein) is terminated, for whatever reason, this agreement and any warranties contained herein shall cease and be of no further force and effect. 3 3 . At all times during the term of the lease referred to in Paragraph A above, City, or its assignee, shall have the right to enter upon Lot 23, including the easement area owned by Smith, for the purpose of construction, operation, and maintenance of a parking lot open to the public on a nonexclusive basis. City, or its assignee, shall have the right to make all improvements deemed by City, or its assignee, to be necessary to grade, level, prepare, pave, stripe, landscape (and to conduct any other activities incident thereto) the premises for public parking. Upon completion of said parking lot, Smith shall have the right to use said parkin lot, on a nonexclusive basis, together with other members of the general public, and this right to use of any available spaces not to exceed four, shall not be subject to any municipally imposed fees for parking and shall only be subject to those other restrictions that may from time-to-time be applied to the public generally. 4. This agreement shall be binding on and inure to the benefit of the parties and their successors, assigns, and personal representatives. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this agreement in duplicate the day and year first above written. SMITH: DAVID K. SMITH CHARLOTTE W. SMITH 4 CITY: CITY OF ATASCADERO, a municipal corporation By ROLLIN DEXTER, Mayor ATTEST: BOYD C. SHARITZ, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: City Attorne f JGJ:fr/7/31/89 C:AGATA706 5 . Exhibit "A" Description of Easement An easement for parking purposes over and upon the Southeasterly 39 feet of Lot 23 in .Block MF of Atascadero, according to amendment "W" to map of Atascadero recorded August 7, 1929 in Book 4, at Page 67D of Maps. Exhibit "B" Real Property Benefitted by Easement Lot 1 in Block MF of Atascadero according to amendment "J" to map of Atascadero recorded March 31, 1924 in Book 4, at Page 67D of Maps. Except therefrom that portion thereof or those portions thereof lying within the lines of Traffic Way and South Mall, as shown on the map above referred to. �After recording return to:Exhibit "C" Mail tax statements to: A.P.N. QUITCLAIM - RELEASE OF EASEMENT FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby Acknowledged, DAVID K. SMITH and CHARLOTTE W. SMITH, husband and wife (hereinafter referred to as NSmith") , do hereby remise, release, and forever quitclaim any right, title, and interest Smith may have in that certain real property located in the City of Atascadero, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, described as follows: An easement for parking purposes over and upon the Southeasterly 39 feet of Lot 23 in Block MF of Atascadero, according to amendment "W" to map of Atascadero recorded August 7, 1929 in Book 4, at Page 67D of Maps. This quitclaim deed is given specifically to release the easement granted by that certain grant deed dated April 16, 1975, and recorded -June 18, 1975, in Vol. 1838, Page 659, as Document No. 19032,of, the Official Records of San Luis Obispo County, California. Executed on , 1989, at Atascadero, San Luis Obispo County, California. �l DAVID K. SMITH CHARLOTTE W. SMITH JGJ: fr/8/3/89 C:AGATA698 Acknowl edctment STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ) ss. - On this day of in the year 1989, before me, , a notary public, personally appeared DAVID K. SMITH and CHARLOTTE W. SMITH, personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the persons whose names are subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged that they executed it. Witness my hand and official seal. Notary Public for the State of California My commission expires: [Notary Seal] , 19 Recording requested by Exhibit "D" When recorded mail to: CITY OF ATASCADERO 6500 Palma Avenue Atascadero, CA 93422 A.P.N. GRANT OF EASEMENT THIS AGREEMENT made this day of 1989, by and between [the CITY OF ATASCADERO, a municipal corporation of the State of California, or its assignee, ] (hereinafter referred to as "Grantor" ) , and DAVID K. , SMITH and CHARLOTTE W. SMITH, husband and wife (hereinafter referred to as "Grantee") . i WHEREAS Grantor is the owner of certain real property in the City of Atascadero, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, hereinafter referred to as the "Servient Tenement", and described as follows: Lot 23 in Block MF of Atascadero, according to Amendment "W" to map of Atascadero, recorded August 7, 1929 in Book 4 at Page 67D of Maps. WHEREAS, Grantee desires to acquire certain rights in the Servient Tenement NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed as follows: 1. Grant of Easeme t. For valuable consideration, Grantor hereby grants to Grantee an easement as hereinafter described. 2. Character o Easement. The easement granted herein is an easement in gross. 3. Description of Easement. The easement granted herein is an easement for parking purposes equivalent to four (4) parking spaces on a nonexclusive basis, and not subject to municipally imposed fees and subject only to the same rules and regulations as from time-to-time may be applied to the public generally. 4. Location. The easement granted herein is located as follows: Lot 23 in Block MF of Atascadero, according to Amendment "W" to map of Atascadero, recorded August 7, 1929 in Book 4 at Page 67D of Maps. 5. Entire Agreement. This instrument contains the entire agreement between the parties relating to the rights herein granted and the obligations herein assumed. Any oral representations or modifications concerning this instrument shall be of no force and effect, excepting a subsequent modification in writing, signed by the party to be charged. 6. Attorney's Fees. In the event of any controversy, claim, or dispute relating to this instrument or the breach thereof, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover from the losing party reasonable expenses, attorney's fees, and costs. _ 7. Binding Effect. This instrument shall bind and inure to the benefit of the respective heirs, personal repre- sentatives, successors, and assigns of the parties hereto. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this instrument the day and year first above written. GRANTOR: GRANTEE: CITY OF ATASCADERO, a municipal corporation DAVID K. SMITH By ROLLIN DEXTER, Mayor Q TTE W. SMITH ATTEST: BOYD C. SHARITZ, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: ARTHER R. MONTANj1W City Attorney _ JGJ: fr/8/3/89 C:AGATA707 Acknowledccments STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ss- -On s.-On this day of in the year 1989, before me, , a notary public, Personally appeared DAVID K. SMITH and CHARLOTTE W. SMITH, personally known to me (or proved - to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the persons whose names are subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged that they executed it. Witness my hand and official seal. Notary Public for the State of California My commission expires: [Notary Seal]- 19 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ) ss. On this day of , 1989, before me, , a Notary Public, - State of Cali- fornia, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared ROLLIN DEXTER; known to me to be the Mayor, and BOYD C. SHARITZ, known to me to be the City Clerk, respectively, of the CITY OF ATASCADERO, a municipal corporation of the State of California, that executed this instrument, and known to me to be the persons who executed this instrument on behalf of said municipal corporation therein named, and acknowledged to me that such municipal corporation executed it. Witness my hand and official seal. Notary Public for, the State of California My commission expires: [Notary Seal] , 19 REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: A-6 From: Ray Windsor, City Manager '� a Meeting Date: 1/23/94 SUBJECT: Household Hazardous Waste Collection Event RECOMMENDATION: • Council confirm the City' s intent to participate in this one-day, County-wide event, as requested per the attached memo from the County Health Director. BACKGROUND: Inasmuch as Council has already formally indicated its agreement to participate in this program under a per capita funding formula, it would appear that the only question to be resolved concerns the site which will serve as the County Opera- tions Center. As pointed out by Dr. Rowland, it is intended to have the site on County property located on Kansas Avenue in San Luis Obispo. In light of the fact that Dr. Rowland points out that this site is the only one which meets the State criteria, it would appear that we have few options in the matter. Under the circumstances, I am placing this on your Consent Calendar for final action. RW:cw County of San Luis Obispo Department of Public Health MEMORANDUM To : CITY MANAGERS Date JANUARY 8 1990 RECP- 1VED From G. B. ROWLAND, M.D. JAN 101990 HEALTH AGENCY DI CITY MGR. SUBJECT : HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE COLLECTION EVENT Attached is a copy of the draft Operations Guide for a single day, single site collection event. We are asking that you obtain program approval through your City Councils, thereby formalizing your vote of approval as expressed in the City Managers Subcommittee memo to the Hazardous Waste Management Commission on November 22, 1989. It has been agreed that this program will be jointly funded, on a per capita basis, by the Cities and the County. Since this is a pilot program, and many unknowns exist, we do not know if the agreed amounts of contributions will fund the three desired events. The actual cost of an event will consist of the contractor's set- up fee (fixed) and the cost of dispoal (variable) . Disposal costs will be depen- dant upon the type of material and the quantitiy received. Cost overruns are easily possible when unusual items are received and need special handling/disposal criteria. Total event costs will also include any money spent on emergency services, advertis- ing, education efforts and staff time. The use of existing resources, such as ECOSLO, San Luis Paints,, etc. will be better determined after this first event. We will have a better idea of what wastes will be received and what quantities will be expected. Requests for participation have been made, but no formal replys have been forthcoming. It is felt that the offer of "in-kind services" in lieu of full payment of the city's contribution will not be necessary as long as the site is located on County property. It is asked that you remember that any funds withheld will reduce the possibility of future events. The cities expressed the desire to have the event located on County property. Site selection utilizes the criteria detailed from State DHS. Accordingly, after review of several possible site locations, the County Operations Center at Kansas Avenue is the only county site that fully meets the state outlined criteria. Con- sequently, if future events are to be held in other areas of the county, additional sites must be located. Staff feels that placement of the first event is important, and that a central location is most desirable. 1) Because of the uncertainty over the number of events that funding will allow, the first event should be situated to alow the greatest participation from all cities of the county. 2) No city should therefore feel that their area lacked the opportunity to participate and want to withdraw funding. 3) It would also be consistent with the goals of the program, should only one event be held. 4) From all available research, each successive event brings increased participation. If the event were held where participation is greates, the true cost of future events would be more accurately predicated. ( P 1 ) It is necessary to stipulate a date as well as location in the Request for Proposals from contractors. The date of May 19, 1990 was chosen because it is the date that most contractors have indicated as available for an event. The timeline of the event is very tight, any deviation from it may mean that the event must be delayed. Education and Publicity cannot be developed until the day and site, and contractor are determined. This is dependent on the funds being available for use, the RFP being sent, received and reviewed according to that timeline (incorporated within the one attached) . Consequently, only minor modifications of the operations plan may be made after the release of the RFP, as it is dependent upon the operations plan. Please be aware that a contract between the county and the cities will be forthcoming. It will stipulate the amount due, payable by check, and due date as well as any expected participation by city services and how they may be covered. Please reaffirm your city's committment to fund its "per capita" share and confirm your approval of the first site at the County Operations Center on Kansas Avenue in San Luis Obispo by writing to: Deborah Smith-Cooke Community Projects Coordinator Environmental Health P. 0. Box 1489 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 (805) 549-5596 no later than 2/1/90. SUMMARY OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE COLLECTION PROGRAM OPERATIONS GUIDE Program Plan This pilot program will consist of a centrally located collection event, held for five hours on May 19, 1990. Depending on funding availability, future events will be held throught other areas of the county. The location for this first event has been decided as the County Operations Center on Kansas Avenue, off Highway 1. The design of the program is that county residents will transport their hazardous household waste to the site. At the site they will complete a questionaire, then the waste will be removed from the trunk of their car and the participant will receive educational pamphlets and a "Thank You. " (Waits can be up to 1 hour depending on participation rates. ) The contractor will supply all necessary trained personnel for this function. At this point, the county becomes responsible for the hazardous waste (as the generator) . The waste goes into the receiving area where it is to be categorized and packaged for transport. Additionally, the contractor will be responsible for all waste separation, analysis of unknowns, packaging, loading, manifesting and transportation for disposal of all materials received. The contractor will supply all necessary equipment to accomplish these tasks. The county or cities will be responsible for the following equipment needs: Traffic cones and tape, trash containers and pick up, portable toilets, empty boxes and extra absorbent material, Class D fire extinguisher, First-aid and burn kits, traffic control vests, and pens and clipboards for the questionaires. In the event of a toxic incident, the contractor is to act as the clean-up contractor, in a manner described in the contingency plan that has been approved by the Hazardous Materials Response Team. Anyone not in appropriate protective equipment must be evacuated in the event of a toxic release. The site will be deemed closed only when all materials have been removed and site is left as it was found. In the event of rain, the collection day will be rescheduled and media announcements will be made. No other contingency plans exist at this time. It is hoped that ECOSLO, County Ag Extension, San Luis Paints and SLOCO Battery Exchange will enhance future collection events. Material Listing Acceptable: aerosol cans, paint thinner, paint, waste oil, pharmacuticals, pool chemicals, antifreeze, cleaners, solvents, fertilizers, wood preservatives, poisons, pesticides, acids, bases, kerosine, gasoline, batteries, photographic chemicals, and hobby materials. Quantity limits per section 25163 of the Health & Safety Code are 5 gallons or 50 pounds of hazardous waste. Questionaire - The purpose of the questionaire is to discover what types of materials are being brought for purposes of segregation. Additionally, it will be used to collect point of origin information on the wastes and obtain public information on the event itself. Timeline Date Activity 12/89 Identify Locations for the Events Formal Plan Prepared 1/90 Issue RFP for Contractor Obtain EPA I.D. Numbers Event Publicity formation begins Education campaign formation begins 2/90 Review Committee for proposals meets Acceptance of Contractor Notification of State DHS Insurance Requirements completed w/Risk Manager 3/90 Arrangements w/Emergency Response Agencies Publicity/Education Begins 4/90 Continue Publicity/Education efforts 5/90 First collection event held 6/90 Event held, depending upon funding Educational Efforts and Media Advertisements The League of Women Voters has offered educational assistance through their education account. They will solicit funding as well as run all expenses through their account. They are willing to work with ECOSLO who has already developed an educational element for schools, etc. Pamphlets, news articles, grocery bag advertisement, posters, direct mailings, garbage can stickers, radio ads, banners should all be considered. REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: B-1 Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 1/23/90 Via: Henry Engen, Community Development Director Ma From: Lisa Schicker, City Arborist SUBJECT: Consideration of a request to remove one heritage tree, a 24" dbh Quercus lobata (white oak) from a residential back yard for the purposes of the installation of an in-ground swimming pool, by home owner Manuel Madrigal at 8170 Atascadero Avenue. RECOMMENDATION: Based on arborist report and wording of the current ordinance, deny the request to remove. Please see additional comments . BACKGROUND : The tree ordinance specifies that live native trees 20" or greater dbh (diameter breast height - 4 ' above grade in ordinance) are deemed heritage trees and cannot be removed unless approved by the City Council following a public hearing. Prior staff reports for heritage tree removal have given information on the natural history of Quercus lobata to Council; in addition to those comments, it should be added that this species of oak is having problems regenerating in California and should be preserved if at all possible. This tree was inspected by arborist Art Tonneson ( for the applicant) , Randy Rossi and myself on separate occasions . ANALYSIS: The Quercus lobata in question is a healthy tree located in the applicant' s back yard in the middle of an area proposed for installing a 201x40 ' in - ground swimming pool with a 3 ' wide perimeter deck. From the plans and discussions with the applicant, Manuel Madrigal, it appears that he and his family are aware of the value of the oaks on their property but at the same time, would like to provide their children with the enjoyment of a swimming pool, too. • They investigated different site plan options for locating the pool and for various reasons ( including safety for the children, the need for back yard vehicle access, maintenance concerns , heating of the pool under shade trees and cost limitations) , chose a site which would necessitate the removal of this heritage oak. It appears that there might be other possible locations for the pool on the property that would avoid removal of this oak (see site plan sketch and photographs) , but the applicants claim that these locations may not be ideal (too shady - causing water to be cold, too much debris from tree litter drop, having to remove established fruit trees, too far from the house to be safe for small children, in the shade of neighbor' s trees, etc. ) . ALTERNATIVE Because of the site and design limitations, it might be argued that the construction of a pool (and removal of this tree) may be allowed under the tree ordinance finding. in section 9-4 . 155 (4) ( iv) which allows for tree removal when it obstructs proposed improvements that cannot be reasonably designed to avoid tree removal . Authorizing removal of this tree would provide direction to staff that improvements such as pools, decks, greenhouses, etc. are a reasonable cause for heritage tree removal, provided they cannot be reasonably designed to avoid the need for tree removal . If council dim ecide to allow the removal, two replacement trees would be recommended. Attachments : Application Site Plan, including proposed alternative site Arborist report Photographs of site cc Manuel Madrigal FQCOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT is w PLANNING DIVISION �� � 6500 Palma Ave. .SCADF,RP.D. Box 747 o CEJ, 'M UNI fy DEVELOPICEN`j Atascadero, CA 93423 (805) 466-8000 APPLICATION ...,. . FORM Please type or print in ink Owner: 1p,*Vo/ZG MI , L Agents Address: S/.70 Owrgo Address: L a. Cid- Phone #: Sv5) 6/-�35_S Phone #: Applicant: '4s Address: Phone # `. Project Description:< , r�4az"dr4.,..� a� Sir//RdA'f/>'Yfs �l1oL C .tin/ u� T ear f BaT` Existing Use: Project Address: C Legal Description: Lot(s) ; BlockC- ; Tract Assessors Parcel No(s) : s t. I/We consent to. the' fiItng,_of this' applscation and declare that this application and' related, documents are true and correct. " (NOTE The signature of the property owner,Js. required on the application before it will .be ,accepted" for processing. ) w ON 17 Owner Agent E Daae Date r For Staff Use Onllr ...Feet Receipt : a MIR k S xngp, z Tree Removal Permit Application ;-I,-Q i Supplemental Information 1918" I n .. c' 197 � �DERO i (Please type or print in ink) Reason for Removal : d 6AI-6--tg-7 1-,c,` Ate.', ;�—�'T.� /�(.�+— D�-� !/t�• �-�(Q.lte- �i9-.Z",(pi�y l�(.C. t� .s T12 j��c l� 'r'- ¢a'x r-7j.v Number of Trees to be Removed: Cbti'a`'j Specify the size (measured 4 ' above ground level ) , species (both common and botanical name) and condition of each tree to be removed: LA-te o A Q�p!1 o S /o 44 f A z. 3. 4. 5. Specify the size and species of the trees proposed to replace those intended for removal : - 1 . / f 6 ,4/ o .4K 2. 3. 4. 5. Please prepare a "Plot Plan" showing all improvements on your property, trees to be removed , trees to remain, and the proposed location of replacement trees as per the attached example. Ownerl Arborist /2- 2 Certificate Number sal 2,5/may Date Date N � o L Lu� a c7 a & O r� C-)a Ir! .001 °.J C14Q 0 2 Qa O O aa 0 U N O I N pp X llWNmLL. Fp 4 W OOFQ- O ] Mir n>-W Iq V) r°sy Q F-zU. j (f) Alp "I h 6F` IZ- M1y p a a" Q a a` r LL- sF as �• Q "`ter• F s ;E 10 CL C4 0 O � •.2 O 2 P P C, N .aver g IT O M1, h ®Le ' .. 0 SJ M ri sN z v P� lot 6y zN x3 �Y N 1996 SSn 2 $ _. M,00.96N C4 ca cc A - a •� O ry�0� Ea °' N h QRZ I 16 LLA 00 ON p I PCZ 2 S In Oo n O ~ 040:06 0 :o9Z kIn $ o s N e t O 1,00.96" 0 ^ o+ !o v9 m ♦8Ld 3.1 aF � � �n O d :sei v v all, � v d2 lei ;8 danO w o 3�y Q N W � ' w ram m A� Y,�,h��► Paw`r dtFr��UE� I y SEP 21 1999 COMMUM!rp,gEVtLOp ON c��% Setww 1 MENT Aww. D.�t r4 Yao^ Aft - j�c►PR°10014e ML'Kr G.16N6B pRwa,E b� s�if clos�n9 G'�f-t �Rvl�or�1, y _ ayM wMAt �rj��.J COore ! RLS/OLNGC I 2 el 4wtP LJII�Aw♦ !°ev►It v y1_ ± 71P Of r<r F•t hyt CIT/01�3i_1- a ^9 - s �. ladder it ,atoa.� �N/iMM l7 Thar»ae/tesw ro l 30 Ca-' NrL7YR/Y.S TrIE V 6.wt�t.''�'YIfINe.ACL .T /IlMO.GI6AG r go�x+sf Si>o.rrAsewe�to ""t as MN�tE OA/t l rre�s s..,,�� pN« rtifo5)yc1--U55 I 3♦ rw.�n►s. 'Lo T �f 8 (ivrttH ti � Q 7jCff t`RY�. Btsut: CG �� ' PF,ieN Tat �G 33 �ww�rh awh u J(G�XY��1"( Gad) u r Pe^q re (Q rttcrs Rogyw► I +ey-"e rr fool first L a pop zoX{p with 3�dak, 2(.X* • REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: B-2 Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 1/23/90 Via: Henry Engen, Community Development Director N From: Lisa Schicker, City Arborist SUBJECT: Consideration of a request to remove two heritage trees , a 29" and 32" dbh Quercus agrifolia, as part of an application for a precise plan 69-89 for the purposes of home construction, by owner-to-be/builder John Pvo for owner Mike Sherer at 8412 Alta Vista Road. RECOMMENDATION: Based on arborists ' reports and current ordinance, approve removal subject to 2 : 1 replacement . Please see additional comments . *BACKGROUND : The tree ordinance specifies that live native trees 20" or greater dbh (measured at 4 ' above grade) are deemed heritage trees and cannot be removed unless approved by the City Council following a public hearing. In addition to previous comments made about Quercus agrifolia (coast live oak) , these evergreen trees are the most resilient of the local oaks when it comes to regeneration and survival . The remainder of oaks surrounding the proposed residence will provide shade and cooling and therefore a reduction in expense and depletion of natural resources for artificial cooling. These trees were inspected by arborists D.O. Denney ( for the applicant) , Randy Rossi and myself on separate occasions. Photographs of the trees and tree protection noted are provided in Denney' s report. ANALYSIS: From the plans and discussions with the builder, John Pvo, it appears that the applicant is concerned about the oaks on this property and has adjusted the design of the residence to compliment the natural vegetation and topography on site. The use of a post and pier design is commended because it allows for minimal disturbance of the existing soil surfaces which is the most important factor in survival of oaks within a construction Zone. ased on the fact that design of this residence does take into account most oaks on this property and wording of the ordinance in section 9-4 . 155 (4) ( iv) which allows for tree removal when it obstructs proposed improvements that cannot be reasonably designed to avoid tree removal, and the owner' s request, tree removal of these two heritage trees may be issued. • Therefore, I recommend the following: Allow for the removal of the two heritage trees ( and the two smaller ones . This homesite is a difficult one, and the proposed building design ( involving piers and little to no disturbance of the ground level) has allowed for the preservation of most of the trees . It would also be advisable to grant a request for a front yard setback as part of the precise plan 69-89 application - this will greatly enhance the chances of- survival for the oaks remaining behind the proposed residence - both during the Construction phase and in the future. Require a two to one replacement (15 gallon Quercus agrifolia- not 5 gallon as specified on the plan) on site or on a receiver site. Mr. Pyo' s site is heavily forested and it may be beneficial to plant the replacement trees in another location; perhaps at the city' s wastewater treatment plant. If Mr. Pyo would prefer, he could offer to donate money into the City' s Tree Replacement Fund. The request of two trees for each one removed is a good one because of the high mortality rate involved with the planting of young trees . The trees will need to be protected with fencing for a few years until they get tall enough to avoid being browsed by wildlife. The following guidelines should assist Mr. Pyo with the planting of these replacement oaks . 1 . Choose 4, 15 gallon - sized Quercus agrifolia. • 2 . Inspect the trees for encircling roots ( roots that wrap around the pot have a poorer chance of straightening out and growing right in the ground. 3 . When planting, make sure that the roots have been untangled, straightened and loosened as much as possible. 4 . Plant in a hole at least twice as big as the pot, and use native soils in the hole. 5 . Provide the tree with deep watering - meaning a slow, gradual and long watering (which encourages downward root growth to anchor the tree) . Provide one deep watering in late spring and two in the summer. If drip irrigation is used, do long, slow waterings applying 10-20 gallons over a three-four hour period. 6 . Protect the young trees from wildlife with some kind of fencing - welded wire fencing of at least 4 feet in height ( I can provide some specs if needed) . Attachments : Application Site Plan Arborists ' reports and photographs cc John Pvo • N .,4jf to S11 �v } NOV �. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION . a ir'J-;,q 6500 Palma Ave. P.O. Box 747 �;+►nF Atascadero , CA 934,.23 (805) 466-8000 APPLICATION FORM Please type or print in ink Owner : Agent : Address: � ?�C 141 Address: Phone #: Phone #: Applicant : �-A.PYO Address: �� _� �� r-t'•� A-o Cv Phone rqq- 3077. Project Description: O `lZ =. /ATritic" W Existing Use: YriAg-r Project Address : 41'L Pt.-fAy�STP� Legal Description: Lot (s) 8 1 o c k _; Tract Assessors Parcel No (s) : -41 - 1 12 - CLQ I/We consent to the filing of this application and declare that this application and related documents are true and correct . (NOTE: The signature of the property owner is required on the application before it will be accepted for processing. ) Owner Ag t I Date Date For Staff Use Only Fee: Receipt #: Tree Ream wal Permit Application (7 A., i a I nri/J/ Supplemental Information w..c►P .r r. +�r 0 G%D F ' (Please type or print in ink) Reason for Removal : —TY' fyZeut be 2t�,iV 9 Number of Trees to be Removed : G6i12_. Specify the size (measured 4 ' above ground level ) , species (both common and botanical name) and condition of each tree to be removed : :3. " k t, 4. 5. Specify the size and species of the trees proposed to replace those intended for removal : - Pro szd re-�l a c- e-, +r<<S 1-c o L -tv r, S1ZG. 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 ' Certificate Number Date Date o Ix } py�a�30 S07 Q fpr •,."`� .L a'` Q oo a LO 43 LLI a to C14 -u s• ve r3 WLn QNJ. P o P 0 LU 1 Z 3 1 bz 891 I-- r Q ou w h O. Q ` oN g..�•. O b y � F • � h O Q F N silt � R M1 N W b M.II/N Q 142s. G � 4Fk qp -- 4' O ? �6'• 2 m -vo, a _ W 1 o O .W a O c :or /lot e w � , o o ' LOB N O I V } c N O 0 V O a% fit,�6 Nry ,a a 0 O 0c > 0 aN k u to+ OJ n m 3 ^N yrti 0 �1^�0\h C 0 1 N oo/r �2 p +1 3y bZ m ti i 01'm O _ VVV >E 9 � y, P � be ♦ . ` z s a �` lisr L.D. N17'Ml 0 w 1 SS/f IL R=rrf.• N lie SOS R% 2 w Q J 5' N W •a O G n 19 82 -n r ► r.,W cid t�`n � ,_oW ^h 67 '� Np Fhs`r g tt r N w t ....------ 1 � - ._.. . _- moi•'-s^'�`�s1n:3a�r+ti ��,,,A,,,,,,, �"-_---.^� I - 1 k'13e Z,, l it �1��. `«'�..�t r ei fide «....,�. - ��,•���} `- 'y,: �/ ec.. f r.: To 9e' Iff r� _ - � n �r �: �a � Rowl- 4;9L WIW9L F .._.. ru 1313 *n -�---- ---• e N 22 Ft (p t W 2 1'i' ts CONCRETE'.APPROACH t X10 ,98 .. •�� • MATER NATER q S i sry ,�,,Jaj k,•e A^� +,( � qaw.�,,, +a, F"l?`34 r a �� Sa � •3^V •y �`�;���� � ''tsri.M '�S e � �v� tam. � .�.[* � r.t ', � � — - r ,,.,,�;.: ^�rsCw� s a �� �"}aCi ��"'{'{•`4. `;� +,in+�tr�... .• c, _ �.���;��"�'.§�,��tk�:4i+.r VA s (0111 7) LCi UaVid-,,ULL uciaLtt rlA Iili L Jlll Lisa jC;11.1CaCL I.lLV r\L"-LJUL i:- ;-(v ?'!-;ul..i 1`J 77�'�`7 C.0 115 LL'.1 C. . .. _[lU, L;1111_ L% L '-•;i _ I`ir�l'j IICL .dU�•'_ LL Cf'S c1L tS'-i L Ai. L.d / 1-n l_d !':G t-1'1 U1111 '-'_VU - - , .- .. �. - ._ ail iJ-C iI1L'CL Lt_ L7< y t LHC,� LV�U I UL _ ,_iir_ UldLl _,. e'✓ W Lil'/;) iV il� :1CL ._.1U --`" 'NI:iiC i x1111 :iL.�_1 Ill L11 ..iL!:C`j:>5 Ui Lllr i �V.LCW LUL L:1C LI''lliuval ',) r � ..:1 C1e �.i-et- ill`_% L`✓:JULL 5t1UL.11i1 U'- '-'d(1`% LUL �s l .. iilU'CLLi1C.1 -ill `�liC IliCdll'L1.a1i-'_ ; L '+VUl11L: 11".1-' _J .:LJVLLiC !':JCI WILi1 tiUIll e- _villLlle Ll L:i L(-_Ua LLI i I I U LL�e U 1.UC:L1'J 11 LC L '~Ile :JL NC: i:iC J1•Yi. _.IcSL :11/UL V,— �'_ii.., i�L Lilt-- LCr'ti U11 S .Le ULI.Lli1C.i CclisLLuu C,ll UL L111J tiiflul!-! Ldllli, Cf--sLCit7I1CL. . Ll"iCLC WLi1 SE'V'-!L`'i i:-'C: i `i-(JLILL'1:1U LL LL' 0LULCCtlU[1j"7t a!r__✓ dLN IUC.aL:'Cl W1Llliil ::U ' UL CieVf`!iU1J111C'T1L areas . .-IUUCaLs CLUIII 111V LI-'V-L'.r`nl L110L :"lt rlUiS LC'alF'!>L CUL d C"-dUCL-Lull UL 31 111 CLUIiL JdLU 1:.-tLLJaC:1C LeULllreIII e11Ls iN1, aILi I11 Li1e IL`i LJal Jf 5r`•JCLdI :Jdh_:; .JLI i. UL [lLti LJLU1�(JSeCi 1"eS1deI1C Y Lile1;�CULL L 'N(lul(1 LeCJli1111�1LLi SIL 11LL11U JL 1 Wa i VeL i.0 L 11 C; CUI1-St 1C.,L1U11 - - - ti - L1lILrCUriC L iJ11 l_ilr' L . -.L LL '�f1t. LV- ; clii`, illb-11L1U11 ".Jf LLC'-'. 'JLC;LCULLCII i:i SU.SL(1L if_-Cull Li1�-'. I.J�rili_� LL ^_r;� (iaV�'. Lt_-'ril 1C1C!1L1L LC1 cS 11Ci d1 i'NfI ::11 IU L11U1( d,aE UI1 UL JCJ�CCLlJll lULCS d1_)UCdL Ull Li!C �C UL J d11 LildL L dlll dV1CWLilU Li . ,je1.RC;i ; LiiC CUllsult:Lilu aLJUL-LsL ; Ud`JC SeVt•!1a1 Lf LI U,t—lL11C5 111 ills ULCJLeCLiOlI Ulall LCUU1 L and 1 lllade sUtlie aC1dlLliJ11a1 i1(Jteti L11 LL.d LliaL L WOLiILU l i J`c t 5r.e` i11u1LTLieU LTL the L 111a1 V eL s lU(i . 1 WUil i'� a LSU L lkv LU 1'eCQIIIL'Ie11Ci SUllle SUeCLL.lcj LLee Ur''.JLCCL I]ll lliea5i.iLeS thaL -;au lld 1Je ULaW11 U11 the �1Tial S.- ()C ULaii.s L '1'rL- 0L(JLL- C)iI Le11C 11U Hl� t1-!-'e: W.LLL1111 c:U1 UL CU[1SLLllCtLULL I' W111Ci1 10uHacs LU bet 9 ) W111 ;..)C ULULCCted by a LLve LUUL 1liUh Le11Ce aL ULIIld the dL lul litr_' of the tree . 1'lheL e a e LWU Lrees ; accordill to the Ulali ; Whe1'e 111 LUilT1eS overlau Lile oLi11dinU; and In these area`.i ; ft_'11C:1lla will lla(ie LU be reiiUV1-1C1 `rwilell C.:U(ltitruction Uf those dL-ea5 take, UlaCe . � L , It IIILUl1L also be 1-eCUhllliellll'rd Ll1dL all of LJCni-l 'Vl :.i LT.e'!-- ULUL`aC:LlUtl T1UteS Uet 0rlllted U11 the filial sLn-L 0 Ulans too; so there l:i 11U '-fuestion for allvUlhe ii1speC:Lil-ju the slte dtli' L11U CUListru L_LU1l aa L t_Lee protection tills beeu specified. I spoke with Mr . Ptiu ( the applicant) today on the phone aT1d menLion(r-,d these items to him as well . I ; along Wit':1 Randy Rossi , will be liieetitiu nim on site somletime next week. As soon as 1 arrallUe a 111eetinU, and if you are free ; oerhaus you could accompany us . It is also important that trees proposed for removal are marked and ousted f rUlm the road; to comply with ti-ie wording in the ordinance . I will (make sure this has been done wlheli I mleet W tlh Mr. PVo next week. Let itie know if vuu Beed any liiore ir—Foriilation at this time . T fI� AME"ICAN SOCIETY OF CONSULTING ARBORISTS FIELD REPORT CASE LOCATION Across Street from 8405 Alta Vista CITY Atascadero OWNER NAME John Pyo (J" Builders ) - ADDRESS CITY San Luis Obispo RES. PHONE ( ) BUS. PHONE ( 805 ) 544-3072 AGENT NAME ADDRESS CITY RES. PHONE ( ) BUS. PHONE ( ) DAMAGE or ACCIDENT DATE TYPE OF DAMAGE INSPECTION DATE October 24, 1989 WEATHER TEMP. D.O. Denney Cer fied Arb ist #391 P.O. Box 3090 Z © , /-,) � Paso Robles, CA 93447 Date. m The purpose of this consultation report is to recommend the removal of four (4) Oak trees to allow space for house construction. Number Size Species Condition 1 29" Live Oak Structurally weak (Quercus agrifolia) 2 32" Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia) 3 9-6" Live Oak (QuerCLS 4 8-6" Srub Oak Oak trees adjacent to the house will beruned according to p 9 standards set up by the International Society of Arboriculture. * The remaining tree in this construction site will be subject to the tree protection plan, �. . .s Z ' tint� _ •�•• �`•- - QVV rty y1�f.d-� -� l„l �„yC�- � t ;-`�i� ,c a��..,,],.n + e3.k.. !'.�i •: t•+:. �-.;j `};�".Gy .•'+�' �.�111 5`!"`* ° � Ell Aft 8* • � .-y '. %..' ,O�:: �•� T is y f� i. IL rORM 1 �4 Y +X4ry7 4.y f t i.1. /' het , `1i"!td • t .y-ro/���; 'r f - � 6 T4 r��,� a• i l'� "'6'�;-l7L�t � �. .,,.. \� �-�!w,• - • 0- TREE PRUIEC11011 PLAIT In � ;I. n;mss trhrn building, we chwion I.hr' complete r►ivitorime►it arout►d a tree. Ii. r11Tv1v�d very will In it 's naturai Vi? sever its roots which ar•e flo-d"d lot. ,anr:ltoragQ and absorption of water incl nuLrieirts . 41e Gave and compact Hir, �o i I around them, hindering the oxygen and water supply to the roots. Yes, you ptrtr►t,r,�e Lhe property because of the beautiful tree scape only to witness many cr( ynirr• trees decllnirig soon after or even some years after you have built your hrnnr'. Who Is to blame? Uid the /Architect, City Planner-, the Arborist, Contractor Add to 1,11e demise of the tree? Ida s ym►t• hu I )cf i na pian condus i ve to the l mpac t on the trees on your property? Your City rrr- cotrnrty Pianner have codes and regulations to follow and public pressure Lo preserve and protect your trees. EvP" I.► ePs LI- are fn excellent heal Lit sometimes cannot tolerate the transition Irnm tt,aturaI ((irowItici In a desirable natural condition) to semi -natural (sever Lli� r rmt.s, , compact the sol i and but Id vii t.illn the dr•ipl Ine ) to the unnatural (paved a i l Llrn t-r,,y around the trees caul Ing d i s tui bances In a I r and water exchanges In soil and many other changes ) . 11,111Y changes can take ill ace I n the Sol 1 during ng construct l ori . Physical changes may have of trcl,s oil aeration and moisture . Changes in grade, new paving, trenching, ;oil compaction, can all affect the soils ability to support life. nlmr tall hill Idlrig and landscape developinerit wi 11 involve some grading and ex c vat lett. Ihq consequences of these changes carr sometimes be detrimental to tr `;(Ill OrIratton is a critical factor. Roots mast receive adequate oxygen. Trees calm also siiffer• from moisture related problems , either riot enough or too much. HIM i lard. yru.i are aware that trees are spnsi Live living things, and we all must put nina;in es Into effect that will protect therm. Pi ul.e(:L i ve measure needs to be applied : Ye; Ito i)trr•irig construction, trv.es on the property outside the immediate coils tr•uctIori zone wilt he harrIcaded off with bright color flagging. ito parking, storage of materials and dumping of excavated or building material will be permitted. _D I. -- _ fees with[t j;L4)feet of tire construction zone will be protected by Installingaght colored protective fZ ce tem orary) around the drip line area of the trees. 5, 5hk) (1,S) Trees within ro feet of construction zone will have their trunks. barrio ded to minimize damage caused by construction equipmentt� '�iIK wdUl(�.MI`q k i10�• {1r fiats *� h0 foike M a porta M of-i6 dti qMW. 1t15 . Apar• ing of e 1pment , storage of equipment, disposing of saline, 41 ralnt, thinner or anyother• foreign material will be permitted 1 d around this property unless so rioted In report. ;; .re. Iree Protection Plan cont 'd. Page 2 Irenehing for utillLins is req"I red. Line will run 9 feet from base or tree. Iland 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. It grade changes wille male around the tree unless ( 1 ) a protec- tive measure is appliel, (2) and it Is so noted in the Certified Arborist report. _ Factors have been used to determine the tree condition before con- struction begins . ---� Ihis r'epor't has bee" reviewed by all people involved in this pro- ject. Diligent care will be applied to protect the trees . TYPES Or SRO ING - MATURE TREES A. Crown Cleanlnq Crown cleaning or cleaning out is the removal of dead, dying, diseased, crowded, weakly attached, and low-vigor branches -arid watersprouts from a tree f -own. B. Croti-nr i111nnIng Crown thinning includes crown cleaning arid the selective removal of branches to increase light penetration and air movement into the crown. Increased light arra air stimulates arid maintains interior foliage, which in turn improves branch taper and strength. Thinning reduces the wind-sail effect of the crown and the weight of heavy limbs. Thinning the crown can emphasize the structural beauty of trunk and branches as well as improve the growth of plants beneath the tree by increasing light penetration. When thinning the crown of mature trees, seldom should more than one-third of tine live foliage be removed. At leist one-half of tine foliage should be on branches that arise in the loner two-thirds of the trees. Likewise, when thinning laterals from a limb, air effort should be made to retain inner lateral branches and leave the same distribution of foliage along tine branch. Trees and branches so pruned will have stress more evenly distributed throughout the tree or along a branch. An effect known as "lion ' s-talling" results from pruning out the inside lateral branches . Lion' s-tailing, by removing all the inner foliage, dis- places the weight to the ends of the branches and may result in sunburned 0 branches, watersprouts, weakened branch structure and limb breakage. C. Croom Reduction Crown reduction is used to reduce the heighE and/or spread of a tree. Thinning cuts are most effective in maintaining the structural integrity arid natural form of a tree and in delaying the time when it will need to be pruned again. The lateral to which a branch or trunk is cut should be at least one-half the diameter of the cut being made. U. Crown Restoration Cro4rn restoration can improve the structure and appearance of trees that have been topped or severely pruned using heading cuts. One to three sprouts .oil main branch stubs should be selected to reform a more natural appearing crown. A vigorous selected sprout may need to be thinned to a lateral , or even headed, to control length growth in order to ensure adequate attachment for the size of the sprout. Restoration may require several prunings over a number of years. REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: B-3 Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 1/23/90 Via: Henry Engen, Community Development Director From: Lisa Schicker, City Arborist SUBJECT: Consideration of a request to remove 160 native oak trees, 13 of them with heritage status, and to impact an additional 159 native oaks for road improvements for Garcia Road extension in the existing right of way, by Conrad Langille, Bill Pippin and Donald Vaughn of 625 Spring Street, Paso Robles . RECOMMENDATION: Based on the knowledge of existing alternatives that would improve the proposal and reduce the number of trees to be removed, I recommend denial of this application. Please see additional comments in analysis section of this report. STATUS OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The attached document, labeled Initial Study, has been prepared by the planning department to accompany this heritage removal application. BACKGROUND : The tree ordinance specifies that live native trees 20" or greater dbh (measured 4' above grade) are deemed heritage trees and cannot be removed unless approved by the City Council following a public hearing. The proposed road construction for Garcia Road involves a significant level of tree removal, including native species of oaks (Quercus lobata, douglasii and agrifolia) , some that are having problems regenerating in California. The purpose of this road extension is to provide access to 10 lots of approximate size of 5 acres each. The road is approximately one mile in length. According to CEQA, the California Environmental Quality Act, governments are required to do all that. is possible to reduce impact upon the natural environment. This proposed project site was inspected jointly by co-applicant Bill Pippin, arborist Jack Brazeal, Community Development Director Henry Engen, Public Works Director Paul Sensibaugh, Oak Consultant Randy Rossi and myself in mid-August, 1989 . ANALYSIS: During the visit to the proposed roadway, several ways to slightly alter the alignment of the road were discussed that would avoid the removal of so many trees . Because staff is being asked to comment on the original application, a strong recommendation for denial is given, as all parties involved are aware that other alternatives are feasible. When a revised resubmittal of this proposal occurs, the following items need to be addressed: The arborist needs to clearly delineate what is meant by "impacted" as the word is used in the report; i.e. does impacted mean affected by pruning, grading, cuts and fills (and if so, how much?) or by the possibility of additional shoulder requirements, etc. This term is not specific enough to determine whether these trees would actually survive construction of the roadway. Tree protection measures must be specified ( i.e. fence type, size and location) and drawn on the plans to allow for compliance. Currently, trees are identified on the pian by size, but should also be identified by number and tree protection measures should be evident on the plans. Discussion of replacement trees is absent from this application and should be included with a re-submitted plan. Attachments : Application Site Plan anJ Louthon 1AT Arborist report Letter sent to applicants September 12, 1989 Initial Study Environmental Review cc Conrad Langille r nir- ;r r. 1979 Application Pending for Tree Removal (s ) ,ddress: 6WO, LA� ►lam lame: 9 APN#: gl-06Z-ll, iy leason for Request: WCdn*a #i lu W r of Trees: P e c i e s: QWW ( �a .s� (06a . domgksil aK4 agn�vlla, "hese trees are marked by: )ate: j4hi-L) O )ate of City Council Meeting: Z31�9�d (only for heritage trees) Id ormation about this tree removal o UULo b pond Community Development 11w tY P M0404ss and telephone number shown C4hst�✓" ;City of Atascadero ity Development Department -� � ministration Building 3500 Palma Avenue 461 -5035 s v j RFA F /C WA *._M CRU t'Gp U � 0 AN (iREGp�t� fa ROAV p AS v z .A S CADOW 00� 4 101 ylcll1 l l Y MAP /V 0 ;;--'4 L G Zo ed7X V Zg*8 .92 Sg+9Z 'ros I J � s J 0 � w � N R VP 7�T . � N Br3.60 2 / / 5,.31.08 CO tyDcy iib rr� � a4M a s Oji i i1M]!lf/wN71M1Ap0»0/ � I � / f w � all \ �Jill v lr�l '• rFK. Pal. a.w.r...,.........w. C�MIIOL �BG�.AtR'[i► • dOW 80.0 •+r w •.rr♦ ra�r•i •�� Mim kvA so ---.�'•r`�+�N � �``����� \sem—� i i ! Mm'SII ll��Il;lllfll(Iliitl(1111Qiifl1 w I . . ,,') ��'� ()�flnlli�(;tG®I�i�E�..1it(II(1111ffBll(1l{d111fl1�': ' -���' Iflfll(II(IIIIIfIQII((II(Ifll@lll[!Ifillllllflllllflllll IIIIII►numamnmirmQrn� , �, ���. Ifl8111IIIIIIIiIffIil111fI111[fl(I(Ilil(I(Illllllll(IIII(�fllllll!fl"i(II!`fl(IIIIII(11(IIIII�i( ' -� � �I llrlllOrrirlrr lr rtrir rrrrrr rrl..r......... tb a �1 ! (fl!!!iI(I!(IIIIIIIll11111111:. 1 !Jill n' } � ''� ''� � ' �.,-'"� IIIIIi11811111111111iIlfillillllllll(UII',I''I!;ri� 111 u; i 1!`;`;i'I�I I�(I�I ►����j ''�{, �� : 111111i�1''illl!!I'll)!!!Illlill!IIi:'' , (, � II!I11i�11li t�vG� �► �� � ,.,� ori— '111!11'1 'il'I!` I I I i !I � (I!I iaunnn ' \� ��,� 1, �� � I!IL'iill�l�ilul�illlll Il I II'illlui�i�uunfinlllllll�llll811'iil li Ilill!IN i lillli !1llllilill ���-� � �� ' �' �'' IllllllliliNllll11111lllllli!"I,ili!IIIII(III!lllllil!Illllll(III1111111111!Illlllilllllll!iIII((I 6(999((!11( —"�-�� �� ,,':a�\ IIIIIiIII!IIIIil811111111111G+'181:!ililllilffill!IIIIIIIfl8181111111i11lllililillBil'1881(i :(8(1(811 � t;_ � , ill1181111111111';11111881'.11lll�llilII181(18111111111111111111811111I11!8(888i1i1111191 ':!!11!((9(1 a � ���; (111118!''lll�fl'1i8111�1!111!8(I!i1881i8111189IIII(llllllll!I(i!il!f!II(!(III(P'i!!I(!! (lifl{lilll �y � � f��! III!!'i�"+'1D 'i!!{'''+I!"I!Illl!i!1�1111(!(I!IiII((1111111IIl8(IIII!188811li(�1l1811 111181118 r, 3 , � „'� ;; �,�, (IIIi!Ilill(,�1�811�Ihllll(Il111�1LJ111 118lllill ;� `�\ �, I + �'��'llf"I1 Illllll8ll11(Ill,lllli 1111111111 l,� ��.�i ,� � I;iili'�i', �I ; , _ 1118111Ci111811 !IIIIIIIII �. il,11l�1i'�1,11�88118�lllif 1 11118(lii(8181! illlllllll II 118111 �I,�,,u,, II 111 it i ' �1�!i1818,1�1111 IIIIIINII �� �� ''* j"iiIIIIIIiIlIl8111881�lBIlii!iilll111118"111111111111111111181!' ', I�J�!(NI�".'88 .811111111 �,tl + � ' ❑1111.,rir ii pir Orr,,,,�� � 717� t � ;�� � � r� �Ii,illl1811111.,..,rr�i,i.,.;,l,.,,.,,,,,,iIlii(lilllllll{1811118IlI(,�,�i,l,l�i!Ilu +'!I8 Iliillilll �'� s� � I!�IIIIIINI181111111ii�►1;1(IIIII�Ii11811(1i888111!IIIIIIlfllll!INI1II88881Euu'�i!8 IIIIIIIIIf tt �!'��--"•a II!IIIIf11181881811IL'i11811111111!III!! 88111►IIII,llllllll)!llllli!18(I!!illll!;il'!f!I x!11!I illi8h!ll Ili81i IIIIIII(Iilll!(118 ,l!1181111i1111811i18li(f88818f9i(f'i 111111118� s,.�=�''� ' uun i�nnq!�nq,� ��+ , � '�L'll(! (11811111 �� < -� � !!1889!!8!1 19111 I 81188(l81f11191181811111I88(II11811i1'�11l11 111111811 •;�� -'-- � � Ill!Nlll(118n��!!�iihlilEllhli�ilillill''18(11118Ii[II1118118111111((8188fIlii,;.1111, 1111111111 r >'� '��.�i► umn.nuuluiuulnnl �I k„� I �,,��s ��! 11111181181 I .I,,,,r,, ,_.:, �I(11!IIIll(1111111111111IIIlilill8811118881811(If ��i��' -i°1 18�''iili 1811111 iiiilihli+Ill�fl111r';''!'il8i111'141{41411{14q'i41111{Ii{41{Ii1!!"4}5N lilNill!f // � � II I i I� IU,1tl!Illn 11181 IiI i!11!I!I(IlNil!ilil iIE?1i 1! /' lli. it I w lil` �� Ci-1C'!I,i!81!N(III((!1181iI °kli{;'1 �•ir e,�: HIM,1'"' 9L,'lIIL11�8!18!1181i!118iiIJill sl ll �' ° !I(1:]II6���l!l181111181ii1�i(611,t�f�18�911��i�881H!Iii��fl8i11 ���i�i1��= IN®f$��Iii�!!8(lidt�iilll�lii119�1�11��tI ® `+ H81!i�i����P�818(81(88��!161111181u�(!!!Ill!(811!(818111J811I�1�;i(IilLlli ��!!i 111811(8 IIiI, !1!1111 11111!1II(IIlllllt11181181!VIII!e!1(81!(!118IIIIIIIIIIlll811!8illli'll!!Ill Illillllil 111111811 � s ,;:;lllllli!fl88il1189lIII(II111111Illkli 118118818'X818 _�� '�,' ifll!� i''I�"1111!i'�I!7111111'illi�!'i881(II(8(!111881181111119118(111111i11{III IIIIIIIIII ������� + ` +"! I+lII I"'i•.1 119111"i '' "'1'1881'11'IIIIlilllil118181i1lllihlillllll IHlililli 9�►,s ,8. '+ I + 111 111118111 N Y Rr,►.Gl��; jl� f� _ r � ■1�`i`l�f�L r"L',w ��l6it�l,�i�8�rli8('((1((I{lul(i ii!!illi ■�!'!� ti111'11{i��W�.l���Et1181+�41�!flL�ll 91181111 111181(1 LLELU Nunn (161111 • REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: B_4 Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 1/23/90 File No: ZC 08-89 From: Henry Engen, Community Development Director :V, SUBJECT: Consideration of a revised request to establish a Planned Development Overlay Zone (PD7) to allow for the creation of a small lot residential subdivision. BACKGROUND: This matter was considered by the City Council on November 14, 1989 and referred back to the Planning Commission for, consideration of redesign. On January 2, 1990, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on this subsequently revised application, and on a 7 :0 vote, recommended approval of staff' s recommendation to approve the zone change as reflected in Ordinance No. 198 . There was discussion and public testimony as reflected in the attached minutes excerpt. RECOMMENDATION: 1) Waive reading of Ordinance No. 198 in full and approve by title only; and 2) Approve. Ordinance No. 198 on first reading HE:ps Attachments: Staff Report dated January 2, 1990 Minutes Excerpt January 2, 1990 Ordinance No. 198 CC: Bruce Jones Cuesta Engineering • • CITY OF ATASCADERO Item: B. 2 STAFF REPORT FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: January 2, 1990 BY: Doug Davidson, Associate Planner File No: ZC 08-89 SUBJECT: Consideration of a revised 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 attached Ordinance No. 198 (Exhibit C) . BACKGROUND: On October 17, 1989, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on Zone Change 08-89 and voted unanimously to approve the proposal. On November 14, 1989, the City Council directed the item back to the Planning Commission to evaluate a revised plan with larger lot sizes and more recreational open space. The applicant has submitted a revised site plan which incorporates these concerns of the City Council (see attached letter and site plan) . ANALYSIS: The major change in this revised master plan is the demolition of the existing residence on proposed Parcel 3. While the existing residence on proposed Parcel 6 was originally planned for removal, the previous plan attempted to save the home on Parcel 3. With no existing structures to accomodate, the site has more freedom to provide open space and larger lot sizes. The smallest lot size under the revised master plan is 3, 200 square feet, as opposed to 2, 775 square feet under the original plan. The proposed lots are also more equal in size, ranging from 3, 200 to 4, 697 square feet, as opposed to 2,775 to 5,,070 square feet. Likewise, the open space provided is well in excess of the minimum standards required by the Zoning Ordinance. Staff agrees with the applicant that common open space is not appropriate in this type of development. One of the fundamental aspects of • single family home ownership is private yard space. Common open space areas are intended for apartment, condominium, and mobile home developments. Finally, as stated in the previous report, the proposed modifications to the setback standards pose no problems to the staff. It is the PD Overlay and building orientation toward the private road, which triggers the setback modification. Otherwise, the building locations as proposed, maintain the required setbacks and conform to the make-up of the neighborhood. CONCLUSIONS: Staff supported this project in its original form. The elimination of the existing residence has allowed the site to provide larger, more uniform lots, with more open space. The small lot subdivision provides an opportunity for more affordable home ownership, while not exceeding the density standards of the General Plan. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Development Statement Exhibit B - Revised Master Plan Exhibit C - Ordinance 198 (Revised) Exhibit D - Staff Report to City Council - 11/14/89 (includes Prior Staff Report to Planning Commission) • _S� llBl`i' 1� DEVELOPMENT STATEMENT CUESTA ENGINEERING ZONE CHANGE 08-89 6717 Morro Road . Atascadero,CA 93422 (805)466-6827 November 29, 1989 City of Atascadero Planning Commission 6500 Palma Atascadero, CA 93422 Subject: PD Masterplan Revision Zone Change ZC 08-89 / Jones Dear Planning Commissioners: On October 17, 1989 the above zone change was heard by the Planning Commission and was recommended for approval by a 7-0 concensus. On November 14, 1989 the same application was reviewed by the City Council and referred back to Planning Commission for your further review. Two of the Council Members were primarily concerned with adequate recreation area for the units. Suggestions were made for designation of a common play area and for elimination of one or two units toward that end. The basic intent of this' PD proposal is to create a type of property division that will allow not only air space ownership, but for individ- ual ownership of structures and land as well . A major benefit of the PD subdivi- sion is the elimination of the "common" ownership and entanglements normally as- sociated with Condominiums. Therefore, a "common" play area is not appropriate for this PD proposal . The revised plan proposed the removal of both existing buildings and construction of 6 new units. Removal of the existing house provides better spacing between Units 1 , 2 & 3; and we have moved the access road, and Units 4, 5 & 6 for more equal spacing of buildings. The net results are seen in lot size and yard size. The minimum lot size was formerly 2775 S.F. and is now 3200 S.F. The smallest yard area was formerly 420 S.F. and is now 650 S.F. The useable yard areas are all more than twice the required 300 S.F. The balance of the Site Development Standards are outlined on the Revised PD Master- plan drawing. We continue to meet or exceed the RMF standards for this property, with minor changes requested for rear yard setbacks. We believe that the quality proposed for this project will meet with the approval of single and retired buyers as well as first-time buyers with young families. We respectfully request that you review this revised Masterplan and recommend, once again, that the City Council approve this project as a much-needed housing alternative for Atascadero. Sincerely, Deborah Hollowell Agent for Applicant DH:pd 89-070 REVISED MASTER PLAN 0 11r ZONE CHANGE 08-89 , us ILL ell 101-41 ` � +a�'� � }iii►►► t ' 1 D \` 0 ` ` / .\+: 11 \ /i•' .. '• ,or V r jlln 4$ 7t j r f ��n:-1 EXHIBIT C trevisea) ORDINANCE NO. 198 ZONE CHANGE 08-89 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 January 2, 1990 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: ARTHER MONTANDON, City Attorney PREPARED BY: HENRY ENGEN, Community Development Director EXHIBIT A ORDINANCE 198 74 • a r Ar f \ s � � aa • �.•", \�♦ ' tis r t ' I f 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 i 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 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 0 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. S.i`/t Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0 .51 acre 7 . Exi�ing 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 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. i 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 EXHIBIT D DEVELOPER'S STATEME1 ZONE CHANGE 08-89 June 29 , 1989 Community Development Department City of Atascadero -JUL n 6500 Palma Ave _ ` 3 � g� Atascadero , CA 934422Ll • -.�. iii`i-!� 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 six 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 Brazeal , 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. ) June 39 , 1939 Page 2 shared :maintenance of the access driveway , and would provide a home and yard that would be privately owned. We propose that the PD overlay designation i.rclud�a a -requirement that the property L a developed according to an approved masterplan . simmilar to the one submitted, to establish the site design standards for the project. This will ensure the orderly and harmonious development of the property while C .C .& R. ' s will ensure the contined maintenance of the property. Thank you for your review and consideration of this proposal . Bruce Jones 1200 Calle Cordoniz Los Osos , CA 93402 -� EXHIBIT E P 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 E FOUR of Atascadero. Any modific on to this pproval shall be approve y the Community D elopment Department ior to implementing any ranges. 1t 113 . No outdoo stora of semi-trailers, trucks, vans, or an o er 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 shal a implemented within 30 days of this app rov e This Condi- tional Use Permit shall be evie 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 Med by Bruce Jones (Cuesta Engineering, agent) to request establishment of a Planned Develop- ment Overlay Zone (PD7) 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. 4 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 j planned development rather than apartments or condominiums t 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 i support of the project stating that it is theapplicant'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. NOTION: 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 USS PSRNIT 4-89 : `�— ation filed by House of Glory Fe p (Fred Watkins est the use of sting single family residence yle garage as a church in the RS/FH (R _ al Subu Flood Hazard) zone. Sub a is located at 11700 Vie no. EXHIBIT A ,,�kI A" goes : . „I CITY CATASCADERO ZONING MAP �s��rige 1978 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CHANGE 08-89 - , 4 DEPARTMENT q i' iQ� I 'vE i � ; � DAN �Ot+OIiA� ✓�� �---t.—�-: Y k� ALL VF 7-7 j l f F - 94 L �r (FH �� f —. � O !� SITE ;- .?RSF, ;L(FH) P,- �� cog, l R ANOQE ^ , • a e EXHIBIT B CITY C:--' ATASCADERO GENERAL PLAN MAP ZONE CHANGE � : : • DEPARTMENTCOMM s ' NMI WE n� T�' �,� • •�� �tp ��,' � _ � o' �!�"ai�.�. % �� ,moi ♦ ��,III ��+it : i c � � �, �►► � , ,' •!• ;•�.%' �/b�►�.�, � . ry �1► . .sem EXHIBIT C CITY C-" A ASCADERO CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN �'•19uR!!ip '' _' 1974-7 CAD 4 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ZONE CHANGE 08-89 DEPARTMENT ' I ( 3 I . r rI / n 96 cot aR t4�4 + ► w a. a i' its N EE 1t it a1� i 3 2 MINUTES EXCERPT - PLANNING COMMISSION - JANUARY 21 1990 De rah Hollowell with Cuesta Engineering,, re r eting the ap ant, stated her concurrence with the st f report. William tter Jr. asked for clarificatioA on the proposed project. Willy Vetter II stated his family ns property adjacent to the proposed aban nment and aske what the applicant' s intent is . Mr. DeC explaine that the Vetters own a portion of the road in ee bu are unable to use the land because of the existing -of-way. If the abandonment is approved, they would the able to utilize the 20 feet, minus any easement that s re uired by the City. Mrs . Vetter Jr. in *red whether ere would be any disad- vantages to her p perty as a resul of the abandonment. MOTION Mad by Commissioner Highland, seconded by Commis- s 'oner Brasher and carried 7 :0 recommend approval of Road Abandonment 3-89 sed on the draft ordinance contained in the ,sta report. Com ssioner Lopez-Balbontin expressed concern oveL the p ential of the rear of the property being used as a nloading ramp as he did not think there would be enoug room. 2. ZONE CHANGE 8-89 : Application Tiled by Bruce Jones (Cuesta Engineering) to establish a Planned Development Overlay Zone (PD71 to allow for the creation of a small lot residential subdivision. Subject site is located at 7715/7745 Sinaloa Avenue. Mr. Davidson presented the staff report providing a back- ground on previous Commission and Council actions for the project. A revised site plan has been submitted which allows for larger lot sizes . Staff is recommending approval of the request. Commission questions and discussion followed. Commissioner Luna commented on the Commission's previous unanimous vote on this zone change and subsequent Council action to refer th-� matter back to the Commission for a revised site plan to reflect larger lot sizes and more recreational open space. Commissioner Brasher questioned the proposed lot sizes, stating it was her understanding from the recent joint Council/Commission meeting that there was discussion MINUTES EXCERPT - PLANNING COMMISSION - JANUARY 2, 1990 feasible or desireable. Commissioner Hanauer expressed concern with the lengthy processing of this application and felt the applicauOL was going more than the extra mile on this project. Commissioner Lopez-Balbontin expressed concern with the density regarding the size of the units . Ms . Hollowell clarified that the residence is 1439 s. f. and the garage is 327 s. f. Commissioner Waage felt the project is basically a good one. This is a good trade-off between apartments and single family dwellings . Chairperson Lochridge echoed Commissioner Waage' s comments adding he was glad the Commission was able to take a close Took at the project. He stated he understands some of the Council' s concerns and felt the applicant has made an attempt to address those concerns. He hoped the Commission will pass the project on a unanimous vote, and that the Council will support this project as well . - MOTION: Made by Commissioner Highland and seconded by Commissioner Brasher to strongly recommend that the City Council accept Zone Change 8-89 , and strongly recommend that the Council adopt Ordinance No. 198 . There was further discussion concerning- guarantees of allow- able densities. Mr. DeCamp explained there are guarantees to restrict the densities through the Commission' s approval and the Zoning Ordinance. The motion carried 7 :0. C. INDIVIDUAL COMMENT 1. Planning Commission Commissioner Luna remarked that f Mr. Jones ' project is referred back to the Commiss in a negative form, he hoped it will return with clear icy direction on minimum lot sizes for planned develo ents. Commissioner Waage quested clarification on what proced- ures there are to hange a vote made at the last Commission meeting. Disc sion followed. 0 Commi ioner Lopez-Balbontin reported that there are some par ed cars on E1 Camino Real between San Anselmo and Del MINUTES EXCERPT - PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 21, 1990 concerning g the setting of a minimum lot size for planned unit developments. Commissioner Hanauer commented that the purpose of the Planning Commission is to come to some kind of conclusions on those kinds of problems to help direct and lead the Council. He added that the applicant has come back with a superb solution to the problem. Commissioner Highland stated the basic problem is a contra- diction in what the Commission looks at and the opinions and viewpoints that have been voiced by the Council on minimum lot sizes for single family residential . At the same time, too many apartments are being built. A decision needs to be made in this regard. He added he would rather see single family dwellings in a planned development than see six apartments go in. Discussion followed. Deborah Hollowell with Cuesta Engineering, agent for the applicant, referenced the Young PD (on Santa Ysabel) in that there are differences between that project and the one proposed. she presented an overhead of :thz site plan and explained how the lot sizes were determined. Ms . Hollowell added that the revised plan is better than the original one . and hoped the Council' s concerns have been addressed. she then responded to questions from the Commission. Bruce Jones, applicant, spoke in support of the project stating he has never attempted this type of project before. He was surprised at the Council 's recommendation after the Commission had recommended approval. He spoke about the deteriorating character of the neighborhood and felt this project would benefit the neighborhood. Mr. Jones added the purpose of the project is to make it affordable. He then responded to questions from the Commission. In response to question from Commissioner Brasher, Mr. Jones explained that he intends to see the project through to com- pletion of the development. In response to question from commissioner Luna, Mr. Jones explained why he chose 1700 square feet for the units and described the proposed amenities. The project is designed to be a piece of property that could reflect pride of owner- ship and be easily maintained. In response to further question, Mr. Jones stated he felt he may encounter difficulties with receiving approval from the Council, and added that he believes in the project. As a result of the project being referred back to the Commission, it gave him an opportunity to fine tune the site plan and felt this new plan was better. . It is a question of econom- ics when it comes down to the number of lots which is ORDINANCE NO. 198 ZONE CHANGE 08-89 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 January 2, 1990 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: ARTHER MONTANDON, City Attorney PREPARED BY: HENRY ENGEN, Community Development Director f EXHIBIT A ORDINANCE 1.98 fib y 1 r 4 lb 1 / of !' r- sp 00 of \7211 /r 1 � 1i �\ � •i 1 lji 1 / •` I� u t Mn ib r aft sc Y \ f REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: C-1 From: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 1/23/90 SUBJZCT: Proposed Urgency Ordinance re: Creekway setback RZCONMENDATION: That Council direct staff to discontinue processing an ur- gency -ordinance related to minimum creekway setbacks so that any changes related to re-establishing the language of the General Plan be accomplished through the regular ordinance procedure involving hearings before the Planning Commission and City Coun- cil. DISCUSSION: Comments made by individual Council members in recent days lead staff to question whether a 4/5 vote is possible to pass an urgency ordinance related to creekway setbacks. Since the dead- line for inserting a legal notice for a hearing at your first meeting in February is two days after the January 23rd meeting, staff would like to ask Council to reaffirm or reconsider its direction to develop language for an urgency ordinance. Two major concerns have surfaced. The first involves the question of possible public perception or expectation that, once the 501 setback is re-established, this would or should provide public access to and along creekways. Without adequate and ap- propriate identification, confusion could develop over what is now public, as opposed to private, property related to the creek- ways. The second issue, which was raised previously, concerns the legitimacy of an urgency ordinance to address the re-establish- ment of a minimum setback in the Zoning Ordinance. Having reconsidered this point, staff now believes that it would be more appropriate to address creekway setbacks through the normal proc- ess of Plan Amendment coupled with ordinance adoption through public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council. While this would, obviously, be more time-consuming than an urgency ordinance, it would still be faster than any changes re- sulting as part of the General Plan Update public hearing process and would allow a measured response to the issues involved. OPTIONS: 1. Direct staff per the recommendation in this memo. 2. Reaffirm your desire to adopt an urgency ordinance. 3. Provide direction other than contained in Options 1 & 2. RW:cw 2 REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: C-2(a) Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 1/23/90 From: Gary R. Sims, Senior Engineer SUBJECT: August 22, 1986 Road Construction Agreement Between Paul M. Sensi.baugh and the Gordon T. Davis Cattle Company RECOMMENDATION: 1 . Adopt Resolution _6,�-90 providing for acceptance of the construction requirements delineated in the 1986 agreement with the Gordon T. Davis Cattle Company with the following exceptions. a. Section 17 of the Agreement shall be excluded from this Resolution. b. Ardilla Road, Serrijon Road, and Chorro Road shall be excluded from this Resolution. BACKGROUND: The City Engineering Division is seeking a clarification of the road construction standards to be used in reviewing the roads constructed under the 1986 agreement with the Gordon T. Davis Cattle Company. Since Atascadero incorporated as a City some of the existing Colony roads have been constructed according to written agreements between road construction contractors and developers and the Department of Public Works . These agreements delineated construction standards to be adhered to in the design and construction of the roads. A September 19, 1989 legal opinion by Jeffrey G. Jorgensen has raised the possibility that inadequate environmental review was completed prior to the construction of roads included in the August 22, 1986 agreement and thus that perhaps the agreement is invalid. Although Attorney Jorgensen' s opinion did result in a substantial procedural change in the processing of road construction projects it has also left the Engineering Division staff without direction concerning whether or not the City will honor the agreement and what technical standards are to be used in reviewing the road construction projects completed under the agreement. The Gordon T. Davis Cattle Company is currently requesting review of the roads constructed under the agreement with the goal of having them accepted into the City maintained read system. Under the agreement portions of San Gregorio, Santa Cruz, Santa Ana, Balboa, Llano and Corriente have been constructed and all o4 Garcero, Corona, Jaquima, Sausalito, Enchanto, and Tecolote roads have been constructed. Chorro, Serrijon and Ardilla roads have only been partially graded and remain substantially unconstructed. A section of Corriente Road remains unconstructed due to steep slopes and only a fire access road remains along the unconstructed portion. It is not being proposed that this steep section of Corriente Road be upgraded from a fire access road. The layout of the roads involved are shown in attached Figure 1 . DISCUSSION: The Gordon T. Davis Cattle Company is requesting that the roads that have been constructed be reviewed by the Engineering Staff to determine compliance with the previous agreement in order to have the roads accepted into the City maintained system. The Engineering staff has periodically reviewed these roads during the construction process and is currently compiling a list of necessary drainage and erosion control improvements . There remain a significant number of minor alterations that will be required but the basic road configuration is complete. Before the City Staff can recommend that the roads be accepted or denied, construction standards must be identified by which to judge the constructed product. Previously those standards were assumed to be included in the August 22, 1986 agreement. The Engineering Staff is seeking an affirmation that those standards will be honored by the City Council or, if not, then an alternate procedure for technical review is necessary. In order to accept these narrow roads into the City maintained system a 4/5 vote is required by Council. Section 17 of the Agreement, "The roads in question will be accepted for City maintenance when all steps have been completed, " clearly usurps the rights and responsibilities of the City Council to accept or reject the roads into the City maintained system. Thus, Section 17 should be excluded from any resolution to honor the terms of the Agreement. OPTIONS• 1. Approve the Resolution as presented. 2 . Approve an amended resolution. 3 . Deny the resolution and request.that an alternative review procedure be proposed. • FISCAL IMPACT: There may be litigation if the Agreement is not honored. Enclosures: Figure 1 August 22, 1986 Agreement 01-14F IPI Al �► 11 ��� ,�!,,� � , 111 ♦ �• • . , . 1 11 �,► �to�%�����..���r/� ' ' ' • ' I� • Map-, 0 EVA IRSO pal _� ► �'bib L.� IN 1 . _ • r RESOLUTION NO. 6 -90 RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO ESTABLISHING THAT THE ROAD CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT DATED AUGUST 22, 1986 BETWEEN THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND THE GORDON T. DAVIS CATTLE COMPANY WILL BE HONORED WHEREAS, the past Director of Public Works entered into a written agreement with the Gordon T. Davis Cattle Company concerning the construction of certain Colony roads; and WHEREAS, this agreement specifically outlined the construction standards to be utilized in the construction of specific Colony roads; and WHEREAS, except for Ardilla Road, Serrijon Road and Chorro Road, these certain Colony roads have been constructed; and WHEREAS, the City Engineering Staff has been requested by the Gordon T. Davis Cattle Company to review these roads for technical compliance with the terms of the Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT: The City Engineering Staff is hereby directed to review the previously constructed roads for technical compliance in accordance with the terms of the agreement between Paul M. Sensibaugh and the Gordon T. Davis Cattle Company, dated August 22, 1986, except that clause 17 of the agreement, "The roads in question will be accepted for City Maintenance when all the steps have been completed" shall be considered invalid because it clearly usurps the rights and responsibilities of the City Council under Streets and Highways Codes #1805 and #1806. The roads addressed by this resolution shall include those sections of roads shown in attached Figure 1. Specifically excluded from this resolution are Ardilla Road, Serrijon Road and Chorro Road which remain unconstructed. On motion by Councilperson seconded by Councilperson , the foregoing resolution is passed on the following roll call vote: AYES : NOES : ABSENT: ADOPTED: ATTEST: BOYD C. SHARITZ, City Clerk ROLLIN DEXTER, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: ARTHER R. MONTANDON HENRY ENGEN City Attorney Director of Community Development . _ w;+ ... _ . ..n...t:'.u.if._.:.3.w-_ei...xs.rx. ... a e _... ..,._.. ._ ... . .�r ,...-. v ..tY:. a.....,v ✓.. .,... i e.. ... .. .. .w...r.-,�yv4ft:,.. .,. 805/434 .1834 TWIN CITIES ENGINEERING INC. CIVIL ENGINEERING & SURVEYING ALLEN W. CAMPBELL RCE 20244 June 13, 1986 Mr. Paul Sensibaugh Public Works Director City of Atascadero PO Boc 747 Atascadero, CA 93423 RE: Road Construction Agreement Portions of Atascadero Colony (See attached map) Dear Mr. Sensibaugh : In accordance with discussions between Gordon T. Davis Cattle Company and the City, the following is a summary of our under- standing of the procedures to be followed for the improvement of the roads shown on the attached plot plan. 1 . Developer to enter into an inspection agreement with the City to reimburse City for actual inspection costs. 2. Every attempt will be made to maintain the constructed road .at its mapped location. Centerline monuments will be referenced prior to rough grading. 3. Developer will rough grade the roadway using information supplied by developer's engineer and a qualified soils lab , approved by City, will take representative compaction tests at developer's cost and furnish the results to the City. 4. City Engineer' s office will make an on-site inspection of the completeed rough grading with developer' s engineer. Adjustments will be made on recommendation concerning roadway grades and site distances . Cut and fill slopes will be examined at the time along with proposed location and size of drainage structures . Judgements will be based on well-recognized standards and practices . Drainage calculations are to be submitted to City prior to the field inspection. P.O. BOX 777 200 MAIN STREET • TEMPLETON, CALIFORNIA 93465 Page 2 Road Consturction Agreement Davis 6-13-86 S. All underground utilities shall be placed prior to paving. Trenches are to be adequately com- pacted with appropriate backfill material . 6. Developer shall place aggregate base . This work will be inspected by the City and will require compaction tests to be furnished by developer verifying the satisfactory placement of these materials . 7. After basing, City will review erosion control work and roadside drainage facilities . The City and developer's engineer will determine the location of any roadside ditches or downdrains . 8. Developer shall re-establish and monument centerline controls for the roadway as approved by City. County standard monument well at road intersections and on long tangents , 5/8" rebar with metal caps at all other locations . The monument wells are also to serve as bench marks with elevations shown on the As-Built Plans . 9 . Developer shall provide accurate As-Built plans for the roadway including plan and profile , culvert locations and invert elevations , berm locations , utility locations , and any other improvement features . 10 . Drive approach cuts and fills will be accomplished along with the subgrade preparation in order to eliminate the necessity of disturbing the completed roadway section when the balance of the driveways are constructed to serve individual lots . A no charge grading permit will be obtained and plans showing the location of the access points will be presented to the Planning Department and a field review of the driveway location made prior to approval to proceed with this work . The driveway grading should be kept to no more that 50 c.y. 11 . Final improved section shall be a minimum of 2 inches A. C. over at least 4" of Class 3 aggregate base . The structural section is to be based on a traffic index of 4 and the R-value of the sub-base soils . 12 . The upper 18" of subgrade shall be compacted to 95% relative density as measured by California Test Method No. 216 or by calibrated nuclear density instrument. Page 3 Road Construction Agreement Davis 6-13-86 13. Final pavement width is to be 20 feet with an additional two foot required where A. C. berms are placed for drainage control . Aggregate base width would then be a minimum one foot outside the edge of pavement. Also an additional two foot of A. C. widening with adequate tapers will be required where sharp horizontal curves are encountered. 14 . Cut ditches shall be paved with 2 inches of A.C. where the road grade exceeds 100 . 15. It is understood that Gordon T. Davis Cattle Co . also agrees to pay actual costs for City inspec. tion and engineering performed on this project . 16. Developer will maintain roads for one year after date of acceptance. 17. The roads in question will be accepted for City maintenance when all steps have been completed. 18. Generally the roads are to be developed in accordance with the attached phasing plan. The stages of the work is to take place , such as tree removal , grubbing, rough grading, etc. prior to start of construction. Sincerely, Allen W. Campb 11 R. C.E. 20244 AWC/pas enclosure cc : Henry Engen I agree with all conditions outlined in this agreement from Mr. Campbell . Signed Signed Paul Sensibaugh Gordon T. Davis Cattle Co. Dated 8�z/8� Dated 17 -oz 2 � � • REPORT TO .CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: C-2(b) Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 1/23/90 From: Gary R. Sims, Senior Engineer SUBJECT: Proposed Establishment of a Minimum Road Standard RECOMMENDATION: 1 . Adopt resolution 7 -90 establishing the minimum road standard as delineated in drawing A-1, "Minimum Road Standard. " The Resolution must be adopted by a 4/5th vote. BACKGROUND: The City currently lacks a standard delineating the minimum features required for, the design and construction of roads. Most road rights-of-way within the City of Atascadero were established by the original Colony Tract for use by the original Colony residents but specifically not for "public use. " Over time, the ownership of these roads has evolved to include the City, Wells Fargo Bank or private lot owners . Before acceptance of a road by the City was considered, the "developer" was required to construct the roads to standards outlined in written agreements. The "developers" were anyone willing to improve the roads and included single lot owners improving 1/2 of the street frontage in front of their lots as well as owners of many lots who were willing to construct extensive lengths of roadway. The road "agreements" were written documents that spelled out the standards of road construction so that the roads could eventually be accepted by the City. An additional condition was that the road under consideration must be contiguous with an existing City maintained street. • Delineating road standards is different from authorizing the construction of the road. In the past it has been assumed that roads could be constructed within the Colony Road rights-of-way if a "developer" was willing to bear the expense of constructing the road. An "encroachment permit" was required in order to initiate the delineation of road "standards. " The "encroachment permits" were required according to administrative policy, not by ordinance or resolution. On September 19, 1989 the City' s attorney, Jeffrey G. Jorgensen, in an opinion to City Manager Ray Windsor, indicated that "it appears that" CEQA processes must be complied with prior to the initiation of a road construction project even though the project is consistent with the General Plan map and the developer has a vested right to develop the existing parcels to be served by the road. Also, "It appears that there was inadequate authorization to the Public Works Department to enter into the 1983 and 1986 Master Road Agreements, as well as other verbal or written agreements of which I am unaware. Such activities should cease immediately, and a thorough review should be conducted with revision of city procedures as necessary. " This opinion and subsequent administrative action have effectively eliminated the practice of delineating road construction standards through individual written agreements. The Engineering Division and Community Development Department have implemented procedures that require the following sequence. • 1 . Requests for road construction are initiated through the Engineering Division. The Engineering Division completes plan checks to verify that the proposed plans are consistent with acceptable engineering standards. The environmental questionnaire is completed consistent with the plans 2 . The plans are then routed to the Community Development Department, to the Arborist, to the Building Division and to the Fire Department. The environmental questionnaire is submitted to the Community Development Department for review. 3. The CEQA process is completed by the Community Development Department resulting in the identification of any mitigation actions. In many cases the removal of heritage trees will have to be reviewed by the City Council. • 4 . The authorization to construct the project will be issued once the CEQA process has been completed. A road construction permit would be issued following the signing of an agreement delineating construction and inspection standards, construction and maintenance guarantees, and scheduling. A policy concerning guarantees will be brought before the Council at a later date. Currently, road construction requests .include portions of Ardilla, Tecorida, Bolsa, Santa Cruz, Garcia, San Marcos and Atajo road. Once again, the request herein is for the delineation of road construction standards, not for authorization to conduct road construction activities . These standards will be used throughout the four step review listed above to identify what the minimum acceptable road section will be. DISCUSSION: Typically, the State, County and local cities utilize published road construction standards to describe the standard road cross sections utilized by each agency. San Luis Obispo County, The City of San Luis Obispo, Santa Maria, Lompoc, and Paso Robles all publish books of standard drawings. One reason for this is it provides the designer with design goals and the reviewer with a set of standards by which the design can be judged. The drawings set some of the road safety standards for the community, particularly involving traffic lane and shoulder width and road surface characteristics.- The standard drawing under consideration will set the minimum road standards for the community. For most of the roads listed within the City, the standard will be used to determine whether or not adequate access exists . Thus, this standard will be used to review plans, convey information to designers and developers and it will be utilized to determine whether or not adequate access exists to proposed developments, such as subdivisions and single family residence permit application sites. Why start with a "minimum" road standard that is less than the usual 40 foot curb to curb width? Most of the roads within the City Limits are located on steep slopes and are characterized by narrow, winding rights-of-way. The typical rural Colony right-of-way is only 40 feet wide. It is difficult to construct much more than a 20 foot wide road when there are cut and fill slopes involved while remaining within the right-of-way. Typically, a standard city street is 40 feet wide from curb face to curb face and the right-of-way is at least 50 feet wide. To construct a 40 foot wide street would involve a significant increase in grading and environmental degradation. l Will the City require additional road standards? Yes. Although most of the roads constructed within the City Limits will be constructed according to standard A-1 (see attached drawing No. A-1) , additional road sections will be required by the new circulation element. The A-1 road standard is appropriate primarily for rural, low density housing environments . Can the City Council legally accept this type of road into .the City Maintained system. Yes. The Streets and Highway Codes allows a 20 foot wide road to be accepted by 4/5 vote. It should be noted that the City can't accept streets less than 20 feet wide unless they were established or used as such prior to September 15, 1935 . This has significant implications for the Wells Fargo Bank negotiations. Where it is absolutely impractical to widen a road to 20 feet the City can't legally accept that road into its system. Will streets constructed under this standard look exactly like this standard? No. Drainage improvements require some modifications depending on the situation. For example, if asphalt dikes are required som-a street widening may be required on tight radius curves . It is likely that some cut banks and fill slopes will be steeper, depending on the soiltypethat is encountered. It is conceivable that the slopes may be steepened to save a significant rock outcropping, or a tree in compliance with Resolution No. 59-89, "Resolution of the Council of the City of Atascadero Establishing a Policy Addressing the Conflict Between Roadway Construction Within Original Colony Road Alignments and Tree Preservation and Protection. " If it is proposed that the basic road cross section be less than the two 10 foot wide traffic lanes with 4 foot wide shoulders and 2 additional feet along the top of fill slope, then City Council direction will be requested. The reason for this is that, in the Engineering Staff' s opinion, a smaller cross section would significantly increase the hazard to the traveling public and thus increase the City' s liability. OPTIONS: 1. Approve the road standard as presented. 2 . Return the road standard for modification. FISCAL IMPACT• There may be a significant impact on the development costs of some residences, depending on how this minimum standard is implemented. In the past, single family residence permits have been issued without requiring off site access improvements, other than those required by the Uniform Fire Code. This has led to development along substandard roads. Examples of this include Bolsa, Tecorida, Amapoa, Seperado, Mananita, San Francisco and San Rafael, to name only a few. Once development has occurred there is no mechanism to improve or maintain the roads. The Engineering Staff recommends that the Council consider the imposition of assessment districts to improve these roads prior to allowing additional development. Enclosures: Proposed Resolution 7 -90 Streets and Highways Code #1805 Jorgensen memo to Ray Windsor, September 19, 1989 RESOLUTION NO. 7-90 RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO 0 ESTABLISHING A MINIMUM ROAD STANDARD FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF PRIVATE AND PUBLIC ROADS WHEREAS, there are no existing published road standards for the City of Atascadero; and WHEREAS, _ there remains a significant number of unconstructed or minimally improved Colony road rights-of-way; and WHEREAS, receipt of requests for development is continuing along these road rights-of-way; and WHEREAS, to protect the health and safety of the traveling public it is necessary to define a minimum road cross section; and WHEREAS, to minimize future road maintenance costs to the City it is necessary to establish minimum road standards. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT: The minimum road standard for the City of Atascadero for the construction of both private and public roads shall be as delineated on the attached Drawing No. A-1 titled "Minimum Road Standard. " The City Engineer shall be authorized to make minor deviations from Drawing No. A-1 to accommodate changes in material specifications, varying conditions, and to comply with Resolution No. 59-89, "Resolution of the Council of the City of Atascadero Establishing a Policy Addressing the Conflict Between Roadway Construction Within Original Colony Road Alignments and Tree Preservation and Protection. " On motion by Councilperson seconded by �\ Councilperson the foregoing resolution is passed on g 9 the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES : ABSENT: ADOPTED: ATTEST: BOYD C. SHARITZ, City Clerk ROLLIN DEXTER, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: ARTHER R. MONTANDON HENRY ENGEN City Attorney Director of Community Development Revisions A rovaIs Descri tions B Date A roved Council Resolution No. 1. The Traffic Index shall be determined by the City Engineer. The minimum Traffic Index shall be 4-1/2. 2. The pavement and aggregate base thickness shall be determined according to the Caltrans 'Highway Design Manual", Section 608.4 and shall include the appropriate gravel equivalent safety factor. 3. Asphalt dike and paved shoulders shall be installed where needed to control erosion. Otherwise, roadside drainage improvements shall be installed outside the four foot wide shoulder. * 4. As an alternate, the two foot wide choker may be eliminated and the aggregate base carried to the hinge point. 5. Asphalt Concrete shall conform to the requirements for Type B Asphalt Concrete as specified in Section 39 of the Caltrans "Standard Specifications". 3/4 inch maximum aggregate shall be used, or 1/2 inch maximum aggregate may be used if approved by the City Engineer. 6. Aggregate Base shall conform to the requirements for Class 2 Aggregate Base as specified in Section 26 of the Caltrans "Standard Specifications". Class 3 aggregate base may be used if approved by the City Engineer. 7. Cut and fill slopes shall be hydroseeded with a mix and at a rate approved by the City Engineer unless waived by the City Engineer. 8. The Contractor is responsible for the proper resetting of all existing monuments and other survey markers located within the section of road under construction. Monuments and survey markers shall be reset according to the City 'Standard Street Monument" drawing M-1. 9. A City Road Construction Permit shall be obtained before the construction of any private or public road. -2% 2' Minimum Type 'B' A.C. > 1 Class 2 Agg. Base jo-°�fei 4' 2' 4' " 10' 10 —� 6' �— 30' CITY OF ATASCADERO SCALE NO SCALE ENGINEERING DAW110N oRAwnvc No. 7 "$ DE, MINIMUM ROAD STANDARD A-1 1 � i § 1805. midth of streets and bridges The width of all city streets, except state highways, bridges, al- leys, lleys, and trails, shall be at least 40 feet, except that the governing body of any city may, by a resolution passed by a four-fifths vote of its membership, determine that the public convenience and necessity demand the acquisition, construction and maintenance of a street of less than 40 feet and, after such determination, proceed with the ac- quisition, construction or maintenance of any such street The width of all private highways and by-roads, except bridges, shall be at least 20 feet This section does not require that the width of city streets established or used as such prior to September 15, 1935, be increased or diminished. (Added by Stats1951, c. 657,p. 1868, 2. Amended by Stats-1%5, c- 569, P. 1069, § L) REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM: C-3 CITY OF ATASCADERO THROUGH: Ray Windsor , City Manager MEETING DATE: 1/23/90 FROM: Andrew J. Takata, Director Parks. Recreation and Zoo Department SUBJECT: PROPOSAL FOR THE CITY OF ATASCADERO TO OPERATE THE ATASCADERO SCHOOL DISTRICT SWIMMING POOL RECOMMENDATION: Direct staff to begin the planning for the operation of the Atascadero High School swimming pool for the Summer of 1990, and request funds for operation as a mid-year budget adjustment. BACKGROUND: • As per the City Council ' s previous request, staff and Atascadero School District staff have met regarding the proposed City operation of the Atascadero High School swimming pool operation. The purpose of this report is to consider the feasibility of the City ' s Parks, Recreation and Zoo Department taking over the summer operations of the Atascadero High School swimming pool . ANALYSISs Swim programs conducted by municipalities on School District facilities are not uncommon. The programs are operated with normal recreation programming , except for times when the High School and club teams need access. i The following is the 1989 Summer Swim Program expenditure, not including utilities, maintenance, and chemicals. REVENUES Swim Fees $ 12,700.04 EXPENDITURES • Salaries/Supplies s 11 ,998.40 Net Revenues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 702.00 It is noted that all chemical costs will be assumed by the Atascadero School District. • r OPTION 1 : Recommend City Council to direct staff to begin planning for administrating the Atascadero High School pool operations for the Summer of 1990. Advantage: Parks, Recreation and Zoo Department will be able to provide an additional service to the community, and program the facility to generate revenues. Disadvantage: Increased programming could over-burden present Department staff. OPTION 2: Recommend City Council not pursue operations of the Atascadero School District ' s pool . Advantage: It would over-burden present Department staff. • Disadvantage: There would be no City input as to programming the facility. The School District would continue to operate a common recreation function. Staff feels that having the pool under the direction of the Parks, Recreation and Zoo Department could provide additional activities and a better service to the public . FISCAL IMPACT: Possibility of a net expenditure or net revenue. ------------- ------------------- ANDREW J. TA TA Director AJT:kv • ;SchDst2 M E M O R A N D U M DATE: April 14, 1989 TO: Parks and Recreation Commission FROM: Andrew J. Takata, Director Parks, Recreation, and Zoo Department SUBJECT: ATASCADERO UNIFLEll SCHOOL DISTRICT___PROPOSAt_,__- SUMMER SL4 I PL PROGRAM 9ACKGROUNDe - ... Dr. Anthony Avina, Atascadero Unified School District Superintendent, approached the City as to the possibility of the Parks, Recreation and Zoo Department -conductinq the Summer Swim ' Program in Creston Elementary School and Atascadero High School. ANALYSIS: Swim programs conducted by municipalities on School District facilities are not uncommon. The programs are operated with normal recreation programming, except for times when the High School and club teams need access. The following is the 1989 Slimmer Swim Program expenditure, not including utilities, maintenance, and chemicals. Swim Fees 229006 Creston Donation —43900 Total Revenues = a 259006 EXPENDITURES Salaries a 179500 Benefits 542 Total Salaries/Benefits = a 18,042 Supplies _1,b4a Total Gross Expenditures = 19,895 Net Revenues. . . . • . . . rr• rsr .:rr. •rr .. .r• rarr . � . ♦ . .. • .erJ,121 . Since administrative utility, and chemical costs are not included, it is difficult to determine if there is a possibility of a break-even point. It has not been negotiated with the School District as to who will incur the cost of utilities and chemical costs. OPTION_ANALYSIS: Option 1a _ • -A Recommend to the City Council that they direct staff to begin operation of the District's pool for the summer of 1989. Advantage: Parks, Recreation, and Zoo Department will be able to add an additional service to the community and proqram the facility to generate revenues. Disadvantage: There is a lack of preparation time to program a quality recreation program. There have been no'-formal neqotiations with ' the District to determine liability, utility costs, etc. Opton....2:: t _ Recommend to the City Council that they direct staff to negotiate with the Atascadero School District to administer the operation of the District's pools for the summer of 1990. Advantaqe: The Parks, Recreation, and Zoo Department will be able to provide an additional service to the community, and program the facility to generate revenues. It would allow ample preparation time to program a quality recreation programa It would allow ample time to complete negotiations with the School District. Disadvantage: Increased proqramminq could over burden present Recreation Division staff. t: ... .... - ... YF+,w.3;z.<..,..5....-:•i'.a.+y if�� ra.+,cn... •.... .. ..;'.!�,•.x. ::x Hri<"x„ .'�SY!qua+.vcc«✓,l>r.+riri3r..>.-SCgG�,�^kt� ::�� _ :^niy. ,y �_ - Option 3s Recommend to the City Council that the City should not operate the School District 's pools. Advantaae: It would not over burden present Recreation Uivision staff. Disadvantage: There would be no City input-as to programming of the facility. The School District would continue to operate a common recreation function. Staff feels that havinq the pool under the direction of the Parks, Recreation and Zoo Department could provide .additional activities for residents. Staff does have concerns with performing this program for summer, 1989„ for the following reasons: 1 . Adequate preparation time. 2. Present internal changes have resulted in -less man hours available at this time. 3. is not budgeted in the .L980/89 fiscal year. FINANCIAL _ IMPACTs Possibility of a net expenditure or net revenue. RECOMMENDATION: Therefore, it is recommended that the Parks and Recreation Commission recommend to the City Council that they direct staff to prepare for the operation of the Atascadero School District ' s Pool Proqram for the summer of 1990. ANDREW~J. TWWA---___-________ Director AT:kv Files SchUst Attachments 3 1 = Atascadero unified School District "Where students and their education are paramount" 6800 LEWIS AVENUE ANTHONY AVINA,•Ed.D. ATASCADERO, CA 93422 District Superintendent PHONE: (805) 466-0393 April 3, 1989 Mr. Andy Takata Parks & Recreation City of Atascadero 6500 Palma Atascadero, CA 93422 Dear Mr. Takata: We are sending you herewith an accounting of the Summer Swim Program for last summer along with a salary schedule for personnel for same.. Sincerely, �N J . Ernest W. Taylor Chief Business Official - EWT: rr encl Carrisa Plains Elementary • Creston Elementary • Lewis Avows Elementary • Monterey Road Elementary Santa Margarita Elementary • Santa Rosa Road Elementary • Atascadero Junior High School Atascadero Senior High School • Atascadero Adult School • Oak Hills Continuation High School f SUMMER SWIM PROGRAM SUMMER - 1988 Income: Swim Fees $22, 006 Creston Donation 3, 000 $25, 006 Expense: Salaries $ 17, 500 Benefits 542 $ 18, 042 Supplies $ 1 , 843 , $ 19, 885 ($19, 885) Net Profit $ 5, 121 Note: The above calculations do not include utilities. ATASCADERO HIGH SCHOOL SUMMER SWIM PROGRAM 1988 Recreational swimming will begin on Saturday, June 25 and run through Sunday, August 28. Pool hours will be scheduled as follows: Adult Swim 7:00 am to 7:50 am Monday - Friday 12:10 pm to 1:00 pm Monday - Sunday Adult Exercise Group 12:10 pm to 1:00 pm Monday - Friday (Not available July 4 - 8) Recreational Swimming All ages welcome! Children 6 and under must be accompanied in the water by an adult. 1:00 pm - 4:00 pm Monday - Friday 1:00 pm - 5:00 pm Saturday and Sunday 7:00 pm - 9:00 pm Tuesday & Thursday (Evening swim through July 28 only) • Daily swim fee per patron has been increased in some cases: Adult Lap Swim and Adult Exercise Group - 50 cents Recreational Swim - now $1.00 for all ages We offer American Red Cross swimming lessons for children four years and older. Classes available may include: Beginner; Advanced Beginner; Intermediate; Swimmer; Advanced Swimmer; Basic Rescue and Water Safety; Advanced Lifesaving. We also offer pre-swimming lessons for children four years of age and younger. Class offerings for pre-swimming lessons are Water Adaptive with Parent or Water Adaptive. All classes are limited to eight students and will be filled on a first come, first served basis. The summer swimming lesson sessions are as follows:- Session ollows:Session I - June 27 through July 8 Session II - July 11 through July 22 ' Session III - July 25 through August 5 Session IV - August 8 through August 19 Session V - August 22 through August 26 Lesson fees will be as follows: Sessions I through IV 20.00 per student per i g $ p p session Session V $10.00 per student Basic Rescue and Water Safety, Advanced Lifesaving $30.00 per student per session plus book fee. Registration for swim lessons will be in the High School gym wrestling room (directional signs will be posted near the swimming pool) at*the following times: Sessions I, II and V only -5:30 pm - 8:30 pm Monday, June 13 Sessions III, IV and V only 5:30 pm - 8:30 pm Tuesday, June 14th If you miss the scheduled registration times, please come to the pool Monday through Friday between 9:00 am and 11:30 am starting June 20. The High School Attendance Office telephone number, 466-1424 will bechanged to ' the Pool Directors telephone number on June 20. You may call the Pool Director, Terri Kieselhorst, at that telephone number with your questions and comments between 9:00 am and 11:30 am. Do not call before June 20 as the Pool Director does not go on duty until then. The`pool will be closed on July 4. • 1 lai�!!=a!!��=iQi!lla�ilwa�i=!ww!!lwaliiwC!! =noun iili�lilw�!!lw;�i:lw IME_■_■_■__■■_■_■_■_■_■_��_■_■_■_■_�_■__��_��__��:i�_r+l�i7- --' . ■■■■■■■■YY■■YY■■■YYY■■YYYY■YYYY■Y■■■■■■ t ! imumoAli=ia!!!ia!!!!a!l�w4�l4�ii.77747 la!!! ia!! lNiis�!!ii�!!!i�!!!=�JlCai�iiA'SiiL�7f7Si��Nii I�!!Nlwinliiwmlilw�iii mNmMAN 7iJ7t:mmrw.ImI �liq I�q!!i�li!!i!!gilliw��7lL7g7l,����i!73`'t 7�i7�N! ! !ii !ll�i q!!=!!!w7l7':J.`.''r_7i'?3 7;.i'ii•�1.� igNw�lNN�sliw�! gw��l7i7:�7.7.�.a�-.113lisa I�wNlw�!!!w�!liw�lilw�!!!w�!!iN I��ww�iNw�iiiw�!!!i�iiiw�!!iw✓• 10il�®d®�liiws!!SO®SYAq/®�YAll0;7!!►7�nf"J:SJ7J!1:'���7®� I�:L7_®�.?B4'>IH�fGF!4191.�®0®�R'itM^9lRitl�l9�!ltDl�R.a�®@I�{.�7i7:J..7�1�:7 r.'i7 _i_ "i■i■� ■■_■_ _ __■�_ ■YYYY.YYYY■YYY■■YYY.■YYY.■■■■.■■■..■Y�■. 3111111111 Em i�ililw�!llw�iil��liiw�!!!w�!!!wa!! � iiiwZiiiw�ilil�i!!��lq� I�!!!lw�qil��!liw�!liw�igl��iilw�i!!!�!q iw�ilil��ii4�w�iq! !q� I�iiilw 14�!!!w�liiw lw -inii■psi■iiiiiiiiiiiiiYYioi%%i�ii.iYY.�■ - ommoz= in ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■Y■■■■YYEMIN am ��Y��YYY.�Y■Y�■YYYY�YYY.YYYY.YYY..■N---- ■■■■■=■=■NN■■■■YY_Y■■YYY■■YY_Y■YY_Y_Y■YYn.YYYY■ � !!!!!in ■YYYYYI■YYY■_1YYYY!■YYY_.■Y_■_._.■YY_Y._YYY■.YY... ■YYYYY■YYY■■_YY■■_■_YYY_■_■_ ■■_■■■■■■_■_■_■_■_■_■_ _■_■■I � ■YYYYY■YYY■■YYY■■YYY.■YYYYYYYYY.YYY�YYYY.;--- I� 1� !il��!! w�i!lw�wiilr!lii.•7i!li�i�i!!lin= 1� !q! ■■■YYY■■■■■YYYi■YY■■■Y!Y ■ !■Y■■■■.■Y ■�Y_■I!lNql��! ■■_■■YY�YY■�■��Y�■® �YYYYYYYYYYYY YYYYY' gigiw�! w� ■YYYYYIYYY���l�����i��®YYY.®YYYYYY.YYI -- �_ ��CC�� =�Cm 1�!!liw�i!!w�!_!_i_i�iiil�ilii®i441144MdAili!!! iiglw�!!� ■■■■■■■■Y■■■■Y■■■■Y■Y■Y■■■■YYY■■■■■■■■■■■! ATASCADERO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 1988-89 SALARY INFORMATION NON-RECUALR EMPLOYEES Effective Aprit 5, 1989 Substitute Teachers $6Q per day short term $71per day long term after 20 days in same assignment $$dp 'dayr Iang term after 45 days i�xrarrte assilprterFfi Adult Educatioc�rTeachers $1 t}a pei"hour u� Prep Period,Substitutes $15.00' per�'hour. Drivers Education/Trainingio $1 .QQ per hc�dr p � WAP Pe. fact x Horne Instructionp >r b '21, , nax PIC GCant Xe, %x $1Ettr Ix OP Teachers ' OUFEN x., k b Norse ConsultAhlwug k� Aids forsuatt Signing tnfifL.refer fi m �x s .:, Directoe, '6. :: Pool:EiTtblo A `fit �47- 7 w- 07 ` �, Ir" r' Poo t Ma40 per�fif �+x �,,j ,$'°a '�'1.. 5 '�, �4+ �t 1 'a };wif Aide x x > wl 7 " Y e - rDer.vfs.ga . TMP:' IMiP PY ATASCADERO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT MEMORANDUM To: Mr. Taylor Date.- From: ate;From: Mary Tidwell Sub%ect: Summer Swim Salaries f High.School swimming pool. sale xEr6 f: tb T 0t8 sir ¢Z Creston swimmaing pool sa7.sz3 es • {" , " # etZ@ftS � A 'l 99 N1,112, W � Y f��y mat 'M 4 7". ,9 n s - "� �'•; i 'fig $ .,. �, # '?"a� ? ,- • REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: C_4 Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 1/23/90 File No: ZC 3-89 From: Henry Engen, Community Development Director �f: SUBJECT: Proposed adoption of Ordinance No. 203 to amend the official Zoning Ordinance text relative to non-conforming uses of land. BACKGROUND : On January 9, 1990, the City Council conducted a public hearing on the above-referenced subject. Upon review, Ordinance No. 203 was approved on first reading. . RECOM14ENDATION: 1) Reading of Ordinance No. 203 by title only; and 2) Adoption of Ordinance No. 19S on second reading. HE:ps ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance No. 203 • REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: g-.5 Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: II9190 File No: ZC 3-89 From: Henry Engen, Community Development Director ' SUBJECT: Amendment to the text of the Zoning Ordinance to allow lots occupied by nonconforming uses to be further developed by the addition of conforming uses or structures (subject to conditional use permit approval) . BACKGROUND: On December 5, 1989, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on this subject and on a 6:0 vote (Commissioner Hanauer absent) , recommended approval of Zone Change 3-89 as reflected in Ordinance No. 203 . There was discussion and public testimony as evidenced in the attached minutes excerpt. RECOMMENDATION: 1) waive reading of Ordinance No. 203 in full and approve by title only; and 2) Approve Ordinance No. 203 on first reading HE:ps ATTACHMENTS: Staff Report dated December 5, 1989 Minutes Excerpt - December 5, 1989 Ordinance No. 203 cc: L. Kent Williams • CITY OF ATASCADERO Item: B-2 STAFF REPORT FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: December 5, 1989 BY: P�Psteven L. DeCamp, City Planner File No: ZC 3-89 SUBJECT: An amendment to the text of the Zoning Ordinance to allow lots occupied by nonconforming uses to be further developed by the addition of conforming uses or structures. BACKGROUND: The City Council initiated this Zoning Ordinance text amendment to provide an opportunity for analysis of the question of allowing for the addition of conforming uses or structures to lots which contain nonconforming uses. This amendment request was generated by Mr. L. Kent Williams who seeks to build an additional storage building on a single family residential lot • which already contains two (2) single family dwellings (a nonconforming land use) . The City' s Zoning Ordinance does not permit the expansion of, or additions to such nonconforming uses. A. SITUATION AND FACTS: 1 . Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .City of Atascadero 2. Project Location. . . . . . . . . . . . .City wide 3. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Negative Declaration posted November 21, 1989 B. ANALYSIS: The Zoning Ordinance defines a nonconforming land use as follows: 119-7 . 102. Nonconforming Use Defined: Nonconforming use includes any of the following which were lawfully established before the effective date, or before any subsequent amendment, of this Title: . (a) A building, structure (including signs) , land use, or activity which was established or is conducted in a manner which does not conform with one or more A*1 2 standards or permit requirements of this Title. • (b) A use of land established in a location where such use is not identified as allowable by this Title. " Chapter 7 of the Ordinance restricts the use and/or expansion of nonconforming land uses as follows: 119-7 . 106. Nonconforming Uses of Land: Any nonconforming use of land (Section 9-7. 102 (b) ) may be continued as follows: (a) Expansion: The use may not be enlarged, increased, or extended to occupy a greater area of land than that occupied on the effective date of this Title, except for a detached single family residence as provided in Subsection c of this Section. (b) Discontinued Use: If the nonconforming use of land is discontinued for a period of six months or more, any following use shall conform with all applicable requirements of this Title. (c) Single Family Residential Use: A detached single family residence existing as a principal use in • commercial or industrial zoning districts may be continued as a residential use, subject to Subsection b of this Section, and may be altered, provided that no increase in the number of dwelling units or increase greater than 50% in the usable floor area, as it existed on the effective date of this Title, occurs. Any expansion pursuant to this standard shall conform with all applicable provisions of Chapters 9-4 and 9-6 of this Title." Staff has consistently interpreted Section 9-7 . 106. (a) to mean that no additional development would be allowed on a parcel containing any nonconforming use. This interpretation has applied equally to direct expansion of the nonconforming use or the development or placement of a conforming use on the same property. The Ordinance allows for the continuation of the legally created but now nonconforming use, but disallows- any expansion of the use, or increase in the development of the property upon which the nonconforming use is located. The intent of disallowing expansion of the nonconforming use, or other use of the property, is to encourage the nonconforming use to relocate to a zone where it is allowed or can be conditionally approved. The City' s General Plan provides little guidance relative to • nonconforming uses. The basic premise of a general plan is, however, to ensure compatible development and to provide suitable 3 areas for the range of activities that are anticipated within the community. For this reason, it is not customary for a plan to devote much space to the issue of nonconforming uses . The single Policy in the Atascadero General Plan that does address the issue of nonconforming uses is found in the Residential Policy Proposals (page 58) and states: "13. Non-conforming uses located in residential areas shall be relocated. " The Zoning Ordinance provisions regarding the expansion of nonconforming uses effectively encourage such uses to relocate to appropriate zones if they seek to expand, enlarge or extend their area. It is clearly in the best interest of the community to eliminate, wherever and whenever possible, nonconforming land uses. Nonconforming uses that were created illegally should be abated; legally established nonconforming uses should be encouraged to relocate to more suitable locations. Likewise, such uses, whether legally established or not, should not be allowed to expand. It may not be necessary to restrict the- establishment of all • conforming uses and/or structures on lots containing nonconforming land uses as is currently provided in the Zoning Ordinance. If a conforming use will not facilitate the continuation or expansion of a nonconforming use, there is no public interest to be protected. The City of San Luis Obispo, for example, allows for such development in their Zoning Ordinance by providing: "A lot occupied by a non-conforming use may be further developed by the addition of conforming uses and structures, provided an administrative use permit is approved by the Director. " Through the Conditional Use Permit process (an Administrative Use Permit appears to be a more appropriate vehicle, but is not authorized by the Atascadero Zoning Ordinance) , assurances could be obtained that the new conforming use or structure would not add to the nonconforming status of the lot, and that other concerns such as density, circulation, landscaping, etc. are addressed. An example of a situation where a conforming structure and use might be permitted on a lot containing a nonconforming use is the property owned by Mr. Williams. This pot contains approximately 5. 0 acres and is zoned RS (Residential Suburban) . There are two (2) single family dwellings on this property that were constructed well before the adoption of the current Zoning Ordinance. The property is, however, considered to be 4 nonconforming because of the second residence. Under the provisions of the current Ordinance, Mr. Williams has been denied a permit to build a storage building on his property, even though the storage building would otherwise be a conforming use and structure. After review of a site plan, and a public hearing, the Planning Commission might be able to approve such a project given adequate assurances that all concerns relative to density, site design, landscape screening, etc. have been addressed. If, however, the analysis results in unresolved concerns, the plan could be denied. Such issues can best be determined on a case- by-case basis. The language proposed for inclusion within the Zoning Ordinance would provide the avenue for the case-by-case analysis and determination that is necessary. C. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Commission approve the attached draft ordinance and recommend its adoption to the City Council. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A - March 28, 1989 City Council Report Attachment B - Draft Ordinance ATTACHMENT A M E M O R A N D U M r TO: City Council March 28 , 1989 VIA: Ray Windsor, City Manager FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director 4 SUBJECT: REQUEST TO INITIATE ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT - NONCONFORMING USES/STRUCTURES BACKGROUND: Mr. L. Kent Williams has submitted a request to provide enough flexibility in the Zoning Ordinance to permit him to build a barn on his existing lot at 12501 Santa Lucia Road. There are two homes on this five acre parcel which creates a nonconforming land use situation. The Zoning Ordinance does not permit the expansion of nonconforming uses nor the issuance of a permit in such cases. • REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a revision to the Zoning Ordinance to allow lots occupied by a nonconforming use to be further developed by the addition of conforming uses or structures . The request to amend the zoning text applies to all properties in the City and, therefore, the ordinance wisely requires that there be either Planning Commission or Council authorization before pro- ceeding to analysis and public hearing which could lead to a potential change. It would appear reasonable to evaluate establishing by use permit the possibility of of allowing lots occupied by nonconforming uses to be further developed by the addition of conforming uses and structures provided they do not increase the degree of nonconformity. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council initiate for review and consideration a zoning text amendment to allow limited development for nonconforming uses or structures subject to selected findings . HE:ps cc: L. Kent Williams ATTACHMENT B ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT RELATIVE TO NONCONFORMING USES OF LAND (CITY OF ATASCADERO: ZC 03-89) WHEREAS, the proposed zoning text amendment proposes standards that are consistent with the General Plan as required by Section 65860 of the California Government Code; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendment is in conformance with Section 65800 et seq. of the California Government Code concerning zoning regulations; and WHEREAS, the Atascadero Planning Commission held a public hearing on December 5, 1989, and has recommended approval of the Zoning Ordinance text amendment; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendment will not have a significant adverse impact upon the environment. The Negative Declaration prepared for the project is adequate; and NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Atascadero does ordain as follows: Section 1 . Council Findings. 1. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan land use element and other elements contained in the General Plan. 2. The proposal will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts. The Negative Declaration prepared for the project is adequate. Section 2. Zoning Text Change. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment 03-89 approved to change the text of the Zoning Ordinance as shown in the attached Exhibit A, which is made a part of this Ordinance by reference. Ordinance No. 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 motion as approved by the following role 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: ARTHER MONTANDON, City Attorney PREPARED BY: HENRY ENGEN, Community Development Director EXHIBIT A Section 9-7.106 (a) of the City of Atascadero Zoning Ordinance is amended to read as follows (added language is underlined) : (a) Expansion: The use may not be enlarged, increased, or extended to occupy a greater area of land than that occupied on the effective date of this Title, except for a detached single family residence as provided in Subsection c of this Section. The Planning Commission may, by Conditional Use Permit, allow a lot occupied by a nonconforming use to be further developed by the addition of conforming uses and structures. PAGE TWO Minutes Excerpt - Planning Commission - 12/5/89 MOTION: Made by Commissioner Brasher, seconded by Commis- sioner Luna and carried e : 0 to continue the hearing on Tentative Parcel Map 20-89 to a later date. 2. ZONE CHANGE 3-89 : Application filed by the City of Atascadero to amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance to allow lots occupied by nonconforming uses to be further developed by the addition of conforming uses or structures . Location is City-wide. Steve Decamp presented the staff report noting staff ° s recommendation to approve an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance text by which approval of a conforming use on a lot containing a nonconforming use could be accomplished through use of the conditional use permit process . Commission questions and discussion followed relative to the advantages a use permit would have as far as control of nonconforming structures on a piece of property; the Zoning Ordinance currently does not have a provision for an administrative officer to regulate this function, etc . In response to question from the Commission, Mr. DeCamp provided a background on the City Council ° s intent in initiating the zoning amendment. Commissioner Highland stated that such examples of nonconforming uses would apply to residential areas wherein second structures had been allowed under County jurisdiction. Greg Peterson, representing L. Kent Williams, explained how the two houses on the five acre piece of property had been in conformance with County ordinances but became nonconform- ing upon adoption of Atascadero' s ordinances . Mr. and Mrs. Williams desire to construct a barn/storage building. Mr. Peterson urged approval of their request. Commissioner Waage stated he sees no problem with the ordinance and would like to see the conditional use permit process used. Commissioner Highland added that a change in the Zoning text to make provision for an administrative officer would be useful when a revision to the Ordinance is adopted. MOTION: Made by Commissioner Highland, seconded by Commis- sioner Waage and carried 6 :0 to recommend approval of Zone Change 3-89 as reflected in the draft ordinance. w. ORDINANCE NO. ZD3_ AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT RELATIVE TO NONCONFORMING USES OF LAND (CITY OF ATASCADERO: ZC 03-89) WHEREAS, the proposed zoning text amendment proposes standards that are consistent with the General Plan as required by Section 65860 of the California Government Code; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendment is in conformance with Section 65800 et seq. of the California Government Code concerning zoning regulations; and WHEREAS, the Atascadero Planning Commission held a public hearing on December 5, 1989, and has recommended approval of the Zoning Ordinance text amendment; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendment will not have a significant adverse impact upon the environment. The Negative Declaration prepared for the project is adequate; and NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Atascadero does ordain as follows: Section 1. Council Findings. 1. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan land use element and other elements contained in the General Plan. 2. The proposal will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts. The Negative Declaration prepared for the project is adequate. Section 2. Zoning Text Change. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment 03-89 approved to change the text of the Zoning Ordinance as shown in the attached Exhibit A, which is made a part of this Ordinance by reference. Ordinance No. 203 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 motion as approved by the following role 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: ARTHER MONTANDON, City Attorney PREPARED BY: HENRY ENGEN, Community Development Director EXHIBIT A Section 9-7 . 106 (a) of the City of Atascadero Zoning Ordinance is amended to read as follows (added language is underlined) : (a) Expansion: The use may not be enlarged, increased, or extended to occupy a greater area of land than that occupied on the effective date of this Title, except for a detached single family residence as provided in Subsection c of this Section. The Planning Commission may, by Conditional Use Permit, allow a lot occupied by a nonconforming use to be further developed by the addition of conforming uses and structures. MEETING p 23/90 AGEC- 5 ITEMS ,.........�.,. M E M O R A N D U M DATE: January 17, 1990 TO: Ray Windsor , City Manager FROM: Arther R. Montandon, City Attorney SUBJECT: CITY COUNCIL AGENDA FORM We have discussed possible changes in the agenda format to simplify the proceedings and save time. I have no objection to their implementation. They are as follows: 1 . Placement of the second reading of ordinances on the consent calendar. 2. Placing on the consent calendar a recommendation that the City Council waive the reading in full of all ordinances. Additionally, I recommend that the following be placed at the beginning of all agendas. This language will provide a safety net to avoid potential violations of the Brown Act. "This agenda is prepared and posted pursuant to the re- quirements of Government Code Section 54954.2. By list- ing a topic on this agenda , the City Council has ex- pressed its intent to discuss and act on each item. In addition to any action identified in the brief general description of each item the action that may be taken shall include : a referral to staff with specific requests for information; continuance ; specific direc- tion to staff concerning the policy or mission of the item; discontinuance of consideration; authorization to enter into negotiations and execute agreements pertain- ing to the item; adoption or approval ; and disapproval . Copies of the staff reports or other documentation relating to each item of business referred to on the agenda are on file in the office of the City Clerk, available for public inspection during City Hall busi- ness hours. The City Clerk will answer any questions regarding the agenda ." Please contact me regarding any questions you may have. r atas2 REPORT TO ,CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: C-6 Through : Ray Windsor ,';City Manager Meeting Date: 1 ;23/90 From: Mark Joseph , Administrative. Services Director /m f SUBJECT: Scheduling the Mid Year Budget Review RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Council convene at 5:30 p .m. on Tuesday, February 13, 1990 for the annua3 . .Budget Review Session. BACKGROUND: Generally around February of each year , . a workshop is held to assess where the City ' s finances are relative to the budget ; make midyear budget radj,ustments as necessary; and preview the upcoming budget . The recommendation to hold this year.' s workshop before the regular Council session is because only minor adjustments are being proposed . As such, it is hoped that an hour and a half will be sufficient time to review the material .