Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 10/25/1988 GEORGIA RAMIREZ DEPUTY CITY CLERK A G E N D A ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING ATASCADERO ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 6500 PALMA FOURTH FLOOR, ROTUNDA ROOM OCTOBER 25, 1988 7 :30 P.M. RULES OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: * Members of the audience may speak on any item on the agenda. * A person may speak for five (5) minutes . * No one may speak for a second time until everyone wishing to . speak has had an opportunity to do so. * No one may speak more than twice on any item. * Council Members may question any speaker; the speaker may respond, but, after the allotted time has expired, may not initiate further discussion. * The floor will then be closed to public participation and open for Council discussion. Call to Order Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call City Council Comment ** PROCLAMATION: "RED RIBBON WEEK" , OCTOBER 23-30, 1988 COMMITTEE REPORTS: (The following represents Ad Hoc or Standing Committees . Informative status reports will be given, as felt necessary. ) 1 . City/School Committee 7 . Police Facility 2`. North Coastal Transit Committee 3 . S.L.O. Area Coordinating 8 . Atas . Lake Acquisition Council Committee • 4 . Traffic Committee 9 . Business Improvement 5 . Solid/Hazardous Waste Mgmt. Assoc. Committee 10 . Pavilion Committee 6 . Economic Opportunity Commission 11 . Tree Committee COMMUNITY FORUM: The City Council values and encourages exchange of ideas and comments from you, the citizen. The Public Comment 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 or staff. * Any person desiring to submit written statements to the Council may do so by forwarding nine (9) copies to the City Clerk by 5 :00 p.m. on the Wednesday preceding the Council Meeting. 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 Consent Calendar. 1. OCTOBER 11, 1988 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 2. TREASURER' S REPORT - SEPTEMBER, 1988 3. FINANCE DIRECTOR'S REPORT - SEPTEMBER, 1988 4. RESOLUTION NO. 102-88 - AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A MASTER CARD AGREEMENT FOR THE CITY (Cont' d from 10/11/88) 5. ACCEPTANCE OF FINAL PARCEL MAP 7-88 9550 LAUREL ROAD (WHITE/TWIN CITIES ENGINEERING) 6. AUTHORIZATION TO EXPRESS OPPOSITION TO PROPOSED RULE OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT 2-400 (CITY ATTORNEY) 7 . AUTHORIZATION TO AWARD BID FOR 4-WHEEL DRIVE VEHICLE (FIRE • DEPARTMENT) 8. ROCKY CANYON ROAD QUARRY APPEAL 2 �► i • B. HEARINGS/APPEARANCES/REPORTS: 1. CHANDLER RANCH AREA ASSESSMENT DISTRICT (Improvement District No. 5) A. Hearing of protests to proposed improvements B. Resolution No. 103-88 Confirming assessment and ordering proposed improvements to be made; providing for Notice of Recording of Assessment; and designating the City Treasurer to collect and receive money C. Resolution No. 104-88 - Awarding contract for the construction of public improvements for the Chandler Ranch Area Assessment District 2. CONVERSION OF $.50 DEVELOPMENT MITIGATION TAX TO A FEE AND EXPANDING THE BOUNDARY FOR THE LEWIS AVE. BRIDGE FEE (Cont' d from 10/11/88) A. Public Hearing B. Resolution No. 100-88 - Establishing a development fee . for all developments within the incorporated area of the City of Atascadero 3. APPEAL BY KEVIN T. DEVANEY OF DOUBLE PERMIT FEE (5350 Dulzura Ave. - corrected address) (Recommend Denial) A. Public Hearing B. Council Action 4. APPEAL BY ATASCADERO FORD OF PLANNING COMMISSION' S MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (Dutch Sawyer) C. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: 1. CONSIDERATION OF INITIATION OF CHANGES TO THE "TREE ORDINANCE" 2. NORTH COUNTY REGIONAL CENTER (Hurricane Investment Corporation) - Request Council Direction D. NEW BUSINESS• 1. FIRE INSURANCE BENO' S BUILDING ( 5505 E1 Camino Real) City Manager • 2. RESTRICTION ON LIQUOR SALES OUTLETS THROUGH ZONING AND SALE & USE OF ALCOHOL IN CITY PARKS/FACILITIES Mayor Borgeson 3 • E. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION: 1 . City Council 2 . City Attorney 3 . City Clerk 4 . City Treasurer 5 . City Manager - A. Status report on copier bids (verbal) B. Status report on personnel wage & clas- sification study (verbal) COUNCIL WILL ADJOURN TO A SPECIAL JOINT MEETING WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT 7 :00 P.M. , THURSDAY, OCTOBER 27 , 1988, FOURTH FLOOR CLUB ROOM, FOR THE PURPOSE OF GENERAL PLAN REVIEW; AND TO A SPECIAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS STUDY SESSION AT 5 : 00 P.M. , WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 1988, IN THE FOURTH FLOOR CLUB ROOM. • 4 • PROCLAMATION "RED RIBBON WEEK" _October 23-30, 1988 WHEREAS, National Red Ribbon Campaign will be celebrated in every community in America during "Red Ribbon Week" , October 23- 1988; and "-WHEREAS, President Ronald Reagan and Mrs. Nancy Reagan will be the Honorary Chairmen of this community focus on a Drug-Free America; and WHEREAS, the National Federation of Parents for Drug-Free Youth, and the Drug Free Youth of America are coordinating this grass roots community awa eness program in a' united effort with NFP representatives in eaN state, in cooperation with National Drug-Free America Week,, October 23-30, 1988; and WHEREAS, business, government, ' law enforcement, schools, , religious institutions, service organizations, _youth, medical, senior citizens, military, sports teams and individuals will demonstrate their commitment to drug-free, healthy lifestyles by wearing and displaying red ribbons during this week-long campaign; and WHEREAS, the community of Atascadero further commits its resources to ensure the success of the Red Ribbon Campaign; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Atascadero does hereby support October 23-30, 1988, as RED RIBBON WEEK and DRUG-FREE AMERICA WEEK, and encourages its citizens to participate in drug awareness and drug education activities, making a visible statement that we are strongly committed to drug-free, healthy lifestyles. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Atascadero encourages all its citizens to pledge: "THE CHOICE FOR ME, DRUG-FREE ! " . s 4 DATED BONITA BORGESON, Mayor City of Atascadero, CA O MEETII�ENDA DAT �� IT .14 ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 11, 1988 The regular meeting of the City Council was called to order at 7 :40 p.m. by Mayor Borgeson, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL All Present: Councilmembers Dexter, Lilley, Mackey, Shiers and Mayor Borgeson Staff Present: Ray Windsor, City Mgr. ; Henry Engen, Commun. Devel . Dir. ; Paul Sensibaugh, Pub. Works Dir. ; Chief Bud McHale, Police Dept. ; Jeff Jorgensen, City Atty. ; Boyd Sharitz, City Clerk; Cindy Wilkins, Dep. City Clerk • COUNCIL COMMENT Councilwoman Mackey extended public invitation to the Historical House at 6 : 30 p.m. this Friday. evening to honor past and present Colony Days Royalty. Mayor Borgeson noted receipt of a call from Warren Miller to inform that the League of CA Cities has arranged for the USS Bagley to dock in Port San Luis on the 29th of October; public will be welcome on board, and additional details will be forth- coming. COMMITTEE REPORTS North Coastal Transit - Councilman Dexter reported that this committee met one week ago in Paso Robles to review bids for a special, grant-funded study being conducted regarding the s.ervice lines and how they may more effectively serve the North County. S.L.O. Area Coordinating Council Mayor Borgeson reported on a 10/5/88 meeting for (1 ) work session on the 188 Regional Trans- portation Plan update, ( 2) No. Co. Public Transportation Consultant Study was authorized, (3 ) Staff was authorized to present the position of the Area Council of Govts. in Sacto. on Oct. 6th. She noted that $2. 5 billion funding for the Atascadero Hwy. 41 realignment has been approved for the 1991 State budget. • Traffic Committee Councilwoman Mackey noted citizen concerns expressed at the last T.C. meeting about truck traffic near the 1 • Post Office on ECR, which will be further discussed at its next meeting. Solid Waste Mgmt. Committee - Councilwoman Mackey noted this committee met last week and is reorganizing into two committees. Reports were presented urging more public recycling. Police Facility Committee - Councilman Dexter reported this com- mittee continues to meet with the architect to resolve problems associated with the development of the project. COUNCIL COMMENT Mayor Borgeson issued proclamation acknowledging October 15, 1988 as "White Cane Safety Day" , accepted by Donna LaVance, Pres . , Central Coast Chapter, Natl. Federation of the Blind of CA. COMMUNITY FORUM Livia Kellerman, resident, asked for Council' s resolve on conflicting messages she is getting from staff regarding re- quirements for review ( arborist vs . staff) of non-native trees prior to approval for removal . Al Sherman, Navajoa Ave. , expressed concern about dry street sweeping, which stirs up the dust on Navajoa, noting the vehicles also seem to be going at excessive speed. He also expressed concern about a walnut tree on said street, which is obstructing drivers' view, as well as complaints regarding skateboarding, nuisance abatement enforcement and money spent on consultants . Mr. Sensibaugh responded that water isn' t used during street sweeping in order to keep the pavement as dry as possible; regarding the tree issue, he responded that 300 of the tree canopy can be trimmed by the City crews without a permit. Mayor Borgeson indicated she will discuss Mr. Sherman' s concerns with him, or he may contact Mr. Sensibaugh. A. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. September 27, 1988 City Council Minutes 2. September 29, 1988 Joint City Council/Planning Commission Minutes 3. Authorization to purchase Police Dept. patrol car ($12,763.30) 4. Res. No. 101-88 - Adopting the Atas. Local Emergency Plan in • conformance with the State Office of Emergency Services (O.E.S. ) requirements 2 MEETING AGENDA DAT /0 Zf� SITEM N . , CITY OF ATASCADERO CASH ACTIVITY SUMMARY FOR THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER, 1988 BEGINNING CASH RESOURCES 3,019 ,976. 79 ADD: RECEIPTS 557 , 375. 91 FUND TRANSFERS 52 ,096.13 INVESTMENTS REDEEMED 289 ,000.00 LESS : DISBURSEMENTS 648,343. 39 FUND TRANSFERS 289 ,000.00 ENDING CASH RESOURCES 2 ,981,105.44 SCHEDULE OF CASH RESOURCES Int. Due AS OF SEPTEMBER 30 ,..1988 Rate Date Checking Account: Mid-State Bank 3,565.44 Certificates of Deposit: Beverly Hills Savings . 99 ,000. 00 7.25 10/11/88 Butterfield Savings 99 ,000. 00 8.00 12/06/88 First Cal Savings 99 ,000.00 8.00 11/15/88 Other Investments : Local Agency Inv. Fund 2 ,680 ,000.00 8.27 N/A Other Cash Resources : , Petty Cash 540. 00 TOTAL CASH RESOURCES 2 ,981,105.44 GERE SIBBACH City Treasurer • • MElTIhi, �/ AGENDA DATE ITEM, CITY OF ,ATASCADERO SCHEDULE OF DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER, 1988 DISBURSEMENTS Hand Warrant Register for September, 1988 1,965. 07 09/02/88 Accounts Payable Warrants 121,730. 62 09/09/88 Accounts Payable Warrants 85 ,312.14 09/16/88 Accounts Payable Warrants 45 ,798. 44 09/23/88 Accounts Payable Warrants 117,988. 86 09/30/88 Accounts Payable Warrants 90 ,740. 74 Service Charge-Mastercard/Visa 2.50 09/30/88 Wire Transfers 250 ,000.00 09/14/88 Payroll Checks #43738-43868 95,999. 34 09/28/88 Payroll Checks #43869-43998 96 ,566. 97 Total 906 ,104. 68 LESS : Prior Year Voided Checks 3,098. 84 Voided Check #42596 4 ,247.28 Voided Check #42817 ' - 338. 67 Voided Check #42104 1 26.50 Voided Check #42767 50. 00 • Total Disbursements 898,343. 39 I, RAY WINDSOR, do hereby certify and declare that demands enumerated and referred to in the foregoing register are accurate and just claims against the City and that there are funds avail- able for payment thereof in the City Treasury. The breakdown detail on all accounts is available for your viewing in the Finance office. RA WINDSOR City Manager CITY OF ATASCADERO SCHEDULE OF CASH RECEIPTS AND TRANSFERS IN FOR THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER, 1988 CASH RECEIPTS : Taxes : Property Tax 7 , 845. 02 Sales Tax 131,361. 82 Motor Vehicle In-Lieu 61,986. 18 Cigarette Tax 3 ,436. 69 Development Impact Tax 11,947.50 Miscellaneous Taxes 2. 94 Other Receipts : Board of Realtors-Canine Program 8,196. 59 Licenses/Permits/Fees 44 ,775.44 Franchise Fee 4 ,447. 73 P.O.S.T. Reimbursement 1,926.52 Fines/Penalties/Overages 412.28' Assessment District #4 1 3, 725. 00 Traffic Safety 5 ,587.23 Zoo Reserve Fund 73.00 Parks and Recreation Fees 15 ,545. 99, r Investment Earnings 4 ,177.41 Weed Abatement 63.53 Street Assessments 99. 81 Lewis Ave Bridge 3,596. 00 Local Transportation 2 ,505.50 Development Fees 10 ,380. 79 Zoo Receipts 3,591. 69 Rents/Concessions 250. 00 Sales-Maps/Publications/Reports 501. 80 Special Police Services 223. 50 Miscellaneous j (25. 00) TOTAL CASH RECEIPTS 3261634. 96 FUND TRANSFERS IN: Sanitation Fund Reimbursement 52 ,096. 13 TOTAL FUND TRANSFERS IN 52 ,096.13 OTHER CASH RECEIPTS: Refundable Bonds 228 ,500. 00 Reimbursement to Expense 2 ,076. 95 Refunds 164. 00 TOTAL OTHER CASH RECEIPTS 230 ,740.95 MEETI G AGENDA DATE. ITEM 0 RESOLUTION NO. 102-88 A RESOLUTION OF THE ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A MASTER CARD AGREEMENT FOR THE CITY BE IT RESOLVED :by the City Council of the City of Atascadero that RAY WINDSOR, City Manager, be authorized to enter into a Master Card Agreement with the Mid State Bank of Atascadero, and that the City Manager be authorized to sign said agreement documents . PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Atascadero City Council held October 25, 1988 . City of Atascadero, CA • BONITA BORGESON, Mayor AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: i BOYD C. SHARITZ, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: aNDSOR, City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: • JEFFREY G. JORGENSEN, City Attorney MELT �/� ,AGENDA (XTI5 3 ITEM/ „ M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council October 25, 1988 VIA: Ray Windsor, City Manager FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director SUBJECT: ACCEPTANCE OF FINAL PARCEL MAP 7-88 LOCATION: 9550 Laurel Road APPLICANT: John White (Twin Cities Engineering) BACKGROUND: - • On June 14, 1988 the City Council approved Tentative Parcel Map 7-88, subject to certain conditions and in concurrence with the recommendation of the Planning Commission. RECOMMENDATION: The required conditions have been complied with and the final map is recommended for approval. HE:ps cc: John White Twin Cities Engineering _�HIBIT A - LOCATION MAP CI'T'Y 9550 1 9 Laurel Road OF ATASCADERO Tentative Parcel Map 7-88 � 87 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT white/Twin Cities • DEPARTMENT ROA ; SITE 9550 Laurel Road GAB F T TPM 7-87 White/Twin Cities A U � , sj c �+Oq,T r `\� •9q,�C `�� O aoAo ! L(FH) RS ' aF' / 01 C .p �P � F • �o \� L(FH) 1 -L(FH) ,.� 7-1 RS (PD 2) °S t •O Lti &� RS °s 0 Pte,♦ 1 O 4 0 , ON ADPOSTSOFFICIE BOX BUILDING •MEETING 47 AGENDA / ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA 93423 DAT ITEMPHONE: 805 466-8000 (o CITY COUNCIL CITY CLERK taseadet& POLICE DEPARTMENT CITY TREASURER POST OFFICE BOX 747 INCORPORATED JULY 2, 1979 ATASCADERO. CALIFORNIA 93423 CITY MANAGER PHONE: (805.) 466-8600 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT w� PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT FIRE DEPARTMENT PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT - 6005 LEWIS AVENUE ATASCADERO. CALIFORNIA 93422 .--�. PHONE: (805) 466-2141 MEMORANDUM City of Atascadero October 13 , 1988 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Via: Ray Windsor, City Manager FROM: Jeffrey G. Jorgensen, City Attorney SUBJECT: Proposed Rule of Professional Conduct 2-400 Attached is an urgent memorandum from the League of California Cities outlining the League's opposition to a proposed rule of ethical conduct affecting public attorneys which has been adopted by the Board of Governors for the State Bar of California. This proposed rule would make it "unethical" for public attorneys and public agencies to propose any settlement of litigation against a public agency if the settlement attempts to limit the attorney's fees which may be collected from the public treasury by the plaintiff's attorney. In essence, the rule will encourage the filing of groundless litigation against public agencies, but will then discourage the public agency from attempting to settle the case because the attorney's fees for the plaintiff will not in any way be restricted. It is feared that this rule can only lead to more and more litigation against public agencies. The League of California Cities has taken an aggressive posture in protesting the proposed rule, and will submit the attached Brief in Opposition to Proposed Rule of Professional Conduct 2-400 to the California Supreme Court. In discussions with Paul Valle-Riestra, staff attorney for the League of California Cities, there is still adequate time to add the City of Atascadero to the brief opposing the proposed rule. MEMO: Honorable Mayor and City Council SUBJ: Proposed Rule of Professional Conduct 2-400 October 13, 1988 - Page 2 Recommendation: It is my recommendation that the City Attorney be authorized and instructed to notify the League of California Cities that the City of Atascadero wishes to be added to the Brief Opposing Proposed Rule of Professional Conduct 2-400. Sincerely, tRAt� RGENSEN Cyorney JGJ: fr A:MMATA389 Attachments • i • z� League of California Cities INNEL 1400 K STREET • SACRAMENTO,CA 95814 • (916)444-5790 ■ooh Cafitornia Cities Work Together Sacramento, CA. September 7, 1988 TO: All City Attorneys FROM: Tom Wood, City Attorney, Costa Mesa; President, City Attorneys Department Paul Valle-Riestra, Staff Attorney RE: Proposed Rule of Professional Conduct 2-400 (formerly 2-200) Immediate Action Requested On August 5, 1988, we sent you a memo alerting you about a Proposed Rule of Conduct which will dramatically affect our ability to represent our clients. We asked you to urge your representative on the Board of Governors to oppose the Rule. Your response was treTendous and greatly appreciated. Dennis Cornell , Chair of the Board Committee that formulated the Rule, said that it was the most heavily lobbied issue during his tenure on the Board. . Testimony in opposition to the Rule at the August 27 meeting was strong. In addition to ourselves, the following people testified against the Rule: Don Clark, President of the County Counsel 's Association; Kevin Dunne, President of the Association of Defense Counsel of Northern California; Justice William Stein of the First District Court of Appeal ; Krisida Nishioka representing the Public Law Section of the State Bar; Dick Helgeson, Senior Assistant City Attorney, Los Angeles; George Rios, Assistant City Attorney, San Jose; and Kim Reilly, Chief Deputy City Attorney, San Francisco. To say that the Board did not seriously consider our objections would be an understatement. The Board approved the Proposed Rule by a 15-3 vote. A copy of the Rule and the official discussion is attached. Only Governors Morris, Obrien and Olivarrio opposed the Rule. Governors Annotico, Dalton, Dieterich, and Ewell were absent. President Anderlini does not have a vote. The Proposed Rule will be submitted to the Supreme Court for approval in about one month. We will mount a strong effort to defeat the Rule, but we need your help. The enclosed draft brief will be submitted to the Supreme Court. The final brief will be cleaned up and reformatted, but the substance will remain the same. The brief will be submitted on behalf of as many agencies, organizations and attorneys as possible. Please note that the Supreme Court has requested that we not flood the Court with letters and duplicative briefs. Please do not submit any material to the Court unless you believe it is unique and will not annoy the Court. We do ask that you do the following: I. If you and any other`attorneys in your office are willing to add your name to the brief, please return the attached response form. 2. Present this ,issue to your city council or take whatever action is necessary to add your city to the brief, again using the attached response form. 3. If you know of any other individuals or organizations who would be concerned about this issue, ask them to join in the brief. Time is of the essence. It would be most helpful to hear from you by September 30. We may be able to add names as late as mid-October. Please respond in writing if possible. Thank you for your help. PV97M3.legal i ..' cNY ;"� ,r�f,��}'+� 'aY € des''-5� S � �i�- '%t' _��.c _ ".'-fie���i'9"�zi ••�'rt - r �� n .r._ � 7 3r .c�@ �_r � '> 'S.r�•{t;.$.�r'y-.- f--t- � �i� s � r ..%j'"k�i a.,�;,�'- r �y� � _ ,tt a f"'� f ° 'S[ v �h u "„ � ,� •,�. '��';, `,'� „ � ��.x� �,.? .1 fit{''d}.�• �"_v� �1�� "i ;? v 4 * .• r1 Al �g�S t �x `'� S F � �, "'� � ,. � x� ��e ��,� •�-£i"i' R�,� , '�=�"- >%�t -��.;. axe � `` `t, ", PROPOSED"RULE OF PROFESSIONAL '<CONDUCTw . � i / z s t F ' xi RZ k} i l t� y6f S Ml r ifi Please add the following individuals' to .the brief opposing the Proposed Rule _ r NAME TITLE Please add the following cities/agencies to the brief opposing the Proposed Rule: City of Atascadero 6500 Palma Avenue Atascadero,' CA 93422 Please add the following firms/organizations to the brief opposing the Proposed Rule: Please return by SEPTEMBER 26, to: Paul Valle-Riestra, Staff Attorney League of California Cities 1400 K Street, 4th Floor Sacramento, CA 95814 MEET I�io AGENDA DATE-� ITEMS M E M O R A N D U M DATE: 10/20/88 TO: City Council VIA: Ray Windsor, City Manager FROM: Mike Hicks , Fire Chief SUBJECT: Bid No. 88-13 - Fire department 4X4 command vehicle BACKGROUND At the Council meeting of 9/27/88 authorization was granted to solicit bids for a 4X4 command vehicle, as approved in the 1988/89 fiscal year budget. The bid process was completed with required notifications published in the newspaper and sent to automobile dealers throughout the county. • Bids were opened on 10/20/88 by Deputy City Clerk, Georgia Ramirez , with six bids received as indicated on the attached bid summary sheet. The high bid was $19 , 409 . 66 - the low bid was $17 , 325 . 66 . RECOMMENDATION It is my recommendation that the City Council award the successful bid to Kimball Motor Company of San Luis Obispo for the price of $17 ,840 . 20 . This is the second lowest bid, however unlike the lowest bid there are no exceptions to the specifications . Also, purchasing the Chevrolet Blazer over the Dodge Ramcharger will permit us to establish some uniformity with our command vehicles . Our last Blazer was also purchased from Kimball Motor Company, with satisfactory results . FISCAL IMPACT The price of $17 , 840 . 20 is well under the budgeted amount of $19 , 000 . 00 . • MIKE HICKS MH:pg Attachments Ul ro x to N x�- ro N ca to ro ro to O :zy o n � c N m UU) w n n,.� � � w n rt 0 a I.-. w C) (D o urn > oo ° o o �V (D � Q_ r • rF- o ::I r - rte' (D � . um ~ a ° ° K CD z � r � orm C- u) o ooC n ( M0MG) o rroo � -I .. _ x w x H F• :� x 11 F- x �- tJ ° 0 O � � (D Z ° o w (D (D En ts' � N o0 tr' � 0o U» w � � cn rnrr rt min U, O � toy com ((D o O O n 0 En n rt n 1-0 o n o co 0 0 P71 O > d O > N o) ¢ O I-. LO 0 00 (D OD 00 00 co 0 00 h] t-+ t) C) � O td bd � N � N (D O � to t i A p) , LQ ,xp (D (D - (D f i hi t d Cn H >A Q D t= rt y �� rt z� rt rn O 00 00OD r+ Q O 00 O CD O w �' 10 -D �~� n N ,p Ol p rte_• N r t O N 01 O O (D CD N I'd ¢ n c C) o a . P) C:) � °0 fD d U) rr o ~ �, (D N N. CSDLn n i C CD UI N N C rt rt o tDc cn O 0 U) (D CD- CD 2CD 2 ¢ N Rl C2 0 (D (D CD _. . O F O F'• 'TJ � O H co 0 0o (D N F� O W O d O F' CD to N co C7 110 lfl .. rx j O O- F1 rt bd =3 Fi O C) O X O ZP T N V =3rt T_ �� Y n rt v rt '.v CD F+ 0 co rt -� Q .A 0 N CD (D rt O f7 F- CD CD ¢ F; ro c N a 1 ""' �r C x < n CD F- (D N `� &ETE'TtNl�25 AGENDA E� f TEM M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council FROM: Ray Windsor, City Manager I SUBJECT: Rocky Canyon Quarry Appeal DATE: October 25, 1988 BACKGROUND As the attached article indicates, the County Planning Commission approved the use permit for the expanded quarry. Staff still believes that the impacts upon the City from this use can and should be mitigated in soma way. RECOMMENDATION We, therefore, request your permission to appeal this matter before the Board of Supervisors . Unfortunately, due to time constraints, the appeal had to be made prior to your meeting, and I gave such authorization based upon the points made above. RW/cw i San Luis Obispo County (Calif.) Telegram-Tribune/ Saturday, October 15, 1988 - Mines get approval t „'`�`� � H�-Al S Two surface mines in the county � �z 7gi were given the go-ahead Thursday R x a x Y from county Planning Commission- • ers. On unanimous votes, commission- ers approved a plan to expand operations at granite mine on the 8 ``•� �'�4A'sit. ':{ Y`.Y F 'S. F�' k - 8 kS of x east side of Rocky Canyon Road, four miles southeast of Highway 41 outside Atascadero, , Paul Sensibaugh, director of pub- y, �t x lie works for Atascadero, said the city objected to the route used by • trucks to haul stone from the mine. f „ f He said it causes too much wear laz x and tear on city streets. '. Two Rocky Canyon Road neigh bors also complained that trucks Xx x a leaving the mine illegally truck K �► i granite down Rocky Canyon Road, r which is too narrow and winding for € d X the traffic. r Commissioners also approved a plan to establish a flagstone mine <T on 2.6 acres on the north side of Lopez Drive, half a mile west of Lopez Dam. � --- Ei. MEET! �.� ,��ENDA�►_� DAT T M! ".."""""' . MEMORANDUM To : Honorable Mayor and City Council Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager From: Paul M. Sensibaugh, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Subject : Chandler Ranch Public Hearing of Protests to A.D. No . 5 Date : October 23, 1988 i Recommendation: Staff recommends that Council adopt Resolutions 103-88 and 104- 88, awarding the construction contract to Union Asphalt in the amount of $153, 785 . Background: Please refer to previous staff reports for backround on the • assessment district . . Bids for the paving project were received October 14. Five bids were received and the apparent low bidder was Union Asphalt (Hermreck) of Santa Maria . Please see attached bid summary. Discussion: The low bid shown above is well below the Engineer ' s Estimate, thus allowing the assessments not to exceed the preliminary figure . This is an advantage to those who pay up front since they could pay as much as $832 less overall than those who finance . Included on the attached cost summary sheet is a line item for Capitalized Interest as presented by the Bond Underwriter which essentially negates the bid savings for those who finance . This figure is estimated, as is the interest rate, and is included in the financed principal , or bonded cost , to pay the interest on the bonds until the lien is placed on the tax rolls, effective next August 10 . It is anticipated that the first assessment payment will reflect this cost by being lower that those that will follow. Any questions of this or other bond cost items should be directed to the Bond Underwriter. The continguency has been maintained at the estimated level to provide for unanticipated change orders or project additions at the end of San Diego Road. The balance of this money must be returned to all property owners after the one year warranty Period is over. The reserve account will be used to pay any uncollected assessments over the life of the issue . Any balance will be equally distributed on the last payment date to those properties being assessed. If the project and payments go as planned there is a possible return of over $200 per parcel being assessed. Fiscal Impact : There is no impact on the City at this time, but future maintenance costs will be accepted by the City when the streets are adopted by resolution at the end of the one year warranty period. CITY OF ATASCADERO . IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 5 CHANDLER RANCH AREA ASSESSMENT DISTRICT PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO THE MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1913 PROCEDURE FOR PUBLIC HEARING October 25 , 1988 On September 13, 1988, the City Council of the City of Atascadero adopted Resolution 94-88, which, among other things, set October 25, 1988 as the date for the public hearing on the City of Atascadero Improvement District No. 5 (Chandler Ranch Area Assessment District) . Certain notices and publications were to have been executed by the City Clerk in preparation for this public hearing. The following certificates and affidavits are on file with the City Clerk: (a) Affidavit of filing boundary map with San Luis Obispo County Recorder [A-2] . (b) Affidavit of Compliance with the Requirements of Law for Publishing, Posting and Mailing Notices of Hearing Protests [A-3] . (c) Affidavit of Posting Notice Inviting Sealed Bids [A-4] . (d) Affidavit of Posting Notice of Improvement [A-5] . (e) Affidavits of Publication from The Atascadero News re: publishing Notice of Improvement and Invitation to Bidders . (1) Mayor announces: "The hour of 7:30 P.M. having arrived, this is the time and place of the hearing of protests, objections or appeals with respect to the assessment and work under and pursuant to Resolution of Intention No. 92-88, adopted on August 23, 1988, and to the report of the Engineer of Work prepared and filed with the City Clerk on September 13, 1988, and preliminarily approved by Resolution No. 94-88, adopted on September 13, 1988 and to the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 . " • "I now declare the public hearing open. " (2) Mayor calls Engineer of Work, John Falkenstein, of • Cuesta Engineering, for background report on proposed improvements in the assessment district, the nature and extent of the proposed improvements, including areas to be served, and the method of assessment, including the method of determining benefit and allocating costs, and for report on proposed method of financing pursuant to the Improvement Bond Act of 1915. Engineer also reports on status of construction bids . Engineer states that in his opinion and based upon his experience "The method of assessment has been applied in a uniform manner to each and every parcel within the assessment district, and the proposed assessments are fair and equitable and are proportional to the benefits estimated to be received by each parcel of land from the proposed improvements. " (3) Mayor calls bond counsel, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, for report on -legal aspects of the assessment proceedings and issuance of bonds. (4) Mayor calls underwriter of bonds, Security Pacific Capital Markets, for report on` ,financial aspects of the assessment financing and issuance of bonds. (5) Mayor directs City Clerk to read in full all written protests filed with the City Clerk pursuant hereto. (6) Mayor asks: "Does any person wish to speak in favor of or against the project?" (7) Mayor specifies that persons responding must state their names and addresses and assessment numbers. [Hear all persons responding. ] (8) Mayor asks Engineer of Work to respond to each written and oral protest. [Engineer of Work responds to City Council. ] (9) Mayor asks: "Does any person wish to withdraw their protest?" REMEMBER, PROTESTS MUST BE WITHDRAWN IN WRITING. (10) Mayor asks Engineer of Work what percentage of lands {' within the assessment district is represented by written protests . • 2 0911b m X N 0 0 0 J • o - m 0 I w-o .0 m -o L.0 0) o c L 0 U Y L O 0 m n m H — U . m mmrnm mtnm OO CL 3: / nnnnnnnmmmmm m' "¢ 10~C 0 I c 0)-� m \\\\\\\\\\\\ \ m E C C t• m u m O y E ; C d O p W CV CU QI O� tV•- r a 0 o O c o L 0 O Y o x Co. L m m ...� L N Q L m 0 m w m o� m m -o -0 m e N 7 7 9 C T N U N 4 L Y 0 .O 7 0 Y w Y 0. X 0 0 0 L C 0 0 0 ; '7 0 o w E L L O O•.-O w O O • Y C C LL 0 0 0 0 m N N N 0 U •r L L 0 V7 C O O N E LL 0 E 0 0 C 0 7 >'m 0 LL 0 • 0 :a7 0 0. d LL !Z L �.HI L -�E N Cm N N W ft0 C L .7 E Y w C N 0 Y 0 0 O ¢ m V U. C7 d 0 0 0 0 LL CL N N 01 0 YU 0 V O C V1 O u m m N L O 0 0 0• tT 0 0 C 0 0 0 w to C C C ++ C C 0 0 > > •,� 0 C 0 L H N C d m 0 Y 0 C C m m 0 L 0 0 L 0 4.. twq CL 3+- V 0 IA 0 L > O t %- O 94 10• 0 0 0 'r U w H O C3 m m m C O L Y C L 0 u L Y Y 0 U V O L O O L L.. m L X•C d E' CI i m a m 0 W m O Q to 7 L Y Y T 0 0 (� m (n C N Y m 0 C 0 0 C m L .0 N� 0 E E 'O m CL L t m i Y O1 w C m L O•r- O O N_T N L O a- m N CO Y g- m u V L m o Co •n 0 C Y w L O m L C t CO N +C- 0 X X 0..+ m C 0 O. L O - O. lA Ul f Q o, U) Ul m O m m m Y p -; J U m 0 v 0— m E m to m~ T¢ y0i •O L L c - O TU G LL U 0 0 m C J C N C.0 • m - Y d U L > L L N M c L L N j] 1.- W o mvnconm �n �.- nN c U r, V wwm m m tD nn w L 7 07 0U m 40- 0. dM E..� ty� Z >+ r CU m m m m N m to m m O w C d 0 0 U C U m U •^.-. C36 � N N CU N N CU CU CU cu N N 0 0 .,.. .,,.. .•., _. CL N C ~ 0 CL m Y L L O L L-0 m X— 0 7 7 `= U Cu C C C C C C C C C m L m L m Y LL lL Y c U m Y O m •' O ID o 0 0 0 o a o 0 0 0 o m Q cn m v m 0 .0 m c t v U c C c Y tc — m e L > L m - C Y o f Cl) Y Y w w w u w Y Y Y Y _ U) V - O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ul--- m .. O c V N N 0 ON N N N N N w N N V L 0 m L v ti 0 N C �•- C m L Y 0 0 C L 0 m t:) m 0 0 0) 0 C) 0 0 L X C m 0. 0 0 OU.. o L m 0 0 m N N Y. C >•mmm m m m mm m m m0 LU u�Q tL.0U 0 U NW a 0 Oa-J � 7 0 T � NCOC U)mn mm Or NM r. N CO r r r V 1 Y L on c� m a > m d c L 0 1; to 11 C _W O 0 0 m 0 0 4. 0 0 L E W m U N C U ULo O. . © 9 O N 7 Q Q L L� U.\ LLn pN l � � (& m Om w10 mNLO � mlMm OUm)m� /�, m m� aO-am- Nim N C17 1700 V 4 -.• --q L 0 v O N Ol L 0 0. v o 0 J m 3 m A U Q L Yrs O m L m 0 a� art Ym0 0� O w . m v 44 4 W !n U � m L U \\\ 0v CLO C _ net m L u N m N rnY w co C C cE � m N m In LO et f7 10 O n C7 y� 0\ TL c0) �N n Y C V m V C Cm OQln n n L m _ m Ulm m nm C.)to T� NQtO N cu-T (p LL n '0 n m m N 0 m a CU m m Y L m �-�-- a X V mY L O Y L.•• 0 E 0 m O U m N N m .,C. O E Y -� L V O Y 0 L C V- m m m 0 L L U Y N m Y .r 0 N N 0 O L Co 0 to •r 13 N 0 40. y) E L d D U F �N L u O U m C t 0 m O 0@ u O N O t- m-� a LO ~ 0 N d m ~ m N41 d m 0 L.8 0 b E � to U C m e i m 0 L L Y m o L L CV Q) N o. c u 0 a.� d L C U O 2 t p >, Yy'� N 0 N L O LL . m 0 N-.- L N m 0 Y L u 0 E 0 v \+ N C e\- Y �. L. O m L)F U CL U 17 0 C e\•• 7 E U C .))1-�-+-+N �i M e-I N S Cli N 7 N m Y T 0 CO Y L m m Ul m m E E 0 a L M C 0 an d m 0 C 0 L H 0 cli U CV N m HU 0+- CNUQ m U owan m m N N N N O 0 0 m M 0 ¢ m m w ¢ 0 • Y L U m m J LL YY C3 c ., o\ ¢ c c W c U (7 + m m + m N J ,m t o n.a o a. _ J M w co N W W p c to 0 a) t t f(tp� �(p� t W �p V(� LL� b n nmVcoV mm�mN cold V O COj LO f7m� ^ V a) A' r rrr W Nr N Q LL]N e- N W Y U O m C �Vf LL Y Y per, Y V O U Ct) p) L /� m U } Yds m C C W — r 03 + m m + W an a c c rn O m w u) ,, w w c W uI + + + + + m Cl) - OQ Vco n N ED V ED V n r f,ED N co co r N c0 cD n co .}� m\ rr u7 r N r N O IDN r N LL V U n w a•c f= C J3 O c L W O L O E O v !^Q C of E m _ \ E c c rn o�[ a m fL c a r V E +-� O c E cE- 7 . u d v L c,) p C) m n w m•o•-r )Z C CO E m m S 4. L c m �+•.- m JO ¢ O U EQ CL coU baa••-• O 4 CUa an O m m 03 ¢ U c m > E a m m > > 4) O n fA as m S 7 £ m E Q m as > w b m m V W N W Z J m 2 1 7 C C a: 0 E x m» ¢ L U-+ a Q Q U¢ U x O `LL O 0 0 m•.-J U N m W y L. Q m N O fl .••.O m c W C) z O z N J c )N•1 � c Cr y L 73 C m Z m U > L 13 c " G O L) m 0 E N m 0© m Q a) ate... U > m O L O m 7 - N as..E- � C.7 u. O L m 9 d aL.+ a>i (L O c E N L E J ,+¢ o •.. tiN S W cr0 C3 U)Jd U)CL cov)F-1. 3 z QU ¢C) O LU =¢>h- w .ci V(nU z m Z N O¢ W Eli N N H S v � m m O } L J f, i N 7 LO co m 4„ I > w 4a P)•^ m 4- m m n U T O• U. O mw m E-O+ m w E w m I •.>••m O O n U a., L O L L m as m n o. 0 y m ^ m o a as P n L) m >m m w w )o > > m a m N i .m.•aa�o c as y ID I I a+ w p J I m v, m N O 0 C 4 O U m 4. N a+ a.+\\\\ a+ y a w v +c. o f. j 1- ED w 1 a� O \\\\ m O O lDco mN .. a+ fDCDCDco � ¢ v x z m /^ m co W co O C G C u7 N N C C O u) 7 u)1c7 \O N C U C U co 2 b 7 7 7 qw wq 7 O q w qw O m 7 m nco cot\f\ nn� n J O L tD cD CD V mN 03 W LL n O J ! co�67 c7 f.7 m '- C �- e m V 'cf c-N N¢ u7 N �Nc �� 1D ID wmm comm.DO N O. cu a) �- I W L.CL q of ����.-' cli - 7 m y U L m 4- a+ 4•. V O m 4- O b c b n o cE co U)o m m m E J m E J N CA E U O a U ^ L. O L NCD 0 E ca J C J m O. C b \\O O_ al O m w N w 7 7 y N ^ .•-. o•^ U u bcO I I N 0 C U m m _ m m ^ co to O Gi c O E n co D U m w w 7 U L U CL U c% N � r- ^cf) ^ Y lO u)fn W N b ca CL, O ' m\ O C C C C u7 N N c C 0 u) u)u)u') m �+ \ L C U C U O O 4-• cD -r m 7 7 7 g q q 7 O •••. 4 q q w S O y O m O m O m V U W \ \\\ + + t + \\\ + t + + \ O V co > \\\ . m c C) co U f,V n n n n N V to V 'cf O) O) m m co O) w E O co (c�7•(t�� lO m u7 mH w'\ O) m comcomm mm O) coco NO) m CT)O) O) O) C to O rN ».r (u� r-O�-r rr rO nw ED f\ n nN fln O J O r r r co r .-- •.� 9 CL LL n M � e-���e- •^ 4- cu N T L Ti ( c O U C w as w > a.. U N C J J N m C m w Y �. m • O m W.--. / m C Q m c Q m L C C U O m Q U m O c U c ¢ m m u c " c w O U v N b O m m m m C U O U U S m O T L W W b N > O U J .2 r U J r d O m O J L m J ^ y y J L b r ^ E •^ E J m L E ^ E E J m m e m �-- x m 4m.. w E O U 03 :t! v L m m E O m > m m m E a o m > m E ¢CL m E m m Q Y O 3 LL m 2 '^ C •.•• N LL m S S �^ C ,., �'•c a' �-•1 m L m m 0 O_•-• N L J m C u co a: U m LL U O L m LL U O L cn b •^ O C y ttl w CL m m 4•• O m L N m 1 m L O J N $ m I m m L U J .a C N N ¢ ^ O m a) J O) 3 av w — a n \ -� m\ o w \ m \J o w v U F- C,3 O). .- E n m O 7 O)J •^ OI 0I N m \ J m O _ n � V W m O D > O r n C D E N N L a c a D E n m O 7 •C 1� L CL N w N •^ 7 0 0 0 0 U C (7 7 0 0 EO o 0 U C V) 13m U cQc�� 4m.. cco.) vE 7 L L N n .r > ; L 2 0 V nm NNSSU2< tnH Nu)S SaL) ZSfn n-c L m N com N Q amw V¢ C) U O m C y .+ C b b O J o� C: cC a.... m m .. O O Q a: m 0 m m 6 3 L) ¢ a: a m fascadero gerf commerce c� m 6550 EL CAMINO REAL - ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA 93422 TELEPHONE ( 5L466-2044 17 October 1988 Oct At./ V cr 19 y TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council MGR. THROUGH: Ray Windsor, City Manager FROM: Atascadero Chamber of Commerce SUBJECT : Restructuring of the Lewis Avenue Bridge fees RECOMMENDATION: The Board of Directors respectfully recommends adoption of Draft Resolution 100-88. We believe it will provide more equitable distribution of fees leading to downtown revitalization and more timely construction of the Lewis Avenue Bridge. While there may be some objections voiced to increase fees on non-downtown property, we believe that overall , the fee structure proposed in Draft Resolution 100-88 provides a more equitable distribution of costs to all sectors of the City. John Cotsenmoyer President CC: Paul Sensibaugh, Public Works Director Kirk Pearson, President Business Improvement Association JC/jzl MEET .AGENDA DA ITEM/ �,:,3 M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council October 25 , 1988 VIA: Ray Windsor, City Manager FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director 46 SUBJECT: Appeal by Kevin T. Devaney of Double Permit Fee (5350 Dulzura Avenue - corrected address) BACKGROUND: Grading was done on this property, without a grading permit. The City' s building code and building inspection fees schedule call for a double fee on permits where work is begun without a per- mit. The accompanying correspondence between the City and Mr. Devaney outline the issues . ANALYSIS: "Double Fee" is a colloquial term describing Investigation Fees required pursuant to the 1985 Uniform Administrative Code (Sec- tion 304(e) ) , as follows : " (e) Investigation Fees: Work Without a Permit. 1. an Investigation. Whenever work for which a 4 Y Permit is required by this code has been commenced without first obtaining said permit, a special investigation shall be , made before a permit may be issued for such work. " i 2. Fee. An investigation fee, in addition to the per- mit fee, shall be collected whether or not a permit is then or subsequently issued. The investigation fee shall be equal to the amount of the permit fee required by this code. " Mr. Devaney has been required to pay a fee debt incurred against the property, not the person. Except in very unusual circumstances, we have not issued grading or waste disposal system permits separately for residential sites . This was established as a formal ordinance standard in Section 8-1 . 107 of Title 8 Building Regulations, which states : • "Grading and/or waste disposal system permits for residential sites shall not be issued separately from the residence permit without the specific approval of the building official . " - The reason for this is to both protect the natural beauty of the City from speculative grading and, possibly, from hazards or hardships on both the subsequent owners/occupants of the property as well as neighbors . This regulation is intended to discourage illegal grading for roads, pads, tree removals, driveways, etc. As Mr. Devaney notes in his letter, minor grading permits for proper situations may be had for $50, but this grading was prepatory for construction of a house and not an option. As indicated in the City' s letter of September 16, 1988, both the Uniform Administrative Code (which is a part of the overall building regulations) and the City' s Resolution 5-85, which established fees for construction activities, requires a double fee for work undertaken without a permit, which in this instance amounts to $1,856 . 50. It would appear that the Real Estate Disclosure Act might provide for possible recourse for recovering costs to provide protection for this purchaser. By way of clarifying some of the points raised in Mr. Devaney' s letter of appeal, staff would offer the following: 1 Paragraph 3 - UBC reference: We have adopted the Uniform Administrative Code which was quoted in the City' s letter and which replicates the language referred to by Mr. Devaney. 2 . Paragraph 5 : We have not deleted Chapter 70, which we use extensively in issuance and control of commercial grading permits and operations . As noted earlier, our own building regulations were refined to require that grading permits be an integral part of building permits for residential properties . 3 . Page 2 , Paragraphs 5 & 6 : iThe Board of Appeals has no authority to waive or modify fees; therefore, the appeal is required to be heard by the City Council . Staff does not lack awareness in the law enforcement officer character of the building official. As with most localities who pursue enforcement, we' re aware of violations in such matters as these at the time of permit application. In fact, we have several such situations pending in the City where illegal grading will be penalized by a double fee when building permits are applied for. RECOMMENDATION: Denial of appeal . • HE :ph Enclosures : Area Location Map September 29, 1988 - Letter of Appeal September 16, 1988 —Letter from Community Development Director cc: Kevin Devaney u 1 � .. � ��;;►�% � � ///. IIj' 1, ��`� __.� - os ����►=tom �.. ��, 1762 12th Street Los Osos, CA 93402 C� September 29, 1988 2� d Off, Mr. Henry Engen J• Community Development Director City of Atascadero P.O. Box 747 Atascadero, CA 93423 Subject: Proposed Residence 5390 Dulzura Avenue Atascadero, CA 93422 Dear Mr. Engen: This letter is in response to your letter of September 16, 1988, regarding double permit fees for the subject project. In accordance with your request, the following text outlines the basis for our appeal . The work which was done to the lot was performed by the present owner in an attempt to make the lot more attractive to potential buyers. There is no reason we should be responsible for the present owner's actions, and these actions have nothing to do with our building permit. If fees are to be collected, they should be collected from the owner of the property who was responsible for work being performed without a permit. When the subject of double fees first came up, I spoke with Bill Wittmeyer . in the Building Department who informed me that the City of Atascadero has no recourse against the present owner, so the "investigation fees" had to be levied against us. g It is my understanding that he was speaking on my behalf of Mr. Bob- Fielding, to whom my original letter was addressed. Although Title 8 of the City of Atascadero states that Chapters 1, 2, & 3 of the Uniform Building Code have been deleted, you have quoted Section 304 of chapter 3 in the U.B.C. This leads me to believe that it is your intent to conform to the provisions of :the U.B.C. I would call your attention to the 1985 Edition of the U.B.C. , Section 2.02 which states: (a) General . The building official is hereby authorized and directed to enforce all the provisions of this code. For such purposes, he shall have the powers of a law enforcement officer. Earlier in the month we met in your office and you told me that before you could reach a decision in this matter, you would have to consult your staff. When you called me at my office later in the afternoon, you informed me that although you appreciated our situation, we would have to pay two times our entire permit fee because the City of Atascadero has no provision for issuing grading permits and therefore the work could not be addressed at this level . 'Although the City of Atascadero has deleted Chapters 1, 2, & 3 from its adoption of the 1985 Edition of the U.B.C. , you have not deleted Chapter 70, which specifically states in Section 7006: (a) Permits Required. Except as exempted in Section 7003 of this code, no person shall do any grading without first obtaining a grading permit from the building official . A separate permit shall be required for each site, and may cover both excavations and fills. Further in Section 7007: (a) General . Fees shall be assessed in accordance with the provisions of this section or shall be as set forth in the fee schedule adopted by the jursidiction. This provision is mirrored in Table 2 of Resolution 5-85 of the Atascadero City Council which sets fees for Grading permit6 (including Plan Check Fees. ) The permit which was not obtained by the current property owner was a grading permit. According to Table 2 of Resolution 5-85, the fee for grading 50 cubic yards to 999 cubic yards is $50.00. Therefore, according to Table 5 of Resolution 5-85, the Investigation Fee (for work commenced without a permit) should be $50.00 charged to the current owner, not the $1856.50 you have seen clear to charge us. As pointed out in your letter, the U.B.C. states that this fee shall be collected in ,addition to the permit fee whether or not the permit pis then or subsequently issued. As I noted earlier, Chapter 2 of the U,B,C, covers the method of recovering this fee. Because of this lack of awarenesson your department's behalf, I am forced to waste my money (a $50.00 "appeal "fee") and my time writing letters and attending a formal hearing for this appeal . I must further note that while you letter states the appeal ". . .must be heard before the City Council which is the body that adopted Title 8 & Resolution 5-85 establishing fees." Title 8 mandates in Section 8-1.104 that a Board of Appeals be established. I am again appalled that the majority of the contents of pages 2 & 3 of your own Building Regulations has been overlooked. I have enclosed a check for $50.00 andlook forward to hearing from you soon. I hope that upon further consideration you find that these* fees have been unjustly levied. Sinc rely, Kevi T. Devaney p.c. Bonita Borgeson, Mayor Jeff Jorgensen, City Attorney Ray Windsor, City Manager KTD/k j k ADMINISTRATION BUILDING POST OFFICE BOX 747 ATASCADERO.CALIFORNIA 93423 PHONE: (805) 466-8000 POLICE DEPARTMENT POST OFFICE BOX 747 ATASCADERO,CALIFORNIA 93423 CITY COUNCIL PHONE: (805) 466.8600 CITY CLERK aseadeiC® CITY TREASURER INCORPORATED JULY 2. 1979 i ~ ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT FIRE DEPARTMENT CITY MANAGER COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 6005 LEWIS AVENUE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ATASCADERO.CALIFORNIA 93422 PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT - PHONE: (8051 466.2141 w. September 161, 1988 Mr. Kevin T. Devaney 1762 12th Street Los Osos, CA 93402 Subject: Permit Fee Appeal - Proposed Residence (5390 Dulzura Avenue) Dear Mr. Devaney: I have reviewed your letter of September 13, 1988 requesting an appeal of the investigation fees charged on this project with - the City Attorney. -This is to advise that we will need a $50 appeal fee (made payable to the City of Atascadero) , together with a letter outlining the basis for the appeal, which must be heard before the City Council which is the body that adopted Title 8 and Resolution 5-85 establishing fees. I would call your attention 'to the Uniform Administrative Code- 1985 Edition, Section 304 (e) , Investigation Fees : Work Without -a Permit, which states as follows : 1. Investigation Whenever any work for which a permit is required by this code has been commenced without first obtaining said permit, a special investigation shall be made before a permit may be issued for such work. 2 . Fee An investigation fee, in addition to the permit fee , shall be collected whether or not a permit is then or subse- quently issued. The investigation fee shall be equal to the amount of the permit fee required by this code. This fee authorization is mirrored in Resolution 5-85 , establishing fees for building and construction activities,, which states as follows : Investigation fee ( for work — - equal to permit fee required commenced without a permit) by this Resolution Should you wish to pursue this appeal to the City Council, we will need to receive your grounds for appeal and check within fourteen days of receipt of this letter. We in return would schedule a hearing before re the Cit Council Y which meets on the second and fourth Tuesday evenings of each month. Should you have any questions, please call. Sincerely, Henry Enge Community Development Director , City of Atascadero HE :ph cc: Jeff Jorgensen, City Attorney Ray Windsor, City Manager MEET AGENoa DATZ� ,.'tEMi i M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council October 25, 1988 VIA: Ray Windsor, City Manager FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director W SUBJECT: Appeal by Atascadero Ford of Planning Commission' s Modification to Conditional Use Permit (Dutch Sawyer) BACKGROUND: At the Planning Commission' s meeting of September 20, 1988, the Commission considered the attached staff report relative to their scheduled compliance review of Atascadero Ford' s approved Conditional Use Permit. Action of the Commission was to schedule further review six months from now, together with amending Condition No. 2 (c) - to eliminate a prior approval of a freeway facing wall sign of 100 square feet. It is this latter action that Atascadero Ford is appealing (see attached letter of appeal) . ANALYSIS: As the attached series of staff reports indicate, there has been an ongoing use permit complianceevaluation for Atascadero Ford, which has led to significant progress approaching full compliance at this time. Whenever a use permit is up for consideration, the Planning Commission has the latitude to modify, add, or delete conditions of approval. In the course of their September 20th meeting, the Commission felt that there was no need, in view of their pole mounted freeway sign, to also have a wall-mounted freeway sign. In fact, Ordinance No. 167 , which amended freeway sign standards, would only allow a freeway-oriented sign for a single tenant building in cases where the building exceeded 10, 000 square feet, with maximum sign area limited to 60 square feet. Atascadero Ford has a 9,000 square foot building, with a recent addition of 545 square feet. Hence, it would not qualify for the sign that ® had been approved under the terms of an earlier ordinance. Should the Council concur with the recommendation of the Planning Commission, the applicant would have the latitude of modifying the sign face on the freeway pole sign *to include the name of their business . RECOMMENDATION: Denial of the appeal, and approval of Exhibit F as acted on by the Planning Commission September 20, 1988. HE :ph Enclosure: October 4, 1988 - Letter of Appeal Exhibit F - Conditional Use Permit 1-87 Revised Conditions of Approval (9/20/88) September 20, 1988 - Staff Report September 20, 1988 Planning Commission Minutes Excerpt CC : DUTCH SAWYER i ATASCADERO FORD • i S iCONSTRUC"rIONaW RKTIVED 0 C T 4 1988 October 4, 1988 CON MU"i""Y iEVURMENT City of Atascadero Planning Department Re: Atascadero Ford Remodel and Addition Enclosed you will find a $100.000 fee to file an appeal of the action taken at the September 20th Planning Com- mission Meeting with respect to deleting the previously approved 100 s.f. wall mounted sign facing Hwy. 101 . Sincerely, Dutch Sawyer P.O.Scac 5670 Santa Margarita,CA 934530805/438-5704 EXHIBIT F - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1-87 Conditions of Approval Revised by Planning Commission - September 20, 1988 1 . All site development shall be in conformance with approved exhibits B, C, D, and E dated September 15, 1987 . 2 . On-site signing shall be limited to: a. A 40 square foot monument sign along E1 Camino Real with a maximum square foot height of 10 ' -011 . b. A freeway identification sign of 150 square feet with a maximum height of 35 ' -011 . C. One wall-mounted sign located on the E1 Camino Real elevation of the building to contain a maximum of 100 square feet. d. A 10 square foot hanging sign identifying the service department. e. No temporary signs , banner signs, or non-official signs shall be allowed on the site. 3 . The required landscaping area on the southern property line may be eliminated to the west of the canopy ( service bay staging area) with the exception of the existing shade trees planted 30 ' -0" on-center. 4 . Landscaping along the rear embankment northern property line and freeway frontage shall be replanted into a formalized landscaped area. Improvements shall include screen plants and trees along the property lines and at the top of the embankment. Curbing and sprinkler systems shall also be included. 5 . Trash enclosure may be relocated to the southeast corner of the property. The exact design and location to be approved by staff. 6 . A specific layout of vehicle display areas shall be submitted for review and approval by the Community Develop- ment Department prior to the issuance of any building permit for work on the site. Layout plan shall set a maximum number of vehicles to be displayed and stored for service on the site. Landscaped areas shall not be used for display of vehicles . 7 . Drainage fees in an amount determined by the Director of Public Works shall be paid at the time of the issuance of a building permit tomodify the existing retention basin on the site. 8 . This conditional use permit shall be reviewed six months from the- date of final approval . DATA 9020 ITEM� M E M O R A N D U M DATE : September 20, 1988 TO : Planning Commission FROM : Joel Moses, Associate Planner SUBJECT : Conditional Use Permit 1- (Atascadero Ford) Six Month Review At the past two meetings the Planning Commission has attempted to complete a six month review of the approved Conditional Use Permit for Atascadero Ford. The staff has now reviewed the status of the project and finds that the Conditions of Approval have been met. Some problems still exist on the site that need to be corrected, however. 1. Illegal flags are being used on the site. 2. Two building Permits 'are still not finialed a. Freeway sign b. Building addition 3. An addition has been made to the rear of the building that is being investigated as to approved building permits. The work approved under the Conditional Use Permit has not been totally completed. Application has not been made for building permits for the addition of two approved signs (freeway elevation and service area signs) . RECOMMENDATION i Staff recommends the establishment of an additional date for a compliance review of the Conditional Use Permit. This period should not exceed six months or the final building permit approval which ever occurs first. Attachments: Memorandum August 16, 1988 JM/jm M E M O R A N D U M DATE : August 16, 1988 TO : Planning Commission FROM : Joel Moses, Associate Planner SUBJECT : Conditional Use Permit 1-87 (Atascadero Ford) Six Month Review Atascadero Ford' s original site design was approved as a part of a Precise Plan approval (PP 2-85) . Later, Conditional Use Permit 4-85 was approved allowing for a freeway sign. Conditional Use Permit 1-87 which was approved by the City on April 21, 1987, allowed for modification of the square footage of signs and site layout. On September 15, 1987, the site plan and sign master plan were again modified at the applicant's request. As a part of that approval, a six month review was required., On February 16, 1988 the Planning Commissibn conducted a six month review and again required a six month review. In the past, the Planning Commission has been. concerned with compliance with the conditions of approval and the appearance of the site. The staff has been in contact with the owner' s representative about the work on the site. The building addition has almost been completed. It is anticipated that the building will be completed in the vary near future. At the time of final building inspection a review will be conducted to assure compliance with all conditions of approval. The following is a review of the individual conditions of approval as required by Conditional Use Permit 1-87: 1. This condition requires adherence to the approved exhibits of approval (Site Plan, Elevations & Details) . The approved plans for construction reflect the exhibits ' specific requirements. The site will be reviewed for specific compliance at the time of the final building inspection. 2. This condition sets the type and amount of signing allowed on the site. All of the allowed signs have not been installed at the present time. Problems have occurred on the site in the past with the use of banner signs. Presently the site has illegal flags hung from the building. If not removed now they will be required to be removed at the time of final building inspection. __ i 3. This condition allows for modification of the landscaping along the southern property line eliminating planting but requiring the retention of trees. The specifics will be reviewed as a part of the final inspection. 4. This condition requires the establishment of landscaping along the rear slope facing the freeway. Plans have been approved as a part of the building permit. Landscaping has been installed as required, but final approval will be done as a part of the final building inspection. 5. This condition allows for the relocation of the trash enclosure to the front of the site. The trash enclosure has been relocated in accordance with approved plans. 6. This condition requires the establishment of a specific parking and display layout. A plan has been submitted and approved by the staff. 7. This condition requires installation of all street improvements along the frontage of the property. All street improvements along the site have now been installed. i8. This condition required the payment of drainage fees to the City. The required drainage fees have been paid. 9. This condition requires the yearly review of the project. This was later revised to be six months. The six month review is now being held. 10. This condition requires the site to conform to the conditions of approval imposed by prior approvals. The applicant is still in the process of constructing the addition to the building. No final inspection has been held for the occupancy of the addition. At the time of the final building inspection, a total review of the approved plans will be conducted. It would seem logical to continue the final review for compliance until the final building inspection is held. As a part of the six month review, staff reviewed the project with the Fire Department. An inspection was held recently by the . Fire Department. It was noted that the fire lane striping was adequate, but cars still blocked the fire access. Some sort of on site policing is needed to correct the problem. If problems continue to occur, installation of appropriate signs will be required, and citations issued to the violators of the fire lane. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the establishment of an additional date for a compliance review of the Conditional Use Permit. This period should not exceed six months or final building inspection which ever occurs first. Attachments: Prior Staff Report (Sept. 15, 1987 ) Prior Staff Memorandum (Feb. 16, 1988 ) JM/jm P 1-87 (Review) X60 El Camino -7eal Atascadero Ford CITY OF ATASCADERO Item: B-5 STAFF REPORT FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: Sept. 15,1987 BY: Joel Moses, Associate Planne File No: CUP: 1-87 SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit 1-87 (revision) initiated by Atascadero Ford to revise an existing approved site plan. The revision to allow for the enlargement of the existing building, elimination of some areas currently designated for landscaping, revision of the existing car display area and the addition of new signs. BACKGROUND: On April 21, 1987 the Planning Commission reviewed a previous request to revise the approved site plan for Atascadero Ford. At that time the Commission approved some modifications to the site plan and conditioned the approval.Some of those conditions set specific time frames for the accomplishment of items needed to bring the site into conformance with the original CUP approval and City Ordinances. The applicant has now submitted revised plans for the site. A. SITUATION AND FACTS: 1. Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Atascadero Ford 2. Representative. . . . . . . . .'. . . . . .Sawyer Construction 3. Project Address. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3860 E1 Camino Real 4. Legal Description. . . . . . . . . . . .Lots 3 & 4 of Blk 18 ( Atas. Col ) 5. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. 56 acres 6. Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .CR (Commercial Retail) 7. General Plan Designation. . . . .Retail Commercial 8. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Atascadero Ford (Auto,Mobilehome,Vehicle Dealer and Supplier) 9. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Categorical Exemption (Class II & III) B. ANALYSIS: The applicant is requesting to add an additional sign to the rear building face for freeway identification of the specific business "Atascadero Ford" . The site presently contains a free-standing freeway sign noting the site as a Ford dealership. The proposed sign is proposed to be the same in size and design as the present sign on the front of the building facing E1 Camino Real. The staff feels some concern over the additional sign, but notes that several other developments have similar signs. The proposal is more compatible with the surrounding properties in that the sign is not a free standing sign but is wall-mounted. Also proposed is a sign identifying the service area. The proposed site modifications cover the addition of an office area to the existing building,a small expansion of the staging area at the rear of the building,expansion of the display areas at the southeastern and northwestern portion of the site, and the elimination of some landscaped areas along the southern property line. The staff has reviewed the proposed revisions and has concerns about the re-establishment of landscaping in areas designated for landscaping, and the setting of a specific parking plan for the sites display areas. The applicants proposal in most cases meet the City' s Zoning Ordinance requirements for development. The exception is the elimination landscaping along the southern property line. The area is a service area screened by adjoining development from view. Staff sees no difficulty in the modification but the trees should be retained to break up the buildings mass and to provide shade. Approval of the modifications to the site plan can be accomplished by the adoption of the new site plan as the approved exhibit and the modification of the previous conditions of approval. C. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the revision of conditional Use Permit 1-87 based on the previously adopted findings of Approval (Exhibit D staff report April 21, 1987 eliminating findings 8 & 9) and revised conditions of approval (Exhibit F) . ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Staff Report dated April 21, 1987 Exhibit B - Revised Site Plan Exhibit C - Revised Elevations Exhibit D - Revised Floor Plan Exhibit E - Sign Detail Exhibit F - Revised Conditions of Approval JM:jm F/ HIBIT A PRIOR STAFF RPT 60 E1 Camino Real / Conditional Use Permit 1-8' Atascadero Ford City of AtascaderoItem: B-1 STAFF REPORT FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: April 21, 1987 BY: Joel Moses, Associate Planner File No: CUP 1-87 Project Address: 3860 El Camino(Real SUBJECT: Conditional use permit initiated by Atascadero Ford (Dutch Sawyer) to allow for an additional two signs in excess of the allowable 100 square feet of signage, a second freeway identification sign, modifi- cation of landscaping, and a building addition. BACKGROUND: Notice of Public Hearing was 'published in the Atascadero News on April 10, 1987, and all owners of record of property located within 300 feet were notified on that date. A. SITUATION AND FACTS: 1. Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Atascadero Ford/Dutch Sawyer 2. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. 56 acres 3. Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . , . .CR (Commercial Retail) 4. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Atascadero Ford (Auto, Mobile- ! home, Vehicle Dealer and Supplier 5. Adjacent Zoning and Use. . . . . .North: CR (Multi-family Resi- dential South: CR (Retail Commercial) (K-Mart) East: Vacant West: RS (Freeway) 6. General Plan Designation. . . . .Retail Commercial 7. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Categorical Exempt Class II & Class III B. ANALYSIS Atascadero Ford received a Precise Plan Approval for establishment of an automobile dealership in early 1985 . The Precise Plan ap- proval (PP 2-85) listed 14 conditions, most specifying development PAGE TWO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1-87 CATASCADERO FORD) standards. Building permits were issued and the site developed in conformance with the Precise Plan and Zoning Ordinance. After approval to develop the. site, the applicant applied for and re- ceived approval of a conditional use permit (CUP 4-85) . The CUP approved the establishment of a freeway identification sign and an additional car display area at the northeast corner of the site. The CUP was approved subject to three conditions. Later , the ap- proval was modified to relocate the freeway sign to the southwest corner of the site. During the last year, the staff has been working to correct sev- eral violations of City Code and the previous zoning approvals. The proposed CUP is a request by the applicant to resolve some of the problems on the site, as well as to expand the use. Speci- fically, the request can be broken down into five parts: (1) a building expansion; (2) expansion of vehicle display areas; (3) elimination of landscaped area; (4) expansion of the allowed sign- age above the normally allowed 100 square feet; and (5) the estab- lishment of a second freeway identification sign. The elimination of required landscaping, expansion of the sign area and the second freeway identifiation sign require a CUP. Expansion of the dis- play area and building would normally be handled by a less inten- sive review process, however, since the applicant is requesting modifications that would require the CUP, the entire application will be processed as a CUP. 0 The expansion of the building is an addition of 530 square feet behind the existing office area on the northern side of the build- ing. The addition would add a 360 square foot office and a 270 square foot storage area. The addition would require the reloca- tion of the existing trash enclosure and the modification of the parking configuration in the area. The applicant' s modification proposes one additional parking stall that would, however , be unusable due to the lack of back-up room. The building addition requires the addition of four parking stalls to the 18 existing required parking stalls, for a total of 22 stalls. The proposed site plan shows 26 stalls, but 8 stalls are shown as "service bay overflow parking. If these stalls are not for off-street parking, they cannot be counted. If they are for storage of vehicles waiting for service or to be picked up, they still could not be counted. The requirement of providing 26 park- ing stalls free from use other than for employee or short time client parking still needs to be met. Overall, the addition to the building would not be a problem. The addition is to the rear of the building and designed to be compat- ible with the existing building. The parking can be modified to provide the needed parking. The applicant is proposing to pro- vide a relocated trash enclosure at the front of the site on the southeast corner . The new enclosure ' s location does present somele difficulty in that it is more than 100 feet from the building and is in the landscaped area at the front of the site. PAGE THREE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1-87 CATASCADERO FORD) The proposal also includes the expansion of the car display area. In the past, the applicants have had a problem with the storage of vehicles displayed for sale on the site. The current proposal is to grade and all-weather base areas D-1 and D-2 as shown on the site plan, expanding the display capacity by 37 vehicles. In dev- eloping these areas, the applicant is proposing to remove a por- tion of the existing drainage retarding basin previously installed and required by the Public Works Department and CalTrans. A re- sponse from CalTrans indicates no overall problem with the project but does note that the increase in run-off will flow onto the freeway. The additional runoff in this area will be added to an existing 54" RCP that is currently flowing at capacity. Public Works and CalTrans have worked out a fee to mitigate the addi- tional flows caused by development in the area. In developing the site' s landscaping as required by the Zoning Ordinance, landscaping is being added to the property line area. Previously reviewed with the applicant is the need to replace a large oak tree removed earlier this year in area D-2. Concern has been expressed in the past about the visual impact of the develop- ment on the adjoining multi-family project. The housing project overlooks the display areas. Due to the grade difference, the installation of low screening will do little to soften the display area. Only the existence of screening trees will have the desired effect. The proposal does show the placement of such trees for screening. The site plan shows the establishment of display area D-4 at the top of the embankment area separating the lower storage area and the building. This area is already being used for display. Dur- ing the original approval, the area was required for the turning of car transporters. With the area used for display or parking vehicles are routinely off-loaded on the public right-of-way (El Camino Real) . Display area D-4 is at the edge of a high embankment that origin- ally was planned to be left in somewhat of a natural state. Plant- ings in this area were to be native grasses and wild flowers, along with the planting of several oak trees. The sloped area has been used for parking of vehicles and the landscaping required is now to be replaced. A topiary planting has been added to the area spelling out the words "Atascadero Ford" (this will be reviewed under the discussion of signs) . If the area is designated as a display area, the landscaping will need to be revised to provide for a minimum 3 foot high screening along the front of the embankment. The creation of display area D-3 along the southern property line would require the elimination of the required five foot landscape planter along the southern property line. The proposal is to eliminate the landscaping on the front of the site to provide for additional display area. To the rear of the display area, the landscaping will be eliminated and used for "Service Bay Staging" (vehicles waiting for work or pick-up) . The area adjoining El Camino Real will be used for the relocated trash enclosure. PAGE FOUR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1-87 (ATASCADERO FORD) The Kmart center to the south of the site is installing a solid block wall and a 15 foot open buffer along with a service access. The large setback area was required due to building code require- ments for fire protection. The approved plans show landscaping on the El Camino Real frontage and the freeway frontage. The elimination of the Atascadero Ford landscaping would eliminate any landscaping in the area. Specifically, the elimination of the shade trees along the property lines would eliminate any break in the built-up area and shade along the southern property line of Atascadero Ford. The site presently is afforded the normal 100 square feet of signs along with a 123 square foot freeway identification sign. Permits were approved for a 40 square foot monument sign, a 60 square foot wall-mounted sign, and a 105 square foot freeway identification sign. Since those approvals, modifications were made to the wall- mounted signs adding additional wording of approximately 5 square feet. A topiary sign has also been added to the embankment area facing onto the freeway of approximately 640 square feet. The applicant is also using a large banner sign attached to the rear of the building facing the freeway. Approval of any CUP for signs on the site should include a review of all existing signage. The primary request for new signage on the site is for a second freeway identification sign. The sign is proposed to be less than 50 feet high on the top of the embankment between the building and the lower storage area. The proposed sign would be used to iden- tify the site as an AMC/Jeep and Renault dealer, and would contain . 58 .3 square feet (11' X 5 '-4") . This would bring the freeway identification signage to approximately 821 square feet. In considering freeway signs, review should include: 1) The type of commercial activity requesting the signing and the need for such signing. 2) The opportunity to combine signs for more than one use on the same sign pole. 3) The availability of other types of signing along the freeway. 4) The sign area and height needed to achieve adequate visibil- ity along the freeway due to ramp locations and grade differences. In the past, staff has questioned the types of uses needing free- way identification. As a part of previous reports, staff consid- ered this use as a regional type shopping use, drawing from a larger area than just the local community. The use of freeway identification signs are usually restricted to those uses serving the traveling public (i.e. , motels, restaurants and gas stations) . In the past year , there has been a significant proliferation of freeway identification signs both legal and illegal along the U.S. 101 corridor through Atascadero. PAGE FIVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1-87 (ATASCADERO FORD) The proposed sign' s design meets the architectural guidelines for content. The sign identifies the use and has a minimal number of letters and logos. The sign' s color combination does raise some questions. The site' s existing color scheme is monocromatic blue. The existing sign is blue with white trim. The proposed sign uses five colors and alternates them as background and text/logos. It appears that the sign would not, as proposed, conform to the de- sign guideline requirements of signing that suggests restraint and harmony with the building and site to which it principally relates. The existing signing on the site at the present time is not in conformance with the City' s guidelines and codes. This approval offers the applicant the opportunity to bring the site into con- formance. The application appears to be incomplete in the way of identification of the use as an AMC/Jeep/Renault dealership. The only proposed sign is the freeway is the freeway identification. The use is allowed to have a 40 square foot monument sign on E1 Camino Real. At this time, no revision is proposed to add the AMC identification at the front of the site. This is likewise so for the building wall-mounted sign facing E1 Camino Real. It would be logical at this time to 'provide authorization for wall-mounted signs identifying the AMC/Jeep/Renault dealership. C. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit 1-87 as follows: - Approval of limited landscaping modifications - Approval of additional building mounted signs - Denial of a second freeway identification sign - Approval of establishment of Display Areas D-1, D-2, and service bay staging area - Denial of establishment of Display areas D-3 and D-4 This approval is recommended subject to the Findings listed in Exhibit D and the Conditions of Approval listed in Exhibit E. JM:ps ATTACHMENTS : Exhibit A - Location Map Exhibit B - Site Plan Exhibit C - Sign Elevation Exhibit D - Findings for Approval Exhibit E - Conditions of Approval • OWN R �Wlm!a 10 14--popo ON AN 14 �A�IAL 7 - it ., ..�` II,I � i l I I - ... c S a .c e�,. � '��;cj •� • ! '� v•;- �` -- !III;II II :'lln I I I p ',.. - y -a�s � �� t �r � i • 'r - T '�I IPS .I� il�'���',�I II��� I I,I A -+� � ; .� � {� .�� ��i�l ���' j,���� I�II III��I,i l � •� � l � � I�LINI I;li I �„��,�I�P'll I� �I j�l � d p�• ;` � ' .��. I E�e. •�- it I a '* 0-n•li - t x •,� I'll lili wi!n vIn. i ((E-�j'.' �•• IriIRJRJRJI//!�kl 1 a 77 •� :.�. — j��li � Ire I)I�I�I ,,�II�'LI I�il III ' �-- ,; � MN � Ji�"����!,�'�'�r!�''j;�II'��I��{�� 'ill,I�'��I�Ilu�it x � • ' a y� ��'.`�� � ' F � �41��!�i��II„ 'tea{�il'K'I�I��I!I�ry;�(ky�C��j�TI���Ir� G �- •��'► P c• � � � � �+s. • ' I I c .fi I . .� . . : Bpd / �� � •'. a . an l6 rr T3 51 TE; Pm ir1 Cpl\1 DT�l01�J AL LZS� FL ZWI EXHIBIT CI C. REVISED ELE. ,. .,.. :.. . TY OF ATASCADERO 38 60 E1 Camino Real r.... �. - ,: ;spew. � U 11_ptt - i 1 1 AMC 1J. E Etascadero Re 1 >RENAULT to STRaL :. Slqo Poe-, Tl sT , —rU F `` Cl O F :;c APR 01. 19$7 rr COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT EX ISIT C_ 5161 hl lr-1EVATI01�1 AT �C�►� �0 ff0I1 •3sDD EL CAMIND 2L e�L- i•1B S<O ----- gra L CA}�til�b .-. C0NDi-QDKINL+ XE 17EQ.YMIT-.1 -2)7. �n-�- � � � '� FYTAY/�D t✓�(ZD, FOS EXHIBIT - - B T D Conditional Use Permit 1 87 Findings for Approval April 21, 1987 FINDINGS: 1. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element and policies of other General Plan Elements. 2. The proposed project satisfies all applicable provisions of this Title. 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 wel- fare of the general public or persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the use, or be detrimental or injurious to proper- ty or improvements in the vicinity of the use. 4. The proposed project will not be inconsistent with the character of the immediate neighborhood or contrary to its orderly development. 5. The proposed project will not generate a volume of traffic beyono the safe capacity of all roads providnig access to the project, either existing or to be improved in conjunction with the project, or beyond the normal traffic volume of the surrounding neighbor- hood that would result from full development in accordance with the Land Use Element. 6. The type of commercial activity requesting the signing and the need for such signing is based on the purposes set forth in Sec- tion 9-4.130. 7. The opportunity exists to combine signs for more than one use on the same sign pole. 8. There is no availability of other types of signing along the freeway. 9. The sign area and height is needed to achieve adequate visibility along the freeway due to ramp locations and grade differences. EXHIBIT E - Conditional Use 1-87 Conditions of Approval April 21, 1987 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. All site development shall be in conformance with Exhibit B (site plan) , and shall be in conformance with all applicable codes and ordinances. 2. On-site signing shall be limited to: a. A 40 square foot monument sign along E1 Camino Real with a maximum height of 10 feet. b. A freeway identification sign of 150 square feet with a maxi- mum height of 35 feet. C. A wall-mounted sign located on the El Camino Real frontage of 100 square feet. d. No temporary signs, banners or non-official signs shall be allowed on the site. e. All non-approved signs (topiary and banner) shall be removed within 30 days from the final approval of this conditional use permit. 3. The required landscaped area to the east of the canopy along the southern property line (Service Bay Staging) may be eliminated with the exception of the existing shade trees (planted 30 feet on-center) . 4. Landscaping along the rear embankment and northern property line shall be replanted into a formalized landscaped area. Improve- ments shall include screening trees and shrubs along the property line and top of the embankment and installation of automatic sprinkler systems. 5. The trash enclosure shall be relocated to the Service Bay Staging Area. Exact location and design is to be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department. 6. The site plan shall be revised to show 22 parking stalls for em- ployee parking/off-street parking with the exact design to be ap- proved by the Community Development Department. A specific layout of vehicle display areas shall be submitted and approved by the Community Development Department. The layout plan shall set maxi- mum numbers of vehicles to be displayed, and maximum number of vehicles to be serviced. Landscaped areas shall not be used for display of vehicles. 4 7. All public improvement along the street frontage shall be in- stalled and approved by the Public Works Department. 8. Drainage fees in an amount determined by the Public Works Director shall be paid for the modification of the retention basin on the site. 9. This conditional use permit shall be reviewed one year from the date of final approval. An extension of time may be granted by the Planning Commission upon completion of that review. 10. The applicant shall comply with all provisions of previous zoning approvals (Precise Plan 2-85 and Conditional Use Permit 4-85) and shall comply with all applicable City ordinances within 90 days from this. date. (added at Commission meeting 4/21/87) i EXHIBIT D REVISED FLOOR L r CI TY OF ATASCADERO 3860 El Camino Real S �l� 1 -7 CUP 1-87 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Atascadero Ford DEPARTMENT ' fli i` gi (gyp_ .ij�03 --` .i its I i- G' •� �F f= ' :....... - ` ` z7 e iii I 2-•- r_ -, ! t--.1_ - .• ; ra— ! i ri `��.sem• 'fit faF �FL f i:.. e== r �'Er 1lt �•' ,'s3i 66 r'•-ei < 'tj �}� •� - - .s j• . f. t `t - .._ — E .. C 41, • _ ' s-i�i ��•v� ''3= 'I MTS �! .'—�. -- T. : 1 y V r- — _ F2 r !' y ' i•t .r i .I. - 0 r t •t �- ! - ..—:. �.'.. ---,ta`-'-•�—fir'•---------------- �"-��� t �I — .� " 14 is \`'// --'----'-'`�=—�—.. +-'---•}',• ----~� �� it r 3 �y ?i��e -' - ��VYYY/� r _ 1 e ANASCADERO FORD t'rLc. FLOOR ALAN i .:.:. .U: sawyer i t .�.,�„ f ��.• NI> { Slt a• {LSCurO.tY cm ]—&C� �OLIM...rM - •' T : YO p•..)i.Sw lu•Obo°.Ca 9)Mt -----_--- M I CIOF ATASCADERO TY EXHIBIT E SIGN DETAIL CITY 3860 E1 Camino Real 71.29Ot��!��C = � � �s�.� CUP 1-87 �� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Atascadero Ford _ z --- _ W _— W = _ z v i I OL- A Ju e ! ? ! N I - �I 72 1 I ! !N d � I too—L- EXHIBIT F - Conditional Use Permit 1-87 Revised Conditions of Approval September 15, 1987 - CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1 . All site development shall be in conformance with approved exhibits B, C , D, & E dated September 15 , 1987. 2. On-site signing shall be limited to: a. A 40 square foot monument sign along El Camino Real with a maximum height of 10 '-0" . b. A freeway identification sign of 150 square feet with a maximum height of 35'-0" . c. Two wall mounted signs located on the El Camino Real and freeway elevations of the building each containing a maximum of 100 square feet. d. A 10 square foot hanging sign identifying the service department. e. No temporary signs, banner signs, or non-official signs shall be allowed on the site.. 3. The required landscaping area on the southern property line may be eliminated to the west of the canopy (service bay staging area) with the exception of the existing shade trees planted 30'- 0" on center. 4. Landscaping along the rear embankment northern property line and freeway frontage shall be replanted into a formalized landscaped areas. Improvements shall include screen plants and trees along the property lines and at the top of the embankment. Curbing and sprinkler systems shall also be included. 5. Trash enclosure may be irelocated to the south east corner of the property . The exact design and location to be approved by staff. 6. A specific layout of vehicle display areas shall be submitted for review and approval by the Community Development Department prior to the issuance of any building permit for work on the site. Layout plan shall set a maximum number of vehicles to be displayed and stored for service on the site. Landscaped areas shall not be used for display of vehicles. 7 . Drainage fees in an amount determined by the Director of Public Works shall be paid at the time of the issuance of a building permit to modify the existing retention basin on the site. 8. This Conditional Use Permit shall be reviewed six months from the date of final approval. Conditions of Approval (Revised) (Cont. ) Conditional Use Permit 1-87 September 15, 1987 9 This Conditional Use Permit approval shall expire one year from the date of final approval unless all conditions are satisfied, or unless an extension of this time has been granted by The Planning Commission pursuant to a whiten request prior to the expiration date. i M E M O R A N D U M DATE : February 16, 1988 TO : Planning Commission FROM : Joel Moses, Associate Planner SUBJECT Conditional Use Permit 1-87 Atascadero Ford (3860 E1 Camino Real) Six Month Review On April 21, 1987 the Planning Commission reviewed and approved Conditional Use Permit 1-87 for Atascadero Ford. The permit was to allow for the establishment of additional signing on the property. The permit was reviewed again in September at the applicant' s request as to the modification of signing. As a condition of the approval, the Planning Commission required a six month review of the progress of the applicants work towards compliance with all conditions applied to the use of the site. To date the applicant has met with the staff and reviewed the processing of the building permits, and the approval of a conceptual plan for landscaping. Building permits are now in process and have been reviewed twice with corrections still • needed in the proposed plans. Attached is a copy of the latest proposed site plan (Exhibit A) and a copy of the prior staff report (Exhibit C) . The applicant has submitted a letter covering the status of the work being done (Exhibit B) RECOMMENDATION: The Staff would recommend the establishment of an additional date for a compliance review of the Conditional Use Permit. This period should not exceed six months. JM/jm \ EXHIBIT A - BUILDING SITE A. �� CITY OF ATASCADERO CUP 1-87 (Review) —([LW- COMMUNITY DEtas Atascad:-VELOPMENT Camino Real • ero Ford DEPARTMENT ast.n > pTyy� :h �4 �O�i�i 7 a 3 L11 —ISI ,7 U-1 a a "IRit ' °+ X144 0 130 �i' i 7� _ • r�:,;� }I� `.� of � i � Gil Gi V Z 11 b = s, ( z Zq x 91 a I - ' 5 > s O Q -' a P - - � o • �u � Yro `�Q`u�r 9 t 1. i .: a..... ,. H tR�. > yya • Z $v D m ---- o, 6 (�1t rnrn f i i" z �� g y T y m t. p 3850 EL CAMINO FIEAL Jp o t, n N trt a v m 1 ' o tb i we t. '—r ATA oRRER�� I TITLE - ': DER O FO,R. D .3650 EL D<MIRO REAL .isSCRDERO,CA.96422 .. SITE PLAN S. MW 466.9464 ll, .Ru,rtcrn WAKING GROUP OFFICE ADDITION, 3 CI EXHIBIT B - DEVELOPER LET. y�, .•.. _.. . .,1p� TY OF ATASCADERO CUP 1-87 (Review) 3860 E1 Camino Real COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Atascadero Ford DEPARTMENT i ARCHITECTURE•PLANNING•ENGINEERING P.O.Box B•Santa Margarita.CA 93453•805/438-5707 147 N.Fresno Street • Fresno,CA 93701 • 2091485-2056 February 9, 1987 To: Joel Moses, Planning Department, Atascadero Re: Conditional Use Permit 1-87, Atascadero Ford Remodel 3850 E1 Camino Real Atascadero, CA, 93111 As per our conversation, we have revieved conditions as stated in the � letter dated September 18, 1987. We find no objections to the 10 conditions stated in the letter. We feel we can comply with all the conditions stated in the letter. Please reference the construction documents especially the fire striping, parking layout, elevations with new signage shown, sign details, and landscape drawings for compliance. We have removed the topiary signage on the bank facing the freeway and will commence to meet the other conditions as soon as the building permits are issued. Please contact me if you have any further comments. Greg Ravatt Project Designer Waring Group RECEIVED FEB 10 1988 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MINUTES - ATASCADERO PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting Tuesday, September 20, 1988 7 :30 P.M. Atascadero Administration Building The regu r meeting of the Atascadero Plan ng Commission was called to o der at 7 :30 p.m. by Chairperson chridge followed by the Pledge o Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Comission s Highland, Waa Luna, Lopez-Balbontin, Brasher an Chairperson L hridge Absent: Commissioner T ey Staff Present: Henry Engen, ommunity Development Director; Steven DeCa Senior Planner; Joel Moses, Asso- ciate Pla er; oug Davidson, Associate Planner; Pat She ard, A inistrative Secretary A. CONSENT CALEND 1 . Approv 1 of minutes of the reg ar Planning Commission meet g of September 6, 1988 2 . proval of minutes of the special anning Commission eeting of August 30, 1988 ION: Made by Commissioner Highland, secon d by Commis- sioner Luna and carried 6 :0 to approve the Consent Calendar as presented. B. HEARINGS, APPEARANCES, AND REPORTS 1 . CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1-87 - SI% MONTH REVIEW Six month review of Atascadero Ford' s conditional use permit to determine compliance with conditions of ap- proval. Subject site is located at 3860 El Camino Real. (CONTINUED FROM 8/16/88 MEETING) Joel Moses presented the staff report explaining that the six month review by the Commission has been delayed due to the status of the project, and noted the nature of the prob- lems which still exist on the site. MOTION: Made by Commissioner Brasher to continue the hearing on Conditional Use Permit 1-87 since no representative from Atascadero Ford is present MINUTES EXCERPT - PLAP NG COMMISSION - 9/20/88 • this evening. (It was noted that the representa- tive is now present. ) Commissioner Brasher with- drew her motion. Dutch Sawyer, representing the applicant, stated he was available for any questions. Commissioner Brasher inquired whether the area proposed for a new sales lot is to be paved as it would look more attrac- tive from the freeway. She asked if fast growing plants could be planted near the service area on the upper bank. Discussion followed concerning the landscape plan and how it would be put into effect. Commissioner Waage asked if Atascadero Ford still intended to install the freeway sign on the side of the building, and inquired as to when the flags on the site would be removed. Mr. Sawyer addressed the Commission' s queries and spoke about a maintenance program which has 'been implemented to take care of the landscaping. He added that Atascadero Ford is doing much better in complying with the conditions of the permit than in the past. Mr. Sawyer spoke on the efforts • which have been made to bring the site into conformance. There was also discussion pertaining to the building addition and whether or not a building permit is required. There was no public testimony given. Commissioner Waage felt that there is not a need for a the wall-mounted sign (freeway oriented) (Condition ¢#2-c from Exhibit F ) . Mr. Moses summarized the background involved on the various revisions to the, signage request. MOTION: Made by Commissioner Waage, seconded by Commis- sioner Luna to approve Conditional Use Permit 1-87 with the establishment of another review period in six months along with modification to condition 2-c (Exhibit F ) to read: 112-c. One wall-mounted sign located on the E1 Camino Real elevation of the building to contain a maximum of 100 square feet. " The motion passed 5 : 1 with Commissioner Lopez- Balbontin dissenting. 2 . CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 10-88 : Request submitted by Ad Art Inc. for signage in excess of Zoning Ordinance standards . Subject site is located at 8300 El Camino Real (Longs Drugs and Food-4-Less) . MEETI G Ats�1DA ?SATE i M . . MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager From: Paul M. Sensibaugh, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Subject : Public Hearing—Development Fees, Repeal of 50 cent Tax Date : October 23, 1988 Recommendation: Staff recommends that comments be received at the Public Hearing and that action on all affected resolutions and ordinances be takeA on November 8, 1988. Background: Please refer to the bound Draft Report . • Discussion: Enclosed is a 1986 comparison of the fees charged county—wide that was inadvertently omitted from Exhibit B in the draft report . Also available is a listing of current fees (which will soon be increased) for Paso Robles . The League of Cities has indicated that they would send the limited information they have on current development fees state—wide, but such has not been received at this writing. Regarding the question of the breakdown of the single family increase, it is difficult , to identify the exact cause since the 50 cent mitigation tax is absorbed into the calculations . However, the biggest differences are for Parks ($0 , 322, including the 50c tax distribution) which were affected by changes in square footage and the nexus argument used, and the Lewis Avenue Bridge ($0 : 148) . Also, equipment was taken from the 50 cent tax and inflates the Building and Grounds (and Equipment) fee; a new fee is included for Community Development nt a nd Engineering ($0. 036) . Fiscal Impact : The fees are expected to bring in capital improvement revenues of about $870, 000 per year, which includes approximately $110, 000 per Year for the Lewis Avenue Bridge . • 1 t . �t sr Oi�1 < 17i✓Erj Ci ILI 11" 477v=v ti O X40 t. p Sx Q +� T-LlZ I �- o 309 l g o 1 Wz , C 1 V < � w � v- U) w a � 3 IF41 I r • • . (11) Engineer of Work replies that less than �" per cent of the land within the assessment district is represented by written protests. (12) Mayor calls a recess to allow Engineer of Work to develop recommendation to be made to the City Council. (13) Mayor reconvenes and calls for report. (14) Engineer of Work reports on financial requirements of project in light of bids and recommends approval of same by the City Council. (15) Mayor asks Councilmembers whether they are satisfied with the evidence and testimony introduced at the hearing. [General discussion among Councilmembers follows. ] (16) Mayor entertains motion closing public hearing. (17) City Council adopts order determining that a majority protest is not present. If the City Council wishes to proceed, the • following resolution is to be considered: (1) Resolution Confirming Assessment and Ordering Proposed Improvements to be Made, Providing for Notice of Recording of Assessment and Designating the City Treasurer to Collect and Receive Money [R-6] . x/03 88J It is then in order to consider the award of the construction contract. (1) The City Clerk informs the City Council of the number of construction bids received. (2) The Director of Public Works reviews the bids, reports on the lowest bid received and recommends approval of a construction contractor. (3) The City Council considers the Resolution Awarding Construction Contract [R-7] 3 0911b DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WOES EID SUMMARY FROjECT: ASSESSMENT DIST. NO. 5 BIDDER ASPHALT (HERMRECK) 3 HAMRA 1 DIANI in"sun"Ut"1"""1""U1"UU"H"U"$U"1 UUlUUUUU I UUUtUU III 1 1HM DESCRIPTION UNIT ORNTITY g UNIT PRICE = TOTAL x UNIT PRICE = TOTAL x UNIT PRICE = TOTAL I UUI I"UUU"U In"All U H"U it"un U I"I"I Us in"nin nut Ut UUUU It is nut It I sun$sit I�U un I Is 1 1 ASPHALT TONS 167100 x $2100 =6HbJ5&OO m 52L N =$12,02C 00 x $28.30 Q3 16 L 00 1 1 2 EMULSION 71^11; 16-6 X $15OAO = $1490A0 X $300-00 Sq9SOAO X $9100 - Sq%LO0 I 1 3 EXCAVATION CY 45100 x 52L 00 = Q 90100 x MLOO, = S%10100 x $1130 - $0,%.8L0 1 1 4 EASE Cy 340.00 x $2100 = $0,50100 x $2L 00 = 1152100 x UL 55 = In 1 06L 00 1 1 5 HOMRAINS EA 3AO x $5100 = SOULOO $3557).DO = $1�0-50=00 x $33%4 6-.tO 0 $1-i}.;5.Vii} 1 1 6 SHCULDERS LS LUMP SUM x $430010.00 = $4f000.00 y $Q 70100 = $170100 x $1 23L 00 $%23L 00 1 1 7 A.L, EERN 11 00 x $3.00 = Q209.00 $c 00 = $060TOO x S&45 slossoo s 1 S MORMENTS EA 29 x $13100 = $1770.00 $H&DO = $Q 06&00 x MO&00 $%94100 1 1 9 FVN'T M'K5 L5 LUMP SUM m Q 000,00 = SIAO&OO SON&OD = q go&00 m HOT 00 PON 00 1 1 10 SISNS •EA 10 m $25&00 - $2�500.00 $500.00 = $100100 x M90,00 = $1 IS&00 1 1 ii EA LOD x $MY 00 = $IHOAO $F&00 = $Q 71100 x NO&00 = $1N.0 0 1t iU"UiU"Hits""$"" $"1UHU"$ UU1it;tUUU4ItU 1 THAL BIED 1 HQ70100 1 supwo 1 spywoo HU"UUf1U U"="I"$UHU"U UU""I""UU"UuU lUs"HUSH UU"IU Until nittilit, LOW BID BOBER Ig BURKE I B AR T Z EN5INEER7S ESTIMATE $ Ul"Sunni""$$13 11 HUHUHHU"UHHU ##311####1#1t#;11111#######1#1111## 1 1 TEM DESNIPTION UNIT 9UANTITY UNIT PRICE = TOTAL a UNIT PRICE = OTAL x UNIT PRICE = TOTAL x 1 U$U I U 11 1 IS"IS 1 U 1H"U 1 1#110"1" #E1#1""I 1 ASPHALT TONS 67&00 $29.90 4139,633.00 h 63L20 =119,05COO $3100 040,10&00 1 2 EMULSON TONS 16.6 1 $500.00 = $8,30&N X $302.00 $53013.20 X S&00 = $&00 1 3 EXCAVATION CY 45&00 x $2L 00 = $1115100 x $3100 = Q7000 x $!&DO = SQ 5010,., t 3 4 BASE Cy 340.00 x $2130 = $%UL 00 x 01.35 = $109659.00 x woo = sq 10&00 1 1 5 DNNDRAINS EA 100 x $NT 00 = $72&00 x SHE DO = 1 s5 0 $500.00 = $1,500.00 1 t 6 Si _ ii G:`1 LE LUMP SUM x $9,12100 = $9,12&00 $15f 9 50=C,Q = $13,5000 Y $%DO&00 = sjOO&Oo I E E MOMENTS EA 29 m $M100 = $1 7S&00 y $297.00 = 2-16'7.t:<) $30YOO = $61700.00 1 1 9 PVM7T YK5 i5 LUMP S 2 x Q'!iii,';11 = $100&00 x $1 No 00 = $i.' '&1?_) r. $100 = $Too I 1 10 ENNE EA 10 x $410.00 = $Q!0&00 x $55100 = Q500.00z $0100 = SH&00 1 1 11 BARRICADES HA LOD x $MO.00 = $13 9 22-0.0 0 x $9650,00 = $2,330.00 x 5,1) C,,0 = $115 --.0.0 0 1 UltUnUU UIU I TOTAL BID $191 1mAo 1 $2371797.20 1 • CHANDLER RANCH ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 5--ENGINEER' S ESTIMATE 10/25/88 BASED ON ACTUAL BIDS CONSTRUCTION Asphalt $119, 240 Excavation $9, 900 Base $8, 500 Downdrains $1 ,425 Shoulders $4, 000 A. C. Berm $1, 200 Monuments $3,770 Pvm' t M'kg $1 , 000 Signs $2, 500 Barricades $2, 250 SUBTOTAL $153,785 CONTINGUENCY $16, 850 SUBTOTAL $170, 635 DESIGN ENGINEERING $5, 800 . INSPECTION $2, 500 TESTING & SURVEYING $4, 500 SUBTOTAL $183,435 , 01 BOND COUNSEL $7, 500 30%4PAID UP FRONT BOND DISCOUNT 3% $6, 546 $4, 599 it RESERVE 7% $15, 275 $10, 731 CAPITALIZED INTEREST $16, 810 $16 , 000 ADMINISTRATION 1 1/2% $3, 273 $2, 346 " MISCELLANEOUS 1% $2, 182 $1 , 533 " GRAND TOTAL- BONDED AMT $235, 021 $169, 300 " EA OF 120 EA OF 84 FINANCE $1 , 959 $2, 015 5YR @ 7 3/4% $487 /YR $505 /YR @ 8% PAY UP FRONT $1 , 605 SAVINGS $832 EXAMPLE: 30% UP FRONT $57, 771 PAID, BALANCE $134, 091 • L,Aw OFFICES • ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE Suite 3100 333 South Hope Street • Los Angeles,California 90071 Telephone(213)680-7000 Telecopier(213)680-4600 San Francisco California 94111 New York,New York 10022 Sacramento,California 95814 600 Montgomery Street 599 Lexington Avenue 555 Capitol Mall Telephone(415)392-1122 Telephone(212)326-8800 Telephone(916)447-9200 October 17, 1988 Writer's Direct Dial Number CITY OF ATASCADERO IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 5 (CHANDLER RANCH AREA ASSESSMENT DISTRICT) To persons on the attached distirbution list: Enclosed please find the following documents: (1) Resolution levying assessment (R-6) ; (2) Resolution awarding contruction contract (R-7) ; (3) Description of procedures to be followed at public hearing; (4) Notice of assessment to be recorded at office of County Recorder (N-4) ; (5) Notice to be mailed to property owner of recording of assessment (N-5) ; (6) Form of notice to property owner to be published in the Atascadero News (N-6) ; (7) Form of notice of award of contract to be published in Atascadero News (N-7) ; (8) Clerk' s affidavit of filing and recording assessment diagram and notice (A-6) ; (9) Clerk' s affidavit of mailing notice to property owner (A-7) . ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE . City of Atascadero October 17, 1988 Page 2 Item 3 above describes the procedures to be followed in connection with the adoption of Resolutions R-6 and R-7. The Assessment Diagram should be recorded with the Superintendent of Streets and with the County Recorder on Wednesday, October 26, 1988. The Notice of Assessment should also be recorded with the County Recorder on Wednesday, and arrangements for mailing and publishing the respective forms of Notice of Assessment and for publishing the Notice of Award of Contract should be made on Wednesday. The 30-day statutory period for payment of the assessments will expire on Friday, November 25, 1988. Sincerelyyours, ( �Cz'<j• William W. Bothwell WWB/tg • Enc: 2 A-6 CITY OF ATASCADERO IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 5 • (CHANDLER RANCH AREA ASSESSMENT DISTRICT) AFFIDAVIT OF FILING AND RECORDING ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM AND NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) )ss . COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ) The undersigned, BOYD C. SHARITZ, City Clerk of the City of Atascadero, hereby certifies: That on October _, 1988, pursuant to Resolution No. --88, adopted by the City Council of the City of Atascadero on October 25, 1988, he endorsed a certificate evidencing the date of adoption of said resolution on the original and on one copy of the document' entitled "Assessment • Diagram, City of Atascadero Improvement District No. 5 (Chandler Ranch Area Assessment District) , County of San Luis Obispo, State of California; "that on October 1988, the copy of said diagram was filed with the San Luis Obispo County Recorder and on October 1988 the original diagram was filed in the office of the Superintendent of Streets; and that on October , 1988, a notice of assessment, in the form required by Sections 3114(f) and 10402 . 5 of the Streets and Highways Code was recorded in the office of the San Luis Obispo County Recorder. Boyd C. Sharitz City Clerk of the City of Atascadero, San Luis Obispo County, State of California 0908b5(7699d) 10/17/88 • CITY OF ATASCADERO A-7 IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 5 (CHANDLER RANCH AREA ASSESSMENT DISTRICT) AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE TO PROPERTY OWNERS OF RECORDING OF ASSESSMENT STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ss. COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ) The undersigned, BOYD C. SHARITZ, City Clerk of the City of Atascadero, hereby certifies: That, acting under and pursuant to the direction of the Council of the City of Atascadero, as set forth in its Resolution No. _-88 adopted October 25, 1988, he deposited or caused to be deposited in the United States mail at Atascadero, California, on , 1988, with the proper and necessary postage prepaid, addressed to each person owning property in City of Atascadero, Improvement District No. 5 (Chandler Ranch Area Assessment District) , at his last known address as it appears on the tax rolls of the County of San Luis Obispo, or on file at the office of the City Clerk of the City of Atascadero, or to both addresses if they were not the same, or, where no address so appeared, then to General . Delivery, Atascadero, California, a notice in the form attached hereto, marked Exhibit A, and by reference incorporated herein and made a part hereof; and that there is and at said time was a regular communication by mail between said place of mailing and said places so addressed. A designation (by San Luis Obispo County Assessor' s Parcel Number) of the particular property assessed which was covered by the particular notice so mailed to each such person, and a statement of the amount of the assessment against such property, the date of the recordation of the assessment, the time and place of payments of the assessment and the effect of failure to pay within such time, a statement regarding an annual assessment for certain administration and collection costs of the City and a statement that bonds are to be issued under the Improvement Bond Act of 1915 to represent unpaid assessments, were shown on said notice. Boyd C. Sharitz City Clerk of the City of Atascadero N-4 CITY OF ATASCADERO IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 5 (CHANDLER RANCH AREA ASSESSMENT DISTRICT) NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT Pursuant to the requirements of Section 3114 of the Streets and Highways Code, the undersigned City Clerk of the City of Atascadero, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, hereby gives notice that a diagram and assessment were recorded in the office of the Superintendent of Streets of the City of Atascadero, as provided for in said section, and relating to the following described real property: All that real property within the exterior boundaries of City of Atascadero Improvement District No. 5 (Chandler Ranch Area Assessment District) , as shown on the assessment diagram of said assessment district, filed in Volume _ of Maps of Assessment Districts on page _ in the office of the San Luis Obispo County Recorder. Notice is further given that upon the recording of this notice in the office of the County Recorder, the several assessments assessed on the lots, pieces, and parcels as shown on said filed assessment diagram shall become a lien upon the lots or portions of lots assessed, respectively. Notice is further given that the City has provided for a maximum annual assessment of $150 upon each of the several subdivisions of land in the assessment district to pay costs incurred by the City and not otherwise reimbursed 0906b5(7694d) is Y for the administration and collection of (i) the assessments, (ii) the registration of the bonds to be issued to finance public improvements within the above described real property or (iii) the reserve fund or other related funds pertaining to such bonds, and that such annual assessment for such costs shall become a lien at the same time as the property tax becomes a lien each year. Reference is made to the assessment diagram and assessment roll recorded in the office of said Superintendent of Streets. The names of the assessed owners of said lots, pieces or parcels assessed, as they appear on the latest . secured assessment roll, are set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof . Dated: October , 1988. Boyd C. Sharitz, City Clerk of the City of Atascadero, San Luis Obispo County, State of California i 2 0906b5(7694d) N-5 (To Be Mailed to Property Owners] CITY OF ATASCADERO IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 5 (CHANDLER RANCH AREA ASSESSMENT DISTRICT) NOTICE TO PROPERTY OWNERS OF RECORDING OF ASSESSMENT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on October 26, 1988, there was recorded in the office of the Superintendent of Streets of the City of Atascadero (a) an assessment levied upon all that property in an assessment district, designated "City of Atascadero, Improvement District No. 5 (Chandler Ranch Area Assessment District) " , comprising the territory described and provided for in Resolution of Intention No . 92-88 duly adopted by the Council of the City of Atascadero on August 23 , 1988, wherein it declared its intention to order certain improvements to be made in said assessment district, all in accordance with said Resolution of Intention to which reference is hereby made, and (b) a diagram showing said assessment district and the boundaries and dimensions of the lands within said assessment district . All sums assessed by sa -d assessment are due and payable immediately and the payment of said sums is to be made to the Treasurer of the City of Atascadero, City Hall , 6500 Palma i 0907b5 (7695d) Avenue, Atascadero, California 93423 , on or before the close of business on Friday, November 25, 1988, which date is thirty (30) days after the date of recording the assessment . NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that serial bonds to represent unpaid assessments , and to bear interest at the rate of not to exceed the maximum rate permitted by law, will be issued by the City of Atascadero in the manner provided by Division 10 of the Streets and Highways Code, the Improvement Bond Act of 1915, with the last installment of said bonds maturing a minimum of 3 years and a maximum of 10 years from the 2nd day of September next succeeding 12 months from their date; and the City Council has declared that it proposes to proceed under the alternative procedure authorized in Part . 11. 1 of said Improvement Bond Act of 1915 relative to collecting assessments and advance retirement of bonds . NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that the City has provided for a maximum annual assessment of $150 upon each of the several subdivisions of land in said assessment district to pay costs incurred by the City and not otherwise reimbursed for the administration and collection of (i) the assessments , ( ii) the registration of the bonds mentioned above or ( iii) the reserve fund or other related funds pertaining to such bonds , and that each such annual assessment for such costs shall become a lien at the same time as the property tax becomes a lien each year . • 0907b5 (7595d' -041003-000002-214 y 10/17/83 I NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that the San Luis Obispo . County Assessor ' s Parcel Number and the amount of the assessment levied against the particular parcel covered by this notice is as set forth below. Parcel No. Assessment $ Assessor ' s Parcel No. Name: Address : Dated: 1988 . /s/ Boyd C. Sharitz City Clerk of the City of Atascadero, San Luis Obispo County, State of California THIS IS NOT A BILL. YOU MAY PAY ALL OR ANY PART OF YOUR ASSESSMENT TO THE TREASURER OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO. IF YOU ELECT TO MAKE ANY PAYMENT TO SUCH TREASURER PLEASE TEAR OFF THE BOTTOM OF THIS NOTICE AND RETURN IT WITH YOUR PAYMENT. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Parcel No . Assessment $ Assessor ' s Parcel No . Payment Enclosed $ Name : • Address : 3 O ,67b5 (7695d)-0.1003-000002-214 10/17/38 l; N-6 • [To Be Published Once a Week For Two Successive Weeks In The Atascadero News] CITY OF ATASCADERO IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 5 (CHANDLER RANCH AREA ASSESSMENT DISTRICT) NOTICE TO PROPERTY OWNERS OF RECORDING OF ASSESSMENT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on October 26, 1988, there was recorded in the office of the Superintendent of Streets of the City of Atascadero (a) an assessment levied upon all that property in an assessment district, designated • "City of Atascadero Improvement District No. 5 (Chandler Ranch Area Assessment District) ", comprising the territory described and provided for in Resolution of Intention No. 92-88 duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Atascadero on August 23, 1988, wherein it declared its intention to order certain public improvements to be made in said assessment district, all in accordance with said Resolution of Intention to which reference is hereby made, and (b) a diagram showing said assessment district and the boundaries and dimensions of the lands within said assessment district. All sums assessed by said assessment are due and payable immediately and the payment of said sums is to be 0906b5(7694d) made to the City Treasurer of the City of Atascadero, City Hall, 6500 Palma Avenue, Atascadero, California 93423, on or before the close of business on Friday, November 25, 1988, which date is thirty (30) days after the date of recording the assessment. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that serial bonds to represent unpaid assessments, and to bear interest at the rate of not to exceed the maximum rate permitted by law, will be issued by the City of Atascadero in the manner provided by Division 10 of the Streets and Highways Code, the Improvement Bond Act of 1915, with the last installment of said bonds maturing a minimum of 3 years and a maximum of 10 years from the 2nd day of September next succeeding 12 months from their date; and the City Counsel has declared that it proposes to proceed under the alternative procedure authorized in Part 11. 1 of said Improvement Bond Act of 1915 relative to collecting assessments and advance retirement of bonds. NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that the City has provided for a maximum annual assessment of $150 upon each of the several subdivisions of land in said assessment district to pay costs incurred by the City and not otherwise reimbursed for the administration and collection of (i) the assessments, (ii) the registration of the bonds mentioned above or (iii) the reserve fund or other related funds pertaining to such • 2 0906b5(7694d) r bonds, and that each such annual assessment for such costs shall become a lien at the same time as the property tax becomes a lien each year. Dated: , 1988• /s/ Boyd C Sharitz City Clerk of the City of Atascadero, San Luis Obispo County, State of California Y • 3 0906b5(7694d) N-7 CITY OF ATASCADERO IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 5 (CHANDLER RANCH AREA ASSESSMENT DISTRICT) NOTICE OF AWARD OF CONTRACT In Resolution No. 94-88, adopted by the City Council of the City of Atascadero on September 13, 1988, the City of Atascadero called for bids for the City of Atascadero Improvement District No. 5 (Chandler Ranch Area Assessment District) . Bids were opened on October 14, 1988 and the low bidder was Union Asphalt Inc. The City Council of the City of Atascadero adopted Resolution No. _-88, awarding the contract to Union Asphalt Inc. on October 25, 1988. Dated: October 26, 1988 /s/ Boyd C. Sharitz City Clerk of the City of Atascadero 0909b MEETiAGENDA DAT Z5 ITEM N `� NOTE: STAFF REPORT FROM PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT WILL BE PROVIDED AT A LATER TIME. i • R-6 CITY OF ATASCADERO IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 5 (CHANDLER RANCH AREA ASSESSMENT DISTRICT) RESOLUTION NO. 103-88 RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO CONFIRMING ASSESSMENT AND ORDERING PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO BE MADE; PROVIDING FOR NOTICE OF RECORDING OF ASSESSMENT; AND DESIGNATING THE CITY TREASURER TO COLLECT AND RECEIVE MONEY WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Atascadero (the "City") , by Resolution No. 92-88 heretofore duly adopted on August 23, 1988, as orally amended by the Council of the City on September 13, 1988, which amendment is hereby ratified and confirmed (herein, the "Resolution of Intention") , declared its intention to order the public improvements in and for an assessment district more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein and made a part hereof, designated "City of Atascadero Improvement District No . 5 (Chandler Ranch Area Assessment District) " (herein, the "Assessment District") ; and WHEREAS, this Council in and by the Resolution of Intention referred said proposed improvements to the firm of Cuesta Engineering, as Engineer of Work (the "Engineer of Work") , and directed the Engineer of Work to make and file with the City Clerk of the City a report in writing containing the matters specified in Section 10204 of the California Streets and Highways Code, which report was thereafter filed with the City Clerk of the City and was preliminarily approved by this Council on September 13, 1988, and this Council fixed 7:30 o'clock p.m. on Tuesday, October 25, 1988, at the Council Chambers, City Hall, 6500 Palma Avenue, Atascadero, California 93423, as the time and place for hearing of protests to the proposed improvements, and provided for notice of such hearing; and WHEREAS, the City Clerk of the City has filed with this Council an affidavit setting forth the time and manner of the compliance with the requirements of law for publishing, posting and mailing notices of the adoption of the Resolution of Intention and of the filing of the report and of the time and place for hearing protests to the proposed improvements, or to the extent of the Assessment District or to the proposed assessment; and this Council hereby finds that notice of the adoption of the Resolution of Intention and of the filing of the report and of the time and place for hearing protests to the proposed improvements has been published, posted and mailed in the time, form and 2 0898b 0 0 manner required by law; and WHEREAS the hearing was duly convened b this • g Y Y Council at the time and place for the hearing of all protests to the proposed improvements, or to the extent of the Assessment District or to the proposed assessment, and all protests thereto received by the City Clerk of the City were presented to this Council; and WHEREAS, this Council found and determined that protests against the proposed improvements were not made by the owners of more than one-half of the area of the land in the Assessment District to be assessed for the proposed improvements; and i WHEREAS, this Council thereupon proceeded with the hearing, and duly considered all of the protests at the hearing, and duly heard all interested persons desiring to be g Y P 9 heard at the hearing; and WHEREAS, at the hearing the Engineer of Work recommended that various changes be made in the report, as more particularly set forth in his revised report dated October 25, 1988 on file with this Council; and WHEREAS, upon the basis of all evidence presented at the hearing, this Council ordered that the assessment and the diagram contained in the report be modified in certain particulars, as more fully set forth in the records of this Council; and WHEREAS, this Council has determined that it will not be necessary to provide for an annual assessment upon 3 0898b each of the several subdivisions of land within the Assessment District to pay certain administration and collection costs for fiscal year 1988/89; and WHEREAS, this Council is fully advised in the premises; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Atascadero, as follows: Section 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and this Council so finds and determines. Section 2 . All protests to the proposed improve- ments, or to the extent of the Assessment District or to the proposed assessment by this Council as modified are hereby i overruled. Section 3 . This Council hereby finds and determines that all of the several assessed subdivisions of land in the Assessment District have been assessed in proportion to the benefits to be received by such subdivisions, respectively, from the proposed improvements . Section 4 . Pursuant to' Section 8 of the Resolution of Intention, the City Council of the City provided for a maximum annual assessment of $150 upon each of the several subdivisions of land in the Assessment District to pay costs incurred by the City and not otherwise reimbursed for the administration and collection of (i) the assessments, (ii) the registration of the bonds or (iii) the reserve fund or other related funds . The City does not expect to incur any of the foregoing administration and collection costs during 4 0898b fiscal year 1988/89 which are not otherwise reimbursed to the City, and therefore, the City determines not to require an annual assessment for such fiscal year. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, the City may, by subsequent resolution, determine to provide for an annual assessment up to the maximum amounts specified in this Section to pay such administration and collection costs. Section 5 . This Council hereby confirms the assessment and the diagram as so modified as now on file with it; and declares that the report of the Engineer of Work and the assessment and the diagram as so modified are hereby adopted and confirmed. Section 6 . This Council hereby orders the proposed improvements described in the Resolution of Intention and in the report to be made. Section 7. The City Clerk is hereby directed to transmit the diagram of the Assessment District and the assessment as confirmed to the Superintendent of Streets of the City, who shall record the same in his office, and shall file a complete list of unpaid assessments with the Treasurer of the City, and the assessment shall become due and payable; and the City Clerk of the City is hereby further directed to file in the office of the San Luis Obispo County Recorder a copy of the assessment diagram as so recorded and to execute and record a notice of assessment in the office of the San Luis Obispo County Recorder, and the assessment shall become a lien upon the land on which it -is levied; all pursuant to 5 0898b the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 . Lection 8 . The Treasurer of the City is hereby designated to collect and receive the money paid pursuant to the assessment as herein confirmed. The City Clerk is hereby ordered and directed to cause notice of recording the assessment to be given by (a) Mailing postage prepaid to each person owning property in the Assessment District, at his last known address as it appears on the tag rolls of the County of San Luis Obispo, or on file at the office of the City Clerk of the City, or to both addresses if they are not the same, or if no address appears, to General Delivery, Atascadero, California, a statement containing a designation of the 4roperty assessed sufficient to enable the owner to identify it, the amount of the assessment, the date of the recordation of the assessment, the time and place of payment of the assessment and the effect of failure to pay within such time, and a statement that bonds are to be issued under the Improvement Bond Act of 1915 to represent unpaid assessments; and (b) Causing to be published once a week for two successive weeks in The Atascadero News, a newspaper published and circulated in the City, a notice stating that the assessment has been recorded in the office of the Superintendent of Streets of the City and that all sums assessed therein are due and payable immediately, that the payment of such sums is to be made to the Treasurer of the 6 0898b City within 30 days after the date of recording the assessment (which date shall be stated in the notice) , and that if any assessments are not paid within the 30-day period, bonds will be issued under the Improvement Bond Act of 1915 to represent unpaid assessments. Section 9 . This resolution shall take effect from and after its date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED this October 25, 1988, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers NOES: ABSENT: i ATTEST: Boyd C. Sharitz City Clerk of the City of Atascadero San Luis Obispo County State of California [Seal] 7 0898b 0 EXHIBIT A Resurfacing of streets, including the removal and replacement of the existing base and surface course prior to resurfacing. Partial grading of shoulders and minor drainage improvements; minor widening of streets and surveying. Construction inspection wil be performed throughout. The work will also include necessary appurtenances, including, but not limited to, mobilization, clearing and grubbing, excavation, importation of graded material, compaction, testing, acquisition of necessary easements and tapering at driveways. i i f A-1 8 0898b CITY CLERK'S CERTIFICATE I, BOYD C. SHARITZ, City Clerk of the City of Atascadero, do hereby certify as follows : The foregoing resolution is a full, true and correct copy of a resolution duly adopted by a vote of a majority of the members of the Council of said City at a regular meeting of the Council of said City duly and regularly and legally held at the regular meeting place thereof on October 25, 1988, of which meeting all of such members had due notice, as follows : AYES: NOES: ABSENT: I have carefully compared the foregoing with the original minutes of said meeting on file and of record in my office, and the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of the original resolution adopted at said meeting and entered in said minutes. Said resolution has not been amended, modified or rescinded since the date of its adoption and the same is now in full force and effect. Dated: 1988 . [SEAL] Boyd C. Sharitz City Clerk of the City of Atascadero San Luis Obispo County State of California A-2 9 0898b a y R-7 CITY OF ATASCADERO IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 5 (CHANDLER RANCH AREA ASSESSMENT DISTRICT) RESOLUTION NO. 104-88 RESOLUTION AWARDING CONTRACT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE CHANDLER RANCH AREA ASSESSMENT DISTRICT iWHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Atascadero (the "City") , by Resolution of Intention No. 92-88 duly adopted on August 23, 1988, declared its intention to order the acquisition and construction in the City of the public improvements more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein and made a part hereof, in and for an assessment district in the City designated "City of Atascadero Improvement District No. 5 (Chandler Ranch Area Assessment District) ; " and _- WHERAS, the City Council, by Resolution No. 94-88, duly adopted on September 13, 1988, directed the City Clerk of the City to post and publish a notice to bidders, inviting sealed proposals or bids for the making of these public improvements; and WHEREAS, the City has obtained public competitive bids for the construction of these public improvements and is ready and willing to enter into a contract for the construction with the lowest responsible bidder therefor; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Atascadero as follows: Section 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and the City Council so finds and determines . Section 2. The bid for construction of these public improvements submitted by Union Asphalt Inc. in the amount of $153,785 constitutes the lowest bid received by the City and is hereby approved. Section 3 . The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed, for and in the name and on behalf of the City, to execute a construction contract with Union Asphalt Inc. for the public improvements, but only following receipt of the proceeds from the sale of bonds authorized to be issued by this City Council for the purpose of financing the public improvements. Section 4 . This resolution shall take effect immediately. _ i PASSED AND ADOPTED this October 25, 1988, by the following vote. Ayes : Council Members Noes: Absent: ATTEST: Boyd C. Sharitz City Clerk of the City of Atascadero [SEAL] i EXHIBIT A Resurfacing of streets, including the removal and replacement of the existing base and surface course prior to resurfacing. Partial grading of shoulders and minor drainage improvements; minor widening of streets and surveying. Construction inspection wil be performed throughout. The work will also include necessary appurtenances, including, but not limited to, mobilization, clearing and grubbing, excavation, importation of graded material, compaction, testing, acquisition of necessary easements and tapering at driveways. • i A-1 CITY' CLERK'S CERTIFICATE I, BOYD C. SHARITZ, City Clerk of the City of Atascadero, do hereby certify as follows: The foregoing resolution is a full, true and correct copy of a resolution duly adopted by a vote of a majority of the members of the City Council of the City at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City duly and regularly and legally held at the regular meeting place thereof on October 25, 1988, of which meeting all of such members had due notice, as follows: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: I have carefully compared the foregoing with the original minutes of said meeting on file and of record in my office, and the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of the original resolution adopted at said meeting and entered in said minutes . Said resolution has not been amended, modified or rescinded since the date of its adoption and the same is now in full force and effect. Dated: 1988. [SEAL] Boyd C. Sharitz City Clerk of the City of Atascadero A-2 i 5. Res. No. 99-88 - Accepting negotiated exchange of Property Tax Revenue from the Atas. County Sanitation Dist. to the City of Atascadero Mr. Sensibaugh noted correction to Item A-5 : Res . 99-88, p. 2, should read, "Whereas , the negotiating parties, . . .have now concluded said negotiations . . . " Motion: By Councilman Dexter to approve the Consent Cal- endar, including change to Res . 99-88 as noted by Mr. Sensibaugh (above) , seconded by Councilwoman Mackey; passed unanimously by roll-call . B. HEARINGS/APPEARANCES/REPORTS 1 . Appeal by Neil New of Planning Commission approval of an 8- mo. time extension of C.U.P. 5-87 (Santa Lucia School, 9148 Palomar) (Recommend Denial) i A. Public Hearing B. Council Action Mr. Engen gave staff report. Public Comment Neil New, appellant, spoke in support of this appeal, reviewing the history of the current use permit at subject location, including past recommendations of the Planning Commission and Council decisions . Nora New, 9141 Palomar, spoke in support of the appeal, expres- sing the desire to see the school ' s owners expedite their move to Templeton before the end of this calendar year. Richard Lauder, 7955 Castano (adjacent to subject property) , encouraged the efforts of the school' s owners and the educational service they provide; however, he feels the use is in conflict with the neighborhood and continued approvals by the City would be inappropriate and places an unfair burden on the neighbors. Janet Thompquist, Director of Santa Lucia School, spoke in support of extension of the current use permit. She noted child- care is now available on Fridays for students of working parents, which is an amendment to the original development statement; also, carpooling has reduced traffic flow to and from the school. She indicated that it is hoped that the school can move during Christmas vacation this year and that it will occupy the new building in Templeton in January 189 . 3 Carol Ochtekirken, Santa Lucia -School ' s ride-share coordinator, discussed the carpooling program, which she noted is a school policy. Larry Dubrul, 2954 G Street, Santa Margarita, and owner of prop- erty in question, noted the expense of remodeling the structure into a low-volume, educational facility and that it would have to be incurred again to change it back to a residence; he feels certain neighbors are harassing the users of the facility. Discussion came back to Council and staff. Motion: By Councilman Dexter to deny this appeal and extend the C.U.P. to August 1, 1989 as recommended by the Planning Commission, seconded by Council- woman Mackey; passed unanimously by roll-call . Council concurred to recommend this subject to staff at the time of the Gen. Plan re-write. i C. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Paloma Creek Park Equestrian Arena - Proposed Usage & Sched- uling Policy (cont' d from 9/13 & 9/27/88) Mr. Windsor gave staff report, reviewing the recommendations listed in Mr. Best' s report. He noted, in discussions with the City' s insurance broker, the main concern was the liability involved with jumping obstacles; there are none at the arena, and the proposed use policy stipulates there is to be no jumping. There was no public comment. Staff was encouraged to expedite the policy as soon as possible and no later than Jan. 1 , 1989 . i Motion: By Councilwoman Mackey to accept staff' s report, seconded by Councilman Dexter; passed unanimously. 2. Walkway at Paloma Creek Park (Report requested at 9/27/88 meeting) Mr. Windsor recommended that this item be directed for review and comment by the Parks & Rec . Commission, then placed on the next regular Council agenda. There was no public comment. Motion: By Councilwoman Mackey to continue this item to the next regular Council agenda, seconded by Councilman Dexter; passed unanimously. 3. Potential alternate uses - Capistrano Property i Mr. Windsor gave staff report. There was no public comment. 4 I Council concurred that the long-term use might be for joint-use (City/County) parking. Motion: By Councilwoman Mackey to approve staff recom- mendation: (A) To direct staff to record a parcel map or public lot recordation for said property, and (B) to direct staff to initiate a GP amendment and change to the Zoning Ordinance redesignating the hospital/clinic and the Capistrano property as P (Public) . Motion seconded by Councilman Shiers; passed unanimously. COUNCIL RECESSED FOR A BREAK FROM 9 : 10 TO 9 :30 P.M. D. NEW BUSINESS 1. Conversion of $.50 Development Mitigation Tax to a fee and expanding the boundary for the Lewis Ave. Bridge fee Mr. Sensibaugh gave staff report, noting that the draft document will be available in both Public Works and the City Clerk' s Office for public review; interested groups may request a copy for their review, as well. He suggested that any action be held off until Nov. 8th to allow adequate time for review by all concerned, as well as allow for the incorporation of comments at the public hearing, or for explanation of why they' re not incor- porated in staff' s final recommendation. There was no public comment. Motion: By Councilman Lilley to set a public hearing for October 25 , 1988, to consider Res . No. 100-88, seconded by Councilwoman Mackey; passed unanimous- ly. 2. Authy. for UMTA Section 18 grant applications: A. Bus Replacement - 16 passenger w/lift B. Radio/Computer Equipment C. *Bus Shelters ( * State discretionary funds) Mr. Sensibaugh gave staff report. There was no public comment. Motion: By Councilman Shiers to approve Res . 98-88, designating an agent for matters pertaining to UMTA Section 18 Capital Assistance Contracts, seconded by Councilman Dexter; passed unanimously by roll-call. 5 3. Noise Problem at Atascadero Lake Mr. Windsor requested Council continue this item to allow for review by the Parks & Recreation Commission. Public Comment Jeri Mulder, who resides adjacent to the lake, expressed her annoyance at the noise caused by model boats, which she indicated are operated on weekdays, not just weekends. Sarah Gronstrand, resident, noted that the lake does not belong to the homeowners but to all the people of Atascadero. She urged Council not to act hastily in this matter but to research it carefully, feeling that prohibition of the boats would be un- reasonable, given their expense. Greg Baum, model boat operator and member of the North American Model Boaters ' Assoc. (NAMBA) , noted that the noise levels of the boats being run at Atas . Lake are far below the NAMBA minimum standards . He indicated that NAMBA carries $1 million liability insurance for its members, that the group is basically operating on the lake between 11 a.m. and 4 p.m. on Sundays and that res- ponse from passers-by has been positive. Dick Pearce, 9155 Lakeview Dr. , . spoke in support of allowing the current boating activity to continue. He expressed concern over continued legislative controls over the use of public property and noted the considerate, friendly and cooperative attitudes of the NAMBA members . Lon Allan, 5625 Capistrano, noted he operates a model sailboat on the lake and expressed that restricting the hours of operation might be an acceptable compromise. He urged careful considera- tion by Council and that use of subject boats not be prohibited. Al Sherman, resident, agreed with the comments of the previous speaker. Sarah Gronstrand suggested that the boat noise be measured both at the lake and surrounding homes with a decibel meter. Mr. Jorgensen, City Atty. , urged Council to proceed cautiously in this matter, noting that the regulation of noise is one of the most difficult, particularly when based on decibel levels . Council concurred to refer this matter to the Parks & Rec. Com- mission meeting of Oct. 20th, urging the concerned public to attend. 6 i 4. RFP' s for a traffic signal at intersection of Santa Rosa & ECR Mr. Sensibaugh gave staff report. There was no public comment. Motion: By Councilman Dexter that Council authorize staff to request proposals for the design of a traffic signal at intersection of Santa Rosa & ECR, sec- onded by Councilwoman Mackey; passed unanimously. 5. Post Office Traffic Signal Participation Agreement Mr. Sensibaugh gave staff report. There was no public comment. Motion: By Councilwoman Mackey that Council authorize the Mayor to enter into the proposed agreement with the U. S. Post Office insuring a participation to the ECR/Santa Rosa traffic signal 'in the amount of $36 ,000, seconded by Councilman Shiers; passed unanimously by roll-call . 6. B.I.A. property acquisition Mr. Windsor gave staff report. Public Comment Kirk Pearson, Pres . of the B. I .A., expressed his pleasure at the progress of this proposal and pledged the B.I.A. ' s support for information which it could supply to the City in this regard. He indicated that, once appraisals are secured, the B.I .A. will work with the City toward a mutually agreleable buying proposal . Motion: By Councilwoman Mackey that Council authorize staff to obtain formal appraisals on lots 23 and 24 of Block MF in Atascadero Colony in an amount not to exceed $1,500, seconded by Councilman Shiers; passed unanimously by roll-call . 7. City credit card - City Manager (verbal) Mr. Windsor gave staff report, indicating this subject grew out of the upcoming League of CA Cities Conference, which will be attended by several members of Council and staff. He suggested that a representative of Council be authorized with the discretionary use of a credit card for certain City business- related occasions, recognizing that control would have to be exercised by both Council and the City Manager. 7 Council conceptually agreed - to authorize the City Manager to draft a resolution in this regard. Mr. Windsor suggested that, when considering said resolution, Council appoint a finance sub- committee of Council to work closely with Finance staff and the City Mgr. to review the complete range of the City' s financial operations . Motion: By Councilwoman Mackey to recess as Council and convene as the ACSD Board of Directors, seconded by Councilman Shiers; passed unanimously. E. ATASCADERO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT (ACSD) 1. Quitclaim Deeds transferring property owned by the ACSD to the City of Atascadero Mr. Sensibaugh gave staff report and noted that this should be the final action of the ACSD 'Board. There was no public comment. Motion: By Director Dexter that the Board approve the proposed Quitclaim Deeds transferring property owned by the Atascadero County Sanitation District to the City of Atascadero, seconded by Director Shiers; passed unanimously by roll-call . Motion: By Director Lilley to adjourn as ACSD Board and reconvene as City Council, seconded by Director Mackey; passed unanimously. F. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION f City Council - Council commended Mr. Windsor to the business community and the homeowners in the City for both the Lewis Ave. Bridge fee conversion and the encouragement of downtown revit- alization. City Attorney - Mr. Sharitz thanked the City Attorney for being available to assist him in recent matters. City Manager - Mr. Windsor noted interviews will be conducted Friday for the Administrative Services Director position. Council discussed and consensus was to schedule a C.I .P. study session on Wed. , Nov. 9th, commencing at 5 : 00 p.m. Further, a joint meeting with the Planning Commission is scheduled for Thurs. , Oct. 27th, commencing at 7 : 00 p.m. Mr. Windsor noted that adjournment to a closed session as noted on tonight' s agenda, is not necessary as the item of concern does 8 not meet closed session criteria, per his discussion with the City Attorney. MEETING ADJOURNED AT APPROX. 10 :30 P .M. MINUTES RECORDED BY: BOYD C. SHARITZ, City Clerk PREPARED BY: CINDY WILKINS, Dep. City Clerk i 9 r C �• MEET .AGENDA _ DAT ITE�11 i .. M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council October 25, 1988 VIA: Ray Windsor, City Manager FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Consideration of Initiation of Changes to the "Tree Ordinance" BACKGROUND: When the Tree Ordinance - actually an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance - was adopted on April 12, 1988 as Ordinance No. 168 (see attached) , it was done with the understanding that the ordinance would be monitored and there would be a six-month report back on October 25, 1988 to consider possible refinements . The Tree Committee has been meeting extensively on this subject and will be presenting a special report to the Council on this date. ANALYSIS: All zoning ordinance amendments that the Council may wish to consider must be referred to the Planning Commission for staff report, public hearing and recommendation back to the Council. The Council then also holds public hearings before any changes can be made. At this writing, we do not have the specific recommendations of the Tree Committee but would suggest that amendments initiated for consideration generally deal with the following subjects : A. Arborists - expand the definition to allow for the selection of the most appropriate type of professional to assist staff, Planning Commission and Council in making their determinations on tree protection measures . B. Replacement Trees - there needs to be a policy determination made as to whether tree replacement should be mandated on the single family properties that have extensive tree cover and no need for replacement on site. Related to this policy issue is whether replacement trees should be required for non-native trees . • C. Heritage Tree Definition - there has been debate as to whether the 20-inch diameter basic definition of heritage tree is . too stringent, except perhaps in the case of Blue and Valley Oaks . D. City Council Hearings - staff would recommend that consider- ation be given to delegating the current City Council required hearings to the Planning Commission for high density zones (commercial, industrial, multi-family) and to staff for single family projects. E. Hazardous Trees Council has previously directed that guidelines be established for determining when a tree is hazardous. F. City Forester - in lieu of a City Forester or permanent City Arborist, staff would recommend consideration for a supple- mentary appropriation to "contract services - tree protec- tion" , to enable staff to retain professional services. We would like to use such an account to get second opinions when staff cannot determine if a tree is dead, diseased, or dying, and it would relieve citizens of this extra charge. In addition, the staff could utilize professional services in the review of tree protection plans where there is a need or controversial call in the offing. RECOMMENDATION: Following review of the Tree Committee' s report, initiate consideration for a zoning text amendment covering the points raised above, together with any other items Council desires . HE:ph Encl: Ordinance No. 168 cc: Tree Committee THE TREE COMMITTEE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING P .O. BOX 747 ATASCADERO, CA 93423 TO: Mayor and City Council From: Tree Committee DATE : October 17 , 1988 SUBJECT: Urban Forester Bill Elmendorf In light of the upcoming Tree Ordinance review, the Tree Committee would like to suggest informal meetings with City Council members, Planning Commissioners , City Manager, Staff and City of Thousand Oaks Urban Forester Bill Elmendorf. Mr. Elmendorf has been very helpful and supportive and has advised the Tree Committee on matters of tree -protection. He has offered to share his dxperience and knowledge, and would like to answer questions and be of assistance . George and I offer to host Mr. Elmendorf .at our home. A letter of invitation may be mailed to: Mary-Jane Lazz Assistant City Manager City of Thousand Oaks P .O. Box 1496 Thousand oaks , California 91360 Mr. Elmendorf may be reached at: Dept. of Planning and Community Development City of Thousand Oaks P .O. Box 1496 . Thousand oaks, California 91360 Telephone: 497-8611 Ursula Luna Chairperson Tree Committee .� 4r ORDINANCE NO. 168 City of Atascadero Adopted April 12, 1988 • 'T- r9��i'rr •' r c 1979 CAMER- TREE ORDINANCE 9-4. 155. TREE PROTECTION: certified arborist chosen from -Preservation of natural flora a list recommended by the Tree and fauna is a basic community Committee and designated by goal of the Atascadero General resolution •of the City Council Plan. as acceptable to the City of Atascadero. The arborist must (a) PURPOSE: The trees of certify that the project as �� Atascadero are valued proposed complies with the community assets. The purpose City's criteria to preserve of this section is to r.> • and protect existing trees establish regulations for the from indiscriminate or installation, maintenance, unnecessary removal and preservation, and selected damage. The Community removal of native and heritage Development Director, in case .trees within -the City. In of disagreement with the establishing these procedures arborist's recommendations, and standards, it is the may seek a second qualified City's intent to encourage the arborist' s opinion (at City preservation of trees and y expense) and reject or modify other natural amenities with plans as submitted. sensitive design and development practices. City (1) When Reauired. The .tree review of proposed projects protection plan shall be shall take into consideration required as part of the trees existing on the property materials submitted for a plot with applicants encouraged to plan, precise plan or design projects to utilize conditional use permit existing trees in the approval.. landscaping pattern. The provisions of this section (2) Application Content. shall apply to all property Applications shall include all within the City of Atascadero, information specified by public or private, and to any Section 9-2. 107 (b) (Plot Plan person, firm, corporation, Content) and: public or private utility. (i) size, 'species, state of (b) TREE PROTECTION PLAN: In health, and estimated order to protect trees .during dripline of each tree construction of a project and within twenty (20) feet to maximize chances for their of all development areas subsequent survival, a tree protection plan shall be (including any areas _ where trenching is required as part of - proposed) . applications subject to this (ii) measures proposed to section. Said plans shall be ensure the survival of approved by an International remaining trees through Society of ArboricultureISA ( ) the construction process and thereafter. - � s • iiisize ( ) and species of trees proposed to replace those (iii)Landscape plans , when proposed for removal. required, must show the proposed landscaping (3) Tree Protection within the dripline of Standards. Approval of tree trees. protection plans shall require compliance with the following (iv) Performance bond may be standards: required in a form (i) Tree Identification. acceptable to the Cityprior to issuance of an . Trees proposed for entitlement to assure -removal shall be protection of trees on identified for field the site. The amount of inspection by the any set bond shall be arborist utilizing a $1,500 or the value of City-provided affected trees, whichever identification sign. is greater, based on Notice of Tree-Removal "Manual for Plant Permit shall be posted so Appraisers", Council Of as to be visible from the Tree and Landscape street. Appraisers, First (ii) Drip Line Protection. Edition, 1986, a copy ofwhich is available for The developer is review in the Community responsible, through Development Department. final building If, in the opinion of the inspection, for the certified arborist, no preservation of all trees violation or no damage which are to remain on has occurred during the project site. construction, the bond Towards this end, the shall be returned upon following are required: final building inspection. If damage, Parking of vehicles or however, has occurred the storage of equipment and ' bond shall be held for materials under the three years and forfeited dripline of protected if, in the opinion of trees is prohibited the certified arborist, during construction. permanent damage has occurred. Fencing. Each tree or group of trees to be (v) Nonconformance. In case preserved shall be of nonconformance with protected by enclosure tree protection with a five foot fence requirements, the prior to grading, Community Development movement of heavy Director shall issue a equipment, or approval of Stop Work Order until all any plans. Location of requirements have been the fence shall be at the met. discretion of the arborist subject to City approval-. 2 (vi) Unauthorized Work. Should unauthorized work (i) Trees that are identified . lead to tree damage or and approved for removal destruction, the in an approved plot plan, Community Development precise plan, or Director shall issue a conditional use permit Stop Work Order until the provided that such developer has mitigated removal is subject to the damage done pursuant, removal criteria of but not limited .to, Section 9-4. 155 (c) (4) ; or criteria contained in Subsection (b) (3) (iv) (ii) Trees in a hazardous Performance Bonds and condition which presents Subsection (c) (5) an immediate danger to Replacement Trees. The health or property; or matter may be appealed to the Planning Commission. (iii) Trees that are to be pruned, cut above ground, (c) TREE REMOVAL PERMIT: removed, or otherwise Tree removal means destruction disturbed affecting less or displacement of a tree by than 30% of the tree cutting, bulldozing, or other crown. mechanical or chemical means, which results in physical (iv) Trees that are to be transportation of the tree removed as part of from its site and/or death of management practices in the tree. orchards, Christmas Tree Farms, or nurseries. (1) When Recruired: For native trees, no person shall (3) Application Content: allow or cause the removal of Applications that a tree over twelve (12) inches propose tree removal or more in circumference or shall include all four (4) inches -or more in information specified by diameter measured four (4) Section 9-2. 107 (b) (Plot feet above grade without first Plan Content) and the obtaining a tree removal following: permit unless otherwise exempted herefrom. (Refer to (i) The size, species, and Section 9-4. 155 (d) for special condition (e.g. diseased, provisions for heritage healthy, etc. ) of each trees) . Native trees shall be tree proposed for those species as defined by removal. Resolution of the City Council. (ii) The purpose for removal. For non-native trees, refer to (iii) The size and the species Subsection (c) (7) of any tree proposed to replace those intended (2) Exemptions : A tree for removal. removal permit is not required for the following: r� � MEETi DAT rrW -,Z M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council FROM: Bonita Borgeson SUBJECT: Liquor Sales Outlets DATE: October 19, 1988 At Planning Commission Meeting this past Tuesday night, Don Messer proposed (among other commercial outlets) liquor sales (both off and on-site) in three (3 ) proposed business estab- lishments. A neighbor addressed the issue of excessive liquor sales outlets in South Atascadero. I I would encourage Council to examine the issue of excessive liquor sales outlets and regulate same . Perhaps one liquor • license per so many residents; or, one liquor license per x number of miles. The message is important, and I think Council should take a strong position. In the same view, liquor sales in City parks (vendors selling beer at ball games ) and consumption of liquor while in City parks or on City property, I believe, should be prohibited. Certainly, liability is present if drinking on City premises or property results in an accident. Could we get this on our agenda to clarify or modify policy? r 4EETING / . fflM ENDAM E M O R A N D U M DATE- N !: • TO: City Manager Ray Windsor FROM: Chief of Police SUBJECT: Fire Insurance - Beno's Building - 5505 E1 Camino Real DATE: October 17, 1988 In keeping with our discussion a few weeks ago concerning the fire insurance policy for our police facility at 5505 E1 Camino Real, I spoke with Barbara Hunt of Gordon Hunt Insurance Agency, Atascadero. Barbara informed me that fire insurance coverage for the vacant Beno's building would cost $3,800 for the next 90-day period of time. She indicated that the reason it was so expensive was that the building is vacant and therefore may be subject to arson, etc. Feeling that this quote was exorbitantly high, we spoke with fire department personnel who tested our sprinkler system in the building and discovered that it works well as it exists. Additionally, we are having a water flow alarm installed in the system which will improve our protection both now and after we occupy the building. The flow alarm will cost approximately $600.00 and should be in place this week. In the meantime, I recommend, as does the fire department staff, that we • allow the policy to lapse, and we'll institute frequent, extra patrol of the building by our patrol officers. Additionally, the equipment as described will be installed as coordinated by Lt. Watton. For your information. . . RICHARD H. McHALE RHM:sb i cc: Lt. Watton Fire Chief Hicks Watch Commanders Hurd"Calm a Inv eaten eIInt G®rr®ra4n(DIIn 1888 CENTURY PARK EAST SUITE 300 LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90087 REEp October 13, 1988 C E I V OCT 141988 Mr. Ray Windsor City Manager CITY MGR. City of Atascadero P.O. Box 747 Atascadero, Calif. 93423 Dear Ray: Pursuant to our conversation of Thursday, 10-13-88, our donation of land for the County Regional Center is still available, as we stated in our letter to the County of May 3rd, 1988. In addition, you can check Title, as we are the same owners of record since July, 1981. 1 If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at your earliest convenience. Sincerely, Atascadero, Ltd. By: Hurricane I vestment Corp. Ge ral Par ner I ' By: Gni. Lepard F. Le owit Vi Ie-President • • DAT A vt A M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council Members FROM: Ray Windsor, City Manager SUBJECT: North County Government Center DATE: October 25, 1988 In light of the attached letter and the fact that the decision by the County on the exact location is still pending, I would appreciate Council reaffirmation of your support for this site and direction to seek a resolution on the water issue. • RW/cw i 1-8 •� c ADOPTED JUNE 27, 1987 9-1. 111 . Appeal: Decisions of the Planning Department or Planning Commission may be appealed by an applicant or any aggrieved person, including the Planning Commission and the City Council, and individual members thereof. An appeal shall be filed in the form of a letter setting forth the reasons for the appeal. An appeal shall be accompanied by any fees required. Appeal fees shall not be required for appeals initiated by the Planning Commission or the City Council. When an appeal has been filed, the Planning Director will prepare a report on the matter and schedule the appeal for consideration by the appropriate body within thirty (30) days of receipt of the appeal. The hearing body may affirm, affirm in part, or reverse the action, decision or determination which is the subject of the appeal, based upon findings of fact regarding the particular case. Such findings shall identify the reasons for the action on the appeal, and verify the compliance or non-compliance of the subject of the appeal with the provisions of this Title. Appeals relating to matters which are resolvable through adjustment, variance or amendment of this Title, shall be processed according to the procedures of Section 9-1. 112, 9-1. 113, 9-1. 114 and 9--1.115, respectively, • (a) Planning Department Actions: Determinations on the C � meaning or applicability of the provisions of this Title which are believed to be in error, and cannot be resolved with staff, and any decision of the Planning Department to approve or deny an application may be appealed to the Planning Commission. The Planning Department shall provide the Planning Commission and City Council with notification of its actions. Appeals shall be filed with the Secretary of the Planning Commission within fourteen days after the decision of the Planning Department. The appeal will be decided by the Planning Commission following a public hearing conducted in accordance with Section 9-1. 110 (Public Hearing) . (b) Planning Commission Decisions: Any decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council by filing a letter of appeal with the City Clerk within fourteen (14) days of the action of the Planning Commission. The Planning Department shall provide the City Council with notification of Planning Commission actions. Appeals will be decided by the City Council following a public hearing conducted pursuant to Section 9-1. 110 (Public Hearing) . circumference or twenty . (20) inches or more in diameter measured four (4) feet above grade or a multi-trunk tree with a circumference of seventy (70) inches or more. Any other tree designated by Resolution of the City Council on the basis of age, size, location, visibility or historic origin. (2) Tree Removal Criteria. A heritage tree shall not be removed except as follows: (i) The tree is approved for removal by the City Council, following public hearing. "(ii) The tree has died or become a hazard as determined by a certified arborist. Any removal so authorized - shall be granted a tree removal permit subject to replacement tree conditions. (e) PENALTIES: Penalties for violation of this ordinance shall be as set forth in Chapter 3 of Title 1 of this Code. 9-4. 156. (Reserved- Street Trees) : 9-4. 157. (Reserved - Tree Tian nt Plan) 5 `'(4) Tree Removal Criteria: with-out total removal of Trees proposed for removal the tree. shall be identified for field inspection by the applicant (5) Replacement Trees: utilizing a City-provided Except where, upon recommen- identification sign. Notice dation of the arborist, the . of tree removal permit shall remaining tree cover is so be posted so as to be visible extensive that tree from the street. An replacement would serve no application for tree removal useful purpose, removed may be approved only when at tree (s) shall be replaced with least one of the following g a similar native tree or a conditions is satisfied and number of trees which will certified by a certifiedrovi • -.,. arborist and approved by the quality.egThe minimumsizeof Community Development to Pnt m e a replacement a en tree t Pcem shall be in * _ Director: a fifteen (15) gallon - container. .(i) Dead, diseased beyond reclamation, or (6)' Non-Native Trees. For hazardous. non-native trees 8 inches in (ii) Crowded, with good diameter or greater, a removal permit shall be obtained, but horticultural practices tree protection standards dictating thinning; shall not apply. (i.ii) Interfering with existing (i) Tree Identification. utilities, structures, or Trees proposed for right-of-way removal shall be improvements; provided identified by the that right-of-way applicant utilizing a improvements - especially City-provided sidewalks - shall identification sign. accommodate existing Notice of tree removal trees whenever possible. permit shall be posted so as to be visible from the (iv) Obstructing existing or street. proposed improvements that cannot be (d) HERITAGE TREES: Heritage reasonably designed to trees are established as a avoid the need for tree special group of trees which removal. due to age, size, visibility, or historic nature - deserve (v) Inhibiting sunlight special consideration for needed for either active preservation and protection. or passive solar heating or cooling, and the (1) Definition: building of solar collectors cannot be (i) Any native tree, as oriented to collect defined by City Council sufficient sunlight Resolution, over sixty- three (63) inches in 4