Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 03/27/1990 PUBLIC REVIEW COPY # PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE FROM COUNTER Ilk A G E N D A ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING ATASCADERO ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 6500 PALMA FOURTH FLOOR, ROTUNDA ROOM MARCH 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; adoptionor 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 publicinspection 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 open for Council discussion. Call to Order Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call City Council Comment: - Presentation by Gary Kirkland re: Homeless Issues COMMUNITY FORUM: The City Council values and encourages exchange of ideas and comments from you, the citizen. The Community Forum period is provided to receive comments from the public on matters other than scheduled agenda items. To increase the effectiveness of Community Forum, the following rules will be enforced: A maximum of 30 minutes will be allowed for Community Forum, unless Council authorizes an extension. * All remarks shall be addressed to 'Council, as a whole, and not to any individual member thereof. No person shall be permitted to make slanderous, profane or personal remarks against any Council Member, commissions & staff. 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. MARCH 13, 1990 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 2. MARCH 8, 1990 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES (Special Meeting) 3. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 01-90 - , Proposed subdivision of one lot into four airspace condominiums and a common area. Subject four-unit, multi-family project is currently under construc- tion at 8315 Amapoa Ave.. (Low/Cuesta Engineering) 4. RENEWAL OF HEALTH INSURANCE POLICIES 5. RESOLUTION° NO. 31-90 - ESTABLISHMENT OF A TYPICAL TRENCH STANDARD 6 RESOLUTION NO. 32--90 ESTABLISHMENT OF A SEWER LATERAL STANDARD 7 . RESOLUTION NO. 33-90 ESTABLISHMENT OF AN ASPHALT CONCRETE DRIVE APPROACH STANDARD 8. RESOLUTION NO. 34-90 ESTABLISHMENT OF A FIRE ACCESS STAN- DARD 9. AWARD OF BID #90-2 FOR STREET SWEEPING CONTRACT 2 B. HEARINGS/APPEARANCES: 1• APPEAL ON BEHALF OF DAVID LONG & C.L. RNOWLES By VOLBRECHT SURVEYS OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 22-89, PROPOSING THE DIVISION OF TWO PARCELS CONTAINING 10.27 ACRES INTO THREE RESIDENTIAL LOTS OF 3.39 AC. EA. , 7900/8000 SANTA CRUZ ROAD 2. REQUEST TO REMOVE ONE HERITAGE TREE 500, NORTHWEST OF 13600 OLD MORRO ROAD (City of Atascadero Parks Dept. ) 3. REQUEST TO REMOVE ONE HERITAGE TREE, 8981 LA LINIA (Messer) 4. REQUEST TO REMOVE HERITAGE TREE AS PART OF AN APPLICATION FOR A ROAD EBTENSION TO ACCESS FOUR COLONY LOTS AT ATAJO ROAD WEST OF CHAUPLIN ROAD (Arnold) C. REGULAR BUSINESS: 1. POLICE FACILITYCONSTRUCTION STATUS REPORT (Chief McHale/Rod Levin - Verbal) D. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION: 1. City Council: A. Committee Reports (The following represents ad hoc or standing commitees. Informative status reports will be given, as felt necessary. ) : 1 • City/School Committee 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 8. B.I.A. 9. Downtown Steering Committee 10• General Plan Subcommittee 2. City Attorney 3. City Clerk 4 . City Treasurer 5. City Manager * COUNCIL WILL ADJOURN TO A CLOSED SESSION FOR DISCUSSION RE- GARDING POSSIBLE ACQUISITION OF REAL PROPERTY. * NOTICE: COUNCIL WILL ADJOURN TO THURSDAY, MARCH 29TH, 4:00 P.M. , 4TH FLOOR CLUB .ROOM FOR THE PURPOSE OF A :STUDY: SESSION REGARDING FISCAL PLANNING MODEL RFP''S . 3 i MEETiN27/90 AGENDA A-2 DATE ITEM i ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES MARCH 8, 1990 Mayor Dexter called the meeting to order at 3:32 p .m. ROLL CALL: Present : Councilmembers Lilley, Mackey and Mayor Dexter Absent : Councilmembers Borgeson and Shiers Staff Present : Ray Windsor , City Manager ; Art Montandon, City Attorney; Mark Joseph , Administrative Services Director and Lee Dayka, City Clerk There were no City Council comments. • A. REGULAR BUSINESS 1 . DISCUSSION TO CONSIDER WHETHER OR NOT THE COUNCIL WISHES TO PLACE ON THE JUNE 5TH, 1990, BALLOT THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE OFFICES OF CITY CLERK AND CITY TREASURER SHOULD BE APPOINTIVE OR REMAIN ELECTIVE The City Manager clarified the reason for holding the meeting stating that the Council was being given a final opportunity to discuss and make a decision on whether or not to place this issue on the June ballot . Council discussion followed . Mayor Dexter reported that Gere Sibbach , City Treasurer , had been unable to attend the meeting but had asked the Mayor to relate for him his opinion that offices of City Treasurer and Clerk are technical positions and should be appointed . Council discussion followed with a consensus of members present that the offices should be appointive rather than elected . Councilwoman Mackey pointed out that the positions were originally appointed . She further indicated that if placed on the ballot now, it may become a campaign issue and that the SPCC3;`8!90 Page 1 question should be asked during an off (election) year . Councilwoman Borgeson arrived at 3:43 p.m. and was apprised of the current discussion,. Ms. Borgeson commented that if the measure was placed on the ballot in June, that the results would not take affect until the next election. She stated that she, therefore, could not see the present reason for such action. She further asserted that the offices should remain elective, not appointed , to insure an oversight function at City Hall . Mark Joseph responded to Councilman Lilley ' s questions regarding the duties and qualifications of the City Treasurer . Councilwoman Borgeson reiterated that the positions should stay as they are. By common consensus, the Council agreed that this question would not be placed before the voters this June. 2. CALL ELECTION AND REQUEST CONSOLIDATION WITH THE COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO A. Resolution No. 27-90 - Calling and giving notice of the holding of a General Municipal Election to be held on Tuesday, June 5, 1990, for the purpose of the election of certain officers as required by the provisions of the Laws of the State of California relating to General Law cities MOTION: By Councilwoman Mackey and seconded by Councilman Lilley to adopt , by ' title only, Resolution No . 27-90 ; passed unanimously by roll call vote. B. Resolution No. 26-90 - Requesting the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Luis Obispo to consolidate a General Municipal Election to be held on June 5, 12990, with the Statewide Primary Election to be held on the date pursuant to Section 23302 of the Elections Code MOTION: By Councilwoman Borgeson and seconded by Councilwoman Mackey to adopt , by title only, Resolution No . 26-90 ; passed unanimously by roll call vote. There was no further action. The meeting was adjourned at 3:55 p .m. until the next regular City Council meeting on March 13, 1990 at 7:00 p .m. SPCC3/8/90 Page 2 ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 13, 1990 7:00 P.M. The Mayor called the meeting to order at 7 :05 p .m. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mark ?oseph . ROLL CALL: Present : Councilmembers Shiers, Mackey, Lilley, Borgeson and Mayor Dexter Staff P -esent : Art Montandon, City Attorney; Henry Cngen, Community Development Director ; Mark Joseph , Administrative Services Director ; Andy TaE: ata , Director of Parks. , Recreation and loo ; Mike Hicks , !=ire Chief and Lee Dayka, City Clerk • Staff Absent : Fay Windsor , City Manager and Bud McHale, Police Chi- of There were no City Council comments. PROCLAMATIONS: Mayor Dexter read the proclamation "Tri-Counties Small Business Opportunities Day" proclaiming March 7, 1990 as such . The ~iay0r proclaimed 'larch 18-18, 1=c'0 as "Camp F; re Birthday i,Jee4:" and presented the proclamation to members of the Chumash '7ouncil Camp Fire Girls . The group presented to members of Council and staff boxed candy and nuts . COMMUNITY FORUM; John Ha,,,nes , 9870 Carmelita Road , described for Council the traffic that uses the creekbed near his property as a thorcugh- fa:-e from Morro Rcad to Carmelita and requested the Placement of a bridge there to provide access to Highway 41 . Heni-y Engen responded that the City was familiar with this "Arizona C:-oss:ng" and that there has been an ap . ication made CCS/ 13/90 Page 1 for a grant to fund the Barranco Road extension to Highway 41 . He stated that he would be happy to speak to Mr . Haynes regarding this issue. Maggie Rice, on behalf of the Friends of the Lake Pavilion, gave a financial update on the committee stating that $9,700 had been raised already. She thanked the Mayor for his generous donation and reported that Barbara Reiter of Atascadero had been the first $1 ,000 donation. A. CONSENT CALENDAR: Mayor Dexter read the Consent Calendar . 1 . FEBRUARY 27, 1990 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 2. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 25-89 - Proposed subdivision of one 6.7 acre parcel into four lots of 2. 179 1 .60, 1 .67 and 1 .25 acres. The proposal also includes the creation of B1 com- mercial condominium units at 5904 Capistrano Avenue ( Hotel Park ) (Lewis, et a , /, rth Coast Engineering , 3. RESOLUTION NO. 24-90 - REQUEST TO ADD MICHAEL FORISTER AND STEVEN G. ALVAREZ TO THE LIST OF CITY-APPROVED CERTIFIED ARBORISTS • 4. TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENTS TO SALARY & POSITION RESOLUTIONS WHICH WERE ADOPTED 2/27/90: A. RESOLUTION NO. P=8-90 AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 13-90, ESTABLISHING SALARIES FOR CITY EMPLOYEES B. RESOLUTION NO. 29-90 - AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 14-90, ESTABLISHING PERMANENT AUTHORIZED POSITIONS IN THE CITY OF ATASCADERO 5. AWARD OF BID #90-1 FOR SEWER JET TRUCK 6. AWARD OF BID #89-9 FOR DIAL-A-RIDE BUSES 7. AUTHORIZE PURCHASE OF NEW FURNITURE FOR POLICE FACILITY 8. RESOLUTION NO. 30-90 - PROCLAIMING MARCH 23-31 , 1990 AS "CENSUS WEEK" Councilman Shiers asked to pull items #2 and #7 for further discussion. MOTION: By Councilwoman Mackey and seconded by Councilwoman CC?/13/90 Wage 2 Borgeson to approve the Consent Calendar with the exceptions of items #2 and #7; passed unanimously by roll call vote. 2. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 25-89 - Proposed subdivision of one 6. 7 acre parcel into four lots of 2. 17, 1 .60, 1 . 67 and 1 .25 acres. The proposal also includes the creation, of 81 com- mercial condominium units at 5804 Capistrano Avenue (Hotel Parr: ) (Lewis , et al/North Coast Engineering ) Henry Engen gave staff report with the recommendation to approve. Councilman Shiers asked for clarification on conditions of approval . Mr . Engen stated that approval of the precise plan preceded the Subdivision Ordinance and subsequent improvement work is pursuant to that plan. The eight conditions of approval proposed would allow for phasing in the future or allow recordation concurrently. Councilwoman Borgeson asked the City Attorney if this item should be placed on a future agenda for further discussion. The City Attorney advised that if it is pulled from the consent calendar- , the Council can ask questions of the applicant and 'near ;public comment . He further stated that it can be considered regular business at this point . • The Community Development Director- responded to the Mayor ' s questions regarding access and future Highway 41 . Councilwoman Mackey asked Mr . Engen for clarification on the completion time of the part< ing lot . He indicated that CC&R ' s are required in the first phase to outline the use of reciprocal use parking during future phase development . Councilwoman Borgeson asked Mr . Engen if the project could be prolonged for a number of years . Mr . Engen estimated a max imuir, of three years for each phase with a "worst case scenario" of twelve years to complete the project . He noted that the applicant has incentive to complete the project in a timely manner because all the costly improvements (grading , street relocations , etc . ) will be put in up front . Councilwoman Borgeson indicated concern over the change from a precise plan to what might have to be looked at under the Subdivision Act . She also expressed concern over the possibility of the project being left undone and therefore creating a scar in the City. Mr . Engen reported that his department has called for rough grading on the peripherals to avoid having the entire project totally graded out before it is ready to have a building on it and that it would be better- to keep what ' s there looking CC3/ 13.'90 Page 3 more natural . He added that because the project has been started , it is in the City ' s best interest to get the construction completed and landscaped . Councilwoman Borgeson asked additional questions regarding bonding . Mr . Engen stated that the only bonding held on the project was for trees and improvements, not site restoration. Public Comments : The owner/applicant , Glen Lewis, addressed the Council and indicated that great expense has been incurred to complete the improvements and that the owners have shown good faith by complying with all conditions of approval . He stated there was interest from the general public and hoped to bring in a nice restaurant . He added that he had no intention of delaying the project . Mr . Lewis answered Council questions regarding the type of use the project would be dedicated to . He stated that the center would be primarily professional business, rather than commercial . He added that originally three restaurants were proposed , but that now one nice, large one was being considered . Steve Sylvester , engineer , responded to additional Council • questions with respect to possible banquet facilities , Subdivision Ordinance compliance and alteration of land-Forms. He indicated that the precise pian included a detailed grading plan and the intent of that plan was to minimize disturbance of landfor-ms . Mr . Svlvester assured the Council that construction is conforming to that plan and explained that the only exception being made is that they are making more room for some of the trees by moving some of the retaining walls further away from the trunks of the trees. Lon Allen, 5625 Capistrano , asked who ' s responsibility it is to stripe the road and indicated , for safety reasons , that it should be done. Mr . Engen reported that he would look into it . MOTION: By Councilman Lilley and seconded by Mayor Dexter to approve Tentative Tract Map 25-89 based upon the findings of the Planning Commission; passed 3:2 with Councilwoman Bergeson and Councilman Shiers voting against approval . 7. AUTHORIZE PURCHASE OF NEW FURNITURE FOR POLICE FACILITY Mayor De;:ter reported that the Police Chief had been excused from ^,C3/ 13/90 Paae 4 • the meeting to attend a team-building workshop and gave the report in his absence. The Mayor reported that the request included 127 pieces of furniture to be supplied by the California Prison Industries Authority. He further reported that the total cost was to be $23,000 , 63,000 more than was originally authorized by Council . The Mayor explained that the Police Chief had indicated that the department would be able to fund the purchase within the existing operating budget . The Administrative Services Director stated that there was ample cash available to cover the added expense. Councilman Shiers noted that this did not go out for bid and was concerned that the Council was indeed within their legal boundaries . The City Attorney advised that the only bid requirements by State law are for public construction and maintenance contracts. He continued that the City Code has a purchasing procedure that serves as a directory guideline, but that it is not mandatory. Mr . Montandon indicated that the Police Chief had stated that the furniture is much batter quality than what is available from open market furnishings and that it is difficult to compare prices on items of this type. • Councilwoman Mackey expressed concern regarding going over bid and stated that she thought bids should have been received in order to compare costs . Councilwoman Borgeson stated that she was fully satisfied , that the furniture would last and that this purchase had been approved in the last budget . Mayor Dexter added that the Police Chief had received visits from other furniture representatives and had also inspected the California Prison Industries Authority where it is manufactured . There was no public comment . MOTION: By Councilman Shiers and seconded by Mayor Dexter to authorize the purchase of new office furniture for the Police Facility from Prison Industries , State of California, for a total amount not to exceed $23, 000; passed unanimously with Councilwoman Mackey making her Yes vote with reluctance. Mayor Denter called attention to item #S of the Consent Calendar referring to Resolution No . 30-90 proclaiming March 23-31 , ? P90 as Census Week . He explained that staff will be requested to CC3! 13l9C? 410 Page 5 give their information on April 1 , 1990. Councilwoman Mackey also announced that census takers are being sought . C. REGULAR BUSINESS: P . DISCUSSION RE: SKATEBOARD SURVEY AND POSSIBLE ORDINANCE DIR— ECTION Andy Takata gave staff report recommending that staff be given direction to create a skateboard regulating ordinance that would eliminate skateboarding within the Business Improvement Area boundaries, except between the hours of 7:00 a .m. to 8:30 a.m. and 3:00 p .m. to 4: 00 p .m. , Monday through Friday; and no skateboarding allowed on Saturday and Sunday. He explained that the reasons for the exception hours was that children had reported that they used their skateboards for transportation to and from school . Mr . Takata reported that this was a "tough" recommendation to make and explained the results of several informal surveys of the business community regarding this issue. He reitrated that staff was looking for direction and that any proposed ordinance would first be subject to two public hearings. Council questions followed regarding possible fines and the City • Attorney advised that if an infraction is imposed , the maximum fine for a first offense would be $50.00 Mr . Takata stated that he hoped the Police Department would give strict warnings and that the goal was not to fine kids , but to stop damage. Lengthy Council discussion ensued . Councilman Shiers was against the ordinance and expressed the need for an alternative place to skate. Councilwoman Mackey agreed that the kids need a place to skate and added that the sidewalk was not the place to do it . Councilwoman Borgeson asserted that there is not enough police to enforce the ordinance and was not in favor of it . She further stated that itwas unfair to have such ar! ordinance without providing a place for the youth to skate. !payor Dexter was in favor of a simple ordinance in community areas for public safety. He agreed that a proper place for skating was needed , but only if insurance could be prcvided . Councilman Lilley described the shopping centers as the highest CCS! i S!9C> Page 6 • risk area and was in favor of an infraction to deter injury . He maintained that he had no problem with the sport , only the use of public property to engage in it and added that this is a different issue entirely from providing a recreational area within which skateboarding could be enjoyed . He stated that the public needs to know the risk involved with providing a skateboard park and suggested asking the taxpayers to vote on whether or not they wanted funds spent to provide the necessary insurance. Public Comments: Richard Bastian, 6225 Conejo Road , asked the Council to show kids a little more respect and make them a part of the community. Whitey Thorpe, B205 Santa Ynez , spoke against the proposed ordinance stating that children are the most valuable asset Atascadero has and that we need to make room for them. He added that the City should get the skateboarders covered . Livia Kellerman, 1463 Honda , urged that establishing an ordinance setting certain hours is punitive and that we could be more creative. She suggested a membership skateboard park where parents and their children might sign an insurance waiver . Karen Riggs, 4935 Arizona Avenue, thanked the Council for giving the kids a chance. She stated that while her initial hopes for the Skateboard Association had not been fully realized , attitudes have changed and was in favor of providing a skateboard park . Ms . Riggs asked Andy Takata to clarify total police Department tails received regarding skateboarders. The Director of parks and Recreation explained that there had been 63 calls in 11 weeks . Mike Jackson, 5235 Barrenda , opposed the ordinance and exclaimed that the City needs to make the parent responsible and stressed the need to educate the children. Victor Reeves , 4200 Del Rio Road , asked what the difference was between skateboarding and baseball , in terms of insurance. Mayor Dexter responded that insurance was not available to the City to cover the sport and suggested that the matter could be looked into further as part of the functions of the proposed Risk Review Committee to be discussed later (Agenda Item #C-4 ) . Maggie Rice, representing the Chamber of Commerce, exclaimed that downtown revitalization and downtown skateboarding are not . CC3/ 13 .90 Page compatible. She supported adoption of an ordinance to protect the downtown property. Mary Pulsifer-Manry, 4200 Del Rio Road , asserted that sidewalks are for the public . She stated that she was against skating in shopping centers and stressed that all the kids need is a "great big slab of cement She proclaimed the hours between 3:00 p .m. and 4:00 p .m. as the "worst" time to skate because of the heavy traffic at this time of day. Joey Pulsifer , 4200 Dei Rio Road , spoke on behalf of youth and urged the Council to provide a park where kids could skate, stay out of trouble and eliminate property damage. Mayor Dexter commended the kids for policing themselves and stated that he was not against kids having fun. He reiterated that the Council has a responsibility to protect the public welfare. Richard Bastion asked if a insurance waiver was an option. Mayor Dexter referred this question to the City Attorney. Mr . Montandort explained that waivers are only affective to a certain extent and suits could still occur . Mr . Joseph suggested an economic study including insurance costs . and examine the concept of a skateboard park to see if it is feasible. Councilwoman Borgeson stated that the citizens expect parkas for their children and that Council should give staff direction to look into some of the options . Lon Allen, 5625 Capistrano , reported that as past president of the Chamber of Commerce, damage does occur and often goes unreported . He urged the Council not to adopt anything they could not enforce. MOTION: By Councilwoman Borgeson and seconded by Councilman Shiers to oppose staff recommendation for a skateboard regulating ordinance and give staff further direction to look into a skateboard park with adequate insurance coverage. Additional Council discussion ensued . In a roll call vote, all five members unanimously passed the motion. Mayor Dexter called for a recess at ?:OB p . m. The meeting reconvened at 9: 17 p .m. CC3/ 13/cy0 . rage 9 • 2. RESOLUTION NO. 25-90 - RE-APPOINTING THREE MEMBERS TO THE BUILDING & CONSTRUCTION BOARD OF APPEALS Henry Engen gave staff report recommending adoption of Resolution No . 25-90 reappointing the following three members to the Building and Construction Appeals Board : Ken Lerno , Specialty Contractor ; H. John Edens , Jr . , General Contractor ; and Jim Rodger , General Public Member . There was no Council or public comments. MOTION: By Councilwoman Mackey and seconded by Councilman Shiers to adopt Resolution No . 25-90; passed unanimously by roll call vote. 3. CREATION OF A CREEKWAY PLANNING & MAPPING COMMITTEE Andy Takata gave staff report recommending the creation of a technical committee comprised of three school district representatives and three City staff members to begin, mapping the creel: prior to additional planning . He stated that while this was a technical advisory committee, the City Council may choose only staff members, but if additional citizen participation is desired they may appoint other members . • Mr . Takata explained that the first area which the committee would be looking at was from Lewis Avenue to the High School . Mayor Dexter clarified that once the mapping is done, then creekway usage will be established. Councilwoman Mackey suggested that the Council add more members to the committee later on when that issue is addressed . Public Comments : Karen Riggs, 4935 Arizona , asked the Council how this related to the creek setback issue and stated concern over the length of time a study like this may take. She suggested a building moratorium on the creek with emphasis on the properties currently for sale on Capistrano . The Mayor ruled Ms . Riggs out of order because the usage of the creek was not being considered , but rather the establishment of a technical committee to merely map the creek . Joan Okeefe, 9985 Old Morro Road East , asked at what point will the public be able to address the setback issue , why the mapping will take precedence over the setback question and how citizens can make input . oil CCS - 13/90 Page 9 • Councilman Lilley asserted that the creep: setback issue must be addressed by Council and stated that he would personally ask that the matter be placed on a future agenda for consideration later during the Individual Determination portion of meeting . He stated that he would like to explore the possibility of some kind of interim measure, with regard to several of the lots for sales, to insure their development does not do irreparable damage. Ms. Okeefe thanked the councilman and expressed hope in seeing this placed on another agenda for future discussion. Mr . Engen clarified that there is a General Plan Amendment that is looking at the setbacks to the creek and that it will be coming to the Planning Commission for public hearing . He stated that this amendment and the wrapping of the creekways for linear park future planning purposes will coincide with one another . Councilwoman Mackey asked the Community Development Director when the amendment would be presented to the Planning Commission to which he stated that the earliest date would be in late April . Richard Bastian, 6225 Conejo Road , asserted that the citizens are being held in the dark , that creekway property owners should have first input on creekway development and opposed the formation of a mapping committee. Leonard Dugger , 10961 Las Casitas, reported that he has seven acres on Graves Creek Road and opposed the concept of a 50 foot setback . Mayor- Dexter assured Mr . Dugger that public hearings on that issue would be held and reiterated that the current discussion was to map the area only . Sarah Gronstrand , 7620 Dei Rio Road , asked that the Council clear some of the confusion by clarifying for the public why biologists and engineers have been appointed to the committee. Henry Engen responded that currently there is a lack of good information on the creekway resource in the City. He stated that the General Plan calls for open space and protection of the creek and explained that many of the parcels are owned by the City, school district and water company . He added that the purpose of the committee is to begin putting this information together . Mr . Engen stated that two members of the committee teach natural resources and can help to assess current vegetation and aloes present in the creekway parcels . He continued that a major public analysis with a cross-section of people appointed to a CC3/i3/90 Page 10 • steering committee may later recommend plans that would be appropriate for those areas and reiterated that the proposed General Plan Amendment is a separate issue that will be brought to the Planning Commission for generous public input as it looks at questions with regard to creek bank/creek parcel setbacks , etc . Councilwoman Mackey asked the Community Development Director to clarify again the exact portion the creek that would be studied . Mr . Engen responded that the first priority is the area from the Capistrano bridge to the High School because the parcels there are owned by the City and the school district . Richard Bastian proclaimed that outside influences are coming into the community with plans of developing the creeks. He stated that he did not think the Council was being upfront with the public . Larry Sherwin, 2755 Campo Road , recapped that he and others had asked the Council to take a look at the creek and map the area, to protect those areas of the creeks that need it and leave open those that do not . He thanked the Council for establishing the committee and beginning the study of the creek . • Karen Riggs addressed the Council once again and stated that she hoped the Council would keep separate the issues of setback and access as the study is conducted . MOTION: By Councilman Lilley and seconded by Councilwoman Mackey to approve the creation of the Creekway Planning and Mapping Committee. Councilwoman Borgeson asked to discuss the motion before the vote. Ms . Borgeson stated that the public has every right to know what the Council i- doino and should ask questions if they are confused . She expressed concern that the committee to map the creek will be doing so while the proposed General Plan Amendment for a 50 foot creek setback may be going to public hearing before the Planning Commission as early as April 22, 1990. She stated that she personally could not go along with a specific 50 foot setback . Mayor Dexter asked for a voice vote on the motion to approve; which passed unanimously. CC3l13!90 Page 11 4. CREATION OF A RISK REVIEW COMMITTEE Mark Joseph gave staff report recommending that the Council endorse the concept of a Risk Review Committee and select a Council representative. Council questions followed . Mr . Joseph clarified that the Committee would have authority to reject or settle claims up to $10,000, a figure suggested by the City Attorney, thereby expediting some matters . He also explained that the committee would allow risk management to be brought to the "front burner " from the "back burner" , which would ultimately save in insurance premiums. Councilman Shiers indicated that he was wary of not having input on settlement of claims. Councilwoman Borgeson agreed stating that the full Council should have a look at all claims . Councilman Lilley was in favor of the opportunity to settle claims quickly and in the least costly way possible. Mayor De>:ter was in support of the Committee. The City Attorney advised that the committee ' s purpose would be to keep the Council apprised of the type of claims and risks that the City is facing on a day to day basis. He added that the Council can set any figure they like and that the $10,000 could be changed if they so choose. He stated that something needs to be done, however , when the City spends a half million dollars a year on liability and compensation claims . Councilman Shiers asked the Administrative Services Director for clarification of current settlement authority. Mr . Joseph responded that the City Attorney and City Manager both have authority up to $5,000. He reiterated that the Council would be rept informed of each and every claim. Councilman Lilley stated that the committee would give the Cou ncil more, not less, control . Councilwoman Mackey was in favor of the committee, but added that she would like to see a copy of every claim. MOTION: By Councilwoman Mackey and seconded by Mayor Dexter to approve the creation of a Risk Review Committee; passed unanimously by roll call vote. Mayor Dexter appointed Councilman Lilley to the Committee. CC3/ 13/40 Page 12 Is s 5. SET STUDY SESSION DATE FOR FISCAL PLANNING MODEL RFP' S Henry Engen reported that Thursday, March 29, ', 990 at 4:00 in the Club Room, City Hall , had been determined to be the best date for the study session. Brief Council discussion followed and by consensus, the above date was selected for the fiscal planning model study session. D. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION: 1 . City Council : Councilman Lilley asked that the matter of lots currently advertised for sale on Capistrano be looked at by staff to determine potential impact on the creek; by development of those lots and have the issue placed on the agenda for Council consideration. A. Committee Reports (The following represents ad hoc or tandino committees. Informative status reports will be given, as felt necessary . ) : 1 . L_it)/Schoo L,ommittee - No report . 2. North Coastal Transit - No report . D. S.L.O. Area Coordinating Council - No report . 4 . Traffic Committee Councilwoman Mackey reported that the committee would meet on Wednesday! March 21 , 5. Solid/Ha..ardous Waste Mgmt . Committee - Councilwoman !lackey reported that she and the Mayor attended the tour of Chicago Grade Landfill . b . Recycling Committee - Councilwoman Mackey reported that the Committee had met , but that she had not been in attendance but would be at the next meeting, Thursday, March 22, 1990 . Mayor Dexter announced that the Chamber cf Commerce ' s Spring Clean-up Beautification Day was scheduled for April 21 , 1990. In addition, the Mayor also requested the issue of mandatory trash pick.-up within the Urban Service Line be placed on the agenda for a future meeting . Rage 1` 7. Economic Opportunity Commission - No report . B. S. I .A. - No report . 9. Downtown Steering Committee - Henry, Engen reported that the committee had met the week prior to review the draft Downtown Master Plan. He reported that the consultant was currently modifying the draft and a future community forum-type presentation is planned . 10. General Plan Subcommittee Henry Engen reported that the next meeting is to be March 15, 1990 at 4 :00 p .m. 2. City Attorney - No report . 3. City Clerk The Clerk reported that she had verified signatures on all candidate nomination petitions earlier in the week and officially announced the candidates for City Council , City Clerk and City Treasurer- . Ms. Dayka announced that there was a citizen-at-large member vacancy on the recycling Committee and that the Clerk ' s Office was currently recruiting for that position. She =_tated that the deadline for sunmitting application=_ is to be March 19, 1990 at 5 :00 P . m. In reference to verified claims against the City, the Cle.- k advised that all claims are filed with the City Clerk ' s Office and are available to Council , as well as the staff and public , for their review. 4. City Treasurer - N;, repo: 5. City Manager - No report . THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 10: 15 P.M. UNTIL THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL ON MARCH 27, 1990 AT 7:00 P.M. M I N4 TEr9� RECORRED AND PREPARED BY: LEE DAYK4. / CITY CLERK CC3/ 13/90 Page 14 REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO AGENDA ITEM: A-3 Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 3/27/90 File No: TPM 01-90 From: Henry Engen, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Subdivision of one lot into four airspace condominiums and a common area. The four unit multiple project is currently under construction at 8315 Amapoa Avenue (David Low/Cuesta Engineer- ing) . RECOMMENDATION: Approval in accordance with Planning Commission recommendation based on the Findings contained in the staff report, dated March 6, 1990, and the attached revised Conditions of Approval . BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the above- referenced map on March 6, 1990 and recommended approval of Tentative Parcel Map 01-90 on a 7 : 0 vote subject to the Findings and Conditions of Approval with modification to Condition #3a as follows : 113 .a. Design shall include paveout on Amapoa Avenue, not less than 24 feet in width, with provision for an offset drainage Swale. This condition is subject to availability of the right-of-way. " HE:ph Attachments : Planning Commission - Revised Conditions of Approval Planning Commission Staff Report - March 6 , 1990 EXHIBIT E - Conditions of Approval s Tentative Parcel Map 01-90 8315 Amapoa Ave. (Low/Cuesta Engineering) March 6, 1990 Revised by the Planning Commission 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. Road improvement plans, prepared by a registered civil engineer, shall be submitted to and approved by the Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to the construction of public improvements. Plans shall include, but not be limited to the following: a. Design shall include paveout on Amapoa Ave. , not less than 24 feet in width, with provision for an offset drainage swale. This condition is subject to availability of the right-of-way. b. A five foot sidewalk shall be constructed along the property frontage and the existing curb and gutter shall be replaced as deemed necessary by the Engineering Division. C. Construction of the public improvements shall be completed prior to recordation of the final map. d. All public improvements shall be covered by a 100 percent Performance Bond until construction is accepted and by a 10 percent Maintenance Bond until one year after construction is complete. 4. All conditions of Precise Plan 49-89 and the approved building permits shall be satisfied prior to recording the final map. No required improvements shall be deferred to allow for occupancy of any structure. 5. 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 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. 6. A registered civil engineer shall submit written certification that all grading and drainage improvements are complete and in compliance with approved plans. 7. A drainage maintenance agreement, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, shall be incorporated within the CC&Rs. 8. The applicant shall make an offer of dedication to the City for the three feet adjacent to the right-of-way line along the property frontage. An irrevocable offer of dedication shall be made to the City for the ten feet adjacent to the rear property line for drainage purposes. The offers of dedication shall also include public utility easements. All offers of dedication shall be recorded prior to or simultaneous with the recordation of the final map. 9. The applicant shall establish Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the regulation of land use, control of nuisances, and architectural control of the site and buildings. a. These CC&Rs shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Attorney and the Community Development Director prior to approval of the final map. b. These CC&Rs shall be administered by a Condominium Owners Association. 10. The open space/common lot shall be designated as a Public Utilities Easement. 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 by a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor as required by the Land Surveyors Act and Subdivision Map Act. Monuments set within the road right-of-way shall conform to City standard drawing M-1. b. Pursuant to Section 66497 of the Subdivision Map Act the • engineer or surveyor shall notify the City Engineer in writing when the monuments have been set. C. A recently updated preliminary title report shall be submitted for review in conjunction with the processing of the final map. d. 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. CITY OF ATASCADERO Item: g_9 STAFF REPORT FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: March 6, 1990 BY: Doug Davidson, Senior Planner File No: TPM 01-90 SUBJECT: To consider a request to subdivide one lot into four airspace condominiums and a common area. The four unit multiple project is currently under construction. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Tentative Parcel Map 01-90 based on the Findings for Approval in Exhibit D and the Conditions of Approval in Exhibit E. SITUATION AND FACTS: 1. Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .David Low 2. Representative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Cuesta Engineering 3. Project Address. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8315 Amapoa Ave. 4. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0. 37 acres 5. Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .RMF-16 (FH) 6. General Plan Designation. . . . .High Density Multiple Family 7. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Four unit project under construction. 8. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Categorically Exempt (Class One) BACKGROUND: On November 9, 1989 , Precise Plan 49-89 became effective. This approval established conditions of development for a four unit multiple family project. Building permits have been issued and the project is under construction. These units are similar in appearance to the Low development at 5900 Bajada Ave. , also a four unit condominium complex. 1 ANALYSIS: As stated above, the applicant is attempting to provide a home ownership opportunity in the form of airspace condominiums. In this arrangement, the unit spaces are individually owned, while the open space and parking area is owned in common. Private agreements (CC&Rs) will ensure continued maintenance. Staff supports the creation of condominiums in this case, because the number of units involved is small and the project was originally designed as a condominium project. The provision of separate water meters, as well as the architectural design and layout of the project, confirms that conversion to condominiums was not an afterthought. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed project presented no concerns to any of the outside agencies. All standards of the FH (Flood Hazard) section of the Zoning Ordinance, including a drainage plan and soils report, have been complied with. The required public improvements triggered by this development have been reviewed and approved through the Precise Plan approval and issuance of building permits. With a corresponding subdivision approval, the required improvements must be completed before the map records or prior to final building inspection, whichever comes first. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Zoning Map Exhibit B - General Plan Map Exhibit C - Tentative Parcel Map Exhibit D -Findings for Approval Exhibit E - Conditions of Approval Exhibit F - Precise Plan 49-89 2 EXHIBIT A CITY OF ATASCADERO ZONING MAP ��;.. "�� ' COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TPM 01-90 • DEPARTMENT Ei -r i A�fv� � y co y J A ' R 4 IN c Y � 'K �!fy� SITE �a•�.,.�/1` \ \ \ .`',4 n FOS. S Vp S F•`Z' _��' L( is ' F,x STFH) ` NIRS I i 'IR &T, IA /04 -1--``'.� ' `T�'� i°' F H �� EXHIBIT B GENERAL PLAN MAP ., I AF CITY OF ATASCADERO TPM 01-90 .:_7. — COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT i --'t✓ ;.ice .,'�`,�-. b; C QM.,,.� Z�- "'�' Y CDM ^ IN + �RETAIL� ✓' �' , - Com. S ITE '.x � PUB, 10 • } ` P' �P 1` _M-qDE.RATE DEN Y :7d i apip -10{'f :-_`Pi v h .40..� 7 lz NT -HIGH D 14-SITY ST`IY);LE FAMILY, Lj _ �,N 1- PUBLIC ^ EXHIBIT C gr PARCEL MAP ' :,' CITY OF ATASCADERO ,py TPM 01-90 L-cm ' COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT it M 1L N r + � t ?;lot � a 134 tt '.'rrfi�n r 1 EXHIBIT D - Findings for Approval Tentative Parcel Map 01-90 8315 Amapoa Ave. (Low) March 6, 1990 ENVIRONMENTAL FINDING: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. (A Negative Declaration was previously prepared for the project and posted November 9, 1989) . MAP FINDINGS: 1 . The proposed map is consistent with the applicable General or Specific Plan. 2. The design and/or improvements 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, 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 design of the subdivision and/or the type of proposed improvements will not cause serious healthP roblems. EXHIBIT E - Conditions of Approval Tentative Parcel Map 01-90 8315 Amapoa Ave. (Low/Cuesta Engineering) March 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. Road improvement plans, prepared by a registered civil engineer, shall be submitted to and approved by the Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to the construction of public improvements. Plans shall include, but not be limited to the following: a. Design shall include the full width of Amapoa Ave. , 36 feet wide with curb and gutter installed on the west • side of the street. b. A five foot sidewalk shall be constructed along the property frontage and the existing curb and gutter shall be replaced as deemed necessary by the Engineering Division. C. Construction of the public improvements shall be completed prior to recordation of the final map. d. All public improvements shall be covered by a 100 percent Performance Bond until construction is accepted and by a 10 percent Maintenance Bond until one year after construction is complete. 4. All conditions of Precise Plan 49-89 and the approved building permits shall be satisfied prior to recording the final map. No required improvements shall be deferred to allow for occupancy of any structure. 5. 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 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. 6. A registered civil engineer shall submit written certification that all grading and drainage improvements are complete and in compliance with. approved plans. 7. A drainage maintenance agreement, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, shall be incorporated within the CC&Rs. 8. The applicant shall make an offer of dedication to the City for the three feet adjacent to the right-of-way line along the property frontage. An irrevocable offer of dedication shall be made to the City for the ten feet adjacent to the rear property line for drainage purposes. The offers of dedication shall also include public utility easements. All offers of dedication shall be recorded prior to or simultaneous with the recordation of the final map. 9. The applicant shall establish Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the regulation of land use, control of nuisances, and architectural control of the site and buildings. a. These CC&Rs shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Attorney and the Community Development Director prior to approval of the final map. b. These CC&Rs shall be administered by a Condominium . Owners Association. 10. The open space/common lot shall be designated as a Public Utilities Easement. 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 by a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor as required by the Land Surveyors Act and Subdivision Map Act. Monuments set within the road right-of-way shall conform to City standard drawing M-1. b. Pursuant to Section 66497 of the Subdivision Map Act the engineer or surveyor shall notify the City Engineer in writing when the monuments have been set. C. A recently updated preliminary title report shall be submitted for review in conjunction with the processing of the final map. d. 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. -*8MIW1i4RATION BUILDING ( CITY ATTORNEY POST OFFICE BOX 747 POST OFFICE BOX 749 PHONE; (805) 466.9000 ATAS . CALIFORNIA 93d23 ATASCADERO. CALIFORNIA 93423 PHONE: PHONE: (805) 466.5678 CITY COUNCIL taseade�� CITY CLERK POLICE DEPARTMENT CITY TREASURER � POST OFFICE BOX 747 CITY MANAGER INCORPORATED JULY 2. 1979 ATASCAST O CALIFORNIA 4342 FINANCE DEPARTMENT PHONE: (CA FORNII00 10 PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT �-+• PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT FIRE DEPARTMENT RECREATION DEPARTMENT 6005 LEWIS AVENUE r. ATASCADERO. CALIFORNIA 93422 PHONE: (805) 466-2141 EXHIBIT F October 26, 1989 TPM 01-90 David Low 5900 Bajada Ave. #1 Atascadero, CA 93422 RE: PRECISE PLAN 49-89 8315 Amapoa Ave. Dear Mr. Low: The City of Atascadero has received and reviewed your application for a Precise Plan and Environmental Determination for the construction of four (4) two two-bedroom units on a vacant lot at 8315 Amapoa Ave. The proposed site is zoned RMF/16 (FH) (Residential Multiple Family - High Density with a Flood Hazard Overlay) and the proposed use is allowed as defined as a multiple family dwellings (Section 9-3 . 172 (106) . The surrounding properties to the north and south are zoned the same as the subject site and are currently developed with multiple family uses . Property to the west is zoned CP (FH) (PD3) and developed with commercial uses, while property to the east is zoned RSF-Y (FH) and currently contains single family residences. A review by the Community Development Director of the environmental description form and application, along with other background information, shows that the project will have no detrimental effect upon the environment; therefore, a Negative Declaration has been prepared. The application included an engineered grading and drainage plan which addressed the requirements of the Flood Hazard Overlay. The Director has also found the project, as conditioned, to be in compliance with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed Precise Plan is approved as shown on attached Exhibit B (site plan) , Exhibit C (grading plan) and subject to the conditions of approval in Exhibit E. Final approval becomes effective on November 9, 1989, unless appealed. (NOTE: THIS DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A GRADING OR BUILDING PERMIT. ) i I I In the event you intend to appeal any of the conditions, your appeal should be in writing and should state the reasons for the appeal. Any appeal would be scheduled for Planning Commission consideration as a public hearing. You should, however, discuss any objections to the conditions with planning staff as it may be possible to alter conditions after such discussion. If you should have any questions concerning this project, you are welcome to contact the Community Development Department for assistance. Sincerely, Doug Davidson Associate Planner I DD/dd i Attachments : Exhibit A - Location Map Exhibit B - Site Plan Exhibit C - Grading Plan Exhibit D - Findings for Approval Exhibit E - Conditions of Approval Ij i. i I� ri ;I i� �r �♦ 1 EXHIBIT B CITY OF ATASCADERO SITE PLAN ISM- PLAN 49-89 ",.N"� ��» ' COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ti rl ;trt tts L 1SS-� i ,...•.a Lu x l Nc .'t rt.� S -- =:71 pis• „da, wK sa•d'r�' i�n C �. •T^'� •rr:•.l+. __ .,"a... •J IZ III t y • j ya .. J-� - �((•INI T Y TMA!•• untr ...Gd f{ 75 '.1/a•' J�'. rte/ �. {Ta tP• '� 1 CO :. '•t%A^J .t•. w.... :w Sura l;i•1 I .+. t -_AM.FMB AVE i i i EXHIBLT C � �I CITY OF ATASCADERO GRADING PLAN �� +.,� ,e .•J. PRECISE PLAN 49-89 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT i 1 .t. i r� of .w..r .r.w as• j � ' f , t :�.. U ,y n 41 LL CUE=INGnfmmmc,7 : i rn..w..w n►.rsr�w r�r�w��. + IT•�. .... ..,�/ •tl �� � wins.ws wwf.Y..rY.r A w!. �-.. �.w��_ ww•r•rri �— wYGMtl-Cr..aW qm i Exhibit D - Findings for Approval Precise Plan 49-89 8315 Amapoa Ave. (Low) ENVIRONMENTAL FINDING: The proposed project will not have a significant impact on the environment. The Negative Declaration prepared for the project is adequate. 1 . The proposed project or use is consistent with the General Plan. 2. The proposed project or use satisfies all applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. 3. The establishment, and subsequent operation or conduct of the use will not, because of the circumstances and conditions applied in the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of the general public or persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the use, or be detrimental • or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity of the use. 4 . The proposed project or use will not be inconsistent with the character of the immediate neighborhood or contrary to its orderly development. 5. The proposed use or project will not generate a volume of traffic beyond the safe capacity of all roads providing access to the project, either existing or to be improved in conjunction with the project, or beyond the normal traffic volume of the surrounding neighborhood that would result from full development in accordance with the Land Use Element. 6. The proposed project is in compliance with the City' s : Appearance Review Guidelines. • i CM EXHIBIT E - Conditions of Approval . Precise Plan 49-89 8315 Amapoa Ave. (Low) i CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. All construction shall be in conformance with Exhibit B (Site Plan) , Exhibit C (Grading Plan) , Exhibit D (Conditions of Approval) , and shall comply with all City Codes and Ordinances. Any modification to this approval requires approval by the Community Development Department prior to implementing any changes . 2 . All relocation and/or alteration of existing utilities shall be the responsibility of the developer, including, but not limited to, the joint pole in the right-of-way at the south end of the project. 3 . Grading and drainage plans, prepared by a registered Civil Engineer, shall be resubmitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval by the Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to the • issuance of any building permits. This shall include all requirements for construction in the Flood Hazard zone, including the construction of a concrete lined channel at the rear of the property to match the existing channel to I the north, south, and east. ! All drainage work shall be constructed to City standards and completed prior to final building inspection. 4 . Road improvement plans prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval by the Community Development and Public Works Departments, prior to issuance of any building permit. Plans shall include, but not be limited to: Paveout on Amapoa Ave. to a width of eighteen (18) feet from centerline to the face of curb along entire frontage. A five (5) foot sidewalk along Amapoa Ave. to match existing sidewalk at both ends of the project. A three (3) feet offer of dedication for sidewalk purposes is required along the entire frontage. The existing curb and gutter shall be removed and reconstructed as determined by the City Engineer. 1 C Construction of theP ublic road improvements shall be completed prior to the final inspection. 5. Sewer improvement and utility plans shall be submitted for review and approval by the Community Development and Public Works Department prior to issuance of building permits. Site plan shall show all proposed utilities, including sewer, electric, gas, and water. 6. All mechanical equipment (roof or ground mounted) shall be screened from public view. 7. A soils report shall be submitted with the building permit application to address the suitability of the soils for the proposed construction. B . This Precise Plan shall expire one year from the date of final approval (November 9, 1989) . A one year time extension may be granted pursuant to a written request filed prior to the expiration date as per Section (9-2 . 118) of the Zoning Ordinance. Any further one year time extensions may be approved by the Planning Commission. i 2 REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: A-4 Through : Ray Windsor , City Manager Meeting Date: 3/27/90 From: Mark Joseph , Administrative Services Director SUBJECT: Renewal of Health Insurance Policies RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Council authorize the City Manager to sign the renewal contracts for Medical , Dental , Vision and Life Insurance Coverage. BACKGROUND: As Alicia ' s memo reports, insurance costs have increased dramatically , as high as 47%. These increases were discussed at the Midyear Budget Review, and the increase was included in the budget adjustments approved at Council ' s February 27, 1990 meeting . Related to the increases, the Health Insurance Committee met to discuss possible alternatives. It was agreed that any alternative should maintain current service levels as much as possible. Staff is now surveying other cities ' coverage ( and related costs) , as well as searching for cities of our size that have self-insured . In addition, at least three local insurance brokers have expressed an interest in quoting us rates . FISCAL IMPACT: The increases were included in the Midyear adjustment . M E M O R A N D U M To : Mark A. Joseh , Director of Administrative Services From: Alicia Lara "//Personnel Coordinator Date: March 4, 1990 Subject : Health Coverage Renewal Rates/Policy Changes Per your request , I have listed the old/new rates for health coverage. The changes, (effective November 1 , 1989) , in rates for health coverage are reflected as follows: OLD RATES NEW RATES EMP +1 DEP +2 DEP EMP +1 DEP +2 DEP % CHANGE PPO 97.65 117.76 186.34 143.55 173. 11 273.92 47% HMO 88.32 98.62 198.45 106.45 119.00 237.96 20% DENTAL 19.34 16. 11 28.90 25. 14 20.94 37.57 30% VISION 5.05 5.20 8.00 5.35 5.50 8.50 6% LIFE .31 .42 .42 ..31 .42 .42 -0-% There were no changes in coverage for the HMO through CaliforniaCare at San Luis Medical Clinic . The PPO - Blue Shield coverage changes are attached. There are a few minor changes, the addition of pap smears is the most significant. Attachment :al h\newrates.89 The follaAM benefit,/oantractual cages will be made to your group c a tract and will be effective November 1, 1989: Pan Smears added as a Benefit Pap Smears are a covered benefit of your health plan. Nervous and Mental DiagZ22 sJ oaholism/Substance Abuse Benefit Description Clarified The inpatient benefit is now limited to 30 days per calendar year. The 180 day renewal provision has been eliminated. Outpatient facility charges for the psychiatric treatment of Nervous and Mental. Disorders, Alcoholism, or Substance Abuse is limited to the maxum benefit for these services. The contract and BOC language that excludes psychological testing as a benefit has been clarified. Mammogra1-Mr Benefits Clarified To be considered a covered benefit, Mammography for screening and diagnostic Purposes must be upon the referral of the patient's Doctor of Medicine. Services Fcr The Treatment Of Eating Disorders Eluded Hospitalization to treat eating disorders is not considered medically necessary and is not covered. "Cosmetic Prooedures" Replaces "Otic Surgery" as the Elusiatn Cosmetic Procedures — any surgery, service, drug or supply designed to improve the appearance of an irxiividual by alteration of a physical characteristic which is within the broad range of normal but which is considered utVleasing or unsightly. The cosmetic surgery exclusion is replaced with this exclusion for cosmetic Pte, or any resulting complications. Me City of Atascadero -3- 5 Day Notice Famnxement for Pt-L—Adm-ssicn Review Dtxer The Benefits Uhler the Benefits Management Program, the person or his physician must new ncti_`y Blue Shield of California five (5) work=q days prior to a hiospital admission. Failure to do so will result in an additional $250.00 deductible. TMeetment of Teeth Gums. Jaw-Joints or Jaw-Bodes C3arfied To be considered a covered benefit, treatment must commence wdthi.n 90 days of the date of the injury or within 90 days of the date treatment was first medically appropriate. Services must be received wi`l= one year after tIA date of in),-=y arra while the contract is in force with respect to the patient. Ambulance (SYurface and Air) Air Ambulance is now covered as part of professional ambulance services up to a Calendar Year maximum payment of $500. Surface and air ambulance services are a benefit when provided in cormec' on with treatment of illness or injury. Adoated Decedent Child(ren) The deperident child's benefits become effective on the date the adopted child is Placed in physical custody of the subscriber. 899209 zvctive Sytmry Benefits Clar�_fied To be considered a covered benefit, reocnstnac�..ive surgical services mist be received while the cant.—act is in force with respect to the Patient. Alterztative Care Services Providers Offered Preferred Status Services provided by Mane Health Cam Agencies, ;.araacy/Heme Infusion Suppliers, and F--eme Madlcal Squ puent stq:plier5 (collectively referred to as Alternative Care Services Providers) will be subject to preferred or =-pr fezred payment leve?s of this cont. Blue Shield of California will add additional _oroviders as Alternative Care Services Providers. Only Xna di i Tablets are Covered Dhder the Drtxr Hehefit M-x4- r' the Cklt•Dat3.erit Se ace PrE x ption Or-V Benefit, 1rM3.r=A3-1 r has been deleted from the list of drugs and "Mirumcidil Tablets" added. Mi=od d i i 'Topical Solution is ecnsie erect a cosmetic is drug and is ne larger a payable benefit. APPLICATION IS HEREBY MADE TO BLUE SHIELD of California (California Physicians' Service) FOR A GROUP HEALTH SERVICE CONTRACT BY - THE CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA whose main post office address is: 6500 PALMA ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA 93423 This Contract, number 917156-000 shall be effective November 1, 1989. It has been read and approved, and the terms and conditions are accepted by the Contractholder. This application is executed in duplicate. The Contractholder shall sign, date and return the original application page to Blue Shield of California, Two Northpoint, San Francisco, California 94133. The Contract shall be retained by the Contractholder. It is agreed that this application supersedes any previous application for this Contract. Dated at this day of 19 (Legal Name of Applicant) By Title As Contractholder you are responsible for communicating to Subscribers as soon as possible (and in any case no later than thirty (30) days after receipt) all changes in benefits and in any provisions affecting benefits PLEASE SIGN, DATE AND R=RN THE ORIGINAL APPLICATICIN PAGE TO BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS. RETAIN THE CONTRACT. Inquiries concerning any problems that may develop in the administration of this Contract should be directed to Blue Shield of California at the above ltlm�SLUE SHIELD of California GC-AP APPLICATION IS HEREBY MADE TO BLUE SHIELD of California (California Physicians' Service) FOR A GROUP HEALTH SERVICE CONTRACT BY THE CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA whose main post office address is: 6500 PALMA ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA 93423 This Contract, number 917156-001 DENTAL, shall be effective November 1, 1989. It has been read and approved, and the terms and conditions are accepted by the Contractholder. This application is executed in duplicate. The Contractholder shall sign, date and return the original application page to Blue Shield of California, Two Northpoint, San Francisco, California 94133. The Contract shall be retained by the Contractholder. It is agreed that this application supersedes any previous application for this Contract. Dated at this day of 19 (Legal Name of Applicant) By Title As Contractholder, you are responsible for communicating to Subscribers as soon as possible (and in any case no later than thirty (30) days after receipt) all changes in benefits and in any provisions affecting benefits PLEASE SIGN, DATE AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL APPLICAVEOF PAGE TO BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS. RETAIN THE CONTRACT. Inquiries concerning any problems that may develop in the administration of this Contract should be directed to Blue Shield of California at the above s13LUE SHIELD of California GC-AP APPLICATION IS HEREBY MADE TO BLUE SHIELD of California (California Physicians' Service) FOR A GROUP HEALTH SERVICE CONTRACT BY CITY OF ATASCADERO whose main post office address is: 6500 PALMA ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA 93422 This Contract, number F20355 VISION , shall be effective November 1, 1989. It has been read and approved, and the terms and conditions are accepted by the Contractholder. This application is executed in duplicate. The Contractholder shall sion, date and return the original application page to Blue Shield of California, Two North Point, San Francisco, California 94133. The Contract shall be retained by the Contractholder. It is agreed that this application supersedes any previous application for this Contract. Dated at this day of 19 (Legal Nave of Applicant) By Title As Contractholder jou are responsible for comunicating to Subscribers as soon as possible (and in any case no later than 30 days after receipt) all changes in benefits and in any provisions affecting benefits PLEASE SIGN, DATE AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION PAGE TO BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS. RETAIN THE CONTRACT. Inquiries concerning any problems that may develop in the administration of this Contract should be directed to Blue Shield of California at the above address. ABLUE SHIELD of California GC-AP l APPLICATION IS HEREBY MADE TO CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS' INSURANCE CORPORATION SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA for the insurance afforded by Group Policy No. 917156-001, the terms of which are hereby accepted and approved to take effect on November 1, 1989, as specified in the Policy. It is agreed that this application, which is executed in duplicate, supersedes any previous application for this Policy. Date at Applicant: _THE CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA Address: 6500 PALMA, ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA 93423 By Title AGENT PLEASE SIGN AND RETURN ORIGINAL TO CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS' INSURANCE CORPORATION CPIC IN= W F" ?7z1 SAH P-4 "� �� E 72 bvX A..��IS`� CP 94 i ZO 7 t�5 GP AP-1(2167) REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: A-5 Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 3/27/90 From: Gary R. Sims, Senior Engineer SUBJECT: Proposed Establishment Of A Typical Trench Standard RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt resolution 31-90 establishing a utility trench standard as delineated in drawing S-1, "Standard Trench Detail. " BACKGROUND: The City currently lacks a typical trench standard. In the past the City has relied on the San Luis Obispo County Engineering Department' s "Standard Improvement Specifications and Drawings" for guidelines concerning the excavation of trenches and the installation and backfill of underground pipelines in City and Colony streets and easements. City ordinances refer to "City Standards" even though there is no applicable codified "City Standard. " If adopted, the proposed standard will become one section of a series of "City" standards. DISCUSSION: Trenching and the installation of water, storm drain and sanitary sewer lines are common activities in City and Colony streets and easements. Improper compaction of trenches during the backfilling process has resulted in the formation of potholes and rough surfaces in many publicly traveled streets. This standard will be used to identify the minimum requirements necessary to prevent "sagging" trenches and to restore a street' s structural integrity following trenching. FISCAL IMPACT: These standards are already incorporated in City projects so there won't be a cost increase for these projects. There will be a decrease in road maintenance costs resulting from fewer "sagging" trenches. Enclosures: 1. Drawing No. S-1, Standard Trench Detail 2. Proposed "Resolution of the Council of the City of Atascadero Establishing a Standard Trench Detail. " (RES. N0. 31-90) RESOLUTION NO. 31-90 RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO ESTABLISHING A STANDARD TRENCH DETAIL WHEREAS, there is no existing trench detail standard for the City of Atascadero; and WHEREAS, trenching within City or Colony road rights-of- way and easements is a common activity within the City; and WHEREAS, the City has an interest in preserving the roadway pavement surfaces in a condition suitable for the traveling public; and WHEREAS, the City staff is frequently called upon to convey information concern the proper construction and finishing of trenches; and WHEREAS, the City staff must frequently refer to this information in order to review construction plans. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT: The standard trench detail for the construction and finishing of trenches within a roadway or easement shall be as delineated on the attached drawing S-1 titled "Standard Trench Detail. " The City Engineer is hereby authorized to make minor adjustments to this Standard to accommodate changing materials specifications, soil conditions or road characteristics. 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 (ATTACHMENT TO RES. 31-90) Revisions Approvals . Descriptions B Dote A roved Council Resolution No. CUT EXISTING ROADWAY TO PROVIDE VERTICAL SURFACES AND SQUARE CORNERS. CUT EDGES WILL BE STRAIGHT AND NEAT IN APPEARANCE. PROVIDE MIN 6" BENCH MINIMUM 2 INCHES INTO UNDISTURBED ASPHALT OTHERWISE ROAD BED (60TH SIDES) FINAL GRADE I.12"I MATCH EXISTING. 1' °oAo .o 95%RELATIVE COMPACTION o, o . o Zd0o � o o ° 0 o� MIN 6" CLASS 2 24" AGGREGATE BASE SEE NOTE BELOW SELECT BACKFILL FREE CONCERNING TRENCH INSTALL �r FROM DEBRIS AND IN EASEMENTS. MAGNETIC DELETERIOUS MATERIAL. TRACER TAPE 90% RELATIVE COMPACTION COMPACTED SAND OR APPROVED • GRANULAR MATERIAL. 6" MIN ` ~,' "6" MIN' 8" MAX %• 8 MAX- 6" BELOW FL I A CITY ENCROACHMENT PERMIT AND INSPECTION ARE REQUIRED FOR GREATEST O.D. DIMENSION TRENCHING IN PUBUC OR COLONY AT PIPE JOINTS RIGHTS-OF-WAY. NOTE: A MINIMUM OF 90%RELATIVE COMPACTION IS PERMITTED IN A NON-ROADWAY TRENCH WHEN NO STRUCTURES ARE TO BE BUILT OVER THE TRENCH. IF STRUCTURES ARE TO BE BUILT OVER THE TRENCH, USE RELATIVE COMPACTIONS SHOWN ON THE TRENCH SECTION ABOVE. CITY OF ATASCADERO SCALE - ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT NO SCALE •r DRAWING N0. STANDARD TRENCH DETAIL S-1 REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL • CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: A-6 Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 3/27/90 From: Gary R. Sims, Senior Engineer SUBJECT: Proposed Establishment Of A Sewer Lateral Standard RECOMMENDATION• 1. Adopt resolution32-90 establishing a sanitary sewer lateral standard as delineated in drawing S-2, "Sewer Lateral" . BACKGROUND: The City currently lacks a sanitary sewer lateral standard. In the past the City has relied on the San Luis Obispo County Engineering Department' s "Standard Improvement Specifications and Drawings for guidelines concerning the installation and specifications for sanitary sewer laterals. City ordinances refer to "City Standards" even though there are no applicable codified "City Standards. " If adopted, the proposed standard will become one section of a series of "City" standards. DISCUSSION: None. FISCAL IMPACT: None. Enclosures: 1. Drawing No. S-2, Sewer Lateral 2. Proposed "Resolution of the Council of the City of Atascadero Establishing a Sewer Lateral Standard for the Installation of Sanitary Sewer Laterals" . (RES. N0. 32-90) • RESOLUTION NO. 32-90 RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO ESTABLISHING A SEWER LATERAL STANDARD FOR THE INSTALLATION OF SANITARY SEWER LATERALS WHEREAS, there is no existing sanitary sewer lateral standard for the City of Atascadero; and WHEREAS, the installation of sewer laterals is a common activity within the City; and WHEREAS, information regarding sewer lateral installation standards is frequently requested by the public; and WHEREAS, information regarding sewer lateral installation standards is frequently used by the City staff in reviewing construction plans. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT: The installation standard for sewer laterals shall be as delineated on the attached drawing S-2 titled "Sewer Lateral. " The City Engineer is hereby authorized to make minor adjustments to this Standard to accommodate changing materials specifications and construction conditions. 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 (ATTACHMENT TO RES. 32-90) Revisions A rovals Descri tions B Date A roved Council Resolution No. GUTTER LIP GUTTER FLOW LINE� BACK OF CURB PROPERTY LINE f WATERPROOF 1/8 BEND (45') BACK OF SIDEWALK STOPPER 4" MIN DIA. -- SEAL VARIES 4" MIN• DIA. SEWER LATERAL -SIDEWALK —� 12" PLACE REDWOOD WYE OR TEE GRAPE STAKE SEWER MAIN VARIES ' AT END OF I LATERAL SEWER MAIN PLAN A CITY ENCROACHMENT PERMIT AND INSPECTION ARE REQUIRED FOR SEWER PROPERTY LINE SERVICE AND INSTALLATION. a>yr �1 ---------o•'�.e••o�'f.e• 9. I CURB & GUTTER NOTE: z LATERAL SHALL BE CAST IRON PIPE � 12" OR PVC PIPE ENCASED IN CONCRETE ° MIN LATERAL SIZE: 4" DIA. M WHEN THE COVER IS LESS THAN 36" MIN SLOPE 1/4" PER FOOT 7 OVER THE TOP OF PIPE. OTHERWISE, / PLACE REDWOOD TEE LATERAL SHALL BE SDR 35 PVC. r GRAPE STAKE AT OR WYE END OF LATERAL i i { �1/8 BEND (45') SECTION NOTES: I INSTALL I 1. S" SHALL BE MARKED ON CURB OVER LATERAL. WATERTIGHT SEAL SEWER MAIN 2. THE "S" SHALL BE STAMPED INTO NEW CONCRETE IF NOT CONNECTED AND SHALL BE CHISELED INTO EXISTING CONCRETE. TO BUILDING SEWER. 3. THE "S" SHALL BE NOT LESS THAN 3" HIGH, 2" WIDE AND 3/16" DEEP. 4. MAINTAIN MINIMUM 5' HORIZONTAL SEPARATION FROM WATER SERVICE. 5. INSTALL MAGNETIC TAPE AT A DEPTH OF 24"-32', THEN UP TO SURFACE. 6. INSTALL TRENCH ACCORDING TO STANDARD TRENCH DETAIL, S-1. CITY OF ATASCADERO SCALE ENGINEERING DIVISION NO SCALE : A DRAWING N0. tASCADEg� SEWER LA TERAL S-2 REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL Agenda Item: A-7 0ITY OF ATASCADERO Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date 3/27/90 From: Gary R. Sims, Senior Engineer SUBJECT: Proposed Establishment Of An Asphalt Concrete Drive Approach Standard RECOMMMATION: 1. Adopt resolution 33-90 establishing an asphalt concrete drive approach standard as delineated in drawing D-1, "A.C. Drive Approach" . BACKGROUND: The City currently lacks an asphalt concrete drive approach standard. City ordinances refer to "City Standards" even though there are no applicable codified "City Standards. " If adopted, the proposed standard will become one section of a series of "City" standards. DISCUSSION: Asphalt concrete driveways are installed with most residential building projects. In the past the City has experienced the following problems with driveway approaches. 1. The driveways extend into the traffic lane, thus creating a bump. 2. The driveways descend steeply to the edge of the traffic lane so that any road widening results in the undercutting of the driveway. 3. Driveways descend to the edge of the traffic lane, diverting runoff and eroded materials from the lot into the traffic lane. Water flowing along the edge of the road is diverted into the traffic lane. 4. The continuation of roadside drainage is not addressed by the contractor when constructing the driveway approach, resulting in the erosion of the road shoulder. It is intended that the proposed driveway standard will eliminate these problems for most driveway approaches. There will be some cases in very steep terrain where this standard will not be achievable. FISCAL IMPACT: None. Enclosures: 1. Drawing No. D-1, A.C. .Drive Approach" 2. Proposed "Resolution of the Council of the City of Atascadero Establishing an Asphalt Drive Approach Standard. " (RES. N0. 33-90) RESOLUTION NO. 33-90 RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO ESTABLISHING AN ASPHALT DRIVE APPROACH STANDARD WHEREAS, there is no existing driveway approach standard for the City of Atascadero; and WHEREAS, the construction of driveway approaches is a common activity within the City; and WHEREAS, information regarding the construction of asphalt driveway approaches is frequently requested by the public; and WHEREAS, information regarding the construction of asphalt driveway approaches is frequently used by the City staff in reviewing construction plans. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT: The asphalt concrete drive approach standard shall be as delineated on the attached drawing D-1 titled "A.C. Drive Approach. " The City Engineer is hereby authorized to make minor adjustments to this Standard to accommodate unusually steep terrain conditions. 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 (ATTACHMENT TO RES. 53-90) Revisions Approvals Descri tions Bv Date ApIproved Council Resolution No. R/W ' ' i i R/W VALLEY GUTTER (4' TYP.) —" - - - EXISTING DRAINAGE - - - MIN 5'RADIUS 5' EXISTING EP MIN +' W w -•- RIGHT—OF—WAY PLAN VIEW N.T.S. t PAVEMENT R/W i VARIES 25' _ VARIES _ VARIES _ MIN _ 10' MIN 8' MIN VERTICAL CURVE -�'4' MIN �f 5 EXISTING R`BED 2%(MAX) t� 2" (MIN) A.C. PROFILE VIEW 4' (MIN) CLASS 2 AGG. BASE N.T.S. A CITY ENCROACHMENT PERMIT IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. AT LEAST 2 INSPECTIONS ARE REQUIRED BY THE CITY ENGINEERING DIVISION: ONE 4' TYPICAL AFTER PLACING BASE, PRIOR TO PAVING; THE SECOND AFTER COMPLETION OF PAVING. 2'-► NOTES: 17y(MIN) 2%(MAX) 1. W= WIDTH OF DRIVEWAY RESIDENTIAL: 10' MIN - 20'MAX COMMERCIAL- 12' MIN - 35' MAX 2. TERMINATE CONCRETE DRIVEWAYS AT THE PROPERTY LINE. EXTEND ASPHALT TO EDGE OF ROADWAY. DETAIL 3. VALLEY GUTTER DEPTH AND LOCATION VALLEY GUTTER IS VARIABLE AND SHALL BE BASED UPON LOCATION AND VOLUME OF DRAINAGE. N.T.S. SEE VALLEY GUTTER DETAIL CITY OF ATASCADERO SCALE NO SCALE ■ ENGINEERING DIVISION DRAWING NO. �,AS ADERO A. C. DRIVE APPROACH D- 1 REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL • CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: A-g Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 3/27/90 From: Gary R. Sims, Senior Engineer SUBJECT: Proposed Establishment Of A Fire Access Standard RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt resolution 34-90 establishing a fire access standard as delineated in drawings D-2 and D-3, "Fire Access Standards" . BACKGROUND: The City currently lacks a fire access standard. City ordinances refer to "City Standards" even though there are no applicable codified "City Standards. " If adopted, the proposed standard will become one section of a series of "City" standards. DISCUSSION: • The City will benefit from having an adopted standard because the information contained within the proposed standard is frequently requested by the public. Also, the City staff frequently refers to the standard in order to review road and driveway construction standards. The proposed standard is in compliance with the Uniform Fire Code. The standard represents minimum fire access requirements and is not meant to supersede other road construction standards formulated to protect the traveling public. FISCAL IMPACT: None. Enclosures: 1. Drawing No. D-2 and D-3, Fire Access Standard 2. Proposed "Resolution of the Council of the City of Atascadero Establishing Fire Access Roadway and Driveway Standards. " (RES. N0. 34-90) • RESOLUTION NO. 34-90 RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO ESTABLISHING FIRE ACCESS ROADWAY AND DRIVEWAY STANDARDS WHEREAS, there is no existing City of Atascadero fire access standard; and WHEREAS, driveways and roads continue to be constructed in the City that require reference to fire access standards; and WHEREAS, information regarding fire access standards as delineated in the Uniform Fire Code and by the Fire Chief is frequently requested by the public; and WHEREAS, information regarding fire access standards as delineated in the Uniform Fire Code and by the Fire Chief is frequently used by the City staff in reviewing construction plans. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT: The fire access standard for the construction of driveways and roads shall be as delineated on the attached drawings D-2 and D- 3 titled "Fire Access Standards. " The City Engineer or the Fire Chief is hereby authorized to make minor adjustments to this • Standard to accommodate changing Uniform Fire Code requirements or as deemed necessary by the Fire Chief. This Standard represents minimum access requirements and shall not supersede other road construction standards adopted by the City Council. 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 MIKE HICKS Fire Chief (ATTACHMENT 1 TO RES. 34-90 Revisions Approvals Descri tions B Dote A roved Council Resolution No. O O 1 1 BOUNDARIES OF BUILDING, BOUNDARIES OF BUILDING, CURB, LANDSCAPED AREA, CURB, LANDSCAPED AREA, PARKING SPACE, ETC. PARKING SPACE, ETC. (SQUARE SHAPE) (SQUARE SHAPE) 20' 28' 11 li o BOUNDARIES OF BUILDING, R=48' CURB, LANDSCAPED AREA, 20, ETC. (ROUNDED OFF TO PROVIDE 28' RADIUS) R=28' I � cb 20' N O �cp. THIS STANDARD PERTAINS TO MINIMUM FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS REQUIREMENTS. CITY ROADWAY STANDARDS MAY REQUIRE APPROVED LARGER MINIMUM RADII THAN REPRESENTED TURN-AROUND HEREIN. CITY OF ATASCADERO SCALE NO SCALE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT DRAWING NO. `"S` °`R° FIRE ACCESS STANDARDS D-2 (ATTACHMENT 2 TO RES. 34-90) Revisions Approvals Descriptions ]!�A Council Resolution No. O DEAD-END FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS ROADS IN EXCESS OF 92 150' LONG SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH APPROVED PROVISIONS FOR 20' THE TURNING AROUND OF FIRE DEPARTMENT APPARATUS. b N pp - T cb o Ln 04 56' R, �cP l 120' APPROVED APPROVED TURN-AROUND TURN-AROUND ! 1 o 150' 150' 150,_ 150' 50'- 150' BUILDING BUILDING THIS EXAMPLE MEETS FIRE CODE REQUIREMENTS THIS EXAMPLE DOES NOT ACCESS ROADWAY MEET FIRE CODE REQUIREMENTS THE ACCESS ROADWAY SHALL BE EXTENDED TO WITHIN 150' OF ALL PORTIONS OF THE EXTERIOR WALLS OF THE FIRST STORY OF ANY BUILDING. ACCESS ROADWAY CITY OF ATASCADERO SCALENO SCALE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT DRAWNG NO. �tASCAD BD FIRE ACCESS STANDARDS D- 3 REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM: A-9 CITY OF ATASCADERO THROUGH: Ray Windsor , City Manager MEETING DATE: 3/27/90 FROM: Andrew Takata, Director 1 Parks Recreation and Zoo Department L144 SUBJECT: AWARD OF STREET SWEEPING CONTRACT - APRIL, 1990 - MARCH, 1993 - BID NUMBER 90-2 RECOMMENDATION: City Council award Bid Number 90-2 at an annual cost of $20,956.76 ( $15.73 per curb mile) to : Daystar Industries P.O. Box 1519 • Arroyo Grande, Ca. 93421 DISCUSSION: This item was discussed and authorized as part of the 1989/90 budget update. Daystar Industries was the lowest yearly cost four bids received , as per attached memorandum. FISCAL IMPACT• Funds sufficient to enter into the proposed contract have been allocated in fiscal year 1989/90 budget . AJT: kv ;bid90-2 • • M E M O R A N D U M TO: Andy Takata FROM: Don Leib SUBJECT : Bid No . 90-2 - Street Sweeping DATE: March 21 , 1990 Bids were received and opened by the City Clerk on March 8, 1990, 10 : 00 a .m, for providing street sweeping services for selected streets in the city . Bids received were: VENDOR COST PER MONTHLY YEARLY HOURLY CURB MILE COST COST RATE* Daystar Ind. $15 .73 $1746 .40 $20956 .76 $55 . 00 Adco Services 16 .61 1799.42 21593 . 04 40 . 00 Davenport Sweeping 27 . 69 36000. 00 75 . 00 H.D. Peterson 66 .56 41600.00 82 .50 • *Unscheduled services The Daystar Industries bid of $15 .73 per curb mile was throughout the three year contract . They propose to do the street sweeping with a 1988 model Tymco Air Sweeper . The sweeper was inspected and appears to be in good shape . The life expectancy of a sweeper is approximately 6 years . Adco, our present contractor, the second low bidder, was proposing to use a 1986 Mobil Broom-type sweeper . This recently replaced the old sweeper he was using and was an effort to improve the sweeping service . In my best opinion based upon years of experience, the broom type sweeper would perform most effectively on our streets , however, I would recommend that we give the low bidder a chance to prove the effectiveness of his air sweeper on our streets for a trial period. At the end of that time we would evaluate the overall conditions of our streets for cleanliness and Contractors performance of contract provisions . If contract provisions were being met , we would proceed as per the terms of the contract . • BID SUMMARY TO: Don Leic Public Works FROM: Lee Dayka City Clerk BID NO. 90-2 OPENED 3/8/90 10:00 A.M. PROJECT: Streeir Sweep e/ivL5 Don, attached are copies of the four bids we received for the street sweep` Universa'_ did not bid , letter is attached . MZ Below are the prices for the first year only, see each individual bid for the second and third year . Pl=ase note the big discrepancy on Mr . Peterson 's bid , he may have had some msunderstandinc , i am not sure. rDi-:iy Lane, from Daystar was hers during the bid opening . 0.7f you have any questions, let me know. Supplier: 6/ I Cost per curb mile: Total cost per year: Daystar V` }5.73 X20, 956. 76 P.O. Box 151E '(d� Q, r Arroyo Grande, CA 93421 /_/,r Kai I ��✓',� 2 ° Adco Services 16.61 21 .593.04 933 S . Greenwood Sl` Suite H Montebello , CA 90640 1--4r 'yG' °O :aCk Davenport Sweeping 27.6y' 36, 000.00 P. O. Box 9222 Bakersfield , CA 93389 /y' If-0 �Rlf H. D . Peterson G6„�/P 1 ,664 .00 We, 411600.00 P. O. Box 366 Atascadero , CA 93423 /�f V �0 J City of Atascadero Specifications and Bid Form for Street Sweeping Services Bids shall be in the office of the Cit✓ Clerk. City Administration Building. 6500 Palma Avenue . Atascadero , CA 93422 , by 10 : 00 Q .m, on March 8, 1990. Citv Council of the City of Atascadero City Administration Building 6500 Palma Avenue Atascadero . CA 93422 The undersigned proposes to furnish to the City of Atascadero . Street Sweeping Services , in accordance with the attached specifications , and in accordance with the following: COST PER TOTAL COST yj CURB MILE PER YEAR Item 1 . Street Sweeping as per (blue) 25x52=1 , 300x15. 73=20 , 449 attached map, computed on (green) 2 . 69x12=32 . 28x15 . 73=507 . 76 Twenty—five (25) curb miles beginning 4/1/90 thru 3/31/91 Cost per Curb Mile — Year 1 15 . 73 20, 956. 76 Oo Item 2 A) Street sweeping as ,per attached map, computed on Twenty—Five (25) curb miles , beginning 4/4/91 thru 3/31/92 Cost per Curb Mile — Year 2 15. 73 20, 956 . 76 B) Street sweeping as per attached map, computed on Twenty—Five (25) curb miles , beginning 4/1/92 thru 3/31/93 Cost per Curb Mile — Year 3 15 . 73 20, 956 .76 Item 3 . Hourly rate charged for out of 55. 00 contract , unscheduled sweeping. The City of Atascadero reserves the right to add additional streets to the weekly sweeping schedule using the curb mile bid as basis for additional charges . Proposed time of Sweeping P.M. to 2 :OOA.M. to completion Proposed day/days work to be accomplished Tuesdays and Brand name , type . year model sweeper proposed for contract See Below 1 . 1988 Model 600 Tymco Sweeper 2 . 1974 1TE3 Mobile Sweeper To the City Purchasing Agent : In compliance with the above invitation for bids , and subject to all the conditions thereof . the undersigned offers , and agrees , if this bid be accepted within 5 days from the date of the opening, to furnish any or all services for which prices are Quoted at the locations specified. BIDDER: AEROSTAR/ A DIVISION OF DAYSTAR INDUSTRIES BY : Dane R. Phillips TITLE: Sole Proprietor u ADDRESS: P. O. Box 1519, Arroyo Grande , CA 93421 IMPORTANT INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDER: Bids must be sealed and marked and addressed to City Clerk City of Atascadero 6500 Palma Avenue Atascadero , CA 93422 Bid No. 90-2 Street Sweeping 5-Tre-c/ .5—wct� ADDENDUM #1 BID NO. 90-2 CONTRACT STREET SWEEPING FOR THE CITY OF ATASCADERO THE PURPOSE OF THIS ADDENDUM IS TO EXTEND THE BID PERIOD TO 10 :00 A.M. . MARCH 8 , 1990 AND TO MODIFY THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT REGARDING INSURANCE AND METHOD OF CALCULATING BID PRICE. ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS ADDENDUM SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO MR. DON LEIB, SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, (805) 461-5022 All changes have been highlighted on the attached Bid Specification for clarification . NOTICE TO BIDDERS THE CITY OF ATASCADERO WILL BE ACCEPTING SEALED BIDS IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK UNTIL 10 :00 A.M. . MARCH 8, 1990 , AT WHICH TIME THEY WILL BE PUBLICLY OPENED BY THE PURCHASING OFFICER FOR THE SERVICES DESCRIBED BELOW: STREET SWEEPING SERVICES FOR SELECTED STREETS NO BID WILL BE CONSIDERED UNLESS IT IS MADE ON A BID FORM FURNISHED BY THE CITY OF ATASCADERO. ALL BIDS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE CITY COUNCIL . WHO RESERVES THE RIGHT TO REJECT ANY OR ALL BIDS. SPECIFICATIONS AND BID FORMS MAY BE OBTAINED IN THE PUBLIC: WORKS OFFICE, ROOM 204 , ADMINISTRATION BUILDING. 6500 PALMA AVENUE. ATASCADERO. CA. • CITY OF ATASCADERO office of PURCHASING AGENT 6500 PALMA AVENUE ATASCADERO. CA 93422 INVITATION TO BID BID NO. 90-2 Sealed Bids , subject to the conditions hereon . will be received at the office of the City Clerk until 10 : 00 a .m. March 8, 1990 and then publicly opened for furnishing the following service for o the Cit v of Atascadero Street Sweeping Services for the streets shown on the map provided. Intent of Specifications : It is intended that street sweeping will be provided once weekly on streets designated weekly . and once monthly on streets designated as monthly as shown on the map enclosed, beginning April 1 . 1990 through March 31 . 1993 . The sweeping will be accomplished at a time when pedestrian and vehicle activity on the streets are at the lowest level , preferably in the early morning hours before businesses are open , and at the beginning of the week to ensure that streets will be clean for the ensuing week. El Camino Real is posted "No parking 2 : 00 a .m. through 6 : 00 a .m. Tuesdays for the purpose of street sweeping. Sweeping may be accomplished in one or two shifts on two consecutive days . Preferred sweeping would be completed on Monday and Tuesday A.M. Days and 'hours of sweeping to be approved by the Director of Public Works . In the event sweeping cannot be accomplished during the approved times , the City Public Works Department shall be notified. In the event that sweeping is omitted for any week or period. the monthly billing shall reflect the reduction in service . The street sweeper shall be a late model design , in good condition , self-propelled with nozzles capable of spraying water the full width of the sweeper for dust control and the dirt hopper shall have approximately a four (4) yard effective capacity . The main pavement broom shall be approximately 36" in diameter and 58" in width , and gutter broom shall be approximately 36" in diameter , fully adjustable in the field for pressure , wear and aurter anctle , *to. provide maximum sweeping. Preferred broom construction would be steel segment gutter broom and svnthetic broom fiber in the main broom. Due to heavy accumulation of dirt , leaves and other debri on the streets seasonally and the highly irregular curb and gutter and crown on some of the streets , it is felt that a broom type sweeper will perform most effectively . Other type sweepers if bid shall be full size street sweepers , with a system to provide for dust control , standard size gutter brooms , preferably wire segment type , and adequate size hopper, approximately 4 yard effective capacity . The successful bidder shall be required to demonstrate that the sweeper to be used during the course of this contract will effectively clean the street to an acceptable standard prior to entering into a contract with the City of Atascadero . The contractor shall maintain his equipment in a crood condition to ensure that sweeping is accomplished to an acceptable standard. In the event sweeping is not performed to an acceptable standard, the City of Atascadero reserves the right to notify_ the contractor of said conditions and additional sweeping will be done at no additional charge to the City . • The name brand, type and condition of the sweeper must be submitted and approved by the Director of Public Works prior to award of the sweeping contract . It should be recognized that sections of the street may have heavv accumulations of dirt and debris and may require more than one pass to clean the street . which will be a part of the curb mile basis , but will be a part of the cost to the contractor . It shall be the responsibility of the bidder to dispose of all dirt and debris collected at the disposal site, and not on City or private property along the street . Terms : The contract period shall be for three (3) years commencing April 1 . 1990 through March 31 , 1993 . The amount bid shall be a curb mile basis for sweeping for a period of one year . Pavment for services rendered will be monthly , following receipt of invoice for prior months service rendered, within 10 days of receipt of invoice . Term of Agreement : (a) Initial Term: The initial term of this acrreement shall be from April 1 . 1990 through and including March 31 , 1993 . (b) Extension Options : Upon completion of the initial term . Atascadero , at its sole discretion , may extend the term of this agreement on a multiple year . year to year . multiple month or month to month basis , provided that changes in the terms and conditions of the extension are mutually agreed upon by both parties , not to exceed two (2) additional years . Any extension of this quotation will be based upon the quality of services rendered and the availability of City street sweeping funds . Termination : At anv time , and without cause. the City shall have the right , in it sole discretion , to terminate this agreement by giving sixty (60) days written notice to CONTRACTOR. In the event of such termination , the City shall pay CONTRACTOR only for services rendered to the effective date of termination . Standard Provisions : . The minimum compensation to be paid for all labor performed under this contract shall be the prevailing rate as determined by the Director of the Department of industrial Relations for this area . A copy of the prevailing rate of per diem wages is _ available in the Citv Clerk' s office and shall be made available to anv interested party upon request . The job site for each contract for the purpose of Section 1773 .2 of the Labor Code, shall be that designated by the Director of Public Works . A copy of the prevailing rate of per diem wages shall be posted at such designated location. Special Provisions : Contractor shall take out and maintain durina the life of this contract such public liability and property damage insurance as shall protect the City , its elective and appointive boards , officers , agents , and employees , Contractor and anv sub-contractor "Performing_ work covered by this contract from claims for damages for personal injury , including death , as well as from claims from property damage which may arise from Contractor' s or subcontractor' s operation under this contract . whether such operation by contractor or subcontractor or by anyone directly or indirectly employed by either Contractor or any subcontractors and the amounts or such insurance shall be as follows : 1) Public Liability Insurance : In an amount not less than $1 ,000, 000 for injuries, including but not limited to, death , to any one person and in an amount not less than $500, 000 for damage to the property of each person on account of any one occurrance . 2) Property Damage Insurance : In an amount of not less than $500, 000 for damage to the property of each person on account of any one occurrance . Proof of Insurance: Contractor shall furnish City on a form approved by the City Attorney , concurrently with the execution hereof, with satisfactory proof of carriage of the insurance required, which shall give adequate legal assurance that each carrier will give City at least ten day' s prior notice of the cancellation of any policy during the effective period of this contract . The undersianed, being familiar with the conditions affecting the cost of the work proposed and having examined the location of the work hereby proposes and agrees to perform all work required and to provide and furnish all required labor , necessary tools , expendable equipment , and • transportation service necessary to perform and complete in a workmanship-like manner , for the price bid herein , all the following described work. The undersigned has personally examined the proposed work and its proposed locations and is relying upon this examination as opposed to information furnished by the City and therefore releases the Citv from anv responsibility relative to the information furnished or which might be furnished by the City . Specifically including, but not limited to , any estimates of area , quantity , volume or linear measurement . City of Atascadero . Specifications and Bid Form for Street Sweeping Services Bids shall be in the office of the City Clerk. City Administration Building, 6500 Palma Avenue , Atascadero, CA 93422 . by 10 : 00 p .m. on March 8, 1990. City Council of the City of Atascadero City Administration Building 6500 Palma Avenue Atascadero . CA 93422 The undersigned proposes to furnish to the City of Atascadero . Street Sweepina Services , in accordance with the attached specifications , and in accordance with the following: COST PER. TOTAL COST CURB MILE PER YEAR Item 1 . Street Sweeping as per attached map, computed on Twenty-five (25) curb miles beginning 4/1/90 thru 3/31/91 Cost per Curb Mile - Year 1 Item 2 . A) Street sweeping as per attached map, computed on Twenty-Five (25) curb miles , beginning 4/4/91 thru 3/31/92 Cost per Curb Mile - Year 2 B) Street sweeping as per attached map, computed on Twenty-Five (25) curb miles , beginning 4/1/92 thru 3/31/93 Cost per Curb Mile - Year 3 Item 3. Hourly rate charged for out of contract , unscheduled sweeping. The City of Atascadero reserves the right to add additional streets to the weekly sweeping schedule using the curb mile bid as basis for additional charges . Proposed time of Sweeping P.M. to A.M. Proposed day/days work to be accomplished and Brand name , type, year model sweeper proposed for contract To the City Purchasing Agent : In compliance with the above invitation for bids , and subject to all the conditions thereof , the undersigned offers , and agrees , if this bid be accepted within days from the date of the opening, to furnish any or all services for which prices are quoted at the locations specified. BIDDER: BY : TITLE: ADDRESS: IMPORTANT INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDER: Bids must be sealed and marked and addressed to : City Clerk Citv of Atascadero 6500 Palma Avenue Atascadero , CA 93422 Bid No . 90-2 Street Sweeping REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: B_1 Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 3/27/90 File No: TPM 22-89 From: Henry Engen, Community Development Director }Lt: SUBJECT: Appeal on behalf of David Long and C.L. Knowles by Volbrecht Surveys of Planning Commission' s denial of Tentative Parcel Map 22-89 (7900/8000 Santa Cruz Road) . RECOMMENDATIONS : 1 . Staff recommendation was to approve Tentative Parcel Map 22- 89 based on the Findings for Approval in Exhibit D and the Conditions of Approval in Exhibit E of the attached Planning Commission staff report, dated February 20, 1990 . 2 . Planning Commission recommends denial based on the Findings or Denial adopt by the Planning Commission in the attached Exhibit D (as amended and adopted) . BACKGROUND: At their February 20, 1990 meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed this proposed subdivision of two parcels into three residential lots . The Commission, on a 6 : 1 vote denied the project based on the Findings for Denial included herewith. ANALYSIS : The appealants are requesting to subdivide two parcels containing a total of approximately 10 . 27 acres into three residential lots of 3 . 39 acres each (excluding accessways) . As indicated in the attached Planning Commission minutes excerpts, the key issues were the calculations in determining average slope and the crea- tion of flag lots . The attached Letter of Appeal contests the Findings for Denial of the Planning Commission. HE :ph Enclosures : Letter of Appeal, received March 6, 1990 Staff Report - February 20, 1990 Exhibit D - Findings for Denial Planning Commission Minutes Excerpts - Feb. 20, 1990 CC : Allen Volbrecht Ibrecht -' S U R V E Y S 7508 Morro Rd. Atascadero, CA 93422E 805/466-9296 March 5, 1990 City of Atascadero - 6500 Palma Avenue Atascadero, California 93422 Community Development Department _ SUBJECT: Tentative Parcel Map 22-89 7900/8000 Santa Cruz Road At their February 20, 1990 meeting the Planning Commission voted to deny Tentative Parcel Map 22-89 for the following reasons: MAP FINDINGS: 1. The proposed map is not consistent with the applicable General or Specific Plan. 2. The site is not physically suitable for the proposed type of development. 3 . The site isnot physically suitable for the proposed density of development. FLAG LOT FINDINGS: 1. The subdivision is not consistent with the character of the immediate neighborhood. 2. The flag lot is not justified by topographical conditions. We feel that the findings for approval on the original staff report were sound for the following reasons: MAP FINDINGS: 1. The size and configuration of the proposed lots is consistent with the lots surrounding the proposed development. 2. Our proposed development of the property meets the City's development criteria. Access to the rear parcel meets the City's design standards and accesses a . beautiful building site without removing any trees by Surveying Land Planning -�aasis ` utilizing a short stretch of access easement onto parcel 1. This easement consists of 0.008 acres which is excluded from the area shown on the tentative map for parcel 1. If necessary, the parcel lines could be adjusted to include that portion of the driveway within parcel 3 . 3 . There are two existing residences on the property. The proposed parcel is presently not utilized. The proposed parcel meets the minimum parcel size criteria for the area and is similar in size and shape to other parcels in the immediate vicinity. FLAG LOT FINDINGS: 1. There are other flag lots in the immediate vicinity. Since these lots abutt the Colony Boundary and some are more than three times as deep as they are wide, creating a flag lot leaves excellent separation between the dwellings on each parcel and allows a buffer between traffic on Santa Cruz Road and children playing on the rear parcel. 2. There is a beautiful building site at the rear of the property. Since access has to be taken from Santa Cruz Road the flag lot is the most practical way to develop the parcel. Therefore, at this time we wish to appeal the action taken by the Planning Commission. Sincerely, . UJ1Jk— Alan L. Volbrecht L.S. 5201 CITY OF ATASCADERO Item: B • 1 STAFF REPORT FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: February 20, 1990 BY vP Steven L. Decamp, City Planner File No: TPM 22-89 SUBJECT: Request to divide two (2) parcels containing a total of approximately 10 .27 acres into three (3) residential lots of 3.39 acres each (excluding accessways) . RECODMENDAT I ON: Staff recommends approval of Tentative Parcel Map 22-89 based on the Findings for Approval in Exhibit D and the Conditions of Approval in Exhibit E. SITUATION AND FACTS: 1 . Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .David Long & C. L. Knowles 2 . Representative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Volbrecht Surveys 3. Project Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7900/8000 Santa Cruz 4 . General Plan Designation. . . . . Suburban Single Family 5. Zoning District . . . . . . . . . . . . . .RS (Residential Suburban) 6. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 .27 acres 7 . Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Parcel 1 - SFR Parcel 2 - SFR Parcel 3 - Vacant 8 . Environmental Status . . . . . . . . .Negative Declaration posted January 29, 1990 ANALYSIS: The application before the Commission proposes the subdivision of two (2) parcels containing a combined total of approximately 10 .27 acres into three (3) lots containing 3 .39 acres each (the additional 0 .40 acres is located within the accessway for Parcel 3 and is excluded from the total lot size) . The General Plan designates this property for "Suburban Single Family" development . The property is located within the RS zoning district, which is consistent with its General Plan designation. This zoning district has a minimum lot size that ranges between • 2 .5 and 10 . 0 acres depending on the "score" of the performance factors specified in the Zoning Ordinance. For the area in which this proposal is located, the lot size performance factors and the related scores are: FACTOR SCORE Distance from Center of Town 0 .75 Septic Suitability 0 .75 Average Slope 0 .75 Access Condition 0 . 40 Neighborhood Character 0 .74 Minimum Lot Size 3 . 39 acres The lots proposed by this application are, therefore, larger than the minimum lot size allowed by the Zoning Ordinance for this neighborhood. The property proposed for subdivision is partially developed. Proposed Parcels 1 and 2 both contain single family dwellings. Proposed Parcel 3 is vacant . Other properties in the surrounding area are developed for similar, relatively large-lot residential use. The average lot size of parcels within 1500 feet of this site is 3 .73 acres. This is slightly larger than the lots proposed by this application. The design of the proposal before the Commission results in the creation of a "flag" or deep lot subdivision. Section 11-8 .209 of the City' s Subdivision Ordinance provides design standards for deep lot subdivisions as well as "Findings" which must be made prior to the approval of such a subdivision. The Commission must consider the proposal and make the following findings if the subdivision is to be approved: "1 . The subdivision is consistent with the character of the immediate neighborhood. 2 . The installation of a standard street, either alone or in conjunction with neighboring properties is not feasible. 3. The flag lot is justified by topographical conditions. " With regard to Finding #1, Exhibits A and B show the size and configuration of the parcels in the area around the proposed subdivision. As can be seen, the proposed lots are similar in size and configuration to the other existing lots in the neighborhood, particularly those on the north side of Santa Cruz 0 2 Road. In addition, there are other deep lot subdivisions that have been approved by the City in proximity to the current proposal . Finding #2 suggests that the installation of a standard City street might be preferable to the creation of a flag lot. In this case however, the provision of a driveway, with the elimination of an existing encroachment, will be less disruptive and will require less grading. The provision of a City-standard street to serve a single dwelling unit is not a defensible requirement for this proposal . The final "Finding" requires consideration of topographical conditions . With this proposal, the consideration needs to be directed more to the configuration of the existing lots and the placement of the dwelling units on those lots. Both of the existing parcels exceed the three to one lot depth to width ration imposed on newly created lots by the Subdivision Ordinance. Given this fact, and the placement of the existing development on the lots (see Exhibit C) , the remaining developable area is to the rear as proposed. There are no "topographical" impediments to the proposed lot configuration or to development on the rear lot . As indicated above, both of the existing lots exceed the 3: 1 lot depth to width ratio imposed on the creation of new lots. The • configuration of the proposed subdivision will result in Parcel 2 remaining in excess of the 3: 1 ratio. This does not appear to be of particular concern in this case, however, because further division of the lot will be precluded by the Zoning Ordinances minimum lot size requirements. In this case, Staff believes that the "Exception Findings" listed in Exhibit D can and should be made. CONCLUSIONS: The design of the proposed subdivision is in general conformance with the City' s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The proposed new home site can be developed in conformance with existing and anticipated neighborhood character and without adverse impact on surrounding parcels. The flag lot "Findings" required by the Subdivision Ordinance can be made. Finally, the size and character of the proposed lots is consistent with the other lots in the vicinity of the subdivision. SLD/ ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - General Plan Map Exhibit B - Zoning Map Exhibit C - Tentative Parcel Map Exhibit D - Findings for Approval Exhibit E - Conditions of Approval 3 EXHIBIT A CITY OF ATASCADERO TPM 22-89 997s ��; COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT General Plan Map DEPARTMENT watt i li ut } f '9f ri Alto 1 tiak h z a y Y j H � a F o Atl' EXHIBIT C CITY OF ATASCADERO � .�., : .• • .�, TPM 22-89 ` "19 7 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tentative Map DEPARTMENT AIM s 1 }Irr \ i S \ EXHI$IT D - Findings for Approval Tentative Parcel Map 22-89 7900/8000 Santa Cruz (Long/Knowles) February 20, 1990 ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS: The proposed project will not have a significant impact on the environment . The Negative Declaration prepared for the project is adequate. MAP FINDINGS: 1 . The proposed map is consistent with the applicable General or Specific Plan. 2 . The design and/or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the applicable General or Specific Plan. 3 . The site is physically suitable for the proposed type of development . 4 . The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of • development. 5. The design of the subdivision, and/or the proposed improvements, will not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish and wildlife or their habitat . 6. The design of the subdivision, and the type of improvements, will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision; or substantially equivalent alternate easements are provided. 7 . The design of the subdivision and/or the type of proposed improvements will not cause serious public health problems . Flag Lot Findings: 1 . The subdivision is consistent with the character of the immediate neighborhood. 2 . The installation of a standard street, either alone or in conjunction with neighboring properties is not feasible. 3 . The flag lot is justified by topographical conditions. Exception Findings: . 1 . The property to be divided is of such size or shape, or is affected by such topographic conditions, that it is impossible, impractical or undesirable, in this particular case., to conform to the strict application of the regulations in the Subdivision Ordinance. 2. The cost to the subdivider of strict or literal compliance with the regulations is not the sole reason for granting the modification. 3. The modification will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, or be injurious to other properties in the vicinity. 4 . Granting the modification is in accord with the intent and purposes of these regulations, and is consistent with the General Plan and with all applicable specific plans or other plans of the City. EXHIBIT E - Conditions of Approval Tentative Parcel Map 03-89 7900/8000 Santa Cruz (Long/Knowles) February 20, 1990 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1 . Water shall be obtained from the Atascadero Mutual Water Company. Water lines shall exist at the frontage of each parcel prior to recordation of the final map. 2 . All existing and proposed utility, pipeline, open space, or other easements are to be shown on the final map. If there are building or other restrictions related to the easements, they shall be noted on the final map. 3. Obtain an encroachment permit from the Atascadero Public Works Department and sign an agreement guaranteeing that the work will be done and the inspections paid for, prior to the start of public works construction. Construction of the improvements within the public right-of-way required herein shall be completed prior to recording the final map. 5. The existing driveway serving Lot 39 (Parcel 1) shall be abandoned, redesigned, and reconstructed to enter the lot from the accessway to Parcel 3. The abandoned driveway area shall be regraded to approximate original contours. 6. An easement for access to Parcel 1 shall be created across the affected area of Parcel 3. 7. Parcel 1 shall have no direct access to Santa Cruz Road. Relinquishment of access rights shall be noted on the final map. 8 . All graded and regraded areas shall be seeded or landscaped to match adjacent vegetation. 9. All relocation and/or alteration of existing utilities shall be the responsibility of the developer. 10 . Drainage facilities in the public right-of-way shall be constructed to City of Atascadero standards. All work shall be completed prior to the final inspection of road improvements . 11 . An offer of dedication to the City of Atascadero for the following right-of-way is required: is Street Name: Santa Cruz Road Limits : 20 feet from centerline 12 . Offers of dedication shall be completed and recorded prior to or simultaneous with the recordation of the final map. 13. A final map drawn in substantial conformance with the approved tentative map and in compliance with all conditions set forth herein shall be submitted for review and approval in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and the City' s Subdivision Ordinance prior to recordation. a. Monuments shall be set at all new property corners created and a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor shall indicate, by certificate on the final map, that corners have been set or shall be set by a date specific and that they will be sufficient to enable the survey to be retraced. b. A recently updated preliminary title report shall be submitted for review in conjunction with the processing of the final map. C. A preliminary subdivision guarantee shall be submitted for review in conjunction with the processing of the final map. 14 . Approval of this tentative map shall expire two years from the date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted pursuant to a written request prior to the expiration date. EXHIBIT D - Findings for Denial Tentative Parcel Map 22-89 7900/8000 Santa Cruz (Long/Knowles) February 20,1990 (as amended and adopted) MAP FINDINGS: 1 . The proposed map is not consistent with the applicable General or Specific Plan. 2 . The site is not physically suitable for the proposed type of development. 3. The site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development. Flag Lot Findings: 1 . The subdivision is not consistent with the character of the immediate neighborhood. 2 . The flag lot is not justified by topographical conditions. 5 ITEM : A-2 \ MEET, s DATE : 3/3/90 MINMES ATASCADERO PLANNING COMMISSION Regula Meeting , Tuesday\February 20, 1990 7:30 p.m. Atascadero Administration Building The regular meeting of the Atascadero Planning Commission was called to order`'#t 7:30 p.m. by Chairperson Lochridge, followed by the Pledge of 'Allegiance. ROLL CALL \, Present: Commissioners Waage, Lopez-Balbontin, Luna, Highland, Hanauer, Brasher\and Chairperson Lochridge Absent: None Staff Present: Steven Decamp, City Planner; Doug Davidson, Senior Planner;' Mike' Sullivan, Assistant Planne Pat Shepphard Administrative Secretary PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment. A. CONSENT CALENDAR � 1 . Appiyoval of minutes of the regular PlannihV Commissio meeting of February 6, 1990 Com ssioner Brasher stated she had not yet received, the m utes. It was decided to postpone this item to the Marc 1990 meeting. B. HEARINGS, APPEARANCES, AND REPORTS 1. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 22-89 : Application filed by Davi Long and C.L. Knowles to subdivide two parcels containing a total of approximately 10.27 acres into three residential lots of 3.39 acres each (excluding accessways) . Subject site is located at 7900/8000 Santa Cruz Road. Steve DeCamp presented the staff report. He corrected an error in the staff report concerning acres located within the accessway. There are two areas provided for access that are excluded from the overall lot size determination. They are .008 acres (grading easement) , and .08 acres (flag portion of Parcel 3) . Staff is recommending approval subject to 14 conditions . PAGE TWO Commission questions and discussion followed. Commissioner Lopez-Balbontin expressed concern with the flag lot finding pertaining to this subdivision being consistent with the character of the immediate neighborhood. Mr. Decamp explained that this finding was based not strictly on the number of flag lots but on the size of the lots. Discussion followed. Commissioner Luna referenced Section 9-3 . 144 of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to performance standards (for determining average slope) and noted he computed the slope in three different ways and came up with 23%, 27%, and 24% for the proposed lot. Mr. DeCamp explained the process by which lot size is typically determined which uses the average cross slope of the property. Discussion continued. Commissioner Luna inquired whether the cumulative effects of flag lots in this aresare being taken into consideration. Alan Volbrecht, agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the recommendation. He addressed Commissioner Brasher' s inquiry concerning staking of the lot. in responding to Commissioner Luna' s comments on flag lots, Mr. Volbrecht reminded the Commission that this is an application for one particular project and not an overview of the entire area or city. Mr. Volbrecht stated that the policy for determining slope has always been to consider average slope over the original parent parcels. In response to question from Commission Waage, Mr. Volbrecht explained that the access easement from Parcel 1 to Parcel 3 was designed to keep the development to one side of the property, allows the maximum use of the original lot. In response to question from Commissioner Brasher concerning water run-off from Parcel 3 , Mr. Volbrecht remarked that issue will be mitigated when the engineered design for drainage is approved as part of the building permit approval . Steve LaSalle, area resident, stated it was his understanding from past joint Council/Commission meetings that flag lots were not supported and these types of lots should be scrutinized very closely. He added he was not so sure this map meets close scrutiny. Mr. Volbrecht indicated that over six months of development was involved with the design of this project and was not something that was arrived at overnight; he considered this project to be in conformance with other lot sizes in the area PAGE THREE John McNeil, area resident, referenced the ordinance section applicable in averaging the slope stating the section is quite clear in its restrictions. He advised that if this map is scheduled for Council approval, that the Commission include a recommendation in approving the map that the City Attorney render an opinion regarding the applicability of the ordinance. Commissioner Waage stated he has a problem with a portion of the access easement going onto property (Parcel 1) which is not owned by Parcel 3 . Commissioner Lopez-Balbontin expressed concern with the proposed lots being being smaller than the average size lots in the area which is why he would not be able to support Flag Lot Finding i(1 . Mr. Volbrecht clarified that the access is owned in fee across Lot 1 to access the back lot. Mr. DeCamp explained that the loop on the map follows the "toe of the slope" which is .008 acres adding this is the only area where any portion of that accessway needs the easement on the adjacent lot (which is only for the slope) . Discussion continued. MOTION: Made by Commissioner Luna to direct staff to bring back findings for denial of Tentative Parcel Map 22-89 . Chairperson Loehridge stated that in some extreme cases, flag lots may be desirable although he did not see this split as being desirable. He added he would also have difficulty in making the flag lot findings. Commissioner Hanauer stated that if flag lots are not considered in situations like this, the City will end up with many land-locked pieces. This map is a perfectly legitimate development for a flag lot solution and added he concurs with staff' s calculations of the slope. Commissioner Lopez-Balbontin indicated that he would support Commissioner Luna' s motion if it is amended to include findings for denial at this time. Commissioner Luna amended the motion to make the following findings for denial of Tentative parcel Map 22-89 and Commissioner Lopez-Balbontin seconded the motion: (Map Findings) 1 . The proposed map is not consistent with the applicable General or Specific Plan. PAGE FOUR 2 . The site is not physically suitable for the proposed type of development. 3. The site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development. (Flag Lot Findings) 1 . The subdivision is not consistent with the character of the neighborhood. 2 . The flag lot is not justified by topographical conditions . The motion carried 6 : 1 with Commissioner Hanauer dissenting. ' TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 25-89 : `.� Application filed by Glen Lewis, at al (North Coast , Engineering) to subdivide one parcel (6 .7 acres) into '.our lots of 2 . 17, 1 .60, 1 .67 and 1 .25 acres each. The proposal also includes the creation of 81 commercial condominium units. Subject site is located at 5805 Capistrano Avenue (Hotel Park). Doug Davidson presented the staff report and provided a background concerning the prior precise plan approval for this property. He'.noted that staff is not concerned with the ownership of this property, but with the orderly development of the site, in light of previous project approvals. Staff is recommending "approval subject to eight conditions. Commission questions and dis-cussion followed. Commissioner Luna asked questions relative to vesting commercial maps and estimated time 'frames for completion of the various phasings .for the map; he 'expressed concern withi the timeliness of the completion of the ,project. Mr. Davidson responded that the map approval is tied together with �the precise plan in assuring that all necessary requirements will be complied with. There was" continued discussion relative to project commitment concerning the amount of work to date which has included substantial site grading. Commissioner Luna inquired whether any provisions have been made for passive and natural heating and cooling design for the buildings . Mr. Davidson responded that the Subdivision Ordinance contains a guideline for the orientation of the buildings. In this case, all four of the lots do not meet REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: B-2 Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 3/27/90 Via: Henry Engen, Community Development Director From: Lisa Schicker, City Arborist SUBJECT: Consideration of a request to remove one heritage tree, a 34" dbh Quercus agrifolia by Brian Sword of the City of Atascadero' s Parks Department. The oak is located 500' northwest of 13600 Old Morro Road. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the the arborist' s reports, the condition and form of this tree, approve removal with a two to one replacement. Please see additional comments in analysis section of this report. BACKGROUND: The Tree Ordinance specifies that live native trees 20" or greater dbh (measured 4 ' above grade) are deemed heritage trees and cannot be removed unless approved by the City Council following a public hearing. The tree was inspected by the City arborist and was inspected and photographed by Brian Sword, City of Atascadero Parks Department and certified arborist D.O. Denney. ANALYSIS: The Quercus agrifolia is located within the public right of way on Old Morro Road; its condition is poor and declining; it is leaning over the road and presents a potentially dangerous situation to cars traveling along the road. In the long run, the City could benefit by removing this tree and replacing it with healthy, new ones . I would be happy to work with the Parks Department on selecting and planting replacement trees for this location. what follows is a set of replanting guidelines that are included with every tree removal request: 1 . Choose 2, 15 gallon - sized oaks (Q. agrifolia) for the heritage tree to be removed. 3 . Inspect the trees for encircling roots (roots that wrap around the pot have a poorer chance of straightening out and growing right in the ground. 4 . When planting, make sure that the roots have been untangled, straightened and loosened as much as possible. 5 . Plant in a hole at least twice as big as the pot, and use native soils in the hole. 6 . Provide the tree with deep watering - meaning a slow, gradual and long watering (which encourages downward root growth to anchor the tree) . Provide one deep watering in late spring and two in the summer. If drip irrigation is used, do long, slow waterings applying 10-20 gallons over a three-four hour period. 7 . Protect the young trees from wildlife or vandalism with some kind of fencing - both above and below ground if possible; welded wire fencing of at least 4 feet in height above ground and one two feet below ground (I can provide some specs if needed) . Attachments : Location Map Application Arborist report cc Andy Takata and Brian Sword J I n• r IM Rd. gob �V / ��� � / �• 1--t /r.; ° as Utc- 1 92 d d. 7 ..W+• tib. .'�'j r A irq �b /k • .. 9 ^Arne. Z...�r `� lGra+�.C•re�ek ao dl i f � ./ a n e ; \'� Sq N,. F d.•ruff r d0 r d d, � < 3. .� !F r Road ' san Ansnf°jo Oa a gdnryJ •p Sang ^r ,?^f'Cr` -�'n ,.,.M1 � \ �� r a •„n, yh ^� _ Qa � ^,f �1 S 9 g ._.a\do fi�,r A a`bC r t.� � > f'^f•a.1f% mo • fro •9 or,,. :Wr �' \ � /• C.(' ".c� �•,W �sta� a �u; � ._.. .. "� AOAb� �( �';iy ar 44tr•w±r. 4r 9jdn,dJlo'r`+d n.. yyy e i 311N3nr < o srr y p•. i I \ = o lir„r n�n( O `�� m�� p ..D nC.n°,1 L��r �'r���• (_�. ErC rale 4 C� I 1'd r t x p e a -�n(.f rand � •a.a<9. • o�P 4P�. �, �1 C i nlrtni rr� n'^ry .y�... dS` p4A,° yJ n p� •f� •°Aed ) � 3 O,;d4, nh 4�,� r 4, al I a v 9 �4.'� 'a oma^ 9 • \ er .(• g, eunggq� d �• r0 .9 t , i \s / I c • c a \ 1 ' d I y f \���>�q� r anrnA c/,°o°•�'�'� S� � y t:� T rn0 5 �a�• � i pd0 � po /a.. '3 I '� ;n��' p• n f d ^ `°y AVENUE r f *> ` 7 I ` ' ff/=_�=�ililpl _r= + Tree Removal Permit Application .3. \`( e i cin. ; 116 r1 {� Supplemental Information inai a r, �' c fa%n "'ErTIM ��'1.SC11►Dr�� MAR 121999 W,AITY DEVELOPMENT (Please type or print in ink) Reason for Removal : This White oak tree is 1 anina off ba ante and is strucurally weak. Number of Trees to be Removed: one (11 Specify the size (measured 4 ' above ground level ) , species (both common and botanical name) and condition of each tree to be removed: Size Species Condition Recommendation 1 . 34" White oak Poor Remove 2• (Quercus aQrifolia) i 3. 4. 5. Specify the size and species of the trees proposed to replace those intended for removal : 1 . 2. 3. • 4 . 5. Please prepare a "Plot Plan" showing all improvements on your property, trees to be removed , trees to remain, and the proposed location of replacement trees as per the attached example. Own Arborist #391 Certificate Number 3/6/90 Date Date ATTACH ALL CORRESPONDENCE HERE Photographs : Remember to date, designate direction facing camera, explain each photo and number accordingly. 00 ��IJ l�Ch/�n X X � � � �1,��-c ta� �:,t �•G .��,vvt:y �1��� �I,c'�-c �'a�e,h b C, {f�c�,�L ifr etc ` I S maty and Recommendations : h.1 A ���s� a `'� c a+r-,jS C)c ` ti%c�- 13 k-0C T �or� DC_•ss tLi. REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: B-3 Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 3/27/90 Via: Henry Engen, Community Development Director From: Lisa Schicker, City Arborist SUBJECT: Consideration of a request to remove one heritage tree, a 52" dbh Quercus agrifolia by Don Messer. The oak is located at 8981 La Linia behind unit A. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the the arborist' s reports, and the condition of this tree, approve removal with a four to one replacement in the vicinity of the removal . Please see additional comments in analysis section of this report. BACKGROUND : The Tree Ordinance specifies that live native trees 20" or greater dbh (measured 4 ' above grade) are deemed heritage trees and cannot be removed unless approved by the City Council following a public hearing. The trees were inspected and photographed by certified arborist D.O. Denney and the City Arborist on separate occasions . ANALYSIS: The Quercus agrifolia is located in a small square of dirt surrounded by asphalt behind commercial rental units A - D. It is no wonder that the tree is dying, attempts to preserve this tree during the design or construction phases of this project probably were not taken. This is another good example of where a pre-design consultation with the City Arborist might have helped. Even small changes, such as gravel instead of asphalt in the tree root zone or soils aeration may have helped keep this tree alive. If healthy, this old tree could have provided wonderful shade for children attending the School of Gymnastics for years to come - instead there is a potential hazard to their health. Therefore, the City would benefit by allowing the removal of this tree and requesting replacements. I discussed this heritage tree and the issue of planting replacement trees with applicant Don Messer. He explained to me that an extremely high water table in this area (which caused sewer line adjustments) and the original engineering of the building caused most of the problems for this tree; water tends to pool in the area of the trees roots 0 which, along with the asphalt covering the roots and grading for the building, have all contributed to its demise. I suggested that four replacement trees be planted across the asphalt drive from the removal site, adjacent to the sign that identifies this commercial project, and Mr. Messer was quite agreeable. This tree planting would complement the plantings that Chris 3esperson will also be doing along this commercial strip of land that is adjacent to the highway. What follows is a set of replanting guidelines that are included with every tree removal request to assist the applicant in proper tree planting: 1 . Choose 4, 15 gallon - sized oaks (Quercus agrifolia) for the heritage tree to be removed. 3 . Inspect the trees for encircling roots (roots that wrap around the pot have a poorer chance of straightening out and growing right in the ground. 4 . When planting, make sure that the roots have been untangled, straightened and loosened as much as possible. 5 . Plant in a hole at least twice as big as the pot, and use native soils in the hole. 6 . Provide the tree with deep watering - meaning a slow, gradual and long watering (which encourages downward root growth to anchor the tree) . Provide one deep watering in late spring and two in the summer. If drip irrigation is used, do long, slow waterings applying 10-20 gallons over a three-four hour period. 7 . Protect the young trees from wildlife or vandalism with some kind of fencing - both above and below ground if possible; welded wire fencing of at least 4 feet in height above ground and one - two feet below ground (I can provide some specs if needed) . I am also recommending that all applicants that remove trees and provide replacements provide the City with proof of tree planting, either through the landscape receipt or photograph. These records can be kept in the office of the City Arborist. Attachments: Location Map Application Arborist report cc Don Messer COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION ."'m " 6500 Palma Ave. seenR �:�E P.D. Box 747 Atascadero, CA 93423 (805) 466-8000 J APPLICATION FORM Please type or print in ink Owner : -16Y M P_C.Sr Y Agent : Address: Pb L4* 14 J-4 Address t ,QJA.r. CA Phone #: 46 l _pSyg Phone #: Applicant : Doff 1&P-JZcr Address: Phone #: /ego h�zl� Project Description: Q / Existing Use: Project Address: L4 ,�(nf A Legal Description: Lot(s) ; Block ; Tract Assessors Parcel No(s) : DS7n -US'I -,Da j I/We consent to the filing of this application and declare that this application and related documents are true and correct. (NOTE: The signature of the property owner is required on the application before it will be accepted for processing. ) Owner Agent :>Date Date ar For Staff r �, Use Only t =.-Fee t Receipt #: .. ryV t++l p •YC,2 10 r ssT �'ta ': .. Tree Hemovac Permit Application 1 i(•"-'-°i" ;. ivrl Supplemental Information �.�?�isCcli►ttt�' (Please type or print in ink) neaaon for Removal : This oak tree is at least 60% dead and declininq. A large portion U1 Lile-se dead limbs are over a pa to area U1 t e AT asca rinrn 00 o tunas lcs--Toca e a Ave. a rola Number of Trees to be nemoveds one (1 ) Specify t1le size (measur-ed 4 ' above ground level ) species (both removed; common and botanical name) and condition 'of each tree to be Size Species Condition ' Recommendation 1 . 52" California live oak Poor 2. Quercus aarifo is Remove 3. Specify tl,e size and species of the trees proposed to replace those intended for removals 1 . _Replace with 15 gallon size native variet 2. 3. J. 5 ' s Plerlse prepare a 'Plot Plan" showing all improvements on your Property, trees to be removed, trees to remains and the proposed location of replacement trees as per the attached example. Owner � - Arborist #391 Certificate Number Da to 3/6/90 Date tN '^ / IRS 1 Ir� Ile-c-LPJ #1 A},a ck�Cf0 ��co�o(�ir,nn.►�ts s .J REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO , Agenda Item: B-4 Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 3/27/90 Via: Henry Engen, Community Development Director From: Lisa Schicker, City Arborist SUBJECT: Consideration of a request to remove one heritage tree, a 24" Quercus agrifolia, (as well as seven non-heritage size Quercus douglasii, one Quercus agrifolia and one tree-sized limb from a heritage Quercus lobata) as part of an application for a road extension to access four colony lots at Atajo Road west of Chauplin Road. RECOMMENDATION: 0 sed on evaluation of field conditions, inspection of the lots and current ree and zoning ordinances, approve heritage removal subject to 3 :1 , same species replacement planting and the other eight trees and one large limb at a 2 : 1 same species replacement. Please see additional comments . BACKGROUND : The tree ordinance specifies that live native trees 20" or greater dbh (measured at 4 ' above grade) are deemed heritage trees and cannot be removed unless approved by the City Council following a public hearing. These trees were inspected by arborist D.O. Denney (for the applicatit) , Gary Sims, Steve Decamp and myself on two separate occasions . The consulting arborist did not provide health reasons for removal of these trees; only that their removal would be required to allow the installation of Atajo Road extension. Trees are marked with pink flagging tape and the center line of the proposed road and the property lines of the lots are marked in the field. ANALYSIS: The heritage tree proposed for removal is in good health; it is growing in a leaning fashion because it is competing for sunlight under a large multi trunked heritage tree. Upon initial inspection of the site, it appeared that the road could be shifted about 10 feet to avoid the removal of the kritage tree. After allowing for a shift of 4' within the existing ROW, is would require the road also be shifted onto one or two of the adjacent properties . From the on-site discussions with engineer Frank Honeycutt, there are several concerns that he expressed that would make it difficult to shift the road this amount. Briefly, his reasons include: 1 . The four colony lots adjacent to this proposed road are relatively small . 2. The soil peres quite slowly, therefore the leach field for each homesite will need to be large to compensate and provide adequate percolation. 3 . The slope is steep; shifting the road will make it more difficult to get a driveway at the proper slope, a house and a large septic field on each building site. 4 . He is not sure that the property owners of lots 17 and 18 would be willing to allow the road to be shifted onto their property even for this small amount. Mr. Honeycutt plans to be at the meeting to discuss his reasoning with Council. It is also possible that a shift in the road alignment to avoid this one tree might impact trees and a natural drainageway on the other side of these properties because of house, driveway and septic system design. It appears that landowners are not interested in shifting the road, therefore I am recommending approval of the removals with 3: 1 and 2 :1 replacements. Mr. Honeycutt has stated that the applicant prefers to donate money into the Tree Replacement Fund instead of planting the trees because there is very little space after road construction is completed. We have been recommending $100 per replacement tree, so the applicant shall donate $2100 to cover the value of the replacement trees that would have been planted. If this heritage removal is approved by Council, it must be contingent on the following: 1 . Removal only occurs if road extension plans are approved. 2 . if applicant decides not to pay for replacement trees, then a tree replacement planting plan is required to be part of the road extension plans. Trees will be be planted according to City specifications. 3 . Tree replacement plantings become part of the performance bond package that will be required for road construction. 4 . The road will not receive final sign-of, nor the tree portion of the performance bond returned until either the trees have been replanted and survived for a year or the money is deposited into the fund. Additional comments on the arborist' s report and recommendations include: 1 . According to the ordinance, 15 gallon, not 5 gallon - sized trees (as specified by Denney) will be required, replacing removed trees with like species. 2 . It has been determined that a gabion retaining wall will further protect the large heritage tree that will be affected by the grading of the road. Originally, the arborist for the applicant only recommended the installation* of an aeration system, but a wall to stop the roots from being covered in fill dirt should also be required. 3 . Some of the tree protection notes on the plans that I reviewed were not adequate, not showing protection for all trees - this should be revised. 0 Fencing required should be 51 ; either chain link, safety (staked) or snow fence at the dripline of the trees to be protected. If the applicant chooses to plant trees, guidelines to help with the plantings will be provided by the City Arborist. Alternatives to the request of planting replacement trees or contributions to the Tree Replacement Fund is the voluntary offer of dedication of a conservation easement over land. A conservation easement is one of the best ways to insure long term survival of a healthy forest. This option has been used successfully in otter communities and should be considered in the future as an alternative method of mitigating environmental concerns . Attachments : Location Map and Site Plan Arborist' s Report cc Frank Honeycutt and Leslie Arnold 5 o `r " Q OIC � ? �� ?�� gym° �• � � -�. 3 - wl 3 (-^)-7„oZ�,[ / Z o2 N b � ap r i 1 ) 8 r H2l d/'V OS/Z i Z r rn hey tf YENq NOo s t SITE -g TACO f t�T P t 1 { VICINlrY MAP N0 SCAL E AzA3o 9.00, i m ✓E'mE> r,,,, � crY r rS FuG-. AMEIZICA14 -SUCIEI' Y V1= CUIJSULTING A1180121SY• S � tt� LI) REPORT CASC LOCA t IU11_ Atajo/West of Chaplin _U-1-Y Atascadero, CA U1IMI NAME Leslie Arnold _ ADDIMS9 ICES. htIONE ( ) 1JUS. 1,11011E ( ) Au ENr NAME Twin Cities Engineer ADDItEss 200 Main Street P.O. 'Box 777 Templeton, CA Itt:s, hHvllt; t►us. ruotlE ( 434-1834 ) DAMAQE or ACCIDENT DA-rE TYPE OF DAMAOE 111SPEC11Utt DATE 7/3/89 '& 8/1/89 WEA111CR 7EN1P. D.O. Denney ��01 � Certified Arborist #391 P.O. Box 3090 4KU1�nCt{ Consulting Arborist 41178 Paso Robles, CA 93447 W lWtr� (805) 239-1239 .. The purpose of the consultation is to recommend removal of nine trees. Removal of large limbs on one oak tree and the installation ,of an underfill aeriation system for a new street extension. Physical location: Street extension Ata o/ West of Chaplin -- Section #1: Tree 41 Size Species Condition Recommendation 1 13" Blue Oak good remove (Quercus douglasii) 7 Blue Oak good remove �� Y (Quercus douglasii) 3 8" Blue Oak multiple trunk remove (Quercus douglasii) 4 4" Live Oak good remove (Quercus agrifolia) 5 7" Blue Oak leaning remove - (Quercus douglasii) 6 24" Live Oak leaning remove (Quercus agrifolia) 7 10" Blue Oak leaning remove (Quercus douglasii) 8 19" Blue Oak multiple trunk remove (Quercus douglasii) lr 9 12" Blue Oak good remove _ (Quercus douglasii) 10 46" Live Oak multiple trunk remove large (Quercus agrifolia) lower limb S This project will require the removal of nine Oak trees. Since it is required to plant two for each oak tree that is removed, I recommend they be planted along the new street or they could be planted on the parcel of land under development. Trees in 40 gallon container size of either Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia) or White Oak QQuercus bata) or other desired native species would fit in with the natural tree population Atascadero. In order to line the new street with oak trees, care and planning is needed. At this early stage of development, it would be difficult to make a recommendation on spacing where it wouldn't interfere with underground installation (utilities) drive- ways, and etc. Section #2: Partial grade change around Live Oak tree 410 Around tree #10, a 10" California Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia) will be a partial grade change. It will require a four foot fill in the drip line area tapering, reducing it to a two foot fill four feet from the base of the tree. This fill will cover approx. 307 of the drip line area on the street side. This fill will also be compacted. To minimize the impact of this, I am recommending that a partial under aeriati:on system be installed. This can be done by trenching channels in the soil 6-8 inches deep and 8 inches wide extending the length of the partial fill area (filled with Yy „ gravel) Insert pipes down into the gravel trench one about every six feet. This installation should be supervised by a Certified Arborist. Some large overhanging limbs will be removed from this tree and it should compensate for the possible roCT loss in that area. A simple underground system should low the natural gaseous exchange in the fill area. This underground; aeriation system will 'permit the oxyenation of the roots and will permit a near normal water and gaseous exchange. Section #3: Tree Protection Plan 1. All remaining trees within 20 feet of the construction zone will be protected by fencing around them. A bright colored, temporary fencing material can be used. In area where construction equipment will be operatedlcloser than 20 feet, a protective barrier will be put up around them. 2. No excess materials, or equipment will be parked under the drip line of existing trees. 3. No grade changes around existing trees. . . unless the procedure to safe guard their health and welfare is noted in this report. 4. No storage material or disposal of fuel, paint, debris, or any other chemicals shall be poured out or temporarily dumped in and around these existing trees. NOTE: Soil around trees out to and sometimes beyond the drip line area are"Vory-:sensitive to. changei Compaction of the soil around the root/zone can deprive the tree of vital oxygen necessary for life. - +' �tir;•Fffi. I # , Y iii,- � .��t-� ���r f_ . t Y�,'G• • ray .tl � t h ^ ' 4 • �' �`' f.� T;. w t3' la +r � a `l .f,• �. •tpf=.� 1 j�. AV *t Wf l C' t•'rajYty il, f F. TZ �'� Tr• + �' a � .' 1 r. �i_/ 3 � i •�•�+F •i5in K ,�.• r 1 ♦t N.F��..,r A t _rte h .� � _ b,•,.1fA. �� 4� p,* n. +r i �'�i•. zY v� .f:. i �`�� •`Z �� '+ .,M W '•'c_ aL!►11a1,piR' }a *y` t +�-e >r i# 111 wer-Tayrn-M AA 34 �, J7, tikys k• 14i S '44�. 4'i' 19'r14�1 ° —SAM AM +, i.l ''i'41 71 �,r�fr� Frit ':'.t , '+•« ��rp•,, t=,'�3 tail '��`r iA,� � a � c��1, Y ,1 tA . + (. •. Wyw '.yam � ,�,. f ��j iw`�r154 Y `�{�' , 1 ♦"3,�i! �v 1r,�. •1.oa }` ��p � �r, �•�� �f ,�� � P � � } � , �t(.� �:��`y��r � w �:� o;f r�� ti �a�`"'�"�"•j ' ,• - .� ,(�� IL a � r: � '' .�,• 1`4.+FFF � •1 , • MKOTM /. • 1 • 1. • . • - 1. Yll lot .•heti,� 4 .It j. 'r.� 7 ! • ,.T l i C3,y'�'N .Vt., S 4 y . Tk IN r S IC C'I"C I I I IT( I r, 1 r• LLI Scall 1/10' 17x111ai,atton of %..etct, 1`r.�(`I'i'.{