HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 02/27/1990 LEE DAYKA
CITY CLERK
A G E N D A
ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
ATASCADERO ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
6500 PALMA
FOURTH FLOOR, ROTUNDA ROOM
FEBRUARY 27, 1990
7:00 P.M.
This agenda is prepared and posted pursuant to the require-
ments of Government Code Section 54954.2 . By listing a topic on
this agenda, the City Council has expressed 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 re-
quests for information; continuance; specific direction to staff
concerning the policy or mission of the item; discontinuance of
consideration; authorization to enter into negotiations and exe-
cute agreements pertaining 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 business hours. The City Clerk will answer any
questions regarding the agenda.
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
i
open for Council discussion.
Call to Order
Pledge of Allegiance
Roll Call
City Council Comment:
- Presentation of Donation by Andrew Stone, Exec. Producer,
"My Blue Heaven"
Proclamations:
• "Arbor Day" March T, 1990
• American Cancer Society "Daffodil Days", March 20-21,
1990
Certificates of Appreciation to Boy Scout Troop 104, Flaming
Arrow Patrol, for construction of bus stop shelter located
on E. Mall near Palma Ave
COMMUNITY FORUM:
The City; Council values and encourages exchange of ideas and
comments from you, ,the citizen. TheCommunityForum 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.
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. Where ordinance adoption is involved, action by
Council on the Consent Calendar will presuppose waiving of the
reading in full of the ordinance in question:
1 JANUARY 231 1990 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
2. FEBRUARY 13, 1990 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
3. FEBRUARY 26, 1990 CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES
4 CITY TREASURER'S REPORT - JANUARY, 1990
5 FINANCE DIRECTOR'S' REPORT - JANUARY, 1990
2
6. RESOLUTION NO. 8-90 - AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 76-88, MAKING
CHANGES TO THE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
ATASCADERO AND RAY WINDSOR, CITY MANAGER (Cont'd_ from
2/13/90)
7. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 24-89, 10750 SANTA ANA - Subdivision of
two lots into three (Kamm/Dohan/Vaughan)
S. NOTICE OF COMPLETION SAN ANDRES STORM DRAIN
9. ORDINANCE NO. 205 - DELETING THE REQUIREMENT THAT PARKS & `
RECREATION COMMISSIONERS MUST TERMINATE THEIR OFFICE WHEN
SEEKING CITY ELECTIVE OFFICE (Second reading & adoption)
10. RESOLUTION N0. 18-90 - AUTHORIZING PARTICIPATION.IN THE
JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT WITH S.L.O. COUNTY AND CITIES TO
UPDATE THE NOISE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN
11. AWARD BID FOR SOD - TRAFFIC WAY PARK PROJECT
12. RESOLUTION NO. 22-90 - ADOPTING MID-YEAR BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS
{Pursuant to- council action on 2/13/90)
/
B.
HEARINGS/APPEARANCES:
1. PAVILION DESIGN AUTHORIZE FINAL FLOOR PLAN & PROCEED WITH
WORKING DRAWINGS
2. RESOLUTION 21-90 - AUTHORIZE PROPOSED RED CURBING 8 INTER
SECTION OF OLMEDA & TRAFFIC WAY
3. PROPOSED RELOCATION OF STOP SIGN 0 INTERSECTION OF LOS OSOS
RD. & OLD MORRO RD. EAST:
A. RESOLUTION NO. 19-90 - PROPOSING ELIMINATION OF STOP
INTERSECTION ON LOS OSOS RD. & OLD MORRO RD. EAST
(eliminating the existing stop sign, but not establish-
ing a
stablish-ing ;a new stop on Old Morro Rd. East)
B. RESOLUTION NO. 20-90 - PROPOSING DESIGNATION OF STOP
INTERSECTION ON OLD MORRO RD EAST' @_LOS OSOS RD (es-
tablishing a new stop sign on Old Morro Rd. East, but
not eliminating the existing sign on Los Osos Rd. ,
thereby creating a two-way stop intersection)
C. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION:
1. City Council (see next page)
3
A. Fiscal' Planning Model Set date for study session
B. Comittee Reports (The following represents ad hoc or
standing commitees. Informative status: reports will be
given, as felt 'necesnary. )
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 Economic Opportunity Commission
S. B.I.A.
9. Downtown Steering Committee
10. General Plan Subcommittee
2. City Attorney
3. City Clerk
4. City Treasurer
5. city Manager '
4
•
P R O C L A M A T I O N
"ARBOR DAY"
March 7, 1990
WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Atascadero is proud of
the City' s street, park and home garden trees and recognizes the
importance of tree care and appreciation and the contribution of
such to a cleaner and healthier environment; and
WHEREAS, in 1872, J. Sterling Morton proposed to the Neb-
raska Board of Agriculture that a special day be set aside for
the planting of trees; and
WHEREAS, this holiday, called Arbor Day, was first observed
with the planting of more than a million trees in the State of
Nebraska; and
WHEREAS, Arbor Day is now observed throughout the nation and
the world; and
WHEREAS, trees can reduce the erosion of our precious top-
soil by wind and water, cut heating and cooling costs, moderate
• the temperature, clean the air, produce oxygen and provide
habitat for wildlife; and
WHEREAS, trees are a renewable resource, giving us paper,
wood for our homes, fuel for our fires and countless other wood
products; and
WHEREAS, trees in our city increase property values, enhance
the economic vitality of business areas, and beautify our commu-
nity; and
WHEREAS, trees, wherever they are planted, are a source of
joy and spiritual renewal;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Rollin Dexter, Mayor of the City of
Atascadero, do hereby proclaim March 7 , 1990, as
ARBOR DAY
and urge all residents to recognize the importance trees have in
brightening our lives and protecting our environment, and I urge
all citizens to plant trees to promote the well-being of this and
future generations.
ROLLIN W. DEXTER, Mayor
February 27, 1990
P R O C L A M A T I O N
"Daffodil Days"
March 20-21, 1990
WHEREAS, the City of Atascadero would like to join with the
American Cancer Society by proclaiming March 20-21, 1990, as
Daffodil Days; and
WHEREAS, Daffodil Days is a state-wide benefit during which
local volunteers deliver flowers in exchange for a donation
towards the American Cancer Society; and
WHEREAS, as the first flower of spring, daffodils are a
welcome site that symbolizes hope for cancer patients; and
• WHEREAS, this event offers the opportunity to develop wide
public interest in the American Cancer Society' s work while
raising funds to support research, education and service to
cancer patients .
THEREFORE, I Rollin Dexter, Mayor of the City of Atascadero,
do hereby proclaim March 20-21, 1990 to be
"Daffodil Days"
in the City of Atascadero and urge our citizens to spread the
message of hope in the fight against cancer during this time.
ROLLIN W. DEXTER, Mayor
February 27 , 1990
MEETING AGENDA
DATE 9. ftEM# AA.�.1......
ATASCADERD CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES
JANUARY 23, 1990
Mayor Dexter called the meeting to order at 7:03 p .m. and led the
Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL:
Present : Councilmembers Shiers, Lilley, Borgeson, Mackey
and Mayor Dexter
Staff Present : Ray Windsor , City Manager ; Henry Engen, Community
Development Director ; Lisa Schicker , City
Arborist ; Gary Sims, Senior Civil Engineer; 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
Mayor Dexter addressed the public and clarified what action the
Council would be making on the creek setback issue ( Item C-1 ) and
the proposed urgency ordinance. The Mayor stated that the
Council has already endorsed the recommendation of the Planning
Commission to study the setback language within the General Plan
relating to creekway protection, and that any Zoning Ordinance
amendments would follow properly noticed public hearings. He
continued by asking the Council if they were prepared to discuss
and vote on this item out of sequence, so that citizens present
would not be unduly inconvenienced .
MOTION: By Councilman Lilley and seconded by Councilwoman
Mackey to advance item C-1 for consideration; passed
unanimously.
C. REGULAR BUSINESS:
1 . PROPOSED URGENCY ORDINANCE RE: CLARIFICATION OF CREEKWAY
SETBACK
COUNCIL COMMENTS :
Councilwoman Mackey stated that she was in favor of some kind of
• CC1/23/90
Page 1
an urgency ordinance but did not feel she had any support . She
indicated that she did not think the ordinance she was seeking
was cause for the panic she was hearing and observed that the
issue needed further study and public hearing .
Councilman Lilley stated that as a result of the input he had
received from the community, he was not able to support any
emergency ordinance with regard to this matter . Mr . Lilley
stated that he thought the matter should go through the
conventional planning process, had no objection to having the
matter taken out of cycle for plan review and further explained
that he had some specific recommendations for the amendment that
would not involve any urgency ordinances.
Councilwoman Borgeson reiterated her past statements by declaring
that an emergency ordinance is not in order at this time. She
emphasized that public input is needed to relieve apprehension
and confusion.
Councilman Shiers reported that after conversations with the City
Attorney and others, he did not feel that the emergency ordinance
would accomplish what he had hoped for . He expressed concern
regarding current building on the creek and stressed the need to
find something else that will protect the creek from further
encroachment .
Councilman Lilley suggested a committee with representatives from
the Council and school district to give direction for the
creekway plan.
Mayor Dexter concurred that an urgency ordinance would be too
hasty and asked the public to write down their concerns and
suggestions for the creekway plan and submit them to the Council .
MOTION: To rescind the previous action on the urgency
ordinance; passed unanimously by voice vote.
MOTION: By Councilwoman Borgeson and seconded by Councilman
Shiers to direct staff to follow the recommendations of
the Planning Commission; passed unanimously by voice
vote.
At this time, the mayor directed the meeting back to its `
original schedule.
CC1 /23/90
Page 2 0
COMMUNITY FORUM:
Eric Michielssen, 5300 Aguila, announced that he was the newly
elected president of Atascadero 2000. He explained the goals of
the organization and offered to the Council , Planning Commission
and staff the talents and expertise of its ' membership to work
for Atascadero .
PRESENTATION BY PAVILION ARCHITECT AND REQUEST FOR DIRECTION
Andy Takata gave staff report with recommendations and introduced
the architect , Ron Paige. Mr . Paige displayed for the Council
and public the proposed schemes and asked the Council to give
direction for 1 ) location and 2) scope and budget .
Council discussion followed and all were in agreement that the
Pavilion should be on the lake front .
Mayor Dexter endorsed seating capacity of no less than 300
suggesting that the public be asked for input and possible fund-
raising to help meet the costs.
Councilman Shiers favored staying within the budget and going
along with the recommendation of the Parks and Recreation
. Advisory Committee.
Councilwoman Borgeson also supported the recommendation and
stressed the need to stay within the budget .
Councilman Lilley expressed the hope of gaining public support to
raise the additional funds needed to allow the City to get what
it needs and not just what it can afford .
Mr . Paige clarified for the Council the seating accommodations
and explained what the next step would be. The City Manager
asked the Council to give firm direction and after further
discussion, suggested a continuance. The matter was then
continued to February 27, 1990 to allow for public input .
Councilman Lilley asked the press to publicize the matter in
hopes of getting additional public response.
Public Comments :
Mike Arrambide, Chairman of Pavilion Committee, addressed the
Council briefly reporting that there is community support for
this building and commented on the design.
CC1/23/90
Page 3
CONSENT CALENDAR:
1 . JANUARY 99 1990 MINUTES
2. CITY TREASURER'S REPORT - DECEMBER, 1989
3. FINANCE DIRECTOR'S REPORT - DECEMBER, 1989
4. CLAIM OF STANLEY DeROSA - RECOMMEND DENIAL
5. DOWNTOWN PARKING LOT AGREEMENTS (3) (City of Atascadero w/:
BIA/J. Stinchfield/D. Smith) (Cont 'd from 8/22/89 & 9/12/89)
b. HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE COLLECTION EVENT
Mayor Dexter read the Consent Calendar . The City Manager
clarified effective dates on Item ##5.
MOTION: By Councilman Lilley and seconded by Councilwoman
Mackey to approve the Consent Calendar ; passed
unanimously by roll call vote.
B. HEARINGS/APPEARANCES:
1 . CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST TO REMOVE A HERITAGE TREE TO PERMIT
CONSTRUCTION OF A SWIMMING POOL, 8170 ATASCADERO AVE.
(Madrigal )
Henry Engen gave staff report with recommendation to deny the
request . Lisa Schicker , City Arborist , was present and described
a possible alternate site for the pool .
Councilman Lilley asked the Community Development Director if the
pool would require a building permit , to which Mr . Engen replied
that it would as it is in-ground .
The applicant , Linda Madrigal , spoke in support of the request
stating that the site was the only one for the pool . The
possible alternate site was not in eye ' s views from the home and
the safety of her children was of concern.
Lengthy Council discussion followed and Mrs. Madrigal answered
many questions regarding the site, other trees in the yard and
plans for heating the pool . The applicant stressed that because
the trees in the yard provided a great deal of shade, the
proposed site was the only one on which the pool could be built
and still be economically heated .
CCl /23/90
Page 4
Mayor Dexter and Councilman Shiers expressed difficulty in
granting the request agreeing that it was hard to decide between
a live tree and a pool . Councilwoman Mackey stated that she
wished she could see the sun/shade pattern on the property before
she made a decision. Councilwoman Borgeson stated that the
safety of the children was of primary importance. Councilman
Lilley was in favor of the request stating that the applicants
were trying to make a permanent improvement with safety and
energy efficient considerations.
Councilman Shiers asked Mr . Engen to refresh him on the wording
of the Tree Ordinance with regards to solar orientation. The
Community Development Director read a portion of the Ordinance,
" Inhibiting sunlight needed for either active or passive solar
heating or cooling in the building of solar collectors cannot be
oriented to collect sufficient sunlight without total removal of
the tree. " Mr . Engen stated that while he believed that it was
intended initially for buildings, no distinction was made between
homes and pools.
MOTION: By Councilwoman Mackey to continue the item until the
tree leafs out . Motion died for lack of second .
Further discussion ensued regarding the permanence of the pool
and whether or not the pool could be redesigned to avoid tree
removal .
MOTION: By Councilman Lilley to approve the request . Died for
lack of second .
MOTION: By Councilwoman Borgeson and seconded by Councilman
Shiers to follow the recommendations of the City
Arborist and deny the request to remove the tree.
Councilwoman Mackey asked for clarification of the motion to
which Mayor Dexter replied that the denial would be for removing
the tree only. Mr. Engen expanded that if the applicant chose
another site for the pool which required a tree removal , another
application would be necessary, but that the Council had
discretion to waive fees. Councilwoman Borgeson amended her
motion by adding that fees would be waived if the applicant re-
applied , Councilman Shiers agreed that this amendment was
acceptable. Mayor Dexter asked for a roll call vote. The motion
passed 4: 1 with Councilman Lilley voting against the denial .
Mayor Dexter ' s vote was made with reluctance.
Mr . Madrigal asked the Council what recourse the property owner
CC1/23/90
Page 5
has , to which Mayor Dexter replied none.
Public Comments:
Marjorie Kidwell , 9980 Old Morro Road East , asked if public
comments were to be accepted . Mayor Dexter apologized for the
oversight , placed the motion on hold and reopened the discussion.
Ms. Kidwell addressed the need for a concise Tree Ordinance and
described her frustration over the amount of time and energy
spent on this one tree.
Jerry Clay, 7285 Sycamore, spoke in support of the request and
added that more emphasis should be placed on the safety of the
children.
Linda Madrigal , applicant , made a final plea to the Council
indicating that she believed her request was more than
reasonable.
Whitey Thorpe, 8025 Santa Ynez , declared that the City is
infringing upon the property rights of the people.
Mayor Dexter apologized once again to the public for not giving
them the opportunity to speak and brought the discussion back to
the Council . Councilwoman Borgeson made additional comments with
respect to the safety of the children and withdrew her motion to
deny. Councilman Shiers withdrew his second . Councilman Lilley
asked the City Attorney for clarification on a point of order , to
which he responded that the Council may simply withdraw or move
to reconsider . Mayor Dexter asked for a substitute motion.
Councilman Shiers reiterated that this was a difficult decision
for the Council , that they were not trying to take any rights
away from property owners, but were merely looking for a more
reasonable location for the pool to avoid tree removal .
MOTION: By Councilman Shiers and seconded by Councilman Lilley
to approve the tree removal ; passed 4: 1 , with
Councilwoman Mackey abstaining .
Mayor Dexter asked the staff to continue to put the fire under
the revision of the Tree Ordinance.
2. CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST TO REMOVE TWO HERITAGE TREES TO
PERMIT HOME CONSTRUCTION, 8412 ALTA VISTA ROAD (Pyro/Sherer )
Henry Engen gave staff report with the recommendation to approve
CC1 /23/90 •
Page 6
with a 2: 1 replacement .
The applicant , owner-builder John Pyo , spoke in favor of the
request stating that he had designed the home with the existing
trees in mind . Mr . Pyo was in .agreement with the protective
measures to the remaining trees and stated that he was flexible
with replacement , whether it be by planting on the property or by
contributing to the tree fund .
Lisa Schicker reported that the applicant has done as much as
possible to accommodate the other trees on the site, complimented
the owner ' s design and recommended approval .
Mayor Dexter announced that the City Arborist conducts pre-
planning consultations with property owners and urged contractors
to take advantage of this service.
Public Comment :
Gerry Clay, of Atascadero , asked the City to use Oak trees when
making replacements and in the landscaping of the Police
Facility.
MOTION: By Councilman Lilley and seconded by Councilwoman
Mackey to approve the request ; passed unanimously by
roll call vote.
3. CONSIDERATION OF TREE REMOVAL REQUEST, 13 OF HERITAGE
STATUS, TO ALLOW FOR THE EXTENSION OF GARCIA ROAD
(Langille/Pippin/Vaughn)
Henry Engen gave staff report with the recommendation to deny
stating there is an alternate approach which is less damaging to
trees in the area and still allows access for marketing .
Council discussion followed with members indicating that they
were unable to identify the proposed road and therefore
recommended continuance. Mr . Engen explained that it is a long
distance, is not readily accessible and suggested another noticed
inspection by Council and staff.
Councilwoman Borgeson voiced her concerns regarding a small
bridge on Garcia Road , the additional congestion on the bridge
and the possibility of it giving way. Gary Sims reported that
the bridge is included in the Federal Bridge Replacement Program
and the goal is to have it under construction in the dry season
of 1991 . He stated that the City will construct a detour during
that construction. ' Ms. Borgeson further stated that staff should
CC1 /23/90
Page 7
take advantage of the opportunity for reasonable mitigation on
developmental improvements.
Councilman Lilley recommended that the applicant may wish to save
himself some time and work with staff on the alternative rather
than continue with the present application.
Don Vaughn, applicant , addressed the Council stating that after
working with staff, an alternative impacting only 27 trees has
been worked out . He explained that extensive costs have been
incurred with the original proposal and that what he was hoping
for was conceptual approval for the road alignment .
The City Manager advised the Council that they must act on the
present application. Mayor Dexter confirmed what was before the
Council and asked the applicant to consult further with staff
and come back with a concrete request .
Mr . Engen reported that staff would support the alternative and
clarified that the applicant was looking for some kind of
positive sign from the Council that an alternative that took
dramatically fewer trees would be worth pursuing . The City
Manager advised that it would not be appropriate to give the
applicant any indication that it would look favorably upon it
without the specific plan in front of them.
Mr . Vaughn debated that it has been an expensive project and he
was hesitant to spend more money without any idea of whether or
not the road alignment would be approved .
The applicant answered Council questions regarding the posting of
the trees and access to the property.
Public Comments :
Hugh McCaffrey, neighboring property owner , proclaimed that he
had not been asked for permission to cross over his land and have
his fences cut .
Jack Brazeal , arborist , emphasized that the area is heavily
forested and the applicant is concerned about the impact . Mr .
Brazeal explained that only 27 trees would be proposed for
removal with the future alignment . Mayor Dexter inquired if Mr .
Brazeal had been in consultation with Mr . Engen, to which the
Community Development Director stated that they had reviewed the
site together .
CCi/23/90
Page 8
MOTION: By Councilwoman Borgeson and seconded by Councilman
Lilley to deny the request to remove trees; passed
unanimously by roll call vote.
Mayor Dexter called a ten-minute recess at 9:20 p .m.
The meeting was reconvened at 9:30 p .m.
4. ORDINANCE NO. 198 - ZONE CHANGE 08-89, 7715/7745 SINALOA—
Consideration 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 )
Henry Engen gave staff report explaining that the revised site
plan met with Council concerns by allowing for larger lots and
more recreational space. Mr . Engen advised that the Planning
Commission ' s recommendation was to approve the ordinance on first
reading .
Mr . Engen answered questions from the Council regarding setbacks
and lot size. He reported that a roadway maintenance agreement
was not an issue before them at this time.
Mayor Dexter stated that it was a much improved plan and
Councilman Lilley supported the Planned Development asserting
that it was an innovative project .
Councilwoman Mackey and Councilwoman Borgeson both indicated that
they felt the lot sizes were still too small and agreed that a
minimum lot size standard needs to be determined . Councilwoman
Borgeson questioned whether the homes were "affordable" .
Public Comments :
Deborah Hollowell , representing applicant Mr . Bruce Jones,
outlined features of the revised plan. She stated that the
Planning Commission approved the project recognizing that a
minimum lot size standard has not been established and asked the
Council to support the project on its ' own merits.
Ken Cave, real estate broker working with Mr . Jones, presented a
hand-out (Exhibit A) to the Council displaying examples of
current homes on the market and the asking prices for those
properties. Mr . Cave enthusiastically supported the project
stating that nothing on the market compared with the quality ,
size and area of the proposed Planned Development .
CC1/23/90
Page 9
Bruce Jones, applicant , addressed the issue of affordability
stating that he was not responsible for providing low-cost
housing . He further announced that he did not create the market ,
but operated within a market that controls him. Mr . Jones
reported that his dream began eleven months ago when he bought
two lots on Sinaloa for the purpose of constructing homes under a
PD to be purchased by the owners, and not a corporation. The
applicant described the project as an excellent alternative to
apartments and one that meets the needs of many in the buying
market . He urged the Council to approve the development .
Ken Marks, resident of Atascadero and real estate broker , spoke
in support of the project stating that the property is already
zoned for multiple family and described the PD as an upbeat
alternative to apartments offering a higher quality of life.
Council Comments :
Councilman Shiers indicated that he was willing to support the
project but not on the grounds that it provided low-income or
affordable housing . He stated that while the lot sizes still
seemed small , the design had been much improved and that he felt
that there was a market for these homes.
Councilwoman Mackey stated again that a minimum lot size
determination was needed . Councilmembers Borgeson and Shiers
agreed .
Councilwoman Borgeson proclaimed that the concept behind the
Planned Unit Development is to provide affordable housing to low
and moderate income people. Councilman Lilley debated that the
PUD is a land use tool to ensure appropriate development and
stressed that the Council should encourage the density bonus
incentive provisions of the General Plan by supporting innovative
approaches to providing alternative housing .
Mayor Dexter asked for a motion.
MOTION: By Councilman Lilley and seconded by Councilman Shiers
to waive the reading of Ordinance No . 198 and approve
by title only; passed unanimously by voice vote.
MOTION: By Councilman Lilley and seconded by Councilman Shiers
to approve Ordinance No . 198 on first reading ; passed
3:2 with Councilmembers Mackey and Borgeson voting No .
CC1/23/90 •
Page 10
•
C. REGULAR BUSINESS:
1 . PROPOSED URGENCY ORDINANCE RE: CLARIFICATION OF CREEKWAY
SETBACK (see page 1 )
2. ROAD STANDARDS
A. RESOLUTION 6-90 — ESTABLISHING THAT THE ROAD
CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT DATED AUGUST 22, 1986 BETWEEN
THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND THE GORDON T. DAVIS
CATTLE CO. WILL BE HONORED
Mayor Dexter read a request for continuance (Exhibit B) from Mr .
Davis.
MOTION: By Councilwoman Borgeson and seconded by Councilwoman
Mackey to continue this item as requested ; passed
unanimously by voice vote.
No date was set .
B. RESOLUTION NO. 7-90 — ESTABLISHING A MINIMUM ROAD
STANDARD FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF PRIVATE AND PUBLIC
ROADS
Gary Sims reported that staff was recommending adoption of the
proposed minimum road standard and pointed out some of the design
features. Mr . Sims answered questions from the Council regarding
the traffic index , assessment districts and the Garcia Road
extension.
Public Comments:
Frank Honeycutt , Twin Cities Engineering , presented an
alternative road standard (see Exhibit C) and outlined its '
attributes.
George Luna, 10600 San Marcos Road and speaking as an individual ,
commended Mr . Sims for his efforts. He asked the Council for
answers to the following questions: 1 ) why has there never been
a minimum road standard , (2) were roads like San Marcos not
accepted by the County and City because they were put in without
plans or permits and (3) what standard was used by the City to
determine that on San Marcos Road each property owner should be
assessed $5,000 to bring it up to City standards.
Mr . Sims responded to Mr . Honeycutt ' s proposal . He stated that
it was staff ' s intent to design roads for minimal maintenance and
CC1 /23/90
Page 11
maximum safety and observed that Mr . Honeycutt ' s proposed
minimum standard is too narrow.
In response to Mr . Luna ' s comments, Mr . Sims explained that staff
had completed a cost estimate of bringing San Marcos Road into
the City system and defined the reasons for the high costs. He
stated that the City does have standards, but not formal ones.
MOTION: By Councilwoman Borgeson and seconded by Councilman
Lilley to adopt Resolution 7-90; passed unanimously by
roll call vote.
Councilwoman Mackey stated that an exception should be made to
the Circulation Element of the General Plan when dealing with
trees in the right of way of the dedicated width. Mr . Sims
explained that during the hearing period of the road construction
precise plan process, the City Council will have to address each
heritage tree that is in the way.
3. PROPOSAL FOR THE CITY OF ATASCADERO TO OPERATE THE
ATASCADERO SCHOOL DISTRICT SWIMMING POOL
Andy Takata gave staff report asking the Council to give
direction to staff to begin the planning for the operation of the
Atascadero High School swimming pool for the Summer of 1990.
The City Manager cautioned the Council not to act until it knew
what the liability implications would be.
In response to a question from Councilwoman Borgeson, Mr . Takata
explained that he did not foresee this action curtailing
construction of a community pool ( to be outlined in the
Recreation Element of the General Plan).
Councilwoman Mackey supported the concept .
The City Manager recommended the Council continue this matter
until the mid-year budget review.
Mr . Takata added that the City should try it for one year and
then make an evaluation.
MOTION: By Councilman Lilley and seconded by Mayor Dexter to
continue the matter until the mid-year budget review
and upon receipt of liability information with regard
to the operation of the pool ; passed unanimously by
voice vote.
CC1/23/90
Page 12
i
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 )
The City Manager stated that this ordinance was introduced with a
unanimous vote. Henry Engen noted that there was a typographical
error on the staff transmittal with regard to the ordinance
number .
The City Attorney advised that a motion to adopt would be
appropriate.
MOTION: By Mayor Dexter and seconded by Councilwoman Borgeson
to adopt Ordinance No . 203; passed unanimously by roll
call vote.
5. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA FORUM
The City Attorney gave his report with recommendations to : 1 )
place the reading of all second 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
• and 3) an addition to all agendas language from the Brown Act
which would delineate a number of alternatives that can be taken
by the Council .
Discussion followed regarding the reading of the ordinances and
the City Manager clarified that the Council still has the
flexibility of reading ordinances in full if they so chose.
Councilman Lilley supported the addition of Brown Act language to
the agenda.
MOTION: By Councilwoman Mackey and seconded by Councilman
Shiers to adopt the City Council Agenda Forum as
outlined ; passed unanimously by roll call vote.
6. SCHEDULING MID-YEAR BUDGET REVIEW (Recommend 2/13/90, 5:30
P .M. )
Mr . Windsor assured the Council that this meeting would be short
and simple. He stated that there will not be any complex issues
to be addressed . Mayor Dexter clarified that the regular meeting
will follow. There was no objection to this meeting date.
CC1/23/90
Page 13
D. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION:
1 . City Council :
Councilwoman Mackey announced a workshop , "Construction Among the
Oaks" , in Arroyo Grande on the 16th of February from 8:30 a.m.
until 4:30 p .m.
A. Committee Reports:
1 . City/School Committee - Councilman Lilley gave his
report indicating that the Committee is willing to work
with the Council on the Creekway Plan. He reported
that during the last meeting, there was considerable
discussion about a community gymnasium and pedestrian
safety at school intersections. Mayor Dexter added
that he felt it was a cooperative and constructive
meeting .
By common consent , the Council agreed to continue past 11 :00 p .m.
2. North Coastal Transit/S.L.O. Area Coordinating Council-
Councilwoman Borgeson reported on the January 10, 1990
meeting .
3. Traffic Committee - Councilwoman Mackey announced the
next meeting to be January 31 , 1990.
4. Recycling and Solid/Hazardous Waste Mgt . Committees-
Councilwoman Mackey announced February 1 , 1990 as the
next meeting date for these two committees.
5. Economic Opportunity Commission - Mayor Dexter
commented that he felt good about his relationship with
the Board , that they had their financial program under
control and have been involved with some creative
services.
6. Finance Committee - No report .
7. Business Improvement Association (BIA) - No report .
B. Downtown Steering Committee - No report .
9. General Plan Sub Committee - Henry Engen announced a
possible date.
2. CITY ATTORNEY - No report .
CC1 /23/90
Page 14
3. CITY CLERK - No report .
4. CITY TREASURER - No report .
5. CITY MANAGER - Announced that he would be out of town during
the next regular City Council meeting .
THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 11 :05 P.M. THE NEXT MEETING WILL HE
FEBRUARY .13, 1990 AT 5:30 P.M.
MINUT OR AND PREPARED BY:
LEE DAYKA
DEPUTY CITY CLERK
Attachment : Exhibit A - Santa Lucia Properties (Cave)
Exhibit 3 - Gordon Davis
Exhibit C - Twin Cities Engineering
( ALL EXHIBITS ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK)
CC1/23/90
Page 15
d
MEETINGL AGENDA /L,_ 2
ATS ITEM#
ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES
FEBRUARY 13, 1990
The City Council met in an open session at 5:30 p .m. for the
purpose of mid-year budget discussion. The meeting
adjourned to a closed session at 6:40 p .m. to give
instructions to the City ' s negotiator pursuant to Government
Code Section 54956.8 regarding real property purchases.
Mayor Dexter called the regular meeting of the Atascadero City
County to order at 7:05 p.m. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by
Councilman Shiers .
ROLL CALL:
Present : Councilmembers Lilley, Mackey, Borgeson, Shiers
and Mayor Dexter .
Staff Present : Henry Engen, Community Development Director ; Andy
. Takata, Director of Parks, Recreation and Zoo ; Art
Montandon, City Attorney; Mark Joseph ,
Administrative Services Director ; Gary Sims,
Senior Civil Engineer ; Lisa Schicker , City
Arborist and Lee Dayka, Deputy City Clerk .
PRESENTATION:
Mayor Dexter presented a plaque to Mrs. Mildred Sharitz to honor.
the late Boyd C. Sharitz , for his devoted service as Atascadero
City Clerk from June 1986 until February 1990.
Mayor Dexter announced that a memorial has been established with
the Atascadero Elks ' Lodge Building Fund . Councilwoman Mackey
further announced that on Arbor Day, a tree will be planted in
Mr . Sharitz ' s honor .
OATH:
Mayor Dexter reported that it was the consensus of the Council to
appoint the Deputy City Clerk , Lee Dayka , as the Interim City
Clerk . A unanimous roll call vote was taken to confirm the
appointment . The City Attorney swore in Ms. Dayka.
CC2/13/90
Page 1
T
COUNCIL COMMENTS:
Councilwoman Borgeson reported that she would be making a formal
announcement regarding her future political plans on Wednesday,
February 14, 1990 at 2:00 p .m. on the steps of City Hall .
Councilwoman Mackey stated that she would miss Boyd Sharitz and
described him as a dedicated public servant who enjoyed his job .
PROCLAMATION:
Mayor Dexter proclaimed the month of February 1990 as "California
Self-Esteem and Responsibility Month" and read the proclamation.
COMMUNITY FORUM:
Joan Okeefe, 9985 Old Morro Road East , read a prepared statement
( Exhibit A) in support of the proposed redesign of Garcia Road
and urged the Council to take a similar approach to the San
Marcos Road extension.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
1 . JANUARY 23, 1990 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
2. RECOMMEND CITY COUNCIL WAIVE THE READING IN FULL OF ALL
ORDINANCES (Must pass unanimously)
3. ORDINANCE NO. 198 - ZONE CHANGE 08-89, 7715/7745 SINALOA-
Consideration of proposed Planned Development Overlay Zone
to allow for the creation of a small lot residential
subdivision ( Jones/Cuesta Engineering ) (Second reading and
adoption)
4. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 21-87, 8665 PORTOLA ROAD - Request for
time extension to complete conditions of approval (Gouff)
5. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 14-89, 8625 ATASCADERO AVE.-
Subdivision of a portion of two existing lots totalling 13.9
ac . into 23 parcels of one-half ac . each . Request includes
establishment of two new City standard roads (Via Tortuga
and Calle Refugio ) to serve the subdivision and approval of
Lot Line Adjustment 2-89 ( Iverson/Central Coast Engineering )
6. FINAL PARCEL MAP 11-88, 5550/5560 LLANO ROAD - Subdivision
of 11 .50 ac . into four parcels of 2.86 ac . each
CC2/13/90
Page 2
(Atkinson/Twin Cities Engineering )
7. CLAIM OF JACK RODDA (Recommend Denial )
8. RESOLUTION NO. 14-90 — ADOPTING A POSITION ALLOCATION
SCHEDULE FOR THE CITY OF ATASCADERO
9. ADOPTING AGREEMENTS FOR THE CITY'S MANAGEMENT, MID—
MANAGEMENT/PROFESSIONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL EMPLOYEES:
A. RESOLUTION NO. 8-90 — AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 76-88,
MAKING CHANGES TO THE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
CITY OF ATASCADERO AND RAY WINDSOR, CITY MANAGER
B. RESOLUTION NO. 9-90 — ADOPTING A SALARY/CLASSIFICATION
SCHEDULE AND BENEFITS FOR MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES
C. RESOLUTION NO. 10-90 — ADOPTING A SALARY/CLASSIFICATION
SCHEDULE AND BENEFITS FOR MID—MANAGEMENT/PROFESSIONAL
EMPLOYEES
D. RESOLUTION NO. 11-90 — ADOPTING A SALARY/CLASSIFICATION
SCHEDULE AND BENEFITS FOR CONFIDENTIAL EMPLOYEES
10. RESOLUTION NO. 13-90 — ADOPTING A SCHEDULE OF SALARIES FOR
ALL JOB CLASSIFICATIONS WITHIN THE CITY OF ATASCADERO
11 . RESOLUTION NO. 12-90 — APPROVING A LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING
BETWEEN THE CITY OF ATASCADERO AND THE SERVICE EMPLOYEES
INTERNATIONAL UNION (SEIU)
12. RESOLUTION NO. 16-90 — CONVEYING LAND FROM THE ATASCADERO
MUTUAL WATER CO. NEEDED FOR THE SYCAMORE BRIDGE PROJECT
13. STATUS REPORT ON GRAVES CREEK ROAD DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
Mayor Dexter read the Consent Calendar and pulled Item #1 ,
stating that the minutes were not ready for approval .
Councilwoman Borgeson pulled Items #3 and 13 for further
discussion and Councilwoman Mackey pulled Item #9A for additional
discussion.
MOTION: By Councilwoman Mackey and seconded by Councilman
Shiers to approve the Consent Calendar with the
exception of Items 1 , 3, 9A and 13; passed unanimously
by roll call vote with Councilman Lilley announcing
abstention on Item #7 (Claim of Jack Rodda ) . Mayor
Dexter clarified that Item #2 (Waiving of the reading
CC2/13/9O
Page 3
in full of all ordinances) had passed unanimously.
The Council continued with further discussion on the following
Consent Calendar items:
3. ORDINANCE NO. 198 — ZONE CHANGE OB-89, 7715/7745 SINALOA—
Consideration of proposed Planned Development Overlay Zone
to allow for the creation of a small lot residential
subdivision ( Jones/Cuesta Engineering ) (Second reading and
adoption)
Henry Engen gave staff report with the recommendation to adopt
Ordinance No . 198 on second reading . He further clarified for
Councilwoman Borgeson that a private street maintenance agreement
between the homeowners would be a requirement of the subdivision
map .
MOTION: By Councilman Lilley and seconded by Mayor Dexter to
approve Ordinance No . 198; passed 3:2 with Councilwoman
Borgeson and Councilwoman Mackey voting against .
9. A. RESOLUTION NO. 8-90 - AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 76-88,
MAKING CHANGES TO THE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
CITY OF ATASCADERO AND RAY WINDSOR, CITY MANAGER
Mark Joseph clarified that the adjustment to the City Manager ' s
contract was identical to other department head agreements.
Councilwoman Mackey stated that she was in favor of the sick
leave incentive provision of the resolution but was against the
additional 40-hour administrative leave stating that the City was
short-handed already. She stated that she would have like to
discuss this further with Mr . Windsor , who was away on vacation.
Further Council discussion ensued regarding the proposed
criteria for granting additional administrative leave.
MOTION: By Councilwoman Mackey and seconded by Councilman
Lilley to continue the matter for further discussion at
the next regular meeting when the City Manager would be
present ; passed unanimously by voice vote.
13. STATUS REPORT ON GRAVES CREEK ROAD DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
Councilwoman Borgeson stated that because City staff was asking
for direction, a discussion of the options should be heard . Gary
Sims gave a report giving background and the following three
recommendations: 1 ) develop alternative layouts for the
CC2/ 13/90
Page 4
installation of the culverts, 2) proceed with meetings with the
Berrys ' to obtain input concerning desired culvert locations
along their lot frontage and 3) hire a consultant to design the
culvert installation.
Henry Engen supported the hiring of a consultant stating that the
City has a commitment to the downstream owner to solve the
drainage problem and this action would allow continued progress.
Discussion followed regarding whether or not the City could hire
Voibrecht Surveys to act in this capacity. The City Attorney
advised that he would need to look at the specific job duties and
scope of the work before his determination could be made.
MOTION: By Councilwoman Borgeson and seconded by Councilwoman
Mackey to follow staff recommendations 1 and 2, and ,
contingent upon the City Attorney ' s findings, hire a
consultant to design the culvert installation; passed
unanimously by roll call vote.
B. HEARINGS/APPEARANCES:
1 . CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST TO REMOVE A HERITAGE TREE, 8405 DEL
RIO ROAD (Ormonde)
Henry Engen gave staff report with recommendation to approve
subject to either 1 ) 10 replacement trees to be provided or 2)
making a $1 ,000 contribution to the Tree Replacement Fund . Lisa
Schicker , City Arborist , was present and confirmed for
Councilwoman Mackey which tree was the heritage tree.
Mayor Dexter commented upon lack of the continuity of street
addresses and asked residents of the area to clearly identify
their property.
A brief discussion followed propomoting pre-design consultations
with the City Arborist with respect to tree preservation.
The applicant , David Ormonde, spoke in support of his request and
stated that at the time he began this project , pre-design
consultation was not available to him, but that he had given much
consideration to saving the largest and most desirable trees.
MOTION: By Councilwoman Borgeson and seconded by Councilwoman
Mackey to approve the removal of a heritage tree at
8405 Del Rio Road ; passed unanimously by roll call
vote.
CC2/ 13/90
Page 5
Discussion before the vote was taken was held . Councilwoman
Borgeson suggested Corridor 101 as a primary site for tree
replacement and discussion followed regarding the decision-making
policies of this issue. Ms . Borgeson suggested that the Council
take this up at future meeting.
2. CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST TO REMOVE A HERITAGE TREE, 8781
PLATA LANE (Jespersen)
Henry Engen gave staff report with a recommendation for approval
with a 6: 1 replacement .
Lisa Schicker stated that the applicant was agreeable to the 6: 1
replacement and that those trees would be Oaks. Upon her
recommendation, the applicant was also receptive to the idea of
having his adjacent property be a _ private receiver site for the
planting of additional Oak trees to provide a natural screening
to the freeway.
Chris Jespersen, 60890 Rocky Canyon Road , identified himself as
the applicant and availed himself to the Council for questions.
Mr . Jespersen spoke in favor of his request to remove the tree
stating that the tree was not a healthy one.
Joe Elkins, resident of Templeton, identified himself as the
architect and commented on the landscaping requirements on
freeway frontage.
MOTION: By Councilman Lilley and Councilwoman Mackey to approve
the request to remove a heritage tree at B781 Plata
Lane; passed unanimously by roll call vote.
3. RESOLUTION NO. 85-B9 - ROAD ABANDONMENT 03-89, VACATING A
PORTION OF MERCEDES AVE. RIGHT-OF-WAY, 5005 TRAFFIC WAY
(Atascadero Door Co . /Cuesta Engineering)
Henry Engen gave staff report with the recommendation to approve
the proposed resolution. He described this as a summary road
abandonment , that there has never been a road developed on the
property and that the property owners wish to abandon the right-
of-way to allow expansion of their business. Mr . Engen further
stated that the Planning Commission, on a 7:0 vote, had
recommended approval of the road abandonment .
Council questions followed regarding setbacks , easements and
future City use.
CC2/13/90
Page 6
•
Public Comment :
Deborah Hollowell , Cuesta Engineering , asked the Council to grant
the request and confirmed that the applicant is in agreement with
the conditions of approval .
MOTION: By Councilwoman Mackey and seconded by Councilman
Lilley to approve Resolution 85-B9, passed unanimously
by roll call vote.
Mayor Dexter called for a recess at 8: 15 p .m. The meeting was
reconvened at 8:25 p .m.
4. ORDINANCE NO. 204 — ZONE CHANGE 15—B9, 8555 EL CORTE,
Proposed revisions to a PD-6 Overlay zone (Bunnell )
(FIRST READING: Recommend ( 1 ) motion to approve by title
only - Voice vote; 2 ) motion to approve Ord . No . 204 on
first reading - Roll call )
Henry Engen gave staff report indicating that the site plan is
not before the Council for approval , but rather the request to
amend the Zoning Ordinance as it pertains to building height . He
• stated that the applicant ' s request is to delete subparagraph (f )
in the present ordinance so that the foundations alone could be
at the 960 line, but the buildings themselves could be higher .
He noted that the original zoning change was for duplexes and
that the proposal has now shifted to a single-family detached
project . Mr . Engen reiterated that , in light of earlier action,
the Council , should they decide to approve, would need only to
approve on first reading .
Lengthy Council discussion followed regarding original Ordinance.
No . 133 and the conceptual change from small duplexes targeted
for retirement living to single-family homes. Councilwoman
Mackey clarified that the 960 foot elevation in open space
easement was a trade off for the higher density of the original
plan and stated that she was not willing to give that away. Mr .
Engen explained that the feeling at the time was to keep an open
space easement and protect the hill in the back for public
benefit for a planned development . Councilwoman Borgeson
supported the thoughts of Councilwoman Mackey, stating that no
public good would be left if the view shed was impinged upon.
Mr . Engen answered additional questions regarding the number of
proposed buildings and the zoning of surrounding properties.
Mayor Dexter stated that he would like to see more detail .
CC2/ 13/90
Page 7
Public Comments:
Ray Bunnell , owner-developer , addressed the Council with
additional architectural renderings for their review. Mr .
Bunnell gave support to his request stating that he was trying to
move away from an apartment-type development . He asserted that
he had designed homes to fit the hillside without having to cut
trees, and that the original plan would have eliminated many
trees. He further explained that his proposal was a nice
variation of hillside elevations that would not conflict with the
view, indicating that the highest rooftop would be 988 feet . Mr .
Bunnell described the development as one that would not
r ' f t stated that he believed
discriminate between adult and family bu
the appeal would be to the retired . He added that the plan
included a hiking trail and picnic area.
Mr . Bunnell answered Council questions regarding lot sizes, home
design, community open space and recreational areas. He
indicated that there would be an owner ' s association.
Mayor Dexter asked Henry Engen if this development was within the
Urban Services Line, to which Mr . Engen replied that it was.
Councilwoman Mackey and Councilwoman Borgeson both stated that
they felt there were too many homes planned for the area.
Councilwoman Borgeson reiterated that the Council needs to
consider the trade-off that was agreed to as a condition of the
original re-zoning from one acre lots to a Planned Development as
proposed by Mr . Poe. She stressed that the new owner , Mr .
Bunnell , has an entirely different proposal which does not adhere
to that condition.
Mr . Bunnell responded that in some cases conditions are imposed
that are not necessarily good for a site and stated that he
believed this to be true in this instance. He proclaimed that
his proposal was a much nicer project that would not create
further cuts in the hillside and would be visually more pleasing
than flat top houses.
Jay Peterson, 8519 E1 Dorado , stated that he was representing
himself and neighbors, Steven and Sharon Clark and Mr . Bob
Ludwig . He asked the Council to take a good hard look at the
site, its ' topography and ingress/egress features. He urged them
to deny the project declaring that it is not suitable for the
neighborhood and would create difficult traffic situations. Mr .
Peterson asked the Council to have the applicant conform to the
existing zoning , or rezone the area back: to single family with
CC2/13/90 i
Page 8
1 /2 or 1 acre lot sizes.
Mr . Peterson submitted a letter (Exhibit B) from the Clarks
echoing the same concerns.
Eric Michielssen, 5300 Aguila, spoke in support of the project
outlining the improvements to the original plan and the benefits
it would offer to the City. He asked the Council to thank the
developer and help him clean up the existing mess by approving
the request .
Mike Jackson, 52235 Barrenda , urged the Council to approve the
proposed project by allowing the developer to maximize the
aesthetics and hide the cuts . He acknowledged the possibility of
traffic problems stating that they could be worked out and asked
the Council not to get stuck on the arbitrary figure of 960 feet .
Mr . Bunnell recognized the traffic concerns and stressed that
limiting a community to retired persons would not solve the
problem. He further reported that City staff has advised him
that he must open up another street and that he has agreed to do
SO . He disclosed that the development would be required to
complete off-site improvements totalling X30-40,000. Mr . Bunnell
maintained that his plans revealed a nice project and stated that
he hoped the Council would go along with it .
Harold Peterson, neighboring property owner , announced that he
had asked the City for 1/4 acre zoning and was turned down flatly
for 1/2 acre. He proclaimed that the same zoning should apply
and that the proposal represents too many homes for the area.
Council Comments:
Councilman Lilley commented that he would like to have an
assurance that the concepts of a planned unit development do not
alter without the Council ' s opportunity to discuss with the
applicant changes that ought to go with that shift . He stated
that he did not quarrel with the fact that the 960 elevation
limitation may be unrealistic , but expressed his concern that the
development be compatible with the area.
Councilman Shiers stated that in order to increase the density, a
960 foot level was drawn as the contour line that would preserve
open space above that . He asserted that this trade-off was the
primary reason for originally approving the zone change to the
higher density and if the Council does not wish to stick with
that compromise, than it should go back to the original zoning of
one-acre minimum.
CC2/13/90
Page 9
MOTION: By Councilman Shiers to deny ZC 15-B9 and Ordinance No .
204 and seconded by Councilwoman Borgeson.
Before voting on this motion, Mr . Bunnell made a request to have
the matter continued so that the Council could have the benefit
of all the information that staff has. Council discussion
followed .
Henry Engen offered another alternative by recommending a
referral back to the Planning Commission for further detail on
the proposed site plan. He further suggested to consider the
amendment in tandem with an exhibit that shows a more detailed
layout of the property.
Councilman Shiers withdrew his motion in light of the discussion.
Councilwoman Borgeson withdrew her second to that motion stating
that she was not comfortable with changing a project that the :
original Planning Commission had approved and that the
appropriate action was to send it back to the Planning Commission
for further analysis.
MOTION: By Mayor Dexter and seconded by Councilman Lilley to
refer back to the Planning Commission for further
study; passed unanimously by roll call vote.
Councilmembers Mackey, Borgeson, Shiers and Dexter all
proclaimed that they would like to see less density.
Mayor Dexter asked the public for their input .
C. REGULAR BUSINESS:
1 . PROPOSAL FOR THE CITY OF ATASCADERO TO OPERATE THE
ATASCADERO SCHOOL DISTRICT SWIMMING POOL ( Cont ' d from
1 /23/90)
Mark Joseph gave staff report on behalf of Andy Takata. As per
the City Council ' s request , staff had contacted the City 's
liability company to determine the amount of risk exposure the
City would be under if it were to operate the swimming pool . He
reported that the insurance company did not feel there would be
an appreciable increase in rates, but they stressed that they
wanted to be able to review the contract between the City and the
School District to make sure that the liability exposure stays as
limited as possible. Staff ' s recommendation was to proceed with
the project on a pilot basis to determine whether it can be done
cost-effectively.
CC2/ 13/90
Page 10
Councilwoman Mackey and Mayor Dexter strongly supported the
project .
MOTION: By Councilwoman Mackey and seconded by Councilwoman
Borgeson to direct staff to begin the planning for the
operation of the Atascadero High School swimming pool
for the 1990 season and to set up an enterprise account
to track the expenditures and revenues; passed
unanimously by voice vote.
2. ORDINANCE NO. 205 - DELETING THE REQUIREMENT THAT PARKS AND
RECREATION COMMISSIONERS MUST TERMINATE THEIR OFFICE WHEN
SEEKING CITY ELECTIVE OFFICE
(FIRST READING: Recommend ( 1 ) motion to approve by title
only- Voice vote; (2) motion to approve Ord . No . 205 on
first reading - Roll call )
Mayor Dexter stated that this ordinance is intended to bring into
line the Parks and Recreation Commission with the same rights and
privileges given to the Planning Commission and to make
consistent with the Atascadero Municipal Code.
There was no council or public discussion.
MOTION: By Councilman Lilley and seconded by Councilwoman
Mackey to approve Ordinance No . 205; passed unanimously
by roll call vote.
Councilwoman Borgeson asked the City Attorney for clarification
of the motion. He stated that the Council may approve the
ordinance at this introduction and adopt the ordinance at the
next meeting .
3. RESOLUTION NO. 15-90 - APPOINTING MEMBER AND ALTERNATE TO
SERVE ON COUNTY SOLID WASTE TASK FORCE
Mayor Dexter affirmed the appointments of Councilwoman Mackey as
the appointee and Gary Sims as the alternate.
Councilwoman Mackey clarified the reason for asking Mr . Sims to
be an alternate stating that he would be the technical
representative.
There was no public comment .
MOTION: By Councilwoman Borgeson and seconded by Councilman
Shiers to approve Resolution No . 15-90; passed
unanimously by roll call vote.
CC2/ 13/90
Page 11
i
I
4. LETTER FROM DON KLINE REQUESTING EMERGENCY GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT - Staff request direction
Henry Engen gave staff report requesting the Council give
direction to respond and gave a number of alternatives . He
stated that since the agenda had been circulated , he had come up
with one other alternative. Mr . Engen presented draft Resolution
No . 17-90 and described it as the most expeditious.
Mr . Engen explained that the resolution would ( 1 ) enable the
Kline ' s to , at their expense, have a temporary sewer hook-up at
5300 San Anselmo , (2) establish the temporary hook-up to
permanent service contingent upon amendment to the General Plan
enabling the action and 3) establish that such temporary service
be contingent upon the Kline ' s agreement in writing to
immediately disconnect said service and repair said septic
system, and hold the City harmless should the contemplated
General Plan Amendment not be approved ( in such event , the City
would refund the sewer annexation fees and charges appropriate) .
Brief council comments followed . Mayor Dexter recognized the
need for an emergency action. The City Attorney stated that he
had approved the resolution for content earlier in the day.
Public Comment :
Don Kline, 5300 San Anselmo , thanked the Community Development
Director for his efforts and asked the Council for direction in
establishing an agreement with the City to revamp the system if
the General Plan Amendment did not go through . Mr . Engen .
suggested that Mr . Kline have his attorney draft an agreement
including his proposal for review by the City Attorney. Mr .
Kline agreed to his recommendation.
MOTION: By Councilwoman Mackey and seconded by Councilwoman
Borgeson to approve Resolution 17-90 permitting
temporary sewer hook-up to 5300 San Anselmo ; passed
unanimously by roll call vote.
INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION:
1 . City Council :
A. Committee Reports:
1 . City/School Committee - Mayor Dexter reported that the
CC2/ 13/90
Page 12
committee had been discussing the possibility of a
joint effort to erect a community center/gymnasium and
he was given Council approval to pursue further
discussions with the school district.
2. North Coastal Transit - No report .
3. S.L.O. Area Coordinating Council - No report .
4. Traffic Committee - No report .
5. Solid/Hazardous Waste Mgmt. Committee - No report .
6. Recycling Committee - Councilwoman Mackey announced
next meeting date.
7. Economic Opportunity Commission — Mayor Dexter
announced that he would attend the next meeting ,
February 15, 1990.
8. B. I .A. — Councilman Lilley reported that he had
attended a meeting with the City Manager and members of
the Board of Directors of the B. I .A. concerning the
status of the City parking lot . He stated that these
concerns dealt with insurance and the effect of the
recent position taken by Mr . David K . Smith with regard
to discussions about his easement . Mr . Lilley stated
that the final draft of documents dealing with the
easements reflected , to the best of his knowledge, the
exact language that was acceptable to Mr . Smith . He
further reported that he had suggested that the City
Attorney make a determination on whether or not Mr .
Smith has an easement that is recognizable.
9. Downtown Steering Committee — Henry Engen announced
that the plans had arrived on this date, that they
would be distributed and set a tentative meeting date
for early March .
10. General Plan Subcommittee — Henry Engen reported that
the committee is proceeding through the preliminary
draft of the Land Use Element and announced that Ed
Ward would be making a presentation regarding the view
shed on Highway 101 at the next meeting .
Mayor Dexter urged all to become involved with Neighborhood
Watch .
CC211' 13/90
Page 13
2. City Attorney - No report . ;
3. City Clerk - No report .
4. City Treasurer - No report .
5. City Manager - Absent
Henry Engen asked the Council to consider a special meeting for
February 26, 1990 to accept final maps, stating that normally
this kind of action would be part of the Consent Calendar at a
regular meeting . He requested that, due to County Recorder
deadlines, the meeting be scheduled and suggested the time of
1 : 15 p .m. Councilwoman Borgeson asked if the meeting would be
noticed. Mr . Engen recommended that the Council adjourn to that
date. The City Attorney advised that it would be a regular
meeting with a posted public hearing .
THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 10:05 P.M. TO FEBRUARY 26, 1990 AT
1 : 15 P.M. IN THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE.
MINU ' RECO ED AND PREPARED BY:
., LEE,'DAYKA. ' CITY D ERK
ilAt"tactm�ts: Exhibit A (Okeefe)
> > Exhibit B (Clark ) (On file with the City Clerk)
CC2/13/90
Page 14
Meeting Agenda
Date /22. 7/90 Item A_4
CITY OF ATASCADERO
• SCHEDULE OF CASH RECEIPTS AND TRANSFERS
TREASURER' S REPORT
FOR THE MONTH OF JANUARY, 1990
CASH RECEIPTS:
Property Taxes $ 272 ,014.20
Sales Tax 106 ,900.00
Bed Tax 23,999. 36
Motor Vehicle In-Lieu 66 ,475.08
Cigarette Tax 3,427. 74
Miscellaneous Taxes 1,792. 79
Sanitation Fees 82 ,502.17
License/Permit/Fees 86 ,416.75
Franchise Fees 4,036.49
Fines/Penalties/Overages 372.10
Investment Earnings 125,155.30
Rents/Concessions 10,000.00
Sales-Maps/Publications/Reports 244. 75
Police Services 589.50
Weed Abatement 1,267 43
Parks and Recreation Fees 14 ,382.40
P.O.S.T. Reimbursement 1,962. 52
Miscellaneous 10 ,361.92
Gas Tax Receipts 50,812. 35
Developer Fees 149,105.12
Zoo Receipts 4,501. 64
Dial-A-Ride 3,213. 83
B.I.A. Dues 21045.00
A.D.#3-Marchant/Atascadero Lake 2 ,988.00
A.D.#4-Separado/Cayucos 22 ,753. 38
A.D.#5-Chandler Ranch 4 ,371.22
Street Maintenance Districts '994. 40
SUB-TOTAL 1,052 ,685.44
OTHER CASH RECEIPTS:
Reimbursement to expense 632.48
TOTAL OTHER RECEIPTS 632.48
TOTAL CASH RECEIPTS $1,053,317. 92
MeetingAgenda
Date 227/90 Item A-4 (CONT'D)
CITY OF ATASCADERO
CASH ACTIVITY SUMMARY •
TREASURER'S REPORT
FOR THE MONTH OF JANUARY, 1990
BEGINNING CASH RESOURCES $8,496 ,123. 79
ADD:
RECEIPTS 1,053,317. 92
FUND TRANSFERS 750,000. 00
LESS:
DISBURSEMENTS 1,048,384.93
FUND TRANSFERS 85.0,000. 00
ENDING CASH RESOURCES $8,401,056. 78
SCHEDULE OF CASH RESOURCES
As of January 31, 1990
Checking Account:
Mid-State Bank $ 133,071.78
Certificates of Deposits :
Butterfield Savings 99 ,000. 00 9.25 12/12/89
Other Investments :
Local Agency Inv. Fund 6 ,341,000.00 8.57 N/A •
Fed Home Loan Bank-FICO 1,827,445.00 8. 35 12/06/89
Other Cash Resources :
Petty Cash 5.40.0.0
TOTAL CASH RESOURCES $8,401,056. 78
CARE SIBBACH
City Treasurer
Meeting Agenda
Date 2/27/90 Item A-5
CITY OF ATASCADERO
• SCHEDULE OF DISBURSEMENTS
FINANCE DIRECTOR' S REPORT
FOR THE MONTH OF JANUARY, 1990
DISBURSEMENTS:
Hand Warrant Register for January, 1990 $ 200,893. 72
1/5/90 Accounts Payable Warrants 182,845. 09
1/10/90 Accounts Payable Warrants 82 ,604.69
1/18/90 Accounts Payable Warrants 248,473.43
1/26/90 Accounts Payable Warrants 40 ,372.08
Service Charge-Mastercard/VISA 5.00
Wires for January, 1990 850,000.00
1/3/90 Payroll Checks 48732-48889 113,670. 82
1/17/90 Payroll Checks 48890-49036 133,297.43
1/31/90 Payroll Checks 49037-49183 114 ,689. 82
TOTAL $1,966 ,852. 08
LESS:
Voided Check #49523 7 ,294.50
Voided Check #49547 799.20
Voided Check #48844 9. 00
Voided Check #49444 4 ,797.00
Voided Check #48588 646.16
Voided Check #49553 9. 00
• Voided Check #49635 37. 90
Voided Check #49792 53,654.55
Voided Check #49737 167.00
Voided Check #47963 380. 00
Voided Check #49771 672. 84
SUB-TOTAL VOIDED CHECKS $ 68 ,467.15
TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS $:1,:89:8,:3:84:..93
I, MARK A. JOSEPH, do hereby certify and declare that demands
enumerated andreferred 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
JOSEPH
Admin strative Services Director
•
•
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: A-6
Through : Ray Windsor , City Manager Meeting Date: 2/27/90
f
From: Mark Joseph , Administrative Services Director //
SUBJECT: Adopting Amended Benefit Package for the City Mana r
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adopting resolution 6-90,
providing additional benefits for the City Manager .
BACKGROUND:
This item was continued from February 13, 1990. The
provision in question, an additional 40 hours of Admin. Leave per
year , is essentially the same benefit approved by Council for
Department Heads. The benefit itself is relatively cost-
effective, since the time cannot be converted to cash .
•
•
•
RESOLUTION NO. 8-90
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ATASCADERO
AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 76-88
MAKING CHANGES TO THE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF ATASCADERO AND
RAY WINDSOR, CITY MANAGER
Section 1 . That section 5 entitled Vacation Pay is amended to ten
( 10) days of Management Leave.
Section 2. That section 9 entitled Sick Leave is amended to add ,
"Upon termination of employment in good standing , after
five (5) years of continuous service, he shall be paid
one-half of all accumulated Sick Leave.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at the regular meeting of the City Council of
the City of Atascadero held February 13, 1990, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ADOPTED:
CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA
By:
ROLLIN DEXTER, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
BOYD C. SHARITZ, City Clerk ARTHER R. MONTANDON, City Attorney
•
s
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: A-7
Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 2/27/90
File No: TPM 24-89
From: Henry Engen, Community Development Director
SUBJECT:
Subdivision of two lots of approximately 18 acres into three
parcels of 6 .70, 5. 90, and 5 .80 acres each at 10750 Santa Ana
Road - Vaughan/Kamm/Dohan
BACKGROUND:
On February 6, 1990, the Planning Commission conducted a public
hearing on the above-referenced subject. On a 6 :1 vote, the
Commission voted to approve the parcel map subject to the
Findings and Conditions of Approval contained in the attached
• staff report. There was discussion and public testimony as
referenced in the attached minutes excerpt.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approval of Tentative Parcel Map 24-89 as per the Planning
Commission' s recommendztion.
HE:ps
Attachment: Staff Report dated February 6, 1990
Minutes Excerpt - February 6, 1990
cc: Tom Vaughan, et al
•
ITEM : B-1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: C).P' Doug Davidson, Senior Planner
DATE: February 6, 1990
SUBJECT: Tentative Parcel Map 24-89
(Vaughan/Kamm/Dohan)
BACKGROUND:
On August 1 , 1989, the Planning Commission conducted a public
hearing on Tentative Parcel Map 23-88, a request to divide two
lots of 18. 78 acres into four lots of approximately 4. 50 acres
each. The staff recommendation was that the site is suitable for
a three-lot division, but not a four-lot split, due to steep
slopes and severe septic suitability. The Commission' s decision
was to direct staff to prepare Findings for Denial of the four-
lot division as presented. As an alternative, the applicant
could submit a three-lot division for consideration at the
September 5, 1989 meeting. At that meeting the applicants chose
to present the original four-lot request, and consequently the •
Commission adopted the Findings for Denial on a 5:1 vote with one
abstention. The decision was appealed to the City Council and at
their September 26, 1989 meeting the Council denied the appeal
based on the Findings for Denial in the September 5, 1989 staff
report. Tentative Parcel Map 24-89 is a three-lot division
consistent with the original staff recommendation of August 1,
1989.
ANALYSIS:
Staff continues to support the creation of three lots for several
reasons. First, the site contains three suitable building sites
as shown in Exhibit A. The building sites are approximately 200
feet apart, with sufficient individual area for single family
residences and septic systems. Slopes on the building sites
range from 10 percent on Parcel 1 to 22 percent on Parcel 3.
Extensive grading or tree removal is not necessary to develop
these building sites. Most importantly, this lot configuration
recognizes the physical constraints of original Colony Lot 30.
All three proposed building sites are located on Colony Lot 31.
The revised map proposes a private road using the existing fire
road alignment, except where a greater turning radius is needed.
Minimal grading and removal of one 18" oak tree is necessary for
construction of the private road. By comparison, the City •
standard cul-de-sac of the original map required extensive site
disturbance and tree removal. Since the proposed road will
serve three parcels and is private in nature, equal maintenance
and ownership of the road seems appropriate. The other road
standards of the Subdivision Ordinance, such as width of
pavement, maintenance agreements, and address signs, have been
incorporated.
Staff believes that the required Findings for Approval can be
made. The site is physically suitable for development of three
single family residences. This is not a typical "flag" lot
design, however, the three special findings of Subdivision
Ordinance Section 11-8. 209 are applicable and have been included.
Although the proposed lot lines are irregular on paper, the
subdivision uses the topography as the basis for its design.
This is a prevailing theme of the City' s land use policies.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of Tentative Parcel Map 24-89 based on
the Findings for Approval in Exhibit C and the Conditions of
Approval in Exhibit D.
ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Revised Parcel Map
Exhibit B - Preliminary Grading Plan
Exhibit C - Findings for Approval
Exhibit D - Conditions of Approval
Exhibit E - Staff Report to City Council
(September 26, 1989)
CITY OF i EXHIBIT A
REVISED PARCEL . .
,�. COMMUNITY / 1 24-89
DEPARTMENT
10 19 MW W AV NVAAW.
"Dom r.WANMW 0
Avral
MLANWr NW C40LAMW AM
Awmw
W9 mwopm�
IW ON dV AyAlDWWW.
mamm em:
AM 4W AP.Aziowm.Mr.
liar AIMMDM
/I
i r
,W
EXHIBIT B
CITY OF ATASCADERO
sl,r •' ' • til fi GRADING PLAN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TPM 24-89
DEPARTMENT
1,411,
TYPICAL -STC IION—
PLAN
a.n....
VICINITY MAP
ol
T.I
f �
.. 7
i
{ 1
I 4,
PRELIMINARY
1 � GRA/VNG PLAN
1 1
SIERRA PACIFIC EICIAEERIIC
I '
'1 '
EXHIBIT C - Findings for Approval
Tentative Parcel Map 24-89
10750 Santa Ana Rd. (Vaughan/Kamm/Dohan)
February 6, 1990
ENVIRONMENTAL FINDING:
The proposed project will not have a significant impact upon the
environment. The Negative Declaration prepared for the project
is adequate.
MAP FINDINGS:
1. The proposed map is consistent with the applicable General
or Specific Plan.
2. The design and/or improvement of the proposed subdivision is
consistent with the applicable General or Specific Plan.
3. The site is physically suitable for the proposed type of
development.
4. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of
development.
5. The design of the subdivision, and/or the proposed
improvements, will not cause substantial environmental
damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish and
wildlife or their habitat.
6. The design of the subdivision, and the type of the
improvements, will not conflict with easements acquired by
the public at large for access through or the use of
property within the proposed subdivision; or substantially
equivalent alternate easements are provided.
7. The design of the subdivision and/or the type of proposed
improvements will not cause serious public health problems.
8. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the character of
the neighborhood.
9. The installation of a standard street, while feasible, is
not desirable, due to the extensive site disturbance
necessary for construction.
10. The proposed subdivision is justified by topographical is
conditions.
EXHIBIT D - Conditions of Approval
Tentative Parcel Map 24-89
10750 Santa Ana Rd. (Kamm/Dohan/Vaughan)
February 6, 1990
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. Water shall be obtained from the Atascadero Mutual Water
Co. Water lines shall be extended to the frontage of each
parcel prior to the recording of the final map.
2. All existing and proposed utility, pipeline, open space, or
other easements are to be shown on the final map. If there
are building or other restrictions related to the
easements, they shall be noted on the final map. All
relocation and/or alteration of existing utilities shall be
the responsibility of the developer at his sole expense.
3. Grading, drainage, and erosion control plans, prepared by a
registered civil engineer, shall be submitted for review and
approval by the Community Development and Public Works
Departments prior to recordation of the map. Drainage
facilities shall be constructed to City of Atascadero
standards and completed prior to recording of the final map.
4. Road improvement plans for the private road, prepared by a
registered civil engineer, shall be submitted to and
approved by the Community Development and Public Works
Departments prior to recordation of the final map. Plans
shall include, but not be limited to the following:
a. Tree protection plans, including one replacement tree,
prepared by a certified arborist.
b. A landing is required at the end of the private road.
C. The private road shall be twenty-four feet wide with
twenty feet of pavement, as shown on Exhibit B.
d. Plans shall include measures for drainage control.
e. A reflectorized house number master sign shall be
located at the intersection of the street and accessway
and individual reflectorized address signs shall be
placed on the right hand side of the driveway to each
individual lot.
5. Construction of the private road shall be completed prior to
recordation of the final map.
6. Private road plans shall be reviewed and approved by the
Fire Department prior to recording the final map. Plans
shall include the provision of one City standard fire
hydrant, adequate turn around, and sufficient turning radii.
7. The subdivider shall install all street signs, traffic
delineation devices, warning and regulatory signs,
guardrails, barricades, and other similar devices where
required by the Director of Public Works. Signs shall be in
conformance with the Public Works Department sign standards
and the current State of California uniform sign chart.
Installation of traffic devices shall be subject to review
and modifications after construction.
8. An encroachment permit shall be obtained from the Public
Works Department for all work to be done within the public
right-of-way prior to recording of the final map. Applicant
shall sign an inspection agreement, guaranteeing that the
work shall be done and inspections paid for prior to the
start of public works construction. The construction of
these improvements, as directed by the encroachment permit,
shall be completed prior to recording the final map. The
location of the new private road shall be checked for
adequate sight distance along Santa Ana Rd. prior to
approval of road improvement plans.
9. All three parcels shall have no direct access to Santa Ana
Rd. Access to all lots of the subdivision shall be from the
new private road. Relinquishment of access rights shall be
shown on the final map.
10. A road maintenance agreement, in a form acceptable to the
City Attorney, shall be recorded with the deed to each
parcel at the time it is first conveyed. A note to this
affect shall appear on the final map.
11. A final map drawn in substantial conformance with the
approved tentative map and compliance with all conditions
set forth herein shall be submitted for review and approval
in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and the City Lot
Division Ordinance prior to recordation.
a. Monuments shall be set at all new property corners
created and a registered civil engineer or licensed
land surveyor shall indicate, by certificate on the
final map, that corners have been set or shall be set by
a date specific and that they will be sufficient to
enable the survey to be retraced.
b. A recently updated preliminary title report shall be
submitted for review in conjunction with the processing
of the final map.
c. A preliminary subdivision guarantee shall be submitted
for review in conjunction with the processing of the
final map.
12. Approval of this tentative map shall expire two years from
the date of final approval unless an extension of time is
granted pursuant to a written request prior to the
expiration date.
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: B-1
Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 9/26/89
File No: TPM 23-88
From: Henry Engen, Community Development Director
SUBJECT:
Appeal by Tom Vaughan of Planning Commission' s denial of Tenta-
tive Parcel Map 23-88 (10750 Santa Ana Road) .
RECOMMENDATION:
Deny the appeal based on the Findings for Denial adopted by the
Planning Commission in the attached Exhibit A.
BACKGROUND :
At their August 1, 1989 meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed
this proposed lot division from two lots to four lots, and re-
quested the applicants to redesign the project to a three-lot
configuration and continued the matter to the meeting of Septem-
ber 5, 1989 . At that meeting, the applicants indicated that they
wished to have the four-lot proposal judged. The Commission, on
a 5 : 1 vote with one abstention, denied the project based on the
Findings for Denial included herewith.
ANALYSIS :
The applicants are requesting to subdivide two existing lots
totaling 18 .78 acres into four parcels containing approximately
4 . 50 acres each to be served by a proposed cul-de-sac City
street. As indicated in the attached staff reports and Planning
Commission minutes excerpts, the key issue was the availability
of four adequate building sites given the steepness of slopes
and poor septic suitability of the site. Moreover, the existing
terrain and vegetation is not conducive to the construction of a
City-standard road. The three-lot proposal served by a private
drive would result in less grading in that it would follow the
existing access path and would not involve the removal of one
heritage tree and other smaller, healthy oaks .
I
Included with the letter of appeal are letters submitted at the
Planning Commission' s September 5, 1989 meeting contending that
there are four adequate building sites. Neither Commission nor
staff concurred with that conclusion.
ALTERNATIVE :
1 . The City Council could uphold the appeal and direct staff to
bring back conditions of approval for the four-way division.
2 . If the applicants have a change of heart, Council could
refer the matter back to the Planning Commission for a
redesign for a three-way division.
HE :ph
Enclosures: Letter of Appeal, received September 6, 1989
Sierra Pacific Engineering letter - Aug. 30, 1989
EDA Engineering Letter - August 24, 1989
Staff Report - August 1 , 1989
. Staff Report - September 5, 1989
Planning Commission Minutes Excerpts - Aug. 1 , 1989
Planning Commission Minutes Excerpts - Sept. 5, 1989
VAUGHAN SURVEYS
630',14!h STREET p9" Robils, CA 93446
(805) 238-5700 • FAX(805) 239-7878
City of Atascadero
Planning Department
6500 Palma Avenue
Atascadero, CA 93422
Attn: Mr. Steve DeCamp
Re: PM AT 88-242
Dear Steve,
As you know, the above referenced Parcel Map was denied
last night at Planning Commission. We hereby appeal that
desicsion to City Council. Enclosed is a check for $100. 00
to cover the cost of the appeal.
Sincerely,
VAUGHAN SURVEYS •
Tom Vaughan
TV/bc ;
' Few,
(� 1989
.SIERRA PACIFIC ENGINEERING
IVIL ENGINEERING TIMOTHY P. ROBERTS
IVISION DESIGN PRINCIPAL ENGINEER
ND USE PLANNING August 30, 1989
PUBLIC WORKS DESIGN
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
COMPUTER AIDED DESIGN
City of Atascadero
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Post Office Box 747
Atascadero, CA 93423
Attn: Mr. Steve DeCamp
Re: Parcel Map 23-88 - 10750 Santa Ana Road
Subject: Suitability of Proposed Parcels
Dear Steve,
I have reviewed the issues concerning the above
referenced application and revisited the site personally on
Friday 25 August 1989. In walking the existing access road
I would tend to support staff's recommendation that a
private access road, requiring less site disturbance and no
tree removal would be preferable over a city standard
street.
With minor realignment of a switch back curve in Parcel
1 the existing access road would nicely serve the proposed 4
parcels. This proposed realignment would traverse an area
void of tree . cover while still maintaining an acceptable
grade of less than 209. The road could be constructed
essentially at "Natural Grade" with very little earthwork
required. Minor trimming and removal of downed branches
would be the only work required around the existing tree
cover.
The second major issue concerning this proposed
development is that of parcel size and compatibility. I am
forced to disagree with your staff's findings where in it
was stated that "Lots which are impractical for intended
uses due to terrain, location of natural features,
inadequate access, frontage, or buildable area, or other
physical limitations will not be approved. "
During my site inspection I personally identified
several additional building sites which were not shown on
your attached exhibit. The preferred sites have been
carefully identified and analized for their esthetic appeal,
630 14TH STREET 9 PASO ROBLES,CALIFORNIA 93446 (805)238-5700 • FAX: (805)239-7878
i
septic suitability, and minimal site disturance. I strongly
concurr with the applicants contention that a minimum of
four appropriate building sites have been determined. These
sites clearly conform to your Residential Suburban Parcel
Size Test Criteria and provide a minimum of 150 feet between
future homes.
With the existing oak tree canopy left intact as
proposed; these sites will be afforded privacy and
seclusion while being virtually hidden from view from the
surrounding area.
In summary, I would submit the following:
1) Utilization of the existing access road would
effectively and safely provide access to building sites on
all four of the proposed parcels with no required tree
removal and only minor grading. t
2) The site has the capability to accomodate the
proposed four home sites without compromise of any
environmental concern. A reduction to three lots would
serve only to underutilize the potential of this property.
3) All engineering design concerns can be accomplished
without utilizing "Extreme Building Techniques". Roadway
access, Home Design, Foundation Design, Septic Installation,
Etc. will all incorporate Standard Hillside Construction
Techniques.
In closing, I would welcome the opportunity to meet
with you or a designated staff member to walk the site to
further clarify our design and address any possible concern
which you may still have.
I am confident that your further investigation and
consideration of the special concern and effort which has
gone into this application will result in a position of
support for the project as presented.
Sincerely,
�r' ESS SIERRA PACFIC ENGINEERING
Timothy P. Roberts, P.E.
TPR/bc
EDA
INGINIIHING
DEVELOPMENT
ASSOCIATES
August 24, 1989
Mr. William Dohan ;
8035 Santa Rosa Rd.
Atascadero, CA 93422
Re: Building sites - 10750 Santa Anna Road, Atascadero, CA
Dear Mr. Dohan,
On August 23, 1989 two representatives for EDA walked the subject
parcels in order to determine the availability and suitability of
potential building and waste disposal sites. The sites accessed
are delineated on Tentative Parcel Map AT-88-242 and a detailed
Topographic Survey map provided by Mr. Tom Vaughan. The detailed
locations were considered.
The Tentative Parcel Map AT-88-242 proposes a 600' long access road
into the site terminating at a cul-de-sac. The proposed building
sites are set back from the proposed road at distances from 25 to
40 feet.
Parcel 1•
The building site on Parcel 1 is located approximately 160 feet
north of Santa Anna; Road, and 25 feet west of the proposed access
road, on a north facing slope with an average grade of
approximately 17 percent. This location provides an unobstructed
area nearly 90 by 60 feet in which to site a residence and waste
disposal field. Additional area that appears suitable (slope less
than 30%) for the waste disposal field is located west of the
building site and the required 100 percent expansion area is
located further north and down-slope of the building site.
Parcel 2:
The building site on Parcel 2 is located approximately 400 feet
north of Santa Anna Road, and 30 feet northwest of the proposed
cul-de-sac, on a north facing slope with an average grade of
approximately 15 percent. This location provides an open area
nearly 100 by 90 feet in which to site a residence and waste
disposal field. An area that appears suitable for the 100 percent
expansion area is located approximately 60 feet further north and
down-slope of the building site. This site will be the most
difficult to develop but it is our opinion that with careful design
the indicated building site is adequate.
ENGINEERING • LAND SURVEYING • PROJECT ADM INISTRATION
1320 NIPOMO STREET • SAN LUIS OBISPO , CA 93401 • 805 - 549 - 8658
August 24, 1989
10750 Santa Anna Rd. Atascadero, CA
Page 2
Parcel 3•
{
The building site on Parcel 3 is located approximately 600 feet
north of Santa Anna Road, and 200 east of the proposed cul-de-sac,
on a north facing slope with an average grade of approximately 14
percent. This location provides an unobstructed area nearly 100
by 200 feet in which to site a residence and waste disposal field.
Additional area that appears suitable for building development is
located down-slope toward northeast approximately 100 feet. Space
for the required 100 percent waste expansion field is located west
of the building site.
Parcel 4:
The building site on Parcel 4 is located approximately 350 feet
north of Santa Anna Road, and approximately 150 feet east of the
proposed access road, on a north facing slope with an average grade
of approximately 10 percent. This location provides an area nearly
120 by 50 feet in which to site a residence. A location thyt
appears suitable for the waste disposal field is located east )f
the building site and the required 100 percent expansion site is
located further north and down-slope of the building site. An
alternate building site is located about 70 feet south and up hill
from the identified location.
Comments• ;
The location of the cul-de-sac "bulb, " and therefore the paving,
is situated where two large oak trees exist. It appears prudent
to relocate the bulb, perhaps up-slope to the south 50 feet, in an
effort to avoid destruction of these trees and enlarge the proposed
building site on Parcel 2. A "hammerhead" turnaround, in place of
the cul-de-sac would further minimize tree removal and increase the
area available on Parcel 2 while still providing an adequate
turnaround.
Conclusions•
The exact building site locations that will be chosen will
necessarily vary in the eye of the ultimate owner, building
designer and engineer at the time actual building design
development begins. Each site demands, and deserves, a well sited,
designed and engineered building and septic disposal field. The
building plan review and permit process in place in Atascadero
August 24 , 1989
10750 Santa Anna Rd. Atascadero, CA
Page 3
provides the mechanism for the Planning and Building Department to
assure that all applicable building and health codes as well as
engineering standards are adhered to in the design of all propobed
residences.
Should you have questions, please contact this office.
Sincerely, Reviewed and Approved,
ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES
C ✓,
David C. Main eith V. Crowe
Q 0 ESS/04/
,C- ��\�N V CAQ6LF F?\
T\
J �
LIC.A!0
Ezp. 11/92 t
i
DCM\89-861\DOHANI.LTR
e
c,
•x
e•
i
/ m
` r
r , n
r r:
.71
c OF
m rn
I"1 1.
rn
ti Q—y N
y
� m
CITY OF ATASCADERO Item: B . 1
STAFF REPORT
FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: August 1, 1989
BY: Doug Davidson, Associate Planner File No: TPM 23-88
SUBJECT:
To consider a request to subdivide two existing lots of 18.78
acres total into four parcels containing approximately 4 .50
acres each. The request also includes the construction of a City
standard cul-de-sac named Arbol Linda Lane.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of a three-way subdivision based on the
Findings for Approval in Exhibit G and the Conditions of Approval
in Exhibit H.
SITUATION AND FACTS:
1 . Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Bill Dohan/Tom Vaughan
2. Representative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Twin Cities Engineering
3. Project Address. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10750 Santa Ana Rd.
4 . Legal Description. . . . . . . . . . . .Lots 30 and 31, Blk. 26
5. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.78 acres
6. Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .RS (Residential Suburban)
7 . General Plan Designation. . . . .Suburban Single Family
8. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Vacant
9. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Negative Declaration posted
July 18, 1989.
B. ANALYSIS:
The applicant proposes to subdivide two existing lots containing
a total of 18 .78 acres into four parcels of approximately 4 .50
• acres each. Both existing lots have frontage on Santa Ana Rd.
1
Under this proposal, the four lots will all be served by a new
public road named Arbol Linda Lane. This road will be offered
for dedication to the City for acceptance into the maintained
street system.
The subject property is located in the RS (Residential Suburban)
zone. Minimum lot size in this zone ranges between 2.5 and 10
acres depending on the "score" of the various performance
standards. For this site, the minimum lot size criteria are:
Distance from Center (10,000 - 12, 000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.30
Septic Suitability (40 - 59 min/inch) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 .50
Average Slope (21% - 25%) . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . 00
Access Condition (City acceptedroad) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 .40
General Neighborhood Character (5.40 acres) . . . . . . . . . .1.08
Minimum Lot Size. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 .28 acres
The proposed lot sizes of 4 .50 acres are larger than the minimum
lot size required for this site. Although, the minimum lot size
criteria is met, the development of the proposed lots poses
special concerns, most notably the placement of adequate septic
systems on these sites.
Septic System Design
Although, the percolation results indicate a moderate rate of
percolation (septic suitability) , staff has given a severe rating
to this project (see above table of performance standards) . The
reason for this is that the perc tests submitted (deep pit)
indicate bedrock at only five and six feet. The minimum distance
between the bottom of any absorption trench and bedrock must not
be less than ten feet. This means that conventional septic
designs will not function properly on these sites. Thus, it
seems appropriate to define these lots as "severe" for septic
suitability, regardless of the percolation rates in min/inch.
In situations such as this, extensive engineering for septic
system design is required. One alternative is an above-ground,
or mound system, for obtaining the required depth to an
impervious surface. As Exhibit F states, sufficient natural
slope for mound systems does not exist on these sites; grading is
necessary to accomodate them. Other alternatives are E.T. I . or
E.T. systems which involve evaporation, transpiration, and
infiltration for sewage disposal. The City has processed few
systems of this type, however, they are becoming more common.
These systems require considerable space (6, 000 square feet in
one instance) and cannot be located on steep slopes.
Furthermore, the systems tend to emit odors and should not be
placed in proximity to neighboring dwellings. These systems are
typically proposed only as a last ditch alternative to failed
conventional systems.
2
As the Exhibits show, thero osed building sites are
P p
characterized by 20-30% slopes and are placed close to one
another, particulary the lower sites where the natural slope is
steeper. The City is frequently dealing now with the development
of difficult lots that were created under County jurisdiction or
as part of the Atascadero Colony. Staff believes that new lots
should not be created unless it is certain that they are
developable as single family parcels using proven waste disposal
systems.
Based upon the above analysis, staff cannot make the required
findings for approval, particulary those dealing with the
physical suitability and proper density of the site for
development. As the City' s Subdivision Ordinance states on page
37, "Lots which are impractical for intended uses due to terrain,
location of natural features, inadequate access, frontage, or
buildable area, or other physical limitations will not be
approved. "
Options
While staff cannot support a four-way split, the site does appear
suitable as a division of two lots into three. In this case, the
three lots would be approximately six acres in size and provide
buildable sites with more open space between them. This
satisfies the land use goals of "elbow room" and scattered house
sites so important to the General Plan. Larger lots will allow
adequate area for the space consuming septic systems, as well as
keeping these potentially odorous systems farther apart.
A further justification for three-way split is the topography of
existing Colony Lot 30. As the attachments show, this lot does
not contain a suitable building site. All four of the proposed
building sites are located on Colony Lot 31 (with building area
for Parcel 2 crossing the line) . However, Lot 30 is an existing
legal lot and the City is bound to process a building permit
application with the extensive grading and tree removal
associated with it. Also, if only one of these lots was
considered for a two-way split, it would be a parcel in excess of
the 3: 1 ratio or a flag lot. Thus, the staff recommendation
incorporates the site' s buildable areas by utilizing the entire
18 acre site. Most importantly, it eliminates dealing with the
site development problems inherent in Lot 30 .
Access
The project proposes to construct a public street named Arbol
Linda Lane for acceptance into the City maintained street system.
This proposed street does not follow the existing access path and
would involve the removal of one heritage tree and several other
3
i
healthy oaks during construction. Also, to constuct the City
standard cul-de-sac as proposed would require extensive grading
on the site. The grading of the existing driveway, on the other
hand, did not result in excessive grading or tree removal. As
Exhibit D shows however, the existing dirt road is characterized
by sharp angles which would require substantial rounding to meet
the City' s turning radii requirement. Additionally, the maximum
slope allowed on a City street is 15%, which in this case would
require additional grading. Thus, to construct a City standard
road in the location proposed, or along the existing alignment,
will involve substantial site disturbance. For these reasons,
staff is suggesting that the access road be constucted to
private road standards to minimize grading and tree removal.
The creation of flag lots was also reviewed as an alternative.
A typical flag lot subdivision, however, is not consistent with
the neighborhood (see Exhibit A) . Furthermore, the creation of a
flag lot, with the "flag" access off to one side serving a lot in
the rear, is not suitable to serve the proposed building sites.
The existing road can be developed to meet the private road
standards of the City and provide adequate fire access, while not
creating a long "dead-end" cul-de-sac. The road should be owned
to centerline by each of the fronting parcels, not by the lot
furthest from the street. A private road agreement among the
property owners will ensure maintenance. Lastly, a road serving
three parcels is private in nature and does not warrant City
status.
The proposed street name of Arbol Linda Lane poses no problems of
identification to the public safety agencies. Translated from
Spanish, arbol linda means "pretty tree", an appropriate name in
this case.
CONCLUSIONS:
Staff' s recommendation attempts to minimize the site disturbance
necessary to develop these lots by utilizing the buildable sites
of the 18 acre property. Due to steep slopes slopes and poor
septic suitablity of the site, a four-way subdivision is not
appropriate. Likewise, the existing terrain is not conducive for
the construction of a City standard road. A private street
using the existing fire road alignment results in less necessary
site work, while still providing adequate private and emergency
access. Since this subdivision is not a typical flag lot, the
road should be owned and maintained equally. The other road
standards for flag lots, such as width of pavement, road
maintenance agreement, and address identification signs have been
included.
4
ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Location Map
Exhibit B - Tentative Map
Exhibit C - Map Detail
Exhibit D - Existing Dirt Road
Exhibit E - Development Statement
Exhibit F - Letter on Septic System Design
Exhibit G - Findings for Approval
Exhibit H - Conditions of Approval
5
1
Exhibit A
CITY OF AT�S�ADERO
�i Location Map
COt41.L1UNITY DEVELOPMENT TPM 23-88
DEPA R T M E N T
L
1V\
S ( FH )
yOFBa I 1I � � •
NF f ��
f O D
-
L
W
OJ -�
i �ROADLLANO
\.
i '
e\ i Exhibit B
�,_. Y.,,� CITY OF ATASCADERO Parcel Map
CO.'✓f:ivfUNITY DEVELOPMENT TPM 23-88
DEPARTMENT
OWWrn CERTIFWJTE
S HKAGW DERMOT A►ORORN.OF THE
ow"W"K=AL IROIORTT SHOWN ON
THE TONTATWE MY AHS CYTWv wmT
S AM THE AVTIYRQOO ROFSESwT rm
K THE OWNSRS AND THAT THE MAI
M TRW AND COMM?TO THE REST M
my RMOvM000i.
i
ALL"
Et _fir
a 1 41.
•'� }� �' tri. ' � .+
4 A.�hAN .��`.y, � _.,.ice 1 (' - ,, ♦E.
.s
4
eu
\ e1TE /ICHTY MAP
k
.. .a� ATAKAouo
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP A111-242
W.W A WIS.o1 LATS 80 AND R, KOCK It
' W#,vwR m C0.0N'COUNTY a sw WI ONro, .
STATE OF CALPORWIIA M WCORKS W 9"11.
_TWIN CITIES ENGkJEERINGas
..
SOO MMI STREET/►O.RN TT?
. -. TSMft&,@R CAHJORNIA SOeOs on) OE/.HEA
SHEET H OF E
Exhibit C
CI
TY OF ATASCADERO Map Detail
r'+s�•'ac =4 ' -7 TPM 23-88
"CAD : COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
LOT 30
r
'E
XV INCE IDT
1
�—�.�+ , .tip,.._.,_/.//' � ' �,.� .. :{x •�� ,�
r
ii25
}
EXHIBIT D
, CITY OF ATASCADERO EXISTING DIRT ROAD
TPM 23-88
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
r 3
:rz _
i
i
ttx
_ +�1`1�`
t z9• — \
1 \r =`-
✓` \ �!!T 1 \ +11
-56
10 1£2
T -v
+ � +1m�?8 ;gym£°• ` � f !�l�.e+a5:
' e �R ` •` i 5 �151+L:'L=
i092
gime = +:m��•�-;;r:• � +.i=. 1 �.. .�\
.14
75.
TOM VAUGHAN, L.S. 575_ )
1940 Spring Street
Paso Robles, California 931.46
(805) 238-5700
March 7 , 1989 Exhibit E
City of Atascadero Development Statement
Planning Department
6500 Palma Avenue TPM 23-88
Atascadero, CA 93422
RE: Parcel Map Alnv8-242 (Dohan/Vaughan)
Dear Doug:
I would like to thank you and Steve for allowing me the
opportunity to join you on your recent field review of the
subject project. As per your request, I am addressing
several concerns that we discussed at that meeting.
First, is septic suitability. As indicated by the
percolation tests submitted, engineered septic systems should
be designed once a specific residence is chosen. This is
primarily because of the depth to be=drocl: encountered on the
site, however, this would still be a ro: uirement because the
percolation rates exceed 30 minutes/incl).
Secondly, the proposed building sites indicated on the
Tentative Map should not be misconstrued as being the only
sites available. These sites are merely a representation of
what I feel would be the easiest areas on which to build. As
we saw in the field there are several. alternatives.
Thirdly, I am in the process of flagging the proposed
centerline of the road as well as the propo!-ed building sites
shown on the Map. I hope this helps those viewing the site.
Finally, the reason I have decided to provide access with a
city standard road versus a private read is because of the
flag lot requirement of the zoning ordinance. I would
however, be susceTtible to reverting back to the private road
aspect. This oould allow ste�iper slopes, less site
disturbance if tha existing fire .-.ad iaere used, and less
tree removal. I have been under the inplession that the City
preferred standard roads over private, but either way would
be acceptable. The change would not be majcr.
At any rate, I hope this helps, and if I can answer any
additional quest:ic.ns, please do not hesitate to give me a
call.
Very truly ours,
TOM VAUGHAN, L.S. 5751
TV:ds
EXHIBIT F
VAUGHAN SURVEYS
1940 Spring Street • Paso Robles, CA 93446 � m;
(805) 238-5700 • FAX (805) 239-7878
.JUN 30 1099
,-- - �f ::�.�5'�.±tea_'•�
COMMUNITY bitVEL'1#"
Sewag ✓: �n'�S?. ? S_'J- - -il� Study fcr -e nt—at—ve
�esr Hr . DeCamp .
70U o:=a?" -a'=ed J'L_te we have -.)e _r,, e- 3
^ C„ _`Cai
--0
nn �na S1r-^ ,eC= S-1e . W�
S- -ems` =az_e re -.Q-.,perad ivate Cewage disposal SVstems
W;--- �'at-r=- -"C':: �_cpes ^_r 'g from
_7 1.-._._ --_"..-`.0 �.��ia-on _nal mncund cr
�� a^c- ans,.; -at- _.._ type sr stems w4- l fu_^.ct_on
rua-a i areas cni:i-f fed are snswn on
accOmTpa.vin6 map as shaded areas 4: — These areas will
cccmmcdate a system for a 3- bedroom hcuse with s^ace for
1v0a expans".on. The ant-clpated des-g:i -1lfiitrat-0= rate w'i _ �
be 5G Ga. per sq. ft. per da,7
are ade— ate- :ou-ld-^g S-tes above or ad.;- the
^rc ose'd disposal Ys_=es TiJ ,ic'- will {aci : ltate gravity i -OW
I^di -ci>>al s-stems k: l 1 be designed and const—'—d
_nY ac.,.._ dance w"t t e State Water Resources Con-- l Board
"G el i:es For '"curd S'yST_ems" and "Guidl i nes for
Tprimary
regarding the installation of
m,cund systems _s t e na_.:ra_ ground slope . The natural arcund
_7Lope for mound sys-ems is not to exceed 12%. We propose tc
perforT. miner site grading (cuts and fills less than 21 ) to
bring theareas into conformance for installation of mound
sys�ems . In no case ki'_ 1 the existing soil mantel be
disturbed in the area where the system is to be installed .
S_nould ,..._s ^T be unacceptable , the alternative
would be to inst QR�F� spiration/Infiltration systems .
q
Ql:
Sincerely,
C-7
v T'/) 15GHAN/SSURVE S r
W
No. +4085 `/
'F Exp,. 6/30/93 '' j e t r e y B. Mills
RTV and �T9j CIVIL ,% Ci i 1 Engineer
/ E OF CAV\\
EXHIBIT G - Findings for Approval
Tentative Parcel Map 23-88
10750 Santa Ana Rd.
Dohan /Vaughan/Twin Cities Engineering
August 1, 1989
ENVIRONMENTAL FINDING:
The proposed project will not have a significant impact on the
environment. The Negative Declaration prepared for the project
is adequate.
MAP FINDINGS:
1 . The creation of three parcels conforms to the applicable
General or Specific Plan.
2 . The design and/or improvements associated with a three-way
subdivision is consistent with the applicable General or
Specific Plan.
3. The site as three parcels is physically suitable for the
type of development proposed.
4 . The site as three parcels is physically suitable for the
density of the development.
5. The design of the subdivision, as conditioned, and the
proposed improvements, will not cause substantial
environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure
fish and wildlife or their habitat.
6. The design of the subdivision, and the type of the
improvements, will not conflict with easements acquired by
the public at large for access through or the use of
property within the proposed subdivision; or substantially
equivalent alternate easements are provided.
7 . The proposed subdivision, as conditioned, will not cause
serious health problems.
8. A three-way subdivision is consistent with the character of
the neighborhood.
9. The installation of a standard street, while feasible, is
not desirable, due to extensive site disturbance necessary
for construction.
10 . A three-way subdivision is justified by topographical
conditions.
EXHIBIT H - Conditions of Approval
Tentative Parcel Map 23-88
10750 Santa Ana Rd.
Dohan/Vaughan/Twin Cities Engineering
August 1, 1989
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1 . The parcel map shall be redesigned as a three-way
subdivision, with the three lots being approximately equal
in size. The existing fire road alignment shall be
developed to private road standards to serve the three
parcels.
2. Water shall be obtained from the Atascadero Mutual Water
Co. Water lines shall be extended to the frontage of each
parcel or its public utility easement prior to the recording
of the final map.
3. All existing and proposed utility, pipeline, open space, or
other easements are to be shown on the final map. If there
are building or other restrictions related to the
easements, they shall be noted on the final map. All
relocation and/or alteration of existing utilities shall be
the responsibility of the developer at his sole expense.
4 . Grading, drainage, and erosion control plans, prepared by a
registered civil engineer, shall be submitted for review and
approval by the Community Development and Public Works
Departments prior to recordation of the map. Drainage
facilities shall be constructed to City of Atascadero
standards and completed prior to recording of the final map.
5. Road improvement plans for the private road, prepared by a
registered civil engineer, shall be submitted to and
approved by the Community Development and Public Works
Departments prior to recordation of the final map. Plans
shall include, but not be limited to the following:
a. The private road shall follow the alignment of the
existing fire road and include measures to preserve and
protect trees.
b. Plan and profile for the private road.
c. The private road shall be twenty-four feet wide with
twenty feet of pavement .
d. A reflectorized house number master sign shall be
located at the intersection of the street and accessway
and individual reflectorized address signs shall be
placed on the right hand side of the driveway to each
individual lot.
}
6. Construction of the private road shall be completed prior to
recordation of the final map.
7 . The improvement plans shall be reviewed and approved by the
Fire Department prior to recording the final map. Plans
shall include the provision of one City standard fire
hydrant at the end of the cul-de-sac.
8 . The subdivider shall install all street signs, traffic
delineation devices, warning and regulatory signs,
guardrails, barricades, and other similar devices where
required by the Director of Public Works. Signs shall be in
conformance with the Public Works Department sign standards
and the current State of California uniform sign chart.
Installation of traffic devices shall be subject to review
and modifications after construction.
9. An encroachment permit shall be obtained from the Public
Works Department for all work to be done within the public
right-of-way prior to recording of the final map. Applicant
shall sign an inspection agreement, guaranteeing that the
work shall be done and inspections paid for prior to the
start of public works construction. The construction of
these improvements, as directed by the encroachment permit,
shall be completed prior to recording the final map. The
location of the new private road shall be checked for
adequate sight distance along Santa Ana Rd. prior to
approval of road improvement plans.
10 . All three parcels shall have no direct access to Santa Ana
Rd. Access to all lots of the subdivision shall be from the
new private road. Relinquishment of access rights shall be
shown on the final map.
11 . A road maintenance agreement, in a form acceptable to the
City Attorney, shall be recorded with the deed to each
parcel at the time it is first conveyed. A note to this
affect shall appear on the final map.
12 . A final map drawn in substantial conformance with the
approved tentative map and compliance with all conditions
set forth herein shall be submitted for review and approval
in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and the City Lot
Division Ordinance prior to recordation.
a. Monuments shall be set at all new property corners
created and a registered civil engineer or licensed
land surveyor shall indicate, by certificate on the
final map, that corners have been set or shall be set by
a date specific and that they will be sufficient to
enable the survey to be retraced.
b. A recently updated preliminary title report shall be
submitted for review in conjunction with the processing
of the final map.
c. A preliminary subdivision guarantee shall be submitted
for review in conjunction with the processing of the
final map.
13. Approval of this tentative map shall expire two years from
the date of final approval unless an extension of time is
granted pursuant to a written request prior to the
expiration date.
ITEM: B-1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM:D•V Doug Davidson, Associate Planner
RE: Tentative Parcel Map 23-88 - 10750 Santa Ana Rd.
DATE: September 5, 1989
On August 1, 1989, the Planning Commission conducted a public
hearing on the above-referenced parcel map. After taking public
testimony, the Commission decided to send the item back to staff
to prepare Findings for Denial of a four-way lot division. As an
alternative, the applicant could submit a revised three-way map
for consideration at the September 5th meeting.
After submitting two options for a three-way split on an informal
basis, the applicant has decided not to revise the map.
Consequently, the staff has prepared the appropriate findings per
the Commission' s direction. As stated in the staff report,
Findings #3 and # 4 were the most difficult to make in the
affirmative. Due to the steep slopes and severe septic
suitability, this site is not suitable for the development of
four residences. Likewise, the construction of the proposed City
standard cul-de sac would result in substantial grading and tree
removal. Thus, Findings #1 and #2 are also written in the
negative for the General Plan does not invite this type of
subdivision based on the following language (Pg. 57) :
"Attention shall be paid to the aesthetic result of land
division. Building sites shall be encouraged on natural
slopes, with minimal disruption of native vegetation and
watersheds, and efficient layout of access and utilities. "
Perhaps the City' s Subdivision Ordinance provides the best
summary of the staff' s position (Pg. 37) :
"Lots which are impractical for intended uses due to
terrain, location of natural features, inadequate access,
frontage, or buildable area, or other physical limitations
will not be approved. "
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of Parcel Map 23-88 based on the attached
Findings for Denial.
DD/dd
Attachments: Findings for Denial
Staff Report dated August 1, 1989
EXHIBIT A - Findings for Denial
Tentative Parcel Map 23-88
10750 Santa Ana Rd. (Vaughan/Dohan)
September 5, 1989
MAP FINDINGS:
1. The proposed map is not consistent with the General Plan.
2. The design and/or improvement of the proposed subdivision is
not consistent with the General Plan.
3. The site is not physically suitable for the proposed type of
development.
4. The site is not physically suitable for the proposed density
of development.
5. The proposed map is not consistent with the general
requirements of the City' s Subdivision Ordinance, as
contained in Section 11-8. 201.
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES EXCERPTS - 8/1/89
MOTION: Ma a ommissioner Luna, seconded b s-
sioner+Waage carried approve Item A-1
with the ame ted above.
B. HEARINGS, APPEARANCES, AND REPORTS
1. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 23-88 :
Application filed by Bill Dohan and Tom Vaughan to sub-
divide two existing lots of 18.78 acres into four lots
of approximately 4 .50 acres each. Subject site is
located at 10750 Santa Ana Road.
Mr. Davidson presented the staff report summarizing reasons
(septic system design, slopes, topography, access) for staff
recommending approval of a three-way lot division as Opposed
to a four-way split. He responded to questions from the
Commission relative to the appropriateness of reviewing the
recommendation in light of the applicant' s desire for four
lots, the flexibility of condition ##1 for provision of a
three lot redesign, suitable areas for septic systems, etc .
Tom Vaughan, representing the applicant, presented the Com-
mission with information concerning permit time limitations
( from the Government Code) and asked for approval of a four
way split. A lot of time and effort has been spent in
designing the site; various experts have dealt with septic
suitability on the site with four engineers making their
recommendations . Mr. Vaughan stated his belief that Lot 30
has two buildable sites and that efforts have been taken to
minimize site disturbance on that lot; extensive design has
been done to preserve the trees on the site.
In response to question from Commissioner Brasher, Mr.
Vaughan replied that either a mound or evaporative type
septic system could be designed for the site. He expressed
concern that some material pertaining to the engineers '
recommendations, as well as copies of percolation tests,
were not included in the agenda packet.
In response t0 question from Commissioner Luna, Mr. Vaughan
spoke on the number of trees proposed for removal . Discus-
sion followed.
Bill Dohan, applicant, presented a letter to the Commission
that he read which summarizes their position on this
application. The letter questioned, among other issues,
timely processing with regard to time limits allowed by the
Government Code, why the proposed sites are not suitable
after four engineers ' statements attested to the suitability
of the sites, percolation rate calculations , eta: . Mr. 00han
Contended that the average building site slopes are 11-17%
and not 20-30 as determined by staff and noted that the
I
proposed average lot size of 4 .5 net acres is .72 acres per
lot above the minimum. He further stated his belief that
the recommendation has been based on misrepresentations,
deletions and erroneous information.
Chairperson Lochridge referenced a letter from John Falken-
stien with Cuesta Engineering and stated he felt Mr.
Falkenstien' s recommendation differed from that of another
engineer with regard to adequate percolation, septic
suitability, etc. He expressed concern on whether there is
enough room to accommodate a building site, driveway, and
septic system without extensive site disturbance.
Discussion followed.
In response to question from Commissioner Waage, Mr. Dohan
stated it was his understanding that Mr. Vaughan, on a
number of occasions, informed staff that they should watch
their time limits concerning applications , and explained
time lines involved.
In addressing Mr. Dohan' s and Mr. Vaughan' s testimony, Mr.
Decamp stated that part of his working relationship with Mr.
Vaughan for the past 3+years has been based largely on
telephone conversations and spoke to the time limitations
involved with CEQA and the Government Code. Mr. Decamp
summarized the application' s timeline from date of submittal
until the application was determined to be complete on June
30, 1989 . Mr. Decamp further stated that, based on informa-
tion the applicant submitted which indicated the average
cross slopes ranging from 20% to 35%, staff began to have
serious concerns about the suitability of the sites for
septic systems . He explained methods by which staff deter-
mined the minimum allowed iot size.
Discussion continued concerning the difference between
conventional septic systems and extraordinary systems (e.g
mound system, E.T. I. or E .T. ) ; average cross slope as
determined by the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances, road
improvement plans as they relate to tree removal, etc.
Chairperson Lochridge expressed his feeling that both staff
and the applicant were working toward a common goal with
this application and based on information he has reviewed,
he would be reluctant to create a home site where there may
not be one where all issues in the Subdivision Ordinance and
General Plan aren' t met.
Commissioner Lopez-Balbontin inquired whether staff had re-
viewed the applicant' s contention that there are two
buildable sites on Lot 30 to which Mr. Decamp responded.
Commissioner Lopez-Balbontin stated the proper spelling for
the proposed street name "Arbo Linda" should read "Arbo
Lindo" .
MOTION: Made by Commissioner Brasher, seconded by Commis-
sioner Luna to send Tentative Parcel Map 23-88 to
staff for development of Findings for Denial of a
four-way lot division. If, during that process,
the applicant wishes to consider a three-way
split, staff is to report back for the meeting of
September 5 , 1989 . The motion carried 4 : 2 with
the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Brasher, Luna, Waage, and
Chairperson Lochridge
NOES: Commissioners Highland and Lopez-Balbontin
Commissioner Highland stated he could not support the motion
because his personal observation of the property would lead
him to believe there are at least five buildable sites on
the two lots. He also felt that based on the information
presented tonight, engineered septic systems could be
installed.
Commissioner Waage noted he has walked the site extensively
and did not feel there was room for four building sites
along with the septic systems .
Chairperson Lochridge declared a recess at 8 : 53 p.m. ;
meeting reconvened at 9 :03 p.m.
2. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 12-89 :
Application filed by Genevieve Colombo for divisioi of
one parcel containing 10 . 0 acres into two lots tain-
i 2 .0 acres, one lot containing 1 . 0 acres, d one
lot ontaining 5 . 0 acres . Subject site is ocated at
10785 Camino Real.
Mr. DeCantp preset ed the staff report ing a recent Gen-
eral Plan Amendment hich extended t Urban Services Line
to the subject parcel id one to a south. Staff is
recommending approval su ' ct 21 conditions which are
based on the site' s zoning r high density multi-family
use.
Commissioner Lopez- dlbontin express -d concern of what
impacts might oc r if one of the Parc s is sold and then
developed as i ti-family in a possible pcemeal manner.
Discussion ollowed as to the potential of e property
develop ' g multi-family; discussion also took ' ace on the
pro-poi d 20 foot private access road.
len Lewis, representing the applicant, summarized the
history concerning the lot configuration for the property.
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES EXCERPTS -9/5/8`:
Nomin tions for Vice-Chairperson -
MOTION• Lomrni ssioner Brasher moved to nominate Commi ssi or .w
L na for Vice-Chairperson . ChH i r•per•son Lochri - e
sec rlded the motion .
MOTION • Commi ss 'oner Lopez-Fal bonti n moved to no nate Commis-
sioner,
:omrnis-
sioner• H ' nl and for vice chH'i r•person .
Commi ssi oner• High - nd stated he w0U1 c:i n serve in this
offic:e .
Commissioner lope -Bal bona i n w' -hdr•ew the motion .
�. I-
eve stated Cornrn i '-z.;S- i oner' L UI''H Hs t:' a new V i r..e-Cha i r pr_rson by
MCCI r4f1la F.10n .
PUBLIC COMMENT
No public comment was re ..e'i veci .
A. CONSENT CALE AR
1 . Appr• val (:)f mi nUteS of tyle r e Q U I ar P1 anni n Comm i ss i can
(13,- .-ting of August 15 , 1989
MO ON: Made by Commissioner, LUnH , seconded by Commi --
s�i oder• Brasher Hnd c::Mr•r•ied 7 ., 0 to approve the
consent cHlenc'ar• as presented:' .
B . HEARINGS, APPEARANCES, AND REPORTS
1 . TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 23-88 :
Appl i cH i-•i on filed by 9711 C?ohMn Hnd Tom VHc.191 . n to
sUi:lc:ii vi c:ie two 1 ots of 1 8 . 78 Mcres -into four parcels
contHi ni rl9 approximately 1 . 50 acres each . The request
a1 so i nc1 Lides construc::t: i on of a C i ty stHnc:iMrri cr.'1 -cie-
sac named Arbol Li ndo LHne . S'.'bjec:t: site -is lor..Hted Mt
10750 'Hnt:H AnH RoMc:i . !!:.OW i TNUFD FROM 8/ i/89 MFFTTNG i
!:.flH i t perSc:�n l.oc:hri c:iye ar'nor.rnr..eci that he w i l l enter tH i n on i y
new i n For•rnat i on Hssc:>C'i H'i::ed:i with th-i s •i tern.
Doug DHv i dn preSer' i e F hr.: S1 aff report suminHr• i zi nq the
bMc:isur•ound:i f r,orn the Previous meet i rl9 , T.t wHS noted t:he
Hpp1 icMn1. hHS dec•ic:ied:i no-1:: 1::o r• v�i e t:}le rnMo ; st-Hff
r er..omrnendM i- 1 c:'n •i S tor• den i H 1 o - the Fd:)r.'I -wMv 1 p
!hH i r-p e r-s on i_ochr• i d 9 e s I::H t:ed i-w 1 ?ti::er ; were S'.'r:'rrri F-c.i i c;
t:he Cornrni ss i on i r.'st: pr•i or• t:o t:h i S meet: ; n ,e(id .y i i cawed I.:I'e
Cornrni ss'i on t:he opp()r• 1:U11 i i y 17c:) rev'i ew t:F'-ill.
Commissioner Hanauer, stated he would abstain fr-orn any
par•ticipat iori in this matter- ;.-.is he. was not in attendance at
the August 1st hear-ing.
Toni Vaua'IiHn , applicant , apologized for- the lateness in
s u b in i t t I (19 the I e t te r-s grid S Uni in a r-i zed the statements
contained in the cor-r-espondence Fr,orn two engineers ( EDA and
Sier-r-.a Pacific Enaineer,ina) who concluded that four, parcel
were possible . He asked that the firldirias for- denial be
fo r-eflect findings for- approval of a four.-Way
split . He then responded to questions from the Commission
per-tainina to the potential for• tree removal with putting in
7
the pr-oposed street rather, than uti 1 1 zi na- the exi sti na f i r-e
I
I ane ; o t he r• H i -E e r n a t-1 v e b u i I d1 1-1 a s i f:e S f c)r, the parcel s a ri d
septic systerns f c)r- t h e- s i t.e s .
!Commissioner, L U ria r-e f e r,e n c e d a s P c i:i o n of f.:li e G e n e r-r-.-t I P I a[I
per-tai ni rig to dead end streets arld cul -de.-sacs bei F-19
I i m-1 ti ria f a c f:o r-s as i t r,e 1 ares t c) f i r,e d i s t r-i c+: op e r•a f-7 ores .
:1
D i S c 1.1 S s'I C)rI f c) I I c)we cl .
The_r,e was also discussion r-elative to what effect a tthr,ee-
wa y s p I i t versus a four--way s p I 1 -1:: wo(.rI cl Clave o 1-1 f.:he. Fire
DepHr-tnierit I s r-eciui r-ernents . 0
MOTION: Made b y C cmin i s s i o ri e r tuna a n d seconded b y C omin i s-
s i c)ri e r, F.r,R s li e.r- to d(-i!ri y T e n t a t i v e P a r,c e I M a. p 23-88
based on F h e f i n di rigs for derii a I contai riec.] i n the
s 1:a f f r.e D o r.-1: . The motion (-:ar,r-ied 5 : 1 .1 1 with
ornini s s'i one r, H1 gh 1 a n d cl i s s e(i t i n a a n d C oinin i s s i over,
H a ri a u a r, a b s f.:a I 111 1`1 a .
2 . V"JANCE 2-89 :
Appli ation filed by C-avid Sinqer• and Susan Hark n-_ s
for- r--i v4.cionce from the 7oning Or-dinaric.e. r,ear, etback
standards . - Subject s i t e i S I oc a t e.cl a-E 540 a j a d a
Avenue .
Mr-. Davidson presented e staff rep surnmar-izing the
Plannina Cornmissic-mls r.)r,ev , -)I.ls d.- lal of a var,iance for, a 0 '
rear setback w i -Eli t h e C 0 U n c i efer,r,incl the rym--iffer• to the
Commission for, consider-at' . 6 of t. r,
S foot. set.ba..-ck .
(AMI)i S S i C)t'l C3(.re S'..-1 C)II S .4 11 Cl CII i S C.,(A s s 1 0r1 I T'C) I WeC.t C.10(I C e r,(I I II Q
P 0 s e t.-I I r I I I;-I 'r.:i v e 1 c)(7 a 1:: 1 c)i i s
F" i ri a e r, H p p i 1 earl S 0()1< r, is c)I' i h ^ U(1 E ;
a eE�T'f c)r-f:s w I I i c h It'l..'4 Ve beet! i-:H k n i F1 F V i n j I (,
I oca L i on F C)1, -1::he garage w(I i c I i w(:)(.rI cl save ili� 1 .1 t"Z4
i e r,1 1:a a e oak I:-r-e e i n tale r, r, Mr- n a e i o. c)'K e (:) me
I T c)f 1-1 e i a hc)c)F,i (I ca Pr.op 1: i •-s r c'(.)1.) i.e-I 1 i 1:r d t:. f-F
r,e p c)r,t ffla II V 0 li e rn c c)r-n a r, I o w i i i ch do n c)-1:: file e f F li
MINUTES - ATASCADERO PLANNING COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
Tuesday. February 6 . 1990 7 :30 p.m.
Atascadero Administration Kuildinu
The regular meeting of the Atascadero Planning - mmission was
called to order at 7 : 30 p.m. by Chairperson Lo - lridue, followed
by the Pledge of Allegiance .
ROLL CALL:
Present: CO11111iiSSiOliers Luna; Waage, lgh'Land; Lopez-Balbontin'.
Brassier; Hanauer, and C:hai person Lc:cnririur
Absent: Tione
Staff Present: Steven DeCanip; City Planner; Doug Davidson
Senior Plann - and rat Siieppiiard,. Adruinititra-
tive Secret-ry
PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no 17ubl is c " imient .
A. CONSENT CAL- DAR
1 . App 'oval of vninutes of ti-le! regular Plat111iiiu COiii111i55i011
iiie =cilia of january 16 ; 1990
MOTI By Commissioner Brasher; sec:olided by Cow iissionter
Highland and Carried 7 : 0 to approve tiie Consent
Calendar as Uresentt;!d.
B. HEARINGS. APPEARANCES . AND REPORTS
i . TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 24-89 :
Application filed by Vaughan/Kallllll%Do(ian to subdivide
two lots of approxi.uiatel_y 18 acres into three parcels
of 6 . 70 . 5 . 90 ; and 5 . 80 acres each . Subject site is
located at 10750 Santa Ana Road.
Doug Davidson presented the staff report. Background was
provided on a previous application for a four lot subdivi-
sion on this site which was ultimately deniers; on appeal , by
the Council . Staff is recommending approval of the three
lot parcel map subject to certain conditions. Cowl-Ilissioll
questions and discussion followed.
MINUTES EXCERPT - 2/6/90
PAGE TWO PLANNING COMMISSION
Commissioner Luna inquired whether a project eIigineering
report Was doIle in conjunc:tioil with aIi EIR that Was prepared
in 1979 for the sale of a 1500 acre subdivision as part of
the Luna Valley Ranches (of which tiiia property is a part ) .
Steve DeCamp responded that it was his understanding that no
project engineering report was prepared. with regard to
septic suitability, percolation tests are submitted for each
proposed lot and noted the applicant has provided
percolation tests and engineering design for adequate septic:
systems .
Commissioner Luna stated tile EIR notes that there are
originally 243 'Lots and there could be a maximum or 494 lots
possible . He asked how this proposed map would fit in with
that maximum number. Mr. DeCam_u explained
that the proposed lots would be a part of the possible 494
lots which could be created but added that, to date; only
33 lots ( in addition to the 243 dots) have been created.
Commissioner Luna further stated it was his uIiderstanding
that one of the purposes of the project geologv report was
to assure that when the roads were constructed they would go
in with the appsopriata mitigation measures ( to prevent
Slope fcil'1llr'e, poteiltlal 'LaI1dS'L1deS , dralilage; etc . ) . Since
the report could not be taken into coilsideratioii when the
roads were put in, he asked if Santa Alia Road is a City
accepted road. Mr. DeCamp affirmed it is .
in referencing the EIR wherein the applicant intended to
dedicate the Graves Creek reservations to Atascadero if
incorporated. Commissioner Luna asked if this was done . Mr.
Decamp responded this has not been done . Commissioner Luna
questioned whether it is standard practice that mitigation
measures not be followed.
Mr. DeCamp explained that the Department of Real Estate is
the agency which required preparation of the EIR for sale of
the existing lots; and added that the DRE does not have the
leual authority to impose mitigation measures or follow-up
on such. Atascadero, as the lead agency; can impose
mitigation measures as conditions of project approval .
Commissioner Luna then asked if there is a monitoring
procedure that is required of the Cite when it imposes
mitigation measures . Mr. DeCamp replied that there has been
one in existence for two vears .
Tom Vaughan, applicant, spoke in support of the project and
indicated his concurrence with the conditions of approval .
MINUTES EXCERPT - 2/6/90
PAGE THREE PLANNING COMMISSION
Commissioner Brasher expressed concern with the septic
systems and their relationship to one another and the lot
lilies . Mr. Davidson explained that the shaded areas uQ the
map contain adequate area for the residences and septic
systems . The shaded areas are between 8, 000 and 10; 000
square feet.
MOTION: Ev Commissioner Waage and seconded by Commissioner
LoueZ-Balbontin to approve Tentative parcel Map
24-89 based on the Findings and Conditions of
Approval contained in the staff report .
Commissioner Luna stated he could not support the motion
based primarily on the lack of responsibility on someone' s
part for how this overall project was supposed to Have
evolved concerning mitigation measures . He added that there
should be responsibility on both the applicant and City' s
part to insure that the public is protected by insisting
that those mitigation measures be followed through.
Commissioner Waacp concurred with Commissioner Luna' s
statements concerning the mitigation measures; but added
that this proposal is better than tiie original 4-1ot
recruest, and this applicant should not be penalized because
the DRE cannot follow-up on suggested witigation measures .
Commissioner Brasher stated she will support this motion for
a 3-wav lot split; and expressed Tier hope that the problems
identified in the EIR conducted by the DRE will be addressed
throuU_h mitigation measures in a cumulative manner to
prevent future irreversible envirionmentai damage .
Discussion followed.
In response to question from Commissioner Highland, Mr.
Decamp clarified that the City, as a lead agency, would have
the right to establish mitigation measures for future
subdivisions when an EIR is required.
Discussion continued relative to the public report which is
available to a purchaser of a property in the Long Valley
Ranches area which will reference the environmental document
prepared the Department of Real Estate.
The motion carried 6 : 1 with Commissioner Luna
dissenting.
2 . CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1 89 :
Application filed by D- ish Care Center (Tech Four
Construction) to all for the construction of a 34 bed
addition to an exl ' ing skilled nursing facility.
Subject site is ocated at 10805 E1 Camino Real .
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL Meeting Date: 2/27/90
CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: A-8
Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager
From: Gary R. Sims, Senior Engineer
Subject: San Andres Avenue Storm Drain Project - Notice of
Completion
Recommendation:
1. Approve proposed Council Resolution 23-90 which will
authorize the submission of the Notice of Completion
for recordation. The Notice of Completion must be
recorded within 10 days of this authorization. The
date of the City Council Resolution will be the
beginning of a 30 day period during which the
subcontractors and material suppliers for this project
may make a claim against the Contractor.
Background:
The San Andres Avenue 1989 Storm Drain Improvements project was
awarded by the City Council on September 12, 1989. The bid cost
• was $94,248.50. Shortly after the award a change of internal
procedure was implemented requiring an environmental
determination for City projects. A tree protection plan was
completed and on October 9, 1989 a negative declaration was
issued. Because of subsequent perceived difficulties in
implementing the Tree Protection Plan this project was again
brought before the Council with a request for an exemption from
certain aspects of the Tree Protection Plan. The City Council
addressed the request on November 14, 1989 and the project was
allowed to proceed.
The project proceeded in a timely manner and ninety percent of
the actual project cost was paid to the Contractor on February 6,
1990.
Discussion:
The actual project cost based on the measurement of installed
quantities is $89,491.80. The cost ofextrawork completed
according to work directives issued by the City is $8,095.65.
The total cost of work to date by the contractor is $97,587.45.
Baker Construction has submitted three claims for additional
compensation for "loss of efficiency" due to encountering buried •
debris and unmarked underground utility services. These claims
total $4,730.26. We have rejected these additional claims for
compensation as unjustified. It remains to be seen whether or
not the Contractor pursues these claims further.
Pacific Geoscience has billed the City for $1,612.80 for
compaction testing associated with the project. In addition
there were minor arborist fees associated with the tree
protection plana
The proposed City Council action will serve as acceptance of the
construction. Once the Notice of Completion is recorded the date
of acceptance will mark the beginning of a 30 day deadline for
subcontractors and suppliers to file claims and liens against the
Contractor related to this project.
Options:
1. Approve the notice of completion, proposed Council
Resolution 23-90.
3. Don't approve the notice of completion and direct Staff
to complete additional actions.
Fiscal Impact:
Option 1. The Contractor has been paid $87,828.71. The •
City currently retains $9,758.75. The amount
retained will be released following 30 days
from the approval of the notice of
completion.
Option 2. Unknown
Enclosures:
1. Proposed Council Resolution 23-90
2. Pay Estimate
3. Claims
4. City response to claims
5. Miscellaneous applicable ordinances
RESOLUTION NO. 23-90
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO
APPROVING THE NOTICE OF COMPLETION
FOR THE
SAN ANDRES STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS
PROJECT NO. 89-5
WHEREAS, the Contractor has completed the project within
the time constraints specified in the contract documents; and
WHEREAS, the construction is complete as specified in the
contract documents; and
WHEREAS, the City continues to retain 10% of the fees owed
to the Contractor according to the contract documents; and
WHEREAS, Section 3093 of the California Civil Code requires
that the notice of completion shall be recorded in the office of
the county recorder within 10 days after project completion; and
WHEREAS, Section 3086 of the California Civil Code deems
that completion of the work of improvement shall be the date of
acceptance by the public agency.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
For the purposes of filing a notice of completion in the office
of the county recorder the work specified by the contract
documents for contract number 89-5, "Construction of the San
Andres Avenue Storm Drain Project, " is hereby deemed accepted and
complete.
On motion by Councilperson seconded by
Councilperson , the foregoing resolution is passed on
the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ADOPTED:
ATTEST:
LEE DAYKA, City Clerk ROLLIN DEXTER, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
ARTHER R. MONTANDON HENRY ENGEN
City Attorney Director of Community
Development
«, t
1
G !
fi ! tr112+C� CnItC•r�V LA 0 In r CF-Ori i I
i sift C:.�,r r:ly;M1D'NJAN C N i 1 41
C V, 1 m w r T,1r @ V}CV w CL w N 1 ! i
L ��. 1 ne T cotnr_O T m
!
Q O Q T N R?t a r`T I` 1 tL i%Q It
z� v c•w O Twa',w0i 6 O i =W 16
Aft w w 4. UI Iii 1 Z,-O 1 C� 1
Z+! W i w f
O I • ! L 14
U m 4
I 1
V1 ! ! W ! !
i • I 1• !
• 1 S 1
1 • 1 �• I 1
! la•`. T 1
! . 1 (i J d
' r ¢ Cat
a
OC 1 • 1 .. 4
1 • f L O
! i '
1 !
I 1
1 !
1 !
! 1
I
1 !
! • 1 1 1
L
• ! n I
tit i
W I a 1
i I•r 1
Ct rm i (
C6 T 1 .. .. , ! � 1 DI 1
. a • I C? Iw
•N • 1 S
! 7 i 4 � "I
v ( oC u �ry
n+ t!+ ! Z 6 I }W ! W
1 *til
V w ! G L
C: r f • ,��QjII
C 4 f ,1 •• •.r : w W
L � � �' •L•4 •n i = 1 1
T C: •r• O +�+ 1 U
'= •y f T 1 W
♦T' . 1 •nv I I ✓Y T
"" ! •,II n+ •nL 1 a
1 •'..' . LTU •n I C O
W T 1 Onnnn. v . .¢ i
ti •� 1 OCwcm 4G O" •• 1
S �•'.r v v I. L lb :UJ ft 1 1 I
r++ 4 •I.- 1 • 1 1 t I
4 o u •• •S 1 rA O
w I L L L •• Ci GO— On •= I .+y L 1 f I
tr •.•. 1 C r
O I O c c 100
s •+� :� .-r .L 1 O T.r . .r 1 a ! I
S L 1 OUri L.i6 4.+ 4 •W 1 o L Lr..+ ++ ++ 1 1•s 1 i
z l = 41NJ
oT ' v3 1 4SQs NJ T t 1 !
L O i- •• ' • +G O W O { S T x 4 &Z
S 4.+ u L i..i - • 6:- I G 6 4 ICL-.' 1 1 1
O I S T T C lI O i.• Q Z 1 i- .. L•..� C Q h O 1 I r�
K 1 Il' 7 L. z .� .-.U�1', • TS I U 2 'A•.. Z L W \ 1 VI V_�
w f T O o o c O m C • 0D C• ' ¢ C- Z+ •� ++ 0 M I
o C I = L L W TC+ "C%n C.6- i S z a rf i.."i T-.. C _L t i
S G 1 C d d Q = G a 0 G'. •^+ :J I t_ �..w U L 2 d+j O I �I
P cn ix U Z 1.- V it S I '� •.. a \ u 4 1 01V !
-11 a 1 ••� C�+ O L i T T 7 a. ! C T '9 L?� O •w . 1 1 T 1
S W I ^ U O Q . L.+ C O • a " + O H ' U Z.r r U a ' h I
1_ a 1 wsr.L4 Crsw_TCa •.+-. i .•, `000 0
1 S 1 N r U Q� w C L d L=n. 3 L i L 4 4 U U m d T
d' S I w�% ++ tr-.• aL- 4 •w OU I C O O TT•r •.+ 1 IN
w O 1 Ci :T'TL L'*d O•..W L• L ! ++0: 6 O L 0 r+ 1• I
O C LL O oz.;z O ''•.. 4 O G w ! 4 Z O r a 4 .Lr�V� I
1 U U L ••. w'w C ! O h L++ 'D .. U N L 10 MN <
=� 'r i L.. Y C G L h a C ii ••:►O i d+' U O U a•.+ 1 �1 1
O OCC Z_.r O
T y 5 4 ;?•.+ Oi•3 U 0 S ' W I S T•^L •� O.r L
R 1
•.a�-'+•' LL O +' •r w.'r•Q• I U tri.• O M 6.r L 4 i 1
w .+ i G 3•r 7 7 ++ c 7 S++ 2 C i La. +' L.
L 2 0tn
7
L OP vi
O Z O 4 L Si i.- C• O Q 6 4 111 �: 1
LA QW i-SZ=Vt¢I9 t S u a ►+•! ?'O
W i •+ r.n e•'. S n r'.r.r+..'^,n n n r. I C 4 tI T L T Z ++
D U 4 LTLix LU
.. •^�.Y•-� L ! •� O 3 4 a 6 �+ V
�-' S i •v v v S L/'v .. L"� 1 v',. 1 T w. ..• ' ... Q
i ."" ! I G•r 2 L r: Ci 7 .0 V
Yt W 2 W, L 4+ M, L` a, t- O
X ' 1
X
O Q to -• W G'� Ifi3 I
T •• 1 0 O Oti C G r O O O O Oi IA �. AD
f W w w w w w •r w .+ w
I J 1 1 f
v_ I t
00 1 u 1 1 I
jN
Q 1 � I I • t
Q 1 W S Q O
of m n. Q 0% 0 O O O
m to-+ N 0+ m m m b li^f P m m t P 1
1 S C I P •+ 0 •'+ N IR N N 'wP ,P.• N N M N V► 1 1
1 ►+ 1 N N •» M N N N N N 1 N I
40 N t t
•}W 1
I v 1 •+ �'+ P R/ N N •+ !+ Rf N O N 0 N O 11 1
1 J 1 M Nr- O N m m N tD N I 1
1 C • 1 N t0 • A07
.r 1 1
1 O it 1 •00 O• 1 1
1 1 1 1
1 1 0 0 o Q o c o e o 0 0 0 0 0• 0 1 0 1
1 Wz t o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a o 0 0
1 ¢o I N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N I N 1
1 s Z I
t N r
I n W 1
1 0 0 O O O Qcc
C O O O O O O O O O 1 1
I 1
1 •..= f 1 1
t } 1 1 I
1 W I
I i8 t
1 4. 1
1 t
i i Q o a o c c e a o Q Q o g a a Q i o i
1 2 ? O O O v> 0. m O 0 O Q 0 O Rl O Iti 1 •'+ 1
! W C t 0 :L Q ti Q to Q Q Q O P
la N 0% m m fel In N P m m I P l
G4=
H • I I i I =Q i P •'� R'! .• N R/ N P P R1 •'+ "'� IO P •+ 1 OI I
s t •.• f N V. "'• N N N N N N •r N N N N N I 0) 1
(9 1 1a ut t N N N N I
1 1
= I L W 1 �+ •"i P Rf fff N •+ •y tin N O N U'/ N O IA 1 i
O N m m ID N I 1
T I •r • t N %o 07 0 m w 1 t
1 1
0=C T t f 0 O O O O Q O O O O O O C O l O t
O L 1 I O O o e O O C 0 O O u7 O O O O Q !
In 1
• 1 I
to z I 2 t 0 C N a m O O Q Q Q 1 v; O p O i
Q SD t
1 r i b O tV s6 m T O Y'i O O lfl � N ti O O P l .
1 C 1 S +'+ ? •"'• N f►9 N N JA P }IY ti IL N 1 P 1
1 I N N •"+ N N N N Y► N a 0•"' N N N N N t Ot t
I 1 N N N I N I
W O I C 1
I- ! N
W t w 1- I O O O O 0 C 0 O Q O In O O O O Q I 1
W e m 1 O a l 0 O N W; 0+ P C Q O O RS v; P YY O m; I 1
2 T 1 =U 1 O O N fn N N O Uf Q O N N N ID 1►Y 1•. 1 1
."� 1 1 0 0 N N N 0% Now ID P IA N N 1 1
W I n=1- 1 •
O W 1 S S= 1 N N N N N N f 1
C w 1 ¢ 1 t 1
1 t
W I 1 I 1
1-T `s 1 `1.• t T r 1
W 1 O.r 1 N 0 LL W LL G O /L tr. Q. IL y W
-.i V1 L 1 r Z I J J J J J W W W W W fn Q J 1.• J V 1 1
iL O 1 CO i 1 1
t 1
Wo
.�.. M1 N w w N T lL L0R 40T i 1
w
to W 1 1 N tD m N
in 1 1
W Q I r 1 1 I
1-U O 1 (C 1 I 1
1z oc i a i 1 1
1-r.
W;�C d 1 1 1 1
� 1 1
C 99 O O 1 I 1 1
G.S W 1 1 1 1
LA IA 2w
i r i o vl N vi
a+ » I �.•OC 1 y OI (� U U .+ 1� G " L vt a 1 I
G I L O q Ci. 4 v 4 tt S I 1
W y W I 1 0 vD P m S 0 O ID = = - T U •.• t I
S to G fn ►- 2 P Z i 1
i..In Q1 . 1 w
%n 0 of to 1 = 1 N M P In 0 M1 m 0+ O .. w
W U a W I r e I
1 1
4 11 H I!
II t! II 13
n n tl to
n u u n
n T=tnr1 uQu
u c3� n 1aO11
II a,OW11 I I'
11 LL 11 1101"s
11
11 to 111 O II 11 If bi It
H ZN 11 II
II O Q w it 11 IB
II I_wz It11 u u cc
11 II
CD11
if 1%•D••= II 11 11
It 0 Q ix tl {I 11
Q lt 'llW4. 11 tl 11
u o zu n u
m ° It m It tt tt
r m t- It OC It 11 tt
�- 11 r u it it
P, t-w 11 Z it 11 !1
ul= II O 11 11 It
m _W?W 11 U 11 11 11
a iit O I Ii f 11
im 11 It it 11
IL it OCW If 00- 0000TO 11 m 11
z 11 It Iw]� It 00-000000 uo !
..
11 MON COROW ONO IIIt111
2 II I1 ww-»Oif*wN* I1 (All
*wN* II 0A li
•+ It Olt v 0►;T o% NM II O If
tL 11 W f- II •yf N N r1R 0 11 -11
Ix II O II m-• tl m It
Q 11 Zwll M0 II IN It
Y L O tt W II tI I(
IY W. ", 111%
► 111% U J 11 11 11
O O 01 11 IL {�G- II Il 11
3 in q.4It v O all It If
C 11 U tl Il I1
lY T In 11 r 11 !! 11
r.. fa It N in It It It
X. 0► 31 11 O= tl 11 li
W -- L 11 U W tl 11 It
0 It f- II tl II
Q z Q It 11 11 11
111 111, 1 11
a5 11 If 11 11
m 11 11 it 11
w 0 11 11 1{ II
Q a I- it it 11 It
W_ IxZ LU II in OC It 00•-�QpOOOTO It m It
a" 11 =w 11 00-+0000100 IJ X011
W Z 11 welt U Ii! 11
IZ It 1—X11 OOROti0OONO 111011
1! -011 tII�0-+Q O iA ra R iA 110% 11
w2 zo 11 TO-TO NIT) 11 11
�= Cc 11 Lw 11 IRN. iNyF 11 11
T u In Il o v ll fl;.:* 1f f9 l!
ft Z 11 Z11 +RN i1 +Alt
IL r- 1 O 11 r a u tl u
u •- a to= u 11 If
C m j 01 tl U u 11 It It
r wn m IIS ?- II II 11
•-•z o R 0< 11 w u la a Il 11
WO a f- - 11 lL it li 11
u u N If r C If 11 11
X �llZ 11 OWl1 It 11
o L t1.Q 1• n i-a n If u
L a �" 11
it 1111 It tt
w w M L IfIt 11 11
P_-1 L w a 1 11 11 11
Cr 0of It it
�� V.a e 110 It it n 11
►»w rM o 11 11 11 It
I-= r > II 11 11 11
in u *» o 11 11 11 11
wtn U� Z f1 11 II 11
tl II T�
11
It
t1 zit 0 C71cmaOL0 it A11
11O11 OOLOWCOL31 111-11
11 �"• 11 '-�'-� L• •-•'-• 3 6 11 in it
11 r II >.0 3.Q U p >--D 11 O It
it IL if L 0— Q:. 0 L M 11 U 11
Irx-- 11 O O ri 0 1L.2 0 N 11 If
11 t 11 of
3 C 111-+V 11 J Ill
1f � n o y �: r o it t
{t 13111 L L C Om O L > 0 101-
It
II w11 O0.00-+i+ 04E It
It1O1t
11 all 3 E 1- 3 L •- 11 1-11
11
II 0 0 0 L 0 oat- 11 It
t l 11 in 0 u0 In 11
11
I! II L 3 31 o-+ 11 II
it Il : H 0 cr: 0 6 It If
H I! ? � to •�`T a C !! tl
11 II 4 � \ v 11 11
L 11 II N 0 0 +1 -+ It 11
•u II 11 0 = C II It
O 11 11 •+ 4 -+ II 1!
Z o 11 II 4 is fl II 11
O II II CK 010 10 11 11
W
W2 It !Y1 U(C 11 1!
r IY 11 1! II
�-
alLw II11 W Q 11 ii II
�I- II M11 -+NIn�T10;9R1aT II 11
•» II r O tl st st r1:st 3t st st st=t: 11 fl
rural 11 iV II If 11
UQUi= 11 Sw !f If 11
II 't1W1- 11 Q:C9 II UUUUUUUUU !t II
n7 _ 11 r" 11 11 I1
OZ"-X If zC • 11 CCCOCCCCC 11 II
i+iO�►O II 0=011 !! II
0 0 0 O 4 0 0
n n n ❑ n c ❑
0� a -0 T T " M
w 11 1L
0 0 o
It;-.
N y U U U U U U U
Yi 0
21W T
L 4
0 >t CL
40- Q O N Nm T N
w
: L
o
c
u
p o
L • • M f
IL 0 6
1
0
M • • ,
J.1 f f f • • ♦1�
4
h ♦ ♦ 0 IR
y 0 ..
$ h a+
E 71 : l •
• U0 4.
p D : 0¢G 0 0
F� .0 0
E 'D n Q • O 4 4
w r Q . • M . . 1.1 0'
L
• to � 0
0 04. x Ty
r
D h a M M t�
T 4 l W ;
E F- F- L
R �7►.•
.0 Q y 0 EL 0 4
0 to N W L N -• L
«+ 0 U 4J O E 0 C Z O U r
r W L 4
w Q . A :
0 4 OC 0 0C T 0 W W N O f•.
r 0 ,
M
U NU. ! U1 O X 0 } a Co L 0 c
OT, yW as a 0 W E O Z 0 0 4
�7 0. p 4 OC L 0 ~ : OC I : h P. 0
0 m a'D m 41 > 4)
7 00 > c ❑ C 0 0 0 : W » L
L 40 Z 0 L a OC TL Y 0
p w -ij r 7 0 C 2 T v 16,
0 U I- 7 0 U 0 0 U \ 4 2 0 11 T
v .. 714& = 71 U 2 L 'o ❑ > T L
0x al ee al 21 o� 7 o o ° s L� a i@
i 0 0 ++ L L 0 > e ❑ 2—
;
-• L d
0 0 0 +• 0 'i Z 0 L 0 T�
.:i .0 9' O 0.v 0 n y J 'Or' T
j: 7 a 0 7 of i ^ 0
WORK DIRECTIVE CHANGE
(Instructions on reverse side) N,o.
PROJECT:SAPj ANLw-ss -AVS us DATE OE ISSUiuvCE: Zq AMVg9
Grog i DRAMA) fP'D-GT
OWNER: CITY e F A-rAG�•G4M�
(Name.
Address)
CONTRACTOR: Q . BAKrk IIVG, OWNER's Project No. - a'—
ENGINEER:
CONTRACT FOR ENGINEER's Project No.
You are directed to proceed promptly with the following change(s):
Description: REPLAC-6- AS MEG. ,;-Aar A" SE-1va24ERVtC,= Fop
tGrFfsC�iGbL. nAl NTi; 4NGL $U1 LD Jl wrm 41' PVC
Purpose of Work Directive Change:
)cl�Tl;llr S 1//CF ie, CDN�!..IGTINCt Li1T -3/"rSTOR�"f �AA/N ,
Attachments: (list documents supporting change)
If a claim is made that the above change(s)have affected Contract Price or Contract Tune.
any claim for a Change Order based the: will involve one of the following methods of
determining the effect of the change(s).
Method of determining change in Method of determining change in
Contract Price: Contract Tune:
Q 'I"tme and Q Contractor's records
9 Unit prices 30-P-EA Wr Q Engineer's records
Q Cost plus fixed feet 81> CMnAAGj Q Other
Q Other
Estimated increase(decease) in Contract Estimated increase(decrease)in Contract
Price:S--- Time: of vs. If the change
If the change involves an increase.the esti- involves an increase.the estimated time is
mated amount is not to be exceeded with- not to be•exc---ded without further autho-
oat fwther audwriatioa. rization.
RECOMMENDE
AUTHORIZED:
by by 77�
FJCX.vta.1916&F(1963 EdioowINOW"
'AM Camas O�Caw WA OWNS"w at A= a Gwn Cas.oms of a..ea
FORK DIRECTIVE CE ALNGE
(Instructions on reverse side) INC.
PR0IECT.,Jars,Wt'es 41je. ,%t jr DATE OF ISSUANCE: 1�.kLl, 30, l 981
owNER Draii7 Pw961-akei*
. � Of rD
tName
Address)
CONTRACTOR R, C kbt OWNER's Project No.
ENGINEER
CONTRACT FOR ENGINEER's Project No.
You are directed to proceed promptly with the following change(s):
r).=riptioa: -lye pv e6h;c.- L K4 a w&tk 4.D &-yn pj y
�� �r c� p an �5 � .,r� �� 9
dve Change:
wee pro-Aec4"07 P/a n
Attachments: (list documents supporting change)
If a claim is made that the above changes)have affrted Contract Price or Contract Time.
any claim for a Change Order based thereon w11I involve out of:he following methods of
determining the affect of the chaage(s).
Method of determining change in Method of determining change in
Contract Price: Contract Time:
Time and materials Q Contractor's records
❑ Unit prices $(Engineer's records
Cl Cost plus fixed fee ❑ Other
❑ Other
Estimated increase(decrease)in Contract Estimated increase(decrease)in Contract
Price:S Tune: days. If the change
If the change involves an increase.the esti- involves an increase.the estimated time is
stated ac=ct is not to be exceeded with- not to be exceeded without further autho-
out further attthQVb= = rizatioa.
RECOM,MYDED: AU'THORMED:
by ,7. ; 5 by
FJCZC%40. 19104.F(IM Ucow
il+erw s"uw Ems'iaiw CGM a OGMMWW QN w a OMWIW e.MV Asaar Gw�G+MUMM a AMW=6
WORK DIRECTIVE CHANGE
(Instructions on reverse side) No. ' J G
PROJECT: 64n Ares arm DATE OF ISSUANCE: A100, 30, IRg7
Dr2a,'e) Prd'ecf
OWNER: C`.},� o f �Scac(er�
(Nam.
Address)
CONTRACTOR. {ke .J.�C. OWNER's Project No.
ENGINEER
CONTRACT FOR: ENGINEER's Project No.
You are directed to proceed promptly with the following change(s):
Description: 1� 11 Cement-51urr backll
_ y
Purpose of work Directive Change: Pro- 51�a�r pip e
Attachments: (list documents supporting change)
If a claim is made that the above change(s)have affected Contract Price or Contract Time. .
any claim for a Change Order based thereon will involve one of the following methods of
determining the effect of the change(s).
Method of determining change in Method of determining change in
Contract Price: Contract Time:
❑ Time and materials ❑ Contractor's records
❑ Unit prices ❑ Engineer's rds
❑ Cast plus feed Other Cru cf 5a�o�o
Other &a
Estimated increase(decrease)in Contract Estimated increase(decrease)in Contract
Pte: S Time: days. If the change
If the change involves an increase.the esti- involves an increase.the estimated time is
mated amount is not to be exceeded with- not to be exceeded without further autho.
out further authorization. ritation.
RECOMMENDED: AUTHORIZED:
by ,64-
z 17a4.4 by
FJCDC�o. 19104-F(IM Ediciooi
P+eaata�
ort"Fps'lart comet Doet�cimi m aaa aranaa s.tan Aenoo@m Gmwa cionNnn ai Ammo.
wORK DIRECTIVE CHAINGE
(Instructions on reverse side) No.
PR0IECT:SQ�, A AUSA..M16 DATE OF ISSUANCE: /VOv'.
ICSTbEm -4>$ZA,JAJ QCT
OWNS crry0 it A•rAg:-arE90
(Name.
Address)
CONTRACTOR: OwNER's Project No.
R•8aKSP- INC. ENGINEER:
CONTRACT FOR: ENGINEER's Project No.
You are directed to proceed promptly with the following change(s):
Description: XePL4Ct:' Ab NEAR-J AUL 5W� F'+'t'�i�.�,S' A&20
�Ip► i!N � � t� .�;AC� $v;Lar�,Y� WtZ71 �``° A65 QWZR-
�►p�c
Purpase of work Directive
Jv el;rsF —=-S Z 66AV ICc
Attachments: (list documents supporting change)
If a claim is made that the above change(s)have affected Contract Price or Contract Tune*
any claim fora Change Order based thereon will involve one of the following methods of
determining the effect of the chau0s).
Method of determining change in Method of determining change in
Contract Price: Contract Time:
Q Time and materials Q Contractors retards
Q Unit prices Q Engineer's records
Q Cost plus fixed fen Q OoPr
Other pr
Estimated increase(decrease)in Contract E3dmated increase(decrease)in Contract
Time: Sys. If the change
Price:S
If the change involves act iacr+ease.the esti- involves as increase.the estimated bate is
mated auxx mt is not to be exceeded with- tmt to be exceeded without further MOO-
out further authorization. mon.
RECO DED: AUTHORM11-
by by
VCZC 14o. 191G.& (IM SdWw#
Pwsr r s.uw hems-:ora Curse 00=WM s QWN� Gres C.+ireaeee�a.�
WORK DLRECTIYE CHANGE
(Imtructicas on reverse side) No. S
PROJECT:SaA:, 4>;oeeS -.5-Mm Z?pmW DATE OF ISSUALNCE: Z 'Sp t',��.
OWNER:C,Tr- CF 1474ECaD6Zo
(Name, Com P'141»A A)&',ul
Address)
CONTRACTOR: OWNER's Project No.
CONTRACT FOR: ENGWEER's ?roject No.
You are directed to procNd proatpdy with the following change(s):
Descripcioa: (.Lr Lr op IBw PJG P. Fin Ttl� oaTcE�' oar T
1$" r1: , PPE 47' 77V6 WIGIJ AegvoL 04,,U�1414 a SGULD C -sXF CUTFAa
Purpose of Work Directive Change:
-To aew—T yew-of;z fizz TrtLc G2&cr, 9A;o Ppb=r ow?
Attachments:(list dociuments supporting change)
Lf a cWm is made that the above change(s)have affected Contract?rice or Cbon=Tune. 0
any cWm fora Change Order based thereon will involve oat of the following:methods of
determining the effect of the changers).
Method of dere change in Method of determining change. ;n
Contract Contract Time:
C eme mad mac rials sX.�/c;� 8r� rix CT Coacrsc:oc's records
u°i'p � C:. 1.+: C "re's rr�rds 1
G Cost plus axed fee IE0 AL At717{T.a1.A T•rlllc _
Q Other
Eszimat+e ( 1 ia'.pa VVop Suicuted increase(decrease)in Contract
?rices 3 T'uae: Sys. If the change
If the change iavolves sa inc. .the esti- im►olves ma izi =w.the estimated time is
canted aaxxmc is noc to be enc_-eded with- acc to be--=zedat widxmt ftwtba autho-
out fulthet=ttrori=d= a.
RECO DED: AUTc:0
1 � '
by
t
:SCC va ;9{W{-F t I9�'3 =slidaui _-'
'f"w"at ream= :mare C. wm Dommmm c s misw a a►ran wa�C.Mww ciora s n as wawa
v
wORK OtRECTIV'E CHANGE
(Instructions on reverse side) No.
PROJECT: ew Ajolze6 sroz� ?�2anv DATE OF ISSUAu'YCc: "�etc
R-
OWNER: , of Aip4sc4oEpzo
(Name, 4.S,0e -PqLrnA AvWU6
Address)
CONTRACTOR: OWNER's Project No. $=
�- t3aK6+z Cat-'6MG7/10 &-1GINEM
JAZ ,
CONTRACT FOR: ENGiNEER's Project No.
You are directed to proceed prompdy with the following chaage(s):
Description: C44AJGE Tyt-L-r & TZ C-4 rl!W 645i4..� ' 70 Type (4!*'0) 'v roc
.3D 5.4A)o^) AlAv4re67'TE 4(/6, .dAaA) /rl� CM5 a>�uuE. Chu
Purpose of Work Directive Change:
Attachments: (list documents supporting change)
. If a claim is made that the above change(s)have affected Coatract Price or Coaaact Time.
any claim for a Change Order based thereon will involve oat of the following;methods of
determining the effect of the change(s).
Method of determining change in lriethod of determining change in
Contract Price: - Contract Time:
Q Time and materials Q Contractor's records
C Unit pcic.-s Q Engineer's records
Ct Cast plus axed fes a Other &.)-* ADO c-fico L
iZ Other;o Apps nnN4!_ r3p6T_
E sdmated inaease(decrease)in Coa=t Estimated' (der:rase)in Contract
Price-S • =3== Time: .days. If the change
if the change involves an increase.the esti- involves an increase.the estimated time is
mated amount is not to be exc=ded with- not to be exceed without further autho-
out further atuhocizatioa. moa
RF.0YD R A
by b7'
FJC=C*40. I9I0-3-F(IM sawn,
?+ww e►is E+i.�s':ate Cans Ooa�.ns�' art�wraw a►�nr.a��s Cis C+irraaon a.awed
l w
WORK D{RECTIVE CHANGE -7
(Instructions on reverse side) No.
PROJECT: 64A. AtiDR& 5`jb0&n DOZATE OF[SSUANCE: .�C / �•�-- �a,J�j, �
OwvE2 Grrr ,,F 4-raSC4 06ZO
CONTR.ACt0iL: OW�FER's Project Yo.
,e. a4A-S4 cam E;VG;YEER
C0NT7AC7 FO EL: E:NGLVEE R's ?rojec:So-
You are directed to proceed prow9dy with the Wowing:hange(s):
Dac:iotioa:4k�SW ¢N t -rr QFQ1'C&F 4017,E Q,&Z;=
�"I'i/C sE�.''+6� SE2ViC� • '
ft pose of Work Directive Change: 5 Ze4/ti1
E,tfSTC SE�v�C rs C�"UC?%•t c carTl4
Attachments:(list docrtateacs suaQorting change)
Lf z calms made am:he above;.hangers)have ad'e::ed Coca=:Priv:or Cont=t Tune.
any:airs The a Change Order based thereaa ma:=valve one at the;allowing=ethods at
de.c-.M aiag the 'ee:of the chaagetsl.
Method of determining chaasr'is -Method of deeraiaing change is
Concrac:.a*:c Concrac:T'uae:
"u a and=aerials = Caatru :oc s ; corrds
' I a�ic p rIei Le C
C Cost plus ivied;G z Ocher � ,4QorTio ,•�.a�. Ti,n�"_
C Ocher
zsamared��j is Caatrtct Estimated' (decreese)in Chute:
days. it the change
*sdutaced ane is
ifthv i:rroives �esse-the
It ttte:haege=valves sa increase.the a=' an i
amced anwow is notot}to be exceeded with- noc to be: ot ixc-eded wichvr1w sutho-
out ti�U%ftQ brr icCL-
ISI �
.7TC7 DED: fir l-
br
���r�r e►.nr= :�Cs�s^�.�s C s•��w nwrw�s t;�»Gweaoas s w�n�
• w0RK oMECTIYE CHANGE
(Instructions oa reverse side) No.
PROJECT: .Sb v 4t`DRISS SZelr?a DATE OF ISSUANCE: A-/5-7
OWNER:
y n
ATAS�D€�D
(Name. ods"
Address) &6.00 44bz1ri4 Rvgo yue �--
CO NTZ.�CTO R:
O WNER's P-oje=No.
ENGINEE.Ru
CON'T'RACT FOR: F-MGM R's ?-olec: vo,
You am dimcmd,to pco=ed pcocnotly with the following chadge(s):
Desc:ipt�a:�a l2 3 Cab,C, yA�evs a� fv s•+c� C6M��U/. ��tc1e/
5� 7-.V.C. acrrmqYG
ftrr.oae of Wock Oirecdve Chad$=:
TS aZouT e.,wj=w-04)0 -AJ R-406 .
X=hmencs: (list docuumm supporting change)
• It a c!aim is made that the above changers)have acFec:ed Contra:r"Ma or Cow=.*Tune.
any--Wm"Or S Chmdge Order based theteou wa in volvc ode a the following aw-hods of
determining the:stet:o(dw chaaVs)e
Aethcd of determining clang=in Method of detenmaing:!mare in
Contac:.?ic.« Couu=7=4-
T-une mad materials r Coatrzc:oc's ;xsnis
Unit rices s records
C Cost iz iced,= g.Other
C Ocher
r'_sciara i )in Coatmct F.s:urmsed is (de=zas
F•i ___ Tums:
if the:nage arvaim an iaC 92se.the c9d- involves sa int.- -the mated bate is
ataced amount is Mot to be=coed-ands- doc co be:aced wlthwa further=rho►
oat iutther suffiociativa. ��'
.R= DEC.. AU—M0R=M
A
WORK DiREC VE CHANGE
(Instructions on reverse side) No.
PROJECT:`,��i��t1� � DATE OF ISSUANCE:
OWNER:
c,Ty o 4.4r4SGgA6,@7
(Nam,
Address)
CONTRACTOR: OWNER's Project No. �$
OL 47* i� fir'T. Ce /'�E�vGiNEE.Q:
CONTRACT FOR:e4"; A UPWESS ENGINEER's Project No.
slb�Ly2A��.1
You are directed to proceed prompdy with the following c.'tange(s):
Description: Aj»�7"�IJiV.9� C'oa rA,407- 774.749 .
�
1N CAWAS� Zy �y5>
Purpose of wo Directive Change:
Attachments: (list documents supporting change)
If a c:aim is wade that the above changes)have injected Contract Price or Contract Tune.
any claim for a Change Order based thereon wtiH involve one of the following methods of
determining the effect of the change(s).
Method of determining change in Method of determining change in
Contract Price: Contract rune:
Cl Tune and materials ' / C Contractor's records
C Unit JV ,/ CI Engineer's records
C Cast plus fixed fee �t Z Other 4DD o? d%4d 70
C other Ca#J-r'ACT' 77-OfE
Estimated• (de=ease)is Coauzc: Esq inC=me(decrease)in Contract
Primo:s -- ruin _ --7' days. If the change
If the change involves an increase.the esti- involves an in=ase.the estimated time is
mated aaxww is not to be exceeded with- not to be exceed without further autho.
out further authorization. ri=doa.
RECO YDED: ARiD:
by by S�
Omar
"w s 'Jam c a Q��' =r arae e.ME Aa C&Wu C.+awoen or wwoi.
w. R. BAKER, INC.
a PIPE LINE AND UTILITY CONSTRUCTION
• POST OFFICE BOX 419 PHONE: 805/489-8711
ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA 93420
CONTRACTOR'S LICENSE NO.372781
December 4, 1989
City of Atascadero
Department of Public Works
P. O. Box 747
Atascadero, CA 93423
ATTN: Gary Simms, Senior Engineer
RE: San Andres Storm Drain Project 89-5
SUBJ: Claim for Reimbursement. of Cost
Gentlemen:
On November 28, 1989 the crew working on the above referenced project
was delayed (4) four hours. Delay was caused by interference of a
sewer and water service; a sewer main and a gas main which prevented
Baker's crew from laying the storm drain to line and grade
pre-established by the City's survey party. As a result of the
standby time, and interference from the buried objects, a loss of
efficiency occurred in Baker's production schedule causing additional
costs.
Please issue a change order to the contract providing for these
additional costs in the amount of $2, 104. 32.
Sincerely yours,
R. BAKER, INC.
144,ax- � _
Mike Budd
Project ?tanager
enclosure
cc: Lane Stuart, Attorney at Law
NGB:tlz
2016A. doc
F
R. Baker, Inc. C
PIPELINE AND UTILITY CONSTUCTION
POST OFFICE BOX 419
ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA 93420
CONTRAWOR'S LICENSE NO.arrsl .
(805)489-8711
BILL TO
ADDRESS DATES WORKED
CITY JOB LOCATIO�� L�
ATTENTION OF JOB NO. :kf�
DESCRIPTION OF JOB
C<ACATION NOURS RATE TOTAL
REG. PREM. REG PRO EARNINGS
f7o 0?
lo Ls'- atl
ILr
J
MATERIALS AND OUTSIDE RENTALS LABOR P
EQUIPMENT RENTALS
EOUIPMENT MRS. RATE AMOUNT
EOUIPTMENT RENTAL
MATERIAL
SU!TOTAL
SUB TOTAL
HANDLING CMAME AT 10% OVER/wAD AT 15%
' GRAIiD TGTAL
MATERIAL
OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE
R. BAKER, INC.
PIPE LINE AND UTILITY CONSTRUCTION
POST OFFICE BOX 419 PHONE: 8051489-8711
ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA 93420
CONTRACTOR'S LICENSE NO.37=1
December 4, 1989
City of Atascadero
Deparment of Public Works
P. O. Box 747
Atascadero, CA 93423
ATTN: Gary Simms, Senior Engineer
RE: San Andres Storm Drain Project 89-5
SUBJ: Claim for Reimbursement of Cost
Gentlemen:
On November 30, 1989 the crew Morking on the above referenced project
Mas delayed ti 1/2) one and one-half hours. This delay vas caused by
. the City having to coordinate where to relocate the sever lateral
with the school maintenance superintendent. As a result of the
standby time, Mhile Malting for further instructions from the City, a
loss of efficiency occurred in Baker's production schedule causing
additional costs.
Please issue a change order to the contract providing for these
additional costs in the amount of $521. 62.
Sincerely yours,
R. BAKER, INC.
?like Budd
enclosure
cc: Lane Stuart, Attorney at Lar
MGB:t12
2106B.doc
•
�'. R . Baker, I nc.
PIPELINE AND UTILITY CONSTUCTION
POST OFFICE BOX 419
ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA 93420
CONTRACTOR'S LICENSE NO.3TYT5I
(805)489-8711
BILL TO A
G '
ADDRESS DATES WORKED
CITY JOB LOCATION
ATTENTION OF JOB NO.
DESCRIPTION OF JOB
�y �( 7 1
r
HOURS v RATE EAl10WRL
CJ►�CATION
REO. PREM. REO. PREM.
GS
74, �: 5 9&
94
' '� .5� 99
MATERIALS AM OUTSIDE RENTALS LABOR
EQUIPMENT RENTALS
EQUIPMENT NRS. RATE AMOUNT
7
00
i BCU r�
c�
EOUIPTMENT RENTAL 5o
MATERIAL
SUB TOTAL
SUB TOTAL (�
NANDUNO CmAROE AT 10'X. ONEIBiEAD AT 15%
MATERIAL
ONMERS REPRESENTATIVE
4 -
5 R. BAKER, INC.
PIPE LINE AND UTILITY CONSTRUCTION
• POST OFFICE BOX 419 PHONE: 805/489-8711
ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA 93420
CONTRACTOR'S LICENSE NO.3177
December 4, 1989
City of Atascadero
Department of Public Works
P. O. Box 747
Atascadero, CA 93423
ATTN: Gary Simms, Senior Engineer
RE: San Andres Storm Drain Project 89-5
SUBJ: Claim for Reimbursement of Cost
Gentlemen:
On November 27, 1989 the crew working on the above referenced project
was delayed (4) four hours. This delay was caused by the City's
• survey work not being complete; Baker's crew having to remove a
buried automobile and other metal salvage that interfered with the
trenching; the interference of a sewer and water service that
prevented Baker's crew from laying the storm drain to line and grade
pre-established by the City survey party. As a result of the standby
time, and interference from the buried objects, a loss of efficiency
occurred in Baker's production schedule causing additional costs. .
Please issue a change order to the contract providing for these
additioanl costs in the amount of $2, 104. 32.
Sincerely yours,
R. BAKER, INC.
/,, j4�a,-6,-P�
Mike Budd
Project Manager
enclosure
cc: Lane Stuart, Attorney at Law
MGB:tlz
2016. doc
R. Baker, Inc.,--
PIPELINE AND UTILITY CONSTUCTION
POST OFFICE BOX 419
1 ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA 93420 •
CONTRACTOR'S LICENSE NO.372751
(805)489-8711
BILL TO iS
ADDRESS DATES WORKED
CITY JOB LOCATIO
ATTENTION OF JOB NO. �
DESCRIPTION OF JOB --
HOURS RATE TOTAL
CLASSIFICATION EARNINGS
Fm PREM. REO. PREM.
4
nLf-
TV
'4 , 1 ,- 54q ?-'2 1 9A
MATERIALS Amo OUTSIOE RENTALS LABOR C�,[?
EQUIPMENT RENTALS �-�
EQUIPMENT NRS. RATE AMOUNT 00^�
oL
EOUIPTMENT RENTAL
MATERIAL
SUB TOTAL
SUB TOTAL n
OVERMEAO AT 16%
MAMDLJMO CHARM AT CHARM
GMND TOTAL
MATERIAL
owmERS REPRESENTATIVE
ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
8500 PALMA AVENUE taseadeia POLICE DEPARTMENT
ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA 83422
PHONE: 1805) 466.8000 INCORPORATED JULY 2. 1979
6500 PALMA AVENUE
ATASCADERO,CALIFORNIA 93422
CITY COUNCIL PHONE: 1605) 466.8600
CITY CLERK
CITY TREASURER
CITY MANAGER
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT FIRE DEPARTMENT -
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 6005 LEWIS AVENUE
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ATASCADERO,CALIFORNIA 93422
PARKS AND RECREATION.DEPARTMENT PHONE: 1805) 466.2141
R. Baker Construction Co. , Inc. January 31, 1990
P.O. Box 419,
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
Subject: San Andres Avenue Storm Drain Project - Claims
Dear Mr. Budd,
We have received three claims from your firm demanding
reimbursement of expenses for "loss of efficiency" on the San
• Andres Storm Drain Project. According to Section 7. of the
General Provisions of the "Specifications for the Construction of
the San Andres Avenue Storm Drain Project" the City Engineer is
required to make a determination of the validity of claims.
Thus, acting on behalf of the City Engineer, I have endeavored to
do so herein.
Claim Dated December 4, 1989
"Claim For Reimbursement of Cost. "
The Contractor claims that a four hour delay resulted on November
27th from the following:
1 . Delay was caused by the City's survey work not being
complete,
2. Baker's crew having to remove a buried automobile and
other metal salvage that interfered with the trenching,
3. The interference of a sewer and water service that
prevented Baker's crew from laying the storm drain to
line and grade pre-established by the City survey
party.
4. As a result of the standby time, and interference from
the buried objects, a loss of efficiency occurred in
• Baker's production schedule causing additional costs .
According to the inspection records the Contractor's foreman
initially planned to start work at the storm drain manhole
location located at the intersection of San Andres Avenue,
Navarette, and San Marcos. This intent was evident at the start
of work on November 27th and the survey crew responded according
to the foreman's direction. After extensive discussion with the
work crew, the foreman Tater redirected construction to the
outfall location. The survey crew, responding to the foreman's
directions, then staked the outfall . The outfall location was
staked for vertical and horizontal alignment at approximately
8:00 am, November 27, 1989. Clearing and grubbing started at the
outfall November 27, 1989 and was completed November 28, 1989.
Finished trench grading and placement of the storm pipe didn' t
begin until November 28, 1989. This appears to be excellent
response by the City' s inspection crew to changes in scheduling
by the foreman.
The Contractor did excavate various automobile parts from the
outfall location. Excavation is unclassified for this project
and payment for excavation is included with the individual items
of work as delineated in the Measurement and Payment section of
the Specifications.
The sewer and water lateral weren' t encountered until the 28th of
November.
It doesn't appear that anything happened on November 27th that
could be considered unique for "underground" storm drain
construction. The City provided a survey crew and the crew
responded directly to the directions of the foreman on the job.
Although changing his schedule early in the day, the foreman and
his crew were actively engaged in the construction of the work
throughout the day. Thus, I recommend that any reimbursement for
this claim be denied.
•
Claim Dated December 4, 1989
"Claim For Reimbursement of Cost. "
The Contractor claims that a four hour delay resulted on November
28th from the following:
1 . Delay was caused by interference of a sewer and water
service,
2. and sewer main and gas main.
3. These underground utilities "prevented Baker's crew
from laying the storm drain to line and grade pre-
established by the City's survey party. As a result of
the standby time, and interference from the buried
objects, a loss of efficiency occurred in Baker's
production schedule causing additional costs. "
The construction crew did expose an . unmarked sewer service, a
water service, and a gas service extending from the High School
maintenance building. All of these services were located within
one length of pipe. At 2:OO p.m. , within minutes of exposing the
lateral , the City' s Senior Engineer, Gary Sims, and the
Wastewater Division superintendent, Jim Martin, were at the site.
The lateral grade was surveyed and the construction foreman was
verbally instructed to do the following.
1 . Install a new sewer service to extend across the top of
the storm sewer,
2. That the Contractor would be reimbursed according to
the unit bid price for sewer lateral replacement,
3. That the Engineer would issue a work directive to that
effect.
The water service was exposed and later merely stretched over the r .
storm drain. The gas service was encountered and relocated by
the Gas Company shortly after excavation.
From the inspection record, it appears that the greatest extent
of delay that could feasibly be possible on the 28th, if the
sewer lateral was encountered and everyone immediately quit work,
was from approximately 1 :30 to 3:30, or a total of two hours.
But, there appears to be evidence that the construction crew
wasn' t idled for even two hours and certainly not for the four
hours claimed.
One has to question the validity of the details in this claim.
Was the crew' s teamster really inactive for four whole hours?
Were there eight men standing around waiting for direction for
four hours? In fact, we have a photograph for that afternoon
showing the exposed services, and, there are 4 men working on the
backfilling and Jetting of the 36" diameter storm drain. We have
two photos of the foreman, three laborers, the backhoe and
presumably the backhoe operator engaged in laying the 18"
diameter culvert under the school driveway, across the top of the
36" storm drain, during the late afternnoon of the 28th of
November. � It doesn't appear that anyone was standing around in a
�
state of reduced efficiency. " The photos reveal that the crew
and the foreman were very busy constructing the project .
The storm drain alignment was raised approximately 0.5 feet
because of the sewer main elevation in the center of the street.
Potholing for this sewer main was part of the contract and is
referenced in the order of work as well as measurement and
payment. Quoting from the Special Provisions of the
Specifications, Order of Work, "The Contractor shall pothole
sewer main crossings, sewer services and the Chevron pipelines at
the drop inlet location on Navarette. This work shall be
completed to the satisfaction of the Engineer prior to the
installation of any materials or excavation for the construction
of the project . The purpose of this work is to verify the
proposed storm drain grades and drop inlet locations. The
specifications were written around the requirement to adjust the
storm drain grade according to the results of the potholing.
Adjustment of the grade was not a "surprise" and the Contractor
was well aware that an adjustment was planned long before the
28th.
The City has reimbursed the Contractor for replacing the sewer
service through a work directive as promised to the Foreman on
November 28th. The City paid $3,480 for the lateral replacement
and an additional $400 in plumbing cost.
In view of this evidence I am rejecting the claim for the 28th of
November. The claim for November 28th is ridiculously overstated
in both tez•ass of time lost and personnel idled. It is our
contention that the contractor has been well compensated for
dealing with any alleged losses in efficiency related to the
sewer lateral and other services.
i
iClaim Dated December 4, 1989
"Claim For Reimbursement of Cost. "
The Contractor claims that a 1-1/2 hour delay, on November 30,
resulted from the following:
1 . A delay "was caused by the City having to coordinate
where to relocate the sewer lateral with the school
maintenance superintendent . "
The City had two inspection employees on site on November 30th,
1989 with the sole task of inspecting the work for the City as
well as assisting the Contractor. Any inconvenience incurred by
the Contractor was part of the normal progression of construction
and thus the reimbursement for the alleged inconvenience was
included in the additional payment made for installing the sewer
lateral .
This item of work was not a limiting activity and the Contractor
was not constrained from working on other items of work.
The City has already paid the Contractor $3480 for the lateral
replacement plus an additional $400 in plumbing cost. Thus, I am
rejecting the claim for reimbursement for November 30, 1989.
Sincerely,
Ga . Sims
Senior Engineer
cc Arther R. Montandon, City Attorney
Henry Engen, Director of Community Development
§ 3086. Completion; equivalents
"Completion" means, in the case of any work of improvement
other than a public work, actual completion of the work of improve-
ment. Any of the following shall be deemed equivalent to a comple-
tion:
(a) The occupation or use of a work of improvement by the
owner, or his agent, accompanied by cessation of labor thereon.
(b) The acceptance by the owner, or his agent, of the work of
improvement.
(c) After the commencement of a work of improvement, a cessa-
tion of labor thereon for a continuous period of 60 days, or a cessa-
tion of labor thereon for a continuous period of 30 days or more if
the owner files for record a notice of cessation.
If the work of improvement is subject to acceptance by any pub-
lic entity, the completion of such work of improvement shall be
deemed to be the date of such acceptance; Provided, however, that,
except as to contracts awarded under the State Contract Act, Chapter
3 (commencing with Section 14250), Part 5, Division 3, Title 2 of the
Government Code, a cessation of labor on any public work for a con.
tinuous period of 30 days shall be a completion thereof.
(Added by Stats.1969, c. 1362,p.2753, § 2,operative Jan. 1, 1971.)
Historical Note
Repeal and disposition of subject matter C.C.P. former § 1191, enacted in 187:.',
of former sections of same number, see amended by Stats-1885, C. 152, V. 145, § 3;
Historical Mote preceding section 3082. Stats1887. c. 137. p. 155. 14; Stats1913,
Derivation: C.C.P. former section 1187, c. 189' p. 3M § 1; Stats.1949, c. 1547, P.
enacted in 18"21 . amended by Code Am. _778, § 1.
ISM,-74 c. 586. p. 410. § Stats.1887, c. C.C.P. former section 11931. added by
137. P.154, § 3: State.1897,c.141,P.202; Stats-1951- c. 1376. p. 3290. § °., amended
"tuts-1911. c 68L p. 1316. § 4; Stats. by Stats.1955,c. 1611. P.V49, § 1; Stats.
1919. c. 146. p. 190. § 1: Stats-19M. c. 1959, c. 1549, p. 3876. § 1; Stats-1963, G
�70• P• 1925. § 1; Stats.1939, c. 1068, p. 1081.p.2541.§L
M94. 4 1: Stats.1947, c. 28. P. 510, § 1: For text of C.C.P. former section 1193.-
-'tats.1949, c. 63.^. p. 1129. § 1. 1, prior to repeal. see Historical Vote un-
der 13084.
Cross References
ampletiou as commencement of running of limitation time, see § "
notice of vessation,see § 3092.
Notice of completion,contents.see§23093.
Work of improvement defined.see§ 3106.
Notes of Decisions
§ 3093. Notice of completion; contents
"Notice of completion" means a written notice, signed and veri-
fied by the owner or his agent,containing all of the following:
(a) The date of completion (other than a cessation of labor).
The recital of an erroneous date of completion shall not, however, af-
fect the validity of the notice if the true date of completion is within
10 days preceding the date of recording of such notice.
(b) The name and address of the owner.
(c) The nature of the interest or estate of the owner.
(d) A description of the site sufficient for identification, con-
taining the street address of the site, if any. If a sufficient legal de-
scription of the site is given, the validity of the notice shall not, how-
ever, be affected by the fact that the street address recited is erro-
neous or that such street address is omitted.
(e) The name of the original contractor, if any, or if the notice
is given only of completion of a contract for a particular portion of
such work of improvement, as provided in Section 3117, then the
name of the original contractor under such contract, and a general
statement of the kind of work done or materials furnished pursuant
to such contract
The notice of completion shall be recorded in the office of the
county recorder of the county in which the site is located, within 10
days after such completion.
If there is more than one owner, any notice of completion signed
by less than all of such co-owners shall recite the names and address-
es of all of such co-owners; and provided further, that any notice of
completion signed by a successor in interest shall recite the names
and addresses of his transferor or transferors.
For the purpose of this section, owner is defined as set forth in
subdivision (g) of Section 3092.
(Added by Stats.1969, c. 1362, p. 2755, § 2, operative Jan. 1, 1971.;
11 cm.Cade-32 497
Z n
mReMMLL
MEETING AGENDA
DATE_ZL 77 ITEMS A �
• MEMO-R-MMU
City of Atascadero
January 22, 1990
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Via: Ray Windsor, City Manager
From: Arther R. Montandon, City Attorney
Subject: Ordinance Repealing Provision That Parks and Recreation
Commissioners Must Terminate Their Office Upon Filing
for Elective City Office
Recommendation:
New a��p �-
That the City Council consider and .i�+-rnAiir-P the proposed
ordinance. (Ordinance No. 205)
Background:
The City Council previously amended the ordinance which
• prohibited Planning Commissioners from seeking elective City
office and remaining on the Commission. At that Council meeting,
it was pointed out that a similar prohibition existed for the
Parks and Recreation Commission.
Pursuant to the direction given by the City Council at that
meeting, this ordinance is presented which would delete this
prohibition.
Respectfully submitted,
ARTHER R. MONTANDON
City Attorney
ARM: f r
Attachment
•
ORDINANCE NO. 205 •
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION
2-13.05 OF THE ATASCADERO MUNICIPAL CODE
DELETING THE REQUIREMENT THAT PARKS AND
RECREATION COMMISSIONERS MUST TERMINATE THEIR
OFFICE WHEN SEEKING CITY ELECTIVE OFFICE
The City Council of the City of Atascadero, California, does
ordain as follows:
Section 1 . Section 2-13 .05 of the Atascadero Municipal Code
is amended to read as follows:
Sec. 2-13 .05. Absence from meetings. Absence of a
member of the Commission from three (3) consecutive
meetings, or from four (4) meetings during a calendar
year, without formal consent of the Commission noted in
its official minutes, shall be reported by the
Recreation Director to the City Council for
consideration of removal from office.
Section 2. 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 3 . 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
ORDINANCE NO. 205
Page 2
Approved as to form:
ARTHER R. MONTA N, City Attorney
Approved as to content:
RAY WINDSOR, City Manager
ARM: f r
ORD: 4
• REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: A-10
Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 2/2 90
From: Henry Engen, Community Development Director :�At
SUBJECT:
Request for authorization to enter into a joint powers agreement
with the County and Cities to update the Noise Element of the
General Plan .
RECOMMENDATION:
Approval of the accompanying Resolution 18-90 authorizing the
Mayor and City Clerk to execute attached JPA agreement.
BACKGROUND:
The cities and the county have Historically cooperated in
retaining consultants to undertake selected specialized types of
mandated general plan elements, i.e. , noise and safety/seismic
• safety. The attached Joint Powers Agreement was drafted
following review and recommendation by the County Planning
Directors. The attached letter from the County Planning
Department provides additional background.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The City' s share of the proposed contract with Brown-Buntin
Associates, Inc. would be $6,750.83 . The mid-year budget
adjustment includes an appropriation of up to $9,000 which
provides additional funding for printing, advertising, etc.
HE:ps
Enclosure: Resolution 18-90
February 16, 1990 communication from County Planning
Draft Joint Powers Agreement
0
RESOLUTION NO. 18-90 •
A RESOLUTION OF THE ATASCADTRO CITY COUNCIL
AUTHORIZING PARTICIPATION IN THE JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT
WITH SAN LUES OBISPO COUNTY AND CITIES TO UPDATE
THE NOISE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN
WHEREAS, the State mandates the noise element to each locality' s
general plan pursuant to Section 65302 of the Government Code;
and
WHEREAS, the City of Atascadero desires to participate with the
County of San Luis Obispo and its component cities in updating
said noise element; and
WHEREAS, such an approach will lead to lower costs to each
participant while enhancing cooperative regional planning.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED as follows:
1 . The City Council agrees to contribute its pro rata share of
total costs in the amount of $6,750.83 .
2. The City Council agrees hereby directs the Mayor and City •
Clerk to execute the attached Joint Powers Agreement
transmitted by the Department of Planning and Building of
the County of San Luis Obispo on February 16, 1990.
On motion by Councilmember , seconded by
Councilmember , the foregoing resolution is
hereby approved on the ro lowing roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
DATE ADOPTED:
By:
ROLLIN DEXTER, MAYOR
City of Atascadero, California
ATTEST:
LEE DAYKA, Deputy 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
Department of Planning and Building
San Luis Obispo County
County Government Center
San Luis Obispo
California 93408
February 16, 1990 (805)549-5600
Paul C.Crawford,AICP
Director
Mr. Henry Engen
Planning Director
CITY OF ATASCADERO
P. 0. Box 747
Atascadero, CA. 93422
Dear Mr. Engen:
SUBJECT: JOINT COUNTY/CITIES NOISE ELEMENT UPDATE
Attached is a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) between the county and the
seven cities to share in the cost of preparation of the Joint County and
Cities Noise Element Update. The contractor for this project will be
Brown-Buntin Associates, Inc. , who was recently selected by a committee
comprised of staff from the county and cities.
The cost of this project will be $63,000 (including a community noise
survey), which is to be shared among the county and cities on the basis
of each jurisdiction's proportion of total county population. Exhibit A
attached to the JPA lists each jurisdiction's share of the total project
cost.
The JPA is similar to the version which was circulated to the cities for
review last year. It has already been approved for circulation by our
County Counsel.
We would appreciate your transmittal of this JPA to your City Council for
approval of a resolution executing the agreement. Upon approval, please
provide the signatures of the Mayor and City Clerk together with the
approval date and resolution number in the space provided in the JPA.
Once the JPA is approved by all the cities, we will submit it to the
Board of Supervisors for approval together with the contract for
preparation of the Noise Element Update.
Please call us if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
NORMA DENGLER
General Plan Administration
ND/cl/0137-1 and 0138-1(2)
02-16-90
JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT A14ONG THE
COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AND THE CITIES
OF ARROYO GRANDE, ATASCADERO, GROVER CITY, EL PASO DE ROBLES,
MORRO BAY, PISMO BEACH, AND SAN LUIS OBISPO
FOR PREPARATION OF COUNTY AND CITIES NOISE ELEMENT UPDATE/
CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS AND NOISE DESIGN MANUAL/NOISE
ORDINANCE REVISIONS
THIS JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this
day of , 1990, by and between the COUNTY OF SAN
LUIS OBISPO hereinafter called COUNTY, and the cities of ARROYO GRANDE,
ATASCADERO, GROVER CITY, EL PASO DE ROBLES, MORRO BAY, PISMO BEACH, AND
SAN LUIS OBISPO, hereinafter called CITIES, under and pursuant to Section
6500 et seq. , of the Government Code.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, COUNTY and CITIES desire to undertake certain surveys,
studies and plans leading to the development of updates to the Noise
Elements of their General Plans pursuant to Section 65302 of the
Government Code; and,
WHEREAS, COUNTY and CITIES wish to develop measures which implement
the updated Noise Elements of their General Plans such as construction
standards, an informational design manual, and typical zoning
regulations, and other standards; and,
WHEREAS, it will avoid duplication of efforts, minimize expense, and
be of benefit to the citizens of COUNTY and CITIES to jointly agree for
the execution of one contract for the preparation of updates to the said
Noise Elements of their General Plans and implementation measures; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning or Community Development Director of each City
and the Director of the County Department of Planning and Building have
reviewed and have had opportunity to comment on the tentative Work
Program for the preparation of the Noise Element updates; and
WHEREAS, BROWN-BUNTIN ASSOCIATES, INC. , a California Corporation
(hereinafter Consultant) is engaged in the business of acoustical
consulting and preparation of Noise Elements and represents that it is
qualified to offer its services as consultant in the preparation of said
updates to the Noise Elements and implementation measures;
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED:
1. The sole purpose of the Agreement is to provide a vehicle by
which the parties hereto may cooperate in the preparation of the updates
to Noise Elements of their respective General Plans and implementation
measures, and no party to this Agreement intends or does hereby assume
any of the debts, liabilities or obligations of any party hereto.
2. The COUNTY, upon approval by the San Luis Obispo County Board of
Supervisors, for and on behalf of COUNTY and CITIES, is hereby designated
and empowered as the party to negotiate and execute a contract with the
Consultant for the preparation of said General Plan Noise Elements and
implementation measures, in an amount not to exceed $63,000.
3. COUNTY, or such person as the COUNTY may designate, is hereby
designated as the party charged with the administration and enforcement
of said Contract on behalf of the COUNTY and CITIES.
4. COUNTY and CITIES shall contribute funds in accordance with
Exhibit "A", (Cost Contribution Obligation), which exhibit is attached
hereto and hereby incorporated herein by reference as though here fully
set forth, for payment of the obligation incurred under the Contract
which is the subject of this Agreement, and none of the parties to this
Agreement shall be liable to any person or agency for the share of any
other such parties; and provided that the liability of COUNTY and CITIES
to contribute funds hereunder shall be limited to the amounts set forth
in "Exhibit "A."
5. The amount of money to be expended pursuant to said Contract
shall not exceed $63,000 except by written amendment to this Agreement
concurred in by all parties hereto.
6. Prior to execution of the Contract, the Treasurer of the county
of San Luis Obispo shall receive and receipt for all money contributed by
COUNTY and CITIES pursuant to this Agreement. These monies will be
P
maintained in a trust fund by the Auditor and appropriated to the
Planning Department's budget in the fiscal year when the expenditures
occur. Amounts due on the Contract referred to herein shall be drawn
upon warrants of the Auditor of the County of San Luis Obispo. After
termination of this Agreement as provided for in paragraph 11, any
surplus money on hand in the trust fund shall be returned to the parties
to this Agreement in proportion to their contribution made within 45 days
from the date of the final billing from the Consultant.
7. Costs of additional work tasks other than those specifically set
forth in the Contract between the County and Consultant are the
responsibility of the City or County requesting the additional service
and shall be borne by the COUNTY or CITY electing to have such work tasks
performed. Such additional work tasks shall be performed by the county
or city desiring them or through separate contract(s) between COUNTY or
CITIES and the Consultant. The costs of such additional work tasks shall
be above and beyond the amounts specified in Exhibit "A" attached hereto
and the maximum expenditure stated in paragraph 5 of this Agreement.
8. COUNTY and CITIES shall each be responsible for completing at
their own expense certain activities, such as reproduction of final
documents, as specified in the Contract.
9. COUNTY and. CITIES shall each be responsible for furnishing
information with regard to areas under their jurisdiction for use by the
Consultant including but not limited to the following: traffic counts
and projected future traffic volumes as available for streets listed in
the Contract, future circulation plans and improvements, any special
mapping requirements for noise contour maps, desired Noise Element goals
and any preferred policies and implementation measures, and existing
noise ordinances and regulations.
10. COUNTY and CITIES and each of them shall indemnify and save
harmless the COUNTY and each other and the officers, agents and employees
of each, from any and all claims, demands, damages, costs, expenses or
liability arising out of or occasioned by any act or omission to act by
such COUNTY or CITIES pursuant to this Agreement, including, but not
limited to, any act or omission to act on the part of COUNTY'S or CITIES'
agents or employees or independent contractors directly responsible to
COUNTY or CITIES.
11. This Agreement shall take effect upon its execution by the
chairman, or mayor, and clerks of the legislative bodies of the county of
San Luis Obispo and the seven incorporated cities authorized pursuant to
resolutions of such legislative bodies authorizing such execution and
shall continue until COUNTY'S Contract with the Consultant shall have
been fully performed by the parties thereto and until the updates to the
Noise Elements and implementation measures hereunder have been completed
and received by the parties hereto and all the obligations of the parties
hereto have been performed, whereupon it shall automatically terminate.
12. Entire Agreement and Modification. This agreement supercedes
all previous contracts and constitutes the entire understanding of the
parties hereto. No changes, amendments or alterations shall be effective
unless made in writing by all parties to this Agreement.
13. Non-Assignment of Contract. No party to this Agreement may
assign, transfer, delegate or sublet any interest therein.
14. Enforceability. If any term, covenant, condition or provision
of this agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be
invalid, void or unenforceable, the remainder of the provisions hereof
shall remain in full force and effect and shall in no way be affected,
impaired or invalidated thereby.
15. This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each
of which shall be deemed an original.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement
as of the day and year first hereinabove written.
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
By: Date:
Mayor
By: Resolution No.
Clerk
CITY OF ATASCADERO
By: Date:
Mayor
By: Resolution No.
Clerk
CITY OF GROVER CITY +
By: Date:
Mayor
By: Resolution No.
Clerk
CITY OF MORRO BAY
By: Date:
Mayor
By: Resolution No.
Clerk
CITY OF EL PASO DE ROBLES
By: Date:
Mayor
By: Resolution No.
Clerk
CITY OF PISMO BEACH
By: Date:
Mayor
By: Resolution No.
Clerk
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
By: Date:
Mayor
By: Resolution No.
Clerk
COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
By: Date:
Chairman, Board of Supervisors
By: Resolution No.
Clerk, Board of Supervisors
JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT PROVISIONS
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
JAMES B. LINDHOLM, JR.
County Counsel
By:
Deputy County Counsel
Dated:
MW/hf/cl/1011j/62
07-18-89
EXHIBIT "A"
COST CONTRIBUTION OBLIGATION
Arroyo Grande $ 4,175.86
Atascadero 6,750.83
Grover City 3,407.65
Morro Bay 3,010.17
Paso Robles 4,869.51
Pismo Beach 2,247.60
San Luis Obispo 12,187.73
*County of San Luis Obispo 26,350.65
TOTAL $63,000.00
*County will be responsible for costs of contract adminis-
tration and limited reproduction services as described in the
scope of Work and Work Program exhibit of the contract.
ADDITIONAL TASKS AND COSTS
The following work tasks are not to be included within the scope of
services of the contract between the County and Consultant. These
tasks and any other tasks not specifically set forth in the contract
between the County and Consultant shall be the responsibility of the
County or city requesting the additional service and shall be
performed by that county or city or through separate contract(s) with
the consultant. The cost of such additional service shall be borne
by the county or cities desiring such tasks, and shall be in .addition
to the cost contribution obligation specified above:
1. Analyses of transportation routes and stationary noise sources
that are in addition to those specified in the Scope of Work and
Work Program exhibit of the contract.
2. Meetings and public hearings that are in addition to the three
public information meetings specified in the Scope of Work and
Work Program exhibit of the contract.
3. Reproduction of documents that are in addition to the type and
number of documents described in the Scope of Work and Work
Program exhibit of the contract.
MW/hf/cl/lj/1316j
2/06/90
•
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM: A-11
CITY OF ATASCADERO
THROUGH: Ray Windsor , City Manager k MEETING DATE: 2/27/90
FROM: Andrew Takata, Director
Parks. Recreation and Zoo Department
SUBJECT:
TRAFFIC WAY PARK DEVELOPMENT - AWARD OF SOD BID
RECOMMENDATION:
City Council Award Hid Number 90-3 for 87,000 square feet of sod
for Traffic Way Park youth sports fields, to :
Gilbert 's Landscapes for $28,682.61 .
DISCUSSION:
• This item was discussed and authorized as part of the 1989/90
budget update. Gilbert ' s Landscapes was the lowest of four bids
received, per attached memorandum from the City Clerk ' s Office.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Funds sufficient to purchase the sod have been budgeted in the
fiscal year 1989/90 budget .
AJT: kv
; twp3
•
BID SUMMARY
•
TO: Andy Takata
Director , Parks & Recreation
FROM: Lee Dayka
City Clerk
BID NO. 90-3
OPENED 2/14/90 10:00 A.M.
PROJECT: 87,000 sq. ft. Sod - Youth Sports Field
Supplier : Total Price: Special Terms:
Gilbert ' s Landscapes $28,682.81 Good for 15 days
11345 Atascadero Ave. No discounts offered
Atascadero , CA 93422
Elam Woods Const . Co . 29,928.00 Good for 30 days
P.O. Box 2219 .5% disc . available
Atascadero , CA 93423
Spino 's Landscaping 34 ,500.68 Good only 5 days
5659 W. San Madele 2% disc . available •
Fresno, CA 93722
Pavilion Lands. Co . 33,930.00 none
1475 Dawn Road
Nipomo , CA 93444
c : Cathy Sargent
Purchasing
•
CITY OF ATASCADERO
Office of
PURCHa=,SING AGENT
6500 Palma avenue
A-ascadero . CA 9342
INVITATION, BID
AND ACCEPTANCE BID P-10 . y?-3
Sealed b.d=_ . sumject to the condition=- hereon. will oe
received at the cffi_e of the Purchasing Agent until
10:00 o ' clock a .m . ., February 14. 1901. and then
publiciv =pered . forfurnishing B"'.'?00 scuare feet of
sod includino installation, for deli,:erj at Traffic va;;
Youth :po-ts Field: .
CONDITIONS:
PqE-P+ ANT FER-iLT�=R: A h:q' Phoschare and Potassium
fort l .=er (4-10-10 or 6-2 _210 apoiied at 5 lbs . per
1 .000 square feet cf lawn area will be iiq!-tly raked
into the surface of tNe sail area .
ATHL_T?C FIELD SOD: Sod shall not contain rocks or
Plastic mesh netting that can cause liaoil . t•y of player
inJury or inhibit field maintenance pr=cedureG_.
SOD COMPOSITION_ Sod shall be composed of ENDURO tail
c'es:sue mi% (R5': tali Fescue. 5% Bluegrass ) grown bpi
GREENFIELDS TURF, INC . or eaual .
SOD FUNIMGAT:O,N: Sed shall be guaranteed weed free_ and
have been grown on fields fumigated to ensure against
weed , insect and disease problems .
SOD HARVESTING: Sod shall be at least eight months
mature prior to hares t to ensure adegua-e root Lase.
Sod rcot base =ha: l c•e harvested at unit^rm , h i,_: re5=_
-f 5/3" . Sod i nS`.a 1 1 c-d by growe- .
30[i CEL:VE=":_ So= shall 5e a_-!es sec- de? _,---erect and
-anSe iarren 4•,i ^.!1 i 3 �cr cr ^T �� ;1^ �r
;.M.C-ji%+T Rt'�'U i'E ! : d7 .':'�.I!� scuare Feer of _co .
SOD SPECIFICATIONS AND INSTALLA7I0N
PRE-PLANT FEPTILIZEP• A high Phcsor,aze and Potassium ferti . __er
( 4-10-11) or 6-20-20? applied at 5 lbs . per 1 ,000 square rest of
I
awn area will ce Iightl ; raked into the surface_ of the soil
area.
ATHLETIC FIELD SOL: Sod shall not contain rocks or clastic mesh
nettinq that can cause liatility of piayer in ur•; or inhibit
field maintenance procedures_ .
SQD _OMPCS I T'0N: Sod sha l I be _omeose,_ ofc^.;C±IkC Tail ! Fescue m i x
to _ 3 =as_ue. 5': Sluecr wn r• Nc-;..ire TF1 1c T'1 IPF
/ C r o d�� � �V� 1 l.�L TLIPF . 1
or eaual .
SCH' p;-MIr_.A,T ?rLni: SGC small ee c_'jarantaed wear frog and nave beer.
Cr Own on 1 .S rum1/73teC ^_ ?nc1r a 3C3 i:i5 �•tEBrJ . 15e= arts
d _s2«Se pro! lems .
'00 NAP"E_STING Sod shall bez 3t least eigi-, month=_ mature ori-_r
`= harvest to ensure 3CeQt18t2 r-oot ba=le . SOd :]t Ca5? =`a' i "e
harvested at uniform thick:ne=5 of �. p' od instal led, b%--^Crzower .
SOD DELI`lERv • Sod shall be nar'v9s*eU . . 'an=ojan*.=c
L•Jithin a cericd of 36 hours .
_MOUNT RF-.DU'RE_ 87. 700 square feet of scd .
•
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: A-12
Through: Ray Windsor , City Manager Meeting Date: 2/27/90:
From: Mark Joseph, Administrative Service=_ Director
SUBJECT: Adopting Midyear Budget Adjustments
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Council adopt the attached
resolution, amending appropriations by Fund and Department . (RES. NO. 22-�,
BACKGROUND:
At the Midyear Budget Workshop on February 13, 1990, Council
reviewed several budget adjustments. Staff also noted a number
of technical corrections were also required . The attached
resolution implements those changes.
Given the summary nature of the resolution, a brief recap of
the major adjustments is noted below.
• 1 . Wage and Class Study. The General Fund cost was actually
$56,835, slightly higher than originally noted . The increase
reflects those additional fringe benefits costs that are based on
a percentage of gross salary (e.g . retirement ) .
2. Separate Accounting for General Plan Update and the Arborist
programs . By isolating these two programs from Community
Development , the actual cost is more accurately identified .
3. Increases in Wastewater Operations. Most of the increase is
for ongoing maintenance cost , which were inadvertently left out
during the annual budget process. The Sanitation Fund has
sufficient monies to cover the costs.
4. Budgeting for the C.O.P. bond . This includes both the bond
proceeds and the debt service. The first year debt service will
be paid by the General Fund and Developer Fees.
5. Selected Capital Projects. The rekeying project will come
from residual 50a tax monies. The paving at Paloma Creek Park
and the extra costs for Traffic Way Fields will be covered by the
Parks Development Impact Fee Fund . Finally, a spray rig approved
in the budget will be traded for the purchase of a two-way radio
system for the Parks, Recreation and Zoo Department , at Andy ' s
• request .
6. Movie Money. The $33,000 in Warner ' s Brothers money has
been appropriated in the Administration Building Renovation fund .
•
RESOLUTION NO. 22-90
Resolution of the Council of the City of Atascadero
adopting the first amendment to Resolution No . 56-89,
the Annual Appropriation Resolution
BE IT RESOLVED,
Section 1 . That the following departmental appropriations, by
fund , are hereby increased:
Dept . Department Name Amount
Fund l General Fund
110 City Council 2,040
120 City Clerk 4 ,718
130 City Treasurer 638
150 City Manager 5,900
200 Police 56,365
300 Fire 24 ,650
410 PW/Engineering 9,622
420 PW/Streets 11 ,652
440 PW/Building Maintenance 2,622
500 Community Development 23,587 •
511 General Plan Update 20,000
512 Arborist/Urban Forestry 25,000
610 P & R/Recreation 59245
620 P & R/Parks 5,620
640 P & R/Administration 3,080
710 Personnel Administration 2,882
720 Finance and Accounting 5,967
810 General Fund Contingency (51 , 190)
820 Non-Department 2,300
Fund Subtotal 160,698
Dept . Name Amount
Fund 15 - Zoo Operations
630 Zoo Operations 8,275
Fund 201 - Wastewater Operations
430 Wastewater Operations 56,345
Fund 452 - ' 89 C.O.P. Debt Service
1452 ' 89 C.O.P. Debt Service 193,000
Fund 500 - General Fund Capital
900 Capital Projects (5,000)
Fund 501 - ' 89 C.O.P. Construction Fund
900 Capital Projects 1 ,826,000
Fund 600 - Parks Development Impact Fee
900 Capital Projects 6,500
Fund 604 - Traffic Way Fields Capital 40,000
900 Capital Projects
Fund 750 - Administration Building Renovation
900 Capital Projects 38,000
Section 2. That the following interfund transfers are authorized :
From Fund To Fund Amount
1 - General Fund 452 - C.O.P. Debt 63,500
600 - Park Fees 452 - C.O.P. Debt 80,000
550 - P.D. Fees 452 - C.O.P. Debt 40,000
500 - G.F . /Capital 750 - Admin. Building 5,000
600 - Park Fees 604 - Traffic Way Fields 40,000
Section 3. That this resolution shall take effect immediately
upon adoption.
On motion by Councilperson and seconded by
Councilperson the foregoing resolution is hereby
adopted in its entirety on the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
DATE:
ATTEST:
LEE DAYKA, City Clerk ROLLIN DEXTER, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
ARTHER MONTANDON, City Attorney RAY WINDSOR, City Manager
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: B-1
I
From: Ray Windsor, City Manage Meeting Date: 2/27/90
SUBJECT:
Pavilion Funding
RECOMMENDATION:
To endorse Scheme No. 2 for the Lake Park Pavilion size
(seating of up to 300) with an actual floor plan layout similar
to Scheme No. 3 (see attached) , subject to review and approval by
the Pavilion citizens committee and City Council.
• DISCUSSION:
As I have expressed to you individually, I would hate to
see us get 5-10 years down the road and find the facility just
isn' t meeting our needs . This kind of problem has occurred more
often than one might believe with public buildings because of
either a desire to demonstrate absolute frugality or a reluc-
tance to go the extra step because of a possible backlash over
planning ahead and spending for it now. Looking back at some
projects I have personally seen under-built, one finds that the
community suffers first through frustration and then embarrass-
ment over an inadequate building and invariably spends far more
money in the long run attempting to rectify the original deci-
sion. I guess, as much as anything, it all boils down to vision
vs. dollars . Although, in this case, I believe we can have both,
and that is primarily because our existing General Fund Reserve
is adequate to allow for some flexibility in capital spending.
By the same token, once the Pavilion and Lake Park and miscel-
laneous lots are purchased, it will be very difficult for us to
address any additional capital improvements until the reserve has
replenished itself. But that would be true regardless of the
priorities we are talking about, because we face the classic
dilemma of having more needs than resources . In the end, it all
comes back to whether or not the Pavilion or the lots purchases
are, in fact, the highest priorities to be resolved. And, in the
case of the Pavilion, its size and scope are truly what we be-
lieve the community needs.
Given the recent decision on the police facility, the ques-
tion before you is not whether you should look to the General
Fund Reserve for supplemental revenues but only to what extent.
However, even had the architect's estimate been the ultimate bid,
there would still have been a need to complement the COP's. At
the time you awarded the Police Bid, Mark and I pointed out that
we believed the City could spend up to $700,000 from the reserves
without creating a fiscal crisis in order to address all three
capital projects. Our reasoning for this was based upon the rule
of thumb among municipalities that a General Fund Reserve should
not fall below ten percent of the budget. In our case, this
would mean holding the line at about $600,000. We have suggested
the reserve be held at $800,000.
Beyond this is our desire to obtain as many lake lots as we
can based on a multi-year pay-off. Obviously, this does not de-
crease the total dollar amount, but it does have less impact on
the reserves at any one time. In the same way, any ultimate
dollar commitment to the Pavilion will turn into at least a two-
year pay-off, because we will be straddling two fiscal years.
I need hardly remind anyone that the estimate for the Pavil-
ion is just that and is still subject to current building costs
at the time of bidding. In addition, it should be borne in mind
that the budget for this project will, at some point, have to
address architect' s fees, a construction contingency of at least
five percent, off-site improvements--landscaping and possibly a
parking lot--and furnishings. However, my belief is that these •
additions can still be factored into the $700,000 and/or, as in
the case of the parking lot, be addressed down the line.
No one realizes better than I that we are dealing with an
extremely tight financial_situation. One might easily ask, why
didn't we just go for an additional one-half million (or what-
ever) in certificates in order to avoid this crunch? My answer
is we could have. In fact, the consultant recommended it. But,
I have felt from the beginning that we should not incur more debt
than we truly believed we could handle within the context of our
existing resources. At the same time, I also believe that, while
it is highly desirable to have the highest possible reserve
available for contingencies, there is no reason why some of what
we want to accomplish cannot be financed from a portion of the
accumulated reserves . Perhaps another way of looking at it is to
say that the City of Atascadero has spent 10 years putting its
pennies, nickels and dimes in the piggybank in order to reach a
point where there would be enough to pay for some of the things
we identified after incorporation. So, once the Pavilion is com-
pleted and the lakk lots deeds are in our name, we must think in
terms of beginning that accumulation of pennies, nickels and
dimes all over again in order to. go onto the next series of cap-
ital projects.
•
2
I want to say (perhaps as a reminder) that any time we make
the decision to fully complete a capital project, other worthy
projects must be set aside. That is what prioritization is all
about. Given the growing list of needed capital improvements, I
still believe that the police facility, Pavilion and lake lots
represent our greatest need at this point in our history. I am
also convinced we should go for the larger Pavilion, recognizing
that it can only happen by using our contingency reserve. You
will notice that nowhere in this memo have I addressed the issue
of community donations towards the Pavilion project. I believe
there is support for it, and I think we should do everything we
can to encourage such support, but I don' t believe it would be
responsible for me to talk about completing this project on the
assumption that a certain amount of the cost will be defrayed
through donations.
With respect to the architect's work and his direction from
this point forward, he will need about one month to complete the
final floor plan (to scale) , following which, should you see fit
to authorize it, to begin working drawings. It will take about
four additional months to be ready to bid. In my discussion
with the architect the bid documents will break out, where pos-
sible, alternate deducts on construction in order to provide
some flexibility in the ultimate dollar allocation. The balcony
decking is a good example. Hopefully, it won't come to that.
RW:cw
3
O
� 1L Q•
' , ► 3
UL
cc
cc
s
r
3 O
L m
Q fl. C
Y C m cc
Y
FCD
0
I
0
e
:z °C l '
�► u- w �-
u►id3 OL
DA
I
to
I I ,g o — aL
Qw
I Cc CL
N m �,
I ( — W cc
ccowe
o
e
�N
N
A
41ff
�� II
ill tE Y
LL
40
Al. 4L
CL
L
'3
CV) CL
a N
cc
� in
x
ell
CL
°L
ba o
o 0 g 7:3 q tz
Q efl :z � 1114_ d
tcl
LL
N
17! r
},�
Y —^ m U
Qi
Qw
IA 72 L
In 72 cc 'a
Q
o 3 CL !0
` � co
R
oldY
U cc
:3 —
c
a
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL Meetina Date : 2/27/90
• CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: B-2
Through : Ray Windsor, City Manager r
From: Department of Public Works
SUBJECT:
Pedestrian safety at the intersection of of Olmeda and Traffic Way .
RECOMMENDATION:
The Traffic Committee recommends that Council adopt Resolution No.
21-90 establishing No Parking areas on Olmeda and Traffic Way as
shown on Exhibit A.
BACKGROUND:
The Lewis Avenue PTA initially approached City Council requesting a
crossing guard for this location . City Council referred the PTA to
• the Traffic Committee where the request was denied. The PTA at
this point approached the City/School Committee and was again
referred back to Traffic Committee to explore alternatives to
crossing guards at this location .
DISCUSSION:
The intersection of Olmeda and Traffic Way is currently controlled
by a 4-Way Stop . The congestion occurs at the beginning and the
end of the school day when parents are dropping off and picking up
children .
It is anticipated that by prohibiting parking around the perimeter
of the school , on both sides of the street , that visibility will
improve thus increasing pedestrian safety .
In addition to this modification , the school district will be
relocating the gate through the school fence to channel children
towards the crosswalks and to discourage crossing in mid-block.
OPTIONS:
1) Adopt Resolution . No . 21-90
2) Deny Resolution No . 21-90
• 3) Return Item to Traffic Committee for further review.
FISCAL IMPACT : •
The cost of this improvement , if approved, would be approximately
$100 .00. These funds would be paid out of currently budgeted
funds .
Attachments:
Resolution No . 21-90
Diagram of Location
VJH/vjh
2/20/90
•
• II
RESOLUTION NO 21-90
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO
DESIGNATING A NO PARKING ZONE AT THE INTERSECTION OF
TRAFFIC WAY AND OLMEDA AS SHOWN IN EXHIBIT A
WHEREAS , Section 4-2 . 1104 et sequence of the
Atascadero Municipal Code allows the City Traffic Engineer
to designate No Parking on upon either or both sides of any
street adjacent to any school property , and to place and
maintain appropriate signs or markings indicating the same;
and
WHEREAS , The Traffic Committee has studied the traffic
problems at this location and has determined that a No
Parking zone is appropriate .
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of
Atascadero directs the City Traffic Engineer to place and
maintain appropriate signs or markings as indicated above .
On Motion by Councilman ,and seconded
by Councilman ,the foregoing resolution is
hereby adopted in its entirety on the following roll call
vote :
AYES:
NOES :
ABSENT :
ADOPTED:
ATTEST: CITY OF ATASCADERO
LEE DAYKA, Deputy City Clerk ROLLIN DEXTER, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT :
ARTHER MONTANDON HENRY ENGEN
City Attorney Director of Community
Development
EXHIBIT "A"
W
O
P4
0
TRAT IC WAY
H
O
ro
STOP
N6
p�
s\,moo a
\� o
NOT TO SCALE
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL Meetina Date :2/27/90
CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: B-3 (A & B)
Through : Ray Windsor , City Manager
From: Department of Public Works
SUBJECT:
Relocation of stop sign at the intersection of Los Osos Road and
Old Morro Road East .
RECOMMENDATION:
Traffic Committee recommends that Council adopt the attached
resolutions eliminating the stop sign at Los Osos Road and
installing a stop sign on Old Morro Road East . (Resolution No. 's 19 & 20-90)
BACKGROUND:
The Traffic Committee has received a request from a resident in the
• are to consider relocating the existing stop sign on Los Osos Road
to Old Morro Road East .
DISCUSSION:
During committee review of the intersection it was determined that
due to the configuration of the intersection and traffic flow that
the stop sign should be relocated to stop traffic on Old Morro Road
East and not on Los Osos Road.
OPTIONS:
1) Approve Resolution No. s 19-90 and 20-90 relocating the stop
from Los Osos Road to Old Morro Road East .
2) Approve Resolution No . 19-90 only , eliminating the existing
stop sign but not establishing a new stop on Old Morro Road
East .
3) Approve Resolution No . 20-90 only, establishing a new stop sign
on Old Morro Road East but not eliminating the existing sign on
Los Osos Road therby creating a 2-Way stop intersection .
4) Deny both requests , intersection to remain unchanged.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The cost of this modification is minimal as existing signage can be
reused.
Attachments :
Resolution No. 19-20
Resolution No . 20-90
Diagram
VJH/vjh
2/20/90
RESOLUTION NO. 19-90
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ATASCADERO ELIMINATING A STOP INTERSECTION
ON LOS OSOS ROAD AT OLD MORRO ROAD EAST
WHEREAS, Section 4-2 .407 et seq. of the Atascadero
Municipal Code allows the City Traffic Engineer to remove ,
relocate or discontinue the operation of any traffic
control device whenever he determines that the device is
no longer warranted; and
WHEREAS , the Atascadero Traffic Committee is
recommending that the existing stop on Los Osos Road at
Old Morro Road East be removed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of
Atascadero directs the City Traffic Engineer to place and
maintain appropriate signs or markings indicating a STOP
intersection at the location listed above.
On motion by , and seconded by
,the foregoing Resolution is hereby
adopted in its entirety on the following roll call vote :
AYES :
NOES :
ABSENT :
ADOPTED:
ATTEST :
LEE DAYKA, Deputy City Clerk NROLLIN DEXTER, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT :
ARTHER MONTANDON HENRY ENGEN
City Attorney Director of Community
Development
RESOLUTION NO. 20-90
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ATASCADERO DESIGNATING A STOP INTERSECTION
ON OLD MORRO ROAD EAST AT LOS OSOS
WHEREAS, Section 4-2 .801 et seq, of the Atascadero
Municipal Code allows the City Traffic Engineer to
determine the location of STOP intersections , and to place
and maintain appropriate signs or markings indicating the
same; and
WHEREAS, the Atascadero Traffic Committee has
recommended that establishing a STOP intersection on Old
Morro Road East at Los Osos Road will improve a
potentially hazardous traffic situation .
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of
Atascadero directs the City Traffic Engineer to place and
maintain appropriate signs or markings indicating a STOP
intersection at the location listed above .
On motion by , and seconded by
,the foregoing Resolution is hereby
adopted in its entirety on the following roll call vote:
AYES :
NOES:
ABSENT :
ADOPTED:
ATTEST :
LEE DAYKA, Deputy City Clerk ROLLIN DEXTER, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO APPROVED CONTENT :
. A ED AS TO
ARTHER MONTANDON r HENRY ENGEN
City Attorney Director of Community
Development
i
N 10 td
O��
cYp� A 0
w
pzovosea gtoy
•
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: C-1 (A)
From: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 2/27/90
SUBJECT:
Fiscal Planning Model Study Session
RECOMMENDATION:
Pursuant to your direction on February 13th, staff would
like to suggest the following dates for consideration for the
study session to discuss implementation of the Fiscal Planning
Model :
Thursday, March 22nd or Thursday, March 29th at 4 : 00
p.m. in the 4th Floor dub Room
DISCUSSION:
It would be our intention to invite the members of the
evaluation/selection panel (Don Hanauer, Don Price and Jim
Horton, along with Councilman Shiers, Henry Engen, Mark Joseph
and myself) .
RW: cw